Pros Immersive Graphics
Cons Gameplay- a biggie
Summary It's been a few years since I played Caesar III but I had fairly good memories of the game. Reading reviews of this, I figured it would be a good follow up and it's not. The graphics are quite nice, but that doesn't make up for the weakness of the gameplay. Compared with Caesar III, everything in this game is worse. The biggest joke is the combat - it's just plain awful. While I finished the entire campaign, the combat missions were the pits. Most hilarious is combat that takes place on the region map- it can be summarized as "right click, right click" done. While in cities, the combat is also aggravating - some enemies sneak off and start destroying buildings, etc. Other gameplay elements are also aggravating, like warehouses that fill stupidly and house members that refuse to cross the street to pick up needed supplies.
In the end the game felt like homework and I'm glad I'm done with it.
Pros Easy, great graphics
Cons To easy -- almost boring
Summary The campaign is monotonous. Each city is the same – different terrain same city, with the same goals, just higher.
Hate try to delete road – you always delete more than you want and what you don’t want.
Haven’t played the military campaign yet, but can’t imagine its any more challenging than the economic.
Over all Caesar III was a better game. I am hoping that the new game from Tilted Mill (Children of the Nile) will be worth the money – this wasn’t.Updated
WHY? and mean why? Why do you have to research the same technologies we each city? Roman's certainly didn't reinvent concrete everytime they want to build an aqueduct.