Nate Dray, Chess Problem Painting, "Sam Lloyd, 1897 - Orange moves first, mates in two"

"Sam Lloyd, 1897 - Orange moves first, mates in two"

The chess problem.

Typically, in a chess problem presentation, White moves first and achieves mate in a specified number of moves.

Here Orange takes the place of White and moves first. 

The key move Orange must first make is seemingly innocuous. 

Nate Dray on SPI's 1973 "The Fall of Rome" - So Bad I Couldn't Look Away

 

SPI’s 1973 solitaire game “The Fall of Rome” – I'm not even sure what this is . . .

Only played once. This felt almost like a crafting project, like I built something from a kit. It was kind of fun, piecing it together and making it run. But the whole time I played, was never sure, was never 100% certain, I don’t even know now, that I was playing this game correctly. Actually, I’m not entirely sure if “The Fall of Rome” is even a game.

 

Undoubtedly, “The Fall of Rome” inspired people. It gave people ideas. It is an influential game which is the sole reason I played it. But looked at specifically, at the original itself, “The Fall of Rome” might not be much of a game, if it even is a game. If it is a game, it would almost have to be classed in the “tower defense” category, I think. But if it isn’t a game, then what is it? Because it’s not really a puzzle either, like so many other solitaire games are, that is, a puzzle masquerading as a game. Puzzles are solvable. No, “The Fall of Rome” is more like a model or process. A function. I’m hesitant to call it a simulation, but it does look like an attempt at one. Key feature; when the player has a decision to make for his Loyal Roman Forces, he only ever has one or at most two optimized options available. There may be room for creative play, but it’s a very constrained space. Yet, I can see the logic and intent behind it and so then there’s the old trouble of game v. simulation design complex bobbing up.

So here it’s important to reiterate before I go further; I played a 15-turn scenario and in the end I’m not entirely sure I was even playing the game right. That said, the thing I made from these rules did amuse me, but saying that, in this instance, is still the farthest thing from saying that virtually every criticism I’ve seen about this game is not wholly justified.

And another aside, on the survey of solitaire games posts, these are notes. Not reviews. Most of these titles have been dissected to the fullest elsewhere long ago. But even if they hadn’t been, this is just a record of my personal notes on each game, lightly polished.

A failed invasion of Gaul around turn 6 or 7. This powerful army unsurprisingly rebelled.

 

Decision rereleased this game at some point (S&T magazine #181, I think, I read). I haven’t really seen it or played it, but I can’t but imagine that at the very least they corrected some of the more obvious problems with this game that were easily tackled, low-hanging fruit, i.e. problems stemming from, related to, a result of poor component design. Just introducing some more contrasting color would have made a world of difference. “The Fall of Rome” color scheme is low key and its use almost seems completely detached from anything to do with the game play. Aesthetic concerns over or completely divorced from function. But from what little I’ve read, the Decision version is incompatible with the SPI game. There are significant differences in both rules and components, so it is, in my view, really a different game. With that in mind, I’ll proceed as though the Decision version is a distinctly unrelated separate thing altogether.

To begin playing, for me, took a bit of work. One of my first discoveries was that you have to write down a bunch of stuff. Hearkens back to the earlier days of wargaming, and so best practice here is to write stuff down. Hard to see any other way of playing, yet the rules provide zero guidelines for, or even really acknowledge, this more or less necessary step in playing the game.

Other obstacles to play, immediately apparent as one approaches the game, simple things, game system aside, are obvious. First, it lacks a sensible method for keeping track of important info in an easily accessed way. No color coding. No tracking display. And nothing as far as organizing the necessary, frequently cited, yet highly specific, granular, information into tables for reference. 

The physical system, the game’s material components, don’t lend themselves well to accounting for the actions and information flow in the game at all. For instance, the color scheme itself, or lack of, is often a hindrance instead of an aid to play because you have to read counters to tell them apart. Brown print on beige! Any type of player aid – however minimal – would have been tremendously helpful. There’s just a lot of information to track. Look at unit and scenario specific conditional exceptions to general rules; no guidance offered on what or how to make note of that stuff. The relevant info for how each of the 9 types of non-Roman forces behaves is spread out over the whole rules document. And the situation can be very dynamic, turn to turn, depending.

The game should have provided a way to track province control and militia activation and allegiance that can be ascertained at a glance, some sort of display tracker or pieces to graphically represent this vital information. At least.

Was completely driven out of the peninsula at one point.

 

But it gets better. Despite the component deficiencies, I think the actual core complaint about the game is probably that you spend the bulk of your playing time moving Barbarians and rebelling forces against Rome. You have no say in this, make no decisions, but follow a narrowly defined procedure for assessing each force and taking the conditionally prescribed actions with the force. 

There are individual programmed case-based behavioral rules for all the different types of non-roman actors…various Barbarians, Barbarian Raiders, Independent States, Rebel Roman Legions, and Persians. Each turn is a long stepwise sequence. Player assesses each force’s position, strength, and other situational factors to determine its actions that turn following a strict procedural checks scheme. 

It works, can arguably be interesting, but takes time. It’s a task 90% of people will or would find irksome at some point, at some time, while playing the game. Honestly, though, I didn’t really mind it . . . as much as I thought I would.

Further complicating this dismal picture: the rules as written. Vague language even after all the errata, which is approximately 1/5 again as long as the original rules sheet. (And then the errata need errata.) An example, “Empire” is an important concept used in determining barbarian actions and moves, but I can’t find its game-specific definition in either the core rules text or errata. Maybe it’s there but I keep missing it. And “conquer.” I think it means taking control of a province from another force type, but I don’t see the term expressly defined for game purposes anywhere. Again, maybe I missed it, but it’s odd that I can’t easily find a clear definition of the term, even though it’s used to define crucial game processes and conditions.

It's obvious that this game is a somewhat functional, but still early prototype of a game completely rushed through premature production, and clearly not subjected to rigorous playtesting. It could have been stripped down and rebuilt a couple more times probably before being released into the wild. It’s a prototype draft that barely works as presented. 

The comeback and subsequent failed invasion of Dalmatia.

 

Still, in my case, truth be told, once I got it going, “The Fall of Rome” wasn’t quite as bad as I’d imagined it would be. I started wondering what would happen among the programmed non-Roman forces. They sort of bang into one another and have nasty scraps and since the Romans usually end up fighting the winner, it is of passing interest, at least. This very thing, deriving some amusement from watching this dice and table fest play out, I believe, was what the designer was entirely banking on in this case. I found myself cheering on the Persians even though I knew their successes ultimately threaten Roman control of Asia; watching a twilight zone alternate history unfold as Scythians overwhelm Germans and spill over their ancient historical borders. Good stuff.

So “Fall of Rome” was surprisingly entertaining in places. Better than zoning out with devices or scrolling social media. The experience, sort of piecing it together with duct tape, priming the pump, getting it running and watching it play out, was a decent pastime, particularly for someone who enjoys the chaos of the 3^rd Century and the barracks shenanigans.

I was entertained enough to finish the game.

Even so, in the final analysis, there are too many poorly catalogued special cases, too many vague or confusing rules or terms, probably too many random variables, along with the poorly conceived graphic and material components, to ever really get a good rhythm going for more than a turn or two. If asked, I couldn’t recommend this unless you’re some sort of student studying old bad games or a masochist.

Personally, I don’t think it’s that egregiously ahistorical, either, per se, but it is to some degree or another. Some of the sequences of action that can play out would be hard to explain in real world terms.

I lost the game, btw. After 15 laborious turns, I lost the 260 AD scenario. Was really a Persian win, I think. In my game, the Scythians were an absolute terror. 

Losing at the end of turn 15. I ran out of Revolt markers. Had to use a blank for Gaul. Total chaos. Good times.

 

Nate Dray's Analysis and Review of SPI's "The Punic Wars" from S&T no.53

 

“The Punic Wars” from Strategy & Tactics magazine no. 53, Nov/Dec 1975

 

Over the years I’ve played “Punic Wars” a handful of times before the recent tabling. I’ll be honest, I like this game and this time I played it for several days using the Second Punic War scenario. Not all day every day, but it went on for easily 5x longer than the average game I play. I lost count of the turns. Each time one side got the upper hand, the other side made an epic comeback. So, a war of attrition that’s “fun” and a small aspect of a game becomes real world attrition and that’s not so fun. It was, though — until I realized that outright Victory of any kind was very very difficult to achieve. The designer almost certainly knew this was the case because there are express rules for players agreeing to end the game. Then the winner is determined by who has the most Victory Points awarded for territorial control. 

In my case, after messing up a small but ultimately significant rule having to do with relief forces entering a hex with besieged Friendlys, and with the Romans far ahead, poised for a territorial victory, I ended the game declaring Rome the winner. 

 

Hannibal doing the thing...

There is only one glaring problem with this game: sea travel is too costly and dangerous especially given the speed and distance possible with a terrestrial move by Leaders. There aren’t enough advantages to be had traveling by sea to offset the potential danger of losing an army in the water. Even with extra Fleet Points and a good Leader, it’s still too unrealistically risky. If sea transport was as dangerous and lethal as depicted in “The Punic Wars” game, people would never have moved troops by boat and we know that isn’t the case. 

Movements of forces during the Punic Wars from "Warfare in the Classical World" by John Warry.

 

“Punic Wars” is a simple game that feels big. It has rails, but still feels open and full of potential. Intriguing (performance attenuated) randomness. Just enough chrome for flavor. Tasteful restraint. All made sensible. This rule is x because of y. Lots of things feel right; the differing diplomacy and election rules, attrition, control, sieges, all well modeled, stylistically coherent, but still easily managed. Nothing extraneous that breaks the flow. And it has a nice rhythm, which is important to me.

In the end, what appears simplistic and abstracted actually might be some decent simulating and modeling of the major relevant kinetic factors in the Punic Wars so that the situation can be played as a game with reasonable outcomes that may differ from the historical record, but nevertheless are defensible as sort of alternate history, i.e. “if this had been this way or another, the outcome would have been different and here's how and why.” That's what a decent simulation ought to do, I suspect. And it's a pretty good game.