You may also like…
Sale!
At the height of its power, the Roman Empire covered a vast amount of territory and brought major advancements in engineering, architecture, science, art, and literature. Corruption and economic crisis has made the empire unstable and paved the way for aggressive barbarian tribes to attack.
airjudden
When I heard this was coming out, I thought it would be a ridiculous Eurogame with another theme pasted on to Pandemic. Well, there is plenty of Pandemic in it: Epidemics are now called revolts and outbreaks are declines in the empire. However, they add legions for your sides, dice (!), and a lot of new ideas and they manage a decent amount of history. I was impressed enough to buy the game the day I played it. This is the game that [thing=65532][/thing] was trying to be: a more thematic Pandemic with dice. While that game does have some great plastic, it is too bloated for what it is. This gets it just right (well, except no plastic).
Bluedude303
We played it for the first time last night (Jan 18) and our first game we got absolutely walloped. An unlucky revolt on the very first draw, with an unlucky city filling with 3 cubes next to another, that I promptly drew... yeah not the most friendly first time. However, after losing that first game in short order, we learned enough to try again. Fall of Rome is a very tight game. Getting around the map takes time. Several times we had the cards ready to forge an alliance, but then had to take a turn or two to get to a barbarian of the colour to make the actual alliance. Definitely want to spend more time with it. It's clearly a well designed, tight game on top of the Pandemic system. We'll have to see who comes out on top for this vs Pandemic Iberia.
aaj94
OK, Pandemic. On this site it needs no introduction. I know it is "the co-op" and has a great deal of historical weight (alongside [thing=823][/thing] and [thing=15062][/thing], it's in the big 3 of early co-ops IMO), but I've never enjoyed it. Sure, [thing=161936][/thing] was pretty great, but I got tired of the game system by [thing=221107]season 2[/thing], and I haven't played Pandemic since. That said, Fall of Rome adds just enough new to the system that it's still appealing to me. For one thing, dice-chucking and battling barbarians is exciting. For another, the 'migration paths' add some tension to the game and a natural flow to the increase of cubes on the board (in base-game Pandemic, the cubes could just feel random). On top of all that, I appreciate the translation of the theme to the Roman empire. It's all pretty natural, and given the events of the past two years, I'm inclined to a non-infectious-diseases version of Pandemic right about now. Something that I dislike in all of Matt Leacock's games is the alpha player tendency, and there's not much to fix that here. I know I can be this kind of player myself, and I hate that the game doesn't do anything to smack me down and keep the collaboration even among players. While it is intensely satisfying to dream up a last-ditch effort to 'save the empire' and win the game, it's frustrating that the game doesn't [i]force[/i] you to come up with that plan together. By comparison to some of my other preferred co-ops, Fall of Rome adds a nice, shorter option to bring to the table. It's far shorter than the two I mentioned before, but is a nice mid-weight option that's a bit longer than [thing=194879][/thing] or [thing=158900][/thing]. Not Alone is still my favorite co-op by a landslide, but Pandemic: Fall of Rome does enough right that I'm happy to keep it in my collection. It's Pandemic. I have problems with the alpha-player tendency, and just like the base game, I have questions about the repetitiveness of each game, but it's everyone's starter co-op of choice for a reason. I'm happy to rate Pandemic a [BGCOLOR=#99FFFF] [b]7.0[/b] [/BGCOLOR], and it probably deserves nearly a point higher if I could bring myself to forgive the past.