Hi all! Here are some observations on the new Avalon Hill game "Hannibal": I have played three games of "Hannibal": The Romans won the first one by eliminating Hannibal (who stupidly hadn't thought of being able to retreat) - okay, I admit it: I played the Carthaginians! The next two games the Carthaginians have won handily however, despite having Hannibal being beaten repeatedly: In the second game Hannibal secured Spain, and moved to Italy. Once in Gallia Cisalpina, he was promptly defeated in a battle, lost all but 2 CUs, and had to run all the way back to Spain. Collect a new batch of CUs, return to Italy, being whipped again! Later in the game, the Romans started trying to convert Spain, while Hannibal + 3 CUs sailed to Italy with the help of the pirates. The next turn the Romans drew a lot of "1" cards, so they couldn't go after Hannibal, who managed to convert most of southern Italy. Eventually he had to retreat back to Africa, but the damage done to the Roman PCs was too great; in the turn Africanus appeared, the Romans had to sue for peace. Third game: Hannibal beat up a couple of Consular Armies, converted a big chunk of Italy, Sicily and Syracuse, but was finally beaten by Africanus. He (Hannibal) managed to sail away to Spain with the survivors; once again the Romans couldn't place new PCs fast enough to compensate for the ones lost. So, from this (admittedly not very great) experience with the game, it seems easier to win with the Carthaginians: Start with controlling the province in Spain that's uncontrolled at the beginning of the game (the Romans will find it difficult to stop that - sure they can place their own PCs, but they can't really defend them, and if the Carthaginians start by controlling the coastal spaces any Roman PCs placed will be isolated at the end of the turn anyway), as well as Gallia Cisalpina (only needs one more PC, which BTW can't be isolated if placed adjacent to the tribal PCs). If Carthage gets either the "Corsica/Sardinia revolts" or "Syracuse allies with Carthage" (can't remember the exact wording), that's just an extra bonus. At this point the Romans will be lacking in the number of controlled provinces and will have to do something to change the situation. Hannibal can stay in Spain, or he can move to Italy (if only to protect Gallia Cisalpina, or more likely to raise some hell!). This, IMHO, is the ideal game for the Cartha- ginians; but of course the Romans may have other plans... What kind of strategy can the Romans pursue? Some possibilities include; 1) Send a general to Spain to convert some provinces. This (IMHO) is only feasible if Hannibal is NOT in Spain; with lots of allies he is as invincible as he ever gets. Even if he loses he can retreat, while the Romans face total elimination from a defeat (unless they already have controlled some nearby areas they can retreat to). 2) Send a general to Africa to take Carthage. I don't know if this is a feasible strategy (I haven't seen it tried), but it seems difficult/hazardous because: a) Taking Carthage (short of having a traitor) will take some time, allowing Hannibal (or some other general) to come to its rescue, b) As in (1) above, sailing to Africa means either having NO retreat options, or waiting until after having established some kind of PC presence (for instance playing "Numidian Revolt" followed by a PC placement) c) Even if Hannibal is so far away he can't come to the rescue, often the garrison in Carthage is big enough to counterattack on its own: Hanno + initial 4 CUs + 1 CU per turn + any elephants placed + massive ally bonus in any battle will make the Carthaginians pretty dangerous. Are these strategies any good? If not, what else can the Romans do? Also, until the arrival of Africanus, Hannibal is (of course) *the* dominant force on the map - an army rating (or is it "strategy rating"?) of "1" makes him extremely versatile compared to the "2" and "3" Roman consuls. For the Romans to even *have* an offensive strategy of their own requires that they can somehow cope with whatever Hannibal is doing. Plus in this game, the Romans don't even have time on their side: The Carthaginian reinforcement schedule is almost as good as the Roman one (though the Romans generally get their reinforcements closer to where they're needed), so they won't be "out-recruited". Another aspect of the game is battle tactics. I am not a big fan of the combat system in the game - sure, it's fun the first couple of times but it takes a loooong time to play out. I would like to see an alternative combat system based on a CRT (or something), yielding more or less statistically identical results. But with the present combat system, what's an optimal tactic for playing your cards? The old rule from WtP; "Play those Double Envelopments when you have 'em" doesn't apply as clearly here. But then what? I remember an article about WtP found at Web-grognards with some calculated win/loss chances based on number of cards on each side, battle ratings and tactics used ("fixed order", "depth first", etc.). Part of the conclusion was that the results didn't depend very much on the tactic used. Playing with a "random order" tactic gave almost as good a chance of winning for the attacker as the other tactics did. I wonder if its the same in "Hannibal"? With the introduction of "Reserve" cards (and Hannibal's special ability), a certain element of bluffing is possible. You could for instance respond to a "Double Envelopment" with a "Reserve" (even though you have DEs in your hand): Your opponent may think that you've run out of DEs and play accordingly... I can't really see if it would matter very much however... Anyway, if you have any comments/ideas/criticism of ANY of the above, please let me know. I'd love to get some sort of strategy discussion going on this game. BTW, are there any official answers to some of the questions asked on this list as well as on rec.games.board (can besieged units attack out of the city; can single CUs use naval movement without a leader, etc.) Cheers, Jens "Hopsie" Hoppe jho@euv.post.dkpost.dk400.dk First, I have only played Hannibal once (apart from studying it solo), but my experience was vastly different. In your games Hannibal was defeated repeatedly in battle but still won. In our game, Hannibal never lost a battle. A defeat however, would have been a major disaster-how did Hannibal escape after all those defeats? You have Hannibal losing in Italy and running repeatedly back to Spain. How? Hannibal can almost never (without the right cards) move by sea anywhere except between Novo Carthago and Carthage-after all, if his ship goes down that's the game. Nor can Hannibal keep crossing and recrossing the Alps. It takes too long to keep returning to Spain, the attrition from all those mountain crossings would be too high, and eventually he would find a huge Roman army under a comptent commander waiting in Italy. IMO, Hannibal must cross into Italy as early as possible, (the longer he waits, the larger the Roman armies, and the greater chance of competent Roman leaders). And once there, unless he suffers a disaster in battle (which in our game seemed unlikely) he should remain. And if he DOES suffer a disaster, the Romans should see he doesn't escape. The offensive burden is not, as you imply, on the Romans, but the Carthaginians. Rome starts with 9 points worth of provinces, and a 10th, Gallia Cisalpania, that he can secure (if Hannibal stays out of Italy) very easily. Even without that tenth province, he can afford to wait-tied at 9 to 9 until Scipio shows up. (Were you counting the three non-point provinces by mistake?) Carthage on the other hand, can't wait. He will never be stronger relative to Rome than he is at the start. If he waits he will find massive Roman armies under decent leaders (the proconsul rule acts to keep good Roman generals in play) waiting for him. As for the Romans, a campaign in Spain or Carthage should be launched only when Hannibal is in Italy. It will take a good general, and a lot of legions, but the Carthaginians have a long coast to cover and sea movement is dangerous for him not you. At worst, you can land at Massilla (which you will probably still hold) and march overland to Spain. Hannibal is not going to recross the Alps to stop you (and if he does, you retake Italy and are once again either tied or in the lead for points). At any rate, that's how it seems to me. It would be interesting to pit my Roman play against your Carthaginian play and see which of us is correct. Ted Raicer I think it is a tribute to the robustness of the Hannibal system that two recent postings here have had diametrically opposing views on the side which is favoured in this conflict. I have now played Hanibal ten times as the Carthaginians, being a major fan of "Rome's Greatest Enemy". In the first four I lost quite quickly by forfeiting a major battle with Hannibal in Italy. In games five to seven, Hannibal was triumphant on each occasion by taking Rome: twice by using the siege train and once with the traitor card. On the last of these Carthage was besieged on the same turn. In game eight, Hannibal lost 3 out of 4 battles in Italy and was killed by the retreat in the last of these. In game nine, He lost to Marcellus in Spain (he was remarkably unlucky!). In all the above games Africanus did not appear as the outcome had been decided pror to his arrival on turn 6. Game ten, however, lasted the duration and ended in a Carthaginian victory due to a preponderance of political control. HRvC reproduces rather well the strategic dilemmas of both sides in the Second Punic War. Although the reinforcement rate is reasonably similiar (5R to 4C) the deck clearly favours the Romans in terms of recruiting further units and also for attriting the Carthaginian forces. As for the Revolt/Desertion cards: Initial Playable by Control Carthage Rome Corsica/Sardinia Revolts R Y Y Capua sides with Carth. R N Y (but only if three Italian provinces controlled) Numidia Revolts C Y Y Sicilia Revolts R Y Y Celtiberia Revolts C Y Y Syracuse allies with Carth. R N Y Numidian Allies C Y N Sophonisba in Numidia C N Y Merceneries Desert C Y N Spanish Allies Desert C Y Y Numidian Allies Desert C Y Y These seem reasonably well balanced overall. Admittedly Hannibal is a lot more versatile on land than his opponents but they can move anywhere by sea with impuniy. Every unit Carthage loses puts a drain on her resources which does not affect Rome in the same manner. Hannibal may be safe and fairly impregnable in Spain but the political marker war is by no means a sure thing and if it does go against Carthage then their Generals face a very strong Rome. My political marker majority was made possible in the last game by the political consequences of several of my victories which forced Rome to remove markers equal to half her units lost. My one reservation with the system, as I have mentioned on rgb, is its inability to recreate Hannibal's prowess and his deserved reputation as the scourge of Rome. I still feels he needs more help in battle, perhaps by using DE cards as in We the People and also using any card as a Reserve once per battle. Then might the Roman player fear him as he should. Whatever, an excellent game and well worth playing at least ten times! Steve Owen Ted Raicer wrote: >You have Hannibal losing in Italy and running repeatedly back to Spain. How? >Hannibal can almost never (without the right cards) move by sea anywhere >except between Novo Carthago and Carthage-after all, if his ship goes down >that's the game. >IMO, Hannibal must cross into Italy as early as possible, (the longer he waits, >the larger the Roman armies, and the greater chance of competent Roman >leaders). And once there, unless he suffers a disaster in battle (which in our game >seemed unlikely) he should remain. And if he DOES suffer a disaster, the Romans >should see he doesn't escape. > I agree that Hannibal shouldn't chance a sea move unless absolutely necessary. Even moving from a "0" port to New Carthage ("-2") means the game is lost on a roll of "6": Not something I wanna do... Hannibal's "1" strategy rating (or is that "army rating"?) is *very* important. It means that if necessary you can use every card you get to move him - or more likely; move him using any unplayable/unapplicable "1" cards, and use the remainder for other stuff (placing/converting PC markers, playing neat events). The Romans OTOH have to set aside a number of their "2" and "3" cards every turn if they want to move anyone/place any PC markers. As Steve Owen points out (see below) the number of Revolt events may be fairly evenly distributed (counting the immediately playable ones, the Romans have the Celtiberian & Numidian revolts, while the Carthaginians have Corsica/Sardinia & Syracuse), but because of the generals' strategy ratings the Carthaginians will find it easier to replace any PC markers lost. As for Hannibal's superiority in battle: It is quite possible to lose a battle with him. My impression is that any changes to the number of battle cards you get changes the odds of winning the battle significantly, especially if the opposing number of BCs are almost equal: So, if the defender has 12 BCs, it will change your chances significantly if you can in some way raise your number of BCs from 11 to 12 (I have made a "battle-test" program giving results that seem to support this). >The offensive burden is not, as you imply, on the Romans, but the >Carthaginians. Rome starts with 9 points worth of provinces, and a 10th, >Gallia Cisalpania, that he can secure (if Hannibal stays out of Italy) very >easily. Even without that tenth province, he can afford to wait-tied at 9 to >9 until Scipio shows up. (Were you counting the three non-point provinces by >mistake?) Carthage on the other hand, can't wait. He will never be stronger >relative to Rome than he is at the start. If he waits he will find massive >Roman armies under decent leaders (the proconsul rule acts to keep good Roman >generals in play) waiting for him. > I don't think there's any offensive *burden* on the Carthaginians. OTOH, Hannibal gives an offensive *capability* which the Carthaginians would be silly not to use (if nothing else to disrupt the Roman strategy by forcing them into a reactive mode). As for the province/PC marker war: I don't see how the Romans can easily secure Gallia Cisalpina: If the Carthaginian starts the game by placing just one PC marker adjacent to one of the tribal PC markers, he will control GC, thus requiring the presence of a Roman general to change it. As for subjugating the pro-carthage tribes, it takes -cards- . You get about 1 subjugation point per activation, so on average you need to use three OCs to eliminate a tribe. Imagine sending P.Scipio north to do the job, requiring the investment of three "3" cards to convert ONE area. No, I haven't counted the "non-scoring" provinces in my games. With GC under Carthaginian control, the province score is 9-9. The revolts seem to play an important part in changing this: Not only will the Romans be harder pressed to replace any PC markers lost, they may not be able to do it at all... Re-taking Syracuse (being a one-area province) is worse than subjugating tribes (due to the -1mod.). As for Cor/Sar: If the revolt is played (preferably late in the turn, to increase the chance of the Roman having already committed his high-value OCs), the Carthaginians may very well snatch control of the province from the Romans. True, if the Romans are otherwise left alone they will be able to retake any provinces lost, as well as getting some large armies together. But will it be as easy with Hannibal breathing down their neck...? Losing battles means losing PC markers as well. >As for the Romans, a campaign in Spain or Carthage should be launched only >when Hannibal is in Italy. It will take a good general, and a lot of legions, >but the Carthaginians have a long coast to cover and sea movement is >dangerous for him not you. At worst, you can land at Massilla (which you will >probably still hold) and march overland to Spain. Hannibal is not going to >recross the Alps to stop you (and if he does, you retake Italy and are once >again either tied or in the lead for points). > It just seems to me that "retaking Italy" - even if we're only talking a few provinces - will take *turns* (activating a general, dropping off CUs in various pro-Carthage areas; playing an OC to convert some of these; play another OC to convert the rest; activating the leader, picking up the CUs and dropping them off again, etc...), especially if they want to see any progress from their Spanish expedition, which otherwise will most likely be mauled by Hannibal. >At any rate, that's how it seems to me. It would be interesting to pit my >Roman play against your Carthaginian play and see which of us is correct. Definitely. --------------------------------- >Steve Owen wrote: >I think it is a tribute to the robustness of the Hannibal system that two >recent postings here have had diametrically opposing views on the side which >is favoured in this conflict. > Yeah, great isn't it! Neither of these opinions (one of which was my own, of course) were based on very many games however: For all I know the game may be hopelessly pro-Roman, it just hasn't seemed that way after a couple of playings. >I have now played Hanibal ten times as the Carthaginians, being a major fan >of "Rome's Greatest Enemy" > Wow!! 10 games! I really envy you; most of my gaming pals are ASL fanatics who laugh at the thought of using elephants in combat (unless it's a German tank). >Although the reinforcement rate is reasonably similiar (5R to 4C) the deck >clearly favours the Romans in terms of recruiting further units and also for >attriting the Carthaginian forces. > You may be right (I haven't got the game here, so I won't argue against it) - it just hasn't seemed that way when I have played. >As for the Revolt/Desertion cards: > > >These seem reasonably well balanced overall. > Even though both players can use "Corsica/Sardinia revolts" card (just as an example) doesn't mean it is "neutral" (ie. favoring both sides equally). For one thing, the Carthaginians can use it right away if they get it early, while its useless for the Romans. IF the Romans somehow lose Cor/Sar and get this card late in the game they can wipe out the Carthaginian presence with it, but again it seems as if the Carthaginians has an easier time of replacing any PC markers lost. OTOH there are more nasty anti-Carthaginian desertion cards (Spanish/ Numidian allies, elephants scared back, etc.) which makes it quite possible to beat Hannibal in battle. >My one reservation with the system, as I have mentioned on rgb, is its >inability to recreate Hannibal's prowess and his deserved reputation as the >scourge of Rome. > >I still feels he needs more help in battle, perhaps by using DE cards as in >We the People and also using any card as a Reserve once per battle. Then >might the Roman player fear him as he should. > True. Hannibal is by no means unbeatable in the game. From a historical point of view, your changes make good sense; perhaps the designer toned him down from a play-balance point of view? Jens "Hopsie" Hoppe jho@euv.post.dkpost.dk400.dk