By Francesco Guerrieri (with Responses by Chris Vorderbrugge, Mark McLaughlin, & Fred Schachter: ACME’s Design/Development Team)

Introduction by Fred Schachter (ACME Game Developer): Deb of the GMT Office forwarded a letter to Chris, Mark, and myself from Francesco Guerrieri of Rome, Italy, whom, as you’ll read, is a fan of the Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East game GMT Games – Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East.

That initial exchange of correspondence grew to the point where we realized it could make for an interesting InsideGMT article, particularly for those who play, or will play, ACME. So here it is commencing with Francesco’s letter which started it all.  I edited the ensuing correspondence to provide readers a sense of the fun back and forth Chris, Mark, and I enjoyed with Francesco.

“Dear Sirs,

Some days ago, I received my P500 order of ACME and I think it is really an excellent game. I have already tried it in several multiplayer combinations, and it really is 1) very fun 2) challenging 3) really unique in being able to offer a multi-player wargaming experience in a relatively short time (it seems like a multi-player Twilight Struggle in a certain sense, where you don’t use modern weapons and Defcon but invoke the gods’ intervention on your foes…).

I have noticed some typos/issues and some aspects of the game which seem a bit unclear and would like to check out how they are meant to be solved.

I think this game is really amazing and I am truly happy of having backed it since its inception with my P500 order. Please let me know if my questions/comments are clear/make sense and thanks in advance for your kind replies and if you get the opportunity, please share my compliments to the authors of the game which really gave us a masterpiece.

Best regards,

Francesco”

Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East: Nine Q&A’s

Q1. I noticed that on the turn tracks on the map it is said that “at START of turn 2, draw a card …” and “at START of Turn 3, draw a card …” to check if there is a sudden end of the epoch. I think that this is a typo and it is clearly “at the END”. The map, by the way, is very good, it’s a minor fault.

A1. One could argue the Card Draw Step is at the end of a turn followed by the Turn Marker being advanced or, if the Epoch does not Sudden Death end, it is at the beginning of the next turn.  In any event, if the Rulebook’s Step Sequence is followed as written you should be fine.

---

Q2. I noticed that some areas have inconsistent spelling (e.g. Karachuyuk (page 36 of the scenario book, “Eastern map”) vs Karahuyuk (on the map), Persus (page 36 of the scenario book, “Western map”) vs. Persis (on the map)) 

A2. Good catches Francesco!  Sorry about that.

---

Q3. Can you confirm that *cities* do not provide disks for growth (unless controlling a Fertile area), but only settlements do?  This took us a couple of game to notice, because we were expecting that a “thriving city” would “outpour its growing population”.

A3. Cities absorb resources to create higher levels of culture at that site.  They each generate a Victory Point every turn rather than provide growth disks, except, as you note, in Fertile areas where they do both and can indeed, in a manner of speaking, “outpour a growing population”.

---

Q4. The sandbox scenario “two in the east” (ACME Playbook page 47) doesn’t foresee the optional Double-disk option rule, while the equivalent scenario “two in the west” does. Is there a reason for that?

A4.  There’s no particular reason for that distinction save that during play testing the Western Scenario seemed to work better with more disks.  Feel free to use the Double-disk Option with the Eastern Scenario as well any of ACME’s scenarios if you and your fellow gamers are so inclined.

---

Q5. Does the gold disk (ACME Playbook page 51) count towards the number of disks to be
matched for expanding (like a stronghold cube does?

A5. Good question: Gold disks are not disks in the sense a Faction disk is or a Stronghold Cube (which is a special case).  They do not count for the purpose of Deployment Step matching.  A Gold Disk is not a Faction Disk.

---

Q6 Part 1 of 2. The mechanics for Deities could be clarified, in particular, by defining what is meant by an “ACTIVE” deity. What happens if a civilization becomes godless, e.g. after the “Forsaken by God” card #92 is played against it? Can its temple be captured? Does it provide VP to the capturing civilization? Can the “newly godless” civilization establish a new deity? Does “False Prophet” card #30 make a Deity no longer active? Does a captured temple of a “False Prophet”-stricken civilization provide VP to the capturing civilization?

A6 Part 1 of 2. That’s an impressive list of questions!  When a Deity is destroyed, the civilization losing it becomes godless and may create a new one, including, if it is still available, the one
that was destroyed. If a Deity is merely rendered inactive, it is not destroyed and the civilization, therefore, is not godless and may not create a new Deity. It may restore the inactive Deity per the applicable condition(s).  An inactive Deity may be captured and counts for a Victory Point each turn it is held.  You may have already noticed that an inactive Deity may not use its Civilization Display’s Temple Granary ability but, since it is not “Godless”, that civilization may:
A) Allow the victim to continue playing Religion cards or
B) Transition to Active Monotheism, via play of Religion Card #95 or
C) Be exchanged for another available Deity, which would be Active, through play of Great Person Card #9, “Prophet”.

---

Q6 Part 2 of 2. I will go back to question #6 about active Deities. First of all, a Deity can only be destroyed by barbarians or godless civilizations.  This would render the suffering civilization into a godless one. What happens if the attacked civilization was “Forsaken by God” (card #92)? My take is that the civilization is “functionally godless” (e.g. they cannot play Religion cards etc.) However, since the temple is still present it could be destroyed (by another godless Faction). Could the temple be captured (by a civilization with a Deity)? I would say so. Could they establish a *new* Deity (since they are godless), different from the one that forsook them? From a “thematic point of view” it could make sense, but is it admissible from a “game mechanical point of view”?  Sorry if I am being obtuse!

A6 Part 2 of 2. First of all, “Monotheists” (Card #95) also destroy Deities. Second, “Forsaken by God” (Card #92) is only a temporary condition.  The victim’s temple, while useless to them while they suffer under this condition, may be captured/destroyed by an enemy.  They, however, still have a Deity – just one who is unhappy with them, so they cannot build a second temple. 

There is a way for the victim civilization under “Forsaken by God” to replace its Deity.  That would be through the “Prophet” (Card 9).  That card, as well as Event Card #96, “Let My People Go” which can, under the right circumstances, counter the deleterious Deity effects inflicted by “False Prophet” (Card #30), “Blasphemy” (Card #90), or “Forsaken by God” (Card #92).

---

7Q. The mechanics of returning a Deity into play could benefit from a bit of explanation: since a return is always a willing choice by the capturing civilization, it appears it almost never makes sense to “give it back”, unless one hopes that by doing so the returned Deity will be able to “take it out upon a leader”… it is a rare game mechanic, I guess.

7A. Yes, it may be rare, but it might and could happen. A clever diplomat of a player may return a captured Deity to its owner to dissuade that victim player from inflicting an endless string of nasty calamitous Fate cards on the Deity-capturing civilization for the duration of the game, encouraging other players to help in a quest to take down the culprit, or utilize the Gilgamesh Rule to re-enter the fray as another fresh and powerful enemy civilization lusting for revenge.

---

8Q. I think it’s obvious, but the special Competition abilities from the game’s civilization displays are meant to be used “once each Competition Phase”. For example, the Medes & Persians only add ONE white disk to ONE Land Competition (even if there are several Competitions to be held during a given Phase), while the Greeks add one white disk to each of two Competitions.  But, in every case, *IF* a special ability is going to be used, it is done after the play of any Competition cards. So as a Greek, I could decide to use my ability to add a white disk in, e.g. for the third contested area of the Phase, and I could add two disks to two different competitions, even if I didn’t invoke it for the first two competitions. But I could do it only ONCE per Phase… otherwise it’s an incredible amount of white disks being generated! If it is right, I would recommend clarifying it, otherwise please tell me how it must be played!

8A. You are correct. You get to use that ability ONCE per COMPETITION PHASE.  So, the Medes and Persians add ONE disk to ONE Land Competition.  The Greeks have two white disks and ONLY two white disks to use that PHASE.  Therefore, if they are involved in three Competitions, they could add a white disk to each of the first two but have none remaining for the third or could skip the first and use one white disk for each of the remaining two.

---

The Alexander the Great Scenario

Q9 Part 1 of 2. The (super fun!) Alexander the Great scenario (Playbook page 61) seems quite unbalanced in favor of the Macedonians. In particular, the Macedonians receive quite a bit of disks while the Persians are much more constrained, both in terms of cards and of disks. So while it’s true that Alexander has to face 4 opposing Factions, they are “disjointed” and cannot “help each other”.   As to the Macedonians, they always have a shortage of disks and cards as Alexander marches on into the depths of the Medes and Persians’ Heartland. Are we missing something?

Despite that Macedonian handicap, in our game the Macedonian victory was quite comfortable, the Hittites (Western Satrapies) never stood a chance, the Sea Peoples (Levantine Satrapies) slightly more. There is also another thing, in Playbook page 62 (“Initial card hands”) and page 64 (“Event cards”) mentions on bullet point 4 the “Seven events”: but there are actually EIGHT events. The one card missing is #96 “Let my people go”. I think that it is meant to be discarded and out of play, but it is confusing. Same thing for the Rostam scenario (we have not played it yet, on page 66 “Initial card hands, bullet point 1).

A9 Part 1 of 2. Francesco, you’re right, “Let my People Go” (Event card #96) should be set aside and out-of-play.  As a successful Alexander player advances deep into the heart of the Persian Empire, he does indeed eventually suffer from a lack of disks.  This is a deliberate game design/development constraint.  It not only makes the game more challenging to play but
reflects history.  How?  When Alexander took Egypt, he essentially abandoned it to resume his march east. When he subdued what is now Afghanistan (one of the few foreign invaders throughout history to do so) he declared victory, married a local princess, and then left the
area.  Judicious use of ACME’s Retirement and Resettlement Game Steps to get disks off the map, e.g. from an Alexander conquered Egypt, and into Supply to keep his advance going is an approach you should consider using.

As to your historical questioning regarding the scenario’s design: it is best for Designers Chris & Mark to reply as follows:

“Mark McLaughlin is no fan of Alexander (whom he calls the ‘not so great’).  He is at work on the 6th of a series of 8 novels in the Throne of Darius series (available from Amazon in paperback, Kindle and Kenp formats ..and the first book is also an audio book). That said, he acknowledges that on a battlefield Alexander was a formidable, clever, courageous – and courageous to the point of recklessness commander – and that the fine military machine he inherited from his father was THE combat force of the age. The Persians, though brave and numerous, were never able to defeat him.

The Persians were beset by internal rebellions (Darius was in the east putting those down when Alexander invaded Asia Minor) and at first could only respond with local forces…thus the initial attack only meets the forces of those western satraps (governors).  When Darius does finally bring a full army to fight (The Battle of Issus), he is defeated – narrowly – but that defeat leaves Alexander free to sweep through Phoenicia, besiege and raze the great fortress cities of
Tyre and Gaza, and then march into an almost entirely undefended Egypt.  This was an Egypt which only a decade or so before had been in rebellion and was glad to be rid of the Persians…and then gladder still when Alexander, too, departed.

By the time of the massive Battle of Gaugamela/Arbela, the western half of the Persian empire has fallen — but there is still the other half, and Darius has had time to raise an army twice to three times the size of Alexander’s….yet, still, on that bloody field, the Macedonian bully boy king again triumphs…..

There are still campaigns to be fought to subdue the eastern Persian provinces (where Alexander’s troops are defeated in several small battles, but he is able to press on to India – where he finally meets his match….Porus technically loses the Battle of the Hydaspes — but
strategically wins the war, as Alexander’s invasion never goes deeper into India – he goes down the river to the sea and desert, but only in order to return west with his now dispirited and almost rebellious army…and to his eventual and early death in Babylon….much to the great relief of not only the world, but his own soldiers and generals,

In our game, Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East (ACME), Alexander has all of the advantages he had historically – and it is meant to be a challenge to the Macedon player to do as well as the little king did, yet the contest is also an even greater challenge to the player(s) who oppose him — as they have only time and space on their side.  This, as you noticed and enjoyed, is a tremendous solo game, regardless of which side you play.

It is intentionally NOT an evenly balanced scenario – as historically, it was not.  So, you are urged to play it twice, once as each side, and see who does better as – or fighting against – Alexander.”

---

Q9 Part 2 of 2. For the Alexander (the not so great!) scenario – by the way, my son is named Alessandro which is Italian for Alexander – in our game we found out that the Macedonians actually never had a shortage of disks since they had double serving (98 disks). So there was never the need to use Retirement and resettlement because they simply marched over the western satrapies and when they descended upon the Persians they were unstoppable. I can see that if they were “disk limited” to a single set of disks the scenario would be much more challenging for Macedonia, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. We will try to play it twice, exchanging sides, to get a better feeling for it!

A9 Part 2 of 2. If you want to try this with a single set of disks, please do so and let me know how it goes.  Furthermore, Alexander is not ‘unstoppable’ – but it is a definite challenge to try to do so.  That is intentional.  It is historical, and that means one side has definite advantages. So, two players play it once as each side and compare points to see who did it better. And you can alter the balance with handicaps: Like giving the Persians a free VP every turn or additional VP per gold disk. It is meant to be difficult for the Persian side to achieve victory (and thus makes this ACME scenario an excellent solo challenge). 

For any ACME game, the Retirement and Resettlement are steps are very useful to players who want to take advantage of cards or the situation on the gameboard yet have few or no disks remaining in Supply… this allows them to reposition disks and keeps their game more fluid.  

---

Final Remark by Francesco: Many thanks to Mark for sharing his insights and I will be sure to look into his books. By the way, on the topic of Ancient expansion towards the east, last summer I read an interesting book on the Roman defeat at Carrhae and the death of Crassus (namely this, in Italian, since I live in Rome, it’s of particular interest to me: La resa di Roma – Giusto Traina (laterza.it) ).

Conclusion by Fred Schachter (ACME Game Developer): I found it possible to translate Francesco’s website reference to The surrender of Rome June 9, 53 BC, battle at Carre (Crassus at Carrhae).  Interesting.  In any event, readers will hopefully have found the preceding Ancient Civilizations of the Middle East article helpful to their own appreciation of the game.