geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Agricola
Dominion
Battlestar Galactica
Settlers of Catan, The
Android
Pandemic
Arkham Horror
Race for the Galaxy
War of the Ring
Le Havre
Carcassonne
Power Grid
Puerto Rico
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Cosmic Encounter
Ghost Stories
Twilight Struggle
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
StarCraft: The Board Game
Tigris & Euphrates
Stone Age
Combat Commander: Pacific
Apples to Apples
Ticket to Ride
Risk
Talisman 4th Edition
Caylus
Space Alert
Memoir '44
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Galaxy Trucker
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Brass
StarCraft: Brood War
Lost Cities: The Board Game
BattleLore
El Grande
Bang!
Wasabi!
Shogun
Citadels
Railroad Tycoon
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Clue
Formula D
Acquire
Combat Commander: Europe
Tide of Iron
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
10
14 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe | Bookmark
Your Tags: Login to Add Tags | View 
Popular Tags: civ[+] [View All]
Anthony DuLac
flag
Avatar
08
-----------------------
Gameplay Aspects: Civilization/Economic/Light Combat
Player Interaction: Light to Medium
Player Conflict: Light to Medium
Rules Complexity: Light to Light/Medium
# of Players: 3-5 players
Best # of Players: 5
Game Length: 1-2 hours (usually 1.5 hours at the most)
Cost: $30-40


The unusual truth about Mare Nostrum is that it's a sheep in wolves' clothing. Yeah, I'm twisting the old adage and for good reason. Gamers seeking a deep, civilization-building economic struggle wrapped in attractive production values will find themselves primarily pleased with the production values. The civilization-building aspect is less impressive, unfortunately, despite appearances and depending on your gameplay desires.


Components

- You get a beautifully illustrated albeit simple map of the important ancient world, representing key empires of Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Babylon, and Greece.

- Wooden playing pieces for each empire in one of five different colors, Red = Carthage, Green = Greece, Yellow = Rome, Purple = Babylon, and Blue = Egypt AND in one of four different types: Legions, Triremes, Fortresses, and finally, Influence Markers

- Attractive but extremely flimsy paper player Cards for each Empire that provide initial set-up placements as well as building costs and a short rehash of potential combat results - players may prefer to laminate these cards for longevity purposes

- Plastic baggies to sort your pieces (a nice touch) & 8 6-sided dice

- A variety of beautifully illustrated cards (144 in total) - Resource cards picturing a variety of ancient resources like fish, grain, gold, etc... Tax cards (a generic income), Wonders of the World that grant a variety of different in-game benefits based on the card purchased, or a large selection of Heroes who also provide a mix of different abilities meant to help the player purchasing them. Finally, there are 3 different Director/Role cards that show which player is in charge of which bailiwick (Commerce, Military, or Political Leader))

- Small round cardboard markers representing Caravans, Markets, Cities, and Temples


Rules:

- Players are trying to achieve one of two specific goals, in order to win the game: collect a mix of either 4 Heroes and/or Wonders OR build the Pyramids (by purchasing them with either 12 Tax cards or a mix of 12 different Resources).

- Game turns include 1. Determination of Director Roles (these can change from turn to turn), 2. Commerce phase (acquiring your Resources followed by a Trading segment), 3. Building phase (spending your Resources to purchase and place Units or Influence Markers OR to buy Heroes or Wonders, 4. Military Phase (moving units and fighting with your opponents)

- The Director of each particular specialty (Commerce, Politics, or Military) makes key choices that govern each phase, usually involving who performs the actions in any given phase and in the case of Commerce, he also sets the amount of cards that will be up for trade by each player

- In order to acquire resources or tax cards necessary for purchasing anything, players will need to have a Caravan on any pictured resources in a Region's areas, this will yield one Resource card of the pictured type. Cities (also pictured on the board) will yield one Tax resource card. Caravans can have their production doubled (i.e., they'll yield two Resource cards) by the presence of a Market in their region and Cities can have their Tax output doubled by the presence of a Temple in their region. Players can only have one Caravan (per resource picture), one city (per city picture), one Market, one Temple, and only one Fortress (military unit) per Regional area. Furthermore, the Caravans, Markets, Cities, and Temples are limited in quantity for each game depending on how many are playing.

- Players can purchase Units (Legions, Triremes, Fortresses, or Influence Markers) or Caravans, Markets, Cities and Temples by spending (turning in) sets of Resource cards. If paying with specific Resources (as opposed to Tax cards) the sets must contain all different resources. If paying with Tax cards, the set must be ONLY all Tax cards. For example, to purchase a Legion with specific Resources (costing a set of 3 cards), I could use a Fish, Grain, and Gold card to pay for it but not a set with 2 Fish and 1 Grain. Or I could pay with 3 Tax cards but not a set that had 1 Tax card and 2 Fish - Tax and specific Resource cards are never mixed togteher.

- Combat allows for the movement of All, Some, None, or One unit and at the rate of one space on the board per unit with Naval activations occurring first. If opposing units are in the same space after moving, combat happens and is resolved by each player rolling as many D6 as they have units in the space, tallying the results, and for every 5 points rolled by their opponent, a player must subtract a Unit of his choice. (Note: Combat units don't include Influence Markers. They're used to annex new Regional areas and must be placed BEFORE building can occur in a new area.)

- The results of combat depend on who remains in the area. If the invader is successful in wiping out the defenders, he is left with one of 3 choices: to Sack, Occupy, or Convert an area. Sacking can destroy a Caravan, Market, City, or Temple. Occupying allows a player to place a unit on a Caravan, Market, City, or Temple and reap the rewards associated with that marker. Converting takes a full turn but changes the opposing Influence Marker to your color, thus granting you permanent control of the areas buildings and resources.


My thoughts/Comments:

Board gamers waited for this game to come out for quite a while and while expectations may have been unfairly high, they weren't quite met either. How much you'll appreciate Mare Nostrum depends on what you're looking for in a Civ/Economic style game. If you're seeking depth and some meaty trading, you're definitely in for some disappointments. If you're out for a light-hearted Civ-style game with mild elements of player conflict and interaction, you'll be mildly pleased with Mare Nostrum.

Unfortunately the game is saddled with some issues and these aren't really fixed with the addition of the expansion (Mare Nostrum: Mythology) either. The key issues are that the game tends to end too soon, just when things appear to be heating up. This occurs mainly because the Director of Commerce controls the trading of cards and has no limitations placed on how many cards he can request be up for grabs by trading players. This allows players of high-resource producing Empires to rapidly save up for the Pyramids (one of the winning conditions). One solution may be to ditch the purchasing of the Pyramids as a winning condition. Another small issue is that the designers have set limits on how many buildings are available during the game, ostensibly to help generate conflict rather than player turtling. However these artificial limits can lead to a runaway victory by a single player all too easily - especially when factoring in the limitations on military unit movement (1 space per turn) and the actual proximity of various countries to each other. A country that may be able to slow down another player's success is all too frequently not close enough to take action in time. Another huge issue is simply that if attacked, even if successful in fending off the interloper, players can find themselves too far behind the spending curve to catch up, making combat extremely unappealing and/or a bit unfair even.

Typically, games that involve trading allow for free-form trading, i.e., I offer my opponent a resource I suspect they'll want for one of theirs that they may value less - which involves an enjoyable mental assessment and the ability to make a sale - but in Mare Nostrum, the Director of Commerce determines how many cards will be traded (this is a Title or Role that players can vie for by having the most Caravans or Markets but considering that those are in limited numbers, this Title may not change hands very often, if at all, during a game). Players set the required number of cards face-up on the table and then, starting with the Director of Commerce, each in turn choose a card from another player who can then choose one from someone else until all the cards are gone. This is more pseudo-trading than real trading and like the rest of Mare Nostrum's gameplay elements, feels disappointingly limited.

Gameplay does flow nicely and the overall design simplicity doesn't necessarily ruin the game, it just makes it far less fun than one might imagine. When you factor in how quickly the game ends (if you're using the official rules) considering the perceived game-type involved and factoring in the issues mentioned above, you're left wanting a lot more than Mare Nostrum can offer.



Final Assessments:(using letter grades with +/-)

Production Values = A- (subtracted for flimsy Player Aid sheets)

Rules Clarity = A (Clear, concise, and relatively simple)

Quality of Player Interactions = B+

Quality of Player Conflict = B-/C+ (combat is extremely simple and trading is not free-form)

Originality (in Rules design, Gameplay elements, or theme) = B- (the setting and goals are hardly unique but the Director roles are interesting)

Gameplay Depth (score reflects the quantity, not quality of depth involved) = C+

Overall Fun Factor = C+

Overall Value = B- (this could have been lower were it not for the excellent production values)

Final Opinion = B-/C+

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading and good gaming!






Les Marshall
flag
We experienced the game with 3 players. Unfortunately, if two of those players ally, the third player is virtually helpless and can be relagated to a distant third with NO chance of recovering. That might be okay if you could actually be eliminated (like carthage) but, no, you simply have to limp along until its finished.
Anthony DuLac
flag
Avatar
08
Well you can never be truly "eliminated" since the rules don't allow your opponents to technically "take over" your home regional area. You can always build there, thus prolonging your misery if you're out of the running.

Thanks for posting!
John Borrow
flag
good review, I have a few comments;
1. I have found that warefare is not particularly expensive, given you have to spend your cash anyway, and has helped me to victory nicely a few times. As long as you are focused in your military objective & stop attacking once you have achieved this.
2. The director of commerce is powerful, however we have found this position being handed over at least a few times per game. So its not like one person is dominating the trading.
Joe Wyka
flag
Avatar
0708
I agree that the pyramid victory is abrupt, unexpected, and usually disappointing when it occurs. Maybe eliminating it would create a more consistenly satisfying game...
Jim Patterson
flag
Avatar
0708
You mention that there's no upper limit in trading, which is true. However, the director of commerce, if paying attention, can slow down rivals' progress by announcing a trade of few (or even no) cards. Players could also put multiples of some cards out to reduce the number of unique types available.

Mare Nostrum doesn't have the usual sort of trading, admittedly, but it is interesting to me nonetheless.
Bill Eldard
flag
Rulesjd wrote:
We experienced the game with 3 players. Unfortunately, if two of those players ally, the third player is virtually helpless and can be relagated to a distant third with NO chance of recovering. That might be okay if you could actually be eliminated (like carthage) but, no, you simply have to limp along until its finished.


The trading mechanic is important to the game, and should help balance power out a bit. It prevents two players from trading exclusively with each other, and reduces the luck of the draw problem inherent in many games with commodity cards.

I think the primary influence on outcome is the countries being played. In Mare Nostrum, Rome is in an advantageous starting position, and should therefore be given to the least experienced player.

The Mare Nostrum Mythology expansion reduces Rome's advantage by adding Atlantis and more territory to Rome's west.
Maarten D. de Jong
flag
Avatar
You don't mention how often you've played the game before you wrote the review. I think you might be missing a few key issues here, and I'm going to offer my own thoughts for the sake of showing there might be more than meets the eye.

wytefang wrote:
[...] The key issues are that the game tends to end too soon, just when things appear to be heating up. This occurs mainly because the Director of Commerce controls the trading of cards and has no limitations placed on how many cards he can request be up for grabs by trading players. This allows players of high-resource producing Empires to rapidly save up for the Pyramids (one of the winning conditions). One solution may be to ditch the purchasing of the Pyramids as a winning condition.[...]

But---and that's important---only if the other players let such a Director of Commerce get away with it, and assuming that all resources are in fact in play, and that said resources show up in the card trade as well.

If the other players let the DoC get away with it, then they deserve what's coming to them.

A DoC can indeed request without limit, but if a player does not hold the requested number of cards, he is out of the trading phase. This limits the power of the DoC considerably, more than you give it credit for. I've seen a victory as you described happen only once, and it required the then DoC to have about 9 of the 12 resource cards on his own in order to secure the rest, because everyone kept on locking him out of the trade loop.

It also takes a good while for all resources to come into play; usually players are in possession of their 3rd Wonder already (or very well underway). In other words, it isn't a quick victory at all, certainly not as quick and easy you make it out to be, and if someone is clever enough to buy some unusual heroes, it can become very difficult indeed.

Therefore, in my opinion there is no need to remove the Pyramids. In fact, it is a deterrent for players requesting a lot of cards in the trade phase: someone else might get lucky before they do.

Quote:
Another small issue is that the designers have set limits on how many buildings are available during the game, ostensibly to help generate conflict rather than player turtling. However these artificial limits can lead to a runaway victory by a single player all too easily - especially when factoring in the limitations on military unit movement (1 space per turn) and the actual proximity of various countries to each other. A country that may be able to slow down another player's success is all too frequently not close enough to take action in time.

This is something I don't understand. How does the shortage of buildings lead to a runaway victory if its function is to promote conflict, thus diversion of resources away from the limits of 9 and 12 needed for victory?

In addition, I repeat my earlier statement: the strategy of relying that others will not interfere with you only works if others, well, will not interfere with you. Mare Nostrum is not a game of quietly holding hands and singing kumbayaa. You must recognise the signals of solid economic growth on time and attack swiftly and decisively before your opponent has a chance to build up an uncatchable position. Recognising this moment is difficult; and still more to be sufficiently flexible to do something about it.

Quote:
Another huge issue is simply that if attacked, even if successful in fending off the interloper, players can find themselves too far behind the spending curve to catch up, making combat extremely unappealing and/or a bit unfair even.

What spending curve? If they've withstood an attack, nothing of their trading resources has been destroyed or wasted---this can only occur if the attack was succesful... And you seem to be excluding that situation a priori. The defender is anything but an underdog here, as it takes quite a punch to kick someone out of a province!

Quote:
[...]Players set the required number of cards face-up on the table and then, starting with the Director of Commerce, each in turn choose a card from another player who can then choose one from someone else until all the cards are gone. This is more pseudo-trading than real trading and like the rest of Mare Nostrum's gameplay elements, feels disappointingly limited.

This is what prompted me to write this response. 'Trade' in this game is a highly unusual weapon rather than a quiet exchange of cards. I found it helped immensely if I didn't think of this part of the game as 'trade' anymore lest it bring up the wrong instincts and impulses. This isn't about making good win-win deals. This is about being an opportunistic weasel which gets to the good stuff before someone else can.

Quote:
Gameplay does flow nicely and the overall design simplicity doesn't necessarily ruin the game, it just makes it far less fun than one might imagine. When you factor in how quickly the game ends (if you're using the official rules) considering the perceived game-type involved and factoring in the issues mentioned above, you're left wanting a lot more than Mare Nostrum can offer.

There is always a certain amount of subjectivity involved in judging whether you like a game or not, and that is at it should be. Still, given that I'm not entirely convinced you've dug up everyting Mare Nostrum has to offer, I also am not entirely convinced that you're not subconsciously comparing it to that imagined game, which is of course not very fair.

Yes, the game has its problems, but I disagree with you on what they are: it requires utmost attention from all 5 (!) players (don't play with 3, and when with 4 you're not getting the full experience although it is enjoyable in its own right), it requires a kind of ruthlessness rare in this genre, and it requires masterful control of all elements in the game despite them seeming to be silly and not very useful. There's also the issues of imbalances and bad rules translations to ferret over, and fix. Then, and only then, does the game get a chance to show what it's capable of. That is quite a lot to ask from people, and I can certainly understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea.

Still, I hope that I've been able to highlight a bit more what Mare Nostrum is and isn't, and hope to have shown there is more to the game than meets the eye, even a trained one. Good luck with your future games, if you have any planned, that is.
Anthony DuLac
flag
Avatar
08
Hi Cymric,

Thank you for your comments (and to everyone), I definitely respect the opinions represented here, differing or in agreement. :)

cymric wrote:
You don't mention how often you've played the game before you wrote the review.


I'd estimate around 10-15 times, with 5 players involved at least 80% of the time.

cymric wrote:
But---and that's important---only if the other players let such a Director of Commerce get away with it, and assuming that all resources are in fact in play, and that said resources show up in the card trade as well.


The problem is that there's very little players can really do, especially by mid-game, to prevent someone from owning the DoC consistently. There just isn't enough ability to wrest this from the DoC all that often. Believe me, we were all very aware of the power of this particular role and particularly in the last 8-10 games, we went out of our way to target the DoC player in any way possible to rather little effect, I'm afraid.

cymric wrote:
A DoC can indeed request without limit, but if a player does not hold the requested number of cards, he is out of the trading phase. This limits the power of the DoC considerably, more than you give it credit for. I've seen a victory as you described happen only once, and it required the then DoC to have about 9 of the 12 resource cards on his own in order to secure the rest, because everyone kept on locking him out of the trade loop.


We rarely, if ever, saw anyone locked out of the trade phase. Everyone seemed to have a good amount of resources even in the early going so by the time players expanded a bit, there was a large amount of resource cards in play. And it isn't so much that the DoC wins because he can call for large amounts of Resource card trading, it's more an issue that anyone can win quickly when people are trading decent amount of cards - something that anyone playing the DoC role are prone to doing.

cymric wrote:
This is something I don't understand. How does the shortage of buildings lead to a runaway victory if its function is to promote conflict, thus diversion of resources away from the limits of 9 and 12 needed for victory?


I thought I explained this in my review but maybe I was clumsy in my wording, my apologies for the obfuscation. It's not so much that it doesn't generate conflict, it certainly can, but it's that the limited amount of buildings makes it even more unreasonably difficult to wrest the coveted DoC role from a player (or other roles, for that matter).

cymric wrote:
What spending curve? If they've withstood an attack, nothing of their trading resources has been destroyed or wasted---this can only occur if the attack was succesful... And you seem to be excluding that situation a priori. The defender is anything but an underdog here, as it takes quite a punch to kick someone out of a province!


The problem is that no attack ever comes off unscathed with one side entirely victorious because of the simplified way that combat is handled. Since it only requires 5 pips on a dice to destroy a unit, both sides end up losing units in any combat. These units, if not replaced, lead to a potentially devastating weakness in the war-torn region, nearly requiring you to then purchase units to replace the ones lost, thus draining your resources to the tune of 3 or more resources a turn. In a game when 12 resources can win the game, losing 3+ resources a turn is brutal. I never saw any economy so amazing that it could withstand a persistent combative foe on its border without losing the game.

cymric wrote:
This is what prompted me to write this response. 'Trade' in this game is a highly unusual weapon rather than a quiet exchange of cards. I found it helped immensely if I didn't think of this part of the game as 'trade' anymore lest it bring up the wrong instincts and impulses. This isn't about making good win-win deals. This is about being an opportunistic weasel which gets to the good stuff before someone else can.


But in our games, we definitely understood that. Unfortunately since sets are so simply built (strictly different cards, nothing specific required), everyone involved in trading (which, as I pointed out above, is actually "everyone" nearly all the time) ends up getting good stuff. Plus the rules even require that the person who was shorted get compensated by the DoC, making things even more lucrative across the board. Yes, you can factor in the resources a player generates and try to nab ones that they need but that strategy ends up hurting you as much as the person you're attempting to limit, making it a fairly worthless strategy, from what I've seen of it.

cymric wrote:
Yes, the game has its problems, but I disagree with you on what they are: it requires utmost attention from all 5 (!) players (don't play with 3, and when with 4 you're not getting the full experience although it is enjoyable in its own right), it requires a kind of ruthlessness rare in this genre, and it requires masterful control of all elements in the game despite them seeming to be silly and not very useful.


I think that if a game requires just the right, exact set-up and activities on the part of its players to be considered "good", then it's probably not that "good" of a game, all things considered. To use an analogy, we don't judge a Sport based on the quality of the players playing it. For example, we wouldn't say that Futbol (Soccer in the USA) is ONLY great if world class players who understand how to play it are playing it. We can understand that it's a beautiful game based on its own merits (using Soccer since it's my favorite sport) not because the players have to know how perfectly to play the game.

I hope that makes sense. As you've so eloquently said, it's of course all opinion-based but I feel that I've definitely seen enough of the nuances to understand that the issues I've raised are reasonably accurate to assess against the game's quality.
Kenneth Bailey
flag
Avatar
joewyka wrote:
I agree that the pyramid victory is abrupt, unexpected, and usually disappointing when it occurs. Maybe eliminating it would create a more consistenly satisfying game...

It's no more abrupt than getting the 4 special cards.