You're genuinely moronic. The game is dead in the water. They need a player base again. Making the DLC paid would mean that the game would stay dead. They'll probably compensate that with the next DLC or add micro dlcs that add frick all. There's no redemption here, just business
They have still such a long way as does the Slophammer buyers that buy $10+ character packs for starting pos and skills.
The engine debt the warscape engine is the real problem here. CA has been pooping out content and sequels for so long stuff hardly works and new features are none-existent. The fact that Pharaoh's only selling point is terrain modifiers and random weather is pretty lack luster and even still it took an almost 3rd party studio to have it happen.
historical character get blackwashed: >that's fricking weird are they appealing to the twitter crowd?
historical character is portrayed accurately: >that's fricking weird are they appealing to the /misc/ crowd?
There's no winning with you extremely online political people.
Mortality and succession is going to be added to Pharaoh as well
Devs have also been talking for a while about being interested in adding features likes civilians, making the combat more like Medieval 2, etc. in the discord + several battle changes for the next patch have already been confirmed
does the game have population as a feature?
Honestly I can't buy any nu-TW because of how pointlessly busy the UI is, and units having HP instead of a more sensical morale
>Mortality and succession is going to be added to Pharaoh as well
shame they bowed down to the moron crowd, not only were rulers rarely on the battlefield them dying in battle was even rarer outside of internal civil and succession wars of course
>shame they bowed down to the moron crowd,
The moron crowd are the ones who complain the most. If regular people cared enough to complain about actual problems, these games would be so much better, instead we have moronic autists crying about irrelevant shit like unit collision and so every other aspect gets completely neglected.
yeah but thatshow it was in the past so it mean its le good
also simulating migrations by hiring troops in one city and disbanding them in another is peak strategy
Lots of rulers personally lead military campaigns right up until the end of the 19th century. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan because of this. Lancastrian and Yorkist kings personally lead their military campaigns. King Harald and King William at Hastings. Even Queen Margaret raised an army for a campaign to restore her son's inheritance. Why shouldn't I be able to let my monarch lead my military campaign in the game again?
Leading a campaign is not the same as being present in a battle, let alone actually directly fighting the enemy. He's not wrong, very few leaders throughout history ever actually took up arms. They were usually commanding their armies from the periphery and not in any immediate danger. This is even more true of ancient warfare because the armies were much more massive.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Lots of rulers personally lead military campaigns right up until the end of the 19th century. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan because of this. Lancastrian and Yorkist kings personally lead their military campaigns. King Harald and King William at Hastings. Even Queen Margaret raised an army for a campaign to restore her son's inheritance. Why shouldn't I be able to let my monarch lead my military campaign in the game again?
But there's still decent chunk of rulers that died though and which ended important wars, shaping modern history.With no monarch, there is no cohesive army in the field. King Charles XII shot in the head observing from the fieldworks, at a siege. Swedish Empire no more. Again I don't see why there should be a arbitrary restriction where I can't tell my monarch to lead a campaign or charge some kids to boost morale (unless he got a coward trait or something}. How does that make for interesting gameplay.
>Lots of rulers personally lead military campaigns right up until the end of the 19th century. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan because of this.
He wasnt even leading the army he was just there lmao, shit example.
Anyway there is a huge diffrence between "leading" an army and actually taking part on the battlefield where you risk death.
And that's on top of the fact the that most rulers never never ever lead an army.
>goyslop tier games for a decade now >calls their playerbase racists >overpriced DLCs >people stop playing >quicj appleak to White males again, release sea peoples and make them Aryan
frick off CA, you can burn to the ground
>Free content
Slowly. Very slowly CA is redeeming itself.
But we need to see how far will they go with Shadows of Change 2.0.
You're genuinely moronic. The game is dead in the water. They need a player base again. Making the DLC paid would mean that the game would stay dead. They'll probably compensate that with the next DLC or add micro dlcs that add frick all. There's no redemption here, just business
>they're trying to trick you by giving away free stuff
umm can more companies try to trick me like this please
They have still such a long way as does the Slophammer buyers that buy $10+ character packs for starting pos and skills.
The engine debt the warscape engine is the real problem here. CA has been pooping out content and sequels for so long stuff hardly works and new features are none-existent. The fact that Pharaoh's only selling point is terrain modifiers and random weather is pretty lack luster and even still it took an almost 3rd party studio to have it happen.
Didn't SEGA tell them to sort that shit out?
I'll apologize once the bronze age game includes Mycenaea and Babylon
Reduce those ridiculous dlc prices for WH3, add proper content to SOC and make the Nurgle/emps/Dorf dlc good and i just might.
Until then, frick off.
funny they made the sea people leader blond. a very controversial historic point of view. are they appealing to the /misc/ crowd?
Sea People were nordics who escaped to the south because a mini ice age happened because of a volcano eruption in iceland
I know of course but that's not the officially approved story. how come CA gets things right this time?
historical character get blackwashed:
>that's fricking weird are they appealing to the twitter crowd?
historical character is portrayed accurately:
>that's fricking weird are they appealing to the /misc/ crowd?
There's no winning with you extremely online political people.
sea peoples were simply refugees from other empires because of the bronze age collapse.
He's probably a Dorian.
Keep developing 3K and then we speak.
Too little, too late
>they added political compasses to the game
Still not buying it. Get fricked ca
Source: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-pharaoh-faq-dec-2023/
Mortality and succession is going to be added to Pharaoh as well
Devs have also been talking for a while about being interested in adding features likes civilians, making the combat more like Medieval 2, etc. in the discord + several battle changes for the next patch have already been confirmed
W
So I guess we can finally officially blame CA UK for the frickups?
we can blame the brits for almost anything
CA UK has never made a good TW game but all of the recently passable ones were made by Sofia.
does the game have population as a feature?
Honestly I can't buy any nu-TW because of how pointlessly busy the UI is, and units having HP instead of a more sensical morale
>Mortality and succession is going to be added to Pharaoh as well
shame they bowed down to the moron crowd, not only were rulers rarely on the battlefield them dying in battle was even rarer outside of internal civil and succession wars of course
>shame they bowed down to the moron crowd,
The moron crowd are the ones who complain the most. If regular people cared enough to complain about actual problems, these games would be so much better, instead we have moronic autists crying about irrelevant shit like unit collision and so every other aspect gets completely neglected.
yeah but thatshow it was in the past so it mean its le good
also simulating migrations by hiring troops in one city and disbanding them in another is peak strategy
Source homie?
look up rulers dying in battle compared to total amount of rulers moron
Lots of rulers personally lead military campaigns right up until the end of the 19th century. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan because of this. Lancastrian and Yorkist kings personally lead their military campaigns. King Harald and King William at Hastings. Even Queen Margaret raised an army for a campaign to restore her son's inheritance. Why shouldn't I be able to let my monarch lead my military campaign in the game again?
Leading a campaign is not the same as being present in a battle, let alone actually directly fighting the enemy. He's not wrong, very few leaders throughout history ever actually took up arms. They were usually commanding their armies from the periphery and not in any immediate danger. This is even more true of ancient warfare because the armies were much more massive.
But there's still decent chunk of rulers that died though and which ended important wars, shaping modern history.With no monarch, there is no cohesive army in the field. King Charles XII shot in the head observing from the fieldworks, at a siege. Swedish Empire no more. Again I don't see why there should be a arbitrary restriction where I can't tell my monarch to lead a campaign or charge some kids to boost morale (unless he got a coward trait or something}. How does that make for interesting gameplay.
>Lots of rulers personally lead military campaigns right up until the end of the 19th century. Napoleon III was captured at Sedan because of this.
He wasnt even leading the army he was just there lmao, shit example.
Anyway there is a huge diffrence between "leading" an army and actually taking part on the battlefield where you risk death.
And that's on top of the fact the that most rulers never never ever lead an army.
I mean offer me a Mesopotamia or Greek map expansion pack and I might be interested
>goyslop tier games for a decade now
>calls their playerbase racists
>overpriced DLCs
>people stop playing
>quicj appleak to White males again, release sea peoples and make them Aryan
frick off CA, you can burn to the ground
Nah, CA hates making historical gamas and it shows, I will wait for the ultimate general team to grow and pick other historical settings
I don't. Darth is a gunpowder autist and will always be one.
>IS THIS A HECKIN RESKIN? HOLY SHIT CA SO BASED APOLOGIZE!!!!!
You morons never learn
The thread has like 20 short posts how did you manage to misread them
>dumbass can't tell the difference between bait and an actual post
They said /vst/ would be more intelligent than Ganker
>not new Three Kingdoms content
Another miss, CA.
IT PHARAOH a good game? The last TW game I played was Shogun 2. I'm looking forward to play WH3, but what about this game? I like Egypt theme games.
It's like Troy, every unit looks exactly the same, there's forced hero mechanics that are unfun and gay, the ui is busy and looks like shit.
>there's forced hero mechanics
which ones?
neato
Isn't that just recycled from 3K?
No.
FORM A RING OF STEEL
yawn, wake me when there is some real Total Warhammer news
Who cares about DLC for a game nobody bought?