Re: Anyone played Hannibal yet? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From drstevowen@aol.com (DrStevOwen) Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I assume you are referring to Hannibal: Rome v Carthage, the new game from TAHGC based on the 2nd Punic War and using an adaptation of the system from We the People. Well, yes- I picked up a copy from a games shop in New Orleans last week and have already played it to completion six times. I have played the Carthaginians each time. I lost the first four games fairly quickly by killing Hannibal but have won the last two by taking Rome. No game has lasted more than four turns (there are a possible nine). The artwork is excellent and the system appears to work extremely well. The main differences from WTP are rules for naval combat and sieges. There is substantial period flavour and I would predict it will be an even bigger hit than WTP If you would like further information, please let me know. Regards, Steve Owen Re: Anyone played Hannibal yet? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesab5@aol.com (JamesAB5) Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've played it once, which was only a short game where as Rome I killed Hannibal on turn 3. I've played We the People lots of times, though, so I *think* I can extrapolate from my limited experience. :-) It appears that Carthage is the side with the steeper learning curve. In order to win, he has to either be agressive and take Rome (not easy without putting Hannibal at risk), or methodical in putting the squeeze on Rome's outlying areas to put pressure on him to come out of his shell. It appears that either strategy can leave little room for error or delay. Then again, while it looks like the Roman can sit at home and play it safe, that would probably lose out in a full length game. Rome *has* to mount a counter offensive sometime to 1) gain the additional victory points needed to win, and 2) to distract Carthage from the assault on Italy. I like what I see so far, and I look forward to playing again, especially as Carthage, so I can test out my theories (I LOVE playing the apparently more difficult side in a game until I crack the strategy, then I switch sides for the next game :-) Best, Jim Bailey (jamesab5@aol.com) Re: Anyone played Hannibal yet? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From aforandy@aol.com (Aforandy) Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date 21 May 1996 07:19:25 -0400 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <4nqpj2$2ci@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, drstevowen@aol.com (DrStevOwen) writes: >The artwork is excellent and the system appears to work extremely well. > >The main differences from WTP are rules for naval combat and sieges. Another big difference is that armies suffer for being on enemy PC markers at the end of the turn - they are not converted. Single strength points can be overrun, so no need for Girl Guides. >There is substantial period flavour and I would predict it will be an >even bigger hit than WTP Definitely a case of "buy first, think later". There some questions, like do neutral tribes count as enemy PC markers to both sides, and who commands when a Proconsul tries to break into a Besieged Consul? From the H-Files, first 2 games, with the only copy in Europe:- <> Really HANNIBAL is another example of TAHGC's outstanding development ability, the game really is a step forward on the very popular WTP. The only "problem" is that there is a lot in the game which needs to be considered, OTOH a player is limited by their Strategy card draw each turn. The historical accuracy seems high, the Cartho player is faced with the same problems as the real-life leaders. Warry says "Rome hesitated betweeen strategies of action and caution" and you find yourself doing just this. Doing nothing can be a good idea. The political game is also just as important as the military, though I can see why someone might not acknowledge this straight off, it takes a while to realise "how to do it", not really a strike against the game as it suggests it has a lot of repeat play value. Here the battle card system seems to emphasise the advantage of having the most cards to a greater degree then in WTP. Losing a battle is more important than in WTP, and also PCs are removed according to total losses, on the losing side. I think there is a lot to be said for not fighting even battles unless you hold combat-related events, as in real life one loss can lose the game. However the number of Battle cards each player draws cannot be known until the fighting is about to begin, as elephants and the presence of two consuls of different tactical rating can change either hand size. I think a useful strategy for the Roman player is to start fighting when all three leaders have ten CUs each, but of course if you get good cards before then, you will be tempted to use them... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Andy Daglish More about Hannibal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From drstevowen@aol.com (DrStevOwen) Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The seventh game of Hannibal was the best yet The Romans spent a lot of time in Spain and as a consequence Mago (-1 on naval combat) sailed to Carthage to pick up reinforcements. He then used the Force March 3 card to return to New Carthage and move up the coast to attack Nero. He went on to lose but it was a noble effort! On the fifth turn Nero was defeated in Spain by Hasdrubal whilst Paulus laid siege to Carthage. The siege was relieved by an amphibious assault by Mago & Hasdrubal who had rushed back from Spain (the battle going down to the final card). Later the same turn Hannibal took Rome without fighting a battle throughout the game! One of these games Scipio Africanus may actually show up (he normally appears on turn 6). I noted with interest the replies to aforandy's questions and would like to addd a few of my own: 1. The Naval Combat table: can 1CU really move without a General? 2. Can besieged CU's attack a besieging force without outside assistance? 3. Do they need a General to do it? 4. Do losing forces retreating into a city still roll on the Retreat Table? 5. Force March: can a General move with CU's if this is used? Regards Steve Owen Re: More about Hannibal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From aforandy@aol.com (Aforandy) Organization America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Date 22 May 1996 14:23:09 -0400 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The view from the other side:- "Delenda Carthago" as the Great Cato [no not that Kato] said. >The seventh game of Hannibal was the best yet it was also the longest. >The Romans spent a lot of time in Spain The best opening strategy is probably moving Publius to besiege Gades and bringing Longus up from Sicily. Publius is happiest in Spain [surely boardgames favourite country, El Grande, Hispania] and taking the southern and northern Spanish provinces will really damage the Carthaginian's public image. In this game the Carthaginians were losing the province war 11-7 [ie 2 spanish 9 Italian] and losing the difference in PCs at the end of each turn [4] really hurts them. Unfortunately the Cato card was misread as meaning no reinforcements to Spain, rather than Africa, which is what the old boy meant! >and as a consequence Mago (-1 on naval combat) sailed to Carthage to >pick up reinforcements. He then used the Force March 3 card to return >to New Carthage and move up the coast to attack Nero. He went on to >lose but it was a noble effort! On the fifth turn Nero was defeated >in Spain by Hasdrubal whilst Pauluslaid siege to Carthage. The Spanish situation would have been hard to maintain but this was just as well since the Numidians in Africa revolted leaving the city of Carthage with an uncertain hinterland. This suggests political collapse snowballs very rapidly, which in turn makes retrieving the situation militarily ever more difficult. >The siege was relieved by an amphibious assault by Mago & Hasdrubal >who had rushed back from Spain (the battle going down to the final >card). Later the same turn Hannibal took Rome without fighting a >battle throughout the game! But this suggests there is always a Do or Die strategy, the bottom line approach which both sides fall into as the manoeuvring peters out. -I am a little worried by the way the battles go down to the last card so often, especially in the engagements with many Battle cards. This suggests the Resevre card rule tends to even out card holdings and so emphasises greatly the advantage of having one more card. Conversely this sugests that fighting with a Battle Event at the ready is almost necessary ; -success with PCs rarely has *that* much effect [rather it allows fighting on equal terms where otherwise the weaker side would not fight] and is often reversed by single cards; -the provincial walled cities are not quite as important as i would have thought Gades, Syracuse and Saguntum being the meaningful ones. And why bother with expensive walls when there are so many awful traitors in the deck? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Andy Daglish