A Full Total War Pharaoh Playthrough With Half-Hearted Praise
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2023
- I played a short campaign in Total War Pharaoh, and here is a summary of a) what happened and b) what I think about it. Featuring plenty of ranty delves into different aspects of the 'total war formula', and ultimately an impression of the game that is probably better than most takes I've seen recently. Although, as usual, this will be hard to prove since I will be complaining about absolutely everything.
-------------------
Support OffyD's Game Grounds by purchasing the best game on Steam, Godless Tactics: store.steampowered.com/app/12...
My gaming audiobooks channel: / gameworldnarratives
My weirder gaming content channel: / @contentforhumans
My website: officiallydevin.wixsite.com/d...
#totalwar #totalwarpharaoh - Ігри
Half Hearted Praise from OffyD is praise worthy 😆
"offyd sort of liked it" is about the highest praise any game can dream for, get that on all the marketing material immediately 👍👍👍
1:47:54 For that faction, the day Devin took their territory and betrayed them was the worst day of their lives. For Devin, it was Tuesday.
Half an hour in and I'm in agreement with your ramblings on how battles feel unsatisfying in modern total wars. In particular I'm consistently feeling underwhelmed in the Warhammer series, in which I'm doing all the right things (units vs their counters, focusing support fire, etc) but I'm not getting a payoff for it. Sure, I can charge my heavy cavalry into the flank of the enemy's trash archers, and archers go flying everywhere and wow! Cinematic! But then all the archers stand back up and just get into a slap fight with my cavalry for a while.
What have I accomplished? Where's the impact? I want those archers to break and flee so I can maneuver my cavalry into the next group, who are now shooting at them. But they just don't seem to care. Hell, the most effective way of breaking units now is ranged fire, not cavalry flanks.
What I gather you want - what I definitely want - are the old battles, the RTW and MTW2 battles, where outflanking was important, where a properly executed cavalry charge could swing a battle, where units didn't just absorb a hammer-blow to the rear without even noticing unless they were reasonably elite.
Yes I think you are right. Perhaps it was made like this to be more forgiving. Or, it's a hangover from warhammer where the idea of HP makes a little more sense. Overall I think battles should be won or lost in quick and direct response to player actions, and less about rng/invisible number wars. Even if that makes battles only last 2 minutes, I would be fine with that, but even better would be rare, grander battles I think.
@@OffyDGG Introducing HP was the worst decision the Total War devs have made, not because it inherently won't work, but because it's made them lazy. They believe it would be too difficult to make an AI that can flank, counter, time charges, use terrain, and react to the situation in general so they've resolved to minimize the impact of that to make the game harder. Thus they've had to replace the tactics with stat maxing as the path to winning. The biggest problem with the old games was that they were too easy because the AI was dumb.
Devin rants about Total War 😊 it really is Christmas time
I'm glad that at least somebody kind of likes the game. I can't wait to see if you will be a Dominions 6 video
Hey man, been a long time fan of your content and used to be a patreon. And after another 3 hour binge I think you more than earned a fiver.
Have a nice day :)
Wow, thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed the rants 😁
INSANE review. I suppose x mechanic matters but it doesn't for me, however it might matter for others. But I feel it should matter and perhaps it does in another reality, although sometimes it does matter for me in some way. But not the way I wanted it, but I feel it should still matter on some level.
Just a round about way of saying I like the attempt at new mechanics, better than nothing, but still doesn't really work as a complete package. Bigger flaw is that all these upgrades to the campaign aren't worth the downgrade to combat and war in general.
Just started watching but I want to say I also like Pharaoh, not everyone hate it
I'm not too far into the video (about ten minutes in) but I guess I feel compelled to voice why I haven't tried Pharaoh (also why I bounced off of Troy).
Basically, it comes down to me really wanting a good (semi-)historical Total War title set in the Bronze Age. A game featuring most if not all the civilisations of the time in the area around the eastern Mediterranean, the Levant and Mesopotamia. It's funny the way that I really enjoy Total War Warhammer for bringing Warhammer Fantasy to life on the computer but that I cannot stomach a lot of the simplifications /gamification they have made on top of some of the changes to the series since Rome 2 and that then surfaces when they show up in other titles.
I very much imagine Pharaoh isn't a bad title, per se, but that it's not just ticking the right boxes for me. I'm very much glad that Sophia have made improvements (such as the settings you mentioned). I do like the idea of sticking to mostly historical warfare but then, what did set these civilisations apart? Surely they had their own identities and circfumstances which made them different (at least somewhat).
Oh, yes, Troy. I only relatively recently first tried Troy as Odysseus. And yeah it's pretty. I also very much do not mind the 'lack' of cavalry and artillery like some. But.. I guess I wanted a less sandboxy title? At least as an option. And when diplomacy is scuffed as usual and half the factions (including some who are supposedly on your own side) just declare war on you.. it just felt like a chore.
I don't know, when I think of Medieval 2, it's not like it's perfect. But there is enough there to make different playthroughs different and allow for a narrative to emerge through the various systems. Which I suppose is one of the main things I love in Total War titles.
One thing you mention later about the way combat feels in Pharaoh makes sense to me. What are the players' options? Do they feel impactful?
Personally I don't think it has inherently to do with a lack of certain types of units - you can still have shock units, units which hold the line, skirmishers. Units with more armour but which are slower moving, longer ranged and short ranged units, units which do better against armoured units etc.. all that combined with how they build their armies and which traits / techs they have ought to be sufficient.. tools for the player to allow for satisfying gameplay. Or so I'd imagine. Which, if true, points at an issue of design and/or implementation.
Because surely if you don't have cavalry as a general you'd still try different ways to attack the enemy, lower their morale and such.
Chariots
A better replenishment system solution would be, making a new army or new recruits be much faster then just replenish damaged units. Its also true to real life, its much faster/easier to merge damaged armies or raise new ones then to replenish what that army lost.
At least until Rome2 it was better option to merge units. Putting infinite unit experience exploits aside, you were accumulating experience faster with merging and small casualties were quicker to replenish with recruitment. From my personal experience people really dislike doing that though as it is easier to just keep pressing end turn.
I like it too. I knew the Sofia studio would do a good job, which is why I supported it. They do not deserve to take the fall for CA's sins on a management, marketing, and pricing level.
13:08 Ooh a StarCraft reference! Does this mean we can hope for a StarCraft 2 campaign abridged commentary in the near future to bolster the OffyD space games commentary library?
I would like to yeah!
@@OffyDGG Yessss Id love your commentary on the funny gameplay/story interactions!
@@OffyDGG That seems like a match made in heaven! If you're considering it, I think the game goes on sale for Christmas in the Blizzard store. The first campaign of the trilogy is free, but you'll need to pay for the rest unfortunately.
Kings and Generals gaming channel? LETS GOOO!
It's the narrators personal Channel
Maybe if your units lose 70% of their size/manpower that unit is lost/killed if you lose the battle.
That is how it used to work, at about 90% if you lose and 95% if you win. For some reason that doesn't happen in this game.
hey the guy from kings and generals also has a great gaming channel, great news
Does he actually run that channel or is he just the voice ?
Devin: My favourite TW game is Shogun 2
Also Devin: I don't like Pharaoh having factions with very similar unit rosters
Pick one Devin !
Dunno if you're joking, but obviously the roster isn't what makes shogun 2 good. And with pharaoh, it's not that I don't like it, only that it's a weakness of the setting that the game has to deal with, maybe it should have done more.
@@OffyDGG They're likely joking. But yeah, factions in Shogun 2 were very similar. However, there was enough unit variety in the general roster, so it generated enough decision making if you wanted more yari, naginata, katana, horsemen, archers, monks, handgunners, etc. While in Pharaoh, everyone has mostly the same units, and on top of that what is available is very limited. You practically choose between spearmen, slingmen and maybe swordmen or chariots and that's it.
Manpower got decoupled from Medieval2 onwards as resource sadly. It detached it from map mostly and created additional problem of single province factions fielding quickly full army stacks. In M2TW if you lost huge chunk of army you wouldn't see them quickly (even more so in mods like Divide and Conquer for LOTR). Unit recruitment pool wasn't bad but definetely would now suffer from lack of ability to send reinforcements without generals.
I think TW formula poorly translates into Bronze age. It is - in depth battles but basic economic managment gameplay. And Bronze Age IMO is better as civilization simulator with more weight put onto bureaucracy, agriculture, trade and technological progress. Thus I think game with basic warfare but well thought economic side (Oriental Empires) fares better in that. Lastly it was still period in which humanity just started evolving into city-states so map already filled with existing provinces/maps kind off doesn't work as well. Overall premise of whole formula working because 1 army of player is worth at least 2 AI armies in direct battle got boring for me over the years - I would rather have AI fuckups on my own side for change of pace, instead of being general with perfect control over battlefield racking heroic victory after heroic victory. It also trained people into quality>quantity sentiment with how much it is weighted against quantity when it comes to army size/unit upkeep.
I'm kind off woried that the more assymetrical the gameplay becomes, the bigger the AI cheats and number of armies spawned of thin air will become.
LotTW dramas were really something, as it got leaked that his feedback was put into trash bin instead of being passed to devs. Which basically make it seem like CA just wanted him for free advertisement.
I apologize if you've mentioned this before but I was curious
1) What is your favorite "newer" (post-Rome 2) Total War game?
2) What is your favorite Total War game overall?
Favourite Rome 2 style game is three kingdoms, as it's the most different and I am a 3k fan from the dynasty warriors series and the book already.
Favourite overall is probably shogun 2, although I've played a lot of modded medieval 2 also, especially the lord of the rings stuff.
@@OffyDGG do you use any mod for 3k?
@@cseijifja haven't tried any mods for 3k actually, never really looked into it, bet there is some good stuff to find
Can't wait to watch this after work. I've been anxiously awaiting another edition of OffyD plays Total War and shit talks CA
35:55 That reminds me of the Ultimate General: Civil War. Which, in case you didn't know, was made by the Total War modders who made Darthmod. It has 2D units with battles involving over 100,000 soldiers (not actually represented by 1 model/1 soldier, but the numbers under the flags are to that scale).
It doesn't really have the same kind of grand strategy as Total War as you progress from one historical battle to the next, but you at least get to manage the army composition, unit equipment, commanders and logistics between the battles.
Ooof, TW Pharaoh? Looking forward to seeing your take on it. Also, regarding Terra Invicta (since I last asked on your last video) - you said you were intimidated. It's like riding a bike the first time. First minutes are hard. The rest comes easy. You will gobble up the knowledge like a sponge taking to water. Easy to understand and master. Difficult to combine everything for that ideal result. In fact, for all the knowledge a veteran can have, it will beat the player even if cheese is put on the menu. Cheers, OffyD!
Finally getting around to watching/listening to this and as usual I really appreciate your thoughts Devin. For me one element of criticism that is not Pharaoh's fault but generally sours me on the game is that so many of the total war games have felt like minor tweaks to the formula since Rome 2, with the result that I feel like buying and playing another total war game is totally unnecessary, because I could just play the total war games I already own. Obviously there are differences between each game, and I think if I liked modern total war games more I might be more interested in those differences, but as someone who always ends up thinking "I could have more fun with an earlier total war game" by about turn 50 of a new campaign. Anyway i guess what I'm saying is that total war pharaoh feels, to me, like "another total war," and it probably is totally possible to have fun playing it but nothing I've seen suggests that it would be that much more fun than the modern total wars I already own.
I think you are absolutely right. It may have more little side-mechanics than others, but pharaoh is the same general gameplay as usual. The age of changes like we got from medieval 2 to empire seems gone, and with so many millions of games to play these days, tw doesn't have its value or magic that made it famous. That said, from their point of view, sales are huge and the company keeps getting bigger and adding more dev teams, so they clearly see these releases as being rungs on their ladder. Probably the game design aspect fell to the wayside in favour of making products more cheaply.
Have you heard of and or seen Ultimate General American Revolution? It recently released into early access and it seems like an improvement of what Total War used to be, especially now that it actually has a sandbox campaign. You can tell it's still in the early stages of an actual total war like campaign, but it has some real potential I think.
Saw like 5 seconds of it somewhere, didn't really have specific thoughts, but I am glad that this and a couple of other games this year seem to have finally got the tech to make tw style games working. If CA can get a serious rival, the TW fan base is probably gonna start eating well.
How about this for the replenishment system. In order to start replenishing troops on a unit, there is a button that costs money based off how few of the troops there are. Saves on micromanaging but with the same cost as before, having to pay for more troops. Theoretically, this would apply to the AI as well provided they don't have too drastic money cheats. Maybe have everyone replenish a little slower to allow for some strategic options.
Personally I still like the old system better, but I would accept this.
If you want it to be a middle between the two, rather than just being a bar that increase, have the reinforcements appear as a little caravan from the nearest city and travel quickly along the road to your army. Have it so that these can be intercepted by enemy armies so you or the AI can send little detachments to make sure the main force stays weakened.
The first idea is how Empire TW works, and yes that is the best replenishment system the series has seen so far.
The second idea will not work for two boring reasons: the pathfinding calculations would expand rapidly with army count and lag the end turn sequence too much; and programming the AI to interact with that system or account for it, would be difficult.
Obviously both problems can be overcome with sheer programming skill, but CA is mainly artists with very few programmers - when I visited them it was something like 10-20 artists for every 1 programmer. So pretty much that's why each game is very artistically different to the last but the game engine and mechanics can't be changed much.
I agree that a good strategy game where you are the 'warlord/leader' does have a role play element where you think something like these people. One reason I really like the crusader kings games.
However. I was thinking, setting this kind of game in this Era would lack variety as there are like 6 unit types that would have existed. My original idea for solving this would be about the opposite of the alienation from the people you were mentioning. I know these empires did have 1000s of people in their armies, but do you think a more personal touch could help? Would giving alot more customization and variation to your commanders if not each unit improve the game, or make it more tedious?
Might try this game though, I am a big bronze age nerd
Will there be a Dynasties version of this? Loving the style of this video a lot btw
yes i think so, i want to check out the new version when I have time, interested to see what they do with it. Thanks!
This should be interesting
Can you do a Imperator Rome commentary? the problem of lack of favor you mentioned is somewhat fixed by the mod Invictus which add flavor to loads of factions
Hey Devin, I just had to ask and since I am sorta early on this one, Is this long-form content working for you? You know since you split into three channels I haven't really been able to keep up so I was wondering if it's just me or what? The content is great as always btw, just asking if this new format is working.
It definitely didn't help much with the algo like I hoped, basically the numbers are just the same as before. But I prefer it like this personally, the videos are easier to make and the posts feel more relevant to their own audiences. I would like to make shorter videos, but I can't help expanding on points these days. Probs would of have more views from a 10 ten series rather than a one off, but I still believe the algo punishes the channel less for having one video with bad retention vs many videos with bad click rates. But I don't even know.
This game could of been so good has some very cool ideas hey maybe some updates could change that
I think ca switched priorities. They took a very structured "biography" of the Bronze Age and made a story mode. Historical titles had era based refrences within an organically, or randomized take on allowing the player to rule pre existing civilizations and change the course of history. Id accept the campaign mechanics and terrible progression, imo, if the battles were waaaaaaaay more dynamic, brutal, slow and based on tactics rather than stat stacking.
They charged more and marketed about weather???? Nothing to do with battles outside of unit performance modifiers....ive seen every major youtuber playthrough this game and i think only once has the unit stance, advance or fall back has been used.
The lack of cavalry should be replaced by larger, heavier men with powerful chargers and stronger bigger weapons that knock ppl on their ass. It needs to be physically manofested by gameplay, not ai number crunching.
Agree entirely, it's gone much too far in this direction. I suspect warhammer has been a bad influence in this regard.
You haven't been watching much if that is all you see.
While i understand the point of putting you in the place of the ruler with the replaceable pop, it think it indeed takes too much away from what could be such a valuable game element in the limited population, DEI shows this best, tbh, you actually get why rome was so op.
For sure, I think having population be a strong mechanic would be great in many ways. I would like.to see other areas of the map used to represent your populated areas, with the ability to upgrade or lose them.
I really liked it when you mentioned Old World, will you play Old World at some point?
It's on this channel a few vids back!
I literally have not heard a single person like the Rome2+ building system. Everyone want the MTW2/Shogun2/Rome systems for construction.
This implies that I said the Rome 2 system was good, and I am almost certain I didn't. In fact I think I said I hated it right near the beginning.
However since you bring it up, here is something that is actually good about the Rome 2 system: because there are many more settlements compared to rome 1 or med 2, the way several can be displayed and interacted with as once in one UI element makes it quicker to manage, so that's nice.
I don't remember who said it, so whoever said that, thanks, but a better sentiment than Ford's is "believe in their complaints, don't believe in their solutions"
Hey Devin! They say Pharaoh got recently a quite massive update.. Any chances of a campaing with your thoughts and experiences someday?
@@robertrodriguezharo1906 yeah a few people have requested it now, so I will do it 2-3 games down the line!
@@OffyDGG Cool! I saw some comments about it just after publishing it, thank you for answering Devin
21:57
I'm still waiting for the positive points
There are in here somewhere lol, it's a very mixed opinion overall
32:50 - 33:46
I mean, you have games like _Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Crusader Kings,_ (coincidentally, all produced by the same company, and two you've played before) etc. Grand Strategy-genre games don't care about the miniscule things, and care about the highest-management stuff and complexities; they're - to put it one way - the Strategy and Logistics to the Total War's and other such similar RTS/TBS-genre (ironic terminology notwithstanding) games' Tactics and Weaponry.
Hell, it's why the _Victoria_ series of grand strategy games are sometimes just called "spreadsheet simulators".
Somewhat-related: I feel like the _Rome II_ and onward TW games have been kinda striking an unhappy/dissatisfying median between attempting to integrate many different, perhaps even diametrically-opposed, game concepts into them. If that makes sense at all. Trying to be arcade-y and game-y whilst also holding onto the older games' more serious and grounded approach.
He has also played Europa Universalis, remember that Ukraine playthrough losing almost everything to Russia and then getting accepted in the EU and saved by the force of their military. I've played a Shogun II campaign on MoSS and, even though it's limitations, is just a wonderful piece years later. I have not player much of the recent ones, besides Rome II and Troy, but I do agree that there's a feeling of a lack of correlation of what happens in battles or why they happen to the sort of own narrative we're experiencing in what mostly are sandbox map games with tiny Risky-like pieces representing armies and other stuff. We've got to feel inmersed to forget how boring games can be and develope our story with the game, like the stakes are high but also can get to relax between moments of tension. .
Devin does bring the good out of this game, and it's fair. It sucks that all of them might get thrown out since the game failed, and honestly it feels like it was set up for failure. Same happened with Saga titles too, they've toyed with some refreshing mechanics, but the campaigns&factions were so limited, it offered little replayability. They keep asking full game price for things that include less content than M2TW Kingdoms, and act like there isn't any interest in new mechanics or historical titles.
If CA gave a damn about the series, they would accept that the R2 formula is fundamentally unfit for historical titles and go back to the basics while bringing what little good was born out of this experiment. But yearly reskins with minimal additions are just too profitable when you have a fanbase gobbling up whatever you put out. Maybe the tides are changing with the double backlash from Pharaoh & W3
If it was not for all the trolls and people who wanted a different game, esp the larger content producers, Pharaoh would have been a great release. I stopped my Subscription with them because of all the negativity they promote.
Ok so, I should play this on easy. Good-
This is weird ... hearing your voice in a different place 😂
I have a lot to say on the stats topic here 2:00:10 abouts. So, I’ve played a lot of Rome 2 multiplayer, around 400 hrs. At this point, I can tell you what each of the stats matter and what units win in 1v1s generally. The most problem with a “this unit will win with this many casualties” ‘thing’ is that I will be wrong half the time in what I tell you. For example: a thorax sword versus a Libyan infantry, Libyan should win, however if the thorax gets its charge and the Libyan doesn’t, the thorax will likely win. If the thorax is in a wider formation, it will probably win, if the Libyan has taken hp damage due to arrows/slings/pila etc. the thorax will win, sometimes if the battle line gets broken up or something, the thorax models will get bonuses on certain Libyans that get surrounded, and this might make the thorax win. There are more things that can happen that involve other units that I won’t state here but in conclusion: every fight is different and results cannot be determined except through experience, certainly not by an algorithm since everything is on players’ decisions.
For sure, it's probably too random to say anything for sure. But you can at least get a sense for what happens on average with experience I guess. The fact that stats are muddied by animation length and how many models are in range of an enemy makes predicting things based on numbers even harder. Almost makes me think not even showing the numbers would actually make it clearer, so you base your expectations on equipment or unit type more.
And thanks for the interesting comment!
12:50 Definitely succeeded. I love Bronze Age cultures and this is the best Total War since Medieval 2 for me!
It feels like, for bronze age fans, this a rare and very detailed portrayal that will be difficult to find elsewhere, so that is something unique about the game that I expect most people will overlook. Since I didn't know much I guess most went over my head, and I imagine that's fairly common among players. But it's sure nice to have this covering a rare niche in historical games!
@@OffyDGG I was definitely never expecting a Bronze Age total war without the mythical/semi mythical take that Troy came with, it's such a shame that the most "historical" focused historical total war since Attila (if you discount Thrones of Brittania, which wasn't marketed as a mainline Total War) has met this reception from the community. I understand it, but I still think this will push CA into more fantastical represntations of history.
1:14:40 this!! That's so true. My first ever play through of this game felt so much like my other favorite game, endless space, and not like my first experience with total war all the way back to shogun. That is why it left a funny taste afterwards. It certainly does have tons of influence from the MIDSI or as we like to call it color orbs collecting and building units in a tab to smash other unit tabs and not the battlefield command feel that total war entries used to appeal to.
I don't get how people want to know which unit will win in a 1-1 sizuation. I mean you cover hsitorical battles. How many of these battles make sense when it was always clear who will win before the battle ever started. That's no fun. Also i like to play my battles like a historical general with battle lines, outflanking, reserves not like an rts. Ii don't think your suggestions in regard to the battles wouldn't help the game.
Then total war I am afraid is not going to work well for you. They have focused more and more on stats, and positioning and tactics matter less than ever in pharaoh. I would like a better understanding of stats because in the context of what the game offers, it makes it more interesting, as the tactics you are 'supposed' to use involve getting favourable unit matches and winning by brute force.
I hear what you say about venturing into a new game with presuppositions. Mine are so negative that I dare not even try this game. I wish to remember total war as she once was in the golden days of medieval 2 and Rome 1.
# make slingers shitty again.
Can't believe they ruined my boys :'(
I mean its good to see something positive but the big issue for me is that pharaoh isnt replayable at all, the mechanics that make the game good the first campaign get boring and repetitive in the 2nd and 3th playthrough. So I mean yeah the first playthrough is good but if you play it again you think damn this shit boring
You say you disagree with other reviewers, but I don't think you actually do. You agree battles are really bad, you agree the game is very similar to troy, you agree that bronze age isn't a great setting, especialy when not the whole region is included. You also agree with the common sentiment that the camplaign is broadly good, like it was for Troy.
What you disagree about is the weight assigned to the flaws and you don't seem to care about the price.
For many people, me included, battles are the only reason to play Total War games. A good campaign is there for wars to make sense and to sets up a lot of fun battles and have continuity between them. Without good battles, the campaign turns into a half-developed 4x game where not much interesting happens. I personally prefer just playing a fully developed 4x/grand strategy game instead. It's great that CA started making campaigns better in Three Kingdoms and newer games, but without battles those improvements are pointless.
Another point is the price and the amount of improvements we got for it. If the game was 2 15$ dlcs that expanded the scope of troy, it would've gotten a more positive reaction. There would've been more unit diversity and more excuse to reuse things. People also wouldn't have expected actual improvements from the DLC.
I haven't watched much of other reviews, mainly I was looking at what people were ranting about on steam. I guess the overall conclusion is different though, in that I still found it overall enjoyable and not especially worse than other games in the genre, even if it's bad the TW franchise specifically.
Also I think you got the wrong idea on price, probably since I didnt discuss it until the very end, but I think I concluded that I wouldn't be interested in actually buying it (I got a review copy), mainly because you can get several good strategy games for the same money right now.
@@OffyDGG Apologies, that's the strategic risk that I took by commenting before watching the entire video. I don't think a game of this limited scope and as you call it "simplistic" campaign would sell on its own. Especially when a lot of people got essentially the same game for free 2 years ago.
Non total war map painers are just not as simplistic on the campaign map and they have other interesting gimmicks. The Hegemony series has real-time battles on the campaign map, Imperator:rome has better diplomacy, much more interesting internal politics. Field of glory: empires has the turn based combat gimmick. All of them have more factions and bigger scope.
@@CuriousCauliflowerX
That why he makes this video so long so he can catch people offguard
They should spend more money to make more money.
3 Kingdoms was fun enough, then they updated it and all my saves of a LOT OF HOURS were unplayable. I got Troy for free and it sucked too much to play.
I doubt I'll ever buy a game from that terrible company again.
This masterpiece and great game is actually better than shogun 2
You really think this? Haven't played, though I am interested
@@danielt1337 Nah I'm joking
Dude, no disrespect to you but if you autoresolve your first battle in new total war game it already speaks millions about it. You just brushed it aside saying you will explain it later... and talk about trading... on total war title...
I get it, you do not like battles but no amount of good words you are talking can convince anyone to spend their hard earn money on this game.
All the best to you anyway, happy gaming.
He spends the vast majority of the video criticizing the game though lol
@@missingmochigumanofficialYes, indeed. And still, he counts it as successful, sort of.
That is why I commented. There is a cognitive dissonance that I saw between what was told and shown and what is in the title.
Battles were looking awful. Nvm
Autorsolved that first fight because it doesn't matter, and auto gives a good result. But yes the battles aren't fun enough to want to play them. This isn't unique to tw pharaoh, and something like Rome 2 or attila is equally autoresolvey to me. But pharaoh remains a step down. I still actually liked playing the game for the campaign alone though, which is why I came away somewhat positive. Feels like playing civilisation, or old world. Nothing to interesting, but fairly enjoyable all the same. I have long since given up any hope of an interesting 'war' part to total war, which is probably why I don't really feel disappointed with how bad it's gotten.
@@OffyDGGthat is right, you are absolutely correct with autoresolving it and doing the big campaign battle later.
I have watched whole video today, finally had time. I also see your reasons for autoresolving.
I must be biased as I am 40 and I remember playing shogun 1, campaign was great but battles... they were creme de la creme of the game. I remember fighting them religiosly with various angles, composition, weather, etc.
What I want to say is that my expectations may be different then yours. I would never autoresolve my first battle on new total war, if I were buying them of course.
Other than that your analysis is very solid, remarks about food and raiding, slingers, etc I had to open my head a bit to understand different point of view. Like I said have fun and all the best to you.
waiting for the next total war game after this phone looking garbage