The Good: Magic and monsters make tactical battles marginally more interesting, forging items is neat, nice graphics
The Not So Good: Campaign map mode features entirely scripted pre-built mandatory missions and no kingdom management, tedious story-based quests, chaotic battles leave little room for tactics, terrible interface, superficial and limited diplomatic options, dim AI, odd tactical map design, no multiplayer, severe performance issues for some
What say you? A linear, shallow campaign and underdeveloped tactical battles make this fantasy game fade into history: 4/8
In many cases, progress is made by simply walking from battle to battle without really having any choice where you want to strike next. There are a few instances where a quest can be completed by taking over a few provinces in any order as long as you defeat the quest objective's army, but the overworld is largely reduced to a visual representation of getting from target to target for progression's sake. Many provinces are defended by "impossible" strength armies that have highly inflated stats, making them unbeatable until you've progressed through enough storyline quests to be permitted to fight them. When you do progress far enough, the game's "military advancement" tech tree automatically goes up by one level and all your units -- existing units included -- are upgraded to more a powerful class, while the impossible armies now suddenly have more manageable stats.
Like its predecessor before it, King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame successfully melds role-play, adventure, diplomatic and combat elements into a cohesive, one of a kind experience. The additions and changes make the game feel almost as fresh as its predecessor and discovering them is almost an adventure by itself.