Haemimont Games and FX Interactive have announced a new ancient strategy game, Imperivm: Great Battles of Rome. Yes, it’s supposed to be a “v”. I guess that since “Imperium” has been used a lot, and they aren’t creative enough to think of another name, they’ll just drop the “u” and pretend that all their customers get the Latin joke.

I don’t mean to be dismissive or snarky, but Haemimont is one of those developers that I just don’t get. Both Celtic Kings and Nemesis of the Roman Empire did very well with most critics, but bored me more than Pliny. And their new game, with all its promising PR looks like more of the same.

Don’t believe me? Check out their press info pack here.

First, the good. Numantia and Viriathus! Finally a game developer decides to take on modeling the guerrilla war in Hispania that, in many ways, set the tone for Roman politics between Hannibal and the Gracchi. Hard fought, long, and very frustrating for the Romans.

It looks like there will be set piece battles from the screenshots with the ability to give orders while paused.

There is a Total War type campaign mode that looks like it could be a decent distraction.

Now the not so good. None of these battles are really set pieces (most discuss sieges or landings) and much of the document shows the same settlements we saw before, raising the threat of supply focused gameplay that made their other two ancient games such a chore.

Anubis warriors? Osiris chariots? Where in the name of Sisyphus were your historical experts? Is it so hard for developers to understand that Cleopatra’s Egypt was not Ramses’ Egypt? A couple of thousand years does make a difference.

The graphics don’t seem to have changed at all.

And, once again, Pompey gets slighted.

I’ll get it more because I have this ancient itch that won’t stay scratched. And I expect respectful reviews from my colleagues in the gaming press. I remain to be convinced.