*This one took a while to make, I hope you enjoyed the video guys and if you did give it a like. Also please let me know your thoughts down below on Pharaoh 👍*
CA has neglected their actual fan base for almost a decade. TW Pharaoh has shown us that CA has actually forgot how to make a genuine historical title. You have to think most of anyone who works for CA with a passion for history probably left the company knowing they weren’t going to work on anything historical for 10 years. If we went back in time and I was told Attila would be the last historical title with naval battles for 10-12 years I’d just simply quit the franchise. CA has swapped out their player base for warhammer fan boys who will leave CA when they’re done with TW Warhammer.
Man this was the nail in the coffin, the biggest turn off in Troy was immortal characters and no family tree. Also having this province system makes the game too linary
Thanks for your honesty mate and you’ve basically said what I’ve been telling everyone in my community. It’s good they are bringing things back that we love but they introduced it like it’s something new when it’s been in past TW games. Looks a lot like Troy and that didn’t do well ( I didn’t get it) I’m not sure who even asked for this when we all wanted medieval 3. I’m glad they are bringing animations back but it’s still not worth the price they are asking. Been waiting 9yrs for the new historical title and I’m really disappointed in CA.
It was CA Sofia that added in the Rome II family tree update, the rebalancing, night mode redos, and the Rome II DLCs. In my opinion they should be getting more appreciation.
they can get their appreciation when they do something good like in rome 2 but not when they do something that isn't good like troy or this game. It's like they haven't learned from their mistakes and we should not applaud that
The region between Greece, Egypt and Persia is the most interesting place in the world, it has had a thousand kingdoms all with interesting cultures, religions and histories. It holds the earlyest signs of human civilisation. Egypt is the most uninteresting thing in the area. The lost potential of having a game set in the whole of the expanded levant. The story of turning a backwater city-state into a dominant kingdom. The story of civilisations so far inthe past they might be from a different planet. The hope of playing not only as the Egyptians but the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Sumerians. Hell play as Sargon of Akkad or Gilgamesh.
I feel like what I need to see is 1. The other factions. What are their unique abilities? Unique faction traits, not just on an FAQ but up close and on screen. 2. Varied terrain. Right now, even though the ancient world was not all desert, that is mostly what we are getting. I liked R3K but the terrain in that for battles left me meh. Same with Troy. No reason the maps for a historical cannot be as good as the maps for Warhammer. Those two items will go a long way towards whether I pick this title up. I mever did get Troy.
i actually think this is a great game at the core, it just needs something unique and to make it stand apart, which the free update on the 25th is set to fix alot of problems, including sea people landing on the map, better wars, unique faction stuff, and dynasty lines Granted, all this should have been added from the start
As a newer channel to the scene with a focus on Total War, I totally agree where most channels are more focused on the Warhammer games. I just picked up 1, 2, and 3, the other day with the steam sale and soon (since this comment will be old by then) will start a campaign stream in warhammer 3. I'm more of a historical player so I never really had interest to play the warhammer series and I'm probably one of few that is excited for the Pharaoh total war coming soon (mainly cause I haven't played Troy so Idk how/why its a clone game apparently lol) I want to help bring back the historical game scene if at all possible. Heck even most guides are outdated nowadays with all the patches to most of the games. Rome 1, Medieval 2, Empire, Shogun 2 and Rome 2 are my main games and I'm doing campaigns in all of them lol. Honestly I was hoping for Empire 2 or even Medieval 3, and I do hope we get those down the line. Not sure why they picked Bronze Age Egypt for a setting (even though I'm sure its gonna be cool to sight see) when the community has been calling for both Empire 2 and Med 3. IDK but thank you for the vid and thank you for your content Sparta :)
For many if not most fans of the historical TW titles, the allure of a given game has as much to do with the historical setting (time and place) as the game mechanics, features, etc. I think the backlash surrounding Pharoah can be attributed to the fact that it is a time and place most of us are indifferent towards which compounds our collective frustration at not being heard regarding a Medieval III. I understand that bronze age warfare is a very niche genre and won't appeal to everyone, but bronze age Greece is nothing like bronze age Egypt. I love TW Troy but couldn't really care less about Pharoah; I'll be keeping my eyes on it though because I'm interested in seeing what new nations/factions are introduced in the four future DLCs. I know that "it's just a Troy re-skin" is the lowest hanging fruit on the Pharoah criticism tree but as a Troy fan I have to disagree (except for the UI and resources of course). As an Iliad and Troy (the movie) fan I love the theme, atmosphere, setting, characters, story, etc of Troy (TW) but Pharoah, despite also being a bronze age TW game, has no where near the same allure for me. Love the video dude. Just subbed and looking forward to more Total War content.
We got Pharaoh and there is no Medieval III in sight - not even a definitive edition for Medieval 2 which would have been easy on their resources. All of it is quite baffling. I have pretty much turned my back on Total War and I am quite content with the decision so far.
I would only disagree that this is a 'reskin of Troy' and it's 'Troy 2.0'. The Game is far better in terms of expanding the campaign map, still has a unique Ui to Egypt, and it feels like an Ancient Egypt game. Troy had a smaller setting, and it was limited to Greece. When I heard of Troy I thought we were going to have a huge Bronze Age map with all factions ranging to Mesopotamia. I was very disappointed. Pharoah HOWEVER does seem to have that scope and I will play the heck out of this game too much
Another comfy ole man here lol ... Hello My Friend & welcome back ... Ok well, visuals are nice, just about what you'd expect to see with regards to this particular time period. However I feel what is wrong with the game can be summed up one one word ... Boredom. I'm beginning to think that maybe Total War Games have had their day to be honest. Also I beg to differ with what CA are saying that this is the next big historical Total War, with the price tag to match. I don't feel that the game is worth it frankly, but I think Total War historical devotees will buy it due to a lack of anything else of course. I don't think the game will be a failure but I don't think sales will peak like they did with Rome II & the Warhammer series. I don't see myself buying it, although I may do at some point in the future if they have a huge sale & the price is drastically reduced. So overall not impressed.
22:30 both battles and the campaign in 3K were great. Perhaps not in the beginning, but having recently played it again for several days, I can confidently say that both the battles and the campaign are some of the best work CA has ever delivered.
Starting to feel sorry for the Sofia crew at this point. A Troy spin off is no bad thing, but the "next major historical" tag, DLC roadmap and pre-order push dooms this thing to failure. Gives me the feeling that CA really arent interested in historical titles anymore. Too much hassle, not enough reward.
The Warhammer TW games are arcade games for those with..let's say not much patience and like battles to be over in 2 to 5 minutes. ;-) If you want a very good , much more immerisve experience then get the excellent overhaul mod 'Divide et Impera' for Rome 2. It's the only way to play that games as I think Rome 2 is shit really but DEI makes it an actual game with a proper supply system, recruitment that takes much more planning and management and battles that ebb and flow. AI is MUCH better in campaign and battle and the near countless amount of custom units (no vanilla ones) makes it a real varied experience. Get DEI for the historical experience, get WH 3 for the arcade kids experience, you won't regret either. 🙂
Wdym? *Pharaoh* isn’t going to have any hero superpowers like 3K or Troy. Looks like it’s going to be the most grounded and realistic TW game in a while.
Medieval 2 realistic? Wtf man. That game was all except realistic, from region placement, settlements and units it was more a fantasy title. Even the historical battles are poorly represented (being Otumba the most butchered one)
I can't play this game, since my laptop can't handle anything after Brittania, so this is all very low stakes for me. But I feel like it can be fun, but not as big as Rome, 3K or Attila. My biggest gripe is not with all these features, the scope etc. My biggest problem is inherent in the bronze age: warfare was much more primitive. No artillery, basically no cav, no ships (although I've given up on ships lately, I loved ships in every game they were put in). I also haven't seen elephants, but it could be that they are in the game. You just have less tools to play with, I love building different types of armies, one focussed on artillery, one with loads of horse archers. Sure you now have "quick-running light infantry" and "heavy defensive infantry" and "archer infantry" but they're all varieties of infantry. A shock-infantry fights fairly different from shock-cavelry. Probably am going to play and enjoy it in 2 of 3 years when I have an income to buy a good gaming computer. I enjoyed troy, I enjoyed some parts of Brittain (recruiting really ruins that game).
Thank you for the video Warrior Of Sparta . I hope CA and the developers of Troy and Pharaoh are listening to the fans , to the good and bad and acting on it pre release . Fingers crossed we’ll be happy with the final product 🤞🏻
One of the main things is that I believe I saw the campaign map and IT includes parts of Mesopotamia and Greece but obv not filled out yet. If the game has three cultures, how does that make any sense? Why only THREE? Rome II had more cultures at launch then this! This game needs Mesopotamia. I won't stop championing that cause. When other mods in the tw series gives you an ability to experience the Bronze Age, what is stopping them? The dynasty edition could be worth it if 'Mesopotamia' is confirmed DLC. The only way we will know this is when someone goes into the files of Pharaoh and then finds a Mesopotamian DLC hint. Its how the Troy mythos was found when people went into the files to see what was coming. ADD MESOPOTAMIA!
I completely expect this game to be given the Three Kingdoms treatment after it doesn't sell well on release and after they try to charge outrageous prices for the dlc.
I think I may also be a old man about this, I don't particularly have interest in the setting and while I actually didn't mind troy I don't think a fully historical version in this setting was the right move, and they've clearly dropped the SAGA branding as it's a dead weight, they can't still avoid the community believing it is in all but name only. I'm hoping when I do get hands on, I'll find things to enjoy while playing rather than being hyper-critical on pre-release footage.
3k Campaign was perfect. If they make something similar to 3k with bigger map and better vassal and rebellion systems, that would be great. I do not see population though, that is a very big downside for any egypt game.
One of the points is that yeah, compared to Warhammer this is very small, but comparison should probably be to Warhammer 1, which had 4 factions, each with 2 lords. Now, there are are differences there too (certainly warhammer had much differences in rosters, models, etc. though it also had a much less complex set of faction mechanics from what we've seen. And Medieval 2 (to go back in time) might have had more factions, but they also had basically no unique faction mechanics whatsoever. I just don't think a Warhammer-scaled game from the get-go is particularly realistic, and I'm saying this as I'm somewhat miffed at the small scale of Pharaoh: I'd at least have wanted the Assyrians, Babylonia and Elam along with the existing factions. I didn't like Troy all that much, and I'm definitely not vowed by Pharaoh, but I think people are kinda forgetting what scale CA games have normally been in: Compare this to Shogun 2, f.ex, and the amount of content certainly starts looking better. (now how *good* that content is, is going to be a huge difference of course, and is going to depend a lot on actual im plementaiton) Dynamic weather has never been in the series, btw. (my question is if it's going to be actually meaningful or fun, but it's definitely not something that's been in the series) we've had *static* weather effects (eg. "This battle takes place during rain" but what the dynamic system does is precisely that, dynamic system where weather changes *during* a battle. Which again, I don't think is actually going to be that meaningful or fun, but it is certainly *new* One of the things I think Troy actually did really well was distinguishing different unit types, both in terms of what they were (swords, spears, etc.) and their weight class, and all of those had different roles and uses. Troy did however do a terrible job of *explaining* these distinctions (and it didn't help that all of the units tended to come down like "guys clad in some kind of brownish-bronze colour") so I expect Pharaoh to do that part well. I have some annoyances wrt. chariots (in that they seem to behave mostly like total war chariots and now how actual chariots would be used) but that's a different matter. Sieges is one of those things where it's going to be bad, but in my mind has *always* been bad, just different degrees; I just don't think Total War games can really handle sieges well, and they need some kind of separate/more involved system to it rather than just playing a standard land battle but with walls and shitty pathfinding, something that plays out over several strategic turns. I am especially sad in seeing so few of the advances made in 3K being ported over, but that seems to be a codebase/engine thing: This is clearly based on Troy when, presumably whatever the main historical team is working on is going to be based on 3K (as well as potentially the 3K2 team, which we've heard nothing about, so who knows if that still exists) That said, I think people tend to somewhat misremember the scale of the average Total War historical title: Not all of them have been the same size, and evne those that became pretty big often don't *start out* that way.
couldnt agree more WoS, this feels, smells and looks like a Saga game some even say a Troy clone. And if they wanted a Historical Title why then did they pick same era ? ofc its its a budget clone of Saga Troy and they take full game prizes. I didnt buy 3Kingdoms cause it wasnt my era/part of world that intrest me but this I wont buy due to facts stated above. Iam sry but if CA med a real effort in Medieval 3 or Empire 2 fanbase would back em, but at one point in recent years they just stopped listening to us.
The time period is just too saturated for another mainline historic Total War title, not even a free version of Troy piqued my interest. Three Kingdoms was a breath of fresh air albeit with its own faults, wish we could get a 30 Years' War setting or something else that would be unique to the franchise
Gutted that they have chosen this time period, just another let down like Troy… thought there would have been a lot more water on the battle maps as the Nile basin didn’t start to dry until around 2200BC (king tut was born around 1341bc for example) poor game all round not looking forward to it at all. Will not be buying huge let down.
@@Warrior_of_Sparta I agree with all proposed changes to what they seem want to release. They should at least make round table in UK even if they are bulgarians here and ask youtubers if they are doing good. That's a pity, really, that they seem do not paying much attention to what community wants. Being a fan of human history from 4 y.o. and a total war player since medieval 2 which i got my hands on in 2004, I still don't beg much for med 3 or smth like this, I just want this game to be good and at least to see Assyria/Babylon/Elamites etc in 3rd game and Immortal-empires like map of 3 games or even 4 games with the western europe even if we don't know much about it historic-wise. Yeah, the pricing is crazy etc, the game around one character not dynasty, also they lived I think in different ages since Ramsesses 2 not 3 I think was fighting that Hittite guy etc, I hate Troy/WH animations. But overall I enjoyed Troy not less than Atilla and don't think it is worse than any TW after Rome I tbh. Britain by bulgarians was not bad also but buggy and I couldn't even finish (lol). Hope they do not mess it up. Oasises were also very important for saharian trade according to the latest archeologist's work hope they will implement this and they will dont purely play a military role.
*This one took a while to make, I hope you enjoyed the video guys and if you did give it a like. Also please let me know your thoughts down below on Pharaoh 👍*
CA has neglected their actual fan base for almost a decade. TW Pharaoh has shown us that CA has actually forgot how to make a genuine historical title. You have to think most of anyone who works for CA with a passion for history probably left the company knowing they weren’t going to work on anything historical for 10 years.
If we went back in time and I was told Attila would be the last historical title with naval battles for 10-12 years I’d just simply quit the franchise.
CA has swapped out their player base for warhammer fan boys who will leave CA when they’re done with TW Warhammer.
Man this was the nail in the coffin, the biggest turn off in Troy was immortal characters and no family tree. Also having this province system makes the game too linary
Thanks for your honesty mate and you’ve basically said what I’ve been telling everyone in my community. It’s good they are bringing things back that we love but they introduced it like it’s something new when it’s been in past TW games. Looks a lot like Troy and that didn’t do well ( I didn’t get it) I’m not sure who even asked for this when we all wanted medieval 3. I’m glad they are bringing animations back but it’s still not worth the price they are asking. Been waiting 9yrs for the new historical title and I’m really disappointed in CA.
That’s it isn’t it, nobody asked for this game. They’ve misread the community with this one
It was CA Sofia that added in the Rome II family tree update, the rebalancing, night mode redos, and the Rome II DLCs.
In my opinion they should be getting more appreciation.
Ah ok didn’t realise that, they should’ve definitely added them to this game
they can get their appreciation when they do something good like in rome 2 but not when they do something that isn't good like troy or this game. It's like they haven't learned from their mistakes and we should not applaud that
@@matts7125totally agree
24:12 - I agree the family tree NEEDS to be added
The region between Greece, Egypt and Persia is the most interesting place in the world, it has had a thousand kingdoms all with interesting cultures, religions and histories. It holds the earlyest signs of human civilisation. Egypt is the most uninteresting thing in the area.
The lost potential of having a game set in the whole of the expanded levant. The story of turning a backwater city-state into a dominant kingdom. The story of civilisations so far inthe past they might be from a different planet.
The hope of playing not only as the Egyptians but the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Sumerians. Hell play as Sargon of Akkad or Gilgamesh.
I feel like what I need to see is
1. The other factions. What are their unique abilities? Unique faction traits, not just on an FAQ but up close and on screen.
2. Varied terrain. Right now, even though the ancient world was not all desert, that is mostly what we are getting. I liked R3K but the terrain in that for battles left me meh. Same with Troy. No reason the maps for a historical cannot be as good as the maps for Warhammer.
Those two items will go a long way towards whether I pick this title up. I mever did get Troy.
When I heard there was no dynasty’s or family trees, I was out.
I love Total War but am still unsure about Pharaoh. Thanks for making this video!
i actually think this is a great game at the core, it just needs something unique and to make it stand apart, which the free update on the 25th is set to fix alot of problems, including sea people landing on the map, better wars, unique faction stuff, and dynasty lines
Granted, all this should have been added from the start
I loved Troy so I'm definitely hyped for this one. It's the game I didn't know I wanted. Looking forward to an Ancient Aliens mod lol.
Troy was crap, no replay value
@@reddwarf63 I must have spent over 1000 hours doing the same thing over and over then lol
@@tonynussbaumWell yes. Regardless of which you played, if you played 1000 hours you were doing the same thing over and over.
@@reddwarf63I disagree.
My response to the Pharaoh announcement was a solid "Meh". And I've bought and played every total war game (excluding Troy which I go free on Epic.).
As a newer channel to the scene with a focus on Total War, I totally agree where most channels are more focused on the Warhammer games. I just picked up 1, 2, and 3, the other day with the steam sale and soon (since this comment will be old by then) will start a campaign stream in warhammer 3. I'm more of a historical player so I never really had interest to play the warhammer series and I'm probably one of few that is excited for the Pharaoh total war coming soon (mainly cause I haven't played Troy so Idk how/why its a clone game apparently lol) I want to help bring back the historical game scene if at all possible. Heck even most guides are outdated nowadays with all the patches to most of the games. Rome 1, Medieval 2, Empire, Shogun 2 and Rome 2 are my main games and I'm doing campaigns in all of them lol. Honestly I was hoping for Empire 2 or even Medieval 3, and I do hope we get those down the line. Not sure why they picked Bronze Age Egypt for a setting (even though I'm sure its gonna be cool to sight see) when the community has been calling for both Empire 2 and Med 3. IDK but thank you for the vid and thank you for your content Sparta :)
For many if not most fans of the historical TW titles, the allure of a given game has as much to do with the historical setting (time and place) as the game mechanics, features, etc. I think the backlash surrounding Pharoah can be attributed to the fact that it is a time and place most of us are indifferent towards which compounds our collective frustration at not being heard regarding a Medieval III. I understand that bronze age warfare is a very niche genre and won't appeal to everyone, but bronze age Greece is nothing like bronze age Egypt. I love TW Troy but couldn't really care less about Pharoah; I'll be keeping my eyes on it though because I'm interested in seeing what new nations/factions are introduced in the four future DLCs. I know that "it's just a Troy re-skin" is the lowest hanging fruit on the Pharoah criticism tree but as a Troy fan I have to disagree (except for the UI and resources of course). As an Iliad and Troy (the movie) fan I love the theme, atmosphere, setting, characters, story, etc of Troy (TW) but Pharoah, despite also being a bronze age TW game, has no where near the same allure for me.
Love the video dude. Just subbed and looking forward to more Total War content.
We got Pharaoh and there is no Medieval III in sight - not even a definitive edition for Medieval 2 which would have been easy on their resources.
All of it is quite baffling. I have pretty much turned my back on Total War and I am quite content with the decision so far.
I would only disagree that this is a 'reskin of Troy' and it's 'Troy 2.0'.
The Game is far better in terms of expanding the campaign map, still has a unique Ui to Egypt, and it feels like an Ancient Egypt game. Troy had a smaller setting, and it was limited to Greece. When I heard of Troy I thought we were going to have a huge Bronze Age map with all factions ranging to Mesopotamia. I was very disappointed.
Pharoah HOWEVER does seem to have that scope and I will play the heck out of this game too much
Another comfy ole man here lol ... Hello My Friend & welcome back ... Ok well, visuals are nice, just about what you'd expect to see with regards to this particular time period. However I feel what is wrong with the game can be summed up one one word ... Boredom. I'm beginning to think that maybe Total War Games have had their day to be honest. Also I beg to differ with what CA are saying that this is the next big historical Total War, with the price tag to match. I don't feel that the game is worth it frankly, but I think Total War historical devotees will buy it due to a lack of anything else of course. I don't think the game will be a failure but I don't think sales will peak like they did with Rome II & the Warhammer series. I don't see myself buying it, although I may do at some point in the future if they have a huge sale & the price is drastically reduced. So overall not impressed.
22:30 both battles and the campaign in 3K were great. Perhaps not in the beginning, but having recently played it again for several days, I can confidently say that both the battles and the campaign are some of the best work CA has ever delivered.
Starting to feel sorry for the Sofia crew at this point. A Troy spin off is no bad thing, but the "next major historical" tag, DLC roadmap and pre-order push dooms this thing to failure. Gives me the feeling that CA really arent interested in historical titles anymore. Too much hassle, not enough reward.
yeah it makes you wonder doesn't it!
The Warhammer TW games are arcade games for those with..let's say not much patience and like battles to be over in 2 to 5 minutes. ;-)
If you want a very good , much more immerisve experience then get the excellent overhaul mod 'Divide et Impera' for Rome 2.
It's the only way to play that games as I think Rome 2 is shit really but DEI makes it an actual game with a proper supply system, recruitment that takes much more planning and management and battles that ebb and flow.
AI is MUCH better in campaign and battle and the near countless amount of custom units (no vanilla ones) makes it a real varied experience.
Get DEI for the historical experience, get WH 3 for the arcade kids experience, you won't regret either.
🙂
I just want a grounded realistic war game like medieval 2 not this hero superpower nonsense
Medieval 2 is many things but it is not grounded or realistic.
They need to go back to the dark Attila aesthetic
TW Warhammer broke that mold.
Wdym? *Pharaoh* isn’t going to have any hero superpowers like 3K or Troy. Looks like it’s going to be the most grounded and realistic TW game in a while.
Medieval 2 realistic? Wtf man. That game was all except realistic, from region placement, settlements and units it was more a fantasy title.
Even the historical battles are poorly represented (being Otumba the most butchered one)
Come back Warrior
Pharaoh has redeemed itself!
I can't play this game, since my laptop can't handle anything after Brittania, so this is all very low stakes for me.
But I feel like it can be fun, but not as big as Rome, 3K or Attila. My biggest gripe is not with all these features, the scope etc. My biggest problem is inherent in the bronze age: warfare was much more primitive. No artillery, basically no cav, no ships (although I've given up on ships lately, I loved ships in every game they were put in). I also haven't seen elephants, but it could be that they are in the game.
You just have less tools to play with, I love building different types of armies, one focussed on artillery, one with loads of horse archers. Sure you now have "quick-running light infantry" and "heavy defensive infantry" and "archer infantry" but they're all varieties of infantry. A shock-infantry fights fairly different from shock-cavelry.
Probably am going to play and enjoy it in 2 of 3 years when I have an income to buy a good gaming computer. I enjoyed troy, I enjoyed some parts of Brittain (recruiting really ruins that game).
We haven't had mainline historical title in over 10 years now. I am sad
Thank you for the video Warrior Of Sparta . I hope CA and the developers of Troy and Pharaoh are listening to the fans , to the good and bad and acting on it pre release . Fingers crossed we’ll be happy with the final product 🤞🏻
I fear this game is now set, I hope the next main title brings major changes
One of the main things is that I believe I saw the campaign map and IT includes parts of Mesopotamia and Greece but obv not filled out yet. If the game has three cultures, how does that make any sense? Why only THREE? Rome II had more cultures at launch then this!
This game needs Mesopotamia. I won't stop championing that cause. When other mods in the tw series gives you an ability to experience the Bronze Age, what is stopping them?
The dynasty edition could be worth it if 'Mesopotamia' is confirmed DLC. The only way we will know this is when someone goes into the files of Pharaoh and then finds a Mesopotamian DLC hint. Its how the Troy mythos was found when people went into the files to see what was coming.
ADD MESOPOTAMIA!
I completely expect this game to be given the Three Kingdoms treatment after it doesn't sell well on release and after they try to charge outrageous prices for the dlc.
All i see is the Warhammer moshpit battles,Sigh.....
They can still add family trees
i doubt they will if it aint in the game at launch
@@Warrior_of_Sparta maybe or maybe not
I wonder, if this time WS will come backLast time it was 2years or so. Been gone over 1 year this time. Will have to wait and see I guess.
Who's going to pay for DLC's not knowing what's in them?
i think we need total war in medivel and renaissance not in the bronze age !
100%
I think I may also be a old man about this, I don't particularly have interest in the setting and while I actually didn't mind troy I don't think a fully historical version in this setting was the right move, and they've clearly dropped the SAGA branding as it's a dead weight, they can't still avoid the community believing it is in all but name only. I'm hoping when I do get hands on, I'll find things to enjoy while playing rather than being hyper-critical on pre-release footage.
Pharoah is just lazy development by CA and im waiting for the steam sale, before buying this. If it flops, might be on sale by christmas
how historical is to have 4 leaders for Egypt,2 for Canaanites and 2 for Hittites?
I have been a historical total war player for many years and I have no interest what so ever in this game.
It looks arcady, cartoonish, imagine a total war game that truly captures the grim nature of war like call of duty world at war did
3k Campaign was perfect. If they make something similar to 3k with bigger map and better vassal and rebellion systems, that would be great. I do not see population though, that is a very big downside for any egypt game.
Havent even played Troy, so ill skip Pharaoh >_>.
One of the points is that yeah, compared to Warhammer this is very small, but comparison should probably be to Warhammer 1, which had 4 factions, each with 2 lords. Now, there are are differences there too (certainly warhammer had much differences in rosters, models, etc. though it also had a much less complex set of faction mechanics from what we've seen. And Medieval 2 (to go back in time) might have had more factions, but they also had basically no unique faction mechanics whatsoever. I just don't think a Warhammer-scaled game from the get-go is particularly realistic, and I'm saying this as I'm somewhat miffed at the small scale of Pharaoh: I'd at least have wanted the Assyrians, Babylonia and Elam along with the existing factions.
I didn't like Troy all that much, and I'm definitely not vowed by Pharaoh, but I think people are kinda forgetting what scale CA games have normally been in: Compare this to Shogun 2, f.ex, and the amount of content certainly starts looking better. (now how *good* that content is, is going to be a huge difference of course, and is going to depend a lot on actual im plementaiton)
Dynamic weather has never been in the series, btw. (my question is if it's going to be actually meaningful or fun, but it's definitely not something that's been in the series) we've had *static* weather effects (eg. "This battle takes place during rain" but what the dynamic system does is precisely that, dynamic system where weather changes *during* a battle. Which again, I don't think is actually going to be that meaningful or fun, but it is certainly *new*
One of the things I think Troy actually did really well was distinguishing different unit types, both in terms of what they were (swords, spears, etc.) and their weight class, and all of those had different roles and uses. Troy did however do a terrible job of *explaining* these distinctions (and it didn't help that all of the units tended to come down like "guys clad in some kind of brownish-bronze colour") so I expect Pharaoh to do that part well. I have some annoyances wrt. chariots (in that they seem to behave mostly like total war chariots and now how actual chariots would be used) but that's a different matter.
Sieges is one of those things where it's going to be bad, but in my mind has *always* been bad, just different degrees; I just don't think Total War games can really handle sieges well, and they need some kind of separate/more involved system to it rather than just playing a standard land battle but with walls and shitty pathfinding, something that plays out over several strategic turns.
I am especially sad in seeing so few of the advances made in 3K being ported over, but that seems to be a codebase/engine thing: This is clearly based on Troy when, presumably whatever the main historical team is working on is going to be based on 3K (as well as potentially the 3K2 team, which we've heard nothing about, so who knows if that still exists)
That said, I think people tend to somewhat misremember the scale of the average Total War historical title: Not all of them have been the same size, and evne those that became pretty big often don't *start out* that way.
Thanks for posting but I have absolutely no interest in it, the time period or from what you posted. Have a like for the post, it is not for the game.
completely agree with you!
I hope you will continue to do these honest pharaoh reviews even when you get to experience the campaign
For sure 👍
couldnt agree more WoS, this feels, smells and looks like a Saga game some even say a Troy clone. And if they wanted a Historical Title why then did they pick same era ? ofc its its a budget clone of Saga Troy and they take full game prizes. I didnt buy 3Kingdoms cause it wasnt my era/part of world that intrest me but this I wont buy due to facts stated above. Iam sry but if CA med a real effort in Medieval 3 or Empire 2 fanbase would back em, but at one point in recent years they just stopped listening to us.
It looks an absolute dog shyt mobile game. Im pretty much done with total war, sad times, been a journey since I played shogun 1 as a kid
Appears pharaoh is a big old flop. CA sure messed this up!
The time period is just too saturated for another mainline historic Total War title, not even a free version of Troy piqued my interest. Three Kingdoms was a breath of fresh air albeit with its own faults, wish we could get a 30 Years' War setting or something else that would be unique to the franchise
they played it too safe with this, it needs a radical new iteration, push the boundaries out
Every total war youtuber either has warrior or legend in their name and they’re always neither. 🤣🤣
We want a MTW3 or a ETW2 or a Renaissance TW (as far as I'm concerned...mostly a MTW3). Personally, I will not buy a CA game until one of these three.
Gutted that they have chosen this time period, just another let down like Troy… thought there would have been a lot more water on the battle maps as the Nile basin didn’t start to dry until around 2200BC (king tut was born around 1341bc for example) poor game all round not looking forward to it at all. Will not be buying huge let down.
Best preview I saw so far, thanks!
Glad you liked it!
@@Warrior_of_Sparta I agree with all proposed changes to what they seem want to release. They should at least make round table in UK even if they are bulgarians here and ask youtubers if they are doing good. That's a pity, really, that they seem do not paying much attention to what community wants. Being a fan of human history from 4 y.o. and a total war player since medieval 2 which i got my hands on in 2004, I still don't beg much for med 3 or smth like this, I just want this game to be good and at least to see Assyria/Babylon/Elamites etc in 3rd game and Immortal-empires like map of 3 games or even 4 games with the western europe even if we don't know much about it historic-wise. Yeah, the pricing is crazy etc, the game around one character not dynasty, also they lived I think in different ages since Ramsesses 2 not 3 I think was fighting that Hittite guy etc, I hate Troy/WH animations. But overall I enjoyed Troy not less than Atilla and don't think it is worse than any TW after Rome I tbh. Britain by bulgarians was not bad also but buggy and I couldn't even finish (lol). Hope they do not mess it up. Oasises were also very important for saharian trade according to the latest archeologist's work hope they will implement this and they will dont purely play a military role.
I may ask for a refund and instead spend that money on Starfield.
Shame!!! i was really looking forward this one.... didn't like the warhammer serie and troy was pretty bad!!!
I think, A is doing a lot of changes before it comes out next month. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.