Can you explain?
I've played 3 TW games and liked Rome most out of the 3:
RTW
M2TW
ETW
Firstly I'm not saying that Rome is a bad game, but I believe that both Medievals are better; can't comment on Empire as I haven't spent enough time with it.
One reason is that I think the Medieval time period is a better one; Rome, bizarrely enough, is too focussed on the Romans; it almost became a race between you and the other Roman factions for power, nudging any opportunity for a slower gameplan off the table.
Second reason is that Rome was the first TW game that brought the 3d map to the table; while it did it well, M2TW did it better, and allowed for greater options through it. Rome did little with it, while M2TW brought in things like merchants.
Finally, the battles in the first MTW were the best; much better balanced between factions and units, and the enemy AI worked better than in either of the two subsequent games.
I also preferred the 2d map found in MTW and Shogun to the 3d one found afterwards. For me, the most enjoyable part of the Total War games is devising a strategy, and then crushing your enemies and the 2d map made things a lot clearer; this preference may be due to my fundamental fear of micro-management though
Like I say, all of this is subjective, and all of the TW games are very good; I just spent most time, and got the most out of, MTW. Currently got it installed on my Eee, seen me through many train journeys and flights
