I pulled this game out again the other day and gave it a some plays, and after 4 games the Romans won two and the Gauls won 2. The Romans have the unit advantage in amount of troops counters, but the Gauls have stronger units, so I'm not sure the Gauls can win in a straight head to head fight, but with some good card draws, dice rolls, and making use of the fortresses you can definitely stall the Roman victory and gain a win for the Gauls. I like the system a bit more now than I did the last time a played a couple of years ago.
Nice playthrough and review, Gilbert:) Appreciate you giving us a look. I've been browsing the titles in DG's folio and mini games. This looks like a fun, light time-killer. Seems some sort of house-rule workaround may be necessary for that barbarian first turn though.
Great video! Keep doing replays! I love the historical insight and game commentary. I don't care about optimum play (I'm a huge fan of Calandale after all!). I enjoy your thoughts on game play as I watch you describe and play a game. Your piloting of the "Review Copy" is masterful I might add!
Thanks Joe, I'm glad you liked the video. I'm a little out of my comfort zone doing "replay videos" as my usual topics concern overviews of the games. I have little experience with this game but I can see that some viewers are a little judgemental where it comes to style of play. No doubt, I got some rules wrong but play IS very luck dependent and what cards you receive. In one game Caesar was killed on turn 1. Just plain bad luck. Also, you can't move Vercingetorix if you don't get him. This happened for me in three game in a row.
Sorry you think I was being judgmental. I thought I was being helpful. I was simply trying to point out a few things you had done wrong according to the rules, it had nothing to do with your "play style". There was no sarcasm, anger, or snark in any of my comments. It's a sad day when people can't accept having their mistakes pointed out in order for them to get a better and more complete understanding of a game, and then complain that people are being "judgmental". My posts may not be what you are used to (lavish praise from fans), but I was only trying to help you with understanding the rules a little bit more than you do since you seem to enjoy the game so much. I shan't make the same mistake twice by pointing out your mis-interpretations or mis-understanding of the rules of games I am familiar with, and will let you screw them up as much as you want. However, if I were playing a game wrong, I certainly would like someone with a little more knowledge and plays under their belt point out my mistakes so I won't make them again.
I like your approach. First a shot showing the whole map and as you play the game, you shoot close to the action, showing the map after and before movement. This is very similar to what I do. You must be using a small desk tripod, probably a small desk tripod; a stable image is essential, specially if you are shooting up close (where the graphic qualities of the map and counters can be appreciated). Since you do "before" and "after" shots, if you fix your camera to a portion of the map where movement will take place and take a three second "before movement" shot and follow it with a longer "after movement shot" and place a dissolve type transition between both clips, it creates the appearance that the units are moving, which is really cool. I also suppose that you are using here a different camera (1080p) than before, which was 480p. I have the "pocket" games from this series, and for me, the game looks better in your video than it does in real life! Great job.
John, I was just surprised at your 'delivery'. You had sent several messages, and all of them were rather negative. I wondered if you got anything out of the video. It seems not. I do these videos more for my own consumption but figured posting them would be helpful for those who don't have the game at all. Certainly, I am making mistakes with some of the play. Calandale in his videos also makes some mistakes but I understand where these are coming from. This is all a labour of love and are fun to produce. I'm sorry if the videos do not meet your expectations. So far, the general comments have been favourable. As I had mentioned in the video, I don't usually do replays but for this game (being so small) it seemed better to do a replay rather than 'just show the pieces' like I usually do. Perhaps I should stay away from the replays.
Gilbert Collins Gilbert, please don't stay away from the replays. I also make mistakes all of the time, especially in games that I haven't played that much. The natural tendency is for viewers to believe that a person is an expert on a game, or has played the game many times just because the person makes a video playthrough of the game. I think that the best "review" is actually a playthrough, because you can actually see how the game plays. However, the reality is that most people don't have enough time to watch a full playthrough, and so, reviews are more popular. Keep them coming!
Gilbert Collins Sorry that you took my posts as "negative". I did not mean them to be. I was simply trying to point out some errors you made in rules interpretations. It took me a few plays to get them all straight in my head as well. I had assumed you had played enough times that you had figured the rules out before posting the video. I thought you would be receptive to someone pointing out the things you got wrong so you would not make the same mistakes again. I was really trying to be of help to you, not harm you. Yes, I did get something out of the video. I enjoy watching replays, especially of games I have played numerous times. Such replays give me fresh insight into the game and possible alternative moves I may not have thought of. Actually, I watch quite a few of your videos Gilbert, and enjoy doing so. I was not trying to laugh at you or make you feel bad by pointing out the mistakes. People do not like criticism even when given in order to help them, I understand that, but to automatically assume that someones comments were meant to harm and denigrate you is making a wrong assumption. If I saw Calandale making mistakes, I would comment on his vids and point them out. Actually, people do... I've seen them. Calandale is usually receptive when people point out things he did wrong. But Calandale plays a lot of games I am not familiar with and thus I have no input on them. So, in conclusion, I was not trying to hurt, embarrass, or make fun of you, and I'm sorry you took my comments that way.
Thanks for the video! I think replays show me more of a game than a review can do. But that's just me. Respect errors during play, I think they don't affect in any way the impressions on the game transmitted by the replay. May be they affect the final conclusions, but IMO that part is really subjective and not as valuable as seeing the full replay. Keep the good work on!
John has made plenty of comments about this game which I can't gainsay for the simple reason I have never played this particular game, and thus not qualified to add anything to the discussion save from what I have picked up on the video. It does look like a nice little game if one doesn't want anything too complicated or a game that turns into a marathon in terms of time-playing . There is of course the luck factor, which comes with the territory in anything to do with cards and/or dice. As for the place names, well how many players are going to mangle the pronunciation? Or the unit names? Quite a few. Probably reduce to saying: "I'll attack this place with this unit/s" The worse that can befall Caesar is to be caught by the Gauls. That sounds painful...
I have played this game over two dozen times and am very familiar with it and the rules, and I own quite a number of the mini-games. I was simply drawing Gilberts attention to things he was doing wrong or mis-interpreting, and even gave the rules case for him to look up himself. I'm sorry he took it as a personal attack on his "play-style". I didn't expect him to react to my comments the way he did. I was expecting a more mature reaction and a thank you for pointing out his mistakes so he wouldn't continue to make them and give his viewers incorrect information. *shrug*
The fleet number is the number of fleets you can move, not the fleets move factor. A die is rolled for each fleet capable of movement, and the number rolled is the number of spaces it can move. Rule 16.2 Also, why wouldn't you start all Roman units in Cisalpine Gaul and Narbo Martius? Placing them in Massilia only puts them farther away from joining any action.
I like the system of the game, the map design, the counters look cool (you are right though, I wish they were bigger), and I think enough flavor is there for the game to not feel too abstract while maintaining simplicity. That being said, the game HEAVILY favors the Romans, even with the dice and cards given a bit more swing to the combat and movement. I have only had one game where the barbarians were able to win, and that is because they made a stand at Alesia, and had really great luck with the dice when holding out. I also counterattacked smaller units to thin them out, and was able to take back Gergovia as well. Without the luck of the dice, they would have lost. Fun game, but a tough go for the barbarians.
I eventually got rid of the game. Just a bit too 'simple' and 'dice dependent' for me. I think for me the logical replacement game will be the new one coming out this Fall from GMT.
@@XLEGION1 I still have my copy, and I took it out and read through the rules again after watching your video. I haven't played it in years, but I'm going to give it another go, and see if I still like it. I've recently been into more medieval and antiquity style subject matter, so I may (or may not) still appreciate the game.
Thanks for the vid & the attention to this little and very decent game. I use to play solo and ftf as a filler. I think the little brother Belisarius is better in a competitive way.
Also, I believe you are not using the Barbarians to full advantage. You can place barb. units in any area that contains their name. Why don't you place some "behind the lines" and attack Roman positions in the rear areas? There is no way, if you are playing correctly, that the Romans can defend every approach and still have enough forces to make attacks.
I pulled this game out again the other day and gave it a some plays, and after 4 games the Romans won two and the Gauls won 2. The Romans have the unit advantage in amount of troops counters, but the Gauls have stronger units, so I'm not sure the Gauls can win in a straight head to head fight, but with some good card draws, dice rolls, and making use of the fortresses you can definitely stall the Roman victory and gain a win for the Gauls.
I like the system a bit more now than I did the last time a played a couple of years ago.
The video image is outstanding. I love the close ups on the units and the map. Its a pleasure to watch on full HD. Great job.
Thanks for this. Just bought the game. Haven;t had the opportunity to play it yet. This helps tremendously! Keep the replays coming!
Excellent stuff! Like the birds in background. Feels like a peaceful environment to conduct War!
Nice playthrough and review, Gilbert:) Appreciate you giving us a look.
I've been browsing the titles in DG's folio and mini games. This looks like a fun, light time-killer.
Seems some sort of house-rule workaround may be necessary for that barbarian first turn though.
Great video! Keep doing replays! I love the historical insight and game commentary. I don't care about optimum play (I'm a huge fan of Calandale after all!). I enjoy your thoughts on game play as I watch you describe and play a game.
Your piloting of the "Review Copy" is masterful I might add!
I'd love to see another 'let's play' of this one. Good job!
Thanks Joe, I'm glad you liked the video. I'm a little out of my comfort zone doing "replay videos" as my usual topics concern overviews of the games. I have little experience with this game but I can see that some viewers are a little judgemental where it comes to style of play. No doubt, I got some rules wrong but play IS very luck dependent and what cards you receive. In one game Caesar was killed on turn 1. Just plain bad luck. Also, you can't move Vercingetorix if you don't get him. This happened for me in three game in a row.
Sorry you think I was being judgmental. I thought I was being helpful.
I was simply trying to point out a few things you had done wrong according to the rules, it had nothing to do with your "play style". There was no sarcasm, anger, or snark in any of my comments. It's a sad day when people can't accept having their mistakes pointed out in order for them to get a better and more complete understanding of a game, and then complain that people are being "judgmental". My posts may not be what you are used to (lavish praise from fans), but I was only trying to help you with understanding the rules a little bit more than you do since you seem to enjoy the game so much.
I shan't make the same mistake twice by pointing out your mis-interpretations or mis-understanding of the rules of games I am familiar with, and will let you screw them up as much as you want.
However, if I were playing a game wrong, I certainly would like someone with a little more knowledge and plays under their belt point out my mistakes so I won't make them again.
I like your approach. First a shot showing the whole map and as you play the game, you shoot close to the action, showing the map after and before movement. This is very similar to what I do. You must be using a small desk tripod, probably a small desk tripod; a stable image is essential, specially if you are shooting up close (where the graphic qualities of the map and counters can be appreciated). Since you do "before" and "after" shots, if you fix your camera to a portion of the map where movement will take place and take a three second "before movement" shot and follow it with a longer "after movement shot" and place a dissolve type transition between both clips, it creates the appearance that the units are moving, which is really cool. I also suppose that you are using here a different camera (1080p) than before, which was 480p. I have the "pocket" games from this series, and for me, the game looks better in your video than it does in real life! Great job.
John, I was just surprised at your 'delivery'. You had sent several messages, and all of them were rather negative. I wondered if you got anything out of the video. It seems not. I do these videos more for my own consumption but figured posting them would be helpful for those who don't have the game at all. Certainly, I am making mistakes with some of the play. Calandale in his videos also makes some mistakes but I understand where these are coming from.
This is all a labour of love and are fun to produce. I'm sorry if the videos do not meet your expectations. So far, the general comments have been favourable. As I had mentioned in the video, I don't usually do replays but for this game (being so small) it seemed better to do a replay rather than 'just show the pieces' like I usually do.
Perhaps I should stay away from the replays.
Gilbert Collins Gilbert, please don't stay away from the replays. I also make mistakes all of the time, especially in games that I haven't played that much. The natural tendency is for viewers to believe that a person is an expert on a game, or has played the game many times just because the person makes a video playthrough of the game. I think that the best "review" is actually a playthrough, because you can actually see how the game plays. However, the reality is that most people don't have enough time to watch a full playthrough, and so, reviews are more popular. Keep them coming!
Gilbert Collins
Sorry that you took my posts as "negative". I did not mean them to be. I was simply trying to point out some errors you made in rules interpretations. It took me a few plays to get them all straight in my head as well. I had assumed you had played enough times that you had figured the rules out before posting the video. I thought you would be receptive to someone pointing out the things you got wrong so you would not make the same mistakes again. I was really trying to be of help to you, not harm you. Yes, I did get something out of the video. I enjoy watching replays, especially of games I have played numerous times. Such replays give me fresh insight into the game and possible alternative moves I may not have thought of. Actually, I watch quite a few of your videos Gilbert, and enjoy doing so. I was not trying to laugh at you or make you feel bad by pointing out the mistakes. People do not like criticism even when given in order to help them, I understand that, but to automatically assume that someones comments were meant to harm and denigrate you is making a wrong assumption. If I saw Calandale making mistakes, I would comment on his vids and point them out. Actually, people do... I've seen them. Calandale is usually receptive when people point out things he did wrong. But Calandale plays a lot of games I am not familiar with and thus I have no input on them. So, in conclusion, I was not trying to hurt, embarrass, or make fun of you, and I'm sorry you took my comments that way.
Good overview of the game play and your opinions are noteworthy. I just ordered a couple of DG solitaires. May have to try this one too. 👍🏼
I think the new game by GMT "Caesar: Rome vs Gaul" is a much better game than this one. I will do a video of it in the near future.
Thanks for the video!
I think replays show me more of a game than a review can do. But that's just me.
Respect errors during play, I think they don't affect in any way the impressions on the game transmitted by the replay. May be they affect the final conclusions, but IMO that part is really subjective and not as valuable as seeing the full replay.
Keep the good work on!
John has made plenty of comments about this game which I can't gainsay for the simple reason I have never played this particular game, and thus not qualified to add anything to the discussion save from what I have picked up on the video. It does look like a nice little game if one doesn't want anything too complicated or a game that turns into a marathon in terms of time-playing . There is of course the luck factor, which comes with the territory in anything to do with cards and/or dice. As for the place names, well how many players are going to mangle the pronunciation? Or the unit names? Quite a few. Probably reduce to saying: "I'll attack this place with this unit/s" The worse that can befall Caesar is to be caught by the Gauls. That sounds painful...
I have played this game over two dozen times and am very familiar with it and the rules, and I own quite a number of the mini-games. I was simply drawing Gilberts attention to things he was doing wrong or mis-interpreting, and even gave the rules case for him to look up himself. I'm sorry he took it as a personal attack on his "play-style". I didn't expect him to react to my comments the way he did. I was expecting a more mature reaction and a thank you for pointing out his mistakes so he wouldn't continue to make them and give his viewers incorrect information.
*shrug*
Thanks for the vid.
The fleet number is the number of fleets you can move, not the fleets move factor. A die is rolled for each fleet capable of movement, and the number rolled is the number of spaces it can move. Rule 16.2
Also, why wouldn't you start all Roman units in Cisalpine Gaul and Narbo Martius? Placing them in Massilia only puts them farther away from joining any action.
I agree about the supply rules. It wouldn't be much of a game if you don't use them. I also agree about the luck factor. Very swingy.
I like the system of the game, the map design, the counters look cool (you are right though, I wish they were bigger), and I think enough flavor is there for the game to not feel too abstract while maintaining simplicity. That being said, the game HEAVILY favors the Romans, even with the dice and cards given a bit more swing to the combat and movement. I have only had one game where the barbarians were able to win, and that is because they made a stand at Alesia, and had really great luck with the dice when holding out. I also counterattacked smaller units to thin them out, and was able to take back Gergovia as well. Without the luck of the dice, they would have lost. Fun game, but a tough go for the barbarians.
I eventually got rid of the game. Just a bit too 'simple' and 'dice dependent' for me. I think for me the logical replacement game will be the new one coming out this Fall from GMT.
@@XLEGION1 I still have my copy, and I took it out and read through the rules again after watching your video. I haven't played it in years, but I'm going to give it another go, and see if I still like it. I've recently been into more medieval and antiquity style subject matter, so I may (or may not) still appreciate the game.
Thanks for the vid & the attention to this little and very decent game. I use to play solo and ftf as a filler. I think the little brother Belisarius is better in a competitive way.
Also, I believe you are not using the Barbarians to full advantage.
You can place barb. units in any area that contains their name.
Why don't you place some "behind the lines" and attack Roman positions in the rear areas? There is no way, if you are playing correctly, that the Romans can defend every approach and still have enough forces to make attacks.
Camps do, indeed, act as fortresses for the Romans.
Rule 21.0
You don't get Vercingetorix with the Gallic Tribes card.
there is a specific card that introduces him to play.
You are making mistakes in your plays.