TWP, Troy or 3K ?

[Frank Drebin]

I waited for a serious grand scale historical title since Attila. Because of CA's switch to Warhammer i was so desperate that i bought Thrones of Britannia when it came out. I played it 30 Minutes and thought: "WTF, this is how CA thanks historical TW fans for waiting?"
I then invested hundreds of hours in modded M2,R2 and Attila. And the great multiplayer of S2/FOTS of course.

I wanna give TW one more try now and would apreciate some advice if i should pick up Pharao, Troy or 3K.
I know land battles have only changed in nuances since 20 years. I know that beautifull relaxing naval feeling of NTW wont come back. And i know i wont have a global campaign feeling and replayability. And since nobody is mentioning it, i guess multiplayer is also irrelevant in the newer titles. So we dont have to talk about all that stuff.

My reduced new prefences now are sieges and city management. What should i buy?

[PERICLES1789]

Originally posted by i-dot:

Originally posted by HistoryPlayer:

and between Thrones of Britannia and Pharaoh? How good is the campaign in Thrones of Britannia and also which one is better regarding factions

the map of the Pharaoh is much bigger and includes Middle East, Minoan Greeks and neighbouring Africa such as Kush

But politics is better conceived in TOB, and on top of that there is the family tree. That said, it's true that Pharaoh's map is much more extensive.

[Elijah Baley]

Each of the newer titles you name lacks the excellent tactical combat of older TW games. I own both Troy and TW3K (plus most of the dlcs) and hate the short battles, the lack of physics, the constant blobbing of troops and the hero mechanics. They're also boring. From what I've seen, most of these issues pertain to Pharaoh too. Also, sieges are half-baked and city management feels restricted in Troy and TW3K; I don't know about Pharaoh.

What I did like about Troy and TW3K were the visuals and the atmosphere, especially in TW3K, but looking back that wasn't enough to keep me playing.

[Iskar]

Combat is a lot more balanced in Pharaoh than in its predecessors. Thanks to the armour system and apparently better balanced combat stats engagements last long enough for flanking manoeuvres, skirmishing etc. and ranged troops are great at actually softening up the enemy before the lines clash but are not the crazy weapons of mass destruction like the archers in Troy or 3K. Also, Pharaoh has no silly hero units in battles. General's units enter battle like any other except you can customise their armour and weapon type by the equipment you give to the general.

[Adventurous350]

Originally posted by Iskar:

Combat is a lot more balanced in Pharaoh than in its predecessors. Thanks to the armour system and apparently better balanced combat stats engagements last long enough for flanking manoeuvres, skirmishing etc. and ranged troops are great at actually softening up the enemy before the lines clash but are not the crazy weapons of mass destruction like the archers in Troy or 3K. Also, Pharaoh has no silly hero units in battles. General's units enter battle like any other except you can customise their armour and weapon type by the equipment you give to the general.

Agree with all your points. Of the three if you are a historical guy then Pharaoh is your game. The battles are much slower and after some updates I think Pharaoh is really going to shine for those who have enjoyed it thus far. I also really enjoy the sieges. The lack of siege engines really creates a new atmosphere for the sieges. It's also nice seeing no pocket ladders lol. The troop armor system is also cool.

[☘♥♥♥♥♥♥Ireland]

Originally posted by Adventurous350:

Originally posted by Iskar:

Combat is a lot more balanced in Pharaoh than in its predecessors. Thanks to the armour system and apparently better balanced combat stats engagements last long enough for flanking manoeuvres, skirmishing etc. and ranged troops are great at actually softening up the enemy before the lines clash but are not the crazy weapons of mass destruction like the archers in Troy or 3K. Also, Pharaoh has no silly hero units in battles. General's units enter battle like any other except you can customise their armour and weapon type by the equipment you give to the general.

Agree with all your points. Of the three if you are a historical guy then Pharaoh is your game. The battles are much slower and after some updates I think Pharaoh is really going to shine for those who have enjoyed it thus far. I also really enjoy the sieges. The lack of siege engines really creates a new atmosphere for the sieges. It's also nice seeing no pocket ladders lol. The troop armor system is also cool.

Pharoh is literally noone's game since of all the MANY tens of thousands of people playing a TW game at this moment you can't even scrape together 500 who are playing it.

[Adventurous350]

Alot of that is general backlash because of the price, time period, and people upset with CA monitoring the forums. Pharaoh is not a bad game, it's just not what people are wanting. Plus alot of people are tired of the current engine.

Pharaoh takes alot of steps forward though and I hope they continue in the direction it was heading with the more realistic feel in battles. Rome 2 and Attila animations looked better, but the battles feel better in Pharaoh. I will also add that this is unmodded. Rome 2 with DEI is still tough to beat, but the older games in vanilla just aren't very fun.

[BestCopperNoob™]

Originally posted by 198eR:

I waited for a serious grand scale historical title since Attila. Because of CA's switch to Warhammer i was so desperate that i bought Thrones of Britannia when it came out. I played it 30 Minutes and thought: "WTF, this is how CA thanks historical TW fans for waiting?"
I then invested hundreds of hours in modded M2,R2 and Attila. And the great multiplayer of S2/FOTS of course.

I wanna give TW one more try now and would apreciate some advice if i should pick up Pharao, Troy or 3K.
I know land battles have only changed in nuances since 20 years. I know that beautifull relaxing naval feeling of NTW wont come back. And i know i wont have a global campaign feeling and replayability. And since nobody is mentioning it, i guess multiplayer is also irrelevant in the newer titles. So we dont have to talk about all that stuff.

My reduced new prefences now are sieges and city management. What should i buy?

I dont like semi fantasy-historical TK, but TK is is best in three

[Dr.Schmeisser]

Originally posted by 198eR:

What should i buy?

Nothing. No modern game matches the quality of games before 2012-15.
But if you still choose from what is. It's probably the Three Kingdoms. Since this is the only game with a full budget. The remaining two games are low-budget Sagas.

[degumuto_berseg]

3K is awesome

[Buldor]

3K. For what you're looking for, 3k on Records mode, turn off the romance colour filter in the graphics setting. You'll get an Atilla vibe and it's just a great game. Buggy, unstable. But great.

[Henrique Lique]

3k modded is great. Only issue is replayability, but politics and family management are also cool.

Starting with pharaoh seems like a solid game, but lack of families, immortal heroes and different starts are the downsides.

[Henrique Lique]

If devs remove immortal heroes, give us families and inheritance and Mesopotamia and greece, i'll prob be happy with 3k. Also, better pop management could be cool

[J]

The sad fact is Attilla probably was the last really good historical TW. So I'm going to say get WH3. I didn't like the fantasy setting at first either but warmed up to it over time.

[Ultrabot]

Originally posted by Lexter:

To be honest, you should give ToB a second chance. I really like it.

idk, it's not as bad as made out, but suffers from what I guess was its more limited budget.
There's only so many thousand times I can hear "I KNEW YOU HAD IT IN YOU" in one battle, before I go looking for the setting to shut it up


@OP, I'd go with 3K

[TonDon]

3K > Troy > Pharaoh > TW: Battles