-
The background
While I enjoy more generic euros well enough, I especially love games that have a civilization feel with lots interaction, negotiation, theme and story. Mare Nostrum meets all these criteria just beautifully. It has economic, civilization, and military elements, and combines these with high production values. It's different enough from another favourite of mine, Antike, and in some respects it is somewhat reminiscent of Serenissima, which is another gem I have enjoyed in the past. As stated well here, Mare Nostrum brings a lot to the table, including resource production, Settlers of Catan type trading and building, and Diplomacy type negotiation, and Risk type military elements.
For these reasons, and given his love of euro games and war games alike, I was very confident that Mare Nostrum would be right up the alley of my good friend Scurvodsky. Since the game is really best played with 5 players, we were fortunate enough to conscript some enthusiastic and capable children - experienced gamers in their own right - to join us for a five player game. This included Miss 10-year-old, despite the fact that she really doesn't care for any game that involves fighting of any kind. Two of her brothers were more than ready to participate, so rounding out the group was Mr 12 year-old and Mr 8-year-old. Mr 8-year-old was suitably dressed in a cowboy outfit and equipped with a toy gun he'd found in a dress-up box, since he figured it was appropriate garb for the game.
The game
I played Carthage (to ensure that excessive trading didn't ruin the game), while Scurvodsky played Babylon, Mr 12-year-old played Greece, Miss 10-year-old played Egypt, and Mr 8-year-old played Rome. The children really got into the theme, and we heard a constant stream of various witty remarks about how Cleopatra really needed perfume from Rome and wine from Greece in order to achieve success!
After the acquisition of three wonders/heroes, Scurvodsky and Miss 10-year-old seemed the most likely candidates to get the win. So our military superpowers of the day - Greece and Rome - wasted no time in neutralizing the Egyptian income machine. They also took measures to occupy Babylon's source of revenue - much to the surprise of Scurvodsky, who hadn't realized they could strike so quickly.
From then on the game seemed to even out, and finally three players got their fourth wonder/hero on the very same round: Carthage (Ender), Egypt (Miss 10-year-old), and Babylon (Scurvodsky).
It was only when reflecting on the game the next day, and considering that it took somewhat too long for what the game is, that we realized we'd forgotten to count the civilization heroes as part of the win condition! So in fact we'd incorrectly played to 5 heroes/wonders each, rather than to 4! No wonder the game took an hour longer than it should have!
Mini-review
Ender's impressions
Despite the fact that the game took longer than necessary due to us forgetting that the win condition included the civilization heroes that we started with, I always thoroughly enjoy this game - and this particular session was no exception. It's a very good civilization game, with has more emphasis on the military and less on technology than Antike, which is another game that fits the euro/wargame hybrid style. While Antike is also a good game in its own right, it feels more clinical, and Mare Nostrum has a much more epic and story-like feel.
I find the overall feel to be also somewhat like Pax Romana, although Mare Nostrum is perhaps less military in emphasis, and naturally not as complex. At any rate, it is arguably easier to find a group willing to play this than Pax Romana, and it certainly makes for a great game with five players in a two hour time slot.
There is a relatively small number of tokens, but this is part of the genius of the game, because it is the source of conflict and drives the game. The trading mechanic is brilliant, and the Leader roles are critical. Having asymmetrical civilizations also means it plays differently for each nation, making it less dry and less mechanical - and I'm particularly fond of asymmetrical games.
Scurvodsky's impressions
I asked my friend what his impressions were of the game, since this was his first game. Here's what he had to say: "While playing, I felt that Mare Nostrum overstayed its welcome and took too long for what it is. As it turns out we played the win conditions wrong and prob. added an hour of time to the gameplay. I did enjoy playing Mare Nostrum, especially seeing the enthusiasm of the Ender kids. However, at the end of the day, I find Mare Nostrum to be too simple for my tastes also given the theme of the game. As a result it was unfulfilling. Basically you collect resources, do some no-brainer trading (just get what you need and trade away what you don't need), and then build stuff to increase resources or protect your resources and work up to setting yourself up to buy the wonders and win the game. I also can't help but think that Carthage plays too influential a role in the game by determining the number of cards that are traded. Unlike Ender, I find the game very unlike Pax Romana; it only shares some superficial similarities. MN is a fine game with the right players but not a game I need to add to my collection." Sheesh. I think he's more of a wargamer and less of a eurogamer than I thought!
Thoughts on balance
The base game is somewhat unbalanced, and some think that the expansion is mandatory to fix this. Certainly Mare Nostrum has often been accused of being imbalanced for one civilization (Carthage and especially Greece have a very difficult time, and Egypt and Rome are strongest), and I agree that the rules in the base game do have potential for some imbalance.
However, rather than require the use of the expansion, an easier fix is to play with the official game-balancing rule modifications. We used these adjustments in this particular game, and they work very well in ensuring a balanced game. These optional rules introduce a naval blockade rule for Greece; a better Pericles (a free trireme at start), a slightly worse Caesar (fortresses cost 3 not 2), and an improved Hannibal (a free legion at start). You can download the file here (now with over 100 thumbs!):
 Definitive Guide To The Official And Essential Game-Balancing Rule Modifications (ver. 1.1)
It's also important to realize that the players themselves serve as an important balancing mechanism, by holding back the front-running nations in the game. So arguably a totally straightforward solution is already built into the game, namely negotiation, using the built-in weakness and strength as bargaining chips. The Director of Commerce (initially Carthage) especially plays an important role to ensure that other players sets are broken up (e.g. you can prevent Egypt from winning easily with taxes by trading 4-5 cards, or by refusing trades with Egypt), and thus should not be played by someone unfamiliar with the game. Carthage is the hardest to play, followed by Greece, so these should only be played by experienced players, while new players should play Babylon.
Since inexperienced players can easily bring a game of Mare Nostrum to a premature conclusion as a result of poor choices (especially the Carthaginian player), I've wondered about the merit of using this variant when playing the first time with new players:
1. Eliminate the pyramids as an instant win condition (see discussion)
2. Limit trade to four or five cards.
Further reading
We played with 5 players, which is really the ideal way to play the base game. When playing with 3 or 4, you really do need the expansion to balance things properly. See this review for a guide to playing with different numbers of players.
Some excellent material has been written about Mare Nostrum strategy. See this article for detailed observations about balance and strategy, and this article for a response to some typical criticisms of the game. There's also a number of excellent articles on strategy here.
Final scores
5 heroes/wonders: Ender, Scurvodsky, Miss 10-year-old
4 heroes/wonders: Mr 12-year-old
3 heroes/wonders: Mr 8-year-old
-
Anthony DuLac
United States
Minnesota
-
Wonderful article (as always - why should I even be surprised, really!) however this was my most disappointing game, practically ever. And it was the start of my dwindling interest in any Euro-based games.
-
Jim Patterson
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
-
I quite enjoyed my one play of MN, but it sits unloved in the closet because I think I probably turned everyone else off on it with a trade-based win that I saw coming but they didn't, ending the game abruptly. I absolutely agree that the players are the key balancing mechanism, and experience, I think, would make this a really engaging game, quite like, Imperial, another one many of my associates and I enjoy, but I don't think I pushed the game past the "let's try it again" point, so dusty it stays.
And thanks, Ender, for your various reviews on, comments on, and aids for this game.
-
Josh Morgan
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
I recently acquired a copy of this and the expansion. I keep trying to get it to the table but various factors have prevented this. Any advice for a game involving all newbies*?
*I should probably clarify that question by asking for suggestions/advice not covered in your session review or the resources you identify.
-
-
rhoubhe wrote: I recently acquired a copy of this and the expansion. I keep trying to get it to the table but various factors have prevented this. Any advice for a game involving all newbies?
The general advice that applies to most games about ensuring that at least one player is thoroughly well-versed in the rules certainly applies here. Before our very first game of Mare Nostrum with a group of newbies (not the one described above), we provided all the players with a few good reviews of the game which outlined the basics of the game-play, to ensure that everyone didn't come into the game totally cold, and that helped enormously.
And as already mentioned you probably want to ensure that the player who ends up being Director of Commerce (Carthage at the start of the game) realizes something about the implications of how many cards are traded, so that he can make good decisions that don't throw away the game to a specific player, especially Egypt. If you do some reading up about this aspect of the game yourself, and are somewhat informed about this, just be sure to make yourself Carthage, and the game should work just fine with a group of first-timers. It does rely a lot on negotiation and player interaction where it's up to players to prevent runaway leaders, so a large element of self-balancing is part of the game's design.
You might also want to play with the two restrictions I mention - these don't really change the game as such, but just prevent it from being won too easily or quickly as a result of mistakes by inexperienced players:
1. Eliminate the pyramids as an instant win condition
2. Limit trade to four or five cards.
With that in mind you can expect to have a great time on your first game. Go for it!
-
Doc Holliday
Austria
Salzburg
-
Another advice for beginners: Don't use all hero and wonder cards in your game. We shuffle them together in 1 deck, drawing 8 cards that are available. As soon as 1 card is bought another one is drawn.
-
|
|
Posted Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:43 pm
