Last night Sword of Rome hit the table. All four players were new, but solid gamers (I'm arguably the most-Euro/least-grognard). We played six turns, which took a bit over five hours. Some of that, perhaps an hour, could be trimmed. But we had all read the rules and had multiple copies copies, and player aids. The 'full' game is nine turns.
Full Disclosure -- I know Wray Ferrel and gamed with him in North Carolina for years. The group enjoyed it. I'd like to play again just to cement the rules. There's a lot to like here. I played the prototype version years ago, and didn't much care for it. (No idea why, I just remember my impression).
Most of my feelings mirror Chris Farrel's reviews (first, second), although with some differences of degree. And, on reading that, I want to try Successors. But my thoughts? The good:
Four Unique Power -- The individual decks, combined with a few key rules, give players their own feel. Gauls rampage, Romans slowly construct, Samnites hide in the mountains, Greeks grok. I'd have to play this several more times to really judge it.
Fairly clear rules -- Rules mistakes were my own (as usual for a wargame, reading the rules afterwards find a few mistakes). The support rules are somewhat opaque, but a player aid on BGG helped out.
Reasonable downtime -- Given we played for 5 hours, I was probably 'the active player' for 75 minutes. But I felt involved the entire time. Interceptions (and cards) let you react during other players turns. Each player can "interrupt" twice a game, which also helps. And you have to carefully judge who is winning.
Fluid -- In our game Rome (me) pummelled the Greeks and Samnites, while the Gauls dealt with the Etruscans. In fact, Greece lost several VP spots and an army early on, and was tied for last or last on Turns 1-4. Greece was able to gain 3 VP on turn 5 to jump into the lead. [Everyone starts at 6 VP. VP are mostly zero sum.] I don't know if that counts as interesting, but the comeback was possible. Greece won.
The minor power -- They address (if not completely solve) the 'corner vs. middle' and give everyone a way to mess with everyone else.
Why I'm wary:
Combat -- Most powers get ~4 combat units a turn. A player with a moderate advantage may enjoy a 60-80% chance of victory in a combat, with the loser suffering ~4 combat units on average. One unlucky combat, where you lose that 80% chance, and you spend 2 turns recovering. Caution works, but throwing caution to the wind (and getting lucky) can pay off. Of course, the cards have huge swings of luck too. But that feels better. (Good draws now mean poor draws later, mostly). I think that the optional rules (that allow leaders to give up their bonuses to protect their troops) may help.
Ganging up -- There's an 'automatic victory' condition that starts out low (9 VP?) and then goes up by a point a turn until it caps at 12 or 14. But someone threatening to win will face three other players. Even Rome, who can get double reinforcements is hard pressed to hold out against that. [Believe me, I know]. So a prudent course is to build up, manuever, stay in the pack and explode at the end. The classic multi-player problem. (At least how well you are doing only has minor implications for troop reinforcements). A player can really only go for the automatic victory by completely smashing an opponent (before the other two can react), and then holding out. But if you don't quite eliminate your victim, they'll have a full hand of cards next turn to make you pay.
Length -- I see plenty of reviews saying that the short game doesn't give the full range of scope on card play. Makes sense, if you are only going to go through the deck 1.5 times then playing that great event (that removes a great card from the deck) is basically free. But if you are going through the deck 2.5 times, it's a decision. But four hours and six hours feel quite different.
When playing a long game, I want to control my destiny (within reason). Given the combat and ganging up, I'm not sure I do.
Right now? I'd like to play again. One nice aspect is that the game plays 2-4. I have no idea how well it plays with 2 or 3, but I'm willing to try.
I have to say top of my downsides list would be the game positions: the vicious rules on uprisings (the Volsci were mean) and the apparently regressive attrition rules. You can lose more of a small force than a large one???
I don't think the experience was helped by having a robot player as the Gauls. Even so, five hours is a torment. The whole game is operating at a level higher than it needs to - poor development work here.
On the upside, I liked the combat system and the generals rule.
Ultimately, it was just too much hard work for very little historical feel. Painful.
Not really, but we were up to 1.3 on the living rules. Movement seemed straightforward. Interception/Avoiding/Pursuit had a few weird restrictions, but seemed simple enough.
where the rules are wonky are the various ways you gain and lose political support. There are about 6 ways you can 'spend' it, but how it's generated determines how it can be spent. We had a player aid flowchart. I didn't actually verify that it matched the rules.
apparently regressive attrition rules
By this you mean "Casualties aren't a function of losing army size." [Ditto attrition]. I have no idea bout historical accuracy, so that didn't bother me. The updated combat table means that small armies (1 or 2 CU) don't inflict as many casualties as 3+ CU. And the other optional rule (which we didn't play with) would let better commanders sacrifice winning % for safety.
I don't think the experience was helped by having a robot player as the Gauls.
I would hope that the 'robot player' aspect would resolve quickly. Gaul Turn, roll, resolve. Given that we played in 5 hours, I'd hope the game would be 25% faster without one player. Call it 20% to allow for some book-keeping. Was your 5 hour game a 6 turn, 9 turn or 'other?'
Actually, the timescale doesn't bother me. I mentally assume it's a campaign season (a year or two) and then several years of peace. It takes a while to replace combat losses ... But again, if the history was constant non-stop warfare then it's a historical.
Actually, this is somewhat explicit in the Roman Consuls, who are replaced every year. But you only do that once a turn, so you can consider it "The year all hell breaks loose" with peace in between. Of course, to simulate that model, you'd need 'deployment' and 'retreat' at the end (ala Here I Stand or Nappy), but there you go. I guess it bothers me a bit. (So, during these 10 years of peace a Gaullic army just hung out in Etruscia?)
I can imagine. Since the Gauls have 'no memory' then they're likely to hit down people. Three is probably weaker than 2 or 4.