Now, with a few games under our belt, I feel as though we've had the experience needed to write a review. Just to give you fair warning, I'm about to slavish a disgusting amount of praise on this game. Infatuation can often be embarrassing. You've been warned.
What makes this game great
In summary, here's what makes this game worth your money, attention, and time:
* Intriguing subject.
* Interesting variations among the positions.
* Excellent play balance.
* Brilliant game mechanics.
* Challenging strategic and tactical puzzles.
* Scales reasonably well.
* Tons of table talk.
* High replayability
Intriguing subject
If you have any interest in ancient history, the period covered (4th to 3rd century BC) is fascinating. Rome is not yet the superpower of the Mediterranean. In fact, the Roman Republic is regularly clashing with several other local powers, including the Greeks, Etruscans, Samnites, Carthaginians, and Gauls. The situation is very fluid, as are the alliances among these competing nations.
The designer, Wray Farrell, has done an excellent job of capturing the feel for the times in the game itself. Of course, the decks for each power (it's a card-driven game, like Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage and We the People) add a lot of color. So, too, do other, less obvious game mechanics, such as the heavy emphasis on cities as the centers of power in the ancient world. The political control and military defense of cities is, perhaps, the first of Sword of Rome's fundamental mechanics that you need to understand in order to win the game.
Interesting variations among the positions
Each position in the game has its interesting advantages and disadvantages. (Note: The same player handles both the Etruscans and the Samnites.)
The Greeks have excellent generals, but have to pay a political penalty (simulating the petty rivalries among Greek city-states) to keep them in the field.
The Romans have enemies on all sides, including a minor "non-player character" race, the Volscii, beating on them from the start. However, the Romans have a powerful advantage over time: unlike other powers, they can build new cities, and the cities become the factories for new armies. The Romans also have to draw two new consuls each turn, often forcing the Roman player to endure lamentable leaders.
The Etruscans can stop battles through bribery (discarding a value 3 card permanently). However, they risk losing their bribery ability if they lose too much territory, and the number of value 3 cards in their deck effectively limits their bribery ability, too.
The Samnites don't have much in the way of leadership, troops, or anything else, but they are potentially the toughest race on defense. If they hold on to their mountain redoubts, they can snipe at the Romans, Greeks, and Gauls whenever needed.
The Gauls have the ability to manufacture extra victory points (very important in this game) through pillaging. However, they are competing with other Gallic tribes for these spoils, and they have other disadvantages (poor at sieges, no ability to save critical cards between turns) that put the brakes on the Gallic horde.
The Carthaginians (playable only with the five-player expansion) can hire mercenaries to build powerful armies, and they have unmatched ability to move by sea. However, they are also susceptible to political unrest, which cuts down on their hand size. Half the mercenaries disappear each turn, and there are a lot of "screw with Carthage" cards in other people's decks. Unless they ally with the Greeks, they will be locked in a bloody knife-fight over control of Sicily for much of the game, limiting their ability to make gains elsewhere on the map.
Excellent play balance
There's no clearly advantaged or disadvantaged player in Sword of Rome. In our games, we've seen every side win, or come close to winning.
The one significant exception is the three-player game. Putting the Gauls on remote control (roll two dice, look at a chart that simulates what the Gauls might have done that turn to hurt other players) helps, but it doesn't completely change the fact that the Etruscans don't have to worry about a Gallic invasion. This situation tips the balance slightly in the Etruscan/Samnite direction, though not fatally.
Even though there's a bit of a "beat up on the leader" side to the game, it's pretty minor, compared to many other multi-player wargames. You can play cannily to stay in second or third place, while positioning yourself for a critical turn or two of VP generation.
Brilliant game mechanics
Sword of Rome already excels, just by being a well-balanced, multi-player wargame--a hard thing to do, as generations of failed attempts can show. However, Sword of Rome also has some absolutely brilliant game mechanics, on top of being laudably balanced:
* Quick, easy combat. Both attacker and defender roll three dice, apply modifiers, and look at the result. Based on the numbers rolled on each die, you will know immediately what the casualties are.
* The victory point track. Everyone starts with 6 points, and then can lose VPs by losing key VP point-generating spaces, or gain VPs by conquering these spaces. Plus, if you're really feeling ballsy, you can win an early victory if you accumulate enough VPs in the first few turns. These mechanics encourage risk-taking in a game that otherwise might be fraught with "turtling" problems.
* The "Desperate Times" cards. Every player has two special cards, always available to play. You can use them to interrupt the normal course of play to take a turn. Once played, each card is then permanently discarded. The Desperate Times cards have both offensive and defensive uses: not only can you pull yourself out of a hole with them, but you can also seize the initiative to go for the win.
Challenging strategic and tactical puzzles
Every turn of Sword of Rome is interesting. Every position in the game is interesting. For example, as the Gauls, you need to push hard early in the game to win, since your VP-generating pillaging will, over time, attract the enmity of the other players. As the Romans, you need to wheel and deal until you've built enough cities to make yourself the powerhouse of the Mediterranean.
The tactical puzzles are equally challenging. Based on your goals for the turn, is it worth fighting a close battle? If you have a good leader, is it worth positioning him where he might intercept an enemy force, or is it better just to attack and not risk failing the interception? Is it better to use a card to activate your own troops, or to activate one of the non-player powers (Voscii, Trans-Alpine Gauls, and in the four-player game, the Carthaginians) instead?
Scales reasonably well
While, as noted earlier, there may be slight problems with the three-player game, the four- and five-player versions are excellent. However, don't take my comments to mean that a three-player game is a waste of time. Far from it: everyone still has a very good chance of winning the game.
Tons of table talk
Based on what I've told you so far about the game, you probably won't be surprised to hear that playing the game involves a lot of table talk. Offers, threats, bluffs, "friendly advice," and offers to ally happen constantly. You can't take an action without inviting the interest of one of the other players.
High replayability
It'll be a long time before you feel that you've played out all the possibilities in Sword of Rome. First, you have to play all the sides. Then, you have to try out different strategies for the each side. Finally, you have to figure out whether early or late wins are better, and if there are deeper elements to the game that you need to master over time. (Yes, there are.) Take even the best card-driven wargame, and at least double the replayability to estimate how many times Sword of Rome will be worth playing.
Posted Mon Aug 4, 2008 6:26 pm
