From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: One review Hannibal (Simulations Canada) I have mixed feelings about this almost twenty years old game from SimCan: I would like to love it with all of my heart (as this is one of my favorite time period), but the design doesn't work too successfully in several points. But it's better start with a description of the game. This is a strategic recreation of Hannibal campaign in Italy during the Second Punic War; so, the game focus is on the famous Punic general (and this is probably one of the most serious limit of the game). The map stretches from Cisalpine Gaul to Southern Italy (Bruttium), without taking in account Sicily. Each turn of play represents one year of time and the campaign game may last from 218 B.C. to 206 B.C. (with a shorter scenario ending in 212 B.C.). Graphics are almost standard for the time when Hannibal was produced (1983), but it seems really drab by today standards. Anyway, are certainly functional. Units come as leader (rated for withdrawal capacity - they have to roll the indicated number or plus on a d6 to refuse combat, Hannibal and Fabius Maximus having the intrisinc ability to always refuse combat, another questionable choice by the designer - and for combat bonus) and combat units, with only the combat value on the piece. There are Roman infantry and cavalry units, Carthaginians infantry, cavalry and elephants units, plus Gaulish and Allied units for the Carthaginian player. Each turn of the game is divided in a summer turn and a winter turn: at the start of the summer turn, the Roman player has to make the Roman elections to decide which leaders are avalaible for his troops in that turn. There is a long and boring procedure, involving several die rolls to check which leaders are consuls, which are praetors and, if it's feasible, he may decide to elect a Dictator and a Master of the Horse. The optional rule is faster and a little less historical and involves the simple drawing of the various leaders from a pool of counters (I decide to use this rule not thinking for a second). The difference in rank is important as a consul may move up to 8 legions, a proconsul up to 6 and a praetor up to 4. Each Roman legions is made by an infantry and a cavalry unit. After that, the Carthaginian player checks for reinforcements (due in 215 B.C. and in 207B.C., if Bruttium is Carthaginian controlled). Then decides who is the first player in the summer turn (and the second in the winter turn). Each player in his phase first checks for reinforcements (the Roman ones are fixed by a table, while the Carthaginian rolls a die for each of his leaders in a tan province (Cisalpina, Liguria and Southern Italy and also checks a table), then move and have combat and /or siege. Movement rates are 20 for infantry/elephants and 30 for cavalry. You may move units only with leaders. Movement is stopped for the turn by enemy units that don't succeed in a withdrawal roll (only if with a leader). There are no ZOCs or similar rules in the game (as it seems fit for a game of this scale and this epoch, but probably a reaction movement should have been better than the withdrawal rule here used) . During movement a leader my try to win a city by diplomacy (rolling her loyalty number or more) or lay siege to her at the and the turn (there are several different kinds of defenses for the cities, not used if there are no garrisons inside, but very important if a garrison or any other unit is present). Combat involves a few interesting procedures (like the one regarding foraging - the player who doesn't control the province where combat is held is forced to put 1/4 of the total strength of his units aside to forage, suffering the destiny of his other units in the battle - or Carthaginian ambushes - only possible if Hannibal is present, they give an interesting +2/-2 attacking/defending modifier, at the sake of a little risk in the first segment of the combat, when 1/4 of the troops are not used in combat, but are preparing the ambush), but it is in the end resolved by a single die roll on a classic ratio CRT. At the end of each round of combat, both players may try to withdraw from combat (with a life risk for the leaders involved - that are removed from play on a roll of 1). Siege is similar, but with a different CRT, and may have different results for the siege assault, while to take level one fortress (like Rome), the Carthaginian player needs time (that he normally doesn't have). Victory points are accumulated only by the Carthaginian player, mostly for controlling provinces and cities, but also for eliminating Roman strength points. So what? Well, the game works, if too slowly for my tastes, for what the designer wants to simulate, forcing the players to recreate history almost step by step or suffer a terrible fate for their strategical innovations: the Carthaginian player must go south as soon as possible to try to have his reinforcements and auxiliaries, while the Roman player must wait till he can try to take back a few provinces and cities. Combat is not an option for the Roman player, who cannot force Hannibal to have battle if he doesn't want (and this is a limit of the game, as historical this design decision could be), and he is forced to move his troops on the path of the Carthaginians, taking back the cities they have taken. And most of the game is such a cat and mouse routine, with both players taking their risks if they leave a force too small for this taking/retaking procedure. I've played this game a couple of time solitaire and certainly I couldn't give an high rating to Hannibal as a solo study of the situation: is too boring and predictable and I think that the Carthaginian is doomed in the end (like history teaches). Probably the game is much better as a two players game (but possibly slower), but in the end not really exciting. A few rules are unclear (like what happens to a leader if all his units are eliminated in combat) and a few are missing (like the table for Elephant attrition - that it's not on the map, like the rules say), but these things are not the real deterrent to enjoying the game: are the design choices. AH's Hannibal is much better in this sense, probably even solitaire, and I prefer any other game on the subject that does take in account even the other theaters of operations of the Second Punic War. All in all, I rate this game 6 in a 1-10 scale.