Total War: PHARAOH

[Tyranicon]

Discovering Medieval II was a great time in my life. I remember watching good history docs, playing the battle of Agincourt, reading about medieval warfare.

Watching CA's development through the years is like watching an author you used to really like get addicted to crack and start pumping out random shit. And each installment puts the franchise further and further away from what you grew attached to.

 

[Raghar]

Discovering Medieval II was a great time in my life. I remember watching good history docs, playing the battle of Agincourt, reading about medieval warfare.

Watching CA's development through the years is like watching an author you used to really like get addicted to crack and start pumping out random shit. And each installment puts the franchise further and further away from what you grew attached to.

Like this one? I can still design games like that. If CA wants I can help with game system designs, look and feel, historic facts, find bad stuff before release, and proper game mechanisms they can ask me for few hours a week as an advisor.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

HUGE SUCCESS

£25-30 quid and I would have bought it.

£26.99 on CDKEYS already, MEGA BOMBA.

Was worth a punt for me at that price though considering I enjoyed Troy and like the Sofia Team.

 

[Üstad]

Discovering Medieval II was a great time in my life. I remember watching good history docs, playing the battle of Agincourt, reading about medieval warfare.

Watching CA's development through the years is like watching an author you used to really like get addicted to crack and start pumping out random shit. And each installment puts the franchise further and further away from what you grew attached to.

Even the music went shit. Just compare Jeff van Dyck's masterpieces to shit we have nowadays.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Shogun 1 had tremendous style, though. And everything that it did do, it did well.

I think a lot of people lack perspective. I played Shogun coming from Myth on release, and it was mindblowing at the time. As I said before, I also miss the simple elegance of the Risk-style strategic layer, which I feel has been made needlessly complicated in later titles and doesn't really add anything except distractions that must be constantly micromanaged.

I'm interested to see how the new Ultimate General will play with it being Real-Time on the campaign map. I've always thought something like the ambush system would work better if it wasn't turn based. But it needs a system where it forces you to commit to a move, none of that paradox bullshit where you're chasing a stack around like a cunt. If you move out, you deal with marching in column until it can be brought to a halt, and a logistics/baggage train being vulnerable at the rear.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

Even the music went shit.

That's because Jeff is much better off where he is now. He's doing wonderful things in Australia right now. I'm surprised he stayed at CA for as long as he did.
But yeah Jeff is an amazing composer.

 

[JarlFrank]

Shogun 1 had tremendous style, though. And everything that it did do, it did well.

I think a lot of people lack perspective. I played Shogun coming from Myth on release, and it was mindblowing at the time. As I said before, I also miss the simple elegance of the Risk-style strategic layer, which I feel has been made needlessly complicated in later titles and doesn't really add anything except distractions that must be constantly micromanaged.

I'm interested to see how the new Ultimate General will play with it being Real-Time on the campaign map. I've always thought something like the ambush system would work better if it wasn't turn based. But it needs a system where it forces you to commit to a move, none of that paradox bullshit where you're chasing a stack around like a cunt. If you move out, you deal with marching in column until it can be brought to a halt, and a logistics/baggage train being vulnerable at the rear.

The most interesting part about the campaign map is delayed scouting information. As I understand it, only your armies have direct line of sight. Towns and villages do not, instead they report what they see to your armies with some delay. Which means your army might get day-old reports of where the enemy is at, and by now the enemy could have moved, meaning any approximate enemy army locations within the fog of war are just uncertain guesses based on delayed reports.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

interesting, but i'm ready to bet it's the most unfun thing ever since the computer has 100% accuracy on your location.

 

[Gromoer]

Are you talking about Pharaoh eh?

 

[Space Satan]

We have a Victoria 3 case here

 

[Lacrymas]

I'm wondering what they'll do with the whole DLC situation. They promised 3 factions and a campaign pack for people who bought the most expensive edition, sooooooo are they going to create these in spite of the obvious flop or refund people who bought the dynasty edition?

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

my money goes on "middle finger and go on".

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I'm wondering what they'll do with the whole DLC situation. They promised 3 factions and a campaign pack for people who bought the most expensive edition, sooooooo are they going to create these in spite of the obvious flop or refund people who bought the dynasty edition?

Just half ass it lmao. There is no time table for this. You put skeleton crew making some shit dlc every 6 months

 

[Axioms]

It has long been my contention, and this applies to both AoW and TW, that games need to either focus on the tactical combat or the strategic layer and not both. That's why the relatively simple FoG2 campaign system is good. The tactical and strategic layers can each render the other meaningless, you can lose track of your place on the strategic layer due to fighting a 15-20 minute tactical battle over and over, and so on. One of the things that made last-gen Paradox games so good was that they eschewed tactical combat. Although that is mostly a result of being real time making it infeasible.

 

[JarlFrank]

One of the things that made last-gen Paradox games so good was that they eschewed tactical combat.

No that's actually what makes them bad and why Europa Universalis is so boring.

 

[Axioms]

One of the things that made last-gen Paradox games so good was that they eschewed tactical combat.

No that's actually what makes them bad and why Europa Universalis is so boring.

I mean if you want a tactical combat game why wouldn't you just play one? You have to understand the difference between a game succeeding at what it aims for and and you not liking that aim and a game that is bad and sucks and fails to achieve the ideal.

Tactical combat people are the most annoying people in the world because they insist on shoving their fetish into everything. I enjoy tactical combat games but at the same time I also understand that that isn't the only kind of game that should ever be made. The only thing more annoying than tac-com fetishists is "chess is the pinnacle of strategy design" people and their tongue-bathing of "elegance/simplicity."

 

[JarlFrank]

Mixing the strategic and the tactical combat layer is what makes Total War so unique and good in the first place.

The problem with its modern iterations isn't the formula but the execution.

 

[Gromoer]

that games need to either focus on the tactical combat or the strategic layer and not both.

I agree about focusing more on some elements of gameplay, while getting rid of others that are secondary and thus half assed. I would go as far as to say fuck sieges, if you cannot design proper AI. Focus on open field battles and deliver them best you can.

But dumping tactical layer is basically dumping the whole appeal.

Mixing the strategic and the tactical combat layer is what makes Total War so unique and good in the first place.

Not quite unique. It’s been around since HoMM with the exception that HoMM’s tactical level was TB. The formula isn’t new at all. The uniqueness of TW was always in the way the tactical layer worked: flanking, charging, fatigue, formations, morale were for the first time so meaningful and fun to play with. I’d argue that this is the sole selling point of the TW franchise for over 30 years. That and of course interesting historical settings.

 

[Lacrymas]

Total war has had trouble with adding meaningful complexity to both the strategy and tactics. Pharaoh is a great example. Theoretically, it has quite a lot of campaign mechanics, but it's all just numerical bonuses and you are rewarded for everything you do, so there's no way to make a mistake or to have any sort of opportunity cost. Which means it doesn't matter what you do, you are still ahead and winning. Battles have been abysmal since Rome 2 and have only gotten worse and more stale, including the Warhammer ones. The reasons for this are many and it's not only AI related. Troy was heading in the right direction with inclusion of different infantry classes and wild cards that are the myth units, but didn't go far enough before it died and heavy infantry ended up dominating. It still is dominating in Pharaoh too, so no lessons learned there either.

 

[Tyranicon]

Don't give them ideas. Oherwise CA will say fuck it and replace the strategic layer with some kind of dogshit mobile game (if it hasn't already).

 

[Nutmeg]

It’s been around since HoMM

It's been around since at least Koei's first Rot3K in 1985, and almost every Koei grand strategy since.

 

[Axioms]

Mixing the strategic and the tactical combat layer is what makes Total War so unique and good in the first place.

The problem with its modern iterations isn't the formula but the execution.

Early Total War had *vastly* more simplistic strategic layer. In no way comparable to the current games.

 

[Axioms]

Total war has had trouble with adding meaningful complexity to both the strategy and tactics. Pharaoh is a great example. Theoretically, it has quite a lot of campaign mechanics, but it's all just numerical bonuses and you are rewarded for everything you do, so there's no way to make a mistake or to have any sort of opportunity cost. Which means it doesn't matter what you do, you are still ahead and winning. Battles have been abysmal since Rome 2 and have only gotten worse and more stale, including the Warhammer ones. The reasons for this are many and it's not only AI related. Troy was heading in the right direction with inclusion of different infantry classes and wild cards that are the myth units, but didn't go far enough before it died and heavy infantry ended up dominating. It still is dominating in Pharaoh too, so no lessons learned there either.

How do you feel about the way things work in Field Of Glory 2?

 

[Nutmeg]

adding meaningful complexity to both the strategy and tactics

Why does it need to be more complex? The complexity already there and inherent to the simulation just needs to be more meaningful.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

Early Total War had *vastly* more simplistic strategic layer.

i'm a lover of complexity even just for complexity sake, and i say they were better. missing a crucial battle because the previous turn you misclicked on the wrong pixel (or more likely, the extremely imprecise interface forced you to) is top level retardation.