Total War Pharaoh - Troy Clone CONFIRMED

[@madwellmusic8995]

I can already tell this formula heavily impedes replayability. It is no better than a board game. With no more expansive context than a kingdoms expansion. Bronze Age collapse is the laziest age to cover because everyone was f@@@ing dead. They didn't even cover recruitment system, economy, the importance of complex trade and optimized routes. Now the game has linear landmarks and I'm sure the progression system will be a$$. This is basically age of empires on a total war campaign map. It should be a total war game with age of empires depth and detail. Once again the developers create a game THEY think should be played, rather than an expanize game that gives players the freedom to discover new methods to stabilizing empires, mitigating populations, managing nobles, and administrating finances based on available goods. And the return of snowball projectiles....unit variation should be implemented by a class system. Well trained professionals, vs conscripts, vs militias, vs raiders, vs warriors, and all should have varying traits to make those factions unique. And it all should be supported by historicity. Not the developers Hollywood version. And the battles are so dry. The sound is awful. Rome 2 was the worst and this game looking like a close second. Hyper stylized combat animations with no visible reward. 1 v1 lock on duels, which is why the mass blob is so ineffective. I cnt watch anymore. CA killed the franchise and they are hell bent on doing it their way rather than the right way.

[@Volound]

really well said. it just occurred to me that when i read comments like yours, i see way more thought and sincere passion than i ever do when i look at fanboy apologia, or even at gameplay videos that people make with the newer games. its all so half-hearted and performative or even perfunctory. nobody reading your comment could ever suggest that of you while you wrote that. so once again, well said man.

[@madwellmusic8995]

@Volound I appreciate your channel and share similar sentiments on one of the greatest and informative games to ever be conceived. You indepth analysis by far exceeds any others and CA would be afraid to have you test and review their games. I'm a little more macho than most, so I enjoy your professionalism as I would be one to outright call the dev team pussywillows for making total war "little sister" friendly.

[@indianpotatofarmer6508]

I liked what pixilated Apollo said about this “they’re bringing back old mechanics and act like there brand new”

[@Asraeks]

If they actually did it it would be great. Like detaching units from the army etc

[@Darek_B52]

giving me flashbacks to TLOU 2 saying "we can jump now and crawl in grass to hide"...we did that back in MGS3....WE TECHNICALLY DID THAT BACK IN POKEMON!

[@maciek.u]

@@Asraeks they won’t do this on warscape because it was one of the elements of movement bug. CA couldn’t fix that so they have cut that from the game and the tw forum and r/TotalWar rejoiced

[@Volound]

@@maciek.u misinfo. they did it to continue to streamline the "recruit to general" of shogun 2. had this confirmed directly to me by multiple ex-CA. it was a continuation of the direction of consolidation on the campaign map.

[@panzer9163]

This is what every game company or any company in general does. It is marketing 101.

[@korovabozha4963]

Honestly, I've lost faith in CA for a while now.

[@Ultrajamz]

I am overall satisfied with the support they give to TW warhammer, though I think the whole TW series needs an AI upgrade ASAP so we can have real difficulty modes that don’t depend heavily on artificial handicap of the player.

[@gilgamesh4710]

@@Ultrajamz if i buy a game that gets buried by another release of the series yearly I wouldn't think of that as support and longevity, at this point they are trying to compete with Apple with who manages to release new products faster while letting the previous ones slowly die (warhammer 1/2) or outright cutting support (three kingdoms)

[@Sotsky]

Troy reskin sucks. CA is afraid to try anything new. Seems like the curse of the Dynasty Warriors franchise. No unit diversity because they don’t accurately represent the diverse ethnicities of the age, Hittite and Mittani has 20-40% of the population blonde and red hair. Instead every character model is a modern Arabized Middle Easterner. Netflix history fail.

[@Sotsky]

The art direction has a very rudimentary understanding of history and anthropology, the dev team looks totally low energy and depressed. Figured they’d make a low energy depressing game. Rameses III came from a Berber ruling Dynasty, look up what Berbers look like even to this day.

[@ajaxtelamonian5134]

You had faith in CA?

[@TotalWarCAT]

In the center of the city there is a field where the armor can be recharged. It's exactly a force field. The armor could be hit in the gap. At the neck, in the heel, the armor could be pierced with a special weapon. The force field was developed in ancient Egypt. At the end of the campaign, a stargate to Amon Ra will open.

[@MD-yd8lh]

Ahaha, nice analogy. But its basically true😊

[@estonia2023]

Компания СА давно уже делает одинаковые игры..отличаются только названием..печально,что отзывы блогеров и фанатов не учитывают

[@MD-yd8lh]

@@estonia2023 дык блогеры и фанаты поют им оды и просят добавки. Они это и учитывают

[@estonia2023]

@@MD-yd8lh ну не все..для меня самая крутая часть это сегун и атилла..рим 2 сделан неплохо,но ии там туповат

[@MD-yd8lh]

@@estonia2023 ну, проведи эксперимент, посмотри по диагонали с десяток реакций на фараон, почитай комменты и сам сделай выводы

[@jacenhaggard7833]

The trailer with the dung beetle is the most unintentionally hilarious thing ever. It perfectly illustrates the total war franchise, CA just mindlessly rolling a ball of crap forward for all eternity.

[@zezzyyeiji2663]

kek

[@TheMissing8]

And people buying it.

[@Whatup996]

Once I stopped thinking about warhammer as a total war game, I really started to love it. For that reason I don’t want warhammer elements in historical total war games. Unless CA is willing to devote the massive investment of time and resources it took to make the warhammer concept work, the historical games should not have any fantasyesque concepts. It’s not that hard to make this time setting fantastic and mysterious enough without bringing in fantasy/supernatural elements

[@rudamachoo]

well... it kinda has "total war" in the name, so pretty difficulty to separate them isn't it? particularly when older than warhammer mechanics went there to make it, and some created for warhammer were also used to make new "historical" titles. it's ok to have different kinds of games ofc, but this is beside the point of the vid. and as for the "it's not that hard" line, nice underestimating everyone involved there.

[@wolfensniper4012]

I'm guessing that the Warhammer-like legendary heros and stuff is already deep.embedded in CA's current engine and they're too lazy to develop a new engine for historical titles

[@michalmalak13]

They decided to go with every natural disaster that could have caused the bronze age collapse. Yet, they completely ignored what was the most interesting course: the collapse of international trade. The bronze age kingdoms were dependent on one another to acquire bronze. In the game bronze is just another resource but there should be trade routes and mines that supply copper and tin and as civilisations collapse and trade becomes more difficult the player should have limited access to bronze. This could be turned into several interesting mechanics for example taking over other bronze age civilisations could be discouraged by making wars between kingdoms worsen bronze supply leaving everyone more vulnerable to sea peoples later on.

[@Chordus_Gaius]

Yeah that would have been more interesting

[@hydra7427]

You really hit the nail on the hit with the no-name generals becoming special over time. It's like X-COM in that respect. I still remember the time one of my faction leaders got killed by a friendly fire catapult. Never will forget it. But deaths in recent games? Who cares. Especially legendary lords.

[@mrwabbit9576]

They literally give you a shopping list when a general dies to instantly replace them lmao I remember how much it could fuck up your game if you were on crusade, far from home, far from reinforcements and your generals began to die, knowing you'd probably lose control of your territory in the middle east if they were killed. Actual consequence to death.

[@LordVader1094]

@@mrwabbit9576 Yeah in the older games generals really mattered because if they died, the only way to get more was having children in your family come of age or a random event popping up to adopt/hire a general or to promote a commoner after a battle. So it wasn't a reliable source of getting more.

[@666Kaca]

@@mrwabbit9576 if youre losing territory in the middle east just because your general died its a skill issue. Win 1 battle and the peasant captain gets promoted and its not like the generals are scarce with all the marriages/hire events

[@Lo-tf6qt]

I loved how generals/armies were also generational. I remember in my Medieval 2 Scottish campaign I created my first pike and shotte army that was "modern" compared to all the other armies I had and gave it to a general named Gilles Petair iirc. The man went on a crusade against the French and captured Marseilles, earning the title of Crusader. After like 15 or so turns I managed to produce 2 more modern pike and shotte armies and gave them to my King and another proven general and a final army composed of entirely mounted knights (since I had a godly general spawn in with all the cav buffs) before I started a campaign to take out Northern Italy and the HRE. Gilles managed to single handedly wipe out the Milanese strength and took Genoa, marched onto Bologna and Venice before leading a naval invasion into Ragusa while my King and another army tore apart the HRE. Had another general named Hew the Wrathful finish off the mess of a war in Spain and led a naval invasion into Morrocco. Unfortunately by the time the war was over most of them died of old age etc and I ended up passing their armies onto generals who had decent traits to finish the journey. I really miss how old total war campaigns played out like a story where you built characters from events and battles etc.

[@12halo3]

​@@LordVader1094 What total war did you play generals were a dime a dozen.

[@tzardnickolasthelitromanov]

46:08-49:15 I think, I figured it out. (And hopefully it doesn't sound like a repeat of what volound similarly said here and in the past) But This segment, right here. Perfectly underlines/encapsulates the problem of both Troy and will be for Pharaoh, especially. ((And I guess 3K can also get lumped up in here)) Is that CA, does not trust the player to make his own story with a character or to fulfill a certain character's destiny/fate of their own volition. They are so utterly afraid, that the player will somehow fuck it all up in their first battle (or the way to play the campaign). That (instead of making a basic outline template of said character with his physical and mental attributes or his past: "Like Handsome, Educated, Intelligent, Strong or Hardy. Narcissistic/Touched by the divines") They do retardly maxed out buffs and make them kitted out with insane gear with zero flaws. Alexander is a great comparison here. At the start, he isn't called "The Conqueror", He has attributes that closely fit his character and of his past. Its when you start winning your fights, _you get called that_ . They dont treat him like he's this god of slaying one man army. He's (while a tough great man here, especially with his companions) still a man. If You send him flying straight right into a line of persian immortals (or A Persian merc hoplite unit) and subsequently surrounding him with their army, he's going to die and die quick at that. And that thing with Irsu the canannite leader, Just further proves my point. Instead of allowing the player to make up his own backstory on the guy during their campaign (like for example: maybe instead of hating him, maybe he was a complete Egyptophile. Who liked Ramses forefathers or maybe he justly hates Rameses for raiding his people and subsequently enslaving them to work on the pyramids).but They ((the devs, here)) instead impose a fake (and equally shit) story onto him.

[@mikesnel1013]

i agree with this, they take all the agency away from the player to create their own path and story. i remember playing rome 1 and med 2 and getting attached to random generals and remembering them through all the battles they fought, and id get sad when they eventually died. i actually cared because I was the one who created their story and I was there for it.

[@Warmaker01]

@@mikesnel1013 The power yet vulnerability of a general was an important thing in Old Total War. They made their armies quite nasty, possibly even setting penalties on enemy armies (Medieval 2 and "Dread" trait). Yet these powerful generals were not immortal gods. They could be killed. An unlucky boulder tossed from a Catapult, a bolt from a Ballista, well placed enemy cavalry charge, or getting mired down by infantry. Whatever. They could be taken out. And none of the respawning of said leaders stuff. I was actually disappointed in Napoleon TW where Napoleon could respawn. Not like RTW, Medieval 1 and 2 where you lost a general, that was it. Watching TW evolve into single unit characters wrecking armies was pretty sad, too.

[@rorschach1985ify]

100% correct. I hate this new age of "characters" being the focus instead of the whole game being about your empire and all those generals and agents you use to help create it. I'll always prefer the organic way of building my characters up while they earn their own traits and retinue in the old games like Rome 1 and Med 1 and 2.

[@AventineArchives]

I feel bad for the Sofia team, it's clear they have good intentions but the CA influence and engine limitations ultimately means their efforts will be in vain.

[@junny908]

Yeah, agree( still I don't agree with such amount of hate from community: I guess we may get the best tw since attila, whtich will be worse than attila or shogun2 but it may appear being moving in right direction

[@JRBendixen]

Good intentions. I dont know about that. They were handed Troy and ordered to reskin the thing to Egypt. They were not hired to build the combat system. Just do reskin, ajust campaign, ajust map and springle a little bit of history over it.

[@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45]

Nah i would not be so sure.

[@zippyparakeet1074]

@@JRBendixen "Pharaoh is reskinned Troy" Medieval 2 is reskinned Rome 1. Attila is reskinned Rome 2. Come on dude. I personally am gonna wait for the game to release to pass judgement. The UI stuff is not that major as the game is still in alpha.

[@bignev]

@@zippyparakeet1074 Big nev knows you don't know what you are talking about

[@TripleZHacker]

Blobfest battles with impactless charges. Only change they did was add a general bodyguard and even then we’ll see how it functions. Chariots in Rome 1 are so much more devastating too.

[@snakeguy8646]

Tbf though these are different chariots, Rome I had the scythed chariots and these ones were early ones without the addition of blades on the wheels

[@TripleZHacker]

@@snakeguy8646 fair enough but that would increase the amount of kills however the impact of the charge infantry being run over by horses or being hit by a chariot is what I was referring to.

[@mrwabbit9576]

They've removed any sense of physics, which is why you no longer get any real advantage taking the high ground or firing arrows/artillery from high ground.

[@LordVader1094]

@@snakeguy8646 The age where chariots are at their peak of use and are the focus of armies in the era should have equal to or more devastating impact than a game released 20 years ago.

[@spartanofrome5945]

I really miss the Rome Total War system for developing your characters over the span of their life

[@frozenlimemix]

I could never get fully into the campaigns after Medieval 2 & Shogun 2 for this reason; the lack of personally relatable family members/generals really pulls me out of a campaign.

[@wladyslawderstreiter9078]

Not many seemed to have noticed that in 13:27 this killing animation of the guys on the campaign map is almost the exact same as from Rome 2. Also I noticed in Rome 2 and Attila the animation when cav dies is the exact same either from shogun , it might even date back to Napoleon. Which means there's a lot of recycling going on. For me that's immersion breaking, bec I notice these kinds of things. I want New Nimations to immerse myself in a new game.

[@Aspharr111]

Jesus didnt even realise. Good catch. Obiously not that big of a deal but a good showcase of how much copy paste is going on and you can feel that a lot of stuff we see in this trailer is nothing new but recycled from somewhere else.

[@Volound]

yeah i noticed this. theyve been reusing rome 2 campaign executions (even poorly choreographed ones where armpits get stabbed) over and over again. thought to mention it but just didnt even bother.

[@kingwolf9447]

Speaking of recycled, the charge screams of cavalry in Shogun 2, even when they are vanilla Japanese cavalry, is the exact same as Napoleon TW and likely Empire.

[@theflyingkaramazovbrothers6]

CA Sofia is trying, look at updates (restoration of) weather effects, pushing and possibly forward facing retreat, slower battles, siege escalation etc. But the Sofia team is given second rate properties. But it's hard to fix underlying engine.

[@absyahwa7698]

Yeah east europe always lacks behind western europe in terms of technology

[@prodigalsonofsuns]

​@@absyahwa7698 Missed the point by a full hemisphere

[@DillsyYourDaddy67]

The main problem is the warscape engine I think. It's always been utter garbage at simulating physics. Look at Rome 1, units would do that whole advance/give ground/hold position thing automatically depending if they were winning/losing combat and in guard mode. I can't recall this feature ever happening at all in any warscape total war.

[@MrViki60]

@@absyahwa7698 brownoid

[@MatthewChenault]

5:22 Talking about characters, you could also get characters with unique titles. My favorite is “Herrenius the Ugly” who, throughout the campaign, became known as “Herrenius the Mighty” and, finally, “Herrenius the Angry.”

[@GurniHallek]

Keeping armored units away from fights to preserve their armor is like using archers mostly in melee to preserve ammunition.

[@cole8834]

At best*; "armor" degredation may be the middle ground compromise so they can keep "hitpoints" A stupid compromise no one wanted. Who even wanted units to have hitpoints in the first place? Did TW players? No... Did the devs want it? Hard to believe... unless literally everyone who made Shogun 2 jumped ship before Rome 2.

[@doltBmB]

Shogun 2 is overrated, it has no unit collision.

[@cole8834]

@@doltBmB I half agree. It has some unit collision. Don't be retarded. It could be a lot better though. Ultimately what it is is consistent* and predictable. Charges don't smush, they kill. Yeah, you'll see some guys phasing in/out within the melee, but ultimately they still have to push each other as a unit* Shogun 2 is helped out by the fact that units don't have shields so what smushing there is looks more natural. Individual models phasing in and out of each other has been a thing since Medieval 2. That was the first time where I recall being able to glitch the game somewhat at chokepoints by pushing more soldiers in than what would be physically possible. Everything in a video game is an illusion. None of the soldiers are "there" in Rome 1, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, etc. What happens is that the developers deliberately tune the tolerance for collision/phasing. Shit AI benefits from more phasing tolerance, for example.

[@doltBmB]

@@cole8834 Medieval 2 has full unit collision, what it also has is staggering, a defending unit that isn't killed will be pushed back, and there is a corresponding stagger animation so it's not sliding. So an overwhelming force can physically push back a smaller force, this is realistic. Warscape removed unit collision, Shogun 2 is on Warscape. They added motion capture 1v1 duels to cover it up. "I agree" nobody cares, this isn't a matter of opinion. Americans have a really hard time distinguishing fact from opinion and think stating their agreement or not is worth something.

[@cole8834]

@@doltBmB Random ad hominem is good evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. Go observe pikemen in Medieval 2 and tell me about their full collision. Warscape* is a marketing trick. It's the same engine they've used since Shogun 1. Because in-house game engines are iterative*. They don't get replaced. Saying Warscape is a different engine to the original engine is like saying Unreal 5 is completely different to Unreal 4. It's not. It's built on the same codebase. The developer's fuckups are their own; not some Warscape engine boogeyman

[@doltBmB]

@@cole8834 also "smushing" is a hack to compensate for lack of unit collision they added in rome 2

[@samt9468]

I think the worst part about the hp and armor system in this game is that in bronze age warfare, missiles were basically king. There is a reason why the mightiest warrior of an army dying by a projectile was a common thing seen in stories believed to have originated from the Bronze age. It was the most likely way anyone would die on the battlefield during that time period. It would take the heavy infantry hoplites well into the iron age to change the dynamic when they beat the achamenid persian line infantry who at that point were made up of 90% archers and 10% melee infantry.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

I don't think the evidence agrees with your assessment. Pre-bronze age collapse missile troops were the minority, even in the most missile dominated armies they were still no more then ~40% of the army and usuelly alot less (normally 10-15%, often even less). It wasn't untill the 6/700s BC that you start to see missile troops dominate the battlefield (the Chaldeans being the first noteble army to do this) and even then only in some armies. If missile troops were the primary killing power then they would be alot more common in alot more armies. Heroes dieing from missile fire being common is more likely related to hyping up their melee skill, 'they were to skilled to fall to an unblocked/unparried/undonged melee blow' type of deal.

[@LordVader1094]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 How does a lower missile contingent mean they weren't effective? You still needed infantry to stop your missiles being overrun. Chariots (the supreme unit of the era) almost always worked as a mobile missile platform, a testament to how effective it was.

[@samt9468]

Adding to what another person mentioned. Ancient egypt would probably be the place you would best see the prominence of projectile weapons in the bronze age. The bow was the symbol of office for many pharaohs with many recorded boastings related to bow and arrows in feats of strength, skill, and wealth. Both arrows and arrowheads went through extreme revisions for the egyptians to increase it's killing power and effectiveness. One of their most prominent enemies and later highly valued auxillary forces from nubia had their homeland labeled as the land of the bow. Egyptians also would use bowmen as a indicator term for enemy forces in records. Also just look at the bows found in pharaoh tombs, you won't put that level of love onto a weapon that is unimportant and little regarded. To add to why they were not more numerous. We have evidence flint arrowheads being phased out for superior bronze ones by the egyptians well after they had the ability to shape bronze. This indicates that costs were a heavy consideration.

[@madwellmusic8995]

A nice addition to thr game would be focus on the method of industrialization at the time. Wood was rare, but Egypt had access to certain tree bark that took months if not years to produce. Certain pharaohs issues decrees for armouries to have a massive bow deposit. The game should highlight its mechanics around actual recorded events. They did a great job translatating some economic parameters, but most of those mechanics are copied into the game, not introduced in a system that makes sense for the Era

[@thadsul]

I thought choosing the worst feature in the game would be hard, but "armor hp" easily takes the first spot (for now)

[@yedrellow]

I think the formation advance / retreat mechanics in theory could be good. However it would be good in the context of a game built around simulation rather than spreadsheeting. They will take the exact wrong conclusions from this game. Rather than update their core mechanics to make formation advance and retreat an interesting impactful tactical choice, they will scrap it, rather than the other mechanics that hold it back.

[@nickjohnson2664]

Yeah, but it's only there because they saw mannorlords develop the same mechanic one year prior. Likewise, they don't even pull it off as well as mannorlords either funnily enough

[@ballbatboy]

Feeling like CA has a build-your-total-war game akin to stelaris' create a race: "So, we have developed all this stuff in previous games but we can't add them all cos it would be too great of a game for the human mind to comprehend. You have 10 points, choose your features carefully."

[@onsholo]

I can appreciate the idea of armor getting damaged over combat, but It should be something that is done by, at least mostly, by maceman and other anti-armor units, not by archers.

[@madwellmusic8995]

It feels like it's indicated in principle and not implemented in gameplay. An armored unit littered with arrows would impact its ability to function, essentially making them less effective. Terrible features poorly implied.

[@duckterdoland3881]

Playing Total War < Watching a strange man complain about a game I will never play

[@lrugelgumiho4751]

hell yeah brother

[@BucketBoatable]

I wished they added more "personality" to induvidual units. Expansion on the feature from m2 kingdoms I think, where units would have the name of the place they were recruited + number. Like after getting enough XP, the units could get traits like generals. Then the units can also have officers, wich would be also like mini-generals, but only affecting the unit they are in. Damn, maybe then that "man of the hour" could promote the officers into generals. I'd also add little visual customization of your army, unlocking more things with their XP and retraining units into higher tiers, if they have enough xp. Damn I would be excited for these features and I don't think any of that would be dofficult to implement.

[@Aspharr111]

No banners. No standards. In a historical TW game. Absolute joke already. No Mesepotamia in a Bronze Age TW. What the actual. Skins ready to be bought at release. Microtransactions incoming. Only 3 playable factions, yet 60 dollars. The UI is almost an excact copy from Troy. It looks gamey as hell. This is an absolute disaster. The only thing that seems interesting is the pushing and being pushed of units. This is something that every TW needs.

[@David_Brinkerhoff93]

I love the massive mash pits, where allied units are poking their buddies with their own spears and axes and shit. Huge massive swings that have zero imact and clearly ghost through enemies and allies alike. Looks real polished. Not at all like the old yari ashigaru spear walls.

[@cynfaelalek-walker7003]

I looked forward to your analysis of the game more than the game itself.

[@Nasmr1]

Alright finished it. It really seems like sofia is going for course correction, rolling back on the sieges and once again reintroducing a ton of elements with the older games. Then making some decent tactical options for us with marching front and marching back toggle states (which I've been asking for in now deleted total war facebook groups back in 2014.) and maps that change with a changing weather state. But they still have massive flaws that you pointed out, and it's because of that stupid fucking engine. I don't know WHAT is going on behind the scenes in the development and business of that game, but they absolutely refuse to create a new engine for god knows what reason. They just won't budge despite it being out of date 10 years ago. This, along with deadlines and funding per project, is creating the conveyer belt bullshit of just mass producing these reskin "feels just like a DLC" games. And why all we're getting is quantative spreadsheeting total wars now.

[@ajaxtelamonian5134]

That and they had another engine which worked decently for infantry close combat formation warfare nearly 20 fucking years ago with the original Rome.

[@doltBmB]

It won't matter because they still don't have unit collision. Volound ignores this because he's a shogun shill, shogun 2 has the exact same problem with units phasing through each other and engaging in motion captured 1v1 duels instead of proper formation fighting. Warhammer removing the duels (probably because creating unique combat animations for 500 different fantasy races is too expensive) just exposed the problems more because now models aren't even locked in place by the duels and can just bounce around freely. All tactics will just devolve into charge cycling units into their hard counters as long as they can just run in a straight line through your own army to do it. This is the real reason rome 2 and onward is unplayable, your army formation doesn't matter, making sure individual units are engaged with their hard counters is the only thing that wins battles. Formation mattered in pre-warscape games because units couldn't just wander across the battle through hundreds of men to get to their hard counter, and they especially couldn't run full speed the whole way like marathon runners.

[@ajaxtelamonian5134]

@@doltBmB unplayable is putting it mildly. Its absolute asssss!

[@darkfireslide]

It's amazing how when Total War launched you would have thought it would have completely obsoleted games like Age of Empires, not end up copying them 20+ years later I like games like Age of Wonders and Heroes of Might & Magic, but that is not at all what I wanted Total War to become. As dhialaani said, games like those and Age of Empires are pursuing a different objective of providing strategic challenges rather than tactical ones, and by focusing so much on TW's strategy layer, we now end up with combat that resembles an auto-battler rather than being the ultimate, perfect evolution of the wargame concept I didn't have any expectations for this game and yet somehow I was still disappointed. That takes talent, CA

[@Folkmjolk]

don't worry i'm sure the assyrian and mycenaean DLC will fix any problems in the game. just two installments of 24.99€ and the game will be fixed. not only that you'll also be able to play the rest of the nations involved in the bronze age collapse. Imagine that, playing napoleon total war and being able to pay just a small sum of 24:99€ to play a nation other than France and Austria. CA sure have come a long way in improving their games since 2010.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

I don't remember reading any historical accounts of a battle that say anything about armour degradation. Not counting armour as in armoured vehicles in modern warfare.

[@SuperCrumpets]

i also instantly called it total war is dead and died with rome2

[@arienai_]

Last time I bought into any videogame hype / preorder bullshit was with Rome 2. I thank them for the lesson I guess

[@jaegermeister6329]

That's a tad unfair, Attila was pretty good at least imo.

[@Sotsky]

Age of Charlemagne was probably the best installment since Shogun 2.

[@buzter8135]

@@jaegermeister6329 Attila was the last genuine attempt to recapture what made TW great.

[@jaegermeister6329]

@@buzter8135 i agree, something about it, I can't really put my finger on it but it felt like it was the last gasp of the original total war spirit before it died.

[@evalationx2649]

Why even have casualties appear on the field? If they want to save more money they can remove kill animations and dead bodies on the battlefield and just have the entire unit poof away once it's armor level reaches zero.

[@MD-yd8lh]

Hope CA exec see this comment😊

[@evanbillington2585]

In contrast, you'd think If they can spawn mud and sand from the games "dynamic" weather they could spawn pools of blood under the bodies of fallen men to dye the ground red and add that visceral nature to the games battlefields. So much wasted potential!

[@AnalyticalReckoner]

I was a bit surprised they tried to make changing weather and sapping sound like new features.

[@TheMagicalWizardPyro]

Tbf archer volleys are a modern invention. Current evidence suggests they just aimed and fired independently. That let them have as high as a firerate each independent archer could manage, and they could loose the arrow when their aim was true, not when a guy yelled, "Fire!" And, it gave the enemy a nice ol' constant pelting of arrows. "Surely archers fought like Napoleonic line infantry!" Said the Victorian historian.

[@bigthoughts2644]

I mean to settle out the true things here. Nobody yelled fire until firearms. They may yell volley or loose. Also hiatorically archers fired in flat trajectories. Illustrated by the Bayou tapestry and the sheer insanity of pulling back a 70-200lb warbow and aiming up. But i agree with you on the independent fire rate which is paralleled in the flintlock firearms and handcannons around the renaissance up to the 30 years war which armies became almost entirely professional.

[@MD-yd8lh]

They just need implement both approaches

[@TheMagicalWizardPyro]

@@demomanchaos there's a reason why medieval archers trained in holding multiple arrows in a single hand... So they could rapidly fire them off on the enemy. A thousand arrows coming in a single volley isn't much different from a thousand arrows coming in constantly one after the other. Having them all at once won't be too different. Because think about it. 1,000 archers can reload rather quickly, it would feel like a literal hail of arrows constantly coming in and disrupting the formation. Many of the archers would end up firing simultaneously or split seconds apart anyway with so many firing. Maybe less so with heavier bows (I'm not sure how quick a 'rapid loading' grip works on those). Hence why volley fire kind of died off when bolt actions were invented. If you can fire your weapon very quickly, there isn't much point in volley fire. I also doubt medieval archers even knew what 'hit probability' was. Though don't take my word for it, I was just remembering seeing a history KZbinr covering a paper about volley fire in medieval times being a myth I saw a couple months back. Take this with a grain of salt, but I think the main evidence was in tapestries made by witnesses to battles, the bowmen (and crossbowmen) are shown in various states of loosing, loading, or readying. Whereas tapestries made dozens or hundreds of years after the fact by non-witnesses show archers all drawing at the same time. Because the artists just imagine archers in that action. But like I said, look into it yourself. On my phone ATM so I can't properly get sources. Also the fire and loose thing is a bit semantical... I used both in my post.

[@TheMagicalWizardPyro]

@@bigthoughts2644 yeah, I don't think that medieval armies were expected to have much discipline aside from their commanders getting them to form rough lines in field battles. It's only until I think around the pike and shot era that people started caring greater about discipline and making actions in complete unison like firing guns. Same thing with medieval siege cannons. They seemingly would just fire when they loaded. No need to wait for a volley when it lowers the fire rate which means more time needed to break down a wall... or an enemy formation in the (from my limited knowledge) few cases they were used in field battles. And ye... I can't imagine those archers would be happy holding their heavy bows at full ready, arms burning in pain, while their commander dramatically whispers, "Wait for it... Wait for it..."

[@TheMagicalWizardPyro]

I would feel bad for the archer commander having to yell, "Loose," every second. Volley fire died in the Franco-Prussian war. Its final evolution, the British with their lee enfield's 'rapid fire', was also independent fire. They just all started at the same time.

[@Paddy234]

I think it's clear to see that they will release a mediocre title that will recieve ALOT of backlash from the historical community. They will then ditch the historical fanbase and bring out some fantasy units to entice the Fantasy fanbase

[@Sphnxfr]

RE: where to get the difficulty from: I think the biggest potential lies in improving the AI rather than giving the computer random stat boosts and spawning in armies out of nowhere. Deep Learning and Reinforcement Learning have had such crazy breakthroughs in terms of playing videogames at a competitive level, I really wouldn't be surprised if you could get some really soulful, organic, high-difficulty tactical gameplay out of those training methods.

[@Sphnxfr]

(of course the underlying gameplay would have to be interesting)

[@sukitron5415]

I've seen people talking about the AI being really smart on a different strategy series: Nobunaga's ambition, specifically Sphere of Influence. People on Steam say on max difficulty it's like you're playing against other people. I wonder if CA could do something like that because the actual strategy mechanics in it are a lot more complex than anything in total war

[@thepessimistictitan2655]

CA needs to just be bought out by people who actually give a shit about making a good game

[@buzter8135]

I doubt a conglomerate with the money to do that would care as much as modern CA does.

[@VinnyBloo]

What would be the point of buying them? The engine they use stinks. Do they hold anything else essential for making good games?

[@PerennialSash]

I'd say I was genuinely disappointed but I already had no positive expectations to begin with.

[@domsanchez148]

Chariots gliding over wet sand dunes and corpses like they're running on tarmac.

[@doltBmB]

matched combat is not a good thing, you don't engage in motion capture 1v1 duels in a battle like this, units need to be able to freely gang up on each other, and attack to their left and right, like they did in pre-warscape games, that's realistic.

[@yummyimpostor2722]

They should go back to medieval 2 animations

[@MatthewChenault]

47:26 Why have only two characters for the Canaanites when they weren’t even a unified people? Why not have them as a number of city-states that the Hittites and Egyptians could be competing against?

[@The_Crimson_Fucker]

Ignoring the actual state of TW and delving into the realm of fantasy, it would be genuinely interesting to see a TW game where you had an actual impact on more long-term strategic decisions like the actual direction your army develops. It would be nice to have a game where the available unit roster and proficiency is as effected by your choices in what you prioritize as their culture/faction/region.

[@jakeparker9624]

so the tech trees of empire and shogun 2?

[@lorenzofedrizzi8825]

The only good thing they added is the fact that FINALLY units can fallback while in combat without showing their backs to the enemy but that's something that should have been added at least from Shogun 2

[@nickjohnson2664]

And they only developed it after seeing mannorlords develop and do it first.

[@Mr.BlueOfficial]

@@nickjohnson2664 proof we need competition in the genre. God bless manor lord.. I’ll probably buy 2 copies.

[@alexrexaros9837]

Do you remember when TW games had scale? Old CA would've added all civilizations from the Bronze Age with each having the same amount of detail as they do in Troy or Pharaoh. AAA companies should stop giving their employees such little time and resources to develop.

[@daniel8848]

agree with everything u said , its like CA hates their players

[@IronyLost25]

I started playing for the warhammer games and damn, it hurt my soul every time I saw two infantry units charging each other and there was no weapon swings at all, no animation, they just slam into each other with no actual charge attack, I'm amazed at how bad they're treating historical TW games. I was considering checking this one out too

[@Nasmr1]

1:16:50 long? Fuck yeah boi I'm hyped to watch

[@Pariatech]

I'm not surprised, they announced their decline with the release of Britannia and them saying that they'll now pump out cookie cutter games as "Stories" tm. No time for innovation when you're going the Call of duty route lol

[@cyllananassan9159]

They are hiring a LIVE SERVICE ENGINEER, the suspicion is they want to make their own plattform and release only on it, and NOT in steam, KILLING OFF the mod community forever

[@cole8834]

One BIG issue with the motion captured choreographed fighting going from Shogun 2 to Rome 2, was that to this day, kendo is a respected art and they try to recreate historical Japanese fencing AS IT WAS. So the animations in Shogun 2 LOOK completely realistic. But it honestly looks like in Rome 2, all they could get were people trained in theater acting to do the MoCap for the supposedly "realistic" ancient combat. And that seems to have carried into every TW game since.

[@DillsyYourDaddy67]

The Rome 2 animations look slow and sluggish and take too long to get done. Plus a lot of them drag units right out of formation. You could buy that in Shogun with the Samurai and honour thing, you could suspend your disbelief there, but Rome 2 went way too OTT with the matched combat. I look at matched combat like execution kills. They need to be quick, well done and brutal. Everyone loves DOOM's executions because they're super quick but neat to look at

[@rorschach1985ify]

@@DillsyYourDaddy67 "I look at matched combat like execution kills. They need to be quick, well done and brutal. Everyone loves DOOM's executions because they're super quick but neat to look at" That's why Med 2 had it right and it was the first TW game to do it ironically. The animations were quick but brutal and felt far more realistic despite being so few compared to recent titles that shove in so many but make every single one of them feel try hard at being Hollywood.

[@DillsyYourDaddy67]

@@rorschach1985ify honestly I always thought that most of Med 2’s looked a bit slow and clunky, sure it was the first TW to do it so you give it a pass. Shogun 2’s were always the best to me. Beautifully done, the models move quickly and they don’t draw out too long like Rome 2’s

[@rorschach1985ify]

@@DillsyYourDaddy67 Not really they never took more than a few seconds and unlike Shogun 2 they were not the only form of combat so units actually ganged up one another rather than just stick to 1v1.

[@Elias.Barney]

I hoped for years that I might get the chance to play a beautiful new Shogun. But game after game after game just removed more and more of what I adored about this game series. Now the last hope is gone, CA has ruined it. I hate Warhammer it wad the worst thing to happen to this game.

[@aaronstorey9712]

Don't think the Warhammer fans are happy so many good mechanics from the old games are gone slash useless no naval combat arse ladders no sapping as a option dumbed down mechanics

[@ProgPiglet]

the video chapter titles are brilliant lmao "the absolutely grotesque armour change", "Genuinely unhappy", "Flaccid charges, melee". Sums it up pretty well For all of the marketed guff and chaff cuck assembly excrete in the consumer's general direction, when you're actually watching the game, you can't help but be reminded that this is just Rome 2, reskinned for the seven billionth time. The collisions are dead men of dunharrow levels of non-existent, units move like packs of tadpoles, the arrows are these parabolic p*sstreams of mediocrity, the terrain nearly always appears to be recycled or made of milky mashed potatoes, the mechanics just look like a bunch of random stat modifiers. And don't know if i'm in the minority but i absolutely loathe the building systems in this generation of total war games. It's so boring being relentlessly pigeon holed into only having four buildings in any given settlement. I used to love just having a smorgasbord of random shit i could build, yet had to budget for in games like medieval 1. And speaking of medieval 1, as dated as it looks, it's already a more convincing, atmospheric depiction than Pharaoh because the sound design alone. the music in those older total war games had a real weight and energy to it that is apparently irreplicable now. Same goes for any given SFX

[@MadisonRamanamabangbang]

The "frueidian slip" wink wink nudge nudge at the beginning made me laugh

[@p1971cuda]

right at 54:55 ish you can see the armour come back a little bit for the unit next to the general card on the right, idk if theres a visual glitch or if amour actually regens lol.

[@Volound]

called it from the first minute: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKbGY3VnbrehsJo

[@korovabozha4963]

Indeed.

[@Saif-vh2bj]

I remember when I had a got hit by a bullet during the BLM protests, my grease fell off and my BMI returned back to normal. Thank god for gun rights!

[@maddencritic]

Tbf Troy runs better than most of the other games for me looks good and AI is aggressive in campaign!! Unlike Rome 2 launch

[@AventineArchives]

@@maddencritic The Rome 2 launch, even after all these years has to go down as one of the worst launches ever. The game was totally incomplete, whoever did the QA on that game should have been fired immediately.

[@Warmaker01]

@@AventineArchives QA is overrated. Why pay for a QA division when the players can do it for you, for free? They'll *pay you* for the privilege.

[@David_Brinkerhoff93]

Armor is basically a magic shield now... can it be rechargeable though? Like after the battle does it immediately regenerate like a star trek shield.

[@dariusrahmanian1215]

After all these years I like how the scope and size of battles have remained the exact same, with core mechanics degrading over time. You would think by now they would have attempted a scaled up system with all of the wonders of modern processing and GPU capability. Imagine a Napoleon 2 or Empire 2 where the size of the maps and armies actually represent the scale of campaigns. Instead, we get downsized armies, units, the same old map, and Rambo style single entities. I can't wait till I can play as Hague in Total War WW1 single handedly defeating an army of Prussians...

[@OtterMusician]

I don't want Medieval 3, Shogan 3, _or_ Rome 3 if it's going to be like this. I'm thankful Pharaoh is coming out now instead of any of those, it means we have one more year to beat what we want into the dense skulls at CA.

[@thelonehuntsman1153]

The mud, rain, fire and armour mechanics make this feel like a dry run for med3. And it really fills me with dread

[@patrykjedrych9233]

Armor feels like, the special barier, that you have in Warhammer total war. The one for the Tzeench faction.

[@bubyCZ]

Things CA will never do, because the casuals are the target market. Things that WERE ALREADY IN THE SERIES A DECADE AGO. -Removing passive replenishment. Having casualties matter. Reinforcing army should be costly (finite resources such as population) as well as reducing exp lvl of the reinforced unit. It also should require active macro from the player. Otherwise campaign map is just custom battle faction selector and nothing more. -Proper upkeep costs, prices and economy No more overbloated stats that make elite units just straight forward upgrade from lower tier unit. Make elite units small size specialized elites for specific job with huge upkeep. Also make them fucking limited. No more T5 doomstacking by turn 40 and steamrolling map...

[@ginnotheseer7624]

I wonder if they're gonna do a Thrones of Britannia and have food availability dictate how many units you can have, it would be fitting given the situation.

[@Sotsky]

The Troy and Thrones resource and settlement management are among the worst in the series. Shogun’s beats it by far, as simple as it was, it had much more nuance.

[@doltBmB]

It would be fitting no matter the time period, an army marches on its stomach.

[@seraphx26]

This game is not a sand box it's a litter box, the dung beetle in the trailer was foreshadowing.

[@IvanRN]

My doubts about the project only increased after watching the video. Read at least a little about the Bronze Age, and you will find out that the crisis was caused by a number of factors about which not a word was said in the interview. Factor #1: climate warming, which brought drought to previously fertile lands, and this, in turn, led to famine and migration of the population. The Hittite state suffered the most. Factor No. 2. The plague. This is the territory of modern Greece. Factor No. 3. Tectonic activity. The territories of modern Turkey, Iran and Iraq, Syria and Israel suffered. Factor No. 4. Migrations and raids caused, among other things, by drought and, possibly, the resettlement of peoples from southeastern Europe. In particular, the so-called sea peoples can be singled out, which could have caused the decline of Mycenaean civilization, the death of the Hittite kingdom and commercial city-centers on the coast of modern Israel. Egypt also suffered greatly from the raids. Among their enemies were, among others, the tribes of Libyans. It should be noted that at that time there was a steppe instead of a desert, and the western border of Egypt, as I understood, could be attacked not only along the coast. Factor #5 (questionable). A systemic (economic) crisis that has affected the whole of Europe, caused by population growth, soil deterioration, drought. Two points can be singled out separately here. 5.1. Deterioration of the soil condition as a result of improper cultivation of the land. 5.2. The rupture of long-distance trade relations, which very painfully hit the economies of powerful civilizations. The same imported tin was necessary for the production of bronze. Bronze was needed, among other things, for the production of weapons. This could affect the quality of the armies. Unfortunately, I have heard nothing or almost nothing of what I wrote above. To be honest, it seemed to me that the developers were trying to make a good face with a bad game. The most important thing: nothing was said about the concept itself, the MAIN idea of the game. Although the idea could be very interesting and at the same time simple. I formulate it this way: the old world is collapsing and will never be the same, survive as you can and want in this hell. Gameplay could divide all countries into two categories: factions that are trying to survive, like Egypt, the Hittite Kingdom, the Cretan-Mycenaean civilization, and those peoples and tribes that seek to plunder and finish off once prosperous civilizations, to take their place - these are the sea peoples, Libyans, Doreans, etc. I would risk shifting the player's focus from battles to objective crises and dealing with their consequences. Terrible events took place before the eyes of the player: hunger, migration, plague, famine, earthquakes that destroy entire cities; the impoverishment of the economy and, as a result, the rise in price of elite troops of developed countries.

[@darkranger116]

The armor change is fkin hilarious. Dont you hate it when you're 20 minutes into a blood battle, and your armor just falls off your body and ceases to exist? Gosh i hate it when that happens.

[@tamaskus3902]

I’m happy that 1v1 animations are back for regular troops, but it should have been in the previous games already.

[@yummyimpostor2722]

Some of them do look soo goofy and stupid tho

[@AliRadicali]

My first thought upon hearing the title was "Oh, so Troy 2 then?" Not a very hard call to make.

[@MercenaryZack]

The saddest part of all this is, that when Rome 2 was still being developed and we did not know which game will come out next, I really wanted to see a Total War China or Troy. Then Rome 2 came out which at the time I was happy for too, until I finally played it, never have I felt so utterly betrayed and disappointed, it was the turning point where I never gave in again into any hype or did any per-orders. Only after careful reviews would I decided maybe to get anything, Attila being the last Total War title I got. Then once Warhammer came out, I knew CA and Total War that we once knew was over, never again would we see a proper Historical Title ever again. When Three Kingdoms was finally announced and my wish came true of seeing a Total War China, seeing that it was this "Romance" mode that had priority, and knowing full well that they tried to appease both the Historical and Warhammer fans, I had Zero excitement or hype. When Troy was announced, I also knew that they were going for this "Mythical" nonsense because of course, gotta try to get both the Historical and Warhammer fans. So both my wishes came true in the worst possible way, these games could have been so great if they were proper historical titles and given the love and attention they deserved and not the Romance and Mythical distraction and detraction that they got. I only enjoy Total War in the context of critics tearing it apart these days, because thats all it deserves after what they have done to a legendary franchise. RIP Historical Total War and just Total War in general at this point 2000 - 2015.

[@Rifqiethehero]

Hope you still have fun playing older tw games

[@FinDan07]

I hate how Paradox Interactive modifier spam bullshit is infecting other strategy games

[@TootsyBootsy]

The moment I saw the armor degradation I was out, I already see where the meta going and I'm going to be uninterested.

[@nms8397]

I'll continue playing Attila for another few years I guess. The last true historical total war game. The last total war game with good battles.

[@nikolajelikic7040]

I'm just here for Volound video. Stoped playing Total War when I saw Rome 2, don't even care abou this shit for a long time. When I remember I had 3k hours on Medieval 2... I'm on EU4 now doing weird shit with Portuguese navy

[@christopheryoung2874]

After Rome 2 launch I stopped playing Total War myself for years and spent more than 5,000 hours on CK2. In 2020, I went back and started playing Shogun 2 a lot

[@cerberus2373]

this man is a menace what a chad

[@albertodonini9614]

From Shogun to Shogun 2, CA changed game engine 3 times. From Rome 2 to Pharaoh, more or less just the same time span, the engine has stayed exactly the same, and it still doesn't work. Now, back in the early 2000's technology was progressing incredibly fast, so maybe it's unfair to expect the same rate of innovation, but still, not a single update to the engine in over 12 years? Take Troy for example: it had incredibly beautiful battle maps, by far the most detailed we ever had... but they were completely wasted. Blocking natural chokepoints becomes useless when big monsters and godly heroes can just muscle through them. Placing archers on steep cliffs is useless if A) they don't get a range advantage and B) flying monsters can reach them just as easily as if they were on flat ground. It is evident that CA doesn't have many good ideas for this games (wheter it is because of incompentence or simple disinterest, I can't tell), but even if they do, as long as they keep using this engine it will be completely useless. Every good idea either won't work or won't reach its full potential. Total War stopped with Shogun 2, and if one wants to properly play a time period that wasn't covered by any of the previous games, the only way is using mods that more often than not make these games far more complex that they need to be (at least in my humble opinion), because those are the only ones you can trust to be historically accurate (you would think that even back in the day CA would be a bit more historically accurate with their historical games...)

[@RebelAstronaut55]

I am can't wait for you to compare the Total War current battle engine with the Manor Lords, a game that is not focused on tactical battles.

[@Darek_B52]

how is that game coming along? I haven't heard much of it in awhile.

[@RebelAstronaut55]

@@Darek_B52 Unfortunately they showed just a bit of the battle engine and is looking better than TotalWar.

[@Pernix499]

Did you notice that they brought back animations for killing the bannerman on the campaign map from rome 2?

[@Philipp1500]

I was so disappointed when i heard the announcement for this garbage. This is basically a Troy 2.0 made by the same studio, with the same ideas and the same execution as a Saga game, marketed as a full price main Total War.

[@Volound]

lmao yep

[@Mr.BlueOfficial]

If they have a plan to make a grand total way experience stitched together from all time periods, it would make sense to start with Egypt. But now I’m just wishful thinking. I hope it has fun realistic tactics in battle as well as campaign. Otherwise setting won’t matter.

[@DevDog98]

Pharoah is troy DLC but 60 dollars

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

quantity over quality is why they moved to Bulgaria.

[@Napoleon5005]

This is just hideous. They take a half step forward away from the creative bankruptcy that pervades Warhammer and then like 10 steps back into the black hole. Nobody wanted this and now it is that it is laid bare it should be rejected by everyone that wants CA to make good and proper historical games. They probably never will make a good one ever again, but this kind of idiocy needs to be called out.

[@Cool_Night_King]

Shit I'm late for the party ! Great video again bro.

[@bigeasy1383]

uncreative disassembly, oh man the burn is real 😂

[@TheMissing8]

Reading through comments on other videos people actually seem pretty stoked for this and I can't figure out why.

[@mootedtols4865]

It's a unit-wide health pool and now a unit-wide armor pool. That is terrible.

[@theDoctorwitTardis]

I know game developers are overworked by nature but the contrast between the tired out developers on the right and the jittery, always grinning marketing pushers on the left is vomit-inducing.

[@kevinlardi5961]

I said it on another forum, but they have made infantry feel like raid bosses. That is really silly considering several of the units they've shown are entirely unarmored or lightly armored.

[@justinbutler591]

well all just gotta boycott their games until we get medieval 3, and more importantly a medieval 3 true to the original total war style not Warhammerized or Troy-esque. no armor health bar, no arcady UI. most people agree on not liking troy and wanting a medieval 3. if most people boycott their games and they lost money on the games they'd probably start listening to what the fans want in order to start making money again. there's people who like historical total wars, people who just like Warhammer, and then people who like both, but pretty much all three groups dot care for tory and dnt seem interested in this lol. and if you do like both you want your historical ones to have that classic feel and you wanna leave the Warhammer stuff in Warhammer. I personally am more of a fan of their older games and grew up with them but I also like Warhammer 2. but I dont wanna see Warhammer features in the historical games and I've had enough Warhammer content. I just want medieval 3. Id also love to see empire 2, shogun 3, or Rome 3. but I dnt want shogun 3 to be like three kingdoms. and I definitely dont want Rome 3 to be like troy or this new game. Empire 2 could borrow pretty much all of its battle mechanics from fall of the samurai and would be amazing. ik people who ditched total war games for paradox games years ago, that would come back in a second if they made medieval 3. idk why CA picks and choses what to listen to from fans. they listen to Warhammer fans as seen with one of their recent updates for it, but dont care to listen to their classic historical total war fans. they aren't the same people who made those games so they just dont seem to give a shit about them or the fans of them.

[@CatWithAHat2HD]

This might be an unpopular take, but this is a bad setting for a TW game. Ancient Egypt, as far as we know, was not a militaristic society. It was a highly bureaucratic society with little to no expansionist ambition (outside of the Ramesside period, but even then the extent on their expansion at that time was pathetic, all things considered). Admittedly, they've chosen a turbulent moment in the realm's history, but even then... . There are consequences to culture: the military technology of Egypt was always kinda backwards; we don't know about their doctrine, but it's a reasonable guess that that was backwards too, considering how seemingly low a position in the social order professional soldiers held. Not to mention the simple truth of the general tech level at the time. The bronze age is what comes after the stone age (up until the middle kingdom period we find *stone* arrowheads in Egypt - admittedly this is set in the new kingdom, but the point stands: technology is primitive). Horses are not yet big or athletic enough to justify *riding* them in battle, so you only get clunky (both irl and in game) chariots. We're in a searing hot part of the world so armor is kept to a minimum for biological reasons. . Ancient Egypt is the Nile. The Nile feeds it. The Nile connects it. You don't travel by land in ancient Egypt. At least not unless you really have to, and certainly not with an entire army. TW-style army movement - something that is abstract at the best of times - is simply wrong in ancient Egypt, where you travel by ship along a predetermined, singular path. That's obviously not how it's gonna work in game, because it would be terrible, but that's the point I'm trying to make - they can either be accurate, or mechanically good, no way to marry history and regular TW game mechanics here. . The Nile also floods. That's 2-3 weeks of not a huge river, going through the place, but a massive, long lake. Cities become islands or archipelagos. Roads cease to exist, covered in a new layer of life-giving mud. That's the region's weather effect, not storms. But I'm willing to bet it's not going to be implemented in any significant way, because it's setting specific, and more of a campaign map effect (in TW terms) than a battle map effect. It also pretty much prevents TW-style gameplay for its duration... Whereas rain - something that is really rare in Egypt - is going to be semi-frequent in battles. . Ancient Egypt is a gr8 setting for lots of games. City builders and economic sims come to mind as especially appropriate, but lots of other genres would be suitable too. Just not really this one. Again: the hint is in the title: total WAR. Egypt was not a warlike society, for structural reasons - it was a geographically isolated, "fee food" natural wonder of a place. They only really needed to defend themselves from the occasional invader to be a top tier civiliazation worldwide. And whenever any more serious threat appeared (something that wasn't stone-age level, disorganized desert nomad who were easy to bribe) they collapsed under the pressure. Egypt is the sort of civ. that goes for a culture victory in a Civilizations game, if you know what I mean. Do a 30 years war TW, or a Sassanid/Alexander TW, or a Mongol Empire TW, or something. Hell, do a medieval Indochina TW, that place was mental! It's not like there aren't gr8 setting choices left.

[@lampdust1016]

How is this a historical title????? First off no body wanted a Bronze Age historical title and even if it is historical title it is way to Arcady which doesn’t appeal to the people who like historical games

[@jaimitorocha]

No mythology here guys. Just pick a god, pick a bonus, give us some money and pretend you are the god emperor. I mean pharaoh, yeah, pharaoh.

[@Bubinni]

At least its got large streets! So pathfinding shouldn't be an absolute trainwreck.

[@tomasz9429]

"We had that twenty one years ago." Yes, however, twenty one years ago the people who work on TW games right now, still needed a ladder to mount the carpet in the living room of their family house. Pocket ladders, of course. God, please take me now...

[@MatthewChenault]

To be honest, I would not have had any issues with this if the game was similar to Rome: Total War or Medieval II: Total War. The issue is the current titles have been so heavily dumbed down and removed good features to the point of making them “meh.” For instance, the earthquake and plague disasters would be fantastic if, say, population numbers was actually modeled in the game (as it was in Rome: Total War). However, they aren’t. More likely than not, these things will offer just some sort of debuff that will either be devastating or be negligible. If population was simulated (like it was in Rome: Total War) and said population influenced how many units you could recruit, then it might actually have an impact of note. The problem, of course, is that would be too obvious and not fit in with the current fantasy lean of CA…

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

I always find Legendary difficulty garbage due to: not the AI's skill but more due to your units being nerfed and the AI just getting infinite everything and their units getting a power boost. It's just a cheap poor way to increase difficulty, it makes legendary mode A unbalanced bore to play where your just fighting horde after horde of AI armies.

[@TheAvidian]

I miss when characters had a hp of 1 in Rome total war, their hp was “alive or dead” and generals or special units got 2 because they had heavier armour or they’re berserkers with a pure drive for fighting, it made sense, not. “These units have a combined 40,000hp, fuck knows how healthy each unit has” and the troop count bars weren’t “HP” it was “how many men are still alive”. In warhammer you can make undead units with 0hp but no dead units, so it’s a dead unit that won’t stop fighting. That’s where I fall off of the game being fun, units being LITERALLY unkillable.

[@garrettoliveto7483]

armor degrades during a battle. not sure the best way to handle that in game. but certainly happens. you are correct though. the strat will be pepper armored units to make them useless before melee begins. i like armor degrading. but not to missile units. In my head i am thinking Med2 where you saw units take visible dmg before dying.

[@Volound]

not anywhere near as fast as weapons do, especially bronze ones. and who cares.

[@zero3556]

I find it quite funny that every single total war game now has to include an apocalyptic end-times scenario because they can't be bothered to think of something else or implement different win conditions like back in the day

[@pignosis354]

Did people actually think the game with a trailer that focused on a bug pushing shit wasn't gonna be shit?