From: chnahr@emailNOSPAM.msn.com (Christoph Nahr) Subject: Great Battles of Hannibal (comments) Yes I know, that game has been released last year. I even had it on my hard drive since last year but I haven't found any time to actually play it until last week. But there hasn't been too much discussion (some of my points have been mentioned before, however) and Great Battles of Caesar will be out any time now so I figure these comments might be useful for some people after all. (Note: I'm only describing single-player here, maybe others can fill in multiplayer issues.) PROGRAMMING, PRESENTATION ETC. GBH employs the same engine as GB of Alexander, and Erudite Software (designers) as well as Interactive Magic (publishers) apparently thought that the change of some help text, units and scenarios did not warrant a new round of playtesting. Well, they were wrong. The game shipped with a good measure of fatal flaws, some of which include locking up randomly, saving the state that caused the lock-up to the autosave file (so that reload will hang the game again!), and not displaying leader movement. Happily, I-Magic released a version 1.1 patch a few days ago (at http://www.imagicgames.com) that seems to fix these annoying bugs. There is one other design shortcoming, however, that has been alleviated but not removed by the patch: the engine seems to be undersized for the large scenarios of GBH (the Alexander scenarios were generally smaller). It may take up to twenty seconds on my P200MMX (64MB RAM -- no disk activity during this period) from the selection of a leader to the point where you can actually make input. Similarly, group actions (which are very frequent for the Romans) and especially the overall rout level assessment at the end of a turn take a _long_ time for the engine to prepare. Talking of which, whenever a unit does a terminal rout you still have to wait until those little guys are done running to the edge of the board... couldn't we have them run just three hexes or something and then drop dead? Apart from these quibbles, the engine continues GBA's tradition of truly excellent visuals (e.g. Roman legionnaires not only carry correct armament but even have an appopriate "stabbing" animation when they are fighting with their gladii!) and sound effects (the Celtic war cries are a riot -- quite literally, I suppose), a decent manual and in-depth historical information avaible in the on-line help, both general and scenario specific. The interface has received the much-needed undo button (also available as a patch for Alex) and allows for "stacking input" while the animations that the last click has triggered are still being played; a unique feature outside RTS. As in GBA, the AI uses at least two different scripts per scenario which are varied at random. The merits and drawbacks are the usual ones with scripted AIs: overall sensible behaviour and good challenge but tends to overlook opportunities that aren't in the script. Overall, the only real nuisance is the slowness of the engine. Apart from that, version 1.1 is polished, stable and comfortable. GAME SYSTEM Here come the problems. GBH keeps the old weaknesses of the game system, concerning skirmishers and cavalry, as well as introducing a new one, regarding legions. SKIRMISHERS. Yet again, these are nothing but cannon (sword?) fodder: once they have attacked, they stand little chance to avoid or survive a counterattack. Considering that they were only used to soften up enemy lines, their inevitable routing might seem like correct behaviour EXCEPT that the enemy gets victory points for (terminally) routing them which could not be justified if the skirmishers were merely doing what they are supposed to do! My proposal stands to give them greater mobility (turn at no MP costs) and maybe the ability to pass through friendly units even if unrouted so as to better model their actual mobility and evasiveness. CAVALRY. The Carthaginians have ten excellent "light" cavalry units (Numidia 1-10) which are actually very capable of close combat but also armed with javelins. The problem comes up when you actually try to use those javelins. Cavalry is supposed to use hit-and-run tactics and flank the enemy, right? Right. However, once any unit uses up its supply of javelins the broken missile replenishment system sets in and may, at random, cause that unit to remain stationary and accept NO orders for SEVERAL turns (attempt resupply -> resupply ZERO missiles which is, idiotically, possible -> attempt resupply -> ...). Cavalry standing around on the field is a friendly invitation for the enemy to collect some victory points. The only workaround I found is to simply not use up their missile supply, i.e. only fire two javelins instead of three. Alas, this prevents group attacks because group attack orders cause javelins to be thrown automatically... LEGIONS. At the time of the Punic wars, the Roman battle lines were no longer rigid phalanxes but rather composed of smaller tactical units, the maniples, which could form a loose double row, allowing for retreating front-line units to pass through, as well as a phalanx-like single row when it was their turn to attack. In GBH, this is represented by the legions being made up of regular single-hex units, as opposed to the unwieldy double-hex phalanx units, and by a special "manipular line extension" (MLE) command. Two problems here: (1) MLE as implemented in the game is useless. Initially, the legions are deployed in loose double rows, one diagonally behind the other; executing MLE causes the rear units to move into the spaces left between the front units thus creating a solid line. Very well, but first of all executing MLE takes the leader's entire turn, and there are no advantages to the single line formation if you're on the attack: the game system doesn't penalise units that move one hex farther to attack. Since legion units are fairly mobile (around 5 hexes per turn) wasting one turn on MLE is pointless when you can simply order the double-line formation to do a group attack (units seek their target individually), with no penalties whatsoever. (2) The game's historical commentary says that the legion's greatest weakness was its inflexibility and susceptibility to flanking attacks by cavalry. This is simply not modelled at all, as becomes clear at Cannae. As the Carthaginians, just try to win the battle the same way Hannibal did: defeat the Roman cavalry, outflank the legions, avoid running out of missiles (see above) and attack the flank or rear of the legion units. You will rout the leftmost cohort, but the others will simply turn towards your cavalry, surround and annihilate them! Although it is certainly true that maniples were more autonomous and mobile than the components of a phalanx I strongly doubt that they were THAT mobile -- indeed, the game documentation itself says otherwise, in the introduction as well as in the scenario description. The same holds true for Lake Trasimene: if you, playing the Carthaginians, follow the documentation and rush to hit the Roman's flanks then they will instantly counterattack and rout you. My recommendation to alleviate both problems would be to limit the "Group Attack" command for the legions: it should only be available to lines set up in battle formation that have already done MLE. That way, MLE would be put in its (historically) proper place as a preparation for a group attack, and flanking attacks would be as devastating as you'd expect them to be. Another restriction on Group Attack worth contemplating would be to have individual units move forward only, with no turning allowed. If you wanted them to change facing then you would have to issue a separate Group Movement in a previous turn. As a compensation for these limitations, the Roman commanders might be upgraded a bit, from "completely incompetent morons" with average initiative values of below 4 to "moderately incompetent morons". This would also make playing them considerably more fun -- at the moment, these "two-orders" leaders really can't do anthing but group commands which lets the gameplay deteriorate into Group Move -> Group Move -> Group Move -> Group Attack -> Group Attack -> Group Restore Cohesion -> Group Attack... not exactly thrilling or demanding. CONCLUSION All in all I have to say that I can't honestly recommend GBH to someone new to the series. If you're interested in ancient combat you should buy Great Battles of Alexander and download the patch; not only is the game engine better suited to the smaller scenarios of that game but the game system's handling of Greek phalanxes is also far superior to its somewhat botched handling of Roman legions. -- Chris Nahr (chnahr@emailNOSPAM.msn.com) Remove NOSPAM to reply via e-mail From: Julian Barker Subject: Re: Great Battles of Hannibal (comments) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 22:23:11 +0000 Christoph Nahr wrote >There is one other design shortcoming, however, that has been >alleviated but not removed by the patch: the engine seems to be >undersized for the large scenarios of GBH (the Alexander scenarios >were generally smaller). It may take up to twenty seconds on my >P200MMX (64MB RAM -- no disk activity during this period) from the >selection of a leader to the point where you can actually make input. >Similarly, group actions (which are very frequent for the Romans) and >especially the overall rout level assessment at the end of a turn take >a _long_ time for the engine to prepare. I suggest you get a new computer. My aging P133 does the former instantly and the later with a delay of about two seconds. :-) >GAME SYSTEM > >Here come the problems. GBH keeps the old weaknesses of the game >system, concerning skirmishers and cavalry, as well as introducing a >new one, regarding legions. > >SKIRMISHERS. Yet again, these are nothing but cannon (sword?) fodder: >once they have attacked, they stand little chance to avoid or survive >a counterattack. Considering that they were only used to soften up >enemy lines, their inevitable routing might seem like correct >behaviour EXCEPT that the enemy gets victory points for (terminally) >routing them which could not be justified if the skirmishers were >merely doing what they are supposed to do! My proposal stands to give >them greater mobility (turn at no MP costs) and maybe the ability to >pass through friendly units even if unrouted so as to better model >their actual mobility and evasiveness. Agreed. The system has never treated skirmishers properly. >CAVALRY. The Carthaginians have ten excellent "light" cavalry units >(Numidia 1-10) which are actually very capable of close combat but >also armed with javelins. The problem comes up when you actually try >to use those javelins. Cavalry is supposed to use hit-and-run tactics >and flank the enemy, right? Right. However, once any unit uses up >its supply of javelins the broken missile replenishment system sets in >and may, at random, cause that unit to remain stationary and accept NO >orders for SEVERAL turns (attempt resupply -> resupply ZERO missiles >which is, idiotically, possible -> attempt resupply -> ...). Cavalry >standing around on the field is a friendly invitation for the enemy to >collect some victory points. The only workaround I found is to simply >not use up their missile supply, i.e. only fire two javelins instead >of three. Alas, this prevents group attacks because group attack >orders cause javelins to be thrown automatically... Agreed. >LEGIONS. At the time of the Punic wars, the Roman battle lines were >no longer rigid phalanxes but rather composed of smaller tactical >units, the maniples, which could form a loose double row, allowing for >retreating front-line units to pass through, as well as a phalanx-like >single row when it was their turn to attack. In GBH, this is >represented by the legions being made up of regular single-hex units, >as opposed to the unwieldy double-hex phalanx units, and by a special >"manipular line extension" (MLE) command. I am not sure how true this was. In theory, yes. but in practice? How many mentions are there in the historical accounts of maniples being used inthis way? The earliest I have come across is in Polybius and he is talking about the Romans Fighting in Greece decades later. I think that in many of the punic war battles, especially Cannae, the Romans probably deployed as massed units very much like the regular phalanx. To my mind the game should make units that change facing within two hexes of an enemy unit suffer a cohesion loss. Even more if turning towards a unit behind the flank. That way flanking cavalry would be some use. Units that change facing to meet an attack should have a serious cohesion hit also. There should be two group attack moves- Group Attack and Group Pursuit. Group Pursuit would be the same as it is now, Group Attack would mean that all units would advance in formation until they hit the enemy, then the units in contact would attack. This would allow the Roman and phalanx units to use group attack without ending up a right mess. I have seen two hex phallanx units wheel round a skirmisher and attack it with their rear facing the mass of Roman cohorts. Finally, I have never liked the victory system. In ancient battles (with some exceptions) both sides fought until one side broke and was massacred. The game atempts to reproduce this by having each army have a morale level. When routing or destroyed units reduce this to zero the game is over. This means that your army can have completely surrounded the enemy, have your cavalry rampaging in their rear area but still lose because your army gives up due to a skirmisher unit routing and taking you over the morale limit. The fact that the enemy are one point of their morale level and surrounded means nothing. When causing routs, alling units etc position of the enemy means nothing. Position means nothing in any context except for hand to hand combat. In ancient warfare position means everything. All of Hannabal's victories, and Scipio's probably, were the result of achieving a superior position. Whether it was a flanking force at Trebia, an ambush at Lake Trasmenie, defeat of the flanks at Cannae etc. In each of these the victory was not wone by arms but by position. The game does not allow you to do this. >CONCLUSION > >All in all I have to say that I can't honestly recommend GBH to >someone new to the series. If you're interested in ancient combat you >should buy Great Battles of Alexander and download the patch; not >only is the game engine better suited to the smaller scenarios of that >game but the game system's handling of Greek phalanxes is also far >superior to its somewhat botched handling of Roman legions. I have found both games disappointing, as I previously found Alexander as a board game. The games are just not particulalry good at modeling ancient warfare. -- Julian Barker There is a coherent plan in the universe, though I don't know what it is a plan for. - Fred Hoyle