Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 14
  2. Negative: 3 out of 14
  1. 40
    There's just nothing interesting in the dynamic of a snowballing collection of cities spitting out poorly distinguished armies that you can shunt into non-interactive battles to conquer generic enemies on an irrelevant map.
  2. While the developers have done a good job of crafting a simplistic strategy game, it lacks the depth that most players require today.
  3. The battles are pretty damn chaotic. They're also devoid of fun, have little rhyme or reason, and often leave you with no idea why you won or lost. [Oct 2002, p.97]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 8 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 2 out of 2
  1. Apr 11, 2013
    When I picked up this game at a "discount" recently (5 dollars off the original price when it was first released) I was hoping it was going to be a competitive release to Rome: Total War. I couldn't be more wrong. This ancient "strategy" game makes it frustrating for one to control numbers of soldiers of any significant size, and it fails miserably at presenting ancient warfare in any realistic manner. Roman legions are given commands moving about in mobs and not in any orderly fashion whatsoever, representing barbarians more than any type of a civilized empire. Now I have the problem of trying to sell this title knowing that I wont get even a quarter of the price I paid for it. Boy, did I screw up! The game is a let down, but the cover looks cool!
    Full Review »
  2. Apr 16, 2013
    A micro-management nightmare, is putting it lightly. This game needs an update, badly. I got lost first in the complex HUD with tiny print and difficult controls. Hotkeys are difficult to remember and out of place for this sort of game, while the tactics of the game are non-existent. Full Review »