richard tucker - 12:52pm Dec 19, 2000 PST (#9483 of 9569)

Out of the wrapper is Avalanche's Rome at War. For what it's worth,
here's a short review and my initial impressions. Your mileage may vary:

Box - A large size box with enticing graphics to say the least. Nice
image of Roman legions in checkerboard formation will bring back images
of the famous battle scene from Spartacus. If I saw this on the shelf, I
would certainly take a closer look.

Map - Two sturdy mounted geomorphic boards. I got two #1's in my
package, but a call to Avalanche easily remedied that. Terrain is not
much of a factor here - mostly flat African plains. I personally would
have liked to see the boards a little lighter in color, which I think
would make the counters stand out a little better. Still a quality
product, and, unlike the PanzerG boards, they line up well.

Counters - As per Avalanche's reputation, the artwork is great, albeit a
tad small. I can see the effect they were trying for - the number of
figures on the counters diminish as steps are loss, but IHMO they
weren't totally successful because the figures are somewhat hard to
distinguish due to their size. The long heavy infantry counters are
great, but I had some difficulty telling at a glance which of the
smaller counters were heavy cav/light cavs/light inf. I would humbly
suggest the next volume of this series use fewer but larger figures
and/or a lighter background. That said, the counters look good on the
map and are very functional - all the information necessary to play is
clearly and prominently displayed.

Rules - Seem very clean and apparently very complete. No charts or
tables to speak of. Several examples of rules in action are provided.
Playing through the scenarios while referring back to the rulebook
pretty much answered all my questions. After playing through couple of
battles - and once I learned the basic combat modifiers - there was very
little need to refer back to the rules. The scenario booklets are unique
in that there is one for each side, which addresses the situation from
that point of view. There are five scenarios - ranging from a brief cav
skirmish to a full-blown battle. The victory conditions - based
primarily on step and leader losses - are very straightforward
(something I can't say of one of its kin - Eagles of Empire).

Play - Owners of the before mentioned EoE-Eylau will be familiar with
many of the mechanics, although there are some significant changes -
such as no HQs. Players roll to see who goes first, then attempt to
activate formations based on the army leader's rating. Due to the
activation process, there is a chance that all leaders, or possibly
none, will get activated in each turn. In any case, units can only move
once per turn. Once activated, in-command units can move, charge, and
assault (close combat and/or missile combat). Out of command units CAN
move, but at a reduced rate and can do little else more than defend
themselves. The combat system is clean and relatively simple. To resolve
combat, players roll die equal to the number of attack factors (with a
few modifiers for unit type, type of combat and terrain) involved and
hope for 6's. Losses are taken as steps. Leaders can increase the number
of rolls allowed, but at the risk of having themselves killed. The
system seems to encourage you to attack, since defenders have to take an
additional morale check prior to combat.

Overall- Based on my solo play of three of the five scenarios (a couple
of times each), I'd say Stephen Jackson has found a good compromise
between the relatively difficult standard GBoH system and overly
simplified Ancients. IMHO it gives you some insight into the combined
arms concept of ancient warfare and their proper interaction without
mind-numbing detail. That this is accomplished without the need for ANY
status markers or excessive counter fiddling is a most welcome relief.
Best of all, the two short scenarios can be set up and played in less
than an hour, the full-battle scenarios in 2-3 hours.


From: Kaarin Engelmann <kengelm@yahoo.com> 
Subject: Rome at War: Hannibal at Bay Review 

Below is a review of the Avalanche Press Game Rome at War: Hannibal at
Bay.  I wrote the review over Christmas, 2000.  I have not written a lot
of reviews, but I am the publisher of Rise and Fall, Shattered States,
and Crisis Games Columbia.  I have also play tested a number of games
including Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage.

Sincerely,
Karsten Engelmann
karstenengelmann@hotmail.com


REVIEW-ROME AT WAR: HANNIBAL AT BAY


With child-like enthusiasm I tore into the package containing Rome at
War: Hannibal at Bay two days before Christmas. I love just about
anything to do with the Carthaginians, and I had eagerly awaited the
release of this game from the first moment I saw its press release.
Unfortunately I wish Avalanche Press had waited to release this game.

Avalanche press is well known for making superior games. I have several
of their naval series, and have heard many give good reviews of their
other products including the Airlines games. It seems a shame that such
a good company should put out such a poor game. Even more tragic is that
the basic concept…a bucket-o-dice, quick-to-play ancients game system is
likely to be stillborn because of this poor first effort.

This first thing that strikes a potential buyer is the nice box art.
However, it contains a warning flag -- the unit icons and their
background all but disappear into the same-colored map. The icons on the
counters are so small that it is impossible to figure out what is what.
That is okay though, until you start trying to determine why some
counters have numbers colored one way and others another way. Basically,
the counters fail in all regards, including the question of what happens
when a heavy cavalry unit is reduced…according to the rules it now has
the same three-horse icon as a light cavalry. Does this mean it is
treated as light cavalry? There is possible precedence for this in the
rules, as heavy infantry that is reduced can become light infantry. The
reduction scheme is a good idea, although unless you lay out all the
counters you never know just how many lettered steps you have (let's
see, does that infantry go down to F-step, or H-step?). Finally, some
units even increase in strength as they reduce (e.g., the V 3e legion
counter is stronger than the V 3d counter, but I'd guess that is a
misprinted pair of counters).

While lacking both function and clarity, the counters appear to be more
developed than the rules. The game was clearly designed as the first in
a series, and it mentions that fact right up front. The first problem
with the rules is that there are at least two pages that do not pertain
to the game. Why tell me about artillery, terrain, and weather, when
they are not applicable? (note: there is some info on the Rise terrain
on the scenario folder…of all places…but is rise #76 higher than rise
#75 and 56? Are heavy infantry flanked if on the rise as the edge of the
rule states?) Why not instead spend more time on examples, and editing
of the rules so many of the potential questions can be cleared up?

A prime example of the lack of editing/development regarding the rules
is the reduction to a heavy infantry unit for being attacked on the
flank/rear. Rule, 7.23 Flanking Combat, states specifically "If a heavy
infantry unit is attacked through its flank or rear, its strength is
reduced as shown below." This becomes a problem when the values for a
legion are flank - 75%, rear - 50%; and for a Phalanx flank - 25%, and
rear - 0%. Now, surely Avalanche Press did not mean to imply that a
phalanx taken from the rear is reduced 0%. I think they mean, "reduced
to", but this is the type of rule ambiguity that abounds in the booklet
provided.

Perhaps the greatest concern involves the activation of leaders. The
rules are confusing when one rule (6.1) states that the player "may"
attempt to activate leaders and another (6.32) states a player may not
decline to attempt to activate a leader. The activation rule is further
confusing as there is no description as to what happens when all leaders
on a side have activated. Does that side always fail its activation
roll? Also, if your army commander dies early in the turn, do you still
activate your other formations? If so, what value do you use for the
initiative roll?

Yet another area of utter confusion is the charge rule. The charge rule
states that only "cavalry, elephants, and chariots may charge." I think
I must be missing a counter sheet as there are no chariots in my game
(yet again another of the useless rules taking up good example space).
Rule 9.1, Direction and Range, states that "target units must lie two or
three areas away, due to the need for charging units to build momentum."
Does this allow a cavalry unit adjacent to an infantry unit to back up
one and then spend the rest of its movement to charge back? I think they
want to say that a charging unit must start its move two or three areas
away (why not four?) to allow for charging momentum, but as with the
rest of the rules it is unclear. Second, rule 9.1 states that the path
taken by charging units must follow a straight line between the area in
which the charge begins and the target area. This is quite confusing;
the poor example given on the player aid card has the units moving at a
diagonal, raising the question of what is meant by a straight line. The
example is further confusing regarding the counter-charge action. Under
9.2 clearly states that the "if the defender succeeded in the above
morale check, the defender's cavalry, chariots, and/or elephants (only)
counter-charge the attacker, negating the momentum of the initial
charge." This clearly states there is only one morale roll (the initial
one). Yet, the player "aid" card states there are two morale rolls in
its example of play.

One of my favorite rule questions comes when your trials are near an end
and victory points are calculated. The end of rule 13.5, Army Collapse,
clearly states that routed forces must exit the board, and "once exited,
the opposing player gains victory points (16.2). Alas, the rules end at
15.53 (note the scenario folder information is not numbered in any way,
and I could find no discussion of routed forces for victory).

There are many other weaknesses of the system, to include the movement
system and the map grid (why squares? I thought this went out with
Tactics II over 30 years ago). The scenarios are weak (four with a
"Bonus" when compared to the more than 50 my Great War at Sea Volume I
game included), and unbalanced. In one battle of Zama Hannibal routed
the Roman cavalry, wiped out several legion units, and escaped with a
third of his force. Guess what…the Romans won! Why…well the victory
point schedule appears to be as random as a Florida re-count. (while we
are on the issue of V.P., does the scenario end at the instant the last
enemy unit is gone, or at the end of the turn allowing for recovering of
units? Also, does a player still get the VP for a recovered unit?)

One aspect I must comment on that seems at best gamey is the movement of
heavy infantry units. These units have as much mobility in the game as
light infantry units. Except for the phalanx units, it seems like heavy
infantry can freely change facing any number of times during a turn
(rule 10.21). Thus I find my opponent turning legions about face in
front of an opponent, move in front of cavalry units, and then change
facing again. Further, while I like the phalanx movement restrictions
these units should be able to retrograde one space in a turn.

It is nice to have two scenario folders (one for the Roman and one for
the Carthaginian player) but there are numerous problems even with
these. First, is there a lack of anything but brown paper in Virginia? I
had to mark each scenario folder to remember who is who. Second, it
would be nice to know, at a glance, not only what you have to do to win,
but also what your opponent must do, since the values given to each side
for steps eliminated differ greatly.

The player's aid card is anything but an aid. Poorly laid out, and
lacking in expected information, it also contains a small example of
play, which has at least two contradictions with the written rules.
Speaking of player's aid cards, one that laid out the step reductions on
a chart would be nice, as would a victory point track. Hopefully as
players continue to beta-test this series for Avalanche Press these
crucial items will be included (can anyone say "Microsoft Development
Process"?).

And, oh by the way, Hannibal at Bay is a misnomer. Hannibal only appears
in one of the extremely lop-sided (from both an historical and victory
point perspective) scenarios. It would have been better to call this
game Rome at War: Carthage at Bay - Development on the Way! 


CONSIMWORLD RESPONSES TO THE 2nd REVIEW ON GROGNARDS

Isidro Ramos - 06:13am Jan 9, 2001 PST (#217 of 249)

I think 'anal' is the best way to describe that 2nd review. It seemed
like the author was going out of his way to trash it. I certainly
disagree with about every point he made.

charles vasey - 10:05am Jan 9, 2001 PST (#221 of 249)

I was reminded of the episode where Homer Simpson becomes a restaurant
critic...

Stephen Jackson - 01:05pm Jan 9, 2001 PST (#224 of 249)

Romans...mmmmmmm...

Didn't see much worth responding to except for the question on squares
vs hexes. The reason I chose squares for flat terrain is that it limits
a unit in a line with other units to attacking the unit in front of
itself. No ignoring the unit on your front-left so you can double-team
the unit on your front-right. Note, this doesn't affect facing, since
you can face any way you wish so long as the counter doesn't cross an
area border. In most flat terrain areas, this gives you 360 degree
facing potential.

Lets see, what else. The rear line unit of the legion is meant to go up
in strength at one point. As explained above, thats when the fresh
triarii component comes into play. The counters (four, not two) are not
mis-printed.

The scenarios were extensively playtested (one benefit of APLs printer
problems/delays; they each got around forty plays instead of twenty or
so). I've had the Carthaginians win at Zama frequently, but they are
rarely in command of the field unless playing the free set-up option. In
one, where Hannibal escaped with only himself and Hanno, the Romans only
won by one point.

The rest of it is pretty bizarre. Couldn't tell the scenario books
apart? One has 'Roman' in something like 30 point font, the other has
'Carthaginian'.

Peter McCord - 10:57am Jan 10, 2001 PST (#235 of 248)

I got the impression that the reviewer honestly did not like one or two
things, and then had some difficulty with the rules (that no one else
seems to be having, but that's another debate), and it snowballed from
there. Every next point he takes up is more negative than the previous.
As CV indicates, the review reveals more about his state of mind than
the game, although I'll weigh in on that certainly when mine arrives
(hopefully soon!).

Squares do come with their own problems, but, depending upon the design,
they aren't clearly better or worse than hexes, unless I missed that
written in stone somewhere.

Bob Turcot - 06:12am Jan 12, 2001 PST (#247 of 249)

Didn't know about the Grognards reviews until I checked back in here.
The second review sounded pretty childish to me, many of the
reviewer's points seemed clearly laid out in the rules. When it comes to
rules I consider myself about as dense as they come and yet had no
problem playing this game right out of the box.