Designer: Mark Simonitch
My exploration of historical war games continues with my latest GMT games acquisition, Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul. This game takes on Caesar’s infamous campaign against the Gauls from 57 to 52 B.C. covering the conflict from both political and military aspects. A classic David vs. Goliath story in which an Empire with a grand army and charismatic bad guy invades a rebellious scrappy underdog that must fight for survival, the basis for a game ripe with narrative and gameplay opportunities.
This game falls into the CDG war game category and seems to find some of its genetics from a few games I have played in the last few years most notably Washington’s War and Mark Simonitch’s own Hannibal & Hamilcar.
In C: RvG you take on the role of a leader of one of the two asymmetrical nations, either Rome or Gaul as you fight for control for what is largely modern-day France, parts of Germany, Britain and a few other nations judging from the map and my rather weak knowledge of geography, aka “Gaul” as the Romans called it. While the game is clearly about war and battles are fought on this point-to-point map, the game zooms out to include various political, resource, and logistics of the era with some high-level abstraction.
I really love CDG’s, I think it’s a wonderful way to bring history and theme into a game in a way that does not force historical outcomes and as a whole, while C: RvG is clearly based on historical events, it’s both too abstract and far too dynamic to fall into the historical simulation category of games. In this way, it shares a lot of similarities with other games in the genre using what I think most fans of CDG games will recognize as a tried and true formula while making some minor tweaks to give it a style of its own. With a fantastic presentation thanks to GMT Games always excellent component quality, an awesome historical backdrop and driven by a mechanic I already know and love, C: RvG is a game seemingly tailor-made for me.
This is a game where history is a playground and backdrop for what is a kind of general area control game infused with some traditional historical war game concepts like DRM battle resolution (tables), point-to-point movement, chit style defined units and of course most importantly the dual-use card play where you execute cards as either events or for the operations/action points.
While not a historical simulation, that does not mean the mechanics are not infused with history and narrative, they are in many very meaningful ways. There are clear links to historical realities of the time built into the mechanics of the game and reflected in many of the procedures and cards. Still, there was little effort made to build that connection for you in the rulebook and explanation of the game, nothing in the material provided goes to any meaningful depth to explain the history so unless you spend some time researching the period on your own you may not find the connections as meaningful.
Most of the time I could see the brilliance in the design of C: RvG, the great way it integrates the theme into the game, and some of the fantastic back and forth dynamics of the mechanics that create a truly wonderful asymmetrical competition between two opponents. At other times it felt like there were some arbitrary concepts that are here as some sort of tribute to old-school historical wargaming that get under the feet of what is otherwise a very modern game design. This ultimately ends up making the game more complicated, slower and less accessible to non-historical wargamers, while doing little to make it more of a historical simulation, leaving the effort without any real benefit or reason to have made it.
Today we look at this latest entry into the CDG genre to see if this Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul finds room on my shelf among some of my favorites like Washington’s War, Twilight Struggle and Imperial Struggle.
How does this one hold up!? Let’s find out!
Overview
Final Score: 
(3.85 – Great Game!)
Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is based on the fascinating history of Caesars personal political ambitions in a time when he was not terribly popular in Rome and had many enemies who would have liked to see him fail. He charged himself with securing Gaul to bring stability to the region he ruled over, but because his political position back in Rome was constantly challenged, he needed to be excessively successful in his campaign to keep Rome off his back. As such, his campaign in Gaul was both a bid for military control of the region to subdue the Gaulic tribes, while simultaneously a way to appease his critics back home and grow his wealth and influence. Historically Caesar was such a successful leader, he was eventually able to declare himself dictator Emperor of Rome, a title he held for only a brief time until his very famous assassination. The challenge in this game is to see if the player running Caesar can live up to this amazing historical achievement by one of history’s most famous military commanders.
The very first thing I noted about C: RvG is that this brief description is already more information about the history on which this game is based than is provided with the game material. The historical theme and this unique story are quite important to understanding the context of the gameplay and since a lot of effort was put into tieing this fascinating piece of history into the mechanics its absence is a bit confounding. Providing a clear write-up of this history in the rules manual seems like it should have been paramount right alongside gameplay examples. I’m reminded of my recent foray into one of GMT’s other titles, Peloponnesian War and what a considerable and very positive impact the historical write-up for that game had on my gaming experience.
This story, in particular, the politics around it finds its way into the game by the way of victory conditions, card play and the influence token mechanics which are the foundation of the game’s chess match and notably a classic formula in the CDG genre of games.
The player who commands Caesar and his Roman Legions must earn 12 victory points in the course of the campaign (6 rounds) which requires you as a player to replicate much of the exceptional historical success that Caesar had in his campaign in Gaul.
As Caesar, you will need to maintain dominance in Gaul, successfully put down the many Gaulic tribes that rise to oppose you as well as execute successful conquests in Germania and Britannia. The task is not an easy one and the pressure really is on the Roman player to perform, but you are the great Caesar and this is the title of the game so it makes sense that the spotlight would be on the star of the show.
The Gaulic player on the other hand really only has one mission which is to slow down Caesar just enough that he does not score his required 12 victory points at the conclusion of six rounds of play. The interesting historical tidbit is that the Gaulic leaders actually knew about Caesar’s troubles at home, so much of their strategy was actually built around trying to make him look bad politically by stalling his success. This ties into the general strategy of the Gaulic player quite nicely and gives the game a feeling of historical validity even though historical outcomes are never forced through mechanics.
While the goals of the Gauls are quite different, it is no less challenging for them as they must contend with Caesar’s overwhelmingly powerful military might. The Gaul forces are much weaker early on and far less united which leads to the Gaul player’s tactics being about raiding and guerilla warfare with a great deal of emphasis on calculating risk vs. reward. Caesar might be the star of the show here, but the Gauls have a lot of personality of their own in this game, you really feel their struggle and as they engage Caesar’s forces you get a sense of how frustrating it must be to be opposed by such unstoppable might.
The Gaulic player is the presumed underdog in this story, but mechanically speaking, the balance of the game really favors the Gaul as earning 12 victory points over 6 rounds as the Roman player is a pretty tall order. While initially this might sound and feel off, which it certainly did to me, it actually comes out, in the end, making some sense.
This is a game about Caesar, this amazing commander who despite a considerably smaller force and absence of support of his government defied history and was so successful that we remember him as one of the greats. In a sense Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is a kind of challenge to the player running Rome that says “can you replicate this amazing historical outcome as Caesar”? If it was easy, if the game favored Rome mechanically, I don’t think the game would have the same impact and the victory would be a shallow one.
This tilt might be a problem for some players and initially, it definitely was for me, but looking back at my experience with the game, despite the fact that I’m yet after several games to see a Roman victory, I’m drawn to this challenge and excited to try it again. I know it’s possible, I have come close a couple of times and though I could understand how some players might see this as a balance issue (I know I initially did), when you wrap it up in the historical context of this game and how it conveys the theme through its mechanics, it actually kind of works for me and makes sense despite some early frustration with the game.
It is why I mention at the very start here that it’s actually a problem not to include a thorough write-up of this fascinating piece of history in the rulebook. Coming to this understanding and conclusion is really only possible if you have this context and are enthralled with the story behind the game. Without it, Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul comes off as a rather abstract game with a Roman theme that has a fairly sizeable balance problem.
There are some intricacies in the phases of play that are important to manage, but at the heart of the game is the strategy phase. In this phase each player draws 8 cards and players take turns playing 1 card at a time and using those cards as either the historical event the card represents or spending the operations/action points to put out influence markers and move armies on the board. A mechanic that should be very familiar to veteran CDG wargamers, but even if you are not, is a very intuitive and simple concept to grasp.
The card play here is excellent as the cards are really well balanced when you compare their operational/action values and the benefits of the events on the card. It’s very often a tough choice to abandon an event that might be key under the right circumstances for the action points it provides. Timing is also quite crucial and because your card draw can range from terrible to amazing, rounds are not always going to be created equal between the players so damage control is often a part of the gameplay here. You must make do with what you draw and a big part of the strategy of this game is understanding how to get the most juice out of these cards.
The battle system in the game is also really important, there is play and counterplay here in how armies move, intercept, avoid battles and fight. As the Gaulic player, you are usually trying to avoid fighting Caesar directly in particular on his terms while as the Roman player you are going to be constantly trying to force battles and sieges wherever possible as it’s absolutely vital that you are removing tribes from the board else you risk getting overwhelmed later in the game. The advantage the Roman player has here is that Caesar’s army is really powerful at least as a concentrated force, but this is a pretty big map so Caesar can’t be everywhere all the time. If he splits his forces, Caesar is vulnerable and the Gaulic tribes may be able to challenge him on the field, but when moving as one force they are unstoppable and any Gaulic tribe foolish enough to try to take them on is going to get wiped out even if they outnumber the Legions.
As such the Gaulic player is forced into a sort of cat and mouse game as he tries to spread his influence and the Roman player is playing a game of wack-a-mole, putting down tribes that spawn at an alarming rate each round. The ratios are really off here which is a big part of the challenge, the Roman player has no hope of keeping up with Gauls inevitable military growth, this is a game of whack-a-mole the Roman player cannot win, but must play. What Rome needs to do is make sure to score the 12 points as quickly as possible and hope they can hang on to enough domination (control) on the board by the conclusion of the game that they do not trigger the auto loss condition (not enough control of the board). This is all possible to do but any Roman victory is going to be incredibly tight and come down to the last moments of the game.
This is an easy game to learn and teach, so getting to the heart of this gameplay is a relatively short route, but the payoff here will only come to those that understand the unusual approach this game takes to balance. This is a game about Caesar and so deciding who plays the lead role in the story is a key moment and players should definitely take turns doing so. You don’t want to make the assumption that all is fair in this game of war, it kind of isn’t. The gaming experience is fun and exciting for both players, there is depth and strategy on both sides so playing Gaul doesn’t mean you are playing second fiddle here or have some sort of easy victory but in C: RvG the pressure is squarely on Caesar to perform. It’s this player that must score the 12 victory points, the default end game result is that the Gauls win under all other circumstances.
Components
Score:
Tilt:
Pros: Standard operating procedure for GMT Games, great component quality, the whole thing is beautifully done.
Cons: A lack of historical information on the game provided can hurt the chances the gameplay of the game will click for some. Some historical war game traditions should have been abandoned to ease and speed up play.
GMT Games once again publishes to impress with sturdy and beautifully illustrated components that enhance the experience and make you feel like your getting your money’s worth.
The mounted map while very busy and initially a bit confusing is gorgeous with a lot of thought going into various auxiliary areas that expedite gameplay and setup. I think they could have done a better job of making the province borders a bit clearer, but generally, there is very little to complain about here.
The large tarot-sized cards will impress you and you have to appreciate GMT’s inclusion of card sleeves for these cards since locating appropriately sized sleeves for this unique size would likely have been a pain for players. The illustration and fonts used here make them a joy to look at and easy to read and handling the big cards just feels awesome.
All of the tokens in the game are big and easy to handle, so you can leave your tweezers out of this one. I will say however that I don’t think the different properties of the units really add anything to the gameplay, it mostly just slows the game down and forces you to deal with calculations and with extra charts to figure out battle resolutions.
Whether a tribe has a 4 or 5 strength made no difference, the vast majority of the units had a move of 3 and a battle rating of 1. In the end, the game would have been much simpler if all of this micro chrome was removed and you had basic stats for each unit type (tribes, Roman legions) and cut out the DRM charts for a simpler battle resolution system. I know this is a historical wargaming tradition, but this is not a historical simulation game and this negligible sacrifice would have done wonders to expediting gameplay and making this game more approachable and table friendly. The tokens are unnecessarily busy as a result, it forces you to do a lot of stack peeking and makes accessing the board state more tedious again with virtually no payoff for the effort.
The rulebook is full color and very well written, this game is a snap to learn with a really good play example that clarifies the game well beyond necessity which is greatly appreciated.
I was quite disappointed not to find more information about the theme and history in this rulebook. Caesar’s campaign in Gaul is a fascinating narrative and since so much of this game’s gameplay logic is driven by this history, not including a good write-up as a reference for what the game is based on actually hurts it a great deal. Sure we all have the internet, but this game really needs players to connect the mechanics to the story else it’s easy to come to the wrong conclusions about the decisions in the design, in particular the way the game is balanced.
The component quality here is top-notch, I docked the score a little just to encourage GMT games and remind them that they publish historical war games. I found it odd that they stuck to their historical war game roots in the component design in particular the “chit tokens” where it gave very little payout to do so, yet omitted any real mention of the historical context of the game where its absence really hurts the chances of players understanding the “why” of the design which is so important here.
Theme
Score:
Tilt:
Pros: A really nice connection between mechanics and theme, just the right amount of historical reference without sacraficing gameplay.
Cons: Unescessary granuality in certain places that adds little to the games theme or gameplay but come at the high price of increasing complexity and playtime significantly.
The historical theme in C: RvG shines through in the gameplay even if none of the material included in the game actually explains what this history is about. This might or might not create a dilemma for you as you play, if you know and understand this history then the theme will click, if you do not and you don’t take the time to discover it on your own, you might find the game quite disconnected and perhaps even abstract.
The Theme in C: RvG shines through in two unique ways. On the one hand is the history itself which is built into the procedures, mechanics, cards and general gameplay. On the other is the theme of a big historical figure, Caesar, with his overwhelming force fighting against the scrappy underdog, the Gaulic tribes. This David vs. Goliath tone shines through in the gameplay and you really have this sense of one player representing “The Empire” and the other “The Rebellion”. I think in fairness, C: RvG is less a historical simulation and more a thematic representation of Caesar’s campaign, but I think this works to the benefit not the detriment of the game.
Regardless of which part of these two cores you hang your hat on, the game has a very immediate and present personality. These are two very asymmetrical sides that play wildly differently and require very different strategies while also creating definitively different sensations for the players depending on which side you command.
As the Roman player you have a major advantage on the battlefield thanks in no small part to the leadership of Caesar himself which you are almost certainly going to identify as the “you” in this game and his elite legions which combined give you this wonderful sensation of power and control. Wherever you send Caesar and his forces, your opponent is going to be scrambling and most likely running scared and for good reason, the Gaul have little to no chance of standing up to you.
Playing as the Romans you are going to define how the story of this game plays out, what the focus of the game will be and where the important historical events of your game will take place.
As the Gaul player you are mostly just trying to survive and slowly spread your influence into the flanks of the overwhelming Roman forces hoping to expose weaknesses. In many ways you are looking for the Roman player to make a mistake, to spread himself a bit thin, to leave some part of their holdings exposed and striking when the opportunity comes. Fortunately for the Gaul, It is almost mandatory for Caesar to take risks if he has any hope of scoring the needed victory points as the Roman player has some pretty difficult-to achieve victory conditions. It isn’t a question of if the opportunities present themselves, but how well you leverage them when they do.
This theme is not only historically valid but the sensation very vivid. You are going to experience this game on a personal level, Caesar isn’t just your “leader”, he is definitely you. The same is true of the Gaulic tribes, when they get subjugated by the Romans, it stings, you are going to want payback.
Resources on both sides are going to be unpredictable and they come in the form of cards you draw. I’m not sure how much historical validity there is in the cards themselves, I would say they are more thematic than they are historical. They are called events, and some do have some links to history but these cards are more of an expression of the theme and period than they are of specific people, places and actual events in most places.
With cards like “Veni Vidi Vici” and “Glory and Liberty”, they are clearly meant to bring out the sensation of the theme more than act as a representation of anything historically specific. There is no flavor text or historical references on the cards either so any link you make to the history here is abstracted at best. Again here having a more detailed level of understanding of the history can help you make the connections and I would encourage any players to seek these details out on there, it’s worth the effort.
Some might find issues with that, I did not. The theme even in historical games does not need to always be about simulation and I’m glad it is not in this case. When you play “The Reach of Rome” it makes you feel powerful, it expresses the game’s narrative and articulates the event in story terms even if there is no real association to an actual historical event.
The historical simulation here is generally quite light even when it does appear in the game. Winter for example is something you have to contend with. The German migration, the arrival of Vercingetorix, dealing with supply lines, and appeasing the politics of Rome are all parts of the game that connect with the historical realities of the period and act as representations of the simulation of history.
I’m not sure historical wargamers are going to feel this is enough of a link to appease their appetite for historical gaming, but like Twilight Struggle, Washington’s War and Imperial Struggle, CDG’s in this genre are usually more focused on bringing satisfying gameplay in a thematic rich game, not necessarily on forcing historical accuracy or bringing simulation to the table. This is why some of these games cross over and gain more general acceptance from the gaming community outside of the niche historical war game market. For better or worse Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul, takes this approach and though I think the theme here is rich, full of flavor and exciting, a historical simulation this game is not.
What I loved about my experience with C: RvG is that the core story comes across. If you read the history about this period and then play the game, you are going to make the connection and cross the narrative bridge. It’s not a replication of the history, but it certainly nails the spirit of the themes behind it creating an engrossing and highly addictive game that will have you talking about the events of your game as if they were in fact historical events. For me personally, that is the definition of nailing it as far as themes go, historical simulation be damned!
My only complaint here which ties into the components and mechanics as well is that the designer reached out for historical simulation granularity in some places like the design of the units (chits) around which the combat system is created. Each Gaulic tribe for example has a historically accurate name and their historical strength is estimated.
This creates unnecessary complexity to which you would really need to dive pretty deep into personal exploration of the history before any of it would have any relevance to you. I could understand adding such details in a hex and counter style historical war game where battles and war are center stage, but in a game this abstract, such details don’t add anything to the theme or narrative of the game. The difference between these units are also so minor that they actually matter very little to the outcome of the battles or game in general. All you get for your trouble is a much slower resolution with much busier-looking tokens that require extra explanation and increase the general complexity of the game. I think had this been simplified the game would have a dramatically reduced playtime that would be calculated in hours.
Gameplay
Score:
Tilt:
Pros: A tried and true formula for a CDG that creates a game with a ton of potential that will get you excited.
Cons: Its a bit long. Some players will not appriciate this games unique approach to balance.
When I first learned the rules for Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul the amount of potential I saw had me really excited. The rules were intuitive, there were some really great design decisions that were going to make this one a lot easier to absorb and honestly, one of the best rulebooks I have read in a while, I read it once and went into the example play session with confidence.
There is a lot to love in this game mechanically in particular in the elegance of the actions you can take on your turn which have a simple pecking order that very quickly get you from “how do I play” to “what do I want to achieve”.
Each round you play a card and execute it for the event or the action. Even though you have 8 cards in your hand, the cards that are not in the color of your faction are simply operations points. Unlike games like Twilight Struggle, you don’t have to worry about the impact of playing the other factions card as there is none. The event cards you have become what you build your strategy around and the way the cards are worded, what each card does, is both clear in language and purpose with rare exceptions.
The effects of events vary but they are usually an extension or some sort of play on the actions you take when spending operation/action points. There are unique events of course and they vary in size and scope, but when you are looking through your hand of cards it’s not particularly difficult to understand their purpose in the game. Simply put, you will catch on quickly.
Generally, the game revolves around 2 core gameplay elements. Moving armies around to put them in favorable strategic positions and putting out and flipping influence markers to gain dominance in the many provinces in the game. Rome has a particular interest in this as the domination of provinces is a key path to scoring points. As the Gaulic player, you are naturally trying to keep up and block dominance if you can, but you are also trying to block the path of the Roman expansion and/or slipping behind enemy lines to cause trouble so it’s not always just about getting dominance yourself.
One important rule is that the Gaul player can put their influence tokens anywhere in Gaul, they do not need to build connections and maintaining supply lines is very easy for them as they have strongholds scattered around the map to where they can trace their supply lines.
The Roman player, however, must maintain connections when placing the influence tokens unless an army is present hence they either place them where their armies are positioned or connected to an existing influence token. The Roman player will also at the end of every round winter their combat units, which mechanically amounts to spreading them out on the map. In the conclusion of a round, they get an influence marker in each neutral location where their armies are stationed giving them a kind of influence explosion at the end of each round of play.
Its also important to note that military units can remove influence tokens on the map by using 2 movement points, so as an army walks over an influence token they can spend their MP’s to eliminate an opposing token. In this way, the Romans also have an advantage as Caesar’s army has 5 movement points compared to the typical 3 movement points of Gaul tribes.
The rules for this unique asymmetrical mini-game do not exactly have an equilibrium in how it all plays out. I don’t want to claim it’s unbalanced, because the balance of the game is on a higher level that goes beyond this mini-game, but the Roman player will typically end up with more influence on the board than the Gaul player at the end of a round. The position of these tokens however is far more important than the count and so the strategy here is really about play and counterplay, but the Gaul player must do their diligence in these exchanges.
Now the issue for the Roman player is that despite all of these mechanical advantages in getting influence out on the board and removing enemy influence, the Gaul player has a clear tilt in their favor in this game. The main reason here is that Caesar has a lot more to do with his armies than simply walk around the map killing tribal armies and flipping influence tokens. Performing these duties will score him points, but you still lose the game unless you score exactly 12 and there simply isn’t enough points to score through a combination of domination of provinces and destroying tribes to win. You will eventually have to perform one or potentially both of the big military campaigns into Germania and/or Britannia in order to win.
As such you need to move your main army up north leaving all of Rome lightly defended giving your opponent an opportunity to reign havoc. When people on the BBG forums complain about the balance of this game, its this very aspect of the game to which they are referring and though I think I disagree with the term unbalanced as I believe the difficulty of this challenge is intentional in the core design and thematic premise of the game, I do get the argument.
The reality is that most games will be won by Gaul, this is not a terribly fair competition as the Roman player is the one that has to create a winning condition for themselves, the Gauls technically start the game off already winning and they will win the game unless the Roman player can match Caesars brilliant historical success.
There is a lot more going on in this game, too much to really evaluate every detail but what I like is that most of the procedural stuff has historical context, is mechanically straightforward and gives the game added flavor.
Having to roll to see if Caesar shows up on time to continue his campaign in Gaul may seem arbitrary but is actually historically accurate as Caesar was sometimes delayed in Rome after the winter no thanks to wine and women I would imagine.
The way Roman soldiers would boldly spread out deep in Gaul territory during winter when they set up camp was historically true, Caesar liked to send a message to the Gauls showing them how little he feared and respected them as a threat. This mechanic has the desired effect of intimidation because the Gaul player will find himself losing territory each round in a way he can do little about.
The way tribal armies are subjugated as towns are taken over by overwhelming forces, resulting later in rebellions that Ceaser would have to put down is also a historically accurate feature. This is handled by the submitted box mechanic where units are placed temporarily and the revolt mechanic the Gaul player can trigger to put them back into play. If this is well-timed it can have a significant outcome on the game and even produce some fascinating historical results as these things did actually happen.
All of these details do a lot to enhance the historical connection to the game but more importantly, all of these mechanics have an impact on the results of the game and create notable events and changes in the situation on the board that keep you focused on strategy. These mechanics create memorable moments and really service the enjoyment of the game.
One key drawback of the game is that it’s just a bit too long. The box says 3 hours, I’m averaging about 4 to 4.5 and a game could easily be 2 hours with some very minor streamlining to the design. In some places, it’s just a bit overcooked, in particular in how combat units are designed and how combat works. It’s just a lot of unnecessary mathematics and granularity that adds very little to the theme, strategy, or general gameplay. It has the feeling of a captcha login that requires you to play a find waldo game to prove you are human. I get what it’s trying to achieve, but it’s just mostly annoying and gets in your way of what you are actually trying to do and I’m not entirely sure it serves any purpose beyond that.
I had my ups and downs in the assessment of this game, but running through it six times at this point both solo and against opponents, I still feel compelled to have another go so it must be doing something right. The gameplay in C: RvG creates tension, feels like you are making meaningful strategic choices and you can trace your decisions to success and failures you had in any given game. In my book those are all elements for which this game should be praised.
Replayability and Longevity
Score:
Tile:
Pros: Exciting gameplay will drive your addicition to pull this one out repeatedly.
Cons: The length of the game and watching Rome get crushed repeatedly might be seen as a challenge or a balance problem which challenges the longevity of the game.
One of the biggest weaknesses of C: RvG is that at its core, one faction (The Gauls) is going to have a much easier time winning than the other (Rome). After playing this game more than half a dozen times no one I have played with nor myself, have been able to produce a Roman victory. At one point I had played the game five times and introduced a player who had never heard of the game and despite a first-time play he still mostly crushed me as the Gauls.
My initial impressions of the game were very good, this was an exciting and very clever game mechanic that really does a great job of enticing you to play, but once you make this ugly discovery, the competitive joy turns into a pretty frustrating and rather boring experience. It isn’t until you recognize that as a game, this is a feature, not a flaw, that it redeems itself.
This is a game about Caesar, about his exploits, and only by making it a real challenge, ensuring that a victory as Caesar has weight and is something to be proud of, would this game have the legs that it does. If it was easy to win as Caesar, or even if the game was really well balanced, I’m not sure I would still be trying to figure it out today, I think it would already be sitting on my shelf as a puzzle solved collecting dust. It’s this challenging strategic puzzle that has me wanting to play it again.
Sadly, I don’t think everyone will have that epiphany, in fact judging by the comments on BBG forums, I’m fairly certain most do not. This leaves the question of whether or not this game has legs with or without this sudden realization and acceptance.
The short answer is, not really. Unless you can accept this fundamental design idea and appreciate it for what it is, this game is going to feel like an unbalanced game where whoever plays Gaul will probably win and that won’t be fun and you won’t be tempted to keep playing.
For me this makes rating the longevity of this game difficult because I had my moment of revelation, so I’m excited to have another go, I’m an eager beaver ready to face getting crushed as the Roman in hopes of finding that rare path to victory. I recognize however that this will be hit or miss with gamers, not everyone will find joy in this approach to balance.
I split the difference and gave this one 3 stars.
Conclusion
Caesar: Rome vs. Gaul is a great entry into the CDG genre of games for me, but I can really see why it might not be for everyone given its quasi intentionally imbalanced gameplay and the truth is that my initial experience with the game was pulling me into that negative space as well. I stuck with it and found myself challenged and engaged to try to find a solution, a story some of my opponents shared with me so I don’t think I stand alone in this.
Caesar: Rome v. Gaul poses a question, can you be as successful as Caesar was historically? The answer is yes you can, but it’s hard as hell and you are going to lose a lot while you try. I can see how crushing your opponent repeatedly as the Gauls might get boring but I think the intent of the game is that players swap sides and each have a go at this prize.
I would however argue that it’s not easy to win as the Gauls either, I mean, I haven’t seen a Roman victory yet, but I play with very competent gamers and every opponent I had pointed out that, they could see some of the advantages they had in this game, but there were plenty of times in the course of play that they were strategically stumped and could see their victory slipping through their fingers. I didn’t hear any complaints that it was boring to play the Gauls from my opponents and though I kind of felt that way the first time I played them, I think this stems from the fact that playing as Caesar has a lot to it, so your first showing may not be terribly impressive.
Personally, I really enjoyed the Roman spin on the genre and I found this game to be very approachable and easy to teach which is a big bonus. As a comparison, I put this game somewhere between Washington’s War and Twilight Struggle on the complexity scale. It’s closer to Washington’s War in its approachability and ease of learning, but with a bit more complex card play though not quite as in-depth as Twilight Struggle.
You can argue that the execution of balance could have been more fine-tuned and I could understand such an argument, but for me this game finds a home on my shelf, In particular given I have multiple requests in my queue from friends who want to have another go at this one.
I recommend this one with explicit caution about the way this game is balanced, hopefully, I have illustrated this unique setup in this review so you know what you are walking into. For me personally, this is a great game, it’s a keeper.
(4.55 out 5) Great Game!
You must be logged in to post a comment.