Concern Over TW's Growing Lack of Interest in Historical Accuracy And Bad Battle Animations

[Welsh Dragon]

The thing is that...
- Pharaoh was supposed to be a Troy DLC (suposedly it was meant to be part 2 of a "Bronze Age" trilogy),

Just so you know, this has been debunked by the Creative Director of Pharaoh on the Total War Discord.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[PointOfViewGun]

All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.

Hey, can you write your thoughts on unit collision? In the few hours I had the chance to play the game the collisions felt better. Actually saw the few of the soldiers in the first line jumping ahead to meet the charging enemy that was executed nicely. The meeting lines of the units had clear divisions between them. What do you think?

[Abdülmecid I]

Pretty meh game, in my opinion. No substantial innovation and the game relies on the same core mechanics of the most recent Total War games, which I personally find very unappealing an restrictive. An irritating development is the replacement of states with legendary lords, a clear legacy of the fantasy titles. It was not completely absurd in the Homeric context of Troy, but for a supposedly historical title, the invention of a myriad of imaginary factions headed by immortal leaders, most of them didn't even reign simultaneously, isn't great for immersion. It was also a marketing failure, because showcasing a few obscure Egyptian Pharaohs and Hittite Kings generated much less enthusiasm than the old faction revelations in Attila or Rome II.

Personal opinions aside, the Pharaoh's player numbers appear absolutely dismal. I didn't expect a glowing performance, because the marketing was anemic, but I was very surprised with its colossal failure. Its peak on Steam has been around 5.400 players. For comparison, Warhammer III and Three Kingdoms reached a peak of 166.000 an 191.000 players respectively. Even Throb had reached a maximum of 22.00 players and Troy, the second of the three Saga games (or third of the four, if you also count Fall of the Samurai) performed only slightly worse, despite almost everyone already owning it on Epic Games, when it was released on Steam. Meanwhile Pharaoh's numbers keep declining in a worrying manner. Besides Warhammer III and Three Kingdoms, Pharaoh has also been surpassed by Rome II, Medieval II and Warhammer II. As it barely has more players than Empire and Attila, I imagine it's only a question of time until it gets in an even lower place. I guess very few were convinced by Creative Assembly's excuses that this is not a Troy reskin or that it warranted this exorbitant price. Looks like the consumers have reached a breaking point, which is a very positive sign if we want to put a stop to the shadiest business practices. I wonder what this means for the game's future, though. I doubt the already promised packs will get cancelled (although not as sure as I used to be), but otherwise its prospects seem pretty bleak.

Just so you know, this has been debunked by the Creative Director of Pharaoh on the Total War Discord.

Debunking requires some kind of proof. This is just an unsupported claim made by a biased source, so its value is minimal.

[Welsh Dragon]

Hey, can you write your thoughts on unit collision? In the few hours I had the chance to play the game the collisions felt better. Actually saw the few of the soldiers in the first line jumping ahead to meet the charging enemy that was executed nicely. The meeting lines of the units had clear divisions between them. What do you think?

I'm finding unit collision works quite well, with lighter units having a slightly looser engagement, and heavy units hitting like a freight train. I'll have to look out for those eager soldiers getting ahead of the line, as that's a very nice sounding feature. Overall, I'm pretty pleased with this aspect of Pharaoh, as I am with many other parts of the game.

*

Debunking requires some kind of proof. This is just an unsupported claim made by a biased source, so its value is minimal.

They're a first party source with direct knowledge of, and involvement in, the creation of Pharaoh. I would say that gives their statement significant value, especially given the "Troy DLC" claim is itself unsubstantiated.

As for Pharaoh itself, the figures chosen to lead each faction are largely contemporary of each other, so in my view it's not an issue that their actual reigns as monarch do not all overlap. Pharaoh is as much about the internal conflict to take the crown as it is about dealing with external threats, so it makes sense that we meet these people earlier in life before they have become the Pharaoh. I would also not classify them as Legendary Lords, as they seem to have much more in common with figures like Napoleon in Napoleon: Total War, and Julius Caesar, Octavian, and Aurelian in respectively Rome 2: Caesar in Gaul, Imperator Augustus, and Empire Divided, all campaigns with a focused timeframe where implementing key figures in this way is logical.

I respect you feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[EireEmerald]

I disagree with all of this.

You disagree with the fact Shogun 1 had dynamic weather?

The campaign is complex, the battles strategic,

They are not, at least not compared to early Total War games.

the passion for the setting and attention to detail in reflecting it clear to see. If, based on your experiences of playing the game you feel differently, then I respect that.

I respect your opinion too and I actually disagree with a lot of people who say that CA made a mistake picking this time period instead of an Empire 2 or Medieval 3 etc. I love ancient history, this time period fascinates me more than any other in history. However, this game does not feel like the Bronze age from everything I know about Ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the look and feel. This feels like a plastic superficial cartoon parody of the bronze age. It honestly feels like an extension of Troy.

You question why the game does not look like Minoan or Assyrian art, the answer is likely because the styles seems to be based upon the artwork of the cultures actually present in the game, namely the Egyptians, Hittites, and Canaanites, and incorporates elements of their cultures.

My point was less about specific cultures and more about the art of all those cultures from that time, one of the most important visual representations we have of what that period might have looked like. If this game was trying to convey an authentic feel for these cultures present in the game they did not succeed. It just seems like a sparce and superficial take on the period. The leaders look like immortal marvel superheroes, the soldiers in the battle arena look plastic and copy and pasted. It does not feel real.

All that said, and out of respect for Flinn and the other moderators, I do not feel it is in either of our best interests to continue this discussion. Our view are very different on this subject it is clear and we are unlikely to change each other's minds.

Well at least we can agree on that.

[Kahotep]

As much as I like the setting of Bronze Age Afro-Asia, I agree that the faction leaders' costumes appear embellished to an over-the-top extent. Like another poster said, they kinda look like comic-book superheroes. That approach wasn't such a problem for Troy since that game was based on mythology as much as history anyway, but it is more out of place here.

[PikeStance]

...As for Pharaoh itself, the figures chosen to lead each faction are largely contemporary of each other, so in my view it's not an issue that their actual reigns as monarch do not all overlap. Pharaoh is as much about the internal conflict to take the crown as it is about dealing with external threats, so it makes sense that we meet these people earlier in life before they have become the Pharaoh. I would also not classify them as Legendary Lords, as they seem to have much more in common with figures like Napoleon in Napoleon: Total War, and Julius Caesar, Octavian, and Aurelian in respectively Rome 2: Caesar in Gaul, Imperator Augustus, and Empire Divided, all campaigns with a focused timeframe where implementing key figures in this way is logical.

This worked with 3k because that time period involved various claimants. This is not the case in the Bronze Age. CA in love with "Characters."

[Alwyn]

In relation to the debate on whether Pharaoh has a complex campaign, I'd be interested to hear more about what makes a campaign complex. For example, do you see the campaigns in Rome Total War and Medieval II as complex - if so, why?

I know that some players prefer the mechanics of older games. Even so, when there's an objection to 'imaginary factions' - didn't Rome Total War have imaginary Roman factions (unless someone can show me a map or historical record showing that the Roman Republic really was divided into separate states ruled by the Julii, the Brutii, the Scipii and the Senate?). Didn't RTW have factions such as 'the Britons', 'the Gauls', 'the Germans' and 'the Greek Cities'?

Despite this, I really enjoyed RTW - I didn't care about the imaginary factions - and I'm wondering if that's the real problem. Is the real problem a combination of things - such as that some players prefer the mechanics of older games, newer games are harder to mod, the prices have gone up - and they made a bronze age game when many players would have preferred a Medieval III, a Rome III or an Empire 2 (as JaM said)?

[Kahotep]

FWIW, I would have preferred a broader scope not only in geography (i.e. including Mycenae and Mesopotamia along with the Nile Valley, Anatolian, and Levantine cultures) but also time for CA's big Bronze Age game. The Bronze Age did last a long time, and ancient Egypt in particular enjoy great longevity as a culture. However, a wider chronological scope would mean less attachment to specific faction leaders since all the ones you would start the campaign with would die before you reached the last turn.

[PikeStance]

In relation to the debate on whether Pharaoh has a complex campaign, I'd be interested to hear more about what makes a campaign complex. For example, do you see the campaigns in Rome Total War and Medieval II as complex - if so, why?

I know that some players prefer the mechanics of older games. Even so, when there's an objection to 'imaginary factions' - didn't Rome Total War have imaginary Roman factions (unless someone can show me a map or historical record showing that the Roman Republic really was divided into separate states ruled by the Julii, the Brutii, the Scipii and the Senate?). Didn't RTW have factions such as 'the Britons', 'the Gauls', 'the Germans' and 'the Greek Cities'?

Despite this, I really enjoyed RTW - I didn't care about the imaginary factions - and I'm wondering if that's the real problem. Is the real problem a combination of things - such as that some players prefer the mechanics of older games, newer games are harder to mod, the prices have gone up - and they made a bronze age game when many players would have preferred a Medieval III, a Rome III or an Empire 2 (as JaM said)?

Yeah, I do not know what they mean when they say it lacks a complex campaign system. As far as I know, every TW title has opportunity cost when it comes to utilizing your available resources and with building chains and conquering certain regions can help with that. What I understand there is a complex resource management. You have accumulate through conquest or trade resources to develop. However, today, i would not call this complex. One thing titles lack is the ability to have intraregional trade. For example, you have one "region" with plentiful supply of one thing and another "region rich in another and yet you cannot trade these items between them. (example City A +40 food and City B -20 food).

I actually like the Bronze age and I have been eyeing the mod for Rome II for years now. However, I am not interested in fantasy Troy or limited in scope Pharaoh.

I thought in Rome II you choose a family within Rome, but you control all of the territory (The same as Carthage, except it was two factions)?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

i also wish pharaoh would be better. im glad to have it though.
BUT YOU BROKE ALL THE GODAMN MOD, REVERT YOUR STUPID UPDATES TO TEN YEAR OLD GAMES.

Seriously if this opps accidently on purpose to try and save your new game by breaking all the mods?

[legate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RW7Q2wHtQQ

[EireEmerald]

Why not provide tools and resources for modders to help update mods for new versions of the game?

Because if people can freely mod games like before then CA cant release DLCs and make money, lol. So they deliberately limit the game of vital elements so that they can milk gamers of money by releasing DLCs that would have just been done by mods by gamers for free. Total War is not the same company it was, they are greedy and have no artistic integrity anymore.

Its finally come to bite them in the arse though, Pharaoh has clearly flopped, look at the numbers. If you serve people slop and coat it in chocolate, it is still slop, they wont eat it once trust is gone. CA and total war needs a complete verhaul or they are dead in the water.

[SenseiJT92]

Just want Medieval 2 Remastered

[PikeStance]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RW7Q2wHtQQ

Interesting. I said a lot of things he pointed out over the years. I said back when Rome II was released that the games are marketed to the least common denominator. I also noticed that the games mechanics were not as good as older titles. They made up for it by creating more aesthetically pleasing games, starting with ToB. 3K graphics were seriously overcooked. I don't know how they envision the final product of Pharaoh, as of right now, it has only three distinct factions, Canaan, Egypt, and Hittite.

Anyway, I knew it as the beginning of the end when CA pulled out of this site nd when they did engage with the fans, it was condescending.

As far as competition, Grand Tactician covers gunpowder and Manor Lord will compete as a Medieval game, so the clock is ticking.

[legate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0K0FYivFV0

[legate]

Interesting. I said a lot of things he pointed out over the years. I said back when Rome II was released that the games are marketed to the least common denominator. I also noticed that the games mechanics were not as good as older titles. They made up for it by creating more aesthetically pleasing games, starting with ToB. 3K graphics were seriously overcooked. I don't know how they envision the final product of Pharaoh, as of right now, it has only three distinct factions, Canaan, Egypt, and Hittite.

Anyway, I knew it as the beginning of the end when CA pulled out of this site nd when they did engage with the fans, it was condescending.

As far as competition, Grand Tactician covers gunpowder and Manor Lord will compete as a Medieval game, so the clock is ticking.

Interesting what the current and former developers are now coming out and saying.

Hopefully Ultimate General: American Revolution is a decent strategy/wargame.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Interesting. I said a lot of things he pointed out over the years. I said back when Rome II was released that the games are marketed to the least common denominator. I also noticed that the games mechanics were not as good as older titles. They made up for it by creating more aesthetically pleasing games, starting with ToB. 3K graphics were seriously overcooked. I don't know how they envision the final product of Pharaoh, as of right now, it has only three distinct factions, Canaan, Egypt, and Hittite.

Anyway, I knew it as the beginning of the end when CA pulled out of this site nd when they did engage with the fans, it was condescending.

As far as competition, Grand Tactician covers gunpowder and Manor Lord will compete as a Medieval game, so the clock is ticking.

when did they pull out?

[Alwyn]

Yeah, I do not know what they mean when they say it lacks a complex campaign system. As far as I know, every TW title has opportunity cost when it comes to utilizing your available resources and with building chains and conquering certain regions can help with that. What I understand there is a complex resource management. You have accumulate through conquest or trade resources to develop. However, today, i would not call this complex. One thing titles lack is the ability to have intraregional trade. For example, you have one "region" with plentiful supply of one thing and another "region rich in another and yet you cannot trade these items between them. (example City A +40 food and City B -20 food).

Rome II has that system for food - it doesn't matter if one province has -20 food, as long as you have a food surplus overall.

I thought in Rome II you choose a family within Rome, but you control all of the territory (The same as Carthage, except it was two factions)?

Yes, in Rome II, you decide what to build, recruit, etc, in all your regions - so your control all your territory (unless there's a secession or civil war). There's also a map filter showing which provinces are under the influence of your ruling party and which are influenced by rival parties within your empire - the filter can be useful when you're trying to prevent (or prepare for) a secession or civil war.

When I talked about Rome being divided into "separate states ruled by the Julii, the Brutii, the Scipii and the Senate", I was talking about Rome Total War - not Rome II.

[PikeStance]

Interesting what the current and former developers are now coming out and saying.
Hopefully Ultimate General: American Revolution is a decent strategy/wargame.

CA is now doing a series of apologies. Apparently, they ran afoul of Steam's ToS with their moderation practices.

Yes, I need to have a look at AR. I was a little disappointed with Civil War. I would like a more open "sandbox" than CW provided. If they can adopt a grand Tactician campaign style while keeping the tactical battles, then that would be ideal.

when did they pull out?

It was sometime after Attila's release. They used to have their own badge and color scheme TW_Craig I think was one.

Rome II has that system for food - it doesn't matter if one province has -20 food, as long as you have a food surplus overall.

Yes, in Rome II, you decide what to build, recruit, etc, in all your regions - so your control all your territory (unless there's a secession or civil war). There's also a map filter showing which provinces are under the influence of your ruling party and which are influenced by rival parties within your empire - the filter can be useful when you're trying to prevent (or prepare for) a secession or civil war.

When I talked about Rome being divided into "separate states ruled by the Julii, the Brutii, the Scipii and the Senate", I was talking about Rome Total War - not Rome II.

Gotcha!