Map size extremely disappointing.

[Lor]

Where are the Mycenaeans? Assyrians? Babylonians? Elamites? Aramean pastoralists? It's missing most of the Bronze Age world ffs.

I had hoped it would encompass the lands from modern day Greece to Iran at the least. What sort of morons made the design choice to just include Egypt, Canaan and the Hittites? Unbelievable.

I hope they add those factions as DLC some time in the future but even still, we'll have to pay even more money for stuff that SHOULD have been in from the start.

[Hanok]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Where are the Mycenaeans? Assyrians? Babylonians? Elamites? Aramean pastoralists? It's missing most of the Bronze Age world ffs.

I had hoped it would encompass the lands from modern day Greece to Iran at the least. What sort of morons made the design choice to just include Egypt, Canaan and the Hittites? Unbelievable.

I hope they add those factions as DLC some time in the future but even still, we'll have to pay even more money for stuff that SHOULD have been in from the start.

This is NOT the "ultimate Bronze Age experience", but rather the road to becoming Pharaoh DURING the collapse. CA should have never billed this game as anything else.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Hanok:

Originally posted by Naylor:

Where are the Mycenaeans? Assyrians? Babylonians? Elamites? Aramean pastoralists? It's missing most of the Bronze Age world ffs.

I had hoped it would encompass the lands from modern day Greece to Iran at the least. What sort of morons made the design choice to just include Egypt, Canaan and the Hittites? Unbelievable.

I hope they add those factions as DLC some time in the future but even still, we'll have to pay even more money for stuff that SHOULD have been in from the start.

This is NOT the "ultimate Bronze Age experience", but rather the road to becoming Pharaoh DURING the collapse. CA should have never billed this game as anything else.

Should have made it a Total War Saga game rather than main title game as well then. Even still if it is focused mainly on the collapse why would they not add the Mycenaeans? They too were destroyed by the Sea peoples.

TW Attila is meant to be about the Huns, they still added Britain, Africa and Scandinavia as well. Very disappointing, just seems like extremely lazy game design to me, the Map doesn't seem much bigger than Troy.

[Thunder Bagel]

I'm still hoping they combine the map with Troy. Even if it doesn't fit historically, it would still be fun

[Shogun]

seems like you didnt even try the EA. one thing that didnt worry me at all was the size, you can take all of egypt and feel like youve taken a huge part of the map and zoom out and see you have barely done a thing. a campaign where you play most battles, id estimate 200+ hours on one faction.

wh3 has a huge map and it feels like just a mess where you just want to autoresolve every battle, because its too big, i prefer a more detailed map, every battle and region i took had more meaning, with needing a certain resource. its also the best looking map ive ever seen.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Shogun:

seems like you didnt even try the EA. one thing that didnt worry me at all was the size, you can take all of egypt and feel like youve taken a huge part of the map and zoom out and see you have barely done a thing. a campaign where you play most battles, id estimate 200+ hours on one faction.

wh3 has a huge map and it feels like just a mess where you just want to autoresolve every battle, because its too big, i prefer a more detailed map, every battle and region i took had more meaning, with needing a certain resource. its also the best looking map ive ever seen.

It's the scope more than anything. There is so much more they could have added to this game instead of just Egypt, Hittites and Canaan.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Originally posted by Hanok:

This is NOT the "ultimate Bronze Age experience", but rather the road to becoming Pharaoh DURING the collapse. CA should have never billed this game as anything else.

Should have made it a Total War Saga game rather than main title game as well then. Even still if it is focused mainly on the collapse why would they not add the Mycenaeans? They too were destroyed by the Sea peoples.

TW Attila is meant to be about the Huns, they still added Britain, Africa and Scandinavia as well. Very disappointing, just seems like extremely lazy game design to me, the Map doesn't seem much bigger than Troy.

You understand that Troy was the largest TW map outside of the Warhammer Empires maps. Pharoah is about the same size as Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer 1.

Map scope is also just not a good to gauge quality in a game. Shogun 2 has a tiny scope and is still regarded as one of the best TW titles.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by Naylor:

Should have made it a Total War Saga game rather than main title game as well then. Even still if it is focused mainly on the collapse why would they not add the Mycenaeans? They too were destroyed by the Sea peoples.

TW Attila is meant to be about the Huns, they still added Britain, Africa and Scandinavia as well. Very disappointing, just seems like extremely lazy game design to me, the Map doesn't seem much bigger than Troy.

You understand that Troy was the largest TW map outside of the Warhammer Empires maps. Pharoah is about the same size as Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer 1.

Map scope is also just not a good to gauge quality in a game. Shogun 2 has a tiny scope and is still regarded as one of the best TW titles.

They should have increased the scope of the game then to include more than just Canaan, Egypt the the Hittites. This game is meant to be set in the Bronze age what is the rationale behind not including most of it? Would it have been that hard to increase the scope to include the Greece and Mesopotamia?

[Toblm]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Originally posted by Toblm:

You understand that Troy was the largest TW map outside of the Warhammer Empires maps. Pharoah is about the same size as Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer 1.

Map scope is also just not a good to gauge quality in a game. Shogun 2 has a tiny scope and is still regarded as one of the best TW titles.

They should have increased the scope of the game then to include more than just Canaan, Egypt the the Hittites. This game is meant to be set in the Bronze age what is the rationale behind not including most of it? Would it have been that hard to increase the scope to include the Greece and Mesopotamia?

The game is and always has been about the Bronze Age Collapse.

Mesopotamia did not collapse, it was even significantly challenged in any meaningful way. Do I think Mesopotamia rates inclusion in a Campaign Pack set at a later date? Sure, but Mesopotamia had no meaningful impact on the current campaign setting during the period.

Adding the Aegean would have blasted as a-historical due to a complete lack of (legible) historical records for the period and region, and/or for copying pasting Troy because ALL meaningful written records of Mycenaean Greece are from Homer. And Homer's work while great does not provide a good historical basis to build out a TW faction. It's the equivalent of using Beowulf as a source for a Total War Attila faction.

Edit: It also amuses me you complain about the lack of Arameans a group that didnt develop an identity until well after the Bronze Age Collapse. And only became notable in the 9th century BC, some 300 years outside of game scope.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by Naylor:

They should have increased the scope of the game then to include more than just Canaan, Egypt the the Hittites. This game is meant to be set in the Bronze age what is the rationale behind not including most of it? Would it have been that hard to increase the scope to include the Greece and Mesopotamia?

The game is and always has been about the Bronze Age Collapse.

Mesopotamia did not collapse, it was even significantly challenged in any meaningful way. Do I think Mesopotamia rates inclusion in a Campaign Pack set at a later date? Sure, but Mesopotamia had no meaningful impact on the current campaign setting during the period.

Adding the Aegean would have blasted as a-historical due to a complete lack of (legible) historical records for the period and region, and/or for copying pasting Troy because ALL meaningful written records of Mycenaean Greece are from Homer. And Homer's work while great does not provide a good historical basis to build out a TW faction. It's the equivalent of using Beowulf as a source for a Total War Attila faction.

As I said previously, Attila included Celts, Scandinavians, North Africans, Ethiopians, none of these factions were invaded by the Huns. They added them to flush out the setting. And good thing too.

There was nothing stopping them from adding the Assyrians and Babylonians who could expand after the collapse, I assume the game continues after the Sea Peoples have been defeated yes? There is no excuse for it, it is simply laziness. As you have said there are already resources for the Mycenaeans, they could have just added them from Troy in a reduced capacity (and no fantasy stuff) to expand the scope of the game. There are also Hittite tablets that refer to the Ahhiyawa, who are likely Mycenaeans and we know many of their palaces were burned down during the time of the collapse as well so no it's not like using Beowulf as an example. There are also very few historical sources of the Geats and they were still added to Attila in any case. Their description literally includes Beowulf as well LOL

They could have added Aramean pastoralists as a horde faction from the desert as well. They didn't develop into kingdoms until after the collapse correct but they were still present in the deserts, I'm sure there were other nomadic cultures they could have added as a horde faction too but didn't.

Many other cultures could have been added to expand the scope and give a better experience of the bronze age. If they went all out for a great Bronze Age TW game they could have gone as far as the Elamites. The game could have been great, I don't know why you defend such terrible and lazy game design. No doubt they will add some new factions as £20 DLC each I bet.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by Naylor:

Originally posted by Toblm:

The game is and always has been about the Bronze Age Collapse.

Mesopotamia did not collapse, it was even significantly challenged in any meaningful way. Do I think Mesopotamia rates inclusion in a Campaign Pack set at a later date? Sure, but Mesopotamia had no meaningful impact on the current campaign setting during the period.

Adding the Aegean would have blasted as a-historical due to a complete lack of (legible) historical records for the period and region, and/or for copying pasting Troy because ALL meaningful written records of Mycenaean Greece are from Homer. And Homer's work while great does not provide a good historical basis to build out a TW faction. It's the equivalent of using Beowulf as a source for a Total War Attila faction.

As I said previously, Attila included Celts, Scandinavians, North Africans, Ethiopians, none of these factions were invaded by the Huns. They added them to flush out the setting. And good thing too.

There was nothing stopping them from adding the Assyrians and Babylonians who could expand after the collapse, I assume the game continues after the Sea Peoples have been defeated yes? There is no excuse for it, it is simply laziness. As you have said there are already resources for the Mycenaeans, they could have just added them from Troy in a reduced capacity (and no fantasy stuff) to expand the scope of the game. There are also Hittite tablets that refer to the Ahhiyawa, who are likely Mycenaeans and we know many of their palaces were burned down during the time of the collapse as well so no it's not like using Beowulf as an example. There are also very few historical sources of the Geats and they were still added to Attila in any case.

They could have added Aramean pastoralists as a horde faction from the desert as well. Many other cultures could have been added to expand the scope and give a better experience of the bronze age. If they went all out for a great Bronze Age TW game they could have gone as far as the Elamites. The game could have been great, I don't know why you defend such terrible and lazy game design. No doubt they will add some new factions as £20 DLC each I bet.

You've missed the focus of Total War Attila. It was never Attila. It was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the fate of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Celts (DLC), Scandinavians(DLC), Empires of the Sand (DLC) all were involved in fighting at the Roman borders.

The Sea People are not a single event in Pharaoh. Every indication I've had is that they continue throughout the campaign. And there is excuse for it. It's outside the game's chosen scope. Simple as that.

Again, there are no meaningful historical records to build a Mycenaeans historical faction out of. There is a much better understand of the Geats place in history than the Mycenaeans. And again, they were added as a flavor DLC, not as a base element.

Arameans were not a factor until after the Bronze Collapse. They would be out of place. Their historical existence isnt particularity documented until several hundred years after the BAC. Which at best means they were insignificant and largely indistinguishable from the other cultures and polities in the region even if they present in 1200 BC. Which means their addition has not value.

I have no issue in a historical game only including (to start) cultures that can be meaningfully historically described. A historical TW game should be grounded in history first and foremost. I also dont have issue with a game release having only the same size and complexity as every other TW game had at release. I look forward to the continued exploration of the setting through the promised faction dlcs and Campaign pack. I have zero issue paying developers to develop quality games. And TW has always delivered quality games.

[JimmyTheSnake]

The first clue is the name of the game is Pharaoh.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Originally posted by Naylor:

As I said previously, Attila included Celts, Scandinavians, North Africans, Ethiopians, none of these factions were invaded by the Huns. They added them to flush out the setting. And good thing too.

There was nothing stopping them from adding the Assyrians and Babylonians who could expand after the collapse, I assume the game continues after the Sea Peoples have been defeated yes? There is no excuse for it, it is simply laziness. As you have said there are already resources for the Mycenaeans, they could have just added them from Troy in a reduced capacity (and no fantasy stuff) to expand the scope of the game. There are also Hittite tablets that refer to the Ahhiyawa, who are likely Mycenaeans and we know many of their palaces were burned down during the time of the collapse as well so no it's not like using Beowulf as an example. There are also very few historical sources of the Geats and they were still added to Attila in any case.

They could have added Aramean pastoralists as a horde faction from the desert as well. Many other cultures could have been added to expand the scope and give a better experience of the bronze age. If they went all out for a great Bronze Age TW game they could have gone as far as the Elamites. The game could have been great, I don't know why you defend such terrible and lazy game design. No doubt they will add some new factions as £20 DLC each I bet.

You've missed the focus of Total War Attila. It was never Attila. It was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the fate of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Celts (DLC), Scandinavians(DLC), Empires of the Sand (DLC) all were involved in fighting at the Roman borders.

The Sea People are not a single event in Pharaoh. Every indication I've had is that they continue throughout the campaign. And there is excuse for it. It's outside the game's chosen scope. Simple as that.

Again, there are no meaningful historical records to build a Mycenaeans historical faction out of. There is a much better understand of the Geats place in history than the Mycenaeans. And again, they were added as a flavor DLC, not as a base element.

Arameans were not a factor until after the Bronze Collapse. They would be out of place. Their historical existence isnt particularity documented until several hundred years after the BAC. Which at best means they were insignificant and largely indistinguishable from the other cultures and polities in the region even if they present in 1200 BC. Which means their addition has not value.

I have no issue in a historical game only including (to start) cultures that can be meaningfully historically described. A historical TW game should be grounded in history first and foremost. I also dont have issue with a game release having only the same size and complexity as every other TW game had at release. I look forward to the continued exploration of the setting through the promised faction dlcs and Campaign pack. I have zero issue paying developers to develop quality games. And TW has always delivered quality games.

This reads like a PR release from CA.

Rome II has Romans, Gauls, Carthaginians, Egypt, Iceni, Macedonians, Parthians and the Suebi as playable factions in the base game, without DLC. Whilst TW:Pharaoh has Canaanites, Egyptians and Hittites. This absolutely is not the same level of complexity as every other TW game, that is a bold faced lie and you know it! There is no reason to not include Babylon, Assyria and Myceneae, "not enough historical evidence" is cope for lazy game design. There is plenty of evidence of Mycenaean palaces being destroyed during the collapse!

Enjoy getting fleeced for content that should be in the base game then. "Ultimate Bronze Age experience", it's a joke quite frankly. To me this game is deeply disappointing, and I'm sure the reviews will bear that out on release.

[Lor]

Originally posted by JimmyTheSnake:

The first clue is the name of the game is Pharaoh.

Total War Rome included most of Europe. Such a stupid comment in defense of terrible game design.

[Lor]

Originally posted by Toblm:

You've missed the focus of Total War Attila. It was never Attila. It was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the fate of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Celts (DLC), Scandinavians(DLC), Empires of the Sand (DLC) all were involved in fighting at the Roman borders.

The Sea People are not a single event in Pharaoh. Every indication I've had is that they continue throughout the campaign. And there is excuse for it. It's outside the game's chosen scope. Simple as that.

Again, there are no meaningful historical records to build a Mycenaeans historical faction out of. There is a much better understand of the Geats place in history than the Mycenaeans. And again, they were added as a flavor DLC, not as a base element.

Arameans were not a factor until after the Bronze Collapse. They would be out of place. Their historical existence isnt particularity documented until several hundred years after the BAC. Which at best means they were insignificant and largely indistinguishable from the other cultures and polities in the region even if they present in 1200 BC. Which means their addition has not value.

I have no issue in a historical game only including (to start) cultures that can be meaningfully historically described. A historical TW game should be grounded in history first and foremost. I also dont have issue with a game release having only the same size and complexity as every other TW game had at release. I look forward to the continued exploration of the setting through the promised faction dlcs and Campaign pack. I have zero issue paying developers to develop quality games. And TW has always delivered quality games.

Also if you want to get pedantic over historical accuracy, portraying Ramesses II as Black is historically inaccurate.

[Hanok]

.....and here we go.