It's out!

[Siblesz]

Played for a few mins before bed. Seems really nice for now, lots of new interface, lots of new things to learn. Let's see if it works out to be a cool game. Let this be a thread for the first reviews of the game. Enjoy the gaming!

[alhoon]

How is it?
What are the factions like?
Are there 3-kingdoms dynamics between factions and characters?
Are the factions significantly different, with different mechanics and goals?

[Siblesz]

How is it?
What are the factions like?
Are there 3-kingdoms dynamics between factions and characters?
Are the factions significantly different, with different mechanics and goals?

Just started playing. I have no idea what I'm doing or what the factions or like and any of that. Maybe in a week or two I'll be able to form an opinion.

[alhoon]

Well, thanks anyway!

[PointOfViewGun]

Played for a few mins before bed. Seems really nice for now, lots of new interface, lots of new things to learn. Let's see if it works out to be a cool game. Let this be a thread for the first reviews of the game. Enjoy the gaming!

Same here. It looks beautiful. I was surprised to see how good of a performance I could get with my new laptop at High/Ultra graphics settings.

[alhoon]

Can we get some review? Christmas sales are approaching...

[PointOfViewGun]

Simply put; if you approach the game thinking its gonna suck, its gonna suck for you. If you simply avoid that irrational sentiment, you're gonna enjoy it.

[Siblesz]

First impressions:

-I like the graphics, the overall feel of the campaign. I like the fact that there are many new elements of play, like the multi-faith system of worship and the attributes that it brings, the court politics, the intricate diplomacy, the whole aspiring to be a pharaoh element and the powers that being a pharaoh or one of the other powerful positions brings... it all seems nice and cool but I still don't really know how to manage it well, especially the religious element of the campaign eludes me.

-I keep running into a problem: Perhaps I'm a total n00b (I haven't played any total war since Rome and Medieval I...), but the economics of this game really frustrate me. No matter what I do, eventually after some time I keep running into the problem of having deficiency in resources, especially in food. Perhaps I'm rushing the campaign, trying to conquer too many provinces at once. At first getting a big army works and seems to be the only way to expand, but eventually these armies take up a huge amount of resources and suddenly you're bankrupt and the armies can't even heal and then you get rebellions, etc... it seems impossible for me to go back into a positive food mode... Am I doing something wrong? I focus all of my buildings and constructions on getting more food, also the policies I enact are for getting more food, but nothing works. I am on my second campaign... both times ran into the same problem.

[Alwyn]

It's good to heae about people's experiences of the new games.

The new elements sound good. How are the battles?

The problem with food sounds frustrating. Do higher tier buildings consume food - and do armies? In Rome II, as my faction becomes an empire, I tend to alternate between expansion and consolidation. Provinces become more specialised - some focus almost entirely on food and money and only one or two provinces have the top tier barracks (not every province has the top level government building either. New Rome II players sometimes upgrade all of their buildings to the maximum level (because that's what they're used to doing in earlier games) and then run out of food - I'm wondering if there's a similar issue here, or if the food mechanic in the new game needs to be adjusted?

[airborne guy]

Played for a few mins before bed. Seems really nice for now, lots of new interface, lots of new things to learn. Let's see if it works out to be a cool game. Let this be a thread for the first reviews of the game. Enjoy the gaming!

The game is trash and I have already refunded it

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

As an aside if anyone who's played the game and is interested would like, the wiki page for it needs help and any would be appreciated. If you don't have an account you need but ask, and if you remember the details or logged in before 2018 you should be good to go.

[Siblesz]

It's good to heae about people's experiences of the new games.

The new elements sound good. How are the battles?

The problem with food sounds frustrating. Do higher tier buildings consume food - and do armies? In Rome II, as my faction becomes an empire, I tend to alternate between expansion and consolidation. Provinces become more specialised - some focus almost entirely on food and money and only one or two provinces have the top tier barracks (not every province has the top level government building either. New Rome II players sometimes upgrade all of their buildings to the maximum level (because that's what they're used to doing in earlier games) and then run out of food - I'm wondering if there's a similar issue here, or if the food mechanic in the new game needs to be adjusted?

I've started to learn how food works... Basically you need smaller armies in the beginning, should be wary of quick expansion and try to use diplomacy more than war, and you should be careful which units you train, as well as use only mercenaries in emergenies and disband them after one turn. Also I've been tweeking the food a bit, creating trade through diplomacy, only seeking tech advances that expand my food incomes, and i discovered that outposts have buildings that increase economic outputs of a province as well. Even with all of these tweeks, still I have yet struggled to maintain positive food income. All the other resources I've managed well.

As for battles, not so much into battles. I like more of the campaign in TW games.

The game is trash and I have already refunded it

I'm actually getting more and more into it.

[alhoon]

The game is trash and I have already refunded it

???
Why do you think it is trash?

[Alwyn]

Thanks Siblesz - it sounds like the food mechanic is used to encourage more careful expansion, rather than simply spamming units and marching armies to conquer regions. - but maybe it's more difficult to maintain positive food income than it should be? I wonder if there are more ways to improve food production (or reduce food consumption), or if the food mechanic needs to be made less harsh in patches?

[alhoon]

Any other, more detailed reviews please?

[Welsh Dragon]

Can we get some review? Christmas sales are approaching...

(Originally written for another thread, but this all still applies.)

I'm holding off doing my Steam Review till I've played more, but I can give you my first impressions.

I'm really enjoying playing Pharaoh and I rate it highly. It's already entered my top 3 favourites (1st Rome 2, 2nd FOTS, 3rd Pharaoh, pushing Shogun 2 to 4th.)

I've mainly been playing Irsu, though I also tried Seti a little, and played part of the Tutorial with Ramesses. I'm interested in playing all 8 factions, which is unusual for me as there's usually someone I'm less interested in (like most Eastern factions in Rome 2, because I'm terrible with cavalry, or basically the historical "winners" in most settings, because I like to be the underdog.) But with Pharaoh, they've all sparked my imagination and make me want to play.

I would say it has a good variety of factions and unit rosters, and a lot of fun mechanics I've only really scratched the surface of. It can be quite challenging (I usually play on Hard/Hard, but have ended up restarting on Normal/Normal for now because it was kicking my butt. )

With each of the 8 playable factions having about a dozen unique units, which I can then mix and match with the local Native units (which are different depending on where you are recruiting) and the Pharaoh and Great King's Elites (which are only available as Pharaoh/Great King or if holding certain court positions) I can really play with my army compositions, build theme armies, and tailor them to who or where I'm fighting. (I already plan to create some all Libu armies for desert warfare at some point, as they're specialists in that field.)

In battles I'm enjoying how each weapon and unit type has its own role, strengths, and weaknesses, and how terrain and weather can shape how I build my armies and the tactics I use in battle. e.g. Chariots can excel on open plains, but will struggle in mud and forests. Heavily armoured units have a lot of survivability, but will struggle to cross sand and will tire easily in the desert heat. Etc.

I also like the freedom I have to explore different strategies, for example whether to try to become the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Hittite Great King, or go it alone, and which legacy to choose if I go for one of the first two. The victory conditions are also more adaptable, meaning there's multiple paths to victory and I'm not locked into having to conquer specific provinces to win, even if that makes no sense for my playthrough.

Will I get 2000 hours of the game as it stands? Probably not with the current content, as one of the things that has given Rome 2 its longevity for me is the variety of campaigns to choose from.

But a good 4-500 hours seems reasonable, (8 factions x 50 hours a campaign + some extra for replaying factions I particularly enjoy, and playing with the campaign customisation such as random start positions.) 8-10 hours of fun per £ pound I spend is a pretty good return for me. And that's before DLC, which if they have the quality of the base game will be worth quite a bit to me.

In conclusion, I'm having fun and I feel my money is well spent. But I can only speak for myself, so you each have to decide what is right for you.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Siblesz]

(Originally written for another thread, but this all still applies.)

I'm holding off doing my Steam Review till I've played more, but I can give you my first impressions.

I'm really enjoying playing Pharaoh and I rate it highly. It's already entered my top 3 favourites (1st Rome 2, 2nd FOTS, 3rd Pharaoh, pushing Shogun 2 to 4th.)

I've mainly been playing Irsu, though I also tried Seti a little, and played part of the Tutorial with Ramesses. I'm interested in playing all 8 factions, which is unusual for me as there's usually someone I'm less interested in (like most Eastern factions in Rome 2, because I'm terrible with cavalry, or basically the historical "winners" in most settings, because I like to be the underdog.) But with Pharaoh, they've all sparked my imagination and make me want to play.

I would say it has a good variety of factions and unit rosters, and a lot of fun mechanics I've only really scratched the surface of. It can be quite challenging (I usually play on Hard/Hard, but have ended up restarting on Normal/Normal for now because it was kicking my butt. )

With each of the 8 playable factions having about a dozen unique units, which I can then mix and match with the local Native units (which are different depending on where you are recruiting) and the Pharaoh and Great King's Elites (which are only available as Pharaoh/Great King or if holding certain court positions) I can really play with my army compositions, build theme armies, and tailor them to who or where I'm fighting. (I already plan to create some all Libu armies for desert warfare at some point, as they're specialists in that field.)

In battles I'm enjoying how each weapon and unit type has its own role, strengths, and weaknesses, and how terrain and weather can shape how I build my armies and the tactics I use in battle. e.g. Chariots can excel on open plains, but will struggle in mud and forests. Heavily armoured units have a lot of survivability, but will struggle to cross sand and will tire easily in the desert heat. Etc.

I also like the freedom I have to explore different strategies, for example whether to try to become the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Hittite Great King, or go it alone, and which legacy to choose if I go for one of the first two. The victory conditions are also more adaptable, meaning there's multiple paths to victory and I'm not locked into having to conquer specific provinces to win, even if that makes no sense for my playthrough.

Will I get 2000 hours of the game as it stands? Probably not with the current content, as one of the things that has given Rome 2 its longevity for me is the variety of campaigns to choose from.

But a good 4-500 hours seems reasonable, (8 factions x 50 hours a campaign + some extra for replaying factions I particularly enjoy, and playing with the campaign customisation such as random start positions.) 8-10 hours of fun per £ pound I spend is a pretty good return for me. And that's before DLC, which if they have the quality of the base game will be worth quite a bit to me.

In conclusion, I'm having fun and I feel my money is well spent. But I can only speak for myself, so you each have to decide what is right for you.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

I agree with your review. I would give Pharaoh a good 7 rating. It would get an 8/9 if only they'd included Mesopotamia and Minoan civilization in the mix.

Game is fun... and highly addictive haha. I like the diplomacy of it... I think it's probably the most important part of the game.

A few problems:
-The court. I really don't care too much for it, and for now it seems like something extra that doesn't really affect gameplay. Perhaps in the next TW game they should make it either more consequent so that you HAVE to play with it, or just eliminate the court all together.
-The sea people are not affected by any desert conditions and they pop out of nowhere. I was playing as Amenmesse and the sea people would just literally walk from the middle of the desert, and they'd be fine with it, walking through the desert and the units still healing. Quite unfair and unreasonable.
-The forts are not really useful to keep people out. I would make them more important.
-I would make the shrines/religious aspect more important. Perhaps to be able to recruit priests, or to have a priesthood population that one needs to consider and satisfy?
-I miss spies, assassins, etc. Would like to have some of those back.
-the story is too much centered on Egypt... I think they should have dedicated more to balance it out. And Canaan just seems like an add on to Egyptian culture, not a thing of its own.
-Battles take forever sometimes, and soldiers can manually just destroy a city gate which is ridiculous. I found myself just automatically resolving battles each turn.

And like always, still waiting for campaign to be able to be played in multiplayer mode... perhaps i'll have to wait for the year 2064 for CA to do this?

[Alwyn]

I like the sounds of different units being recruited in different areas, different units doing well in different environments, and different strategies for different factions.

Fun, addictive and good diplomacy sounds good, too.

Siblesz mentioned the sea people in the desert and being fine with it - are you talking about desert attrition? The sea people sound like the desert-dwelling factions in the Egypt campaign in Napoleon, or the factions with immunity to desert attrition in Rome II. Is there anything you can do to counter their advantage? In Rome II, you can avoid desert attrition by staying on the roads, and in Warhammer games armies can avoid attrition by going into a fortified stance. Maybe armies (or commanders) should be able to earn a level of desert attrition immunity (for example by winning a series of battles in those conditions)?

I like having agents too, although I know they can become annoying - I found the swarm of enemy agents frustrating during Realm Divide in Shogun 2, and was surprised by how many men I lost from mass-poisoning spies in Rome II (before they changed how spies work in a patch).

It's interesting that battles take a long time - I wonder if that was a response to player criticism of battles being too fast in some of the newer games, and to the realism mods which tend to slow battles down?

[Siblesz]

Siblesz mentioned the sea people in the desert and being fine with it - are you talking about desert attrition? The sea people sound like the desert-dwelling factions in the Egypt campaign in Napoleon, or the factions with immunity to desert attrition in Rome II. Is there anything you can do to counter their advantage? In Rome II, you can avoid desert attrition by staying on the roads, and in Warhammer games armies can avoid attrition by going into a fortified stance. Maybe armies (or commanders) should be able to earn a level of desert attrition immunity (for example by winning a series of battles in those conditions)?

Yes... desert attrition. The thing is, the sea people are supposed to be coming from... the sea... not from the middle of the desert. Their armies are massive and hard to defeat in battle, so it doesn't help that they're also immune to desert attrition.

It's interesting that battles take a long time - I wonder if that was a response to player criticism of battles being too fast in some of the newer games, and to the realism mods which tend to slow battles down?

it depends on who you're asking. For some, battles are too fast. For me, they're too slow. I've never been really into the battles anyway so perhaps I'm not the right person to ask.

[Alwyn]

That makes sense - if their armies were relatively poor quality (or had a limited roster, or if their units were expensive), or if the Sea Peoples were historically desert dwellers, I'd understand it. It sounds like they're overpowered at the moment.

I see that Patch 1.01 is out, I wonder if they'll re-balance the Sea Peoples in a future update.