Thanks!

I think most people would say Caesar 3, though I haven't played any of the games (not my genre).

Believe quite a few people prefer 2 over 3. I plan on picking up 2 at some point to see for myself.

Are the store page release dates incorrect? According to Wikipedia, Caesar should be October 12, 1992 and the sequel should be September 4, 1995. Store pages list January 1, 1993 and January 1, 1995 respectively. The series list has them as 1992 and 1994 respectively.

Old games often have different release day for different country.
I often find same game with different release dates in wikipedia and mobygames.
Many early classic/legend games have lost their release date record.
Even their developer/publisher also can not sure what day they released that game. :-(

Dates like 1 January or 31 December are used to avoid null values for day and month in a database when no (reliable?) information on the dates can be found at that time. For example, you'll mostly see the release date of Worms 2 set to 31 December 1997 (yeah right, a New Year's Eve release, sure...), when it was actually released in late November.

Not just old games -- sometimes modern games get released in different regions days (or longer) apart.
But yeah, back in the day, nobody tracked release info nearly as carefully or accurately as it's done today (just as programmers often didn't bother to keep track of the source code after the game's development cycle was finished): nobody thought anybody else was going to care about these things a decade or more later. Also, even the "big" companies back then were generally not very big, and probably often not very professionally run or well-regimented, so that probably didn't help with the record-keeping. :)
EDIT: Which is why, like Plokite_Wolf said, GOG often resorts to just putting in a placeholder. Not sure why the year displayed on the item entry in sidebar lists shows as the year prior to the one on the game card, though.

And? This is exactly the sort of act that could get them/anyone/someone to resolve that rights issue. I'm pretty sure the community efforts around System Shock 1 had the same effect and helped keep/spark interest with both players and the rights-holders.

Thanks for letting me know. The revival is real!

Now I gotta go and find my original disc to listen to that soundtrack again.

Nah, everything pretty much suggests Warner Bros., the current owners of Monolith Productions, don't give a damn about PC gaming (latest Batman games, anyone?), while Sierra, currently a mere brand under Activision's rule, was just a publisher of the games as of 2002, and all that Monolith devs can do is cry at injustice imposed by assholes in suits :P