THE BRUTAL TRUTH - TOTAL WAR PHARAOH REVIEW AND GUIDE
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Make sure to download Honkai Star Rail now to experience the amazing new update and characters, and use my redemption code to redeem 50 Stellar Jade x50 instantly:
hoyo.link/dX3e...
Redemption Code
Jingliu: Oct 11 - Oct 26
PT8TF72MQ93X
Thank you so much HoYoverse for sponsoring this video!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total War: Pharaoh is sold as the first true historical Total War in nearly a decade, but whether it feels grounded and "historical" as many of the older fans will expect, is another matter. Pharaoh is perhaps one of the most difficult Total War's to fully evaluate because it actually does a lot of things right. With some amazing campaign mechanics and interesting systems, you can tell the team has worked passionately on this game. At the same time, the game is built on titles that never felt historical in the first place, and so many of the systems in this game uphold an arcady fundamental core rather than a grounded and complex baseline that many of this game's target audience is asking for.
And that's the tragedy of Pharaoh and historical Total War at the moment; on its own, and perhaps coming from outside of Total War, Pharaoh can be experienced as a rather grand experience that certainly offers the production value and depth to impress. But to veterans of the series, and to the people that were likely to follow Pharaoh throughout its development-release cycle, it ends up as something much less. And that's what this review is all about, uncovering the good and the bad, and making sure you know everything you need about Pharaoh, and no matter my opinion on a mechanic or game aspect, find out for yourself whether Total War Pharaoh is worth it for you.
This is the full Total War Pharaoh Review, and I hope you enjoy the work I've put in to give you my unfiltered and holistic view of this game, both the good and the bad!
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER: / @andystake
Consider supporting me with a Super Thanks! :D
OR please consider supporting me on Patreon: / andystake .
Don't forget to leave a like, comment, and subscribe to help me befriend the algorithm ;)
JOIN THE DISCORD: / discord
#HSR #F2P #honkaistarrail #promocode #totalwarpharaoh #totalwarpharaohreview
"Traits based on their actions"
THIS. Just give me back this. Remove all the skill trees and percentage bonus, the click to buff/debuff abilities and the gamey stuff and give me back this: for leaders, armies, agents, everything.
amen
Adding that would make the generic leaders so much cooler.
I would actually care about them at that point.
I would rather have both : traits that are unique and only obtainable through actions, thus rewarding the actual experience of battle and traits received from having an education, studying the theory while sitting in town thus rewarding the structuring of administration.
A practical example of this is the "Frost Maiden" spellcaster from Warhammer 3 : you pick on that is send on a training course and come out of it with unique trait that makes her more formidable. That's a concrete way of obtaining an agent with abilities you know you'd like to have down the line but also can't have the opportunity to get under normal, battle seeking circumstances.
Same with armor and ressources. I actually dislike the way it is handled in Warhammer (all three for that matter) because it looks and feels like an innate stats rather than an equipment and the ressources themselves do not contributes to change that, if but in an either very marginal or superficially faction locked way (for example, Medical Herbs do practically nothing to Norsca but are very good for Lizardmen.) It's just painful to see it all being so restrictive...
For real!
I think it does have traits earned through actions no? I’m pretty sure I saw something like that in an Heir of Carthage video, where it outlined the traits you can acquire and how they are earned/what they can be punishment for doing (retreating from too many battles giving you cowardly, defeating larger enemies giving you brave I think for example).
I like how theyve added resources back in from Troy but will almost definitely just go back to having only gold in the next total war. That is my problem with CA, they are just changing stuff up for the sake of it. There is no long term strategy as to how the series should evolve. The fort system is cool but again, i have literally zero expectation of it returning in later total war games.
same crap happens in Pokemon Games too
Exactly this. It’s depressing to see them striking gold in one title, then completely leaving it behind in the next one.
And in battlefield. "We don't understand why people liked bad company 2" players can be dumb sometimes fr but sometimes we actually do understand the product better than the people making it
Eh we understand it better than the corporate boardrooms making decisions. The devs do tend to get it but they don't make these design decisions anymore. @@JM-yz6zb
They leave important stuff behind so they can sell said feature back as dlc if they found enough demand. It's a depressing state of affairs.
I miss fort/towers from Rome1/Med2. Was a great way to see over your borders and create proper choke points for protection of your territories, not those pre-placed outposts.
How to build tower in medieval 2 total war?
@@macdee010 Generals can build them on map
especially in mods like TATW those towers were absolutely critical to have. Somehow it made it also more immersive, sort of 'beacons of gondor' type of thing to see all those towers on your borders
@@tetrisint forts were useful but I always hated watchtowers, they were helpful when looking into enemy territory, but my issue with them was having to build them in your own territory because you could see all of it for some reason.
In regards to the character focus and how factions were disunited, I think this is an example of not fully following through with a design change. CK3 is entirely character focused, and your personal territories are very clearly defined while other territories can still be within your realm through the vassal system. Total war never had a good vassal system, and it pretty much doesn't have a title system at all, so to give characters their own territory, it was necessary for them to be split by faction.
They just didn't think it through, they didn't finish designing, and they're trying to be something they aren't without bringing themselves up to that standard. Would've been cool to see a better fleshed out faction system with their new resource system. Very disappointing.
This is very true!
100% agree. Character-focused gameplay could be very fun for Total War, but it needs more fleshing out. The thing is they decided to have yearly releases, so ready or not, the game has to go to market. Which is why, IMO, the quality has fallen so heavily.
Yeah, I think they could stick with the character-based stuff so long as they fleshed it out to CK3 standards. I never quite thought about why it felt so wrong until you took the words straight from my subconscious. Thanks for the insight!
I remember back in the good old days of Medieval 2, you could gain new lords through marriage, prestige or birth. If an army without a general performed well, their "leader" could be exalted into knighthood, which I always found to be a great mechanic for story and gameplay. It doesn't work like that anymore since Rome 2 when all armies need a commander, but they could implement something similar, regarding units that perform well or reach a certain chevron.
I think they should also make it so vassalege includes the faction into your forces, but maybe with some kind of loyalty counter, like the dark elves and skaven in WH-TW. Maybe all characters should have it, and it's not so black and white what it will do.
Total War has always been about a lineage, historical or not (like how if you don't get yourself killed when your character historically was, he can have more children that are ahistorical) so there needn't be all this focus on restricting the character so he can't have a million more babies than he really did. This is basically a time travel game where you alter the past, but have historical guideance for you to follow as the "true ending".
Actually three Kingdoms Total War has a pretty hint or own take of a similar System. It was rly good fleshed out. The Characters in the world had relations to each other, you could after a battle capture, execute or even enlist a character. Put him in your court and give him a powerful seat. Gouvenors had some use, but the higher seats in Court were pretty valuable. Kicking someone out could end in a revolt and little civil war. he could then establish his own faction. You had a family tree and had to birth children and heirs, marry your daughters to make alliances. Damn even the Alliance System was preem, you could first form a coalition, then establish it to a full fledged alliance. Even the Spystem was fun, enlisting a character who had a grudge against a certain faction and put him behind enemy lines as a false advisor to Cao Cao. The should take that framework of Diplomacy and Campaing Mechanics and make a Medieval 3 of it!
I _will_ linger on what Pharaoh isn't because they've missed the whole appeal of the concept for the historical fans they're trying to please. If they had included Mesopotamia, Greece & Libya at least (zoomed out a bit of course) I'd be willing to overlook a lot more flaws in the game because it delivered that world we wanted. Instead, this is like if Hannibal at the Gates was the entirety of Rome 2.
But I also think the super narrow focus is the cause of the problem you mentioned of feeling like a character rather than a faction. When the entire world is Egypt, the Levant and the Hittite empire, you can't be Egypt or the Hittites until the late game or else it would be over in 10 turns. So the majority of the campaign has to be intra-faction conflict. If they included all the other regions and cultures (Nubians, Ethiopians, Libyans, Mycenaeans, Minoans, Trojans, Mitanni, Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites...), then you could actually play as a faction/culture proper. Troy got away with this because the character focus was the point and the neutral factions were spread around, not just in a blob between the Achaeans and Trojans.
Personally, I was really excited for the concept of a Bronze Age game about 1/3 the size of the Rome 2 map and 2x as detailed. This isn't that and I won't buy it unless they released that map in an update like Mortal Empires (which is extremely unlikely).
Yes! I've been trying to put my finger on why I can't get into Pharaohs aside from other TW games. Pharaohs would be a much greater game in a more expansive world where you chose the faction rather than the general representing a small portion of the faction. I should be Egypt, not Ramesses. I loved cultivating my dynasty through the family tree and arranging my generals and heirs that represent my faction.
I can understand the character driven aspect, as civilizations of those times were technically operated by single entities. The game could have been more flexible, but it does seem accurate in how tribes and kingdoms were managed back then. The real mark that we missed is the piss poor combat system. No improvement. No innovation. Very basic elementary functions and ideas delivered as God tier features.
Its atleast good to see people realize how bad things really are, I was worried many started to be fine with this mess.
They have been rather ok for a decade. Ca can sell millionss of dlc while their games have been shit since rome 2
@@d.cirovic1695I looooove Attila
its Amazing how much they floped might aswell make it a record of biggest flop. they hade all the Data they could need to make a great hit game that they knew we wanted. its like all going right to cross a bridge and that one guy that goes left and falls off cliff
@@NinjaBananes Same attila is my favorite in the whole of total war, not because the base game is good though, but because the modders are god tier 😅
@@nviwraith5271 I really liked the base Game Attila, the setting ist interesting, the factions are cool, the nomadic cultures were interesting, just the whole vibe and how battles played was good
I also liked playing as a nation (preferably with leaders capable of dying and being replaced) than as a character.
However, it makes 100% sense in Three Kingdoms, and I don't begrudge them that in that game, or Warhammer. I have read Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel (many times, in fact). It's set in a period when the central power has almost completely deteriorated, and nobody was actually controlling any warlords at all. No one is mentioned by their faction or kingdom they sided with, only by names, and by the names of their overlord, until the story was more than half-way done, and the Three Kingdoms (Wu, Shu and Wei) were formed. Only then did we get 'Men of Wu' or 'Men of Shu' in the story.
Still, I dearly hope that we would be back to playing a nation in the next game.
I think it can make sense in 3K, but you could just as easily put that game in a time period where you actually had… three kingdoms, and not 100 characters. 100C if you’d like.
I agree, historical titles should be nation-based! Leading a realm is what I am here for. The characters just help me do that and flesh out the realm.
“easily” really?
Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Iliad are fictional stories
The game of Pharaoh, it appears to me, is more about the succession of various kingdoms set in the time of the end of the Bronze Age
It makes sense to me that even this pure historical game is character based and not faction based
Since Rome2 had some factions sub divided into families, does that make it a non nation based title?
@@jvoodoochild2755All these pharaohs canonically achieved the throne. Ex: Amenmesses was Pharaoh for 3 years until ousted by Seti. This was a time of turbulence and usurping of the throne. Once Pharaoh is achieved it becomes “your” nation. That was the take they were going for. Idk about the situation with Supiliuma though. I don’t know how Hatti was organized.
@@warrensnell4370 I mean, I'd be fine with a character based historical title if CA ported basically all of CK into Total War lol
One thing I miss from Attilla is the pictures of buildings, rather than symbols. Attilla was more immersive.
I play Attila for Medieval Kingdoms Mod.
Yeah, the new icons, both building and unit, are so cheap and generic.
I actually liked rome 2 icons more than attila pictures but that's probably because it was hard to differentiate buildings in attila without looking at their name. I liked those pictures in medieval 2.
@@epicmickey2351ancient empires is great too.
Basically, Attila gives access to both med3 and rome 3. 😅
Much better game shame it runs like ass on modern hardware
My boy Andy is in the big leagues he got a Honkai/Genshin/Raid sponsorship. I'm so proud
Thanks bro 🙏
I feel like the reason they aren't giving us Med 3 or Empire 2 or even Rome 3 is because they have gone so far off the road they know themselves that they cannot create the same feeling as they did when those games were created. The unit animation and feeling is the biggest problem with Total War, and they try to fix this by implementing new features ( Old features actually ) or adding new and different things but REALLY ... we kind of want the same thing we had that worked and felt great.
Rome 2 Unit animation and the look and feel of units were for me the best, I could even work with 3K unit and animations especially the Cavalry ...
Whyyyy have they gone to this Warhammer / Troy kind of Graphics for historical titles etc. Stop giving us more flashy mechanics and give us the flexibility that we had in Rome 1 its really not hard we are telling you what we all want CA !
:(
I feel the same idk why something about the units in the games past atilla just feel weightless and fake it makes the game way less enjoyable
except we are no longer the target audience.
They don t want to appeal to thz few historical stratégy fans, they want to appeal to the casual player.
They believe they ll sell more and squeeze more money out of them...
@@etienne8110well the casual player doesn’t buy dlcs for total war and that’s what they seem to want to sell so I think CA is fucked if they don’t change who they are catering too.
This is what Medieval 3 will also be like. That's why I'm not super hyped for it. I'll just stick to TW made before Rome2. Just like I've done for the past 10+ years.
tbf, Rome 2 is pretty good now. It's probably my fav total war for coop campaigns. I just wish we could mod custom seige maps into the campaign.
Rome 2 with DeI is very good and I can't recommend it enough. Basically old TW with great graphics.
Rome 2 actually got patched super hard and they basically pulled a no man’s sky on it. It is no wonder it had a larger playerbase than Warhammer 3 for a long time. Many people that still hate Rome 2 gave up on it on launch. Which tbf is a fair thing to do
Rome 2 is trash. Totally don't feel the vibe for it. If it played and looked like the demo gameplay I'd have 5k hours on it. Didn't even buy it and it's my favourite era. I hate creative assembly...
As long as they keep the stupid general only army thing going, these games will.always be trash to me. Should be more flexible with building your armies into organized fashion through time and gameplay progress built within the system for the player to achieve.
Idk why CA is allergic to population now. Rome I did it so well. Workforce is cool tho.
Yeah I feel the same way
Too complex in their eyes I imagine. Making the game casual appeals to the shareholders.
I’m surprised in its day Rome ones pop was a huge problem. At least to those that chose to comment on the forums. I liked it but it did always boil over to riots no matter what.
Sega is their only shareholder@@XMysticHerox
Divide et impera did it even further.
With you needing the right type of pop (nobles, middle class, low class etc..) to levy the corresponding troops. (Can t levy noble horse riders if your city has only slaves and low wages farmers 😅)
And that s a mod for free... Still can t understand why ca never took inspiration from the successfull mods.
CA honestly needs to be compared to its past self more often, because I've been seeing how people are slowly starting to expect less and less as the series goes on; All the while they are encouraging CA by not demanding more, and I think this is why the series might continue to get worse unless something changes.
Strong reviewers, like you, that are willing to go against CA and start these healthy discussions are the only way for CA to get out of their yes-men headspace and start really putting some thought behind their design decisions. These conversations, while difficult for the devs to have with the community, is the only way this franchise will progress in a positive direction.
I agree, thank you for sharing your thoughts!
It’s not the developers fault. Besides this was not developed by the main arm of CA, just Sofia, with not even nearly the same budget. On top of that, like many other game companies. They are reusing the same engine over and over, and devs are left to use what they have to make the best they can. This is the fault of executives of CA and SEGA. We all know by now where their budget was behind, and unfortunately not only is there a gutting of employees happening, we will see the ripple affect of the $100 million project of Hyenas pour over into future TW titles to make up some of the capital loss. Mostly through finishing a game, then butchering it behind paywalls through DLC.
@@naturalbornpatriot6369 I never said it was the Dev's fault. I DID say that it is difficult for the Devs to engage in a discussion where their work is heavily critiqued. Thats just called being human; people rarely like being criticized even if they agree with your criticism.
Video reviews like this and comments such as yours are so helpful for a prospective buyer of Total War games. I have been considering Pharaoh, Rome II, and 3 Kingdoms. I would consider Rome Remastered as well, but that game is so old. I need newer graphics.
We need a new studio that will, and can challenge CA. There is no competition for them in this genre. They don't innovate every game feels the same.
I mean this is probably the least surprising outcome out of all possible. Pharaoh had "Reskin. Avoid." written all over it from the get go.
I fear for CAs future at this point.
No, their future is looking bright, especially with their new upcoming money-raker Hyenas...
Oh...wait... 😂😂😂
Thank you, Andy. You helped me to decide. I'm only picking this one in a long while, when it's on sale or when enough time has passed to grab it cheap on instant-gaming or whatever.
Glad my words could help with your decision :)
with the current price its would always have been "wait for a deep sale" for me. Plus with the way most games release these days, waiting 1-2 month is only going to give you a more stable game since they will have fixed most bugs. There are less and less reason to buy a game on release these days.
I'd really look at the game with a more objective and critical viewpoint because there's a lot of bad faith angry content creators who are taking their frustrations with CA out on pharaoh, which is a damn shame because Sofia is actually doing a lot of things we are asking for with their 80 man team that can't do EVERYTHING we want.
Like this is a copy paste total war? but name the total war games that have dynamic weather, mud on armour build up, armor degradation, new formation mechanics with push enemy back or tactical retreating backwards slowly while looking at enemy.
Hell abilities on skirmishers that slow down specifically chariots, or hidden based on the weather (fog) are new things, archers with abilities to increase rate of fire at cost of range etc
Here's the issue, this guy is clearly using a controversial take on the game that'll get people talking, which means more views, sponsors pay out based on views so there is a literal incentive for this youtuber to create hate baits etc
Like let's be real, this guy is reaching, stretching out things to make them look worse than they are and honestly...
I mean...
The camera ? Oh no, I can't zoom in more so I can't see what's happening and shit? are you for real? no one talks about that... because it's a non issue for literally everyone because they aren't going out their way to talk absolute bs.
This is such a bs review on some objective levels, and the subjective shit is sometimes fair, but sometimes so whack that it's almost comical.
@@nameisbad What a way to cope, dude. This is the most comprehensive review of this game in the world, and you dare insinuate that I don’t say what I mean. I’ve actually played the game for dozens of hours - have you? Did you watch the full review? It’s incredibly nuanced and brings up various positive and negative points. Don’t put yourself in this position, man.
@@nameisbad
Nah.
Andy is obviously a passionate fan of Total War games and gave Pharoh his best review that he could.
Of course, there's fans and fanboys. ;-)
If a game is shite, it's shite.(to simplify)
The unit sales data and the experience of people who have played and paid for it is obviously the best indicator of 'success'.
We shall see won't we?
man, the arrows flying through the air look like they are in slow-mo while the soldiers below them are going full speed...
The downgrade from 8 players coop to 2 players coop again is what killed this game for me. Not going to support the removal of features with my money. I will finance improvements. I am tired of buying newer Total War titles with less and less features, content and the excessive reliance on DLCs.
CA went from being a company I really appreciated to something that makes me seethe. Sad times for CA
Appreciate your take man.
I don't understand how making a good total war seems to be so difficult for CA. They made amazing total wars in the past. Yet they keep changing everything
The people working at CA then are mostly not people working there now. The company is bigger, more corporate. It is not a smaller dev with employees who built a company because they have a passion for history and rts games anymore, it is a company who hires people to make historical and rts games now.
@@ebarlow4940 Yeah I see your point, the people who are hired are not fans of total war necessarily. So they are disconnected from what makes a TW so good. They gamify the game instead of creating an immersive world that makes you feel like you're there. Looking at Pharaoh I feel like this is a game with gameplay systems instead of feeling like this is Bronze age Anatolia and Egypt... So many features that were scraped. Imaging if in Pharaoh or Warhammer or Rome 2 instead of plain building icons you had a picture of the building with people/creatures interacting with it like in Rome 1. How much more immersive it would be. And that's just ONE thing they removed. Anyway, I agree with you.
Marketing ppl are put in charge of production. Rather than total war ppl. And most desicions are made behind closed doors, and then sent down the chain with little time to make corrections. Or test properly.
For a while I was actually thinking about getting Pharaoh, but was rather put off by just how tight the scope of the campaign was and the focus once again unique ageless characters. Might have been a lot more tempted if they had designed it around you playing as unified Egypt or Hittite Empire + Others with larger map with. Although I also agree that given how niche the period would be, they really shouldn't have charged the price of a full main game and made it something more modest that wouldn't have put so many people off.
It's much improved now with the free Dynasties update.
Insta-building was in three kingdoms too. But I do agree with your take that it should lower the construction time, not what we have now.
Oh interesting! My bad then if I said it was a series first, but yeah, it definitely should be about time, not instantly.
@@AndysTake it's also a feature for at least the Chaos Dwarves in TWW3.
like in rome 2 dei, I have a town where I can build a total of 2 buildings and they take 10 turns to build. I really miss the old building system like rome1 or medieval 2
The Late Bronze Age setting still had scope to allow a broad range of troop types: Achaean chariots fought as battle taxis with extremely heavily armored troops dismounting, compared to the Hittite heavy chariots which had three crew one decently armored with spear and the Mitanni/Syrian chariots which are light like the Egyptians and favor the bow. Libyans tend to use large numbers of javelin infantry. Hittites Babylonians and Egyptians have medium spears as well as lighter troops. There are archers bowmen and even a little cavalry (just for skirmishing/scouting as they ride on the haunches). However this would require the area of Libya and Greece to be covered over to the Fertile Crescent. Also the setting would need to be the Late Bronze Age and not the Bronze Age Collapse. This setting would have been a good DLC but it feels shallow as a Bronze Age game.
Even though I haven't played the game and am not planning to, the fact that I love the most about Pharaoh's campaign map is that it has much more settlements in the region it depicts. Map looks much more realistic with that amount of cities in Egypt, compared to previous depictions of the region. I still remember my dissapointment when I saw France as a whole region with the only city of Paris in it, it was ridiculous.
swear to god, I'm not buying another total war title until they sell medieval 3, and even then not until Andy tells me they didn't fuck this one up too...
Big brain move 💪
Or you can just make your own informed decision instead of riding on someone else’s
@@itspat87 And how would you suggest doing so without purchasing the game?
This game needed something unique with it to justify the era. Like a chariot customizer, hieroglyphics mechanics, trade or raw materials requirements, copper or iron equipment for units that appears ingame like medieval 2 did, city editor, farm river editor, naval battles, river battles or something, heck anything to stand out from other TW titles. Because really without justificable gimmick in theme with the era there's no reason to go in the bronze age.
TW is just bad template for Bronze Age. It is actually fun for more economic focused macro strategy game. Maybe having more robust settlement/province managment instead of 5-6 buildings per region. And it definetely needed bigger map (including Mycenean Greece, Kassite Babylon, Assyria etc).
Bronze age is totally justifiable in of itself. Historically speaking, this should be a really cool era with tons of factions. However, CA decided to really only go with 3 factions fleshed out with a "lords' system" similar to Troy and 3k. Including the Luwians (Troy was a Luwian city), Mycenae, Sea Peoples (could play with horde/raiding mechanics), Assyria, Hurrians, Mitanni, Kassite Babylon, Elam, etc. My guess is these factions will be available with DLC because CA seems to think they get the leeway groups like Paradox get. This is akin to boiling down the classical age to Rome, Greece, and Egypt as the only 3 playable factions. Unacceptable in my personal opinion, although I am biased because I am a historian.
A more involved political and diplomacy system would also have done wonders. The Hittite and New Kingdom Egypt rivalry was fascinating and revolved around swaying nearby client states to give tribute to them and constantly squashing pretenders, rebelling client states, and of course war with each other. Something else that I would have thought to be cool would-be faction wide religious buffs. For example, if as the Hittites you conquered a religiously important Egyptian settlement, you would get the bonus provided by that settlement which would be a nod to the real-life acceptance and "capturing" of enemy gods (statues) and bringing them back to the capital to not only humiliate and weaken the divine favor of their enemies but legitimize themselves with those very same gods. I have not played Pharaoh yet so I can't speak to how well the religious mechanics work, but I think they missed several spots where they could have made this game stand out from its predecessors while sticking to historical accuracy.
Hieroglyphics mechanic? What would that be like?
Holy crap, i never knew i wanted river battles until just now
I wish they would break from their current 1 game a year cashflow business model just take a couple years to focus heavily on reprogramming the engine and get it to a really good stable state with: Good combat mechanics, good collisions, "respectable AI" not perfect AI, family trees, region swapping, spy system from 3k, polished naval battles. Then take this polished engine and use it for the next decade of TW releases AND MAKE IT ITERABLE, meaning if you add a feature in release/title/game 1 it should also be in release/title/game 2, 3, 4 etc. Stop taking away features they spent time and money developing. I swear that new mechanic they put into this iteration of the engine where you can strategically cause a unit to move forwards or backwards will not be in the next TW release because that would fall in line with their pattern of decision making....
Keep making great content Andy, thank you for this review!
8:36 I agree, after awhile all the 3K names just sounded like Pu-Pu
Thanks for the video! I'll be dodging this bullet and playing Attila with the medieval mods. Which I would like to see a video on if you haven't done it yet!
Thank you for the comment! I’ve done a video of 1212AD a long time ago, but I’ll making another one when the grand new map update arrives, whenever that might be ;)
I just dusted off Attilla wow that was really a hell of a high water mark. Why they strip out stuff, like formations in WH .... just doesnt make sense. So much cool stuff in Empire and Atilla could have been copied and dropped right into WH and they would def have enriched the game. And oh how I miss naval battles; that would have been so killer with WH and all the crazy ships in universe
@@dmiller2036 for real, they really dropped the quality of their base games in favor of pretty graphics. Don't get me wrong, I played the heck out of Warhammer. It just doesnt have the same level of immersion that I felt with Rome 1 and beyond, especially with 1212AD. I feel like they really thought of all the issues from recent games and fixed it with that Mod.
@ForFunksSake in 3 hours I had 3 battles where I actually saved the replay. Ive NEVER done that in Warhammer. I went deep into Screencaps too which, apart from gccm maps i also rarely do in wh. I got to say the absolute shit battle maps in wh are the most inexcusable nonsensical change. They had perfected the battle map reflecting the terrain. It's like they lost a whole git branch or something
@@dmiller2036 the battlemaps in wh were atrocious. And it took them 3 games to begin to get sieges right. The land maps were and are the worst example of battle maps. Especially when you keep getting the 'giant statue in the center' map. On top of navel maps just being some random island both parties decided to land on lol. Its like they hired a whole new team that's never played any total war games. But to kick off on a good note, memorable battles are pretty easy to come by in Attila. And the promo videos they made were 10/10. "And I will watch your world burn!" Still lives in my head to this day.
Would have been better as a DLC for a Rome 3.
It was initially supposed to be DLC for Troy.
@@Chtigga lmao so it went from DLC to Saga to full title?
@@MegaTranquilla Yes.
I still feel like the next historical title they need to make is Renaissance: Total War, as it would appeal to both Medieval fans and Empire fans. It gets the former with melee focused combat, armor, and knights, and it gets the latter with firearms, artillery, and the globe spanning map. Also, the name itself would allude to CA going back to their roots and brining a RTS renaissance. Additionally, it's the setting that can best pull Warhammer fans over, as the most popular faction (The Empire) is Renaissance themed.
This is actually a great idea. Original and a good in between for familiar eras. Pike and shot warfare is really fun to play so it’s guaranteed to have engaging combat. You can also have a decent focus on city building and empire management because of the era too with trade, artisans, artists, researchers, all that.
Spanish tercio coming for ur croissants ;)
Just a medieval 3 ty
That game should have been in development the last 5 years and released now
This is just a culmination of a decade of scummy profit as much as you can with minimal effort practices. Reuse the same assets, engine, mechanics, call it something else and paint it a different color and charge full price? No way. Won’t be buying.
Great review as usual, Andy! I'll be trying it out tomorrow.
Hey Compy! Will you make a video on Pharaoh?
THey should have made Total War Bronze Age with all kingdoms of that time. It would have been dope.
I am definitely a late Bronze Age collapse kind of guy, and I think they did a good job depicting the setting without just ignoring a lot archaeology.
That being said though, It is definitely niche. Not a lot of people know about or care about the time picked. On top of that, they cut back on the scope they could’ve done in the base release. The lack of Mycenaean Greece, Kassite Babylon, Assyria, the Hittite vassals in w. Anatolia etc that hadn’t been destroyed or changed yet is sad, and I assume at best is kept away just for the DLC in the future. It really hinders the ability to portray the international connections of the time from the get go, and the magnitude of the collapse. Other stuff too, but whatever.
I’m probably gonna play it just cause I like the time period, but it feels limited and I probably won’t play it for long due to that.
Also for more Bronze Age collapse history, I’d recommend 1177 bc by Eric cline.
It's an interesting time period for sure. Technologically though it doesn't make for the most fun or dynamic battle system
I wish they had gone for Late Bronze Age (so the period of Kadesh with the empires at their height with vassals and friction) and then had the Bronze Age Collapse as either a very late game challenge or even a separate DLC. Shame.
Depicting the Bronze age collapse without a serious trade system is such a bad idea, you don't even have to produce bronze ffs
Characters could be done really well if they were put in the context of a kingdom with an actual vassal system (similar to what CK3 has). This would actually be something that I'd want to see in a Medieval 3. It's an excellent way to represent the real politics from that period where a king might have vassals that were as strong or stronger than him (such as the Angevin Dukes of Normandy/Kings of England or the Dukes of Burgundy). It'd add an interesting dynamic that could challenge wide players by making them balance the needs/loyalty of more vassals against the benefits of controlling more territory.
Of course it will never happen. That would require actual work and innovation on the part of CA and SEGA (which we know will not happen). Instead, we'll end up with a bunch of named characters scattered around Europe. At least give us the option to take a certain number of territories and form a kingdom? For example, how Rome was with the three Roman factions that could all eventually form the Roman Empire? Please? We're just asking CA to copy and paste from ten years ago...is that too much to ask for?
Right. And a government building chains that increases character powers over time. And reform system that let's you become an imperial power for building gov buildings in conquered territories.
I just dont understand why we cant get a medieval 3. If medieval 2 was reskinned and UI updated and new AIs id slap another 600+ hours on that like the 2nd one lol CA is robbing us of it and its making me very angry.
Exactly. I thought that was the point of new total war titles. Just improving the already set features. Make huge innovations in unit animations and physics. More creative campaign progression. Deeper representation of fuedal politics, population mechanics. Unit behavior improvement and some smaller micro managing tools that reflect historic landmarks. A better focus on unique cities, wider build browser and additional tabs for civics and law, not just build and recruit.
@madwellmusic8995 like they literally already made the perfect game in medieval 2. It's got everything even the little snippets of assassinations and spies like that was top tier shit. Make 2 separate campaigns of historical and alternative AIs along with a longer time period and world events and potential storylines and BOOM. 100+ million dollar profit game. All they literally just do is modernize medieval 2 that's it. No need for a 4 year development bullshit and just funnel money into a new game when the perfect platform is already there.
I personally think the developer tried to add new features to this game but missed the dynasty tab, the family tree, I missed agent the feeling when they do their actions and many other things. With 3K, troy and now Pharaoh, I think CA is developing total war into the new way that's almost completely different from other titles such as Rome, Shogun, Medieval and Empire.
What grinds me is that I actually was wishing for a Bronze age total war.
That means from the edge of India to the West of Greece. Not this tragic campaign size.
A total war revolving around ancient Egypt is interesting, but focusing around characters annoys me somewhat. Attila is an exception, not the rule, as it was a revamped Barbarian invasion.
On the subject of Atilla, the one subject that grinded me was killing Atilla on the battlefield, only ended up injuring him. Why do I bring this up? Well, the point of Total War was alternative history light. I lost interest with 3K and after, where it became cartoonish, where characters were ridiculously overpowered and wouldn't die, which defeats the immersion.
Ahhhh I could go on and on and on. I played Total War since the release of Shogun 1 and Monte Christo what a pitiful state this franchise is now.
That awful feeling from Rome and Medieval when your stacked general dies....I miss that, Leaders actually stood out. It kept you from using your generals carelessly. At the same time you remembered when your best leader died a hero defending against the odds!
Spot on comment my dude I feel the same.
Eh it'd feel cheap killing killing Atilla that easilly after all that trash talking he does in the trailer. If he only had 1 life there would be campaigns where you might not even encounter him and his death signals basically the end of the game because the hunnic hordes slow down.
@@zacharyshoemaker835 i can understand this as well
Very good and in depth review. I am for sure going to get this game now as a long time total war fan. Just going to wait until the price drops, black pack comes out, and seeing what other DLC's they'll have. Which is pretty much the protocol for all total war games.
I feel like bronze-age-collapse total war could have been fun had they made done the audacious thing and made a total war game around a city-builder like Pharaoh/Caesar 3/Zeus.
Make player build up his city and make him suffer horribly as the world around him collapses as copper, tin and grain stops flowing.
Given that Pharaoh have "Sea People" you have bronze-age collapse as they were one of the contributors in "systems collapse" theory
How my general having a fancy hat gives his soldiers a bonus on their weapons' offensive capability will always be beyond my comprehension
In a real total war game, that hat would be an ancillary that improves infantry performance due to cultural zeal. And there'd be certain qualities a family member must have in order for that ancillary to be passed on.
i liked the bronze age setting, it really had potential as a time period
Especially the commerce aspect. There's potential there, but they really needed to hit the drawing board with this one.
when i played Troy the first time i started as odysseus. once i noticed i cant build all the buildings in non-coastal provinces as him, i never touched the game again.
Good video, ngl hope CA sees this and actually understand what the community wants and exepctd when it comes to historical games
Unfortunately, there are only two things that will make CA change. A true competitor that has the exact type of genre style game, or absolutely no one buys CA’s products, and they lose massive amounts of revenue. Doesn’t matter how many UA-camrs critique their products it all boils down to loss of market share for CA.
I think historical total war fans have been asking for population system for 15 years now suits are ruining all the great game brands now.
So I guess I was right after all?
Looks like it! 🫡
ngl just noticed you got more then 50k subs, I've been watching you since 15k I think, ty for the content.
they should do it like CK3 where if you amass the right amount of land you can form an empire, like if you get whole of nubia region you can become nubian kingdom and once you have whole of egypt you can become egyptian empire
Tw needed a title system for 15 years. Plus it cant be hard to implement, medieval 2 mods have better title systems than modern tw.
I got it at a discount and i must admit i like the setting.
They also added the formation moves, weather and dynamic effects which i think is awesome.
It would be nice to see them grow it, to encompass more than just the Egypt area.
Great review mate - I do really like Troy but it is disappointing Pharoah isn't distinct and is pushed up in price.
Thanks for the thoroughness, I like hearing all the details.
Hey Smough, which Total War is your favorite?
@@blakebailey22 Probably still warhammer, despite the current issues.
Followed by Rome, however I did like the campaign elements of troy
yours?
Thank you for the kind words, my friend :) there’s a good game here but for me, sadly, it’s hidden underneath the poor design choices of CA from the past 10 years
@@SmoughTown While I miss the way construction worked in historical titles (I really dislike the province system) and the sieges are genuinely bad, I have to say WH2, hopefully the issues in 3 can get ironed out soon. In terms of historical titles Fall of the Samurai feels the best to play but Attila has my favorite aesthetic.
@@AndysTake Agreed with you there, disappointing all round. Thanks again for the indepth review!
Should've started in the second intermediate period with Hyksos and Nubia sandwiching egyptian remnants, this gives you the immadiate goal to reunite egypt. Then you could have Nubian and Canaanite units tied to the northen and southern provinces that you get as a reward for taking that territory.
Also being able to build forts and upgrade them into massive things, such as the egyptians actually did against the kingdom of Kush would be cool.
The historical Total War series really needs something new again. Yes Pharaoh is a new era,but it plays very similar to Troy Order Rome 2. A total war in a new engine, for example in the Victorian era around 1870-1910 would be something more interesting again. With the first submarines, airplanes or early zeppelins to build and more and more advanced technologies in firearms,artillery and airplanes.
I recently bought the game and i kinda enjoy it but the thing i hate the most is the game is unfair to the maximum level, raiders from the sea attacking you with 4-5-6 FULL size armies, while you struggle keep one full size army, and if you even try to create a second army you will drain your resources in seconds no matter how many trades you doing by that time, and when they attack your citys or villages they raze it and destroy everything...
Maybe the recent failures will finally make them realize its time for a new engine and to make Med 3 with it.
I hope so, let's hope the suits see beyond what the graphs say. And give them the time! And funding to do this. If it's not begun yet, this will give us 3-5 years to a next gen game. And I would happily wait, as it's very much needed!
Pretty sure they would be more likely to shutter the entirety of ca than pump money into making a new engine as it stands right now, Sega expects too much and ca consistently underdelivers lately
This is just another example of how making decisions that increase profits in the short term can ruin a franchise in the long term. I hope it was worth tearing down years of goodwill among the community for those temporary profits.
This review is 52 minutes and 31 seconds long and I watched every goddamn second.
I do have one disagreement though: there is *_NOTHING_* preventing the Bronze Age in and of itself from being an exciting Total War setting. It has mêlée, ranged, cavalry, ships, and technological advancement. Don't shoot the message.
I appreciate a detailed review that isn't just whiny gamer rage. It helped me decide on whether to buy. Your review did feel self contradictory in many places though. Like wanting historical accuracy, but also wanting massive naval battles in the bronze age or complaining about too much dessert / not enough towns in Egypt. Overall good review though. I disagree with your conclusions, and I'm looking forward to the game, but that's just us having different tastes.
Why are the chariot wheels spinning when the unit is not moving 😂 7:46
"Anyways, enough about the Troy talk. So, like Troy..." 7:55
16:12 That mechanic is akin to the Ogre Kingdoms camp system in WH3. I'm surprised they haven't used the skeleton of that system in one way or another.
I think the government should carry out an emergency seizure of the Total War property, as a “public good,” and turn it over to another publisher and studio who is more capable!
Lol!
The failure of this pile of crap will be used by the devs to justify no longer making historical titles in favor of more fantasy garbage.
I think they know what they did with pharaoh, so hopefully they know it’s not what the historical community actually wants.
@@AndysTake They don't care about the historical community, this games existence is proof of it.
@@seraphx26I thought the exact same that this game was just an excuse to not have to make historical total war but somebody pointed out that Sophia’s ca team made this. Meaning their main team in Britain had to be working on something. There’s a super low chance however it might be medieval 3. That’s wishing for a miracle though
The writing was on the wall the minute they chose the period. Put simply, ancient Egypt resonates in the public imagination because of the culture and architecture, not the warfare. I'll bet you can name quite a few battles from the Roman period, the Napoleon war and the Revolutionary War (even if you aren't American). Now name one from ancient Egypt - just one.
They obviously tried to put more into the non-conflict part of the engine. But Total War where the war is a chore is no more than a poor bore.
watching this has made me really want to play games like attila and med 2 again, heck might even give rome 2 another shot
Well, that's it. Time to say goodbye to historical total war. Because the saddest of this all is that CA is gonna blame the player base for Pharaoh's stumble. They're just gonna assume "gamers are not truly interested in historical settings, so fuck it and back to Warhammer 4".
if you have trouble with lots of characters you would NOT like Crusader Kings
i think you missed the point, in ck3 you still play as denmark, your leaders just change and your land is managed by family, where as in pharaoh you dont play as egypt you play as the character solely
You really missed the point lol. In older total war games you played as the nation. Let’s say I played as Rome in Rome 2. I send my leader to his death. He doesn’t just magically return. He dies and I elect a new leader. Which was in my family tree ( another mechanic they cut ) here you have yourself. You don’t play as the nation. You play as the leader. Here you play as Ramses. Ramses dies. Or does he? He’s back in 5 turns.
@@chaos_xander7910 That's not how CK3 plays at all. In ck3 you play as the character, not as denmark. Your leaders just don't change, the character you are playing does. That's why you can lose your entire realm after dying in ck3, that's why you can end up in a very different realm after dying. You play as a character that belongs to a family, and the territory they hold depends on the member of the family.
Literally, one of the simplest and easiest ways to make the battles less chaotic, and more fun to play, is the addition of banners. JUST LET ME SEE WHO IS FIGHTING WHO FFS. Idc about historical accuracy when it comes to knowing who tf my enemies and my troops are. It’s astounding that even though units look similar, they can’t just add a dang flag to tell them apart
I just want to know...are there gonna be aliens? Someone gonna mod that in? Cuz we need some ancient aliens. Maybe in a dlc .lol
What is important about your review is that you waited. You waited to actually see what the game was, and where optimistic about the things that looked good.
So when you have tell us your disappointment, it actually matters because you were more then willing to give it a positive analysis. This game seemingly hasn't met that expectation. Thanks for the review.
I don't get why you say it is the most expensive game ever for a Total War. It is wrong. Warhammer I, II and III were the same price, and even 10 years later, Rome 2 is the same price also.
Because it's a Saga game, basically just a DLC and in no way a full price title
Ok but then one can say "it's overpriced", which is true. Not "it's the most expensive TW ever". What made me react is that he says this a few times in the video. For all the rest, this review is a good one ! I just did not get why such an insistance on something factually wrong @@ravanpee1325
@@AntiRedditMod70$ is a complete joke for this game
@@AntiRedditMod ok in Europe it is 60 euros for both, then I understand better the comment
saga games is not supposed yo be full price since they are only a portion of a whole game that they don't want to put out at once so they came out with sagas for an excuse to make tiny maps and a half ass game that focuses on only 1 region at a time, so why in the hell would it cost as much as it do, if it was $25 I maybe would of bought it because it would of been worth that since its a saga and not a full game, noway i will ever pay more than $30 for a saga, will never happen,
one thing i do wish was in total war is having to manage your family who's a worthy heir and who to send to the front having controllable traits i could influence to make an excellent heir like educate from rome 2 but better. managing the entire dynasty is really cool just wish it showed more in game effect.
Great review! Thanks! You really gotta wonder why they went with Egypt.. I don't think it's going to pay off for them, which is going to suck for us and hurt future historical titles. It's been 17 years since Medieval 2. Might be time for a third one maybe? Of course I'd personally love a Rome 3!
They did it because it was the easiest time/place to copypasta without having to spend money
Sadly you're right... :( Let's hope they're saving that money for ME3 or Rome 3! One can dream...
I wonder if total war needs to implement a more robust campaign strategy element in games where the setting is less advanced. Something like making city and economy management way more complicated, bringing back population mechanics, and certain other civilization sim things. As it is, the campaign map is more and more just a feeder system for the battles and despite looking very pretty I still enjoyed what little was there in Rome 1 or Med 2 before in building a lot of different things in the same city.
💯 But tbh Idk wtf CA are doing
It feels like an expansion pack cause it is an expansion pack, a really expansive one, just like WH2/3 were. Also the entire problem with TW games isn't that newer games don't offer sometimes somethings that are better or imporved whether it is QoL, UI, Graphics, or game systems and even on rare occasions AI improvements, the problem is that CA is always taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards and ask more money for less with each passing title.
Features are half-baked, and AI doesn't work with them which takes out all the fun and innovasion of putting them in... what's the point of a cool terrain system with mud if the AI just charges the chariots into it cause CA didn't play AI developers to make it work.
I knew it when the very first Warhammer came out that it was going to be the death of the main historical genre of Total War. Once a history game thinks history is too boring, and begins changing it's scene and the mechanics to accompany that style of game play you can't go back. It's easy for historical games to go fantasy because you can unleash, but it's not easy for fantasy games to go historical or return to their historical roots. Imagine if Elder Scrolls or WOW ever tried making a historical game? CA should've considered bringing it's historical games to the next level of depth and immersion instead of simplifying it for mass consumption. I don't feel sorry for greedy game corporations, you reap what you sow. As for Pharoah it could've been a good game, but it's not. I'll probably buy it in 3 years for $15 like I did for Troy.
And with all this... will we ever have a TW we want and won't disappoint?
0:15
Bro didn't even said that the game was a waste of your money... he straight up said that the game was a waste of your time... That's even harsher :')
I don't think the choice of making it during the bronze age is a bad thing. I love those types of units and the fidelity that have to the times (and yes i'd love a stone age total war) but what i really feel is bad is the new total war engine. It is the single worst thing holding the games back.
Stone Age total war... okay that could actually be pretty fun XD
Are the turns in the 2 player mp campaign atleast simultanious like in wh3?
They are not, no :/
@@AndysTake After 1.5years of wh3? that alone is just dissapointing and proves that ca sophia used an unmodivied troy engine. i hope this is the last tw with ancient tech.
Giving it a hard miss. It turned into everything we were all worried about.
£50 for this game is too high a price, am not holding my breath for Med3 or Empire 2 how much would that be if it ever got released. Might get this once get to the £15 price point when its on sale sooner rather than later i expect!
Ohh no. I feared that it would end like this...
Hopefully they will learn a lot from this, so they can make Medieval 3 and Empire 2 as brilliant as they deserve.
There is absolutely no chance that a medieval 3 or empire 2 would be good. They have fallen too far for that.
Attila is still one of my if not my most favourite newer Total War Game to this day. I just wish it would have had more polish and investment into it.
I’d only have to disagree on the ui, I really like the design for buildings and the gold and blue colors. That’s just me tho
That’s great, glad you like it :) to me it was too similar design wise
Excellent review. A great resource for CA to...ignore.
Thank you!
There is as much variation in the Bronze Age as in later periods. The problem is that Pharaoh is mostly in Egypt. They should have done a broader Bronze Age campaign with the Mycenaeans, the Assyrians, Babylonians, The Sherdans, the Urnfield culture tribes and even the Nordic Bronze Age culture tribes. Then the game would have plenty of variation.
Attila Total War was the last great Total War game imo... Such a great game it was !!! Nobody could say or predict Creative Assembly could f-- this series so much... What happened at CA i dont know but its constantly declining and becoming worse than Woke Hollywood...
Man you had me until "woke Hollywood" lmao
The Nile should have played a major role in this game, it should have been its "own character". Armies should have to construct ships and or wooden bridges to cross it. It should be flooding regularly, impacting war decisions. Naval combat AND land combat mixed: imagine using your ships as a bridge to cross? Trade gets impacted by war on the Nile. Random events like your general gets bitten by an asp and dies. etc etc etc.
Good review. I don’t agree with the idea that it’s a waste of time. I would cut some slack for Bronze Age Enthuasists that will enjoy this game. However, I always do enjoy your critique style.
Medieval 3, make it happen. The early medieval age spanning to the early renaissance is such a dramatic and eventful time. Development in warfare, armour and weaponry is so exciting, the political and religious landscape makes for a lot of great drama and missions.
I really want a Total War where you can burn down an enemy army with cunning and strategy, use environmental traps, and make some battlefield preparations like they had in Shogun, where you could set down barriers and covers for your archers, and in medieval you could put down spikes to defend against cavalry. I just want "gamechangers" like setting a fort ablaze, forcing the occupants out lest the burn alive, or preparing oil in front of the gates to set the attackers on fire, or things like destroying bridges to stop the enemy from crossing, so they have to cross a ford where they are slowed and can die if they push on too hard, while you rain arrows on them. Traps like the burning fireballs the germanians used against romans, or simply having fire spread. In Shogun, most of the buildings are made of oiled wood, it would burn like an inferno. All I want is for my army to fight the enemy in a hellscape of flames and crumbling buildings.
I also NEED them to bring back Agent Videos. I used to love seeing the small animation of spies setting fire to buildings, murdering an enemy, poisoning the enemy army. Stuff like that was such good fun. I neeed more stuff like that. Short videos, nothing long, or it gets tedious after a few hundred watches, but with large variety.
New engine
When they announced Troy I was hoping they would eventually do another game or two in the era and then make a combined map like in the Warhammer series. I still hope they do that. Good review though I think I still want to try this one myself. The Bronze Age collapse is one of my favorite historical mysteries.
Thats an interesting thought. Id be cool with that
I can feel my neck hurting when i watch that top-down mapview
Well we will always have Attila. This is the end friend. CA is going bankrupt.
It truly was the end of days lol
Jumping in on the recruit - replenishment mechanic
This was a mechanic that I disliked quite a lot actually.
I prefer that it takes a few rounds to muster a unit rather than getting a small unit and it has to replenish.
And here are some reasons why:
- The Ai absolutely abuse this. Meaning it has buffs to replenish faster.
- The immersion with this system breaks when you muster an elite unit that self replenish in one turn. I actually achieved this in three kingdoms. It was insane that I on one turn could recruit several elite units and after the first replenishment I had something like 80-90% replenished on all my units. Ofc I focused characters, items, technology and buildings for focused replenishment but it was insane.
- On the other hand I also thought that if you had none to little bonuses the unit replenished too slow. This because the AI always gets too much bonuses. If you didn’t have all the combos on replenishment it could take many turns to replenish, too many, while the Ai always and buffs and almost could replenish even though it starved.
The problem for me is that the player vs AI balance in my eyes never really worked with this system. People don’t have to agree at all with me. As I said before I rather have 1,2,3 or 6 turn recruitment, getting a full unit, then that system.
This coming from the Shill who made the video - "In Defence of Total War Pharaoh: A Response to the Haters".
People like you shilling for CA has created the mess you cry about now.
Spare me your tired McCarthyist ignorance, please, it’s getting so old and lame with people who have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.
aint that the truth
I think they forgot that Warhammer and Historical Total War are two completely different settings, both Troy and Pharaoh look like a Warhammer reskin, also wanting to unite historical and fantasy into a single game goes against what made them successful early on, usually both things don't mix well unless your setting was created based on such a mix ergo the failure of three kingdoms.
The game looks beautiful!
Yeah a pretty looking turd..
I highly disagree with the statement that the Bronze Age was not interesting. We got Crete, Ancient Greece, Hittites, Babylonia, Persia, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egypt… just to name a few.
As any period of the history, it was crazy war intense, and numerous different tactics were used, which could make for different civs.
My issue with the setting of Pharaoh TW is just how unambitious it seems. They should have gone broader, wider scope, encompass a bit more time of the history to allow you to rewrite it. They should have included more diversity, and that was definitely not achieved with this title.
Totally agree with the use of factions instead of characters though. That was spot on.
And finally, those arrows look HORRIBLE. Like they are designed to fly in slow motion.
Instead of Pharao if they made a huge map like Attila and called It "Total War Bronze" would have selled better.
💯