attack and defense unit nomenclature and other observations

[teboj17]

After playing the game I have the follow observations about attack and defense #s.
It seems that the "Defense" # should really be called "Loss Factor" as it does not seem that the number comes into play when actually calculating the combat results. Or it could be called "Unit Strength". Along similar lines the "Attack #" should really be called "Combat Factor" as in the game there is no person really on the Attack and both sides use this number and there is really no one defending or attacking in a field battle.

I have played this game for a two days have have won twice on the easier level, which is still pretty tough. I might go back and play again on the next level. I did not pay full price but only $20 using slitherines coupon. I would not have paid full price and am glad I did not as the replay value is not that strong.

Also I was a bit disappointed by the victory screen when capturing Rome. I wish there was some sort of game score. If there was then I would be more inclined to go back and play again and try to beat that score.

[anarchyintheuk]

Probably just semantics but . . . .because you have a limited front (8 units) the attack numbers vary according to how good that unit is thought to have been relative to others of that period at inflicting casualties whether it's through their weapons, morale, experience or platform (mounted or on foot) in a given period (a round). For example african infantry and other italian infantry were not as quite the killing machines that the legions were (better discipline, pilum, etc.) so they don't get the bonus that legions do.

The defense numbers represent how hard they are to kill primarily because of their rl armor. Gauls and Numidians have a 1 because irl they used very little armor. Legions get a two because they did.

Imo the terms are appropriate.

There are about 4 or 5 different strategies available. Given the huge number of variables involved w/ attrition losses, combat losses, storms, cards, etc., I think the replayability is quite high. Additionally, at the higher levels you can't automatically force the Romans to fight which is another variable to consider.

Agreed about the victory screen.

[teboj17]

Your reply about the statement about attack and defense values does not really correspond/or address the issue with what I said. The number of units in the attack has nothing to do with it. If the attack value corresponds to inflicting casualties then the defense value of the unit should also be in the same calculation and be related to their "combat value", which I believe it is not. The bonus for units has also nothing to do with my issue.

Historically also after Hannibal defeated the first Roman army or two, the legions he faced after that were hastily recruited and lacked the discipline, experience and possibly armor of their previously defeated legions. Also Hannibal's Punic Infantry took the armor of their defeated opponents as well as gaining experience and becoming veterans. This also applies to a lesser extent to his allied Spanish and Gallic troops.

[anarchyintheuk]

I guess I don't understand your argument.

Roman legions were recruited from the same manpower pool, levied for a campaign season and returned at its end. The armies that Hannibal faced at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae were all relatively similar in experience, discipline and equipment. Due to the losses sustained at the previous battles fewer legions were returned at the end of the season and were kept over until the next season. If anything the legions Hannibal faced after Cannae were more experienced than the ones faced before.

[nalivayko]

teboj17, while I agree that "Attack" and "Defense" are somewhat misleading names for the unit values in this game, they are short (a plus), if not altogether to the point. "Loss factor" requires an extra second or so to understand and my brainpower is already stressed to the limit "Unit Strength" is better, while "Strenth" would be perfect (the value is a combination of unit size + armor + discipline as stated by mercenarius). Once you rename Defense to Strength, there is no need to rename "Attack" into "Combat Factor". Thus "Attack" and "Strength"?

I doubt this will be implemented though, considering how relatively unimportant to the gameplay the change is and how much time it would take to update the game and the manual.

[mercenarius]

I do see now that the term "Defense Factor" is confusing to many players. Because there is the established mechanisms in war games of calculating ratios or differentials. And that doesn't apply here.

Before I change this I want to see how much effort it's going to be to update the typesetting in the PDF and eBook manuals. This might have to wait for version 1.1 when the manual will definitely need to be updated.

Does the term "Strength" get it done? Because the real audience for this change is new players. What will get the essential concept across to them?

[mercenarius]

I have played this game for a two days have have won twice on the easier level, which is still pretty tough. I might go back and play again on the next level. I did not pay full price but only $20 using slitherines coupon. I would not have paid full price and am glad I did not as the replay value is not that strong.

I'd like to suggest that the variety in play does go up when you advance to the higher levels. Naturally I am biased but I'd like to hear your opinion about playing on the "Normal" level.

Sorry for the delay in responding to the original post. [:(]

[mercenarius]

Also I was a bit disappointed by the victory screen when capturing Rome. I wish there was some sort of game score. If there was then I would be more inclined to go back and play again and try to beat that score.

No doubt that the victory screen could use some razzle dazzle. I'd love to have some nice animations or something. Our budget for art simply ran out. I hate it when reality intrudes...

There are a couple of problems with scores. One is that it's easy to cheat. Now people won't do that when trying to top themselves but if scores are going to be posted online then it becomes a big deal, I think. By "cheating" I mean things like fighting battles over again until they come out right. For a really long game sometimes a player has to do that in order to preserve his investment in the current game. But in Hannibal that's part of the variety of game play. At least, it's supposed to be.

And, of course, if you want a really big score then you want to conquer everything else before you take Rome. [:D]

However, keeping high scores in the game is not that hard to do and I'll give this strong consideration.

[nalivayko]

If your "final", not "ingame" score is based not only on number of cities conquered, but also on number of units lost (negative) and number of turns spent (positive), then you will not see too many players trying to conquer every corner of W. Med. before taking Rome.

I am not even sure that the score screen is the solution. I would be happy (for starters, as always) with the ability to go back to map to survey my empire (all actions should be disabled, of course).

The term "Strength", considering I proposed it, would do it for me