As a long time gamer I always knew it was only a matter of time until I got interested in wargames. When I was younger I played a lot of miniatures games, but more for the hobby than the games themselves. As I have aged(not that I am remotely old yet, but as I said I am a long time gamer) I have started becoming more and more interested in the longer, more meaty games out there. With that in mind I decided that the reprint of Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage was the perfect way to delve into true wargaming for the first time. Up until now the only real wargaming I have done has been in the form of Memoir 44, C&C:A, and Tide of Iron. I have played many multiplayer wargames such as A Game Of Thrones, Risk, A&A, etc... but I recently decided I wanted to explore the deeper, heavier, two player wargames. The following is my review of Hannibal after 3 plays. I will not be detailing the rules of the game since they are available for download, but merely giving my reaction to them as a system.

Components:
Like many in the hobby, I am a sucker for bits. Bits can make a mediocre game enjoyable to me sometimes, although gameplay is always king in my book. With that being said, I was a little worried about how I would react to the chit style of bits a lot of wargames use. Turns out my fears were unfounded because for the most part I found the chits and other bits quite excellent.

*Map: The map is large and heavily constructed. I don't think I will ever have to worry about it not laying flat which is nice. The puzzle setup doesn't bother me at all, in fact I almost feel a little better about it because folding boards can tear at the creases fairly easily with multiple plays.

A lot of good information is on the map as well, including useful tables and reminders to keep the need for looking back into the rulebook at a minimum.

The map is quite colorful, but not overly so, and the regions are easy to differentiate based on their colors.

My only real complaint about the map is that the borders and the travel lines can be quite hard to discern from each other, especially in the Italian region. It is also difficult to determine which cities reside in which provinces in Italy. This goes away after a couple plays, but it made the learning games take a lot longer and be slightly more frustrating.

*Bits: The bits consist of smallish round cardboard counters representing soldiers, elephants, and the like, as well as thicker and larger cardboard rectangles representing the Generals, which are placed in plastic "pinchy" stands.

As I said earlier I was a little worried that I would be turned off by the somewhat bland chits as soldiers, but that turned out not to be true. I would not have wanted to board to be cluttered further by plastic minis, so the chits made sense in the end. That being said, I don't think round is the best shape for them. The large stacks of round chits seemed more prone to mishandling and/or dropping than large stacks of rectangular chits I have used in other games. The generals were serviceable as well, but I did find it hard occasionally to balance their small plastic stands on top of large armies. Hannibal fell off his perch a few times, a visual homage to "Yurtle the Turtle" that, while amusing, was also annoying as he tended to displace other chits on the way down. Overall though, the small amount of fiddly-ness and slight danger of toppling over was not enough to really bother me.

The political control markers and city/tribe markers were entirely fine and I had no problems with them. Easy to see and keep track of, which is their only real purpose.

*Cards: The two decks of cards in the game are of good quality. They are thick enough to not feel flimsy, but I still think I will be sleeving them, as there is a definite possibility of marked cards causing problems. The artwork is not incredibly detailed, but what is there is quite good and conveys the theme well.

Component Score: 6/10

Rules:
The rules of the game come in a roughly 50 page booklet. They are definitely daunting at first, but are fairly well structured so as to give a clear sense of order. The language is for the most part clear and unambiguous. The only issues I had reading the rules were as follow:

*In the early section of the rules you are often referred to a section much later on to further expound on a point or idea. This is reasonable in the long run, but on first reading I was torn between jumping to that section right then to complete my thought so to speak, or continuing reading cover to cover. I opted for the cover to cover method, and do not regret it, but I still think it was a bit irritating.

*My other problem is slightly more serious, although I suppose somewhat related to the first. There are a few very small sections in the later pages of the book which contain very important or critical rules or ideas. The best example is that the only place in the book that tells you that you can flip a political control point your opponent controls by having a soldier present is in the last few pages of the book, section 19.6 (out of 20) I believe. If someone were to read the first bit of the book and try to play a practice game without knowing this rule it could really hurt their first experience of the game, which would be unfortunate. There are a couple other instances of this as well.

Those two problems aside I found the rules to be well written. Once you know most of the game the structure of the rulebook is helpful in quickly looking up small issues. An index would have been nice, but the book is short enough and ordered well enough that it was not strictly needed. For a game that is as deep and with as many options and situations as this one I found the rules to be succinct and well executed.

Rules Score: 8/10

Gameplay:
The meat of the matter, so to speak. How does the game play? Well, I'm happy to say that for me the game plays splendidly. In my first game I was very unsure what to do, and was definitely overwhelmed with choices, but I personally love to have this problem in games! Once I settled into the idea that this is a significantly more strategic than tactical game I began to hold my own. This game definitely requires you to formulate a plan, and stick to it tenaciously. There is plenty of room for different and viable plans it seems to me as well, which is very important to me personally for replayability.

The two sides play very, very differently which is a huge plus for me. The strategies each can employ, and the difference in the way they reinforce and in their command structure really adds strategic depth. As Carthage do I go for the all out blitz into Rome, or harass from the edges of Italy and build troops, or hang back and make the Romans leave their precious cities? These choices resonate with me and keep me thinking about the game long after finishing, which in my opinion is the entire point of a wargame.

Underneath the strategic level of the game is the extremely tactical nature of the battle system. The card driven battles are tense and exciting, and I have found numerous times thus far that a smaller force that plays their hand well can win battles against larger opponents, which is of paramount importance to me in regards to playability. Overall I am very impressed with this incarnation of diceless battle and thrilled to engage in each and every skirmish that occurs.

One thing that took some getting used to was the learning curve associated with battles and the consequences therein. It is difficult to lose a significant portion of your army, even when sustaining a loss. This leads to sense not so much of defeating armies, as of pushing them around. The true consequences of battle turn out to be political ones, and in fact that realization became the key to understanding the game for me. I don't believe that the game is as much about winning battles as one would initially think. It is more about the threat of battle, the threat of force, and the careful intimidation of your opponent meant to gain you the political territories and advantages you need to win. Once I started thinking on a more political level and using my armies more in that regard and less in the dogged determination to kill enemy generals I felt much more in control and comfortable. Revelations like this are a huge attraction for me towards wargaming, and this one definitely left me satisfied with its discovery.

Overall, the gameplay was everything I hoped it would be and more. Sweeping political struggle underpinned by tense tactical battles with varied and subtle consequences, this game really got under my skin in a good way. After 3 plays I think I have barely scratched the surface of this game, and I really look forward to delving deeper.

Gameplay Score: 9/10

This was my first review, and it went much longer than I wanted. I didn't even get to talk about things like historical accuracy, game length, randomness, etc... but since I doubt anyone read this far I couldn't imagine anyone reading even more rambling. If you did read this far, thanks, and I will refine my reviewing technique with practice I'm sure.