Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
76 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage» Forums » General

Subject: Split the entry: Hannibal and Hamilcar V Hannibal: Rome v Cathage [Poll] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ref the Kickstarter
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/phalanxgames/hannibal-a...

The 20th Anniversary edition has changed so much from the original Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, in it's fit, form, and function, I believe that it should be a separate entry.

The name of the game is the first clue, it is now two game instead of one. The rules have been changed, the components are massively different.

The original intent may have been to republish the Hannibal game, but they have now become different games.

There are plenty of precedents to split the entries
We the People evolved into Washington's War
Silver Bayonet: The First Team in Vietnam, 1965 evolved into Silver Bayonet: The First Team in Vietnam, 1965 (25th Anniversary Edition)

I have contacted an admin about the split. We shall see if BGG agrees.

What do people think ?

Poll: Should Hannibal and Hamilcar be a seperate entry from Hannibal: Rome v Carthage
Should the new implementation known as Hannibal & Hamilcar be a separate game entry in BGG, compared to the Valley Games Hannibal: Rome v Carthage.
Select Yes if you agree that they should be separate game entries.
Select No if one game entry is sufficient.

Yes
No
      138 answers
Poll created by oi_you_nutter
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

There was a recent debate about whether Viticulture: Essential Edition should be separated for the purpose of rankings. Some discussion over in that thread is likely relevant to this discussion.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1763504/ranking

In general I am in favor of separate entries for all games that get significant revisions between editions or printings even if the changes are just art.

Separate entries for rankings is probably the bigger sticking point with some people. Especially when the new version contains the original game essentially unchanged.

The original Hannibal is in this new box unchanged correct?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Selective quotes from the Kickstarter pages, with my emphasis in bold.

The addition of another game, with another map, is reason enough for a new game.

Quote:

There is even another game in the box: HAMILCAR, which portrays the events of the First Punic War.


Quote:
The development team at PHALANX has given this game a careful, meticulous update. It is now easier and faster to play. It plays considerably shorter. It has received new, stunning art. It is even better than it used to be.


Quote:

HANNIBAL has been designed by one of the most acclaimed designers in the world, Mark Simonitch. This 20th Anniversary Edition of the game includes new scenarios and variants. We have streamlined certain game mechanics, while producing exactly the same game results as the golden classic. The game original rules and components were updated by Mark Simonitch and Jaro Andruszkiewicz.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Selective quotes from the Kickstarter pages, with my emphasis in bold.

The addition of another game, with another map, is reason enough for a new game.

Quote:

There is even another game in the box: HAMILCAR, which portrays the events of the First Punic War.


Quote:
The development team at PHALANX has given this game a careful, meticulous update. It is now easier and faster to play. It plays considerably shorter. It has received new, stunning art. It is even better than it used to be.


Quote:

HANNIBAL has been designed by one of the most acclaimed designers in the world, Mark Simonitch. This 20th Anniversary Edition of the game includes new scenarios and variants. We have streamlined certain game mechanics, while producing exactly the same game results as the golden classic. The game original rules and components were updated by Mark Simonitch and Jaro Andruszkiewicz.


I assume this is a reply to me? I can only assume what you are implying.

When I said that the "original Hannibal is in this new box unchanged," I wasn't referring to the rules rewrite or the minis, art, etc. But the gameplay is identical if you use the old charts. Correct? That is what I understand to be the case. The box just has a bunch of variants and optional stuff.

So I am pointing out that this is more like a "big box" edition that bundles a chromed-out version of the original game plus modular optional stuff in the box, variants etc. I understand that there is a second game in the box.

Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

I personally think it should get a separate entry and ranking. I wrote more in depth about this in the Viticulture debate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
anaturalharmonic wrote:
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Selective quotes from the Kickstarter pages, with my emphasis in bold.

The addition of another game, with another map, is reason enough for a new game.

Quote:

There is even another game in the box: HAMILCAR, which portrays the events of the First Punic War.


Quote:
The development team at PHALANX has given this game a careful, meticulous update. It is now easier and faster to play. It plays considerably shorter. It has received new, stunning art. It is even better than it used to be.


Quote:

HANNIBAL has been designed by one of the most acclaimed designers in the world, Mark Simonitch. This 20th Anniversary Edition of the game includes new scenarios and variants. We have streamlined certain game mechanics, while producing exactly the same game results as the golden classic. The game original rules and components were updated by Mark Simonitch and Jaro Andruszkiewicz.


I assume this is a reply to me? I can only assume what you are implying.

When I said that the "original Hannibal is in this new box unchanged," I wasn't referring to the rules rewrite or the minis, art, etc. But the gameplay is identical if you use the old charts. Correct? That is what I understand to be the case. The box just has a bunch of variants and optional stuff.

So I am pointing out that this is more like a "big box" edition that bundles a chromed-out version of the original game plus modular optional stuff in the box, variants etc. I understand that there is a second game in the box.

Correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

I personally think it should get a separate entry and ranking. I wrote more in depth about this in the Viticulture debate.


I believe the game has changed more than just a few rule corrections and cosmetic tweaks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:

I believe the game has changed more than just a few rule corrections and cosmetic tweaks.


Based on this thread it seems that all of the new stuff is optional/modular/variant, etc.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1756233/hannibal-hamilcar-k...

striped_zebra wrote:
In the new version, did you guys consider changing any of the gameplay rules?

Have you implemented "Charles Varient" into the new rules?

I have never played Hannibal but it seems to be accepted as good modifications to the core gameplay? Just wondering if this was considered in the new edition.




el comandante wrote:
Hi Wayne,

Nope, we are not touching the gameplay, however there is a plenty of optional rules, mostly in Hamilcar but can be applied to Hannibal too.

There is also 3 or 4 new scenarios for Hannibal. Also, if we meet all the stretches, one could augment Hannibal with around 20 new cards, new leaders and events.


el comandante wrote:
sirdan221 wrote:
I'd argue that one of the best things about Hannibal is that the deck seems perfectly balanced.


This is exactly may observation and I think a reason for the game to be so great, that the deck is just a masterpiece. I was wondering for the last 20 years how was it ever possible to design it. So, what we are adding are optional cards.

We keep the VC as they were in the latest edition.


Then finally:

el comandante wrote:
Again. We are not touching a base game. You will have your vanilla Hannibal experience.

We run variants through Mark. Many cards are his own suggestions for Hannibal 2, which never got published. Some were supposed to see light in the un-published Hamilcar by VG. Some variants are there, because they proved to be worth a try (Charles' Variant). Mark liked and cleared Mauretania as a variant.

My perspective on variant is, that they enrich the game and allow for what-ifs. But and again. Nobody forces anyone to use them. Those are 'variants'. We think however, that 20th Anniversary Edition is the place to put the variants in.

There is going to be a Tutorial with learning scenarios aimed at enlarging the player base. We want MORE people playing Hannibal.

The same reason for the minis. If that's a way to get a game on the table and convert an Euro player to try Hannibal, I want the minis in.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My post above is all intended to underscore that some folks in the BGG world will believe that this should be thought of as a "contained in" situation. So it would likely get its own entry (eventually) but may not get it's own ranking separate from the Valley Games version.

(Again,... I disagree with this. I think a publisher should get credit for improving on a game even if those improvements are art, aesthetics, cleaner rules, minis, etc. Now if people rate the new game similarly to the old version, then so be it. But it should be ranked separately... but those are my opinions... others may disagree.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jaro Andruszkiewicz
England
St Albans
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal is a game. And this is a profile and rating for Hannibal.
Hamilcar is a separate game. And it's rating is in Hamilcar's profile.

Hannibal & Hamilcar are two games in one box.

Original Hannibal has not been changed in terms of mechanics and the results the game produces. AH and VG editions share the same entry despite changes in art and rules.

Giving Hannibal & Hamilcar a separate entry is just pure nonsense. And may actually do all the versions more bad than good if you really think about it.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

If they had simply redid the Hannibal game as has been mentioned, they I would agree that it could stay as one entry.
BUT
They added a new Hamilcar game, new board, new components = new questions.
They added variants that were not in the previously published game.
New art
They added Minis
They streamlined rules.

It ain't the same game, it's a reimplemention.

Questions ref the Valley Games edition are not revlevant to the new edition AND vice versa.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
oi_you_nutter wrote:
Questions ref the Valley Games edition are not revlevant to the new edition AND vice versa.

Questions about the game Hannibal seem equally relevant whether AH, VG or Phalanx. The Hannibal games in all 3 editions are 99% equivalent.

Some questions about the game Hamilcar indeed are not relevant to Hannibal. (But many questions will probably be equally applicable to both games, since they use the same core rules, after all.) Unfortunately I don't think BGG game entry policies would permit making a separate entry for Hamilcar, because (as I understand it), even though it is 2 games in one box, they share many components in common.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Bogatov
Russia
Moscow
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I am for separating. Rules of sea moving and retreating after battle were totally changed, so it will be a mess in Forums/Rules. As well, questions about Hamilkar almost always will be asked on Hannibal`s forum, I`m shure.
We already separate it at our russian game portal:
http://www.tesera.ru/game/hannibal-and-hamilcar/
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jaro Andruszkiewicz
England
St Albans
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hamilcar does have an entry:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/99181/hamilcar-...

it only requires an update, that's it.

Creating a separate entry for Hannibal & Hamilcar makes absolutely no sense for this is when you'd end up with mess.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
el comandante wrote:

Aha, cool! That would indeed seem to solve the problem of Hamilcar-specific discussion in the Hannibal forum.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Bogatov
Russia
Moscow
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
el comandante wrote:

Aha, cool! That would indeed seem to solve the problem of Hamilcar-specific discussion in the Hannibal forum.

No, it will not solve the problem. I have the game with name "Hannibal" on the box and I will ask all the questions about this game (it does not matter, about 1st or 2nd Punic war) on Hannibal forums, of course.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
makvlad wrote:
No, it will not solve the problem. I have the game with name "Hannibal" on the box and I will ask all the questions about this game (it does not matter, about 1st or 2nd Punic war) on Hannibal forums, of course.

You would intentionally do that even though Hamilcar is an expansion (which happens to be included in the box) and Hamilcar has its own forum?

Well, no one can stop people from intentionally posting threads in the wrong forum, but others can red-X the threads as "Wrong Forum" so an admin will move them to the appropriate forum...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Bogatov
Russia
Moscow
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There are another examples on BGG for separate pages for different game issues. Look at A las Barricadas:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63868/las-barricadas...
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/26250/las-barricadas
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Bogatov
Russia
Moscow
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
makvlad wrote:
No, it will not solve the problem. I have the game with name "Hannibal" on the box and I will ask all the questions about this game (it does not matter, about 1st or 2nd Punic war) on Hannibal forums, of course.

You would intentionally do that even though Hamilcar is an expansion (which happens to be included in the box) and Hamilcar has its own forum?

Well, no one can stop people from intentionally posting threads in the wrong forum, but others can red-X the threads as "Wrong Forum" so an admin will move them to the appropriate forum...

My English is poor, sorry. I mean not just me, but any customer who bought this box. He has one box with "Hannibal" on it and it is obviously that he will read topics and write his own questions on "Hannibal" page.

Generally, the question is what is better:
1) Separate Hamilcar from new Hannibal game
OR
2) Separate new Hannibal&Hamilcar game from old Hannibal.

Let`s see: Hamilcar and new Hannibal are manufactured in one box, they have mutual counters, cards and miniatures, mutual rulebook with rules different from old version of Hannibal. For customers it is just one game with different scenarios. And it is not unique case that a game has different boards for different scenarios.
Next, is new Hannibal the same as old one? No: it has another design, another rules (for sea movement and retreat), new cards and counters, new generals with new properties. New Hannibal is similar, it is close to old, but it is not the same, it is another. Some gamers can like old issue and not like the new one (and vice versa) and they should be able to set separate ratings for old and new game.

So for me it is clear that new Hannibal&Hamilcar issue must have a separate page on BGG.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
makvlad wrote:
I mean not just me, but any customer who bought this box. He has one box with "Hannibal" on it and it is obviously that he will read topics and write his own questions on "Hannibal" page.

In theory this is solved by communication (e.g. big text at the Hannibal BGG entry saying "This is for the base game Hannibal. Discussion about the expansion Hamilcar goes in the Hamilcar entry." and perhaps a sticky/pinned forum thread reminding of that.

In practice I agree that most people don't bother reading and would just post Hamilcar discussion in the Hannibal forum instead of the Hamilcar forum.

Quote:
Let`s see: Hamilcar and new Hannibal are manufactured in one box, they have mutual counters, cards and miniatures, mutual rulebook with rules different from old version of Hannibal. For customers it is just one game with different scenarios. And it is not unique case that a game has different boards for different scenarios.

I agree that it is murky.

There are past precedents for both approaches.

Quote:
Next, is new Hannibal the same as old one? No: it has another design, another rules (for sea movement and retreat)

Is that true?

A new graphic representation for resolving sea movement with special dice instead of standard D6, but I thought the game effect was the same.

You have a point about the additional material (new generals and cards), I agree.

Quote:
Some gamers can like old issue and not like the new one (and vice versa) and they should be able to set separate ratings for old and new game.

They can even if new Hannibal is a version of existing Hannibal entry as it is now. You can give different ratings to different versions, just like people can already give different ratings to the original Avalon Hill version and the Valley Games version!

On the other hand, people may also have different opinions about the original Hannibal scenario and about the Hamilcar scenario, so having Hamilcar as a separate expansion entry would let them give different ratings to Hannibal and Hamilcar, which they cannot do if the box of 2 games is listed as a single game!

So the rating argument works in both directions.

Quote:
So for me it is clear that new Hannibal&Hamilcar issue must have a separate page on BGG.

For me it is clear that arguments can be made in both directions.

E.g. a similar situation is with Hive (which has some expansions like Hive: The Mosquito) and Hive Pocket (which is base Hive plus expansion bugs). As far as I can tell, most Hive players find that frustrating that Hive discussion is split between 2 different forums and don't think Hive Carbon/Pocket should have received a separate BGG entry merely because it has some expansion bugs.

So ultimately this kind of thing seems to have no clear solution. :/
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cris Whetstone
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Like Russ, I don't see a real solution to this issue of versions vs game pages.

I find it ridiculous that if I play a game and want to seek further information about it that I would have to know BEFORE I GOT TO THIS SITE that there is a separate page for each release of a game. I just think that is a terrible way to handle the data and categorizations.

I find a similar issue with expansions. For instance, when I play Power Grid on a board different from the main version am I really playing another game or simply an expansion? I don't think my rating should reflect me playing a different game in the database but I also don't think I should have to rate it twice. Once for the expansion and once for the base game.

The game pages provide a good section for versions but maybe there should be a better way to let people know who visit each page that there might be significant differences between versions even if the core of the game is true across several iterations. I have no idea how to implement such a thing and make it useful. But even a poor solution along these lines is preferable to me than having separate pages and ratings for each release.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
el comandante wrote:
Hamilcar does have an entry:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/99181/hamilcar-...

it only requires an update, that's it.

Creating a separate entry for Hannibal & Hamilcar makes absolutely no sense for this is when you'd end up with mess.


Jaro,

I really want your game to be a wild success. Don't get me wrong. But the issue we are discussing here (and the issue that was discussed over at the Viticulture forum) is more about BGG database management and general rules for:

1) When are different printing/editions of a game under the same BGG entry?

2) When are different printings/editions/versions of a game collected together for the sake of rating each game?

3) When are different printings/editions/versions of a game collected together for the sake of ranking each game?

4) When should a family of similar games be collected together for the sake of: Forums, information, wikis, expansions, etc. etc.

No matter what rule you choose for the above questions causes problems somewhere. For every case there is a corner case.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
el comandante wrote:

Giving Hannibal & Hamilcar a separate entry is just pure nonsense. And may actually do all the versions more bad than good if you really think about it.


You are correct that there would be a mess in many ways given the current BGG system. My argument (which I haven't fully explained in this thread) is about how I think BGG should be changed in the big picture.

Using Hannibal as an example, this a brief version of my general idea:

All versions of Hannibal should be under ONE umbrella for the purpose of information and Forums.

The new version of Hannibal should be separated from other versions of hannibal for the purpose of rating and ranking (in other words, you should get credit for improving the game if people feel that you have improved the game).

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is a scenario where Phalanx WOULD want their game to be separated.

Let's suppose the new version of Hannibal is a wild success. People love it. The ratings are MUCH better than even the old version of Hannibal. Phalanx is successful in pulling in non-wargamers (like Twilight Struggle did).

Now you will want the ranking to be separate. It is possible that the new version of Hannibal races to the top 50 of BGG.

Now Phalanx could potentially have an evergreen game that can make them a lot of money.

(This is what happened (sort of) with Viticulture: Essential Edition.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
el comandante wrote:

Aha, cool! That would indeed seem to solve the problem of Hamilcar-specific discussion in the Hannibal forum.


Given the current overall organization of BGG, yes, this is probably the best solution.

EDIT: However, I just realized that that Hamiclar entry is listed as an expansion for Hannibal. But it is a separate game inside the box of Hannibal. And again, we circle back to some of the database challenges.

For the sake of argument, what if Hamiclar is the greatest game ever made? It won't be ranked on BGG because it is listed as an expansion (if I understand BGG's rules correctly).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim P.
United States
Thousand Oaks
CA
flag msg tools
Visit the Wargame Bootcamp guild
badge
Muppet !
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

One of the reasons for having a separate game entry for Hannibal & Hamilcar is the inclusion of the expansion as an integral part of the new edition.

Making people look at another game/expansion listing for the support of an integral part of a published game is unheard of.

Can someone show me an example of such an instance ?


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grant Linneberg
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
el comandante wrote:
Hamilcar does have an entry:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/99181/hamilcar-...

it only requires an update, that's it.

Creating a separate entry for Hannibal & Hamilcar makes absolutely no sense for this is when you'd end up with mess.



Totally agree. You end up with the mess they have with 2 entries for Tide of Iron. It's terrible. Files and forum posts are spread over two entries for the exact same game.

Separate entries might please collectors, but as a resource for players, a single place for all things relating to the game makes sense.

(And yes, Jaro, I broke down and backed the KS today. I'll be one of many with more than one edition of this game.)

8 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.