Game: Carthage - The Ancient World: Vol. II

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

AnthonyJA — 2008-11-17T23:03:49+00:00

Could GMT make an update package with a new set of counters for Carthage owners to allow play of the RRotR scenarios on the Carthage maps?

If the updated tables and rule books are downloadable it would be would be a relatively affordable package.

Or maybe create an expandable ASL style rule book with separate maps, tables and add-on modules as the series grows.

As it stands now each volume is a stand-alone complete game without requiring a previous purchase of the other games in the series to play. Unlike for example ASL where you purchase a module and the rules and then may have to purchase some other module to be able to play all the scenarios. But as long as you own the perquisite modules you can play any scenario available.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

BagpipeDan — 2008-11-17T02:26:19+00:00

Mondoron wrote:
an excellent review, many thanks for your insights. I too have just taken advantage of the special price from GMT, and am just reading through the rules and organizing the counters. This well definitely be a solitaire game for me, but one I am really looking forward to sinking my teeth into. I am interested in hearing about more projected titles in the series; does anyone have any further information?

"The Glory That Was Greece" will be coming out in... well I wouldn't hold your breath. But it will cover the pre-Alexandrian period and prepare players for the following title which will include a map of the Western Mediterranean and allow players to reenact the entire Second Punic War "in all its glory"

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Mondoron — 2008-11-17T02:16:50+00:00

an excellent review, many thanks for your insights. I too have just taken advantage of the special price from GMT, and am just reading through the rules and organizing the counters. This well definitely be a solitaire game for me, but one I am really looking forward to sinking my teeth into. I am interested in hearing about more projected titles in the series; does anyone have any further information?

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Archilochus — 2008-11-15T01:56:52+00:00

That price makes me want to buy another copy for no reason at all...

I hope you like this game. Please post any thoughts or questions here. I dig discussing this game/period.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Joshuaaaaaa — 2008-11-14T23:45:34+00:00

Thanks for the detailed review. I've ordered the game based on it (well, the review and the insanely good price from GMT ($28.00 plus shipping, which for me worked out to $34.00 total) and prior experience with Rich's designs.

Plus, I'm on a big ancients kick these days after taking audio courses on the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Aenead and am now reading my way through them. While they don't cover this period, I have always found this period fascinating.

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

mehrunes — 2008-11-14T11:40:52+00:00

And maybe it's worth to wait until being alerted or more and not raise the third army immediately when interested. So you can roll on two letters at least.
But I was under serious pressure at game turn three. Maybe the mercs would have been a better shot.
Suicidal attacking with army I isn't possible because it is not allowed to leave Africa. But suicide attacking with army II would have been possible. Another option for future games. The army efficiency is nice, but when facing armies that outnumber you 5-7 times and have cavalry, you can't buy much with your efficiency DRMs.

Nevertheless, I'm doing well in this scenario. I managed to slow down Agathocles in taking the three ports in Western Sicily and ran across the island with my 10SP army forcing all those fishing villages to surrender.
Last turn the Egyptians arrived but maybe too late (we are in the last game turn now).

I think I see clearer now, it was both our first Carthage game, but we learned much in that.

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

Archilochus — 2008-11-13T18:51:54+00:00

I'm beginning to see your point crystalize. If you continually roll a Cautious political climate, and roll poorly when given the oppurtunity to create your third army, you manpower will be very small. One (rather gamey) solution is to do a "suicide" attack with your initial force in Syracuse (assuming the political climate is cautious). This ups the chances that the political climate will be more favorable next year (and Carthage does have two replacement leaders waiting in the wings).

I guess I have not experienced continual caution and bad manpower rolling together when playing this scenario. Also, Agothacles has twice invaded Africa, thus bringing the home army into play and upping the political tension. In my games, Carthage has enjoyed some truly enormous armies, while Agothocles scrambles to recruit Libyans after many Involuntary Surrenders in the two African provinces.

For what it's worth, I finished this scenario last Sunday, and Carthage won 40 to 9 (Carthage took Syracuse and most of Sicily, while Agothacles possessed a number of small cities in Carthage and Tripoltania). Interestinly, both of Agothacle's sons died in the last year, though one pulled off an amazing victory over a much larger force near Ecnomus.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

mehrunes — 2008-11-13T17:55:35+00:00

I didn't felt offended.
I'm only still wondering why everybody says Carthage has loads of manpower in this one. I don't want any tweaks to the rules as written, if it should be this way: Okay.
I simply don't understand what we did wrong.

Tthere is no new army under cautious climate so I can't roll any manpower. The scenario already starts with two armies.
Only when "Alert", I can pick more than one letter. But I was cautios on turn 1, cautious again in turn 2 and interested in turn 3. Maybe if you roll Alert in turn 2, there is no problem. But then it is highly luck dependent and not a rule I would describe as "Carthage gets loads of manpower".
In fact it could have happened that I stay on interested or cautious the entire game. I would wish determining political climate would not be so luck dependent (D10 with only few DRMs).

As we read the rules, disbanding of armies is not voluntary or an option.
It happens only when you have more armies than allowed. Are we wrong here?

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

Archilochus — 2008-11-13T14:06:13+00:00

Wie Gehts Sebastion! No offense intended. My solution to your problem would be thus: Even under a Cautious political climate, you should get to roll on at least one letter under the manpower columns. If you pick C or D, you get two columns to roll on, which should result in a fairly large army (barring really bad rolls...). Remember that you can disband a small army if you don't like the results, and reform it (hopefully with better results) for next year. You will suffer from the Army Efficiency problem, but this should still put you in a fairly good position, troops wise. Forming the merc army in Carthage (under scenario rules) should not be an issue, unless Syracuse has a navy parked in Lilybaem.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

mehrunes — 2008-11-12T10:57:40+00:00

Okay, slow and simple:

The scenario starts with two armies, so you get only a third one (which is the maximum for the scenario) when the climate becomes at least interested.
Right?

In game turn three this was the case for the first time and climate was interested. I could raise a new army but with one column only.
Right?

As I don't want to ship Gauls from France to Sicily, I raised Libyans directly on Sicily. This was only 10SP. Bad luck, okay. But now I'm stuck with three armies. The one that cannot leave Africa and two on Sicily with one having 6SP and the other having 10 SP Libyans. I cannot bolster these armies over starting strength.
Right?

So where is the overwhelming manpower then?
16 SP on Sicily are not that much.

Please point out where I made a mistake.

Thread: Re: Battles

Archilochus — 2008-11-10T18:48:18+00:00

In regards to Double Envelopment in "The Ancient World," I think they are using the term to denote an entirely different cicumstance than the tactical DE at Cannae. Apples and oranges really. Since Carthage does not potray combat at that level, a potential "real" double envelopment would be reflected in the leader's tactical rating, cavalry supremacy,and perhaps Guile rating (assuming an "unpredictable 9" correctly describes Cannae) and NOT by any particular movement of troops on the map.

For what it's worth, I immensely enjoy Pax, and am very much enjoying Carthage right now as well. That being said, the Punic Wars (particularly the 1st), are an era of extreme interest for me.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

Archilochus — 2008-11-10T18:36:45+00:00

Hello Sebastion! I believe you are misinterpreting the rules. Depending on the current Political Climate, Carthage may pick a certain number of columns to raise manpower (from 2 to all, I think). Remember, if you pick C or D, you get to roll on BOTH C tables or D tables. Thus, if you achieved the low result of only rolling on two columns, you still get a lot of manpower.

Granted, a Cautious Political Climate can severely restrict such reinforcements, particularly if your army limit is maxed out.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: A Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War

mehrunes — 2008-11-05T00:19:38+00:00

Tom Jensen wrote:
[...]Took Panormus on the first turn! Agathocles marched to the city then one of his sons sailed in support. Then I drew the Siege Attrition chit which was +3 for the besieged. Goodbye city. Perhaps the Tyrant will have a chance in this one.[...]

Shouldn't the sons not appear until game turn 2?

Thread: Re: A Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War

Tom Jensen — 2008-11-04T22:06:54+00:00

Yeah, I read Flaubert's Salammbo a few years back. Not my favorite book, somewhat archaic in style, but almost the essential book for this scenario. Puts a human face on Matho, Spendius, and the other Mercenaries. You can read it for free here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1290/1290-h/1290-h.htm

Thread: Re: A little tweak for the Agathocles scenario

mehrunes — 2008-11-03T23:47:03+00:00

I'm not sure if it is you or us who play this the false way, but I experienced Carthage is far from having tons of manpower.

As we played, in game turn one, you have to get along what you started with.
In game turn two climate stayed 'cautious' so no new troops at all, while Syracuse got ~10 new inf SP.
At game turn three, climate at last became 'interested'. So first time Carthage could raise new troops, which turned out to be 10 SP Libyans with a built-in -3 DRM for battles. You are only allowed to roll for one group anyway, don't you? At that point, Syracuse had an army of over 40 SP with some decent cavalry contingent.

The Carthaginian first army you start with can't go to Sicily.

So the side who has tons of manpower seems to be Syracuse, not Carthage.
And your tweak would work only when climate is aggresive, which is really hard to achieve as long Syracuse doesn't sail to Africa.

Thread: Re: A Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War

Archilochus — 2008-10-29T18:49:38+00:00

Hi Tom! This is a very helpful article. I share your practice of meshing books with historical games, though usually non-fiction. For what it's worth, have you read "Salammbo" by Gustave Flaubert of "Madame Bovary" fame? It is his fictional work based on the Mercenary or Truceless War featured above. Still holds up after 152 years.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Impossible Results

BagpipeDan — 2008-10-24T18:11:24+00:00

It seems to me that there are simply some results on the BRT that won't occur. I am specifically referring to the +16 result (though there are others).

If you get a +16 result the losses are 10/30 but the attacker's losses are reduced by 5% for every DRM greater than +3. It seems like the +16 result should be simply 0/30 because there's absolutely no way to actually suffer that 10% loss, since the highest DR is a 9 and the player would need to have at a minimum +7 DRM (or -20% losses) to reach that result

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Iskandir — 2008-07-30T12:05:22+00:00

Thanks for your kind words. This game is definitely worth a try. You might want to plan some time for reading, re-reading and reading the rulebooks again, though ...

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Archilochus — 2008-07-28T16:55:20+00:00

Great review! This game has been sitting unpunched on my shelf for far too long. Well done sir.

Good Gaming~! Mick

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

bambaladam — 2008-07-14T08:37:02+00:00

Well Hannibal's early campaign in Italy is in volume I. But the full 2nd Punic War will be a while I'd reckon. Would be a blast though. Still, the next volume promises to be a lot of meaty fun.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Iskandir — 2008-07-10T20:07:39+00:00

Looking forward to see Scipio and his fleet in action. And that guy Hannibal, too. I wonder how many years (real ones, not game turns!) it will take the series to reach the Second Punic War.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

bambaladam — 2008-07-10T11:56:25+00:00

Granted it's half a century later, but Scipio managed to supply his army in Africa using ships sent from Sicily and mainland Italy. Presumably a large fleet would have a fleet of vessels for similar purposes...

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Iskandir — 2008-07-10T08:21:10+00:00

bambaladam wrote:
Iskandir wrote:
Fleets do not suffer attrition, an abstraction that mostly worked okay. However, it means that you can place huge fleets (representing 10 thousands of rowers, sailors and marines) in a province without any consequence for the supply (attrition in game terms) of nearby armies.

Well, sure, but you can only keep them in ports with sufficient capacity at years-end, so there are limits to where they can be supported. And remember transport ships are abstracted out in this system, so I think it is reasonable to assume they are supplied on the move by friendly vessels.

Never seen it that way, does make sense. The return to port rule is harsh, it did cost me quite a few galleys. Winter ain't no season to go crusing in the Mediterranean.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

bambaladam — 2008-07-09T12:02:26+00:00

BROG wrote:
Thanks for the kind comments - i wouldn't worry much about your English abilities' they're better than most natives - and I[m glad you enjoyed the system. Not for everynody, to be sure . . . .

RHB

I enjoy it too, for the record. It's a love/hate thing, to be sure, but I keep going back for more.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

bambaladam — 2008-07-09T11:39:26+00:00

Iskandir wrote:
Fleets do not suffer attrition, an abstraction that mostly worked okay. However, it means that you can place huge fleets (representing 10 thousands of rowers, sailors and marines) in a province without any consequence for the supply (attrition in game terms) of nearby armies.

Well, sure, but you can only keep them in ports with sufficient capacity at years-end, so there are limits to where they can be supported. And remember transport ships are abstracted out in this system, so I think it is reasonable to assume they are supplied on the move by friendly vessels.

Thread: Re: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

BROG — 2008-07-09T10:58:30+00:00

Thanks for the kind comments - i wouldn't worry much about your English abilities' they're better than most natives - and I[m glad you enjoyed the system. Not for everynody, to be sure . . . .

RHB

Thread: Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“

Iskandir — 2008-07-09T00:37:15+00:00

Sandals, Swords & Megalomania – A review of GMT's „Carthage“
or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Table

Disclaimer: This is my first take on a game review, I am not a native English speaker and I only played solitaire.

I. Introduction

„The Ancient World Vol II: Carthage“, designed by Richard Berg, is a strategical game of the First Punic War and two shorter campaigns fought in the third century BC. Turns represent one year. There are two game maps (Italy/Sicily and Carthage/Africa), the scale is 13 miles to a hex. That places Ostia, Rome's harbour city, one hex west of Rome itself – I know of no other game depicting Roman Italy with this amazing level of detail. The maps look gorgeous, the Italian citys even having red coloured roofs compared to the white roofs on the Africa map. Most of the 1100+ counters show combat units with the usual little figures on it and just one value (strength, 1 point equals 500 infantry, 300 cavalry or 10 war elephants).

The graphical presentation is promising, but getting into this game is a daunting task. It does take a lot of guts (or virtus, as the Romans would have phrased it). „Carthage“ comes with two rulebooks (32 and 48 pages). This is projected as a series, so the idea is to have the basic rules in one volume, the scenario and period specific rules in another. Makes sense, once you understand how they are organized. Before that the constant juggling with two volumes is quite annoying.

There also are about a dozen pages of tables, ranging from a „Naval Combat Squadron Loss Result Table“ to the frequently used „Movement Attrition Costs Chart“. Each table works different, some use dice, some do not, sometimes you want to roll high numbers, sometimes low. It takes a few turns to understand these tables, and it takes many more turns to learn how to use them to your advantage.

II. The System

Here is the beauty: Under all that detail and beneath all those tables lies an elegant system. Once I got the hang of it, gameplay was rather smooth with 30-60 minutes for a turn (depending on scenario and the numbers of battles fought in a turn). Stacking of counters does happen a lot, but most combat units are kept off map on the provided Army Displays, a method I really appreciate. The all important leaders are activated by drawing a LAM (Leader Activation Marker) from a cup, better leaders having more LAMs than the more phlegmatic commanders. The draw adds a lot of uncertainty and keeps downtime for the non-active player short. The non-active player also often has an opportunity to react, trying to intercept, start an ambush or to avoid battle.
Luck plays a role. A few bad continuation rolls (they decide if an active leader can undertake another operation) can hamper a player, but over the course of the game that seems to even out. From a simulation point of view these unpredictability does make a lot of sense, the game being set in a time where reconaissance was usually poor.

Supply was as crucial factor in ancient wars, but it is somehow abstracted in this game and there are no markers necessary (thanks Jupiter!). Armies accumulate attrition points (AP) while moving, depending on terrain and army size. A diceless chart tells you how many units you lose, so its the player's decision: Move slowly, thus reducing your attrition losses but risking not to get much done (continuation roll!) – or rush around the map and see your troops fading away. There often will be turns where you lose more units through attrition than in battle. That's exactly what happened in those times, and it is cleverly handled in this game.

Battles consist of just a few die rolls - and a lot of computing, calculating and counting. Again this procedure becomes much easier after a couple of plays. Sheer numbers are (rightly so, I think) the least deciding factor, leader ratings, cavalry superiority and the overall status of your army being much more important. You generally know if the odds are in your favour or not, but the battle chart allows for variable outcome and shows a nice range of possible results: Losses, one or both armies retreating, a cavalry pursuit with devastating effects. War Elephants are implemented without a lot of rules. You roll a die and pray: Those uncontrollable beasts might destroy enemy strength points, they might also go rampage and kill some of your own units.
Forcing a battle is not that easy, as attacked leaders can often avoid. This seems right considering the slow and cumbersome movement of ancient armies. Each battle lowers the status of an army (ranging from ok to useless). Recovery will take time, so large battles do not happen often, and armies tend to move cautiously. There is not much tactical feel to this system of fighting battles, but it works well within the given scale and the results are plausible.

The control of cities is important, and the game offers a nice variety in how to capture those strongholds: A leader can try to force an involuntarily surrender, given he has overwhelming forces and the city's defence is weak. Assaults are risky; siege attrition is most often the way to go, but it can take a long time. Want to gain control by treachery? Go ahead, the necessary table is provided. Again, the system works fine and covers all the important details of ancient sieges.

The naval system does a nice job of showing that ancient galleys were all but seaworthy vessels. Stick to the coast, move short distances and the risk of disaster is low. But if you venture out in the open or try to cross the Mediterranean in one big leap you better pray to Poseidon (or the die): Fleets can get scattered, blown off course or even get eleminated to the very last vessel. Fleets also play a role when besieging a port city. Dry docking during winter? The rules are there.
Sea battles work similar to land battles, but use less modifiers. Interception and avoidance are possible, too. The Roman corvus is represented. Crew rating is very important. Newly created fleets have a rather poor rating with Carthaginian crews being better than Roman crews. Training your crews is always a good idea, but this often means granting control of the seas to your enemy. Tough decision ...

III. It shines, but it ain't no chrome

The political and manpower rules add a whole new layer of complexity (and more tables, to be sure). Some might call this pure chrome, but I don't think it is. Wars are not just waged by armies, but by states with divergent political systems and different concepts of how to conduct warfare. This is nicely simulated here.

Rome controls most of Italy with it's huge population. The number of legions in play at any given time is restricted, but the Republic is always able to raise new legions to replace the ones lost in battle. The city of Carthage, with a much smaller population, is heavily relying on mercenaries and has a restricted manpower pool. This does not mean much in the smaller scenarios, but plays an important role in the 24 turn long First Punic War.

Carthage, being a mercantile republic, was often reluctant to commit large amounts of troops and money. So we get Political Climate rules, limiting the number of armies and fleets Carthage can raise. Sometimes a player even has to disband armies if the climate changes. This depends on the overall strategic situation (an enemy army near your capital makes rasing troops easier), but it also depends on the luck of a die roll. That can be quite annoying for the player, but is historically correct. Carthage was not able (or willing) to fight a total war, and there are many examples of the city being overly cautios in the Punic Wars. (Take the naval victory of Drepanum in 249 BC for an example. This could have created great opportunities, but the senate of Carthage decided to let them slip away.)

The Roman Magistrate rules are especially hard to master. They define what leaders are available to the Roman player, whom they may command and where they may operate. I read books on ancient warfare, so I already knew how to tell a Proconsul apart from a Praetor. It didn't help me much. All the gameplay restrictions, exceptions and minutae are very demanding. On the other hand they give you a lot of insight into the rather rigid Roman command hierarchy. I once had a consul leaving his assigned province to exploit an opportunity elsewhere. That bold man was victorious but still the Roman Senate (once again represented by a table and die roll modifiers) decided to recall him. Amazing detail!

IV. Scenarios

The Mercenary War (5 turns) is a great introductory scenario, as the counter density is low, there are no naval units involved and it does not use political rules. I played through three solo games, the „Beginner's Guide to the Mercenary War“ by Tom Jensen, to be found here on BGG, proved very helpful. Balance is towards the Carthaginians, but the Mercenaries do have a chance as they win by holding on to just one city.
Hiero – Hero or Gyro? (2 turns) covers the opening years of the First Punic War and seems to be a good intro, too. Despite it's witty title I have not played this one.
Agathocles (5 turns) puts the tyrant of Syracuse against Carthage. I played this two times and had a lot of fun. Again the Balance is towards Carthage (more manpower), but both games had a close finish. Much seems to depend on when (or if) the Egyptian troops arrive to aid Syracuse. This is by die roll, and one of the rare occasions where luck plays too big a role.
The First Punic War (24 turns) is epic. It uses both maps, several large playing aids and does take a long time, some 20 or more hours I guess. A beautifully crafted Cyberboard gamebox (by Mark Jones) makes things a lot easier. I'm still in my first game, so I can't comment on balance or how well the political and manpower rules work. Up to now I'm impressed.

V. A little bit of nitpicking

I would like to see more scenarios, especially shorter ones, in future games of this series. I would also welcome some more differentiation in troop types (skirmishers?), even if that meant another 5 or whatever pages of rules. The battle system works (this is not a tactical game!), so I'm probably just asking for chrome here ...
Concerning avoidance: I once had an all infantry army avoiding a force with about a dozen strength points of cavalry. That seemed odd. Did I miss some negative die roll modifier for this kind of situation?
Fleets do not suffer attrition, an abstraction that mostly worked okay. However, it means that you can place huge fleets (representing 10 thousands of rowers, sailors and marines) in a province without any consequence for the supply (attrition in game terms) of nearby armies.

VI. Verdict: Call in the lions or grant a triumph?

While playing my first games of „Carthage“ I often felt lost. I cursed at the rules. I reread them. I cursed at my at brain. Even after two weeks of extensive play I still commit a lot of rules errors. Mind you, that is not due to the rules itself (there are a lot of examples provided), but due to sheer length. This is a magnus opum.
You can tell that a lot of research went into it. „Carthage“ is definitely a labour of love. Learning the game is hard labour, playing and finally understanding it is ... well, not like falling in love ... but a wonderful experience. The system is detailed and historically accurate (at least according to the few books I've read on the topic). Playing the game gave me a good idea of the possibilities - and especially the hardships - of ancient campaigning. Each game follows a different course due to the Leader Activation Markers, and it always creates a narrative of epic proportions. I found it to be very suitable for solitaire play.

I'm curios how other games in the „Ancient World“ series do play. The first one („Rise of the Roman Republic“, featuring Pyrrhus of Epirus) seems to be out of print, the next one will concentrate on Greece. Others will hopefully follow. I'm not sure if they can keep the scale consistent, though. Playing the campaigns of Alexander The Great with 13 miles to a hex seems insane, one would probably have to rent an airship hangar to lay out the maps.

This is what the introduction promises: „The Ancient World is a series of games, in several volumes, covering the major campaigns and wars (...) from the Greek/Hoplite Era up through the Roman Empire.“ Megalomaniac? It sure is. But after my first experience with „Carthage“ I'm beginning to think that Megalomania is not that bad after all.

Favourite quote from the rules: Concerning the Mortality Rating of leaders: „Don't look for major insight here, as the actuarial tables from the All-SPQR Insurance Company did not arrive in time.“

Recommended reading: Adrian Goldsworthy „The Fall of Carthage“ (2000), a concise but insightful history of the three Punic Wars.

-corrected some spelling errors-

Thread: Re: A Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War

Iskandir — 2008-07-05T04:12:47+00:00

Tom Jensen wrote:
I've now set up the Agathocles scenario which looks sorta cool. Usually, I read a book or two that concerns whatever game I'm playing; but there's nothing fictional about Agathocles as far as I can tell.

Not that I'm familiar with these books, but they are out there:
There is a tragedy named "Agathocle" by the French writer/philosopher Voltaire (18th century) and a German novel called "Agathoclés" by Caroline Pichler (19th century). Pretty ancient stuff in itself ...

Anyway, thank you very much for your "Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War". My copy of "Carthage" arrived just yesterday and I'm currently reading the rules. Your guide will be very helpful when I'll finally start my campaigning with this introductory scenario.

Thread: Re: Delenda est Carthago!

Tom Jensen — 2008-07-01T23:07:11+00:00

Since the length of the 1st Punic War is an issue, I'd like to cut the 24 turn scenario in half by saying that the Romans must take two of the four medium-sized cities in West Sicilia by 254 B.C. the historical date when Panormus fell. (Agrigentum had fallen much earlier.) This would make for an eleven-turn game; something I might actually finish!

With a little playtesting, I'm thinking that this might make the best Carthage scenario. Perhaps players could bid for Rome: "I can take two cities by turn 10!" Something like that.

Thread: Re: Complexity level

Tom Jensen — 2008-07-01T22:46:35+00:00

One thing R.Berg did right was to include the historical Roman commanders, year by year. (Please continue doing this.) I'm probably not going to use the Roman election rules if they slow the game too much. I like having all the rules but I usually "prune" the tree a bit to suit myself.

Thread: Re: A Beginer's Guide to the Mercenary War

Tom Jensen — 2008-07-01T22:31:25+00:00

Thanks, Chris. Originally, I was going to do an AAR for the entire game but that would have been way too long. No one would read it.

It was played correctly (except for the AP fractions). The cities were taken by Involuntary Surrender which is not a siege operation with its automatic FINISHED. Continuation is by a DR + modifiers. Check Player's Aid Chart 2 and AW9.2.

After a short "vacation" playing other games, I've now set up the Agathocles scenario which looks sorta cool. Usually, I read a book or two that concerns whatever game I'm playing; but there's nothing fictional about Agathocles as far as I can tell. No roads at all in Sicilia. Took Panormus on the first turn! Agathocles marched to the city then one of his sons sailed in support. Then I drew the Siege Attrition chit which was +3 for the besieged. Goodbye city. Perhaps the Tyrant will have a chance in this one.

Thread: Re: Complexity level

nalivayko — 2008-06-30T18:42:55+00:00

I think the level of complexity in this game really calls for moving it into PC world. It would shine there even with mediocre AI.

Thread: Re: Delenda est Carthago!

Quintus Valerius — 2008-06-26T16:38:23+00:00

Thanks for the review. I saw "Rise of the Roman Republic" and "Carthage" in a shop the other day, and have been considering them since (and indeed, since before seeing them too). Your review has tipped me over to the probability of parting with my hard-earned cash!

Thread: Re: Complexity level

kcoombs — 2008-06-26T01:28:17+00:00

Richard's post is dead on. (But, I suppose he should know, huh?) In a nutshell, I think of Pax Romana as more of a "game" and The Ancient World as more of a "simulation." And I use both "game" and "simulation" in the highest regard. I really, really like both The Ancient World series and Pax (as is evident by the fact that I playtested both). I do realize that there are many who would be "turned off" by the depth (i.e. complexity) offered by The Ancient World system, as Richard stated. But I find that the system provides me with an opportunity to immerse myself into the ancient Roman world, an opportunity not found in any other simulation.

Kevin

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

korposp — 2008-06-25T15:32:37+00:00

I'm sorry Richard, your offer came too late.
I've already ordered one copy from www.fanen.com
Maybe next time...

Thread: Re: Delenda est Carthago!

BROG — 2008-06-25T10:39:48+00:00

Thanx for the nice comments, Tim . . .glad you are enjoying this most detailed games. And you are right: the more you know about the Roman political system, the easier it is to understand what is happening (or supposed to).

Wait'll we do this for the 2nd Punic War . . . .

RHB

Thread: Delenda est Carthago!

catosulla — 2008-06-25T01:38:59+00:00

Ancient World Vol. II: Delenda est Carthago.

Carthage is a strategic game covering the 1st Punic War between Rome and Carthage as well as some lesser conflicts both before and after the first Carthage-Rome clash. Each turn, which covers a year of time, players must build armies or fleets, conduct operations of forces with the leaders commanding them and conduct house keeping items like training and bringing fleets home. Forces can choose from a variety of operations each turn including movement, sieges, battles, and raising manpower. Victory is determined by capturing objectives or, in some cases, there are automatic victory conditions if one side achieves certain goals by the end of the turn. The game takes into account not only the trials and tribulations of warfare in the ancient world, it also simulates the political structure of Rome and Carthage in great detail, giving players an excellent feel for life in the ancient world.

Playing Time: This will vary depending on scenario. The First Punic War is 24 turns long with the other scenarios ranging from 2-5 turns in length. The shorter scenarios are playable in a long evening(figure 3-4 hours) but the whole Punic War will take much longer than that. I have found it takes about an hour to play a complete turn from start to finish, give or take a bit.

Map: The map covers the length of Italy and includes Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the coast of North Africa where Carthage resided as well as some adjacent areas. The map also contains a terrain key as well as the attrition chart for movement. The map is beautifully done and the various terrains can be discerned with a quick glance. The city artwork is particularly nice. The map is both highly functional as well as aesethically pleasing.

Counters: The counters represent the various leaders and units of this time. Leaders are represented by individual counters giving information about battle ability, strategically ability, etc… Combat units are represented by strength points. The counters are easy to read and the colors differences between each force are fairly easy to discern (except for the Iberians and Greeks). Even so, each counter has the name of its nationality written on it to eliminate any confusion. The counters, all in all, are nicely done and very functional.

Rules: The heart of the system is the operations phase in which leaders, which are rated for initiative as well as combat ability, move troops around organized into armies. In the course of an operations phase a leader can move his troops, engage in combat, lay siege to a city or attempt siege tactics against a city under siege. The key to the system is the continuation die roll where leaders after taking an action roll a die to see if they can keep going or have to finish their activations. Some activations, such as laying siege or losing a battle, cause an automatic finish after the action. To activate leaders, the system using a chit pull mechanism with the chits in the pool representing the initiative of the given leader. Some leaders may only get on chit while others can have up to three! Since you never know which leader will be activated next, the system is a great one for solitaire play. Rules also cover political items such as Roman elections (a very detailed section not for the faint of heart) as well as Carthaginian political climate and stance. The Carthaginian method alone makes for good solitaire play since you never know from year to year how many forces you will have at your disposal. In addition this volume of the ancient world has a more detailed naval system reflecting movement, combat, as well as the dangers of the ever present Mediterranean Sea storms which cost Rome several fleets during the course of the First Punic War. The naval system, much like the land system, takes a bit of getting used to but once you master it, it flows nicely and makes the naval component of the system very enjoyable. Each turn in the game thus breaks down into a political phase, an operations phase where the chits are pulled, and a what I like to call “house keeping” phase where attrition is checked for, fleets are brought back to port, etc….. All in all, the system does a nice job of showing both the advantages and disadvantages of warfare in the ancient world.

Things I like about the game:

• The chit pull system. This makes each game different and keeps the tension high. Plus, it makes solitaire gaming easy.
• The Roman and Carthaginian political processes. Yes, it is true that for some the detail here might be a turn off, but if you enjoy the ancient world and are a Romaphile like me, you will enjoy the effort Berg made to make a realistic and, IMO, playable political system.
• The naval rules. Nicely done without being cumbersome. Definite upgrade from the naval supremacy of the RRR.
• The X factor in combat. It is possible to have a wildly unpredictable combat result so that, much like real life, sometimes David can slay Goliath!
• The map. The map is a real treat to both look at and play on.
• Leader based operations system. This is nice as it emphasizes the importance of leaders in military affairs, but does so without making them too powerful in game play terms.
• Nice example of play at the end of the scenario book.

Things that can be annoying:

• The number of reference cards to shuffle through. My advice: have a large enough game space to be able to keep the operations cards clear of the other cards(augury, Rome/Carthage political cards).
• Space. This game will cover a lot of space between the two maps, cards for displaying Rome and Carthage combat units as well as the information cards.
• Keeping counters separated. My advice: have small cups available to keep them apart for quick use.
• The Roman election rules. This may prove a stumbling block, but the more you know about the Romans, the easier these rules are to digest.

Overall evaluation: =I’d rather staple my tongue to the wall for a month! = wargamer heaven!

Map= The map is beautiful and is truly a work of art.
Counters= Nicely done with the leader counters being informational without being too busy. The only draw back is keep the Romans and Sicilian well apart as well as the Greek Mercenaries and the Iberians.
Rules= The rules, IMO, are well done. Several issues with RRR rules were cleared up with this installment. The real problem with rules for most people will be two fold: the operations approach and getting used to the continuation die roll and the Roman political rules. For the latter issue, just find a simple primer on Roman politics to assist before reading.
Playing Time= The main scenario in this game is the First Punic War which is 24 turns long For die hard, bachelor types like me no problem!! For those of you living in the real world of a family life and all that comes with it , the time commitment will probably be an issue. The real problem here is the other, shorter scenarios are pretty dry compared to the showcase of the First Punic War. Thus, the
Deployment of Forces= Not simple, but no more complex than any other wargame. The strength point system does make it easier in that respect.
Overall= . I had a really hard time coming up with a final rating since I am torn in two directions here. On the one hand, the First Punic War scenario is awesome! I am in my third play of it and it rocks! The tension is great, the flow is good, and the challenge rewarding. However, those who cannot commit to the 24 turn length will find the shorter scenarios to be quite dry compared to the First Punic War. The Hiero scenario is kind of like the first few scenarios in the Fleet Series of games good to learn the system at first, but not much fun after that. The Agathocles scenario is good for an experienced player to teach a newbie the system since there are no Romans involved, but the Carthaginians have a huge edge that a contest between experienced players will not be much fun unless fate sinks some Carthaginian fleets. I have posted a variant on this scenario here on BGG, but I am not sure how much well it works as yet. The Mercenary War scenario is the best of the three, but here too if feels like it is just a matter of time before Carthage wins. Bottom line: this is THE game for those looking to refight the First Punic War. I have never seen a game that depicted this much neglected conflict in world history. So if you really want to experience this struggle in all its knock down, dragg’em out, fight to the finish glory, then this is your ticket. Otherwise, you might want to think hard about how much you really enjoy the ancient world before purchasing this game.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

BROG — 2008-06-24T21:31:16+00:00

"...shipping to the Czech Republic will probably be a killer..."

However, if you invite me for lunch in Karlovy Vary - you pay - I[ll bring you a free copy. mmmmmmm, carmelized cabbage, roast goose and lots of Pilsner Urequell . . .

RHB

Thread: Re: Complexity level

BROG — 2008-06-24T21:26:50+00:00

"You are so much more awesome than me. I declare that everyone should listen to and agree with everything Luke says."

There is much truth in the above . . . although I would edit the name to another.

In any case, "The Ancient World" system was designed for a specific audience (as are most games, but some have a wider target). That audience are gameplayers who enjoy a depth of historical detail that many others seek to avoid. Republican-era Rome was a most complex world that was driven, at almost every level by the intricacies, subtleties and demands of their most unusual political system. Most gamers couldn't care less about tis . . . and without caring about it, one finds it way beyond a level of complexity they find workable.

The Romans, themselves, loved it - even while disliking some of the ways in which it worked, one of which was to often elevate men whose capabilities in some areas were deeply deficient, something that was considered an acceptable part of the system . . .which had everything to do with lineage, discipline and honor. Supposedly.

This tended to produce, on the whole, what we see as totaly mediocrities at high levels of command. But that was what the system intended to do . . . Roman commanders weren't supposed to be able to think outside the box; they were supposed to do what everyone before them had done.

Thus an integral part of The Ancient World is "playing" the Roman political system, in - in your "role' as, well, The Senate - knowing where to place good men, how to bury inept people, etc., etc. THAT is the gameplayer decision-making process, one unhindered by anything other than the actual system (which you are fighting) and the historical manpower available.

PAX was intended for a far different audience . . . and its scale is completely different. (Generation-level turns as compared to Yearly turns, e.g.) The decision-making focus thus becomeds entirely different.

I would also note, for those who consider the rules "sloppy", several things. For one - and i have said this many, many times - rules, instructioons, et al, are read, absorbed and digested by individual readers at far different levels and metholodogies than for others. What is clairty to one is total opacity to others.

Secondly, the more detail you put into a game, the more decisions that impact play, these exponentially expand the possibilities that should be covered . . . but rarely are, simply because there is neither the time nior space in the universe to do so. You just hope that players understand WHY the rules is there and WHAT it intends to portray, rather than seek the loopholes that pop up in any given (and usually unforseen) situation. Then again, doing so makes you very "Roman", at least politically, in your view of "how to play the game".

And "The Ancient World" system was in design and development for twelve - yes, 12 - years. It underwent constant testing, constant change, constant adjustment. Much of the delay had to do with the (marketing) feeling that timewas not ripe for its release. Luckily, that time came. Buy much thought, and much research, went into everything that is in the systme. That doesn't mean it shouldn't - or won't - be changed. All things "creative: have a life of their own, and they continue to grow and evolve . . . none of them are really finished. You always, eventually, will think of a better way . . .

But, for those interested in the depth of what the system provides, in immersing oneself in the feel of what it was like to conduct a campaign in that era (as much as one can in the two-dimensional world of cardboard), "The Ancient World" provides more than any other game system (until someone comes up with something else).

Whether you like it or not depends mostly on what you want to play. And not what fits one's definitions of 'good" or"bad" (which usually is part and parcel of the former).

RHB

Thread: Re: Complexity level

Scott Firestone IV — 2008-06-24T20:48:03+00:00

Rindu wrote:

I do want to stress that my opinion is based on actually playing the entire thing, all 23 turns, not just reading it or playing only one turn and hating Richard Berg.

You are so much more awesome than me. I declare that everyone should listen to and agree with everything Luke says.

Thread: Re: Complexity level

Rindu — 2008-06-24T20:26:10+00:00

That's pretty much how I felt about the election system. (i.e., what you think Scott is getting at.) it seemed fine on paper but the experience of sitting at the table and doing it was a little tedious. I wish I could have influenced the elections in some way, and I don't think you get much payoff in game terms. Actually, yeah, that's it exactly. You go through this process at the top of every year and it started to feel pointless, especially since most of the Roman commanders are equally bad.

I don't want to focus on this one aspect of the game though, because it *is* a good game. There are a lot of swings of fortune in this one and it rewards long-term planning, at least as the Romans. You have to account for the fact that you are probably going to have crap leaders and you have to be ready to capitalize on the opportunity when you elect a good one. You have to work hard to hold Carthage at bay until you can build and train a fleet which can match Carthage.

I do want to stress that my opinion is based on actually playing the entire thing, all 23 turns, not just reading it or playing only one turn and hating Richard Berg.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

tppytel — 2008-06-24T20:16:10+00:00

Yeah, you're going to be missing the counters without owning the original RotRR game. But while Rise is OOP, I've seen it go on eBay for quite reasonable prices on several occasions - I believe I got my unpunched copy off eBay for about $45 plus shipping, which can't be much different than the original price. So you might be able to snag yourself a copy for a decent price if you keep your eyes open. Of course, shipping to the Czech Republic will probably be a killer, but I'm guessing you deal with that issue regularly.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

korposp — 2008-06-24T20:01:43+00:00

Thank you very much.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

catosulla — 2008-06-24T19:59:21+00:00

You'd be missing a lot of counters such as Pyhrrus and his army as well as the Samintes(sp). The only thing the two games have in common counter wise are informational markers and Roman Army units. Even the Roman leaders would be different given the time frame of RRR.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

korposp — 2008-06-24T19:24:34+00:00

I thought there are same counters in Carthage as counters in RRR.

Thread: Re: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

bambaladam — 2008-06-24T09:20:45+00:00

Wouldn't you be missing a boatload of counters?

Thread: Re: Complexity level

tppytel — 2008-06-23T20:45:03+00:00

Rindu wrote:
Huge layer of complexity added to the game, for (imo) little payoff.
It depends a lot on how you define "payoff". I think what Scott's getting at is that you don't have a lot of control over the Roman elections, so you end up just running through a bunch of procedures every election phase without many decisions to make. That's a fair criticism. But, historically, that is a "payoff" - the Romans let an awful lot of goofballs command their armies and their overall strategies could completely flip-flop from year to year. The system does a good job of showing that IMO. So it depends a lot on what you want and on how much you value historical accuracy.

Thread: Re: Complexity level

Rindu — 2008-06-23T20:35:13+00:00

Um, you do realise that Pax Romana is a Berg design too, right? and that these games are pretty different from one another?

The election process is a part of the game, anyway. It's not like you're not playing the game when doing it, and there is strategy involved. You have to pick one consul to be your field consul and another to be you Rome consul, and this is going to be guided by whether you want to focus on maneuver and combat on the one hand or raising and training troops on the other for the year. I didn't dislike it because I wasn't playing while doing it, it just felt like a tedious process.

And dude, why would you take time out of your day to come crap on a thread which is about comparing two Berg games if you hate Berg and you only played one turn of the game in question anyway?

Thread: Rise of the Roman Republic scenarios

korposp — 2008-06-23T20:10:54+00:00

Hi folks,

is it possible to play those RRR scenarios with Carthage? We can download RRR scenario book and play aid cards 1 - 3 from GMT site.
Thank you.

Pavel

Thread: Re: Complexity level

Scott Firestone IV — 2008-06-23T15:00:38+00:00

Rindu wrote:

The Roman political system: okay, some people like this part of the game. I did not. It was way cool the first couple of turns, but as the game progressed it was like "oh god another round of elections." Huge layer of complexity added to the game, for (imo) little payoff.

This is exactly what turned me off to the game--and Berg games in general. After one session--where we got through one turn--I sold it to a friend. I do NOT need 12 pages of rules on elections; I like to play games.

Edit: I do, in fact, realize they're both Berg games. I've played Pax Romana, and should have included my thoughts on complexity, lest I be accused of "crapping on a thread."

Pax Romana is considerably less complex. Whether you like a lot of chrome in your games will determine whether you'll like Carthage as much as Pax. I thought Pax was a decent game, and playing it after playing Carthage only made it seem better in my eyes.

Image

bambaladam — 2007-09-27T22:55:03+00:00

The siege continues into the end of 263 BC

Image

bambaladam — 2007-09-18T15:42:36+00:00

The situation as 264 BC begins in our game.

Image

swpopper — 2007-07-06T01:03:15+00:00

Back Cover

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-01-18T01:47:20+00:00

Game played at CABS Buckey Game Fest

Image

athos — 2006-11-30T16:42:14+00:00

Scenario Book Cover

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-11-18T16:44:57+00:00

Player Aid cards - handy to get hold of the counters in a box for army size move on the map.

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-11-18T16:28:00+00:00

Mercenary War - Mutiny in Carthage, 241BC: the mercenary has crossed the border and met Hanno. A battle was fought and "After Battle Status" was placed.

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-11-18T16:22:48+00:00

Numidian calvary recruited under Naravas to assist Carthage to chase up the mercenaries back up north.

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-11-18T16:20:15+00:00

Cities of Numidia sacked by the Carthage after the curel suppression.

Image

Rindu — 2006-07-01T19:35:50+00:00

1st Punic war scenario. 257 BC.