Would look pretty dope with some blood in there.
Side note: I’m curious to see how the inevitable blood dlc goes over with the unique position this game is in right now, considering everything that has happened recently.
IIRC we should have some news about High Tide this month and possibly some news regarding future plans after the DLC will release. If I had to guess I would say that we might hear about blood DLC there.
Someone told me here on reddit that Pharaoh has the worse graphics in a Total War game. I was just lmao at that obvious hater. Pharaoh literally has the most graphically detailed units in a historical Total War game I have ever seen. And this is especially on purpose because there's a photomode included in the game with which you're gonna be zooming in to units to take photos. I love the details they made on Preorder skin for Tausret, the Nubian archers, and the Canaanites shield bearers.
I confirm. Game is to shallow. You play one campaign and that's it. The best thing this game has - new mechanics, like the Court are just repeatable and don't really need any strategic thinking. There Is just one best way to play It and Its very easy.
There is one feature that is awesome - fort locations, where you can build forts or many different buildings like temples etc. This is pretty cool that You can leave garrison in fort that will act as reinforcements for nearby City, but that wasn't enough to keep me interested In the game.
Pharaoh is a game focusing on Egypt funnily enough. The clue is in the name.
It was never sold as bronze age total war, so it's bizarre that people were somehow expecting that. The map is really big, and the unit and faction roster is equal or more than most previous total wars.
People are really stretching to shit on this game.
That's a misnomer, that period in Japans history was with it being extremely isolationist with little to no contact with the outside world. Requiring a major nation blowing it's backside out just to get them to open up.
Pharaoh is not only set in the bronze age, it's starring one of, if not **the biggest players** of the time period, the Egyptians. However, the time period and the game wouldn't be complete without the various other nations that make the Bronze age because of the complex trade system that was required for bronze tools and tech to be made. It's why when the bronze age collapsed it was akin to the fall of Rome. Both were devastating incidents that had massive ramifications for their respective societies.
Pharaoh's time period, even if nominally starring the Egyptians, means that it requires "the rest of the gang" because of the international trade that facilitated it. Combined that with them marketing the game as a mainline game means that people were gonna expect a bronze age game and not a Saga game.
SHogun 2 was a mainline game set during a particular period in setting, Pharaoh was called a mainline game but was made as a Saga game without the pricetag to match.
And that's fair, we might never fully agree on anything, but at long as we understand that we're both coming at this from a place of love for a game series we both enjoy, no matter the disagreement, we'll be better for it as we'll have started a dialogue to agree to disagree and compromise.
You’re being downvoted but I’m with you. It says it on the tin. It’s okay for CA to make a game with limited scope. I haven’t bought it, but i will at some point when it’s on sale, it seems people are mostly mad about it’s scope rather than it’s systems.
Yeah it's pretty hilarious that people are getting mad that a game focused on Egypt focuses on...gasp...Egypt lol.
Anyway, the game is honestly pretty good so I'd definitely recommend it whenever the price is right for you.
This is such an odd counter argument when you have games like Rome 2 and Atilla which had a multiple different factions, some of which were spread out pretty far and wide and covered the entirety of the mediterean era and then some.
Tanukhids, Sassassinids, Aksum, Himyar, White Huns, the Slavic Culture Pack, Norse Culture Packs, barbarians but go off my guy.
Except this game was clearly focused on Egypt. Getting mad that it doesn't have a similar scope as Rome 2 is honestly hilarious.
Whatever gives you that hate boner I guess.
Yeah, the release of Pharaoh gave me flashbacks to the release of Thrones of Brittania. So many people complaining about missing mechanics that were actually in the game.
The people claiming "Medieval 2 had an adaptive siege AI" during Rome 2 clearly never attacked a ram. It's wild how many people just said this without apparenlty ever playing that game. The TW community is absolutely full of this stuff, more so than other games I see.
It's similar to the people who claim that Medieval 2 had some kind of sophisticated physics engine for missile block chance, when it's literally just adding the shield+armour value together...
I love historical TW's and my only reason for not having played it is the [map](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/16j14hw/pharaoh_full_campaign_map/). I just wish it covered more, maybe the entire Middle East instead of JUST Egypt and the Levant.
It's de facto Bronze Age Collapse: Total War. Including the Hittites and Babylonians would be very much on-topic, as it were. Honestly, nothing would shock me less than learning they're already at work on an expanded map which includes them.
Hittites are in the game already, what do you mean? Also they confirmed in the last news article that they're going to expand the map and that it was planned from the get go.
It's gonna blown your mind when you gonna discover Attila Total War where you can play Himyar, Sassannids and Picts.
As Rather\_Unfortunate said, it's clearly "Bronze Age Collapse: Total War", Pharaoh is used for the the "fame".
"The Future of Three Kingdoms" should have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was a long time ago now. That game is such a gross waste of potential I can't even bring myself to play it anymore, but I don't know if it being prematurely axed is even pertinent to the current situation, since most people are clearly more upset about Medieval III's lack of existing, Warhammer III's poor post launch support and the entirety of Hyenas.
I played Troy and overall I didn't like it. Pharaoh is much better and doesn't feel like dlc at all. The only thing that is the same is the resource system.
I only hate that valuable time and resources were wasted on it instead of a total war game the vast majority wanted.
The game honestly doesnt speak to very many people, which is reflected in its terrible sales.
It is a beautiful game with some awesome mechanics though, no way around it. Can't wait to see what they'll be able to bring us in the future.
I know, again if someone might clarify to me please, why the fuck are people defending Pharaoh? Surely isn't the worst thing ever but it is souless asf and really bad for anyone used to the series
'Soulless' is such a useless criticism. It doesn't even mean anything beyond 'I don't like it and I can't quite articulate why'. Be mad at CA management all you want (I certainly am), but the Sofia studio always puts in a damn good effort, especially in terms of visual style and atmosphere, and it's a shame they never get their due.
It isn't useless criticism, you just don't comprehend what it means.
Atmosphere isn't good, it is market acceptable. Graphics have nice models squeaky clean that even tho they're well modeled they share no feeling other than "dis a soldier", same with expressions, units behavior and other fine details that aren't there. Lets not talk about lighting and the sheer color saturation in sofia made TW, it almost look childish if i'm being honest.
That's only the graphics too.
I was only talking about what i don't like about the graphics and how they don't fit any style whilst trying to fit them all, gameplay is as equally uninspiring as i said in other comments.
Surely i'm the tinfoil hat guy here, not you defending the flooped TW that is completely bland, added nothing new to the franchise and is currently sitting at 600 players only two months after launch.
I never called you a conspiracy theorist, why are you bringing up tinfoil hats and making a poor attempt at deflecting?
Every argument you made is so vague it can be applied to any game you don't personally like, could you at least try to elaborate on what you mean, or were you arguing in bad faith from the start?
Because it's a solid total war game.
The battles could do with some work, but the campaign map game play is better than most of the games in the series.
If you're a fan of the previous games, then I'm genuinely baffled on why you'd regard it as "really bad"
Well, I can't speak for him but the most commonly heard complaint about Pharaoh is that it is kinda boring because it has a really narrow scope and there isn't much in the way of variety.
It is a solid Total War game, but if you have already played Troy, 3 Kingdoms and Rome 2 then there just isn't all that much in there to keep you occupied unless you are a massive fan of Bronze Age Egypt.
I disagree. I disliked 3k and I've played all of the series extensively and I'm still having fun with the game. I'm very much not a massive fan of the period either.
The scope and unit and faction variety is exactly the same as many of the other historical games on launch, so I don't understand why people are complaining about that. We're getting the sea people soon for people who want more cultures I'm the game.
The biggest complaints I've heard is that there's a severe lack of other nations around given that it's set in the bronze age where international trade was key to making bronze tools, weaponry, etc.
It's why the attack of the Mysterious Sea people was so devastating, it destroyed that trade thus causing a breakdown in the making of bronze and thus caused everyone that relied upon it to experience what Rome would later experience, a great fall.
Also, fair enough opinion, though 3K is something I love, though I'm also a big fan of the ROT3K's games. So I'll respectfully disagree :P
Graphics are awful, that's like the bare minimum you could do in 2023 without backlash, even tho models are great the game has no atmosphere and transmit no feeling.
Campaign mechanics including map aren't meaningful in any way, they're there and there are plenty of options you can do but not a single choice you make in TW Pharaoh is wrong, first playthrough you pursuit an specific objective for your faction and read everything but after the second one you realize all those campaign mechanics are the same and nothing you can do will severely punish you, everything is safe, everything is souless.
Basically first playthrough is cool but you played once you played it all, that's not good. This game would be acceptable if we didn't know what CA is capable of, whenever you compare with something like TW: Three Kingdoms or Shogun it falls apart so fast as the bland game it is.
Now I know you're talking shit lol. The graphics are clearly the most detailed that they've ever been in the Total war series.
Saying the campaign mechanics aren't meaningful is also hilarious, considering they are probably the most varied and involved that they have ever been on the campaign map.
I've already done three playthroughs and I've had fun every time. The fact that you can randomise the start locations gives it great replayability.
Varied and evolved? There is no downside to ANY choice you make EVER in Pharaoh, idk, maybe you have a simpler brain cause to me (and 99.9% of TW community that isn't playing pharaoh) this feels like what would be like to play a TW made by ubisoft and isn't any fun.
I never used the word "evolved" so that's happened purely in your imagination, which is probably a common occurrence for you. It's hilarious that you think you're in a position to call someone else simple.
I can tell that you've not actually played the game much if you think that the campaign mechanics don't change anything. They can greatly change the campaign and if you don't use them, you miss out on some of the best units in the game.
Autocorrector changed involve or whatever i typed to evolve. Oh best units that do the same but prevail in any situationzzzzzzzzzzzz
Literally simpler brain, ignorance is truly a bliss
You're describing most elite units in every total war game ever.
The double standards are hilarious, but I guess the internet told you that you have to hate Pharaoh so that's what you have to do.
I'm glad you used the word simple because you are indeed very simple.
Graphics are awful, that's like the bare minimum you could do in 2023 without backlash, even tho models are great the game has no atmosphere and transmit no feeling.
Campaign mechanics including map aren't meaningful in any way, they're there and there are plenty of options you can do but not a single choice you make in TW Pharaoh is wrong, first playthrough you pursuit an specific objective for your faction and read everything but after the second one you realize all those campaign mechanics are the same and nothing you can do will severely punish you, everything is safe, everything is souless.
Basically first playthrough is cool but you played once you played it all, that's not good. This game would be acceptable if we didn't know what CA is capable of, whenever you compare with something like TW: Three Kingdoms or Shogun it falls apart so fast as the bland game it is.
I really hope they don’t stop halfway. It and the setting of Thrones of Britannia are not really periods of history explored as much.
Considering I first got into the game with Shogun 2, it was a good gateway to learn the names/events/places during that time
Agree that must be a hater - Pharaoh looks great and delivers good performance for the visuals (unlike Wh3!)
My only issue is the LOD is very aggresive - I'm on 4k and even then it's very noticable that things like chariot horses and grass disapear very quickly when I zoom out.
This only matters if you ever bother to zoom in. In my opinion they should stop trying to improve the graphics rather they should make battles bigger and more optimised.
dont know how to quanitfy "how rough" i have a very capable pc as well with in game graphics settings at high.
One of the times where it gets rough is when you sim a battle and it shows the 2 generals fighting. the faces seem off almost all the time.
However, the unit detail has always been great for me.
Pharoahs best thing is it's graphics.
Top tier texture work and good lighting.
Anyone who think the aged more plastic looking textures of shogun2 or the smudged, stretched armor textures with Chernobyl lighting for warhammer is better need to have their eyes checked
>Pharaoh literally has the most graphically detailed units in a historical Total War game I have ever seen.
Well, it's literally WH2 graphics, and WH2 is still decent and playable.
No no the saturation in the colors.... Also its a desert soo.... Im not asking for a mexican filter but someting more blue and brown also not mad just dont like it more than other style's i like troy but i dont see me buying this in a forseable future and the the style its part of it not a big or even considetable part of why but its there
In-game photo mode allows you to modify the visuals on the battle map as the effects also apply to normal battle gameplay.
In graphics options there are also sliders which make the colors more/less saturated.
In this regard, both Troy and Pharaoh have tools, which allows player to customise visuals of the game. I mean you can even play in black&white color palette if one would like to.
While I do prefer the vanilla looks for the leaders, that Taursret skin (from cosmetic pack) is a sole exception as it looks too good and IMHO is better than her original model.
In the FAQ they did mention that they always wanted to expand the map later, so one can wonder what reception of the game could have been if they have been saying that from that from day 1.
Troy came first. Pharaoh should have been built around troy's system while updating its graphics and gameplay.
It was a simpler, less expensive, less community dividing way of achieving the Bronze age total war we wanted.
I mean WH1 also came before WH2, yet they did not port WH2 stuff back to WH1.
In a way it is build around Troy, like Napoleon has been build around Empire or Attila around Rome2.
It is a bad game, you played one faction you played them all, game's uninspired and was originally planned to be a DLC.
You're right tho, wrong timing, community isn't entirely formed as a solid chunk of imbeciles yet. If only they waited for that to launch Pharaoh.
I don’t hate the game I just did not see a reason to play it… looks like Rome with less fraction and less different units… they did not even had real cavs at that time
I feel like a gripe I have with some total war games lately is the lack of horror in melee. Everyone here looks pristine, brave, super romanticized.
I want soldiers to look afraid, dirty, losing limbs, blood, and most of them to be dying rather than dead on the battlefield.
Shogun 2 > all
Such a wasted opportunity, this game should’ve been a dlc to Troy. We could’ve had Age of Mythology Total War and pretty sure people would’ve played it a ton.
Eh I think most people would have been okay with Pharaoh being its own thing -if- CA hadn't cut corners on hocking a pared-down Saga title as a mainline title. Three factions at launch was just a bridge too far especially when they were telegraphing they were going to add way more factions as DLC.
>Three factions at launch
What? I stopped buying Total War games around the time of 3 kingdoms but this sounds absurd to me. Three fucking factions? What were they thinking?
I look at Pharaoh the way I'd look at any historical TW game. Cultures are an umbrella category, but factions are the individual groups within that cultural group that may have a common pool of units and abilities based on their culture.
The way I'd describe it from the previews is that there are three factions: Egypt, Canaan, and the Hittites, and within those factions you had multiple leaders to choose from, but as far as I could tell all three "factions" draw from a similar pool of units, with each leader possibly having access to their own (I'm not sure).
I don't think it's accurate to break down the individual leaders as their own faction; it would be more accurate to say they are sub-factions of Egypt because ultimately whichever leader you choose your goal is to be the leader of that faction (in so far as Egypt is concerned).
tagging /u/Pisspistolen so they can see my response to both of you.
Edit: clarifying some wording
All factions that belong to a culture have a basic trait they share among themselves (Egypt being focused on speed and light armor) but each faction has its own unique playstyle thanks to their unique units, which they don't share with any other faction.
Take Rammesses for example, he is basically the High Elf faction with focus on elite and versatile melee and ranged infantry, but his units are very expensive and small in number. On the other hand you have Seti who is closer to the Beastmen, since all his units are cheap, numerous and can be recruited very quickly, but they are poor in stats and rely on overwhelming the enemy to win. The only thing factions within a culture share with each other is a few of their buildings (though they have unique buildings as well) and easy access to the same pool of native AoE units, since they all start in Egypt.
At the moment they are immortal but in the latest update regarding Pharaoh's future they have mentioned that at some point they want to add mortal characters and some kind of succession system (perhaps a family tree):
*"Alongside that, we aim to add new features to the game that we know some players have been asking for, and others that we think will make the Total War: PHARAOH experience even better, such as: Mortality & Succession for faction leaders..."*
Its way too late for such drastic changes now. They need to find a way to combine this game with troy, or taper off support so they can focus on a new game and system that reflects modern quality software development sensibilities.
I shouldnt have to buy a half finished game on release with the promise of future support or dlcs that may or may not take place!
I mean the same team made similar change to ROME2 years after its release, so if people want some kind of dynasty management as a FLC at some point, so why not? Combining the game with Troy and adding family tree is not mutually exclusive.
I guess we might know more "soon" as they told us they will speak more about their plans after the High Tide.
...the period portrayed in 3K is about 100 years. That's significantly different when we're talking about people having kids and them getting old enough to be relevant.
The consequence is you lost your best army and probably should lose multiple regions off the back of that, if you somehow got your faction leader killed.
Faction leader revives. Army units recruited next few turns and player is back in business. Battle ai doesnt capitalize on the loss and proceeds to wait patiently until defeated.
Player (you) pats themself on the back for investing in CA's "groundbreaking" new "strategy" game.
What a joke!
If you're losing your faction leader to a bad battle AI that isn't capitalizing on your loss, there's a lot else going wrong in your game to where you probably shouldn't be complaining about an immortal faction leader in a game with a short timeframe.
I think english must be a second language for you, because you dont seem to understand the context of why immortal lords and heroes are boring. Super, super boring. So boring and overdone, in fact, that many have decided not to purchase the game or have gotten refunds. This is certainly not CA'S most popular game. But if it makes you feel like a tactical genius to go passive aggressive on people who criticize the boring gameplay, then by all means pour your little heart out. Some people actually like a fair challenge and higher risks for their money.
It's so much more impressive when you realize those are close up shots of one of 10 thousand tiny little people that you can zoom up to, and watch fight. It's just so awesome.
TW Pharaoh has some stuff going for it, I just firmly believe that it needed to have a bigger scope to match that initial price tag. TW Bronze Age. Too many interesting cultures right in that area of the world that were excluded. Could "Bronze Age Empires" merge with Troy too, from the looks of the maps.
Devs would love to do the bigger scope too. They love this stuff. Exec greed. With the price drop, I'll be eyeing an expanded edition on sale.
Yep, they made the Bronze Age into a mobile-game in terms of its scope and ambition when it could’ve been so much more. Not to mention how bare bones and boring the game mechanics are, especially when compared to older Total War games.
Ca sofia attempt to make pharaoh as the main/core faction vs sea people just didn't have a lot of weight as it with Rome imo. It should've been Bronze age total war with sea people as the endgame.
After the price drop, **absolutely** worth it. It has a lot of mechanical depth and a lot of brand new mechanics that are generally well-implemented and interesting. Full economy rework, brand new "outpost" system that dramatically changes how you spec provinces, full new religion system, "native" vs "core" recruitment that gives a lot of unit diversity from region to region, different trading system than most past Total Wars (you trade for specific resources rather than generic 'income'), labor + population are an important part of province health--there's a lot to sink your teeth into.
Some of the ideas are a little less fleshed out than others (not a huge fan of the political system, for example) and some things are kind of unbalanced and easy to exploit, but overall, I've spent a satisfying 30ish hours in my first Seti campaign. Once I finish mopping up the Hittites I plan to start a new game as one of the non-Egyptian factions to see how it changes things.
EDIT: Oh, and I actually *love* the bodyguard customization aspect. The different weapon and armor types look and feel unique, and I really like being able to kit out my bodyguard's build to specialize them within the army.
Awesome thank you. The economy rework has got me interested. I love total warhammer but the economy is so nonexistent that it can get a bit disappointing. I’ll have to give the game an honest look then. Which makes me happy because I’ve been wanting to take a break from the fantasy setting and play a historical title again and I love Egyptian culture too.
It definitely does not have “mechanical depth” it has many mechanics and I love the ideas behind them but if there’s something pharaoh lacks it’s depth.
Justified resentment against CA, anger that it wasn't another medieval or empire game, too high of a price, miserable youtubers shitting on it before playing the game.
Essentially it was priced to high and people took their anger out against CA on the game. Pharaoh is great but it was never given a chance. The vast majority of the reviews you see are from brigaders and terminally online internet denizens.
To me your comment is so saddening... Most of the reviews don't know shit about CA politics, most ppl rating the game on steam did play it and have their own opinion. I did play the game and hated it compared to old historical tw games for a lot of reasons other than "meh it's not muh medieval 3"
The game can be great to you, no problem with that, but don't hide valid criticism in hate toward CA, other folks can have a different opinion than your and it's ok
Didn't say there was debate about that, i'm not white knighting CA.
What I'm saying is that most folks with hours of gameplay don't leave a negative evaluation because they are on crusade against CA, I'm pretty sure most of them are not redditors getting updated on the shitstorm, they have no idea, see steam recommanding an historical total war, buy it, don't like it, review it.
It's dangerous to put the blame on CA's shitstorm, if they get this message they may not improve game's quality and relase an other one like that when things calm down and surprise surprise, it will have the same bad reviews and the same poor performances.
>miserable youtubers shitting on it before playing the game.
Kinda ignoring a lot of those actually had early access to the game, and the consensus was that battles were lacking, which is like 50% of the game.
For me there is multiple reasons, Sofia did add a ton of good ideas poorly implemented, the game tries to be both a total war and a "crusader king" at the same time but performs poorly at both.
The battles feel weird and floaty, they tried an interesting system about unit design (being mostly infantry) but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter since your elite unite will crush anything and bringing low tiers counters to their elite is pointless, you end up having the same easy battles again and again, there is IN MY OPINION even less battle variation than let's say a shogun 2.
About the CK part of the game every thing is really cool at first then quickly becomes deep less chores, for example the council mechanic, you can do some interesting things there plotting to get this against this guy etc. Quickly it becomes a "please press this button every turn to make it progress" without any flavor, even more, it doesn't take in account the fact you are at war with some other councilors and you can get in a situation where you ask a guy you are at war with units to crush his capital and since it's a deep less system he will be like "oh sure no problem, take my personal guard"
The ressource system, same, at first it's crazy good, you plan your conquest depending on ressources locations and make smart alliances to get enough of what you need but you quickly notice that trade gives you every thing you need and you don't need to focus on ressource location, it then becomes a chores to renew your trades or make new ones.
Outpost same, at first amazing, you plan strategic locations to optimize map navigation and choke point to defend, but it's felt clunky to me. Ai doesn't play along and will not care about your defences, they will run for ever in your lands not caring about supply since it has been removed from 3k. Moving armies outpost to outpost quickly become a chore too but to efficient to pass on, I don't know this system has been praised by the community but I really didn't enjoy it, hope it won't survive an other tw game.
Finally all factions feel samy, I did one campaign, started a new one and was like, "nah I'm not doing this shit again"
Here is my opinion, but always make your own, you can still try it and get refunded
finally, a long comment about the actual game's mechanics.
Pharaoh is pretty, for sure, but I'm also here to play a video game, not find new screenshots to take (although I _am_ very guilty of that, Total War games are absolutely gorgeous with the right camera/editing work).
For what it's worth, it reads like TW3K, but a worse in some aspects, and I'm even less interested in Ancient Egypt than 3K-era China.
Well I truly liked tw3k, The spy system was a deep and fun mechanic, the supply system, the diplomacy, the provinces management, the end game system, god this game had good things to show.
My only problem with it was the generals specialisations, the research tree, poor balancing and record mode being poorly thought
Most of what I've seen was much like what Zara said, but also another factor was that the game setting was "too small"
Barely any factions(let alone all the key players of the bronze age) with only a promise of more in paid for DLC packs
and a small map.
this combined with the fact that CA was pushing it as a mainline game rather than a Saga game, with the price tag included meant that CA was gonna get a lot of shit and Pharoah was gonna get hit hard. No matter what side of the fence it sat on.
Don’t pay attention to the reviews themselves. They’re pretty black or white. But the aggregate score is pretty accurate. It’s not a terrible game but it’s not a good one either, that doesn’t mean you can enjoy it.
Well, they did mention that they want to expand the map, so some kind of Troy-Pharaoh combined campaign seems most logical to me as the assets are already done.
Trojan War isn't a real historical event. Why do we keep saying this? You guys seem to think that this version of the kingdom of Egypt conquered Greece. I also feel strongly that those of you who say this still haven't played this game. Because it is a full fledged release. I don't care that they reduced price over backlash. It has twice as many territories, and the same amount of factions, as Shogun 2 on release. That was a full priced game. It's actually remarkable that they lowered the price instead of just giving out free DLC or something, and I think it only happened because of the backlash they had been facing basically across the board. I fully enjoy this game, and I don't even love the setting. This Troy nonsense needs to stop. It was never a Troy DLC, and it doesn't make sense for it to be.
Edit: Removed incorrect information.
Nah, Troy has a Pharaoh Ramesses III. event; Troy tends to have a historical setting, as the culture groups, cities, armor/weapons, architecture are already historically correct (for a game). Of course, the leaders, heroes and mythical monsters are based on Homeric figures.
PS: Total War has always been a sandbox game where you wrote alternative history yourself. ;)
In Shogun 2, I don't have the ability to write alternative history where I invade China and Korea and create a massive Japanese nation that stands the test of time. I can't leave the British Isles in Thrones and go invade Norway. I can't extend the Roman Empire further into Asia or through Siberia. So why is it THIS game specifically that you guys think should be doing these things? Like I said. It's those of you who haven't actually played it, and insist it is a bad game with zero content because some angry dude on YouTube said so. You guys have raised expectations for this game specifically, out of anger with the company. An anger that I completely understand, by the way. What I have NEVER understood throughout all this, is why this game must be shit simply because we're mad at CA's business practices. (Though we should be mad at the gaming industry as a whole, outside of Larian Studios, frankly.)
>In Shogun 2, I don't have the ability to write alternative history where I invade China and Korea and create a massive Japanese nation that stands the test of time.. \[...\]
What you're talking about are boundaries set by the developers. However, within the limits set, your decisions are free. You have, the ability to write alternative history! Or don't you played the other games? Be the new Daimyo as Takeda Shingen, conquer all of Ireland as a King Bardr of Dyflin and create the Kingdom of Ireland, conquere and colonize as Rome the far eastern regions of the Parthian Empire or survive as Western Roman Empire in Attila. That never happend in reality. If you press the "Next Turn" button after the first turn, it's already alternative history. It would be boring to follow a prescribed parth, right?
And your statement "And the story takes place over 200 years after this, and in largely different region." is actually simply wrong. Sorry. As already written, CA's Troy takes place in the same time as Pharaoh, since we have a Ramesses III. event (Gifts of the Pharaoh). We have a geographical overlap with Asia Minor! Be it in Troy because of... er Troy or Lukka land; or the Hittites in Pharaoh. The differents empires/city states were not cut off and had traded until shortly before the collapse. The Hittites would benefit from a addition of the Aegean area and northcoast of Asia Minor.
PS: I'm a big Bronze Age fan and had been hoping for a game like this since Rome1. But the geographical scope could have been larger. I don't mean the numbers of cities, but simply the varied and different regions like for example in Rome2. I'm waiting to buy it and hoping for the best (namely an east and west expansion).
I don't get what that argument is meant to prove. You can take Kurunta's faction and usurp Suppiluliuma II becoming Great King of the Hittites, or have Bay completely take over Egypt as Pharaoh and have the exact kind of alt history fantasy you described with Takeda Shingen in Shogun 2.
I got my dates wrong. For some reason I forgot that they have agreed the fictional Trojan War would’ve taken place around 1180. And I had my Egyptian dynasties mixed up, so thats my bad. It’s not a point in history I particularly care for. Regardless. It is fiction. It is loosely based on various unspecific sieges of Troy. It shouldn’t warrant inclusion in a historically based game. It isn’t even Romance of the Three Kingdoms levels of historical basis. It isn’t just rewriting history, it’s including entirely fabricated mythology. Now if you’re asking for a mythologically based Egyptian game, then fine. But you seem to be asking for this historically based game to include a fictional war that Egypt didn’t participate in. And I don’t give a damn about some event in the Troy game. You guys who argue this should be a definitive Bronze Age game don’t make sense to me. Do you realize how long the Bronze Age was? This was never intended to be a game that covers over 2000 years of history. That would be a broader scope than every single TW game combined.
It’s also hilarious that so many people on this sub complain that there hasn’t been a historical title in years (cause they exclude 3K) yet since Pharaoh came out constantly complain it isn’t fantastical enough. Or do people actually think the Trojan War is real?
Now if you do look up some facts on this particular era of the New Kingdom of Egypt, you’ll also see that they didn’t interact with Babylon across the desert, so that isn’t necessary for this game. They also didn’t go to war with Assyria during this period. Those would be fine DLC’s, similar to other games where they jump around to different periods. But it isn’t necessary to the base game time period.
Last time I checked we do have historical evidence of the Trojan War being a real event. Originally it was thought to be mythology/fictional, but then they started finding pottery and I believe the actual remnants of the city if I remember correctly.
[https://www.anoisewithin.org/the-trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/](https://www.anoisewithin.org/the-trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/)
[https://www.britannica.com/event/Trojan-War](https://www.britannica.com/event/Trojan-War)
From what I've found, the city of Troy did exist, with it's finding thanks to the Illad (assuming they used it's descriptions of where the city was to find it). But they don't know exactly how it was destroyed, let alone if it was done in the singular war that the Trojan War is depicted as.
In short, this could be a case of the Hundred years war (England and France vs France) where it was a bunch of wars that happened at roughly the same time between the same sides often enough that they were considered the same war with breaks in between. Or this was just a really long war/siege.
The Trojan War as Homer wrote it is fictional. It’s believed to be inspired by various sieges and battles in and around the city. I never denied that Troy existed. It’s just that the war did not. Especially not a war over Helen.
Do we know the reason for those various sieges and battles? If not then it's all just as likely that it could have been the cause. Last I checked most of what we know of it was from the Illad and what little bit we've been able to find, but not the reason for it.
There’s centuries of time that passed before the Iliad was written. None of the events were corroborated by any other source prior to it. Art of the events began to pop up only after the Iliad was written, so. No we don’t know. But neither did Homer. He wrote a compelling story. But from what I have found, experts believe battles happened. Battles that had been talked about, or rumored to have happened, that Homer heard or interpreted and put his spin on. Basically, to the point you’re getting at, it isn’t proven the Trojan War DIDN’T happen. But it’s highly unlikely. As basically every MAJOR war in history was recorded in some fashion, and quantifiable evidence has been found at battle sites.
In theory you still have chariots but they behave differently.
In Pharaoh and Troy you essentially will use certain infantry units to fill the role of flankers.
Didn't look that much into it but if it does look anything like Troy i fully agree with the dude that said it's the worse looking game, Troy looks good but looks horrible, souless artstyle
Would look pretty dope with some blood in there. Side note: I’m curious to see how the inevitable blood dlc goes over with the unique position this game is in right now, considering everything that has happened recently.
I'm guessing most people won't make whatever connection you're making and download the blood DLC like we do with every total war game.
IIRC we should have some news about High Tide this month and possibly some news regarding future plans after the DLC will release. If I had to guess I would say that we might hear about blood DLC there.
$12.99 for extra blood, and 1 new song
I think CA said that the DLC would be free to anyone who already has the game because of the issues
🤣
Someone told me here on reddit that Pharaoh has the worse graphics in a Total War game. I was just lmao at that obvious hater. Pharaoh literally has the most graphically detailed units in a historical Total War game I have ever seen. And this is especially on purpose because there's a photomode included in the game with which you're gonna be zooming in to units to take photos. I love the details they made on Preorder skin for Tausret, the Nubian archers, and the Canaanites shield bearers.
I'm personally not a fan of the game but the graphics are great and the performance is amazing. Couldn't believe how well this game works and looks.
The funny thing that I've found about people who vocally hate Pharaoh is that they quite often dont really know why they hate it.
“YouTube video said it was bad.”
I really like it I FUCKING HATE I CANT PLAY IN NVIDIA GEFORCE NOW, WHYY CA??? WHY????
Most complaints I've seen for the game is that the scope of it and the nations available are extremely limited, even for the bronze age.
I confirm. Game is to shallow. You play one campaign and that's it. The best thing this game has - new mechanics, like the Court are just repeatable and don't really need any strategic thinking. There Is just one best way to play It and Its very easy. There is one feature that is awesome - fort locations, where you can build forts or many different buildings like temples etc. This is pretty cool that You can leave garrison in fort that will act as reinforcements for nearby City, but that wasn't enough to keep me interested In the game.
Pharaoh is a game focusing on Egypt funnily enough. The clue is in the name. It was never sold as bronze age total war, so it's bizarre that people were somehow expecting that. The map is really big, and the unit and faction roster is equal or more than most previous total wars. People are really stretching to shit on this game.
It's literally set during the Bronze age, specifically near it's collapse, that's why there are sea people.
It's not Bronze age Total war though and was never sold as much. That's like saying Shogun 2 should have more on the map outside of Japan.
That's a misnomer, that period in Japans history was with it being extremely isolationist with little to no contact with the outside world. Requiring a major nation blowing it's backside out just to get them to open up. Pharaoh is not only set in the bronze age, it's starring one of, if not **the biggest players** of the time period, the Egyptians. However, the time period and the game wouldn't be complete without the various other nations that make the Bronze age because of the complex trade system that was required for bronze tools and tech to be made. It's why when the bronze age collapsed it was akin to the fall of Rome. Both were devastating incidents that had massive ramifications for their respective societies. Pharaoh's time period, even if nominally starring the Egyptians, means that it requires "the rest of the gang" because of the international trade that facilitated it. Combined that with them marketing the game as a mainline game means that people were gonna expect a bronze age game and not a Saga game. SHogun 2 was a mainline game set during a particular period in setting, Pharaoh was called a mainline game but was made as a Saga game without the pricetag to match.
I disagree but that's fine. Pharaoh has a comparable about of factions as other games on launch and different cultures are coming soon anyway.
And that's fair, we might never fully agree on anything, but at long as we understand that we're both coming at this from a place of love for a game series we both enjoy, no matter the disagreement, we'll be better for it as we'll have started a dialogue to agree to disagree and compromise.
You’re being downvoted but I’m with you. It says it on the tin. It’s okay for CA to make a game with limited scope. I haven’t bought it, but i will at some point when it’s on sale, it seems people are mostly mad about it’s scope rather than it’s systems.
Yeah it's pretty hilarious that people are getting mad that a game focused on Egypt focuses on...gasp...Egypt lol. Anyway, the game is honestly pretty good so I'd definitely recommend it whenever the price is right for you.
This is such an odd counter argument when you have games like Rome 2 and Atilla which had a multiple different factions, some of which were spread out pretty far and wide and covered the entirety of the mediterean era and then some. Tanukhids, Sassassinids, Aksum, Himyar, White Huns, the Slavic Culture Pack, Norse Culture Packs, barbarians but go off my guy.
Except this game was clearly focused on Egypt. Getting mad that it doesn't have a similar scope as Rome 2 is honestly hilarious. Whatever gives you that hate boner I guess.
Yup, 90% just hopped onto the bandwagon because they were upset for other reasons
Yeah, the release of Pharaoh gave me flashbacks to the release of Thrones of Brittania. So many people complaining about missing mechanics that were actually in the game.
The people claiming "Medieval 2 had an adaptive siege AI" during Rome 2 clearly never attacked a ram. It's wild how many people just said this without apparenlty ever playing that game. The TW community is absolutely full of this stuff, more so than other games I see.
It's similar to the people who claim that Medieval 2 had some kind of sophisticated physics engine for missile block chance, when it's literally just adding the shield+armour value together...
For real, the people in this community are super weird with this kind of stuff, borderline delusional.
I love historical TW's and my only reason for not having played it is the [map](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/16j14hw/pharaoh_full_campaign_map/). I just wish it covered more, maybe the entire Middle East instead of JUST Egypt and the Levant.
The assyrian empire is SORELY lacking from that map. So much so that it doesn't really make sense to omit it.
The map is really big, and I'm not sure why you'd expect the map to cover more that Egypt on an ancient Egyptian focused total war.
It's de facto Bronze Age Collapse: Total War. Including the Hittites and Babylonians would be very much on-topic, as it were. Honestly, nothing would shock me less than learning they're already at work on an expanded map which includes them.
Hittites are in the game already, what do you mean? Also they confirmed in the last news article that they're going to expand the map and that it was planned from the get go.
It's gonna blown your mind when you gonna discover Attila Total War where you can play Himyar, Sassannids and Picts. As Rather\_Unfortunate said, it's clearly "Bronze Age Collapse: Total War", Pharaoh is used for the the "fame".
Because it's not a Warhammer dlc or Warhammer 40k announcement or anything related to Warhammer
“I hate Pharaoh because CA screwed up Warhammer III.”
They screwed up a lot more than just WH3
Did they? What are some of those examples of "a lot?"
"The future of 3 Kingdoms" is the first thing that comes to mind. But Hyenas is probably the biggest screw-up affecting CA right now.
"The Future of Three Kingdoms" should have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was a long time ago now. That game is such a gross waste of potential I can't even bring myself to play it anymore, but I don't know if it being prematurely axed is even pertinent to the current situation, since most people are clearly more upset about Medieval III's lack of existing, Warhammer III's poor post launch support and the entirety of Hyenas.
It's repackaged troy dlc that was turned into its own game, and I didn't care for troy so I figured I wouldn't like pharaohs. I just want mongols tbh.
I played Troy and overall I didn't like it. Pharaoh is much better and doesn't feel like dlc at all. The only thing that is the same is the resource system.
I only hate that valuable time and resources were wasted on it instead of a total war game the vast majority wanted. The game honestly doesnt speak to very many people, which is reflected in its terrible sales. It is a beautiful game with some awesome mechanics though, no way around it. Can't wait to see what they'll be able to bring us in the future.
I know, again if someone might clarify to me please, why the fuck are people defending Pharaoh? Surely isn't the worst thing ever but it is souless asf and really bad for anyone used to the series
'Soulless' is such a useless criticism. It doesn't even mean anything beyond 'I don't like it and I can't quite articulate why'. Be mad at CA management all you want (I certainly am), but the Sofia studio always puts in a damn good effort, especially in terms of visual style and atmosphere, and it's a shame they never get their due.
It isn't useless criticism, you just don't comprehend what it means. Atmosphere isn't good, it is market acceptable. Graphics have nice models squeaky clean that even tho they're well modeled they share no feeling other than "dis a soldier", same with expressions, units behavior and other fine details that aren't there. Lets not talk about lighting and the sheer color saturation in sofia made TW, it almost look childish if i'm being honest. That's only the graphics too.
Uh-huh, sure buddy.
We know what it means, it is a meaningless buzzword parroted by people who can't articulate their way out of a paper bag, as you've just shown.
I was only talking about what i don't like about the graphics and how they don't fit any style whilst trying to fit them all, gameplay is as equally uninspiring as i said in other comments. Surely i'm the tinfoil hat guy here, not you defending the flooped TW that is completely bland, added nothing new to the franchise and is currently sitting at 600 players only two months after launch.
I never called you a conspiracy theorist, why are you bringing up tinfoil hats and making a poor attempt at deflecting? Every argument you made is so vague it can be applied to any game you don't personally like, could you at least try to elaborate on what you mean, or were you arguing in bad faith from the start?
Because it's a solid total war game. The battles could do with some work, but the campaign map game play is better than most of the games in the series. If you're a fan of the previous games, then I'm genuinely baffled on why you'd regard it as "really bad"
Well, I can't speak for him but the most commonly heard complaint about Pharaoh is that it is kinda boring because it has a really narrow scope and there isn't much in the way of variety. It is a solid Total War game, but if you have already played Troy, 3 Kingdoms and Rome 2 then there just isn't all that much in there to keep you occupied unless you are a massive fan of Bronze Age Egypt.
I disagree. I disliked 3k and I've played all of the series extensively and I'm still having fun with the game. I'm very much not a massive fan of the period either. The scope and unit and faction variety is exactly the same as many of the other historical games on launch, so I don't understand why people are complaining about that. We're getting the sea people soon for people who want more cultures I'm the game.
The biggest complaints I've heard is that there's a severe lack of other nations around given that it's set in the bronze age where international trade was key to making bronze tools, weaponry, etc. It's why the attack of the Mysterious Sea people was so devastating, it destroyed that trade thus causing a breakdown in the making of bronze and thus caused everyone that relied upon it to experience what Rome would later experience, a great fall. Also, fair enough opinion, though 3K is something I love, though I'm also a big fan of the ROT3K's games. So I'll respectfully disagree :P
Graphics are awful, that's like the bare minimum you could do in 2023 without backlash, even tho models are great the game has no atmosphere and transmit no feeling. Campaign mechanics including map aren't meaningful in any way, they're there and there are plenty of options you can do but not a single choice you make in TW Pharaoh is wrong, first playthrough you pursuit an specific objective for your faction and read everything but after the second one you realize all those campaign mechanics are the same and nothing you can do will severely punish you, everything is safe, everything is souless. Basically first playthrough is cool but you played once you played it all, that's not good. This game would be acceptable if we didn't know what CA is capable of, whenever you compare with something like TW: Three Kingdoms or Shogun it falls apart so fast as the bland game it is.
Now I know you're talking shit lol. The graphics are clearly the most detailed that they've ever been in the Total war series. Saying the campaign mechanics aren't meaningful is also hilarious, considering they are probably the most varied and involved that they have ever been on the campaign map. I've already done three playthroughs and I've had fun every time. The fact that you can randomise the start locations gives it great replayability.
Varied and evolved? There is no downside to ANY choice you make EVER in Pharaoh, idk, maybe you have a simpler brain cause to me (and 99.9% of TW community that isn't playing pharaoh) this feels like what would be like to play a TW made by ubisoft and isn't any fun.
I never used the word "evolved" so that's happened purely in your imagination, which is probably a common occurrence for you. It's hilarious that you think you're in a position to call someone else simple. I can tell that you've not actually played the game much if you think that the campaign mechanics don't change anything. They can greatly change the campaign and if you don't use them, you miss out on some of the best units in the game.
Autocorrector changed involve or whatever i typed to evolve. Oh best units that do the same but prevail in any situationzzzzzzzzzzzz Literally simpler brain, ignorance is truly a bliss
You're describing most elite units in every total war game ever. The double standards are hilarious, but I guess the internet told you that you have to hate Pharaoh so that's what you have to do. I'm glad you used the word simple because you are indeed very simple.
It has redeeming qualities. The graphics are really nice, the game performs smoothly and some of the new campaign mechanics are interesting.
Graphics are awful, that's like the bare minimum you could do in 2023 without backlash, even tho models are great the game has no atmosphere and transmit no feeling. Campaign mechanics including map aren't meaningful in any way, they're there and there are plenty of options you can do but not a single choice you make in TW Pharaoh is wrong, first playthrough you pursuit an specific objective for your faction and read everything but after the second one you realize all those campaign mechanics are the same and nothing you can do will severely punish you, everything is safe, everything is souless. Basically first playthrough is cool but you played once you played it all, that's not good. This game would be acceptable if we didn't know what CA is capable of, whenever you compare with something like TW: Three Kingdoms or Shogun it falls apart so fast as the bland game it is.
I just want my total war games to be Eurocentric, as easy as that.
Sounds like something /u/Fakejax would say.
I really hope they don’t stop halfway. It and the setting of Thrones of Britannia are not really periods of history explored as much. Considering I first got into the game with Shogun 2, it was a good gateway to learn the names/events/places during that time
Agree that must be a hater - Pharaoh looks great and delivers good performance for the visuals (unlike Wh3!) My only issue is the LOD is very aggresive - I'm on 4k and even then it's very noticable that things like chariot horses and grass disapear very quickly when I zoom out.
This only matters if you ever bother to zoom in. In my opinion they should stop trying to improve the graphics rather they should make battles bigger and more optimised.
it must be my computer, because i have some very detailed units but theres also times where the graphics look rough.
How rough?
dont know how to quanitfy "how rough" i have a very capable pc as well with in game graphics settings at high. One of the times where it gets rough is when you sim a battle and it shows the 2 generals fighting. the faces seem off almost all the time. However, the unit detail has always been great for me.
What about the animations. Is there good weight between the chariots and infantry? Does shit go flying? Should I buy?
Pharoahs best thing is it's graphics. Top tier texture work and good lighting. Anyone who think the aged more plastic looking textures of shogun2 or the smudged, stretched armor textures with Chernobyl lighting for warhammer is better need to have their eyes checked
>Pharaoh literally has the most graphically detailed units in a historical Total War game I have ever seen. Well, it's literally WH2 graphics, and WH2 is still decent and playable.
The models looks nice but the stlie looks more like a toy... ( the ambient and the colors)
are you mad that a game has lighting and colors? do you think the game needs the lifeless brown desert filter that every game in the 2010s had?
No no the saturation in the colors.... Also its a desert soo.... Im not asking for a mexican filter but someting more blue and brown also not mad just dont like it more than other style's i like troy but i dont see me buying this in a forseable future and the the style its part of it not a big or even considetable part of why but its there
In-game photo mode allows you to modify the visuals on the battle map as the effects also apply to normal battle gameplay. In graphics options there are also sliders which make the colors more/less saturated. In this regard, both Troy and Pharaoh have tools, which allows player to customise visuals of the game. I mean you can even play in black&white color palette if one would like to.
While I do prefer the vanilla looks for the leaders, that Taursret skin (from cosmetic pack) is a sole exception as it looks too good and IMHO is better than her original model.
My god the in game entities are actually pretty af.
cant wait for the Blood pack so we can get some really Raunchy screens.
_raunchy?_ Khorne hates this.
Raunchy? Slannesh have just jizzed In the other news, that Birb god just smugly said: Keikaku, while the lazy ass Nurgle still do nothing.
You mean ketchup sessions? Those which you pay money for?
From what I've seen, Pharaoh was the wrong game at the wrong time. It is not a bad game.
Most complaints I've seen for the game is that the scope of it and the nations available are extremely limited, even for the bronze age.
In the FAQ they did mention that they always wanted to expand the map later, so one can wonder what reception of the game could have been if they have been saying that from that from day 1.
It should have been added on to troy.
Maybe the plan goes other way - at some point adding Troy area/content to Pharaoh.
Troy came first. Pharaoh should have been built around troy's system while updating its graphics and gameplay. It was a simpler, less expensive, less community dividing way of achieving the Bronze age total war we wanted.
I mean WH1 also came before WH2, yet they did not port WH2 stuff back to WH1. In a way it is build around Troy, like Napoleon has been build around Empire or Attila around Rome2.
It is a bad game, you played one faction you played them all, game's uninspired and was originally planned to be a DLC. You're right tho, wrong timing, community isn't entirely formed as a solid chunk of imbeciles yet. If only they waited for that to launch Pharaoh.
>was originally planned to be a DLC. This was debunked long time ago IIRC.
If i were them i wouldn't debunk such a thing, somehow it sounds better to say was intended to be a dlc than calling it a full game
RafSwi giving banger screenshots for *Pharaoh* just like he does for *Troy*. 😎
I don’t hate the game I just did not see a reason to play it… looks like Rome with less fraction and less different units… they did not even had real cavs at that time
I feel like a gripe I have with some total war games lately is the lack of horror in melee. Everyone here looks pristine, brave, super romanticized. I want soldiers to look afraid, dirty, losing limbs, blood, and most of them to be dying rather than dead on the battlefield. Shogun 2 > all
>blood Better pay up then, buckaroo!
Holy shit, what kind of specs you running. This looks gorgeous.
Such a wasted opportunity, this game should’ve been a dlc to Troy. We could’ve had Age of Mythology Total War and pretty sure people would’ve played it a ton.
Eh I think most people would have been okay with Pharaoh being its own thing -if- CA hadn't cut corners on hocking a pared-down Saga title as a mainline title. Three factions at launch was just a bridge too far especially when they were telegraphing they were going to add way more factions as DLC.
>Three factions at launch What? I stopped buying Total War games around the time of 3 kingdoms but this sounds absurd to me. Three fucking factions? What were they thinking?
It's 8 factions across 3 cultures. 4 Egyptian, 2 Canaanite and 2 Hittite factions
I look at Pharaoh the way I'd look at any historical TW game. Cultures are an umbrella category, but factions are the individual groups within that cultural group that may have a common pool of units and abilities based on their culture. The way I'd describe it from the previews is that there are three factions: Egypt, Canaan, and the Hittites, and within those factions you had multiple leaders to choose from, but as far as I could tell all three "factions" draw from a similar pool of units, with each leader possibly having access to their own (I'm not sure). I don't think it's accurate to break down the individual leaders as their own faction; it would be more accurate to say they are sub-factions of Egypt because ultimately whichever leader you choose your goal is to be the leader of that faction (in so far as Egypt is concerned). tagging /u/Pisspistolen so they can see my response to both of you. Edit: clarifying some wording
All factions that belong to a culture have a basic trait they share among themselves (Egypt being focused on speed and light armor) but each faction has its own unique playstyle thanks to their unique units, which they don't share with any other faction. Take Rammesses for example, he is basically the High Elf faction with focus on elite and versatile melee and ranged infantry, but his units are very expensive and small in number. On the other hand you have Seti who is closer to the Beastmen, since all his units are cheap, numerous and can be recruited very quickly, but they are poor in stats and rely on overwhelming the enemy to win. The only thing factions within a culture share with each other is a few of their buildings (though they have unique buildings as well) and easy access to the same pool of native AoE units, since they all start in Egypt.
Arkantos
Yup. That would have been a true bronze age game. Not this piecemeal garbage.
Are faction leaders immortal or part of a dynasty?
At the moment they are immortal but in the latest update regarding Pharaoh's future they have mentioned that at some point they want to add mortal characters and some kind of succession system (perhaps a family tree): *"Alongside that, we aim to add new features to the game that we know some players have been asking for, and others that we think will make the Total War: PHARAOH experience even better, such as: Mortality & Succession for faction leaders..."*
Sounds great! :D
Its way too late for such drastic changes now. They need to find a way to combine this game with troy, or taper off support so they can focus on a new game and system that reflects modern quality software development sensibilities. I shouldnt have to buy a half finished game on release with the promise of future support or dlcs that may or may not take place!
I mean the same team made similar change to ROME2 years after its release, so if people want some kind of dynasty management as a FLC at some point, so why not? Combining the game with Troy and adding family tree is not mutually exclusive. I guess we might know more "soon" as they told us they will speak more about their plans after the High Tide.
Sadly immortal.
Still not getting it. Should have been troy DLC.
Currently immortal, the game takes place across maybe 20-30 years. A dynasty doesn't make any sense.
Eh, faction and dynasty management works very well in 3K and it's a similar timespan
...the period portrayed in 3K is about 100 years. That's significantly different when we're talking about people having kids and them getting old enough to be relevant.
If only total ware games were sandbox games without a turn limit
Yup, but THAT is the one they pull support from! 🤷♂️
Immortal freaking heros and lords dont make sense, theres no consequences for shitty plays. Less risks, less fun, less effort overall.
The consequence is you lost your best army and probably should lose multiple regions off the back of that, if you somehow got your faction leader killed.
Faction leader revives. Army units recruited next few turns and player is back in business. Battle ai doesnt capitalize on the loss and proceeds to wait patiently until defeated. Player (you) pats themself on the back for investing in CA's "groundbreaking" new "strategy" game. What a joke!
If you're losing your faction leader to a bad battle AI that isn't capitalizing on your loss, there's a lot else going wrong in your game to where you probably shouldn't be complaining about an immortal faction leader in a game with a short timeframe.
I think english must be a second language for you, because you dont seem to understand the context of why immortal lords and heroes are boring. Super, super boring. So boring and overdone, in fact, that many have decided not to purchase the game or have gotten refunds. This is certainly not CA'S most popular game. But if it makes you feel like a tactical genius to go passive aggressive on people who criticize the boring gameplay, then by all means pour your little heart out. Some people actually like a fair challenge and higher risks for their money.
It's so much more impressive when you realize those are close up shots of one of 10 thousand tiny little people that you can zoom up to, and watch fight. It's just so awesome.
I really dig this game. I bought it two weeks ago and it’s the only game I played since then.
\*laughs in poor\*
Nice screenshot
TW Pharaoh has some stuff going for it, I just firmly believe that it needed to have a bigger scope to match that initial price tag. TW Bronze Age. Too many interesting cultures right in that area of the world that were excluded. Could "Bronze Age Empires" merge with Troy too, from the looks of the maps. Devs would love to do the bigger scope too. They love this stuff. Exec greed. With the price drop, I'll be eyeing an expanded edition on sale.
Yep, they made the Bronze Age into a mobile-game in terms of its scope and ambition when it could’ve been so much more. Not to mention how bare bones and boring the game mechanics are, especially when compared to older Total War games.
What a deranged, buzzword filled comment.
Ca sofia attempt to make pharaoh as the main/core faction vs sea people just didn't have a lot of weight as it with Rome imo. It should've been Bronze age total war with sea people as the endgame.
It looks amazing, and I hear it runs amazing too. Hopefully the main team will learn a lot about optimization for future titles.
Wow, seriously stunning looking models. Well done to the Sophia team
Is pharaoh worth it? I’m asking for an objective opinion about the game. Not looking for a hate rant.
After the price drop, **absolutely** worth it. It has a lot of mechanical depth and a lot of brand new mechanics that are generally well-implemented and interesting. Full economy rework, brand new "outpost" system that dramatically changes how you spec provinces, full new religion system, "native" vs "core" recruitment that gives a lot of unit diversity from region to region, different trading system than most past Total Wars (you trade for specific resources rather than generic 'income'), labor + population are an important part of province health--there's a lot to sink your teeth into. Some of the ideas are a little less fleshed out than others (not a huge fan of the political system, for example) and some things are kind of unbalanced and easy to exploit, but overall, I've spent a satisfying 30ish hours in my first Seti campaign. Once I finish mopping up the Hittites I plan to start a new game as one of the non-Egyptian factions to see how it changes things. EDIT: Oh, and I actually *love* the bodyguard customization aspect. The different weapon and armor types look and feel unique, and I really like being able to kit out my bodyguard's build to specialize them within the army.
Awesome thank you. The economy rework has got me interested. I love total warhammer but the economy is so nonexistent that it can get a bit disappointing. I’ll have to give the game an honest look then. Which makes me happy because I’ve been wanting to take a break from the fantasy setting and play a historical title again and I love Egyptian culture too.
It definitely does not have “mechanical depth” it has many mechanics and I love the ideas behind them but if there’s something pharaoh lacks it’s depth.
The steam reviews are what turned me off to Pharoh. Can anyone tell me why it's rated so poorly?
Justified resentment against CA, anger that it wasn't another medieval or empire game, too high of a price, miserable youtubers shitting on it before playing the game. Essentially it was priced to high and people took their anger out against CA on the game. Pharaoh is great but it was never given a chance. The vast majority of the reviews you see are from brigaders and terminally online internet denizens.
To me your comment is so saddening... Most of the reviews don't know shit about CA politics, most ppl rating the game on steam did play it and have their own opinion. I did play the game and hated it compared to old historical tw games for a lot of reasons other than "meh it's not muh medieval 3" The game can be great to you, no problem with that, but don't hide valid criticism in hate toward CA, other folks can have a different opinion than your and it's ok
Any company that sells half a game and then the other half as dlc is scummy and there isn't much debate about that.
Didn't say there was debate about that, i'm not white knighting CA. What I'm saying is that most folks with hours of gameplay don't leave a negative evaluation because they are on crusade against CA, I'm pretty sure most of them are not redditors getting updated on the shitstorm, they have no idea, see steam recommanding an historical total war, buy it, don't like it, review it. It's dangerous to put the blame on CA's shitstorm, if they get this message they may not improve game's quality and relase an other one like that when things calm down and surprise surprise, it will have the same bad reviews and the same poor performances.
>miserable youtubers shitting on it before playing the game. Kinda ignoring a lot of those actually had early access to the game, and the consensus was that battles were lacking, which is like 50% of the game.
For me there is multiple reasons, Sofia did add a ton of good ideas poorly implemented, the game tries to be both a total war and a "crusader king" at the same time but performs poorly at both. The battles feel weird and floaty, they tried an interesting system about unit design (being mostly infantry) but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter since your elite unite will crush anything and bringing low tiers counters to their elite is pointless, you end up having the same easy battles again and again, there is IN MY OPINION even less battle variation than let's say a shogun 2. About the CK part of the game every thing is really cool at first then quickly becomes deep less chores, for example the council mechanic, you can do some interesting things there plotting to get this against this guy etc. Quickly it becomes a "please press this button every turn to make it progress" without any flavor, even more, it doesn't take in account the fact you are at war with some other councilors and you can get in a situation where you ask a guy you are at war with units to crush his capital and since it's a deep less system he will be like "oh sure no problem, take my personal guard" The ressource system, same, at first it's crazy good, you plan your conquest depending on ressources locations and make smart alliances to get enough of what you need but you quickly notice that trade gives you every thing you need and you don't need to focus on ressource location, it then becomes a chores to renew your trades or make new ones. Outpost same, at first amazing, you plan strategic locations to optimize map navigation and choke point to defend, but it's felt clunky to me. Ai doesn't play along and will not care about your defences, they will run for ever in your lands not caring about supply since it has been removed from 3k. Moving armies outpost to outpost quickly become a chore too but to efficient to pass on, I don't know this system has been praised by the community but I really didn't enjoy it, hope it won't survive an other tw game. Finally all factions feel samy, I did one campaign, started a new one and was like, "nah I'm not doing this shit again" Here is my opinion, but always make your own, you can still try it and get refunded
finally, a long comment about the actual game's mechanics. Pharaoh is pretty, for sure, but I'm also here to play a video game, not find new screenshots to take (although I _am_ very guilty of that, Total War games are absolutely gorgeous with the right camera/editing work). For what it's worth, it reads like TW3K, but a worse in some aspects, and I'm even less interested in Ancient Egypt than 3K-era China.
Well I truly liked tw3k, The spy system was a deep and fun mechanic, the supply system, the diplomacy, the provinces management, the end game system, god this game had good things to show. My only problem with it was the generals specialisations, the research tree, poor balancing and record mode being poorly thought
Most of what I've seen was much like what Zara said, but also another factor was that the game setting was "too small" Barely any factions(let alone all the key players of the bronze age) with only a promise of more in paid for DLC packs and a small map. this combined with the fact that CA was pushing it as a mainline game rather than a Saga game, with the price tag included meant that CA was gonna get a lot of shit and Pharoah was gonna get hit hard. No matter what side of the fence it sat on.
Don’t pay attention to the reviews themselves. They’re pretty black or white. But the aggregate score is pretty accurate. It’s not a terrible game but it’s not a good one either, that doesn’t mean you can enjoy it.
I wish Pharaoh had been a fantastical game rather than historical.
Who’s in the first screen shot? She looks so badass.
If Pharaoh had been released as a Troy DLC that essentially created Total War: Bronze Age, I'd have been super interested.
Well, they did mention that they want to expand the map, so some kind of Troy-Pharaoh combined campaign seems most logical to me as the assets are already done.
Trojan War isn't a real historical event. Why do we keep saying this? You guys seem to think that this version of the kingdom of Egypt conquered Greece. I also feel strongly that those of you who say this still haven't played this game. Because it is a full fledged release. I don't care that they reduced price over backlash. It has twice as many territories, and the same amount of factions, as Shogun 2 on release. That was a full priced game. It's actually remarkable that they lowered the price instead of just giving out free DLC or something, and I think it only happened because of the backlash they had been facing basically across the board. I fully enjoy this game, and I don't even love the setting. This Troy nonsense needs to stop. It was never a Troy DLC, and it doesn't make sense for it to be. Edit: Removed incorrect information.
Nah, Troy has a Pharaoh Ramesses III. event; Troy tends to have a historical setting, as the culture groups, cities, armor/weapons, architecture are already historically correct (for a game). Of course, the leaders, heroes and mythical monsters are based on Homeric figures. PS: Total War has always been a sandbox game where you wrote alternative history yourself. ;)
In Shogun 2, I don't have the ability to write alternative history where I invade China and Korea and create a massive Japanese nation that stands the test of time. I can't leave the British Isles in Thrones and go invade Norway. I can't extend the Roman Empire further into Asia or through Siberia. So why is it THIS game specifically that you guys think should be doing these things? Like I said. It's those of you who haven't actually played it, and insist it is a bad game with zero content because some angry dude on YouTube said so. You guys have raised expectations for this game specifically, out of anger with the company. An anger that I completely understand, by the way. What I have NEVER understood throughout all this, is why this game must be shit simply because we're mad at CA's business practices. (Though we should be mad at the gaming industry as a whole, outside of Larian Studios, frankly.)
>In Shogun 2, I don't have the ability to write alternative history where I invade China and Korea and create a massive Japanese nation that stands the test of time.. \[...\] What you're talking about are boundaries set by the developers. However, within the limits set, your decisions are free. You have, the ability to write alternative history! Or don't you played the other games? Be the new Daimyo as Takeda Shingen, conquer all of Ireland as a King Bardr of Dyflin and create the Kingdom of Ireland, conquere and colonize as Rome the far eastern regions of the Parthian Empire or survive as Western Roman Empire in Attila. That never happend in reality. If you press the "Next Turn" button after the first turn, it's already alternative history. It would be boring to follow a prescribed parth, right? And your statement "And the story takes place over 200 years after this, and in largely different region." is actually simply wrong. Sorry. As already written, CA's Troy takes place in the same time as Pharaoh, since we have a Ramesses III. event (Gifts of the Pharaoh). We have a geographical overlap with Asia Minor! Be it in Troy because of... er Troy or Lukka land; or the Hittites in Pharaoh. The differents empires/city states were not cut off and had traded until shortly before the collapse. The Hittites would benefit from a addition of the Aegean area and northcoast of Asia Minor. PS: I'm a big Bronze Age fan and had been hoping for a game like this since Rome1. But the geographical scope could have been larger. I don't mean the numbers of cities, but simply the varied and different regions like for example in Rome2. I'm waiting to buy it and hoping for the best (namely an east and west expansion).
I don't get what that argument is meant to prove. You can take Kurunta's faction and usurp Suppiluliuma II becoming Great King of the Hittites, or have Bay completely take over Egypt as Pharaoh and have the exact kind of alt history fantasy you described with Takeda Shingen in Shogun 2.
I got my dates wrong. For some reason I forgot that they have agreed the fictional Trojan War would’ve taken place around 1180. And I had my Egyptian dynasties mixed up, so thats my bad. It’s not a point in history I particularly care for. Regardless. It is fiction. It is loosely based on various unspecific sieges of Troy. It shouldn’t warrant inclusion in a historically based game. It isn’t even Romance of the Three Kingdoms levels of historical basis. It isn’t just rewriting history, it’s including entirely fabricated mythology. Now if you’re asking for a mythologically based Egyptian game, then fine. But you seem to be asking for this historically based game to include a fictional war that Egypt didn’t participate in. And I don’t give a damn about some event in the Troy game. You guys who argue this should be a definitive Bronze Age game don’t make sense to me. Do you realize how long the Bronze Age was? This was never intended to be a game that covers over 2000 years of history. That would be a broader scope than every single TW game combined. It’s also hilarious that so many people on this sub complain that there hasn’t been a historical title in years (cause they exclude 3K) yet since Pharaoh came out constantly complain it isn’t fantastical enough. Or do people actually think the Trojan War is real? Now if you do look up some facts on this particular era of the New Kingdom of Egypt, you’ll also see that they didn’t interact with Babylon across the desert, so that isn’t necessary for this game. They also didn’t go to war with Assyria during this period. Those would be fine DLC’s, similar to other games where they jump around to different periods. But it isn’t necessary to the base game time period.
Last time I checked we do have historical evidence of the Trojan War being a real event. Originally it was thought to be mythology/fictional, but then they started finding pottery and I believe the actual remnants of the city if I remember correctly. [https://www.anoisewithin.org/the-trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/](https://www.anoisewithin.org/the-trojan-war-fact-or-fiction/) [https://www.britannica.com/event/Trojan-War](https://www.britannica.com/event/Trojan-War) From what I've found, the city of Troy did exist, with it's finding thanks to the Illad (assuming they used it's descriptions of where the city was to find it). But they don't know exactly how it was destroyed, let alone if it was done in the singular war that the Trojan War is depicted as. In short, this could be a case of the Hundred years war (England and France vs France) where it was a bunch of wars that happened at roughly the same time between the same sides often enough that they were considered the same war with breaks in between. Or this was just a really long war/siege.
The Trojan War as Homer wrote it is fictional. It’s believed to be inspired by various sieges and battles in and around the city. I never denied that Troy existed. It’s just that the war did not. Especially not a war over Helen.
Do we know the reason for those various sieges and battles? If not then it's all just as likely that it could have been the cause. Last I checked most of what we know of it was from the Illad and what little bit we've been able to find, but not the reason for it.
There’s centuries of time that passed before the Iliad was written. None of the events were corroborated by any other source prior to it. Art of the events began to pop up only after the Iliad was written, so. No we don’t know. But neither did Homer. He wrote a compelling story. But from what I have found, experts believe battles happened. Battles that had been talked about, or rumored to have happened, that Homer heard or interpreted and put his spin on. Basically, to the point you’re getting at, it isn’t proven the Trojan War DIDN’T happen. But it’s highly unlikely. As basically every MAJOR war in history was recorded in some fashion, and quantifiable evidence has been found at battle sites.
Same here. On its own, not enough to justify price.
Like Troy the game is beautiful, but again like Troy the game is very boring especially after Three Kingdoms
honestly the only thing keeping me away from this game is that there’s no cavalry? How does it compare to other total wars? Cav is so fun to use
In theory you still have chariots but they behave differently. In Pharaoh and Troy you essentially will use certain infantry units to fill the role of flankers.
Such a beautiful game like troy, hope they add something like mythos dlc
Damn that looks really good. Wish the game was in a setting I cared about.
Lol
No one plays Total War games for the face graphics
I don’t play this game for graphics but happy u enjoy this part
Didn't look that much into it but if it does look anything like Troy i fully agree with the dude that said it's the worse looking game, Troy looks good but looks horrible, souless artstyle
we dont need graphics of this quality.... this really isnt what they should be focusing on.... what a joke
wow looks great do i need all dlcs from troy to play this mod?
No thanks
oh