Total War: PHARAOH

[BlackAdderBG]

People buying and defending Slitherine games are worse than Shithammer retards.

 

[Lacrymas]

3 of the best tactical games to have come out in the last 10 years have been published by Slitherine. FoG2, Gladius and Fantasy General 2.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

3 of the best tactical games to have come out in the last 10 years have been published by Slitherine. FoG2, Gladius and Fantasy General 2.

Have nothing against the games per se, their publisher practices are insane and the reason why most of their devs are doing game development as a hobby.

 

[The_Mask]

having too many different units in your army can lead to a Karansebes event

This one was funny to read. I can tell you've learned your history in German, because in Romanian the place is called "Caransebeș".

 

[Harthwain]

But I see absolutely no issue with what FoG: Empires did there.

Yeah. I am not talking about Field of Glory: Empires here.

Wrong. Field of Glory 2: Medieval was released first as a sequel to FoG2.
Then they announced Kingdoms as a sequel to Empires, and decided to keep the same integration feature.
It again happened to be that way.

Well, you prove me right, because that's exactly what I am saying - they are making this their business model. You can't have accidents happen twice. But now the technology to integrate is here, it is known, yet they still keeping their policy of buying two games if you want tactical battles to be playable in a strategy game.

Both games are made by different dev teams IIRC, so it wouldn't even be feasible to make a game that includes both modes natively.

...unless they made it into a single game, which they could at this point. But then they couldn't justify selling it separately.

 

[Axioms]

But I see absolutely no issue with what FoG: Empires did there.

Yeah. I am not talking about Field of Glory: Empires here.

Wrong. Field of Glory 2: Medieval was released first as a sequel to FoG2.
Then they announced Kingdoms as a sequel to Empires, and decided to keep the same integration feature.
It again happened to be that way.

Well, you prove me right, because that's exactly what I am saying - they are making this their business model. You can't have accidents happen twice. But now the technology to integrate is here, it is know, yet they still keeping their policy of buying two games if you want tactical battles to be playable in a strategy game.

Both games are made by different dev teams IIRC, so it wouldn't even be feasible to make a game that includes both modes natively.

...unless they made it into a single game, which they could at this point. But then they couldn't justify selling it separately.

The majority of FoG2 players don't want a complicated overmap which will distort developer priorities. They prefer them separate.

 

[Nutmeg]

Yeah I'm not interested in the strategic layer at all.

I just wish the scenarios in the campaigns were hand made instead of randomly generated (albeit constrained).

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeah I'm not interested in the strategic layer at all.

I just wish the scenarios in the campaigns were hand made instead of randomly generated (albeit constrained).

There are handcrafted scenarios - the epic battles. But yeah, I'd have liked the campaigns to be handcrafted as well.

 

[JarlFrank]

Both games are made by different dev teams IIRC, so it wouldn't even be feasible to make a game that includes both modes natively.

...unless they made it into a single game, which they could at this point. But then they couldn't justify selling it separately.

One is developed by a studio focused on tactical combat games. Byzantine games made Pike & Shot and Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of the Shogun, both based on the same tabletop ruleset as FoG2, before FoG2.
The other is developed by a studio focused on grand strategy games without tactical combat. Ageod made several large scale grand strategies set during different times in history (Antiquity, US Civil War, Russian Civil War), all of which are based on large scale army movements where battles are auto-resolved when opposing armies meet.

They're two completely different games made by completely different studios with different expertise.

The integration between FoG2 and FoG: Empires happens through save game exports. The two games run on different engines and have a different codebase, but you can create a FoG2 savegame when opposing armies meet in Empires, close Empires, open FoG2, play out the battle in FoG2, make another save at the end of the battle and import the resolution to Empires. The two games never interact directly. To play an Empires battle in FoG2 you pretty much close one game and launch the other.

Combining the two games into one seamless experience isn't as easy as you think.

 

[Sarathiour]

Reading the last page

Pharaoh ?

 

[AdamReith]

And quite an annoying quirk is that units don't map 1-1 so there are cases where FoG2 might give you three regular units to represent a high tier unit in Empires.

 

[Lacrymas]

FoG2: Medieval and Kingdoms, just like FoG2 and Empires, just aren't the same game and they aren't made to be the same game at all. It just so happens that the devs (who are different people from different studios!) managed to get them somewhat working together as a bonus for fans who have both. Boycotting one of the best tactical games in the last 15 years due to this reason is asinine and self-sabotage.

 

[Axioms]

FoG2: Medieval and Kingdoms, just like FoG2 and Empires, just aren't the same game and they aren't made to be the same game at all. It just so happens that the devs (who are different people from different studios!) managed to get them somewhat working together as a bonus for fans who have both. Boycotting one of the best tactical games in the last 15 years due to this reason is asinine and self-sabotage.

People who have no idea what they are talking about are so annoying. Luckily you and several other posters were able to explain the truth. Dunno why some people are so insistent on opening their mouths to expose themselves as fools instead of not doing so.

 

[Luka-boy]

You know a newly released game is irrelevant when even its own dedicated thread is mostly about discussing other, better games

 

[Mitleser2020]

Pharaoh was another DLC fiasco


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-2-U_Nfs4

 

[Lacrymas]

We knew this from the start, the devs never hid it.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

I like that he accused Jack Lusted of Paid Mods. The signs are definitely there, Lusted was trying to prove the model could work with ToB but their mod community at least were smart enough not to approach CA for work even though internally at CA they probably wanted that, I know from what was talked about from the first mod meet up, back with Napoleon that they wanted the WW1 mod to go paid, I suspect it was the mod team that said no there was a lot of chatter about them doing it as a WW1 Total War game was in high demand at the time. The narrative definitely lines up with what we know.

Pretty disgusting that was the entire goal of the SAGAs branding.

 

[Harthwain]

Combining the two games into one seamless experience isn't as easy as you think.

I will concede the point. To a degree.

While what you said is well and true, I still think it could be possible to have the two game "modes" combined (if only by having two teams work together on the same engine, each dealing with their respective "side"). But it is not in the financial interest of both studios, nor the owner of the franchise, who can earn double the money from people who want their strategical game to also contain a tactical layer.

 

[Nutmeg]

Again, a reminder, exactly how much money you give and for which product or products is entirely a personal choice.

 

[9ted6]

Pharaoh was another DLC fiasco


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-2-U_Nfs4

Not a surprise. They already did this partially with Napoleon, which just had a bunch of features they'd already planned for Empire that got cut.

 

[Falksi]

I chucked hundreds of hours in Total War: Rome years ago. Loved it, but have definitely worn it out now.

Playing TW: Shogun 2 and, whilst there's been some brilliant advances, fuckinghell is it bogged down with bullshit too. Marriage, Naval Battles, Bribary etc. it can take hours just to get to a battle in a campaign, and I'm all about the combat.

With this in mind, which of the series do you fans of it recommend? I'd like more of what TW: Rome offered, but just with better AI and a deeper unit set really. All the bullshit in-between is just padding to me.

 

[Sinilevä]

I chucked hundreds of hours in Total War: Rome years ago. Loved it, but have definitely worn it out now.

Playing TW: Shogun 2 and, whilst there's been some brilliant advances, fuckinghell is it bogged down with bullshit too. Marriage, Naval Battles, Bribary etc. it can take hours just to get to a battle in a campaign, and I'm all about the combat.

With this in mind, which of the series do you fans of it recommend? I'd like more of what TW: Rome offered, but just with better AI and a deeper unit set really. All the bullshit in-between is just padding to me.

It was all downhill after medieval 2.
You could maybe try rome remastered though.

 

[Lacrymas]

With this in mind, which of the series do you fans of it recommend? I'd like more of what TW: Rome offered, but just with better AI and a deeper unit set really. All the bullshit in-between is just padding to me.

Either Rome Remastered or Troy. Medieval 2 if you want to fuck around with mods because it's mainly used as a vehicle for mods. That's it.

 

[janior]

UG: Civil War did it best, there was some management and choices between missions
I really liked how you could equip different squads with varied weapons giving each of them a purpose.
Meanwhile in TW games there's always lot of useless units nobody ever makes.

 

[Axioms]

I chucked hundreds of hours in Total War: Rome years ago. Loved it, but have definitely worn it out now.

Playing TW: Shogun 2 and, whilst there's been some brilliant advances, fuckinghell is it bogged down with bullshit too. Marriage, Naval Battles, Bribary etc. it can take hours just to get to a battle in a campaign, and I'm all about the combat.

With this in mind, which of the series do you fans of it recommend? I'd like more of what TW: Rome offered, but just with better AI and a deeper unit set really. All the bullshit in-between is just padding to me.

Can't you just play the custom or historical battles mode?