Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Generals' ratings

 
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 >> Generals' ratings Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Generals' ratings - 2/16/2011 10:07:07 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
Some of the obvious one make sense. Hannibal is 12, Africanus rises up to 10. However, I regularly see such Roman stars as Fabius (well deserved 7, maybe should be 8 fully promoted), Marcellus (7+) and Nero (7+, but I'd start him and Marcellus off with 8 though) outshined by such relative nobodies as Cethegus (9 in my recent game) and Tuditanus (7 at times). Check their records, really nothing to speak of. I hardly remember them from reading Polybius and Dodge. Mago, on the other hand, is 4, when he should be easily a 6. After all, he did defeat (or greatly aided) in killing Scipio brothers in Spain, helped pull off many Hannibal's victories and held out for 3 years in Liguria against superior Roman armies.

James, I know there are balance issues to consider, but would it be possible to reshuffle some values to give credit where credit is due and vice versa? One way to balance the change would be to keep an overall rating number the same, raising some general's rating while simultaneously lowering the other's.

< Message edited by nalivayko -- 2/16/2011 10:17:14 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/16/2011 10:51:50 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
Here's my take on Carthaginian generals, based on their battle records and some ancient ratings (mainly Livy, no matter how unreliable the guy is):

Hannibal, Barcid - 12 (promoted)
Hadsrubal, Barcid - 8
Mago, Barcid - 7 (def. the most underepresented general in this game)

Hadsrubal Gisco - 6
Maharbal - 6

Hanno, Bomilcar son - 5

Bomilcar - 4
Hanno, the Elder - 4
Bostar - 4
Carthalo - 4

Please let me know if I missed some current Carthaginian generals. I could find very little info on Himilco, except for the fact that he is someone's father and may have commanded some minor unit. Definetely not a 6, maybe a 4. There's also Hanno the so-called Great, not sure if adding a third Hanno is good or bad, would help to know the complete pool of generals, I guess.

Romans are coming soon...

Discussion and other ideas are welcome...

< Message edited by nalivayko -- 2/16/2011 10:52:24 PM >

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 2
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/17/2011 6:05:16 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
Well, I do agree that a 4 for Mago probably isn't high enough. I am little leery of changing something like this now, but I will consider it.

I certainly don't mean to imply that my research is so good that every leader's rating is just right. And I will try to post a full roster of all possible leaders when the patch goes final. There is no reason not to have one.

As for some of the Roman leaders' rating, I didn't keep detailed notes when I made my decisions. But I did give a bit of a boost for later leaders on the basis that the Roman army in general was getting somewhat better as the war went on.

But perhaps Cethegus is overrated and Nero is underrated. I didn't rate Marcellus higher in part because he got himself killed in an ambush. It's true that some Roman leaders in the game didn't do that much in the actual war. I tried to give them a rating based on what they might have been able to do. Tuditanus seems to have performed well but not brilliantly against the Macedonians. As I said, Cethegus may be one of the leaders that is overrated.

Mago may be the glaring error in all of this. I'll have to think about it. And your idea about overall play balance has merit.



_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 3
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/17/2011 2:28:35 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
Well, since you agree in general about generals :) I'll continue with the Romans (first take):

Africanus - 9

Nero - 8
Fabius - 8 (promoted)
Marcellus - 8

Livius (Marcus Livius Salinator) - 7

Calvus (Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus) - 6
Scipio (Publius Cornelius Scipio) - 6
Tauditanus - 6
Cethegus (Gaius Cornelius Cethegus) - 6 (barely) OR Cethegus (Marcus Cornelius Cethegus) - 5

Minucius (Marcus Minucius Rufus) - 5
Gracchus (Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) - 5
Paullus (Lucius Aemilius Paullus) - 5

Varro - 4
Sempronius (Tiberius Sempronius Longus) - 4
Flaminius (Gaius Flaminius Nepos) - 4

I did figure that you wanted the latter Roman leaders to be stronger. How about delaying the entry of Nero and Africanus? Tuditanus exploits, it seems, are more of a propaganda. Livy credits him with a victory over Hannibal in Bruttium, but this skirmish is also reported as a victory for Hannibal. Now, Marcellus, on the other hand, is the general that thrice repulsed Hannibal at Nola and conquered Sicily. His death in ambush can't be used against him, otherwise you should also rank Stonewall as a failure :)

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 4
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/18/2011 4:57:55 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
Well, I am going to have to consider this for a future update. I do want to do something with Mago in particular. I don't know if I can get anything into the final 1.0.3 patch, however. I always hate to say that, but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. I'll have to think about this a little more.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 5
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/18/2011 3:34:29 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
The more I look into my own suggestions - the more I realize how much hussle the change will be :) Yet, I do still think that honoring the more prominent generals of the war (i.e. Mago on Carthaginian side and Nero and Marcellus on the other) will add more historic flavor to the game. Wasn't really expecting this for 1.03.

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 6
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/18/2011 6:39:21 PM   
Brutus

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nalivayko
...
Flaminius (Gaius Flaminius Nepos) - 4
...


That's not fair Yes, Flaminius did make one mistake and killed himself and his army by doing so. But this mistake was only that he did not scout properly. And that was quite normal for Roman generals in these days in similar circumstances. The reason why he was blamed so much by historians had more to do with the fact that he was not part of the old nobility but a political opponent of the noble families who wrote history.

I don't say he was a brilliant general. But he was not worse than Roman average (what was poor). I would even say he was slightly better than average, because he made successfull alterations to the normal Roman battle scheme during the war against the Celts. Exceptionally innovative for a Roman commander

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 7
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/18/2011 6:57:54 PM   
lavanpk

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/11/2008
Status: offline
Maybe what is needed is a game editor program (or having ratings files one can easily text edit) so folks can mod values such as commander ratings?

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 8
RE: Generals' ratings - 2/18/2011 8:13:32 PM   
nalivayko

 

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

ORIGINAL: Brutus

quote:

ORIGINAL: nalivayko
...
Flaminius (Gaius Flaminius Nepos) - 4
...


That's not fair Yes, Flaminius did make one mistake and killed himself and his army by doing so. But this mistake was only that he did not scout properly. And that was quite normal for Roman generals in these days in similar circumstances. The reason why he was blamed so much by historians had more to do with the fact that he was not part of the old nobility but a political opponent of the noble families who wrote history.

I don't say he was a brilliant general. But he was not worse than Roman average (what was poor). I would even say he was slightly better than average, because he made successfull alterations to the normal Roman battle scheme during the war against the Celts. Exceptionally innovative for a Roman commander


Same about Varro, but someone has to be a four and these three are better candidates than others? :) Certainly better them than Mago.

Ah, what the hell, he could be 5, not really an issue :)

< Message edited by nalivayko -- 2/18/2011 8:28:11 PM >

(in reply to Brutus)
Post #: 9
RE: Generals' ratings - 3/5/2011 11:04:26 AM   
julianbarker

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nalivayko

I could find very little info on Himilco, except for the fact that he is someone's father and may have commanded some minor unit. Definetely not a 6, maybe a 4.


Himilco lead a large army to Sicily, and took over command in Spain after Hastrabul left. Seems to have been used by Carthage as a sort of troubleshooter. He pops up quite a lot in Hannibal's War by John Piddle.

http://www.amazon.com/Hannibals-War-John-Peddie/dp/0750937971/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1299323038&sr=1-2-fkmr1

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 10
RE: Generals' ratings - 3/5/2011 10:56:20 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
julianbarker, I was just about to bump this post up, thank you for helping me out.

Question, since your link goes to the book that I don't own, could you please tell me what year that expedition was (or provide another link). The only references I could find about Himilco are of an earlier general, who led expedition to Sicily a little less than 200 years before the Second Punic War.

mercenariusm how about a quick shuffle for 1.03 that doesn't require much work and re-balancing? Himilco goes down from 6 to 5 (not 4 as I originally suggested). Mago jumps from 4 to 6. One point remains to be taken of one Carthaginian general (to keep the same balance). Either Hadsrubal Gisgo goes from 7 to 6 (this way when I lose Hadsrubal Barca I will be forced to mourn him - as of now another 7-point general pops up after his death and he is also named Hadsrubal. Hannibal's brother loss goes unnoticed) or Mottones (another general I have little knowledge of, but who surely did not outshine neither Hadsrubal Barca nor Mago during the war).

(in reply to julianbarker)
Post #: 11
RE: Generals' ratings - 3/6/2011 4:18:56 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
Well, quite a few points have been debated in this thread. I cannot really do full justice to a discussion of each leader's command rating, but I'll try to give my thoughts and justifications.

1) It's true that Hasdrubal Gisco's ratings make him interchangeable with Hasrudbal Barca. But the granularity of the command ratings is fairly small. Going from a 7 to a 6 is a fairly big drop. By Livy's standard Hasdrubal Gisco was the best commander that the Carthaginians had in Spain after Hasdrubal Barca. I think that it's more fair to rate "H. Gisco" a 7 (8 promoted) than it is to downgrade him.

2) Unless you get a number of your generals killed, the likelihood is fairly small that any one replacement leader will enter the game. So most of the time Hasdrubal Barca won't be replaced by Hasdrubal Gisco but rather by some lesser general.

3) For the final release version of 1.0.3, Mago will be increased to a base of 6 with his promoted rating remaining at 7. I am going to change the name for Hasdrubal Gisco to "H. Gisco" on his tiles just so it makes for variety. It's probably less confusing for new players, too.

4) Some generals' ratings are based on what I think they could do if they had been given a significant command. Mottones' rating is based on the idea that he was well trained by Hannibal. Since he had a falling out with other Carthaginian generals we'll never know. Besides, I want the Carthaginian player to have one really good commander as a possible replacement. It's somewhat unlikely that political considerations would have allowed him to advance but then he isn't that likely to come into the game.

5) Tuditanus may have lost a skirmish but he survived and a rating of 6 isn't too inflated. He only gets promoted to a 7. Flaminius may be the victim of circumstances but if he isn't rated a 5 then he can't get ambushed! I think that a little leeway here isn't too big a stretch.

6) I'll think about Hasrdrubal Barca's promoted rating, and the ratings for Livius (Salinator) and Nero.

7) For Africanus, I don't mind a base rating of 9, but is it "fair" that he "only" would go from a 9 to 10 when promoted? I don't want to increase his promoted rating.

8) I'll have to think about the other leaders. I'll admit that I don't want to make too many changes. But these things are not written in stone.

9) User mods for the leader ratings are not going to be possible in Hannibal. The next game, yes. That's something, anyway.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 12
RE: Generals' ratings - 3/6/2011 7:27:43 PM   
nalivayko

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline
1) Livy actually says calls Gisgo "the best and most distinguished general this war produced after the three sons of Hamilcar", which implies he is either a lesser or equal commander to Mago, whom you are promoting to 6 :) I am happy with his rating remaining at 7 nevertheless and renaming him also helps.

2) I could swear Hasdrubal gets always replaced by another Hasdrubal (whom I always misspell Hadsrubal... dammit). Probably just my luck. Anyway, you do address this in #1.

3) Hurra and thank you!

4) I don't mind some "what if" generals in game, like Roman that Roman general whose name I forgot, but who checked Carthaginians north of Ebro after the defeat of Scipios. I wish I could find something about this general (Mottones) for my own sake.

5) You mentioned before that Tuditanus rating reflects "smartening" of the Roman generals toward the endgame. That explanation was good enough.

6 and 7) Salinator's 6 is about right, Nero was truly a hero of the Republic, alongside Fabius (rating of 7 is just right, Marcellus and Africanus) and deserves a bump. Hasdrubal Barca's promoted rating should be one less than Nero's promoted rating. In the end, this is still just an opinion and +1/-1 adjustments don't make that much difference (only to purists). Mago's glaring mistreatment was one thing, the rest were just nitpicking.

8) Expected.

9) Future game consideration is much appreciated.

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 13
RE: Generals' ratings - 4/1/2011 10:35:40 PM   
julianbarker

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: London
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nalivayko

julianbarker, I was just about to bump this post up, thank you for helping me out.

Question, since your link goes to the book that I don't own, could you please tell me what year that expedition was (or provide another link). The only references I could find about Himilco are of an earlier general, who led expedition to Sicily a little less than 200 years before the Second Punic War.


Going through the index -

217 Himlico leads fleet to Spain
216 Himlico given command in Spain as Hastrubal heads to Italy but as Hastrubal fails to leave Spain due to defeat by the Scipios Himlico becomes supernumerary.
214 Himlico lands in Sicily with 25000 foot, 3000 horse and 12 elephants. Joins up with Syracusan forces, problems cooperating with the Carthaginian fleet, but seems ot hold a stalemate against Marcellus.
212 Dies in plague whilst in Sicily

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 14
RE: Generals' ratings - 7/23/2018 2:40:43 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
This was an interesting discussion.

However, I note that I am unable to trace a list of the Generals ( for both sides ),that actually appear in the game ; either in the game itself, or in this forum.
Can one be provided ( possibly with their ratings too ) ?

Thanks.

(in reply to julianbarker)
Post #: 15
RE: Generals' ratings - 7/28/2018 2:41:38 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
OK, here is a list of all of the leaders in the game with command ratings.

Carthaginians Unpromoted Promoted

Hannibal NA 12
Hanno 5 7
Hasdrubal 7 8
Himilco 6 7

Bostar 4 6
Carthalo 5 7
Hamilcar 5 6
Generic Hanno 6 8
Hasdrubal Gisco 7 8
Mago 6 7
Maharbal 6 8
Mottones 7 9

Roman Leaders Unpromoted Promoted

Africanus 8 10
Caecilius 6 7
Centumalus 5 6
Cethegus 7 9
Claudius 5 7
Crassus 7 8
Fabius 6 7
Flaminius 5 6
Fulvius 6 7
Gracchus 6 7
Livius 6 7
Mamilius 6 7
Manlius 6 8
Marcellus 7 8
Matho 6 8
Minucius 4 6
Nero 7 9
Otacilius 5 6
Paullus 4 5
Quinctius 5 7
Scipio 7 9
Sempronius 4 5
Servilius 4 6
Sulpicius 5 6
Tuditanus 6 7
Valerius 7 9
Varro 4 5
Veturius 5 7

Macedonian Leaders Unpromoted Promoted

Philip 5 7

Numidian Leaders Unpromoted Promoted

Masinissa 6 7
Syphax 5 6

Syracusan Leaders Unpromoted Promoted

(Loyal to Carthage)

Hippocrates 6 8
Epicydes 5 6
Philodemus 7 9
Polyclitus 6 7

(Loyal to Rome)

Apollonides 6 8
Genericos 6 7
Sopater 7 9
Theodotus 5 6

Enjoy!

P.S. I will submit a list in proper HTML formatting as soon as I get the chance.

< Message edited by mercenarius -- 7/28/2018 2:43:45 AM >


_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 16
RE: Generals' ratings - 7/29/2018 12:45:24 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
Many many thanks.

[ Who knew there were so many ! ]

(in reply to julianbarker)
Post #: 17
RE: Generals' ratings - 7/30/2018 11:21:39 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
Hello again !

I have noticed a possible error on the list of Leaders so kindly provided...

Fabius is listed as a 6 7. However, per Rule 4.8 FABIUS, he is noted as Promoted only ( like Hannibal ).
I did a check through the "What's New" document and the "Manual Addendum document" ( provided with the 1.05 patch ),
but I was unable to trace any amendment to Rule 4.8 FABIUS.

Is the list in error ( suspected ), or has an unlisted game amendment been made ( unlikely ) ?

Thanks.

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 18
RE: Generals' ratings - 7/31/2018 12:01:22 AM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
Further to the Leaders list :

I note that only 2 Scipio's are included - the two identically named Publius Cornelius Scipio's ( Father and Son ) who are listed in the game as Scipio and Africanus.
These are detailed under 4.9 SCIPIO AFRICANUS.

However, there was also a Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio ( known as Calvus ), who is not listed...

A source advises he was sent to Emporion ( with an army ), by the game's Scipio ( his younger brother ); captured some territory in northern Spain and also won a naval battle ( near Emporion ).
Later he was joined by Scipio, and had some battles against Hasdrubal. All this occurred in 218 BC.

In game terms : the movement to Emporion cannot count as a Dispersment as the troops moved from Cisalpine Gaul to Spain, the territory captured is irrelevant and the naval action would make him an Admiral and Land Leaders cannot control Fleets and vice versa.

Any comment/s ?

[ NB : I note though that nalivayko lists Calvus (Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus) ! Has he just been left off of the list ? Or has he been "dropped" since then ( 2011 ) ? ]

< Message edited by DEB -- 7/31/2018 12:21:52 AM >

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 19
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/5/2018 1:22:14 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
I will check about Fabius. I am in the middle of moving and my workstation is currently offline. I think that he does start promoted and the 'unpromoted' value for him is an unused definition. In the original board game Fabius does NOT start the game in the Promoted state.

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).

I'll write a little more next week when I have finished moving.

Thanks for your interest in the game!

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 20
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/5/2018 6:20:42 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

I will check about Fabius. I am in the middle of moving and my workstation is currently offline. I think that he does start promoted and the 'unpromoted' value for him is an unused definition. In the original board game Fabius does NOT start the game in the Promoted state.

Noted.

[ I am a little surprised that Hannibal and Fabius are marked differently on the Leader's list, despite being the same ( as it were ). I guess this is due to that difference with the board game... ]

quote:

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).

I suspected as much. I find most games have these "issues" ( as it were ). It happens...

[ My main concern here is really whether he is in the game ( but not on the Leaders list ), or just not in the game at all. I fully expect that not all possible Leaders made the "final cut"... ]

quote:

I'll write a little more next week when I have finished moving.

Thanks.

quote:

Thanks for your interest in the game!

That's OK. It's a great "little" game.

[ My first serious attempt at this ( some time ago ), got me an outright win ( Hannibal took Rome ); albeit on Easy and with Hannibal starting in "Italy". Recently I had another two goes, again on Easy ( etc. ). I lost both. The first in about 2/3 turns ( without any re-reference to the rules ) ; and the second at the end of turn 20. Here I lost too many siege battles where I had besieged somewhere and got attacked by a relief force ( due to that lack of a chance to use the Battle Cards )... Note to self : Read the Rules ! ]


< Message edited by DEB -- 8/5/2018 6:40:47 PM >

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 21
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/24/2018 10:19:38 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mercenarius

I will check about Fabius. I am in the middle of moving and my workstation is currently offline. I think that he does start promoted and the 'unpromoted' value for him is an unused definition. In the original board game Fabius does NOT start the game in the Promoted state.

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).

I'll write a little more next week when I have finished moving.



Ummm - move over ?

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 22
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/26/2018 9:51:17 PM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
Yes, my move is over, although I am still unpacking and dealing with items still in storage.

In the original board game, Fabius doesn't start the game in the promoted state. And what you saw in the code that I posted reflects that. Somewhere along the way I decided that Fabius was so experienced that he should start the game in the promoted state, and now we does.

So, the code sample that I showed is not wrong, but it does have a value that is never actually used in the game. (Because after creating the Roman leader pool, the game always promotes him as part of the initialization code).

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 23
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/27/2018 7:36:28 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Yes, my move is over, although I am still unpacking and dealing with items still in storage.

In the original board game, Fabius doesn't start the game in the promoted state. And what you saw in the code that I posted reflects that. Somewhere along the way I decided that Fabius was so experienced that he should start the game in the promoted state, and now he does.

So, the code sample that I showed is not wrong, but it does have a value that is never actually used in the game. (Because after creating the Roman leader pool, the game always promotes him as part of the initialization code).


Interesting...

Thanks.

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 24
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/27/2018 7:45:10 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

quote:

ORIGINAL: mercenarius

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).

I suspected as much. I find most games have these "issues" ( as it were ). It happens...

[ My main concern here is really whether he is in the game ( but not on the Leaders list ), or just not in the game at all. I fully expect that not all possible Leaders made the "final cut"... ]



Ummm, can I take it that Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus is not in the game ?

[ For "mercenarius" ]

< Message edited by DEB -- 8/28/2018 8:58:22 PM >

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 25
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/28/2018 8:29:54 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nalivayko

Hanno, Bomilcar son - 5

Bomilcar - 4


Who is Bomilcar here ?

Do you mean Hamilcar...

[ There was a Bomilcar who was an Assassin in Rome... ]

< Message edited by DEB -- 8/28/2018 8:53:30 PM >

(in reply to nalivayko)
Post #: 26
RE: Generals' ratings - 8/28/2018 8:51:23 PM   
DEB


Posts: 677
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Generic Hanno 6 8


Hello again,

I have just realised that the "first" name specified here is rather odd.
Does the term "Generic" ( here ), imply that this Leader covers more than one Leader also named Hanno ( aside that of Hanno ( son of Hamilcar ) ) ?

[ I am aware of at least three Hanno's, including Hanno ( son of Hamilcar ) and Hanno the Great... ]

If so, does this mean he may reappear ( after "death" ) unlike the other Leaders ?

[ If not, perhaps "he" should, or else what is the point in using the term "Generic" here, rather than just a "real" name like the other Leaders... ]

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 27
RE: Generals' ratings - 9/2/2018 2:47:44 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Ummm, can I take it that Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus is not in the game ?


Yes, that is correct. 'Africanus', his father, and Cethegus are the only Cornelii in the game.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 28
RE: Generals' ratings - 9/2/2018 2:53:04 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline

quote:

Who is Bomilcar here ?


Bomilcar

I wanted some additional generals that would add a little "what if" variety for the Carthaginians.

_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 29
RE: Generals' ratings - 9/2/2018 3:01:50 AM   
mercenarius


Posts: 560
Joined: 7/6/2010
Status: offline
quote:

I have just realised that the "first" name specified here is rather odd.


It mostly means that he is just a made-up person in the sense that this leader is not a historical figure. This was to add some variety to the Carthaginian pool of leaders, and to help fill it out. It is also to differentiate him from other men with the same name.

This leader can be killed, however. He doesn't reappear if he is killed. You CAN run out of leaders in the game.

P.S. I did the same thing with the leader pool for Syracuse. I had a hard time finding men who actually served or could be imagined that they would have served as generals if needed when Syracuse was allied with Rome. Hence the leader "Genericos" is not a historical person and that usage is kind of a joke. But I needed a fourth leader to fill out the pool for pro-Roman leaders in Syracuse.

< Message edited by mercenarius -- 9/2/2018 3:06:03 AM >


_____________________________

James Warshawsky
Forced March Games, LLC

(in reply to mercenarius)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Ancients] >> Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War >> Generals' ratings Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180