Get HANNIBAL if I already have TWILIGHT STRUGGLE?

I love Twilight Struggle and am interested in Hannibal, but are they too similar to bother getting both?

Heck no; I was worried about the same thing when deciding on whether or not to get Twilight Struggle, but I think they feel pretty different from each other, especially going in that opposite direction. With Twilight Struggle I love the almost German-gamey simpleness (relatively, that is) and directness, as well as the specificity of the cards and a terrifying, tense swinginess. Hannibal, on the other hand, has movement and BATTLES (oh, the battles!), a much greater feeling of asymmetry, and I love that there's NOT specificity to the cards: unlike Twilight Struggle, where a lot of what you learn from game to game is which specific countries to ignore and focus on based on the deck, in Hannibal the cards can be used in many more different ways (i.e. they're not tied to specific places or circumstances), so what you learn from game to game is the implications of the rules system and how to best wage war with your generals.

I hope less vague people than me will contribute to this thread.

I have neither game but have thought about getting both of them at one time or another.

I too am interested in knowing whether having both is worthwhile. And if only one, which one?

I'd get Shifting Sands, Unhappy Kings, or Barbarossa to Berlin over Hannibal, which is my least favourite of the CDGs I have played. It's still a decent game, but I haven't really fallen in love with Hannibal yet. Or just play more Twilight Struggle.

I have both and can say they are entirely different gaming experiences. They are both greatly enjoyed in my collection.

OK Anthony - that new avatar is just plain creepy.

I'm still just looking at CDGs at the moment - lack of regular (or any) opponents kind of make them a luxury. I did get a copy of We the People last year and had a game with a miniatures wargaming mate, but as he was available very infrequently for boardgames I ended up selling it since (because of its rarity) it was in demand.

I have played Twilight Struggle and enjoyed it although didn't like the mechanic of having to try and do something with all your opponents cards you hold, have followed lots of Hannibal discussions and it seems a game I would like, but also like the sound of Successors mainly because I enjoy having multiple players in games and think this could be quite fun implemented in a CDG.

Southernman wrote:

OK Anthony - that new avatar is just plain creepy.

Yeah...I'm trying it out for a bit. I may go back to the coloured Criterion Collection version I had before. Altho'...if I appear in another of Barnes' dream and I look like this, I may hold onto it a bit longer.

I'm still just looking at CDGs at the moment - lack of regular (or any) opponents kind of make them a luxury...

...but also like the sound of Successors mainly because I enjoy having multiple players in games and think this could be quite fun implemented in a CDG.

I would love to own (or at least try) Successors but as you've already stated Tom, lack of opponents keeps this off my wishlist.

To the OP, Twilight Struggle and Hannibal give completely different gaming experiences. While they may both be in the same game family of Mark Herman style CDGs, one is more of an area control/scoring game while the other is a area control/wargame. Here's the short version of what you need to know about H:RvC:

Assymetric sides - Carthage has the initial advantage (esp in Genralship) but is on the clock. Rome, because of its political structure at the time, has a rotating system of generals that change every year. Unfortunately some of these guys are just plain terrible and due to the random nature of their assignment, you never know what your gonna end up with. Rome has better manpower so they can afford to lose some battles but still maintain solid armies in the field. Not so with Carthage. Battle losses for them can be very painful. Games typically see the Romans trying to play a waiting game in the early turns until they can wear Carthage out in a war of attrition, or until better generals show up.


Battles - Of course battles happen but they can be risky. In H:RvC they use a system of battle cards to determine the outcome. The number of cards you draw is dependant on how good your genral is and how many toops are in your army. Once cards are drawn the two sides play a mini game of card matching and bluffing. Ususally the guy with more cards wins. Ususally... The battle cards are a very love em' or hate em' mechanic. Of all the CDGs I've played only We the People and H:RvC use it so its not very common. That being said, I personally like how they bring an element of poker to battle resolution. YMMV

Cards - Just like TS, H:RvC uses a shared deck of cards to drive the game. Unlike TS, if you draw an event that's for your opponent and you use it for OPs, the event does not trigger. You just get the operation points and the card goes into the discard pile.

Area Control - Sure there are armies and battles, but more often than not, the winner will be decided by the control of territory. Games where Rome or Carthage get sacked are rare. Also battles have political repercussions. Lose a couple of battles as Carthage and you could see some of your political suppport in say Spain, melt away. Lose some as Rome and half of Italy could revolt.

Hannibal - As to be expected Hannibal is a badass. However if you get a bit too careless you could end up getting him killed off. (Like I did in my first battle of my first game. doh!) If this happens, very bad things happen to Carthage. You could still pull out a win but it's a lot harder.


That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I really like H:RvC (my first CDG) and I think it will deliver a very different gaming experience from TS.

-Will

I own them both and they play completely differently. COMPLETELY. And I'm not sure which I love more, they're both in my top 10.

Dr_Mabuse wrote:

Southernman wrote:

I'm still just looking at CDGs at the moment - lack of regular (or any) opponents kind of make them a luxury...

...but also like the sound of Successors mainly because I enjoy having multiple players in games and think this could be quite fun implemented in a CDG.

I would love to own (or at least try) Successors but as you've already stated Tom, lack of opponents keeps this off my wishlist.

The beauty of some CDGs is that they play very well over the internet via VASSAl/Cyberboard. This is especially true of the multiplyer titles like Here I Stand and Successors. And really, I figure as long as one person owns the game there's no reason that everyone should run out and get a copy.

Dogmatix ran a F:AT Successors game a few months ago that was a lot of fun. If there's sufficient interest, I'd be willing to run/moderate another one.

-Will

Bulwyf wrote:

Dr_Mabuse wrote:

Southernman wrote:

I'm still just looking at CDGs at the moment - lack of regular (or any) opponents kind of make them a luxury...

...but also like the sound of Successors mainly because I enjoy having multiple players in games and think this could be quite fun implemented in a CDG.

I would love to own (or at least try) Successors but as you've already stated Tom, lack of opponents keeps this off my wishlist.

The beauty of some CDGs is that they play very well over the internet via VASSAl/Cyberboard. This is especially true of the multiplyer titles like Here I Stand and Successors. And really, I figure as long as one person owns the game there's no reason that everyone should run out and get a copy.

Dogmatix ran a F:AT Successors game a few months ago that was a lot of fun. If there's sufficient interest, I'd be willing to run/moderate another one.

-Will

Does it need a moderator on Vassal, and can it be PBEM over online ? (I haven't any experience with cyberboard).

I have the same opinion on game ownership for online gaming - if I show up at my club and everyone plays my game without having their own copy, what's the difference when doing it online or PBEM ?

Nah it dosen't really ned a moderator. I was just offering to answer questions as they popped up and handle most of the administrative work until the players were comfortable with taking care of it themselves. If you do play it via VASSAL, the best thing is to handle all the cards and card play through ACTS. That's how we did our last game. Both are easy to use and free. Matter of fact, I think GMT just released a new VASSAL module for Successors 3rd.

-Will

Bulwyf wrote:

Nah it dosen't really ned a moderator. I was just offering to answer questions as they popped up and handle most of the administrative work until the players were comfortable with taking care of it themselves. .....
-Will

Gotcha.

Get Twilight Struggle. One of the very best games ever. And it does play very differently to Hannibal indeed.