Too difficult--by far

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Too difficult--by far

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Ancients] >> Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War >> Too difficult--by far

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Too difficult--by far - 6/9/2011 7:37:02 PM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

I tried the demo of this game some time ago and was surprised at how difficult the 'easy' level is. I got a lot of advice and support from forum members and was urged to buy the game. I did. It cost over �25.

Since then I have made several attempts to get into the game. I've just tried again--playing several more campaigns on 'easy'. I usually lose on turn 5. I've read the manual and the helpful forum posts, but I just can't progress any further and am now bored with the whole thing and cannot face another campaign. And so I've uninstalled the game and am trying not to feel too bad about wasting my money.

No matter what I do, the Romans always have more men, better card options, more cities, more ships, luckier generals and so on. In my last campaign, I drew only one 'Punic tricks' card, which enabled me to win the first battle. But a few turns later, the Romans generated (from thin air) a 'scratch' army that outnumbered Hannibal 2:1, so without his 'tricks' Hannibal was doomed. I retreated him into a city (the only card option I had), where, next turn, he met his death. And so I reloaded the save-game and accepted battle--Hannibal was annihilated. This is just one sad example of how my campaigns end--and that's on 'easy' remember!

Basically, the odds are so heavily stacked against Hannibal that I no longer see the point of even trying. This is sad because it's a great looking and great sounding game. I know I must sound like a sore loser but really I'm not: I am OK with losing, as long as I can learn from the experience and improve. The point I'm trying to make is that, after many attempts, I'm no nearer beating the 'easy' level and this has sapped my will to continue with the game. I'm just frustrated and disappointed and feel like I've wasted time and money. I know lots of people will disagree with me but I just wanted to publicise my experience with the game.

Finally, I'm not asking for advice or hints and, as I mentioned, I already uninstalled the game, so no point replying to this thread: I just wanted to say my piece!

Post #: 1

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/10/2011 4:57:04 AM

Ancient One

Posts: 178
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javolenus

I tried the demo of this game some time ago and was surprised at how difficult the 'easy' level is. I got a lot of advice and support from forum members and was urged to buy the game. I did. It cost over �25.

Since then I have made several attempts to get into the game. I've just tried again--playing several more campaigns on 'easy'. I usually lose on turn 5. I've read the manual and the helpful forum posts, but I just can't progress any further and am now bored with the whole thing and cannot face another campaign. And so I've uninstalled the game and am trying not to feel too bad about wasting my money.

I'm sorry you've given up. I found the game frustrating at first but have got to the point where I can win regularly on normal difficulty.

quote:

In my last campaign, I drew only one 'Punic tricks' card, which enabled me to win the first battle.

I don't understand this. You don't need to "draw" a punic tricks card to win the first battle, you already start the game with two of those your hand.

quote:

Basically, the odds are so heavily stacked against Hannibal that I no longer see the point of even trying.

I know the Romans can seem overwhelming, but the fact that others have won the game shows that there must be something you're missing.

quote:

I know I must sound like a sore loser but really I'm not:

Yes you are.

< Message edited by Zagys -- 6/10/2011 4:59:52 AM >

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 2

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/10/2011 4:00:50 PM

delusan

Posts: 81
Joined: 5/13/2008
Status: offline

No Javolenus, you're not a sore loser. You're a wargamer that is expressing his opinion and experiences with a particular game that you paid for, and I applaud you for that. I have been disappointed with some of my own purchases, and know that the pain comes not from the loss of any money, but from thinking that the money could have been better spent on another game.

Zagys ... youre comments and opinions are every bit as valid as Javoelenus', and you too are to be applauded for speaking up. Comparing your comments goes a long way toward cutting thru the advertising hyperbole that we often see.

You both are wargamers expressing your opinions of a product that you paid for, and that is something that NO wargamer should ever be afraid to do. If there's something you like - speak up. If there's something you don't like - speak up. Let the rest of us know about your experiences. Hold gamemakers to their advertising. The hobby will be better for it.

Thank you both.

(Disclaimer - I do not own or play Hannibal)

(in reply to Ancient One)

Post #: 3

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/13/2011 3:38:11 PM

nalivayko

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

This thread has inspired me to try the game on Easy game in vain hope that Easy may have become the new Hard. No such luck :)

Javolenus, no disrespect intended, but this is not the game, it's the gamer. You have said you are Ok with losing as long as you can learn and improve. Please follow your own advise here.

(in reply to delusan)

Post #: 4

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/13/2011 8:55:20 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

I agree with nalivayko.

I don't understand how you can be having so much trouble at the easiest difficulty level, and I don't mean any offense with my post. Maybe you give up too easily?

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to nalivayko)

Post #: 5

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/13/2011 11:45:39 PM

budd

Posts: 2972
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Maybe do an AAR, so people can see and maybe help out.
budd

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Be Yourself; Everyone else is already taken" ~Oscar Wilde

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 6

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/14/2011 1:35:52 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

I played one game today on easy difficulty. This is the situation on turn 7, right before Rome fell:

I didn't have any problems and lost only one battle, when Scipio (not Africanus) defeated Himilco's smaller army that I had sent from Africa to reinforce Hannibal. Unlike on hard difficulty, I never lacked reinforcements and Carthage was able to rapidly build new forces, even a powerful navy. In short, everything was really easy compared to the hardest difficulty level.

I don't want people to think that Hannibal is too hard on easy difficulty. And most importantly, I don't want mercenarius to make the game any easier on easy!

Javolenus, I honestly believe you gave up too easily. You're doing something fundamentally wrong when you get such bad results on easy level.

< Message edited by PJJ -- 6/14/2011 1:37:31 PM >

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to budd)

Post #: 7

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 7:37:02 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Hi There and thanks for the feedback.

Just to clarify one point: the Punic Tricks card I mentioned: yes, I did I receive one on the first turn--that's how I won the first battle (which is kind of what I said in the first place!). The point here is that I didn't receive any more Tricks cards, I just got three consecutive Retreat cards. And so, when the Romans attacked with a massive army, Hannibal was annihilated, whether he fought the battle or retreated to the nearest town.

I'm not a sore loser. If I was, I'd have given up after two or three campaigns and kicked the cat. Instead, I started maybe 30 campaigns (over the course of many weeks) and eventually got worn down to the point where I just couldn't face another game. Also, if I were so precious about my performance, I wouldn't have started this humiliating thread.

I accept that other players are enjoying the game, but I've experienced a lot of frustration. If the AI beat me with some great strategy, then I'd be happy. But it just has consistently better luck. For example, I work hard to garrison towns (you need to capture towns and keep them, in order to generate troops--yes?), the Romans play a Siege card and my garrison disappears. I build up an army and the Romans play a Rebellion or Desertion card and I'm back to square one. I keep Hannibal out of cities and in the field but do not receive Punic Tricks cards and get crushed. I make a dash on Rome and the Romans play Reinforce Rome (twice on the same turn) plus Scratch Legions card, etc., etc., etc.

Now, I understand there is luck in war. And I understand that plans can go wrong. I also understand that the enemy will do everything to try to beat me. I really don't have a problem with any of this. But:

1. You need to keep Hannibal in the field in order to win, because battles are his strength. But unless he gets Punic Tricks cards and/or lots of reinforcements, he'll lose. But in my experience he doesn't get enough of either.
2. You need to capture and hold cities in order to deplete Rome's force pool and boost your own. But doing this is hard: you can't use Hannibal for sieges, so you use other generals. OK, you can take some cities easily, but how can you reinforce them quickly enough to stand a chance of keeping them? There are so many restrictions on Carthage moving units around that it can take two or even three turns to ferry reinforcements around. But in a single turn, by playing a few cards, the Romans can make your forces desert, raise a massive army, and retake all your gains.
3. Even when you capture a province or get Gallic Aid, you only receive a fraction of the troops, per turn, that the Romans do. And the Romans can move their forces around the map at will, while the player has to wait for permission from the Senate or whatever.
4. Some battles/sieges just have weird combat resolutions--I'm OK with this but, when added to the other issues mentioned above, it can be catastrophic.
5. The Romans have more men, more ships, more generals, more options than Hannibal--and this doesn't seem to change, even when a campaign is going well for Hannibal.
6. Even if Hannibal gets some allies, it doesn't seem to make much difference. For example, in one campaign the Macedonians sent an army to aid Hannibal--the Romans sank it en route. In another campaign, Syracuse joined Hannibal but, well, nothing happened: Syracuse didn't attack and Rome didn't send troops to Syracuse. In other words, this event was of no practical use to Hannibal.

And so I got frustrated and started this thread. What added to my frustration/disappointment was the amount I paid for the game, the fact that I really like the concept and art style of the game and had high hopes, and that I was playing on EASY!

I was fully expecting the kind of responses posted above, and I guess I'll just get more of the "sore loser/you suck" stuff in response to this. But I think it's important to express yourself and let gamers/developers know what happened after you parted with your money.

Finally, as it seems I'm the only person on the planet with these issues, I concede that I must be doing something wrong. Maybe, in a few weeks, I'll go back to the game and try again--maybe.

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 8

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 10:01:29 AM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

Some answers to your points:

1. Do you keep enough troops in Hannibal's main army? If you let it become too small (say under 10 units), you will lose battles more easily if you don't have any Punic Tricks in hand. Don't spread your troops around too much.
2. Do not bother leaving strong garrisons in cities. You mostly need the big cities for recruitment, so forget about the smaller ones. If you have Hannibal with a strong army in a province, you don't have to send any troops at all to your cities. Just leave them to the militia and if the Romans attempt something, beat them back with your Hannibal's field army. When you win a big battle like this, the smaller cities will usually abandon Rome and join you, so you won't have to bother conquering them yourself. And once you have recruited enough troops from a province, move on to another one. Again, don't leave small garrisons behind, because the Romans will eat them.
3. On easy, the Senate always follows your advice. Keep this in mind when thinking your strategy.
5. On easy, Carthage gets a lot of resources for armies and navies. Don't spread them around uselessly, but concentrate them in relatively powerful armies and fleets. And never let Hannibal's army become too weak.
6. Syracuse doesn't do anything automatically - you will have to control her armies and fleets yourself when the city joins you. If you don't do anything, nothing will happen and Syracuse will indeed be useless to you.

I think you should try to write an AAR for us to analyze, so that we could help you and point out what went wrong.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 9

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 1:40:27 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Hi Javolenus,

I think if you could write a brief AAR just to explain a bit more of your turn by turn strategy and choices, we could give you some detailed advice that may help turn things around for you.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 10

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 2:27:41 PM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Hi There and many thanks for this. OK, I had another go on 'EASY'. This is what happened:

I played the standard opening move and reinforced Hannibal in Italy. Things went very well initially. Hannibal won his first battle thanks to his 'Tricks'. I then got some good option cards (some of which I hadn't seen before): both Cis Gaul and Syracuse joined Hannibal! The Romans attacked my forces in Spain but were beaten and took refuge in Emporion, which I then besieged. And so, on Turn 2, I was secure in Spain, had all the cities in Cis Gaul, had enlisted 'Gallic Aid', had Syracuse as an ally. Hannibal was in Cis Gaul with an army of 14 units. And so what to do?

I could/should have done nothing, but I thought maybe I should keep the momentum going and so I sent Hannibal over the mountains into Italy and (foolishly) saved the game, thinking I'd have several options . . .

. . . The Roman town of Pisa was defended by only 4 mililtia units, and I had an option card allowing me to recruit Latin units if I controlled a Roman city. And so I sent Hannibal to storm Pisa. Bad idea. Those 4 militia units inflicted 4 losses on Hannibal on the first round, while Hannibal scored zilch.

And so I reloaded the save game and opted to besiege Pisa, figuring that if the Romans raised an army to attack Cis Gaul, Hannibal could intercept. Wrong!

What happened was this:

The Romans raised loads of troops, including reinforcements in Rome plus Scratch Legions. This army then shot straight from Rome to Turin without any attrition and without Hannibal being able to react. The Romans then retook every town in Cis Gaul in a single turn. They then redoubled their garrison in Rome again. They then played a card that forced Syracuse back into an alliance with Rome. And so, by the end of turn 2 the situation was:

Carthage has Spain (except Emporion, which is under siege). The Romans have all of Cis Gaul (no more 'Gallic Aid') Syracuse is an ally of Rome again. Rome itself has a garrison of 4/8 units. Roman units in Italy number 55. Hannibal is now isolated, in the heart of enemy territory, with no line of retreat, besieging Pisa with an army of 14 units.

My appraisal: even if Pisa falls, the Romans will get enough men/good option cards to destroy Hannibal! If Hannibal raises the siege of Pisa and tries to retake Cis Gaul, he will fail because he won't have enough men and/or the Romans will win with option cards. With an army of 14 units, Hannibal will not take Rome, which is defended by a total of 12 units. Reinforcing Hannibal without control of Genua or any port in Italy will result in attrition, so it's a waste of resources. Hannibal has only one oprion card left: punic tricks, so any movement by him will lead to attrition. He can't even 'escape by sea'. And so he's basically doomed. Hannibal is actually in a worse strategic position than he was when the game began. This all happened in a single turn! The only thing that I could have done differently was simply keep Hannibal in Cis Gaul . . .

. . . And so I reloaded the save game. I retreat Hannibal over the mountains and back into Cis Gaul, to meet the coming Roman threat (lose 4 units in attrition). And I send a general with 5 units from Carthage to Genua (lose 3 in naval attrition). And Emporion falls to my besieging army.

And so, at the start of turn 3, I have Spain, Cis Gaul, Hannibal is in Cis Gaul with a (reduced) field army, I have a general at Genua with a tiny army, and I have a garrison of 1/7 at Carthage. The Romans have got Syracuse back into their camp and have redoubled their garrison at Rome, while raising a scratch field army of 14 units. Hannibal has one 'Tricks' card and one card that allows him to raise extra Latin units if he controls an Italian city. That's the situation at the moment . . .

< Message edited by Javolenus -- 6/16/2011 3:05:19 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 11

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 3:02:06 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

Okay, first there was no need to assault Pisa. You can get two Gallic units per turn in Cisalpine Gaul if you control the three minor cities, which are easy to conquer, or which you will most likely get to join you when you won your first battle, and have Gallic Aid active. No need to rush things. You can spend some time building Hannibal's army. Second, if you put him into sieging a city, he won't be able to react. The Romans have the initiative then.

You should stay in Cisalpine Gaul and reinforce your army, beating any Romans that attempt to challenge you. There's no need to rush, you don't have to win the game in a few turns. Don't waste your time in siege warfare there. When you have a few cards in your hand and your army is stronger, then move into another province. I suggest going to Umbria-Samnium, because when you control the two big cities there, Ancona and Asculum, you can recruit two Italian units per turn there. Avoid unnecessary losses and keep Hannibal strong.

Remember that when you assault big cities, the defenders have a huge advantage. If you have Treachery cards, they are very useful in quickly capturing enemy cities.

But most importantly, just like I suspected, you are giving up too easily. There are 20 turns in the game. If something bad happens in a single turn, that does not mean everything is lost. If Hannibal still has an army of 14 units, nothing has been decided yet. It doesn't matter that you lost Syracuse. You can get her back just as easily. You must keep recruiting actively and beating the Romans in battle. By causing them heavy casualties, you will prevent them from building those huge armies, or at least you'll make it a lot harder for them. And by taking over provinces, you'll disrupt their recruiting process, which will weaken them. On easy level, you can quickly build up a strong army and navy in Carthage. But if you give up on turn 2, then of course you won't see them.

Don't panic and keep trying. It really isn't all that difficult. And it wouldn't hurt to read the manual again.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 12

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 3:11:13 PM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Hi PJJ,

Yes, you're absolutely right. I reloaded the save game (see the edited post above) and abandoned the Pisa sortie and, well, I'm still in the game. You're also right about the manual. Previously, I'd been looking at the Quick Start guide, but now I've looked morely closely at the main manual and I can see I've missed lots of info. For example, I didn't realise that Hannibal, if besieging, loses the initiative. And so yes, I can see that I've missed lots of nuances of gameplay by rushing. My fault, and I admit it. Thanks again for the info!

< Message edited by Javolenus -- 6/16/2011 3:13:15 PM >

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 13

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 5:00:42 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

No problem. Read the full manual and keep practicing on easy, and I'm sure your armies will soon be parading on the streets of Rome.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 14

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/16/2011 10:42:29 PM

Orm

Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I often make a secondary smaller army that I use for besieging cities and letting Hannibal's army guard that area from Roman interference. This works best with inland cities because Rome can't reinforce it by sea.�

Also remeber that it can be wise at times, even for Hannibal, to refuse field battles and retreat the army into the camp.

Edit: Best use I have for Syracuse is to help open up a sea route for reinforcements to southern Italy. So I do not get any attrition rolls.

< Message edited by Orm -- 6/16/2011 10:47:01 PM >

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 15

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/17/2011 10:45:33 AM

Raidhaennor

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

One additional bit of information that I found very useful in the beginning : the garrison of a city cannot storm out if no general is present. That means you can besiege a city with just one unit (plus a general, of course) and wait it out ; and consequently leaving more units with Hannibal (or any other general in the field). Be warned though, that little trick does not work with coastal cities (as they can be reinforced by sea).

For example : you can have Mago with one unit siege Placentia (if there's no roman general) and Hannibal in the field in Cisalpine Gaul, ready to intercept anyone entering the region. And within a few turns the city will surrender.

(in reply to Orm)

Post #: 16

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/17/2011 11:48:10 AM

Horseman78

Posts: 22
Joined: 3/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raidhaennor

One additional bit of information that I found very useful in the beginning : the garrison of a city cannot storm out if no general is present. That means you can besiege a city with just one unit (plus a general, of course) and wait it out ; and consequently leaving more units with Hannibal (or any other general in the field). Be warned though, that little trick does not work with coastal cities (as they can be reinforced by sea).

For example : you can have Mago with one unit siege Placentia (if there's no roman general) and Hannibal in the field in Cisalpine Gaul, ready to intercept anyone entering the region. And within a few turns the city will surrender.

I thought that exploit was fixed in the latest patch?

(in reply to Raidhaennor)

Post #: 17

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/17/2011 5:01:43 PM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for the help and info--much appreciated. Meanwhile, a couple of things I noticed:

1. Rome can seemingly move large armies by sea from ports without any ships--is this right? If I try to move armies that outnumber ships, I get an error message. But several times I've seen Roman armies (8, 9 or 10 units) embark from ports that, apparently, have no ships in port.

2. The Romans seem to be able to cross the Alps without attrition--is that correct? In one instance, I had Hasdrubal move from Ariminium to Cis Gaul and lose 4 units in attrition; the Romans did the same thing later without losing any units in attrition.

3. The Romans can move from Rome to Corfinium without interception from Hannibal (who is at the gates of Rome) and without any attrition--is that OK? I've seen this happen twice.

4. The Romans can attack cities from the sea without any interference from my Carthaginian army, which is stationed in the same province--is that OK?

Meanwhile, I think I'll scrub my current campaign and read the manual thoroughly before starting a new one, as I'm still a bit frustrated and baffled by the differences in options, strengths, and abililties between the two sides.

(in reply to Horseman78)

Post #: 18

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/17/2011 7:05:37 PM

mercenarius

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline

I'll try to help here.

1. The total number of naval transport factors is what matters. Each side may transport that many land units from a friendly port each turn. It doesn't matter if there are naval squadrons in that port or even in that particular sea zone. For example: you have 8 naval squadrons in port at Carthage. You could move 8 land units from Spain to Africa, Italy, Sicily, or any province within two sea zones of Spain. It's how many naval squadrons you have at the beginning of your campaign phase that determines this - same for the Romans. Leaders don't count against the limit, of course.

2. Well, if you mean the Alps, you may move from Cisalpine Gaul to Spain through Genua if that city is under your control and not under siege. However, I think that you mean the Apennines? All mountain attrition is based upon the level of attrition for a particular stretch, the size of the army, and some random chance. Moving between Cisalpine Gaul and Etruria entails "moderate" attrition. Moving between Cisalpine Gaul and Umbria-Samnium entails "light" attrition. You may have had bad luck in this case. If you have a large enough army you can capture a border city and avoid mountain attrition. IF your army is strong enough. You can determine the difficulty of a stretch of mountains by right clicking on them.

3. Rome is in Latium-Campania for most purposes, so if you have an army in Etruria, for example, that won't stop the Romans from deploying into the field in Latium-Campania and then concentrating/dispersing and then moving. Note: the one exception is that Roman generals who start their turn in Rome may instead "pop out" into Etruria to start their move. This does make it harder for you to keep them from going where they want, but it's actually quite realistic.

If your army was in Latium-Campania then there is a problem. Was it in Etruria?

4. This is surprising at first, but, yes, it's OK. To protect specific cities you'll have to garrison them. But that's a problem, too, because it dilutes your forces. This is a deliberate design decision on my part. I have restricted the AI from using a siege card against major cities when attacking by sea. So that makes it easier to defend your major cities against this type of attack.

I hope that this helps.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 19

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/18/2011 11:37:53 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

OK, I finally managed to beat the game on 'easy'. I did it on turn 9. I only succeeded by reloading save games and trying different plans.

And so, first of all, I must apologise for the rant that began this thread: the game isn't too difficult if you A) read the manual thoroughly B) pick up advice from the forum C) save on each turn and try out different approaches D) Don't give up too soon E) show the game some respect.

Second, I must thank everyone for support and patience--very much appreciated: thank you!

< Message edited by Javolenus -- 6/18/2011 7:47:05 PM >

(in reply to mercenarius)

Post #: 20

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/21/2011 3:01:18 PM

nalivayko

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

Good job, Javolenus. Now, go and get that AI on Hard :)

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 21

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/24/2011 7:56:27 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Thanks nalivayko! I'm going to play through each of the levels in turn--so goodbye to the Introductory Level! I've got to admit that I approached this game all wrong initially. I now have a healthy respect for the game and its overall design. But it just goes to show: games need good forums with active and supportive members in order to thrive!

(in reply to nalivayko)

Post #: 22

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/24/2011 8:53:26 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

The rule changes between levels affect game play quite a bit. Try to imagine what the differences will do before you play the new level.

Glad that you're enjoying the game. Imo it's a hidden gem.

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 23

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/25/2011 9:51:08 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

Hi There and thanks for this. I'll definitely follow your advice here. I'll check the manual carefully before starting a new difficulty level.

Having ranted about the game initially, I've had a complete change of heart: I actually think this is one of the few 'real' games out there. What I mean is, it runs smoothly, has a good and consistent art style, has a great game concept, comes with a detailed manual (I should have studied this in the first place before shooting my mouth off!), has an audio format that suits the period, and has several difficulty levels that effectively create new challenges.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 24

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/26/2011 6:48:29 PM

NefariousKoel

Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javolenus

Hi There and thanks for this. I'll definitely follow your advice here. I'll check the manual carefully before starting a new difficulty level.

Actually.. when you start a new game, at a new difficulty level, it'll show a pop-up explaining the new rules for that difficulty level. There isn't much in the way of new ones for each level but as stated before, they do give you more of a challenge and you'll have to keep them in mind (as with all the rules) when forming your strategies.

quote:

Having ranted about the game initially, I've had a complete change of heart: I actually think this is one of the few 'real' games out there. What I mean is, it runs smoothly, has a good and consistent art style, has a great game concept, comes with a detailed manual (I should have studied this in the first place before shooting my mouth off!), has an audio format that suits the period, and has several difficulty levels that effectively create new challenges.

Yeah, it's a wonderful and rather unique game. I think the game rules can be a bit tough to remember all at the beginning so it takes some practice and save-loading helps during that learning process, until your ready to take off the training wheels.

< Message edited by NefariousKoel -- 6/26/2011 6:49:55 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 25

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/28/2011 1:56:41 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

I think that Hannibal is a very special game, a true hidden gem that more people should discover and play. I really hope we'll be seeing many more such games in the future, with proper improvements.

Mercenarius, some news about the new game under development would be great.

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to NefariousKoel)

Post #: 26

RE: Too difficult--by far - 6/30/2011 8:02:40 AM

mercenarius

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline

quote:

Mercenarius, some news about the new game under development would be great.

Well, the new game is still in early development. Right now I am still doing some research while tinkering with the game engine. I am also looking for a new artist.

But I going to start developing the new tactical battle system this weekend, actually.

I'll try to post something more concrete about the new game as soon as I can.

I am also working to finish up the 1.0.4 patch to Hannibal and I hope to have that out as a public beta in a week or so. I realize that this particular item has dragged a little and I do want to get the patch out especially for the existing bugs that have been noted.

That is where things stand with me.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 27

RE: Too difficult--by far - 7/1/2011 8:23:56 PM

PJJ

Posts: 167
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline

Thanks for the reply. A new tactical battle system? Sounds good!

_____________________________

"But here we are in a chamber pot, about to be ****ted upon."

-French General Auguste Ducrot before the Battle of Sedan, September 1870

(in reply to mercenarius)

Post #: 28

RE: Too difficult--by far - 7/13/2011 10:01:46 AM

Javolenus

Posts: 233
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline

A new game? That's good news. I've been playing lots of different pc games recently, trying out different genres and so on. This experience has only served to confirm what people are saying here: that 'Hannibal' is a gem. Although I ranted on about it at first, I now think it's great.

I particularly like that it's an absorbing single-player experience. So may games these days are not really single-player games at all (even when advertised as such), but vehicles for multi-player--a mode that brings its own set of high and lows. I hope the new game will be good for single-player too.

I also like Hannibal's art style--I much prefer a 2D abstract style that captures the mood of the era than an attempt at 3D realism.

(in reply to PJJ)

Post #: 29

RE: Too difficult--by far - 11/20/2011 9:09:40 PM

gdrover

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/4/2008
Status: offline

Any more word on what the new game setting will be?

Do you need any play testing?

Cheers,

Glenn Drover
gdrover65@gmail.com

< Message edited by gdrover -- 11/20/2011 9:10:08 PM >

(in reply to Javolenus)

Post #: 30