Strategy Tips for Pax Romana
By Michael Gouker
turn 3 of a 5 turn game makes little economic
For those of you who are not aware, I
openly admit to my obsession for Pax
Romana (PR). What do I mean by this? Let me
start by rationalizing a little.
I constantly play PR, but it's really not my fault.
I just happen to be where the game is being
played. I also spend a great deal of time thinking about new strategies for PR. In addition,
I'm watching other games of PR being played,
but that's because I am moderating those games.
Also, I check daily the latest posts regarding PR
on Consimworld and Boardgamegeek, but there is
nothing peculiar about any of this — is there?
As Bob Dylan says, "Let me do what I want to
do, I can recite them all."
Now that I have hopefully disabused you
about any questions regarding my sanity, let
me discuss this glorious game. Most of my
discussion will center on the multiplayer game,
because although I enjoy the 2-player scenarios,
the dynamics of the multiplayer game, and the
psychology involved, is what most intrigues me.
In this regard, PR has a lot in common with
games like Civilization and Diplomacy, where
the interactions among the players are the most
challenging element. At the same time, however, PR incorporates a first-class combat system
and a system of random events (via the cards)
that rewards the great improviser.
Let me say a few words about the importance of
diplomacy in PR. First, you can definitely win
PR all by yourself — if everything goes right for
you. If you can avoid the bloody attrition
wars, if you can build-up your empire without
the other players noticing, and if you can get a
couple of lucky Opportunity Objectives, you can
win. Frankly, I think this is extremely
improbable, especially if you are sitting with
players worth their salt (and most players are!)
Therefore, you will need to have allies along
the way. The most important thing about being
good at diplomacy is being trustworthy. If you
are not trustworthy, then no one will ever make
alliances with you. If nobody makes alliances
with you, then you can never backstab them
in the nick of time to win the game. I'm only
kidding! I would never, ever, backstab another
player. I really don't care about winning the
game. Some people find my attitude hard to
believe, but I find the sheer joy of playing PR
rewarding enough. I've won the game before,
I'm quite satisfied. Why malign my good
reputation by an unworthy slice of betrayal?
So, aside from recognizing the importance of
diplomacy in PR and the risks of backstabbing,
how else can you win? One way is to get a good
sense of the overall game early. Every game of
PR plays out differently. Some are low-scoring
contests, with bloody struggles from the first
activation where the last man standing is the
winner. Some are gradually building affairs
where the scores are higher, and you get to pull
out those sweet 10 HI counters. Yet, most
games of PR are somewhere in between.
Different types of game strategies can favor different PR powers. It is not a hard and fast rule,
but I have seen Carthage players win a lot of
low-scoring games, while Roman players tend to
prefer to have a peaceful borders (a live-and-letlive) strategy, until the republic recruits 10 shiny
new legions to enforce its version of pax (peace).
Greece has reasons for passing the peace pipe
too, because their border is porous and their
stability is low. As a player, you need to know
when and how to strike. The answers are not
only in the opportunities and rewards that you
have at your disposal, but you also need to
watch what the other players are doing. My
strategy is to always assume that there is a state
of war between my power and those next door.
That does not mean that war should be pursued
vigorously. It all depends upon what the other
players are doing. If I am the East, and I am
fighting Greece relentlessly, while Rome and
Carthage build, I know I will lose the game.
War is very expensive. The true cost is not only
in what you lose, but what others are gaining
while you are at war.
You can also view Pax Romana as an economic
enterprise. Beyond a doubt, there is a finite
amount of money in PR. The other commodity
that is valuable is a player's activations. Think
about it this way: in a 5-turn game, you have
about 20 activations. The East might have
fewer due to the Successor Wars. You can also
get a free activation from a Stability and
Opportunity card. Twenty activations are not
very many. This limits what you can do. For
example, you need a minor move to build a
town and another to build a city — you spend
2 activations for every city. Think about the
income generated by a city. A city costs 5
Talents (2T for the
town and 3 T more to change it into a city), 1
garrison, and 1 HI to build. Price the garrison
at 1/2 Talent, because players usually build LI
just to make garrisons, and they breakdown into
2 garrisons for a movement point. The HI costs
2 T, so a city costs 7.5 T total. A city's income is
3 Tper turn, so it will take 3-turns for a city to
become profitable. Therefore, building a city in
sense. How much should you pay to take a city?
Obviously, from a strict economic point of view
the cost should not exceed the return. But
wait a minute! Your opponent gaining income
also works against you in future armies that
might oppose you. It might be worth taking
anyway. In short, the value depends on the type
of game strategy you are employing.
There are intangibles too. City walls can help
protect your empire. But, the downside
to this kind of strategy is that if you build
cities as an outer-ring of protection, your
enemies may choose to take your cities, and
thus create income for themselves. It can behoove you to build as far away from your front
lines as possible. This works especially well for
the East and Carthage. Rome building cities in
Germania is also a smart tactic. I have never
seen cities in Britannia, but it would be a great
place, but the bottomline is you must keep your
supply lines open to your cities.
No matter what type of overall game strategy
you choose to employ in PR, I think it wise not
to attempt to be the leader too early. You need
to build-up your empire into a true power with
the potential for winning. The real art here is
choosing when to make your move and being
prepared for the reactions from the other players. Sometimes you can accidentally become
the leader early on, and thus be targeted. If
you can convince the other players that this was
not your intention, you won't need any more
advice from me about diplomacy! Games where
there is a variable ending are a lot trickier in
this respect, because there is a huge incentive to
push forward and grab the brass ring. You can
try to calculate the odds of the game ending,
but a better rule is don't trust your calculations.
Inevitably, the worst will happen, and you will
lose by being too conservative. Concentrate
more on building a strong civilization with
good armies and seize victory when you are
strong enough to fight back.
How do you do that if you start out as a
weakling? There is always a way. Take Rome
(pun intended - sorry). At the beginning of the
game, Rome has two provinces and doesn't even
control its own territory. The solution here is to
score enough civilization points to get a victory
point. Rome should build towns and cities.
Even if you score only one victory point in the
first turn, you are definitely in the game. By
turn four, you might be punishing the others
with legions and scoring 10 VP or more and
they will be happy scoring only a few themselves, but you will need that 1 VP anyway.
PR games are usually close scoring affairs.
Therefore, score every turn, no matter what.
Strategy Tips for Pax Romana
Watching the score is vitally important. The
game has so many layers that you can forget
what is most important. The winner is not the
player who has the most cities or the player
who conquers the other players. The winning
player is the one with the most VPs. You score
your VPs over the course of the entire game.
Also, your score is relative to the other players'
performance. This means that sometimes it is
a terrible idea to crush your opponent, because
making him too weak will help another player
score more points than you. This complexity
is sometimes mind-boggling. In this situation,
I play intuitively. If my successes against one
neighbor leaves them vulnerable to an opponent, I wait for the sword to fall, and then cut
a deal, maybe allowing the two of them to fight
while I build, or take on my other neighbor.
Before going into some specifics about the various sides, I want to briefly address the criticism
about randomness or bad luck. I can truthfully
say you make your own luck in PR. First of all,
just assume all the cards in PR are bad news. In
most games, it is fun or exciting to draw a new
card. In PR, with each card draw, assume you
are putting your finger in a mousetrap. The
cards will look better if you are expecting something bad. You will be surprised at how this
philosophy changes your perspective. Another
thing, bad cards (like Barbarian Invasions) in the
hands of a clever player can be most gratifying.
I just love watching Greece's stability fall to -4
because of a drought. (Oh please let's have a
stability check now!!!) The same holds true for
your leader draws. I have used 0-0 leaders to do
great things, so what is the problem with the
1-4 fellows? Yes, it would be nice to get a
4-5 elite leader every so often (along with a
Conqueror and Stability and Opportunity card
on the side), but elite leaders are rare. If you are
happy to draw a 2-4, then when the elite guys
appear you will really be thrilled. You will
probably roll "1"s on their movement rolls
though, so do not get too enthusiastic.
Pessimism is your friend. If you imagine the
worst possible outcome, most of the time, your
luck will surprise you. If not, the problem is
not your luck, it is your imagination.
Lastly, Pax Romana is a very balanced game.
Everybody gets at least one turn in the barrel
and usually more. The trick is to make yours
as painless as possible — playing possum might
work once or twice — while making certain that
the player just ahead of you has the worst time
of anyone. Also, remember that if you look like
you are overwhelmed by adversity, you can save
up money and forces and wait for the affliction
to pass. Note to Roman players — Pyrrhus is an
affliction. You do not have to defeat him, he
will go away.
It seems I'm already getting into the specifics, so
let's talk a little more about Rome. During the
game, Rome typically evolves from a doormat
into a thundering locomotive. It takes some
time. Rome has a hard time winning short
games, but I have seen it done. The Roman
player must be patient and concentrate on
building his armies and his civilization before
plunging head-first into the conflict. Also,
Rome needs fleets desperately and it has none at
the beginning of the game. The decisive point
of Rome's game is in the Sicilies, and Rome's
mortal enemy is Carthage. It is in Carthage's
interest to force Rome into an arms race,
because Rome escalating in the Sicilies allows
Carthage to move into Hispania and delays
Roman expansion. Rome has to also be
concerned with Greece, though Greece has
enough problems with the East. Usually Rome
and Greece reach some kind of understanding
about Bruttium and Tarentum, but I generally
think that is a mistake. I always suspect that it
is better to fight a low intensity war and lose the
territory thus making my opponent lose enough
forces to make him think twice about fighting
again. I have seen a lot of success (short-term
success, mind you!) with Bruttium arrangements, but usually one side gets burned and
regrets the deal later. While Greece has a toehold in Italy, Rome needs to be careful. Once
that toehold is gone, what leverage is there?
Greece's fortune is intrinsically linked to the
East's performance, but it is Greece's responsibility to make the East pay dearly for every
space in Asia Minor. Ideally, Greece will be on
the offensive against the East throughout most
of the game. The key to taking the East apart is
control of Cyprus. Greece can grab the island
early on by investing a major move to go there
while bringing its galleys back from the East
colonies in Sidon and Tyre. If Greece can set
up a city or town in Cyprus, the East will have
a very hard game.
The Greek player worries a lot about stability.
I think there is reason for concern, but I do
not believe that the problem is any worse than
the Barbarian Invasions for Rome, the strength
limitations for Carthage, or the Successor Wars
for the East. It is just a variable to be factored
into your play. Should you avoid turmoil?
Well, naturally, but you have to play your game
strategy first. If you need to make a risky play
that might give you a chance at victory, but
might cost you your home province if you fail,
most of the time you should probably take the
chance. If you are that close to victory, you will
have a difficult time getting that close again.
Furthermore, stability is a relative quantity.
Both Greece and the East can pull the Black
Sea Gambit. This is the act of grabbing Scythia,
Sarmathia, and the Chersonese, which are all
good for income and are also nice places to
build cities that can be easily defended. The
East can add Armenia and a couple eastern
provinces of Asia Minor and have a good size
block of control and income. Naturally, neither
Greece nor the East should allow the other to
perform this move, but usually the first player
that tries the Black Sea Gambit will pull it off
and hold it for the whole game if that player
remembers to build a couple fleets. There are
other important targets for the East. I think
Crete is a great place to move (assuming this
is not one of the games where you are fighting
to hold Cyprus from Greece!) and if you pay
Rhodes a Talent, it is pretty easy to get there.
If you are in Crete, the belly of Greece is
wide open.
I mentioned earlier the importance of Rome's
winning the war in the Sicilies against Carthage.
There is no reason for a good Carthage player
to lose this war. You have no other enemies.
Moreover, Carthage has a significant advantage
in fleets. Carthage should use their fleets to
guard the islands in the first turn while Pyrrhus
is likely rampaging around Italia. My first
priority as Carthage is to keep what I have and
build cities and towns before moving into Hispania. Eventually, Hispania is a great place to
go, especially if Rome's attentions are diverted,
but going there too quickly will drain all your
resources and leave you vulnerable to a war
against Rome that you will be doomed to lose.
The Carthage player must be patient, and never
give up a fleet. Once Carthage is strong enough
— for example, you see Rome busy with Greece;
the East busy with Greece — don't forget to look
towards the East yourself. Just because the East
is not likely to pound on your door does not
mean you can't pound on their door. Maybe
you strike at the East as a favor to Greece, in
exchange for a strike by Greece against Rome?
I hope you can now see some of the many layers
within the game design of Pax Romana.
Before signing off, I want to thank designer
Richard Berg and developer Neil Randall for
this incredible game. I also want to thank my
worthy opponents, and all the players in the
games I have moderated. I've learned to play
PR well thanks to all of you. As I'm teaching
others the game, I'm learning more about PR
myself. Thanks also to GMT Games and C3i
Magazine for giving me this opportunity to
share my love for PR with all of you.
Finally, I want to say to all my future opponents
that I am looking forward to crushing you
slowly and mercilessly, though I will do my best
to honor all trivial agreements in the meantime.