We punched and played the our first game of GMT's Sword of Rome (SoR) last 
night and given the interest on the list recently thought I would post some 
initial impressions of the game.

Firstly the Map and counters look great A fair amount of colour and 
contrast but nothing over the top and there was no problem deciphering the 
information when needed  The map is not mounted (but that's not  big 
surprise). The Cards from the play deck seem sturdy enough and the 
information is presented clearly

I have been told that the designer took inspiration from the AH game 
Hannibal Rome v Carthage and if this is true then it shows. Anyone familiar 
with HRvC will feel comfortable with the initial look of the game.

The map covers Italy from the alps down to and including Sicily. It also 
show Corsica and a small part of Africa in the bottom corner. There is also 
an "off map" box representing the Transplitanian (?) Gauls.

(Again people familiar with Hannibal will recognize both the map and some 
of the locations).

Counters show leaders, Combat units (CUs), Walled cities and Political 
control markers with an assortment of other markers for events and loot.

The game can be played as either a 2,3 of 4 player game and we went with 4 
last night. Each player takes control of one of the major factions ROME, 
GREECE, GAUL or the ESCTRUSCAN/SAMMITTE Alliance. There are also 3 minor 
factions CARTHAGE, VESCI(?) and the TRANSPLITANIAN(?) GAULS which can be 
activated through various cards in the players hands.

Each of the major factions has its own strengths and weaknesses in the game 
that need to be understood and each faction plays from its own "national" 
deck.

The cards themselves are similar to the HRvC model with each being able to 
act as an event, and operations card or player for political control.

A turn consists of 5 rounds where generally a faction can play one card per 
round with the nice touch that factions draw more 7 cards (or 8 if ROME) to 
be played in the turn meaning that there is some choices to be made.

Victory points are determined by the control of victory locations at the end 
of the turn (nicely colour coded on the map to make it easy to identify). A 
faction gains one VP for each victory location they control outside their 
hometerritory and loses one for each Victory location they don't control in 
their home territory. All victory locations belong to someone at the start 
so it will mean there is always a flux of VP's up and down (NB: The Gaul's 
actually get VP's from looting but that is part of their national 
characteristics).

The Victory point track will need some careful watching into the 4th and 
5th round of a given turn as there are automatic victory levels early in 
the game that are obtainable (if the players are not vigilant) In fact our 
game ended at the End of Turn 2 due to an automatic victory when the 
ESCTRUSCAN player bypassed a GALLIC Horde laying waste to ROME and snapped 
up enough victory locations to get a victory. Something that I don't think 
will happen in future games (at least not so easily).

Combat is a little different with dice roll modifiers for force ratio 
differences (these can re quite substantial at 3 or4 to one odds (+6 to 
+9DRM for the larder side). Leaders net off their "Tactical" rating and 
there are some other bonuses/penalties for interception, failing to avoid 
battle, home territory, attacking form rough ground and special play cards.

Attacker and Defender then roll 3 d6 each adding the net modifier above. 
The higher total determining the winner. Combat losses are determined by 
the actual values rolled on the dice. From the winners dice roll 4,5, and 
6's inflict losses on the losing force. From the losers dice 5 and 6's 
inflict casualties on the winner with 1's being additional losses from the 
losers force.

Therefore combat can be quite bloody. And with 2-4 CU on a side it is quite 
possible to have entire armies removed from the board. There are political 
consequences from winning and losing battles as well. But overall it isn't 
that hard to get a grip on. GMT have thoughtfully provided a table that 
give a %age chance of winning battle at the various Dice roll shifts that 
make it easier for those who have trouble with a 3d6 based combat system.

All up the impressions were very favorable with all players stating that it 
was defiantly a play again game (most probably this weekend). The multi 
play aspect seems to be a winner and allows for a little more interaction. 
As mentioned before aware of how each faction is going near the end of the 
turn will be important. All factions start close enough to one another that 
friction is certain to start on turn 1 (the game only lasts for 6 turns).

I don't believe any major mistakes were made with the rules last night but 
there is still a lot to learn about the nuances of the game and the special 
characteristics of the individual factions.

I am looking forward to playing it again and at the moment rate it as a 
good buy. Any other questions then please ask.

Cheers,

         .....Darren.....
=============================================
Congratulations! You have been so successful
  at the task of scapegoat that we have
decided to upgrade your status to martyr!
=============================================

J. R. Tracy - Aug 11, 2004 5:28 am (#6963 Total: 6966)   
"I no drive just for drive. I drive for to finish in front." 
- Milka Duno, Le Mans    
 
I joined a game of Sword of Rome last night, taking over the Greeks who
had been beaten to a pulp by that point and were barely hanging on. I
quite like the game. The four positions (Greeks, Romans,
Etruscan/Samnites, Gauls) have very different situations and styles of
play. The Romans are the 800 pound gorilla, so like the French in Nappy
Wars they drive the plot. The other three nip at the Romans while
working their own unique agendas, but can't help but bounce off one
another given geographic proximity and competing objectives. There is a
sweet non-player-power mechanic by which players can take over the
Carthaginians, Transalpine Gauls, and/or the Volsci (sp?) for a phase, a
nice way to disrupt a rival's plans and occasionally put them in a very
bad way. My Greeks had to get out from under a Carthaginian siege of
Syracuse, and our Gallic player suffered badly when his ill-tempered
cousins boiled out of the mountain passes and burned a couple of his
settlements to the ground. The latter was enough to knock the Gaul out
of the lead and the Romans ended up winning on turn four or five. 

In addition to the non-player-power rule, I like the way combat is
handled and losses assigned. It has a whiff of Blue vs Gray about it,
with losses worked into the combat resolution die roll (three six-siders
per side) - a victory can come at a very high price even when holding a
solid advantage going in. There are also 'interrupt' cards that function
like TNW's Home cards, very powerful but in this case permanently
removed from play once used. Each power has its own deck, with adds a
lot of flavor to the game, with special abilities portrayed via
nationality-specific events and combat cards. Many of these are also
removed once played. My one reservation at this early stage is, how does
the end game play if all or most of these 'permanently removed' cards
are out of the deck? They seem to serve to offset Rome's natural
positional advantages, so my ill-informed guess is if you don't knock
the Romans off early they'll be a real handful in the closing turns. 

It's a solid production effort, a bit less busy graphically than the
typical GMT effort and blessed with the sharpest MacGowan boxcover since
Paths of Glory. Timewise, we finished in four hours with stumbling play
and lots of interruptions, but folks at DonCon claim they were getting
times of under three hours with experienced hands. This looks like a
solid new entry in the poorly-populated multiplayer wargame category. 

JR
 
Wray Ferrell - Aug 11, 2004 5:15 pm (#6964 Total: 6966)   
Working on "The Sword of Rome" 5th player expansion    
 
Thanks for the review, JR. Just a few comments... 

The Romans are the 800 pound gorilla, so like the French in Nappy Wars
they drive the plot. 

I think the more you play, the less you will believe this. The Romans
are not firmly in the driver's seat at the beginning of the game unlike
the French in Nappy Wars. Read the playbook to get Brad's take on the
Romans. 

My one reservation at this early stage is, how does the end game play if
all or most of these 'permanently removed' cards are out of the deck? 

Each deck has the same number of OPs and removes per OP so if all the
remove cards are gone at least the OP value of each deck will be the
same. 

They seem to serve to offset Rome's natural positional advantages, so my
ill-informed guess is if you don't knock the Romans off early they'll be
a real handful in the closing turns. 

The main advantage of the Romans is thier unlimited reinforcement rate.
The Roman player should not be allowed to found too many colonies. Thier
second advantage is thier events allow them to "bounce back" quicker
from defeat than other powers. However they can be beat - one Roman
player at WBC had his empire reduced to five spaces... 

It's a solid production effort, a bit less busy graphically than the
typical GMT effort and blessed with the sharpest MacGowan boxcover since
Paths of Glory. 

Yes, I really liked the cover. Rodger did a great job.