Total War: PHARAOH - confirmed! - general discussion

[Valiant Champion]

So no china total war? China had high technology from ancient times and fielded armies that would have put the romans to shame. they had the first halberds, lammelar armor, it was even speculated that since it has been put forth under peer review findings that palaeoxolodon namadicus only went extinct around 3000 years ago ... i wonder if the chinese may have actually used them in war?

but seriously all under heaven/rise and fall of Chinese empires was one of the longest and most magnificent epics in military history.

But do think about it.... 14 ton, 18 feet high war elephants

[The Noble Lord]

Thanks Flinn.



Yes. On the Pharaoh site there's an FAQ



So 8 factions, 4 Egyptian, 2 Canaanite, 2 Hittite. Considering how large Egypt alone looks in the First Look video, I don't think there should be too much of an issue with factions being too close, even in the same culture/area.

They also talk about giving each culture and faction its own character, so I think there should be a decent variety.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Thanks mate. It's very helpful and it gives us some idea in regards to the factions.

[zoner16]

So no china total war? China had high technology from ancient times and fielded armies that would have put the romans to shame. they had the first halberds, lammelar armor, it was even speculated that since it has been put forth under peer review findings that palaeoxolodon namadicus only went extinct around 3000 years ago ... i wonder if the chinese may have actually used them in war?

but seriously all under heaven/rise and fall of Chinese empires was one of the longest and most magnificent epics in military history.

But do think about it.... 14 ton, 18 feet high war elephants

Did you miss TW:3K? It was only a couple years ago.

Yes, it had war elephants (in the Nanman DLC), but no, the Han never used elephants in battle.

[Valiant Champion]

i guess i did. i only now bought empire last year

i dont like the idea of constant updates and marketing to get you to spend more money.

It was torture enough having to rely on steam to activate empire.

I usually play medieval 2 ands its various mods, which is the best total war game ever made.

[jaroooo]

To be honest I'm having concerns about this game. I don't mean to be ungrateful for this game because I've waited for Bronze Age TW for a long time and I'll definitely play it with joy.
It's the first TW within Bronze Age so I'd expect complex world with huge campaign map stretching from west: Mycenaean Greece, through Minoan Crete, Hittite satellite kingdoms like Wilusa, Arzawa etc, Kizzuwatna to the east with the biggest empire of the times - Assyria, then Sumer and Elam at their slow decline and further up to Dilmun, Magan and Melukha (IVC). But currently what I'm seeing in videos is only a small fraction of this world without any traces of other civilizations than Egyptian, Hittite and some Kanaanite. If these will be only in the game I'd be very disappointed. I hope they'll prepare some decent tools for modding and possibility to redraw campaign map.
Also does anybody know what is the start date of campaign? If it's circa 1300 BC then we should also see some remains of Mitanni kingdom.

[Jurand of Cracow]

To be honest I'm having concerns about this game. I don't mean to be ungrateful for this game because I've waited for Bronze Age TW for a long time and I'll definitely play it with joy.
It's the first TW within Bronze Age so I'd expect complex world with huge campaign map stretching from west: Mycenaean Greece, through Minoan Crete, Hittite satellite kingdoms like Wilusa, Arzawa etc, Kizzuwatna to the east with the biggest empire of the times - Assyria, then Sumer and Elam at their slow decline and further up to Dilmun, Magan and Melukha (IVC). But currently what I'm seeing in videos is only a small fraction of this world without any traces of other civilizations than Egyptian, Hittite and some Kanaanite. If these will be only in the game I'd be very disappointed. I hope they'll prepare some decent tools for modding and possibility to redraw campaign map.
Also does anybody know what is the start date of campaign? If it's circa 1300 BC then we should also see some remains of Mitanni kingdom.

I'd assume there will be (if the game is successful) DLCs covering larger maps.
I'm more worried that just a few months before the release the game is so unfinished.

I usually play medieval 2 ands its various mods, which is the best total war game ever made.

I share this opinion.

Jurand, some examples of bronze swords. I have to read how long the longest swords were then.

Thanks, interesting. Although I still think that the short sword were the mainstay weapon.


On another issue - what do you think about chariots playing roles of tarans in battles? Densly packed in groups, just stomping on infantry. That's look horrible to me, frankly speaking.

[Welsh Dragon]

To be honest I'm having concerns about this game. I don't mean to be ungrateful for this game because I've waited for Bronze Age TW for a long time and I'll definitely play it with joy.
It's the first TW within Bronze Age so I'd expect complex world with huge campaign map stretching from west: Mycenaean Greece, through Minoan Crete, Hittite satellite kingdoms like Wilusa, Arzawa etc, Kizzuwatna to the east with the biggest empire of the times - Assyria, then Sumer and Elam at their slow decline and further up to Dilmun, Magan and Melukha (IVC). But currently what I'm seeing in videos is only a small fraction of this world without any traces of other civilizations than Egyptian, Hittite and some Kanaanite. If these will be only in the game I'd be very disappointed. I hope they'll prepare some decent tools for modding and possibility to redraw campaign map.
Also does anybody know what is the start date of campaign? If it's circa 1300 BC then we should also see some remains of Mitanni kingdom.

I get what you're saying. I think the way to look at Pharaoh is that they're making a game in the vein of Shogun 2, rather than Rome 2.

So the goal here is not to portray the entire Bronze Age, but rather to create a game about a particular piece of Bronze Age history and do that in detail. Specifically the period at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, when internal conflict within the Egyptians, Hittitites, and Canaanites, as well as a series of natural disasters and the arrival of the Sea Peoples overthrew the old order and changed the path of history.

As for the start date, the game begins during the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah, so that puts it somewhere in the window of 1213 BC – 1203 BC, likely closer to the latter. They've talked about how Merneptah is on the throne of Egypt when the campaign starts, but after a while he will die, triggering a succession crisis. They said something about a Legitimacy War or Wars, so considering all four playable Egyptian leaders historically became Pharaoh in the space of about 50 years, I think it's fair to say that you'll probably be fighting one or possibly multiple civil wars in this game, first to become Pharaoh and then to retain it.

(Hittites have a Great King, which sounds similar. And interestingly it sounds like you aren't locked into whether to be a Pharaoh or a Great King by culture. If you want to be an Egyptian and stake a claim to the Hittite Crown you can, though it may not be that easy to pull off.)

I also think that probably suggests there will be several turns per year, I'd guess at least four, just because they aren't trying to portray centuries.

Anyway, basically I think if you wanted a game of the whole Bronze Age, then yes you may be disappointed. But if you accept, okay they aren't trying to do that, they're doing more of a zoomed in detailed portrayal of the Egyptian vs Hittites Vs Sea Peoples conflicts, it could be a lot of fun.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[ParthianWarrior]

I get what you're saying. I think the way to look at Pharaoh is that they're making a game in the vein of Shogun 2, rather than Rome 2.

So the goal here is not to portray the entire Bronze Age, but rather to create a game about a particular piece of Bronze Age history and do that in detail. Specifically the period at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, when internal conflict within the Egyptians, Hittitites, and Canaanites, as well as a series of natural disasters and the arrival of the Sea Peoples overthrew the old order and changed the path of history.

As for the start date, the game begins during the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah, so that puts it somewhere in the window of 1213 BC – 1203 BC, likely closer to the latter. They've talked about how Merneptah is on the throne of Egypt when the campaign starts, but after a while he will die, triggering a succession crisis. They said something about a Legitimacy War or Wars, so considering all four playable Egyptian leaders historically became Pharaoh in the space of about 50 years, I think it's fair to say that you'll probably be fighting one or possibly multiple civil wars in this game, first to become Pharaoh and then to retain it.

(Hittites have a Great King, which sounds similar. And interestingly it sounds like you aren't locked into whether to be a Pharaoh or a Great King by culture. If you want to be an Egyptian and stake a claim to the Hittite Crown you can, though it may not be that easy to pull off.)

I also think that probably suggests there will be several turns per year, I'd guess at least four, just because they aren't trying to portray centuries.

Anyway, basically I think if you wanted a game of the whole Bronze Age, then yes you may be disappointed. But if you accept, okay they aren't trying to do that, they're doing more of a zoomed in detailed portrayal of the Egyptian vs Hittites Vs Sea Peoples conflicts, it could be a lot of fun.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Well said...

I think some Total War fans often fall into a sort of "Age of Empires" thinking where they picture large maps and slapping every civilization known to man on it without thought for technical or budgetary constraints...or just the overall goals of the game in general. They could have done a large-scale Bronze Age game, but for whatever reason, they didn't. It doesn't mean the game will suck because of that. And even if they did, we would need a lot of DLCs and updates to flesh them all out. Anyone remember Rome II?

[Abdülmecid I]

It does mean, however, that the game will be over-priced. For something more expensive, I think the customers are entitled to something more than the littoral of the Eastern Mediterranean. The same observation also applies for Three Kingdoms, which was very cheap to make, but sold in full-price. Keep also in mind that CA is using the excuse of variety to remove old features, which are however never coming back, despite the promises to the contrary. The naval battles are the most typical example. As CA keeps generating millions in net profit every year, I think the fans are more than justified in demanding more content and lower prices.

[ParthianWarrior]

It does mean, however, that the game will be over-priced. For something more expensive, I think the customers are entitled to something more than the littoral of the Eastern Mediterranean. The same observation also applies for Three Kingdoms, which was very cheap to make, but sold in full-price. Keep also in mind that CA is using the excuse of variety to remove old features, which are however never coming back, despite the promises to the contrary. The naval battles are the most typical example. As CA keeps generating millions in net profit every year, I think the fans are more than justified in demanding more content and lower prices.

The map goes pretty deep into Egypt and the Levant from what we've seen so far.

Inflation is a , and the gaming industry is not free from its effects. We would all love cheaper games, but when have gaming prices gone down? Not in a long time.

We can have debates about naval battles, family trees, etc...but just because the game doesn't have Assyrians or whatever doesn't mean it will suck.

[EireEmerald]

The game looks superficial and unimaginative. The battle animations look terrible. Its a reskin of Troy.

It is hero focused, historically innacurate(surprise surprise) and it looks like a polished mobile game from China.

[ParthianWarrior]

The game looks superficial and unimaginative. The battle animations look terrible. Its a reskin of Troy.

It is hero focused, historically innacurate(surprise surprise) and it looks like a polished mobile game from China.

Is there a CA game that was historically accurate?

[Maximinus Thrax]

Its a reskin of Troy.

It's a cash grab.

[EireEmerald]

It's a cash grab.

It is, CA lost their integrity years ago. I am not sure what happened, i imagine a loss of one or two fundamental people from the original games replaced with new people. They are clearly trying to access the chinese market too with the style they have embraced.

The games used to feel/ look so much more real.

I cannot quote the other response to my comment about historical accuracy as i am using my phone. I agree with you, of course it was never that accurate historically in many ways but at least it didnt have single entities, cartoonish animations and an arcade game structure to it with hp bars for armour and upkeep etc, almost looks like a bad rpg. The old games felt more grounded and rooted in realism. They went off the rails when warhammer happened, it was very noticeable.

Manor Lords is about to put them to shame with what theyre making.

[Welsh Dragon]

It's neither a reskin, nor a cash grab.

It has similarities to some of the things in Troy because two games in the same series are always going to have similarities. They're also both set during the Late Bronze Age, though in different parts and taking different approaches.

It's the first historical game in years that isn't also trying to be a fantasy title by incorporating myths and legends.

It isn't hero focused in the way say 3K or Troy was. The Faction Leaders may be functionally immortal (like Napoleon and Wellington in Napoleon: Total War or Julius Caesar and Vercingetorix in Caesar in Gaul, it seems they can be wounded in battle but will return in time,) but there's been no sign of them being superhumans throwing around magic and soloing entire armies. They're generals, leading bodyguards, and fighting alongside them in battle.

It looks to be about as historically accurate as the rest of the Total War series, which is variable even within a single game. Some of it may seem outlandish at first, but a lot also seems to be drawing from sources from the time, such as Amenmesse's clothing incorporating the leopard skins worn by the priests of certain gods in the era, and horns akin to the Hemhem crown.

It might be built upon Troy's version of the engine, but it's also doing its own things. It's a testbed for new and returning mechanics, some of which with any luck they may use in futures historical games like a hypothetical Medieval 3 or Empire 2. (I certainly want to see the weather system they've shown in some of the preview footage be a feature of every Total War from now on.)

And about the only superficial and unimaginative things I've seen thus far to do with Pharaoh are the way some seem intent on sinking this game before it's even out. Hell, some have been dismissing it before it was even formally announced.

If you're not interested in Pharaoh that's fine. If you don't think it's worth the asking price that is okay as well. Respect your fellow players who are interested, and the developers whom, if you see them talk about it in the First Look or read some of the interviews with them, are clearly putting a lot of effort and enthusiasm into making a game that they hope people will enjoy, in a setting they are passionate about.

Nobody deserves to have their work written off as though it has no value, regardless of whether you like the end result or not.

That doesn't mean we can't give constructive criticism. That does mean we should all remember there is someone else on the other side of the screen. That these games are made by and played by people who are often a lot like you or I, and whether a fellow player or a developer, we should treat them with the same dignity and respect we expect to be treated ourselves.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[EireEmerald]

It's neither a reskin, nor a cash grab.

Not a cash grab? Have you seen the advertised cosmetics pack? No doubt they are going to charge us if we want additional components of gameplay, maybe blood effects in battle? Or if we want to play as the Minoans? Who knows. And we are paying 50 euro for a game that is a re-skin of Troy. Which is based off of the Warhammer engine.

This is meant to be historically authentic and what we get is a game with a mere 8 playable factions and 3 cultures based on a similar engine to a Saga title with little to no innovation. The characters and soldiers in it look nothing like historical portrayals of this time period, they look like fantasy cartoons with cartoonishly big weapons and mechanics.

It has similarities to some of the things in Troy because two games in the same series are always going to have similarities. They're also both set during the Late Bronze Age, though in different parts and taking different approaches.

It has a lot more similarities than 'some things' to Troy. The whole style of it is the same. This mobile game style to the game does not suit the style of a game that is set in the Bronze age. I love Bronze age history and art, particularly Minoan. And this game is so generic and unimaginative in how it interacts with the visuals and atmosphere from this period. It looks plastic.

Men are slashing at the air and killing people in front of them. The same mechanics have existed since Warhammer. During the video interview, Mycenaean fighters and a Mycenaean leader were seen leading an Egyptian unit. We are still in alpha but there is no doubt that the same resources have been recycled. The battle UI is also the same as well as the battle icons.

Hell, some have been dismissing it before it was even formally announced.

That is because a lot of people have lost trust in CA, and rightfully so.

If you're not interested in Pharaoh that's fine. If you don't think it's worth the asking price that is okay as well. Respect your fellow players who are interested, and the developers whom, if you see them talk about it in the First Look or read some of the interviews with them, are clearly putting a lot of effort and enthusiasm into making a game that they hope people will enjoy, in a setting they are passionate about.

It is not disrespectful to fellow players and developers to criticise what they have been serving us for the past decade. I have heard of people getting kicked off of the subreddit like that youtuber Volound for being critical, which i find interesting.

[Abdülmecid I]

Please remember that this thread, as well as the sub-forum, in general, is about the game called Pharaoh, not the merits and the moral integrity of the community. So, we can all express our opinion about the game's features, quality, marketing, price, business practice etc., but comments on the fans themselves are not suitable. If you feel that the Terms of Service have been violated, please report the respective posts to the moderation.

[RafSwi7]

In the series we have already quite a long tradition where a one game was followed by a mechanically similar title:

• Rome -> Med2
• Empire -> Napoleon
• Shogun2 -> Fall of the Samurai
• Rome 2 -> Attila
• WH1 -> WH2 -> WH3

I think they called it "revolution" -> "evolution" approach IIRC. With the upcoming title now we have a transition from Troy to Pharaoh.

It remains to be seen but I still believe that at some point Troy and Pharaoh will connect for this big "Bronze Age" campaign where we will be able to play as Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Achaeans, Trojans, Thracians and other cultures. I guess we need to wait for that roadmap to see if this is in plans.

As for the price, games will not get cheaper these days and it times of inflation they will get more and more expensive with time. Still, I am not a fan of cosmetic DLCs.

It is not disrespectful to fellow players and developers to criticise what they have been serving us for the past decade. I have heard of people getting kicked off of the subreddit like that youtuber Volound for being critical, which i find interesting.

IIRC Volound was kicked for harrasing other users and insulting them based on their health/mental problems. Whatever his criticism was valid or not, his conduct was absolutely below any norms. I hope we can do better here.

You can check the topic on reddit about it.

[PointOfViewGun]

IIRC Volound was kicked for harrasing other users and insulting them based on their health/mental problems. Whatever his criticism was valid or not, his conduct was absolutely below any norms. I hope we can do better here.

You can check the topic on reddit about it.

What was his role with CA?

[RafSwi7]

What was his role with CA?

Just a Content Creator/Partner most likely.