Republic of Rome is a game for up to six players where each of those players is attempting to amass the most influence or otherwise maneuver into total control over the roman republic. It’s an older game first published by Avalon Hill and most recently by Valley Games. The primary mechanism of gameplay is card driven, using a board to organize the cards as they come into play. The cards will be senators to influence and bring into your faction, wars to prosecute, concessions to grant and other awesome roman things.
Since most of the game involves votes player interaction is paramount. The ranking officer gets to set the agenda and controls the voting process but a well timed tribune can bring another proposal for consideration. You’ll want good generals selected to expand Rome and secure her boarders from collapse, lest everyone to lose, but you don’t want to let the general’s troops to become too loyal and powerful; he might come back without the intention to disperse.
There’s a lot to this but if anything should be played by forum this is it. Do we have any people familiar with this, or interested in learning?
It’s a really great game, but old school – the rules are in the style of Avalon Hill games circa 1985 or something (dense, syntax awkward, channeling Gary Gygax). The main mechanism is that everyone needs to deal with the barbarian threat or everyone loses, but nominating someone to deal with it can give them power to win the game.
There’s a huge diplomacy component to it, so playing without any conversation or face to face contact doesn’t seem like it’d be a lot of fun. It’s been 24 years since I’ve played it.
I’ve heard the name. I wouldn’t be against learning, but I’ve heard it’s a tremendously complicated game and I’m struggling enough with learning Eldritch Horror via forum game that I’m not sure how well I’d manage.
I think it’s a terribly frustrating game if the wrong series of Carthaginians comes up. Even with a magical alliance of perfectly cooperative players you could lose anyway. But of course that’s unlikely to happen – I mean the magically cooperative players, of course, not the Carthaginians. Anyway I think the game was a fine concept, but could have used another few design passes.
We used to play this a lot, and I loved it, but Miramon hits on the main flaw. Totally beyond your control sometimes, and frustrating beyond belief when it happens.
I don’t know if the cards have changed from version to version. How does the three age breakdown help? The thumbnail as I understand it is that the early republic is a fight for survival, middle republic is balanced on the way to late republic where the republic is stable, more or less.
More or less that is true. Early republic is more of a pure cooperative game; Rome is in too much peril to allow much political backstabbing without being steamrolled by the wars. Of course, this practically ensures that the winning general runs away with the game unless he helpfully dies while conquering Carthage. Late republic sees Rome in less external danger, so maneuvering and inter-faction fighting is more of the theme; Ceasar, Sulla, Marius and all that goodness.
I’ve only played the advanced game myself. The original 1980’s version didn’t make a distinction I don’t believe.
Note that someone took the trouble to completely rewritethe rules in a far more readable format, available on BGG: Steamlined rules. The original rules are based on the old AH rules, which are a complete mish-mash as was typical at the time.
Individually each of the parts I read seem fairly intuitive. It is a lot to keep straight though. Of course this is coming from a guy who’s favorite game is High Frontier so I’ve probably got some trauma going on there in the form of some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
For a lighter beer and pretzels version of this I enjoy Chicken Ceasar but Republic of Rome fascinates me.
