geek
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
52
19 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Paul - the
flag
Avatar
040506070809
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage » Forums » Reviews
A closer look at the VG edition of Hannibal
A closer look at the VG edition of Hannibal

Now that I finally got the game let’s take closer look on it. I should mention that I won’t compare it to the old AH edition as most people have never and will never see it anyway. Besides, I sold my old copy when I decided to buy the new edition. Smart move? Let’s find out…

NB: In this review I have used pictures from the gallery here at BGG instead of taking my own. A big thanks to the people I have borrowed from. If I have used one of your pictures and you would rather that I had not, let me know and I’ll remove it.


The box and what’s in it



Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a falling elephant.

The game comes in a fairly big box with a nice finish. The box art is a bit over the top with elephants falling off a mountain and Hannibal looking like a cave man but I still like it. I also like the use of elephants on the back for suitable age and complexity. Nice touch.



When you open the box you find a 10-piece puzzle board map, rulebook, one player aid, two decks of cards, three sheets of playing pieces, two dice, 14 plastic stands and an insert to hold all the components.



Personally I usually throw out box insert right away as they never work in reality. Once you sleeve the cards (recommended) they won’t fit in the insert anymore and the other components will shake loose unless you have the game lying down anyway. As I have my games standing, bye-bye insert.


The dice



The lacquered wood dice are a nice touch, especially the Carthaginian one. I’ll probably use other dice when actually playing the game but I really like them.


The playing pieces



There are not many types of playing pieces in Hannibal. You have hexagonal political control markers (PCs) including tribes, round combat units (CUs) and square city markers. There are some additional information markers for turn, siege status, siege train and current proconsul. In addition to the markers you have a number of generals to be placed upright in the plastic stands.

The playing pieces look good and as they are made of thick cardboard there is a real quality feel to them.


The map



The map is probably the biggest news in the VG edition of Hannibal. It’s a ten piece puzzle board map. I’m not sure what I think about it? It’s of good quality and easy to assemble but how durable is it? Will it still hold after having been assembled 100 times? Normal folding maps have their problems as well, but as I usually play with Plexiglas it’s not that big a problem to me. I guess a paper map à la GMT was out of the question here as VG wants to sell the game to more people than just old wargamers, and with that in mind I think the puzzle board map was a good choice.

The map looks a bit busy though. Perhaps it’s the dual place names on all spaces? I also think Italy especially is a shade too dark. It’s hard to spot the connections between spaces at times.

On the map you’ll also find various tables and leader boxes. There’s an error on the attrition table, it says -1 modifier when crossing a non-Alps pass where it should be -2.


The rule book and play aid



The rule book is nicely done and in colour. The actual rules are the same as the AH 2nd edition rules, at least I couldn’t find any differences. There are some minor errors in the rules, but nothing major.

The play aid or summary sheet is nicely done on thick paper. I like the bloodstains. :) Good call to include the Carthaginian die legend here as well. What’s not good is that there are some errors on the summary sheet. The biggest being the Carthaginian reinforcements. Exchange one of the “1 CU with any General in Hispania (or in New Carthage) if New Carthage is Carthaginian controlled” with “1 CU with any General in Hispania (or in New Carthage) if the province of Baetica is Carthaginian controlled”.


The cards



There are two decks of cards used in Hannibal, one 64 card strategy deck and one 48 card battle deck. They are both made of coated paper of good stock. The cards are a bit smaller than the average playing card (and card sleeves) so you’ll have to get Yu-Gi-Oh sized sleeves here if you want a snug fit.

I really do recommend getting sleeves for the cards. Hannibal is a tense game so you’ll probably be all sweaty after a while which is bad for the cards. Protect those cards ASAP. I prefer clear sleeves myself, but sleeves in different colours for the two deck works as well.


Verdict

All in all I think Valley Games did great here. The game is of excellent quality and beautifully made. Ok, there are some things I would have done differently personally but that will always be the case. You simply can’t please everyone.

I rate this edition 8/10.

Note that I’m not rating the game itself (which I rate a 10) just how well made I think this edition is.
Last edited on 2007-11-12 07:25:16 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
It would be interesting to know how you rate the earlier edition.
Paul - the
flag
Avatar
040506070809
I would rate both the Avalon Hill and the Descartes edition of Hannibal about 6/10. Standard AH quality.

The production value of the VG is higher, the card stock is of better quality and the counters are much thicker but not too thick. Colour rulebook and play aid as well.
Richard Irving
flag
Avatar
Quote:
The cards are a bit smaller than the average playing card (and card sleeves) so you’ll have to get Yu-Gi-Oh sized sleeves here if you want a snug fit.


No--they aren't a bit smaller than the average playing card. Hannibal's cards are Bridge sized cards, which is one of two standard sizes for playing cards.

The other standard size are Poker sized cards.
Paul - the
flag
Avatar
040506070809
rri1 wrote:
Quote:
The cards are a bit smaller than the average playing card (and card sleeves) so you’ll have to get Yu-Gi-Oh sized sleeves here if you want a snug fit.


No--they aren't a bit smaller than the average playing card. Hannibal's cards are Bridge sized cards, which is one of two standard sizes for playing cards.

The other standard size are Poker sized cards.


Guess my old CCG roots are showing here. To me an average card is Magic sized. :)
Manuel Pombeiro
flag
Avatar
06070809
Doomfarer wrote:

Guess my old CCG roots are showing here. To me an average card is Magic sized. :)


LOL and the second wide-game size are cards sized as Yo-Gi-Oh cards!! I'm with you on this even not ever been a Magic player!!
Severus Snape
flag
Avatar
050708
Quote:
I would rate both the Avalon Hill and the Descartes edition of Hannibal about 6/10. Standard AH quality.


:gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp::yuk::gulp:

People think I am hard to please, but six out of ten? Get real.

goo
Paul - the
flag
Avatar
040506070809
Ok, how would you rate them?

I can't find any huge problems with either edition myself.
Charles Féaux de la Croix
flag
Avatar
0708
6/10 seems a perfectly reasonable score for the old editions. The cards aren't that nicely illustrated, for one.
Mosse Stenström
flag
Avatar
06070809
Doomfarer wrote:
It’s of good quality and easy to assemble but how durable is it? Will it still hold after having been assembled 100 times?

I actually like the puzzle maps - they stay flat better and don't have that awful crease in the fold that tips counters over.

Concerning lastability I doubt very many copies of any wargame maps are ever assembled/folded 100 times. :)
Darren M
flag
Avatar
04
I'd have to agree... any game that's good enough that I play it 100 times deserves to fall apart and be replaced.
Andy Daglish
flag
Avatar
Doomfarer wrote:
In addition to the markers you have a number of generals to be placed upright in the plastic stands.


why do their cloaks extend further to the ground in rear profile? It is perhaps because the artwork was done by someone who wasn't thinking? The yucky cards appeal to me as much as colourised Laurel & Hardy. Overall I get the impression that the difference between the TAHGC and Valley editions represents the difference in ability between being able to use an art program and an art pen. Commissioning these types of artwork nowadays demonstrates their perceived worth: whilst there's a small army of Photoshop users out there, commercial art of a certain ability, such as found in the TAHGC game, will be very expensive.
Roberto Ullfig
flag
Avatar
I looked at a friend's copy of the game last night. I like the puzzle style board and I think it should last fine but yes, the board is VERY busy. In the original, the place names are inside the circles so you don't even see them when a PC marker is on them which is not a bad thing anyway but on this board the place names are always visible and they appear TWICE. The connections between spaces are hard to see as well in some areas. We did not open the cards up but the counters looked better than the previous versions. I didn't notice the errors on the board but if those are indeed there I'd rate this a 6/10 with the original AH and Descartes an 8/10.
Jim Carvin
flag
Avatar
0405060708
Quote:
In the original, the place names are inside the circles so you don't even see them when a PC marker is on them which is not a bad thing anyway but on this board the place names are always visible and they appear TWICE. The connections between spaces are hard to see as well in some areas.


I can see the connections could be a problem but I like that you can read the city names. In the old version you can't read the names once counters are on the board. Since I didn't play it much and don't have the map memorized, it was a real pain finding the cities when a card was played. So it's a bit of a trade-off for me.
Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
jcarvin wrote:
Since I didn't play it much and don't have the map memorized, it was a real pain finding the cities when a card was played. So it's a bit of a trade-off for me.


Since Hannibal is in my blood at this point, maybe I'm not the best judge, but how often was this really necessary? The actual (fortified) cities all had names clearly on the counters. How often does the game refer to a named, non-City space? The only time I can think of is a) the initial set-up, and b) the Balearic Slingers. Maybe for PBeM, but in my opinion the physical product should be designed for physical play. I thought that naming every space twice on the board was unwieldy and busy. Heck, naming them even once doesn't seem necessary to me - the AH version didn't, I've played on it many times and never thought to myself, "I wish every space had a name on it".

I do like the new Valley Games version. I think the puzzle map works great, the box and rules are wonderful, including Roman and Carthaginian dice was a great touch, and the fact that the card backs are all correctly color-coordinated is a bonus. But I'd rate the original AH production significantly higher than 6/10, maybe 9/10, and I think it's still the better edition of the game, for three reasons:

- the questionable decision to print the CU strength points in small, thin type (one of the most important pieces of information in the game should be absolutely clear, not something you have to squint at)
- the move from circular to hexagonal PCs, which I just don't get (they're harder to keep neat-looking, and they make the critical distinction between Carthaginian-friendly Tribes and Carthaginian PCs less clear than it should be).
- overuse of mediocre CG. I actually found the simple line drawings in the AH version more attractive in many cases than the people who looked like they belong in a computer game.

While in general I like the VG edition, I'm thrilled to have the game back in print, and I don't think these issues should keep anyone from checking out the game, I still think the original AH version is somewhat better just because it's significantly cleaner from a usability perspective. This is a game that deserves to be played a lot, and so should be usable. It's always frustrating for me when a reprint of an old game "upgrades" the appearance but misses usability factors, and so the new Hannibal is a little frustrating. But it's still a great game, and the VG edition is still a nice version of it.
David/Charles Williams
flag
Avatar
rri1 wrote:
Quote:
The cards are a bit smaller than the average playing card (and card sleeves) so you’ll have to get Yu-Gi-Oh sized sleeves here if you want a snug fit.


No--they aren't a bit smaller than the average playing card. Hannibal's cards are Bridge sized cards, which is one of two standard sizes for playing cards.

The other standard size are Poker sized cards.


Doesn't that "mean" that they *are* a bit smaller than the average playing card? (if we take your definition of 'playing card', and my definition of average)

chx
Paul - the
flag
Avatar
040506070809
cfarrell wrote:
While in general I like the VG edition, I'm thrilled to have the game back in print, and I don't think these issues should keep anyone from checking out the game, I still think the original AH version is somewhat better just because it's significantly cleaner from a usability perspective. This is a game that deserves to be played a lot, and so should be usable. It's always frustrating for me when a reprint of an old game "upgrades" the appearance but misses usability factors, and so the new Hannibal is a little frustrating. But it's still a great game, and the VG edition is still a nice version of it.


After having actually had the game on the table I'm considering lowering my value of the VG edition to 7/10. The map really is busy and after a while it almost get tiresome to look at.

I wouldn't rate the AH version higher than 7/10 so guess it's even. The AH map is clearer but the cards in my version had card backs with colours all over the scale. You simply had to have card protectors there.

So both versions have different things going for them. But as Chris said, the most important thing is the game being in print.

Chris Farrell
flag
Avatar
Doomfarer wrote:
I wouldn't rate the AH version higher than 7/10 so guess it's even. The AH map is clearer but the cards in my version had card backs with colours all over the scale. You simply had to have card protectors there.

So both versions have different things going for them. But as Chris said, the most important thing is the game being in print.


Yeah, the color consistancy on the card backs was annoying, but it didn't really affect play. I never noticed a correlation between card back color shade and actual events, and since you're not drawing cards, just dealing them out in chunks, it didn't seem to affect play for me.

I'm not saying that it couldn't have been better, just that it was a glitch that didn't really affect the game much, unlike too-small font sizes for CU strengths.

Anyway, this is only VGs second game, and their first wargame, so if you cut them some slack on that count (which is fair, I think) they did a reasonably good job. What I guess I find a little surprising, though, is that they seem to have had some access to Mark Simonitch on this project. Mark is clearly an experienced graphic design guy who could have flagged some of this stuff. I'm not quite sure why they didn't avail themselves of his expertise; perhaps he was busy working on GMT projects.
Pierce Ostrander
flag
Avatar
05
Just a note from someone who has nothing to compare it to...

It's fine. No noticable problems or difficulties using the board. It's very pretty.
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.