Game: Mare Nostrum - Mythology Expansion

Thread: Re: Does this expansion come with new player sheets?

EndersGame — 2008-10-10T18:52:19+00:00

You're welcome, and I'm glad you found my posts helpful. If you already have the base game, I'd recommend starting with that, along with the minor rule tweaks needed for balance, and you can always add elements of the expansion (such as the mythological creatures) later if you want. Have fun with Mare Nostrum!

Thread: Re: Does this expansion come with new player sheets?

Tobold — 2008-10-10T08:46:43+00:00

Thanks for such thorough replies, guys!

Ender, I have read several of your posts on the base game and the expansion. You go to so much trouble to make everything clear and concise. This post is no exception. You have shamed me. I should have found all of those myself. You went and gathered them all for me, which is much appreciated.

Hmmm, now I'm not so sure of what to do. I think I'll give the base game a go with the suggested fixes (I read that thread). The mythology would make a big difference for my son. Without it, I'm not sure he'd be interested. He plays Age of Mythology on the PC a lot and is fascinated by it. I would really like to have it included for his sake. Perhaps I'll add it to my next order.

Thread: Re: Does this expansion come with new player sheets?

EndersGame — 2008-10-09T16:22:52+00:00

Tobold wrote:
From the images here, it is clear that the expansion features new player sheets. In one, it looks like there are only 5 sheets. In another, I think I can see a 6th, but it could be something else.

I had an unfortunate mishap with the Rome player sheet in the base game. If I were to purchase this expansion, could I discard all my old player sheets in favour of the new ones?
The expansion features 6 new player sheets (including Atlantis), as pictured here:

]]> . ]]> . ]]>

]]> . ]]> . ]]>

Should you discard the originals? Probably not. The player sheets from the original game have a 36 points setup, and are designed for a 5 player game without the expansion map. The player sheets from the expansion have a 45 points setup, and are designed for games with the expansion map. For example, compare the two starting setups for Rome (original on left; expansion on right):

]]> . ]]>

As you can see, the expansion setup gives Rome an extra fortress, a market, and an extra caravan:

]]> . ]]>

In another thread (A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications), it has been suggested that when playing without the expansion map, the 36 point setup described on the original player sheets should be used. Note that two minor changes should be made for balance: Greece gets a free trireme (change to Pericles card), and Carthage gets a free legion (change to Hannibal card). I'm still hoping for some feedback about the implications of this for the Military Leader: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Thread: Re: Does this expansion come with new player sheets?

Numskull — 2008-10-09T15:42:04+00:00

The expansion does come with new player sheets, but they are not the same as the ones included with the base game. They start each player off with an income of seven or eight cards, rather than the five which the base game provided. This, in my opinion, weakens the game since it allows people to build Heroes and Wonders on only the second turn, which really hurts the epic feeling that the game is supposed to provide.

So, if you do get the expansion, you should NOT discard the old player sheets (or anything else from the base game), mishap or no mishap.

Thread: Does this expansion come with new player sheets?

Tobold — 2008-10-09T09:21:48+00:00

From the images here, it is clear that the expansion features new player sheets. In one, it looks like there are only 5 sheets. In another, I think I can see a 6th, but it could be something else.

I had an unfortunate mishap with the Rome player sheet in the base game. If I were to purchase this expansion, could I discard all my old player sheets in favour of the new ones?

Thread: Re: Improving the military aspect

clarkism — 2008-10-01T04:23:24+00:00

Being able to build Honders as early as the second turn makes the game way too quick.

Agreed! Definitely going to try starting with a five card income.

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about the Mare Nostrum expansion

HuckmanT — 2008-09-29T19:51:50+00:00

Love the format- very creative. Nice job here.

Thread: What you need to know and what people think about the Mare Nostrum expansion

EndersGame — 2008-09-27T23:53:15+00:00

After playing this game and discussing it with a fellow gamer, I've scoured the personal comments (and also skimmed through the reviews), and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about the Mare Nostrum Mythology Expansion. Perhaps you could call this a kind of "consensus of opinion" - biased of course, because I'm the one who gets to pick the quotes to include. Nevertheless, here you have it, an at-a-glance overview of some of the majority opinions that you need to know about this game.

]]>

1. It improves the original game by adding several good elements: a sixth player, mythological creatures, gods, extra heroes, and revised rule-book.
"Adds the sixth player, new commodity, a lot of heroes, and the Monsters!"
"This supplement for MN enlarges the play area with a fresh board for a sixth player, Atlantis, and mightily expands the pool of heroes that player civilizations can draw upon; also adding a new turn phase utilizing the power of the gods, with one-turn spell-like card play. Mythological creatures, like Centaurs, Titans, and Krakens, can now be called upon to do their master's foul bidding, usually to attack weak empires, crushing fortresses and legions that stand in their shadow."
"In addition to giving you great stuff like mythological creatures to bolster your ranks, a pantheon of gods to call upon for help, a new nation and a new board it also addresses some balancing issues."
"The plethora of additional heroes and gods really open up the possibilities for players in the game and make a good game great."
"Adds a sixth player, a map extension, TONS of new heroes, a 13th commodity, souped up military units, a new "god" phase, and a bunch of rule tweaks. Nicely, it also includes a completely rewritten rulebook. The mythology theme integrates seamlessly without destroying the original flavor of the game."
"With all the special cards added (creatures and myth heroes/heroines), it adds a very card-driven flavor to a Euro-styled Civ wargame with resources/economics. Additions of a sixth player and a 13th commodity type is a nice touch (now you can get 12 of 13 commodities to build The Pyramids). Overall, it adds more wrinkles to the original game and, I think, gives it more balance and counter-options for each civilization. "
"The new heroes and gods add a lot of variety and more interesting decisions."
"The Atlantean civilization is also a very cool addition. And the Kraken work wonderfully, making possible for Atlas to attack but without being overpowered."
"Playing with the mythical creatures and new heroes/wonders adds much to the game, both in terms of strategy (different civ-specific creature strategies, some worthwhile, some not) and additional paths to take. Highly recommended to play with the expansion map and additional player areas. More heroes and more choices leads to more replayability value."
"Adds both good and bad elements to the base game. The good: the mythological creatures (yeah!) add a welcomed new layer of tactics/strategy. There is also a staggering amount of new heroes/wonders delivered with the expansion, which adds many new ways to play the game. However I wasn't a big fan of the new God phase, which really didn't add anything interesting."
"It should also be mentioned that this expansion comes with a rulebook that includes all the rules for the expansion and the base game in one book. All expansions should do this; it is a huge boon."

2. It greatly improves the original game by correcting the flaws of the base game.
"It's the perfect addition to a very good game. It fixes balance issues, making for a more dynamical game at the same time, with little complexity added."
"Adds more spice and some balance to the basic game."
"This is a beautifully produced expansion set that blends seamlessly with the components of the original."
"Mare Nostrum: The Repair Kit. Greece is no longer the whipping boy of the game, the quick-spawning Romans now have a western front to worry about, and the Egyptian tax craze has been handicapped by some of the new additions. The wealth of new options here makes Mare Nostrum even more enjoyable for fans like me and well worth another look for people who weren't thrilled with it."
"More balance, more actions, full rewriting of the rules ... a must have."
"Mare Nostrum is one of my favorite games by itself, but the Mythology expansion somehow makes it even better. The addition of a few new components such as myth units, gods, and a 6th player (Atlantis) add to the game tremendously, making this one of the best expansions ever published."
"Improves the game, half by patching it and half by adding fun options."
"The original game without the expansion gets a 9, but with the expansion gets a solid 10. The expansion adds a lot of interesting elements and fixes the Greek civilization (it was really weak in the original game)."
"It corrects many flaws from the original and adds great god and myth units. Outstanding expansion."
"Fixes all the balance issues found in the base game and adds lots of interesting new stuff . If the base game was awesome, MN+ME is the only way to play the game now. There are few more enjoyable gaming experiences than 6 player Mare Nostrum + Mythology!"
"Much-needed fixes and enhancements for the basic Mare Nostrum game. The expansion is the only way to play."
"I think it's an excellent improvement to the original base game, which has a couple of small imbalances, I think."
"Fixes balance problems with original."
"It adds a lot of balance to the system and it's a must to play Mare Nostrum properly."
"It breathes a lot of new life into a game that was becoming worryingly dry in recent plays. Gods, wonders, and heroes are much more balanced."
"Corrects some "issues" with its parent and makes it a much better game."

3. It is flexible, and you can incorporate the additions and aspects that best suit your own needs and preferences.
"For maximum fulfillment, use the optional victory conditions: 5 Heroes/Wonders instead of 4, and a set of 13, not 12, for the Pyramids. I also like the 3 offices condition, which makes the game less of a race and more of a struggle."
"This is a decent expansion but don't use the expansion without at least 5 or 6 players, preferably 6. Otherwise there's too much room and seemingly not enough caravans."
"The "Greek Blockade" rule is one of the least elegant rule fixes I've ever seen. Instead of buying this expansion, I have incorporated several of the new rules (e.g. Pericles, Hannibal) into the base Mare Nostrum game."
"You can pick what you want from the rules and adjust the length and complexity of the game."

4. It makes Mare Nostrum a great civilization game experience, but the game should be enjoyed for its own merits.
"This IS the long pursued civilization game playable in 3 hours, search no further!"
"Civilisation style games are my thing. This makes a good game great."
"This made my favorite civ game even better. I don't know why this one doesn't get more recognition. Simply one of my favorite game of all time."
"My very favorite civilization/Mediterranean basin game. Far and away better than the base game."
"When I'm in the mood for a Civ wargame with economics, this is one of my favorites, especially with this new Myth Expansion."
"Great 'light' Civilisation game."
"Good Game, like Civilisation only shorter and better."
"Mare Nostrum: Mythology is not a true civilization game, in my sense, because there is little development of a civilization except some buildings, utility cards and military forces. Nevertheless, it's a very nice mythological war game that involves many civilizations."
"Very nice civilization game - although I would not call it Civilization light - the game feels just too different."
"This game is not Civ Lite. It is Mare Nostrum. Enjoy it for what it is."

5. The general consensus is that if you enjoy Mare Nostrum, the Expansion is essential.
"It makes a great game that much better."
"Superb expansion for a very good game. The expansion turns Mare Nostrum into a completely different game."
"Pretty much essential. Makes a good game AWESOME."
"You MUST buy this if you play Mare Nostrum."
"I believe this is the first game where I rated the expansion higher than the base game. I do not want to play this game without the expansion."
"The rulebook is much better than the original; the game balance has also been improved and the game is definitely better. There is absolutely no reason not to pick up the extension."
"Adds a lot to the game. Wouldn't play without it."
"Excellent expansion and a "must have" if you own the base game."
"Need this to really make Mare Nostrum the game it is. Essential."
"Indispensable."
"Absolute must for Mare Nostrum! Makes the original a perfect 10!"
"Most expansions to boardgames are nice-to-haves; Mythology is a must-have. I would not want to play Mare Nostrum without this expansion."

]]>

6. The bottom line: what you need to know.
Given that the original base game of Mare Nostrum has some flaws, the Expansion makes the necessary corrective patches to greatly improve it, as well as offering flexible additions that further enhance it, and thus is essential for those who want to make Mare Nostrum the unique game of civilization and war that it was intended to be.

]]>

For further reading and information, also see my review of the base game:

What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/347621

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:11:15+00:00

Revised starting units for ROME (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:10:54+00:00

Revised starting units for GREECE (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:10:09+00:00

Revised starting units for EGYPT (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:09:47+00:00

Revised starting units for CARTHAGE (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:09:21+00:00

Revised starting units for BABYLON (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T04:08:55+00:00

Revised starting units for ATLANTIS (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T01:52:10+00:00

New predetermined setup for ROME (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T01:51:52+00:00

New predetermined setup for GREECE (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T01:51:31+00:00

New predetermined setup for EGYPT (45 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T01:51:08+00:00

New predetermined setup for CARTHAGE (45 points)

Thread: Re: All interceptions?

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T19:47:50+00:00

charlesf wrote:
We've tried giving the Blockade ability to all Navy's and it does tend to bog the game down even more.
I couldn't disagree more. We use that rule and it works like a charm (blockading party needing more fleets than the active player version). It might require more better planning, but our military campaigns certainly have been dramatic and good fun rather than bogging down...
The blockade rule is essential in order to allow the naval aspect to get its due.
We play with the optional rule allowing the Greek navy to lend her legions land support. Very interesting as well and compensates Greece for her central position and poor economic configuration).
I consider blockades for all and the Greek land support absolutely mandatory. Essential for MN to shine. There's a reason why these optional rules got introduced...
It seems that players are in one of two camps:
a) playing a naval blockade for Greece only, and no naval support for land battles.
b) playing a naval blockade for all players, and Greek naval support for land battles.

From what I can gather, Serge Laget is in the first camp, and appears to favour a naval blockade only for Greece, and so this is what ended up in the rules of the expansion. But many other experienced players seem to favour a naval blockade for all players, but only when played together with the above rule about naval support to help Greece.

Do note that naval blockades work differently in these two camps. In the second camp, the difference is not just who may make the blockade (all players, and not just Greece), but it also makes it harder to get through a blockade (after naval combat you need to have more ships in a sea space than the blockading player, and not just enough ships for a continuous chain of triremes). It seems to me that the requirement of having more ships in a sea space than the blockading player is a significant change, and makes it considerably more difficult to get through a blockade. Or to reverse it: it makes it considerably easier to make a blockade.

There is also some more discussion here.

Thread: Re: Greece - naval support for land battles

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T19:33:50+00:00

Perhaps they've been revised, but I understand the suggested new rules differently. In my understanding, Greek naval support for ground attacks is only used in conjunction with the rule that all players can make a naval blockade. it works as follows: once per turn, only one fleet (a group of triremes in one sea space) may support an adjacent land battle (offensively or defensively), even if that fleet has already moved and/or battled. The fleet adds +1 (not 1D6!) per Trireme to the land combat.

Note that Serge Laget appears to favour a naval blockade only for Greece as described in the expansion rules (and thus not playing with bonus of naval support for land battles), but many other experienced players that favour a naval blockade for all players add the above rule about naval support to help Greece.

Thread: Re: Six Players Minus The Mythology?

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T19:28:48+00:00

Troymk1 wrote:
Also without the gods some needed balancing is lost.
Could you expand on this thought? It seems to me that the revised rules, revised cards, and revised starting setup (more starting units) already resolve most of the balancing issues. The addition of mythological creatures adds further to this, so playing without the gods doesn't seem to be a big issue.

Thread: Re: Physical impossibility

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T15:16:14+00:00

stephenpaget wrote:
How the hell do you play this game? I have an above average sized table and I just don't know how to lay this out. So many cards! Heroes, wonders, Gods, commodoties, huge board, you need space for players to be able to lay their cards out for trade, and all players need to be able to see everything. Reminded me of Parthenon rise af the agean, which I played once and it took over my lounge.
Parthenon Rise of the Aegean does have a lot of cards, but there are ways of simplifying this and it doesn't have to be as invasive as it might first seem. See the article here, which includes pictures:
Organized chaos: setting up a game with 440 cards

stephenpaget wrote:
If I play the regular game, do the cards from the expansion replace the base game (Civ specific heroes for instance, and wonders)?
This is somewhat a matter of debate, but the general consensus seems to be that the changes made to the Hero & Wonder cards in the expansion are essential to correct the imbalance of the original game. See for example, the discussions here:

Should you use the revised Hero & Wonder cards with the original game?
A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications

Thread: Re: MN is such a great game why it's only 312 in the rating?

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T15:10:21+00:00

I'd agree that Mare Nostrum is under-rated, but I think there are reasons for this that I can understand:

1. It was hyped as a civ-lite game when it was first published. This always sets expectations too high, and risks leading some gamers to be disappointed.

2. It takes time to learn how to play well, and many first-timers seem to have a poor experience with the game when an inexperienced player (especially Carthage and the Director of Commerce) can make it easy for others to win (especially by not forcing Egypt to give up tax cards through large trades). This isn't necessarily the game's fault, but the players - but it does means that it takes time and experience to get the most out of the game. People who only played it a handful of times would be more likely to rate it lower as a result.

3. The base game was imbalanced. It was no secret that the expansion functioned almost as a "patch" to correct imbalances of the original game. But it's not entirely surprising that when played without the expansion, many players were left somewhat dissatisfied due to the apparent imbalance of the game.

So is Mare Nostrum under-rated? Certainly its current rating of 6.90 is somewhat unfortunate, because the rating of 7.55 given to the expansion is probably a more accurate indication of the game's true potential. But it does require work and experience to get to that point.

For those who have the base game and want to implement some of the revisions and adjustments made in the expansion, it is possible to make these game-balancing changes without owning the expansion. Consult this article for more information:

A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342972

Thread: Re: Missing pieces

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T14:59:48+00:00

I'm in the same boat - my copy of the expansion was missing three of the purple mythological creature meeples. The cafegames.com website no longer seems to exist. Does anyone have current contact information for a North American source that I can contact in order to obtain the three missing pieces? Feel free to send a Private Message if you'd rather not post an email address in a public formum.

Edit: Looks like I have the lead I was looking for, the place to contact is www.asmodee-us.com

Thread: Re: Trying to get in touch with Cafe Games/Euro Games/Descartes

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T14:55:11+00:00

Thread: Re: Rules improvement?

EndersGame — 2008-09-25T14:48:49+00:00

I agree that the original game is improved when played with expansion revisions and rules. Philip is correct in pointing out that all the changes you mention should be used in the base game, including the naval blockade. Effectively the expansion functions as a "patch" to improve the original, and if you know what the revisions are, you can make it work even if you don't own the expansion. To help with this, I've posted the following article:

A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342972

The one thing you have missed is that the expansion also modifies the starting setup for all players, so that every civilization starts with more units at the beginning of the game (45 instead of 36 points). You can find details on those changes here:
Should you use the revised Starting Setup with the original game?

Also consult this thread for more ideas:
Recommendable without expansion?

Thread: Should you use the revised Starting Setup with the original game? (complete list of revisions included)

EndersGame — 2008-09-24T22:22:28+00:00

In order to address issues with balancing, the expansion has changed several aspects of the original base game, including the rules, the starting setup, and the Hero/Wonder cards. I've already dealt with the rule changes in this thread: A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications. But now what about the starting setup positions that have been revised?

The predetermined setup has been tweaked for all players, and basically uses 45 construction points instead of 36 points with the original game. Here are the revised setups:

Revised starting setups for Rome, Greece, and Babylon
]]> . ]]> . ]]>

Revised starting setups for Atlantis, Carthage, and Egypt
]]> . ]]> . ]]>

In all instances, each civilization now has an extra caravan, city, or fortress, and even a temple, market, legion, or trireme. Certainly there is now more production from the beginning of the game.

When playing with five players using the original base game, should this revised starting set-up be used to improve the game balance? Does the revised set-up correct game balance issues of the original game, or is it only necessary because of the addition of a 6th player? In other words, is this change a good improvement to adopt for the base game, or is it only necessary when playing with the expansion and with 6 players?

I'm personally inclined to use the revised starting setup (45 points) with the base game instead of the original setup (36 points), to improve the game balance. I'd imagine that this is an improvement whether playing with the predetermined setup or with the free setup. But I'm wondering if others can testify whether this will create new imbalances or problems.

A related question: the expansion rules change how netural civilizations function. As well as placing a mythological creature in the appropriate capital province of a neutral civilization, regions adjacent to the capital receive an influence marker, legion and fortress, whereas in the original game they only receive an influence marker and legion. Presumably this is also a good improvement to adopt when playing with the original game?

Edit: I just came across the following post which suggests that using the revised setup might not be a good idea:
Numskull wrote:
you might want to consider using the base game's inital setup (five card income to start) instead of those given in the expansion (seven card income for Rome, eight for everyone else). The only thing I dislike about the Expansion is the fact that everyone starts out with more production, which detracts from the epic feel of the game; an inattentive Director of Commerce can easily let people (especially Egypt) build Heroes on only the second turn.
Discussion in the thread mentioned above also supports using the original (36 points) rather than the revised (45 points) setup when playing without the expansion map. Thoughts?

Thread: Should you use the revised Hero & Wonder cards with the original game? (complete list of revisions included)

EndersGame — 2008-09-24T21:28:29+00:00

In order to address issues with balancing, the expansion has changed several aspects of the original base game, including the rules, the starting setup, and the Hero/Wonder cards. I've already dealt with the rule changes in this thread: A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications. But now what about the cards that have been revised?

Eleven of the Hero & Wonder cards have been tweaked:

]]>

When playing with the original base game, should these expansion cards be used to improve the game balance?

The expansion rulebook explains these changes as follows:
"Why are some of the heroes and Wonders from the basic game included in this expansion with modified abilities?"
"This was done to address game balance issues that arise with the addition of a 6th player and the abilities of all the new heroes. Certain heroes and wonders from the basic game seemed to be inadequate when compared to the new heroes in the expansion, and thus would tend to be ignored by the players. Therefore, the author decided to redesign their abilities for more balanced play in the new game."
But are they also necessary for more balanced play with the original game? Will they correct some of the original imbalances, or will they create new imbalances?

Here is a complete list of the changes:

Revised Wonders:
Hanging Gardens: Keep 2 Commodity Cards after Construction (instead of 1)
Mausoleum: Influence markers cost one less (instead of just cities/caravans/markets/temples)
Lighthouse: Get one free influence marker when acquired (instead of none)
Statue of Zeus: Get one free fortress when acquired (instead of none)

Revised Heros:
Agamemnon: +3 towards Director of Commerce (instead of +2)
Archimedes: +3 towards Military Leader (instead of +2)
Solomon: +3 toward Political Leader (instead of +2)
Nebuchadnezzar: Sacking caravan gives Commodity, sacking city gives Tax card (instead of Resource of choice)
Caesar: Fortresses cost 3 to build (instead of 2)
Pericles: Get one free Trireme at start of game (instead of none)
Hannibal: Get one free Legion at start of game (instead of none)

Many of these changes are essential for improving game balance (eg Pericles, Hannibal, Caesar). But are all these changes good improvements to adopt for the base game? For example, are the changes for Agamemnon, Archimedes and Solomon worthwhile, or are they only necessary when playing with the new and stronger Hero cards that come with the expansion?

I'm personally inclined to substitute all of these cards from the original game with the revised cards from the expansion, to improve the base game, but I'm wondering if others can testify whether this will create new imbalances.

Thread: Re: Improving the military aspect

Numskull — 2008-09-02T18:38:16+00:00

Just use the starting packages displayed on the cheat sheets that came with the base game, not the expansion. You'll have to make something up for Atlantis, though.

Thread: Re: Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

Desiderata — 2008-09-02T00:45:05+00:00

fridberg wrote:
Ok, that's what I meant. However, you mention you can move it into territories owend by another player but not occupied by military units. I would imagine that it's also possible to move to that country, even if the enemy has military units.
Yes, but combat in this case is compulsory. If, after moving your unit(s), you have military units in a region "At War", you must fight an enemy in that territory.

Only if it is not "At War" (i.e. your military units are the only ones present there) can you Occupy, Sack or Convert.

Thread: Re: Improving the military aspect

kostek — 2008-09-01T13:59:30+00:00

Numskull wrote:
I think it makes sense to start each player off with a five card income, as in the base game, rather than the seven and eight card incomes that the expansion setup provides.

What is the best way to accomplish this in your opinion? Downgrade initial temples/markets to cities/caravans? That will have implications for the leaders, too, right?

I don't have my game handy, so I'm not sure what changes between base and expansion.

Thread: Re: Improving the military aspect

Numskull — 2008-09-01T03:10:59+00:00

I think it makes sense to start each player off with a five card income, as in the base game, rather than the seven and eight card incomes that the expansion setup provides. Being able to build Honders as early as the second turn makes the game way too quick. This way, people are more likely to build up a military earlier in the game.

Thread: Improving the military aspect

kostek — 2008-09-01T00:18:20+00:00

In a recent thread on MN, the poster said that with the expansion the military aspect suffers. W/ the expansion, there's so many resources floating around, the best strategy is to expand modestly and turtle.

Sadly, I haven't played enough to comment on this.

If true, it would be a negative for the game. Ideally, all aspects of the game should be important. While this is never going to be pure military game, a certain amount of battling is implied by the military units.

While pondering this over dinner, I came up with a possible solution. Reduce the number of cities, temples, markets and caravans. If these are scarce, the only way to get them back into circulation is to destroy one. This would also cut down on the amount of good available, and generally slow down the building of "honders."

Exact calibration would be tricky, but I would start by reducing cities and caravans by 1 or 2 and markets and temples by 3 or 4.

One problem is that the person who does the destroying isn't the same as the one who does the re-building. If Rome destroys a Greek temple, Babylon might be the one to benefit by building it. It messes up the motivations, but it might provide room for negotiation. Dunno.

Thoughts?

Thread: Re: I've thought of a new expansion for Mare Nostrum

Myoman — 2008-08-31T07:14:53+00:00

OK, here is the list with additional heroes.

General Heroes:
Ramses the Great (replaces agamennmon’s ability) + 3 to commerce
Agamennmon: (new ability) Convert 1 own coastal trireme to 1 legion placed, in adjacent land
Pompey: At the cost of 2 tax, convert one enemy trireme to your own.
Ptolomy: Any triremes in sea cannot transport legions to Ptolomy’ s owner’s land unless all opposing triremes are cleared. (Stronger version of greek blockade)

Mythological Heroes:
Hector: Once per turn, subtract 4 from your opponent’s total combat role
Theseus: owner of this card decides which opponent’s units are lost in battle i.e. legion, creature, fortress, etc.
Perseus: Can evoke all gods for a three card cost
Nimrod: -2 to purchase a wonder, but the wonder will be discarded at the end of the next turn.
Romulus: Can place an infuence marker in a converted province when is not adjacent to your empire.

Gods and Legendary Beasts:

Rome:
Mars: +6 to total combat
Vulcan: destroy a caravan
Jupiter: for 3 commodities, convert all legions in one province to yours.
Legendary Beast: Chimera: Destroy any 2 markets

Greece:
Athena: +2 to any role
Hermes: +3 resources of any one produced
Poseiden: destroy a trireme
Legendary Beast: Hydra: Kill all creatures in an adjacent empire (including those empires linked by a tririme)

Egypt:
Isis: give one resource to each player
Ra: choose one commodity to be excluded from that round of trade. It should be done after isis.
Osiris: at the cost of three rescources, destroy a hero
Legendary Beast: Sphynx: No beasts or military action can be taken against the empire for this turn

Babylon:
Ashur: Taxes cannot be used for building this round
Ishtar: Protects against a god
Marduk: Destroys a legendary beast
Legendary Beast: Tiamat: Destroy any 2 temples

Carthage:
Baal: Destroys a city
El: can redirect a god’s or legendary beast’s power to another player (including one’s self)
Astarte: Can force a player, during trading phase, to flip up a face down recourse and flip down a face up resource.
Legendary Beast: Behemoth: Destroy 2 fortresses in any adjacent empire (including those empires linked by a tririme) Destroyed fortresses can be split between two empires

Atlantis:
Kronos: Name one resource. That resource cannot be used in construction this round.
Oceanus: Transport 2 triremes to any sea
Prometheus: 1 free legion, place it anywhere on a coastal province or island
Legendary Beast: Leviathan: Destroys all triremes in a particular sea.

Thread: Re: Missing pieces

fargus9 — 2008-08-27T13:20:15+00:00

You might also try Asmodee. They list the game on their site now.

Thread: Re: Missing pieces

Philip Thomas — 2008-08-27T09:05:26+00:00

Contact Milan-spiele?

Meanwhile, if you have less than 6 players don't play with Atlantis. If you have 6 players you'll need to use something to replace the triremes.

Thread: Missing pieces

Athotis — 2008-08-27T07:48:49+00:00

I bought from milan-spiele Mare Nostrum - Mythology Expansion and i saw that game is short of trirem from Atlantis, all of them.

My question is what to do with this problem? Any idea?

Thread: I've thought of a new expansion for Mare Nostrum

Myoman — 2008-08-26T07:13:29+00:00

I was thinking about E-mailing Serge to see if he would be interested in possibly developing this. Its for an expansion, but there would be no game board, just a card deck...an add-on that concentrates on Gods and a new category, legendary monsters. Legendary monsters are like the mythological creatures, except they have more powerful and have a more destructive function. They are purchased in the god phase. Each region has a specific one they can purchase for 6 cards. If you want to purchase another region's monster, you must do so at 9 cards. The card can be kept and be used at any round, but once it is used, it is discarded and must be bought again. Most monsters are used during the military phase. So the new list is as follows, with the current beasts first, and then the new monsters.

Egypt: Phoenix, Sphinx
Carthage: War Elephants (which have the current behemoth powers),
Behemoth (with new powers)
Greece: Centaurs, Hydra
Babylon: Griffin, Tiamat
Rome: Titan, Chimera
Atlantis: Kraken, Leviathan

I've yet to determine their powers, but I have a general idea; for example, Leviathan can destroy all triemes in a specific sea. The sphynx can negate all military and beastial attacks for that round.

Next: The gods. I've made it so that each region gets a set of three of thier own gods, at a cost of 3 each. If you want to use another region's god, it costs six. This will help make it easy for players to determine what God to use, rather than looking at a full 18 gods, they can concentrate mostly on 3. The original gods have the same powers, the new gods have powers to help balance out the game. The gods are:

Greece: Athena, Hermes, and Posieden
Rome: Vulcan, Mars, Jupiter
Carthage: Baal, El, Astarte
Babylon: Ashur, Marduk, and Ishtar
Egypt: Isis, Ra, and Osiris
Atlantis: Oceanus, Kronos, and Prometheus

I was thinking of ways to develope the gods abilities and balancing out each regions weaknesses and strengths. Looking at the current gods, you could say that they each have a subject they focus on, such as protection, leadership, destruction, commodities, construction, etc. So I was thinking of useing those categories to come up with powers for the new gods. For example, Juno might have an influence type power, where Osiris would have a destructive power.

Also, new heroes to round out things:
Nimrod, Perseus, Theseus, and Romulus.

I was thinking for Nimrod (built the tower of Babel), to decrease the cost of building a wonder (excluding the pyramids) by 2, but the wonder will be destroyed and discarded by the end of the next round.

I will post all the powers and abilities as soon as I've worked them out thoroughly; in the meantime, I would welcome all suggestions. Thanks!

Thread: Re: MN is such a great game why it's only 312 in the rating?

Philip Thomas — 2008-08-25T08:22:39+00:00

I don't know what modifications Martin is suggesting, but I would advise buying the expansion at the same time as the base game and playing with it from the start. The expansion contains a rewritten version of the main game's rulebook integrating its changes, so there's no need to try to manage 2 rulebooks at once.

As for the original question, this is a game with an expansion which is a lot better than the original. In order to reflect this people may be rating the original lower than they would if they had never seen the expansion...

Thread: Re: MN is such a great game why it's only 312 in the rating?

Rock Photo Star — 2008-08-25T08:02:32+00:00

I've been weighing getting this game. What are the modifications and how are you suppose to play it?

Thread: Re: MN is such a great game why it's only 312 in the rating?

johnclark — 2008-08-25T07:35:41+00:00

astamagor wrote:
I wondered...this is really great game imho better than many games from TOP 50 and it's positioned as 312, while Mythology Expansion with rating 7.7 would be on position 21, which is btw more suitable for MN.

I agree that this game is under-rated, but the analysis is not correct unless you reconstruct the rankings based on the same criteria for all games: if you allow the MN expansion then you must allow all expansions. In that case, MN Mythology Expansion is at number 152 (requiring 250 ratings to qualify), which is still ok. Here is the entire list to that point:

Rank, Avg Rating, Num Ratings, Game
1 8.72 798 Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition - Shattered Empire
2 8.61 445 Descent: The Road to Legend
3 8.52 3189 Agricola
4 8.44 276 Napoleon's Triumph
5 8.39 399 Beyond Valor - ASL Module 1
6 8.38 12955 Puerto Rico
7 8.37 353 Commands & Colors: Ancients Expansion Pack #1: Greece & Eastern Kingdoms
8 8.33 2981 Twilight Struggle
9 8.30 520 War of the Ring - Battles of the Third Age
10 8.29 869 Power Grid - Benelux/Central Europe
11 8.28 1190 Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
12 8.25 412 Rails of Europe
13 8.25 265 Yanks - ASL Module 3
14 8.25 7965 Power Grid
15 8.23 291 Banzai
16 8.21 363 Age of Steam Expansion #1 - England & Ireland
17 8.17 1023 Arkham Horror - Dunwich Horror Expansion
18 8.17 482 Blood Bowl: Living RuleBook
19 8.17 332 CATAN 3D Collector's Edition
20 8.15 331 Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) Starter Kit #2
21 8.14 333 Game of Thrones, A: A Storm of Swords Expansion
22 8.14 1181 Paths of Glory
23 8.14 7301 Tigris & Euphrates
24 8.14 1156 Power Grid - Italy/France
25 8.13 1459 Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage
26 8.11 1230 Brass
27 8.10 856 Game of Thrones, A: A Clash of Kings Expansion
28 8.09 6322 Caylus
29 8.09 1107 Combat Commander: Europe
30 8.07 1945 Commands & Colors: Ancients
31 8.07 5868 El Grande
32 8.07 770 Memoir '44 - Eastern Front
33 8.06 3432 Race for the Galaxy
34 8.05 579 Here I Stand
35 8.04 1789 1960: The Making of the President
36 8.02 2592 Age of Steam
37 8.02 1918 Die Macher
38 8.01 1507 Ticket to Ride: USA 1910
39 8.00 491 Memoir '44 - Pacific Theater
40 8.00 422 A Victory Lost
41 7.99 389 EastFront
42 7.99 266 Paratrooper - ASL Module 2
43 7.99 5288 Princes of Florence, The
44 7.99 260 TZAAR
45 7.99 489 Power Grid Power Plant Deck 2
46 7.99 550 Arkham Horror - The King in Yellow Expansion
47 7.98 2480 Shogun
48 7.98 3624 War of the Ring
49 7.98 1180 Advanced Squad Leader (ASL)
50 7.98 679 Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) Starter Kit #1
51 7.98 383 Descent: Altar of Despair
52 7.97 872 Up Front
53 7.96 391 Wings of War - Miniatures
54 7.95 267 Age of Steam Expansion #3 - Scandinavia and Korea
55 7.95 554 Antiquity
56 7.94 257 Age of Steam Expansion #2 - Western US & Germany
57 7.93 1586 Advanced Civilization
58 7.93 595 Descent: The Well of Darkness
59 7.93 642 Europe Engulfed
60 7.92 2592 Pandemic
61 7.92 775 Roads and Boats
62 7.92 2084 Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
63 7.91 3034 Go
64 7.90 3747 BattleLore
65 7.90 2092 Imperial
66 7.89 3146 Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
67 7.89 3256 Railroad Tycoon
68 7.87 461 Wilderness War
69 7.87 3570 Goa
70 7.86 305 BattleLore: Epic BattleLore
71 7.85 5546 Ra
72 7.85 1466 Hammer of the Scots
73 7.84 970 Lord of the Rings - The Confrontation: Deluxe Edition
74 7.84 1660 YINSH
75 7.84 1120 Tide of Iron
76 7.82 1330 Crokinole
77 7.81 775 RoboRally - Armed and Dangerous
78 7.81 421 HeroScape Expansion Set: Orm's Return
79 7.80 420 Rommel in the Desert
80 7.80 2054 Tichu
81 7.80 820 Friedrich
82 7.80 1969 Wallenstein
83 7.79 417 Breakout: Normandy
84 7.79 599 Indonesia
85 7.78 341 HeroScape Master Set: Swarm of the Marro
86 7.77 1486 Struggle of Empires
87 7.77 1414 Stone Age
88 7.76 364 HeroScape Expansion Set: Utgar's Rage
89 7.75 1594 Dune
90 7.74 300 HeroScape Expansion Set: Fortress of the Archkyrie
91 7.74 510 RoboRally - Crash and Burn
92 7.73 299 Pillars of the Earth Expansion Set, The
93 7.73 14800 Settlers of Catan, The
94 7.73 483 Civilization Western Extension Map
95 7.72 1317 StarCraft: The Board Game
96 7.72 444 Manoeuvre
97 7.71 285 HeroScape Expansion Set: Jandar's Oath
98 7.71 1237 Ticket to Ride: Switzerland
99 7.71 918 Arkham Horror - Curse of the Dark Pharaoh Expansion
100 7.70 281 Dungeon Twister - Paladins & Dragons
101 7.70 455 Warmachine
102 7.70 320 Duel of Ages Set 2 - Intensity
103 7.69 602 Bonaparte at Marengo
104 7.69 5408 Memoir '44
105 7.68 272 More Cosmic Encounter
106 7.68 448 HeroScape Expansion Set: Malliddon's Prophecy
107 7.67 411 RoboRally - Grand Prix
108 7.67 351 Bang! The Bullet!
109 7.67 1005 1830: The Game of Railroads and Robber Barons
110 7.67 295 Funkenschlag
111 7.67 1575 In the Year of the Dragon
112 7.67 1177 Galaxy Trucker
113 7.66 2916 Taj Mahal
114 7.66 4775 Carcassonne - Inns & Cathedrals
115 7.65 2575 Notre Dame
116 7.65 615 Neuroshima Hex!
117 7.65 317 World of Warcraft: The Boardgame - Shadow of War
118 7.65 336 Doom: The Boardgame Expansion Set
119 7.65 5211 Ticket to Ride: Europe
120 7.65 4498 Samurai
121 7.64 3400 Game of Thrones, A
122 7.64 1056 Republic of Rome, The
123 7.64 1351 Space Hulk
124 7.63 401 1856
125 7.62 2738 Descent: Journeys in the Dark
126 7.62 9226 Ticket to Ride
127 7.62 3648 Carcassonne - Traders & Builders
128 7.61 267 RAF
129 7.61 5047 Arkham Horror
130 7.61 4126 Modern Art
131 7.60 292 Tinners' Trail
132 7.60 339 Revolution: The Dutch Revolt 1568-1648
133 7.60 263 Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries
134 7.60 2370 Ticket to Ride: Märklin Edition
135 7.60 1511 DVONN
136 7.60 3823 Cities and Knights of Catan, The
137 7.59 2554 Civilization
138 7.59 2671 Battle Line
139 7.59 425 El Grande Expansions, The
140 7.59 3348 Amun-Re
141 7.59 618 We the People
142 7.57 2393 Mr. Jack
143 7.57 14408 Carcassonne
144 7.57 942 Princes of the Renaissance
145 7.57 4794 Acquire
146 7.56 288 Strat-o-Matic Baseball
147 7.56 6082 San Juan
148 7.56 323 Blue Moon Expansion - The Aqua
149 7.56 403 Civil War, the
150 7.55 1776 Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
151 7.55 1022 Time's Up!
152 7.55 384 Mare Nostrum - Mythology Expansion

Thread: Re: Setup: Remove 8 Heroes AND Wonders--or just Heroes?

kostek — 2008-08-18T01:46:00+00:00

I never noticed this subtle issue. Of course I've only actually played once...

It's a tricky call, IMO. It's sort of inelegant, IMO, to only remove heroes.

OTOH, some of heroes have special powers related to the wonders (maybe heroes and gods both?). If several wonders leave, then those heroes (gods?) lose out.

If I ever get to play again (unlikely, given my current game group), I'll probably keep all the wonders and just remove heroes.

Thread: Re: Can titan special attack a griffon

macike — 2008-08-12T13:16:34+00:00

I am affraid that griffons can fly over sea spaces but are not allowed to end their move at sea. They are ground units.

Thread: Re: Can titan special attack a griffon

fridberg — 2008-08-12T10:07:41+00:00

macike wrote:
Griffons as mythological creatures are ground units and can be targeted with Titans' ranged attack. At least while they are located in an adjacent region.

Ok, I guess I just got a little confused about griffons being land units since then can fly and even stay on water.

When you say titans can attack them while they are located in an adjacent region, I guess it includes being in a "adjacent sea" ?

Thread: Re: Can titan special attack a griffon

macike — 2008-08-12T09:40:46+00:00

Griffons as mythological creatures are ground units and can be targeted with Titans' ranged attack. At least while they are located in an adjacent region.

Thread: Can titan special attack a griffon

fridberg — 2008-08-12T07:32:52+00:00

Can the titan use his special attack on griffons.

Since the Griffon is a flyng unit, and the rules mention that it can not be convoyed by a trireme. I'm wondering, can a titan attack it with it's special movement

Thread: Re: Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

fridberg — 2008-08-12T07:23:11+00:00

Desiderata wrote:
There is nothing preventing a player from moving army units into territories owned by another player but not occupied by military units. In fact, it may be desirable to do so, as then the player could Sack, Occupy, or Convert.

Ok, that's what I meant. However, you mention you can move it into territories owend by another player but not occupied by military units. I would imagine that it's also possible to move to that country, even if the enemy has military units.

Thread: Re: Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

Numskull — 2008-08-12T01:48:23+00:00

Correct. Mare Nostrum's combat system does not include a retreat concept.

Thread: Re: Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

Desiderata — 2008-08-12T01:30:24+00:00

As far as I understand the game, you don't "retreat". A battle lasts for one round of dice rolling. If the attacker did not destroy all of defender's units, then there is no immediate moving of units. Then, on the defender's Combat phase, he/she can move his army (or stay there and counterattack) as normal.

There is nothing preventing a player from moving army units into territories owned by another player but not occupied by military units. In fact, it may be desirable to do so, as then the player could Sack, Occupy, or Convert.

Thread: Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

fridberg — 2008-08-11T21:19:00+00:00

Is it possible to retreat to a enemy country

Example: Red attacks blue, blue retreats his legion to country where the red came from. (where red has influcee but no units)

Thread: Re: Q about titan

Philip Thomas — 2008-08-09T11:50:44+00:00

Each Titan may only make one attack (special or normal) each turn. A special attack may be followed up by a normal attack by other units or indeed by a special attack by other Titans.

Thread: Q about titan

fridberg — 2008-08-09T11:38:41+00:00

When does the titan use it's special ability?

Can he first attack a army in a adjacent province, and then move in it and attack? Can he first make a normal attack, and then attack a adjacent province? Or is it just one of them ? (using the special attack, means you can't make a normal attack)?
If he can not attack after using the special ability, is it then possible for him to first attack a adjacent province, and then let another army attack the same country ?

Thread: Re: Setup: Remove 8 Heroes AND Wonders--or just Heroes?

Desiderata — 2008-08-04T13:51:18+00:00

Well, it's not official enough for me without any rules referencing (either language), but I suppose it makes sense. I just can't believe this has not been addressed in more detail.

Here is the quote from the thread macike linked above (which appears to be the same link as in my first post):
cymric wrote:
6)Do the dups of the heros and wonders get replaced or do we just add them in? Is that why you take out 8 random ones? What would happen if you took out enough of the wonders (including the pryamid that the game couldn't be won)?
You only remove 8 heroes at random; wonders and gods are never taken out. First you replace all the old heroes and wonders with the new ones, then you take the heroes deck and remove 8. The remainder is available for play. The reason for this is to mix in a little more variety into the game, otherwise people will focus on 'known combos' and not try out new things.

For what it's worth.

Thread: Re: Setup: Remove 8 Heroes AND Wonders--or just Heroes?

jpat — 2008-08-04T13:03:38+00:00

macike wrote:
It has been already discussed before.

True enough, but it wasn't really resolved there either. When we played the other day, we just took out eight Heroes, since it seemed like the French and German rules didn't include Wonders.

Thread: Re: Setup: Remove 8 Heroes AND Wonders--or just Heroes?

macike — 2008-08-04T09:47:22+00:00

It has been already discussed before.

Thread: Re: A Good First Game with a Surprise at the End

fattylumpkin — 2008-08-01T07:15:50+00:00

Certainly, early in the game people start getting chances to win. I may not remember clearly but thinking back, if Egypt picks up Hermes in turn one to generate 3 more tax the next turn and saves back two tax, in turn two Egypt can convert one of their resources to a tax with Cleopatra and generate six more tax for a total of 12, so there’s a threat for the win already in turn 2.(It may not have been such a bad idea to thrash Alexandria in the beginning ) Other civilizations start becoming a threat to win as soon as turn 4 or 5 in our game.

So it seems like it’s a game where everyone has to balance keeping others from winning while still trying to win themselves until eventually someone slips by. I think this is cool as very quickly things get tense and makes for an interesting gaming experience. However, the process of figuring out exactly what situation people are in to get 12 resources/4 heroes isn’t that interesting to me so I think I’ll have to be content with the end coming as a surprise.

Another thing about the end coming so quick is this really is somewhat of a civ game and as such I want to see a little more develop. I mean, the phoenix’s ability would really have been useless in our game even if I had been more aggressive. By the time I had one and lost it, it would have taken me too long to bring it back to life and run it back to battle. Maybe if someone were constantly encroaching on my territory.

In short, I like the short game, and it’s interesting, but ultimately I have a hunch the game needs to be played at 5heroes/13resources win condition to be at its best. That one extra resource I think would push the possibility of endgame out at least 2 rounds and that’s a lot more time to see some of your strategies realized.

I also like all the possibilities you have for heroes etc. and I feel all their extra stuff to remember is well worth it. If it wasn’t there, the combat would be totally simplistic and the only interesting thing in the game would be the trading/winning conditions part that, honestly, I can’t tell whether I like or not. If it were “produce x amount of different resources yourself” for the win I could see it indicating the “best” civilization vs. someone with lots of monuments or something, but right now, it feels like the civilization that wins may be objectively crappier in most ways than another civilization that was held off from the win by everyone else. This isn’t bad at all, it just is very Euro in a game that seems like it should have a lot of beat down and I didn’t really expect it to play out quite that way.

I certainly rate it high on the first play, but my grasp is still so weak that could really go anywhere. At a minimum, there aren’t many other games that fit into the category Mare Nostrum does. If it seems interesting at all, I’d highly recommend people pursue it. I eagerly await the next opportunity to play.

Thread: Re: A Good First Game with a Surprise at the End

jpat — 2008-07-31T19:52:54+00:00

Iceberg1 wrote:
My problem, too, is that I tend to rate games lower that I lose, at least until I see that there is a possibility for me to win.

You're probably not the only one.

Thread: Re: A Good First Game with a Surprise at the End

Iceberg1 — 2008-07-31T18:15:21+00:00

Good points, guys. Thanks for commenting. I will definitely have to play this again. My problem, too, is that I tend to rate games lower that I lose, at least until I see that there is a possibility for me to win.

--James

Thread: Re: A Good First Game with a Surprise at the End

DarkoBeta — 2008-07-31T18:01:23+00:00

I should also note that I had 9 tax cards on the last turn. The previous turn, Kevin knocked me off of one of his cities and Baal'ed one of my home cities that was supplemented with a temple. So if the dice had come out differently in our battle and I had bought Ishtar (which I did a few times previously), then we could have had a tie on our hands. I'm only adding this to show that although the winner seemed to come from nowhere, the game was reaching its tipping point. I think we just didn't know how to recognize the signs of the impending finish.

Thread: Re: A Good First Game with a Surprise at the End

jpat — 2008-07-31T17:17:01+00:00

Thanks, James, for writing this up. Spared me the trouble.

There probably was a bit of metagaming between Jason and me. However, in fairness, Jason was on Carthage's border and could have started piling into North Africa given his trireme advantage.

I hope you'll give this maybe one more go. I'll admit that I did have a stronger immediately positive reaction to Imperial, and I also admit that there's a bit of buyer's hope that the game won't just sit. Imperial may just turn out to be a better game. However, I do think maybe what you did better when explaining Imperial to so many of us than I did here was in pointing out key strategies. I don't know that I knew what they were in MN, having never played before, but I could have done a bit better there from what I'd seen on BGG.

I'll admit that my win was a surprise even to me. I'd lost two caravans to Joel, who was moving west slightly (but probably not enough), but I was able to effectively replace that loss and then some by adding a market to a two-caravan province and then take Joel's papyrus via a trieme invasion. After Jason had ground down east of me and with James too far north, I had a pretty much uncontested field.

I do think going to 5 heroes/wonders and 13 resources would help a bit, and I suspect the "added hour" warning in the rulebook is a bit much. The 12 resources for pyramids rule makes more sense for the base game alone because there are only 12. The expansion adds a 13th.

I think we would do "better" next time. I don't think we'd let Carthage build again like that. Really, everyone needs a couple hostile neighbors.
We'd probably trade a little more snarkily. Whoever suggested that the trading should've gone up to 10 or 12 cards (instead of 5 in the last round) was probably right; I could've gotten stuck with duplicates instead of having exactly 12 unique commodity cards.

Where MN may go slightly wrong, at least, is the fact that the winner can just seemingly come from nowhere. Sure, we all could have counted the resources I was getting and planned accordingly to bust me up somehow, but it's not as clear as in, say, Imperial, where the signs are all there. One cogent complaint about this game is that it seems to end too soon--but I'd also say that about Imperial, which I rate a solid 9.

It's possible time will turn up some more problems, but I like it fairly well.