Honestly, I'd buy Med3
IF it had sieges better than Shogun 2
Macro/Eco/Empire management at least on the level of Rome1/Med2
And a nice big map with a bunch of interesting factions, like, proper Slavs instead of just Novgorod with half a roster that builds castles for some reason, also proper steppeniggers like playable Mongols/Tatars, and maybe jeets to flood the battle map with brown cannon fodder for you to either wrangle or wreck and rout.
Also, Crusades with proper deus vulting, none of that sissy shameful hiding of historical religious zealotry.
On release. No chopping shit up for DLC like they do these days.
So, I'm probably not buying Med3, then
And if you really think someone asking an innocuous question is "niggering up the place" you have literal, genuine autism.
I'll bite. It's "y'all", I'd wager.
Are you a Southerner?
Either way: Total War games used to simulate low-tech warfare (i.e. melee-focused sword-and-board-and-arrow-and-trebuchet stuff). Things like unit morale, height advantage, line of sight mattered in a big way and worked pretty much how they do in real life: soldiers get scared of flaming arrows and getting rammed from behind by heavy cavalry, that sort of thing. But the devs also had huge issues with the engine and ended up dropping the realism. RTS in general is a very tech-intensive genre, things like unit pathfinding just need to work, period, there's no "quick and dirty", no half-assing it to spend the money on flashy art and cool models or marketing, you either code it well and it works, or your game sucks ass to play both in singleplayer and against other humans. It's kind of hard to describe, but old Total War games used to make you feel like you're commanding a medieval army, because the devs actually bothered to simulate various aspects of Iron Age warfare properly.
Newer ones (and especially Warhammer, since it's fantasy) threw all of that out. Units with shields used to literally block arrows with their shields (so you could flank them with archers to shoot them from a side where there's no shield coverage). In newer ones, the shield-bearing troops just have a chance to block damage that is rolled whenever they eat an arrow or a crossbow bolt. There were no health bars: only the commanders had hitpoints (for balance purposes, to prevent them from being sniped too easily). Generals' retinues used to have two HP, and things like war elephants had twelve. Everybody else either blocked damage with their shield or armor or fucking dropped. Now every individual soldier in a unit has an HP pool and every attack has a different damage value like in RPGs, so a volley of arrows that should, in real life, cause casualties instead just eats away at the unit's health, softening it up for future attacks but not impacting it's offensive effectiveness and ability to take up space on the battlefield (kind of important for sword-and-board warfare actually). The series sort of lost its charm over the years by ditching the simulation aspect, basically. Also became riddled with unfun fake difficulty bullshit, like the CPU being incompetent and compensating by cheating (boosted unit stats during battles, free shit on the zoomed-out strategic layer). Warhammer is the peak of that, because it has huge monsters and magic and various superhuman creatures. You can do things like wreck half the enemy army with just your commander, which, while fun, doesn't feel authentic/logically consistent and gets old pretty quickly.
There's a guy on Youtube named Volound. He's a bit of an angry sperg (has a thread on here apparently), but some of his old videos outline all the problems with newer Total War games fairly well.
TLDR: if you just wanna ram technicolor fantasy monsters into each other and clap like a tard, go for Warhammer. If you want something cool with a decently high skillcap, go for Shogun 2 instead. Older ones like Rome 1 or Medieval 2 can be a bit janky. Also, I personally haven't played TW in years, so maybe all of the above issues ended up getting patched out in some of the newer ones, dunno.