Pharaoh vs other Total War games

[Killersnipe]

For those who have played Pharaoh, is it the best Total War game you have ever played? Or which games did you enjoy more?

[Kendji]

I would say Pharaoh is akin to 3K in scope, but with a Troy base (but not Troy). In 3K you have 2 cultures, Chinese and Nanman, but lots more characters to choose from than Pharaoh. Pharaoh has 3 cultures, but only 8 charachters. 3K at launch had only one culture.

Combat is in some ways more advanced and in some less. You have more unit types in 3k, but the fewer unit types in twp plays way better. You have a better distinction between unit tiers in twp than 3k.

Both have unique mechanics for factions and the game, that are imo similar in depth but not appels to appels in fearures.

[Defmonkey]

I like most games in the series. Some more than others. Played all the games at release since the original.

I would say Pharaoh is a good entry in the series its not perfect by any means but gets a lot right.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Kendji:

I would say Pharaoh is akin to 3K in scope, but with a Troy base (but not Troy). In 3K you have 2 cultures, Chinese and Nanman, but lots more characters to choose from than Pharaoh. Pharaoh has 3 cultures, but only 8 charachters. 3K at launch had only one culture.

I disagree on most, but not all, of this.

Where I agree is that 3K definitely had just 1-2 cultures (depending on if you picked up DLC, as nanman I think was from the one major expansion). And 3K had more characters, yes.

But for the rest?

3K had 1-2 cultures but had more faction groups than that. The bandit faction group had a fairly different set of mechanics... so too the Yellow Turban Rebellion faction group. At the end of the day, for faction variety, 3K had more variety. A lot more, in fact, when one considers that Canaan uses the same courts as Egypt and Hittites.

3K also had a larger scope. The map for Pharaoh may be slightly larger, but it has a good amount of water, and a fair amount of out-of-the-way locations along the Nile (settlements that are a few turns worth of movement away from the river). The scope for 3K was larger because you could more easily move in any direction, usually, to go conquering, while Pharaoh is limited to the Nile and the Levant as your main paths, which really go only north-south most of the time (the Sinai/Red Sea area does have a bit more east-west to it at least).

Pharaoh is a good game, but it's more in line with Napoleon, where, you play France and go east, or play Russia and go west, or play Austria and pick a direction. Pharaoh, in terms of scope, is a lot more like Napoleon:TW, which had a map that was picking just whether you go east or west with most factions. But even there, even with N:TW's smaller-ish GC map, you had Britain with a more varied start (can sail a lot of different places) and there were more specialized outpost-type places, with universities, etc., instead of just cultural, trade, and military outposts.

Pharaoh is a good game... but it's the 6th historical title in a row that is pre-Renaissance lately, and that is a huge issue... this needed to be back to a more recent era of history, not even further back so that we have only chariots for cav.

[Mioshiro]

My fav. is Rome 2 Total War. Any newer game bored me hard after some hours.
Maybe it's only because I love the ancient.
- The campaign map isn't overloaded with details.
- You have, after all the years, a HUGE amount of countrys/units.
- A solid gameplay.

I would like to see Pharao as an Rome 3.
There are many really cool ideas in Pharao but overall the game feels as if it would fall over its own feet at any moment.

[Kendji]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

Originally posted by Kendji:

I would say Pharaoh is akin to 3K in scope, but with a Troy base (but not Troy). In 3K you have 2 cultures, Chinese and Nanman, but lots more characters to choose from than Pharaoh. Pharaoh has 3 cultures, but only 8 charachters. 3K at launch had only one culture.

I disagree on most, but not all, of this.

Where I agree is that 3K definitely had just 1-2 cultures (depending on if you picked up DLC, as nanman I think was from the one major expansion). And 3K had more characters, yes.

But for the rest?

3K had 1-2 cultures but had more faction groups than that. The bandit faction group had a fairly different set of mechanics... so too the Yellow Turban Rebellion faction group. At the end of the day, for faction variety, 3K had more variety. A lot more, in fact, when one considers that Canaan uses the same courts as Egypt and Hittites.

3K also had a larger scope. The map for Pharaoh may be slightly larger, but it has a good amount of water, and a fair amount of out-of-the-way locations along the Nile (settlements that are a few turns worth of movement away from the river). The scope for 3K was larger because you could more easily move in any direction, usually, to go conquering, while Pharaoh is limited to the Nile and the Levant as your main paths, which really go only north-south most of the time (the Sinai/Red Sea area does have a bit more east-west to it at least).

Pharaoh is a good game, but it's more in line with Napoleon, where, you play France and go east, or play Russia and go west, or play Austria and pick a direction. Pharaoh, in terms of scope, is a lot more like Napoleon:TW, which had a map that was picking just whether you go east or west with most factions. But even there, even with N:TW's smaller-ish GC map, you had Britain with a more varied start (can sail a lot of different places) and there were more specialized outpost-type places, with universities, etc., instead of just cultural, trade, and military outposts.

Pharaoh is a good game... but it's the 6th historical title in a row that is pre-Renaissance lately, and that is a huge issue... this needed to be back to a more recent era of history, not even further back so that we have only chariots for cav.

I don't necesseraly share your view on this but I can see where your coming from and why somebody could think like that. Personally the north-south divide isn't a negative in itself, rather it is a strategic area. Also there is a Sea. In my latest Tausert campaign I'm invading Hatti full bore. I'm doing it via the sea and using Cyprus as a replenishment/resupply base before again launching off to Hatti. Bypassing completly Canaan. I build armies around Buhen (local recruitment of Bows) and bring them up through the Nile. I see the sea as part of that north-south divide.

So if I compare this to 3k, you have Taiwan, but I feel Taiwan is less important than Cyprus is twp. From Cyprus you can litteraly assault Hatti's and Canaan's underbellies. While with Taiwan those underbelly areas are colonizable 'empthy' lands and when leaving Taiwan it may take a few turns to hit land, while with Cyprus you get to southern Turkey in one turn.
What I'm hoping for is an map expansion into the Mesopotamia and a fertile cresent type of expansion with impassable desert to Arabia. This way you'd get more strategic depth out of the map.