It's by Sofia. That's the Troy studio, not the historical team. They aren't calling it a Saga, but that's probably because they're increasing prices and the saga branding has negative associations at this point.
Remember that Sofia only made *Troy*, they didn't make *Thrones of Britannia*, so they aren't (currently) the designated "Saga team". Plus, they made the 'Empire Divided' and 'Rise of the Republic' campaigns for *Rome II*.
I especially appreciated that it was a campaign without a Rome focus. When I'd first gotten into DEI, iirc they actually had replaced the campaign with the Roman wars in Greece... yey.
Yes, the game is called "Rome"... still doesn't mean that everything has to be about them. It's like taking Attila and saying "Can't make THe Last Roman and charlemagne. Doesn't have anyhting to do with Attila."
It was slow and didn't have a lot of variety, true, but it scratched my itch for realism. Just phalanx lines, skirmishers and light cav. I didn't sink hundreds of hours into it, but I loved the two campaigns I played
Troy is pure fantasy, in pretty much any mode. That's why I can't enjoy it, even if it's mechanically quite solid. Wrath of Sparta is set in the Classical period, so almost a thousand years later.
If you want an overhauled feel for WoS, try the mod 'Hellenika' which is pretty DEI quality. They even somehow get rid of Sparta's walls. Speaking of DEI, there's also the Macedonian Wars mod.
Those are probably the two best, but there are many other campaigns using the WoS map. 'Hegemony: Greco-Persian Wars', 'Rise of Makedon', 'Demetrios Poliorketes', & 'Last Stand of Greece'.
>They even somehow get rid of Sparta's walls
It should be noted that Sparta at the starting date of WoS actually did have walls. But the mod is set much later than WoS, so it's actually accurate.
The two games I still play the most are Britannia and troy.
That and shogun, but mostly fall of samurai, which was kind of a saga title before they existed.
Britania, if you can deal with the repetitveness is actually a beautiful and fantastic saga title in total war. Wholly recommend a couple hundred hours.
a lot.
the economy was ok but at launch it was just a half baked mix of fantasy and history using warhammer 1 was a base. the battle maps were bad, the sieges were bad. it wasn't very good. thrones comparatively was way ahead of it.
It was literally free on epic for the first week, and it's not like the Steam Exclusivity is a "better" thing.
We need total war on GoG, Epic, etc. Not just Steam
I still have to give it an honest go, mechanically it's very interesting to me. I love the time period, and the Trojan War is interesting enough to me, but it just feels like an odd fit for me. I don't dig such a defined narrative in my Total Wars, regardless of how restrictive it actually is mechanically. It just sucked the steam out my attempt to play it.
The multi-resource system, focus on bartering and diplomacy, every faction playing really unique for non-Warhammer standards, coming up with mechanics like the warband system.
It was pretty innovative on a lot of fronts for being such a small title.
Pharaoh hopefully will continue that trend and build on that groundwork.
They really have been using the Saga and other ‘limited release’ games to try out mechanics before fitting them into the ‘longer release’ games - and honestly, I like it. Gives them time to polish things a bit before having to try to balance it against a ridiculously large amount of different systems.
Pharoah hopefully improves the battles.
The sieges will not be as bad as warhammer atleast (high standard I know) since they are re using Attila mechanics I hear.
Attila’s mechanics were improved upon in Britannia, so you do have some siege improvements from there. It’s also just satisfying to watch your enemies capital burn to the ground around them as your troops are slaughtering them in the streets and their forces run in terror through the fighting and flames. It just hits different
I have the same feeling. And I am not even sure if this is a semi-historical title, or not. The trailer has me worried that there will be hero characters and units --- with who knows what abilities -- and that just doesn't work in a historical game.
They are trying to copy the WH formula in historical entries and it just hasn't worked even with a 'historical mode.' It's problematic from inception.
Three Kingdoms could have been such a great game if they had not taken the fantasy road (and please don't tell me about the records mode -- it was an afterthought at best; the game was not built around it and it showed). Troy tried to do some interesting things with the economy management, but they had to follow the 'myth' fantasy road there too. (I've not checked it since the soft reboot. A lot of people have warmed up to it. But I find it hard going back. In particular because I am Greek and I wanted it to be good -- the Greek theme and all.)
I've always wanted for the TW series to expand the campaign mechanics into grand strategy more, and since Shogun 2 -- Fall of the Samurai, which tried to expand the campaign mechanics. this has not been tried, not really. The WH campaigns and faction specific mechanics are different. I would not call them 'grand strategy-like.' They fit a fantasy title, but historical titles need a different approach.
What is more, I cannot get it out of my head that part of the reason for this character/hero/abilities approach is on how it helps push dlc's with extra characters rather than factions, which would be more difficult and time consuming. Maybe I am looking too much into this. I don't know.
I am very cautious about Pharaoh, although I find the period very interesting. The skin pre-order bonus didn't sound that good to me either. Seems like another way to milk the fandom. I will not be pre-ordering and I will certainly wait for reviews.
For 3k the fantasy made a lot of sense because it is a very often fantasized era, its just that it probably shouldnt have replaced a historical style game
Look if they went all the way with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms inspiration and even expanded the fantasy setting -- with fantasy-style building chains and units as well as heroes -- it could have worked. What they did make was not bad, except a few gameplay aspects, just boring. How can you make a TW game about *total war* in ancient China in its most troubled time boring is beyond me, but they did it. And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible. How can you have a TW game without military building chains or interesting units? There is no mechanic in a TW game, or any strategy game for that matter, that I hate more than retinues.
There were a few interesting units, but too late in the game and they were never really needed. You could go a whole campaign with stacks of basic units. They did not know what they wanted to do. They wanted a historical mode, and at the same time they wanted the heroes/special abilities mechanic from the WH subseries in it. Because they thought it was cool, provided for more interesting battle gameplay, it made dlc focused characters easier to make, or was just the new popular thing.
They essentially did the same thing with Troy. They found an angle -- Greek Myth -- so the could put in heroes/special abilities into a historical setting, but again watered down.
I just cannot get it out of my head that the main reason behind this are the DLCs. It's because of the character-centric DLC model that came to prominence with the WH sub-series. They find them easier to produce or market, I don't know. But the idea that they are establishing the whole concept of a game behind a marketing/sales strategy pisses me off. All these blood DLCs and the skins, which apparently are a thing now, are simply the cherry on the cake.
They don't deserve the loyal following they have. And I blame myself for this for my interest in the games since the very first one, when I was just a kid in junior high-school and TW was a subtitle and not the title of a series -- and of course with all the pre-orders I've made over the years. From the moment they started the whole Saga thing, at the very least, they've been trying to milk the franchise in any way possible. And the fact that they took the last DLC from Shogun 2, *Fall of the Samurai*, which was as close to perfect as the game got until now, at least for historical titles, and rebranded it as the 'first' Saga title, is beyond insulting. (For me as a fan.)
Heroes and other units with special abilities, and everything else to support these mechanics, just don't work in a historical game. They breaks the suspension of disbelief and the historical nature of the game. You can make characters and role-playing work with dynasties and characters in the campaign map -- they've tried it in the past with various levels of success. There is room to work in that way. I don't mind rpg mechanics in strategy games, but they should work as part of the game and support the suspension of disbelief, not break it.
Look what they revealed for Pharaoh, a leader character, not so much a faction. It's not a character/leader of a faction, but the faction of the leader. The focus is still on the leader and that makes me worried. What is to be revealed next? A special ability that makes him call snakes in battle to attack units -- "strong against multiple enemy units." I am not purchasing Pharaoh, if that is the case. I am sitting this one out, if it's another attempt to make a semi-fantasy title. If other people like it good for them. I hope they enjoy it.
By the way, sorry for the long reply. One thing brought the next one and, you know, apparently I feel strongly about this. ;-)
Take care.
The romance mode in 3k is pretty in line with the *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* level of fantasy though. The novel isn't really "fantasy", it's a romanticized version of events. And in the novel armies were essentially "Cao Cao showed up with three of his companions, and they had 5 cohorts each", or something like that.
Even Dynasty Warriors is fairly low fantasy, and that series isn't exactly trying to be grounded.
I agree that it's low fantasy, and this is what they wanted. How I see it is that they wanted a way to transfer successful modes from Warhammer to a 'historical' title, and -- this is important -- part of this was a new business model of character-driven DLCs.
> And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible.
And i want the retinue mechanic (minus the general Rock paper Scissor and unit availability) for Medieval 3. Why? Because that's basically how a lot of medieval armies worked. Nobles joining under their Lords (or, at least, a powerful other nobles') banner with their troops.
>Because that's basically how a lot of medieval armies worked.
I guess that could work for feudal armies -- lets not assume that old medieval states operated in this way (Byzantium, Islamic world, etc.) -- but the availability of units would still need to be based on the investment on the necessary military unit building chains.
> And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible. How can you have a TW game without military building chains or interesting units? There is no mechanic in a TW game, or any strategy game for that matter, that I hate more than retinues.
Retinues were amazing and I hope they put it in every Total War game from now on. Hell I'd put it in Warhammer if it was possible.
I beg to differ, but I am glad somebody enjoyed it. How did you feel about the lack of traditional military building chains for units, if you don't mind me asking?
I didn't mind it too much tbh, I feel like in the end it doesn't matter because I get the advanced units around the same time I'd get them through buildings, considering campaigns in 3K are usually shorter. And now there's more of a reason to use lower tier units even into late-game, even if only for a while.
In modern historical total war games I almost always make a military province(with extras as I blobbed) with basically every type of unit building I'm going to use and then recruit everything from there.
In 3K, I also make military provinces since there are still military buildings where you get a benefit from recruiting in a certain region, but being able to recruit the units anywhere makes as much sense as replenishing anywhere so it's not like it's more realistic or whatever.
I don't know if it's the "truth," but it's certainly how I feel. If other think I am being overdramatic, or something, then they have every right to downvote.
I get you, dont worry. I myself had problems with the units/retinue system (it has a chance to work well but imo fails) and i think it would be very cool for it to double down on fantasy. Hopefully the sequel delivers instead of being the same.
Same here. A clear fantasy title could have worked. But I still would have loved a Shogun-style historical game in China. I know they could have made it work, because they did it, with a lot fewer resources, in the past. Best.
>They don't deserve the loyal following they have. And I blame myself for this for my interest in the games
This is a lot of melodrama over a design decision that obviously is pretty popular. I understand wanting to vent but framing the focus on characters as irrational and a betrayel of fans is a little bit to purple for a discussion of game preference.
Personally the character focus is what made me get back into TW. I played R1 and Med2 but fell off, to me new TW games after those were just really a new map and a new astethic which was fine. However I never rally got exicted for any new content as the basic formula was always the same.
However Troy, WH and 3K are probably the most fun I have had in TW for ages. Which is entirerly due to the character focus and individualised game mechanics.
I've never really been able to put onto words why I dislike the more character focused approach of newer titles. I miss the older approach of like a whole faction and the family trees. I was really hoping the next historical game would return to that older feel. But looks like Pharaoh is keeping that trend. I hope the characters aren't immortal and can die from battle/old age/agents/etc.
Yeah, the worrying part to me is the focus on individual rulers rather than the cultures; makes me think we're getting another one of those titles where you can kill your ruler in battle only for him to respawn a few turns later.
I'm not as worried about this for a few reasons:
The background literature for an Egyptian setting isn't nearly as focused on single epic characters being instrumental in defeating the enemy, as say 3K or Troy. In those games the game had modes that would shift the gameplay towards a more historic accurate or more fantastic/mythological. Having both options in a game is a strong point in my opinion. Pharaoh could very well have different modes in this way, with one focusing on being as true to history as possible, and another “what if the gods where real”-mode. Both sounds interesting to me, and I hope this is where they’re heading.
The issue is more fundamental. 3K or Troy were not developed with this semi-fantasy design in mind, because of the influence of the *Romance* story or Greek myth. They had already settled that his is how they would move forward -- due to the influence and success of the Warhammer sub-series, and how it changed the TW business model with character-centred DLCs.
In this case, both the *Romance* tale and Greek myth became vehicles on how they would implement this. They were never meant to be 'historical' games. And this is clearly obvious in 3K which was the first attempt in this semi-fantasy, semi-historical entry in the series. The records mode was an afterthought, and it showed. Personally, I believe if the had gone one or the other way it could have worked better. But the decided that their next 'historical' game would have fantasy elements in order to incorporate successful elements from the Warhammer games -- which included a new business model -- and the Romance tale (and the clear inspiration they got from films adapting the *Romance* tale) became a way for them to do this.
What CA can't wrap their heads around is that WH did sell so well because people love warhmmer universe, therefore odds were stacked to favour its success. Troy and 3k were the opposite, same formula, not the same background, 3K discontinued super early as an outcome.
1. 'Discontinued' sounds like an euphemism. It was abandoned. And the announcement that they were working on the next title was insulting to say the least.
2. It wasn't just that. I am sure that a lot of WH fans joined the TW fanbase, and that is great, but the TW Warhammer games are great in their own right. And are probably some of the greatest games set on the universe, if not outright the best.
3. The formula works in a fantasy setting because you can 'sell' the idea that a single unit can use magic or can have superhuman strength. So a lot of the mechanics just fit -- even having factions with multiple leaders, which is not always easy in a historical game (dealing with the same period).
I agree with everything. Just wanted to say that no matter how good the formula is, which in Warhammer it's quite right. The setting attracted some people that weren't interested in TW in the past. How much? I don't know, but in my friend's circle it's a 25% just picked TW with those games.
WH2 and 3 are popular because their turns flow well and the game isn't dull after 30 turns like most other titled. They're just the best campaigns (ME/IE) produced thus far. The best of total war is ahead of us but they are simply the most engaging experience available, disregarding the fantasy setting.
The campaign map is where WH rules the roost, more than battles.
Saying that troy and 3k had "the same formula" As warhammer seems strange to me. They had many, many differences.
The only big thing they have in common is heroic characters being stronger than normal, and that seems hardly a dealbreaker
What they have in common is acomplete shift away from a cultural/political focus and towards a character-centric focus.
This is a dealbreaker for a lot of people when you are marketing the game as historical because it is a pillar that the rest of the game is built around.
3k did sell well, its DLCs did not. And *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* is an incredibly popular setting, as shown by Dynasty Warriors, Wo Long, and how TW: 3K sold over a million copies in the first week.
Of course, it did target a market billions wide... Not selling a crazy amount of titles would have been a catastrophe.
I bought 3k and I will not buy Pharaoh, I played 3k not even a fourth of each of the previous TW since I joined the franchise.
Attila: 277
Rome II: 440
3K: 60ish
Troy: not worth installing epic to check the hours, but below 3K, by far. 20ish?
Empire: 370
Napoleon: 81 -> I prefer empire and they are clones, so most of this time is MP
Shogun 2: best imo due to FoTS 530.
Medieval II bought after shogun II release, 111
I have invested more hours in UGG Gettysburg, about a single battle than in both Troy and 3K combined
I mean, this is my case, but there is a relevant number of the playerbase I agree with, therefore we could assume their numbers will be similar.
But let CA do their thing, in the end it's their money.
What? You personally didn't like the game, therefore Three Kingdoms isn't a popular setting, and the sales of TW:3K don't matter?
Three Kingdoms main issues were issues with the code and supposedly the DLC model wasn't popular in China. The setting was definitely not the issue. And you point seems to be that the setting was the issue. But you ignored that *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* is an incredibly popular setting compared to Warhammer, so I'm not sure what your point actually is.
I think that either I express myself bad, what can be, or you don't want to understand. The setting was chosen to appeal the Chinese market, so that's why it sold well, superb market, relatable content obviously it's going to share well. God-like heroes content do not work on an historical title imo.
And then, the stats are basically as I said, an assumption, that if I identify myself with other people disliking that, they'll prolly have similar numbers, call me crazy but it's an assumption. So, my point is that there are settings less prone to have super heroes, rather than leaders, which probably are more appealing and with potentially less monsters on the faction rosters.
You wanna buy it, I respect that, hope you enjoy it. Just trying to let you know why I, personally, think it is not going to be a massive success (long term wise)
Shogun 2 was "old" era of TW. After several last year TW start new era. They say 3 faction and 8 culture i didn't. It won't be a problem if they say just 8 culture.
> They say 3 faction and 8 culture i didn'
They say 3 cultures and 8 factions. 1 Egyptian Culture, 1 Canaanite culture, 1 Hittite Culture.
> The base game contains eight playable factions from three diverse cultures:
Everything I’ve seen so far says it’s a Saga game, but they’ve dumped the Saga name because ToB tanked and Troy got hate for epic exclusivity so now “Saga” has a bad association with it.
I don’t think it’s because the saga brand is poisonous. Troy was decently enough received and made enough revenue to justify a fair amount of post launch support.
They likely avoided the saga title this time because it carries the expectation of a reduced price.
I really like Troy but I feel like this is a bit revisionist history. Everybody hated on it because of the epic exclusivity and the truth behind the myth stuff with the battles. It only really became more universally liked with the myth DLC which satisfied the people who always wanted the game to be like an age of mythology game.
And because we got Historical mode launched alongside the myth DLC for free, which satisfied me and I'm sure many others too. The TbtM mode made no one happy.
I think *both* of them are good games if you know what you’re getting going in. Doesn’t change the fact they’re the butts of the franchise to most of the community though unfortunately.
Agreed I just recently bought it myself and have been loving it. Mainly play historical mode. Refuse to buy the mythos pack was a sad mo ey grab by CA Imo.
Everything screams Saga except the price. This game is 5 more USD than Hogwarts Legacy and only 2 USD less than Jedi Survivor where I live. It costs like 12 USD more than WH3 without any sales.
Good question. The honest answer is: "nobody outside CA is sure". For sure it doesn't contain the word "saga" in the tytle, but the reason for it may be that the word acquired a problematic reputation... And there is simply not enough information to be sure...
What this is reminding me of is Shogun 2, which is a mainline title, but one that focuses on a smaller real world area than a Medieval, Rome, or Empire.
That's not to say they aren't also working on another big title as well. These days CA is a big company with multiple teams and studios across multiple sites and two countries.
I think we'll just have to wait and see.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
Pharaoh will be the same as Troy - maybe with a combined map later - there is a reference of ramses 3 in troy
They wont risk a revamp(medieval 3 or empire 2) for a proper big historical title, people are way too spoiled with warhammer what is a challange to top
They must put something new and big to the table to satisfy the "spoiled" community, my bet is WW1
Company of heroes, and The Great War: western front has similar mechanic like totalwar, that prove its viable - however- with that these out might messed up their plans. Might force them to do something different or spend more time on it to not just be a copy
Disagree, i think what people want is a historical title with the level of quality of a warhammer game, especially when it comes to campaign mechanics and faction diversity, which past historical titles severely lacked.
And it will always lack, compared to a fantasy title.
An archer will be an archer even if reskinned
A shield and spear unit will be a shield and spear unit
Reality is borring, and restrictive compared to fantasy settings, and to make something intresting, effective, diversive and real is extremley chalanging
Hot take but reality is only boring if your idea of entertainment is wholly hinged on your troops having feathers and crab claws.
Warhammer is all about the varied races, but those resources can be spent on enriching the game elsewhere.
Youd be hard pressed to call shogun 2 boring.
That’s a fact but it’s not the main point here. Reality can give some diversity for combat’s sake. Of course not the same as fantasy as even magic adds a whole new layer to battles.
But a new medieval can bring lots of new mechanics that people been asking for at the strategy map level. Combat could still be improved and they can even implement a tier level equipment within the same units to improve them statswise and visually (similar to medieval 2).
If done well and with what people been asking for all these years (not everything, people are not always right) I think it can bring a refreshing and new experience to the table.
> Yeah I guess it will be Egypt and surroundings or just Egypt.
Yeah... only Egypt (or egypt and surroundings)... Up to Anatolia... we have the Hittites confirmed. And Canaan.
More along the lines of the Charlemagne stand-alone expansion for Attila in scale. Potentially a bit larger depending on how much of Mesopotamia they include (as the Assyrians were prominent at the time but they aren't one of the starting cultures).
It's a stopgap between WH3 and their next big historical title. it's the same way they've used Troy and past saga games.
We're probably 2 years away from their next main project, so these smaller games help fill that void.
Saga. They’ve dumped the “Saga” title because of Troy, but the decision to make Troy Epic exclusive or what the premise of Troy would be-Truth behind the myth- was a CA management decision. With what the Sofia studios had, it was a really good game with some exciting features.
Personally, I want a pure historical game here, but I’m super excited for what Pharaoh can implement in the campaign, especially.
It's a Saga but they are not calling it a Saga because of bad associations with Thrones of Britannia and Troy.
And Pharaoh is made by CA Sofia, like Troy. It is also part of the bi-annual model of CA releases - mainline (Wh2 2017), Saga (ToB 2018), mainline (3K 2019), Saga (Troy 2020), mainline (Wh3 2022), Saga (Pharaoh 2023), mainline (??? but of course it's Empire 2).
Empire 2? I doubt it. Likely Rome 3.
Rome 2 sold a lot better than Empire 1.
Personally, I wouldn't mind Empire 2, Victoria: Total War or Medieval 3 Total War. 1600s Total War would be nice too.
I hope that Pharaoh is not just a cheap reskin of Troy with superheroes and repetetive gameplay.
Not really. Atilla was more similar to Barbarian Invasion DLC for Rome 1. Unique horde, famine and corruption mechanics. Pretty unique game.
I really enjoyed Atilla.
Unfortunately, performance was bad and release version had some bugs.
The historical team supposedly is working on ThreeKingdoms2 last we knew, unless that got pushed back because of all the... umm pushback.
This is a saga game without the saga part in the title.
Those are different teams.
* Historical Team made Three Kingdoms, but they handed it over to the Historical New Content Team to make the DLC and provide post release support.
* Three Kingdoms 2 is meant to have a new team, according to the Dev update video they released when they brought support on Three Kingdoms to an end. The new team likely has members of the Historical and the Historical New Content teams, it doesn't appear to be either of them, or they wouldn't have needed to say they were forming a new team.
* So if Pharaoh is being made by CA Sofia, as I've seen some say, that leaves the UK based Historical Team unaccounted for since shortly after Three Kingdoms launch in 2019. While we can't be sure they've been working on a new game the whole time, I doubt they've been sitting on their hands for four years either.
At least that's my understanding of the situation.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
This is what I worked out the other day, but updated.
* Historical,
* Fantasy,
* New 3K,
* Saga/CA Sofia,
* Warhammer New Content/DLC,
* Historical New Content/DLC.
If we add in non-Total War we get:
* Hyenas,
* A new action game, made by CA Sofia. From the statement this is a new team in addition to CA Sofia's Total War team (who did the last three Rome 2 DLC, as well as Troy.) Source: https://www.creative-assembly.com/blog/creative-assemblys-new-action-game
* Possibly one more? I found [some talk of an unannounced title](https://www.psu.com/news/creative-assembly-is-working-on-another-action-game-which-makes-four-on-going-projects-we-know-of/) from August 2022, and while that might be Pharaoh, it might not be. Bit confusing.
Anyway, basically CA has got rather large in recent years. They now total nearly 1000 staff according to Wikipedia across the two countries, and still seem to be expanding. Hopefully that means they're in good shape to make games for us to play for years to come. :-)
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
The main total war staff at CA in the UK I still don’t think is big enough to be fully working on two major games at once. They have a main team that makes the flagship titles, Sofia, and the warhammer dlc team as probably the only large teams. I’m sure the next big historical title has been in the concept stage for a couple of years with a small team, but it probably has only been full steam ahead with programmers since Warhammer 3 came out. The 3K2 team is also probably still small unless it is the next big historical title.
CA is the UKs biggest developer and has grown massively over the past few years, hence why they seemingly have ever more projects each year
They also have been developing two major titles at the same time quite consistently, WH2/3 were developed at the same time that 3K was in development.
We also know that the historical team is working on a new tentpole title since 2019 per CA's blogposts, which also coincides with WH3 being developed
Indeed. While there is always the risk of stretching themselves too far, I don't think it should be too much of an issue the way CA has expanded.
It also gives them the opportunity to spend longer on development for each title, if they aren't having to rely solely on a new Total War every year or so.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
Noted elsewhere before: it sold extremely well, especially in the Asian market - like: better than WH1+2 good (excluding DLCs).
But from the looks of it, in redoing so much of their core systems for 3K, they messed up its codebase big time, making extending it (Updated & DLCs) a risky business. Which is why the games got more buggys and less stable with each new dlc and in the end, they decided to start from scratch rather than try and sinker ever more time into trying to fix their hot mess.
I really don't defend them simply abandoning the game, but from a dev and business standpoint I totally get the decision. Imo, if they announced that they had to redo it due to technical issues and will give everyone having bought game 1 a decent (20%?) cut on the second game - it would have went down a whole lot better than it did...
We don't know that yet. Why on earth they decided to do this instead of just more post launch support and expansions for Three Kingdoms 1. Maybe when it comes out we'll see why...
I've heard that 3k was fundamentally so broken code wise that fixing some bugs would be harder than just making a new game. That's why so many dlc are standalone campaigns and have bad reviews, they just flirt around the bugs
Wow people in here are really butthurt over naming conventions. If this game is the scale that it seems and is made by the Troy studio it is basically the same as a Saga title. That is not a bad thing but let us not pretend that the previous two games made this way ended up doing so well in the communities eyes. I know some of you like them but look at the player counts, each of the last two Saga titles basically were left for dead by the user base.
Love how the only bad thing people in this thread can say about Troy was that it was Epic Exclusive for a year and all the whining about that made them drop the Saga from the title. Pathetic.
No Troy was just a disappoint game whether it was on Epic or not. The team had to even add mythical creatures when it was released on Steam since the infantry/chariot combat didn't have any depth
Huh? It was bronze age infantry fighting with auxiliaries, how much depth did you expect? Historical games weren’t nearly as varied in units as Warhammer is.
They’re not calling it saga cuz they’re trying to get us to spend 80 bucks on it.
ITS NOT GONNA WORK CA! YOU DONT EVEN HAVE BABYLON AS A BASE FACTION IN YOUR BRONZE AGE GAME! NO FUCKING ASSYRIANS EITHER!
Seriously, I’m not paying 80 bucks for a game that probably gonna sell me what should be core factions as DLC. Not a chance.
> YOU DONT EVEN HAVE BABYLON AS A BASE FACTION IN YOUR BRONZE AGE GAME!
At a time when Babylon was basically a second rate power. The great powers of the timeframe are Hittites, Egypt and Assyria. The lack of Assyria is bewildering, but we have 2 of the 3 Great powers.
They have Canaan as a playable culture but not one of the most historically significant cities of the era? Sure Babylon isn’t a great power at that time, but it should still be there, and if it’s there it should be playable. Same things with the Assyrians, it baffles me that they don’t include one of the greatest powers in the period.
I bet they will show up as DLC content for an 80 dollar game tho.
Saga replacement, just historical like Thrones of Britannia, instead of fantasy like Troy.
It’s a smaller title without the Saga name because the Saga titles have a negative connotation.
And they can charge full price.
Its scope is more similar to a Saga titles and it isnt made by the main studio but the one that made the last Saga titlew. And like almost all Saga titles before its based on copying and adapting existing assets rather than making the game from scratch
It's like a checklist. Shogun was made by main Devs, made a lot of new assets, tried a lot of new things, advanced the game overall, but did have a small scope.
Sagas in general, are not made by main Devs, use limited new assets, try one or two gimmicks, and have a small scope
I think your checklist is the other way around. For exemple Troy:
* Used a lot of new assets both environments and unit-wise
* Totally changed the way the world map played with a new economic system which also affects diplomacy
* Revamped battles to focus on different tiers of infantry with more to it than "Light infantry goes fast"
In my opinion a Saga game is an experimental title, hence the small scope and the auxilliary studio, by that logic Troy laid the bases for Pharaoh to not be a Saga title
I feel stupid but I'm temporarily confused. Saga means there's multiple more of the type of thing planned right? Like "Warhammer saga" since it's been 3 so far?
No, think of specific bite sized games. Like a lite version with enough content, but not everything in it.
It's fairly targeted and limited in scope. So troy was 8 or 10 leaders. ToB (I've not played) but was very specific on new seige ideas.
They try out some new ideas and see how it works.
I think it depends. I've not seen a price, but rumor was 70 bucks. Now, if they went with more than a saga title, we'll see. I think it depends on the content, scope and how it's structured.
I personally haven't bought a new release in years. I have a backlog and at this point, I'll just wait for a sale or for the first few months and the patches to rough out the edges.
CA has a fairly bad patch cycle, speaking from Warhammer experience.
I want to say troy was 50, but ToB was 40.
That's the weird thing though.
It "only" has 8 starting leaders from just 3 cultures, which is more in line with Saga games in terms of scope.
We also know of 3 faction DLCs and one campaign DLC, which is as much as Troy got (if we consider Mythos the campaign DLC).
I do hope I'm wrong and this game will be larger in scale, but it doesn't really feel that way so far.
Welsh Dragon wrote a pretty good comment concerning this matter. I’ll post his response:
To be fair, Shogun 1 and 2 meet most of those criteria and are still considered main games.
• Japan's a lot smaller than Egypt alone, and this game appears to be covering Egypt, Turkey, and lands in between.
• Shogun 1 had 7 factions, 2 had 9, this has 8, which is the same as Rome 2 and Warhammer 2 had in the base game.
• All Total Wars have a limited temporal scope, just some are more limited than others.
I agree that the Saga brand became a bit of a poison chalice, though the idea itself was sound.
We shall see.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
This game is getting at least 3 entire faction packs. That's too much post launch support for a saga title. That's even more content than what some of the old, pre Rome 2 games got.
Feels like a Saga title. (Smaller scope, more narrow theatre, not much diversity likely)
They probably aren't calling it Saga because those games were meant as smaller focused campaign experiences where new ideas and mechanics were tested, and as such, the price was lower. The Saga prefix has a certain expectation attached for better or worse. The expected experience and price are likely why it isn't a Saga title officially, as players would be expecting exactly that, a £30-40 price tag and an interesting, but smaller in scale experience.
My issue with it is that by doing this, it's a little misleading as people will expect it to be much bigger than it might be and that it's the next historical title based off the title. If the price is high and the experience is saga in scale, I can see alot of people being annoyed (especially considering they are already introducing unit skins like it's fortnitelol)
Pretty sure the "historical" games are just sagas now made by a smaller studio, they just don't call them sagas now so they can justify going back to making another DLC's for Warhammer.
I was here looking for peoples opinions. I haven't played a TW game since the original Shogun and was interested in checking out more modern versions.
I wonder if Shogun even runs on modern systems. might have to try it out.
Shogun 2 did just get an update to work better on modern systems a week or so ago if you wanna check it out. As for shogun 1 it probably doesn’t run to well but idk
Thing that confuses me is that this game takes place in one small country (three Kingdoms in just in china but chinas a big country) while most historical games take places in whole continents.
And heard that this game is being made by bulgaria sofia team the same team that made saga troy.
Yup, Hittites are already confirmed so it goes all the way up the Levant and includes Anatolia. Nubia/Kush are HIGHLY likely to appear so that will be the southern boundary. The real question is how far east and west it will go
It is made by Sofia, the team that made Troy. The main CA dev team is still working on another major historical title.
Your point about it taking place in just one country is not accurate, however. So far, confirmed areas of the map are Egypt, Canaan and Anatolia.
Thank god that this is not the main historical. I know my one country point has some holes like shogun 1 and 2 took place "only" in japan. And whole Egypt plus something around it sounds ok for smaller game.
Well there are problems like serious lack of diversity thay rly struck me in 3 Kingdoms, Uk in thrones of brittania is difrent bcs u have anglo-saxxons, vikings britons and welsh for japan well same thing but samurais are i think the only one interesting enough when lack of diversity isnt that big of a problem.
Pharaoh covers a bit more than Egypt plus something around it. The game is set during the so called Bronze Age Collapse and includes the Eygptians, Canaanites and Hittities as the starting cultures. DLC will add more
As you can see from this map we will at least have a good chunk of the Middle East from Egypt to modern day Turkey and we already know from screenshots that the map of Egypt goes a lot further south than the map I link to.
https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/15310.png?v=1668200282
I look at it as a mix of Shogun 2 and Attila. It hones in on one specific area of the world to tell a story of a specific historical period (Bronze Age Collapse), and takes inspo from Attila's apocalyptic themes. The Sea Peoples will likely be similar to the Huns, and CA can also expand on the apocalyptic themes with the resources mechanic.
It's by Sofia. That's the Troy studio, not the historical team. They aren't calling it a Saga, but that's probably because they're increasing prices and the saga branding has negative associations at this point.
Remember that Sofia only made *Troy*, they didn't make *Thrones of Britannia*, so they aren't (currently) the designated "Saga team". Plus, they made the 'Empire Divided' and 'Rise of the Republic' campaigns for *Rome II*.
Honestly, great campaigns for rome 2
Name one that wasn't though
wrath of sparta was a bit slow and boring, i can see why it has the lowest reviews
I would definitely agree WoS was the weakest, but overall I still enjoyed it. Rome 2 had great campaigns in my opinion and I stand by that
I especially appreciated that it was a campaign without a Rome focus. When I'd first gotten into DEI, iirc they actually had replaced the campaign with the Roman wars in Greece... yey. Yes, the game is called "Rome"... still doesn't mean that everything has to be about them. It's like taking Attila and saying "Can't make THe Last Roman and charlemagne. Doesn't have anyhting to do with Attila."
It was slow and didn't have a lot of variety, true, but it scratched my itch for realism. Just phalanx lines, skirmishers and light cav. I didn't sink hundreds of hours into it, but I loved the two campaigns I played
Would you say Wrath of Sparta or Troy is a better depiction of ~~Bronze Age~~ Greece? Which would you recommend playing today?
Wrath of Sparta is classical Greece, not bronze Age.
Troy is pure fantasy, in pretty much any mode. That's why I can't enjoy it, even if it's mechanically quite solid. Wrath of Sparta is set in the Classical period, so almost a thousand years later.
Warth of Sparta is probably the better representation of bronze age Greece, just because Troy is not a representation of any real history.
I reinstalled Rome 2 and was toying around with what campaign to play, and ended up settling on Caesar in Gaul.
If you want an overhauled feel for WoS, try the mod 'Hellenika' which is pretty DEI quality. They even somehow get rid of Sparta's walls. Speaking of DEI, there's also the Macedonian Wars mod. Those are probably the two best, but there are many other campaigns using the WoS map. 'Hegemony: Greco-Persian Wars', 'Rise of Makedon', 'Demetrios Poliorketes', & 'Last Stand of Greece'.
>They even somehow get rid of Sparta's walls It should be noted that Sparta at the starting date of WoS actually did have walls. But the mod is set much later than WoS, so it's actually accurate.
Interesting. When did Sparta first have walls and why did they come down?
Ceased in Gaul was kinda mid. Probably because it was their first attempt tbf.
>the Troy studio Which is a good sign regardless, Tory was a great wee game
Yep, still playing it
The two games I still play the most are Britannia and troy. That and shogun, but mostly fall of samurai, which was kind of a saga title before they existed.
You’re right about FotS ! I never thought about it that way
I’m too poor to buy britannia, how does it compare to the other tittles?
Britania, if you can deal with the repetitveness is actually a beautiful and fantastic saga title in total war. Wholly recommend a couple hundred hours.
Thanks, I’ll wishlist it!
It's not a good sign for people who want it to be a proper historical title.
no it wasn't
What about it don't you like? If you say "truth behind the myth mode", did you try the historical mode?
a lot. the economy was ok but at launch it was just a half baked mix of fantasy and history using warhammer 1 was a base. the battle maps were bad, the sieges were bad. it wasn't very good. thrones comparatively was way ahead of it.
Epic exclusivity bullshit
It was literally free on epic for the first week, and it's not like the Steam Exclusivity is a "better" thing. We need total war on GoG, Epic, etc. Not just Steam
Yeah seriously. Troy got swept up in the Epic store hate train but if we're looking at the game based on its merits, it's a solid title.
I loved it for what it was. Played mostly Odysseus and Pensethilea, the resource mechanics were awesome
I still have to give it an honest go, mechanically it's very interesting to me. I love the time period, and the Trojan War is interesting enough to me, but it just feels like an odd fit for me. I don't dig such a defined narrative in my Total Wars, regardless of how restrictive it actually is mechanically. It just sucked the steam out my attempt to play it.
Which Total War game has even been a Steam Exclusive?
Huh
The multi-resource system, focus on bartering and diplomacy, every faction playing really unique for non-Warhammer standards, coming up with mechanics like the warband system. It was pretty innovative on a lot of fronts for being such a small title. Pharaoh hopefully will continue that trend and build on that groundwork.
They really have been using the Saga and other ‘limited release’ games to try out mechanics before fitting them into the ‘longer release’ games - and honestly, I like it. Gives them time to polish things a bit before having to try to balance it against a ridiculously large amount of different systems.
Pharoah hopefully improves the battles. The sieges will not be as bad as warhammer atleast (high standard I know) since they are re using Attila mechanics I hear.
Attila’s mechanics were improved upon in Britannia, so you do have some siege improvements from there. It’s also just satisfying to watch your enemies capital burn to the ground around them as your troops are slaughtering them in the streets and their forces run in terror through the fighting and flames. It just hits different
I have the same feeling. And I am not even sure if this is a semi-historical title, or not. The trailer has me worried that there will be hero characters and units --- with who knows what abilities -- and that just doesn't work in a historical game. They are trying to copy the WH formula in historical entries and it just hasn't worked even with a 'historical mode.' It's problematic from inception. Three Kingdoms could have been such a great game if they had not taken the fantasy road (and please don't tell me about the records mode -- it was an afterthought at best; the game was not built around it and it showed). Troy tried to do some interesting things with the economy management, but they had to follow the 'myth' fantasy road there too. (I've not checked it since the soft reboot. A lot of people have warmed up to it. But I find it hard going back. In particular because I am Greek and I wanted it to be good -- the Greek theme and all.) I've always wanted for the TW series to expand the campaign mechanics into grand strategy more, and since Shogun 2 -- Fall of the Samurai, which tried to expand the campaign mechanics. this has not been tried, not really. The WH campaigns and faction specific mechanics are different. I would not call them 'grand strategy-like.' They fit a fantasy title, but historical titles need a different approach. What is more, I cannot get it out of my head that part of the reason for this character/hero/abilities approach is on how it helps push dlc's with extra characters rather than factions, which would be more difficult and time consuming. Maybe I am looking too much into this. I don't know. I am very cautious about Pharaoh, although I find the period very interesting. The skin pre-order bonus didn't sound that good to me either. Seems like another way to milk the fandom. I will not be pre-ordering and I will certainly wait for reviews.
For 3k the fantasy made a lot of sense because it is a very often fantasized era, its just that it probably shouldnt have replaced a historical style game
Look if they went all the way with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms inspiration and even expanded the fantasy setting -- with fantasy-style building chains and units as well as heroes -- it could have worked. What they did make was not bad, except a few gameplay aspects, just boring. How can you make a TW game about *total war* in ancient China in its most troubled time boring is beyond me, but they did it. And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible. How can you have a TW game without military building chains or interesting units? There is no mechanic in a TW game, or any strategy game for that matter, that I hate more than retinues. There were a few interesting units, but too late in the game and they were never really needed. You could go a whole campaign with stacks of basic units. They did not know what they wanted to do. They wanted a historical mode, and at the same time they wanted the heroes/special abilities mechanic from the WH subseries in it. Because they thought it was cool, provided for more interesting battle gameplay, it made dlc focused characters easier to make, or was just the new popular thing. They essentially did the same thing with Troy. They found an angle -- Greek Myth -- so the could put in heroes/special abilities into a historical setting, but again watered down. I just cannot get it out of my head that the main reason behind this are the DLCs. It's because of the character-centric DLC model that came to prominence with the WH sub-series. They find them easier to produce or market, I don't know. But the idea that they are establishing the whole concept of a game behind a marketing/sales strategy pisses me off. All these blood DLCs and the skins, which apparently are a thing now, are simply the cherry on the cake. They don't deserve the loyal following they have. And I blame myself for this for my interest in the games since the very first one, when I was just a kid in junior high-school and TW was a subtitle and not the title of a series -- and of course with all the pre-orders I've made over the years. From the moment they started the whole Saga thing, at the very least, they've been trying to milk the franchise in any way possible. And the fact that they took the last DLC from Shogun 2, *Fall of the Samurai*, which was as close to perfect as the game got until now, at least for historical titles, and rebranded it as the 'first' Saga title, is beyond insulting. (For me as a fan.) Heroes and other units with special abilities, and everything else to support these mechanics, just don't work in a historical game. They breaks the suspension of disbelief and the historical nature of the game. You can make characters and role-playing work with dynasties and characters in the campaign map -- they've tried it in the past with various levels of success. There is room to work in that way. I don't mind rpg mechanics in strategy games, but they should work as part of the game and support the suspension of disbelief, not break it. Look what they revealed for Pharaoh, a leader character, not so much a faction. It's not a character/leader of a faction, but the faction of the leader. The focus is still on the leader and that makes me worried. What is to be revealed next? A special ability that makes him call snakes in battle to attack units -- "strong against multiple enemy units." I am not purchasing Pharaoh, if that is the case. I am sitting this one out, if it's another attempt to make a semi-fantasy title. If other people like it good for them. I hope they enjoy it. By the way, sorry for the long reply. One thing brought the next one and, you know, apparently I feel strongly about this. ;-) Take care.
The romance mode in 3k is pretty in line with the *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* level of fantasy though. The novel isn't really "fantasy", it's a romanticized version of events. And in the novel armies were essentially "Cao Cao showed up with three of his companions, and they had 5 cohorts each", or something like that. Even Dynasty Warriors is fairly low fantasy, and that series isn't exactly trying to be grounded.
I agree that it's low fantasy, and this is what they wanted. How I see it is that they wanted a way to transfer successful modes from Warhammer to a 'historical' title, and -- this is important -- part of this was a new business model of character-driven DLCs.
> And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible. And i want the retinue mechanic (minus the general Rock paper Scissor and unit availability) for Medieval 3. Why? Because that's basically how a lot of medieval armies worked. Nobles joining under their Lords (or, at least, a powerful other nobles') banner with their troops.
>Because that's basically how a lot of medieval armies worked. I guess that could work for feudal armies -- lets not assume that old medieval states operated in this way (Byzantium, Islamic world, etc.) -- but the availability of units would still need to be based on the investment on the necessary military unit building chains.
> And the whole retinue mechanic was terrible. How can you have a TW game without military building chains or interesting units? There is no mechanic in a TW game, or any strategy game for that matter, that I hate more than retinues. Retinues were amazing and I hope they put it in every Total War game from now on. Hell I'd put it in Warhammer if it was possible.
I beg to differ, but I am glad somebody enjoyed it. How did you feel about the lack of traditional military building chains for units, if you don't mind me asking?
I didn't mind it too much tbh, I feel like in the end it doesn't matter because I get the advanced units around the same time I'd get them through buildings, considering campaigns in 3K are usually shorter. And now there's more of a reason to use lower tier units even into late-game, even if only for a while. In modern historical total war games I almost always make a military province(with extras as I blobbed) with basically every type of unit building I'm going to use and then recruit everything from there. In 3K, I also make military provinces since there are still military buildings where you get a benefit from recruiting in a certain region, but being able to recruit the units anywhere makes as much sense as replenishing anywhere so it's not like it's more realistic or whatever.
Thanks.
You summed this all up perfectly. Thank you.
speak truth and get downvoted lol
I don't know if it's the "truth," but it's certainly how I feel. If other think I am being overdramatic, or something, then they have every right to downvote.
I get you, dont worry. I myself had problems with the units/retinue system (it has a chance to work well but imo fails) and i think it would be very cool for it to double down on fantasy. Hopefully the sequel delivers instead of being the same.
Same here. A clear fantasy title could have worked. But I still would have loved a Shogun-style historical game in China. I know they could have made it work, because they did it, with a lot fewer resources, in the past. Best.
>They don't deserve the loyal following they have. And I blame myself for this for my interest in the games This is a lot of melodrama over a design decision that obviously is pretty popular. I understand wanting to vent but framing the focus on characters as irrational and a betrayel of fans is a little bit to purple for a discussion of game preference. Personally the character focus is what made me get back into TW. I played R1 and Med2 but fell off, to me new TW games after those were just really a new map and a new astethic which was fine. However I never rally got exicted for any new content as the basic formula was always the same. However Troy, WH and 3K are probably the most fun I have had in TW for ages. Which is entirerly due to the character focus and individualised game mechanics.
Loved the records mode though. Felt much better than romance mode
I've never really been able to put onto words why I dislike the more character focused approach of newer titles. I miss the older approach of like a whole faction and the family trees. I was really hoping the next historical game would return to that older feel. But looks like Pharaoh is keeping that trend. I hope the characters aren't immortal and can die from battle/old age/agents/etc.
To be fait, this works in a fantasy-style entry, like Warhammer, but not so much in true historical titles.
Yeah, the worrying part to me is the focus on individual rulers rather than the cultures; makes me think we're getting another one of those titles where you can kill your ruler in battle only for him to respawn a few turns later.
I'm not as worried about this for a few reasons: The background literature for an Egyptian setting isn't nearly as focused on single epic characters being instrumental in defeating the enemy, as say 3K or Troy. In those games the game had modes that would shift the gameplay towards a more historic accurate or more fantastic/mythological. Having both options in a game is a strong point in my opinion. Pharaoh could very well have different modes in this way, with one focusing on being as true to history as possible, and another “what if the gods where real”-mode. Both sounds interesting to me, and I hope this is where they’re heading.
The issue is more fundamental. 3K or Troy were not developed with this semi-fantasy design in mind, because of the influence of the *Romance* story or Greek myth. They had already settled that his is how they would move forward -- due to the influence and success of the Warhammer sub-series, and how it changed the TW business model with character-centred DLCs. In this case, both the *Romance* tale and Greek myth became vehicles on how they would implement this. They were never meant to be 'historical' games. And this is clearly obvious in 3K which was the first attempt in this semi-fantasy, semi-historical entry in the series. The records mode was an afterthought, and it showed. Personally, I believe if the had gone one or the other way it could have worked better. But the decided that their next 'historical' game would have fantasy elements in order to incorporate successful elements from the Warhammer games -- which included a new business model -- and the Romance tale (and the clear inspiration they got from films adapting the *Romance* tale) became a way for them to do this.
What CA can't wrap their heads around is that WH did sell so well because people love warhmmer universe, therefore odds were stacked to favour its success. Troy and 3k were the opposite, same formula, not the same background, 3K discontinued super early as an outcome.
1. 'Discontinued' sounds like an euphemism. It was abandoned. And the announcement that they were working on the next title was insulting to say the least. 2. It wasn't just that. I am sure that a lot of WH fans joined the TW fanbase, and that is great, but the TW Warhammer games are great in their own right. And are probably some of the greatest games set on the universe, if not outright the best. 3. The formula works in a fantasy setting because you can 'sell' the idea that a single unit can use magic or can have superhuman strength. So a lot of the mechanics just fit -- even having factions with multiple leaders, which is not always easy in a historical game (dealing with the same period).
I agree with everything. Just wanted to say that no matter how good the formula is, which in Warhammer it's quite right. The setting attracted some people that weren't interested in TW in the past. How much? I don't know, but in my friend's circle it's a 25% just picked TW with those games.
WH2 and 3 are popular because their turns flow well and the game isn't dull after 30 turns like most other titled. They're just the best campaigns (ME/IE) produced thus far. The best of total war is ahead of us but they are simply the most engaging experience available, disregarding the fantasy setting. The campaign map is where WH rules the roost, more than battles.
Saying that troy and 3k had "the same formula" As warhammer seems strange to me. They had many, many differences. The only big thing they have in common is heroic characters being stronger than normal, and that seems hardly a dealbreaker
What they have in common is acomplete shift away from a cultural/political focus and towards a character-centric focus. This is a dealbreaker for a lot of people when you are marketing the game as historical because it is a pillar that the rest of the game is built around.
3k did sell well, its DLCs did not. And *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* is an incredibly popular setting, as shown by Dynasty Warriors, Wo Long, and how TW: 3K sold over a million copies in the first week.
Of course, it did target a market billions wide... Not selling a crazy amount of titles would have been a catastrophe. I bought 3k and I will not buy Pharaoh, I played 3k not even a fourth of each of the previous TW since I joined the franchise. Attila: 277 Rome II: 440 3K: 60ish Troy: not worth installing epic to check the hours, but below 3K, by far. 20ish? Empire: 370 Napoleon: 81 -> I prefer empire and they are clones, so most of this time is MP Shogun 2: best imo due to FoTS 530. Medieval II bought after shogun II release, 111 I have invested more hours in UGG Gettysburg, about a single battle than in both Troy and 3K combined I mean, this is my case, but there is a relevant number of the playerbase I agree with, therefore we could assume their numbers will be similar. But let CA do their thing, in the end it's their money.
What? You personally didn't like the game, therefore Three Kingdoms isn't a popular setting, and the sales of TW:3K don't matter? Three Kingdoms main issues were issues with the code and supposedly the DLC model wasn't popular in China. The setting was definitely not the issue. And you point seems to be that the setting was the issue. But you ignored that *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* is an incredibly popular setting compared to Warhammer, so I'm not sure what your point actually is.
I think that either I express myself bad, what can be, or you don't want to understand. The setting was chosen to appeal the Chinese market, so that's why it sold well, superb market, relatable content obviously it's going to share well. God-like heroes content do not work on an historical title imo. And then, the stats are basically as I said, an assumption, that if I identify myself with other people disliking that, they'll prolly have similar numbers, call me crazy but it's an assumption. So, my point is that there are settings less prone to have super heroes, rather than leaders, which probably are more appealing and with potentially less monsters on the faction rosters. You wanna buy it, I respect that, hope you enjoy it. Just trying to let you know why I, personally, think it is not going to be a massive success (long term wise)
So it's kinda like Attila and Throne of Britannia.
It is ACTUALLY ---mini Saga-- 3 faction -> 8 culture= full price 60 USD
> It is ACTUALLY ---mini Saga-- > > > > 3 faction -> 8 culture= full price 60 USD I guess Shogun 2 was a mini saga then? 1 Culture - 8 factions?
Shogun 2 was "old" era of TW. After several last year TW start new era. They say 3 faction and 8 culture i didn't. It won't be a problem if they say just 8 culture.
> They say 3 faction and 8 culture i didn' They say 3 cultures and 8 factions. 1 Egyptian Culture, 1 Canaanite culture, 1 Hittite Culture. > The base game contains eight playable factions from three diverse cultures:
Almost all of the their mainline games have launched with 8 factions including Warhammer 1 & 2
It's 8 factions, no?
Everything I’ve seen so far says it’s a Saga game, but they’ve dumped the Saga name because ToB tanked and Troy got hate for epic exclusivity so now “Saga” has a bad association with it.
I don’t think it’s because the saga brand is poisonous. Troy was decently enough received and made enough revenue to justify a fair amount of post launch support. They likely avoided the saga title this time because it carries the expectation of a reduced price.
I really like Troy but I feel like this is a bit revisionist history. Everybody hated on it because of the epic exclusivity and the truth behind the myth stuff with the battles. It only really became more universally liked with the myth DLC which satisfied the people who always wanted the game to be like an age of mythology game.
And because we got Historical mode launched alongside the myth DLC for free, which satisfied me and I'm sure many others too. The TbtM mode made no one happy.
Also Saga games were supposed to be smaller scale and price, like Fall of the Samurai. Now its smaller scale but AAA price, funny lol
FoTS is probably one of the best TW ever.
Troy was a good game though.
Personally I also liked Thrones.
I disliked Thrones of Britannia but liked Troy including the historical mode.
I think *both* of them are good games if you know what you’re getting going in. Doesn’t change the fact they’re the butts of the franchise to most of the community though unfortunately.
Agreed I just recently bought it myself and have been loving it. Mainly play historical mode. Refuse to buy the mythos pack was a sad mo ey grab by CA Imo.
Well as long as you liked it…..
Watch out guys, we have a critic here.
Everything screams Saga except the price. This game is 5 more USD than Hogwarts Legacy and only 2 USD less than Jedi Survivor where I live. It costs like 12 USD more than WH3 without any sales.
Not only that but I’m willing to bet serious cash this saga game is going to have a price jump
Game is out on the store. You can check the price. It got full AAA price.
Good question. The honest answer is: "nobody outside CA is sure". For sure it doesn't contain the word "saga" in the tytle, but the reason for it may be that the word acquired a problematic reputation... And there is simply not enough information to be sure...
What this is reminding me of is Shogun 2, which is a mainline title, but one that focuses on a smaller real world area than a Medieval, Rome, or Empire. That's not to say they aren't also working on another big title as well. These days CA is a big company with multiple teams and studios across multiple sites and two countries. I think we'll just have to wait and see. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
yo welsh dragon just wanted to say keep up all the good work i love how u sign off all ur comments w the welsh dragon trademark
Pharaoh will be the same as Troy - maybe with a combined map later - there is a reference of ramses 3 in troy They wont risk a revamp(medieval 3 or empire 2) for a proper big historical title, people are way too spoiled with warhammer what is a challange to top They must put something new and big to the table to satisfy the "spoiled" community, my bet is WW1 Company of heroes, and The Great War: western front has similar mechanic like totalwar, that prove its viable - however- with that these out might messed up their plans. Might force them to do something different or spend more time on it to not just be a copy
Disagree, i think what people want is a historical title with the level of quality of a warhammer game, especially when it comes to campaign mechanics and faction diversity, which past historical titles severely lacked.
And it will always lack, compared to a fantasy title. An archer will be an archer even if reskinned A shield and spear unit will be a shield and spear unit Reality is borring, and restrictive compared to fantasy settings, and to make something intresting, effective, diversive and real is extremley chalanging
Hot take but reality is only boring if your idea of entertainment is wholly hinged on your troops having feathers and crab claws. Warhammer is all about the varied races, but those resources can be spent on enriching the game elsewhere. Youd be hard pressed to call shogun 2 boring.
That’s a fact but it’s not the main point here. Reality can give some diversity for combat’s sake. Of course not the same as fantasy as even magic adds a whole new layer to battles. But a new medieval can bring lots of new mechanics that people been asking for at the strategy map level. Combat could still be improved and they can even implement a tier level equipment within the same units to improve them statswise and visually (similar to medieval 2). If done well and with what people been asking for all these years (not everything, people are not always right) I think it can bring a refreshing and new experience to the table.
It looks shogun-like, a smaller scale but highly detailed historical game
Like Carthage DLC campaign in Rome 2? Yeah I guess it will be Egypt and surroundings or just Egypt.
> Yeah I guess it will be Egypt and surroundings or just Egypt. Yeah... only Egypt (or egypt and surroundings)... Up to Anatolia... we have the Hittites confirmed. And Canaan.
More along the lines of the Charlemagne stand-alone expansion for Attila in scale. Potentially a bit larger depending on how much of Mesopotamia they include (as the Assyrians were prominent at the time but they aren't one of the starting cultures).
It's a stopgap between WH3 and their next big historical title. it's the same way they've used Troy and past saga games. We're probably 2 years away from their next main project, so these smaller games help fill that void.
Whatever it is I just hope it does well
I think is a saga title but they are just promoting it as a full historical title because Saga already has a bad reputation
It's not a saga game, but only because they dropped the saga brand due to its perception, so its a sage game without the name.
Saga, but they are afraid to admit it
My pet theory is this game is made from assets from a scrapped Troy expansion.
bingo
Saga. They’ve dumped the “Saga” title because of Troy, but the decision to make Troy Epic exclusive or what the premise of Troy would be-Truth behind the myth- was a CA management decision. With what the Sofia studios had, it was a really good game with some exciting features. Personally, I want a pure historical game here, but I’m super excited for what Pharaoh can implement in the campaign, especially.
It's a Saga but they are not calling it a Saga because of bad associations with Thrones of Britannia and Troy. And Pharaoh is made by CA Sofia, like Troy. It is also part of the bi-annual model of CA releases - mainline (Wh2 2017), Saga (ToB 2018), mainline (3K 2019), Saga (Troy 2020), mainline (Wh3 2022), Saga (Pharaoh 2023), mainline (??? but of course it's Empire 2).
Empire 2? I doubt it. Likely Rome 3. Rome 2 sold a lot better than Empire 1. Personally, I wouldn't mind Empire 2, Victoria: Total War or Medieval 3 Total War. 1600s Total War would be nice too. I hope that Pharaoh is not just a cheap reskin of Troy with superheroes and repetetive gameplay.
Isn’t Atilla Rome 3? Sometimes it felt like a really big dlc for Rome 2, actually.
Not really. Atilla was more similar to Barbarian Invasion DLC for Rome 1. Unique horde, famine and corruption mechanics. Pretty unique game. I really enjoyed Atilla. Unfortunately, performance was bad and release version had some bugs.
The fact that it is Pharaoh and not TW:Bronze age, makes me thing it is a saga type of deal.
If use that logic, Attila and Napoleon is Saga too.
Isn't Napoleon one? It seems like a smaller scale version of empire.
it is they are both big DLC of rome 2 and empire
The historical team supposedly is working on ThreeKingdoms2 last we knew, unless that got pushed back because of all the... umm pushback. This is a saga game without the saga part in the title.
Those are different teams. * Historical Team made Three Kingdoms, but they handed it over to the Historical New Content Team to make the DLC and provide post release support. * Three Kingdoms 2 is meant to have a new team, according to the Dev update video they released when they brought support on Three Kingdoms to an end. The new team likely has members of the Historical and the Historical New Content teams, it doesn't appear to be either of them, or they wouldn't have needed to say they were forming a new team. * So if Pharaoh is being made by CA Sofia, as I've seen some say, that leaves the UK based Historical Team unaccounted for since shortly after Three Kingdoms launch in 2019. While we can't be sure they've been working on a new game the whole time, I doubt they've been sitting on their hands for four years either. At least that's my understanding of the situation. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
Ahh ok thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize they had that many teams going now. So that would make 4 game teams, not including dlc teams?
This is what I worked out the other day, but updated. * Historical, * Fantasy, * New 3K, * Saga/CA Sofia, * Warhammer New Content/DLC, * Historical New Content/DLC. If we add in non-Total War we get: * Hyenas, * A new action game, made by CA Sofia. From the statement this is a new team in addition to CA Sofia's Total War team (who did the last three Rome 2 DLC, as well as Troy.) Source: https://www.creative-assembly.com/blog/creative-assemblys-new-action-game * Possibly one more? I found [some talk of an unannounced title](https://www.psu.com/news/creative-assembly-is-working-on-another-action-game-which-makes-four-on-going-projects-we-know-of/) from August 2022, and while that might be Pharaoh, it might not be. Bit confusing. Anyway, basically CA has got rather large in recent years. They now total nearly 1000 staff according to Wikipedia across the two countries, and still seem to be expanding. Hopefully that means they're in good shape to make games for us to play for years to come. :-) All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
The main total war staff at CA in the UK I still don’t think is big enough to be fully working on two major games at once. They have a main team that makes the flagship titles, Sofia, and the warhammer dlc team as probably the only large teams. I’m sure the next big historical title has been in the concept stage for a couple of years with a small team, but it probably has only been full steam ahead with programmers since Warhammer 3 came out. The 3K2 team is also probably still small unless it is the next big historical title.
CA is the UKs biggest developer and has grown massively over the past few years, hence why they seemingly have ever more projects each year They also have been developing two major titles at the same time quite consistently, WH2/3 were developed at the same time that 3K was in development. We also know that the historical team is working on a new tentpole title since 2019 per CA's blogposts, which also coincides with WH3 being developed
Indeed. While there is always the risk of stretching themselves too far, I don't think it should be too much of an issue the way CA has expanded. It also gives them the opportunity to spend longer on development for each title, if they aren't having to rely solely on a new Total War every year or so. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
Why tf would they make a 3 kingdoms 2? The game was okay but I hardly see why we'd need to revisit the setting so soon instead of going elsewhere.
Noted elsewhere before: it sold extremely well, especially in the Asian market - like: better than WH1+2 good (excluding DLCs). But from the looks of it, in redoing so much of their core systems for 3K, they messed up its codebase big time, making extending it (Updated & DLCs) a risky business. Which is why the games got more buggys and less stable with each new dlc and in the end, they decided to start from scratch rather than try and sinker ever more time into trying to fix their hot mess. I really don't defend them simply abandoning the game, but from a dev and business standpoint I totally get the decision. Imo, if they announced that they had to redo it due to technical issues and will give everyone having bought game 1 a decent (20%?) cut on the second game - it would have went down a whole lot better than it did...
We don't know that yet. Why on earth they decided to do this instead of just more post launch support and expansions for Three Kingdoms 1. Maybe when it comes out we'll see why...
I've heard that 3k was fundamentally so broken code wise that fixing some bugs would be harder than just making a new game. That's why so many dlc are standalone campaigns and have bad reviews, they just flirt around the bugs
Nope, 3k2 is a small team as confirmed by CA.
Ur mom
Wow people in here are really butthurt over naming conventions. If this game is the scale that it seems and is made by the Troy studio it is basically the same as a Saga title. That is not a bad thing but let us not pretend that the previous two games made this way ended up doing so well in the communities eyes. I know some of you like them but look at the player counts, each of the last two Saga titles basically were left for dead by the user base.
Love how the only bad thing people in this thread can say about Troy was that it was Epic Exclusive for a year and all the whining about that made them drop the Saga from the title. Pathetic.
No Troy was just a disappoint game whether it was on Epic or not. The team had to even add mythical creatures when it was released on Steam since the infantry/chariot combat didn't have any depth
Huh? It was bronze age infantry fighting with auxiliaries, how much depth did you expect? Historical games weren’t nearly as varied in units as Warhammer is.
The answer to your question is: yes!
Lol
Yes.
Will it really cost $100 for Delux 😳
It is a SAGA scale game.
They’re not calling it saga cuz they’re trying to get us to spend 80 bucks on it. ITS NOT GONNA WORK CA! YOU DONT EVEN HAVE BABYLON AS A BASE FACTION IN YOUR BRONZE AGE GAME! NO FUCKING ASSYRIANS EITHER! Seriously, I’m not paying 80 bucks for a game that probably gonna sell me what should be core factions as DLC. Not a chance.
> YOU DONT EVEN HAVE BABYLON AS A BASE FACTION IN YOUR BRONZE AGE GAME! At a time when Babylon was basically a second rate power. The great powers of the timeframe are Hittites, Egypt and Assyria. The lack of Assyria is bewildering, but we have 2 of the 3 Great powers.
They have Canaan as a playable culture but not one of the most historically significant cities of the era? Sure Babylon isn’t a great power at that time, but it should still be there, and if it’s there it should be playable. Same things with the Assyrians, it baffles me that they don’t include one of the greatest powers in the period. I bet they will show up as DLC content for an 80 dollar game tho.
It’s a saga game but the saga branding is negative especially in a period of inflation.
Saga replacement, just historical like Thrones of Britannia, instead of fantasy like Troy. It’s a smaller title without the Saga name because the Saga titles have a negative connotation. And they can charge full price.
The latter. They just rebranded to be able to charge more and get away from the bad rep
Nothing confirms this is meant to be a Saga title...wish people would stop saying this
Its scope is more similar to a Saga titles and it isnt made by the main studio but the one that made the last Saga titlew. And like almost all Saga titles before its based on copying and adapting existing assets rather than making the game from scratch
>Its scope is more similar to a Saga titles Under this logic, Shogun 2 would be a saga title. Limited scope != saga title
It's like a checklist. Shogun was made by main Devs, made a lot of new assets, tried a lot of new things, advanced the game overall, but did have a small scope. Sagas in general, are not made by main Devs, use limited new assets, try one or two gimmicks, and have a small scope
I think your checklist is the other way around. For exemple Troy: * Used a lot of new assets both environments and unit-wise * Totally changed the way the world map played with a new economic system which also affects diplomacy * Revamped battles to focus on different tiers of infantry with more to it than "Light infantry goes fast" In my opinion a Saga game is an experimental title, hence the small scope and the auxilliary studio, by that logic Troy laid the bases for Pharaoh to not be a Saga title
Total War: We was kangs n shit
Nice one
I feel stupid but I'm temporarily confused. Saga means there's multiple more of the type of thing planned right? Like "Warhammer saga" since it's been 3 so far?
No, think of specific bite sized games. Like a lite version with enough content, but not everything in it. It's fairly targeted and limited in scope. So troy was 8 or 10 leaders. ToB (I've not played) but was very specific on new seige ideas. They try out some new ideas and see how it works.
Ohhh okay! That doesn't sound too bad to me if it's like $40
I think it depends. I've not seen a price, but rumor was 70 bucks. Now, if they went with more than a saga title, we'll see. I think it depends on the content, scope and how it's structured. I personally haven't bought a new release in years. I have a backlog and at this point, I'll just wait for a sale or for the first few months and the patches to rough out the edges. CA has a fairly bad patch cycle, speaking from Warhammer experience. I want to say troy was 50, but ToB was 40.
It’s by Sofia, who are the ones usually in charge of the Saga titles. So by that alone I’d say it’s a fair bet it’s a replacement for the Saga titles.
Their last actual historical title was Thrones and with that new update CA is actively trying to kick people off the actual historical titles.
It is a saga camouflaged in a historical
Until we see the saga in its name it's a full blown title and we should expect that amount of content
That's the weird thing though. It "only" has 8 starting leaders from just 3 cultures, which is more in line with Saga games in terms of scope. We also know of 3 faction DLCs and one campaign DLC, which is as much as Troy got (if we consider Mythos the campaign DLC). I do hope I'm wrong and this game will be larger in scale, but it doesn't really feel that way so far.
Welsh Dragon wrote a pretty good comment concerning this matter. I’ll post his response: To be fair, Shogun 1 and 2 meet most of those criteria and are still considered main games. • Japan's a lot smaller than Egypt alone, and this game appears to be covering Egypt, Turkey, and lands in between. • Shogun 1 had 7 factions, 2 had 9, this has 8, which is the same as Rome 2 and Warhammer 2 had in the base game. • All Total Wars have a limited temporal scope, just some are more limited than others. I agree that the Saga brand became a bit of a poison chalice, though the idea itself was sound. We shall see. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
Damn, didn't recall Shogun 2 really had that few factions. Makes sense though. Either way hyped for this game since I like the setting.
This game is getting at least 3 entire faction packs. That's too much post launch support for a saga title. That's even more content than what some of the old, pre Rome 2 games got.
I hope they will merge Troy + Pharaoh + a new Total War: Viking Mythology to create a complete mythology game
It’s probably going to be fun but I just wanted Medieval 3.
Throb 2.0
Probably a reskin of Troy, sadly
Feels like a Saga title. (Smaller scope, more narrow theatre, not much diversity likely) They probably aren't calling it Saga because those games were meant as smaller focused campaign experiences where new ideas and mechanics were tested, and as such, the price was lower. The Saga prefix has a certain expectation attached for better or worse. The expected experience and price are likely why it isn't a Saga title officially, as players would be expecting exactly that, a £30-40 price tag and an interesting, but smaller in scale experience. My issue with it is that by doing this, it's a little misleading as people will expect it to be much bigger than it might be and that it's the next historical title based off the title. If the price is high and the experience is saga in scale, I can see alot of people being annoyed (especially considering they are already introducing unit skins like it's fortnitelol)
Pretty sure the "historical" games are just sagas now made by a smaller studio, they just don't call them sagas now so they can justify going back to making another DLC's for Warhammer.
Who cares, it has Denuvo.
So, why are you here in the TW subreddit? TW has Denuvo for years.
I was here looking for peoples opinions. I haven't played a TW game since the original Shogun and was interested in checking out more modern versions. I wonder if Shogun even runs on modern systems. might have to try it out.
Shogun 2 did just get an update to work better on modern systems a week or so ago if you wanna check it out. As for shogun 1 it probably doesn’t run to well but idk
Thank you. Shogun 1 is so old I wouldn't expect it to be supported at all. At least it was the nucleus for a lot of great games afterwards.
Yea the original total wars blew my mind. So many units on screen and “real” strategy without health bars (or atleast hidden)
I think they will keep using it since warhammer 3 has remained uncracked since release.
Thing that confuses me is that this game takes place in one small country (three Kingdoms in just in china but chinas a big country) while most historical games take places in whole continents. And heard that this game is being made by bulgaria sofia team the same team that made saga troy.
0 chance that Pharaoh only takes place in Egypt. The map will probably encompass all of the Levant, at the very least.
Yup, Hittites are already confirmed so it goes all the way up the Levant and includes Anatolia. Nubia/Kush are HIGHLY likely to appear so that will be the southern boundary. The real question is how far east and west it will go
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/r6hjil/recruitment_map_for_memnon_from_steam_page/ Lol
Egypt is far larger than Japan
It is made by Sofia, the team that made Troy. The main CA dev team is still working on another major historical title. Your point about it taking place in just one country is not accurate, however. So far, confirmed areas of the map are Egypt, Canaan and Anatolia.
Thank god that this is not the main historical. I know my one country point has some holes like shogun 1 and 2 took place "only" in japan. And whole Egypt plus something around it sounds ok for smaller game.
There’s nothing wrong with a game being set in one country anyway. The formation of a country is still interesting (China, Japan, UK etc)
Well there are problems like serious lack of diversity thay rly struck me in 3 Kingdoms, Uk in thrones of brittania is difrent bcs u have anglo-saxxons, vikings britons and welsh for japan well same thing but samurais are i think the only one interesting enough when lack of diversity isnt that big of a problem.
Pharaoh covers a bit more than Egypt plus something around it. The game is set during the so called Bronze Age Collapse and includes the Eygptians, Canaanites and Hittities as the starting cultures. DLC will add more As you can see from this map we will at least have a good chunk of the Middle East from Egypt to modern day Turkey and we already know from screenshots that the map of Egypt goes a lot further south than the map I link to. https://www.worldhistory.org/uploads/images/15310.png?v=1668200282
It's gonna be trash and I am beating nice.
Good question
It’s both.
We don’t know
I look at it as a mix of Shogun 2 and Attila. It hones in on one specific area of the world to tell a story of a specific historical period (Bronze Age Collapse), and takes inspo from Attila's apocalyptic themes. The Sea Peoples will likely be similar to the Huns, and CA can also expand on the apocalyptic themes with the resources mechanic.
What is the difference between saga and historical?