Edward, next time you are in a battle, you should try to play the cards you have most of that the enemy is likely to have few of. That often helps. Also, note that some cards appear in the deck more often than others. Good luck!

Also, winning a battle may not be necessary to further your goals. I learned that the hard way -- I used Hannibal to force a battle to get further south into Italy and just KNEW I could win the battle. After six rounds, I did win -- but the battle casualties hurt me more than the Romans. I wound up heading back across the Alps to lick my wounds. Instead, I should have withdrawn from the battle and lived to fight another day.

No battles won in two games, that's unusual, but it's hard to comment without knowing what happenend. Maybe you just had outrageous bad luck, maybe you picked the wrong fights. Did you use avoid and withdraw? Were you playing Rome or Carthage? In most games Rome, I think, will lose more than half of the battles, which is no big deal since it has the resources to cope with this.

Specificaly about the battle you mentioned (20 battlecards against 14). I guess you played Rome (Carthage almost never manages to begin a battle with 20 BC's), and most likely you were fighting Hannibal. If that's the case (and forgive me if I'm wrong here) you shouldn't be surprised you lost. There really is no guarantee of beating Hannibal even with a full hand of BC's, especially if you had a mediocre or lousy consul. There is a reason after all why the game is called 'Hannibal' and not 'Tiberius Longus' or 'Varro'

Have not received my game YET, but if the randomness of battle was that high you should have won about half of them, shouldn't you? Maybe your opponent fought better and the battle system is not that random...

Why did he have 20 cards and you had 14? Sounds less like luck and more like you should've withdrawn.

No, it was the other way around I believe: he had 20 battlecards and his opponent 14 battlecards and he still lost the battle.

My guess is you are making the wrong operational (when and where to engage in battle) and tactical choices (your actions in a given battle).

Also, if you're playing Rome, you might expect to lose a good deal of battles against Hannibal or in Hispania/Africa where the Carthaginians tend to also have an advantage. The Romans can take a lot of punishment and often willingly accept a series of defeats in order to slowly attrit the enemy.



What generals were facing each other in this battle? A good general fighting a poorer one can compensate for a considerable advantage in battle cards enjoyed by your opponent. Without this information, it's impossible to say whether you actually had an edge in that particular battle.

As for not having any reserves, well, that ought to have been an alarm signal. Did you consider withdrawing at the first opportunity? Armies often disengaged when they found the terrain or whatever not to their liking...



Your dismal record in battles may mean your opponent's seen the light while you still need to step up your operational and battle strategy.



Frustrating? That's of course in the eye of the beholder.

Random? There's a lot you can do operationally to ensure you have an advantage in those battles you choose to engage in. And once engaged in battle, there are plenty of choices to be made. Quite frankly, you being a newbie pretty much guarantees you're missing many of the subtle decision-points in battles.

I myself had nowhere near the appreciation of these points until I had years of experience with the game. As I discovered ever more layers of decision-making in battles, so did my appreciation of the battle card mechanism ever increase.

When it comes to the so-called "subtleties" of the battle system, the emperor has no clothes. I wish that those who support the battle-card system would be satisfied with giving us an "I like it," and be done with it. Everything else after that only supports the claim of the naked emperor.

Having said this, history is replete with examples of the smaller force "spanking" the larger force. Canne is not only the classic example from 2nd Punic War, it is one of the classic examples from military history. At Canne, leadership and planning meant more than numbers; 80 000 dead, captured, wounded and scattered Romans tell the story.

None of this makes losing, time and again, less frustrating. But do not judge Hannibal by the weakness of the battle-card system. The game shines, not because of the battle-card system, but in spite of it.

I like it. Happy?

Are you seriously asking that we restrict discussion of games, game mechanics, or anything that has to do with games to 'like' or 'don't like'? Sure, as so often in matters of taste, first there is the liking or disliking, and then we search for arguments to justify our predilections (and not the other way around), but that does not mean that those arguments have no value or are of no interest. Or is it just this particular subject, i.e. the battle cards in Hannibal, that we are not allowed to discuss in your presence?

I am always serious. Read all my threads. Read. Every. One. Never do I use sarcasm or hyperbole. Never do I stretch the truth to make a truism. Never do I use humour. I am always serious. Always.

But to get serious, if only for a moment, no, I do not expect, nor, because I love this freedom of speech that we cherish, do I want to limit discussion on the battle system of Hannibal. Nevertheless, the more one tries to defend it, the more indefensible it becomes. It is a house built on sand, wating for the wave of logic to knock it down. Talk it up all you want, it still falls down.

That is why I prefer, and simply respect, the simple, "I like it," without it being wrapped in sugar-coated pseudo-logic that cannot take the heat of hard thinking. If sugar-coated pseudo-logic arguments hold value and interest for you, then rock on. Rock loud too. This way you will not hear any dissenting voices knocking at the door.

I see. Well, don't hold back, please, and unleash those waves of logic. You have my full attention.

Is this the best you can do at baiting?

With no sarcasm intended, I have better things to do with my time (such as continue work on the Hannibal review I am writing, so that I can get to those English papers that need grading, so that I can maybe, just maybe, set up and play a turn of my C&C Ancients this weekend) then to try to change the minds of those who like the battle system.

People who like it will not change their minds because they like it. Logic has nothing to do with it. If was not as if anyone did a logical analysis of the battle-card system, compared it to CRT systems (for better or for worse) in other games, looked at tactical systems in strategic games like Empires in Arms, compared it with what we know of how the 2nd Punic war was fought, and then came to the conclusion that the battle-card system is the best thing God ever allowed into a wargame. People played Hannibal and either liked the battle card system, like you, or did not like it, like me, and then we rushed to the ramparts to defend what we like or do not like.

If you like C&C Ancients, and since I am new at it, what about exploring how Hannibal battles could take place using the C&C system. It would take longer, but if it works, it would sure beat winning or losing at the wargame equivalent of "Go Fish."

People, people, people... stop arguing with bentlarsen. Didn't you get the memo?

Apparently, bentlarsen has been appointed as ludoric arbiter. He, and he alone, holds the perfect truth regarding the worthiness of game mechanics. If he says Hannibal's battle system is bad, well, then it just is, and if you dare think otherwise you're clearly deluded, idiotic or just plain contrary.

I hope it's clear now. Please, don't make me repeat myself.

Only if you insist.

Interesting how life would be so much easier, simplier, why it might even smell better if I just thought what the majority thought. If I would just get into line with my fellow sheep and go "Baaaaaa!" like the rest, all the pieces would fit into their proper place.

"Idiotic" is a word I have never seriously used to call someone unless he or she was on the verge of hurting him or herself or another human being.

"Deluded" is a term that could apply to all of us. We spend our lives rolling dice and playing games and arguing with each other about how to represent combat from the years 218-202 B.C. Perhaps the word "idiotic" does apply in this situation.

"Contrary" is what you get when you refuse to follow the rest of the as they bleat their merry way through their hollow lives.

Aaaaaaannywho, I didn't try any withdrawals, and considering I could not, for the life of me, roll well enough to Counterattack, I certainly could not have rolled well enough to Withdraw.


The bottom line here, is that my opponent simply drew a crapload of frontal assaults and I didn't have any reserves. That's it.

There was no subtlety, or strategy, or layers of depth or cleverness, he just had a bunch of those cards and I didn't. (shrug).


HOWEVER, there were still some lessons:

- The lower battle Rating of the Roman Generals is a big issue. One must play with this in mind.

- A 20-to-14 card advantage (despite my dismal showing in this fight) will usually carry the day.

- If you got a crappy General, husband your resources till you can attack with a good general (Charles nailed that one).

- Severus Snape is funny (he wrote: "Deluded" is a term that could apply to all of us. We spend our lives rolling dice and playing games and arguing with each other about how to represent combat from the years 218-202 B.C. Perhaps the word "idiotic" does apply in this situation."


I love this game - I can't wait to play again.

Yup, you have captured the essence of the card game that determines battles in about as clear a way as any of us could. While it may not always unfold just this way for you every time, it happens a little too often for my liking. Far too often in this little card game, the winner is the one who gets the weird card distribution and a lucky counter-attack roll.

Oh and btw, Severus has to share the title of "Chief Detractor of the Battle Card System" with me and quite a number of others if you take the time to look into the subject in any depth. There are any number of alternative methods of resolving battles that don't involve dice (and some which also use cards) which would have been better.

Fortunately, the game survives this by being so good in every other respect and being relatively low in battle density. Enjoy the game and do the best you can with the battles (stressing the ability to count and apply basic statistics).

Just have to add: I have to agree that the battle card system in this game as in We the People is a clumsy way of handling combat. Homogeneity is the sign of a streamlined mechanic, a combination both of card play and rolling dice is not. I'd much rather dispense with the trouble of mixing and dealing cards (which do get tedious after a while) and instead add some numbers together and make a roll on a table, that more clearly told me the odds. Or, instead, dispense with the dice rolling during combat and make a smarter card game out of it.

I think there was a study of the probabilities in WtP, maybe it could be used with Hannibal as well (Even though this might seem like blasphemy to those neurotics who need to play the game EXACTLY like the rules say)?

Reshuffling the battle cards perpetually is a pain in the ass, it's true. But there's no way a combat results table would be nearly as much fun as playing a few rounds of "Go Fish" against Hannibal.

And now for my two cents worth: (note the clink of the two pennies hitting the table) Guys, guys, guys! OK, one may not like the battle card system. That's their opinion. My opinion is that the Battle Card System is great! It's the reason I kept HRC, it's the reason that I get people to play, it's the reason those people keep playing, and it's the reason I bought and keep playing We the People.



Maybe it's because I've played cards damned near my whole life (I spent nearly entire summers of my life doing so). Maybe it's because I seem to be unique because things that bug the living crap out of most people don't really bother me. Maybe I like the randomness a card deck brings, as is evidenced by the fact my favorite wargame ever is Up Front, where everything is determined by card pull. (If you hate the Battle Card system, I fear to consider your hatred of Up Front.) But you accept a certain level of randomness when a card deck is involved. Certain. The randomness is limited to the deck. Once you know the deck, you can limit the randomness. And every single person on this forum can learn the HRC Battle Deck in 45 seconds or less. (OK, maybe a whole 10 minutes if you have small children harassing you.) After that, there will still be randomness, but you can skillfully mitigate that. OK, sometimes it won't be your hand, it won't be your game, it won't be your day. But, everybody rest assured, if you have a day where your 20 card hand loses to a 14 card hand, there will come a day when your 14 card hand will embarass a 20 card hand. It is my experience that day will come sooner rather than later. (OK, OK, having Hannibal or Scipio Africanus would help greatly. And having any of the 1 or 2 Battle Rating Roman Consuls will turn any hand into a clunker.)

The Battle Card System is better for HRC & WTP because these conflicts went like that where the odds didn't necessarily mean much. Therefore, it is good to try to simulate a conflict where an army can routinely embarass an army better than twice it's size. The Battle Card system was discontinued in For the People because battles in the American Civil War conformed to what occurs on a CRT influenced my leader modifiers much more often that the 2nd Punic War or the American Revolutionary War did.

My group likes the tension the the Battle Deck brings to HRC & WTP. That being said, I have another friend who dislikes the card driven system so much, he even dislikes the Strategy Deck in FTP. Strategy Card decks are too random for him, making him squirm anytime anybody mentions WTP, HRC, FTP, or Successors. I'm not holding out much hope for Twilight Struggle. To each their own.

For bentlarsen: for a guy who dislikes the system so much, it amazes me that you are around every single time this topic comes up. I'd think you'd be using the time to play a system you liked a whole lot better. But that's just me. I can't abide Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles, or Paranoia. But I very nearly never talk about them.