I'd like to find a copy of this game too. However, I wouldn't call it one of Berg's best because most of the scenarios are unbalanced. Instead, I would say Cataphrat (sp?) is the better game because the scenarios are better balanced. However, since it deals with the later period of Roman history, it would appear to be less popular than SPQR.

Most of the battles WERE unbalanced! the GBoH series are definitely incredibly well-researched tactical simulations that also happen to be games. Play with a route point bid to play a particular side, or take the losers and hold out as well as you can!

I'm currently getting into the Deluxe Alexander module, and personally I wouldn't the game to have "evened it out" so that the Persians were this awesome fighting machine. I want to learn WHY they lost so badly, and learn to think in ways that might change that history. I think that is one reason that Columbia's games are so popular here at at BGG. There are balanced games more than simulation. (Sure, EF favors the Germans early and the Russians late, but you get my point.)

Actually, Cataphract only has one balanced scenarion (Callinicum) and several unbalanced ones (Dara, Tricameron, Taginae & Casilinum).

The Byzantine Army in Tricameron is probably too big. Procopius gives figures for the invasion army; it had fought one major battle and detached several garrisons since. Berg gives them more, not fewer, troops than Procopius does.

The Gothic Army at Taginae is just weird. All HC and LI/B.

There is nothing quite like playing Circus Maximus with two players having the "chariots from hell" with every armor, weapon, and dirty trick available. They can only move two or three squares per turn, but if they work as a team, they can destroy anything they can get their whips or scythes on! Ah, the memories......

With good reason; as originally published, they were two parts of the same game.

I love the fact RoR is a nice mix of co-operation (you work together and sacrifice so that those barbarians don't take over) and shameless politics (intrigue, slimy deals, jockeying). A patrician's work is never done.

One of the greatest games ever IMHO :-)

This was originally a GDW game called "Eagles". Avalon Hill added the tactical cards which were fun, albeit not very historically accurate.

AH added a lot more than combat cards. There are five scenarios, the fourth of which is basically the same game as GDW's Eagles.

I'm not big on seige games, but this is an exception. It's a fascinating battle made more so by an absolutely gorgeous map. I remember the big controversy of the day being that the map was not mounted because Avalon Hill, up until then, ALWAYS had mounted maps. Much ado about nothing, as it turned out since nearly all wargames have unmounted maps now.

As has now come to pass.

Decision Games published a second edition in S&T 181, adding color to the map, modernizing the counter art, and tweeking the rules (as I recall).

I have been pondering this one too, it just won best historical boardgame at Origins as well. It is also a nominee for the IGA awards, and the winner of a German award (I forget the name). All in all, it seems to be pretty impressive. It may fall onto my buy list too.

I remember playing this many years ago and thought it was too much of a good thing back then. I've seen nothing that would make me change that point of view since.

I have the original version of this and like it a lot (in spite of the "broken catapults"). I think the new version has a lot going for it and it will probably be my first "Eagle game".

With you ALL the way here. I was lucky enough to score a copy off of eBay awhile back in virtually pristine condition. The catapault problem has been so well-addressed that it isn't much of a problem if you have the old edition, but I must say that the Eagle games edition looks sweet. Although I wonder if they will be able to recreate the lovely coins of the original.

And Conquest of the Empire itself was derived from another game title VI Caesars.

It has nothing to do with RoR.
It's a bidding game and not even one of the best ones around...

I was simply referring to the fact that the theme of both games involves putting the player into the role of a Roman Senator and that the gameplay revolves around the Roman Senate.

I've only played this once (I don't own it), but I'd like to play it again. It did end with one player having to choose which of the other two would win, but that didn't bother us, as we'd had a lot of fun getting to that point.

My wife and I enjoy this game. We used to play it all the time (I think it was the second game we bought together, and the first good one). It doesn't get played much now, but it is always there on the shelf when we need it.

Beautiful components, and provides the occasional nail-biting finish.

I like this game. It's quite different from Manhattan, with which it has often been compared. The theme is thin, but the graphics and bits are excellent --- except for the infamous score board.

I've played this several times. An excellent chariot racing game that plays relatively quickly. Pretty strong to its theme.

Very simple games, easy to teach--and quite fun, IMO!

I think this game has gotten a bad rap on BGG. The components, even by Rodger MacGowen's (sp?) usually excellent standards, are breath-taking. My favorite map of the Med. ever.

"I didn't know Gloria was sick!"

On the train, no less!

I'm not entirely sold on the mechanics, but full points for theme and atmosphere.