A Game of Empire

 As a break from painting I got out my copy of Phil Sabin's Empire to play a solo game. Empire is a light wargame set in the ancient era covering 200 years from the time of Alexander through to the demise of an independent Macedon. The map covers Iberia to India, with areas connected by land or sea. It starts with the Achaemenid Persians pre-eminent in the east, controlling eight areas, and Carthage (three areas) dwarfing the foundling Roman Republic (which has to meet consolidation conditions before it can begin to campaign) and Macedon, both of which control just one home area to begin with.

There is a revolt phase (die rolls to find which area throws off the yoke of its oppressor) then a campaign phase in which each of the four powers look to expand their territory or reassert control over territory lost. Three 'great captains' (you can probably guess who they are!) allow five campaigns on the turn(s) they are active instead of the usual single campaign per power.  

There are two scoring rounds, turn 10 and turn 20. Carthage and Persian start with 12 VPs each; Rome and Macedon start with 0

We pick up the action in 350 BC.

350-341 BC. Bactria revolts. Carthage conquers Sicilia. Rome bickers with its Latin neighbours. The Persian Empire moves on Aegyptus but is defeated. Macedon conquers Graecia.

340-331 BC. Persia revolts. Alexander rampages through the east, taking Thracia, Asia, Pontus, Syria and Aegyptus. Rome continues to bicker. Persia takes back the province of Persia. Carthage fails to take Magna Graecia.

330-321 BC. Aegyptus revolts. Alexander continues his campaign, taking Armenia, Mesopotamia, Persia and Parthia. The Persians attempt a revolt in their home territory but fail. Carthage again fails to find a foothold in Magna Graecia. Rome is still embroiled in internecine conflicts. 

320-311 BC. Macedon fails to take Bactria. The Parthians successfully reclaim their capital. Rome consolidates Italia and now has a presence in the Mediterannean. Carthage fails to make any headway in Magna Graecia.

Alexander's conquests and Parthia reclaimed for the green team.

 

Carthage dominates the western sea as Rome emerges.

310-301 BC. Pontus revolts. The Parthians fail to take Bactria. Rome fails to take Magna Graecia, and so fails Carthage. The Successor kingdoms reassert control of Pontus.

300-291 BC. Thracia revolts. The Parthians again fail to take Bactria. Carthage takes Magna Graecia; Rome promptly takes it off Carthage. 

290-281 BC. Persia revolts. Carthage tries another futile expedition to Magna Graecia. The Successors fail to bring Aegyptus into their orbit. Parthia fails to take Bactria. Rome fails to take Cisalpina. Failure is epidemic!

280 - 271 BC. Macedon takes Thracia. Rome fails in an expedition to Sicilia, Parthia fails to take Bactria, and Carthage fails to take Magna Graecia.

270 - 261 BC. There is a revolt in Numidia. Rome takes Sicilia. Successors fail to take Aegyptus. Carthage fails to retake Numidia. Parthia takes Bactria at last. 

260 - 251 BC. Thracia revolts. Carthage brings Numidia back into the fold. The Successors again fail to take Aegyptus. Rome fails to take Cisalpina. 

Rome and Carthage with their spheres of influence (251 BC).

Rome and Macedon (251 BC)

The east (251 BC)

This is now the first scoring round. Parthia controls Parthia and Bactria for 2 points, taking them to 14. Carthage controls Africa (2), Numidia, Iberia (2) for 5 points. This takes them to 17. Rome controls Italia (3), Magna Graecia, Sicilia for 5 points, giving them 5. Macedon controls Macedonia, Graecia, Asia, Pontus, Syria, Armenia, Mesopotamia for 7 points. 

At this stage I thought that Rome looked to be in a strong position to push for a win in turn 20. 

250-241 BC. Revolt in Graecia. Rome tries to attack Africa, unsuccessfully. Carthage attempts to take Sicilia but fails. Macedon takes Graecia again.Parthia fails to take Persian. 

240-231 BC. Rome takes Cisalpina. Carthage fails to take Gallia. Greeks fail against Aegyptus; Parthians fail against Persia.

230-221. Revolt in Magna Graecia. Rome fails to retake it. Parthia fails to take India. Legacy Successors take Aegyptus. Carthage fails to take Gallia.

220-211 BC. Hannibal sweeps through Gallia, Cisalpina, Italia, bringing Rome to its knees. Macedon fails to take Thracia, Parthians succeed in taking Persia, Rome, forced to consolidate again, fails. 

After Hannibal's devastating campaigns against Rome.

210-201 BC. Revolt in Iberia. Scipio consolidates Rome and retakes Magna Graecia, but three other campaigns fail. Carthage fails to reclaim Iberia. Macedon takes Thracia. Parthia successfully conquers India. 

200-191 BC. Pontus revolts. The Roman expansion continues: they take Cisalpina, Gallia, Iberia, Numidia, and just fail to take Africa. Parthia fails to take Mesopotamia. the Successors retake Pontus. Carthage reclaims Numidia.

The Roman revenge is swift, but they do not expand east into Greece.

190-181 BC. Revolt in Syria. Carthage fails to take Iberia. Parthia fails against Mesopotamia. Successors take Syria and Rome fails to claim Sicilia.

180-171 BC. Revolt in Syria again. Parthia takes Mesopotamia. Carthage fails to take Iberia.  Successors claim Syria. Rome takes Sicilia. 

170-161 BC. Revolt in India. Macedon fails to take Illyria. Rome takes Numidia. Parthia fails to claim India. Carthage can't wrest back Numidia.

160-151 BC FINAL TURN: Revolt in Asia. Rome takes Africa. Carthage's attempt to revolt fails. Parthia is unsuccessful in India again and the Successors fail to take Asia.

Last turn scoring: 

Rome: Italia (3) Magna Graecia, Sicilia, Africa (2), Numidia, Iberia (2), Gallia, Cisalpina for 12 points, taking them to 17.

Macedon: Macedonia, Graecia, Thracia, Aegyptus (2), Syria, Pontus, Armenia for 8 points, or 15 all up.

Carthage: no territories remaining, it rests on the 17 it had at turn 10.

Parthia: Parthia, Bactria, Persia, Mesopotamia for 4 points, taking them to 18.

Parthia takes the win with 18. 17 for Rome and Carthage and 15 for Macedon.

Views of the board at game end.

Final positions. 

It was another interesting play of a Phil Sabin game, and surprisingly close. With two turns to go any of the four powers could have won mathmatically. By the last turn it was down to Carthage and Parthia, though I didn't know that until I tallied up the final score. If Carthage had held Africa on the final turn they would have taken the game.

Thoughts: Rome was fighting Carthage all game and never got a chance to expand east. Macedon could not hold Alexander's conquests, with vital revolts depriving it of a stronger result in the first scoring round. But it did manage to stay competitive. Carthage had a worthy fight with Rome and was only just short of victory. Parthia got back into the game with an early successful revolt against Macedon in its home area, and did just enough to take the win.

I wonder if Rome slightly underperforms in Empire. I don't recall a Roman victory in the times I've played it, and the need to risk a sea attack to get a foothold in Greece seems to result in a 'Carthage first' policy when an attack east earlier is probably necessary to achieve a win. 

Good, thoughtful fun anyway, as is usual with Phil Sabin's designs.

Notions of (Phil Sabin's) Empire

Faced tonight with a sudden hankering to play a game, I trotted downstairs, surveyed the shelves, and settled upon Phil Sabin's Empire. As something that takes an epic subject, could be set up without too much rules review and can be got through in an hour, it was the obvious choice.

Covering the period 350-150 BC, the game takes in the Mediterranean world (stretching as far east as India) and its Persian, Macedonian, Carthaginian and Roman inhabitants. Each of the twenty game turns starts with a rebellion roll which turns one occupied territory neutral, and then the four powers get to take a turn attempting to expand. Usually a power gets one attack per turn, but in a great captain turn they will get five (so they best make the most of it).

There is not a lot to the game tactically: you are pretty much at the mercy of the dice. To successfully conquer a territory on Empire's point-to-point game map a power needs to roll 4 or better on a d6. There are modifiers at play, and with certain territories worth more for victory point purposes, it is usually clear what the best attack is, and then you have to hope the die (or dice when attacking across a sea route) will cooperate.

It's all very straightforward - even bearing in mind a couple of special rules - and with two victory turns (VPs are counted on turns ten and twenty), everyone knows what they are aiming at.

Opening situation: Carthage blue (3 territories), Rome red (1 territory), Macedon yellow (1 territory) Persia green (8 territories).

In our game Macedonia started gloriously, winning Graecia on turn one and then watching Alexander wreak absolute havoc on turns two and three, wiping out the Persians and being on the doorsteps of both India and Aegyptus.

Alexander's conquests.

Neither Carthage nor Rome could make much headway in the first century of play, but Persia / Parthia reclaimed its homeland just before the first victory turn was up, and with both Carthage and Persia receiving handicap assistance, the scores at 250 BC were recorded as Rome 5, Macedon 13, Persia 14 and Carthage 16.

Carthage and Rome squabbled over Gallia until Hannibal's entrance saw Rome's influence temporarily squashed. Two turns of great captains for Rome began promisingly, but perverse sea assault rolls and some untimely revolts meant Roman expansion was stopped at Sicily, Iberia and Macedonia. 

All game Alexander's successors held on grimly to his conquests in Asia, but the Parthians (the Persian replacements) began to reclaim some of the eastern territories. 

Parthians reconquer some of the ancestral homelands.

Carthage and Rome continued to squabble ineffectually over Iberia, and at game end, the points were tallied thus: Rome 12, Persia / Parthia 20, and Carthage and Macedon tied for first place on 21. 

Board at game end, 150BC.

It was a nice little historical interlude, and left me with one or two ideas for future play.

End of year gaming (part 2), in which Prufrock ventures into the lion's den.

After visiting Pat (as related in this post), it was time to leave picturesque Kobe and head into Osaka to meet up with Luke for some miniatures gaming.  I'd brought my sleeping bag and a change of clothes so there was no space for my own figures.  Fortunately, Luke has an ample collection!

First up was a game of big battle DBA, wherein I took Communal against his Papal Italians.  There was a road through the centre of the battlefield stretching from my side of the field to his, with a hill on one flank and a patch of forest on the other.  The Papal fellows had an advantage in knights, but I had three war wagons which I planned to use to anchor my centre and right.  My strike force was on the left, made up of most of my knights (4 elements, I think), a unit of light horse, some psiloi and 6 elements of horde. 

Matched against them was a small right command made up of knights and psiloi.

My centre was spear and bow with a knight general, anchored by two war wagons on the left and my right command on the other flank.  This command was comprised of auxilia, psiloi, the remaining light horse, a knight general and the third war wagon.  I did not expect to do much in the way of moving with this command.  It's main job was to prevent any enemy attempt to infiltrate the forest, but it would depend on how he deployed. 

From left to right, my commands were made up of 13, 13 and 10 elements respectively.  I allocated the high pip dice to the left and the low to the centre, as I wanted to keep some flexibility on my right.

Luke's set up was quite different.  His flank commands were made up of 7 elements, with the centre a hefty 22.

The battle began with the Papal chaps advancing on the right and in the centre while I shuffled my knights across to meet the flank attack.  I broke his right command quickly and spent a few turns mopping it up.  Unfortunately his centre command overlapped mine, and this exposed my horde - which were part of my left command, if you remember - to the tender attentions of his bowmen.  I had foolishly not realised that bows quick-kill horde, and in no time at all he had shot up 4 elements of them and broken my left command to return the favour. 

My plan to fall upon his centre from the left had gone the way of all flesh; nonetheless, not all was lost.  My centre command still had some good match ups and the war wagons on my left were a reasonably secure buttress against the bow (though we did have a scare at one stage!).  I now came to rue having made the centre my pip sink, as they rolled rather a lot of 1s, which hampered my efforts to advance the line.  Eventually I moved forward leaving the war wagons behind (they took 2 pips to move as part of a group) but by this time Luke had cleverly manoeuvred his forces in the centre into a much better position.  When we closed, it soon became one-sided; I tried to get my right into the action to put pressure on his internal flank but I'd left it too late at that stage.

By the time my knight general (and commander-in-chief) was cut down in the centre, I'd been given a lesson in maximising match ups and was left feeling a little red-faced at having wasted such a strong position.  It was a very good game, and Luke earned his win with some excellent play.

Next up was another game of DBA, this time using Luke's Macedonians on their 80x80mm bases.  It started out well enough but things turned to custard as the irregular depth of the bases meant that we were going on guesswork with recoils and so forth.  As the game wore in I got into one of those situations from which I could not contact an enemy element due to geometrical considerations, and it got frustrating having exactitude in this one aspect of the rules when we were having to play a bit fast and loose in other areas.  It just goes to show that it really does pay to have your rules tight before beginning a game!  Still, it was a good experiment, and gave me renewed respect for DBA as written.

We finished off for the night with a game of Phil Sabin's Empire, his fast-play take on the period 350-150 BC.  I lost this game too, as my Rome and Persian/Parthian empires failed to compete with Luke's Macedonians and Carthaginians.  So I headed off to bed having enjoyed the games (bar the geometrical issues in the second DBA outing) but down 3 zip and needing to redeem myself somewhat on the following day!   

And more on that anon...