Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the 2nd Punic War

[airboy]

Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the 2nd Punic War (Matrix) is on sale for $10 this week.

Has anyone played this?  Opinions?  The topic is interesting - but I would like some knowledgable feedback.

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage.in.the.Second.Punic.War

[tgb]

It's been a long time since I played it, but there is a demo available.

[Martok]

It has a nice boardgame-y feel.  Cool art style.  It's widely lauded for its tough AI (although I've not played it enough myself to personally vouch for that last part). 

[Nefaro]

One of the best AIs in a single-player strategy game, if not the best.   O0

I suppose part of the reason is due to you only playing the Carthaginians, so it is tailor-made for single-player.  But the Roman AI will still pull some tricksy shit on you, and does a good job of attacking you where you're weak while still behaving along the historical doctrines at various stages of the war. 

For example, if you win the first battle(s), which is likely if you don't botch things, the Roman armies will tend avoid attacking your main army lead by Hannibal for quite awhile.  Instead attacking your soft points and recruitment centers, such as those in Iberia.  Even with multi-move amphibious invasions that have staying power once their initial assault is over (something rarely done well by most AIs). 

It's very boardgame-y in the point-to-point wargame way.  It's based on an old one, but the ruleset received some tweaks.  You get cards to pull off special abilities (extras rewarded for victories), and the combat is performed with your units on a separate battle board, with some differences depending on whether it's an open field battle or siege/city attack.

The replayability was in question, since you only play one side and it's only single-player, but I ended up enjoying it for many hours and many different games.  Each one tended to proceed differently the further in I got, especially when you start using the full ruleset which includes extra stuff like the Carthaginian senate sending you new directives every year. 

There were a few gameplay vids floating about... let me see..

[bboyer66]

 I'm surprised that after how well the game was received and reviewed, that there has not been a sequel of some type.

[Martok]

The dev has been working on a follow-up for some time now, supposedly much bigger in scope. 

[Johnnie]

This is a very, very good game.  Good atmosphere;  good variety of strategic choices; good replay value; good historically; and fun to play.  This thread reminds me to get back into it

[tgb]

The developer is working on "Fall of Rome" which seems to be  deeper and on a larger scale.  If you check out the screenshots on the web site, it's a little disappointing to see that the artwork is a bit more conventional.

[Nefaro]

The developer is working on "Fall of Rome" which seems to be  deeper and on a larger scale.  If you check out the screenshots on the web site, it's a little disappointing to see that the artwork is a bit more conventional.

http://forcedmarchgames.com/


The new one looks to be using the same system, just with the artwork more filled-in and colorful.  Won't be sure which I prefer until I see the new one in action.  I'm sure some people will like this more, but the original definitely had that period art charm.  I also enjoyed the sounds and music in Hannibal, the latter of which is an oddity in gaming for me.

As for being in development a long time, that's a good sign.  I beta tested Hannibal and it was, without doubt, the best testing experience I ever had.  Suggestions were often included, and bugs squished, very quickly.  There was absolutely none of what I'd call "Developer Defensiveness" backbiting, which I had experienced from others (to various extents) over the years.  It was all very pleasant,very efficient, and I was surprised at how clean it came out at release.  Not to mention the challenge it gives.

The only major issue that came up after release was our own fault (the beta testers) for not trying to make one long suicide rush on Rome, at the start of a new campaign, to see if we could get a somewhat reliable win result.  It just seemed like certain death, but ended up being possible. But that was also quickly found and fixed.  The AI got even more tweaks after release too, even though it was already pretty good.  I think part of the replayability comes from the AI opponent being so engaging and the very real possibility of losing to it.

[Boggit]

One of the best AIs in a single-player strategy game, if not the best.   O0

I've had it a few years, and it still consistently kicks my backside. Either I'm very poor (quite likely ;) ), or the AI is as Nefaro says. I'll go with Nefaro on that... ;) O0

[Nefaro]

One of the best AIs in a single-player strategy game, if not the best.   O0

I've had it a few years, and it still consistently kicks my backside. Either I'm very poor (quite likely ;) ), or the AI is as Nefaro says. I'll go with Nefaro on that... ;) O0

I've beat it a couple times, but it's never been a cakewalk.  The outcome is in question nearly the whole game.