User Reviews (1 - 11 of 26)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

HORRIDLY BAD

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 11
Date: September 11, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Stay away. Stay FAR AWAY.

This game might (MIGHT) have been acceptable in the late 80s, but I doubt it. The graphics are ugly and primitive. The interface looks like a VGA dos strategy game like Settlers 1, and is unclear and hard to use. The game is plagued by numerous video bugs.

But all that would be ignorable if the gameplay were even OK. Unfortunately, the gameplay [is bad]. It's basically Ancient Art of War for the Apple II with (slightly) updated graphics. The cover illustration is the best thing about this ..., unimaginative, rushed title.

Do yourself a favor and spend your hard earned money on something good, ...

Very Disappointing

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 10
Date: October 26, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Coming from the company that has produced the very successful Europa Universalis games (which are great) - Legion is a flop, a big flop. As an experienced war gamer my expectations continually rise due to continual improvements in war gaming. This is the most disappointing game I've ever bought and that probably covers 50+ different games. I tried playing this 5-6 times for several hours and no the game is not too complex. It is way too simple and wooden. Like the 'town' in an Italian spaghetti western.

This game fails as a strategy game since there is so little depth to it. It looks like a cheesy imitation of Civilization I (without the tech tree, wonders, new units, leaders, etc.) which came out over 10 years ago. Yet Civ I is better than this for strategy (guns v. butter decisions).

Legion fails in the tactical sense. Don't even begin to compare this to Age of Kings for battle play. All you do is a one time launch of the battle. After it starts you have no control. AoK runs circles around this in controlling and viewing battles plus AoK is better at the strategic level. And yes, AoK did come out over 2 years ago.

That Legion is turn-based (i/o RTS) makes the flow much more stiff but at least I knew that up front.

The graphics are like something out of a time capsule - an not in a good sense. Ancient Art of War does come to mind.

Top it all off with almost useless documentation and, you get the point.

Strategy - F
Tactics - F

Graphics - D
Instructions - F

Am still looking forward to Paradox's Hearts of Iron (which looks great) and Crusader Kings. Still, how can something as bad as Legion come from the same company that produced EU? Reminds me of a line from the Sheriff (Jackie Gleason) at the end of 'Smokey and the Bandit' when he looked at his bumbling son and said 'when I get home I'm gonna puch your momma in the mouth'. Maybe that's how Paradox will look at Legion some day.

How Sad

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 8
Date: July 16, 2002
Author: Amazon User

This game had soooooo much potential... it is always sad to see a game that should have been so good, turn out so poorly.

They really skimped on this game, and my advice is to save your money...

Sad...very sad.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: August 15, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I WAS looking forward to this game, but after thirty minutes of play I felt like I was playing something that should run on a low powered Commodore 64. There is virtually no diplomacy, the game mechanics are rustic, anachronistic and extremely boring, there is no internal decision making to add any flavor to the game and ultimately it is like managing a warehouse with three materials and making sure the shelves are stocked. The battles are even worse. They are a big mess and it makes no difference where you position your troops they always end up in the same spot...all lumped in a big ugly, indecipherable mess in the middle of the screen. I loved both Europa Universalis games and was extremely disapointed with this sad game. However I am still loking forward to Paradox's Crusader Kings, I still have hope.

Doesn't cut it

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 6
Date: August 22, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I was so looking forward to this game. I mean Really. Which is why I am really bummed it is not that good. As a Roman empire fan I was dying to use my legions to trounce those nasty celts. And it just seemed to lack any roman flavor. The combat baffled me as the units had no common sense, you can't use traditional Roman tactics, and I almost went mad trying to get my troops to realize they were in a great hill position just sit and wait! The Legion units scattered to the four winds in combat- so much for that great trained bunch of men hammering through the barbarians. And I was also mystified by the rqndom limits placed on units in specific areas- which why of all things are called "squads"? They went to great lengths to get every celtic tribe name correct, but allow only 8 "squads" in one place.

Maybe its in the game someplace but after playing for a few hours I was just sick over what was missing. No forming the XX Legion and marching on the enemy. It really felt like a game from maybe 4 years ago.

So as a Roman history enthuiast I just have to say I am very disapointed and wished they had put out a demo. WIth that I would have known in 10 minutes not to waste my money.

Don't Bother

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 11
Date: November 21, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Poorly made. Much better strategy games out on the market. A let down after playing Europa II and Medieval Total War

You'd have more fun driving nails into your foot

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: June 23, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Alright, this game has graphics that look like they were inherited from Civilization 2. There's nothing to complain about in reference to the strategy portion of the game, since it's pretty standard, but the real time portion will make you lose the will to live. You deploy your soldiers and then helplessly watch as they run around the map and fight the enemy. Yes, I'm not kidding, you actually can't control the army in battle, it's reduced to you sitting there watching little soldier A throw things at little soldier B until one of them dies or runs away. The idea that you can't make real time changes during a battle is rather absurd, and as a result of the game design there's no strategy, you might as well wander off and do something interesting while the battles are running. This game hurts brain.

Friends, Romans, Gamers...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 9
Date: June 16, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Legion is a real-time/turn-based hybrid strategy game. The turn-based mode is where you play strategically: choosing areas to invade, deciding on what buildings to construct (buildings increase resources and allow recruiting and training of military units), you know "the big picture stuff."

The real-time mode begins when you invade (or are invaded) and confront enemy military. You have the ability to deploy your legionaries,archers,cavalry,etc. and give them their battleplans but once combat begins, the battle is on automatic pilot. So you would be Julius Caesars are out-of-luck if you were hoping to display your tactical prowess.

There is no skirmish mode, so you'd better like the 4 campaigns.You can play the campaigns from different nations/tribes but the non-Romans are different in name only.

The graphics are ordinary at best, the battle graphics disappointed me because of the small, out-dated blobby units.

The game left me unsatisfied since I could not command a legion in battle and there are no historical generals (like Julius Caesar)to lead my armies. The turn-based mode was very generic and limited to only about a dozen building types.

"Diet" Age of Empires.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 6
Date: August 06, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I'm so used to having to take forever to learn the nuances of complicated strategy/war games. So, I was kinda like, "Huh? That's it?", when I started playing Legion. Yes, you have food, wood, and stone like most games, but you really don't manage them very much. Is that good or bad? I dunno, really.
Basically, all of the city managing stuff is done by the computer and you, the player, do the fighting. All of the few city managing decisions that you do make need to be focused on the primary importance of your army. This, I suppose, is pretty historically accurate. The MOST important thing is war.
The battles are laid out like this: You choose the city or army you want to fight. You then lay out in formation the positioning of your squads. Then choose your attacking advancement and hit 'GO!'. Then you just watch and hold your breath. It can get pretty nerving watching your armies advance. But, it's all over in a minute or so.
Pretty good game, but not enough in depth management for sim freaks like me.

The Mediocre Legion

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: February 10, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I would recommend that you not buy this game for the following reasons:
1.There is really no attacking or defending. It seems like every battle is a meeting engagement.
2.Combat can get to be quite boring after a while. You usually know who will win when the battle opens and I was surprised to find that you can't control your units during the battle.
3.Cavarly units are very weak and their initial charge has no shock value.
4.In combat, units just march at each other and fight-there seems to be no tactical skill involved; the AI is exceedingly dumb,and the combat music can get very boring.

All this said, this title is an average game. You may like it if you are a history buff, and the patch 1.06 improves a little on the games original flaws.

Review Page: 1 2 3 Next 

Actions