$60.00
$20.00
Recommend
28 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage» Forums » Variants

Subject: Charles' Variants (Final Edition) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Simonitch's masterpiece, Hannibal, is my favourite game apart from Diplomacy. Yet I always felt that the game falls in some respects just short of perfection, these being:

A) The opening campaign season of 218 BC tends to be a rather scripted affair and Gaul rarely if ever becomes the important theatre of operations it historically was.

B) The Roman superstack roadblock defence at Mutina/Ariminium is overpowered and frequently leads to prolonged stalemates and something of a static Sitzkrieg evolving.

C) The conservative early Roman strategy of "Italy First" (manifesting itself in the form of the above-described roadblock defence) discourages early Roman overseas expeditions and is another factor in making the game less fluid.

D) Most walled cities tend to be strategic backwaters rather than being prized objectives (Campania, the focus of Hannibal's efforts in Italy, thus not being nearly as important an objective in the game as it historically was). This leads to sieges being rather rare and in the cases of some cities being pretty much unheard of. In turn this makes a host of siege-related events less useful. Raising the stakes in sieges would heighten the tension and drama in the game.

Roughly speaking, those are my four primary beefs with an otherwise stunning design. Being the notorious tinkerer I am, I sought to adress these concerns of mine by means of a variant. After many different variant approaches and revisions (partly chronicled in earlier threads I posted), I finally settled on the below variant rules.

These may be used separately or - as I would recommend - together.

Earlier this year I sponsored their implementation in Wargameroom's Hannibal module (a Java-based online game platform which fully enforces the game rules). This has greatly increased the number of variant games getting played. So far, I have yet to hear of anyone who tried it out not finding the variant package to his or her liking.

What about game balance? I've got a good number of stats of such variant games and consider the variant package balanced. I believe Carthage gets a slight boost by the variant package due to the Roman superstack roadblock being tougher to assemble (though other factors also work to Rome's advantage).

Yet since I perceive Rome as being slightly favoured in the standard game, this slight shift may actually amount to the variant package being closer to a fifty-fifty play balance.

Now, that's my hunch after seeing many a variant game being played and amassing plenty of stats. One day I'll post a proper statistical analysis.

Anyway, I confess that I couldn't be more pleased with how the variant is played. I hope you - should you try it out - will feel likewise and am always happy to hear other folks' take on it.

So here are the variant rules:

Optional Setup

Carthage:

Boii: 3 CUs
Insubres: 3 CUs
Saguntum: Hannibal, Gisgo, Mago, 2 Elephants, 6 CUs
New Carthage: Hasdrubal, 2 CUs
Carthage: Hanno, 4 CUs
Rome:

Massilia: P. Scipio, 8 CUs
Nemausus: 2 CUs
Rhone: 2 CUs
Agrigentum: Longus, 8 CUs

Optional Siege Rules


All cities (except Rome, Carthage, Syracuse, New Carthage and Gades) fall once TWO (not three) siege points are accumulated by the besieging force.

Modify the siege roll against any city by -1 drm whenever:

o 1 or more unbesieged enemy CUs are located in a space adjacent to the besieged city and/or
o 1 or more enemy CUs are located within the city

Rome, Syracuse and Carthage no longer enjoy their inherent -1 drm, but may benefit from the above-described drm.

Once a siege is successfully completed, the victorious besieger may choose to either:

o LOOT THE FALLEN CITY: Add 2 CUs to the force which conquered the city.

o SHOW CLEMENCY: The 2 closest enemy PC markers not occupied by enemy CUs (distance calculated in movement points) are flipped. If several PC markers are equally close, the conqueror of the city may choose which are flipped.


I'm thinking of taking this tweaked siege system and applying it to a future CDG design of my own (albeit not to my current Bonnie Prince Charlie project).
22 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mustafa Ünlü
United States
Takoma Park
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like all these except the siege outcomes. I feel that allowing loot,clemency, etc. introduce brand new concepts and they deviate too much from the core design.


How about letting cities count as two spaces for the purposes of province control instead? It's a milder tweak to existing mechanisms and should still make cities more important.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
camustafa wrote:
I like all these except the siege outcomes. I feel that allowing loot,clemency, etc. introduce brand new concepts and they deviate too much from the core design.


Fair enough. People's mileage on the scope of variants varies. I fall into very much into the "notorious tinkerer" camp whose motto's "whatever makes the game more enjoyable" (a very subjective category, I grant you). I customize to my heart's delight.

I see why these variants might be a bridge too far - as a matter of principle - for those with more purist leanings.

Quote:

How about letting cities count as two spaces for the purposes of province control instead? It's a milder tweak to existing mechanisms and should still make cities more important.


Mustafa, I considered a multitude of different approaches - including ones very similar to what you suggest - but my final solution appealed to me most and I couldn't be happier with it. I love the juicy decisions involved.

But by all mean, tweak my variant to suit your own tastes!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow Charles!

I very rarely look at variants for most games, but I was curious to see what you came up with as H:RVC is one of my favourite games .

I love your seige ideas especially the loot/clemency rulings, and I'm willing to try the set-up change as well.

The reasoning behind the changes seem well thought out. I look forward to trying them out. This may well push my rating to a 10.

Kudos to you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
drmabuse00 wrote:

I love your seige ideas especially the loot/clemency rulings, and I'm willing to try the set-up change as well.


Thanks for the kind words.

Historically, the walled cities were major objectives for both sides. Hannibal put an extraordinary effort into taking and then protecting major cities in Italia. They were the focus of both sides' campaigns. That is simply not the case under the standard rules and constitutes the game's greatest historical shortcoming.

What I did to adress this was lowering the opportunity cost for the "lesser cities", while throwing in the wrinkle of harassing and garrison forces hampering siege operations.

That wrinkle adds further nuance to the operational side of the game and plenty of juicy decisions.

The reward of looting or showing leniency towards the vanquished further lowers the opportunity cost and adds an additional measure of drama and urgency to the capture of cities. That can help swing a situation in interesting ways and ensures that the game's more fluid.

As for the alt-setup, it IMO makes the first turn a lot mure fun, less scripted, leads to a more fluid early game and allows for a historical course of events - unlike the standard game.

Quote:
The reasoning behind the changes seem well thought out. I look forward to trying them out. This may well push my rating to a 10.


Glad to hear it. I look forward to hearing how your session will have went.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Interesting variant on city sieges, with sound reasoning behind it.

I tend to agree that the major problems with the game are the “Western Front” that often emerges in Northern Italy and the difficulty in effective campaigning in Spain/Africa. Historically, Hannibal was a terror on the battlefield and Rome avoided combat with him for very good reason – armies that attacked him tended to be destroyed. But in the game Hannibal is often reduced to impotency with a flurry of attrition attacks that don’t often end with a Cannae.

To that end I want to get around to playtesting some alterations and, if they work, to post them as another variant here. This might be too pro-Carthagian as drafted, but in any event it should be friendlier to offensive campaigning by both sides. The focal points are an altered battle system and a more army-friendly Alps.

1 City sieges

Use the rules outlined in this thread.

2 Alps

(a) Any general that has crossed the Alps at least once, whether in command or in accompaniment, subsequently rolls for attrition when crossing the Alps applying only a “-1” DRM. For the purpose of Alps attrition, a “0” on the CRT means no CU’s are lost. Place a marker in the leader’s box when the first crossing is made.

(b) Shortly before his inglorious demise, Hasdrubal crossed into Italy using a different and better route than Hannibal’s. The Carthagian player may use the Native Guides card to activate a general starting movement in Gallia Transalpinia to activate this route. Doing so immediately allows movement between Isere and Verona it costing 3 movement points to move in either direction. Forces may not remain off board; a general that does not have sufficient points remaining to complete the move, or loses them due to bad weather may not move between Isere and Verona. Forces that move along this route never roll for Alps attrition. The route is available for the remainder of the game to both players. Remove the Native Guides card from play and place it above Isere to signify the opening of this pathway.

3 Gaul

If the Carthagian player controls both the provinces of Gallia Transalpina and Massilia then he may play any Carthagian reinforcement card in the deck to place 2CU with a general in either province or a friendly walled city. He may ignore any conditions stipulated on the strategy card when doing so, although “African Reinforcements” may only be used to place infantry CU’s in Gaul, not elephant CU’s.

4 Battle.

This system creates more depth to the battle mini-game and makes generals such as Hannibal and Scipio far deadlier when facing less talented opponents than in the original system. In particular, the “DE menace” is more acute for the inferior general in this version and a player who routinely engages at a leadership disadvantage should experience some severe DE defeats. (Note that the Warhorse website automatically numbers the battle cards, so this variant can be played online or without marking the battle cards).

(a) Each of the different battle cards (Frontal Assault, Reserve, etc.) are numbered in ascending sequence (example – the reserve cards are marked 1, 2, 3, 4. The F.A. cards are valued 1 through 12). When a battle card is played and matched, the player with the higher value card wins the initiative (die rolls are no longer made). In case of a tie the offensive player retains the initiative.

(b) A Reserve card played in defense automatically captures the initiative for the acting player. A Reserve card played in the attack has an identical value to the last card of the same type that was played before it. (If a reserve is played as DE and the last DE card played before it was a “3” value, the reserve card’s value is also “3”). If no card of the same type has yet been played, then the Reserve card’s value is the highest possible for that tactic.

(c) Hannibal’s special Probe ability always captures the initiative.

(d) The player with the general possessing the greater strategy rating adds the difference between the two generals’ strategy ratings when determining the final value of the card he has played in offense or defense. (Example – Hannibal plays a “3” Frontal Assault battle card and Longus counters with a “6” frontal Assault. Hannibal’s strategy rating is “4” and Longus is a “1”. The Carthagian player adds “3” to the value of his battle card, making it a “6”. The attacker wins ties so Hannibal retains the initiative).

(e) An automatic “-2” penalty applies to the value any Double Envelopment played offensively. (Example – Hannibal plays a “3” DE and Longus replies with a “4” DE. Hannibal’s card is reduced to a value of “1”, then the leadership differential (+3) is added, giving the Carthagian player a final value of “4” to his DE play).

(f) “Spy in Enemy Camp” may be played in battle as a “+1” modifier to the general’s leadership rating. (Example. Hannibal is fighting Longus. The Roman plays Spy in Enemy Camp, reducing Hannibal’s leadership advantage to “2”.

5 Reaction movement

This is aimed to making it more difficult to pin the enemy to battle.

(a) The moment a moving general first enters into a province containing a general of the passive player, the passive player may attempt to activate one of his generals in the province. Roll one die – if the roll is equal to or less than the strategy rating of the general, then the passive player may immediately play a strategy card to activate his general. Beginning immediately with the passive player right at the moment the provincial border is ruptured, both players alternate moving their general one space at a time until their remaining movement points are exhausted. If both generals share the same space after the one-space movement of the active player’s general is completed, then a battle is immediately fought there.

(b) If the active player overruns a CU in a province containing a general of the passive player, the passive player may attempt to activate a general in the province each time an overrun occurs. The passive player may never activate more than one general in a province.

(c) A passive general that has been activated may never intercept or retreat, though he may subsequently do so if the activation attempt fails. After movement is completed, the passive player is next to act with a strategy card.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
space is the place
United States
Harlingen
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
New to the game, but am definitely willing to try this variant out.

I can figure out how to apply the -1 drm, but what exactly does drm stand for?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
tenmaya wrote:
I can figure out how to apply the -1 drm, but what exactly does drm stand for?


Die Roll Modifier
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I read this somewhere else, but I've been considering implementing a similar Siege idea. All cities take 2 Siege Points to capture, unless there are two CUs inside the city, in which case the normal 3 are required. 1 CU seems too slight an investment, and since most cities can hold 2 CUs, it seems consistent. One downside is backwater type cities may still be too undesirable. Maybe I'll implement the Clemency and Loot ideas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
sunday silence
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
An even simpler idea and seems more realistic to me is to simply gain one card for capturing any major city (Gades, New Carthage, Syracuse, Capua, Tarentum). I just dont see a connection with winning a siege and gaining CUs. WHy? However with cards, the victor will be rewarded with something subtantial more or less, but the exact reward is not known to him until the siege is over. THe loser will know even less. Clearly these sieges were some of the most important events in the war, Syracuse and Capua in particular seem as decisive as any battle.

One of the recent card driven games (I think: For Unhappy King CHarles) is doing something like this (rewarding siege w/ a card). Are there any comments about it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I do certainly like the Clemency idea better than the Loot idea. The card idea is interesting: it helps recoup the investment of Sieging, though I wonder if it'd be too potent with non-CU'd cities requiring only 2 Siege Points. Still, very interesting! As an aside, my friend preferred the 1 CU requirement for manning cities, so we went with that. We also decided that 1 PC would be flipped if a siege was successful. (A mini-Clemency.) Definitely might suggest this card idea the next time we play. Thanks for the suggestion!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mustafa Ünlü
United States
Takoma Park
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have played several games where we just ruled that one must control the city in a region in order to control that region. If someone holds a majority of spaces, but not the city, neither side controls.

Worked just fine. May add the extra card after successful siege idea.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As an aside, we've just been playing the past however many games (10?) with the 1 CU in a city to make it require 3 siege points. It's not a huge change, but most cities are unmanned, and it does occasionally make you leave behind a CU in significant areas, and it occasionally tempts me to siege a city... I often don't, but I do think it makes a world of difference, especially when a lucky Roman roll can flip a city. Most of the time, cities are still ignored, but 2 siege points makes the idea SEEM so much more viable. IMO, requiring a city to control the province is too punishing to Carthage, or even Roman adventurism in Spain.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ph’nglui mglw’nfah Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Charles, that variant looks lovely.

I too, however, have a problem with the Loot siege outcome. Let's say that the rationale is that the Carthaginians use booty to hire mercenaries; it's not clear that they should spawn with the conquering army. It might make sense if there were Enemy CUs walled in, and these CUs were mercenaries willing to switch sides post-defeat, but that could prove rather historically improbable in some cities.

Perhaps the free card is a better option, or the opportunity to add an extra CU in any army outside of Italy?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Piero
Italy
Florence
flag msg tools
Life and death come and go like marionettes dancing on a table. Once their strings are cut, they easily crumble.
badge
What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face.
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry but the -1 for 1 CU in a City is cumulative with the -1 Carthaginian generals get, without a siege train?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BlueJackal wrote:
I think I read this somewhere else, but I've been considering implementing a similar Siege idea. All cities take 2 Siege Points to capture, unless there are two CUs inside the city, in which case the normal 3 are required.


I chose the -1 drm instead. This means the 2 siege point cities can fall in one assault, if ungarrisoned. So it creates some interesting gambits and drama. That's why I'd recommend you give my variant a try before looking to alternative schemes.

Quote:
1 CU seems too slight an investment, and since most cities can hold 2 CUs, it seems consistent.


I initially had the 2 CU garrison requirement. That was too steep a price, imo. So I reduced the garrison requirement to 1 CU. This also has the nice effect of say Balearic Slingers (1 CU in any port) being a handy garrison for say a newly defected Syracuse.

Quote:
One downside is backwater type cities may still be too undesirable.


Believe me. Plenty of sieges are seen in my variant. Saguntum, Tarentum, Neapolis see a lot of action. Massilia, Capua, Rhegium etc also a fair deal. These threats often compell the enemy to march to the city's relief. Historically, sieges were often conducted to force a battle. This dynamic is particularly present in the game if playing with my variants.

q="sundaysilence"]An even simpler idea and seems more realistic to me is to simply gain one card for capturing any major city (Gades, New Carthage, Syracuse, Capua, Tarentum).[/q]

That's what I first considered. I however chose not to go down that path since that can create even larger imbalances in how many cards one holds.

I suppose one could simply mandate that any cards received need to be played immediately (as in Unhappy King Charles), but I quite frankly prefer the decision between looting and clemency (which was always one a city conqueror had to make).

Quote:
I just dont see a connection with winning a siege and gaining CUs. WHy?


Simple. You gain booty. That allows you to recruit more mercenaries (both because your "street cred" among prospective recruits increases and because you've then got the funds to pay 'em). And your mercenaries' morale will also be boosted by being allowed to loot a city. There's a good reason why many a victorious general gave up a city to looting.

Conversely, if you show clemency, that's a major propagandistic boost to your side. Hence the PC marker flipping. Take New Carthage. When Africanus conquered the city and he treated the locals well, its hinterland joined the Roman side.

BlueJackal wrote:
We also decided that 1 PC would be flipped if a siege was successful. (A mini-Clemency.)


The tantalising thing about two PC markers being flipped, as my variant mandates, is that in most areas this will amount to the surrounding province changing its allegiance. That makes this an interesting gambit and can lead to very interesting changes in the strategic picture.

Oh, and halving the rewards makes it rather weak sauce, imo. Taking a city should be a clear danger and often encourage the enemy to give battle when he otherwise might not be inclined to do so.


BlueJackal wrote:
IMO, requiring a city to control the province is too punishing to Carthage, or even Roman adventurism in Spain.


I agree. When first starting to think about how to enhance the importance of cities, I considered having cities count more than one PC marker in determining the allegiance of a province. I thought of all sorts of schemes. None really convinced me.

Quote:
I too, however, have a problem with the Loot siege outcome. Let's say that the rationale is that the Carthaginians use booty to hire mercenaries; it's not clear that they should spawn with the conquering army.


I think that makes perfect sense. Bellicose tribes in the vicinity will be in awe of the general's ability to conquer and ensure his soldiers booty-making opportunities. In the weeks and months after the taking of the city, they'd flock to this impressive military leader.

You need to consider the time-scale here. A turn covers on average two years. So the interval between the taking of a city and the next card-play is plenty of time for such mercenary recruitment in the vicinity of the victorious army.

Quote:
It might make sense if there were Enemy CUs walled in, and these CUs were mercenaries willing to switch sides post-defeat, but that could prove rather historically improbable in some cities.


I'm not primarily thinking here of vanquished garrisons switching sides.

Another possible mercenary-recruitment scenario: After having taken a city, you'll have opened a new port (except in the case of Capua), which ought to facilitate the arrival of overseas reinforcements. Payment for such reinforcements might have to be made by stripping the conquered city of all its movable property.

Bottom line: I think the "loot" option is very much grounded in history.
And the military vs political trade-off was very real. So it's a natural thing to model in the game.

Quote:
Sorry but the -1 for 1 CU in a City is cumulative with the -1 Carthaginian generals get, without a siege train?


Yep. In the original game, you very rarely see the Carthaginian building the siege train, whereas that card (and other siege-related cards!) really become more important in my variant rather than being underutilised.

Obviously, -2 drm gets pretty prohibitive. But of course Rome won't be able to garrison all its cities, usually. After all, Rome may not be able to spare such garrisons from its field armies (not to mention the logistical challenges in despatching them).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Glenn, let me comment on your ideas:

GLENN239 wrote:
2 Alps


Several paragraphs of extra rules for the sake of just one isolated and rather minor matter strikes me as overly chromey. Not to mention that this rule of yours would only rarely apply, anyway.

I think NATIVE GUIDES covers Hasdrubal's historically rather unproblematic Alpine crossing.

GLENN239 wrote:
3 Gaul


As archeological findings in Southern France indicate, Hannibal left a string of garrisons in Southern France to keep a supply line open to his Spanish base.

I thought of modelling this by allowing Spanish reinforcements to be also placed with a general outside Spain if an uninterrupted string of blue PC markers could be traced from New Carthage to said general.

A pro-Carthaginian variant rule. It'd create some interesting competition over Southern France, but really, it's on the chromey side and I saw no compelling need for such a variant - unlike for the clear deficiencies relating to sieges/cities and the setup.

So, both what you suggest and the above are really just flavour rules. And rather peripheral in nature. I personally really don't want to clutter the design with lots of special rules that only rarely impact the game. Not worth it, imo. So I personally chose not to pursue such ideas.

GLENN239 wrote:
4 Battle.


Why reinvent the wheel? I think the Battle Card system works just fine. Besides, I'd say what you suggest would gravely impact play balance.

GLENN239 wrote:
5 Reaction movement


I believe such aspects are sufficiently covered by the interception and evasion rules.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
I wonder how much this game can be improved in the opening turn if certain cards are given out on turn one instead of being randoml.

The events are not connected - the Alps card generally does no good if not part of the initial invasion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Piero
Italy
Florence
flag msg tools
Life and death come and go like marionettes dancing on a table. Once their strings are cut, they easily crumble.
badge
What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror. Then we shall see face to face.
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry but the -1 for 1 CU in a City is cumulative with the -1 Carthaginian generals get, without a siege train?



Yep. In the original game, you very rarely see the Carthaginian building the siege train, whereas that card (and other siege-related cards!) really become more important in my variant rather than being underutilised.

Obviously, -2 drm gets pretty prohibitive. But of course Rome won't be able to garrison all its cities, usually. After all, Rome may not be able to spare such garrisons from its field armies (not to mention the logistical challenges in despatching them).

Yes it seems like a good trade off for having minor cities fall with only two siege points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gorgoneion wrote:

Yes it seems like a good trade off for having minor cities fall with only two siege points.


At a -2 drm you have a 33% chance of scoring a siege point. So you'd have to expect to roll six times to reach 2 siege points, on average. Not great odds. Particularly considering the CU losses.

Of course, if you don't have the siege train as Carthage, there ought to be still some ungarrisoned cities around to pick off (-1 drm is not nearly as difficult as -2).

I can tell you, it's great fun reaching the "land of milk and honey" (aka Southern Italy) and then go about besieging those Roman cities.

I've even seen a determined Carthaginian take both Messana and Rhegium, thus establishing a landbridge between Italy and Sicily. Sweet! But it's of course difficult to pull that off.

The trouble for Hannibal is of course, that IF he conquered a bunch of cities in Southern Italy, he also has to PROTECT them. For otherwise the Romans will get lots of goodies in turn. Historically Hannibal was frantically trying to protect the cities he conquered. Indeed, the need to protect them did much to tie him down.

Such considerations really make for very good simulation value and more nuanced gameplay. A richer gaming experience.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wilhammer wrote:
I wonder how much this game can be improved in the opening turn if certain cards are given out on turn one instead of being random.


I wouldn't consider such skripting in the least an improvement. Quite the contrary.

Quote:
The events are not connected - the Alps card generally does no good if not part of the initial invasion.


Not true. I tend to see plenty of other mountain crossings over the course of the game.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
sunday silence
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
HEllo again: this is a fantastic thread, I havent been back for a while.

Re: Archaelogical findings in southern france. You know this is something that I always suspected, that in fact Hannibal could have been supplied at least in men on a sporadic basis. And that the likely discrepancy in his starting force from spain (50k?) and what he entered the Po valley with (25k?) is more likley attribute to garrisoning a supply line.

Because if in reality he lost over 50% of his force in crossing the alps, then he most likely lost the war in the one of the first campaigns. It just doesnt seem like he was an idiot.

I would be interested in any further links or references to digs in southern france.

RE: city garrisons. You know it seems that we are onto something I mean tinkering with the siege rules is worht the effort because it seems this aspect of the war was so important. Obviously there are at least a few of us who appreciate this effort as not a waste.

with that in mind is it too radical to propose 1Cu garrisons for minor cities and 2Cu garrisons for rather larger ones. I am thinking Syracuse, for one, that city was large. Probably Naples, Rome Carthage. not sure about Nova Carthago or Genoa or Massilia.

I realize that anytime you propose changes people get squeamish about whether it is worth it but if the thread proves anything is that people can appreciate beefed up siege rules as they feel this aspect of the war is important and the choices created for the players are interesting.

Re: Province control. I have thought about this for some time What if you have a PLURALITY of cities (Say 3) in a province you get 3 pts...And if you control the MAJORITY of cities then you get pts equal to all the cities perhaps 7, say.You create interesting sort of "exponential effect" Where the gain of one city in the right area can be a huge gain or a huge loss. I realize the game counts province control as an either/or factor but I was thinking of really forgetting the victory pts and going with some other system. the plurality/majority control think might be used for some sort of scoring or perhaps for some other sort of thing like the ability to use card, gain allied CUs, etc. All sorts of ways to implement. the pt being think: Plurality vs Majority control.

Note: Obviously with a variant like that you have to have a neutral state for cities, I think the game has that forget going from memory here. But even if it did not you would have to implement it that way.

I also dislike the idea of flippping cities anywhere in the entire known world for winning a battle. That makes no sense to me. Cant you just flip to neutral those enemy cities in a region where you have won a battle? Some else other than flipping cities in North Africa for a battle in France.

Anyhow Chas. said he has thought about this aspect for quite some time so it'd be interesting to see what he thinks of this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sundaysilence wrote:

Re: Archaelogical findings in southern france. You know this is something that I always suspected, that in fact Hannibal could have been supplied at least in men on a sporadic basis. And that the likely discrepancy in his starting force from spain (50k?) and what he entered the Po valley with (25k?) is more likley attribute to garrisoning a supply line. [...]

I would be interested in any further links or references to digs in southern france.


It's been a long time since I read about the subject. I highly recommend Jakob Seibert's Hannibal biography. It's a very thorough scholarly work. Not sure there's an English translation though. I'm sure you'll find other discussions on this particular subject in many other places.

Quote:

with that in mind is it too radical to propose 1Cu garrisons for minor cities and 2Cu garrisons for rather larger ones. I am thinking Syracuse, for one, that city was large. Probably Naples, Rome Carthage. not sure about Nova Carthago or Genoa or Massilia.


I first considered a 2 CU garrison criterion, but quickly realised that was asking for too much. You, I dare say you COULD go with 2CUs in major cities (Rome, Syracuse, Carthage, New Carthage). But I like the fact that say Balearic Slingers can get you the requisite garrison into say Syracuse. The variant works exactly as I wish it to.

Quote:

I realize that anytime you propose changes people get squeamish about whether it is worth it but if the thread proves anything is that people can appreciate beefed up siege rules as they feel this aspect of the war is important and the choices created for the players are interesting.


One good thing about boardgames is that you can experiment to your heart's content.

Quote:

Re: Province control. I have thought about this for some time What if you have a PLURALITY of cities (Say 3) in a province you get 3 pts...And if you control the MAJORITY of cities then you get pts equal to all the cities perhaps 7, say.You create interesting sort of "exponential effect" Where the gain of one city in the right area can be a huge gain or a huge loss. I realize the game counts province control as an either/or factor but I was thinking of really forgetting the victory pts and going with some other system.


Sure, there are always other ways to handle things. But why fix what ain't broke? I don't see what might be gained by messing with the provincial control rules.

Quote:

I also dislike the idea of flippping cities anywhere in the entire known world for winning a battle. That makes no sense to me. Cant you just flip to neutral those enemy cities in a region where you have won a battle? Some else other than flipping cities in North Africa for a battle in France.


When granting clemency, you have to flip the nearest enemy PC markers, measured in MPs. If there aren't any closer ones, then that may mean a port overseas (3 MPs away from all cities other than Capua). Considering how travel via sea was a lot quicker than on land and the strong ties trading cities had with another, it makes perfect sense to me).

Of course, if you don't want your opponent to be able to pick overseas ports, just plonk down PC markers within 1 or 2 MPs of the city under siege. Then clemency will have only a very local effect.

If you don't have any nearby, well, then the whole region is no longer in your hands, obviously. And so it makes sense that can influence people farther afield.

I considered a lot of different ways of handling clemency. What I ultimately went for makes for a clean rule and satisfies me from both a historical and gameplay perspective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
sunday silence
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
charlesf wrote:


Sure, there are always other ways to handle things. But why fix what ain't broke? I don't see what might be gained by messing with the provincial control rules.
.


Well pardon if Im a bit confused here: I thought you had earlier devoted a bit of time to considering the idea of control/cities when you said:


". When first starting to think about how to enhance the importance of cities, I considered having cities count more than one PC marker in determining the allegiance of a province. I thought of all sorts of schemes. None really convinced me.."


I thought this was an issue you were interested in tinkering with?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles F.
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sundaysilence wrote:

I thought this was an issue you were interested in tinkering with?


Ah, I looked into cities factoring greater into province control. But I discarded that approach to enhancing the importance of cities since that produced to my mind the wrong dynamics.

Instead, I lowered the bar to taking 'em in a number of cases and introduced a payoff for successfully concluding sieges.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.