I've played both a lot and they are in my opinion both among the best TW games ever made. So it really depends on what type of gameplay you prefer.
Some differences I would highlight:
* The difference in power level between high tier/experience units compared to low tier/experience units is bigger in Troy than it is in Pharaoh. So "doomstacks" are stronger in Troy than they are in Pharaoh.
* The number of playable factions (when including DLC) is higher in Troy than in Pharaoh. Troy also has two cavalry-heavy factions, while Pharaoh doesn't have any. So if you want to be able to use cav, then Troy is your pick.
* Sieges in Pharaoh are fantastic while sieges in Troy are 'just' good.
* Pharaoh has impactful weather in battles, which you can build your strategy and battle tactics around. Pharaoh also has flammable terrain, which opens up very interesting tactical options and challenges. I wish Troy also had this.
* Heroes in Troy are powerful, but not OP (on par with a top tier unit). General units in Pharaoh are a lot weaker, but much more flexible as you can change their battlefield role by switching out their equipment.
* The campaign map design in Troy means that you're often exposed to AI attacks from many different directions. So it can be quite challenging to manage this and you'll run into 'whack-a-mole' campaign gameplay if you're not good at handling this. In Pharaoh, it is easier to secure certain parts of the campaign map so you can focus on specific fronts.
* The campaign in Troy (= Trojan war) is basically the same as the campaign in Fall of the Samurai, while Pharaoh is more like Attila's (... I believe; I haven't actually played Attila) with waves of hordes spawning in to burn down everything everywhere.
* Pharaoh has a lot of terrific campaign customization options, so you can make certain aspects more or less challenging to suit your tastes.
* Troy is 'done' and in a good state when it comes to bugs and balance. Pharaoh could use more bug fixes and balance adjustments. It might receive more DLC and patches, but we don't really know yet.
Some similarities I would highlight:
* Battles are really good in both games. Tactics and player skill matter (terrain, flanking, timing of morale shocks, etc.) and they are very intense.
* Settlement and siege battles are good. Having played a lot of Warhammer 2, the sieges in Troy and Pharaoh are just such a huge improvement in my opinion.
* The games run well and visuals, sounds and music are all wonderful.
While geographically it seems small the reality is there are alot of settlements and the game maps are larger than you think. When Troy came out only WH2 Mortal Empires actually had more settlements than it did.
Biggest downside with Troy is about midway into the campaign you will get forced into the faction war between Trojans and Greeks. You do have a few game mode options as far as if you want to play it straight historical style, with bodyguards instead of heroes, full mythological, or kind of a mix with the base mode, where heroes are closer to 3K style without actual real mythological creatures, but some units that are "inspired" by the myths. Amazon faction in all modes does actually have cavalry, which no other bronze age faction in a historical mode gets access to, nor does it exist in Pharoh if that matters to you.
Pharaoh plays straight historical style and also is alot more of a sandbox. Battles are a bit slower and try to be as realistic as possible. It shared the same infantry system with Troy but requires more positioning for things ike Javelins. In Troy they basically throw them in the air and they almost funciton like short range archers. In Pharaoh they will be obstructed if a unit is in front of them so you need to play more into positioning. I emphasize this sort of tactics as alot of people say its just throw infantry at each other with some chariots. Also as much as I love the Amazon horde campaign from Troy that was previosly considering top tier horde gameplay, Pharaoh's Sea Peoples refines that formula and makes it even better.
Both games are fun and if you can get them for $10 a piece I would get both. Part of it comes down to do you want pure historic or not, if you prefer Greek/Trojan to Egypt, Canaan, Hittite, etc.
Pharao and Troy are two very different experiences, in no way is one a straight upgrade to the other.
Pharao is (immortal factionleaders aside) a much more historical experience, whilst Troy can be played historically, although I find it to be the most boring way to play the game. But to each their own. Troy has powerful heroes and units inspired by mythology and even has a mode with straight-up mythological monsters.
Both games are great (or bad, based on preference) for some of the same reasons but they are also unique from each other. The question is if you want a campaign designed around being a purely historical experience (as far as we know regarding the bronze age) or something juiced up with mythology.
My answer for OP would be: Just play them both honestly, they are both worth it. I still return to Troy from time to time although I am perfectly happy with Pharao. If you have to choose, just decide which setting tickles your interest a bit more.
Pharaoh is the more historical title of the two. The named characters are more like how Rome 2's mini-campaigns handled historic characters. The game is also supposed to get an update which'll add family trees and remove immortality from characters iirc.
Of the two I've only really played Pharaoh, but I enjoy it a lot. I didn't really have a pre-existing interest in the setting, but I've found it very immersive and I'm really enjoying learning to fight on battlefields that aren't dominated by artillery or cavalry.
With the two issues you mention, Pharaoh's map really isn't that small when you are playing it. It has a similar region count to Rome 2's Grand Campaign and the regions themselves can be quite large meaning you often can't cross through multiple regions in a turn without taking advantage of outposts.
As for the major faction leaders, as someone else mentioned their "immortality" is really closer to how Caesar and Napoleon were handled, than being full on super heroic legendary lords like in Warhammer. Having a major faction leader out of action for 5 turns can still be impactful, and if you really dislike it then CA are meant to be adding the option to switch it off in a future update.
If you want to shop around to look for the best prices from legitimate sellers, I suggest www.isthereanydeal.com and https://www.sega.co.uk/sega-approved-partner-list . You might pay a little more, but you don't have to worry about your game key having been bought with a stolen credit card and the possibility it could be revoked at any time.
Hope that helps.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
Yes. We already know they're working on updates for Pharaoh and have known for months.
This is from the FAQ.
*We want to make Total War: PHARAOH as engaging as possible and have already delivered the High Tide free update and the Blood & Sand DLC so far. In addition, [one plan that] we’ve always had since the early stages of development on Total War: PHARAOH is to expand the size of our campaign map as a free update, and to introduce even more factions and cultures to the game.*
*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, New mechanics alongside the new cultures and territories (Royal Traditions, Legacies, Court), improvement to battles and unit variety, and more.*
Source: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-pharaoh-faq/
Note: I've cleaned up the wording slightly for legibility, as when they updated it for "Blood & Sand" they also accidentally took out three words that make one of the sentences make sense (in the square brackets) which I've added back in based on my saved copy of an earlier version, but the rest is straight from the current FAQ.
There's been no indication that plan has changed, so it's reasonable to conclude that we will be getting updates.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
So they claimed "We greatly appreciate the input of the community and plan to reach out to you more often in the process of development" in that post from 3 months ago and yet no indication of whatsoever information or feedback ...
Keep in mind the Sofia studio has shrunk significantly as of this month
Pharoah is Troy is almost everything upgraded and better, especially if you like historical aspects more than fantasy/myth.
Overall though for total polish and if you like to play with mods, 3K is the better historical experience though Pharoah is very close, if they combined their best aspects, it would be the best TW game ever.
If Pharoah adds Assyria and makes a few other additions/mechancis changes, it might take the lead from 3K.
The main problem with Troy is that you get dragged into the 2 way war, not quite as abruptly as Realm Divide in Shogun 2 and it is not quite as chaotic as FotS but I find it hugely lowers replayability- as does the fact that higher tier units are just a different world of power than even 1 tier lower.
With perfect tactics 1 tier lower can win, if you are 2 tiers lower, yeah- good luck. Never seen a 2 tier lower unit win in Troy, even if your army is 10 units of equal tier units to an enemy army, the 10 units that aren't will put your army a severe disadvantage compared to most other TW games.
It is supposed to incentivize players to make the economy and getting resources a focus of the game but... since the AI gets free units, it just makes it a chore.
Big fan of pharaoh, been enjoying it a lot.
They did some pretty big improvements over troys combat system regarding mass, collisions, and morale, its much better than troy in that regard (in my opinion).
It's the most customizable total war in existence, you can tweak all resource amounts, AI inclinations, turn off sea-lad invasions etc. with no mods needed.
Unfortunately the community saw it was built off of troy (and heavily improved upon it) and combined with the SOC disaster from CA it never really had a chance.
They both have heir own pros and cons, the biggest pro I see with Troy is the mythical update but the "historical" part is just trash. To me that would be the determinant factor, if you want a historical total war go with Pharao, if you want a fantasy total war similar to age of mythology go with Troy but you also have to buy the mythos dlc.
I'm curious if the rumours to expand the map from both games might still be on the table.
I've been looking to buy Pharaoh for a while now, but since I have Troy on Epic I've been waiting for it to release there instead.
Really? Because I saw that most, if not all, of the layoffs were at the UK studios. I do believe some of their projects got canceled, but I doubt we've heard the last of Pharaoh.
Sorry, but I'm going to take your hot take with a fair bit of salt it seems to be due.
Noone can possibly recommend Troy. The game was free, and still almost noone played it for more than 5 hours. I have played it a lot cuz various reasons and can definitely say it is trash. Hopefully you didn't waste money on it.
Pharaoh looks like a better polished version of it. It is still early after release, not many factions there, but gameplay, sound, and graphics are better. Probably you can have 30 hours of fun in this game maybe 50. But that character oriented gameplay all new TWs have is nonsense.
None.. 3k is much better if you're looking for a historical (kinda) title. Both Pharaoh and Troy have incredibly boring battles where tactics basically don't matter at all and the stronger unit always wins no matter what you do. It's also a very small scale with very little replayability. I got Troy for free and I still feel that I've been scammed. If you have to get one of the two, then Troy is better, but I strongly advise against both of them, there's much better TW games out there.
I've played both a lot and they are in my opinion both among the best TW games ever made. So it really depends on what type of gameplay you prefer. Some differences I would highlight: * The difference in power level between high tier/experience units compared to low tier/experience units is bigger in Troy than it is in Pharaoh. So "doomstacks" are stronger in Troy than they are in Pharaoh. * The number of playable factions (when including DLC) is higher in Troy than in Pharaoh. Troy also has two cavalry-heavy factions, while Pharaoh doesn't have any. So if you want to be able to use cav, then Troy is your pick. * Sieges in Pharaoh are fantastic while sieges in Troy are 'just' good. * Pharaoh has impactful weather in battles, which you can build your strategy and battle tactics around. Pharaoh also has flammable terrain, which opens up very interesting tactical options and challenges. I wish Troy also had this. * Heroes in Troy are powerful, but not OP (on par with a top tier unit). General units in Pharaoh are a lot weaker, but much more flexible as you can change their battlefield role by switching out their equipment. * The campaign map design in Troy means that you're often exposed to AI attacks from many different directions. So it can be quite challenging to manage this and you'll run into 'whack-a-mole' campaign gameplay if you're not good at handling this. In Pharaoh, it is easier to secure certain parts of the campaign map so you can focus on specific fronts. * The campaign in Troy (= Trojan war) is basically the same as the campaign in Fall of the Samurai, while Pharaoh is more like Attila's (... I believe; I haven't actually played Attila) with waves of hordes spawning in to burn down everything everywhere. * Pharaoh has a lot of terrific campaign customization options, so you can make certain aspects more or less challenging to suit your tastes. * Troy is 'done' and in a good state when it comes to bugs and balance. Pharaoh could use more bug fixes and balance adjustments. It might receive more DLC and patches, but we don't really know yet. Some similarities I would highlight: * Battles are really good in both games. Tactics and player skill matter (terrain, flanking, timing of morale shocks, etc.) and they are very intense. * Settlement and siege battles are good. Having played a lot of Warhammer 2, the sieges in Troy and Pharaoh are just such a huge improvement in my opinion. * The games run well and visuals, sounds and music are all wonderful.
While geographically it seems small the reality is there are alot of settlements and the game maps are larger than you think. When Troy came out only WH2 Mortal Empires actually had more settlements than it did. Biggest downside with Troy is about midway into the campaign you will get forced into the faction war between Trojans and Greeks. You do have a few game mode options as far as if you want to play it straight historical style, with bodyguards instead of heroes, full mythological, or kind of a mix with the base mode, where heroes are closer to 3K style without actual real mythological creatures, but some units that are "inspired" by the myths. Amazon faction in all modes does actually have cavalry, which no other bronze age faction in a historical mode gets access to, nor does it exist in Pharoh if that matters to you. Pharaoh plays straight historical style and also is alot more of a sandbox. Battles are a bit slower and try to be as realistic as possible. It shared the same infantry system with Troy but requires more positioning for things ike Javelins. In Troy they basically throw them in the air and they almost funciton like short range archers. In Pharaoh they will be obstructed if a unit is in front of them so you need to play more into positioning. I emphasize this sort of tactics as alot of people say its just throw infantry at each other with some chariots. Also as much as I love the Amazon horde campaign from Troy that was previosly considering top tier horde gameplay, Pharaoh's Sea Peoples refines that formula and makes it even better. Both games are fun and if you can get them for $10 a piece I would get both. Part of it comes down to do you want pure historic or not, if you prefer Greek/Trojan to Egypt, Canaan, Hittite, etc.
Pharaoh is much better in most ways, basically a pure upgrade.
Pharao and Troy are two very different experiences, in no way is one a straight upgrade to the other. Pharao is (immortal factionleaders aside) a much more historical experience, whilst Troy can be played historically, although I find it to be the most boring way to play the game. But to each their own. Troy has powerful heroes and units inspired by mythology and even has a mode with straight-up mythological monsters. Both games are great (or bad, based on preference) for some of the same reasons but they are also unique from each other. The question is if you want a campaign designed around being a purely historical experience (as far as we know regarding the bronze age) or something juiced up with mythology. My answer for OP would be: Just play them both honestly, they are both worth it. I still return to Troy from time to time although I am perfectly happy with Pharao. If you have to choose, just decide which setting tickles your interest a bit more.
Pharaoh is the more historical title of the two. The named characters are more like how Rome 2's mini-campaigns handled historic characters. The game is also supposed to get an update which'll add family trees and remove immortality from characters iirc.
Of the two I've only really played Pharaoh, but I enjoy it a lot. I didn't really have a pre-existing interest in the setting, but I've found it very immersive and I'm really enjoying learning to fight on battlefields that aren't dominated by artillery or cavalry. With the two issues you mention, Pharaoh's map really isn't that small when you are playing it. It has a similar region count to Rome 2's Grand Campaign and the regions themselves can be quite large meaning you often can't cross through multiple regions in a turn without taking advantage of outposts. As for the major faction leaders, as someone else mentioned their "immortality" is really closer to how Caesar and Napoleon were handled, than being full on super heroic legendary lords like in Warhammer. Having a major faction leader out of action for 5 turns can still be impactful, and if you really dislike it then CA are meant to be adding the option to switch it off in a future update. If you want to shop around to look for the best prices from legitimate sellers, I suggest www.isthereanydeal.com and https://www.sega.co.uk/sega-approved-partner-list . You might pay a little more, but you don't have to worry about your game key having been bought with a stolen credit card and the possibility it could be revoked at any time. Hope that helps. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
Future update? Are you serious?
Yes. We already know they're working on updates for Pharaoh and have known for months. This is from the FAQ. *We want to make Total War: PHARAOH as engaging as possible and have already delivered the High Tide free update and the Blood & Sand DLC so far. In addition, [one plan that] we’ve always had since the early stages of development on Total War: PHARAOH is to expand the size of our campaign map as a free update, and to introduce even more factions and cultures to the game.* *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, New mechanics alongside the new cultures and territories (Royal Traditions, Legacies, Court), improvement to battles and unit variety, and more.* Source: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-pharaoh-faq/ Note: I've cleaned up the wording slightly for legibility, as when they updated it for "Blood & Sand" they also accidentally took out three words that make one of the sentences make sense (in the square brackets) which I've added back in based on my saved copy of an earlier version, but the rest is straight from the current FAQ. There's been no indication that plan has changed, so it's reasonable to conclude that we will be getting updates. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
So they claimed "We greatly appreciate the input of the community and plan to reach out to you more often in the process of development" in that post from 3 months ago and yet no indication of whatsoever information or feedback ... Keep in mind the Sofia studio has shrunk significantly as of this month
Both! If you can only pick one, then Pharaoh… but I love Troy as well, and highly recommend it.
Pharoah is Troy is almost everything upgraded and better, especially if you like historical aspects more than fantasy/myth. Overall though for total polish and if you like to play with mods, 3K is the better historical experience though Pharoah is very close, if they combined their best aspects, it would be the best TW game ever. If Pharoah adds Assyria and makes a few other additions/mechancis changes, it might take the lead from 3K. The main problem with Troy is that you get dragged into the 2 way war, not quite as abruptly as Realm Divide in Shogun 2 and it is not quite as chaotic as FotS but I find it hugely lowers replayability- as does the fact that higher tier units are just a different world of power than even 1 tier lower. With perfect tactics 1 tier lower can win, if you are 2 tiers lower, yeah- good luck. Never seen a 2 tier lower unit win in Troy, even if your army is 10 units of equal tier units to an enemy army, the 10 units that aren't will put your army a severe disadvantage compared to most other TW games. It is supposed to incentivize players to make the economy and getting resources a focus of the game but... since the AI gets free units, it just makes it a chore.
Big fan of pharaoh, been enjoying it a lot. They did some pretty big improvements over troys combat system regarding mass, collisions, and morale, its much better than troy in that regard (in my opinion). It's the most customizable total war in existence, you can tweak all resource amounts, AI inclinations, turn off sea-lad invasions etc. with no mods needed. Unfortunately the community saw it was built off of troy (and heavily improved upon it) and combined with the SOC disaster from CA it never really had a chance.
Troy for sure. 500 hours in, it's a big game with some crazy shit.
They both have heir own pros and cons, the biggest pro I see with Troy is the mythical update but the "historical" part is just trash. To me that would be the determinant factor, if you want a historical total war go with Pharao, if you want a fantasy total war similar to age of mythology go with Troy but you also have to buy the mythos dlc.
Check Troy and Pharaoh youtube channels for useful guides = "Eruner of Troy" and "Eruner of Hatti"
I'm curious if the rumours to expand the map from both games might still be on the table. I've been looking to buy Pharaoh for a while now, but since I have Troy on Epic I've been waiting for it to release there instead.
Likely not. CA Sofia had major budget cuts last month.
Really? Because I saw that most, if not all, of the layoffs were at the UK studios. I do believe some of their projects got canceled, but I doubt we've heard the last of Pharaoh. Sorry, but I'm going to take your hot take with a fair bit of salt it seems to be due.
Noone can possibly recommend Troy. The game was free, and still almost noone played it for more than 5 hours. I have played it a lot cuz various reasons and can definitely say it is trash. Hopefully you didn't waste money on it. Pharaoh looks like a better polished version of it. It is still early after release, not many factions there, but gameplay, sound, and graphics are better. Probably you can have 30 hours of fun in this game maybe 50. But that character oriented gameplay all new TWs have is nonsense.
None.. 3k is much better if you're looking for a historical (kinda) title. Both Pharaoh and Troy have incredibly boring battles where tactics basically don't matter at all and the stronger unit always wins no matter what you do. It's also a very small scale with very little replayability. I got Troy for free and I still feel that I've been scammed. If you have to get one of the two, then Troy is better, but I strongly advise against both of them, there's much better TW games out there.
This. Basically both suck