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

Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage» Forums » General

Subject: Carthage at a severe disadvantage rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trent Garner
United States
Fayetteville
Arkansas
flag msg tools
also Game Developer
badge
Personal LnLT Avatar
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I hate to rain on your parade, but according to the WarGameRoom results for the HRvC league games being played for 2009, Carthage has won the game 71 times vs Rome having won only 55 times. The guys playing at WGR are pretty experienced for the most part and have been playing for quite a few years now. I'd guess those results reflect game balance rather well overall.

You can verify these results for yourself here:
http://www.wargameroom.com/ihrcl.htm

Go to the bottom of the page, the last table shows the results for all games played in the current league, with Carthage holding a sizeable win/loss ratio in their favor 71-55. (I might have miss-counted by 1-2 either way)
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good to hear Cantatta, since I too have been losing as Carthage versus my friend who's begun to adopt a strategy which involves keeping all three generals in Italy and keeping Hannibal blockaded with interlocking intercepts. Even if I manage to secure and win a roughly equal battle, a bad attrition roll can spell doom, especially if he's got a campaign card in hand. Admittedly, I think I need to go into Southern Italy so Hannibal can receive reinforcements from Mago, since I know a couple games I've had Mago come over, and since Hannibal was blockaded up North (because I was trying to convert Samnium or Etruia), the fact that Mago comes over is ultimately useless.

In an attempt to keep this post short, I have one question to ask:

Is Rome keeping the entirety of their forces in Italy the best way to play? Barring a great opportunity abroad, that is. Since I read one house rule which suggested that Rome only receive 4 CUs per turn if a Roman general isn't in Spain or Africa.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rodriguez
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
I've read through that thread and I've found little to convince me that the strategy is grossly overpowered.

There has always been an assuption that Rome has a slight advantage - indeed this is why they bid for PC markers at the WBC. But the advantage is not huge and the outcome is never as deterministic as you seem to indicate.

The biggest problem is that it is all theory or self-experience. "I won a bunch using this strategy, or I can't figure out how to stop it so it must be uber-good!"

The fact is that hundreds and hundreds of games (both in the leage and at the WBC) show the win ratio of either side is not huge. Hence all data points to the "uber superstack theory" as nothing more than a good strategy for Rome to consider using.

Obviously this won't change people who firmly belive they have "figured out the game" but it seems far more likely that their assumptions are misguided.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Having played this game more than 20 times, my opinion is that where two players have significantly different experience levels, the game will usually go to the experienced player in almost every game. Where the two players are equal, it is a slight advantage to the Roman player, but luck on card draws plays a large part in this.

Also, the order of the card draws is important. There are very many powerful Carthaginian events to help out the Carthaginian player. Depending on how these events appear in the game, the Carthaginian's game is either very much enhanced or very much subdued.

I am one of the few people that just never "got" the game. Card driven games have been the bane of my wargaming existence for years. I don't know why I suck at them, but I simply do not have the capacity to look at my hand and develop a strategy based upon my cards.

Ask anyone who's beaten me. In over a year and a half of playing Hannibal, I've won the game only once. With a loss record that high, you can't blame luck.

Cheers.

Chris
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trent Garner
United States
Fayetteville
Arkansas
flag msg tools
also Game Developer
badge
Personal LnLT Avatar
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry to hear you have lost enthusiasm for the game. IMHO, it certainly makes a difference when you play against many different opponents, as no two people will play exactly alike, some favoring one strategy over another, some with more experience than others, some more aggressive than others. Regardless, to say that the game is broken due to this one strategy is simply not born out in the "raw data", as you put it.

I tend to agree that the "uber-stack" is perhaps a strong way for Rome to play, though I'm doubtful it is as strong as might be perceived or suggested. Admittedly, I'm neither a very strong nor vastly experienced player compared to many. And, my experience is entirely with the board game, I have never played using WGR, as the abstracted graphics are comparatively hard to play with. That's purely a matter of preference.

In any case, you are entitled to your opinion, perhaps moving on to a new and different CDG like Washington's War is in order? Looking forward to this one myself!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Latto
United States
Foxboro
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Velusion wrote:

There has always been an assuption that Rome has a slight advantage - indeed this is why they bid for PC markers at the WBC.

This is wrong on two counts.

The reason there is bidding for sides at the WBC (World Boardgaming championship) is not because there is a perceived advantage for Rome, but because it's a general WBC rule; from the WBC GM's guide at http://www.boardgamers.org/gmguide.htm:
Quote:
SIDE DETERMINATION: In two-player games, sides should not be resolved randomly or by player choice. Instead, players should bid increments of Victory Points, supply, combat factors or other game resources for the right to choose a particular side. That way no player can gripe about receiving the perceived disadvantaged side.

You are also wrong that the perception is that Rome has the advantage. According to the report from last year http://boardgamers.org/yearbook08/hrcpge.htm, players bid to play Carthage in 80% of the games, with the average bid being 1.7 to play Carthage. With this extra edge given to the roman players, Rome won 35 games out of 68; Carthage won 33. Hardly an unbalanced result!

I'll be playing at this year's WBC starting Saturday; I'll report back if the bidding has changed.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rodriguez
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
andylatto wrote:


The reason there is bidding for sides at the WBC (World Boardgaming championship) is not because there is a perceived advantage for Rome, but because it's a general WBC rule; from the WBC GM's guide at http://www.boardgamers.org/gmguide.htm


*nods* what I should have said was "...indeed the WBC has a policy to bid for PC markers to equalize any perceived benifit." I never thought the policy was put in place just for Hannibal.

I was always under the impression from other players that Rome was favored by 1-2 PC markers at the WBC for some reason. Thanks for clearing that up!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Sylvan
Sweden
STOCKHOLM
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mb
SFRR wrote:


The super stack strat so well developed by players on BGG presents almost insurmountable odds for the Carth player. The best a "Fortress Alpina" Carth strat can hope for is a 9-9 V-Chk at end game, tie goes to Carth.


I fail to see your reasoning?

OK, so Rome plays SuperStackStrat.
Carthage counters w/Fortress Alpina

That will lead - as you have yourself noted - to a 9-9 Victory for Carthage.,,
How can this be seen as Carthage is at a disadvantage???
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn von Knorring
Sweden
Uppsala
flag msg tools
badge
The picture is a swedish cartoon-figure Herman Hedning. English info here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hedning
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, the Romans have placed a huge stack in the bottle neck. What stops Hannibal from walking through the non-alps pass in the south and simply walk by the Romans?

If the Romans do nothing Hannibal may even threaten Rome itself. And as far Hannibal is concerned the 15+ Roman CU can sit in the bottle neck for the rest of the game...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Per Sylvan
Sweden
STOCKHOLM
Stockholm
flag msg tools
mb
SFRR wrote:
When I say "The best" that Carthage can hope for in the Carthage "Fortress Alpina" strat, is that the Roman player fails to attack by round 2 or 3. Locally, as in in Italy, the Roman player produces reinforcements at a ratio of 5-1 every round. One campaign card, played as an assault on the "Fortress Alpina" position, even if Rome loses the first battle, the Carthage position will receive a second attack on a Hannibal army that will likely lose 1-2 CU's to mutual battle attrition. The second wave, the Romans have +2 for allies, the Carthaginians only have a +1, again Hannibal with 11-12 BC's, Rome with 14 BC's. The Roman player before the actual first attack, can skillfully place Roman CU's around Hannibal, in the case where Hannibal is defending from Boii, so that Hannibal cannot avoid battle.


No sorry, I don't agree with you .
You advocate a Roman attack on Hannibal in G Cis on Turn 2-3?


Hannibal crosses the Alps on T1, w/8 CUs surviving (on average, 2nd ed rules meaning +-0 dieroll modifier on alps pass). Rome really is not in a position to attack on T1.

Those 8CUS are back to 10 CUs by Turn 2 (1 reinf + 1 reinf through use of '3' card).

Thus Hannibal, on Turn 2 , will have 16 BCs:

10 Cards from CUs
4 Cards from Strat Rating of Hannibal
1 Card from Tribe (or intercept)
1 Card from Allies (G Cis)
(possibly that it will be reduced to 15 by "Elephant Fright")


Rome can muster two 10 CU-stacks , and attack Hannibal.
They will have:

10 Cards from CUs
1-3 Cards from Strat Rating of Consul/Proconsul
2 Card from Allies
REDUCED by:
0-2 cards through Elephants

That's 9-15 cards for Rome, in each attack.


I'm not too scared about such a Roman attack..

Also, on reinfs - don't underestimate the reinf-ability of Carthage! Those '3' cards are very useful for filling Hannibal up.
Hannibal should be able to keep a minimum of 10 CUs in G Cis throughout the game - if he goes for Alpine Fortress, IMHO
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter White
United States
Belmont
California
flag msg tools
A Roman Northern Roadblock is, unfortunately (IMO), quite effective. But it is very far from bulletproof.

Various factors that help Carthage bypass the roadblock:

(1) Carthage plays Messenger Intercepted and/or Phillip of Macedon Allies With Carthage, and had the foresight to force Rome to play the first strategy card this year.

(2) Native Guides and/or Forced March cards.

(3) Bad Weather card places Rome's best army out of position.

(4) Lousy Consuls this year, makes the multi-pronged assault with the Campaign card too risky.

(5) Rome draws no Campaign cards. (Yes, this is pure luck. But it is not exactly rare for a roadblock strategy to temporarily strand CUs out of position.)

(6) Carthage pushes Mago into southern Italy, forcing a consul or proconsul south.

(7) Unlucky Consul draw and/or Senate Dismisses Proconsul makes the roadblock an inviting target.


#7 is worth expanding on. Hannibal is quite capable of beating his way through a superstack commanding by a Battle Rating 1 or 2 general. First Carthage builds his army up to 11 or 12 CUs. Then attacks. If the elephant roll goes well, as it usually does, then it is 15 BCs for Carthage versus 18 BCs for Rome. Now that is a fair fight. But Carthage does not have to fight fair, as Hannibal has the battle initiative.

Carthage looks at his hand. If he like what he sees, he fights. Otherwise he immediately Withdraws from battle. A 1 or 2 BR Roman general is extremely unlikely to prevent the Withdrawal, as Carthage is going almost certainly going to get a few attempts before defeat.

Repeat until Carthage gets the killer BC hand, then defeat the stack.

Remember I said build up to 11-12 CUs first? You need those extra 1-2 CUs to build Hannibal back up to strength after the big battle.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter White
United States
Belmont
California
flag msg tools
SFRR wrote:
Hey Peter - I just played my 9th straight game as Carthage (all losses 0-9, on WGR), and I did many of the things you mentioned. I lost 8-9 in the VC Check on the last card play of the final round. It was a very close game. Hannibal survived to the end and never lost a battle - I had control of three provinces in Italy (+3 allies BC's). I was even holding "Syracuse Allies with Carthage" as my final card, and that wasn't even enough.


In hindsight, if you had only turtled in Spain and Africa, you would have won. Too bad you took my advice.

Glad to help. Of course, my list guarantees nothing, as there is no way to know which things on the list will be available.

But if Hannibal picked up a third province in Italy and lived to see the end game, you must have done pretty well. The problem was clearly not the Roman Roadblock, but parrying the Roman overseas offensive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter White
United States
Belmont
California
flag msg tools
SFRR wrote:
You will never, ever "outreinforce" Rome. Rome receives [5] CU's where it needs them, in Italy, every round. Carthage receives only [1] in Italy, that's a 5-1 disadvantage every turn. Burning "3" cards to gain reinforcements means losing the PC count attrition war as Rome will have lots and lots of PC's to waste in the non-key provinces. Burning "3" cards for Carthage also means sacrificng things like Celtiberia revolts, Sicily revolts, or Major/Minor campaign cards. This is only worth doing maybe once per game.


It really depends.

Obviously the most efficient way to deal with Roman CUs is to kill them. A victory hits them for ~4-5 CUs for the cost of 1-2 CUs. If Hannibal can string together some victories and steadily pick up Italian provinces, then 7-8 CUs might be okay and those 3 cards could be very valuable as events or laying down PC markers.

If the pace of the game slows down and Rome is building up armies, Carthage must do the same. When Hannibal is shadowed by a 20+ CU worth of armies, the clock is running until Scipio Africanus appears. Hannibal is going to need to muster 18-20 BCs worth army plus allies to fend off Scipio Africanus and friends.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Peter White wrote:

Obviously the most efficient way to deal with Roman CUs is to kill them. A victory hits them for ~4-5 CUs for the cost of 1-2 CUs. If Hannibal can string together some victories and steadily pick up Italian provinces, then 7-8 CUs might be okay and those 3 cards could be very valuable as events or laying down PC markers.


Just to be clear, are we talking about the road block at Gallia Cisalpania?

In my experience... and admittedly, my friend ALWAYS seems to get some 3 battle rating general on Turn 2 (which isn't too unlikely, there's 3 out of 7 in the Consul pool), winning a battle with reinforcements nearby can simply cause you to lose the next conflict.

Assuming a turn 2 fight, he can can easily have 21 Roman CUs in Italy, more with Auxiliary cards. Let's be generous and say Hannibal attacks a 10 stack with a 3 Battle Rating general (okay, maybe that's not so generous, but a 10 stack isn't exactly a super stack either.) Still, at that point, it's a 15 card to 15 card fight, maybe 15 to 13 if elephants hit. Even if you win with 2 CU losses, you go down to 13 battle cards, and then they can swing with a 15 card stack. 13 vrs. 13 (assuming Elephants hit, a 33% chance vrs. a 3 general, with a 16% chance of it being a 12 vrs. 15 card fight), Hannibal will probably win. But if he doesn't, that hurts, and suddenly Hannibal is no longer locking down the enemy stacks by standing around. You've also got a decent chance of having lost an elephant, since you've crossed the Alps, possibly been pinged with Epidemic or Hostile Tribes, and fought two or three battles.

Sure, you are producing only a little less in terms of CUs, but there is considerable card investment and vulnerability in terms of getting them to Italy.

Maybe I need to be getting out of Cisalpina on Turn 1 and flipping some PCs in Samnium (though good cards always seem to prevent that, like African Reinforcements or Macedonia Allies with Carthage, and plus, I seem to be married to the idea of dropping 2 or 3 PCs in Idubeda, and if possible, the adjacent port in Massilla, which maybe I should get out of the habit of doing.)

I suppose my point is: I'm not sure if being aggressive with Hannibal is really the answer. If you can swing with Turn 1, or begin converting Samnium on Turn 1, then sure. But as soon as Turn 2 rolls around, it's kind of tempting for Hannibal to sit on his duff. This might not be a problem (his sitting around), but again, my point is: should Hannibal even be attacking a Roman superstack? (Or if Rome has multiple generals nearby.)

Hannibal will probably kill more than he loses, but Rome reinforces more quickly, and Hannibal losing on the offensive is a big deal. Losing on the defensive is possibly acceptable, especially if you can reinforce on your turn or run away, but attacking and losing bites. Or, as I say above, attacking and winning? It REALLY sucks if you roll a 6, even if you won. So again, I'm not sure if Hannibal should even be attacking most of the time.

Maybe I'm not even disagreeing with you, since you mention "when the pace of the game slows down, Hannibal builds up." But when doesn't the game slow down? Is everyone else in Samnium by the end of Turn 1?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter White
United States
Belmont
California
flag msg tools
Quote:
But when doesn't the game slow down? Is everyone else in Samnium by the end of Turn 1?


You are not in that much of a hurry.

Absent a truly extraordinary hand, it is not usually possible to hit Samnium before Turn 2, without leaving Spain wide open to a counterattack. I would advise against making the attempt.

A big Roadblock commanded by a 3 Battle Rating general is probably not worth attacking (but it is not obvious that even this is a rock solid conclusion). It is far from a given that Rome can arrange such by Turn 2 or even Turn 3.

The exact placement of the Consuls and Proconsul can actually matter. Is there going to be a change of Consul roll before battle? Can Carthage attempt to go around?

The odds around attacking a superstack commanded by a 2 BR Roman general are not so bad, especially if Carthage has 2 elephants and is smart about Withdrawing when the BC draw is less than appealing. 15 BCs for Hannibal against 18 BCs for, say, Flaminus is close to an even fight.

Also keep in mind that sometimes Rome lacks a Campaign card on Turn 1. If so, putting the big stack together is costly. Hannibal could be facing as few as 13 CUs at the beginning of Turn 2.






 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Peter White wrote:

A big Roadblock commanded by a 3 Battle Rating general is probably not worth attacking (but it is not obvious that even this is a rock solid conclusion). It is far from a given that Rome can arrange such by Turn 2 or even Turn 3.


A 3 BR general might be worth attacking, and may yield victory a majority of the time, but I think the costs of losing outweigh the gains from winning.

I do typically think Rome can arrange the road block by either the end of Turn 1 or the start of Turn 2.

As for a 3 BR general and its likelihood. (I'm including Paulus, since 1 BC is nice, but a 3 for counter-attacking is more important.) You have a 3/7 chance of drawing one, then for your second draw, a 3/6 chance. So, you have a roughly 58% chance of not drawing one, times a 50% chance of not drawing one, so roughly a 29% chance of not drawing a 3 BR general on Turn 2? (I think I'm doing the math right.)

Quote:

The exact placement of the Consuls and Proconsul can actually matter.


Certainly true.

Quote:

The odds around attacking a superstack commanded by a 2 BR Roman general are not so bad, especially if Carthage has 2 elephants and is smart about Withdrawing when the BC draw is less than appealing. 15 BCs for Hannibal against 18 BCs for, say, Flaminus is close to an even fight.


Again, true. Still, 71% of the time, they'll have Marcellus, Fabius or Paulus. Admittedly, the latter two are less likely to be able to capitalize on a victory.

Quote:

Also keep in mind that sometimes Rome lacks a Campaign card on Turn 1. If so, putting the big stack together is costly. Hannibal could be facing as few as 13 CUs at the beginning of Turn 2.


I don't think it's that difficult for Rome to get into position. They require 3 "2" cards and one "3" card, right? To do it safely that is (and not having Longus abandon a stack of troops to pick up another stack if Hannibal is in Cisalpina)

I'm not saying Carthage can't win. I'm more bemoaning the stasis the road block encourages, though maybe it's not all that bad, but I'm slightly tempted to implement the "Strategy Card # - Strategy Rating Rule = modifier on attrition rolls for crossing a mountain pass." Gives you a reason to blow a "3" card on crossing the Alps. Admittedly, it might be too advantageous to Carthage in general, and make a lucky hand with lots of 3s even more advantageous.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
...and even if you (Carthage) control Samnium and another Roman province, Rome will besiege Carthage...and even if you try to stop them with Mago, you will still lose, even after your sucesses in Italy. Skill level being equal, Carthage will lose 75%+ of the time.


I'm not sure about that. Also, you could always try to stop them with Hasdrubal. With troops inside Carthage, you could easily have 20 BCs to their whatever. Regardless....

That's not to say I'm satisfied with Hannibal right now. I narrowly won, as Carthage (Mutin's Numidians last turn flip), though we did retcon the fact that Hannibal got Double Enveloped with a die roll of 5. 20 cards to his 15, with Africanus, and he had 3 reserves, and 3 DE's, he also had 3 of the 12 Frontal Assaults. (I had 9!!!) I tried rolling as "what if" and my withdrawal attempt would have failed.

So, technically, I lost. I did sail away with Adriatic Pirates, and as you can see, I was being adventurous. The combined fact that I left Hasdrubal alone, and also had to sail away, means I lost 14 CUs. I don't think I would have lost nearly so many if I'd just stayed in Cisalpinia.

I'm lightly considering a reduction in the reinforcements each side receives right now, because we always end our games with lots of troops. At the end of the game, if I had not lost 14 CUs, I'd have something like 40 CUs (as is, especially since I played Cato Counsels Rome, I had ~25 CUs in Spain, with Hannibal. I did try to recross the Alps, but by the time I got back to Transalpinia, it was too thoroughly blockaded to attempt.) Rome easily had something like 55. Maybe that's necessary, the "don't even bother to fight Rome past the first couple turns" is historically appropriate, but oy.

I'm not saying we're the best players ever, and I'm not saying there's no skill involved but...

I'm feeling the Fortress Alpinia vibe. That concerns me possibly more than a lop-sided win/loss ratio.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also wonder what would be different if Italy, Spain and Africa were worth double to the opposite side. I.e. An Italian province would count as 2 politically significant provinces for Hannibal. Maybe that would require the end-game count to give victory to Rome during a tie.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn McMaster
Canada
flag msg tools
Checking in with credentials (or lack thereof) first – I’m 14th ranked AREA of all time (186 players), including active and inactive players. I’ve been playing R vs. C on and off for about 5 years or so.

IMO, the original poster’s beef with the game is valid, in that the Roman stalemate strategy can turn an otherwise fun game into steaming pile of crap, where both players can be reduced to using 3 cards to place CU’s and actually discarding most of their 1 and 2 cards for turns on end, awaiting T8 to see whether Carthage has drawn Syracuse Allies. Fun? Wow!

As Rome, in tournament play I’ve tended to deliberately shun this strategy on account of the fact that it can degrade the entertainment value of the game, instead (if possible) sticking with an inferior (but more exciting) do-or-die overseas offensive. As Carthage facing it, I would not say that it is unbeatable, or even that Carthage is at a significant disadvantage, only that the margin of victory is gained by whomever makes the better card draws on T8 and T9. If that’s anyone’s definition of tension or fun, then I have a few fences they can paint!

Impression is that the original designer knew the block strategy created a bit of a turkey, but that there were no elegant design options to circumvent the problem. Instead, he loaded the strategy deck to Carthage’s favour.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GLENN239 wrote:

where both players can be reduced to using 3 cards to place CU’s and actually discarding most of their 1 and 2 cards for turns on end, awaiting T8 to see whether Carthage has drawn Syracuse Allies. Fun? Wow!


Definitely experienced some of this the past couple games, in the late game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter White
United States
Belmont
California
flag msg tools
I do not find a significant balance issue with the roadblock, but it is probably the least fun and least historically plausible way for the war to unfold.

Charles Féaux de la Croix put together a more historically accurate set up that discourages the northern roadblock:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/332648

I have studied this variant a bit, but have not playtested beyond a couple trial solo games. My feeling is that this set up is more freewheeling (good) but the balance is very dependent on the Turn 1 Roman strategy draw (bad). A Roman player who does not draw at least 1 Campaign card on the first turn is at a significant disadvantage relative to the standard set up, as his armies effectively start out of position.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That set-up is very interesting. I'm definitely worried about a weak Roman hand, though. I'd possibly change P. Scipio's ability to also make him a "2" strategy general when in Massila or Transalpinia in addition to when in Spain. That way you could walk across the Alps with a "2" card, and save a "3" card for moving around in Italy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Played a couple games with the new set-up. Fortunately, both times I had a Campaign Card, and this set-up definitely means that Rome can't spend the early rounds of the turn just dropping PCs (or at least, is less likely to.)

My friend/opponent, typically just crosses the Alps on Turn 2, after he has received reinforcements in Spain... though a Force March-y hand for the Carthaginians could change that, just like a lethargic hand for the Romans could change things, since I've been able to wipe out the Carthaginian CUs before he could cross each time, though an aggressive Hannibal vrs. Rome without a Campaign Card would be interesting.

First game, it delayed the "Fortress Alpinia" set-up and the game was dynamic due to early Syracuse/Macedonia Allies (which I never got as Rome), and a timely Carthaginian Naval Victory which led to a highly mobile Carthage. Second game, I controlled Cisalpinia for most of the game, and there was a lot of action in Southern Italy.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, this is my 3rd loss as Rome under this variant, though I do think my opponent is the better player. Of course, 1st turn consisted of me possessing no Campaign Card and my opponent possessing Messenger Intercepted (which he got later in the game as well) and Macedonia Allies with Carthage. I do think that the variant benefits Carthage more than Rome. 2 of 4 Rome's extra CUs are going to be eaten by the Alps, since if you DO get a Campaign Card, it will probably be used to move Longus, with the other move being used to try to eat Carthaginian CUs. I can't imagine playing this with a "3" being required to cross the Alps for P. Scipio. Ultimately, instead of Rome dropping PCs the first turn, Rome spends their time eating CUs. Carthage will be delayed, but I'm not sure if the delay (crossing 2nd turn instead of crossing late 1st turn in most cases) makes up for it.

I do think it probably decreases the chance of Fortress Alpinia from occurring, but I don't see an increase in over-seas action, though maybe that's just me. Some of this may be due to luck: the second to last game, I joked that Carthage was getting more reinforcements than Rome. (x2 African Reinforcements, x2 Macedonian Allies though the first one was illegally played, and x2 Iberian Recruits, or roughly so.) I say joked, but I probably only got a couple Roman reinforcement cards that game. Additionally, this most recent game, the one time I considered sending Africanus over-seas, my opponent replaced Marcellus who was keeping Hannibal pinned with T. Longus the turn I was considering making an attempt.

All in all, the decreased chance of Fortress Alpinia is a good thing, though I'm not sure how significant the decrease is. If I would tweak something, I'd maybe decrease the negative effect of lacking a Campaign Card, but I'm not going to speculate how to do that at this point.

Normally, as Carthage, I spend my first action securing Idubeda (dropping a couple PCs in its ports.) Under this variant, Carthage doesn't have to worry about that, since Rome probably lacks the cards to do that. It will cost Rome, a "2" card (under my variant) and two "3" cards, at least, to cross the Alps and wipe out the CUs. You will also probably want to move P. Scipio off the Tribes, so he doesn't suffer attrition. That's another card. Maybe this can be done more efficiently (have Longus do the moving if you get a Campaign Card? It can happen sometimes.) Even if you move Longus with a Campaign Card, you've burnt, what, a 2, a 3 (campaign, 1st tribal attack), a 3 (2nd tribal attack), and maybe another 2 or 3 to get off the Tribes? (Can Longus Campaign then 2 to move Scipio off the Tribe? If so, I think I've done it before.) Still, that's 4 high cost cards. Maybe the ability to control Cisalpinia a bit more easily is worth this trade off.

Oh well, that's enough for now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blue Jackal
United States
Nowhere
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Finally, anyone have the odds on S. Africanus attacking Carthage with 16 to ~18 odds in Hannibal's favor? It took roughly 6 attempts to finally win, though in two other games (once for each of us), Hannibal fell the first go. Obviously, luck was involved in the other two games but 6 attempts feels excessive... and the Excel chart on BGG doesn't give odds below 50%.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.