Frank McNally - Sep 26, 2004 5:36 pm (#2095 Total: 2096)   
   
SoR AAR

Two groups of 4 played Sword of Rome at MIT Strategic gaming club 9/24.
SoR is a new CDG from GMT. It draws heavily on Hannibal for rules but is
set in early Italy when Rome was one of several powers with similar
influence in Italy. Players control Roman, Gauls (Cis-alpine), Greeks
and an Etruscan-Samnite alliance. Minor powers (in terms of influence
inside Italy) are also brought into play by player action, these include
the Volscii, Carthage and TransalpineGauls. 

Everyone at my table were novices, I had played one 2 turn game at WBC
which had an early Etruscan instant win. Set up and teaching the two
players who had not yet read the rules took about an hour. Once we
started we did have to consult the rules, generally because we had
forgotten something. The answers were easy to find and clear. The rules
consulations made turns last about an hour, a turn includes 5-8
significant player actions (card plays) each, plus interphase stuff
(isolation,, scoring, etc). I expect an experienced group would get a
turn done in about 30 minutes. A full game has 9 turns, though automatic
victories can be achieved (exceeding a VP point on a given turn, or
reaching the permanent auto win condition). VPs are obtained, at the end
of each turn, by comparing the VP locations held at start to current
levels, this net level is the number of VPs gained or lost each turn, so
for example if Rome gains on VP location and loses two of her original,
she will lose 1 VP each turn that this condition persists. 

I played the Roman’s so the details outside of Rome’s focus are somewhat
vague in the description below. The fact that each nation is closely
focused on its own area (and each nation having its own rather unique
deck) should enhance replayability since playing each side will be a
very different experience. 

Our game began with the Gauls having great success against the Etruscans
and the Greeks managing to expel Carthage from Sicily. This left the
Etruscan-Samnite alliance severely weakened and pouring manpower into
Etruria to prevent a complete overrun. Meanwhile the Romans sought to
suppress the Volscii, spending all there first turn actions to do so.
The first turn ended with the Greeks and Gauls in an early lead the
Romans even and the Etruscans falling behind. Over the second and third
turn the Roman’s allied with the Etruscans and provided help by
defeating one Gaulish army, meanwhile she began to work on Greece
succeeding in grabbing Naples (a Dictator was used to support this
advance) with the support of Pro-Roman residents. The Etruscan-Samnites
and the Romans also kept trimming Greek and Gaulish VP by activating
Carthage and the T-Gauls to divert them and seize VP locations. By the
end of Turn 3, the Greeks had begun to lose VPs while Rome began to
advance, the Gauls were steady and within striking distance of an
instant win, and the Etruscan-Samnites were still holding on for dear
life against the Gauls and trailing in VPs. 

Turn 4 saw the Roman’s pass the Gauls in VP. They had continued to make
gains against Greece by taking Thurri and threatening Tarentum. They
also had used an Epirote traitor to remove Dionysius a Greek general who
had been making a nuisance of himself. By the end of turn 4, all powers
saw the Rome was within range of an automatic victory and so turned on
her. Throughout the 5th turn they advanced against Rome trimming back
her possessions. Meanwhile Rome was scrambling to maintain at least +1
VP status which would allow an automatic victory at turn end. This
invololved maintaining far flung holdings and avoiding dangerous battles
at home as well as a few well placed incursions. Rome was close to this
as the last few cards were played for the turn when she won a close to
evenly matched battle which allowed her to add an additional VP location
(battle success has political consequence and cities will tend to come
over to the winning side) guaranteeing a win.