Out on the surf of Wargaming Beach, classical warfare is hanging ten with a vengeance. Heretofore considered unmarketable, “ancients”, led by the best-selling SPQR, has become one of the most popular items in stock. Ever on the lookout for something to hang their financial toes on, 3W, seeking to ride this wave of enthusiasm, has released a sort of survey of Roman history, VI Against Rome, a title mostly reminiscent of a 50’s B movie with Cornell Wilde and Laurence Harvey. (Ed. Has anyone ever seen Harvey in “The Last Roman”? Orson Welles plays Justinian. The movie looks like something Ed Wood would have made, had he the money for color.) Given 3W’s recent track record, VI comes as a pleasant - although not entirely unflawed- surprise. There are two Joe Youst maps, one on each side of the mapsheet, both of Italy … one representing earlier times than the other. Be forewarned, however, for this is Area Movement Land … and big areas, at that. The color scheme is acceptable, the city spaces are of good size, and the important charts and tables, plus nice Holding Boxes, are included. Don’t look for Africa, Sicily, or Spain, though; they appear as rules and tables, rather than places. The overall result is a map that is more utilitarian than eye-catching, with a feeling of wide-open spaces. Not something one entirely expects from a map of Italy. The counters, of Beth Queman vintage, feature iconography and two ratings, aside from nationality. They’re colorful, if pastel shades are your cup of tea, but I wish that Beth would have differentiated between leaders and combat units; it’s hard to tell one from the other. One wishes that the designers and publishers would have more input into how counters/maps look, and what choices are made to represent their ideas. Simply handing over a list to the graphics people and saying “go to” is the type of slipshod process that has become 3W’s Mark of Cain. Now hold on to your seats, but this is a relatively glitch-free 3W game! I mean that the rules, per se, are complete. However, there are some areas into which a Rules Lawyer could intrude his pesky presence. For example, a player, seeing his army outnumbered and outclassed, apparently may choose to commit only one of his units, let it get slaughtered, and then run away. Such rearguard actions were not well known in this era, mostly because of poor communications. The game mechanics are simple, and relatively “standard”. Movement is by Leader, with Interception possible. Units stop for combat, but there is no “overrun” rule. However, moving stacks may ignore small enemy forces and just move through them. Interestingly, presence or non- of cavalry has no effect on ability to intercept. Turns represent 3 months each, with a winter, bookkeeping/attrition phase, which means Fall sees armies running for shelter. There are rules for elephants, sieges, burning areas, and recruitment, most of which are designed for ease of play rather than any tactical insight as to their use. Also present is the Random Event chit system so beloved of Joe Miranda, providing each player with certain, inherent benefits not available to his opponent. For example, in the Pyrrhus scenario, the Romans get two levy chits, while the Epirote gets Auspices, Intelligence and Forced March. The first two are die re-rolls or adjustments, à la fantasy games, and seem to have little application any sort of historicity … or the scenario. One begins to wonder exactly what aspects of the campaign these rather generic “events” portray. Combat is resolved either in three rounds of “hit-producing” dierolling, or on the oft-dreaded and usually unfortunate “Tactical Board”, the sight of which is enough to send far too many gamers running for their Prozac. One of the Black Holes of Design is (has been) the inability of designers to come up with a combat resolution system for this era that (a) provides realistic, interesting results, and (b) that doesn’t stop play dead in its tracks. On the other hand, most of the scenarios avoid that “Turn 5 is the End of the World” mentality by providing us with open-ended scenarios in which the game ends when one player has achieved victory, something of which more designers should take note. There is a millennium of rich, interesting history - and possible history - to be simulated here, and the historical aspects of VI appear to be very well researched. We get a well thought out and accessible game system covering events in Roman history that include a battle scenario on Brennus the Gaul, campaigns for the Samnite Wars, Pyrrhus, Hannibal and Belisarius, plus a hypothetical invasion by Alexander the Great. Sounds neato, huh? Unfortunately, the scenarios are where an otherwise interesting game falls flat on its face. Take Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus’ Italian adventure was, probably, part of a larger picture in which the Epirote is trying to establish his own Mediterranean kingdom while waiting for the Macedonian throne to fall into his lap. Much of this is covered, rather abstractly, by a series of charts and dierolls. What is NOT covered is Pyrrhus’ considerable capabilities as a tactical commander, Even more tellingly destructive, is the game’s failure to deal with, or even recognize, the inability of the Senate of Republican Rome to deal quickly and decisively with an external threat … a feature that requires something, anything at all, to recreate the massive effect Roman politics played here. Pyrrhus starts out extremely weak and immediately gets pounced on by the Romans, as if this were the only thing the Senate had on its mind. The rest of the scenario - if Pyrrhus can survive the opening turn, which he did not do in the times I played it - is an Epirote rearguard action, with Pyrrhus always one dieroll away from oblivion. This, as we know, is NOT what happened historically. (And, in a thumbing of the nose at the Gods of Chrome, there are no rules to cover the initial Roman shock upon being confronted with Pyrrhus’ elephant corps.) Another such failure is in the hypothetical Alexander invasion scenario. Mr. Sutcliffe gives Alexander a dominant army, but then saddles the player with a scenario in which virtually everything interesting is taking place off map, resolved by DR’s on various tables and charts. The scenario supposes that Rome has rallied all the tribes it has been fighting for generations to its side, the only way Rome could have defeated the remarkable Macedonian War Machine under so formidable a commander at this stage in its military development. This is rather dubious (although, after all, this is alternate history), and somewhat humorous, considering the scenario takes place, chronologically, in the middle of the Samnite War scenario. Harmless, I guess, although one wishes for a more interesting versdion. The Hannibal scenario is hobbled by the fact that it covers only the Hannibalian portion of the Punic Wars, although the Belisarius scenario has some nice touches. Both of these campaigns included heavy doses of political realities, all of which are covered by “do this now” type of rules. They’re both better than the other two scenarios, although they still fall short of providing the sort of political back-fighting one sees in Joe Miranda games. VI Against Rome is a good game, one that is too good to throw away. However, more work is (was) needed in making sure that the scenarios are fun to play. The whole thing reminds me of Verdi’s opera, “Il Trovatore”, where all of the action takes place between acts, and the singers then spend the next 30 minutes or so telling us what we missed when the curtain went down. Gratefully, though, you won’t be singing, as does Count de Luna at the end, “Quale Orror!” Then again, unlike the reaction one has gotten from so many recent 3W productions, you won’t feel like you’re the Count’s brother, being burned alive at the stake. This may seem like small consolation, indeed, but, unusual for a 3W game, at least the Fat Lady gets to sing. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: OK. Playability: Good. Not overly complex and easy to jump into. Solitaire is possible. Replayability: Not as high as the 6 scenarios would have you believe. Too much reliance on outside, die-rolled events. Wristage: Acceptable, but not helped by tactical battle play-outs. Creativity: Some nice ideas here, but the Muse stopped short of the scenario sections. Historicity: Rather good, with some backsliding. Comparisons: No Imperium Romanum, and it has none of the insight of Joe Miranda’s Roman series for S&T. Then again, it makes more sense system-wise. Overall: Worth a look … maybe. from 3W 33” x 22” map, backprinted, 400 counters, RulesBook. Boxed. 3W, Cambria CA. c/ $32 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 15 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com