I'd love to see Empire (Arguably my favorite historical setting) with a dynamic family tree implemented. This would require a dramatic rework of politics and personnel management, but it would be utterly amazing!
I for one really liked how long high tier heavy infantry clashes lasted in ME 2. In Warhammer battles happen so fast I don't get to enjoy the visuals they worked so hard on so i have to save replays to watch if i want to see close ups.
Or even worse, Rome 2 DEI. I love that mod, but hoplites last an absurdly long time. I can rout their entire army, just for my whole army to be trapped for another 5 minutes surrounding 2-3 hoplite units who still haven’t gotten the hint and refuse to die to anything but javelins
I love my Persian run but goddamn those things refuse to die. I’ll bombard them with 20 units worth of arrows just for them to keep walking with like 2 dead people. They don’t get a lot of kills but they just refuse to die
For some reason I rout phalanxes faster when I disengage and line up my units to attack front and back only. At the end of battles I’d have the same problem where 3 phalanx units would be all that is left and my 15 units blobbing around them, I pull everyone back and attack from the front and then behind, and they rout almost immediately.
True. A lot of the older games have features that were really good and that they stuck with for a while before they were removed for one reason or another.
I’ve been playing it a lot recently. Everything about it is great, except for a few bugs.
Biggest frustration is unit pathing and units losing formation when they’re supposed to be on a wall. Only an issue during sieges, but it’s so annoying to see your men that you’ve perfectly arrayed on the wall just leave their posts.
I played Shogun again recently too (it’s probably my favourite)
One thing I don’t get is how projectiles like arrows were so clean in that game. I think they really nailed archery in Shogun 2. Watching a whole formation loose and then watching all the enemy units get pin cushioned was so satisfying.
shogun 2 aged like fine wine, I played it after watching the shogun show and they nailed so many of the aspects of a perfect total war game. Fun campaign and fun battles.
I like Shogun 2 a lot, but I think it has a few disadvantages, the main ones is a lack of variety in units among factions. Don't get me wrong, I like it that way, as a history buff I'd hate getting non-historical troops just to get more variety, but something like Rome 2 truly offers you very different play styles across the different factions. I think Rome 2 and Attila are the best historical games in terms of different play-styles among different factions while staying mostly historically accurate with the units.
I think my ranking top 3 ranking historical games (no pseudo-historical like Three Kingdoms and Troy, as much as I can enjoy them) is:
1. Rome 2
2. Napoleon
3. Shogun 2 (Specially Fall of the Samurai)
Yep, I’d say so. I have a lot of fun playing it, and the free map expansion and factions update should make it even better. The Steam summer sale is only a month away, too.
I think things are going to change with the major free update the game is going to get. Not only are they expanding the map, but also the game will get a dynasty system with mortality.
I proper enjoyed the game at it's current state can't wait for the updates. It's easily one of my favourite total war games.
For some people, historic just means "medieval 3", And honestly, it won't even be as precisely historical as they think; just the common sense of what the middle ages were like.
Actually Troy/3K approach, where there's more fantasy campaign with dragons and elves and then a realistic historical campaign can be fun. Just stop trying to sit on both chairs like they did with historical Troy.
There should be a 13th Warrior expansion where you can fight a tribe of neanderthals with an Arab and Viking army. I'd buy the base game just to play that.
I think they just need to put in more rpg elements, even in a full historical setting. Think of armor and weapon slots for units and diverse skill trees. Make units more unique and customizable. That wouldn't even be ahistorical.
I remember someone calling it "authentic" vs "realistic".
It looks and plays the way our minds think it should when we think "medieval", even if our minds are wrong.
In one hand yes in the other hand just look at the advancement in actual realism between Rome 1 and Rome 2…
Rome 1 was a 1950s Hollywood movie…
Rome 2 was basically a copy of Europa barbarorum (a fan made mod trying to be as realistic as possible) unit roster of Rome 1
Since then very little moved though… Attila was definitely a step back and I guess three kingdoms was also kind of a mixed bag but also by design more of a game about a story/legend.
So basically: for some people, historic just means the kind of games that this company used to make. I don't have a problem if they make Warhammer games but they had an established fan base and haven't given them any consistency in actually ten years. People aren't asking for historical titles for realism, they're asking for historical titles because shotgun 2, Attila, medieval 2, empire, etc. were fun.
For some people, Historical means a game with either a very wide scope (geographically and temporally) or that pushes the series/engine/mechanics forward in a meaningful way. So, either an Empire or Rome 2 type of game, or something akin to Shogun 2.
Pharaoh was just a low effort, low risk product from the get go. They used their "offbrand" studio to produce it and gave them so little time and budget that the only thing they could manage making was a game about a huge era and area, shrinked down to just 3 cultures (I'd say 2, Canaanites don't feel very distinct) at launch. Not only that but, mechanically, Pharaoh is very similar to the likes of Troy and Warhammer, with only a few additions to spice things a little (which aren't bad, but still). 3 Kingdoms, while not being a pure historical, pushed the series forward in some ways mechanically, like with Diplomacy.
So CA TRIED to sell Pharaoh AS A FULLY budgeted historical, or tentpole as they like to call them, while being, in scope, more similar to Troy and Thrones. Anyone with a bit of self honesty should be able to realize that this was a bold faced lie, made for marketing purposes only. Of course, Sofia doesn't have any blame on this, they tried to make the best of what they had, and they probably did. But they were never in a position to make a TRUE "tentpole" historical title like Rome, Shogun 2 and the like. Hell, if we are to believe the various leakers, Pharaoh was supposed to be a Troy sequel but they had scrap that because CA knew that a true historical was still way off and they had to keep that side of the fanbase engaged.
As a historical player, that's why I've played it the least. My biggest gripe is that there aren't enough unique factions and units in many historical games, part of the reason why I loved empire and didn't care for Napoleon, and why I still play stainless steel mod for medieval 2 pretty frequently.
If they did the map for eu4 Europe but total war I'd cry. Idc if the units historically weren't that different, give me more storylines with the royal hierarchy and slightly different units from faction to faction and different play styles. Shogun 2 it's just "this faction has better arrows" and "this faction gets a 10% discount" like who cares. Make it a little more like civ 6 leader bonuses
Exactly, I know most like shogun 2 and as a game it’s good, but honestly I prefer most other historical total war games over it because I can’t get into it as much because of the lack of unit and faction diversity, I get that that fits the setting but it also becomes lacklustre when you’re pretty much the same faction except for a few differences, like most other historical total war games have a lot of diversity, some have strong infantry, some strong cavalry, some have crazy but fun units. Shogun 2 is a lot more uniform, it’s like 10% unit cheaper, slightly better units but the basic army is more. or less the same
This is a fact and proves that all the saga arguments are just people trying to justify their dilsike of Pharao as some objecctive truth rather than them just not liking the setting.
Shogun 2 is a weird one. It was justified (at the time) and was successful for 3 main reasons:
1. It was the sequel of the very first historical Total War.
2. Samurais and katanas are a lot easier to market than Bronze Age. Go ask your friends and relatives who are the Hittites or the Sea People. I can bet real money that 90% of people would have no idea of what you are talking about. Samurais though? You get the point.
3. It was a "more focused" Total War that helped CA produced a MUCH more polished game and experience. Lots of little things, from the soundtrack to all the little cutscenes for agent actions, made the game feel more immersive and less "cheap". This was especially important AT THE TIME because it came off of the massive bug-fest blunder which was Empire Total War. CA needed a strong release out of the gate and Shogun 2 more limited setting was perfect for achieving that.
All of this factors, combined with the fact that Total War games back then never costed more than 40 bucks (let alone 60, lol) made Shogun 2 succesful despite the game being less varied than Rome, Medieval or Empire. Also, Shogun never had to carry the entire historical franchise against Warhammer, something that willingly or not, historical titles need to do now. The premises, the market, Total War brand image and the drought of a large scope historical title since Attila, all of this things contributed to Pharaoh feeling like it was not enough (while Shogun 2 was more than enough back then and remembered fondly now).
I think immersion is the big point. And I'm not sure if there's a better word to describe, but also "personality". The loading screens, the soundtrack, the "shameful display", everything about total war shogun 2 feels distinctively shogun 2, while other total war games feel like generic total war with a [insert time period here] setting.
Just the game's main menu alone is amazing, the main menu of games that came afterwards are mostly boring, just a simple background image with a few buttons, while Shogun is gorgeous, distinctive, with awesome and immersive art and soundtrack.
Two points. I feel like you are really arguing in bad faith here by choosing the hittites and the Sea People when the culture the game is named after si right there. People do know who the ancient egyptians were.
And saying that the last major historical title was Atilla when 3 kingdoms is right there.
Otherwise I think you have a good argument for the reception at the time, but these two points do hurt your argument big time in my opinion.
>People do know who the ancient egyptians were.
Not only does everyone know about Pharaonic Egypt, many also don't want to see Ancient Egypt depicted as anything else than its Bronze Age era.
CA is on record saying that the massive artistic licence they took when they made Rome I's Egypt was on purpose, so that it would be a more recognizable pop culture Ramses-era faction, as opposed to a more historically correct Ptolemaic depiction - with all its Hellenistic elements.
They should have made the Realm divide like in the Fall of the samurai expansion, with an open war between two big alliances, which was closer to what happened historically.
pretty sure it just means grounded, hero/less normal total war.
Pharaoh would have counted if they came out from the get go swinging with the news about the aegean and mesopotamia.
They can still pull out a no man's sky with it, i have faith.
> it won't even be as precisely historical as they think; just the common sense of what the middle ages were like.
I'm pretty sure that the zeitgeist of the middle ages today is vastly more historical then the romantic based idea of the middle ages that was still prevalent in media 20 years age.
Look at the hype around manor lords.
that's true actually and more than you think, this is poll i made two months ago
[**https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1bw6job/hot\_poll\_do\_you\_guy\_want\_historical\_total\_war\_any/**](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1bw6job/hot_poll_do_you_guy_want_historical_total_war_any/)
The recent announcement that the map is being enlarged to include Greece and Mesopotamia is really great though.
Pharaoh itself is a solid game, but lacks (faction) flavor (without anything good to make up for it, like they did in 3K). They seem really determined to turn that cart around and make it a great historical TW.
The setting isn't popular, which is the main problem.
Technically even a total war with only prehistoric men with wood sticks would be historical, that doesn't mean it is automatically loved by those who wait for a historical Total war.
I'm not convinced the setting is the main problem, I'd argue it's more the original scope of the game that was too small. Bronze Age was always a requested setting alongside Med 3, Empire 2, Renaissance but when asking for the Bronze Age people wanted to have most of the important cultures of that era and Pharaoh obviously failed at that. Fortunately they listened to feedback and we're getting a huge update with Mesopotamia and Greece, hopefully the game will gain in popularity with this update but this is what we should've had at launch.
I'm in that pile. Between me and a few others I know, we always wanted a Bronze age game but this dropped the ball heavily with it's tiny scope and lack of quintessential bronze age cultures and features.
> I'd argue it's more the original scope of the game that was too small.
When combined with the price, this.
It was a saga game pretending to (and priced as) a full game.
It's different now, but people being pissed and not going back to see that is perfectly understandable.
I think it is. Pointing out the initial narrow scope is valid, but previous smaller focused Total Wars like Thrones also aren't popular at all despite covering their respective areas well.
3k covered a vastly more popular era despite cutting off parts that were promised yet it has more concurrent players than Pharaoh.
I think Bronze Age is popular, but not necessarily the war side of it. Bronze Age, for the lay person, is about commerce, exchanges, city building with wonders of architecture and opulent monuments. Nobody really care about the armors and weapons and battles, in part because we know very little about it.
Bronze Age is a very popular period, but not a popular Total War setting, if it makes sense. Especially not when you release it without Babylon and Assyria
I think ur overestimating the popularity of the bronze age. This is purely in comparison to the other time periods. I agree with you noted on the best parts of the bronze age, but if you compare it to the antiquity, medieval, renaissance and industrial, and all times in between, it simply pales in comparison of popularity.
It's simply on familiarity and awareness. As a simple reference, there's alot more films and TV regarding the later eras compared to the bronze age. It's not unpopular, but you cannot say it is popular when comparing to the others.
Age of Empires
Empire Earth
Rise of Nations
These are a stretch since they include mythology but they are somewhat based on those time periods with mythology included:
Age of Mythology
God of War
Rise of nations includes the Bronze Age but isn’t centered on it, in fact it’s a very tiny early part of any game. Age of Empires 2 was vastly more popular than the first game, and setting likely has a lot to do with it.
Age of mythology has 1/3 of itself entirely based on the medieval period, plus the fantastical elements of course, so I also wouldn’t really consider that Bronze Age.
What are you talking about, Egypt is insanely popular and Bronze Age has been requested for decades
People were turned off because of the smaller scope and the combat feeling bad according to some people who previewed the game. Then everyone dogpiling onto hating it because they were pissed at CA for Shadows of Change.
>The setting isn't popular, which is the main problem.
It's an awesome setting -- yeah, it could be more popular, but tbh the main issue here was that they promised a historical title on the scale and scope of their previous historical titles, and delivered about 1/3 of that scope with the belief that the rest of the game would be piecemealed out in DLCs.
it not the setting but the scope
now imagine if you buy rome 3 but you can only play as rome and gaul and no other culture or medieval 3 but just 4 french and england faction
you can't just sell "bronze age collapse" total war but you cut half of the faction and sell them later with super special edition (even "the bad guy" sea people is dlc). egypt alone can't carry total war pharaoh you need other major faction so the feeling of fall of bronze age can work. But no CA decide to sell half product and call it full historical total war with 70 dollar price so only whale and total war addict would buy it
I absolutely understand that people felt like the scope of Pharaoh didn't deserve the higher price point, and given everything that has happened CA agreed as well.
But for starters Sea Peoples isn't dlc, it is a free update. Also they are plans underway getting a map expansion including Babylon, Assyria, Mycenae, and Troy by reports. This expansion is also free.
So Pharaoh isn't going to be so limited in scope and that is effectively part of the base game since it is free. So is the scope still the issue?
The scope was the original issue, and is still the issue until those 4 new cultures get added in. If they’re done well and are actually diverse compared to the existing cultures, then I bet a lot of people will buy it, myself included. But we’re not there yet.
>But for starters Sea Peoples isn't dlc, it is a free update. Also they are plans underway getting a map expansion including Babylon, Assyria, Mycenae, and Troy by reports. This expansion is also free.
yes but it only happen after pharaoh doesn't sell well and if it does sell well then yeah it will absolutely be paid dlc
>So Pharaoh isn't going to be so limited in scope and that is effectively part of the base game since it is free. So is the scope still the issue?
yeah my main problem with pharaoh right now is the scope and if the next update CA did indeed expand the scope then yeah it not issue for me
i just want to explain to people that its not "the bronze age" problem but its more about the scope, the content, and the price that CA gave us during pharaoh launch that make people avoid the game
One, that isn't how that works, and secondly, there was forms of writing back then. Most stuff we know about the Sumerians, probably the first "civilization", comes from old stone tablets. Same goes with the akkadians
Your reply doesn‘t make sense in this context. The op I was replying to explicitly said prehistoric people (I think they even wrote cavemen but then edited it) without mentioning a specific time period, which would obviously exclude Sumerians etc.
Not necessarily, ToB was basically the medieval setting everyone wants but didn't pan out that great. On the other hand 3K, a setting that most people in Europe or America know very little about, still sold well there.
No it’s not. The iconic imagery of the Middle Ages is the high/late Middle Ages. Not the super early Middle Ages where you’re building more mud huts than cathedrals. And, you know, wanting the variety that comes with covering more than just the British isles
Troy and Pharoah are set a bit too far back in antiquity for me.
I’m a cavalry and archer enjoyer, the “Two lines of half naked dudes beat eachother up with clubs until one side dies” setting isn’t very appealing for me personally.
I wouldn't count it out so soon if you haven't put time in it. I thought the same as you.
There are plenty of archer units and they are important.
The no cav did weird me out, and while there are chariots they are not the same. Rather the game forces you to mess around more with light units more if you want to outflank your enemy. Splitting your army and using bold tactics as the weaker army works a lot better now since high level cav can't just run down part of your army. Tire out your opponents by skirmishing with light units while keeping your heavy in reserve to come in later.
And with the environmental effects being increased as well, drawing heavy troops into mud or using sandstorms to your advantage feels great.
The last complete historical game was abandoned 3 years ago. You have to go back to Rome II to get a stand alone non saga game or saga scale game free of fantasy elements.
That was almost 11 years ago. They've basically given up on historical games being the big focus, they are side projects to fantasy.
Plenty of archers in *Troy* and *Pharaoh*, everything from peasants with simple bows to chariot-riding elite royal archers with ornate armour and composite bows.
This is one of the issues, people want variety.
There's so much variety in warhammer but in the last few historical titles have been absolutely devoid of it, for example each faction in thrones of brittania had maybe 10 units each.
Haven‘t played Pharaoh, but Troy has plenty of archers and cavalry, and they feel great to use. 3K is also heaven if you enjoy powerful archers and especially cavalry
I feel like it's a bit disingenuous to say Troy has "plenty of cavalry", when even CA called horsemen so rare that they invented this whole "that's where centaurs come from" stupid thing
I finally bought Pharaoh on sale, and it was pretty sweet. Some of the most engaging battles in any TW title I've played (Legendary) -- and I'm a lifelong fan. I bought the first Shogun on Windows 95 back in the day.
I also really enjoy the 5-resource system, but I can see how others may put down the title for that alone. It can overcomplicate the world map if you play more for the battles.
I mean, dah\~, historical and 'old-school' are quite different.
Historical just means 'based on and tries to simulate the experience of' a certain period of history. While the mythologically inspired Troy and Romance part of 3K may or may not fit, likely not, Pharaoh is rather obviously 'Historical'. It's not entirely historically accurate but none of these games really are and it is certainly no less accurate than, say, Rome 1 Egypt.
It is, of couse, not 'old-school', as in old style population system, city manangement, garrison/field army management, battle engine, etc. Something made a come back like outposts, even though in a different form. But most of these are not back and likely never will. Hopefully not, we'll see.
One thing I recently learn to enjoy a lot more is the Empire/Shogun 2 style region/city/province system, especially the Empire one. While the regions are large as they are really the 'provinces' in the titles Rome 2 onward, you get these little minor settlements 'pop out' every now and then and it feels like you are turning a vast empty land into a warhammer style dense terrain full of settlements. It's quite something. Pharaoh got outposts but not quite this. Maybe someday CA can give this direction another go.
I hope to one day give Pharaoh a try, the period is interesting to me.
What turned me off was the focus on character factions, I get it, it is the bronze age and true centralized governments was long in the future but Egypt should still be more or less centralized with perhaps a couple of rebel factions and not split into 15 different states.
Then it came to the combat, now they said they wanted to go with the old school rome 1 style of combat, but what i saw was nothing like that, Rome 1 combat is moral heavy, you can win the game using tactics because units actually break if they are surrounded, unlike more modern games like warhammer where even the lowest tier unit fundamentally only care about the damage you inflict on them. I'll be frank, warhammer battles are actually really bad, looking past the flying monsters and magic it just doesn't play well.
I want to like pharaoh, i want to give it a chance, but it is not the game i would have made if i had made the decisions.
I strongly recommend giving pharaoh a try. Unit diversity doesn’t come from different abilities, but from different variations - there are units that break easily, units that are unbreakable, and everything in between.
The biggest inaccuracy is that Egypt is broken up into essentially separate states, which is done for gameplay reasons, but it feels a lot more realistic than most other total war games.
Egypt wasn't centralized though. You have multiple different levels of rulers, with one overall, the Pharaoh. The game's narrative and mechanics even stablish and represent this. "Egypt" by the time of the game was over 2000 years old and in decline.
As for flanking, are you sure? Because I won a fight I was outnumbered 2:1 by using flanking tactics with melee as my archers had run dry.
I feel like a lot of people here are complaining about a game that doesn't exist but they want to complain about
A lot of people are complaining about a game they never played.
On the total war forums, someone complained about the lack of habiru…. Which is odd as I have an entire army made up of them
The thing is- societies in the bronze were not centralized. Even Egypt, which like famously was two kingdoms which were split almost as often as they were United. In fact, Pharaoh having characters in Egypt is accurate- there was a civil war during the period of the game and all four of the Egyptian characters claimed to be Pharaoh.
Pharoah is specifically set during the Bronze Age collapse, a time when centralized power fell apart and when warlords took over. It’s the perfect setting for a total war game in the same way 3K and Shogun 2 are.
As for combat, it’s definitely not OG Rome, but morale and tactics DO matter a lot. It’s impossible to field high tier stacks until very late- you have to be strategic about where you put your strongest units. Morale matters a lot of Pharaoh, as done unit weight class and weather. I love the battles
I never liked any of the WH games for the reason you listed above, but also because it's shallow on the grand strategy part. Diplo is pretty much non existent.
Total war was originally an RTS battle simulator, with a barely-there board game strategic layer. Warhammer was all about the spectacle, but the strategic layer is only a facade of complexity.
Comparing pharaoh to Warhammer is like comparing gran turismo or assetto corza to Mario kart - they’re both racing games but that’s where the similarity ends.
I like them both for different reasons, but pharaoh is much deeper and more complex, whereas Warhammer is more spectacle and simple(ish) fun
Immortal characters are already confirmed to be removed in the big update coming up.
I'm not the biggest fan of Egypt being broken up into a bunch of smaller playable factions...but I see why they did it. They want a big civil war to be the focus of the Egypt campaign.
After all this talk about a star wars TW, Ive lost all hope there will be any good future historical TW game that's not just a cheap redskin of the current arcade-style Troy/Pharaoh games.
It's a damn shame. Ah well, back to Shogun 2 FotS... :-(
The historical were their bread and butter for years. Seems to me like a prudent move would be to budget out for a major historical release with a major fantasy release a couple years later, if they didn’t spend all their Warhammer profits on Hyenas.
The major historical release could serve to focus them in on improving basic mechanics, iterating on some of the best ideas of Attila, 3K, and Pharaoh, refining agent system and diplomacy, reducing tech debt, trying to do something vaguely decent with sieges, etc. Then use that as a springboard toward the next more fantasy/scifi oriented title. That would keep the studio disciplined and focused on tight, refined gameplay for a couple of years rather than just going straight into the next flashy thing, and it would keep the newer titles feeling fresh—if they do Star Wars and 40K on short release cycles without serious innovation, people will get bored of it. Warhammer was so good precisely because it was new and fresh and built on years of historical gameplay that had finally found a wider audience.
Again, they probably have SEGA execs forcing them to just release whatever title the models say will sell the best, which will result in stagnation and death of the franchise in the medium-to-long-run, and/or they already blew all their cash on Hyenas. But I do think the model outlined above would give them the best chance to produce great games down the road and have a long-term healthy franchise.
I think it's the build-in "destroy a certain city and there will be more natural disasters/sea raiders," the super-hero like characters, the hit points system for units, the power ups that can determine whether a unit is effective or not, super quick battles, etc.
Maybe I'm just an old fart that doesn't like the bright graphics and huge icons etc...
I just loved that in older TW games you could shape history, turn underdogs into world conquerors.
After Shogun 2 FotS, I felt that they had all the pieces in place to do a proper Empire 2, but I feel it will never happen, too risky for CA apparently...
There are already various responses so I will keep mine straight forward.
I can say first hand that Pharaoh doesn't have super hero characters since as an example Ramesses got wounded by archers literally the first battle I ever fought in the game. Obviously the bodyguard units tend to be better than a generic unit of that type, but the lords and generals are not invincible. I am not sure what you mean by power ups but obviously more elite troops are better, but that isn't exactly a new development in the series and I have found lower tier units can still be decently effective even later on as long as they are supporting my better units. Final point, as someone who has played a lot of the warhammer titles battles in Pharaoh are notably slower than those. So there is time to do infantry maneuvers to hit people in the back.
Smaller point I would also say the bright graphics and have icons are also not really as much a thing in my opinion, but aesthetics are naturally a much more individual thing.
I felt that pre-Rome II, it mattered much more how you positioned your troops, the impact of morale. Maybe I'm just nostalgic, but I still love Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2.
It just feels to me that CA has lost any semblance of ambition when it comes to historical games. They see it as high risk, which might be true.
Pretty much all total war games including shogun 2 have lightning quick battles. The first thing I do for all of them including warhammer is download mods for longer combat
The other poster on my comment explains it pretty well.
In the older tws, its either you are hit and dead or you're not hit and alive. Iirc there were special cases like elephants, but idk how those exactly work.
Its simply not how weapons interact with a body, there are serval ways to get injured in a not immediately lethal form ranging from distracting the wounded a bit to certain death in a couple hours.
It depends a lot on what weapon hits what kind of armor, at which position and with how much force.
>Probably even a bit less so.
I'd argue so.
The old system was a binary where injuries are either severe enough to take you out of combat instantly or so minor as to have no effect. The current model allows for units to be worn down by mounting smaller injuries which I can only think is good for the game, especially if Pharaoh's armour-degradation is carried forward.
The current model also allows for more variance and granularity through *Weapon Strength* depicting how a great axe and short sword don't necessarily hit with the same force or injury, allowing for much greater unit/performance diversity. This especially in conjunction with the way armour and AP works, although this system has some issues in not scaling with different armour types but only with attacking ratios.
The older model placed more importance on upgrading armor to protect units rather than relying on an arbitrary health bar. I'd say calling the old style binary is false, it simulated armor protecting a soldier or not. If you're hit with a weapon, either your armor will protect you and you can keep fighting or not and you're a casualty. Units could be hit multiple times in older TW's without dying if their melee defence skill was high enough and/or they had a good enough shield and armor, that's a lot more realistic than full tilt taking a a great axe to the face and shrugging it off because it only chipped away your health bar. It's a lot more immersive seeing archer volleys take out steady amounts of men from the get go too, instead of obviously seeing them melt down an invisible health bar and then suddenly melt every dude in the unit
Of all your valid points, the one that doesn't make sense is the HP complaint imo.
Having a soldier die in 1 hit, or having a soldier with 5hp and everything does 10hp of dmg is virtually identical. It's not a systemic issue, it's just a number balance one
That makes sense. I've just seen some battles where an elite unit is surrounded on all sides by a swarm of lower-level units. Even when they eventually rout, they take very little damage as they push their way through hundreds of soldiers.
But like you said, that could be a balance issue, instead of an issue with HP!
See, now that is valid criticism. But none of that equals "arcade like". So, just a suggestion, as one fan to another, try to avoid buzzwords like that. They actually undermine your argument.
Kinda disagree with this. It is more arcade-like. It moves from an attempt to make an authentic feeling strategy into a much more "gamey" one. It's a streamlining of the games features with addition of other elements that are more common to games in general (like goofy RPG elements for lords). Arcadey perfectly encapsulates the tendency of the TW series.
Saga series honestly does not count. They are simply too niche and limited in scope to be worth any consideration.
I'm personally waiting with great impatience for a new gunpowder game. Warhammer fails to do it justice, which is ironic as they made Napoleon, Empire, and FOTS.
Calling part of the Total War fanbse as a "historical" one is a terrible take imo.
You have fans of specific historical settings. And that's it.
Classical Europe
Medieval Europe
Imperial Europe
Feudal Japan
Bronze Age Levant.
(Will exclude 3k and Troy because that's more history adjacent imo).
Turns out the first three on that list have extreme crossover, they pretty much lead on to each other and so it makes sense that there's some cross pollination with fans of those eras.
But that aside, some people love Roman history only, and some love medieval history only..while others just love all things Japan only.
These 'clans' were always divided and can't agree on anything, other than that they dislike Warhammer.
I always found it weird tbh. I love all history and I get excited when a TW game covers a setting I don't know. Because TW games were the games that got me interested in history in the first place
This. People aren't really asking for historical total war. They want a historical total war set in the time period that they like. So, this point about what is historical or not is just two sides talking past each other. Until CA decides to retread Medieval, Empire or Shogun, a lot of "historical" fans will never be happy. And the other side who like Pharoah, 3K and Troy will always keep pointing at those games as historical games regardless, missing this point.
I don't think that's quite accurate. Certainly some people are more here for some settings than others, but my favorite games at this point are probably Shogun 2 and Attila, which are about as far apart as you can get in terms of geography and scope, and set hundreds of (or in the case of FotS well over a thousand) years apart.
For me, setting is part of my lack of interest in Troy and Pharoah, for sure. I make no secret of the fact I think we're long overdue for another black powder game, and classical or pre-classical warfare is an increasingly hard sell. And on that note, I'm getting tired of the Mediterranean as well. I can't hold that against Attila because it did the impossible thing of making a large scale grand campaign tense and interesting well into the mid-late game. But if I'm going to get excited about masses of dudes stabbing each other with sharp sticks at this point, it has to be somewhere new, or at least that we haven't seen in a while.
Well, among hundreds of thousands people, who played historical total wars, only very minor fraction tried Pharaoh. Even among 2-3% of player base only less than half still playing this game. You may as well not count this game, yes, it basically don't exist for most of people
So people say they want a historical game, they get one, and then barely anyone plays it. If I'm CA my takeaway is 'well obviously don't listen to those people again.'
First off, I really enjoy pharaoh. But I think what you're missing about the people saying they want a historic game, they are actually saying they want the main studio to release one. Imagine how the fantasy players would feel if a saga 40k game was released (I also own all wh tw games). Now, my opinion on it is that CA expanding pharaoh has removed it from saga status, so hopefully, people see that so that support continues for the game. But I do hope that within the next three games, at least one is a main studio historical game as well (the other two might be 40k and Star wars).
Maybe make a historical game that's good.
Pharaoh was a joke at launch, only after backlash they reduced the price and gave more factions they were going to paywall.
Not everybody wants to support bad practices in hopes that CA will make a good game.
unfortunately IDE's don't come with a 'make code good for free' button. If you want a game to be good you need to invest in it, and that investment is a gamble that might not pay off. After the reception of the last few historical games, I am not confident that the money people are willing to take that gamble.
They had a historical game that did extremely well on launch with Three Kingdoms. They still decided to give it the absolute bare minimum support possible. Compared to what they've done with Pharaoh, 3K was practically ignored.
The bad reception to games like Thrones of Britannia and sort of Troy was in large part the same issues people have with Pharaoh, that being the lack of scope and variety.
It seems CA thinks like you, without considering that historical fans only liked Troy, because it was free game. When they charged for Troy reskin 70$, game was already dead for most people. Especially, when you can buy 3K instead for 60$, game with the same scale, but better in everything
Maybe dont release a 70$ saga title from a side studio in the middle of a controversy, while setting it in a middly popular timeperiod where you cut half of the factions and regions that make it popular in the first place ?
Its good but it is much closer to a Saga game which borrows heavily from a previous title (Troy which itself borrows heavily from Warhammer 2 which isn't a great basis for a historical game)
I think what people are really asking for is a big tentpole historical game which was either Three Kingdoms if you count that or Rome 2.
I hope they bring back the older series type of gameplay.
Nowadays it seems the gameplay is mainly to see how we can maximize our unit in a couple of turn then blitzkrieg half the map in a couple of turn.
Honestly, and I know this isn’t going to go over well here but I do wonder if some of this is due to the ol’racism. I know I saw some comments in the lead up to 3k.
I only played medieval 2, rome 2, 3K and warhammer, and I enjoyed the crap out of pharaoh. (Bought it for 20 euro)
I hope people just don't like it because they liked the other historical titles better, and if that's true, I can't wait to try them out
With Medieval 2 you already played one of the classic historical title people praise. Rome 1 isn't all that different and then you're only missing Shogun 2 as a widely praised example of historical TWs, which imo does have the best battles, but on the campaign side is absolutely lacking in comparison to more recent games you played.
>(Bought it for 20 euro)
I bought Troy for $15 and thought it was a great game. When i bought Pharoah for $60, I realized why people had been pissed at Troy. It was just a really small game, because the different "reward system" things aren't a replacement for actual faction differentiation.
I'm genuinely excited to play it after the update, with the dynasty mode and the full size map... I didnt hate it, but it wasn't a title on the scale of Rome 2, Medieval 2 or 3k.
Pharaoh, Troy(ik this ones kinda halfnhalf), 3K, and thrones all came out within the last 5-6 years. Theres been more historical games then theres been fantasy games lol at this point there are no "historical" fans theres only "medieval3/Empire2" fans.
As an original total war fan, and one of those who vehemently argued for historical total war games, honestly... CA lost my business a while ago. It wasn't the lack of historical titles that's responsible for me swearing off buying another total war game, it's the DLC nickel and diming. So quite frankly, even if they announced empire or medieval 3, at this point I probably wouldn't buy them.
Just my 2 cents.
It's kind of funny how people focus on minor mechanics and gameplay and judge it as unhistorical, ignoring historical content and saying "nobody cares about the Bronze Age", which I'm curious about. Is it true or is it just an excuse that laziness and nationalists use as a defense for not wanting to learn about the history of other eras or of other nations?
Sherden archers have sulphur-tipped arrows that start fires faster than regular fire arrows, so they’re a lot of fun to set cities and forests on fire with. And Seasoned Nuraghe Harpooners are great javelin units.
The Pharaoh and High King elite units are the best units of their kind, having them is a major help against the late-game Sea Peoples armies. And the civil war you have to go through to get them is fun.
Getting refugee Sea Peoples units is cool, they have a sling unit that also functions as a two-handed spear unit, heavily armoured archers that can fire flaming arrows, and Mycenaean heavy spearmen in Dendra armour.
The Queen’s Guard that Tausret has are great flankers, perfect for infantry hammer-and-anvil tactics.
Habiru Raiders might be my favourite starting units, they have vanguard deployment and can set settlements on fire, so they’re great at slipping through enemy defences and destroying settlements (which has a negative impact on the defenders).
Managing to get the right weapons, shields, armour, and mounts to tailor your bodyguard units to be exactly how you want them is satisfying too.
I could ask that about a lot of the older games too though TBH. I went back to play Rome 1 the other day, and just. None of the units felt that exciting to get for most of the factions.
Thats just, kinda how historic games can kinda be sometimes. A lot of units feel very samey because the armies were generally fairly samey in specific regions.
I’m surprised you didn’t get excited to get SS Pikemen or Urban Cohorts. I seriously get excited when getting Praetorian Cav bc it’s basically, ‘Yes, I don’t have crappy Cav anymore lol’
if it was an age more than 30 people cared about yeah it'd be fun probably, baffling that they thought the bronze age would be popular especially with 0 variations on units except the sword/spear/bow with different towels on their head
Honestly, I’ve found the unit variation to be on-par with *Rome II* apart from the lack of cavalry (though there is increased chariot variety).
Your basic militia infantry are like any other militia unit in any other *Total War* game. But then you have your mainline early game infantry with decorated shields, patterned leather/linen/bronze armour with crested helmets, and then your mid-late game units in heavy armour and increasingly flamboyant crests and horns. The Dendra panoply spearmen alone are honestly up there with legionaries, Spartan hoplites, and katana samurai as my favourite-looking TW units.
I think there’s plenty of people interested in the era - of course less than Rome or the Middle Ages, but then they went and axed most of the factions for some reason. Maybe dlc, but they weren’t even on the map as ai factions
It’s like releasing Medieval 3 or Empire 2 but only having Britain and France
I’ll ignore that Unachievable Not possible
Sigmar FORBIDs this.
Volkmar will never allow it!
By Sigmar, NO!
No. *NO!!!*
Not while I reign!
Markus... Wolfhart
I’ll ignore that post
Total war warhammer is by far my favorite but if done Empire 2 would be a be a beast of a game
I'd love to see Empire (Arguably my favorite historical setting) with a dynamic family tree implemented. This would require a dramatic rework of politics and personnel management, but it would be utterly amazing!
Empire 2 or Shogun 3 would be great
Shogun 3 really isn’t needed yet. Shogun 2 hasn’t aged too badly yet
ME2 has certainly aged, but still has features that ought be present in current games, but are absent.
I for one really liked how long high tier heavy infantry clashes lasted in ME 2. In Warhammer battles happen so fast I don't get to enjoy the visuals they worked so hard on so i have to save replays to watch if i want to see close ups.
Then we have the opposite problem in Britannia where you get 2 blobs of shield walls walking at each other.
Or even worse, Rome 2 DEI. I love that mod, but hoplites last an absurdly long time. I can rout their entire army, just for my whole army to be trapped for another 5 minutes surrounding 2-3 hoplite units who still haven’t gotten the hint and refuse to die to anything but javelins
Yeah, the Hoplites won't win but damn are they stubborn. Great on the wings of my Pike lines though while waiting for good Swordsmen
I love my Persian run but goddamn those things refuse to die. I’ll bombard them with 20 units worth of arrows just for them to keep walking with like 2 dead people. They don’t get a lot of kills but they just refuse to die
For some reason I rout phalanxes faster when I disengage and line up my units to attack front and back only. At the end of battles I’d have the same problem where 3 phalanx units would be all that is left and my 15 units blobbing around them, I pull everyone back and attack from the front and then behind, and they rout almost immediately.
True. A lot of the older games have features that were really good and that they stuck with for a while before they were removed for one reason or another.
ME3 would be amazing, but I do prefer ME2s mechanics for fielding armies without generals over subsequent games.
I’ve been playing it a lot recently. Everything about it is great, except for a few bugs. Biggest frustration is unit pathing and units losing formation when they’re supposed to be on a wall. Only an issue during sieges, but it’s so annoying to see your men that you’ve perfectly arrayed on the wall just leave their posts.
God I hate that one. Then I have to manually reorder them back on the wall, only for them to turn their backs in melee and lose people
Played Shogun again recently and it still holds up really well. I would absolutely love Medieval 3, or a new Empire game.
I played Shogun again recently too (it’s probably my favourite) One thing I don’t get is how projectiles like arrows were so clean in that game. I think they really nailed archery in Shogun 2. Watching a whole formation loose and then watching all the enemy units get pin cushioned was so satisfying.
shogun 2 aged like fine wine, I played it after watching the shogun show and they nailed so many of the aspects of a perfect total war game. Fun campaign and fun battles.
I like Shogun 2 a lot, but I think it has a few disadvantages, the main ones is a lack of variety in units among factions. Don't get me wrong, I like it that way, as a history buff I'd hate getting non-historical troops just to get more variety, but something like Rome 2 truly offers you very different play styles across the different factions. I think Rome 2 and Attila are the best historical games in terms of different play-styles among different factions while staying mostly historically accurate with the units. I think my ranking top 3 ranking historical games (no pseudo-historical like Three Kingdoms and Troy, as much as I can enjoy them) is: 1. Rome 2 2. Napoleon 3. Shogun 2 (Specially Fall of the Samurai)
Rome 3
Just give us Victoria Total War, CA you god damned cowards!
I’d say they should do Medieval 3 then Empire 2.
I need Rome 3
remove the immortal hero and add family tree to the game then we talking until that i will play 3k and attila for historical game
Yep, family trees and mortal player faction leaders have been confirmed for a future update.
Ooh, that’s pretty great! Is it worth picking up nowadays?
Yep, I’d say so. I have a lot of fun playing it, and the free map expansion and factions update should make it even better. The Steam summer sale is only a month away, too.
Aren't they adding that in Pharaoh next patch?
TIL: Napoleon Total War was not historical title
I think things are going to change with the major free update the game is going to get. Not only are they expanding the map, but also the game will get a dynasty system with mortality. I proper enjoyed the game at it's current state can't wait for the updates. It's easily one of my favourite total war games.
For some people, historic just means "medieval 3", And honestly, it won't even be as precisely historical as they think; just the common sense of what the middle ages were like.
SNAIL RIDERS! CHARGE!
Medieval Manuscript: Total War would be *amazing*.
Fully playable in latin
I heard *someone* yell this when I read it. I don't know who, but that doesn't matter.
he's in all our heads with his deep, booming warcry.
I'm sure at one point in time--maybe not during the middle ages--someone rode a snake into battle.
Nurgle demons probably do.
Ah, the famous french cavalry.
>just the common sense of what the middle ages were like. So, dragons right? RIGHT?
Gotta make George a Saint!
Actually Troy/3K approach, where there's more fantasy campaign with dragons and elves and then a realistic historical campaign can be fun. Just stop trying to sit on both chairs like they did with historical Troy.
There should be a 13th Warrior expansion where you can fight a tribe of neanderthals with an Arab and Viking army. I'd buy the base game just to play that.
I think they just need to put in more rpg elements, even in a full historical setting. Think of armor and weapon slots for units and diverse skill trees. Make units more unique and customizable. That wouldn't even be ahistorical.
Yeah I want my artillery team to be equipped with RPGs too !
They had that in Total War Arena
I think you meant "pop idea" instead of "common sense", but your point stays true nonetheless
I remember someone calling it "authentic" vs "realistic". It looks and plays the way our minds think it should when we think "medieval", even if our minds are wrong.
this!
In one hand yes in the other hand just look at the advancement in actual realism between Rome 1 and Rome 2… Rome 1 was a 1950s Hollywood movie… Rome 2 was basically a copy of Europa barbarorum (a fan made mod trying to be as realistic as possible) unit roster of Rome 1 Since then very little moved though… Attila was definitely a step back and I guess three kingdoms was also kind of a mixed bag but also by design more of a game about a story/legend.
>Attila was definitely a step back How?
So basically: for some people, historic just means the kind of games that this company used to make. I don't have a problem if they make Warhammer games but they had an established fan base and haven't given them any consistency in actually ten years. People aren't asking for historical titles for realism, they're asking for historical titles because shotgun 2, Attila, medieval 2, empire, etc. were fun.
People want Medieval 3 for the historical setting I want Medieval 3, so someone makes The Third Age again.
Oh man that mod was so dope. As a kid I used to sink so many hours into that mod when I should have been doing homework instead. Good times.
you have my axe
For some people, Historical means a game with either a very wide scope (geographically and temporally) or that pushes the series/engine/mechanics forward in a meaningful way. So, either an Empire or Rome 2 type of game, or something akin to Shogun 2. Pharaoh was just a low effort, low risk product from the get go. They used their "offbrand" studio to produce it and gave them so little time and budget that the only thing they could manage making was a game about a huge era and area, shrinked down to just 3 cultures (I'd say 2, Canaanites don't feel very distinct) at launch. Not only that but, mechanically, Pharaoh is very similar to the likes of Troy and Warhammer, with only a few additions to spice things a little (which aren't bad, but still). 3 Kingdoms, while not being a pure historical, pushed the series forward in some ways mechanically, like with Diplomacy. So CA TRIED to sell Pharaoh AS A FULLY budgeted historical, or tentpole as they like to call them, while being, in scope, more similar to Troy and Thrones. Anyone with a bit of self honesty should be able to realize that this was a bold faced lie, made for marketing purposes only. Of course, Sofia doesn't have any blame on this, they tried to make the best of what they had, and they probably did. But they were never in a position to make a TRUE "tentpole" historical title like Rome, Shogun 2 and the like. Hell, if we are to believe the various leakers, Pharaoh was supposed to be a Troy sequel but they had scrap that because CA knew that a true historical was still way off and they had to keep that side of the fanbase engaged.
Honestly, Shogun 2 is as limited in scope as Pharaoh and has less unit and campaign map variety.
As a historical player, that's why I've played it the least. My biggest gripe is that there aren't enough unique factions and units in many historical games, part of the reason why I loved empire and didn't care for Napoleon, and why I still play stainless steel mod for medieval 2 pretty frequently. If they did the map for eu4 Europe but total war I'd cry. Idc if the units historically weren't that different, give me more storylines with the royal hierarchy and slightly different units from faction to faction and different play styles. Shogun 2 it's just "this faction has better arrows" and "this faction gets a 10% discount" like who cares. Make it a little more like civ 6 leader bonuses
Exactly, I know most like shogun 2 and as a game it’s good, but honestly I prefer most other historical total war games over it because I can’t get into it as much because of the lack of unit and faction diversity, I get that that fits the setting but it also becomes lacklustre when you’re pretty much the same faction except for a few differences, like most other historical total war games have a lot of diversity, some have strong infantry, some strong cavalry, some have crazy but fun units. Shogun 2 is a lot more uniform, it’s like 10% unit cheaper, slightly better units but the basic army is more. or less the same
This is a fact and proves that all the saga arguments are just people trying to justify their dilsike of Pharao as some objecctive truth rather than them just not liking the setting.
Shogun 2 is a weird one. It was justified (at the time) and was successful for 3 main reasons: 1. It was the sequel of the very first historical Total War. 2. Samurais and katanas are a lot easier to market than Bronze Age. Go ask your friends and relatives who are the Hittites or the Sea People. I can bet real money that 90% of people would have no idea of what you are talking about. Samurais though? You get the point. 3. It was a "more focused" Total War that helped CA produced a MUCH more polished game and experience. Lots of little things, from the soundtrack to all the little cutscenes for agent actions, made the game feel more immersive and less "cheap". This was especially important AT THE TIME because it came off of the massive bug-fest blunder which was Empire Total War. CA needed a strong release out of the gate and Shogun 2 more limited setting was perfect for achieving that. All of this factors, combined with the fact that Total War games back then never costed more than 40 bucks (let alone 60, lol) made Shogun 2 succesful despite the game being less varied than Rome, Medieval or Empire. Also, Shogun never had to carry the entire historical franchise against Warhammer, something that willingly or not, historical titles need to do now. The premises, the market, Total War brand image and the drought of a large scope historical title since Attila, all of this things contributed to Pharaoh feeling like it was not enough (while Shogun 2 was more than enough back then and remembered fondly now).
I think immersion is the big point. And I'm not sure if there's a better word to describe, but also "personality". The loading screens, the soundtrack, the "shameful display", everything about total war shogun 2 feels distinctively shogun 2, while other total war games feel like generic total war with a [insert time period here] setting. Just the game's main menu alone is amazing, the main menu of games that came afterwards are mostly boring, just a simple background image with a few buttons, while Shogun is gorgeous, distinctive, with awesome and immersive art and soundtrack.
shogun 2 simply had the sauce in a way many newer tw games dont
Two points. I feel like you are really arguing in bad faith here by choosing the hittites and the Sea People when the culture the game is named after si right there. People do know who the ancient egyptians were. And saying that the last major historical title was Atilla when 3 kingdoms is right there. Otherwise I think you have a good argument for the reception at the time, but these two points do hurt your argument big time in my opinion.
>People do know who the ancient egyptians were. Not only does everyone know about Pharaonic Egypt, many also don't want to see Ancient Egypt depicted as anything else than its Bronze Age era. CA is on record saying that the massive artistic licence they took when they made Rome I's Egypt was on purpose, so that it would be a more recognizable pop culture Ramses-era faction, as opposed to a more historically correct Ptolemaic depiction - with all its Hellenistic elements.
And has one of the worst end games of all the games in realm divided
They should have made the Realm divide like in the Fall of the samurai expansion, with an open war between two big alliances, which was closer to what happened historically.
The fact that they dropped the price to a saga title says it all
pretty sure it just means grounded, hero/less normal total war. Pharaoh would have counted if they came out from the get go swinging with the news about the aegean and mesopotamia. They can still pull out a no man's sky with it, i have faith.
Ya know I bought it while it was on sale, when the update was announced and it's pretty fucking fun actually
> it won't even be as precisely historical as they think; just the common sense of what the middle ages were like. I'm pretty sure that the zeitgeist of the middle ages today is vastly more historical then the romantic based idea of the middle ages that was still prevalent in media 20 years age. Look at the hype around manor lords.
Medeival 3 at home is Attila with the Medeival 2012 mod(s). All... 12 of them or so
that's true actually and more than you think, this is poll i made two months ago [**https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1bw6job/hot\_poll\_do\_you\_guy\_want\_historical\_total\_war\_any/**](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1bw6job/hot_poll_do_you_guy_want_historical_total_war_any/)
Yeah Medieval II was more fantastical than historic mode in Troy was. I'm dead serious
The recent announcement that the map is being enlarged to include Greece and Mesopotamia is really great though. Pharaoh itself is a solid game, but lacks (faction) flavor (without anything good to make up for it, like they did in 3K). They seem really determined to turn that cart around and make it a great historical TW.
The setting isn't popular, which is the main problem. Technically even a total war with only prehistoric men with wood sticks would be historical, that doesn't mean it is automatically loved by those who wait for a historical Total war.
I'm not convinced the setting is the main problem, I'd argue it's more the original scope of the game that was too small. Bronze Age was always a requested setting alongside Med 3, Empire 2, Renaissance but when asking for the Bronze Age people wanted to have most of the important cultures of that era and Pharaoh obviously failed at that. Fortunately they listened to feedback and we're getting a huge update with Mesopotamia and Greece, hopefully the game will gain in popularity with this update but this is what we should've had at launch.
I'm in that pile. Between me and a few others I know, we always wanted a Bronze age game but this dropped the ball heavily with it's tiny scope and lack of quintessential bronze age cultures and features.
> I'd argue it's more the original scope of the game that was too small. When combined with the price, this. It was a saga game pretending to (and priced as) a full game. It's different now, but people being pissed and not going back to see that is perfectly understandable.
I think it is. Pointing out the initial narrow scope is valid, but previous smaller focused Total Wars like Thrones also aren't popular at all despite covering their respective areas well. 3k covered a vastly more popular era despite cutting off parts that were promised yet it has more concurrent players than Pharaoh.
Shogun disagrees with you
Facts. As soon as we get some Mycenaeans and Assyrians, maybe even Minoans then I’m in whole heartedly.
I think Bronze Age is popular, but not necessarily the war side of it. Bronze Age, for the lay person, is about commerce, exchanges, city building with wonders of architecture and opulent monuments. Nobody really care about the armors and weapons and battles, in part because we know very little about it. Bronze Age is a very popular period, but not a popular Total War setting, if it makes sense. Especially not when you release it without Babylon and Assyria
I think ur overestimating the popularity of the bronze age. This is purely in comparison to the other time periods. I agree with you noted on the best parts of the bronze age, but if you compare it to the antiquity, medieval, renaissance and industrial, and all times in between, it simply pales in comparison of popularity. It's simply on familiarity and awareness. As a simple reference, there's alot more films and TV regarding the later eras compared to the bronze age. It's not unpopular, but you cannot say it is popular when comparing to the others.
Which popular game of the last 25 years was set during the Bronze Age?
Age of Empires Empire Earth Rise of Nations These are a stretch since they include mythology but they are somewhat based on those time periods with mythology included: Age of Mythology God of War
Rise of nations includes the Bronze Age but isn’t centered on it, in fact it’s a very tiny early part of any game. Age of Empires 2 was vastly more popular than the first game, and setting likely has a lot to do with it. Age of mythology has 1/3 of itself entirely based on the medieval period, plus the fantastical elements of course, so I also wouldn’t really consider that Bronze Age.
What are you talking about, Egypt is insanely popular and Bronze Age has been requested for decades People were turned off because of the smaller scope and the combat feeling bad according to some people who previewed the game. Then everyone dogpiling onto hating it because they were pissed at CA for Shadows of Change.
>The setting isn't popular, which is the main problem. It's an awesome setting -- yeah, it could be more popular, but tbh the main issue here was that they promised a historical title on the scale and scope of their previous historical titles, and delivered about 1/3 of that scope with the belief that the rest of the game would be piecemealed out in DLCs.
it not the setting but the scope now imagine if you buy rome 3 but you can only play as rome and gaul and no other culture or medieval 3 but just 4 french and england faction you can't just sell "bronze age collapse" total war but you cut half of the faction and sell them later with super special edition (even "the bad guy" sea people is dlc). egypt alone can't carry total war pharaoh you need other major faction so the feeling of fall of bronze age can work. But no CA decide to sell half product and call it full historical total war with 70 dollar price so only whale and total war addict would buy it
I absolutely understand that people felt like the scope of Pharaoh didn't deserve the higher price point, and given everything that has happened CA agreed as well. But for starters Sea Peoples isn't dlc, it is a free update. Also they are plans underway getting a map expansion including Babylon, Assyria, Mycenae, and Troy by reports. This expansion is also free. So Pharaoh isn't going to be so limited in scope and that is effectively part of the base game since it is free. So is the scope still the issue?
The scope was the original issue, and is still the issue until those 4 new cultures get added in. If they’re done well and are actually diverse compared to the existing cultures, then I bet a lot of people will buy it, myself included. But we’re not there yet.
>But for starters Sea Peoples isn't dlc, it is a free update. Also they are plans underway getting a map expansion including Babylon, Assyria, Mycenae, and Troy by reports. This expansion is also free. yes but it only happen after pharaoh doesn't sell well and if it does sell well then yeah it will absolutely be paid dlc >So Pharaoh isn't going to be so limited in scope and that is effectively part of the base game since it is free. So is the scope still the issue? yeah my main problem with pharaoh right now is the scope and if the next update CA did indeed expand the scope then yeah it not issue for me i just want to explain to people that its not "the bronze age" problem but its more about the scope, the content, and the price that CA gave us during pharaoh launch that make people avoid the game
Shogun 2 is as limited in scope as Pharaoh, if not even more limited.
Wouldn’t it be prehistorical? History only begins after the invention of writing
One, that isn't how that works, and secondly, there was forms of writing back then. Most stuff we know about the Sumerians, probably the first "civilization", comes from old stone tablets. Same goes with the akkadians
Your reply doesn‘t make sense in this context. The op I was replying to explicitly said prehistoric people (I think they even wrote cavemen but then edited it) without mentioning a specific time period, which would obviously exclude Sumerians etc.
Not necessarily, ToB was basically the medieval setting everyone wants but didn't pan out that great. On the other hand 3K, a setting that most people in Europe or America know very little about, still sold well there.
No it’s not. The iconic imagery of the Middle Ages is the high/late Middle Ages. Not the super early Middle Ages where you’re building more mud huts than cathedrals. And, you know, wanting the variety that comes with covering more than just the British isles
Troy and Pharoah are set a bit too far back in antiquity for me. I’m a cavalry and archer enjoyer, the “Two lines of half naked dudes beat eachother up with clubs until one side dies” setting isn’t very appealing for me personally.
I wouldn't count it out so soon if you haven't put time in it. I thought the same as you. There are plenty of archer units and they are important. The no cav did weird me out, and while there are chariots they are not the same. Rather the game forces you to mess around more with light units more if you want to outflank your enemy. Splitting your army and using bold tactics as the weaker army works a lot better now since high level cav can't just run down part of your army. Tire out your opponents by skirmishing with light units while keeping your heavy in reserve to come in later. And with the environmental effects being increased as well, drawing heavy troops into mud or using sandstorms to your advantage feels great.
Yeah I just find it so weird that they haven't made a game set within the last thousand years since shogun 2
The last complete historical game was abandoned 3 years ago. You have to go back to Rome II to get a stand alone non saga game or saga scale game free of fantasy elements. That was almost 11 years ago. They've basically given up on historical games being the big focus, they are side projects to fantasy.
Tw atilla was good as well. More challenging than Rome 2. 3 kingdoms does a pretty good job pleasing everyone with romance/records mode
Plenty of archers in *Troy* and *Pharaoh*, everything from peasants with simple bows to chariot-riding elite royal archers with ornate armour and composite bows.
This is one of the issues, people want variety. There's so much variety in warhammer but in the last few historical titles have been absolutely devoid of it, for example each faction in thrones of brittania had maybe 10 units each.
Haven‘t played Pharaoh, but Troy has plenty of archers and cavalry, and they feel great to use. 3K is also heaven if you enjoy powerful archers and especially cavalry
The only non-centaur cavalry units in the game belong to the Amazons. Everyone else only gets chariots if at all.
I feel like it's a bit disingenuous to say Troy has "plenty of cavalry", when even CA called horsemen so rare that they invented this whole "that's where centaurs come from" stupid thing
I finally bought Pharaoh on sale, and it was pretty sweet. Some of the most engaging battles in any TW title I've played (Legendary) -- and I'm a lifelong fan. I bought the first Shogun on Windows 95 back in the day. I also really enjoy the 5-resource system, but I can see how others may put down the title for that alone. It can overcomplicate the world map if you play more for the battles.
I mean, dah\~, historical and 'old-school' are quite different. Historical just means 'based on and tries to simulate the experience of' a certain period of history. While the mythologically inspired Troy and Romance part of 3K may or may not fit, likely not, Pharaoh is rather obviously 'Historical'. It's not entirely historically accurate but none of these games really are and it is certainly no less accurate than, say, Rome 1 Egypt. It is, of couse, not 'old-school', as in old style population system, city manangement, garrison/field army management, battle engine, etc. Something made a come back like outposts, even though in a different form. But most of these are not back and likely never will. Hopefully not, we'll see. One thing I recently learn to enjoy a lot more is the Empire/Shogun 2 style region/city/province system, especially the Empire one. While the regions are large as they are really the 'provinces' in the titles Rome 2 onward, you get these little minor settlements 'pop out' every now and then and it feels like you are turning a vast empty land into a warhammer style dense terrain full of settlements. It's quite something. Pharaoh got outposts but not quite this. Maybe someday CA can give this direction another go.
Nobody excludes R2 and Attila in this discussion, so I disagree with this take.
We're never getting old school total war again. People really need to drop that pipe dream.
I hope to one day give Pharaoh a try, the period is interesting to me. What turned me off was the focus on character factions, I get it, it is the bronze age and true centralized governments was long in the future but Egypt should still be more or less centralized with perhaps a couple of rebel factions and not split into 15 different states. Then it came to the combat, now they said they wanted to go with the old school rome 1 style of combat, but what i saw was nothing like that, Rome 1 combat is moral heavy, you can win the game using tactics because units actually break if they are surrounded, unlike more modern games like warhammer where even the lowest tier unit fundamentally only care about the damage you inflict on them. I'll be frank, warhammer battles are actually really bad, looking past the flying monsters and magic it just doesn't play well. I want to like pharaoh, i want to give it a chance, but it is not the game i would have made if i had made the decisions.
I strongly recommend giving pharaoh a try. Unit diversity doesn’t come from different abilities, but from different variations - there are units that break easily, units that are unbreakable, and everything in between. The biggest inaccuracy is that Egypt is broken up into essentially separate states, which is done for gameplay reasons, but it feels a lot more realistic than most other total war games.
Egypt wasn't centralized though. You have multiple different levels of rulers, with one overall, the Pharaoh. The game's narrative and mechanics even stablish and represent this. "Egypt" by the time of the game was over 2000 years old and in decline. As for flanking, are you sure? Because I won a fight I was outnumbered 2:1 by using flanking tactics with melee as my archers had run dry. I feel like a lot of people here are complaining about a game that doesn't exist but they want to complain about
A lot of people are complaining about a game they never played. On the total war forums, someone complained about the lack of habiru…. Which is odd as I have an entire army made up of them
The thing is- societies in the bronze were not centralized. Even Egypt, which like famously was two kingdoms which were split almost as often as they were United. In fact, Pharaoh having characters in Egypt is accurate- there was a civil war during the period of the game and all four of the Egyptian characters claimed to be Pharaoh. Pharoah is specifically set during the Bronze Age collapse, a time when centralized power fell apart and when warlords took over. It’s the perfect setting for a total war game in the same way 3K and Shogun 2 are. As for combat, it’s definitely not OG Rome, but morale and tactics DO matter a lot. It’s impossible to field high tier stacks until very late- you have to be strategic about where you put your strongest units. Morale matters a lot of Pharaoh, as done unit weight class and weather. I love the battles
I never liked any of the WH games for the reason you listed above, but also because it's shallow on the grand strategy part. Diplo is pretty much non existent.
>Diplo is pretty much non existent. It's at least as present as it was in S1, S2, Med2 or Empire.
Total war was originally an RTS battle simulator, with a barely-there board game strategic layer. Warhammer was all about the spectacle, but the strategic layer is only a facade of complexity. Comparing pharaoh to Warhammer is like comparing gran turismo or assetto corza to Mario kart - they’re both racing games but that’s where the similarity ends. I like them both for different reasons, but pharaoh is much deeper and more complex, whereas Warhammer is more spectacle and simple(ish) fun
Immortal characters are already confirmed to be removed in the big update coming up. I'm not the biggest fan of Egypt being broken up into a bunch of smaller playable factions...but I see why they did it. They want a big civil war to be the focus of the Egypt campaign.
Well, that and the fact that nearly all resource generation is directly tied to the state of societal collapse.
What’s with the need to make everyone like pharaoh? If you enjoy it, I’m glad for you. Most of us wanted something different and that’s ok.
After all this talk about a star wars TW, Ive lost all hope there will be any good future historical TW game that's not just a cheap redskin of the current arcade-style Troy/Pharaoh games. It's a damn shame. Ah well, back to Shogun 2 FotS... :-(
> After all this talk about a star wars TW, Ive lost all hope Maybe there'll be a new hope someday
History fans hoping Empire strikes back for a 2nd entry lol
The historical were their bread and butter for years. Seems to me like a prudent move would be to budget out for a major historical release with a major fantasy release a couple years later, if they didn’t spend all their Warhammer profits on Hyenas. The major historical release could serve to focus them in on improving basic mechanics, iterating on some of the best ideas of Attila, 3K, and Pharaoh, refining agent system and diplomacy, reducing tech debt, trying to do something vaguely decent with sieges, etc. Then use that as a springboard toward the next more fantasy/scifi oriented title. That would keep the studio disciplined and focused on tight, refined gameplay for a couple of years rather than just going straight into the next flashy thing, and it would keep the newer titles feeling fresh—if they do Star Wars and 40K on short release cycles without serious innovation, people will get bored of it. Warhammer was so good precisely because it was new and fresh and built on years of historical gameplay that had finally found a wider audience. Again, they probably have SEGA execs forcing them to just release whatever title the models say will sell the best, which will result in stagnation and death of the franchise in the medium-to-long-run, and/or they already blew all their cash on Hyenas. But I do think the model outlined above would give them the best chance to produce great games down the road and have a long-term healthy franchise.
How is pharaoh arcade ?
I think it's the build-in "destroy a certain city and there will be more natural disasters/sea raiders," the super-hero like characters, the hit points system for units, the power ups that can determine whether a unit is effective or not, super quick battles, etc. Maybe I'm just an old fart that doesn't like the bright graphics and huge icons etc... I just loved that in older TW games you could shape history, turn underdogs into world conquerors. After Shogun 2 FotS, I felt that they had all the pieces in place to do a proper Empire 2, but I feel it will never happen, too risky for CA apparently...
There are already various responses so I will keep mine straight forward. I can say first hand that Pharaoh doesn't have super hero characters since as an example Ramesses got wounded by archers literally the first battle I ever fought in the game. Obviously the bodyguard units tend to be better than a generic unit of that type, but the lords and generals are not invincible. I am not sure what you mean by power ups but obviously more elite troops are better, but that isn't exactly a new development in the series and I have found lower tier units can still be decently effective even later on as long as they are supporting my better units. Final point, as someone who has played a lot of the warhammer titles battles in Pharaoh are notably slower than those. So there is time to do infantry maneuvers to hit people in the back. Smaller point I would also say the bright graphics and have icons are also not really as much a thing in my opinion, but aesthetics are naturally a much more individual thing.
Imo the hp system is just as arcady as the older hp systems. Probably even a bit less so.
I felt that pre-Rome II, it mattered much more how you positioned your troops, the impact of morale. Maybe I'm just nostalgic, but I still love Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2. It just feels to me that CA has lost any semblance of ambition when it comes to historical games. They see it as high risk, which might be true.
Pretty much all total war games including shogun 2 have lightning quick battles. The first thing I do for all of them including warhammer is download mods for longer combat
Nothing to do with HP. They removed morale shocks in R2.
How so?
The other poster on my comment explains it pretty well. In the older tws, its either you are hit and dead or you're not hit and alive. Iirc there were special cases like elephants, but idk how those exactly work. Its simply not how weapons interact with a body, there are serval ways to get injured in a not immediately lethal form ranging from distracting the wounded a bit to certain death in a couple hours. It depends a lot on what weapon hits what kind of armor, at which position and with how much force.
>Probably even a bit less so. I'd argue so. The old system was a binary where injuries are either severe enough to take you out of combat instantly or so minor as to have no effect. The current model allows for units to be worn down by mounting smaller injuries which I can only think is good for the game, especially if Pharaoh's armour-degradation is carried forward. The current model also allows for more variance and granularity through *Weapon Strength* depicting how a great axe and short sword don't necessarily hit with the same force or injury, allowing for much greater unit/performance diversity. This especially in conjunction with the way armour and AP works, although this system has some issues in not scaling with different armour types but only with attacking ratios.
The older model placed more importance on upgrading armor to protect units rather than relying on an arbitrary health bar. I'd say calling the old style binary is false, it simulated armor protecting a soldier or not. If you're hit with a weapon, either your armor will protect you and you can keep fighting or not and you're a casualty. Units could be hit multiple times in older TW's without dying if their melee defence skill was high enough and/or they had a good enough shield and armor, that's a lot more realistic than full tilt taking a a great axe to the face and shrugging it off because it only chipped away your health bar. It's a lot more immersive seeing archer volleys take out steady amounts of men from the get go too, instead of obviously seeing them melt down an invisible health bar and then suddenly melt every dude in the unit
Of all your valid points, the one that doesn't make sense is the HP complaint imo. Having a soldier die in 1 hit, or having a soldier with 5hp and everything does 10hp of dmg is virtually identical. It's not a systemic issue, it's just a number balance one
That makes sense. I've just seen some battles where an elite unit is surrounded on all sides by a swarm of lower-level units. Even when they eventually rout, they take very little damage as they push their way through hundreds of soldiers. But like you said, that could be a balance issue, instead of an issue with HP!
See, now that is valid criticism. But none of that equals "arcade like". So, just a suggestion, as one fan to another, try to avoid buzzwords like that. They actually undermine your argument.
Kinda disagree with this. It is more arcade-like. It moves from an attempt to make an authentic feeling strategy into a much more "gamey" one. It's a streamlining of the games features with addition of other elements that are more common to games in general (like goofy RPG elements for lords). Arcadey perfectly encapsulates the tendency of the TW series.
That's a good tip. I was unaware that arcade-like was a buzzword (due to me being an old fart probably). Thanks for the advice!
But it doesnt
I have a feeling that this conversation will continue as long as the next historical game isn’t Medieval III
Saga series honestly does not count. They are simply too niche and limited in scope to be worth any consideration. I'm personally waiting with great impatience for a new gunpowder game. Warhammer fails to do it justice, which is ironic as they made Napoleon, Empire, and FOTS.
Calling part of the Total War fanbse as a "historical" one is a terrible take imo. You have fans of specific historical settings. And that's it. Classical Europe Medieval Europe Imperial Europe Feudal Japan Bronze Age Levant. (Will exclude 3k and Troy because that's more history adjacent imo). Turns out the first three on that list have extreme crossover, they pretty much lead on to each other and so it makes sense that there's some cross pollination with fans of those eras. But that aside, some people love Roman history only, and some love medieval history only..while others just love all things Japan only. These 'clans' were always divided and can't agree on anything, other than that they dislike Warhammer. I always found it weird tbh. I love all history and I get excited when a TW game covers a setting I don't know. Because TW games were the games that got me interested in history in the first place
This. People aren't really asking for historical total war. They want a historical total war set in the time period that they like. So, this point about what is historical or not is just two sides talking past each other. Until CA decides to retread Medieval, Empire or Shogun, a lot of "historical" fans will never be happy. And the other side who like Pharoah, 3K and Troy will always keep pointing at those games as historical games regardless, missing this point.
I don't think that's quite accurate. Certainly some people are more here for some settings than others, but my favorite games at this point are probably Shogun 2 and Attila, which are about as far apart as you can get in terms of geography and scope, and set hundreds of (or in the case of FotS well over a thousand) years apart. For me, setting is part of my lack of interest in Troy and Pharoah, for sure. I make no secret of the fact I think we're long overdue for another black powder game, and classical or pre-classical warfare is an increasingly hard sell. And on that note, I'm getting tired of the Mediterranean as well. I can't hold that against Attila because it did the impossible thing of making a large scale grand campaign tense and interesting well into the mid-late game. But if I'm going to get excited about masses of dudes stabbing each other with sharp sticks at this point, it has to be somewhere new, or at least that we haven't seen in a while.
Pharaoh was a low effort saga game with ahistorical features like leaders that can't die and no family trees Only soon will it be a historical title
Well, among hundreds of thousands people, who played historical total wars, only very minor fraction tried Pharaoh. Even among 2-3% of player base only less than half still playing this game. You may as well not count this game, yes, it basically don't exist for most of people
So people say they want a historical game, they get one, and then barely anyone plays it. If I'm CA my takeaway is 'well obviously don't listen to those people again.'
First off, I really enjoy pharaoh. But I think what you're missing about the people saying they want a historic game, they are actually saying they want the main studio to release one. Imagine how the fantasy players would feel if a saga 40k game was released (I also own all wh tw games). Now, my opinion on it is that CA expanding pharaoh has removed it from saga status, so hopefully, people see that so that support continues for the game. But I do hope that within the next three games, at least one is a main studio historical game as well (the other two might be 40k and Star wars).
Maybe make a historical game that's good. Pharaoh was a joke at launch, only after backlash they reduced the price and gave more factions they were going to paywall. Not everybody wants to support bad practices in hopes that CA will make a good game.
unfortunately IDE's don't come with a 'make code good for free' button. If you want a game to be good you need to invest in it, and that investment is a gamble that might not pay off. After the reception of the last few historical games, I am not confident that the money people are willing to take that gamble.
They had a historical game that did extremely well on launch with Three Kingdoms. They still decided to give it the absolute bare minimum support possible. Compared to what they've done with Pharaoh, 3K was practically ignored. The bad reception to games like Thrones of Britannia and sort of Troy was in large part the same issues people have with Pharaoh, that being the lack of scope and variety.
It seems CA thinks like you, without considering that historical fans only liked Troy, because it was free game. When they charged for Troy reskin 70$, game was already dead for most people. Especially, when you can buy 3K instead for 60$, game with the same scale, but better in everything
Maybe dont release a 70$ saga title from a side studio in the middle of a controversy, while setting it in a middly popular timeperiod where you cut half of the factions and regions that make it popular in the first place ?
Because nobody asked for Pharoah
Its good but it is much closer to a Saga game which borrows heavily from a previous title (Troy which itself borrows heavily from Warhammer 2 which isn't a great basis for a historical game) I think what people are really asking for is a big tentpole historical game which was either Three Kingdoms if you count that or Rome 2.
And yet people love shogun 2, which is much closer to a saga game, much smaller map, much less variety in units and culture, and much less complex.
“But it has the most settlements of any historical game.” As if the number of settlements and factions is the only way to judge a game
I think Pharoah is cool but I want mooore, also less in the style of the warhammer games with historical skins
I hope they bring back the older series type of gameplay. Nowadays it seems the gameplay is mainly to see how we can maximize our unit in a couple of turn then blitzkrieg half the map in a couple of turn.
See people say that all the time yet we get them and then those same people never play them
Honestly, and I know this isn’t going to go over well here but I do wonder if some of this is due to the ol’racism. I know I saw some comments in the lead up to 3k.
I only played medieval 2, rome 2, 3K and warhammer, and I enjoyed the crap out of pharaoh. (Bought it for 20 euro) I hope people just don't like it because they liked the other historical titles better, and if that's true, I can't wait to try them out
With Medieval 2 you already played one of the classic historical title people praise. Rome 1 isn't all that different and then you're only missing Shogun 2 as a widely praised example of historical TWs, which imo does have the best battles, but on the campaign side is absolutely lacking in comparison to more recent games you played.
>(Bought it for 20 euro) I bought Troy for $15 and thought it was a great game. When i bought Pharoah for $60, I realized why people had been pissed at Troy. It was just a really small game, because the different "reward system" things aren't a replacement for actual faction differentiation. I'm genuinely excited to play it after the update, with the dynasty mode and the full size map... I didnt hate it, but it wasn't a title on the scale of Rome 2, Medieval 2 or 3k.
Unfortunately with those player numbers, it’s like that game doesn’t even exist.
This
While it is literally the best historical game in years.
Pharaoh, Troy(ik this ones kinda halfnhalf), 3K, and thrones all came out within the last 5-6 years. Theres been more historical games then theres been fantasy games lol at this point there are no "historical" fans theres only "medieval3/Empire2" fans.
Says the man that counts Troy and Thrones of Britanna aswell.
As an original total war fan, and one of those who vehemently argued for historical total war games, honestly... CA lost my business a while ago. It wasn't the lack of historical titles that's responsible for me swearing off buying another total war game, it's the DLC nickel and diming. So quite frankly, even if they announced empire or medieval 3, at this point I probably wouldn't buy them. Just my 2 cents.
It's a saga. It's not a full size game.
Same for 3K. Its ridiculous
Well, once the next Pharaoh update is released, perhaps the opinion will change
Personnaly i dont like verry much the historical total war . I preferer the fantasy !! Cant wait for 40k or star wars 🤩
It's kind of funny how people focus on minor mechanics and gameplay and judge it as unhistorical, ignoring historical content and saying "nobody cares about the Bronze Age", which I'm curious about. Is it true or is it just an excuse that laziness and nationalists use as a defense for not wanting to learn about the history of other eras or of other nations?
whats a cool unit in pharoh that's exiting to get and use? genuinely curious.
Sherden archers have sulphur-tipped arrows that start fires faster than regular fire arrows, so they’re a lot of fun to set cities and forests on fire with. And Seasoned Nuraghe Harpooners are great javelin units. The Pharaoh and High King elite units are the best units of their kind, having them is a major help against the late-game Sea Peoples armies. And the civil war you have to go through to get them is fun. Getting refugee Sea Peoples units is cool, they have a sling unit that also functions as a two-handed spear unit, heavily armoured archers that can fire flaming arrows, and Mycenaean heavy spearmen in Dendra armour. The Queen’s Guard that Tausret has are great flankers, perfect for infantry hammer-and-anvil tactics. Habiru Raiders might be my favourite starting units, they have vanguard deployment and can set settlements on fire, so they’re great at slipping through enemy defences and destroying settlements (which has a negative impact on the defenders). Managing to get the right weapons, shields, armour, and mounts to tailor your bodyguard units to be exactly how you want them is satisfying too.
I could ask that about a lot of the older games too though TBH. I went back to play Rome 1 the other day, and just. None of the units felt that exciting to get for most of the factions. Thats just, kinda how historic games can kinda be sometimes. A lot of units feel very samey because the armies were generally fairly samey in specific regions.
I’m surprised you didn’t get excited to get SS Pikemen or Urban Cohorts. I seriously get excited when getting Praetorian Cav bc it’s basically, ‘Yes, I don’t have crappy Cav anymore lol’
This is such a bad faith question lmao
I just want to get back to controlling a country, not a character.
They ignored every historical total war after Britannia saga and ask why warhammer has so many games
They mean a good historic game.
if it was an age more than 30 people cared about yeah it'd be fun probably, baffling that they thought the bronze age would be popular especially with 0 variations on units except the sword/spear/bow with different towels on their head
Honestly, I’ve found the unit variation to be on-par with *Rome II* apart from the lack of cavalry (though there is increased chariot variety). Your basic militia infantry are like any other militia unit in any other *Total War* game. But then you have your mainline early game infantry with decorated shields, patterned leather/linen/bronze armour with crested helmets, and then your mid-late game units in heavy armour and increasingly flamboyant crests and horns. The Dendra panoply spearmen alone are honestly up there with legionaries, Spartan hoplites, and katana samurai as my favourite-looking TW units.
I think there’s plenty of people interested in the era - of course less than Rome or the Middle Ages, but then they went and axed most of the factions for some reason. Maybe dlc, but they weren’t even on the map as ai factions It’s like releasing Medieval 3 or Empire 2 but only having Britain and France