Constantly trying to upgrade the quality of the DESIGN ANALYSIS is one of my goals for this column. And in the interest of improvement, the analysis will be in a much different format from previous.

The format I will follow this time is much closer to the regular type of game review. In doing this I will sacrifice some of the comments on playing that you would find in previous DESIGN ANALYSIS articles (or in S&T's copy, "Game Profile"), and instead will talk more about the game.

EVENT SIMULATED:

HANNIBAL covers the Second Punic Way between Rome and Carthage on a strategic level. Each turn covers one year of real time.

COMPONENTS:

The game is well done physically. The mapboard is rather good looking, if uninspired. The rules are printed on both sides of a 20x23" sheet, which includes five examples of play. The unit counters are round, 13/16ths of an inch in diameter, mounted, and die-cut. Instead of the standard symbols, the counters have the head of an infantryman (infantry), the head of a horse (cavalry), and a ship (naval fleet). These components are of unstated size, but I suppose they represent legions or armies. The game also has a battle tables sheet, and a victory point tally and time record sheet.

FIDELITY OF SIMULATION:

It appears to be good, but I am no expert on the Second Punic War, so I really am not qualified to judge the game in this respect. The game is very abstracted, as each turn does cover an entire year. A player can do a lot in a single turn, covering terrain, fighting battles, laying sieges among other things. The basic strategic problem facing the Carthaginians is present, as he must carry out a lightning campaign or be destroyed by the superior ability of the Roman for prolonged attrition.

STRATEGY:

As far as starting on the strategy involved, there is a commentary at the end of the rules which is quite; helpful as a starter. I would have I iked some sort of "historical commentary" to tell us a little more about the game, but that's my personal taste.

For Carthage, the first turn can be brutally final. He should tryto move into Italy and Sicily as soon as possible, and soon destroy as much of the Roman power as is possible. This is especially important because the Carthaginian replacements are not totally reliable, whereas Roman replacements are. The Romans can bounce back from year to year, but Carthage will have a difficult time recuperating from the effects of attrition.

Another aspect that the Carthaginian cannot afford to overlook is seapower. Although he has a pitifully small fleet, he must use it to break through the Italian blockade and keep supplies coming to his units in Italy. His naval power must also be used to prevent a Roman counter-invasion of Africa. Once the Carthaginian naval strength is destroyed by the Romans, any Carthaginian armies on the mainland are liable to be cut off from supply and destroyed, This will also give the Roman superior mobility, unhampered by naval patrols.

In order to protect Italy, the Roman should set up his naval units in four groups of two, placed so as to cover all approaches (it can be done). This forces the Carthaginian to either bul I his way through or go the northern route across the Alps. The Roman player should also avoid dispersing his forces, as he is inviting defeat in detail.

Roman strategy usually involves protecting Italy and taking Hispania initially, and later entering Africa while the bulk of the Carthaginian forces are away fighting. The invasion of Africa is usually last, as it doubles the Carthaginian replacement rate, which means the struggle is usually prolonged quite awhile if Carthage doesn't take the game in the first blitz. Of course, if Carthage is heavily committed in Italy, the Romans may be able to use Carthaginian tactics in a lightning campaign through Africa (which implies a good control of the seas).

RECOMMENDATION:

I would readily recommend this game to anyone interested in ancient warfare. It is also a very good strategic game, and is very different from any other game I've seentodate. For this reason the game is hard to grasp at first, and must be experimented with in order to grasp the strategic thrust of the game.

GAME MECHANICS:

The game mechanics are rather simple, and are not overburdened. They are also unlike anything else I've ever seen. There are no "movement factors " or "combat strengths" of other games. Movement by units is almost unlimited, and there is a good deal of strategic flexibility available to both players. There are no odds tables as such, instead units pick strategies (such as "cavalry envelopment" or "infantry attack against center") and roll the die for both strategies. Players then receive points from this and for every two units over your opponents. These points are totaled up, and the player who has the smaller number of points loses the equivalent value in units. Thus a battle can be extremely bloody or bloodless; as the possibilities inherent in the system run the gamut. This means that players cannot always afford battle. Units may also move and fight several times during each turn, so the action is brisk and continuous.

PLAYABILITY:

HANNIBAL is similar to chess, in that its rules are simple but the game can be a different animal. As far as my experience has gone with the game, I would say that the game is in-between. It is not exactly a novice game, nor is it a complex monstrosity. It would best be started by two players who simply sit down and work with it for a few games to bring out the salient points. Until this is done the game is rather hard to comprehend for solitaire play, as it is usually best to have two minds working on some of the "tricks" inherent in playing the game.

PLAY BALANCE:

I would say that the Roman general has the advantage in the long run, if he can withstand the initial Carthaginian blitz. Now that can be a mighty big because the Carthaginian player can win a stand up fight if the Roman should get complacent -- which is the makings for a rather exciting game.

COMMENTS:

One thing that is confusing about the game is the victory conditions. This is due to the ambiguous set up of these rules. Certain territories, cities, and provinces are given Point Values. When either player can gain 25 points and keep at least 25 points for one FULL turn, then he wins the ciame. The rules do not explain, however, if you receive points you hold at the beginning of the game or not. If you did at the beginning of the game Carthage would have 35 points and Rome would have in excess of 100. Nor do the rules state if you gain a territory back from the enemy whether or not you receive points. Probably what should have been done was to have two lists of points, one for both sides, avoiding the resulting confusion in the present system.

Besides this I have little to complain about with the game. It is interesting and challenging. It does take awhile to adjust to the system, as new things constantly turn up. This is mainly because the game is radically different from anything that AH or SPI has put out.

Overall the game appears quite good. The mechanics are simple and straightforward; and I would say the game is quite playable and interesting once you get into it.

2: Game Review