Over the last 10 years, The Creative Assembly has released eight major games and a plethora of smaller downloadable contents, including Total War: Warhammer 2, Total War Three Kingdoms, and Total War Rome 2. These games are conventionally divided into two large categories: historical and fantasy, with the popular Warhammer franchise occupying the latter role. In this article, I question whether that is a useful categorization, and whether it's more useful to divide the franchise into a tripartite division: historical, fantasy, and mythic.
The foundation of this sense of danger must be an existential threat, a looming disaster, confronting the player. This can be achieved by implementing 3 changes to the grand campaign as found in Attila, the most current Total War: making the AI more aggressive, giving more meaning to alliances, and eliminating the sacking/razing mechanic.
I recently started playing Shogun 2 again on my channel as a part of my "Legacies of Total War" series. I was absolutely amazed by it. Going back to it from Attila, I immediately noticed how much more fun I was having. Don't get me wrong: I don't hate Attila, nor do I think it's necessarily a bad game. It's just that Shogun 2 is so much better. I would go so far as to say that it is, in fact, the best Total War game ever designed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's everyone's favorite Total War game, but it is fantastically well made.