Sword of Rome
Some friends and I got together recently to try out GMT Game’s
CDG about the early Roman Republic, The Sword of Rome. This was the first time playing this for all
of us so it was very much a learning game all around. I drew
the Romans, actually the Greeks but agreed to swap with another player, long
lost SABG member Carlos drew the Etruscans
and two other players took the Gauls and the Greeks.
The Gauls opted to go first throughout the game. Their first action was to propose an alliance
with the Etruscans which was accepted and held through most of the game. The Etruscans with their limited
reinforcements spent most of the game building up their forces, while the
Samnites used their mountain lair to harass everyone. The Greeks spent the early game sparing with
Carthage and driving them out of Sicily. The Rome tried to stay neutral while building
a defensive ring of cities. Unfortunately, the Gallic-Etruscan alliance made
this impossible. Rome was quickly
brought into conflict with its neighbors as the Gauls attacked its outlying
cities.
The early attacks on Rome meant I had to burn a lot of my
cards activating leaders and rebuilding my forces. This left little time to
build colonies or deal with the Volcii.
Constant attacks by the Gauls wore down the Romans and eventually Rome
itself was sacked. The Gauls opted to
take the victory point instead of occupying the city. With Rome focused on the Gauls and Etruscans,
the Greeks evicted Carthage from Sicily and started conquering the southern
Italian peninsula. At that point we had
to call it a night and everyone made a last dash for Victory Points. I think the Etruscans actually won by blitzing
into Gaul territory to claim a victory city, but it was late so I’m not sure of
that.
The Gaul-Etruscan alliance was something that surprised me
and I still don’t know if it was a rookie mistake or a brilliant move on the
part of the Gauls. I kind of learn
toward brilliant as it enabled them to deal with the Trans-alpine Gauls without
worrying about their backside and it kept Rome in check from the
beginning. In the endgame Gaul would
have to crush the Etruscans since that is the best way for them to gain VP—looting
Etruscan territory—but they can do that easily enough after the Roman threat is
neutralized. This is because Rome can
build walled cities (colonies) while Etruria cannot and the Romans receive more
reinforcements.
It was an interesting game but I really didn’t get a chance
to see if I liked the game or not. We
spent a lot of time struggling with the rules, partly because I didn’t learn
them well enough ahead of time and partly because of a poorly written rulebook. I felt
like we didn’t understand what we were supposed to be doing and how to acquire
territory. It seems like the heart of
the game is contained in the Political Control (PC) rules but they are not well
written or as the Tao of Gaming called them, “opaque”. I felt
like this really detracted from the game.
I was able to locate a player’s aid for the PC rules on BGG and I would
recommend anyone playing this game get a copy beforehand.
I think I need to play this game one or two more times to
get a good feel for it before I decide if I like it or not. I give it 6.5/10 on the BGG rating system.
Labels: mini session report
1 Comments:
Excellent rundown! I've played Sword of Rome twice, and traded it away after the second game, for many of the same reasons you mentioned.
I can, however, recommend GMT's Successors as an absolutely excellent multi-player card-driven wargame. The latest edition with a mounted mapboard is very nice. The game has been rule polished over the past twenty years, and the result is a tight, competitive game. One downside with Successors is length... My experience is 4-6 hours.
Post a Comment
<< Home