One thing I forgot to mention was that there's a new stat of sorts. 'Armour Degradation'. This is basically as it sounds. As your armour takes damage, it becomes less effective and you have a lower armour number. What practical use that would have, I'm not sure. As every unit in the army will be suffering from it when they fight. I guess if might make softening up heavy armour units with missiles more effective? Or perhaps certain units will be better at destroying armour than others? Not sure yet.
It’s more realistic. You will be pushed to keep units in reserve which will be fresh and still well equipped in comparison to those who where in the first line. It’s like “wounded” for single entities in warhammer.
This makes total sense - eg if a unit's been fighting against a high AP damage unit why should their armour level stay the same? Possible scenario: send in a high AP unit vs. an enemy unit to do some initial work then get a lighter, faster unit to flank - the light (and likely low AP) unit should be more effective now that the enemy unit has degraded armour.
would make reserve forces much more valuable, sure your aux forces will be outnumbered but combining armour wear with vigour and morale, having cheap chaff wear down strong units even if they dont actually do damage only to have your reserve elites strike and just sweep them away might be more viable
@@Magmakojote Think they still have fatigue, it was mentioned in some of the weather effects, but this also reduce their defensive effectiveness while fatigue reduces their offense. Also means an elite unit has to fear being thrown in with an army of trash, as that army will wear it down. Other than a few notable exceptions, I feel like this is more thematic for the Bronze Age, where people wore wicker shields and leather armor, and other materials that would wear significantly after extended use.
Each faction having physical banner carriers in their units would add a ton of needed visual variety and clarity that's missing because of the similar units.
@@henrik1860 nobody gets mad about the big overhead banners, Rome and Medieval had it and nobody disliked it. This is the atila approached which I (historical player) disslike. You dont need to go overboard and make each unit have it's own art style like in warhammer but faction specific like Rome 2 or Medieval that had their faction / coat of arm as the overhead banner. If anything it's how it feels and looks. The units look and feel more arcade-y in this compared to the old historical. Most historical players are used with slow heavy armored infantry with cavalry.
What I want to see more than anything is the visual reactivity to upgrading units from Medieval 2. It was awesome seeing spearmen in leather armor upgraded to chainmail or even partial plate through blacksmith upgrades.
Either that or visual upgrades based on the units experience level. A basic trash club unit could start off with skin and sticks, up to a max experience one with leather armor and metal war clubs. A quick way to visually represent a units increased stats, and let you estimate how a battle will go.
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
@@gameskillar8155 And hell, if CA doesn't want to do that themselves because I get that it would be A LOT OF WORK, then they could at least make the AI moddable for players. I don't know, always an option. People complain about this "Bethesda approach", but I think it has some advantages ofr both parties.
Miss that as well, especially when you consider that most battles will be between Units of the same Culture by playing a kind of Civil War. Banners and Flags add a lot to the atmosphere.
Yeah how would soldiers of this time period even distinguish each other in a civil war if there weren't banners, insignia, and other battlefield identifiers?
Banners were actually used historically between armies too similar with each others to understood on the field who was the friend and who the enemy. Crusaders for examples used to instanty recognize green banners as enemy banners because it was a color oversued by muslims armies. I get CA no longer wants to make un-historic monocolor armies (like up to Shogun 2, among alls the infamous pink Parthians of Rome 1) but if so something else like banners needs to exist to istantly spot your troops from the enemy ones.
@@TheUrobolos exactly. No need to make them look silly by making one faction all green or all blue but a faction banner is THE PERFECT way to break that up and add a lot visually
What I like about these matched combat animations is that they are short and don’t move the models too much. Meaning the models won’t get out of position because they decided to stab a shield 40 times
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
These units don’t looks confused like soldiers clashing in a battle. They look confused like geriatric old men with dementia who have no idea how they ended up there.
@@dragonbornhk it really doesn't. You must be some kind of child needing bright wacky monsters to tell the difference between factions. A few unique units per faction is enough to give each a distinct feel. The general low tier units would be pretty similar. It's also the drawback of making a game so limited in scope, every faction is basically the same culture.
@@mrwabbit9576 And there are thematic differences in the factions. Hittites and Egyptians dressed differently and use different equipment for their important units, for example the Hittites seemed to favour Tunics. Yes their light infantry skirmishers will look very similar but they should not look the same.
I like that stuff about the stances. Imagine your enemy has a unit in advance and yours has a stancce that let's them move back. You could easily create a gap in your own line to encircle the enemy units like Alexander the Great liked to do.
Hopefully it functions properly and doesn't bug out like medieval 2 pikes. If done properly, it should looked like an entire unit cohesive, together in stride. Step by step, coupled with vocal extertions of breath. Imagine an entire battle line of spears in advance being pushed or whipped along by field marshals
@@VenomGamingCenter I mean if they already add stances as a mechanic, it can't be too difficult to expand on them, either by getting the devs to add more or through mods
I remember from the older games where you can set units up in formations individually... tight, loose, wedge, testeudo, shield wall, phallanx etc etc and it still makes me sad thats not a thing in any of the newer total war games I've played (which is mainly all the warhammers). being able to rush your infanty in with a loose formation to make it harder for missiles to hit you then tighten up right before the charge was awesome, or catching some pikemen out of formation with a cavalry wedge and watching bodies fly... I do feel we went backwards on that front... now for the most part its just 'what type of line would you like?'
100% agree. i wish they would have taken more form total war rome in that regard. also with the banners above the troops. the current total war unit banners are way to big and overloaded. also some nice details like upgradable armour and weapons for the units would be nice
Absolutely agree, I get that they took it out to streamline the micro managing when you already have a lot of spells and abilities to use, but its something that's sorely missed. Between that and not being able to move backwards while still facing the enemy and fighting, the combat ends up too limited.
Honestly having played most of the historical total war, lack of faction diversity doesnt bother me as much. I know that warhammer series has spoiled us all but when I replayed Shogun and 3K it still feels great in its own way. Sure maybe im just using the same ashigaru and samurai across all the clan but the location, general, faction strength do make up for distinction.
Rome: Total War released with 9 unique playable factions, each with their own unique rosters and fundamentally different playstyles. The Rome mod "Europa Barbarorum", which was made as historically accurate as possible by an international team of academics, had something like 26 factions. "Historical total war" is not an excuse for a lack of faction diversity. Pharaoh has 2 unique factions (with 8 "cultures" or subfactions.) Its been almost 20 years, how have we regressed so much?
@@s7robin105 Yup... But the Rome 1 factions were distinct, pretty much to the point of Warhammer factions. The problem started in Medieval 2, where you had most of Europe all using the exact same spearmen etc but with a few faction unique units, then it seemed like they completely gave up in Shogun 2. What makes me laugh is that somewhere along the way we completely lost the ability to upgrade our units from amourer and blacksmith buildings, which was really important in giving the limited rosters more variability (ok, its town millitia, but have they got leather armour? Mail? Plate? All visually distinct on the battle map). Yet another feature we have lost as these games are supposed to get better.
@@steik6414 Rome 1 was largely fantasy though that's where the issues come in. Rome 2 was a lot better but the map was also across a much wider area than this will be. Its more fair to put it up against Shogun 2 than it is Rome 2.
I noticed from the battle footage that each person has a different weapon look from their comrades like the spear tips were not all the same, they had like 3 or 4 variants from what I could see, and I really enjoyed that, especially cause i studied the period in university and seeing that great variety non-uniform look for the period looks really nice.
Seeing the weather effects now makes it more appealing to me, especially as it's more like the classic Total Wars and those sieges bring back happy memories. But I got Troy for free on Epic and only played it for a few hours, so I'm not convinced this will be any different. If it was £25-30 I probably would have picked it up, but I won't be paying £50 for it.
Man watching this video made me realize how much I want butt ladders to be gone. I love the warhammer series, but these sieges actually look decent, a lot of old and a few new mechanics that all seem pretty lightweight and intuitive. The weather effects are beautiful, and having a statistical effect sounds really cool. I could see how, if done right, they could use some factions that are historically accurate and also very unique, while still being contemporary to the time period, probably without going too far afield. Reskins, style, and iconography would be key, probably.
@@ethanwilliams1880 there are mods that increase climbing time and increasing fatigue together with giving towers wider angles of firing. This combination makes taking the walls with ladders way harder. It is a start at least. Maybe at some point modders will figure out how to get rid of the ladders entirely and then we shall have true sieges in Warhammer.
You know what's ironic? I agree that weather in TW is good in principle. But Egypt experiences VERY little rainfall - especially heavy rainfall - so the thunderstorm actually kinda immersion breaking, unless it ends up being implemented in a way that makes it almost never occur (which seems mechanically asinine).
@@CatWithAHat2HD Well not only are the thunderstorms historically accurate (we have actual accounts) but also the region still receives a notable amount of rainfall, especially near the coast. Ancient account suggest there was more rain overall back then as well. I lived in a desert that got an avg of 2.6 inches of rain a year, and we still had quite a few storms over the rainy months.
What you said about faction diversity really resonated with me. Shogun 2 is my favorite historical title (and possibly favorite total war game in total) but even though every faction had access to the same units (barring some uniques) they all had little bonuses that led to them having really different armies when it came to the battlefield. Shimazu running sword heavy armies vs chosokabe powerful ranged samurai as an example. It really made the factions stand out even though they literally had the same units. If Pharaoh can bring back that specialization, maybe it can channel some of that Shogun 2 magic and really pique my interest.
But color scheme in Shogun 2 made it extremely obvious which units were yours and which were not even though all the units were identical. Now all the units look exactly alike in both regards
@@BVargas78 Empire TW 2 would be great even just for the fact it could make up for Empire TW being such a missed opportunity. Med 3 would be really good as well but i've been looking at Armchair Historian's game, 'Fire and Maneuver lately and realized Empire's timeline is sorely missing from the TW series or at least a proper fully fleshed out game of this type does. Anyway glad CA haven't completely forgot their historical titles.
Finally weather means something other then attrition on the world map. And stances too, bannerlords make you realize fast the differences between charge and advance, let alone shield wall and loose formations. Some of the previous total wars went into it, but lately its just been special unit abilities if at all.
@@machomaam4975 Really says something that the concept of weather in a battle is such a big deal, even though it's been a thing since the very first Shogun.
8:35 Do any of you think it would be a good idea for them to instead develop and bronze age total war? But they will also experiment with more new features such as the hold and push mechanics.
This is so great to see animations between warriors again ! This is really something i miss in warhammer, but seeing those dudes battle to the end against each other is quite wonderful. I do remember watching replay of my battle in shogun 2 or attila just to look at it. Try to follow one little soldier and see how it goes for him through the battle.
It's really weird because in Med2 I never felt lost about not knowing wich units were mine of the enemy's ... Maybe the banners and distinct faction colors on the armors do the trick ?
I guess it depends on which faction you were fighting in medieval 2. In you were playing as a european, catholic faction, it was super easy to tell which units were the enemies if they were from a muslim faction.
Regarding the "lack of variety" issue, I felt the same way about Troy and three kingdome. The issue i think isnt that there are too few units in those games its that they no matter the faction you are playing as they all "feel" identical. Look at for example medieval 2 (sure lots of units but mostly reskins), Shogun 2 or even empire to some extent. The unit variety wasnt huge but the factions all felt rather unique in the way that they heavily incetivised the usage of some units over others or even limiting which units you could recruit. That made the factions feel fresh with different playthroughs. I hope they implement it in some way with different cultures = entirely different units or something, else its 1-2 campaigns and the game is done for most people.
Agreed. I couldn't enjoy either 3 Kingdoms or Troy because everyone was a clone of each other. The reason Rome is such a good historical setting is because of the insane civilisation and cultural diversity. I suspect this is going to be a game that rips 50% the existing assets from Troy and thats why Troy came first. This was developed right after and half the work was already done. Not promising. I don't find the time period compelling from a Total War game standpoint for variety reasons. I was hoping this would be about the Pharaoh's in a more exciting dynasty lol
The history of Troy shows us one thing.Cities at that time had high walls, but there was not this siege equipment.Likewise, the armies were not uniformed.This also came much later....
No, the Egyptians had battering rams definitely by the time of the 11th Dynasty which ended in 1991 BC. Siege towers appear in Egyptian carvings from just before 2000 BC as well.
By this point in history Kush had been humbled. They were conquered by Egypt. Kush exists on the game map and they might add a DLC for Kush, meaning players could seek to rise up and return Kush to glory, but it absolutely was not a powerhouse at the collapse.
Would love this weather stuff in warhammer. Rainy weather being good for wood elves units. Sunny being good for most factions except vampires and so on... Maybe the modders will get ideas
When you talk about faction identity and banners I'm immediately thinking of the banners in Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 where soldiers within the units would hold up some banners and liveries that would change depending on faction and rank. I feel like we should have bannermen back, even if it's unhistoric that one dude is holding a huge banner and a knife in a fight.
@@ayuvir Well, it's a lucrative topic, really. Banners were in use, but they were not the only means of identification and communication, bannerman were among prime targets, and, lastly, banners, even if in possession, were not always immediately present on the battlefield. So it's not that easy to implement to please everyone and at the same time avoid too much logic and mechanics.
4:55: what happens when a holding unit and a advancing unit meet? A: Most likely this is tied to stamina and weight. A heavy unit has a better alpha, but can lose out to a lower alpha unit with better stamina.
@Malignard "Usually they make two games on the same engine" Sir this is still Empire's engine, we've never changed it since then, and even if you meant "version of the engine" that's also not true for this game, it's a different version to Troy. The reason this is so similar to Troy is because this game is indeed from the SAGA team and not the main historical team (even though this game is not a saga) so of course there'd be common assets.
I remember telling my friend that 3 player campaigns in a Total War game was never going to happen, and then it did. Where there's a want there's a way.
Something I've been saying for a while now is that having more similarities between factions is okay as long as they double (or even triple) down on the other campaign and battle mechanics that function around them. So far this does look moderately promising although I do agree that they could do with making some of the lighter units look a bit more distinct from each other.
@@kp-legacy-5477 I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't detract from the experience. I love TWW but want a modern historical title that feels good to play
The dynamic weather is very cool! Would like to see that carried forwards to other TotalWar games (cough... Medieval 3, Empire 2.) Unfortunately, CA doesn't have a very good track record for maintaining and expanding features like this.
There were weather conditions in ROME 2 as well and there is a Wait feature you can use 3 times at the start of a battle, to try to get better weather conditions, each change counted as 1 day, hopefully they do it like that.
Excited for the matched combat! Now they just have to fix everything else. I was very cynical when this was announced, but it seems like they're listening to us at least a small tiny bit
I was thinking the other day about the concept of like, "unit cohesion" in total war's battle system. Instead of single combat breaking out between individuals in either unit you could have little battle circles forming within units and between two opposing units. Dependant on cohesion level, which would probably scale with battle experience and equipment... something akin to training and longevity. It would mean that you could have the same two units that have differences in effectiveness across their front row of soliders, and flanks. Adds a dynamic element to the placement of each unit on the battlefield, not just "put this unit type here because it's this type," but rather poses a question as to which of these various units in your army would be most effective if oriented in this position, in this spot, and for how long. I know there is already unit experience and it generally does this - more experienced units are more effective. But this would aim to replicate camaraderie developed among specific groups of soldiers as a unit campaigns and survives, and provides bonuses for it. You could even let the player choose where specific soldiers stand in a unit, and when the unit takes casualties those specific individuals could be lost forever and reduce cohesion. This would mean a lot more animating for CA, and debugging. Which I'm sure means it will never happen. :)
Matched combat and pushing / being on the back foot is huge and a true innovation to the series! I love it. This also makes me play some Troy - I completely overlooked it, but with WH3 back in the oven I may give it another shot....
I've been waiting for push/hold/give ground options for so long in TW games. I guess we still don't have a fall back option, but I assume you can just put your unit on normal stance and let the enemy push forward. Maybe we can finally recreate battle of Cannae
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
@@gameskillar8155 Then you would need a difficulty setting just for tactical AI, I believe. Because, you know, plenty Total War players just aren't that good and would get stomped by a really competent AI. There is also the difficulty of programming in "mistakes" and sub-optimal play amidst the good play, as having an AI that never makes mistakes and can micro to your every move would get tiresome (I mean, who doesn't like winning against overwhelming odds every now and then). You also want AI to be reactive. What I see in a lot of AI mods in different games is that they mainly just code in min-max city development and army comps that the AI follows blindly. Although there definitely have been AI improvements since Rome, I suppose the slowed-down development of it is arguably not financially viable. Competent AI programmers are expensive, as they can get a much higher salary working in another sector than the under-payed game dev sector.
I really like the advance mechanic, assuming it works, reminds me of re-enactments when one side had the more aggressive commander pushing the other guys back, and sometimes overextending and getting slammed in the flank
Yes, in the interview the devs said that the attacker would need to capture all the victory points in settlements. From the footage it does look like one of those battles may have been Egyptians vs Egyptians although the siege battles was Hittites attacking the city and the guys with the golden shields at 10:15 are almost certainly Hittites or maybe Sea Peoples. Hittites and Egyptians certainly dressed differently and wore different armour designs. It should not be hard to work out who is who in most battles, barring rebellions and civil war of course.
I do prefer mythical stuff to be honest but we have been getting more mythical ones recently so it is good that hitorical fans are also getting some games
Eh historical fans aren’t gonna like this though… the Troy mechanics just feel terrible in a historical game way too arcadey. This is an improvement but idk if it’s enough.
If they think it's worth it they could make a full on mythic mode or spinoff game using the existing assets for all the human units later down the line.
i love how they are going back to historical total war… but please we need something with empire iii or napoleon ii (i’m not sure how they would make another napoleon though)
The clipping with the chariots is crazy. I care a lot more about realism than flashy animations, so if the physics, the weight of the units and the shape/engagement angle make sense I'll definitely play this. Because I'm intrigued with the pharaonic period.
@@termitreter6545 It's like big movies, more explosions and cinematic moments than logic and consistancy. Apparently a lot of consumers want that, knowingly or not. I know I don't.
Will be interesting how they do Heros, being as they are in a unit now. In Attila, it was always possible that your Leader could catch an arrow right between the eyes at any moment. Or get trampled in a charge. Sure they were slightly better than a regular troop, but they were anything but invincible and could easily be killed if they get out of position
I haven't been interested in tw in AGES! These O.G. tw features like "hold the line" and "advance" are totally essential for me. Weather effects and similar details are not smalls things. They add up and immerse the player. SO important.
Its good to see them trying out some new ideas in what would otherwise just be a reskin. I could see them working towards another Rome themed game on this foundation.
I will definitely be waiting for a big sale on this game 😅 Playing some Troy right now actually and it sort of bums me out knowing there isn't much change in Pharaoh. Don't get me wrong though, I'm enjoying the graphics and combat.
Not for nothing but even the latest total war game is hardly different from the very first total war game. They just get slightly better each time and they switch up the setting. You're playing the wrong game if you're looking for new and exciting lol
@@jacobsampsonis7782 well the earlier total wars have completely different mechanics with regards to the morale and hp stats; as well as city construction. The change from hit points (inspired by old tabletop wargames) to the current health bars is argued to have drastic affect on the how the battles in the games play out.
Thumbs up for the real issue of this game given by you. The color distinction is missing in all these huge games and who care about how realistic the units have to be in accordance with historical facts, just give us cool looking units that we can keep track of and quickly move from and to our units. Then this would be a great game but still i would work on more of a ground grab and move than line up controls that should be automatic. Man, just give the units with some brains they are not babysitting how the stand is a joke. Achers should automatically move behind other units when you group grab them and send them forward but no it seems to move in a mixed style that is stupid.
It seems pretty good. I am going to buy it. I also think that the siege rework for Warhammer might introduce some of the things we have seen here (gates that can be destroyed only by rams and monsters, ladders that you must prepare beforehand, no single capture point that ends the battle etc.).
I think we need a sigh of the campaign map to have an idea of the factions and the future factions we could receive in the future. Most people (including me) want to see assyrians, babylonians, etc. And I was hopping the standard-bearers of 3K (and the cinematic trailer of this game). It's a good and simple add to make the game more realistic
@@resileaf9501 What you see is 100% going to be the final result. I have been in the gaming industry for way too long to know that the "is a beta", "is an alpha", "is a demo" is all a massive cope. The only games who this apply to are indie developers, like Warhorse Studios with Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
I would like them adding foodsteps, maybe sounds a bit strange but leaving foodsteps in the mud and seeing the marks the armies made moving trought these places would be nice. On top te creation of dust clouds by large units moving.
This is looking good! I'm assuming that there's a reason why they didn't just make this an expansion for troy - this might eventually have a Greek DLCs, maybe a small discount for people who bought troy? Maybe a DLC for troy with Egypt? Lots of possibilities!
Love the idea that you have to capture the whole city, but I would also really love if there where cconsequences, like if you choose to bulk your army in a tight spot and only defend there you'd lose alot of population in the city by doing it. Like if each capture points and towers etc you capture will cause more damage to the city on the campaign map for example. You'd have to make decisions
I like the Advance and Hold. Add a Give Ground as well. Your units intentionally give ground to hopefully expose the center enemy's flank. And they can do the same to you if you don't adjust.
Some previous total war games did have weather impacting the battlefield if my memory is correct :). In Shogun2 rain and snow would prevent gunpowder units from firing and impact archers and also increase fatigue and ground snow also impacted fatigue. I think Empire also had rain effects on gunpowder. Its good to see its been bought back for this new game.
Shogun 2 had the best combat animation matching. I can still zoom in on battles and watch as individual soldiers block, dodge and roll away from enemies.
Still not interested in this game, _but_ there's quite a few interesting features that, when tweaked and fixed properly, I'd like to see implemented in future developments.
Am I the only one who enjoyed Medieval II combat the most? Where they would have animations without really locking themselves into it.Made especially 2v1s pretty interesting, and generaly give weight to how the AI would move and which enemies lock in a fight.
I'm not so into battles, if they're all you ever do, like Warhammer. What I'm mostly interested in is the campaign itself, what can we do there to keep us busy, diplomacy, etc. For me Total War was 70/30 campign/battles as a good ratio. Too many battles and they don't become interesting or important anymore. I want a battle to have a good impact on the campaign, so I remember when and why I fought. Not just fighting for fighting's sake. I want battles to take a toll on the campaign too, lost many men, yeah let that influence the campaign too. Built too many armies too fast, then yeah, let that show as a drain on manpower and production too. Stuff like that.
@@fedyx1544 Not at all, while I do play Paradox games a lot too, they still don't have manual battles. I have no idea what people read, but I'm not saying I don't like manual battles. I'm saying I prefer the campaign to hold the most attention. Basically, the less battles I fight, to a degree, they increase how interesting they are when they happen.
@@Wintermist-SWE Honestly this might be why I enjoyed Empire so much in Warhammer. I felt like most of the armies I could build with them were strong enough that I could just autoresolve all the boring battles and the ones I actually fought felt pivotal to whatever war was happening at the time. I thought WH3 had a lot of good steps in terms of diplomacy as well. Every faction could do it to a point, but it felt better doing it as humans.
I am really excited for this, finally a new proper historic Total War game. And I absolutely love the bronze age history. The 8 starting factions are divided by 3 different cultures, Egypt, The Hittite Empire and Canaan. Each of which I would expect to be fairly different, like the Empire and Dwarfs are in Warhammer. And since Egypt is well, in Egypt, the Hittite Empire was settled around modern day Turkey, I would expect the campaign map to at least cover the entire eastern Mediterranean.
Some really cool and good additions like the terrain becoming muddy and heavy units get stuck, only in the least whiny and entitled way possible I would love to see it in an empire 2 or medieval 3. As you pointed out it feels almost as if it's a Troy DLC but maybe they're going for the ol' 'Empire then Napoleon' thing and this is going to have campaigns following historical conquests. I do like the 1v1 combat animations coming back but I still would like it to go back even further and develop the old system of 1v1 but someone can take a risk, turn around and attack them in the side or back, momentarily breaking the line but if successful creating a 2v1 for both of their 1v1's like in Rome 1
An idea that would have been great to merge this with Troy. Troy was about 1000 years earlier before the bronze age collapse, but in terms of technology: its pretty much the same. What they should have done is add these two games together. If you begin as as Greek/Trojan faction: you get a MASSIVE political/morale penalty for going to Egypt. This way it, it stops you from messing with the historical timeline... you havev to say around the Greek Isles. And if you play as Egypt, same deal. So the "two worlds" can advance in teh same game but are kept apart using mechanics. As time advances, the seperation penalties are reduced slowly... this would have created such a unique and interesting campaign mechanic.
Good idea, you could even Link the penalties to the tech tree, and have some colony settlements that can reduce the penalties in region via special port building.
The feature i want to see added the most to the historical battle system is some form of tactical "defending/ fighting retreat", i.e certain elite units that can step backwards from a melee in a defensive formation This was such a common occurence in 'controlled' or pitched ancient battles, especially those that went on for hours, that it always gets me when your heavily armored, tower shielded veteran warriors have no choice but to turn their backs to the line and take massive unnecessary losses
I'd have to disagree with the factions and its units looking similar. I love how its default similar. Leaves the community to get creative and gives them a good base to work off of imo. A lot of mods will update the visual effects and looks of the units making them much more unique.
Man, I really hope this one brings back actual naval battles instead of "two armies hit each other on the water, find the nearest island that appears out of nowhere and fight it out on land"
it seems to be the best Total War game to come out in recent years. There are great developments, I hope it will develop further, the total war is moving towards again a very good place
I wonder if the weather systems means that arrows are naturally high damaged in natural weather so that it balances out during bad weather. Or are they just pushing us to play high inf and cav and pre much abandon arrows if their damage stats are so unpredictable for each battle?
What bothers me about this is not that it's just soooo similar to Troy, but that it's soooo similar to Troy WHILE costing 60€. Ain't no fucking way that this "totally not SAGA" game is worth that much money. They basically just got rid of the SAGA title so that they can charge more for it. And what's worse is that some people are completely oblivious to that and act like it's this huge freaking historical game like Med 2 or Rome 2, when in reality it's just Troy 2.0. And it's also infinitely more expensive than Troy, because a lot of people got Troy LITERALLY FOR FREE! Yeah, hard pass on this one, hard pass.
Unit variety/distinction isnt something that bothers me that much, but there should be visual differences, like english knights wearing different heraldry and colours to french knights in medieval. The variety comes from things like upgrading armour/weapons/shields like in older total wars, research, army levelling abilities and general abilities. In attila your armies can level up and gain melee stat bonuses, reduced attrition, and you can build various blacksmithing and weapon smithing buildings to upgrade units. Small but important upgrades and distinctions
There was, Egyptians and Hittites dressed very differently and had different shaped shields. In those videos one of the battles may have been Egyptians vs Egyptians and the devs have said their will still be rebellions and civil wars.
@@Naeron66 there was? i never said there wasnt? i said there should be visual distinctions like how knights wore distinctive things................ learn to read man
It sounds like this game will make for a great base to mod from if nothing else... I'd love to see some musket era warfare using that weather & siege system and improved performance!
I don't really like the armor degradation feature... we already pay upkeep for armies which in many cases includes bronze. That would go towards repairs, no? It's not really something that would be a factor in a single battle either. I also hope the dynamic weather isn't too annoying as well. Weather didn't constantly change during battles throughout history, so I hope the frequency reflects that reality. The bronze age collapse also sounds like a potential nightmare, maybe just being a composite of unhappy populace, natural disasters, food shortages, increased administration costs and all the other annoying things that prevent you from doing what you really want to be doing in the game. On top of all this you can add an Atilla/Chaos style invasion, probably popping out of nowhere and razing the settlements you spent time and resources building up, which further compounds all the other annoying crap that is preventing you from building/maintaining an army and conquering new regions. Don't get me wrong, this could all still work and be fun, but I just hope that it's not done in an annoying way. There should be a proper way to deal with everything that the player can learn thru trial and error; or by looking at forums. I hope it isn't just a giant mess. Also, I seriously hope they add Babylonians and Assyrians to this game. What is a Bronze Age game without them, really?
Given the time period, this will be like a (more historical) Attila to Troy's Rome 2. Chariots and siege weapons means the end of an era is at hand, in which most major civilizations of the period disappeared with only a few clues as to who or what caused it, even to this day.
One thing I forgot to mention was that there's a new stat of sorts. 'Armour Degradation'. This is basically as it sounds. As your armour takes damage, it becomes less effective and you have a lower armour number. What practical use that would have, I'm not sure. As every unit in the army will be suffering from it when they fight. I guess if might make softening up heavy armour units with missiles more effective? Or perhaps certain units will be better at destroying armour than others? Not sure yet.
It’s more realistic. You will be pushed to keep units in reserve which will be fresh and still well equipped in comparison to those who where in the first line. It’s like “wounded” for single entities in warhammer.
@@francesco.virzi4 couldn't you achieve the same thing with the "vigour/fatigue" stat?
This makes total sense - eg if a unit's been fighting against a high AP damage unit why should their armour level stay the same? Possible scenario: send in a high AP unit vs. an enemy unit to do some initial work then get a lighter, faster unit to flank - the light (and likely low AP) unit should be more effective now that the enemy unit has degraded armour.
would make reserve forces much more valuable, sure your aux forces will be outnumbered but combining armour wear with vigour and morale, having cheap chaff wear down strong units even if they dont actually do damage only to have your reserve elites strike and just sweep them away might be more viable
@@Magmakojote Think they still have fatigue, it was mentioned in some of the weather effects, but this also reduce their defensive effectiveness while fatigue reduces their offense. Also means an elite unit has to fear being thrown in with an army of trash, as that army will wear it down. Other than a few notable exceptions, I feel like this is more thematic for the Bronze Age, where people wore wicker shields and leather armor, and other materials that would wear significantly after extended use.
Each faction having physical banner carriers in their units would add a ton of needed visual variety and clarity that's missing because of the similar units.
Yes, but I think a lot of total war players want this to be heavy on the historical side.
@@henrik1860 having soldiers carrying banners to help identify each other is very much based on history.
@@henrik1860 nobody gets mad about the big overhead banners, Rome and Medieval had it and nobody disliked it. This is the atila approached which I (historical player) disslike. You dont need to go overboard and make each unit have it's own art style like in warhammer but faction specific like Rome 2 or Medieval that had their faction / coat of arm as the overhead banner. If anything it's how it feels and looks. The units look and feel more arcade-y in this compared to the old historical. Most historical players are used with slow heavy armored infantry with cavalry.
shogun 2 had a banner carriers and makes the battle look real and 3K too why didnt they add it to pharoah
@@aerosdacillo1227 The bannermen and Officers in front of a unit was one of my favorite visual details.
What I want to see more than anything is the visual reactivity to upgrading units from Medieval 2. It was awesome seeing spearmen in leather armor upgraded to chainmail or even partial plate through blacksmith upgrades.
A lot of armor advances weren't present in this time period. Sure leathers and quilted fabrics. Seasonally appropriate garb would be pretty impressive
Either that or visual upgrades based on the units experience level. A basic trash club unit could start off with skin and sticks, up to a max experience one with leather armor and metal war clubs. A quick way to visually represent a units increased stats, and let you estimate how a battle will go.
a mod for warhammer 2 has that
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
@@gameskillar8155 And hell, if CA doesn't want to do that themselves because I get that it would be A LOT OF WORK, then they could at least make the AI moddable for players. I don't know, always an option. People complain about this "Bethesda approach", but I think it has some advantages ofr both parties.
I would've loved it if the units had banners just like in three kingdoms, especially since in the trailer it looked like they did
Miss that as well, especially when you consider that most battles will be between Units of the same Culture by playing a kind of Civil War.
Banners and Flags add a lot to the atmosphere.
Yeah how would soldiers of this time period even distinguish each other in a civil war if there weren't banners, insignia, and other battlefield identifiers?
Banners were actually used historically between armies too similar with each others to understood on the field who was the friend and who the enemy. Crusaders for examples used to instanty recognize green banners as enemy banners because it was a color oversued by muslims armies. I get CA no longer wants to make un-historic monocolor armies (like up to Shogun 2, among alls the infamous pink Parthians of Rome 1) but if so something else like banners needs to exist to istantly spot your troops from the enemy ones.
@@TheUrobolos exactly. No need to make them look silly by making one faction all green or all blue but a faction banner is THE PERFECT way to break that up and add a lot visually
One of the things that made me want to buy more three kingdoms were the big colorful banners, those are fucking cool
The ability to slowly have units move back will be amazing for tactics
Yup like slowly draw them in so you can flank them
Really missing this.
Now we can recreate Cannae on the sands!!! mwehehehehe
I can finally BE Hannibal
and realistic
SAND FOR THE SAND GOD
STONE FOR HIS STONE THRONE
What I like about these matched combat animations is that they are short and don’t move the models too much. Meaning the models won’t get out of position because they decided to stab a shield 40 times
Yea, it definiately is similiar to med2 gameplay, love it so far.
SHORT? No alliance!
@@nvmtt :[
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
I remember in rome2 they still had matched combat that was dudes just poking each other’s shields until one killed the other
Being confused when units clash in a battle is 100% historically accurate, I like it lol
Makes for piss poor user experience tho
These units don’t looks confused like soldiers clashing in a battle. They look confused like geriatric old men with dementia who have no idea how they ended up there.
@@dragonbornhk it really doesn't. You must be some kind of child needing bright wacky monsters to tell the difference between factions. A few unique units per faction is enough to give each a distinct feel. The general low tier units would be pretty similar.
It's also the drawback of making a game so limited in scope, every faction is basically the same culture.
@@mrwabbit9576 And there are thematic differences in the factions. Hittites and Egyptians dressed differently and use different equipment for their important units, for example the Hittites seemed to favour Tunics. Yes their light infantry skirmishers will look very similar but they should not look the same.
@@mrwabbit9576 "A few unique units per faction is enough to give each a distinct feel. "
That's some historic grade copium your huffing there buddy
I like that stuff about the stances. Imagine your enemy has a unit in advance and yours has a stancce that let's them move back. You could easily create a gap in your own line to encircle the enemy units like Alexander the Great liked to do.
Hopefully it functions properly and doesn't bug out like medieval 2 pikes. If done properly, it should looked like an entire unit cohesive, together in stride. Step by step, coupled with vocal extertions of breath. Imagine an entire battle line of spears in advance being pushed or whipped along by field marshals
Stop saying imagine. You'll get yourselves hyped up on your own conjecture then be disappointed when it releases
@@VenomGamingCenter I mean if they already add stances as a mechanic, it can't be too difficult to expand on them, either by getting the devs to add more or through mods
I remember from the older games where you can set units up in formations individually... tight, loose, wedge, testeudo, shield wall, phallanx etc etc and it still makes me sad thats not a thing in any of the newer total war games I've played (which is mainly all the warhammers). being able to rush your infanty in with a loose formation to make it harder for missiles to hit you then tighten up right before the charge was awesome, or catching some pikemen out of formation with a cavalry wedge and watching bodies fly... I do feel we went backwards on that front... now for the most part its just 'what type of line would you like?'
100% agree. i wish they would have taken more form total war rome in that regard. also with the banners above the troops. the current total war unit banners are way to big and overloaded.
also some nice details like upgradable armour and weapons for the units would be nice
brother have not yet played three kingdoms
woke junk
Absolutely agree, I get that they took it out to streamline the micro managing when you already have a lot of spells and abilities to use, but its something that's sorely missed. Between that and not being able to move backwards while still facing the enemy and fighting, the combat ends up too limited.
honestly i never used loose formation on anything except archers when skirmishing , there was simply no need for it when it came to regular infantry
Honestly having played most of the historical total war, lack of faction diversity doesnt bother me as much. I know that warhammer series has spoiled us all but when I replayed Shogun and 3K it still feels great in its own way. Sure maybe im just using the same ashigaru and samurai across all the clan but the location, general, faction strength do make up for distinction.
Rome: Total War released with 9 unique playable factions, each with their own unique rosters and fundamentally different playstyles. The Rome mod "Europa Barbarorum", which was made as historically accurate as possible by an international team of academics, had something like 26 factions. "Historical total war" is not an excuse for a lack of faction diversity.
Pharaoh has 2 unique factions (with 8 "cultures" or subfactions.) Its been almost 20 years, how have we regressed so much?
@@steik6414 Shogun 2 released with 9 factions and they were all the exact same just with recolors or slight stat changes.
@@steik6414 Shogun 2 had less cultural diversity than Rome 1 (just the one culture) and nobody will claim that Rome 1 is a better game for it.
@@s7robin105 Yup... But the Rome 1 factions were distinct, pretty much to the point of Warhammer factions. The problem started in Medieval 2, where you had most of Europe all using the exact same spearmen etc but with a few faction unique units, then it seemed like they completely gave up in Shogun 2. What makes me laugh is that somewhere along the way we completely lost the ability to upgrade our units from amourer and blacksmith buildings, which was really important in giving the limited rosters more variability (ok, its town millitia, but have they got leather armour? Mail? Plate? All visually distinct on the battle map). Yet another feature we have lost as these games are supposed to get better.
@@steik6414 Rome 1 was largely fantasy though that's where the issues come in. Rome 2 was a lot better but the map was also across a much wider area than this will be. Its more fair to put it up against Shogun 2 than it is Rome 2.
Finally they add pushing and mechanics. This makes battles more dynamic and realistic. Kudos to CA for listening to the community.
Matched combat animations and slower paced combat are two things I've been begging for for awhile. So I might give it a shot just for that
I noticed from the battle footage that each person has a different weapon look from their comrades like the spear tips were not all the same, they had like 3 or 4 variants from what I could see, and I really enjoyed that, especially cause i studied the period in university and seeing that great variety non-uniform look for the period looks really nice.
Seeing the weather effects now makes it more appealing to me, especially as it's more like the classic Total Wars and those sieges bring back happy memories. But I got Troy for free on Epic and only played it for a few hours, so I'm not convinced this will be any different. If it was £25-30 I probably would have picked it up, but I won't be paying £50 for it.
Man watching this video made me realize how much I want butt ladders to be gone. I love the warhammer series, but these sieges actually look decent, a lot of old and a few new mechanics that all seem pretty lightweight and intuitive. The weather effects are beautiful, and having a statistical effect sounds really cool.
I could see how, if done right, they could use some factions that are historically accurate and also very unique, while still being contemporary to the time period, probably without going too far afield. Reskins, style, and iconography would be key, probably.
@@ethanwilliams1880 there are mods that increase climbing time and increasing fatigue together with giving towers wider angles of firing. This combination makes taking the walls with ladders way harder. It is a start at least. Maybe at some point modders will figure out how to get rid of the ladders entirely and then we shall have true sieges in Warhammer.
Revisit Troy play both historical and fantasy for 3 hours each and come back to me.
You know what's ironic? I agree that weather in TW is good in principle. But Egypt experiences VERY little rainfall - especially heavy rainfall - so the thunderstorm actually kinda immersion breaking, unless it ends up being implemented in a way that makes it almost never occur (which seems mechanically asinine).
@@CatWithAHat2HD Well not only are the thunderstorms historically accurate (we have actual accounts) but also the region still receives a notable amount of rainfall, especially near the coast. Ancient account suggest there was more rain overall back then as well.
I lived in a desert that got an avg of 2.6 inches of rain a year, and we still had quite a few storms over the rainy months.
What you said about faction diversity really resonated with me. Shogun 2 is my favorite historical title (and possibly favorite total war game in total) but even though every faction had access to the same units (barring some uniques) they all had little bonuses that led to them having really different armies when it came to the battlefield. Shimazu running sword heavy armies vs chosokabe powerful ranged samurai as an example. It really made the factions stand out even though they literally had the same units. If Pharaoh can bring back that specialization, maybe it can channel some of that Shogun 2 magic and really pique my interest.
tbh it seems like its kinda there already? Egypt favoring lighter and bow-based armies while the Hittites run a lot of armor, for example
But color scheme in Shogun 2 made it extremely obvious which units were yours and which were not even though all the units were identical. Now all the units look exactly alike in both regards
Really glad to see the return to more classical historical total war mechanics and gameplay.
i would've liked the option to switch between ultra-realistic and more fantasy gamemodes but still cool game
I feel the exact opposite, this feels blank after the variety of Warhammer III
@@matthieugeorgelin5671 I was hoping for Empire Total War 2 or Medieval Total War 3. Both of which offer more variety.
@@BVargas78 Empire TW 2 would be great even just for the fact it could make up for Empire TW being such a missed opportunity.
Med 3 would be really good as well but i've been looking at Armchair Historian's game, 'Fire and Maneuver lately and realized Empire's timeline is sorely missing from the TW series or at least a proper fully fleshed out game of this type does.
Anyway glad CA haven't completely forgot their historical titles.
Finally weather means something other then attrition on the world map. And stances too, bannerlords make you realize fast the differences between charge and advance, let alone shield wall and loose formations. Some of the previous total wars went into it, but lately its just been special unit abilities if at all.
Love the dynamic weather. That’s going to add a lot more excitement to an already exciting battle system.
Yeah, rain.... So exciting. Better sit down and have a change of pants, sand is coming next...
As far as i remember rain was also effecting archers stats in medieval 2.
@@machomaam4975 Really says something that the concept of weather in a battle is such a big deal, even though it's been a thing since the very first Shogun.
dynamic weather should be a default in AAA games at this point and also what exciting battle system are you talking about?
Its sad that the most exciting features arent new, but from old total wars that ca stoped implementing for some reason
8:35 Do any of you think it would be a good idea for them to instead develop and bronze age total war?
But they will also experiment with more new features such as the hold and push mechanics.
This is so great to see animations between warriors again ! This is really something i miss in warhammer, but seeing those dudes battle to the end against each other is quite wonderful.
I do remember watching replay of my battle in shogun 2 or attila just to look at it. Try to follow one little soldier and see how it goes for him through the battle.
It's really weird because in Med2 I never felt lost about not knowing wich units were mine of the enemy's ... Maybe the banners and distinct faction colors on the armors do the trick ?
Shields and helmets, head dress. Robes or wrapped cloth. Animal skins and war paint. Or some sort of chain to signify you fight for the pharaoh
I guess it depends on which faction you were fighting in medieval 2. In you were playing as a european, catholic faction, it was super easy to tell which units were the enemies if they were from a muslim faction.
Regarding the "lack of variety" issue, I felt the same way about Troy and three kingdome. The issue i think isnt that there are too few units in those games its that they no matter the faction you are playing as they all "feel" identical.
Look at for example medieval 2 (sure lots of units but mostly reskins), Shogun 2 or even empire to some extent. The unit variety wasnt huge but the factions all felt rather unique in the way that they heavily incetivised the usage of some units over others or even limiting which units you could recruit. That made the factions feel fresh with different playthroughs. I hope they implement it in some way with different cultures = entirely different units or something, else its 1-2 campaigns and the game is done for most people.
After total War Warhammer, every historical Total war feel so similar in terms of units since you only play of course humans
Shogun 2 is even less varied than all other games. It’s just there’s a huge interest of Japanese military and history. It’s that simple folks
It's not the amount of unit types, it's how you use it.
Agreed. I couldn't enjoy either 3 Kingdoms or Troy because everyone was a clone of each other. The reason Rome is such a good historical setting is because of the insane civilisation and cultural diversity. I suspect this is going to be a game that rips 50% the existing assets from Troy and thats why Troy came first. This was developed right after and half the work was already done. Not promising. I don't find the time period compelling from a Total War game standpoint for variety reasons. I was hoping this would be about the Pharaoh's in a more exciting dynasty lol
@@Zoey-- both 3K and Troy has a diverse array of cultures just the west is not interested
The history of Troy shows us one thing.Cities at that time had high walls, but there was not this siege equipment.Likewise, the armies were not uniformed.This also came much later....
No, the Egyptians had battering rams definitely by the time of the 11th Dynasty which ended in 1991 BC. Siege towers appear in Egyptian carvings from just before 2000 BC as well.
It would be wonderful if they added a nubian army faction from Kush to make some of the factions look and feel different.
Considering it was a powerhouse, it really should be
@@Bumbaclart247 Likely going to be DLC
They have a sect of Egyptian culture as a faction that used to be kush
By this point in history Kush had been humbled. They were conquered by Egypt. Kush exists on the game map and they might add a DLC for Kush, meaning players could seek to rise up and return Kush to glory, but it absolutely was not a powerhouse at the collapse.
There are 4 egyptian characters, I expect one of them to be of nubian descend.
Would love this weather stuff in warhammer.
Rainy weather being good for wood elves units.
Sunny being good for most factions except vampires and so on...
Maybe the modders will get ideas
When you talk about faction identity and banners I'm immediately thinking of the banners in Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 where soldiers within the units would hold up some banners and liveries that would change depending on faction and rank. I feel like we should have bannermen back, even if it's unhistoric that one dude is holding a huge banner and a knife in a fight.
I mean, it's not totally unhistoric, banners were used exactly for that - so your own commander can get some idea about what's going on around.
@@nikolaysargsyan6349 Yeah i thought so. But I feel like I remember some of the historic crowd complaining about banners way back may be wrong though.
@@ayuvir Well, it's a lucrative topic, really. Banners were in use, but they were not the only means of identification and communication, bannerman were among prime targets, and, lastly, banners, even if in possession, were not always immediately present on the battlefield.
So it's not that easy to implement to please everyone and at the same time avoid too much logic and mechanics.
4:55: what happens when a holding unit and a advancing unit meet?
A: Most likely this is tied to stamina and weight. A heavy unit has a better alpha, but can lose out to a lower alpha unit with better stamina.
Hope fully after this they'll do a third for fertile crescent. Then add all 3 into 1. Warhammer style
@Malignard "Usually they make two games on the same engine" Sir this is still Empire's engine, we've never changed it since then, and even if you meant "version of the engine" that's also not true for this game, it's a different version to Troy.
The reason this is so similar to Troy is because this game is indeed from the SAGA team and not the main historical team (even though this game is not a saga) so of course there'd be common assets.
I remember telling my friend that 3 player campaigns in a Total War game was never going to happen, and then it did. Where there's a want there's a way.
@@dondrake8443 I think what he meant is that games come in pairs in CA: Empire-Napoleon; Rome 2- Attila; Shogun 2- FOTS etc.
Something I've been saying for a while now is that having more similarities between factions is okay as long as they double (or even triple) down on the other campaign and battle mechanics that function around them. So far this does look moderately promising although I do agree that they could do with making some of the lighter units look a bit more distinct from each other.
This has added a lot of interest for me given its fully historical finally
It will have a mythical DLC guaranteed
@@kp-legacy-5477 I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't detract from the experience. I love TWW but want a modern historical title that feels good to play
The dynamic weather is very cool! Would like to see that carried forwards to other TotalWar games (cough... Medieval 3, Empire 2.) Unfortunately, CA doesn't have a very good track record for maintaining and expanding features like this.
They should combine Pharaoh and Troy's maps for people who own both to get that Total War: Age of Mythology going.
Agreed
not a terrible idea
No thanks, historical please
Yea no pharaoh isn’t mythology it’s historical
Aha nice one bro 👍
There were weather conditions in ROME 2 as well and there is a Wait feature you can use 3 times at the start of a battle, to try to get better weather conditions, each change counted as 1 day, hopefully they do it like that.
Excited for the matched combat! Now they just have to fix everything else. I was very cynical when this was announced, but it seems like they're listening to us at least a small tiny bit
I was thinking the other day about the concept of like, "unit cohesion" in total war's battle system. Instead of single combat breaking out between individuals in either unit you could have little battle circles forming within units and between two opposing units. Dependant on cohesion level, which would probably scale with battle experience and equipment... something akin to training and longevity. It would mean that you could have the same two units that have differences in effectiveness across their front row of soliders, and flanks. Adds a dynamic element to the placement of each unit on the battlefield, not just "put this unit type here because it's this type," but rather poses a question as to which of these various units in your army would be most effective if oriented in this position, in this spot, and for how long. I know there is already unit experience and it generally does this - more experienced units are more effective. But this would aim to replicate camaraderie developed among specific groups of soldiers as a unit campaigns and survives, and provides bonuses for it. You could even let the player choose where specific soldiers stand in a unit, and when the unit takes casualties those specific individuals could be lost forever and reduce cohesion. This would mean a lot more animating for CA, and debugging. Which I'm sure means it will never happen. :)
Matched combat and pushing / being on the back foot is huge and a true innovation to the series! I love it. This also makes me play some Troy - I completely overlooked it, but with WH3 back in the oven I may give it another shot....
Play Troy in the non-mythic mode. Generals have bodyguards and the battles are better without the mythics.
I've been waiting for push/hold/give ground options for so long in TW games. I guess we still don't have a fall back option, but I assume you can just put your unit on normal stance and let the enemy push forward. Maybe we can finally recreate battle of Cannae
This is a great step in the right direction for total war. I'm glad to see they are actually listening to feedback
I really don't care in what setting they make a Total War game what i want to see is them do anything to polish the combat and also the AI. Specifically i would like to see an improvement of unit pathing and movement. I mean it feels like nothing has changed since i dunno, Rome? And there is clearly room for improvement.
@@gameskillar8155 Then you would need a difficulty setting just for tactical AI, I believe. Because, you know, plenty Total War players just aren't that good and would get stomped by a really competent AI. There is also the difficulty of programming in "mistakes" and sub-optimal play amidst the good play, as having an AI that never makes mistakes and can micro to your every move would get tiresome (I mean, who doesn't like winning against overwhelming odds every now and then). You also want AI to be reactive. What I see in a lot of AI mods in different games is that they mainly just code in min-max city development and army comps that the AI follows blindly.
Although there definitely have been AI improvements since Rome, I suppose the slowed-down development of it is arguably not financially viable. Competent AI programmers are expensive, as they can get a much higher salary working in another sector than the under-payed game dev sector.
"Going back to our roots", Assassin's creed trailer-
i personally am really looking forward to total war: scarab, but ig pharaoh is also nice to have
I really like the advance mechanic, assuming it works, reminds me of re-enactments when one side had the more aggressive commander pushing the other guys back, and sometimes overextending and getting slammed in the flank
really glad about the individual combat being back.
Yes, in the interview the devs said that the attacker would need to capture all the victory points in settlements.
From the footage it does look like one of those battles may have been Egyptians vs Egyptians although the siege battles was Hittites attacking the city and the guys with the golden shields at 10:15 are almost certainly Hittites or maybe Sea Peoples.
Hittites and Egyptians certainly dressed differently and wore different armour designs. It should not be hard to work out who is who in most battles, barring rebellions and civil war of course.
I do prefer mythical stuff to be honest but we have been getting more mythical ones recently so it is good that hitorical fans are also getting some games
Eh historical fans aren’t gonna like this though… the Troy mechanics just feel terrible in a historical game way too arcadey. This is an improvement but idk if it’s enough.
We are gonna get a DLC with all the extra god stuff and I can also a see a combined map like Warhammer with the Troy game
If they think it's worth it they could make a full on mythic mode or spinoff game using the existing assets for all the human units later down the line.
Fantasy is gay we need empire 2 or medieval 3
You mythical losers ruined this franchise.
Thank you for showing the Combat Animations. This is what I've been missing for that realism during the battles.
Man, all of this acctually looks interesting
I am impressed.
i love how they are going back to historical total war… but please we need something with empire iii or napoleon ii (i’m not sure how they would make another napoleon though)
The clipping with the chariots is crazy. I care a lot more about realism than flashy animations, so if the physics, the weight of the units and the shape/engagement angle make sense I'll definitely play this. Because I'm intrigued with the pharaonic period.
Medieval 2 had the physics figured out, for the most part. Every TW game to this has worse unit physics.
@@termitreter6545 It's like big movies, more explosions and cinematic moments than logic and consistancy. Apparently a lot of consumers want that, knowingly or not.
I know I don't.
wonderful footage !! thank you, the images are beautiful !! So hyped !
The thing I'm most surprised about is the lack of butt ladders. I didn't expect them to change it back, but I love it!
The environmental impacts to the battle map are intriguing and exciting! I love the mechanics
The matched combat and the weather system sold it for me, very happy for the return and the addition of these features.
Will be interesting how they do Heros, being as they are in a unit now. In Attila, it was always possible that your Leader could catch an arrow right between the eyes at any moment. Or get trampled in a charge. Sure they were slightly better than a regular troop, but they were anything but invincible and could easily be killed if they get out of position
I think 3 kingdoms does have matched combat but I liked how 3 kingdoms had historical mode and romance mode. Wish they would do that again
Can confirm matched battles aren't in 3 Kingdoms for regular soldiers at least. Generals do have matched battles with other generals and regular units
I haven't been interested in tw in AGES!
These O.G. tw features like "hold the line" and "advance" are totally essential for me.
Weather effects and similar details are not smalls things. They add up and immerse the player. SO important.
Its good to see them trying out some new ideas in what would otherwise just be a reskin. I could see them working towards another Rome themed game on this foundation.
Half of these 'new improvements' are just things the old total wars had that CA took from us in recent titles
1:16 some bows are not drawn and on some the string seems to go in the wrong direction.
I will definitely be waiting for a big sale on this game 😅 Playing some Troy right now actually and it sort of bums me out knowing there isn't much change in Pharaoh. Don't get me wrong though, I'm enjoying the graphics and combat.
Not for nothing but even the latest total war game is hardly different from the very first total war game. They just get slightly better each time and they switch up the setting. You're playing the wrong game if you're looking for new and exciting lol
@@jacobsampsonis7782 well the earlier total wars have completely different mechanics with regards to the morale and hp stats; as well as city construction. The change from hit points (inspired by old tabletop wargames) to the current health bars is argued to have drastic affect on the how the battles in the games play out.
@@jacobsampsonis7782 you're crazy if you think the newer games are anything like the older ones.
I think they will do a combined map like Warhammer for both Troy and this
@@jacobsampsonis7782 how to say you haven't play any old total war game without saying you haven't
Thumbs up for the real issue of this game given by you. The color distinction is missing in all these huge games and who care about how realistic the units have to be in accordance with historical facts, just give us cool looking units that we can keep track of and quickly move from and to our units. Then this would be a great game but still i would work on more of a ground grab and move than line up controls that should be automatic. Man, just give the units with some brains they are not babysitting how the stand is a joke. Achers should automatically move behind other units when you group grab them and send them forward but no it seems to move in a mixed style that is stupid.
It seems pretty good. I am going to buy it. I also think that the siege rework for Warhammer might introduce some of the things we have seen here (gates that can be destroyed only by rams and monsters, ladders that you must prepare beforehand, no single capture point that ends the battle etc.).
Warhammer already had a siege rework.
@@rubz1390 And is still sucks
@@rubz1390 well, it didn’t work.
@@francesco.virzi4 I know that. But you shouldn't expect another rework since they already wasted so much time and resources with the previous rework
@@rubz1390 If I am not mistaken they said in the roadmap they are going to work on sieges…
I think we need a sigh of the campaign map to have an idea of the factions and the future factions we could receive in the future. Most people (including me) want to see assyrians, babylonians, etc. And I was hopping the standard-bearers of 3K (and the cinematic trailer of this game). It's a good and simple add to make the game more realistic
Bro these chariots are worse than Rome 1. The horses just spin around
This is an alpha build.
@@resileaf9501 Alpha bs. Here we go again!
@@resileaf9501 What you see is 100% going to be the final result. I have been in the gaming industry for way too long to know that the "is a beta", "is an alpha", "is a demo" is all a massive cope.
The only games who this apply to are indie developers, like Warhorse Studios with Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
I would like them adding foodsteps, maybe sounds a bit strange but leaving foodsteps in the mud and seeing the marks the armies made moving trought these places would be nice. On top te creation of dust clouds by large units moving.
You can clearly see them doing that in the video
This is looking good! I'm assuming that there's a reason why they didn't just make this an expansion for troy - this might eventually have a Greek DLCs, maybe a small discount for people who bought troy? Maybe a DLC for troy with Egypt? Lots of possibilities!
😂😂😂💩💩💩💩💩
@@dixenherize6969 Dang, a lot changed in 3 months T_T
Love the idea that you have to capture the whole city, but I would also really love if there where cconsequences, like if you choose to bulk your army in a tight spot and only defend there you'd lose alot of population in the city by doing it. Like if each capture points and towers etc you capture will cause more damage to the city on the campaign map for example. You'd have to make decisions
Why are all the soldiers standing so far apart from each other? How are you supposed to fight with such enormous gaps in your frontline?
Ancient armies of the period just did not go for close order fighting in the way later armies did.
I like the Advance and Hold. Add a Give Ground as well. Your units intentionally give ground to hopefully expose the center enemy's flank. And they can do the same to you if you don't adjust.
Troy reskin?
It was to be expected
You didn't see the video?
And Napoleon is an Empire reskin
And Attila is a Rome 2 reskin
Medieval 2 is a reskin of Rome 1.
This is not a viable criticism.
@@resileaf9501 warhammer 3 is a reskin of 2 and 2 is a reskin of 1
@@daangoes121 No, they're expansion packs.
Some previous total war games did have weather impacting the battlefield if my memory is correct :). In Shogun2 rain and snow would prevent gunpowder units from firing and impact archers and also increase fatigue and ground snow also impacted fatigue. I think Empire also had rain effects on gunpowder. Its good to see its been bought back for this new game.
Gotta love those kick animations that make them get completely out of the formation
Shogun 2 had the best combat animation matching. I can still zoom in on battles and watch as individual soldiers block, dodge and roll away from enemies.
Still not interested in this game, _but_ there's quite a few interesting features that, when tweaked and fixed properly, I'd like to see implemented in future developments.
How the hell have we not gotten a Medieval 3 yet.. My god man. Pleasseeeeeee
Am I the only one who enjoyed Medieval II combat the most? Where they would have animations without really locking themselves into it.Made especially 2v1s pretty interesting, and generaly give weight to how the AI would move and which enemies lock in a fight.
Yes but Shogun 2 had the Best Animations
Loved the shield bashes in the video!
I'm not so into battles, if they're all you ever do, like Warhammer. What I'm mostly interested in is the campaign itself, what can we do there to keep us busy, diplomacy, etc. For me Total War was 70/30 campign/battles as a good ratio. Too many battles and they don't become interesting or important anymore. I want a battle to have a good impact on the campaign, so I remember when and why I fought. Not just fighting for fighting's sake. I want battles to take a toll on the campaign too, lost many men, yeah let that influence the campaign too. Built too many armies too fast, then yeah, let that show as a drain on manpower and production too. Stuff like that.
Be patient. CA will be showing us bit by bit. Theres still lots of time until October!
@@czukarpathian6621 Uhm yeah, I am patient. I'm just talking about what my preferences are :)
Sounds like you should play Paradox rather than TW tbf
@@fedyx1544 Not at all, while I do play Paradox games a lot too, they still don't have manual battles. I have no idea what people read, but I'm not saying I don't like manual battles. I'm saying I prefer the campaign to hold the most attention. Basically, the less battles I fight, to a degree, they increase how interesting they are when they happen.
@@Wintermist-SWE Honestly this might be why I enjoyed Empire so much in Warhammer. I felt like most of the armies I could build with them were strong enough that I could just autoresolve all the boring battles and the ones I actually fought felt pivotal to whatever war was happening at the time. I thought WH3 had a lot of good steps in terms of diplomacy as well. Every faction could do it to a point, but it felt better doing it as humans.
What are those javelin throw animations at 1:03 LOL. They're spinning like they threw axes.
I am really excited for this, finally a new proper historic Total War game. And I absolutely love the bronze age history. The 8 starting factions are divided by 3 different cultures, Egypt, The Hittite Empire and Canaan. Each of which I would expect to be fairly different, like the Empire and Dwarfs are in Warhammer. And since Egypt is well, in Egypt, the Hittite Empire was settled around modern day Turkey, I would expect the campaign map to at least cover the entire eastern Mediterranean.
Some really cool and good additions like the terrain becoming muddy and heavy units get stuck, only in the least whiny and entitled way possible I would love to see it in an empire 2 or medieval 3. As you pointed out it feels almost as if it's a Troy DLC but maybe they're going for the ol' 'Empire then Napoleon' thing and this is going to have campaigns following historical conquests. I do like the 1v1 combat animations coming back but I still would like it to go back even further and develop the old system of 1v1 but someone can take a risk, turn around and attack them in the side or back, momentarily breaking the line but if successful creating a 2v1 for both of their 1v1's like in Rome 1
An idea that would have been great to merge this with Troy. Troy was about 1000 years earlier before the bronze age collapse, but in terms of technology: its pretty much the same. What they should have done is add these two games together. If you begin as as Greek/Trojan faction: you get a MASSIVE political/morale penalty for going to Egypt. This way it, it stops you from messing with the historical timeline... you havev to say around the Greek Isles. And if you play as Egypt, same deal. So the "two worlds" can advance in teh same game but are kept apart using mechanics. As time advances, the seperation penalties are reduced slowly... this would have created such a unique and interesting campaign mechanic.
Good idea, you could even
Link the penalties to the tech tree, and have some colony settlements that can reduce the penalties in region via special port building.
The trojan war is usually dated to almost the exact same time as the collapse; I've never heard anyone say that the War took place in 2200 BC.
Total War with Historical Authenticity. Meanwhile, 3 months after released: Total War Pharaoh: Gods of Egypt and Monsters Pack.
Matched combat lets goooooooo
The feature i want to see added the most to the historical battle system is some form of tactical "defending/ fighting retreat", i.e certain elite units that can step backwards from a melee in a defensive formation
This was such a common occurence in 'controlled' or pitched ancient battles, especially those that went on for hours, that it always gets me when your heavily armored, tower shielded veteran warriors have no choice but to turn their backs to the line and take massive unnecessary losses
I'd have to disagree with the factions and its units looking similar. I love how its default similar. Leaves the community to get creative and gives them a good base to work off of imo. A lot of mods will update the visual effects and looks of the units making them much more unique.
The combos & model interactions are a thing in medieval 2 idk if it was the first to have that but it’s been in total war for a long time
Man, I really hope this one brings back actual naval battles instead of "two armies hit each other on the water, find the nearest island that appears out of nowhere and fight it out on land"
it seems to be the best Total War game to come out in recent years. There are great developments, I hope it will develop further, the total war is moving towards again a very good place
I wonder if the weather systems means that arrows are naturally high damaged in natural weather so that it balances out during bad weather. Or are they just pushing us to play high inf and cav and pre much abandon arrows if their damage stats are so unpredictable for each battle?
What bothers me about this is not that it's just soooo similar to Troy, but that it's soooo similar to Troy WHILE costing 60€. Ain't no fucking way that this "totally not SAGA" game is worth that much money. They basically just got rid of the SAGA title so that they can charge more for it. And what's worse is that some people are completely oblivious to that and act like it's this huge freaking historical game like Med 2 or Rome 2, when in reality it's just Troy 2.0. And it's also infinitely more expensive than Troy, because a lot of people got Troy LITERALLY FOR FREE! Yeah, hard pass on this one, hard pass.
You are wrong, this is not a Saga game at all, it just uses the same engine.
Unit variety/distinction isnt something that bothers me that much, but there should be visual differences, like english knights wearing different heraldry and colours to french knights in medieval.
The variety comes from things like upgrading armour/weapons/shields like in older total wars, research, army levelling abilities and general abilities. In attila your armies can level up and gain melee stat bonuses, reduced attrition, and you can build various blacksmithing and weapon smithing buildings to upgrade units. Small but important upgrades and distinctions
There was, Egyptians and Hittites dressed very differently and had different shaped shields. In those videos one of the battles may have been Egyptians vs Egyptians and the devs have said their will still be rebellions and civil wars.
@@Naeron66 there was? i never said there wasnt? i said there should be visual distinctions like how knights wore distinctive things................ learn to read man
Looks very much like a Troy copy and paste. Such a lazy effort again from CA.
It sounds like this game will make for a great base to mod from if nothing else... I'd love to see some musket era warfare using that weather & siege system and improved performance!
The mud and rain mechanic looks pretty cool. Maybe I'll try and orchestrate a battle of Agincourt type situation.
the weather and environmental effects sound great. kudos to the devs for that stuff
Why does every game after C&C Generals have tanks (horses and chariots in this case) that turn in place (@2:10)
I don't really like the armor degradation feature... we already pay upkeep for armies which in many cases includes bronze. That would go towards repairs, no? It's not really something that would be a factor in a single battle either. I also hope the dynamic weather isn't too annoying as well. Weather didn't constantly change during battles throughout history, so I hope the frequency reflects that reality. The bronze age collapse also sounds like a potential nightmare, maybe just being a composite of unhappy populace, natural disasters, food shortages, increased administration costs and all the other annoying things that prevent you from doing what you really want to be doing in the game. On top of all this you can add an Atilla/Chaos style invasion, probably popping out of nowhere and razing the settlements you spent time and resources building up, which further compounds all the other annoying crap that is preventing you from building/maintaining an army and conquering new regions. Don't get me wrong, this could all still work and be fun, but I just hope that it's not done in an annoying way. There should be a proper way to deal with everything that the player can learn thru trial and error; or by looking at forums. I hope it isn't just a giant mess. Also, I seriously hope they add Babylonians and Assyrians to this game. What is a Bronze Age game without them, really?
Given the time period, this will be like a (more historical) Attila to Troy's Rome 2. Chariots and siege weapons means the end of an era is at hand, in which most major civilizations of the period disappeared with only a few clues as to who or what caused it, even to this day.