For several years now, Decision Games has been attempting to resurrect old SPI/S&T titles, with mixed results. Another feature of Decision Games is that now, virtually every boxed title and S&T magazine game has been designed by Joe Miranda. One wonders whether there's actually anyone else actually working in Lancaster. With Fall of Rome, Joe's attempt to rescue one of the legendary buzzards of the past - the original Errata King - we see both trends converge. It's an admirable effort in most every aspect. Unfortunately, it's no darn fun. FoR is a solitaire game where the active player (you) takes the Romans, and the game's AI runs the barbarians, independent kingdoms like Armenia and Parthia, and rebel factions. The time spread and cast of characters are quite rich. You get the usual legions (and later on, cataphracts and limitani), militia, Germans, Scythians, Picts and Huns, Parthians, even desert raiders. Furthermore, in the later periods, you can get rebel kingdoms where provinces revolt or successful military leaders try to carve out their own kingdoms Mark Antony style. One map and countersheet manages to cover all this ground quite elegantly. The production features an area map (gratefully not a "period" map) of the Roman Empire and adjoining regions, broken down into provinces with sub-provinces for the larger ones, like Illyria and Germania. Provinces are rated for their victory point and militia value. The map edges are arrayed with every chart you need to play the game so there's no need to hunt around the rulebook for procedures and rules. The rules are concise, coherent and projected in order of the sequence of play. FoR is so well designed it practically plays itself. All in all, this is one of the most user-friendly games I've ever seen. The design has a number of unusual features that simulate the conditions during the various periods of Rome's empire. For example, internal dissolution (revolts) are actuated in all scenarios using a chart that has been subdivided by time periods. In the early and secure Augustan Age, there is virtually no chance of a province trying to break away or a leader attempting to challenge the throne. The later in time you proceed, the more instability you encounter. In the late scenarios, the Roman not only has to fight off barbarian invasions but must keep a watchful eye on restless provinces and ambitious Roman leaders who can take entire armies and set themselves up as rebel forces. Barbarians are created by die roll, cross referenced with region. Again, the likelihood of barbarians appearing, and the size of their forces, is determined by period with the later periods seeing more frequent and larger incursions. The game includes a plethora of other details, such as tribute (buying off hostile barbarians or rebels), Roman treasury expenditures to build or maintain armies, Roman construction of forts and colonies, and a legion rebellion table. This being a solitaire game, there are extensive, but very understandable, rules for the creation of barbarian and other-state forces, and their movement. The barbarian creation tables described above dish out your screaming painted hordes as well as the Parthians. Where they go and what they do is determined by procedures strictly defined in non-Roman movement limitations that are printed right on the map. Basically, barbarians, if active, go after the nearest and richest Roman province while the Parthians follow a strict and predicable sequence of conquest. This is where the game starts to imitate its title, because it's no secret the Parthians will go for Armenia first and then try to grab Syria/Judea, while the Scythians, Germans and Dacians will head for the closest province with a high victory value. The non-Roman movement is actually that predictable. Playing the game, I found myself simply moving non-Romans where the charts said to put them. Obviously, I was also sure to have plenty of friendly forces, colonies and forts in all the usual hot spots. There's little that cannot be foreseen and countered, except, perhaps, provincial rebellions or armies turning against you. The resultant feeling is a sort of ancient hurdy-gurdy, merry-go-round of invasions and revolts. Very mechanistic; better suited for study than play. For the Parthians in particular, you wonder why they have to go after provinces in the same old order every time. Who's to say they couldn't humbug the Romans by trying to grab Judea and head into Egypt instead of always invading Armenia first? While there is an element of unpredictability with the appearance and size of barbarian forces (you can even get hit with simultaneous incursions of Scythians, Dacians and Germans), you still always know where they're headed. One interesting point is that the non-Roman forces are all mutually hostile. If the Dacians go through the Germans to grab the province dictated by their movement priorities, then you see Rome's enemies going at each other. Combat is handled by a CRT which rates forces as A (the Romans), B, or C, with each side rolling to inflict losses on the other. A force of 2-4 strength points of Roman legions can inflict a 50% or more loss on 25 strength points of barbarians, or even destroy them while the barbarians must monstrously outnumber a Roman force to defeat it. No matter, as there are often more barbarians than you can shake a pilum at, and the Roman legions (as opposed to their less effective militia) can't be everywhere. The CRT works quite well, and if non-Roman movement weren't so predictable, you'd have an exciting game. You have to wonder, ultimately, whether the talented Miranda has any insight into why people play these games. His recent Balkans '41 contained a good system wasted on a situation that would only please skinheads and closet Nazis. Here we have a very well designed and developed game that lacks much in the way of suspense. True, one can often use "games" as a source of visual insight, but if play is so obvious and channeled, why not just read a book? The good sign in all of this is that Decision/S&T seems to be raising their production levels quite a bit. One wishes, though, that they'd start focusing on the reason people buy the magazine, because while the graphic and historical content may be high, the Entertainment value is far too low. Rome may be falling, but it sure ain't on fire. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #25 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1997 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