Total War: PHARAOH

[Lord_Potato]

They also were not very expansive empire when compared to the Romans, the Mongols or the Ottomans.

Why would you be expansive in a position of ancient Egypt? They had the most fertile lands in the region and most well protected by natural barriers. Capturing some distant territories seemed more like trouble than anything else.

Centuries later, when Alexander's general Ptolemy captured Egypt for himself, he also understood that. Other generals fought and died for the control of Macedon, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia.

At the same time Ptolemy was perfectly happy with the richest and most secure boon of them all - Egypt itself. He did not try to expand beyond his possibilities, only capturing the nearest lands (Koile-Syria, Cirenaica, Cyprus, some ports on the islands) for strategic depth and better protection of his core holdings.

He died of old age in his own bed, as master of the greatest successor state of them all.

 

[Harthwain]

Why would you be expansive in a position of ancient Egypt? They had the most fertile lands in the region and most well protected by natural barriers. Capturing some distant territories seemed more like trouble than anything else.

Well, it further reinforces how stagnant nation Egypt was. The technologies that improved Egypt's military weren't even brought in by the Egyptians, they came in with the Asiatics (the people from the Middle East), who even managed to take half of Egypt for themselves for some time (Hyksos).

 

[JarlFrank]

We don't know much about bronze age warfare in detail, but enough to make a Total War game set in those times. We can even look forward a little into the iron age and take inspiration from there, there's a couple more sources for that time.

We have several depictions of warfare from Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Hittite, and Mycenean sources.
The Assyrians in particular were quite meticulous in describing their victorious battles. While tactics aren't elaborated on in detail, we do get a nice overview of troop types and approach to warfare, including cool exotic shit like underwater infiltrators using air-filled bladders as a breathing device to enter a besieged city through the river. Cool shit.

Of course, since this is nu-Total War, tactics won't matter and it's all about matching up units and hoping your bonuses are bigger than the enemy's. Flanking, charging, etc don't matter anymore, it's all just about HP pools in the new games.

 

[Gromoer]

According to some YT video I watched on the Bronze Age collapse, Bronze Age armies were usually a few 100 people, at most 2000. Cities likewise rarely exceeded 10,000. So Bronze Age wars were like one village in modern Europe fighting another village in modern Europe (except further apart), where one guy in the village proclaims himself king and also recruits people from the surrounding farmsteads into his little war band.

I would rather have any next TW game with scaled down everything. The overall shallow mechanics this franchise has at its core don’t work well (to put it mildly) with anything comprising of more than three provinces and a couple of armies. Slavs from Attila with their winning conditions along with the resource management from Troy were a good example of how to evolve the series. Unfortunately Warhammer has shown CA that cool 3D models sell better.

 

[Gromoer]

Flanking, charging, etc don't matter anymore

They definitely did last I checked.

 

[Delterius]

The Assyrians in particular were quite meticulous in describing their victorious battles.

so they invented try harding in every way huh

 

[Hace El Oso]

The fundamental idea of Total War is a great one, and up through (and I would say peaking with, except for a brief revival with Attila) Napoleon it was well done. But the gamification of the thing has taken the soul out of the entire exercise. But that’s what happens when the men making the game consume The Avengers rather than Sharpe and Hornblower.

 

[Tyranicon]

He died of old age in his own bed, as master of the greatest successor state of them all.

What the Ptolemaic dynasty was known for back then: relative stability, patron of religious projects, combination of egyptian and greek cultures.

What the Ptolemaic dynasty is memed for today: rampant uncontrollable incest and non-creative naming conventions.

 

[Nutmeg]

Not the right thread to ask (there doesn't seem to be a right thread for it) but did any Total War game after the original Medieval use a discrete "risk-style" map?

I haven't put serious time into a Total War game since Medieval 2, actually I only played Empire for a couple of hours before putting it down due to the technical issues I had with it at the time.

 

[Hace El Oso]

Not the right thread to ask (there doesn't seem to be a right thread for it) but did any Total War game after the original Medieval use a discrete "risk-style" map?

A 2D board map? No, Medieval was the last.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Not the right thread to ask (there doesn't seem to be a right thread for it) but did any Total War game after the original Medieval use a discrete "risk-style" map?

I haven't put serious time into a Total War game since Medieval 2, actually I only played Empire for a couple of hours before putting it down due to the technical issues I had with it at the time.

This is the reason why I stopped playing Total War games. The skirmish AI is a joke but the strategic overlay was simple and 'elegant', a nice break from the action. Now the strategic layer is an unreadable mess whose only purpose is to piss you off for infinite turns with invasions and other petty shit.

 

[Nutmeg]

Not the right thread to ask (there doesn't seem to be a right thread for it) but did any Total War game after the original Medieval use a discrete "risk-style" map?

A 2D board map? No, Medieval was the last.

I mean it can be 3D, just composed of provinces or cantons or what have you as a graph in the mathematical sense (hence why I used the word discrete, as opposed to a continuous space like in Rome or Medieval 2).

But you answered my question. Kinda surprised tbh given that there have been so many new entries in the series since last time I checked it out.

Now the strategic layer is an unreadable mess whose only purpose is to piss you off for infinite turns with invasions and other petty shit.

Yeah 90% of battles are sieges or swatting little mosquito stacks buzzing around.

 

[OndrejSc]

 

[Lacrymas]

This is the most comprehensive overview I've seen yet. While it's nice to see the strategic map being taken seriously, the problem remains that the vast majority of bonuses for doing well is just numerical stats that make your already-strong troops even stronger. There is nothing like the Marian reforms in Rome or the invention of gunpowder in Medieval that signal cultural, technological or societal change which enable more stuff for you to play with. This time, there isn't even myth units or powers from the gods like in Troy either, so it's numbers all the way down. The only chance this game has is to combine the map with Troy's to channel Age of Mythology. If I were them, I'd make a combined map available to everyone who owns Pharaoh, but make the Greeks and Trojans only playable for those who own Troy too.

 

[Gromoer]

Aren’t these like absolutely different periods? Also fuck myth and magic shenanigans.

 

[copebot]

Aren’t these like absolutely different periods? Also fuck myth and magic shenanigans.

The game starts around 1200 BC and that is also around when the Trojan war happened. But I don't think that this game would be at all improved by combining it with Troy.

 

[Lacrymas]

The Trojan War happend at around the same time as this game. Combining the two games will not only expand the map but also bring in the Greeks and Trojans who were very much a part of the Bronze Age Collapse. The myth parts will improve the battles somewhat because people are already complaining that the battles are meh and it will give some depth to the strategic parts that are currently only numerical bonuses. This game will flop anyway but they are already committed to making at least 3 DLCs and one other campaign, so they might as well go wild. On top of that, they can have both a historical and mythological mode, like they do in Troy. They'll have to improve the historical aspects of Troy, though, but it can be done.

 

[oscar]

Don't really care about the Kangz vs Nordicist slanging match but this could be fun in competent hands (yeah right).

Having powerful Sherden/Sea People hordes arrive and fuck your shit up late game would be really cool. Also your economy starting to go down the shitter due to Bronze Age Collapse would be a nice change of pace.

Barbarian Invasion playing as West Rome was fun for that reason. You start out large but broke and most of your cities on the verge of revolt. You have a large army but financially cannot maintain it for more than a turn or two without having to make severe cutbacks. Contrary to strategy player instinct you're more or less forced to abandon the parts of the empire not worth the trouble of holding to try consolidate what can be realistically held. Trying to hold a decaying empire on the verge of civil war with barbarians ready to strike is a lot of fun.

But it's been a long time now since these people have made a good game.

 

[Tyrr]

I watched a few minutes Arch playing it yesterday. The AI was defending a town against superior forces. It blindly rushed its units out of the town (not even in formation) to get slaughtered one by one outside the town.
They made the AI even worse than TW3. Very impressive.

 

[zapotec]

Is this the game about Settra's youth?

 

[JarlFrank]

If I were them, I'd make a combined map available to everyone who owns Pharaoh, but make the Greeks and Trojans only playable for those who own Troy too.

I'm actually confused as to why they're not doing this.

They did it with the Warhammer trilogy. You can only play the grand campaign that combines all maps if you have all three games.

They could do the same with historical games.

 

[Lacrymas]

If I were them, I'd make a combined map available to everyone who owns Pharaoh, but make the Greeks and Trojans only playable for those who own Troy too.

I'm actually confused as to why they're not doing this.

They did it with the Warhammer trilogy. You can only play the grand campaign that combines all maps if you have all three games.

They could do the same with historical games.

I'm almost certain they'll do this at one point. Troy's regions are already depicted on Pharaoh's map, so it's an obvious addition. On top of that, Pharaoh is essentially Troy 2.0 and was originally intended to be a big expansion to Troy, so there's 0 reason not to do it.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

This was absolutely a Troy dlc that got rejigged to a 'full' game after it failed on steam. Shame really. Can see on the map where they would connect together.

 

[Lacrymas]

It 100% was DLC for Troy, the devs themselves confirmed it, it's not speculation or a jab.

 

[Gromoer]

I never understood TW fans’ megalomania towards maps sizes. Huge maps can’t improve the stale nothing burger which is total war’s gameplay. Quite the contrary actually.

Oh, so it’s a dlc to Troy, lol. And they charge full tww3 price for it! My, fucking greedy bastards are desperate for money aren’t they.