Strategy & Tactics #145 22"x34" game map; 200 counters; 28 pages of magazine-inset rules. $13.75 per issue; $60 sub rate. Published by Decision Games, PO Box 4049, Lancaster CA 93539. Every designer has his metier, an area or system in which he feels at home and produces his best work. For Mark Herman it is combined-arms mechanics; for Vance von Borries it is adapting tried-and-true rules to whatever subject he is tinkering with; for Danny Parker it's the Ardennes; for some designers it is Ineptitude. Joe Miranda, S&T's resident blithe spirit and designer/developer (a rather hermit-like position), loves to weave a tapestry of politics, economics and military operations. His best-known, previous effort was the much-maligned, but highly interesting, simulation, Nicaragua (S&T #120). Nic had a lot of great stuff in it, and it revealed good insight into a difficult subject. Unfortunately, it was not a game - it was more of a treatise. Miranda has now turned his attention to this year's Hot Topic: the Ancient World. For years we saw nothing on Greece, Rome or any similar periods. The general feeling amongst publishers was that the only people interested in ancient warfare were the miniaturists. First AH (under the aegis of that closet legionary, Don Greenwood) released a spruced-up edition of the old Fred Schachter, Siege of Jerusalem. Then we got the rather weird Men at Arms, followed rapidly by an overwrought Republic of Rome and the explosively-colorful Kadesh, the last two both winning industry awards (for whatever that's worth, which these days is not much). Lately, ancient boardgames have been pouring over the dam like bimbos at a shriners' convention. This time S&T, having done what the Romans could never quite do - trash Hannibal - has turned its bleary-eyed attention to a relatively obscure topic, the conquests of Trajan. It's been about a year since Poulter, Prince of Carpetbaggers, in a bail-out that would make the S&L people green with envy, unloaded the Grand Old Dame of wargaming into the ingenuous, but eager, hands of Les Cumminses. For about six months, Decision Games, the Cummins' new storefront logo, turned S&T into B&B: Butchered and Buried. The issue graphics were several notches below Junior High yearbook (although not as witty), their spelling checker was definitely dyslexic, a couple of games made Perry Moore look like Frank Chadwick, and, on the whole, there was a growing movement to rename the magazine "D&P" - for Dilettante and Philistine. People were seriously considering trading their S&T subs for "CounterAttack" junk bonds. Improvement Well, glad to say, some of that has changed. The Trajan issue, #145, is a distinct improvement - at least graphically. The layout is somewhat crisper, although the color map of Parthia is a howler (who drew the mountains, a three-year old on LSD?), and the magazine, on the whole, still lacks zip, or even a point of view. (You can say a lot - both ways - about "Command", but it sure reflects, and has, personality. Then again, maybe S&T is likewise reflecting personality, or lack thereof . . . . it's tough to tell.) Some of the belly-laugh bloopers in the Christopher's Corner ad - like Decent [sic] on Crete (did you ever try the sequels, Indecent in Rhodes and Naked on Lesbos?) - are still present, but I consider those a plus. I only scanned the non-games articles (sorry, Al), but I did slog through the Trajan piece. It does cover the basic events with a surface efficiency worthy of Western Civilization 1A, and it has a minimum of mistakes. On the other hand, it has little subjective commentary or insight. As for style, well, let's say that the Famous Writer's Correspondence School would do well to send Joe M. an application. [Berg's Gaming Maxim #17: Just Because You Think You're A Writer Does Not, Per Se, Make You One. For an even more disturbing corollary, see the review of Fresno's new games.] Even more glaring is that we learn something about the Parthians, much about the Roman inability to read and make maps, but virtually nothing about the piece's supposed focus, Trajan. After all, Trajan was one of Rome's most successful and effective emperors, the first to be born in a Roman province, etc. As far as the article is concerned, he's reduced to being a fancy pronoun, a drum-major cum toga, marching hither, thither and yon (although he never quite reached Yon). I also note, sadly, that there is nary a Source list or Bibliography to be found anywhere. Inexcusable . . . unless Joe made this stuff up, which I wouldn't entirely discount. The counters are nicely executed, if a bit pastel. The artwork, though, is still sophomoric. For about ten minutes I thought that the swords on the Military Stratagem markers were cigars. I am also informed that those squiggly lines on the Parthian markers represent a "dragon". Could have fooled me. The map, which shows the modern Middle East and most of what used to be Persia, is harder to categorize. Mark Simonitch, one of our up-and-coming graphic stars, did it; but it still looks "off", and it has a slight feeling of deja vue , in the 1970's sense. It does sport some handy holding boxes, two small and one large tactical battle displays (more of which anon), but no charts or tables. Again, it is clear and easy to read, if lacking in charisma. I blanched when I saw rivers running through the hexes (as opposed to along the hexsides) - an artifice sans portfolio from the old and somewhat egregiously entitled "classic" AH period - but, after reading the movement system, I agreed with its applicability. Miranda has stated that he based the board on Ptolmey's ancient map of Parthia, portraying the world " . . . as the Romans saw it then." Quaint. But not overly valid. Perception is one thing; reality is reality. One may perceive that there is "nothing there", when in fact there is. When you have to traverse such an area, guess which one counts? More an interesting affectation than a workable play mechanism. System The game system is rather well thought out and far more simple than its length would seem to make it. The rules suffer from having them presented in outline form (you know: "A", then "1", then "a" . . . subsection upon sub-subsection, ad nauseum ). Much of their length arises from an extended, advanced game, tactical battle system which I found massively bizarre and eminently dismissable. Why designers insist on jerry-rigging these concoctions into their designs is beyond me. I tried it once (in SPI's The Conquerors). It was baaaaadddddd; bad as an idea - and probably worse in execution. I haven't seen any reason lately to hope for improvement. The idea popped up just a few months before in S&T's Hannibal (or is it, according to Chris' Corner, Hannible?), where it was lustily - and rightfully - booed into the Adriatic. The system is basically You Move/Fight - I Move/Fight, with some random events to spice up the start of each turn. The advanced game throws in a Supply segment, which I feel should have been part of the Basic game but probably wasn't because most players hate that sort of thing. It interferes with their basic need to rape and pillage without having to worry about who picks up the dinner check afterwards. The movement system is the best part of the game, applicable to the era and nicely executed. While movement rates are somewhat low relative to how far a legion could conceivably march, they probably reflect more the realities of coordinating and effecting such movement over difficult terrain. A player can choose the type of movement he wishes to use for a given "stack" - road, river, cross terrain, etc. - then he rolls to see what effect such movement has had on his troops, each of which have "morale" ratings (here termed "discipline"). Obviously, the better troops forge ahead, while the rabble stops at the local taverns. There is even a result where units moving off-road get lost. Nice touch. Combat Combat, at least at the Basic Game level, is handled with a fair amount of design skill. More importantly, within the parameters of resolving combat on an operational level, the individual quirks of each army do come into play. There are three rounds: Fire, Melee and then Pursuit, with each type of unit having different strengths/defensive capabilities in each. The player with the better commander gets to go first (results are not applied simultaneously, so this is important), and the player with the better balanced army - as opposed to sheer numbers - usually wins. Armies lose strength points (the rules insist on using the word "factor", another illicit leftover from Ye Olde Classique Era) and, depending on the discipline level, individual units stand, disorder or rout. This all manages to work nicely and flavorfully, although you do have the anomaly of the one elephant unit (which, granted, rarely shows up in play) susceptible to melee as opposed to fire (when the exact opposite was true). There are, unfortunately, two drawbacks, one of which is purely graphic. The chart that delineates each unit's capabilities - probably the most important chart in the game - should have been on the map for instant consultation. However, that is one of the problems inherent with issue games; it is also more of a personal preference than a quality factor. The other is that, as all objectives are cities, most combat tends to be sieges as the Parthian player is too busy defending these objectives, and has too little strength, to venture out into the open country. No Carrhae's here. Interwoven throughout the rules/play sequence is Joltin' Joe's applaudable efforts to impart a little "local flavor" into the game, something I consider a sine qua non of acceptable design work - and something he did so well in Nicaragua. In Trajan, although the system works well, the actual results are a bit mechanical and somewhat forced. Essentially, the game has two layers of Random Events. Each turn starts with a diceroll on the Political Events Table, which has a lot of "period" titles, most of which turn out to be rather mundane items that could happen anywhere, anytime. E.g., "Pro-Parthian Omens" simply allows the player to up the discipline level of any one unit. Some of the events do allow the game to cover many of the political and military problems endemic in the empire at this time (off-board Barbarian incursions, on-board local unrest, etc.). However, I, personally, prefer my RE's to be a bit more specific and flavorful than generic. Either way, they work more as game mechanics than flavor inducers. Strategems Then there is the game's "hook", the one item all designers try to include to set their game apart from the hoi poloi. In Trajan it is the Stratagem Markers, a sort of mid-play use of Random Events. At varying times - usually at the beginning of each turn, but often as a result of successful actions during the turn - the players get a specified number of these little wonders. Interestingly enough, except in a few, rare instances, the player can choose which stratagems he can pick, as opposed to the time-honored "Opaque Cup Method". The markers include labels like "Military", "Political", "Agent", "Pontifex Maximus", "Uprising", etc., etc. Playing one, which can be done at any time during the turn, allows that player do do a wide variety of things, depending upon his desires and what that little marker can do for him. Thus, playing a "Military" stratagem can allow an army to Force March (i.e., move a second time in a turn), which can be most valuable. Playing "Political" markers can subvert an enemy occupied city to your side (among other capabilities), which is probably the most efficient way for Trajan to proceed. Each side has the same number of stratagem counters available, although they differ (albeit slightly) in types. The use of stratagems is covered in a module section of the rules, which the designer says you can skip reading when learning the game, as they are application specific. This is not a recommended practice, as it pays to know what these suckers can do way before you set out across the no man's land of Persia. Even more importantly, the Roman player seems to easily corner the market in Roman stratagems, while lo, the poor Parthian (remember King Lo?) is forced to scramble and beg for each little stratagem crumb that falls his way. And this is part of the major problem with the game. Despite their rather diffuse organization, the rules are seemingly in place for a pretty good game of maneuver and bluff, strike and counterstrike. Only one problem: the game suffers from, and succumbs quickly to, the notorious "Custer-Rorke Syndrome". CRS applies to those historical situations that, while absolutely fascinating to read about and/or visualize, are deadly bores as games. Trajan's eastern campaign was, historically, one of Rome's high-water points. What it actually was was Trajan and a couple of Roman armies first watching Armenia fold like a thrice-used envelope, then huffing, puffing and blowing their way down the Tigris/Euphrates river system while every local in sight ran for cover. Having pretty much scared the Parthians back into Afghanistan, and with the Jewish Revolt and Macaroon Festival scheduled for its annual appearance, Trajan gazed wistfully at the Persian Gulf and headed back to the west. This allowed the Parthians to raise a bit of hell (nobody being around to stop them), upon which Trajan concluded the whole enterprise was not worth repeating, made a "We Won" announcement, declared Parthia a client state, and made plans to head back to Rome. Great stuff, eh. The game is about as exciting. This should have been a solitaire game - it can be played solitaire, although there are some rules that have to be ignored - mostly because the only player who has anything interesting (or rewarding) to do is the Roman. The Parthian player spends most of his time applying band-aids to severed arteries and staying out of the way of the galumphing legions. Unless the Parthian player's a genius along the lines of, say, a Lettow-Vorbeck (which Chosroes was certainly not), it's going to be a Slow Evening in Mesopotamia. This is not helped by the fact that almost all of the game's 200 counters are in play. That's a lot of cardboard to haul around to so little effect. Basically, the Roman player simply follows Trajan's path. His forces greatly outnumber those of the Parthians, he has more - and better- generals, and his immediate military objectives are well within several turns' reach. A slow, methodical Roman player is almost assured of some level of success, if not the spectacular, Trajan-does-Alexander victory the game makes possible. As for the Parthian, he tries to stay out of the way of the Roman juggernaut and pray to the local gods that he gets a few, interesting RE dicerolls. His only chance - at least in the two-player version - is if the Roman player either keeps attacking the wrong stacks (whose contents cannot be discerned easily) or suddenly has a catatonic fit, enabling the Parthian to move 37 straight times. Even with the former advantage, which is a two-edged sword, Roman progress is pretty much inexorable. Not fun. So, in checking our scorecard, we see the meter hovering in the "Respectable Failure" area. S&T, which was rapidly sinking into a self-induced quicksand, at least has grabbed hold of a lifeline. We'll have to wait to see whether her somewhat-less-than-crack staff can rescue her from the mire. As for Trajan, the game system is far more interesting than the subject it simulates, and, as a result, Trajan is far more valuable as a historical tool than an evening of give-and-take gaming. Miranda should certainly apply it to other, more intriguing, operational situations. He does threaten to come out with a "Trajan Does Dacia" game. If you see such an item, I suggest following the course that Dacia's monarch, Decebalus, took: a dip in the old Roman bath. CAPSULE COMMENTS Physical Quality: Better than the last bunch of S&T tragedies - but if this is state of the art, the state must be Albania. Playability: Despite length of rules (some of them unnecessary, some advanced) it plays fairly smoothly. Not much balance, though - more a simulation/history lesson than a game. Historicity: Pretty good - actually, too good - with some nice effort to provide period flavor. Playing Time: Slow. Lots of counters . . . lots of thinking . . . lots of snoring. Comparisons: This is a good system in what appears to be mid-development stage; as such it is a better system than, say, the recent S&T Hannibal, the old SPI The Conquerors, or even Mike Markowitz's recent Command effort, Alexandros. The last, however, was far better as a "game". The bellweather in this area is, of course, that magnum Nofus, Imperium Romanum II. Different scale, to be sure, and, again, Miranda's is a more playable system . . . but I'll bet that, even as overwrought as it is, IR II will see far more daylight than Trajan. Overall: With this issue, S&T shows some definite improvement . . . but, then again, so did the Yankees this past season. And look where they finished. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II #1 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com