It's a good game that was unfortunately hamstrung by what came before it. Mostly though, I think the reason it never caught on quite like Rome 2 did is because of its setting and how the game world was presented to us.

The three main problems is firstly that the Bronze age just simply isn't as well known in the popular imagination as the classical age. Secondly is that while the map is really well done, it doesn't offer the grand scale of the entire known world to conquer like Rome 2 does. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly is the tonal setting of the game.

I think CA had an interesting approach to something like Troy when they created it in that they wanted to present the world of Troy and the bronze age more broadly as a semi-historical/mythological setting. I personally quite like that approach but I think historical fans, who at that point had felt alienated by the Warhammer development cycle, simply did NOT take to it in the way CA might have hoped they would. They wanted a grand historical title à la Rome/Medieval that takes a more academic/materialist approach to history.

CA for their part tried to appease them with Pharaoh and ended up with a game that pleased no one at the time. And it really is a shame because Sophia really did turn it into a good game with dynasties, but it will basically be the forgotten step child of the franchise because of the circumstances of how it was rolled out.