One of last years "let's take a chance" purchases was Antike. Since Eggert-spiele makes so few copies, when I had the chance to buy one, I took it. I've only played Neuland once, but it struck me as a good game. And Antike tries to fill that "Sweep of nations in two hours" role (like Mare Nostrum).
Antike arrived after game night (of course), so I was reduced to pushing pieces around to get a feel for the game. [I fool nobody. I love to do that]. Finally, after a few months, I got to play a few games. The rules are online (at BGG), so I won't go over them in detail. Here's a summary of some relevant purchasing decisions — Antike has no luck (apart from initial country selection), you get victory points by various methods (having control of cities, seas, or temples, being the first to purchase a technology, and sacking opponents cities).
Antike has a new mechanism, at least new to me — The Rondel. This is a circle with 8 spaces. On a nation's turn, it moves it's marker along the Rondel. The farther you move, the more you pay. You can move 1, 2 or 3 spaces for free. Moving zero isn't allowed. Three of the spaces generate income (in Iron, Marble and Gold). Three more let you spend income (Iron gets troops, Marble gets Temples, Gold gets technologies). The last two spaces activate your troops for the lofty business of grabbing new territories, fighting, and sacking.
On reading the rules, I thought the Rondel could shake up the genre. Now that I've pushed the pieces around ... I still think that, but Antike will inspire the game that does it. It will be a Verrater to someone's Puerto Rico. This is another "Turn order is fluid, but completely up to the players" shifts that could work well. Imagine if the various actions had more differences, and if the cost varied as players occupied a space (as well as distance). Even with the limited types of spaces in Antike (income, purchase, move), I can see that you can anticipate moves and put pressure on people based on their Rondel position as well as board/money situation.
Saying that I hope to see a brilliant execution doesn't mean that Antike is bad. But a luckless game where one oversight can put you out of the running, I think the audience is limited. Its too static. Sacking temples (although it provides a VP) is expensive and difficult. I shudder to imagine what a slow player would do to this game. [Most turns take almost no time apart from the decision as to how far to move on the Rondel. You just get income or buy stuff. And early on the moving turns only involve a piece or two]. The first half of the game has 'jockeying for position' conflict, with no direct interaction.
Our first game ended on literally the first combat. Our second game was better, but left me cold. Last week I taught some people how to play, but felt no urge to spend an hour or two playing. I think that the first game was probably right ... if you exchange lands, then everyone not involved has gained. So the only really effective combat is sacking a temple. This does not make for an interesting game, in my opinion.
I'm open to arguments that played slowly, Antike would blossom like a flower to reveal the nectar of the ancients. But I'd rather slam my drink than wait for the sommelier. Which means letting this one go...
(the following refers to 6 player, with fewer more of the cards become easier to get changing which VP cards are easy or hard to get)
The goal of the game is to get the victory point cards, a limited resource. Everyone will probably get one of the 5 city cards and 3 temple cards if they pursue them. Everything else is up for grabs. In particular the advances, 7th/14th sea areas, 10th/15th city, and temple destruction are targets. Within this sphere military options abound.
Taking an opponent's city is cost effective if done properly. If they don't have the +2 defense and you have the +1/+2 move it's cheaper to take their city than to build your own. Military units cost 1 iron each, cities 1 gold, 1 iron, 1 marble. Diversity is harder to get than concentration, so making military units to take cities is easier than making cities. Even if they have the +2 defense it costs just as many resources as building a new city, and you're depriving an opponent of a city. If you have an advantage in City Defense it gets ugly quickly if they want to trade cities with you.
Taking a city should always have a goal, either giving you the 10th/15th city or giving you enough gold or marble on your next action to get another advance or set of temples.This is even more important if the opponent you attacked is competing with you for a city card. An attack can also set up a threat on an opponent's temple, assuming it wasn't immediately attackable. This should either force a defensive response slowing down their rush for VPs, or allowing you to sack the temple for a VP yourself.
All of this means taking back a city shouldn't be a reflexive response. You are correct that trading cities is a net loss for both players, but only if the first player gained nothing from it other than possession. If it gave the first player their 10th/15th city, or allowed them to collect extra gold or marble on their next turn (converting iron, the unit(s), into the other resources), it probably wasn't a bad play on their part. The attack back might not have been the wisest action however, unless it gave the responder some advantage as well.
Maybe it's just my group, but there's a very samll window between when cities get threteaned and when monarchy/democracy (+1/+2) get bought. Perhaps that's a flaw in our play, or groupthink, but it's what happened.
The other is that if you play quickly, you don't stop to inspect others positions. If you are inspecting them, you are probably playing slowly. I'm not sure I'm willing to play slowly with Antike, which may be required to play it well.
In any case, I'd crtainly play it again (and will probably have the opportunity). But I'm not going to suggest it anytime soon.
Your basic point is sound, though. As players get comfortable, the game should speed up.