Total War: PHARAOH - confirmed! - general discussion

[RafSwi7]

[Welsh Dragon]

Not a cash grab? Have you seen the advertised cosmetics pack? No doubt they are going to charge us if we want additional components of gameplay, maybe blood effects in battle? Or if we want to play as the Minoans? Who knows. And we are paying 50 euro for a game that is a re-skin of Troy. Which is based off of the Warhammer engine.

This is meant to be historically authentic and what we get is a game with a mere 8 playable factions and 3 cultures based on a similar engine to a Saga title with little to no innovation. The characters and soldiers in it look nothing like historical portrayals of this time period, they look like fantasy cartoons with cartoonishly big weapons and mechanics.

Re: Advertised cosmetics pack

Yes I've seen the advertised cosmetic packs. And I've also seen people moan every single time CA does any kind of pre-order or early adopter bonus, regardless of what it is, so Pharaoh is no different.

Additional elite units? (Empire, Napoleon.) People moan.

Additional playable factions? (Fall of the Samurai, Rome 2, Attila, Warhammer Trilogy, Troy.) People moan.

Even a donation to charity? (Thrones of Britannia.) People moan.

So a cosmetics pack is by far the least gameplay impacting way they can offer an incentive for buying the game early, keeping the publishers, shops, and players who like to get something extra for supporting a game early happy. Personally I'd rather have the extra factions, but that's just me.

Re: Blood & Gore

Blood & Gore will in all likelihood be a DLC because with one exception (Medieval 2) it has been in every game to have graphic blood & gore. And in my view that's a good way to do it, though I respect some disagree.

Re: Minoans

The Minoans? Well, for starters we don't even know they'll be on the map, as there's been no mention of Crete. Even if they are, what of it? Total War games have featured non-playable factions, some of which may become playable through DLC or expansion, since Medieval 1.

I don't judge games (or DLC) on what isn't in them, but by what is. Pharaoh is a game about internal and external conflict involving two major powers (Egypt and Hittites,) the people stuck in between (Canaanites) and how they all deal with the approaching threat of a world in crisis and an invading force (Sea Peoples.) So that's what I base my judgement of it on.

That said I can understand that not having a favourite culture or faction make it into the game is disappointing. I hope that maybe in time the Minoans may join Pharaoh, so you can get to play as them.

Re: Number of factions.

As for having 8 factions across 3 cultures, well 8 - 10 playable factions has been a pretty standard amount of playable factions in a Total War base game for quite a while now. The last historical to have more than that was Empire: Total War in 2009 with 11, while games like Shogun 1, Napoleon, and Fall of the Samurai have had less.

While the numbers may be fewer than the granddaddies of Total War like the two Medieval games and the first Rome, the reduced number of base game factions has often been accompanied by an increase in the unique features, such as units and mechanics, of individual factions.

Just from what's been released so far, it would seem that each of the 8 factions is taking its own approach to rosters and playstyles. For Egypt they go from Ramesses relying on small numbers of elite soldiers which are harder to replace, to Seti's "we have reserves" approach using massed expendable infantry, to Amenmesse's Nubian influences and strength at range, and Tausret being the mistress of chariot warfare.

For Canaanites they're offering a choice between stealthy ambusher (Bay) or marauding raider (Irsu,) while Hittites seem to be a choice between a general all rounder with a strength in medium and heavy units (Suppiluliuma) or a melee focused full frontal charger who basically doesn't use ranged units (Kurunta.)

Those 8 factions may be less than some titles in the series (and more than others,) but it sounds like each offer something different and a greater variety than some games that have far more factions.

It has a lot more similarities than 'some things' to Troy. The whole style of it is the same. This mobile game style to the game does not suit the style of a game that is set in the Bronze age. I love Bronze age history and art, particularly Minoan. And this game is so generic and unimaginative in how it interacts with the visuals and atmosphere from this period. It looks plastic.

Men are slashing at the air and killing people in front of them. The same mechanics have existed since Warhammer. During the video interview, Mycenaean fighters and a Mycenaean leader were seen leading an Egyptian unit. We are still in alpha but there is no doubt that the same resources have been recycled. The battle UI is also the same as well as the battle icons.

I don't have an issue with recycling resources where appropriate. Most games do this because it allows the same resources to go further and avoids unnecessary repetition (why reinvent the wheel each time you make a chariot?) But I'm a lot more interested in the end result than in the individual ingredients, and from what's been shown so far it looks to me to be an interesting and fun game, in a setting (the historical Late Bronze Age Collapse) that Total War hasn't ventured into before.

Matched combat is making a return, which should help to address some of the issues you've highlighted with Warhammer and the like. The most recent video expands upon that, with the matched combat animations taking into account the weapons each soldier is using.

I'm not familiar enough with the setting to identify Mycenaean fighters and a Mycenaean leader, but the existence of mercenary mechanics in other Total Wars and the mention of regional recruitment in this one makes it not unlikely that we may see units from other cultures appearing in the forces of some factions.

Will there be similarities with some of the other games in the series? Sure. But I think the different setting, new and returning mechanics, as well as the absence of features of recent games such as “Legendary Lords” and “magic powers,” help to make this a distinct entity from Troy or any of the other games.

That's been true throughout the series, each game is different, doing Total War in its own way.

That's not to say there aren't things I wouldn't like to see changed (I really do want banners back!) or I think could be improved (the unit cards just aren't doing it for me here, I'd rather something more akin to Shogun 2/Rome 2's use of period artwork.)

But I think it's shaping up to be a solid entry in the series and might even become my favourite since Rome 2. We shall see.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[JERUSALEM]

Can anyone post the map of the campaign? - of course if it is available



thank you

[Rob003]

It's neither a reskin, nor a cash grab.

It might be built upon Troy's version of the engine, but it's also doing its own things. It's a testbed for new and returning mechanics, some of which with any luck they may use in futures historical games like a hypothetical Medieval 3 or Empire 2. (I certainly want to see the weather system they've shown in some of the preview footage be a feature of every Total War from now on.)

Welsh Dragon.

That's actually what I think the entire point of this game is, I was very disappointed to hear this was the next historical title, just because I'm personally not big on the Bronze age, I too believe they'll used this a release to test some features for one of those larger historical titles they are HOPEFULLY planning for the future, we shall see.

[La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham]

Empire 2 for me too! we can live in hope sir

That's actually what I think the entire point of this game is, I was very disappointed to hear this was the next historical title, just because I'm personally not big on the Bronze age, I too believe they'll used this a release to test some features for one of those larger historical titles they are HOPEFULLY planning for the future, we shall see.

Here is a good video

[Basileos Leandros I]

It's a bit too close to Troy for my liking, although I absolutely love the way that Troy's campaign map & artistic direction looks like. Same for Thrones of Britannia.

While it looks gorgeous, spectacular even, it feels too light, even Troy was rather light on in-depth and I personally do not like the way resources are handled. Money / gold is enough.

[alhoon]

Can you describe please what do you mean by "light"? You are not the first to say "this feels like a higher budget version of Troy" but I have never played Troy.
How is the combat handled? Are the "heavy" units still unflankable like I read they were in Troy?
How is the campaign handled? You start with a couple of settlements and missions to go conquer more, etc but now you have to balance more resources? Are they like the 3KTW resources that are needed to make a few buildings/units or like S2TW resources that simply make things cheaper? What don't you like about them? And can you trade with the AI for more resources?

How is diplomacy handled? The bigger you are the angrier the CAI? How about the Realm-divide-like mechanics that at some point practically everyone hates you? Or the civil war from Rome?
Are vassals kinda loyal? Can we trade regions like in 3KTW? Can we hire mercenary factions to go conquer lands for us and give them to us like 3KTW? Or work as mercenary factions and conquer settlements that we can turn to our employer for tons of cash and useful stuff?
Are allies helpful, or they just sit on their corner and once in a blue moon show up to help you in a war you don't need their help (leaving their own lands undefended)?

Etc.