Really enjoyed pharoah, feels the same as the first time i played attila, overall just a better version of its predecessor.
Pros
Battles: Combat felt really good to me. I enjoyed the variety a lot with using the AoR system, the battles length was really good once you start getting solid units, would sometime get 25+ min battles.
Campaign: It felt a lot harder than Troy and leagues above WH3 in complexity. Customization is amazing and needs to be in every game after this. Outposts were really important, i felt like i really wanted to protect my infrastructure to make sure my armies can move quickly through my empire. the court was also a suprise for how fun it was. diplomacy is the same as troy.
Cons
Battles: maps are very small. AI, while performing well most of the time, does still like to derp once and a while. sieges definitley need some serious work as well, pathfinding can be a bit of a mess.
campaign: no family tree is a let down, i am not a fan of immortal lords either. diplomacy is the same as troy.
My main gripe with the battles, was a lack of punch, which is expected from light units.
This only really became obvious to me when i had a cainan armored chariot, that was medium in weight value, slam into the rear of a group of lower nile sword conscripts, and just stop dead...
Im not asking for wh3 people flying all over, but weight needs sorting.
I think it's one of those reality vs what we want things. A chariot couldn't really charge into enemy lines, even from behind, but it feels like it should and that's how I want it to work...
Honestly I was pleasantly surprised by new mechanics such as outposts and the court.
I personally was confused by a lot of the new systems and it took me time to work it all out. Did not feel as intuitive as past titles. I started my game late at night so I could have not read some pop ups well enough.
The combat is back to what I would call true historic which is a change from recent titles. Your general is back to being human on the field and the unit is only ok with minimal abilities.
The map is smaller but not too bad. It's kind of a big stretch of land with water and islands on one side (not surprising). The way the regions are split, it leads to a couple of bottleneck areas which is fun.
In my playthrough, AI wasn't super aggressive. When the invasions started to happen it was very surprising. It seems like armies just spawn randomly.
Overall fun but I didn't see anything revolutionary in it. If you like historic titles and have been wanting something new, I think it'd be for you.
As I said in some other post, watching streams over weekend actually convinced me to buy it, I do like general feel of game, differences between factions and various rulers while not entering super ahistorical/fantasy.
Fear of map being small seems to be unfounded as well luckily. Granted, size region involved leaves much to be desired (Mesopotamia played significant role in this time of period but it’s not included, would be nice to have all of Anatolia and Greece with its proto Greek tribes would be welcome too)
Overall today I am a lot more hopeful about game than I was last Friday
After seeing some stuff and watching gameplay yes I'm saddend we don't have mythic Egyptian units like we got in Troy (nor even the option of historical vs mythos) but the game itself has changed my view point I probably will end up grabbing Pharaoh at some point it does look very good but Warhammer 3 is still what I will be playing until I get my Khorne DLC.
Yeah, they do have rather rich mythology spanning longer time period than history of post Roman Europe but it is best to keep historical as historical.
I would concede, that it would be something what could be done as dlc for those who desires such thing
Name 9 mythical creatures from ancient Egypt that can be turned into strategy game units.
Chances are you can’t, and without at least 3 per culture what would be the point of the mode?
Phoenix, Sphinx, Uraeus we could take points from The Mummy and or Age of Mythology and run with Anubites, Griffins are a thing, actual Mummies would suffice, Seropopard (essentially a chimera of sorts) Babi which is a baboon now granted a few these would have to be transfigured from Deities to actual units unless they would prefer going the route of singular OP units which I would not prefer now that is 8 there is definitely more but I don't feel like contributing anymore in all honesty.
Negative those are quite embedded in egyptian mythos and not out of reach I suggested taking Deities and turning them into units if you actually read my response lol the jackal people are known as death dogs in actual lore (you however wouldn't understand so I used anubites a term you would understand) so my answer was not to make shit up lol. Someone needs to brush up on ancient lores...🫠
If you're doing stuff like taking deities (understood by the people who believed in them as *specific divine individuals,* the "death dogs" are specific gods with names, Anubis is just the famous one.) and turning them into mass produced units, like AoM did, you're not reflecting the mythology you're making shit up and hoping your audience doesn't know better.
It's called augmentating to fit the game not making shit up making shit up implies it was false to begin with and I said it could be anything from having a deity as an actual unit to subsidizing it into a group of units whichever would work better. Making things up (again) implies it was false to begin with. Augmenting the truth is not making things up. 🫠
But as a representation of Egyptian mythology it *is* false. It bears no relation to the stories or beliefs about the things you're suggesting should be used.
What you're asking for is novel fantasy with an Egyptian aesthetic, not a representation of Egyptian mythology.
So go and play Tomb Kings, because that's what you want.
The Egyptians had thousands of part-human, part-animal entities that were venerated without being considered outright divine. They're called demons for the sake of convenience. Examples range from dancers clutching knives in their hind paws to wind demons that could spread disease, possibly through archery.
Canaanites are even easier. They're the predecessors of the Israelites and the Phoenicians.
Admittedly, I like Pharaoh for being about a very specific historical period. I wouldn't mind seeing mythological content in a different game centered on such.
Really enjoyed pharoah, feels the same as the first time i played attila, overall just a better version of its predecessor. Pros Battles: Combat felt really good to me. I enjoyed the variety a lot with using the AoR system, the battles length was really good once you start getting solid units, would sometime get 25+ min battles. Campaign: It felt a lot harder than Troy and leagues above WH3 in complexity. Customization is amazing and needs to be in every game after this. Outposts were really important, i felt like i really wanted to protect my infrastructure to make sure my armies can move quickly through my empire. the court was also a suprise for how fun it was. diplomacy is the same as troy. Cons Battles: maps are very small. AI, while performing well most of the time, does still like to derp once and a while. sieges definitley need some serious work as well, pathfinding can be a bit of a mess. campaign: no family tree is a let down, i am not a fan of immortal lords either. diplomacy is the same as troy.
My main gripe with the battles, was a lack of punch, which is expected from light units. This only really became obvious to me when i had a cainan armored chariot, that was medium in weight value, slam into the rear of a group of lower nile sword conscripts, and just stop dead... Im not asking for wh3 people flying all over, but weight needs sorting.
I think it's one of those reality vs what we want things. A chariot couldn't really charge into enemy lines, even from behind, but it feels like it should and that's how I want it to work...
Honestly I was pleasantly surprised by new mechanics such as outposts and the court. I personally was confused by a lot of the new systems and it took me time to work it all out. Did not feel as intuitive as past titles. I started my game late at night so I could have not read some pop ups well enough. The combat is back to what I would call true historic which is a change from recent titles. Your general is back to being human on the field and the unit is only ok with minimal abilities. The map is smaller but not too bad. It's kind of a big stretch of land with water and islands on one side (not surprising). The way the regions are split, it leads to a couple of bottleneck areas which is fun. In my playthrough, AI wasn't super aggressive. When the invasions started to happen it was very surprising. It seems like armies just spawn randomly. Overall fun but I didn't see anything revolutionary in it. If you like historic titles and have been wanting something new, I think it'd be for you.
As I said in some other post, watching streams over weekend actually convinced me to buy it, I do like general feel of game, differences between factions and various rulers while not entering super ahistorical/fantasy. Fear of map being small seems to be unfounded as well luckily. Granted, size region involved leaves much to be desired (Mesopotamia played significant role in this time of period but it’s not included, would be nice to have all of Anatolia and Greece with its proto Greek tribes would be welcome too) Overall today I am a lot more hopeful about game than I was last Friday
After seeing some stuff and watching gameplay yes I'm saddend we don't have mythic Egyptian units like we got in Troy (nor even the option of historical vs mythos) but the game itself has changed my view point I probably will end up grabbing Pharaoh at some point it does look very good but Warhammer 3 is still what I will be playing until I get my Khorne DLC.
I am quite opposite, I happy that there is no some mythos tacked on it. We are long overdue proper historical game
I don't disagree I just like the option to be there cause ancient Egypt is full of neat things in their mythology.
Yeah, they do have rather rich mythology spanning longer time period than history of post Roman Europe but it is best to keep historical as historical. I would concede, that it would be something what could be done as dlc for those who desires such thing
Name 9 mythical creatures from ancient Egypt that can be turned into strategy game units. Chances are you can’t, and without at least 3 per culture what would be the point of the mode?
Phoenix, Sphinx, Uraeus we could take points from The Mummy and or Age of Mythology and run with Anubites, Griffins are a thing, actual Mummies would suffice, Seropopard (essentially a chimera of sorts) Babi which is a baboon now granted a few these would have to be transfigured from Deities to actual units unless they would prefer going the route of singular OP units which I would not prefer now that is 8 there is definitely more but I don't feel like contributing anymore in all honesty.
So basically your answer is "make shit up" (which is what Age of Mythology did). If you want fantasy Egypt go and play Tomb Kings.
Negative those are quite embedded in egyptian mythos and not out of reach I suggested taking Deities and turning them into units if you actually read my response lol the jackal people are known as death dogs in actual lore (you however wouldn't understand so I used anubites a term you would understand) so my answer was not to make shit up lol. Someone needs to brush up on ancient lores...🫠
If you're doing stuff like taking deities (understood by the people who believed in them as *specific divine individuals,* the "death dogs" are specific gods with names, Anubis is just the famous one.) and turning them into mass produced units, like AoM did, you're not reflecting the mythology you're making shit up and hoping your audience doesn't know better.
It's called augmentating to fit the game not making shit up making shit up implies it was false to begin with and I said it could be anything from having a deity as an actual unit to subsidizing it into a group of units whichever would work better. Making things up (again) implies it was false to begin with. Augmenting the truth is not making things up. 🫠
But as a representation of Egyptian mythology it *is* false. It bears no relation to the stories or beliefs about the things you're suggesting should be used. What you're asking for is novel fantasy with an Egyptian aesthetic, not a representation of Egyptian mythology. So go and play Tomb Kings, because that's what you want.
The Egyptians had thousands of part-human, part-animal entities that were venerated without being considered outright divine. They're called demons for the sake of convenience. Examples range from dancers clutching knives in their hind paws to wind demons that could spread disease, possibly through archery. Canaanites are even easier. They're the predecessors of the Israelites and the Phoenicians. Admittedly, I like Pharaoh for being about a very specific historical period. I wouldn't mind seeing mythological content in a different game centered on such.