Total War: Pharaoh's Struggle to Resonate with Many Historical Players

I’ve been thinking about Pharaoh this week and watching all of the gameplay videos, the leader showcases and Dev diaries. I’ve been reading through the comments to gauge the community response and over on Reddit as well to understand the discourse around this new game coming in October 2023.
So far it seems very mixed with plenty of people quite happy with the direction CA Sofia is taking the game, but there is I would say a pretty large number of people who are disappointed for a variety of reasons.
We can see that in Reddit which generally is negative anyway but we can also see it in the videos CA has been releasing with roughly 25-30% of reactions on each video a dislike which is pretty damn high.
Today with everything I’ve seen so far I thought it might be a good opportunity to talk about what exactly Pharaoh is missing and speculate as to why there is so much negativity around the game in the Total War community right now.
Hope you enjoyed this video guys and if you did give it a like and drop any thoughts or questions in the comments section below. Subscribe for more total war content, gameplay and news and thanks for watching guys!
#TotalWar #TotalWarPharaoh #HistoricalTotalWar
SUBSCRIBE - / @theterminatorgaming
BUY ME A COFFEE! - www.buymeacoff...
BECOME A TERMI MEMBER! - / @theterminatorgaming
JOIN THE TERMI DISCORD! - / discord

[@TheTerminatorGaming]

➡To be perfectly clear this is not “Doom and Gloom”, there’s still room for Pharaoh to improve & this is all speculative. At the end of the day Pharaoh at release may still be a fun historical game to play. Let me know what you think in the comments below! 🎉Become a channel member or Join my Patreon to play Total War with me & get discounted Merch! - www.patreon.com/TheTerminatorDonate 🚀Join the Termi Discord! - discord.gg/ZvbywUzQZB

[@somato2688]

It's doom brother

[@JD-re3cj]

I agree with what you said- it’s just another cartoony looking thing without any immersive feel to it, another disappointment in a long line of disappointments

[@jaywerner8415]

I suspect it will be, as they say "painfully average" as far as TW standards go. Not a bad game per say but its not going to blowing anyone's mind. the "new" mechanics they have added are mostly old features that not been seen in like 10 years, are they trying to pull a EA madden here? What actually NEW mechanics they have added don't sound very interesting at best and down right detrimental at worst. The ability to strip armor from units as they fight in combat for example, is a interesting addition i will say. But it also sounds terrifying, that is a HUGE shake up form every other TW game to date. Probably going to another one of those things that divides opinions, you are ether going to like it or hate it. Other then that is just feels like a another "saga game" so to speak. A Smaller project they use to test new Mechanics for future major releases.

[@carl7cumberland]

It is doom and gloom if you are a empire player haha 😄

[@ElZilchoYo]

The setting is boring to be honest. I know that's going to ruffle some feathers, but listen. Ancient Egypt isn't boring, it's very interesting, I am very interested in ancient Egypt. But it's pretty boring for a battle/empire simulation game series. Ancient Egypt is a city builder setting, to build monuments and manage trade and population growth. It's just not a particularly interesting setting for a total war game specifically. Then throw in a lack of real innovation, the same old engine, the dullness of the UI and such, and you just had a mediocre mid game nobody is really excited for. There are far better settings for TW, ancient Rome obviously, Pike and Shot, the Medieval era, but CA know they can't pull those periods off anymore, too much work for them, so they're picking kind of easy settings where the military history is more blurry and they can put in less effort.

[@MelkorGG]

If it was a Bronze Age game, I would be a bit interested, but it's not even full Bronze Age. It's like releasing Thrones of Britannia and calling it Medieval 3.

[@TheTerminatorGaming]

EXACTLY! And locking super important cultures/factions behind DLCs is a big L if that actually is the case here

[@davidstansbury9309]

To be fair, they're not calling it Total War: Bronze Age. Basically they're just overcharging us. That's the only huge issue.

[@MrRandalFlagg]

Great analogy

[@agustinf1372]

They could add nations like Assyria and Babylone I hope they do it

[@agustinf1372]

@@davidstansbury9309 we have a Rome total war with different nations so....

[@hellboy12190]

Your commentary on the difference between the battles in real historical titles and the cartoony battles in Pharaoh and Troy is spot-on!

[@branwhite5141]

Disagree the big battles in Pharaoh look terrific. The city assaults are inspired.

[@MatiasMcadams]

He didn’t say that the battles in pharaoh Were bad, rather he points out that the historical immersion in previous titles added a certain quality that can’t be reproduced by flashy graphics and copy paste divisions. You smooth brain.

[@khal7702]

it's a game not a historical simulation and please tell me which games have better battles

[@jacksonpierce3996]

@@khal7702 I'd say shogun 2 as an example. Looking at troy and pharaoh it seems to lack the grounded feel of units engaged in combat. The point of these historical games is to immerse yourself as if a historical simulation. Every soldier needs to feel like a man fighting for his life as heck and high water boils around him. Personally, but I think many people who like the classics agree, that you just don't get that feeling with troy or pharaoh. Which is unfortunate, I would have loved a grounded and cared for trojan war game.

[@hellboy12190]

@@khal7702 who said anything about a historical simulator? The community is calling for a grounded quality game. Battle UI, the way units are arranged and the general way battles look in Troy and Pharaoh is just terrible and looks damn cartoony. Stop settling for whatever these developers are pushing down your throat.

[@gewuerzkoenich1924]

One thing i'm missing as well is the detailed historical background information. I mean just look at the info texts you could read for each invention in Empire.

[@EdvinHolmgren]

So true!

[@TheLondonhascalled]

My biggest problem is I want to feel like a commander through a variety of avenues, from my scouting, tactics, before battle prep, use of land etc. The latest Total wars seem focused on popping abilities and rock, paper scissors units. Just feels more like a mobile game of win quick battle in between collecting more land and money

[@JD-re3cj]

I agree it’s just too arcade-y aimed at people with short attention spans

[@meadaiv8835]

AGREEED omg you put it into words better than I could haha

[@Gdsryrox]

Yeah the abilities and Arcady feel is a main turn off for me, even in rome 2 it feels like I spend most of my time in battles clicking ability buttons on all my units/commander on after the other instead of you know positioning them and using tactics. 'opt that unit is wavering spam inspire and other stuff instead of like reinforcing them with a fresh unit while getting them to fall back.

[@ostbell.8297]

THIS

[@crimsonwolf866]

yeah its a shame total war throwed away so many of its theatrics and more realistic side of things to these E sports corporate bullshit micromanage focused combat. Its never about formations and more about ah shit was rock facing their scissors and have I made the effort to just press a few buttons every 5 seconds to make sure i can starcraft this shit. Like big warhammer fan and love the warhammer series but i have more auto resolves on that than in shogun 2

[@pakkenpk5598]

The Bronze Age fascinates me, and i love the characters from this period with how larger than life they feel. But, that latter part feels like the controversy with how hard CA is leaning into the characters and their mythologized roles. Also, the fact Babylon or the *Akaad isnt there feels strange imo.

[@benmortimer1036]

My guess is that they might add them later as DLCs, depending on how well the game performs. I would love to see a broader map that includes the Aegean Sea and the Balkans in the future, even if it means just porting over Troy, which I imagine they must have done to build this anyways.

[@resileaf9501]

@@benmortimer1036 There's no 'depending on how well it performs', the game is already stated to release with three faction packs and a campaign pack DLCs.

[@meilinchan7314]

Guess we should just download the Age of Bronze Mod, then.

[@pachomiussinanicus1728]

Blame the success of warhammer series 😂 This is the true reason why CA are more obsessing with faction leader rather than faction

[@resileaf9501]

@@pachomiussinanicus1728 Yes, because CA definitely never dabbled into faction leaders and generals before Warhammer, like in Napoleon, or Rome 2's DLC campaigns, or Attila, or a couple of Medieval 2 Kingdoms campaigns.

[@AlHyckGaemsTAD]

Honestly, your third point was the one that resonated with me the most. I have very little interest in immortal/unkillable characters leading their factions. I'm torn on whether I'll get the game or not at the moment, but if each faction were a society rather than a character I'd shift much more towards getting it.

[@resileaf9501]

I much prefer characters. History is defined by great (and not-so-great) leaders who led their kingdoms and armies to greatness or downfall. One of the things I dislike the most in Shogun 2 is that the great historical rivalries of the Sengoku period will never affect your campaign. The most famous rivalry of all, Uesugi Kenshin and Takeda Shingen, will only fight each other once in the campaign as the loser of their first battle is nigh-guaranteed to die. If you are in a far-away clan, you will never meet those great leaders as they will most likely have died in battle by the time you reach the clan. And even in other Total War games that don't cover a single conflict, there is no excitement in meeting any specific character from any faction. They're randomly-generated no-names who you don't have any history with and will die on your first battle with them. You'll never see the King of France in Medieval 2 and think "We meet again in glorious battle". You won't ever see a general and get giddy at clashing with someone famous. They're always going to be someone you forget about before you even remember they have a name. Characters add flavour. They add a personal touch. They add roleplay opportunities. The series feels much better with them than without.

[@rtsgod]

@@resileaf9501 you can have characters but not have them be immortal :)

[@resileaf9501]

@@rtsgod Not really. As I said, Shogun 2 has factions start with their historical leaders, but they're not going to survive longer than a single lost battle. There's nothing special with them.

[@rtsgod]

​@@resileaf9501 yeah, historical leader are characters to me. and them dying is ok. it's realistic. I prefer it that way. I want armies lead by men, not gods leading some cannon fodder nothings, and not all armies get totally destroyed in one battle, generals can run away or escape.

[@resileaf9501]

@@rtsgod And imo, Total War does better when famous characters do not die in battle. Napoleon's famous generals of the protagonist countries could meet each other often, and each battle between them would feel special because you would know that they were the best of their time. Rome 2's DLC campaigns with Ceasar and Hannibal (and probably others) similarly feel more special as well. Shogun 2 would be much better if famous leaders and generals had the same survivability as they do in Three Kingdoms. And no, generals can't run away and escape in Total War. Generals who lose a battle die along with their entire army. If not in the battle itself when the general unit is defeated, then in the cleanup when you chase what few routers managed to escape. Escaping armies in Total War never survive to return home.

[@KC_312]

I remember my first playthrough as the Kingdom of Jerusalem in M2TW in the DLC and only having my king for all of my campaign, as I was against adopting other members and married him, only for his eldest son to be 15 and just turning 15 when my king died in the last battle against the Byzantine forces before the siege of Constantinople. At that second all of my efforts to maintain Jerusalem's supremacy in the region were for naught, as the Kingdom died with my king. This kind of thing is something that is missing from most of the modern TW games, as it adds the issue of risk of losing the campaign, but I'd like a regency system like in Shogun 2, where you could continue if you had underage sons.

[@MedjayofFaiyum]

Great video and thank you for the shoutout - No Mesopotamia is a big opportunity when a Rome total war mod and the age of bronze mod and CKIII mod gives you the whole experience. I will campaign to bring as much as I can to add in Mesopotamia. Either we get a 3rd game and combine to a mortal empires map or something like that. - if this game doesn’t work then forget about Mesopotamia ever being added or a 3rd game in the Bronze Age. This is really the only big game set in the Bronze age and I don’t want it going Imperator and I agree there needs to be compromise of characters vs factions when you choose them - I would really love for historical characters to have an immortal type - they can die or they can’t die abd that would be toggable. - Family tree and marriage is needed in such a vast era that is the Bronze Age. - User interface must reflect that cultures and unit cards needs change. - Napoleon also had immortal Generals interestingly What’s a good work around for characters vs faction focus?

[@zacheryhalbert]

Main problem is this isn’t the Bronze Age. It’s essentially a tiny sliver of the Bronze Age just before the collapse which is the end game dilemma.

[@novaly_7993]

i think the character/faction is thing is heavily context sensitive: for example it fits decently here, in that i can conceive it to be fine, but faction would have also worked fine, however, if they were to make lets say a medieval 3 i'd heavily push for a charcter based system like 3 kingdoms, personal retenues and such, for its much closer to feudalism than factions, for shogun 3 we could also imagine something similar altho clans can work fine as factions too. Ultimately really depends on the history period you're working with.

[@Jodashi]

Personally i loved that total war attila had civilians in the villages and cities, it let the battle map look more alive besides that i loved its graphic and i am afraid that total war Pharao will make a big step back in that matter

[@jimmycombs8159]

Three kingdoms did it too. They even carried swords and could fight, and if they caught a soldier separated from the unit, they could even win lol

[@ElZilchoYo]

Reminds me of that video of an Attila general giving a speech when a peasant woman walks over and the general casually slays her and continues the speech.

[@EvgeneXI]

@@jimmycombs8159just started 3K because it was on sale. So far I’m really impressed. Little details, for example the civilians you mention. The fact that if an army sallies forth and engages you from a settlement, the battle map shows the settlement in the distance behind the army sallying out.

[@WarPigstheHun]

I was defending a settlement once, and this one lady villager kept cutting off the heads of enemy soldiers with a knife. I loved watching that.

[@Enkabard]

@@EvgeneXI heh you would like Medieval 2 or Rome 1 then, if you sally out, you have to literally walk out of the city to attack the enemy, 100% city is accessible too and you can even lure enemy into trap

[@danspam]

I'll just wait until it's on sale and the overhaul mods come out. No way I'm paying $60+tax.

[@TheTerminatorGaming]

I know right! The pricing is insane for this

[@aaronluisdelacruz4212]

When it was first revealed, I was excited that we might get a game set in the bronze age. And I want to fight the sea People and hope to hold a nation until after the collapse.

[@TheZlugg]

I think one of the problems is that they appear to be launching this with some of the key factions held back, to be later sold as DLC, sticks in the throat of most players. This feels like marketing is leading this development rather than ppl who are interested in the period or the game. Personally, I'll wait for release and decide afterwards whether I want to play... this from someone who gerenerally pre-orders.

[@unclevamp]

That's every total war all the way back to Rome so nothing new

[@SillySpudyRocking]

I want Med 3 or Empire 2 so the only thing that keeps my disappointment in check is that it's not the main studio making it so theres still hope.

[@mattinthenow589]

If you buy Pharoah you need to walk around with "Gullible Fool" written on your forehead for at least 2 years.

[@darbru]

Now we need a STONE AGE Total War 😎

[@aldraone-mu5yg]

Shit this isn’t far off.

[@willevodka9701]

With DINOSAURS!

[@SOCMAR09]

Flintstones & Rubbles

[@wernergruen3943]

total war: primal... looking forward to it. your massive army of 3 apes with improved clubs conquers the next cave by slaying the 4 defending apes...

[@AceShinkenGames]

World war stone age

[@shrouddreamer]

Personally, I fear that Total War as a whole is just dead, not because of a lack of players, but because of the missing strategy and tactics in recent games. Battles don't feel or look organized, just a bunch of units beating up each other. I once saw a Video from Rome II: Weak spearmen + weak cavalry vs. strong swordsmen. The spearmen bound the swordsmen in melee while the cavalry charged them from behind. Result: The swordsmen lost a lot of _hitpoints_ but almost no one died. They just continued fighting as if nothing happened, the spearmen fled, and despite being f*cking *charged from behind* the swordsmen won the battle! Unit formations are also weird, since they alter the units stats, instead of altering the unit's behaviour. The testudo formation used to be just one thing: Soldiers getting closer together, protecting each other with their shields. They were still vulnerable from the sides and (especially) from behind. In modern games, the unit receives the stat boost even if they haven't got into formation yet, they also are invunerable from behind... Do you remember how it was possible to move troops without a general? How you could organise garrisons on your own? That one of the game's challenges was to replenish your units in foreign lands? How you weren't artificially limited to a few building slots? How the battlefield looked like the area on the campaign map? You could also see fleets, cities and other landmarks in the distance.

[@marnhierogryph2562]

I disagree on the immersion argument. From what we hear from behind the scenes both on Troy and Pharaoh they seem to be very on top when it comes to authentic equipment etc. I don't think the "problem" is a lack of authenticity, I think it's a lack of popular "fantasy" for the time-period. When people think of Samurai, they immediately "know" what they looked like because they've seen it in a dozen Hollywood movies. So if a game follows the popular idea of what medieval Japan looked like, it'll feel authentic to us. There is barely any media set in bronze-age Egypt, so there is no popular idea of what this period is "supposed" to look like, ergo for most people it will feel inauthentic no matter what, because they don't know what would be authentic or not. Also, the world wasn't all drab before 1900. Just because people used to wear colors doesn't make it inauthentic. Can't really argue with the other points. i wasn't even aware this wasn't marketed as a Saga title, because it very clearly is. I learned to like Troy a lot after a while, so I'll give it a try, but it certainly won't be for anyone who didn't enjoy Troy at all

[@Lightbreaker8]

Why can't they listen to the community and give us a Medieval 3. We've only been asking for it, for years.

[@imperatorgub6681]

Creative Assembly is too big. Their corporate heads are not thinking rationally. They're out of touch with their base, like so many other large studios and media companies.

[@RobGM2]

If it is 20 dollars, it would be worth it as a regional Total War title.

[@parthiaball]

CA Sofia didn’t make ToB, they made Troy and the R2 DLC’s Empire Divided and RotR. They, as of so far, aren’t the “designated saga team”.

[@IAmMrGreat]

There are just so many issues they do nothing about. My personal biggest problem with modern titles is definitely the focus on generals, lords or heroes. I miss being harassed by a tiny army of 1-5 units where I could just send my garrison out of the city to handle them or bribe them with a diplomat. I miss being able to break off a part of my army to siege that smaller settlement while my main army continued on to a larger settlement. I miss having multiple armies out without being severely punished for it by some stupid mechanic increasing the cost of every one of my units just because I recruited one guy 5 provinces away. And I miss being able to send a small navy out to hamper another nations trade by placing it on a trade route while my primary blockaded theirs in or chased them off to some far off corner of the map. Every battle in modern titles seem to be 20+ units because that's how many you can conveniently bring around while also being powerful enough to fight 90% of all battles. Just give me my small armies back and let me put as many units as I want into one army, how hard can it be? Just have it stay as 20 at the start of the fight and let us put the rest in a reinforcement list, possibly where we can arrange which order they arrive in. Could potentially give something like 4 reinforcement points you can drag around like they currently have with reinforcing armies in wh3. Let us put units into the locations at the start of the battle with the time they take to arrive depending on the slowest units speed, suddenly cavalry will have a massive advantage for outflanking your enemy right at the start and maybe make it worth getting more than one or two units to chase down stragglers. Give me back some of the strategy and tactics on the campaign map, not just "I have a faster army with superior faction mechanics so I can just waltz past your army and destroy cities in your backline for the next 10 turns till you can set up an ambush". Sidenote: I also miss the old population and tax mechanics of cities in Rome 1 and Medieval 2.

[@ilko9992]

Imagine them making medieval 3 but you play as Richard the Lionhearth and not as England

[@MrlspPrt]

The truth is CA is trying to replicate Warhammer but removing the licencing part so they can take all the money. They don't care about historical fans, but the money they got from Wahammer. The problem is Warhammer fans are into the games not for the Total War part, so CA is losing both fans of Warhammer who don't care about history, and history fans who're maybe tired of "warhammerish" games. Just look at Troy and Pharaoh: both are games so focused on heroes (I didn't play Three Kingdoms, but I bet it shows a patter shifting towards this). In fact, I dislike the "there must be a general" from Rome II, I miss the "promising captain" thing from the first Rome, where a good captain could be adopted, that made the game far more deep and realistic by having promotions, but now you should hire a general everytime the previous one dies or worse: gets hurt (why? A hurt general shouldn't lose his positio unless he f**ked up badly).

[@eje005]

Total War hasn't added a single new idea to the strategy and tactics part of their game. All they've added is better animations, better graphics, better map. There has been no advancement in gameplay. Total War battle gameplay is stuck in Star Craft mode. You have instant, omniscient control over your units. You have perfect vision everywhere. There is no such thing as formations, only spaghetti lines. There is no such thing as officers, lieutenants, brigade commanders, there is no chain of command. It's the furthest it could be from reflecting an army fighting on a battlefield. It's just basically a movie now. Blob click your guys, pop their abilities, watch for 30 seconds, battle over. It might have made me feel like a general when I was 12 years old, but now it just makes me feel like I'm playing a dated series that's been milked dry by developers who don't want to actually introduce substantial new features. Total War is dead to me.

[@enricocappi3171]

I just feel sorry for the studio of Sofia, i don't think they are making a bad product, i think they just fail at giving what peopole want and get a lot of backlash because of it...a bit too much backlash.

[@St.SebArL]

What I’d like to see is a Victoria era, thirty years war era, Trajan era (5 good emperors), third crusade era. I also do like the idea of a bronze era I’d like to see a historical bronze era done properly this could also be many era but they need to keep it historical

[@flightman2331]

while playing rome 2 dei I’ve caught myself leaving just because I don’t want to lose one of my long time running generals, I’m glad you pointed that out as being just the grand scale immersion because I’ll think I’m crazy sometimes getting a little too excited at those ambushes 🤣

[@Sphnxfr]

At the gameplay level I mostly just want to see a return of 'simulating battles with all their intricacies', rather than videogame-y layers upon layers of stat-boosts, modifiers, unit abilities and "heroes". There's just no depth to any of this numbers crunching and ability clicking - it's hectic and boring at the same time. I also agree with you on the aesthetics/interactive storytelling part, though. Having your generals acquire traits based on where they were stationed and what they did with their time was somehow far more interesting than the 'leveling systems' of recent Total wars that you have full control over, precisely because it makes the world feel like it's 'alive in itself'.

[@Jules4878]

All those years of disliking Warhammer together made me forget just how incredibly whiny my fellow historical total war players are...

[@resileaf9501]

Troy reskin accusations have always rung hollow. Total War has always used prior games as foundations for later ones more or less directly. Medieval 2 was built on the foundations of Rome 1. Napoleon on Empire. Fall of the Samurai on Shogun 2 and Napoleon alike. Atilla on Rome 2. Thrones of Britannia on Atilla. Three Kingdoms on Warhammer. Troy on Three Kingdoms. Here, Pharaoh is being built on the foundations of Troy (and is being worked on by the same studio that made Troy as well, so they naturally have a lot of assets they can recycle, especially in alpha versions to take shortcuts), but it doesn't stop it from being unique and having its own identity. It's developing new features, new systems, new gameplay mechanics, all of which will later be used as proofs of concept and foundations for future games. A lot of complaints are just complaints to be complaints. We've got changing and impactful weather and terrain, unit stances, a more dynamic endgame crisis affected by campaign events, cultural rosters, and more, all of which will affect future games in positive and interesting ways. Complaints against price, sure, I get it, but that's not unique to CA. Everything is getting more expensive because the world's economic stability is getting more and more precarious. The videogame industry's not immune to that and I don't think things are gonna get better any time soon. Complaints against not calling it a Saga game, well, Shogun 2 covers a much smaller landmass and a shorter timespan, so that's really not a viable argument either (and honestly, Saga wasn't a particularly well-thought out concept to begin with, Total War is Total War).

[@jbates9321]

I hope CA sees this. You nailed the 3 topics. I want to add I liked how CA did Rome 1s politics and was hoping that would return

[@CrèmeTropBrûlée]

Many KZbin dislikes are probably Warhammer fans fuming that some Total War content isn't Warhammer related

[@spnked9516]

Maybe it's just my cynicism talking, but I think the franchise as a whole has been backsliding since Rome 2. I'm not saying all of the new games are bad. In fact, I enjoy the hell out of the Warhammer games personally. That being said, I can't really overlook the fact that all of the new games have either removed or "dumbed down" an absolute ton of features that were present in older games. Off the top of my head, -navel battles -agent videos -proper formations -properly simulated ballistics (this one is actually pretty ironic) -wall ballistics changing with upgrades -actual sieges

[@bigdkenergypodcast]

Just imagine if a Total War had something similar to an EA "Create Your Own Player", where you raise a warrior from childhood. That or were able to play as an individual soldier that isn't a siege engine.

[@ravanpee1325]

If you want to play this, maybe just Play Dynasty Warriors

[@nomms]

Go play Mount and Blade. That's the game you're describing lol

[@jimmycombs8159]

Literally mount and blade. What I think your trying to describe is like romance of the three kingdoms by koei, which the recent ones let you make your own custom officers

[@mitchellgeorge6031]

It blows my mind how they still haven’t made Empire 2 or Napoleon 2. I think they should try their hand at making a WW1 or WW2 Total War game

[@duncanmackenzie321]

What I'd really love to see is an era that total war has yet to touch on (in europe), in between the period of the medieval games and empire. I think a ~200 year campaign from 1492 (Spanish first contact with the Americas) to 1700 (start date of empire total war) would just be great. You have the reformation, competition between nascent colonial empires, innovations in military tactics and technology, the struggle between absolute monarchs and increasingly powerful parliaments/diets. It's just such a rich period (with a lot more verifiable historical information to draw inspiration from compared to the late bronze age collapse).

[@petrovepryk3786]

Pike and Shot units are really tough to program, I guess. Spanish Tercio It's, like, a melee and missile unit at the same time. Half pikemen, half musketeers. How would you storm a castle with such units? And, I mean, how would you program a unit like this? But if devs would solve this issue, I would be very interested in such a game. 30-year war, European struggle against the Ottoman Empire, and the struggle for independence of Ukrainian Cossacks, against Poland, Muscowy, and Ottomans. Very interesting period.

[@duncanmackenzie321]

@@petrovepryk3786 I'd say the best solution to the problems that come with mixed pike-and-shot units is to simply not make mixed units. Aside from the practical issues with programming, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make these brigade-size formations into single units in-game. To compare to Rome 2, it would be like recruiting entire legions at a time rather than single cohorts. A better solution in my mind is to have separate units of pike and shot, but make group formations for tercios/Dutch battalions/Swedish brigades, etc. That way the units are more versatile and you can split up your ranged and melee units for sieges, or group some shot with your cavalry in the Swedish style.

[@makeytgreatagain6256]

@@petrovepryk3786it’s not that hard they did it for Kislev with their Streltzi. It’s not that hard to program M

[@odtheman1]

Not being able to send the enemy general to hell is a pretty MAJOR issue

[@teddygrizz]

The companies don't understand what players want.

[@tezzy5584]

Unkillable faction leaders, units with health bars, mobile game UI, a period where so little is known it can't really help but be a fantasy-history game. CA have forgotten why people liked historical total war games.

[@seraphx26]

It show cases stupidity on CA's part, being so clearly out of touch with their customers, Pharaoh is a game that no one asked for. We've been waiting ages for a new historical TW and then out of nowhere CA drops this hot trash on us. I didn't want Medieval 3 either but compared to this I would have been more than happy to buy that instead, but this was just laughably dumb from CA. The worst part is this will predictably bomb and then CA will go "Welp we didn't make money on our last historical game so we don't think we'll make anudder one durrrrr"

[@nicford1486]

I'm looking forward to Pharaoh. Medieval 3 is more than likely in the works. My one complaint is the icons above units. I hate them. I like the banners and the different colors way better. It's a small detail but it is enough to irk me

[@RobGM2]

It is time for a new studio to pick up the torch from the ashes of Historical Total War and move on.

[@Anonyme-vr7hw]

For me I was happy when the next total war was total war pharaoh because this era is really exciting But what disappointed me the most is several things: 1) It's that we play a character and not a faction so we are rather limited in the campaign Unless if we want to play someone 20 years old 2) That the CA blow always makes us On a map not big enough for the context of the time (forget Assyria, Babylonia and to be more diverse add ancient Greece or even give the opportunity to play the people of the sea 3) The characters are not historically faithful (outfit) look at me Irsu, Bay, Amnmess and the Hittite characters So it's our next historical total war Big disappointment and I'm definitely not going to buy it especially given the price

[@thirdworldgamer8717]

yeah, they say its not a saga, but looks saga sized, and they say its historical meanhwhile my dude irsu be looking like a disney villain

[@michaelmoran6364]

Okay imma be real, I like that you play as Ramses or when we play as certain individuals. It's just Egypt is not that interesting of an era to me.

[@Gdsryrox]

I would not be surprise if this was originally a saga game and would have had fantasy elements like Tory but they changed it since Tory didn’t do so well due to it trying to sit the fence on historical/grounded and fantasy/arcady

[@milka778]

Thing won't change this is a warhammer play style game with historical marketing or skin

[@ivanlarav]

I'm starting to believe that CA Sophia have the project to deeply please only one fan: ME! First they made a total war on the Trojan war (I'm a big student of Homeric literature) and now a game on my favorite civilization. Yeah I can understand why most people want a Medieval 3, but we have SO many medieval strategy games, and almost none about the bronze age that I don't mind.

[@Deriv44]

The wised move is to waith for the finished product and then evaluate if it worth your money

You really hit the nail on the head for all the problems that many of us have with the new game, it really shows that you took your time checking the comments, reactions and even the Reddit forums; This video explains exactly what is the feeling of all the fans of historical games, that since Shogun 2 (for example) are waiting for a game from the Victorian era (because Fall of the Samurai practically facilitated the development of a game like this) or even a game from the Renaissance era, with pikes and muskets, using the map mechanics of Empire Total War and the formations and shooting mechanics of Shogun 2 as well. All taking advantage of things that had been evolving since Medieval 2 and that made many feel that Rome 2 and Attila was the wrong decision for CA (despite the fact that both games are enjoyable anyway), since the natural would have been to continue with the period advance that Shogun 2 opened for us.

[@1aalaan]

i really would love a empire 2 if not at least medival 3

[@Chimjjl]

On the note of characters vs society, I feel that that is the biggest turn-off for me. For Troy, it absolutely made sense for the conflict to be focused around the characters because that's what the Illiad was built around. Achilles vs Hector, the schemes of Odysseus, Paris stealing Helen being the cause for the war in the first place. The Trojan War was the story of the characters. But a story about the Bronze Age Collapse should be about the societies, because they're what's at stake. The literally collapse of civilization as the people of its time know it. The fighting with the knowledge that if the player fails, there won't _be_ an Egypt, or a Hittite Empire left. What's however ambitious Ramses is compared to the knowledge that all of Egypt, this legendary civilization that has stood for aeons, may fall, never to rise again?

[@anacapamori]

Man Empire 2 or Medieval 3 would change my life. I don’t understand why they aren’t keeping to their core games.

[@adumbassroomba]

Used to be that when playing the first few turns, fighting the first few battles, you tried your damn hardest to lose as few as possible, and those you lost felt (in the words of the film 12 Strong) "like a stab to the heart". Nowadays, with the newer games I at least tend to autoresolve and call it a day.

[@Sensko]

Gotta love the historic community going "Yeah I haven't given you any money in a decade, but you should absolutely cater to me and until you do I'm gonna downvote everything you put out and trashtalk you in the comments".

[@TheTerminatorGaming]

I lol'd at this. Seriously though I think players just care a game that truly will be good value for money. Most didn't see that in ToB, Troy and when they did with 3K they were stabbed in the back. Sooooo there's a half truth in what you say, but the other side of the coin is also understandable

[@Sensko]

@@TheTerminatorGaming Oh, I get where the other side is coming from, I just vehemently disagree with how they choose to bring their point across.

[@ThGaming69]

The animation of choping head in Troy is so good. But only to find out that chopped general is leading another army later on. 🙄

[@Orendiz]

CA: will make smaller total war titles and will call it a saga so that pepole can tell the differance between our major main titles and smaller more niche titles. Also CA: our small niche titles arent making enough money and the majoraty don't see the point in it. Our solution is to stop calling them saga titles and make it cost more, while treating it like a main title without actually changing anything about the actual product. Like how can you not hate this company and this game?

[@chadgoose7886]

Small indie company, please understand

[@Orendiz]

@@chadgoose7886 You could say it's the smallest indie company in UK

[@bubyCZ]

Most importantly, core mechanics were gutted out, and I do not mean buzzwords like "immersion", but actually real attrition, Actual strategic logistics of getting reinforcements across the map instead of stupid passive replenishment that negates any and all casualities and thus making campaign just custom battle faction selector, no stupid overbuffing of artificial numbers, lack of resources which creates decision making instead of broken laughable economy, overbuffing doomstacks instead of armies of limited specialized pools of costly elites mixed with fodder etc. ... But hey, CA totally forgot how to make actual real game, they care only for "accessibility" instead of depth and that led to the murder of a game to be played and birth of a game that plays you with its cheats, AI that ignores basic fundamental movement and recruitment restrictions and core stuff like attrition... Last unmodded game that actually managed to do it right was Shogun 2 and FOTS where research, money managment, strategy, logistics and especially tactics mattered. THAT was REAL sandbox... not these +X% Dmg Doomstacking map painters for extreme casuals that cant use second half of their only brain cell...

[@knightoffailure1869]

Honestly, more than anything else, my problem with this game (which I’m decidedly not excited for) is that ancient Egypt is a boring setting. We don’t have the density of historical sources on the era that we do on later eras, so it’s either going to be vague, or it’s going to be mostly inaccurate. On top of that, by and large the conflicts of ancient Egypt are between people with the same language, culture, and religion, so the feeling of having the freedom to change the world is very limited, because ultimately you’re just not that different from the other factions and from what happened historically. Being able to do crazy things like migrate Byzantium to Britain in M2TW showed just how free you were to change history in that game, along with the entire character of the region, and the feeling would be reinforced by seeing troops from your own faction’s culture interacting with enemies and mercenaries from very different ones. At the end of the day, everyone in Pharaoh is Egyptian, so long term you’re not changing much.

[@GhostEye31]

I just want something Victorian Era, they teased us with that in Fall of the Samurai, I want a full grand campaign in that era. Or even pike and shot in the 1630s. So many cool global conflicts.

[@danielkristiansen2298]

The Victorian Era could be cool with some Saga titles, like the Crimean War or the American Civil War. However, there were no "total wars" between the major powers in Europe between 1815 and 1914, so I don't see how a Total War game would fit in that period with a "grand campaign".

[@GhostEye31]

@danielkristiansen2298 It would be less about wars and more about expansion. The Victorian era was filled with expansion based conflicts. The race for Africa with conflicts like the Zulu wars and Eygpt/Sudan with Mahdi. Franco-Prussian War in Europe and the Crimean as you mentioned. Naturally there was the Opium Wars in China, as well as the later Boxer Rebellion. And of course the Sepoy Mutiny in India as well as the other conflicts around what is now Afghanistan. Nothing global true but a tightly focused campaign would be fine. Pharoh or Three Kingdoms aren't exactly global either. Nor was Samurai but still excellent games.

[@itshenry8977]

Something as or more complex like Atilla with modern graphics and proper optimation and new option on campaign and battle, then it will be worth the money they charge

[@trevorseidel4536]

This video was greatly needed. A nuetral, unbiased presentation addressing the issues with the upcoming release. Hopefully, CA will take this to heart before/while developing future titles. Thank you, for being our voice!

[@TheTerminatorGaming]

❤️❤️

[@pierrebordes4772]

What developers have done with historical Total War lately is unforgivable. They have released a plethora of money grabbing, half-assed, simplified, uninspired and recycled games with recycled game mechanics, and that is the last nail in the coffin for their absurdity.

[@keizervanenerc5180]

For me the main problem is that it is a copy, not only of Troy, but all the way back to Rome II. It still using the same campaign map style and battle style. The core is still the same because it is after 10 years basically still the same old (and in my opinion very flawed and not very pretty) engine. So by this point i will just refuse to buy any new Total War untill they start over fresh with a new and BETTER engine. Until than i just stick with the games i have and like.

[@youtubeisafascistdictators4829]

The only thing that i disliked about Rome 2 was the province system, apart from that the game is good and brings a lot of replays, including a huge modding support from the community. Not sure what you mean by "same old core". Core of what, what are you even referring to? If you`d be so fed up with the new total wars like you mention, you would`nt even be watching this, so please, you know you will buy it.

[@amvhate]

@@youtubeisafascistdictators4829 I don't get the bad core rome 2 arrangements. Rome 2 still followed the older game core mechanic. I was still ok with province system I did preferred the older system. A Major problem of Rome 2 was the bugs and missing features of older titles it was still a total war game at heart. The major diraction change is when attila came that when CA had redo the game engine after the all bugs rome 2 had.

[@fernandonavia8804]

This is SO obviously a sagas game that, at some point some ahole in CA said "hey, how bout we charge main game money for this sagas crap?" And so it was. I mean, its the same CA team that makes sagas games, its a game focused on a veeery specific time period/culture/conflict like ToB and Troy and it has the same cartoonish/floaty/inferior feeling that the sagas games. This is by no mean a main entry but i guess even CA has to know that charging full price for a half ass, secundary entry would make prople riot even MORE

[@luiscamejo2379]

Thrones was able to have royal families. Alfred did die in many campaigns. Sorry will always defend tob. I think what pharaoh needs to justify it's price is to announce all its factions. We as a community are too jaded by lackluster dlc or cancelled dlc that instead of the hype->speculation->disappointment cycle, CA should just tell us what's coming. If I know we are getting the Myceneans and trojans added to the game I am interested, if Its just speculation than I agree we can't justify 80 bucks. Total war's most overlooked historical feature that is key to engagement is a pop system. DEI makes you really think about what to field and risk reward. IF pharaoh wants to go down historical, they need to add people to the resource bar. Maybe separate it into strata so that you can't recruit too many super pharaoh guards into your army. Also, why not let my "heroes" age? I want an old rameses taking on the sea peoples.

[@Ryger2117]

Medieval 3 with 8 player campaign would be a dream

[@hugovasquez8222]

Long story short: noone asked for game with this setting... Everybody wants empire or medieval but CA keeps pumping their ressources into stuff like this and lets the other games balance out their loses with increasing dlc prices to keep a profit. Basically warhammer dlcs keep CA alive atm because most of the other stuff they do nowdays is bringing them to ruin

[@michabarycki2781]

Noone wants a damn Pharaoh, everyone waits ofr damn medievial 3

[@aztecemperor1536]

While I completely agree with the price complaint, I see where the team is coming from on the faction design and "scale" of battles. I get some want their leader to die, but the bronze age is filled with so much mystery and lost information that you would struggle to make full factions. Irsu for example is basically a mystery and more or less a boogeyman from the text there is of him. As for the size I can understand why these grand armies would feel so small. Megiddo being the most famous battle between the Egyptians and Hittites fielded roughly 21,000 soldiers whereas Cannae or Alesia is six times or greater than that. It's a bit wonky and gaudy by the looks of it but this feels to me like more of a historic title than Troy.

[@yidingliu8663]

It's always good to have another title in a series I generally love, whatever period it covers and whatever playstyle it experiments. However, I want Empire 2, Med3, Shogun 3, more. Simple as.

[@legatus2976]

I definitely feel that the success of TWW (a game revolving around powerful hero units that can slay armies single-handedly), has led CA to export this model to their historical titles where it just feels very unrealistic.

[@QuanNguyen-rr6pe]

They have the same issue with other big game companies nowadays. They don't like big words like "Grand scale", "detailed", "deep mechanics". Because that means more work to do and Lord forbids them to actually work and not put some bullcrap someone made together into a crumbling sandcastle and call it a day. Ye better pay up and love that sandcastle gamers.

[@Al_the_Phantom]

The Backlash I think they are having is the fact that Ramses is the Son of Seti I. So technically there are only supposed to be 3 Egyptian Factions. But if you ask me, having both Seti and Ramses, is similar to Total War Troy when they separated Priam's Sons into different factions, but in this case it's father (Seti) and son (Ramses).

[@novakaizr]

I do find it a bit ironic that you say you think Pharaoh is lessened by it's focus on the character leading your nation rather than the nation itself, and then your first example of a good historical game is napoleon, the game literally named after a dude. Personally I kind of like more of a focus on unique characters, that is why I really like crusader kings. Of course there was the family member system in rome 1 and medieval 2, but they quickly started to blend together when you got more than a few of them. I get that having immortal characters can be a bit unimmersive, but I think people have spotted in the campaign options that there is an ironman mode, so there is a decent chance that mode adds permadeath, if that is what you want. Personally I think it is a bit unfair to hate on Pharaoh just because it isn't medieval 3 or empire 2. I do want those games too, but I think pharaoh as a game deserves to be judged on its own merits. I also think things like personal preferance or pricing are separate from the quality of the game. For instance I am not planning to buy Pharaoh on release, but it does seem like a fun game that I might get at some point. In the video you talk about the dynasty edition and how it is a risky investment by mentioning the cancellation of three kingdoms. I don't think that is a good comparison, because the cancelled 3k dlc was never available for preorder. CA HAVE to release the pharaoh dlcs because if they don't they open themselves up for a lawsuit. That being said there is no guarantee the dlc is any good, so the general rule of never preorder still stands.

[@raphaulus]

The trend is clear: less content at an increased price. This has nothing to do with inflation. You could do a AAA game only compiling all the features CA used to offer and dumped over the years. This is unacceptable.

[@sheepfly]

The price they are asking for this game it's a insult

[@Raptoriago]

I prefer a more character focus game, aside Shogun 2 the other historical titles focus on time periods or places that i really don't care or ever like about (like napoleon), the thing that attracts me a little towards Pharaoh is their leaders which allow me to get into it that time period with a more interest approuch. The reason why i prefer the character over nation approuch is that i find the generalization concept very boring compared to a more interpersonal history with rivalrys, plotwists, betrays, which you can have in a more nation approuch, but not as fulfilling in a more character approuch.

[@Raptoriago]

Also i really hate the old general mechanics, they were so useless because they could die by a stray arrow and then the whole army would defect, so every battle that have a general i was forced to hide him in the trees the entire battle. When i played shogun 2 and the generals were kicking a** i was like "Oh HOLY NOW WHE ARE TALKING".

[@NIRVANABLEACH2]

Geez a medieval with updated physics, textures and diplomacy would be awesome. Maybe something like working your way up in the feudal system. Going from a landlord to city governor to king ...

[@-RXB-]

Spot on analysis. Couldn't agree more about the vast difference in immersion, or lack of rather, in the later TW games due to cartoony design, choice of colors etc. etc.

[@RD-kq3ml]

Why limit it to Egypt only? They should have included the whole Fertile Cresent!

[@OiMitch]

You arent even close to knowing why people are pissed off. Its because of CA. Not listening to the fans. Making hero shooters like Hyenas with staff instead of using the devs to make medieval 3. For raisind dlc prices 150% on warhammer 3. For leaving bugs in the games. For threatening the communities with support of thier favourite games. For not communicating when the fans have concerns.

[@jvoodoochild2755]

“This needs to happen”. Whenever I hear someone with an opinion use the word “need” I ask “or what?” The makers of TW are a business, with SO much more player data than we have. I trust that they will act in their best interest to make money by making content that sells. Wether I buy this or any iteration of TW, that’s my choice as a customer looking for entertainment Thank you for the content

[@queefman6285]

Or fewer people buy the game. If they use their data so effectively why are we here again?

[@jvoodoochild2755]

@@queefman6285 here again? When I become a decision maker of a gaming company, I can look at the data we have collected and make decisions that will effect the product I’m selling. Those consumers that agree, will buy, those who disagree, will not. If the game isn’t successful then I’ll lose my job, but if it is successful then I will be able to make decisions about the next game based on all the updated data. So when you say “here we are again” I’m guessing there was enough success with Troy to allow the Sofia office make the next title in the series.

[@jolyroger9224]

Gentleman what were you expecting. This is the company which nearly 10 years produces war hammer and three shitdom, Rock Paper Scissors type of games. I’m a huge historical fan and I don’t want to be pessimistic, keep on going and bomb reviewing those ahistorical games, but at least don’t expect much from those upcomings.

[@dennisjeppesen9387]

No one asked for this. We asked for a lot of historical settings...but not this.

[@resileaf9501]

I never asked for Total War before I discovered the series on Steam. You should be open to discovering new things rather than asking for the same medieval settings. The Bronze Age Collapse has stories to tell you, if you'll only listen to them.

[@treybone3263]

I’m pretty excited by it. Is it true historical no, but I think it’s looking promising. Lots of very valid points tho. I’m holding hope for empire 2 one day

[@brydenholley1904]

This is well-articulated. I have been following Total War since February 1999, when the first trailer for the original Shogun TW was released. I agree, Pharaoh looks to me like a reskin of Attila TW which came out back in 2015. The TW series has not released a serious historical game since then. I think it would have been wiser to just make Medieval 3. It's what the fans want. Come on, it's been 17 years since Medieval 2 came out and we are long overdue a sequel. Just think what that game could be if it was done with modern technology. I am aware there are mods like Medieval Kingdoms 1212 for Attila. But the mechanics of mods are often... not as satisfying as the vanilla game. They make changes to the campaign map that I don't like. I think you're exactly right about the perception that this Pharaoh game is basically a Saga title, pretending not to be a Saga title, and charging full price. That won't work with the fans. I have been considering getting Troy recently, but I find the price of £50+ for a single game (not counting DLCs) ridiculous. Games have always been £29.99 and I'm not really willing to pay more, unless it's something truly spectacular. I appreciate that inflation over the past 20 years will make prices higher, but it's just too expensive for something that amounts to a gamble. A title like Medieval 3, I would be willing to pay almost any price for if it would be a good game. By analogy, there are other games such as Dovetail Games' Train Simulator where players build up a library of content worth hundreds or even thousands of $. A lot of people complain about money there too, but at least you are getting a lot more content if you choose to buy it. There's a whole ecosystem of third-party providers that release sound packs, expansions, new content, new routes, reskins, etc. If I could pay to have somebody make incredible new maps and factions for Medieval 2, I would. The way the game has been totally transformed... if that could be applied to Total War, it would be incredible. I think a lot of the historical player base is just very jaded by the way that CA has mismanaged things since 2013. People like me still remember the release of Rome II, the misleading hype, and the phenomenal disappointment, which was never rectified, at least in my opinion. Yes, Attila was a good game. It was how Rome 2 should have been. I'm talking about the game design and features. Warhammer is just not something I'd be interested in. I feel like CA has a hell of a lot of work to do to win back serious historical fans of these games. And I'm not sure a game focused so heavily on hero characters and RPG elements, and set in such a distant time epoch, is necessarily the right way to go about it.

[@camrian]

The problem is that CA basically ignores their fanbase. Fans have been begging for Medieval 3 or Empire 2 for over 10 years and the devs are basically going out of their way to not make them at this point. Like how deep do you have to look to come with this? This and 3K and Troy, no one asked for this. It's just a little weird to me at this point because they are all about money but they dont make what the players will happily pay for.

[@KokotoHero-N3]

I like the look of the new formation mechanics and the terrain stuff like mud, that being said, I cannot think of a less interesting setting than Egypt and the early bronze age. A new Shogun, Medieval or Empire game would have sold me almost instantly, I hope these mechanics they're pushing in this game carry on like the formation ceding ground stuff.

[@GideonGleeful95]

Well, this game is actually in the late bronze age. The very end of the Bronze Age, actually, the bronze age collapse. I personally think setting the game earlier would actually be better. Setting it at the start of the late Bronze Age about 500 years earlier and then widening the scope to focus more on the rise of these various cultures.

[@sauronplugawy3866]

So you're blinded by nostalgia?

[@karelwolf998]

But AFAIK Sofia didn't produce Thrones. They did Empire Divided and Rise of Republic for rome 2, then troy and then pharaoh, didn't they?

[@dr.strangelove9815]

I think a Medieval Total War 3, from the Viking Era to the Middle 16th Century would be great.

[@burakuzunt]

Empire 2 or Medieval 3... Can you imagine the excitement and passion the community will have with a trailer for one of them? If necessary, we can wait even 2 years. Give us a historical game that is no different from its original structure!!!!

[@StefanHighlights-InquisitorOvh]

It is being disliked by Napoleon 3 Medieval 3 army, nothing more. Just because that army is disliking doesnt mean game sucks. Same goes for Troy. Amazing game, better than half TW games out there.

[@animationfanatic2133]

Total war Warhammer players whenever historical players ask for historical games: angry tom looking at book meme

[@historymatters6627]

Its just a extremely expensive reskin. I'm a Bronze Age historian, I work on cognition and the retention of knowledge with aspects in development like the fast wheel in pottery making In Cyprus and Philistia through specialization through the likes of what we call apprentiseships. There is so much they could do with a Bronze Age game, development and specialization that was happening in many areas into the late 13-11th centuries (LCIII) across the Eastern Med in particular, with trade in Iron going into Northern Europe. If they really wanted to, they could make something breathtaking that spanned dip, dev and war. But they are WAY TOO LAZY. Wont be long before they are replaced because there is far more than over priced rekins to offer to a big base. They just seem to want to milk the cash cow till its lifeless.

[@darkranger116]

When i saw units using the SAME EXACT animations as the ones from warhammer? i checked out. i aint about giving CA money for their corporate plans.

[@alpha-0874]

I was expecting, or perhaps hoping for a 16th or 17th century pike and shot era game, since that's a pretty untapped era. Even Empire II or Medieval III would have been easy sells. But Pharaoh I probably wouldn't play even if I was given it for free.

[@CaptainGrimes1]

I've just been hurt too many times. After Empire Total War, Rome II and the 3 kingdoms why would I give them my money again?

[@dmitryd3583]

I believe a lot of Total War fans are waiting for Medieval 3

[@michaelrgnipon]

No family tree! The main characters can't die. The smallest map ever. So sad, because the game looks good.

[@jonathan-kh3zy]

TW Reddit is either : 1) More WH 2) The 40K and WW crowd 3) Med 3 (saying bad stuff about med 2 and rome 1 will get you crucified, everything else after those games must be compared to med 2 and rome 1 to see if it's a success or not)

[@erniehelmholz3644]

Imagine a full medival title comes out. The price is gonna be 100 dollars with 50 dollars for each dlc lol