Summary: A lot of people keep comparing this game to TW series, but don't be misguided by the lower scores that come from comparison! Spartan, on it's own merits, is a solid 4 out of 5. Why? 1. Spartan forces you to be strategic about how and when and why you attack. Just like in real life, your hand may be forced by a shortage of food or material and that rich city state down the coast may have just what you need.
Summary: I purchased this game with high hopes (Having played Chariots of War and loved it) and this game met those expectations well. Spartan provides a different style of play from Chariots of War, and is in some ways an entirely different game - it is definately much harder (if one continues playing after victory)! Spartan also has great maps and the new commands in battle add a whole new dynamic that makes the game truely something!
Summary: Come on Slitherine Software, make us a proper sequal to Spartan.. not those minority interest games that no-one is interested in. There was much interest in Slitherine making Legion 2. I kept up interest in this for some years, and then went back to their website and there was nothing more said about it, nothing, forum deleted. And it could have been a good sequal to Spartan.
Summary: You could call this game a poor man's total war, but don't let that put you off, because it is a decent game. It involves moving units around map and managing towns in much the same way as Rome Total War, but the graphics and battles are not quite so sophisticated. However, one area that seems quite involved is diplomacy, with the player able to use diplomats to influence its neighbours in many different ways.
Summary: Spartan is quite an excellent game but its letdown is some tribes don't have the same amount of units.Some are necessary like Spartans having Spartiates but only Persians and Eastern tribes can have Cataphrachts.The bad thing about sequels to historic games is that the first game is later in time than the second game.
Summary: Spartan is quite an excellent game but its letdown is all tribes don't have the same amount of units.Some are neccasary like Spartans having Sparitaties but only Persians and Eastern can have Cataphrachts.The bad thing about sequels to historic games is that the first game is later in time than the second game you might not agree but I think Spartan makes up for that by adding things on which Legion didn't have like research,good graphics and control of your own...
Summary: I found this by accident on the 'clearence shelf' of a large games retailer. Actually, it's a recent release, but seems to have largely been ignored. Well, a fantastic game. An empire-builder that is right up CIV's alley, but with battles fought in pretty cool 3d. It's a perfect antidote to the RTS mouse-click glut of games we've been inundated with over recent years.
One of the best turnbased stratergy games I have ever played
Super Boy Danny, Amazon
27 March 2004
Summary: This game is brilliant! It has many of the features we have come to expect from these games. Ithas all of the features of its two predocessors, 'Legion' and 'Chariots of War'. The battle is based upon winning as many cities (through warfare alone) as possible and offers better close up views of battles than 'Chariots of War'. With more battle formations and types of attack, it has completely outpased Chariots and Legion. Please do not expect this to be like Civilization.
Summary: Spartan is a turnbased and realtime strategy game, its turn base in the campaign screen were you manage your fledgling empire and real time for the battles. Spartan is a massive improvment on previous titles from Slitherine, diplomacy is more indepth, combat works better, updated graphics and even a new Optional 3d graphics engine for battles, includes multiplayer via LAN and gamespy, a huge single player, good sounds/music in general and a brilliant setting to boot!