Game: Mare Nostrum

Thread: Re: Missing pieces

trickrune — 2008-11-18T23:32:59+00:00

I contacted Asmodee-US and I had my missing pieces replaced quickly, with no language difficulties and at no cost just last month. They were great.

Thread: Re: For better or for worse: eliminate the Pyramids as an instant win condition?

macike — 2008-11-16T10:11:17+00:00

Well ..., I remember one game where an Egypt - who managed to build only the Colossus so far - while Atlantis, Rome and Babylon were heading for the last honder - seemed to be overwhelmed.

Egypt was in possesion of three provinces:
1) AEgyptus at war among Atlantis and Babylon,
2) Cyrenaica at war among the Rome and Carthage,
3) Thebais.
Thanks to wars in its provinces Egypt managed to keep the Political Leader role.

So the Egypt harvested: 6 Tax +1 Tax from Colossus, 2 Papyrus, Grain along with 2 tax secured from the previous round.

During the trade phase (5-6 cards) no pretenders to victory were interested in Taxes. However Papyrus was grabbed in the beginning allowing Egypt to convert first to Tax and start Tax exchange with Greece with the second. Grain was exchanged for Grain.
So at the end of the trade Babylon and Rome (not sure about Atlantis) were ready to construct the last honder and wondering which invader Cleopatra - the Political Leader - will make a king.

Of course Egypt revealed 11 Taxes and Grain - which Cleopatra with ease converted to Tax - and announced the construction of Pyramids.

======

Just because to be able to observe such death blow victories I wouldn't give up the Pyramids victory condition.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

EndersGame — 2008-11-15T15:22:18+00:00

wytefang wrote:
One solution may be to ditch the purchasing of the Pyramids as a winning condition.
Others have already criticized this suggestion, so I will not add to their comments. I'd respectfully refer readers to some of the good discussion on this very point in the following thread:
For better or for worse: eliminate the Pyramids as an instant win condition?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/346355

Several contributors there make the case that it's not the game but inexperience (especially for Carthage) that can help trigger this instant win condition. John Clark makes what I think is a suggestion well worth considering, i.e. that for players relatively new to the game, the trading be limited to 4 or 5 cards, and possibly the pyramids be omitted as a win condition. See the referenced thread for full details.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

mikoyan — 2008-11-15T05:58:09+00:00

joewyka wrote:
I agree that the pyramid victory is abrupt, unexpected, and usually disappointing when it occurs. Maybe eliminating it would create a more consistenly satisfying game...
It's no more abrupt than getting the 4 special cards.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

wytefang — 2008-11-15T03:09:30+00:00

Hi Cymric,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that makes sense. As you've so eloquently said, it's of course all opinion-based but I feel that I've definitely seen enough of the nuances to understand that the issues I've raised are reasonably accurate to assess against the game's quality.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

cymric — 2008-11-15T01:17:31+00:00

You don't mention how often you've played the game before you wrote the review. I think you might be missing a few key issues here, and I'm going to offer my own thoughts for the sake of showing there might be more than meets the eye.

wytefang wrote:
[...] The key issues are that the game tends to end too soon, just when things appear to be heating up. This occurs mainly because the Director of Commerce controls the trading of cards and has no limitations placed on how many cards he can request be up for grabs by trading players. This allows players of high-resource producing Empires to rapidly save up for the Pyramids (one of the winning conditions). One solution may be to ditch the purchasing of the Pyramids as a winning condition.[...]
But---and that's important---only if the other players let such a Director of Commerce get away with it, and assuming that all resources are in fact in play, and that said resources show up in the card trade as well.

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

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

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

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

Another small issue is that the designers have set limits on how many buildings are available during the game, ostensibly to help generate conflict rather than player turtling. However these artificial limits can lead to a runaway victory by a single player all too easily - especially when factoring in the limitations on military unit movement (1 space per turn) and the actual proximity of various countries to each other. A country that may be able to slow down another player's success is all too frequently not close enough to take action in time.
This is something I don't understand. How does the shortage of buildings lead to a runaway victory if its function is to promote conflict, thus diversion of resources away from the limits of 9 and 12 needed for victory?

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

Another huge issue is simply that if attacked, even if successful in fending off the interloper, players can find themselves too far behind the spending curve to catch up, making combat extremely unappealing and/or a bit unfair even.
What spending curve? If they've withstood an attack, nothing of their trading resources has been destroyed or wasted---this can only occur if the attack was succesful... And you seem to be excluding that situation a priori. The defender is anything but an underdog here, as it takes quite a punch to kick someone out of a province!

[...]Players set the required number of cards face-up on the table and then, starting with the Director of Commerce, each in turn choose a card from another player who can then choose one from someone else until all the cards are gone. This is more pseudo-trading than real trading and like the rest of Mare Nostrum's gameplay elements, feels disappointingly limited.
This is what prompted me to write this response. 'Trade' in this game is a highly unusual weapon rather than a quiet exchange of cards. I found it helped immensely if I didn't think of this part of the game as 'trade' anymore lest it bring up the wrong instincts and impulses. This isn't about making good win-win deals. This is about being an opportunistic weasel which gets to the good stuff before someone else can.

Gameplay does flow nicely and the overall design simplicity doesn't necessarily ruin the game, it just makes it far less fun than one might imagine. When you factor in how quickly the game ends (if you're using the official rules) considering the perceived game-type involved and factoring in the issues mentioned above, you're left wanting a lot more than Mare Nostrum can offer.
There is always a certain amount of subjectivity involved in judging whether you like a game or not, and that is at it should be. Still, given that I'm not entirely convinced you've dug up everyting Mare Nostrum has to offer, I also am not entirely convinced that you're not subconsciously comparing it to that imagined game, which is of course not very fair.

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

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

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

Eldard — 2008-11-14T23:07:37+00:00

Rulesjd wrote:
We experienced the game with 3 players. Unfortunately, if two of those players ally, the third player is virtually helpless and can be relagated to a distant third with NO chance of recovering. That might be okay if you could actually be eliminated (like carthage) but, no, you simply have to limp along until its finished.

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

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

The Mare Nostrum Mythology expansion reduces Rome's advantage by adding Atlantis and more territory to Rome's west.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

jpat — 2008-11-14T23:05:05+00:00

You mention that there's no upper limit in trading, which is true. However, the director of commerce, if paying attention, can slow down rivals' progress by announcing a trade of few (or even no) cards. Players could also put multiples of some cards out to reduce the number of unique types available.

Mare Nostrum doesn't have the usual sort of trading, admittedly, but it is interesting to me nonetheless.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

joewyka — 2008-11-14T22:59:44+00:00

I agree that the pyramid victory is abrupt, unexpected, and usually disappointing when it occurs. Maybe eliminating it would create a more consistenly satisfying game...

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

JBTheChamp — 2008-11-14T22:19:22+00:00

good review, I have a few comments;
1. I have found that warefare is not particularly expensive, given you have to spend your cash anyway, and has helped me to victory nicely a few times. As long as you are focused in your military objective & stop attacking once you have achieved this.
2. The director of commerce is powerful, however we have found this position being handed over at least a few times per game. So its not like one person is dominating the trading.

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

wytefang — 2008-11-14T19:25:39+00:00

Well you can never be truly "eliminated" since the rules don't allow your opponents to technically "take over" your home regional area. You can always build there, thus prolonging your misery if you're out of the running.

Thanks for posting!

Thread: Re: Mare Nostrum Review

Rulesjd — 2008-11-14T19:06:56+00:00

We experienced the game with 3 players. Unfortunately, if two of those players ally, the third player is virtually helpless and can be relagated to a distant third with NO chance of recovering. That might be okay if you could actually be eliminated (like carthage) but, no, you simply have to limp along until its finished.

Thread: Mare Nostrum Review

wytefang — 2008-11-14T18:22:28+00:00

-----------------------
Gameplay Aspects: Civilization/Economic/Light Combat
Player Interaction: Light to Medium
Player Conflict: Light to Medium
Rules Complexity: Light to Light/Medium
# of Players: 3-5 players
Best # of Players: 5
Game Length: 1-2 hours (usually 1.5 hours at the most)
Cost: $30-40

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

Components

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts/Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality of Player Interactions = B+

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

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

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

Overall Fun Factor = C+

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

Final Opinion = B-/C+

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

Thanks for reading and good gaming!

Thread: Re: A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications

EndersGame — 2008-11-13T20:45:55+00:00

I've created a document with the complete list of the above essential rule modifications necessary to make the base game balanced without needing the expansion. All the necessary adjustments to the rules and to cards are detailed and included, along with other optional rules used by many experienced Mare Nostrum players. Download it here:

Definitive Guide To The Official And Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications (ver. 1.0)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/36493

Play a balanced Mare Nostrum without needing the expansion to fix the imbalance of the original game!

Thread: Re: For better or for worse: eliminate the Pyramids as an instant win condition?

wytefang — 2008-11-12T23:55:21+00:00

I agree with the folks who were grumbling about the crappy win conditions. I disagree with the theory that it's the players' faults. If that's the case, then you've still made a crummy game. Shouldn't it be the designer's job to make the game fun and work well regardless of who is playing it? I'd say so.

The issues with this game are two-fold, from my experience and my group, who is hardly inexperienced with this game by now:

1. The end-game is frequently ruined by the over-powered Director of Commerce's ability to set any # of cards for trade. And no, the counter cards to address this don't really work since it costs a fortune to buy them, usually. Even the God who can help is problematic because the player owning Director of Commerce can easily out-pace the use of that God card. The same scenario mentioned in the OP for this thread happened to us just the other day and it was a huge disappointment (and we were playing to the suggested 13 resources that the expansion mentions). This game just seems like it never really gets to the meat and potatoes of the game while allowing for an exciting conclusion. Not once has that happened in our matches.

2. Once someone attacks you in a larger game, you're basically out of contention for winning unless you were already in possession of one or more of the Director cards and in the lead - and even then, a determined foe can basically take you both out of the game. This makes combat basically pointless and overbalancing, in general.

Such a promising game but it has serious issues, I'm afraid.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-11-11T01:03:26+00:00

Yes, I understand we are speaking strictly about how to handle alternate set-ups where the criteria for role cards can lead to different factions getting them than in the prescribed set-up. I don't see why the rules for the beginning set-up should be any different than for the rest of the game. The starting card assignment in the prescribed set-up is not arbitrary, or at least should not be looked at that way. The starting card assignment in the base game follows the rules consistently and when the set-up alters the situation (optional), the rules tell you how to handle it.

The only thing that is arbitrary at the start is that no one faction can start with more than one role card and the rules tell you how to handle that as well. I'm still wondering how or why this question came up in the first place when the rules cover everything we're been talking about...

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Numskull — 2008-11-10T21:42:45+00:00

It's purely a setup issue. The rules which govern who gets which office once the game is in progress need not apply, because it's only the first turn and the offices change hands (where applicable) at the end of a turn.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-11-10T09:27:33+00:00

The part that insists that Rome get the card in the first place despite another faction having more military units at the beginning is what I don't get...

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Numskull — 2008-11-10T02:45:08+00:00

And assign the roles to the factions that qualify for them based on the rules rather than stubbornly insisting that Rome must get the Military Leader card at the beginning just because...

Rome would lose the Military Leader card after the first turn if its controller failed to build more units. What part of this do you not get?

Thread: Re: Session Report

EndersGame — 2008-11-07T17:03:34+00:00

Tom, are you ever going to put out a review of Mare Nostrum? Some comments for you to consider, in reaction to your session report:

1. Playing with four players is okay, but the game shines best with the full complement of five players. Details here.

2. Having the game end abruptly with someone building the pyramids is usually a result of inexperienced players being somewhat careless with the trading phase and trading too many goods. I have experienced something similar. This especially happens if Carthage (Director of Commerce) is played by an inexperienced player. There's a simple fix: when playing with inexperienced players, limit trading to a maximum of four or five players, and eliminate the pyramids as a win condition. Details here.

3. Perhaps you are aware that there is a general consensus that the base game is imbalanced, and that the expansion is a "patch" that corrects this. It's possible to play the base game with a few rule tweaks - these are essential if you're playing without the expansion and want a balanced game. Details here.

4. Your comment about the cards being fiddly has been mentioned by others, although some solutions have been proposed to help with that. Details here.

Sounds like you really enjoyed the diplomatic elements of the game! How often have you played it, and can we ever expect to hear more from you about it? I would have thought that Mare Nostrum would be a game right up your alley actually. I'd love to see you come back to this game and review it some time.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-04T09:16:24+00:00

No, I'm tallking with the expansion map.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-11-04T07:22:15+00:00

And assign the roles to the factions that qualify for them based on the rules rather than stubbornly insisting that Rome must get the Military Leader card at the beginning just because...

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

EndersGame — 2008-11-03T17:21:46+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
Play with the 45 point set-up not the 36 point and this problem disappears. Also a more interesting game anyway.
I posted a thread elsewhere about whether the 36 point setup or the 45 point setup should be used when playing a five player game without the expansion, but received no response. See full details here:

Should you use the revised Starting Setup with the original game? (complete list of revisions included)
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/342996

I did come across a post elsewhere from Eric which suggests that using the revised setup might not be a good idea when playing with the base game:
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.
In another thread, Maarten de Jong makes a similar observation:
cymric wrote:
I agree with Eric (Numskull) referenced in that thread: don't switch from 36 to 45 points for the base game. I have never tried it nor felt the need to do so. You miss out on the juggle for crossing the 6-useful cards barrier, what little growth is required in the game is cut short, and apart from giving Rome one less resource there are to my knowledge no real balance issues with the 36-point setup as a whole (i.e., that spending 36 points leads to an imbalance).
Bill Heaton also seems to agree:
billsaints wrote:
36 points is way better, too easy to start getting heros within one or twos turns with 45.
Are you speaking about the 45 point setup on the regular board without the expansion map Philip? If you believe it to be a more interesting game, I'd love to see a post from you explaining why in the thread about which starting setup to use, in order to generate some more discussion on this point.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Philip Thomas — 2008-11-03T17:12:18+00:00

Play with the 45 point set-up not the 36 point and this problem disappears. Also a more interesting game anyway.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Numskull — 2008-11-03T16:47:02+00:00

Because.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-11-03T06:25:10+00:00

Why?

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Numskull — 2008-11-03T05:15:09+00:00

Even with the improved versions of Pericles and Hannibal, I think Rome should start with the Military Leader office. It will be eligible to change hands at the end of a complete turn, just like the other offices.

Thread: Re: Do you need to revise all Hero/Wonder cards to fix game balance, and use the expansion cards instead?

Numskull — 2008-11-03T05:12:27+00:00

I've purchased the Heroes who give bonuses towards offices, but only in games with the three office victory condition.

Thread: Re: A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T03:20:04+00:00

I like John Clark's suggestion for new players, since inexperienced players can easily bring a game of Mare Nostrum to a premature conclusion as a result of poor choices, especially the Carthaginian player. Eliminating they pyramids as an instant win condition and limiting trade to four or five cards seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Thread: Re: Wonders & Heroes bunched at end of game ?

JBTheChamp — 2008-10-28T10:01:20+00:00

Yep, this game requires watching the other players ALOT! I am slowly realising how critical the trade phase is.
What I need is a list of each nation's common & rare commodities for quick reference during the trading phase.
Anything like that out there ? If not maybe I should make one !

Thread: Re: Wonders & Heroes bunched at end of game ?

Bubslug — 2008-10-28T01:29:13+00:00

Not so hard for Rome - I would be trading a lot to keep Rome from capitalizing on his easier access to diversity. Locking down trade is more dangerous as the final step in a manoeuvre to put yourself in a winning position with no way for your opponents to break up your hand. It also means that if you are not building first, you need a "one wonder lead" before you do this. Trading a few commodities can help you but trading a lot mostly will shred a very diverse hand (of course players have to recognize what's going on and ensure the right folks are getting a lot of "doubles"). That and early military activity is also necessary to hinder the "easy" access Rome has by virtue of the commodity distribution on the map around him. Easing up on trade to make it more positive for you should come once the threat from Rome (and/or Egypt) has been dealt with.

Controlling Rome is just one example. Egypt has an obvious tax strategy opportunity which is also pretty easy to control by using similar techniques. Rinse and repeat. The thing is to be very aware what each faction is able to do (but more importantly what they are actually doing), and take the appropriate steps to counter. Sometimes this may take some player cooperation - a form of "enlightened self-interest." Timing the "trade lock" follows careful and cautious expansion with trade and military activity intended to keep any one player from getting a big lead while positioning yourself properly to exploit the lock when it comes.

Carefully played, the game is quite balanced and very tight - victory going to the one who makes a key move at the right time to snatch the crown...

Thread: Re: Wonders & Heroes bunched at end of game ?

johnclark — 2008-10-27T22:20:44+00:00

JBTheChamp wrote:
I still don't really understand the stages thing - if I can afford 1 hero in a turn, I will surely be able to afford another hero the next turn, and the next turn until someone wins, and so the 2nd & 3rd phases merge into one phase which signals the game is nearly over.

Yes, MN is really a 'bash the leader' game, which some people find objectionable but I think works great here! You are correct - if one person - particularly the DoC - can afford a honder then the other honders should follow quickly assuming that the other players do not act to stop him.

The other players should do one (or all) of these things:

1. Attack the leader. Simple.
2. If the leader (assuming it is the DoC) is building honders then he is not building other things like caravans and markets, so is vunerable to losing the DoC.
3. If the leader is not the DoC then the DoC simply trades zero every turn, which will mean no-one can buy honders (getting 9 resources without trading is tough) but everyone else can build armies and attack.

Thread: Re: Wonders & Heroes bunched at end of game ?

johnclark — 2008-10-27T22:15:46+00:00

I would guess that 3 player would need very significant rules changes, particularly regarding the prices of things. You could try simply adding one to the cost of everything as a start.

However, in answer to your original question, the games I have played have not generally seen all the honders bought near the end. Obviously the last 2 honders are rarely used, but the first one is used a lot - we ALWAYS play to 5 honders which I think improves the game a lot, so the first 3 honders do get considerable use.

Its not that hard for Carthage to get a honder reasonably early - and if its the Temple Of Artemis then it really opens up the possibility of getting more quickly ... but then of course everyone attacks you :-)

Thread: Re: Do you need to revise all Hero/Wonder cards to fix game balance, and use the expansion cards instead?

johnclark — 2008-10-27T22:07:40+00:00

Numskull wrote:

I would play with all of the revised cards, expansion or no expansion. I'm sure you've played enough of the base game to notice that Helen of Troy and the Temple of Artemis are almost always the first ones to get picked. Variety, spice of life, and all that rot.

I agree. ToA and HoT are just very good, even in the expansion! I have never seen anyone buy any of the +2/3 towards a role heroes - there are just better options out there.

I guess Agamemnon might be bought - since DoC is the best role to have - but the others seem marginal to me, even with the +3 rather than +2.

Thread: Re: A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications

johnclark — 2008-10-26T23:04:05+00:00

Nice summary of veriants, but I think that there are two categories of variants: good variants for new players and good variants for experienced players.

It is VERY easy for new players to ruin a game of MN during the trading phase, allowing Egypt or Greece to build the Pyramids, sometimes very early in the game.

For NEW players, I suggest the two simple rule modifications:

1. Remove the pyramids as a victory condition.
2. Limit trading to 4 or 5 cards.

Those two variants will generate more interation and a more fulfilling game.

After you understand the game more you can remove those two modifications and the game will work just fine - even with the rules as written in the expansion - but other minor rules tweaks are ok too.

Thread: Re: For better or for worse: eliminate the Pyramids as an instant win condition?

johnclark — 2008-10-26T22:49:32+00:00

talrich wrote:
It sounds to me like the pyramids snuck up on you because your group was new. That will happen less and less as players learn what to watch for.

I completely agree. I have not read all of Ender Wiggen's many posts on MN yet, but if I could say only one thing about MN then it would be this:

More than any other game I know, Mare Nostrum can be ruined by inexperienced players.

This one fact alone outweighs all of the minor game imbalances and rules ambiguities. Many of the above posts are saying the same thing. The experienced players in the game really needs to keep informing the other players of the implications of their actions, particularly during the trading.

Personally, I don't see this as a flaw in the game, but it seems to mean that many people have a bad experience and blame it on the game rather than their poor play.

With new players, I would recommend playing with a house rule of not allowing any trades above four cards, but you could drop this once people know what they are doing. With new players I would also be tempted to omit the Pyramids as a winning condition. I think the Pyramids make for a better game - once everyone knows what they are doing - but you are correct in saying that it can spoil it a bit for new players.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Myoman — 2008-10-18T15:07:04+00:00

In the way we play the game, no matter which set-up we use, Rome is the first military leader by default, no matter how many military units other empires start out with . I think serge meant it to be this way, so that empires have certain leader advantages right off the bat, especially in keeping with how they each have certain overall strengths and weaknesses. It is up to Rome for it to remain leader, and with its 2 cards to build legions, this will almost force it to build legions right off the bat. If rome is not used in the game, then it goes to the player with the most units. If there is a tie, dice are rolled and whoever wins gets the card. This idea goes for all the leader roles, greece will always start out with high priest etc.

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

billsaints — 2008-10-15T21:08:00+00:00

Nice work, keeping this great game in the public (gamer's) eye. With tweaks or the expansion it is awesome.

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

EndersGame — 2008-10-15T16:21:14+00:00

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

What you need to know and what people think about the Mare Nostrum expansion
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/343748

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

canucklehead — 2008-10-15T13:39:33+00:00

Well put. This game needs 5 players. I love this game but it HAS to have 5 in order to work properly.

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

EndersGame — 2008-10-15T12:42:25+00:00

jeff brown wrote:
So if you were to play with five players does that mean that you'd play without the expansion board but with all of the other expansion things?
Good question Jeff. There are two different aspects of the expansion to consider (aside from the expansion board and Atlantis player):

1. Rule changes: Certainly I'd play with most of the rule tweaks implemented by the expansion, such as the modifications to Caesar, Hannibal and Pericles, and the Greek naval blockade. These are easy enough to incorporate, and nicely fix the imbalance of the original game. For full details, see here:
A Definitive Guide to the Official and Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications

2. Additional elements: As for using the mythological creatures and gods when playing without the expansion board, I'm personally inclined to give them a miss. These would require using a 45 point setup instead of a 36 points setup, as discussed here, and could result in Heroes/Wonders being purchased too quickly. I myself don't play with the gods even with the expansion board, because I don't quite feel comfortable playing with Canaanite gods like Baal on my side! But the nice thing about the additional elements offered by the expansion (new hero & wonder cards, mythological creatures, gods) is that for the most part you can implement whichever elements you like, so it's quite flexible.

Assuming the essential tweaked rules from the expansion in all cases, is a five player game best with the original base map (my preference), or with the expansion map (and neutral Babylon) and the creatures/gods of the expansion? Or with the original base map and the creatures/gods of the expansion? If other players have thoughts or experiences with this, I'd love to hear from you!

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

out4blood — 2008-10-15T05:23:34+00:00

While I would't necessarily call this a review, it is definitely awesome information to have if I were considering breaking this out of shrink wrap.

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

jeff brown — 2008-10-14T23:57:30+00:00

So if you were to play with five players does that mean that you'd play without the expansion board but with all of the other expansion things?

Thread: What you need to know and what people think about Mare Nostrum, and how many players you need

EndersGame — 2008-10-14T20:05:13+00:00

Can you play Mare Nostrum with two players? How about three? Or four, or five, or six? What is the best number to have? And in the case where you are lacking the full number of players, which civilizations should be neutral? Does this change if you own the expansion? If you're asking questions like these, this review is for you. Be assured that you're not the first to ask questions like this, because in the forums for the base game and the expansion there are probably well over twenty threads with questions like these! I know, because I researched and read them all! Now you can learn enough about the rules and game-play of Mare Nostrum from other reviews, but since you want to know about how it plays with different numbers of players, that's what this review is about.

After playing this game and discussing it with a fellow gamer, I've scoured these forum posts, along with the personal comments and reviews, and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about Mare Nostrum and how it plays with different numbers of players. 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 aspect of the game.

]]> . ]]>

1. Mare Nostrum with one player? ... Remarkably unexpected!

You're kidding right? This is a multi-player game! But if you are one of those solitaire type gamers and are determined to play on your own, be my guest! Just adopt as many multiple personalities as you want, so by all means read on and decide whether you want to play with two, three, four, five or six personalities!

2. Mare Nostrum with two players? ... Completely unsuitable!

"The game is a classic multi-player wargame for 5 or 6 and excels as such. It is not a 2-player game."
"The trade phase wouldn't make any sense with 2 players as, in this phase, players exchange cards among them to make sets; I don't see it working with 2 players."
"If you are looking for a 2-player game, there are much better choices out there."
"I have played with two people. Each of us selected two countries at random and played like "normal" from there. It certainly changed the game in several ways. First, no one every bothered to attack himself. Second, the trading phase was also changed significantly. (Although the three player game has a similar/different flaw). That being said, we played to the end and I did enjoy the game. Trying to manipulate the trading, was quite different from the "normal game" but still interesting. While there surely was not as many wars, there still were
enough to make it interesting from this vantage point also. I would suggest though, changing the victory conditions to 6 combined wonders/heroes."
"You could always give Ubiratã Oliveira's Diumvirate a shot. You can play the game that way, even have quite some fun doing it, but it's not the way the game is meant to be played, in addition to being a different experience from the Real Thing."
"Since it is a game where a lot of diplomacy occurs (or should be occurring), it would be pointless as a 2-player game, IMHO.
"Mare Nostrum is not suitable for a 2-player game. It is as simple as that. Keep looking."

Consensus: Don't bother with two. Really!

3. Mare Nostrum with three players? ... Hopelessly unbalanced!

"I wouldn't bother playing with only three people."
"I don't think this is a good game with 3, even with the Mythology expansion. The more players the better really."
"If you have five or six, I would play this, but if you only have three or four, I would suggest sticking with Shogun."
"I have never played with 3, but I suspect that there is a lot less fighting and tension with that number as everyone can quietly grow and collect before fighting to grab resources becomes a necessity."
"For the most balanced play, with 3 players, remove Rome and Egypt."
"We have just tried a 3-players game, with Babylon, Carthage, and Atlantis. Nice game, well fought but I strongly suggest against using such a combination of civilizations. Also I would not suggest a 3-players Atlantis/Egypt/Greece."
"With only 3 players, you could always try the Triumvirate scenario (available as a file on BGG), created by Serge Laget."
"Unfortunately, three isn't that good. I've heard that the Triumvirate scenario leads to a much better game."
"Three players is only good to teach the game, but not much else as economic warfare is impossible to wage. Then again, the Triumvirate 3-player scenario does make for an interesting game, although it's not the same as the base game since players are now fighting off invading barbarians."
"With three players this game is almost hopelessly unbalanced."
"Does not seem to be a very good 3-player game, try with at least four, preferably five."
"With 3 I wouldn't play Mare Nostrum, especially with new players to the game (with veterans I might try for two nations a player, but that would be too confusing for a first game!)"
"With 3 players... try a different game."

Consensus: You can try it with three, and perhaps even try the three player Triumvirate scenario, but don't buy Mare Nostrum if you are expecting to play only with three players. (If you absolutely must play with three, the rules recommend playing with a neutral Rome and Egypt.)

4. Mare Nostrum with four players? ... Generally good! Despite imbalance, this is the bare minimum

"Very good game. Needs at least 4 players though."
"Really the game really shines with 4+ players."
"Needs at least 4 players and ideally 5."
"With 4 and especially with 5 a real gem. "
"A 4-player game is acceptable, but not as entertaining."
"Play suffers when not with the maximum amount of players: some cultures will expand more easily, others can lay low and quietly collect the victory cards. You need that tension on all the sides. On the other hand, with 4 players it is still without doubt a highly enjoyable and at times quite confrontational game which will keep you busy for quite some time."
"Best civ. building game. Imbalance issues with 3-4 players though."
"Without expansion you must only play with 5 players--The game board is not balanced with 4."
"For the most balanced play, with 4 players, remove Babylon."
"In 4-player, we play with Rome, Egypt, Greece, and Carthage. From what I've seen, Carthage and Greece are basically playing to decide who wins between Egypt and Rome."
"I've played with 4 exclusively, and that is pretty good, but you need someone to keep Egypt in check on the 'eastern front' so to speak. I would definitely recommend using the modifications of the heroes Caesar, Hannibal and Perikles when playing with 4. I am really eager to try out the game with 5, but with 4 the game is in my humble opinion already
above average."
"With four players the game is still good, but definitely not as good as it is with 5. Economic warfare is still possible, but more difficult to do as players tend to form two alliances."
"I've never played it with 3, but I have played it with 4 and I must say I didn't like it one bit. No matter which empire you exclude, its two neighbors will have a serious advantage over the other two players. It seems to me that the best 4-player scenario would be to play with the Mythology expansion and exclude Atlantis and Babylon; that way, each player will have an inactive neighbor and none of the four offices will need to be shuffled around."
"With 4 players, which civs should I use for best balance? Any four that result in each player having an inactive neighbor. It's easiest to eliminate Atlantis and Babylon. Eliminating Babylon and Greece, on the other hand, would be grossly unfair to Atlantis and Carthage."
"Removing Babylon and Atlantis is the best way to handle 4 players."
"With 4 players and the expansion map, drop Babylon and Atlantis, all remaining players are strengthened."
"With 4 players I would play without Atlantis and Babylon (be sure to use the expansion rules version of neutral setup)."
"It is not necessary to have 6 players. If you have 4 players, make Atlantis and Babylon neutral nations. If you have 5, simply omit the new map and Atlantis."
"With four, I recommend not using Atlantis or Babylon, but keeping the expansion board. For four people without the expansion, I'd leave out either Rome or Greece."
"The base game can be plenty of fun without the expansion. If you only have four players, I would recommend leaving Greece unmanned and taking away Rome's fortress discount."
"We played our second game with 4 players on the 6 player map. Not recommended."
"Don't use the expanded board with only four players."
"Still recommendable, but I'd agree that there are better games for four."

Consensus: It's not as good as with five or six players, but Mare Nostrum can still be worth playing with only four players. Best results seem to be obtained when using the expansion board with a neutral Babylon and Atlantis, but there are those who prefer the base game map with a neutral Babylon (or perhaps Greece or Rome).
Recommended, in order of preference:
1. Use expansion map, and a neutral Babylon & Atlantis
2. Without expansion map, and a neutral Babylon (or Greece or Rome?)

5. Mare Nostrum with five players? ... Absolutely best! Very balanced, as good as six players with the expansion

"It really needs five players."
"I have played it with 3, 4 and 5 players, and can assure you that 5 is the best."
"Only downside is the near-necessity of a full complement of 5 or 6 players."
"Great game with 5 players. Any less it is still good, but if you have the right position you can really exploit your advantages."
"Needs five players to be equal for all. "
"Definitely best with 5 players, with some of the rule modifications from the expansion for play balance. "
"I'm thinking it's a 5 or 6 player game, and with 5 players don't use the Atlantis map."
"Mare Nostrum is best played with 5 players, as the tension is at its maximum and each player has two neighbors to worry about. Most importantly, it is possible to conduct a form of economic warfare by having three (or four) players trade amongst themselves, thus leaving out two (or one) players; this forces them to take their cards back."
"The game is best played by 5-players, as the play balance is more obvious, which each card giving the player a subtle edge. More importantly, Economic Warfare (trading amongst three players only) can be directed at two opponents (4-player games only allow for one, while 3-player games don't allow this at all)."
"When playing with 5 players we usually dismiss the second board. This keeps the game tight."
"I don't think that you need the extra board for 3-5 player games."
"It is not necessary to have 6 players. If you have 5, simply omit the new map and Atlantis."
"What is even cooler is that it's not mandatory to have six players to play with Atlantis. There are rules to setup neutral powers. We regularly play with five players, and those rules work fine (although the game is probably even better with six people)."
"We played recently with 5 and Babylon set up as dummy nation. It certainly worked and we all had a blast, but everyone agreed that it would have played better with all 6."
"When playing the game with 5 players, we played with the expansion map. I've read a lot that Babylon should be the nation to be set up as neutral in a 5 player game, and after playing 3 games I think I really agree with this. But the other option is to simply not use the expansion map and keep the original 5 nations. I think we like the extra space the expansion map provides though."
"For five players, I think a neutral Babylon is best, followed by a neutral Atlantis: in both cases keeping the expansion board. The extra board segment gives Rome and Carthage a bit more space which is particularly important for Rome as Greece is much more able to defend itself in the expansion version. Plus the extra board segment has the 13th resource on it."
"With five players and the expansion map, drop Babylon. This strengthens Egypt and Greece, but it will take lots of investment for either to develop Asia, and the other players can compensate."

Consensus: This (along with a six player game using the expansion board) is absolutely the best way to play Mare Nostrum!
Recommended, in order of preference:
1. Without expansion map, and no neutral civilization
2. With expansion map, and a neutral Babylon

6. Mare Nostrum with six players? ... Absolutely best! Very balanced, as good as five players without the expansion

"Game shines with a full complement of 6 players."
"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."
"There are few more enjoyable gaming experiences than 6 player Mare Nostrum + Mythology!"
"The Atlantean civilization is also a very cool addition. And the Kraken work wonderfully, making possible for Atlas to attack but without being overpowered. It's the perfect addition to a very good game."
"With six players there is a shortage of caravans and cities, which causes a good amount of tension and exciting game play."
"It takes time, but with 6 using the expansion, it really shines."

Consensus: This (along with a five player game without using the expansion board) is absolutely the best way to play Mare Nostrum!
Recommended:
1. With expansion map, and no neutral civilizations

7. The bottom line: what you need to know.

To be best enjoyed, an absolute minimum of four players is needed, but the game really shines with a full complement of five players, and (with the expansion) six players.

]]>

Ender's Recommendations:

with six players: play with the expansion
with five players: play without the expansion (inferior alternative: with the expansion and a neutral Babylon)
with four players: play with the expansion and a neutral Babylon and Atlantis (inferior alternative: without the expansion and a neutral Babylon, or Greece/Rome)
with three players: don't bother
with two players: really don't bother
with one player: what are you thinking?

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-10-13T19:49:02+00:00

No single player is allowed to have more than one role at the start so in your example Greece would be the Military Leader. I don't think that's unbalanced at all as Greece was in bad shape prior and Rome needed to be undone somewhat. This accomplishes that. What players concentrate on after the first turn will determine where the roles go. Of the four roles (assuming the expansion), I think the Military Leader is the least important.

Thread: Re: Do you need to revise all Hero/Wonder cards to fix game balance, and use the expansion cards instead?

Numskull — 2008-10-11T15:00:26+00:00

I didn't mention this before, but in the pre-expansion days, I would almost always grab the Statue of Zeus first, even if the more popular ones were still available. And that was before it gave you a free fortress. I am that defensive-minded a player.

Thread: Re: Do you need to revise all Hero/Wonder cards to fix game balance, and use the expansion cards instead?

EndersGame — 2008-10-10T18:58:39+00:00

It's true that the revised cards in the expansion (Agamemnon, Archimedes and Solomon) that give +3 instead of +2 to Leader roles are especially beneficial due to the alternate win condition (dominance by having 3 of the 4 roles). However, I think Eric has a valid point in observing that Helen of Troy and the Temple of Artemis are usually first picks. In view of this, making the other cards slightly more powerful to match these makes good sense. I'm inclined to agree with Eric that all eleven of the revised Heroes/Wonders from the expansion should be adopted in the base game, and not just the three critical ones (Caesar, Pericles, Hannibal).

]]>

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

EndersGame — 2008-10-10T18:49:37+00:00

This is basically the original predetermined set-up, but with the minor rule tweaks from the expansion, rather than a variable set-up. Carthage and Greece are tied for military units, but since Carthage is already Director of Commerce, I suppose Greece should become the Military Leader rather than give Carthage two leader roles.

But could this unbalance the beginning of the game? I suppose that Rome has a chance to gain the Military Leader back by building cheap legions, before the game shifts towards military action. How important is it for Rome to be the Military Leader? Clearly the original game and the expansion have predetermined set-ups where Carthage is the Director of Commerce, Egypt is the Political Leader, and Rome is the Military Leader. So it would seem important to try to preserve this if possible, even with a predetermined set-up that is slightly modified for balancing.

Thread: Re: Revised starting set-up: Is Rome no longer the military leader?

Bubslug — 2008-10-09T22:03:50+00:00

The game rules state that in the case of a variable start-up OOB (units/heroes purchased instead of defined) then the Military Leader card goes to the player with the most units at the beginning (and that other role cards should also be reassigned as necessary). This tells me that it is not intended that any particular nation have any of the cards at start-up but that they should go to whomever qualifies (ties resolved randomly also per variable start-up rules). That's how I would do it...

Thread: Re: Do you need to revise all Hero/Wonder cards to fix game balance, and use the expansion cards instead?

camustafa — 2008-10-09T20:33:24+00:00

Some changes seem to be there to accommodate the extras introduced in the expansion. For example, one reason why Hanging Gardens keeps 2 resources could be because there's an extra resource in the expansion. Similarly, the leaders giving an extra +1 to their role could be to enhance the new role-based victory condition in the expansion.

I don't know whether I would readily adopt them into the base game
(and I actually did not, when I compiled all the variants, FAQ and rules additions for the base game in http://boardgamegeek.com/file/info/28051.)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-07T17:12:35+00:00

Rome (Balanced 5 player starting setup)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-07T17:12:05+00:00

Greece (Balanced 5 player starting setup)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-07T17:04:59+00:00

Egypt (Balanced 5 player starting setup)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-07T17:04:28+00:00

Carthage (Balanced 5 player starting setup)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-07T17:03:53+00:00

Babylon (Balanced 5 player starting setup)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T12:26:49+00:00

Original starting units for ROME (36 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T12:26:32+00:00

Original starting units for GREECE (36 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T12:26:11+00:00

Original starting units for EGYPT (36 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T12:25:50+00:00

Original starting units for CARTHAGE (36 points)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-09-26T12:25:27+00:00

Original starting units for BABYLON (36 points)