Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Why Total War Pharaoh is Wrong about Horses (and Why it Matters)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- Total War Pharaoh introduced cavalry anachronistically into the bronze age. This full lore breakdown explains the actual history of cavalry, goes deep into the dynamics of the bronze age collapse, and explains why it matters that cavalry was never a force in the archaic near-east.
Ibn Al-Noor by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
“Imagine a game about the crusades featuring early firearms”
Medieval 2: nothing to see here boys
If you are talking about vanilla Med2 then you are mistaken since that game goes on untill year 1550 so its normal to have guns latter.
Now if i remember correctly in Med2's expansion of the Crusades there is no guns but there are flamethrowers ( which did exist but where used by the Byzantines and not by Antioh ).
Depends which crusade. The later ones were defeated by the ottomans with cannons.
Even in the earlier ones gunpowder might have been used in pots, burning oils most certainly were.
@@stefankatsarov5806 European knights were using Chinese fire lance type weapons as early as 1400s
@@stefankatsarov5806There are guns in Kingdoms: Crusades with Jerusalem, Antioch, and Byzantium having one and Turks and Egypt having two.
Dude early firearms already existed during the crusades time, in China
Shoutout to the person who made a mod removing all cavalry from the game within a day of the new version of the game releasing!
👍, i even will suggest creative assembly only need to add "accurate historical" Button before start new campaign game, so it deactivated all "Unhistorical units"
The bronze age is interesting as Chariots take the place of cavalry or rather act as proto-cavalry compared to later ages. I think it would've just made more sense to rework chariot mechanics with larger chariot and maybe giving them a fear aura to represent this.
Because chariots have always been awkward and jenky in total war lol
that is the real reason, but it is a great launching point for an in depth investigation of ancient cavalry.
@@entirelyalive did chariots ever like literally smash straight into infantry like a cavalry charge? Maybe the heavier, later scythe chariots? I have trouble imagining how that would work without them instantly crashing
@tillercaesar-kq4ou The majority of historians will say it never happened. A minority will say it very rarely may have been a tactic among the heaviest Hittite/Hurrian/Mitanni ambushers, but even then it would have been extremely risky and destructive, meant to break the enemy before the crash from fear, not a full TW style charge.
@@entirelyalive thank you: what about later Persian chariot and Hellenistic ones?
Just like they were irl.
I'm not happy to see cavalry being added into the game. The fact that we were only relying on chariots and infantry is what made that game so unique. Don't make a game about Bronze Age if you aren't comfortable with the time period.
I'm still waiting for the update though.
I bought the game on sale because I want to play the expansion. Im fascinated by the bronze age, so I don't like the cavalry either but I might just ignore it
Same here, I hate this ahistoric addition. Not saying fames have yo be 100 historic, it depends, but this is a bif failur in my view.
Yeah, I'm a bit sad to hear they'll add cavalry. The lack of it means there is more emphasis on differing infantry speeds. The varying infantry types and their speeds seem more pronounced when that's mostly what the armies are made of. You don't need blazing fast cavalry to provide more "variety" - the infantry already have enough to make a difference relative to each other.
@@NefariousKoel Exactly.
I'm sure they'll be easily removable. In fact, with all the campaign and battle customization options they added in this game, I wouldn't be surprised if they straight up added a "Remove cavalry units" option that changes them to something else.
Mechanics and modding wise, I think it's easier to have something and remove it rather than having to add it afterwards. Also, the impact this should have on whatever construction of "historicity" we expect from this game also depends on the extent of what kind of cavalry is added and the availability, since, much like with firearms, the very early models probably did not change the mechanics of warfare during the middle ages that much until things like arquebusiers were introduced. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think horse riding was a thing by the game's point, but there is no record of organized military use besides scouting and message delivery.
Instead of spending the time to make chariots work, they decided to change history 😂
Don't blame Sofia, the fan base whined hard enough and made em do it
The game was made for historical total war fans, unfortunately for CA, they’ll complain if it isn’t a remake of Rome, Medieval, Empire, or Shogun. And even then if it isn’t one of those things they’ll complain until it becomes more like one of those games.
@@LordFinaiHistorical total war fans will complain if they don't get *names every single historical total war game* 😂 its funny how yall started talking about history vs fantasy. It's a stupid debate and a stupid term made to divide your community. Just like how yall focus too much on getting new units and new factions instead of actual gameplay mechanics to enhance the campaign and make longer campaigns more enjoyable. Like literally all CA need do is steal from Paradox 😂 but nope yall wanna talk about this stupid shit. The total war "community" is in shambles. At least we have mods
There was so much whining that no cav no cav they had to do it
@@BigBroKuma paradox is the definition of infinite remakes, the last new thing you got was Stellaris and that was 8 years ago. Everything else is just a remake of an older game. Also know jack about total war if you think those are all the historical games, it’s literally just the first four settings, we also have the napoleonic wars, the fall of Rome, and the three kingdoms era of China, not to mention all of the expansions that add different eras of history
As you mentioned, I think the addition of cavalry is mostly due to the critique some players gave. While I'd prefer to keep it more historically authentic, I think if the cavalry is balanced right, it'll still be okay for the game. Maybe having reduced unit sizes along with missle cavalry only being able to fire while stationary and the melee cavalry not acting as shock cavalry would help keep it more grounded in reality. I also just received your book and am really enjoying it! Thanks for the great work you do!
They could just add a "run amok" chance like scythed chariots or elephants had in rtw/m2, maybe after a few minutes the riders calm the horses down and they become controllable again?
I would like to express that I find it unlikely that the Mitanni and the Kassites solely used chariots. This comes from an understanding of Indo-European archaeology/anthropology. The Sintashta culture invented the Chariot, and was an offshoot of the Yamnaya, which had originally domesticated the modern horse. The Yamnaya, or Proto-Indo-Europeans, migrated out of the Steppes on horseback, and their progenies did raids and subjugations all the way from Ireland to India by the time of the Late Bronze Age.
The Mitanni, and the Kassites, along with the Mycenaeans and Hittites, were Indo-European peoples. It would be assumable that, much like the Indians, Germanics, Slavs, and Celts, they would have used horses solo [as in without an attachment or vehicle] for raiding. Additionally, there's cultural clues to the use of horseback riding; Akin to the integration of the Kóryos tradition into folklore and mythology as Werewolves and Lycanthropes, horseback Kóryos were likewise conceptually preserved through the myth of Centaurs. Of course, this is not to diminish the important role of chariots in Bronze Age warfare, as they were incredibly significant, but it is to state that horseback riding evidentially did occur.
The claim that horses could not be used for travel and warfare at the time is wrong; There is a lecture by David W. Anthony on horseback riding on Penn Museum's channel. There's actual studies (Martin Trautmann et al. ,First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship) conducted by him and other anthropologists as well. I believe that study also included Ancient Egyptian depictions as part of its evidence, after the section on biomechanics. I believe there are artifacts recorded by Georgian archaeologists that further prove this point, but I don't have the available resources at the moment, so nullify this sentence. You are however partially correct, as David Anthony also makes clear in his lecture, that shock cavalry did not exist until the Iron Age.
Horseback riders in the Bronze Age used horses to transport them to a location, dismount for a raid, then mount the horse post-war to move on. Throughout the Bronze Age, this would be the norm. The issue with Total War is that it cannot express the idea of skirmishing and guerrilla tactics which were often used by ancient peoples, especially Indo-European cultures.
Certainly, Hittites and Mycenaean were peoples that spoke Indo-European languages however there is no evidence for a Kassite connection and the Mitanni being an Indo-Aryan elite ruling a Hurrian speaking Kingdom has started to be phased out recently.
@@gudea5207 The Kassites and Mitanni have ruler names and theonyms that strongly imply they had an Indo-European elite. The raiding and warfare style described is also consistent with common Indo-European strategies and consistent with the Kóryos tradition.
Well your expression is wrong the only time when cavalry(and im not saying armoured just people riding horses in groups) was the neo Assyrian expansion as they used mounted horsemen to scout and where sometimes used in the field and this is because horses had to be bed to get to that point hence why they used chariots. I can see you wrote a lot and clearly believe in what you say but you are wrong. By the fall of the neo assyrian empire the only time we get cavalry used as a battle field unit is the medians and achaemenids.
@@pigman6420 Did you read anything I said?
@@koderamerikaner5147 The studies that you presented are not widely accepted.
About ancient horse riders - imaginary and real (Commentary to the article “First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship” by Martin Trautmann et al.)
A detailed commentary is given on the article "First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship" by Martin Trautmann et al. It is shown that the authors' conclusions about the early appearance of horse riding in the Yamnaya culture look unrealistic, since they do not take into account a number of factors, including: 1) Thousands of years before horses were domesticated, there was a real possibility of riding oxen and cows; 2) For horsemanship until the end of the 3rd millennium BC there were no conditions, including genetic ones, and there was no documentary evidence of real horsemanship; 3) Bioanthropological analysis of 21 features, carried out by A. Buzhilova on a representative sample from the central, rather than peripheral, region of the Yamnaya culture, led her to the conclusion that there were no traces of horsemanship on the skeletons of individuals until the end of the Bronze Age. The authors ignored this result and carried out their analysis only on 6 characteristics; 4) There is bioanthropological data on the movement of people of the Yamnaya culture not on horseback, but on foot during migrations; 5) The meat and sometimes dairy purpose of horses ("live canned food") has been precisely established; 6) There is another significant need for using horses: not for riding, but for obtaining food from under the snow for all other animals from the herd in harsh winters; 7) The individuals studied in the article, taking into account their height and weight, were physiologically unable to ride early horses; 8) The purely utilitarian purpose of the horse in the Yamnaya culture is confirmed by the absence of its cult images. This is in sharp contrast both to some earlier Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, and to later ones that existed after the domestication of the horse at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. At the same time, we have shown that the cult of the horse in Indo-European cultures and the appearance of scepters with the image of a horse's head are not directly related to the early horsemanship assumed by the authors, but are most likely associated with religious ideas and have direct analogies (like some other cultural and religious markers Indo-Europeans) even in previous cultures of the northern Mesolithic, in the form of the cult of the Heavenly Elk or the Heavenly Moose, using the corresponding scepters with the image of an elk's head.
I really don't blame CA Sofia for introducing cavalry. As they said and as you pointed out, it's only because of player feedback and not because it makes sense historically.
But then again, that's the exact same reason why it kinda hurts? It felt like them having to begrudgingly give in to a vocal minority/majority (?) that looked for the exact same game as every other Total War basically (at least that's how I read their answer). Not having cavalry was so much more interesting tactically in my opinion, people should realize that taking away options can be just as interesting as giving new ones. I was always drawn to chariots more than to cavalry as well in other Total War games anyway, so it felt really nice to finally have a game where they are front and center (and very useful! They can totally win you battles if used correctly).
I just hope they won't get outcompeted by the new cavalry, read some good stuff here I thought about as well like archer cavalry not being able to shoot while moving (which wasn't a widely known skill anyway, even if older TW games made it one) and not having shock cavalry grind up medium or heavy infantry units. I hope it will also help that most of the rosters won't get cavalry by themselves, you'll have to use native recruitment for the most part.
(Btw player since day one and very much enjoying the game, and even if I would have liked cavalry to not make an appearance the new update looks overwhelmingly good! Super excited for that)
I don't even think people was asking for cavalry when they complaint about lack of variety
that's the problem with companies and gaming forums. So what if a few people complain on the forums , the vast majority of players are not. Even if you have 100 people saying something is an issue in game that's not even a fraction of player base.
In AOE2 DE, they changed something that had been in the game for like 20 years over someone losing a game of nomad. smh.
@@ciruelo5921 I've heard the complaint of missing cavalry specifically a lot. Question then is if that's what they were really missing or if they just thought they do (especially since we have units that take the role of cavalry, like chariots and shock infantry.
I guess it comes all down to people trying to find stuff to hate about that game and others just mindlessly repeating. What's better than "OMG this game so bad it's just infantry running at each other"?
@@Dragonette666 Yeah, there's definitely situations where companies should definitely look listen to parts of their community and situations where they shouldn't. That's one where they should not have in my opinion.
(Also I've played the shit out of AoE2 and got some hours in DE but never nomad, so I can't really tell if that was a change that made sense or not.)
I blame them. Or at least I'm really not happy with it.
have you read the article "Horseback riding and Cavalry in Mycenaean Greece" by Jorrit Kelder? he makes a good case for cavalry being used in the late bronze age.
He does have a decent case, but it is important to note that his is one voice in a wider crowd. I don't discount his argument by any means, but it is, at the end of the day, art interpretation. It may be the start of a revolution that makes my video obsolete in a decade. It could be a curious but minor footnote about early adoption in one place without much wider significance. Or it could be overturned, in whole or part, on further review. For a popular level video, best to keep the matter at the general consensus.
@@entirelyalive totally understandable. still the paper makes me feel a little bit better about using cavalry in the bronze age. hopefully CA implements them in an interesting way instead of just insert shock cav and archer cav.maybe the troops have to dismount to fight effectively or they are mainly scouts.
What did you expect from Total War? This is my list of BS just off of the top of my head:
Rome 1:
- Ptolemaic Egypt using bronze age units
- Gladiators as military units, in gladiator gear
- way too much lorica segmentata, not enough lorica hamata
- utterly BS stats of post-Marian legionaries
- berserker airlines
- almost no faction can recruit slingers
- range of slingers is a fifth of what it should be, meaning they get dumpstered on by archers
- fire arrows are good against armor
Medieval 2:
- way too much AP attack on English longbows, no AP on Ottoman composite bows
- Russia is a faction that exists
- Spain is a faction that exists
- Turks and Egypt are... well, you get the picture
- banderium as a unit for Hungary (banderium was a system of army recruitment), while missing out on the metal as hell Black Army
- slavic mercenary unit being unwashed and weak troglodytes
- pikes are useless without some exploit-y wizardry and kinda bad even after
- HRE is a faction, while some parts of it are also a standalone faction - make up your mind, people
- for some reason, boats are incapable of sailing along the western coast of Africa
Vanilla Med2: Spain and Portugal as already divergent factions, but sharing unit rosters
Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai:
-grenadier ninja squads
@@LordFinai More than that.
Whole ashigaru class wearing highly advanced breastplates, which existed back then only for the elite. In terms of gameplay. ashigaru are way too weak. They were semi-professional to professional warriors. The fire rate of their bows is utterly ridiculous, while they spend tens of seconds with a drawn bow.
Guns being brought up by the portuguese, which is rather eurocentric theory, while in reality, japanese had matchlocks from south east Asia, decades before the game starts. In terms of gameplay, guns are extremelly innacurate, while in reality, they could hit targets up to 100 paces with ease, let alone shooting into lines of soldiers, which is far easier. Guns had pretty much a flat trajectory compared to bows, their point-bland range was up to like 70-80 paces.
Swords being primary weapons and katana samurai somehow winning against yari samurai. Utter nonsense, when usually by then, both yari and katana were used. One is longer and safer to use, other is drawn when first one is lost. Lets not even talk about cavalry, solely armed with swords.
Antiquated weapons. Both naginata and odachi were sort of old for the type of warfare japanese had by 1540s. Naginata is pretty much replaced by yari and odachi is gimmicky. They should obviously exist in the game, but in a limited, expensive state, not as spammable units.
I'm ok with grenades, but ninjas in Meiji period drama costumes on battlefield are certainly not.
@@shrekas2966 yah, I bring up the grenade part because, well, that’s an awfully loud weapon for what are supposed to be ninjas to be using
@@LordFinai It depends. Ninjas weren't silent historically, when they had to use physical means of destruction. They indeed used grenades. Its just thats not normal. They are what we would call a spy now.
I think that having cavalry as an "experimental unit", which costs a lot (since you need the biggest and strongest horses and the most trained riders), but still perform somewhat worse than chariots (horses get tired more quickly, horsemen wear less armor, moral is worse and so on) might be good, if not completely historically accurate, since it would show that cavalry was possible during the Late Bronze Age, just not effective enough to be widely used.
and having it locked far in the tech tree so that it will be only late-game
@@user-yy5xs6xj7r oh I like this idea a lot!
I agree with this. Rather than it acting like medieval lancers or horse archers, they feel purposefully wonky and have some abilities that make them unreliable but also terrifying.
@@hydra7427 also, not having heavy armour not being the biggest men on horses, so that it still reflects horses not being strong enough yet.
well.. if it wasn't used in the Bronze age, so its not historical
About gunpowder during the Crusades, the Mongols brought it to that part of the world in the 13th century. But yes, it shouldn't be there for the first or the third one (the famous one with Richard the Lionheart facing Saladin), and even with the Mongols it took time to be adopted by other nations and developped into proper weapons.
What happened was that every Total War game allowed you to use Cavalry to shock-charge retreat and cycle that until the enemy routes. Cavalry has always been inaccurate in usage in these games, but the die-hard fanbase likes it. They're torn by the fact they don't want to scare away the fans that remain that need charge-cycle cavalry to just play it like all the other games.
what's wrong with such usage?
@@wolfensniper4012 one, that's not have cavalry fights, by a full speed charge, two, it convinced players it was one of the best tools in their arsenal for nearly every game. Cavalry doesn't exist in this time period but the players expect to have the same tool they have been using for decades. Now history must suffer even further, again
@@Pangora2 ... but isn't that the truth to history period like 11-14th century? For Europe or even ME, a head on charge by Norman Knights were everything and can even rout cataphart with ease, even in 15th century when the superiority of heavy cavalry were partly canceled out, head-on charge were still utilized by French, Poland or HRE as some kind of solve-all tactics. Some of the cavalry charges ended up badly sure, but the decision of using such charge in the first place really shows the mindset of medieval commanders is that cavalry charge can really goes through anything.
@@wolfensniper4012 the mistake we moderns make is assuming it was a full gallop into a wall of solid objects. Even with a lance you can only get one target and now your horse stumbles and/or you are surrounded. They may approach the formation and see if it breaks and then individuals charge through a thin line.
But cave excels in pursuit. We should also remember infantry done full in full tilt like in Braveheart. These battles lasted all day. The Celts did infantry charges and if the enemy didn't run away the Romans had an easy time responding
@@wolfensniper4012 Considering it's the first time I even heard about the so called ""norman knights"" I was pretty sure it's the typical pop fantasy history.. I searched and it's a thing invented by Richard Holmes, which is was a british pop military """historian""" which work is questionable at best (and downrtight retarded at worse)
Anyway...
1. cycling charging didnt exist, lances can be also used once most of the time.
2. Horse charges went through everything most of the time, no man was stupid enough to not make way when a full speed stallion was charging at him (battle of Verneuil, Dyrrhachium etc)
But most important:
3. Knights were usually rich kids having fun, they had no tactical acumen and usually sucked at war, and knight mostly fight on foot
This was the opposite with more oiled war "machines", like the byzantine cataphract and the mercenaries who know how to fight and were trained to fight as one and were able to utilizing more complex tactics
I can only blame the total warfare base for this bullshit
Everyone wants a historical total war, we finally get one, and variety becomes something to bitch about
I know a lot of people also bitch about Shogun 2’s unit diversity, and I’ve always found that to be just as ridiculous
I would rather strategy game have a tighter, smaller unit roster than a Bajillion in five different types of units like Empire total war or any of the mods you can download
I think that just the overall experience
In this case, we’re getting something themeatically inappropriate As a result of people wanting more shiny toys to play with
Agreed, but remember this also about how to satisfy the customer
Even shogun 2 units aren't all accurate but the units that aren't kind of fit the idea of what people think of when they think of a samurai game.
Creative assembly is too lazy to make chariots work in a unique and not janky way that they just add cavalry instead of innovate to make a unique game
In previous Total War games chariots are basically trucks that plough through enemies, their only disadvantages being smaller entity count and a wider turning circle. That's probably how they'll be "balanced" against cavalry in this game.
Just a point: you don`t "fire" a bow as there is no fire involved. You "shoot" a bow, or "shoot in a bow". Great episode!
All stems from CA not developing their chariots properly for Total War Pharoah. They made carriages or carts not chariots and didn't want to put the cash or dev time into making unique charioteer animations. Instead they opted for a flat platform that they could just plonk a standard warrior animation set on. A true chariot is much smaller than what is depicted in Total War.
One of the core reasons that pushed CA to add cavalry into a Bronze Age game is due to the fanboy craving of "Unit Diversity".
The same people that get angry whenever the next total war isn’t a sequel to Rome, Medieval, Empire, or Shogun
Yes, some kids gamers need to be satisfied, remember this also about business and how to make customers happy, so we can't only blaming CA but look for the other factors..... Including the fanboys of game
Solution: play Tomb Kings in Warhammer 3, they have chariots and cavalry without being historically inaccurate!
😂😂😂, the undead confusing about how to death
They already addressed this saying they know cavalry wasn't used in the time period. But they are adding it because players asked for more unit diversity and cavalry in particular.
How were chariots even used on the battlefield? Were they just charging into enemy infantry lines? How would this even result in causing damage? The impact of the horse? The impact of the wagon? Or were the riders carrying really long lances with which to impale the enemy?
almost exclusively they were platforms for ranged units, bowmen, javelinmen, etc. Occasionally they could have run down fleeing enemies or jousted other chariots, but chariot charges are ahistorical in the bronze age near east.
OP is kinda correct with the lance comment though, at least for the case of the Aegeans. Their chariots and charioteers in some theories either havr a few javelins and a lancer or they serve as a dedicated transport for commanders before dueling. Most probably the latter but the Dendra Panoply actually being able to be used on a chariot in tests is lending more and more evidence to lancers too. @@entirelyalive
Great video! But what about the stirrup? I thought chariots were more effective because the stirrup hadn't been discovered yet.
awesome vid man, just a little tip, please lower the music volume, i can barely hear your voice.
Exited for the new update, but its the first time I'll hope modders will make mod to erase units and not add them.
To be fair there is plenty of evidence that shows the steppe tribes used mounted warriors as early as 3000 BC, some evidence that points to even earlier usage, and not just chariots, but true mounted warriors. With that in mind it's not totally beyond the pale that Assyria, being the Bronze Age power closest to the Steppes would have had some exposure to them. Now having them as native units, or even faction units, no. That's not right, but being able to hire a limited amount as mercenaries, and having them cost quite a bit... yeah I can see that. From a strictly game point of view, it's does give them some unit diversity, which the game sorely needs.
So happy to have cav, made me want to play again.
SETRA DOES NOT SWERVE. -Wait...
if they needed to add something they should have spiced up the infantry but if they needed cav they should have been light dragoons who melt if attacked while mounted that would have been interesting to work into a strategy
Great video man. Came for the total war, stayed for that sweet Bronze Age history. These comments are also top tier.
I have one little complaint, your claim about the firearms in Europe is about 1 century off. At the battle of Crecy 1346 early canons were already used. The last crusader battle were fought in the 1290s, therefor the comparison is a little difficult in my opinion
There is archaeological evidence about chariots and light cavalry used in the Bronze Age in that particular region of the world.
Horses were domesticated around 3000 BC and light cavalry, equipped with javelins and swords, used in conflicts across Greece and Mesopotamia.
The time period when pharao is set is the late bronze age collapse which coincides with the iron age for other regions in the near east and by that time light cavalry and horse archers were already a thing.
I'm not sure what's the big deal with having light cavalry or light horse archers. It's not comparable at all to the example given in an upvoted sarcastic comment about having firearms in the crusades.
You see, that is just fundamentally mistaken. Find me an Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian, or Babylonian text mentioning war fighters mounted directly on horses significantly prior to 900bce. I mentioned a new theory about the myceneans experimenting with it, which may or may not pan out with more investigation, but certainly it wasn't among the major near eastern powers. The cimmerians and arabs may have had it off in their wildernesses earlier than we realize, but they never affronted near eastern civilization with any of it until the neo-assyrian period. Also, the world's first iron age is in the near east, so the idea that the bronze age collapse coincides with it, rather than following it, is deeply confused.
Thanks, more history please ! ^____^
Wouldn't it be cool if, similar to M2TW, there'd be technological advancements over the course of the game changing the dynamic of combat? Things that come to mind:
1. taming or horses: chariot archers -> horse archers able to not only operate on flat terrain but also slightly rougher one while also being more quicker to turn (chariots would drive clumsy like a ship and require planning and flat terrain).
2. Copper -> bronze weapons: Better equipment like helmets, bracers, etc.
3. Retinue: While only having farmers going to war in the beginning that disband, players can develop a personal retinue for their king: Strong warriors that can be upgraded with expensive weapons and keep their experience, making up the core of an army.
4. Agriculture: Some improvements with farmings allowing armies to travel more and soldiers needing to disband less often to go back to their farms.
5. Bow -> recurve bow. Maybe the traditional bows would really fall off once the enemy has units with heavier armor (for that time) or quicker chariots/horses to hunt down archers with less range, so the recurve bow would be developed to keep up.
Maybe have different cultures get bonuses to different advancements. Like steppe nomads breeding horses for mounted archers and later recurve bows while those close to antique tin mines (Caucasus and upper Nile afair) would allow for quicker metallurgy and use of bronze weapons.
You could change the game to a time when it was likely those things would overlap.
Imo things like this are important to keep a TotalWar game exciting and prevent it from getting stale ans repetitive, even if it borders historical acccuracies bc technically some things were likely discovered a tad later.
It'd be accurate if players, when battling against a player with a new technology for the first time, would then get a quest of some sort to investigate and could dedicate ressources to catch up by discovering the secret to this new technology by e.g. having to send a spy and the ability to try every round to e.g. bribe/hire some bronze smiths/breeders/farmers/fletchers.
I dunno, I'm just a bit disappointed with from what I've seen with the game so far.
Unlike medieval 2, Pharaoh (originally anyways) is set in a 50 year span of time. Civilisation is also going backwards, not forwards in Pharaoh.
There possibly were people riding horses as early as 3700 BC...
not in this region
@@redcrown5154 actually in the region too, they were just very rare
@@ladahieno2382No, the horses in these regions were too small to even be ridden, wouldn't it be centuries later with selective breeding
@@Pingurator there are remains of horses big enough to be ridden, as I said earlier it was simply much rarer not to mention people actually had to learn how to ride them but there were people riding horses around at that time
@@ladahieno2382 and I repeat, not in this region. If there were four subnormal barbarians on the steppe, it is not sufficient justification for a cavalry corps in the game.
Awesome video ❤
I’m still overall hyped for the update, but the cavalry issue definitely puts a damper on things
Agree
Assyria did have early cavalry, hell they practically invented it in the area but centuries later than the time period of this game. They were lightly armored but they originally kept a pilot and bowman on the horse Templar style lol (this obviously was inefficient and was changed relatively quickly).
Edit: He does talk about this in the video.
While I agree with your takes here, you'll have to consider CA Sofia's position. Their parent studio is collapsing from all the recent leaks and drama and not to mention the game was DOA. They're on the backfoot and want to appease to people. Hopefully when Dynasties comes out, there'll be a mod to remove cavalry.
Hope for that mod, too!
There is a mod for it now, only took like a day lol
Why not just added some button before start new campaigns, the button named "only historical units", maybe?
Taking a thread from what you mentioned... why did chariots linger further east? understanding that could also give a comparitive clue as to why they declined in the levant
I genuinely don't know. I have seen a bit of speculation that they had more prestige and religious cachet in India, but I don't know enough about India to really say. It would be a good thing to look into someday if I ever have the time.
I had a game as a kid called "Chariots of War", set on this era and time, good times.
I feel like historical total wars previously were more grounded in the realities of technologies of the era so I am probably not buying the game. Shogun 2 and Medieval II will remain my favourites. I feel like the series largely fell off after Rome II and Atilla.
Not that I expect a documentary but I feel like cavalry in the Bronze age is as bad as tanks in the Napoleonic period, guns in the Crusades as you say, or modern souped up AR platform rifles in World War I. I also think the tactical options in previous games were much better as are the general mechanics. Shogun 2 is obviously not completely accurate for example and we don't want it to be or we would be fighting battles for hours or days, but nothing the samurai and ashigaru are using strikes me as nearly as anachronistic as this. Indeed the armor and weapons they use look pretty much bang on accurate. One can argue the Bronze age is also just not the best period for a Total War game to begin with which might be a big part of why this game is running into so many problems.
I think tech clashing together from different periods can certainly be fun, but I think this is what fantasy games are for same with games like Civilization or Age of Empires which are very clearly not based in a specific place and time but are some kind of alternate world or complete alternate timeline that has nothing to do with our own.
Though there was horse riders mainly for scouting and messages, it’s obvious they added “cavalry” for gameplay purposes and it’s only limited to Assyrians afaik. If you don’t like it just remove it in a mod
Also early firearms already existed during the crusades time, in China
right. so this video is before pharaoh dinasties launch?
I'm someone who has "complained" (not really since I have no computer that can handle the game) about unit variety. However my solution wasn't anachronism, it was simply not doing a game set so early in time.
Total War games have always been anachronistic ever since the first one
I'm waiting a No-cavalry mod, so I can finally enjoy a historical-themed game since Rome 2
I am told one exists already, though I haven't looked for it. If it isn't on the steam workshop, try Nexus mods.
Maybe that you should understand that there are compromises to do in a game and that a game is not an History class
It really isn't about that. It's about the laziness of the developers to put in a proper system for chariots no unique animations and so on. Adding the horses are a move to make up for their shortcomings
Medieval 2 + its Crusades expansion also features Firearm units that unlock around 1300. So you literally get Crusaders with primitive fire arms there. TW has done anachronisms before
Historically accurate bronze age cavalry would have their feet less than a foot off the ground since ancient horses were tiny, hence the chariots.
I agree with the cavalry thing that is mentionned in the video but honestly there's not enough sources to be able to do a game like total war for the bronze age. They had to be creative in many parts of the game i'm sure. But, having played the game I like it and how it's still very evocative none the less.
I’ll just wait for a mod to remove cav, or they could add an option themselves.
It’s still not as egregious as bronze age Egypt in Rome total war
Tbh I wouldn't complain having even one cavalry since chariot is too micro intensive and easily get stuck, even if it's not historically accurate we'll end up auto resolving anyway as long as it gives victory, not to mention many aspect of the game itself are bending history as well since there's few information on Bronze age as a whole to make highly accurate depiction
But the point in question is not 100% accuracy about the Bronze Age, but rather having absurdly anachronistic units like the one mentioned in the video, and if most players just resolved combat automatically they wouldn't even need a combat map. Since it's a game, of course there will be mechanics for your enjoyment, but since it addresses a historical period, which is highly researched although not fully understood, there needs to be common sense when choosing what to add or take away from the game.
@@sergiomarques2922 most player auto resolved combat is true and that doesn't mean you need to get rid of the combat since I said "as long as it gives victory" if the combat didn't give victory or other factor like troops preservation then most player would use manual battle so don't misunderstand me on that, Cavalry being in Bronze Age although may not be historical or lore accurate, it gives the game more dynamic and option on how to approach battle, many player requested Sofia for alternative to Chariot since Chariot is just annoying to use so when Sofia put cavalry in the game just think of it as QoL for player who's fed up with Chariot, although this game is a historical based game it's still a game not a documentary, if a game isn't fun enough for player then they won't play it which defeat the reason for this update which is to lure more player, the added cavalry isn't game breaking or OP since it's historical title not Warhammer so it'll be easy enough to deal. They did it for Troy in the past when players ask for actual fantasy unit instead of cosplays so they relent and give Mythos DLC so player who want it can play it with fun.
@@waffle-waffle5416 I liked what they did with the Mithos DLC in Troy - they gave you the option to choose a mythological mode - they could have done the same here. A mythological mode, and then they could have put a cavalry unit based on a mythology of one of the peoples of the time. In my opinion it would be valid! And I agree that an entertainment work does not need so much historical accuracy, but also, too much anachronism breaks the immersion. Even so, the update seems very good.
@@sergiomarques2922 there's not enough myth to put in Pharaoh, having separate DLC just to for Cavalry would just make anti consumer, it only few cavalry on some region, if you play as anything but Mesopotamia you don't have to face and even if you face it it won't break immersion since it'll be just light and medium cavalry not a full fledged cataphract, most cavalry only recruitable near persia which is where horse culture would usually located and because it's specific on that region it make them unique and not as anachronystic as you suggest, if you still wanna play without Cavalry you can install the Vanilla Pharaoh instead of the Dynasty version which as far as I'm aware is separate on Steam library if you own Pharaoh i.e. Similar to Mythos but you won't get Mesopotamia or Greek, just the original faction and maps
@@waffle-waffle5416 I agree that having an entire DLC just for one unit is anti-consumer. My idea of a "Mythos" for TW Pharaoh would be to use the mythologies of the main peoples presented in this game, by recruiting them in certain places (like in Troy). If TW Troy produced so many mythological units (without a navy) using only the mythology of the Greeks, imagine using the mythologies of Egypt, Babylon and Hittite? But I don't think it will happen =(
As the video itself shows, it was not possible to use this type of military unit in that time and place. I understand your point about the place where the cavalry is; my point is that, for someone who was expecting a historical Total War, in one of the most interesting periods of civilization, and who did not expect to be lucky enough to see a game in the Bronze Age, it is somewhat disappointing to see 'something' that should have been there a thousand years later just because a part of the players wanted that 'military unit'. I don't want to have to deprive myself of a part of the game just to preserve what I was expecting. I understand that for some players, having cavalry is important to them, but I would also like them to understand that some of us really like history and would love to see more of it portrayed in the game in a fun and interesting way, while maintaining a minimum of coherence with that historical period.
The Dynasty version, in my opinion, is what makes Total War Pharaoh worth having, because it turns it into a great Bronze Age game. I understand and respect your point about having cavalry, my thought is: if we don't take a stand against a 'small' anachronism now, won't worse 'changes' happen in the future? If CA is finally starting to listen to the game's fans, wouldn't this be the best time to ask for what we really want in games?
Great video, interesting topic! :)
Hey history nerds! Not every battle consisted of giant armies with over 1000 men on each side, so if you wanna talk realism this ain’t the franchise ladies and gentlemen. It’s a video game, not a history project.
nice explainign i were always wonder why if thy had chariot did not just ride horse
We can do "historical accurate" game about World War 1&2 or Napolenical era, which is very well recorded... But about bronze age? I do not think so... Is it okay to have hypothetical units?
Well its not hypothetical, they simply weren't used. Horses weren't big enough. Early drawings showed riders on the butts of horses because riding in the middle wasn't considered yet.
@@Pangora2 Do You know when exactly and who exactly developed and used the "true cavalry" for a first time? Is it recorded and documented like weapon evolution in WW1?
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf yes, the Egyptians and Chinese wrote about it. Chariots were a thing because riding on horses came later than horses pulling carts. So yes we do have an approximation. Some tribes acquired horses before anyone wrote about them, and the usage of them stayed pretty much the same with little variation.
@@Pangora2 so when exactly and who exactly developed "true cavalry" in ancient warfare?
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf i am amused by your inability to concede, and will answer you when you give me the exact time and place of the first archery battle and the first person to be hit by an arrow. Good luck.
This was the collapse of the Bronze Age so people were beginning to do selective breeding horses they were very rare to have Calvary because of the limited best of the best horses of course it would have been light Calvary so there are some inaccuracy but a few actuate parts like the light Calvary but the amount of Calvary is inaccurate because of how expense these horses is were because of there rare kind and the heavy Calvary is inaccurate
Interesting historical piece; I'd recommend you speak faster as you continue to try to reach a wider audience.
As for TW: Pharaoh, the complaints about unit selection and variety were totally predictable given the reception of Troy and Thrones of Brittania, and it's still a mystery to me why they felt this was the most fruitful time period to visit when they decided when to situate their next installment in the franchise.
I am actually happy too see horsemen.
nice new subs here like to listen to stories like this :)
bro you can just hire melee cavalry day 1 as the assyrians D:
IIRC , the progression from chariots to cavalry was something like 2-3 man chariot ---> 2 men riding 2 horses , one fires a bow , the other guides both horses ----> 2 men on the same horse , one is an archer , one rides ---> 1 men on a horse.
It would be hilarious if a company put the 2 horse thing in a game and I can just imagine the outcry over it.
the issue was that horses at the time were smaller than now so double mounting would make the issue worse probably once stronger breeds could carry men without the assistance of a chariot they would be used for horse archery and rapidly deploying infantry before people tried riding the cowardly beasts into melee
That makes no sense, It would be far less practical, less mobile, and more difficult to control than one person riding a horse.
@@nathangamble125 but it's how they did it. It could be specialization or it could be "we have always done this"
There was cavalry in the bronze age, mostly in mesopotamia with the assyrians but they where not very good, and for the time i am playing the game, they literally just that, they are not very good for using. Saying that there should not bee introduced in the game is too harsh imho.
Total War has been fantasy even before they got the Warhammer gig.
Had MANY happy hours with TW over the years, but... something you need to move on.
I bought the game upon first seeing that the DLC was adding pretty much everything that they could've added except the Meshweh in Cryrenaica, and maybe Dilmun. For my opinion about the chariots and horses, I think they could've found a good middle ground. Buffing chariots somewhat, and then adding in just horse archers, and NOT heavy cavalry. I still need to learn a lot of the game, in my only full playthrough to date as the Hittites I just built armies of phalanxes with ranged support, so I'm working from the historical background and don't really know how chariots function in total war or how to improve them, I just know what people have been saying.
I left a comment on one of your later Hittite videos, asking about Ramesses the Great wanting to have a get together with Mursili somewhere in Canaan, one Mursili could not attend thanks to his maladies, and I'm wondering about the source document for that?
For the source: Egypt is not my strong suit, I don't have the source depth for them that I do for other places. I was relying almost entirely on Trevor Bryce "The Kingdom of the Hittites", which is the foremost book on the topic, and he relates that story mostly from a Hittite perspective, seeming to draw upon Egyptian documents for most of it. Unfortunately, I am more reliant on secondary sources the further I get from Mesopotamia.
No it doesn't matter coz we would then have 0 variety since it was the same for both sides, adding a bit of flavor is not historical but gives a better experience for the player. Also we all love cavalry.
im glad they put calvary in the game otherwise it wouldve been boring as sht
You could have mentioned that this was a sponsored video (its pretty apparent), other than that cool
Its not sponsored. I didn't get anything from them until afterwards, which prompted the later videos.
I used to play Wargames Research Group and then later Warhammer Historical model battles where you can have armies from over 4000 years fight against each other which is fine but this is supposed to be a historical representation of the 13th Century BCE. Sure I'd like to see the Neo Assyrian army with its cavalry, camelry and heavy chariots (which actually did smash into infantry formations) BUT these are all 300 years outside this period.
Also CA are allowing Assyria to have cavalry 300 years earlier as historically ok but at the same time dropping the Amazons of TW Troy not for being historically accurate? Come on CA make up your mind.
Lighten up Francis … it’s a game
There's a solution to this. Have the game devs include notes in-game which admit to the anachronism when one looks into a cavalry unit's encyclopedia entry.
If you don't like the horses, don't use them, then simple, I'm gonna use them because I really don't care
I am looking forward to the Pharaoh update and like you would happily have paid for it. Putting horses into the game does seem a bit of a strange decision, but then a lot of people were moaning about the fact they didn't feature in the game and so the developers have given in to public demand. To their credit, the team making Pharaoh are implementing a lot of things that the players have asked for and while I'm not keen on the cavalry, the developers have done good work, which is also free, so we shouldn't be complaining too much.
ofcourse cavelery existed assyrian started with it in levant but already been out on steppes this just a stupid complaiment
Arround 1000bC the first bigger horses appear, befor this time the existing horses are to small for riding.
Why did the developers include horses and factions that didnt exist for hundreds of years later but remove Israel who existed?
They already openly said this is a-historical so we're only adding it to a handful of factions for people who absolutely must have cavalry or they just won't buy the game.
It is also that horse during those time are smaller and not breed for riding.
I really hate the addition of cavalry, sadly it will likley give a false impression to many.
Idk just make it a campaign setting then that you can toggle on/off
There is so much depth they could have gone into..proto industry in Crete etc. I never even bothered with free Troy because it wasnt genuine attempt.
I just subbed.
history part was interesting, pharaoh total war defending was just sad...
Ohhh sheet you can't have a game centred around Egypt and not have chariot cavalry let me guess they nerfed the impact that cavalry have on single line infantry........oh why not just add camels and appease the experts?
Akkad? AKKAD.
i really want one thing, realistic spear and shield combat animation (spear above shoulders), not that Hollywood nonsense (((Greeks hoplites would never look like and fight like Zulu warriors)))
Completely agree
I hope you understand that chariots were around as early as 5000bc and that the Hittites were the first who developed them and introduced it to the rest of Mesopotamia. This proves a level of horse mastery. If you disagree you can do some real research or look at the hieroglyphics in Egypt that displays chariots. Before you try to talk shit you should know what your talking about instead of spreading false information.
lol hittites in 5000bce? sounds good bro, I love hittites, so it would be great to hear thier pre-kanesh stories if they existed.
This the reason why im not a fan of a bronze age tw very limited in units variety although I am enjoying the campaign side of pharaoh
easy sub
as for cavalry, I reckon there will realism mods that make horses real rare
I'm not playing the game, but I've enjoyed your history presentations and am enjoying this series.
I just hope they dont add cavalry in every faction
If people were complaining about unit variety why did they make it take place during the bronze age?!!
Well of course we know why anyone with half a brain knows this was meant to be like troy with Mythos like creature.
Unit variety. Screaming fans and with the new fantasy community from wh, they're now complaining about lack of variety so yeah.
Funny thing in rome total war chariots just chop the legs of horses like thyre are more of spaghetti. And yea in rome total war the original chariots where the anty cav unit.
I would Like to add to things.
first Chariots are faster then horses, and when you increase the number of horses in a chariot it does increase its speed.
however the advantage single horses had over chariots was they were vastly more maneuverable. able to make turns that were impossible for chariots.
second. you didnt make any mention of the invention of the stirrups and how important and fundamental it was in the evolution of cavalry and the transition from chariots to single horse. the stirrup gave the rider a much greater deal of control and balance over horses making single horse cavalry far more valuable and affective.
But in formation fighting horses don't just meander all over the field or run full speed in combat. Heavily armored horses only proceeded at a light gallop or trot. Yet those were truly 'shock' cavalry. Chariots and light cav work like how someone scoops ice cream. they move from side to side scrapping against the side or rear of a formation until it routs.
Stirrups were invented centuries after chariots had disappeared and where an innovation of the early middle ages. Did you perhaps mean forms of staddle which provided a firmer seat?
@@mysticonthehill Also the steppe riders are famous horsemen, stirrups helped for heavily armed knights, but legendary riding peoples wouldn't have benefited