From: Sogard Subject: HANNIBAL Re-Play Yesterday, a fellow gamer (Steve Viltoft) stopped over to see why I (an advowed board gamer and computer game negativist) was having such a good time with computer THE GREAT BATTLES OF HANNIBAL (HANNIBAL) by Interactive Magic. We decided to give HANNIBAL a whirl hot seat. First however, Steve had to get a tutorial on how the game controls (interface)/system worked. Steve played the suggested tutorial game "Bagradas Plains" to completion and smashed the Romans faster than I have (to date) in either computer HANNIBAL or the version found in tGBoH's boardgame S.P.Q.R. (GMT Games). Then we moved off and began a game (hotseat) of "Cynoscephalae" (maybe not the best game to start with since terrain is such a big factor). Still, I (and I think Steve) had a real blast. We finished about five turns of the game (10 turn maximum) and my Romans are in deep do-do. I have not been using "group commands" to move the Romans and I think I am paying a heavy price for this. I also have had a few screw-ups of my command control usuage. What is most impressive is that in the time that it would have taken to go through the boardgame rules for "The Great Battles of History" series and maybe play ONE turn -- in computer HANNIBAL; Steve played a complete game (Bagradas Plains) and we came rather close to finishing another in about three and one-half hours. Now, that is one hell of an endorsement of a reason that a great boardgame ought to be transferred to the computer medium (which is essentially what HANNIBAL is). All the rule nuances that can take forever to search for through the rule book are handled by the computer in a nano-second. What you are left with is pure gaming heaven (if the computer game is what HANNIBAL is). My hat is off to Mark Hermon, GMT Games, Interactive Magic and the Bergster (since he is mentioned in the credits) for a computer game that is finally worth the price of my new computer. Warren Sogard From: Sogard Subject: More HANNIBAL Thoughts Chuck Messinger wrote in another forum: "Alot of these posts have struck a chord. I'm totally turned off of computer games. It's not just that the AI is horrible, or that it's annoying to constantly scroll around on the screen, or that hidden mechanisms mean that you can't understand what's happening, exactly. The real problem, for me, is that when I play on the computer, I just don't get into it nearly as deeply. I really need a physical map there to ponder, as I lovingly push the chits around. Playing on the computer, the game becomes too emphemeral -- I just don't care enough about what happens. So, after some years of computer gaming, I'm now a born-again board gamer." Hey Chuck, we really can agree on something! I felt exactly the same way you do -- until I purchsed THE GREAT BATTLES OF HANNIBAL (HANNIBAL) by Interactive Magic (just to clear the air, I have no connection with Interactive Magic or anyone who designed/worked on the computer game). I thought exactly as you did. HANNIBAL has changed my mind and opened the possibility that computer gaming is not a waste for the serious historical boardgamer. The reason is that HANNIBAL is an honest-to-god version of the classic GMT boardgame SPQR. (one of the highest rated tactical battle games in existance -- on ancient gaming). In HANNIBAL, the computer game designers have recognized that they have a great game in SPQR and seem to only want to present it in a computer medium. Thus, HANNIBAL has the same turn based game design that SPQR has -- and it is one of the reason that it works extremely well in "hot seat" play and why a boardgamer will be able to quickly jump into the game and know what is going on (like my gaming friend Steve Viltoft). HANNIBAL does change/tweak a few things from SPQR. However, nothing is done which substantially changes the original game or the feel for the period the SPQR evoked. Instead, HANNIBAL uses the computer's capability to use state- of-the-art graphics to enhance the game by presenting the opposing armies in very pleasing renderings. The footsoldiers are there in all their finery with colored shields and paraphanalia. The elephants roar, the hroses neigh, the infantry clinks as it marches across the field and the battle sounds make battle resolution so much fun that I do not miss rolling a die one bit. Instead, HANNIBAL speeds up the process of playing the SPQR system enormously. This is just what computers should be all about. Assisting intelligent game play rather than dictating it. Finally, HANNIBAL is designed so that when one is playing solo against the computer, the human player plays the Cartheginian side. Why? Because the Romans actually did follow a fairly standard method of fighting their battles. This means that the AI, playing as the Romans, really does a very good job in fighting its army (better than I have done to date playing the Romans in "hot seat" play). This is very important since solo HANNIBAL is the way most people will play the game (although it supports hotseat and internet play). After seeing HANNIBAL, I do not see why other periods of history could not be covered with a good computer game if the same design philosophy (first find a good board game model and stick to it and only enhance it in the computer version) is followed. I would love to see a Napoleonic battle game in something like the HANNIBAL system (or any battle generally covered in the GMT's "The Great Battles of History" game series. I used to believe, like many who post on this topic, that computer gaming was for the birds. HANNIBAL has changed my mind. I hope that GMT games, Mark Herman, Richard Berg, Interactive Magic and Erudite Software (which I have been told did the bulk of the computer game) have the good sense and the capital to go forward and bring more titles to this series. HANNIBAL says that the next game in the series is going to be THE GREAT BATTLES OF CAESAR. I can not wait for its release.