This RTS is up against the mighty Age of Empires II this week, so how does Pharaoh fare?
Ross Atherton

The Sim City series has proved, without argument, that many games players just can't be bothered with all that tiresome combat when trying to create the perfect civilisation. It just distracts you from trying to make all your happy little people even happier, right? With this in mind, developers Impressions have been quietly plugging away, creating first the Caesar series, and now Pharaoh, which is aiming to cap the Civilization-style genre once and for all.

And, for most games players at least, this brand of pacifism proves addictive. You assume the mantle of a city governor in Ancient Egypt, in full control of a fledgling city. Depending on the scenario, you may have to reach a certain standard of living in your city or ultimately build a massive monument (more on those later). Every time, though, you start from scratch and must attract people to your city by providing housing, services, food, wages and attractive taxes. You're in control of everything, from religious festivals and trade routes to defending your city from invaders.

Unfortunately, this is where Pharaoh falls down. Age Of Empires II proves a cruel foil to this, as combat in Pharaoh is both dull and unimportant. Although it takes place in real-time, victory in the field of battle depends on whether you're prepared; like the rest of the game, it relies on the stockpiling of resources and provision of garrisons. Also, it offers no improvement over Caesar III (apart from the addition of rudimentary naval encounters), and so the threat to your city through force of arms is rarely worrying.