You can't have historical game while having immortal god lord/heros. You can't have a historical total game while battle feel too Arcady. Playing total w should feel like you're layin chess not tug of war.
I agree. Sadly this looks more like Troy reskin with some added mechanics on top. Rewriting entire engine would actually make this game cost 60$. They made game at cheap cost. Even If not many people will buy It It will generate profit. I can't express how sad I am seeing that. I would really like for this game to be better :(
Feels bad because i do think CA Sofia is truly been more innovative with less resources and time. They actually listened and tried to implement changes and old systems back based on what the community has been asking for. Such as matched combat, slower battles, and the "hold ground/push/fallback" mechanic But i worry with SEGAs financial woes and the main CA studio burning cash we will see Sofia punished for not outting together a miracle.
Total War needs: New Battle Engine where battles dont feel and look like pub brawls, better AI (saying this since 2003 or smth), more focus on economy and city building. Why the hell can we still only build max 4-5 buildings in each city??? I wanna see my cities develop, not only my armies and territory borders.
absolutely! the whole city management system that fundamentally hasent changed since Rome 2, needs to be improved. As in making you able to build alot more buildings per city.
I don't have time to watch it right now, but I just wanted you to know that you're really the only TH-camr I trust to review it, you don't play Warhammer so you don't have any biases about the recent controversies, so I know whether you think it's good or bad, it'll be an honest review
game should be named bronze age and have 8 cultures at least. i'd despise the hollywood melodramatic narrative that plage modern tw games, bring historical narrative back
Great review, Gudea! The time period is not the problem, the execution is. TW needs a major overhaul, CA should build a new game from the ground up and stop re-using stuff from Rome 2. A new building system, larger battles which support tens of thousands of troops, deeper campaign mechanics ect.
I still think Rome Remastered is the best thing that's come out in years. Even with dumb ai. They put so much love in the old game, it still shines through the faults
This a levelheaded review that frames specific criticisms by communicating your desires for what the game could have been. Not surprising I found such a great review through your Europa Barbarorum guide videos! I really hope CA makes their next Total War a tight focused experience while going back to the drawing board on the engine and gameplay mechanics.
@@GudeaTW It's so silly because TW used to have it both ways. We played as states/factions but the characters could still become important as they evolved and developed organically across a campaign. It works for 3K since that's how the story treats it but it just seems so unnatural in Pharaoh.
Undoubtedly this was another commercial fudge by CA. The game was no doubt pitched and designed to either be a SAGA title alongside Troy, or maybe an expansion to Troy. Marketing team took that, said "cool, cool, but we're making it a full price game" and they've been on the defensive ever since. I understand inflation, but really, give us the full game (including the three promised DLCs and other content) on launch and then build out the world with expansions. They've tried to have their cake and eat it here.
I love both the engine and ui in rome 1. My favorite game to this day. I would just prefer Carthage, Seleucids and Gauls to be more dangerous enemies. Especially towards Britons and Egypt who are still in prehistoric level of development
@@GudeaTW sorry, my bad. Bronze age* but still they should be weaker than their enemies in the game. I wish they made them Hellenic faction. And instead of Parthians that they put Illyrians. Do you maybe know some mod that makes Carthage and Seleucid more dangerous enemies? I tried giving Carthage everything on maximum right from the beginning by editing files in the game, giving them more money. And still they lose in Iberia from Spain and in africa from Nummidians or Romans. But i succeeded making Romans weak, i gave them -3000000 denarii so they only conquer one-two regions in the beginning and then they usually lose.
It was never going to be my favourite setting/time period, but that's a matter of taste. All history is interesting to me, so I could get into it. What really *does* bother me though, and which I'm surprised you didn't mention, is the fact that you can't play *states* any more in TW. You have play as *characters* instead, and it's just the worst thing ever. I don't want to play as a character, I want to play as the Hittite Empire or Egypt or whatever, just as it always used to be.
They have that from Crusader Kings 3 I guess, or Civlisation. But to be honest, the empires were mostly famous and made by their most known kings and emperors. But they shouldnt be immortal, characters u start campagin with should be able to die like in 3 Kingdoms. 3 Kingdoms Total War in History Mode was absolutely fun! I could play as Cao Cao, when I did something wrong, he died and his Son/daughter would reign as heir, same with their children... That was actually absolutely immersive, you had to manage family, marry and get children or else your dinasty would extinct. Imagine a Total war like Three Kingdoms (history Mode, Generals have Bodyguad Squad isntead of single unit and can die in battle) in MEdieval setting. You can even capture them, ransom them or even enlist them into your Faction! Would be my absolute favorite Total War of all Time.
You just gave me a good review that bought you a subscriber. Pharaoh is my introduction to the Total War series. Im contemplating on getting TW Rome or Rome II due to my love for the Roman Empire along side the Egyptians.
Hey Gudea, not related to the review but I want to say I’m ashamed of how the invasion of Armenia by Azerbaijan was ignored in the EU and especially here in France. Only a handful of politicians spoke for you when we have a historical duty towards Armenia. But please know that many French people stand with you, no matter what our politicians (and in my case my religious leader the Pope too) lack in courage.
100%. Honestly with the included mechanics, it needs to be the whole Ancient Near East at the peak of the Bronze Age empires... that would be a good base upon which era campaigns could be added.
@@GudeaTW I don't know why they keep doing these small campaigns since Britannia. I hope (but probably in vain) that it will be possible in medieval 3 to invade China through India with English longbowmen.
I don't have a problem with that. I just think there shouldn't be any saga games at all. Those should be regional campaign expansions for larger games. I'm just glad to see the branding perhaps gone
I never wanted this and was pessimistic but - it's great! Nice UI, interesting campaign, the outposts are cool. Court intrigue is nice and not too complex, RPG stuff is good, the system of reminders of things to do each turn works well. Batlle maps look great. The resources work well. Need more stone? -> capture city X or at least trade w them for it. It creates real incentives for wars rather than just " map painting" . battles run smoothly and somehow units feel more responsive than pervious titles. If they'd just add Mesopotamia or at least western Anatolia w Lydia, Lykia, Ionians Greeks etc it'd be amazing !
Same here. I think the reliance on stats to overcome your adversaries in battles really steals the fun of the battles themselves. Rather than using tactics to overcome them, you just use a superior unit to just fight them off and win the battle. @@GudeaTW
I didn't consider this possibility. But now that you mentioned it, absolutely, it would have been far better to have the game being set at the height of the bronze age
Should have been set near the start of the era like Rome one or medieval 2 but it should have also had a far larger campaign map as well. Only having two of the main factions is ridiculous.
I mentioned the exact same thing on a Volound post, Bronze Age collapse being the laziest option on their part. And that, of course, warrants them to make the excuse "well there just isnt enough source material." Yea, obviously the option to make a historical game based on an era with the least amount of material to translate into a full game would be the choice for CA. The game should have taken the player through a journey of traversing through the Bronze Age, with the collapse being scripted similar to Mongol invasion. Possibly even a trigger. In terms of battle, the scale of course must be increased, not just in numbers but in theory, progression. Small bands of raiders are led by warrior king who must gain imperium to establish themself as ruler. These traits expand into birthing a vast empire. Troop management over time, transforms from raiders and skirmishes, to full on regiments and massive royal armies. Technology and industrializing armaments and communal crafts would be the breath of the campaign. Optimizing trade routes in order to funnel essential resources across your realm. On paper Pharoh is great. Its level of specific detail is inclusive, but more condusive to a randomized trait system, supported by geneology and physical action. Theyve expanded on such details on a more singular level, giving characters the persona of a city center. That should all.be conducted within the essential government buldings within the capitol. Making the captiol, the essential hub. In this regard, the provincial system actually becomes meaningful, rather than a hinderance. The capitol should have free unlimited building, and the player must decide how provinces should capilulate. And in return for loyalty, the state funds aid (or executive rule) to the outter regions. All conducted by the player, who represents the Kings title of Power. They needed to structure multiple variations of social governance. Their legacy paths are a nice addition, but theyre only included to FORCE replayability. Theyve built a game that functions like a ladder. One rung at a time, and it only goes up, or down. The only significant difference, how high? And this game ain't nothin but a step stool....
Very nice thoughts! The game really does have some good mechanics.... for the height of the bronze age and other ancient near Eastern eras, but NOT for the bronze age collapse. Building needs a revamp along with warfare on the campaign map
Is the formula for a modern total war game: interesting setting + over-engineered (impenetrable ui) + hopelessly outdated engine + limited replayability? It’s a shame the Bronze Age is going to suffer as a result of this game’s failings. Knowing CA, they’re more likely to write off the setting than take a hard look at their systems. I’m probably going to skip this title. Anyways, long love Artsakh 🇪🇹🤝🇦🇲
@@GudeaTWAt least we have the og Rome mod to scratch the itch :) I’m a member of the modding team for the Byzantine Mosaic project currently in development for Medieval II. If you still do mod showcases, feel free to check it out when the eastern Mediterranean campaign releases this winter! Furthermore, as my responsibilities are primarily with the historical aspects of the mod, if you have any sources for information re Cilician Armenia or Shah-Armens, I’d appreciate your referral!
I could see myself playing this game once or twice and then being completely bored with it. You have to have the Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Israelites, etc. in any Bronze Age campaign. To not include them is unpardonable. No way this is worth $60.
I’m glad you made a review, I deeply appreciate your historical lenses. I’m glad Pharaoh is not a steaming mess, so it exceeded expectations, but of course disappointed they release the game like this when you have Shogun 2. As in, Shogun 2 having clearly distinct factions that are fundamentally different. Other reviews note the research trees are very similar, as in the same effects under a different name which I find to be really boring for replay value. The UI def seems bland and I wouldn’t even mind having a Rome 1 style one. It’s quick and easy to use for early to mid game. They could have used history to decorate each one like in Rome 1 BI. I also agree it’s not just the Bronze Age setting for its limitations. Instead of budget into marketing, they should of got you or other historians to show them the variety of resources, different tactics, and beliefs each nation had to really have a polished and fresh experience. Just from a basic level, immersion is increased by having accurate family trees instead of the questionable immortal general system we have here + distinct research bonuses per faction. Having that few extra months to just breathe, stop, and think retrospectively in development and say “what can we do to ensure this is fleshed out and polished?” would have made this game a lot more of a surprise that people would be happy to splurge on after hearing about it. I’m aware in reality you have corporate deadlines, but a dash of creativity would have meant more $$$ for CA, which they seem to like a little bit. Given how they gave modders a 3 month period to their kit however(correct if I am wrong), it seems they wanted them to fill it out given the progress modders have made for total war.
Great comment! They did some work with an Egyptian history podcast, but it wasn't much imo. More should have been done and put into the finished product too.
-In Shogun 2 Factions are fundamentally Different? i am not sure we played the same Shogun, dont misunderstand me, I love that game. But the Factions were rly similar. Only difference were their specific unique unit (1 slightliy better version of standard unit for each faction, depending of its type, but they looked the same) and their start positions! Thats it. Now compare that with Pharao, where each Faction have unique units, playstyle and so on. Thats a new level of depth. And I am glad they evolved that factor. imagine a Shogun 3, where each warlord has unique boni, playstyle, units and so on. That would be awesome! The engine overall is fine, they just have to try new stuff with it.
I agree with your review. I could forgive all of the flaws if only the map was bigger. Especially when compared to Rome 2, its simply inexcuseable. The miniscule map feels like a middle finger.
?? There are battle ai issues, especially with reinforcements. Nothing unusual... shogun 2 upon release had a similar issue. Reinforcing armies would often just freeze.
One of the worse things in all these new TW is playing a famous character versus playing a faction: Playing as a character doesn't make you feel like you are the ruler. Your character is the actual ruler and you are his administrator (and in battle one of his generals). The difference with crusader kings (ii or III) is that you design and/or choose your ruler's personality, polish him with your decisions, etc.... which at least makes you feel identified with him or even makes you feel like he's your puppet and you a ruler in the shadows. TW is very far from that and that doesn't make you feel POWERFUL. Being a campaign administrator, playing by CA rules that doesn't even let you choose the location of your outpost in Pharaoh, so much lack of freedom to even choose how much to build in each city, etc... makes all new TW games boring and tedious. It feels like you are working, not playing. And you can't do anything creative or a crazy funny campaign. About this video, you nailed it!! I agree with every single word in this video. Nobody explained this game better than you did! And I gave to this video a very well earned "like" 👍
Thanks for the review. I’ve seen some others who dig on the game, and it seems like they are doing that so they aren’t seen as CA shills. I don’t know if I’ll get the game. I actually really like the art style, but I’m not sure I’ll like the gameplay. Especially since it’s still on the Warscape engine.
@@GudeaTW I understand that. As much as I dislike the Warscape engine, I almost certainly would have bought a Rome 3 if that would have been the game, instead of Pharaoh. The Pharaoh setting just doesn’t interest me enough to overlook my dislike of Warscape. Like you, I’m exclusively interested in historical Total War, so Warhammer interests me not even in the slightest.
Okay thanks. I agree with your analysis too. I think Total War is better when the scope covers a large expanse of land and a variety of cultures even if each culture will have less details than the current ones in Pharaoh do.@@GudeaTW
@Gudea TW Feels like you are giving CA to much slack despite the lack of progress they display and the price they ask for it. just jumped in to see your take because I liked some of your takes regarding the old TWs, feels a bit disappointed. I think the fact that autoresolve is still crap, many faulty desings/exploits are still in the game with zero improvements, AI is basically the same like recent TWs but still worse than some of the older games (just saw a siege video of Medieval 2 where the AI rushed to defend breached walls, while in Pharaoh it can't hold a broken gate that can be clubbed by infantry ....), in other words, things that modders can't fix should usually be the focus of reviews... I am sure that if you are lacking more facitons or map settlements modders could add those for you, for me it's on the bottum of the list. Anyway, it's not a hate comment or even criticism , just sharing my take.
@@GudeaTW Fair enough, but I won't suggest it even on discount and the reason is simple : This is a very cheap product to make, CA used a labor force which is cheaper to create it, and its basically modification(the difference between mod and proper products is a functioning AI 'brain') /expansion pack for an exisitng game that is sold for triple A price... This is something I consider as people will call it nowadays 'Toxic', a disgusting corperate behavior ... it is marketed using an IP and terms like 'major historical'. Even at discount of 50% CA will still be celebrating on huge margins of profit on each sale ... I can't support this.
@DeadLikeMeJ the thing is we have seen this for a long time already. Medieval 2 was pretty much a reskin of rome 1 by another studio. Of course it's a horrible practice.
@@GudeaTW I have seen this pops up lately a lot the saying that Medieval 2 is as much as a reskin as Pharaoh is and while I can see why people place this resemblence I can't say its a fair one. I am not against the idea of copy-pasting certain things in a game, as long as you are improving enough on top of those copy-pasted and this is where this equation fails. Medieval 2 while having more than enough flaws has taken almost every aspect of Rome and improved on it. The AI was improved, the graphics was vastly improved, new systems worked with the AI and so on ... yes there is things to complain about - they disconnected population from recruitment but at least added one of the best recruitment systems TW had ever seen (which is a shame a combined one would have been perfect), and sure the jihad wasn't balanced at all, and so on ... but the work that was done was sagnificant and was built on strong foundations. There is a content creator that decided to on a crusade against 'sieges' and to showcase he posted a video today of medival 2 saying why it wasn't really good or will be good for TW nowadays ... meanwhile in the video the AI rushes to block the wall breaches - while in Pharaoh they don't do that to block the gates ... I know from sources why this is the case but in gist this is due to CA lowering the bar and investment in their games with each release and people keep buying so they keep doing so. I don't say it wasn't bad to begun with, the first time I truly got pissed off on CA was with the release of Napoleon, leaving Empire a broken mass and just reselling a slightly fixed version with less content in it. Something needs to change, this is why I recommend people to not buy any TW especially not Pharaoh.
sound like a Pharaoh early access that will develop into another DLC series in order to have fun or something , I'm done with Sega/CA practice, they take feature then reput it later or vice versa, been eon we say to change the ENGINE. 80$ for this , not interested .Thanks for the review.
Hmm actually in that respect I'd say Pharaoh is better than other TWs - since the pace is slower you can see battles play out a bit better. Its issues lie in other areas.
Total War Pharaoh needs more of... everything. Setting is good though. New engine needed.
A new engine was needed since Rome 2. Sadly, with all the upheaval going on at CA, I doubt they’re working on a new engine.
@stevencass8849 since napoleon really
Setting is BAD!!!
You can't have historical game while having immortal god lord/heros. You can't have a historical total game while battle feel too Arcady. Playing total w should feel like you're layin chess not tug of war.
I agree. Sadly this looks more like Troy reskin with some added mechanics on top. Rewriting entire engine would actually make this game cost 60$. They made game at cheap cost. Even If not many people will buy It It will generate profit. I can't express how sad I am seeing that. I would really like for this game to be better :(
Feels bad because i do think CA Sofia is truly been more innovative with less resources and time. They actually listened and tried to implement changes and old systems back based on what the community has been asking for.
Such as matched combat, slower battles, and the "hold ground/push/fallback" mechanic
But i worry with SEGAs financial woes and the main CA studio burning cash we will see Sofia punished for not outting together a miracle.
I think they just needed, at minimum, to increase the scope and change the start date. That would have made the game make more sense already
Total War needs: New Battle Engine where battles dont feel and look like pub brawls, better AI (saying this since 2003 or smth), more focus on economy and city building. Why the hell can we still only build max 4-5 buildings in each city??? I wanna see my cities develop, not only my armies and territory borders.
Agreed, the building system needs an overhaul
absolutely! the whole city management system that fundamentally hasent changed since Rome 2, needs to be improved. As in making you able to build alot more buildings per city.
Warhammer 3 has better AI tbh but the fact *none* of that has made it to Pharaoh does not give me much hope.
@XMysticHerox which one has better ai?
I don't have time to watch it right now, but I just wanted you to know that you're really the only TH-camr I trust to review it, you don't play Warhammer so you don't have any biases about the recent controversies, so I know whether you think it's good or bad, it'll be an honest review
Thank you! Would love to know your thoughts on the review.
sakuya 0:
game should be named bronze age and have 8 cultures at least. i'd despise the hollywood melodramatic narrative that plage modern tw games, bring historical narrative back
100%, it's the faction=character mechanic that I think is holding this back the most.
Great review, Gudea!
The time period is not the problem, the execution is.
TW needs a major overhaul, CA should build a new game from the ground up and stop re-using stuff from Rome 2.
A new building system, larger battles which support tens of thousands of troops, deeper campaign mechanics ect.
Yes, the Rome 2 stuff has got to go! I still see too much Rome 2 in these games
I still think Rome Remastered is the best thing that's come out in years. Even with dumb ai. They put so much love in the old game, it still shines through the faults
Agreed, I've had a lot of fun with RR and there will be a lot more to come!
This a levelheaded review that frames specific criticisms by communicating your desires for what the game could have been. Not surprising I found such a great review through your Europa Barbarorum guide videos!
I really hope CA makes their next Total War a tight focused experience while going back to the drawing board on the engine and gameplay mechanics.
I'm glad you like the review! Thank you
I still hate the idea of characters instead of polities.
It stinks. Needs to go
@@GudeaTW It's so silly because TW used to have it both ways. We played as states/factions but the characters could still become important as they evolved and developed organically across a campaign. It works for 3K since that's how the story treats it but it just seems so unnatural in Pharaoh.
Yup, doesn't work here (or in Troy, really)
the animation post-battle, even the unit type icons are same as Troy 😁
Yup
Undoubtedly this was another commercial fudge by CA. The game was no doubt pitched and designed to either be a SAGA title alongside Troy, or maybe an expansion to Troy. Marketing team took that, said "cool, cool, but we're making it a full price game" and they've been on the defensive ever since. I understand inflation, but really, give us the full game (including the three promised DLCs and other content) on launch and then build out the world with expansions. They've tried to have their cake and eat it here.
The marketing for this game is inexplicable
I love both the engine and ui in rome 1. My favorite game to this day. I would just prefer Carthage, Seleucids and Gauls to be more dangerous enemies. Especially towards Britons and Egypt who are still in prehistoric level of development
Egypt in prehistoric levels of development!?
@@GudeaTW sorry, my bad. Bronze age* but still they should be weaker than their enemies in the game. I wish they made them Hellenic faction. And instead of Parthians that they put Illyrians.
Do you maybe know some mod that makes Carthage and Seleucid more dangerous enemies? I tried giving Carthage everything on maximum right from the beginning by editing files in the game, giving them more money. And still they lose in Iberia from Spain and in africa from Nummidians or Romans. But i succeeded making Romans weak, i gave them -3000000 denarii so they only conquer one-two regions in the beginning and then they usually lose.
Ahh ok got it xD
It was never going to be my favourite setting/time period, but that's a matter of taste. All history is interesting to me, so I could get into it.
What really *does* bother me though, and which I'm surprised you didn't mention, is the fact that you can't play *states* any more in TW. You have play as *characters* instead, and it's just the worst thing ever. I don't want to play as a character, I want to play as the Hittite Empire or Egypt or whatever, just as it always used to be.
I want to make another video about that.
They have that from Crusader Kings 3 I guess, or Civlisation. But to be honest, the empires were mostly famous and made by their most known kings and emperors. But they shouldnt be immortal, characters u start campagin with should be able to die like in 3 Kingdoms. 3 Kingdoms Total War in History Mode was absolutely fun! I could play as Cao Cao, when I did something wrong, he died and his Son/daughter would reign as heir, same with their children... That was actually absolutely immersive, you had to manage family, marry and get children or else your dinasty would extinct. Imagine a Total war like Three Kingdoms (history Mode, Generals have Bodyguad Squad isntead of single unit and can die in battle) in MEdieval setting. You can even capture them, ransom them or even enlist them into your Faction! Would be my absolute favorite Total War of all Time.
You just gave me a good review that bought you a subscriber. Pharaoh is my introduction to the Total War series. Im contemplating on getting TW Rome or Rome II due to my love for the Roman Empire along side the Egyptians.
Glad you enjoyed the video!
Hey Gudea, not related to the review but I want to say I’m ashamed of how the invasion of Armenia by Azerbaijan was ignored in the EU and especially here in France. Only a handful of politicians spoke for you when we have a historical duty towards Armenia. But please know that many French people stand with you, no matter what our politicians (and in my case my religious leader the Pope too) lack in courage.
I appreciate the support
huh?
?
bro this game but with the entirety of the Mediterranean Sea with historical events and such would be excellent
100%. Honestly with the included mechanics, it needs to be the whole Ancient Near East at the peak of the Bronze Age empires... that would be a good base upon which era campaigns could be added.
@@GudeaTW I don't know why they keep doing these small campaigns since Britannia. I hope (but probably in vain) that it will be possible in medieval 3 to invade China through India with English longbowmen.
@lance-corporal honestly baffling
The Bronze Age deserved a more thoughtful treatment than this. Thanks for the review.
Yup, there is so much that could be covered that is just not included. :(
The fact is that it is a saga game being charged a full price. Simple as. I don’t actually see much of a future for this series as a whole anymore.
I'm an old timer- I've seen sentiment this bad before. Before shogun 2's release. You can check the forums
I don't have a problem with that. I just think there shouldn't be any saga games at all. Those should be regional campaign expansions for larger games. I'm just glad to see the branding perhaps gone
What do you mean by a "saga game"? Science fantasy role-playing video games by Square Enix? I don't see the relation
I never wanted this and was pessimistic but - it's great! Nice UI, interesting campaign, the outposts are cool. Court intrigue is nice and not too complex, RPG stuff is good, the system of reminders of things to do each turn works well. Batlle maps look great. The resources work well. Need more stone? -> capture city X or at least trade w them for it. It creates real incentives for wars rather than just " map painting" . battles run smoothly and somehow units feel more responsive than pervious titles. If they'd just add Mesopotamia or at least western Anatolia w Lydia, Lykia, Ionians Greeks etc it'd be amazing !
I don’t like the game myself but I’m glad to see you didn’t at least just ride the hate train for the game and actually gave a review of it
The game isn't awful, it's just Rome 2 again. I don't want that anymore
Same here. I think the reliance on stats to overcome your adversaries in battles really steals the fun of the battles themselves. Rather than using tactics to overcome them, you just use a superior unit to just fight them off and win the battle. @@GudeaTW
@@beegfeeg4473 definitely need more of a reliance on terrain for the next battle engine (well... stuff that was already perfected in Med 1)
I didn't consider this possibility. But now that you mentioned it, absolutely, it would have been far better to have the game being set at the height of the bronze age
With this set of mechanics, that is what they should have set out to make
Should have been set near the start of the era like Rome one or medieval 2 but it should have also had a far larger campaign map as well. Only having two of the main factions is ridiculous.
Agreed
I mentioned the exact same thing on a Volound post, Bronze Age collapse being the laziest option on their part. And that, of course, warrants them to make the excuse "well there just isnt enough source material." Yea, obviously the option to make a historical game based on an era with the least amount of material to translate into a full game would be the choice for CA.
The game should have taken the player through a journey of traversing through the Bronze Age, with the collapse being scripted similar to Mongol invasion. Possibly even a trigger.
In terms of battle, the scale of course must be increased, not just in numbers but in theory, progression. Small bands of raiders are led by warrior king who must gain imperium to establish themself as ruler. These traits expand into birthing a vast empire. Troop management over time, transforms from raiders and skirmishes, to full on regiments and massive royal armies. Technology and industrializing armaments and communal crafts would be the breath of the campaign. Optimizing trade routes in order to funnel essential resources across your realm.
On paper Pharoh is great. Its level of specific detail is inclusive, but more condusive to a randomized trait system, supported by geneology and physical action. Theyve expanded on such details on a more singular level, giving characters the persona of a city center. That should all.be conducted within the essential government buldings within the capitol. Making the captiol, the essential hub. In this regard, the provincial system actually becomes meaningful, rather than a hinderance. The capitol should have free unlimited building, and the player must decide how provinces should capilulate. And in return for loyalty, the state funds aid (or executive rule) to the outter regions. All conducted by the player, who represents the Kings title of Power.
They needed to structure multiple variations of social governance. Their legacy paths are a nice addition, but theyre only included to FORCE replayability. Theyve built a game that functions like a ladder. One rung at a time, and it only goes up, or down. The only significant difference, how high? And this game ain't nothin but a step stool....
Very nice thoughts! The game really does have some good mechanics.... for the height of the bronze age and other ancient near Eastern eras, but NOT for the bronze age collapse. Building needs a revamp along with warfare on the campaign map
Babe wake up, Gudea posted a video!
xD good to see you HappyCompy
Wake me up from Cyrosleep when happycompy posts a video! Lol
Is the formula for a modern total war game: interesting setting + over-engineered (impenetrable ui) + hopelessly outdated engine + limited replayability?
It’s a shame the Bronze Age is going to suffer as a result of this game’s failings. Knowing CA, they’re more likely to write off the setting than take a hard look at their systems. I’m probably going to skip this title.
Anyways, long love Artsakh 🇪🇹🤝🇦🇲
Yes I fear that as well... I hope they take the feedback to heart and actually make the game that needs to be made
@@GudeaTWAt least we have the og Rome mod to scratch the itch :)
I’m a member of the modding team for the Byzantine Mosaic project currently in development for Medieval II. If you still do mod showcases, feel free to check it out when the eastern Mediterranean campaign releases this winter!
Furthermore, as my responsibilities are primarily with the historical aspects of the mod, if you have any sources for information re Cilician Armenia or Shah-Armens, I’d appreciate your referral!
Oh that mod sounds awesome! I would love to take a look. What century exactly?
@@GudeaTWthe game is set to begin in 1207. Some information is up on moddb, I can send you faction roster etc. on discord if you want
@@jacobj869 please send info on discord, thank you
I could see myself playing this game once or twice and then being completely bored with it. You have to have the Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Israelites, etc. in any Bronze Age campaign. To not include them is unpardonable. No way this is worth $60.
It's probably on purpose. I bet they're going to come as DLC culture packs
The scale needs to be increased ASAP
I hope at least some are freelc in that case...
Great review!
Thank you!
I’m glad you made a review, I deeply appreciate your historical lenses. I’m glad Pharaoh is not a steaming mess, so it exceeded expectations, but of course disappointed they release the game like this when you have Shogun 2. As in, Shogun 2 having clearly distinct factions that are fundamentally different. Other reviews note the research trees are very similar, as in the same effects under a different name which I find to be really boring for replay value. The UI def seems bland and I wouldn’t even mind having a Rome 1 style one. It’s quick and easy to use for early to mid game. They could have used history to decorate each one like in Rome 1 BI.
I also agree it’s not just the Bronze Age setting for its limitations. Instead of budget into marketing, they should of got you or other historians to show them the variety of resources, different tactics, and beliefs each nation had to really have a polished and fresh experience. Just from a basic level, immersion is increased by having accurate family trees instead of the questionable immortal general system we have here + distinct research bonuses per faction.
Having that few extra months to just breathe, stop, and think retrospectively in development and say “what can we do to ensure this is fleshed out and polished?” would have made this game a lot more of a surprise that people would be happy to splurge on after hearing about it. I’m aware in reality you have corporate deadlines, but a dash of creativity would have meant more $$$ for CA, which they seem to like a little bit.
Given how they gave modders a 3 month period to their kit however(correct if I am wrong), it seems they wanted them to fill it out given the progress modders have made for total war.
Great comment! They did some work with an Egyptian history podcast, but it wasn't much imo. More should have been done and put into the finished product too.
-In Shogun 2 Factions are fundamentally Different? i am not sure we played the same Shogun, dont misunderstand me, I love that game. But the Factions were rly similar. Only difference were their specific unique unit (1 slightliy better version of standard unit for each faction, depending of its type, but they looked the same) and their start positions! Thats it. Now compare that with Pharao, where each Faction have unique units, playstyle and so on. Thats a new level of depth. And I am glad they evolved that factor. imagine a Shogun 3, where each warlord has unique boni, playstyle, units and so on. That would be awesome! The engine overall is fine, they just have to try new stuff with it.
Factions in pharaoh are definitely a bit more unique than clans in shogun 2, mostly
I agree with your review. I could forgive all of the flaws if only the map was bigger. Especially when compared to Rome 2, its simply inexcuseable. The miniscule map feels like a middle finger.
The map needs expansion. I was unhappy with Rome 2's map too but not because of the size!
Are there still a lot of people standing around while the first few people attack ?
?? There are battle ai issues, especially with reinforcements. Nothing unusual... shogun 2 upon release had a similar issue. Reinforcing armies would often just freeze.
One of the worse things in all these new TW is playing a famous character versus playing a faction:
Playing as a character doesn't make you feel like you are the ruler. Your character is the actual ruler and you are his administrator (and in battle one of his generals).
The difference with crusader kings (ii or III) is that you design and/or choose your ruler's personality, polish him with your decisions, etc.... which at least makes you feel identified with him or even makes you feel like he's your puppet and you a ruler in the shadows. TW is very far from that and that doesn't make you feel POWERFUL.
Being a campaign administrator, playing by CA rules that doesn't even let you choose the location of your outpost in Pharaoh, so much lack of freedom to even choose how much to build in each city, etc... makes all new TW games boring and tedious. It feels like you are working, not playing. And you can't do anything creative or a crazy funny campaign.
About this video, you nailed it!! I agree with every single word in this video. Nobody explained this game better than you did! And I gave to this video a very well earned "like" 👍
Agree 100%. Character factions need to goo
Well said
A full review in under 10 min? I’m going to need at least 1.5 hours plz
Lol not happening with my schedule xD
I haven't bought a single CA game since Shogun 2 except Alien: Isolation. I value my time and know how to manage my honestly earned money.
Alien Isolation is definitely one of my favorite games of all time. And I'm NOT a horror game kind of guy
Thanks for the review. I’ve seen some others who dig on the game, and it seems like they are doing that so they aren’t seen as CA shills. I don’t know if I’ll get the game. I actually really like the art style, but I’m not sure I’ll like the gameplay. Especially since it’s still on the Warscape engine.
I see what you're saying. I suppose since I'm not a warhammer fan and this is the period I'm most interested in, I have a different perspective...
@@GudeaTW I understand that. As much as I dislike the Warscape engine, I almost certainly would have bought a Rome 3 if that would have been the game, instead of Pharaoh. The Pharaoh setting just doesn’t interest me enough to overlook my dislike of Warscape.
Like you, I’m exclusively interested in historical Total War, so Warhammer interests me not even in the slightest.
We desperately need a new engine with proper collision. Very hard to enjoy warscape battles after rome remastered
Are you continuing the pharaoh let’s play?
If I have time, my schedule is tough
@@GudeaTW dangit
When was the height of the Bronze Age that you talk about?
14th century bc
Okay thanks. I agree with your analysis too. I think Total War is better when the scope covers a large expanse of land and a variety of cultures even if each culture will have less details than the current ones in Pharaoh do.@@GudeaTW
Absolutely...
For the engine part they should make a new engine
that's been true since Shogun 2
The Unit interface bar takes up too much of the screen.
I believe that is toggleable
Would a 1300 BC Start Date be better?
Or a bit earlier sure
@@GudeaTW I hoping the Campaign DLC is an Earlier Start Date and covers more geographical area.
@@GudeaTW Amarna period would be perfect in my opinion, that would allow us to include both Mitanni and Assyria as playable powers.
Absolutely
@Gudea TW Feels like you are giving CA to much slack despite the lack of progress they display and the price they ask for it. just jumped in to see your take because I liked some of your takes regarding the old TWs, feels a bit disappointed. I think the fact that autoresolve is still crap, many faulty desings/exploits are still in the game with zero improvements, AI is basically the same like recent TWs but still worse than some of the older games (just saw a siege video of Medieval 2 where the AI rushed to defend breached walls, while in Pharaoh it can't hold a broken gate that can be clubbed by infantry ....), in other words, things that modders can't fix should usually be the focus of reviews... I am sure that if you are lacking more facitons or map settlements modders could add those for you, for me it's on the bottum of the list.
Anyway, it's not a hate comment or even criticism , just sharing my take.
Well I did say not to buy it now. It's the same as other newly released total wars- not worth it.
@@GudeaTW Fair enough, but I won't suggest it even on discount and the reason is simple :
This is a very cheap product to make, CA used a labor force which is cheaper to create it, and its basically modification(the difference between mod and proper products is a functioning AI 'brain') /expansion pack for an exisitng game that is sold for triple A price...
This is something I consider as people will call it nowadays 'Toxic', a disgusting corperate behavior ... it is marketed using an IP and terms like 'major historical'.
Even at discount of 50% CA will still be celebrating on huge margins of profit on each sale ... I can't support this.
@DeadLikeMeJ the thing is we have seen this for a long time already. Medieval 2 was pretty much a reskin of rome 1 by another studio. Of course it's a horrible practice.
@@GudeaTW I have seen this pops up lately a lot the saying that Medieval 2 is as much as a reskin as Pharaoh is and while I can see why people place this resemblence I can't say its a fair one.
I am not against the idea of copy-pasting certain things in a game, as long as you are improving enough on top of those copy-pasted and this is where this equation fails.
Medieval 2 while having more than enough flaws has taken almost every aspect of Rome and improved on it.
The AI was improved, the graphics was vastly improved, new systems worked with the AI and so on ... yes there is things to complain about - they disconnected population from recruitment but at least added one of the best recruitment systems TW had ever seen (which is a shame a combined one would have been perfect), and sure the jihad wasn't balanced at all, and so on ... but the work that was done was sagnificant and was built on strong foundations.
There is a content creator that decided to on a crusade against 'sieges' and to showcase he posted a video today of medival 2 saying why it wasn't really good or will be good for TW nowadays ... meanwhile in the video the AI rushes to block the wall breaches - while in Pharaoh they don't do that to block the gates ...
I know from sources why this is the case but in gist this is due to CA lowering the bar and investment in their games with each release and people keep buying so they keep doing so.
I don't say it wasn't bad to begun with, the first time I truly got pissed off on CA was with the release of Napoleon, leaving Empire a broken mass and just reselling a slightly fixed version with less content in it.
Something needs to change, this is why I recommend people to not buy any TW especially not Pharaoh.
Something needs to change for sure, and I outline that in the video. Engine, vision, scale, etc.
sound like a Pharaoh early access that will develop into another DLC series in order to have fun or something , I'm done with Sega/CA practice, they take feature then reput it later or vice versa, been eon we say to change the ENGINE. 80$ for this , not interested .Thanks for the review.
Engine should have been changed after napoleon imo
Gudea, may I use your review footage? You say exactly what I want to say and I'd like to ask your permission
For sure, no worries
@@GudeaTW many thanks!
8:59 Yes it is ;)
Ridiculous take
@pizzaman6784 Absolutely not
@@GudeaTW No, Bronze Age just sucks
@@georgimihalkov9678 Absolutely is, Alexander the Great is probably the earliest you can set a TW, and have it have a wide appeal.
@@pizzaman6784
One could argue that rulers like Hammurabi, Ramesess II & Cyrus the Great would have worldwide appeal if done right
I gave up on historical titles ,I found warhammer three much more user freindly .
Warhammer is more user friendly as a cure for insomnia
@@GudeaTW best game is shogun 2 fall of samurai.
@@tahahadada1936 one of my favorites, any of the shogun 2 campaigns really
Did they include the Sea Peoples?
Sort of
@@GudeaTW I will see what you mean when it goes on sale in a couple of years
@@lance-corporal I'll do more videos on the game
This trash is why i happily ignore anything after MTW2. 🙃
Bad game engine, AI and design, lovely graphics only covers up the flaws for a while.
Honestly imo the last total war with lovely graphics was shogun 2....
Im going to say game isnt awfull but for sure not worth 60$...
No it isn't awful. Not more awful than other vanilla total war releases (rome 2, empire, Troy, 3k, med 2, etc)
Agony mod is for you
What's that
@@GudeaTW makes pharaoh great like Population mechanik
And if ca dont expand the map they do it
@@mariusbehm9874 ah will take a look!
@@GudeaTW 👍
90 units per stack?? This is a joke
I don't think I'm playing on the largest unit size
I agree about the expansion. This is the major disappointment for me.
It's just too small
glory to egypt and where is the sea peoples?
Who knows
Im guessing their horde stacks appear late game attacking all factions that border the coast
Basically
Yeah, it's too simplistic. There needs to be a population mechanic involved here imo..
Better than Rome 2 and warhammer… so still bad
Battles feel like ant simulator. cant see shit.
Hmm actually in that respect I'd say Pharaoh is better than other TWs - since the pace is slower you can see battles play out a bit better. Its issues lie in other areas.
Is it good?.......no
But it could be...
Какой бы щлак не делать, но не Medieval 3.
As in if they make Medieval 3, they shouldn't make it schlock, or as long as they are making schlock, they shouldn't make Medieval 3?
@@GudeaTW Скоро 20 лет как вышла 2 часть.
@otkroy_glaza yes, it's been quite a long time
I'm enjoying it so far - installing reshade shortly
It's enjoyable for sure
Great review!
Thank you