GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,370 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
23 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Sword of Rome» Forums » General

Subject: Sword of Rome vs. Successors? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
BJ
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
"Yeah I killed women and children, killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another and I'm here to kill you Little Bill"
badge
"It's a Sicilian message. It means Luci Brasi sleeps with the fishes."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am looking to purchase my first multiplayer CDG. For those of you who have played both games, which do you consider more accessible, Sword of Rome or Successors (3rd)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see that you play H:RvC. IMHO, SoR is a very, very easy transition from H:RvC...it uses many of the same concepts, even the same terms. Some call SoR simply "multi-player H:RvC." The battle system is one very large difference. I actually wish SoR had battle cards, though I do not mind the SoR battle system as it is, I think it is just fine. (note: I am in the distinct minority on both counts)
My recommendation would be to buy SoR!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
howl hollow howl
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
See also http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/340915/successors-vs-swo.... (Somewhat) Coincidentally, I played both games last month with the author of the most-thumbed reply in that thread.

I agree that SoR is an easier transition for Hannibal players.

Both games are spruced-up, straightforward smash-and-grab conquest games. Successors adds a lot of chrome in the victory conditions, so there's some fumbling around, but is otherwise pretty straightforward. Sword of Rome is even more streamlined, but it's complexity is in the individual powers: geographical challenges; what surprises are in the decks; how to effectively use their abilities.

As such, I think Successors has more "rules", but should give you a satisfactory first play if you are willing to sit thru the explanation. Sword of Rome is quicker to pick up - even without Hannibal - but takes more experience to play effectively, in my opinion. In my book, Sword of Rome is the more rewarding play long-term; however, the shorter playtime of Successors may make it more appealing for you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dave makes a couple of excellent points: since each player has their own, and quite distinctively different, deck of cards in SoR, knowing the cards and understanding how to use them is a bit of a challenge, or even sore point, for the first time player. GMT Games has a card manifest on its website for SoR. When I taught three new players to play ftf 4p SoR, I gave each player a manifest of the cards in their own deck. This helps a lot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
howl hollow howl
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
SFRR wrote:
When I taught three new players to play ftf 4p SoR, I gave each player a manifest of the cards in their own deck. This helps a lot.

That's a nice gesture. In some cases, it's far more important to know what's in your opponent's deck. For example, the E/S player can play his hand as it comes, but needs to be aware of the Gaul's potential ferocity, whereas an ignorant Greek player will really get messed up by the Samnites.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Bruhn
United States
Roseburg
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Check out the reviews and the AARs for both games. That might tell you which game would be more your cup of tea. Successors isn't a game that I've played, but the guys I've played Sword of Rome with say Successors is more random in the starting positions, leading to somewhat more chaotic games. Sword of Rome starts off with the same start positions and geographical challenges for each position, so it lends itself to a somewhat defined strategy for each position.

Sword of Rome reprints this fall, and the pre-order price is quite fair for a game of its quality. I'm planning to pre-order Sword of Rome.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Owsen
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both are very good multiplayer games. In Successors, all of the powers are somewhat similar in flavor (although there are variations in feel depending on your starting position). In Sword of Rome, each power has its own deck and uses different strategies to win. I think that makes Sword of Rome more interesting, but Successors is also very good. I give Sword of Rome the slight edge, but I would play either any time.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juan F. Santana Miralles
Spain
San Juan de Aznalfarache
Seville
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I agree with Dano. Both are excellent games.

SoR allows 5 players, and the individual deck makes every power very different.

Successors is a 4 player game, full of tension and chaos, and with very original victory conditions.. we have and we play both in our group!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BJ
Canada
London
Ontario
flag msg tools
"Yeah I killed women and children, killed everything that walks or crawls at one time or another and I'm here to kill you Little Bill"
badge
"It's a Sicilian message. It means Luci Brasi sleeps with the fishes."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks All,

I am leaning towards Sword of Rome but I am a little afraid that at 6-8 hours long it will be tough to get on the table.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Owsen
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both of these can take some time, or be over quick, depending on how they are played. I would say that SOR is usually going to take longer, especially with experienced players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Old Ways Are Best!
badge
Check Six!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think both games can take about the same length of time to play, but both are very group dynamic dependent in that regard. Both games are best with exactly four players and both use many of the same concepts found in H:RvC (with SoR being slightly closer), but I agree with those that state that SoR is just a little bit more accessible than Successors. I would hate to have to choose between them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bubslug wrote:
I would hate to have to choose between them.
OK, both of these should be on their way to me right now.

One cool thing about having both, it seems to me, is that between them they kind of cover the whole situation in the Mediterranean around 300 BC, west and east (even if the map and time scales are different), each theater very different from the other: - SoR, from what I understand, emphasizing differences between nations/cultures with different card decks and rules while Successors instead offers an alternative path to victory via legitimacy points for best upholding the Macedonian. Not that this would have mattered that much if they weren't both good games too, of course, but I trust the many people who say they are.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.