Mare Nostrum - Scalability & Balance

Hi,

There's still a shop or two in the UK who are carrying copies of the long OOP Mare Nostrum, and I'm thinking of snapping it up.

I'm hesitating for two reasons.

Firstly the balance issue is a bit annoying. I know there's supposed to be an easy fix using the advanced setup, but I'd like the option of playing with either setup rules. I know the expansion is also supposed to fix the balance problem, but I might not always want to use the expansion (which I do plan on getting). Are there any other tweaks that can be put in place to fix the balance? Does playing the base game with less players fix the balance?

Seconldly, I don't know how scalable the game is. I kind of get the impression that it really ought to be played with a full complement (five, or six with the expansion). But most of my game nights get four players, so I need it to be worth playing with just four. Is it worth buying the expansion and using it in a four-player game with two neutral players?

Cheers,
Matt

The balance issue is a load of shit cooked up by people who played the game once, lost, and then posted their "concern" to BGG.

Greece does have a disadvantage, but that's part of the game. I've seen Greek players win because they knew the game really well, played well, and took advantage of the other features and mechanics.

The expansion does "fix" it so it is a little more symmetrical.

It really is best with five or six, but four is fine. Neutrals are always dumb to me, but it works out OK.

Mike is right. The balance issue is a load of shit. Mare Nostrum is a game that demands creative play and a lot of people want a game that is scripted and guides them along.

In the basic game I would say that Carthage is actually probably at the greatest disadvantage, followed by Greece, then Babylon, Rome, and Egypt. Egypt is the "default winner". Probably 90% of first time games are won by Egypt. Then in the second and third games, people start realizing how to enact a trade embargo and how to steal Egypt's taxes through creative trading and Egypt suddenly becomes not so attractive to play.

The game is interesting in that it is highly competitive, yet the trading mechanism which is the core of the game, demands careful attention and "gasp" cooperation. This is the really fun part of the game. Because there is so much power in the trading system, it draws out a lot of politicking and wheeling and dealing. The fun murderers don't have the personality for this type of interation, so they whine about imbalance when actually it is their style of playing that is flawed.

The game plays extremely well with any number from 4 to 6. It does not work with 3.

The expansion is fantastic and is pretty much required material once you get to be a veteran but there's no real reason that you need it from the start.

Stop hesitating and go buy the best hybrid game out there and one of the best multiplayer wargames ever.

Sold!

Thanks gents.

Keep in mind that it IS a trading game... all the other crap is a red herring. The game is won in the trades not on the battlefield.

Make sure when you play you explain how the trading works a few times and also point out how it can be used to limit another players options. Its a euro at heart and so it is important that people pay attention to what others need, and try and block them. If this doesn't happen then the game is boring and people get frustrated because battles are usually very bloody and a near 0 sum gain.

-M

Keep in mind that it IS a trading game... all the other crap is a red herring. The game is won in the trades not on the battlefield.

I gotta call you on that one man. It's a trading game to the extent that you have cards to trade. You need lots of cards to win, and there are two ways of going about getting more - building or attacking. So there you have the three phases of the game, trading, building, and attacking, all tied into one neat little package. Add in the religious phase from the expansion and you have even more crafty methods of stealing the win.

Trading is a nice way to get the variety of cards you need, but so is taking them away from someone else by invading. Most game wins that I've seen are a combination of an invasion with occupation along with some good trading on the following turn.

Don't sell the game short. Sure, the trade engine is the core of the action, but the military aspect plays better than 90% of the other multiplayer wargames out there. It's fast, it's furious, and it's fun.

Also, even though the rules claim to allow it, never play this game with three players. I bought this game and tried to play it with three, and the whole thing just fell apart. Good thing the two guys aren't in my regular group so there's still hope of me suckering some other people into it...

balance issues = cartload of manure.

Seen a Greek player won on 3rd turn by Pyramid building in France 2006 cup.

I wouldn't recommend playing with 3 or 4 players though. Neutral territorities are too numerous and trading turns aren't nearly as fun.

Most of the new heroes/wonders of the expansion are quite cool.

Man, this is so true. A lot of games that get dismissed as poorly balanced on The Other Game Site are games where players have different power levels or abilities and the other gamers at the table have to adjust to it--and once it is incorporated into their decisions the win % differential goes away. Playing more than once as more than an efficiency puzzle for the win.

I haven't played enough to speak to balance levels (although I agree most of the time such claims are just whining). I can however confirm that this sucks as a 3 player game.

My warning was to those who think they can win just by attacking. We have a game go horribly wrong because a few players failed to comprehend the trading and just gave away anything to get what they thought the needed without regard for what it let the other player do.

The Fun Murderers would say that this is an issue with the game, but I say it's an issue with the gamers. You gotta pay attention or you're gonna get smoked!

My take with such games is that balance is in fact an issue if the plays of the game are few and far between. That's true about most games in general, but especially so when the imbalance is in the starting positions, diplomacy is required to even things out, and the game ends as quickly as it does.

I am a fan of maintaining a smaller rotation of games, but if your group goes the other way, I would not recommend this one.

Personally, if I were in a group that had a small rotation of my choosing, the trading mechanism is so fussy that it would likely miss the cut. But it is a unique and beautiful game.

This arrived in the post a couple of days ago.

A trip through the rules and a few solo turns later and I have to say that I haven't been so stoked about playing a game for the first time for many months. I don't think you could want a better lesson in how to apply Euro design principles to a game properly.

Thanks for the advice guys. The only problem now is that I'm going to have to get the expansion from the states and pay the exorbitant shipping costs