Version 1.03 still leaves Romans Sad Panda

[michaelguth]

Playing on the Hard Level, standard first move, the computer is still having trouble winning. The usual pattern is for the Carthaginians to reinforce Spain, keep Hannibal in Northern Italy, and eventually he winds up with about 35-45 units. Either the computer leaves Rome undefended, it takes about 30 units to capture it from the garrison, or I besiege Rome once I outnumber the Romans. It helps if they have committed forces to regain Syracuse.

One change which seems to have made it easier for the Carthiginians rather than harder compared to version 1.02 is that now Hannibal can use Treachery to get Italian units from cities in northern Italy rather than actually having to choose between staying put for the Gauls in northern Italy or invading eastern Italy to get the Italian reinforcements.

I think the AI needs to be adjusted to keep more units in Rome once Hannibal hits 30 units, 4-6 makes it nearly impossible to assualt the city successfully.

In a previous post I noted the importance of blockading Africa from turn one. IMO this would make the AI invincible.

Barring that fix, I think the AI has to be way more aggressive about contesting Spain, should almost never send an army to Sicily/Syracuse-and if they do they should assault earlier so they can be used elsewhere.

The AI seems to have done best when it launches continual attacks against Hannibal with its level 7 commanders. The key is to keep Hannibal's army small, so that it can neither besiege or Assault Rome successfully. Hannibal is not much better than the level 7-9 Roman commanders once he has burned his Punic Trick cards.

So, I'd tweak the AI. Introduce an 'ultrahigh' difficulty with a blocakde of Africa, and send more than the troops from Genua to Spain on the first turn. Spain is one place the Romans can get reinforcements as well as cutting off the Carthaginians....

Just my two cents worth.

[mercenarius]

You make some good points. Now, I certainly don't want to sound like a broken record! But for those who didn't see your post on Slitherine's forum, I will note that a couple of players have asked me not to make the game any harder at the "Hard" level. So my task is to make it harder for certain strategies without raising the overall difficulty.

I am still curious to know if you have tried a few games without the Standard Move? Declining that option might provide a better experience for you. I'll admit that doing so does add a certain amount of luck. But it makes the beginning more varied and possibly more challenging.

Regardless, I can see that I will have to add some simple economic modeling to the Carthaginian side. I'm torn between making improvements of this sort, adding the ability to play the Roman side, and working on the next game.

I'll keep your views in mind. I don't know how soon I can produce a version 1.1 for "Hannibal." I will give this some thought.

[michaelguth]

I apologize for 'jumping forums', this post was specific to the 1.03 release. I am very impressed that a game designer would actually reply! Could I get you to do an online version of Phil Barker's DBA?? But I digress. The game has certainly encouraged me to go back and reread Lazenby and some of the primary and secondary sources now with an eye to the campaigns and not just to individual battles.



I do find that the 1.03 AI can win if it gets several commanders rated 7 at the beginning of the game. It is also harsher against my original strategy of having Hannibal get Gallic Aid on turn one and then moving to eastern Italy. Putting the Carthaginian forces in Spain into a city on turn one also seems to auto-lose.

Should there be a maximum stacking limit per province? That is to say, how large an army could actualy be supported in any province given the logistics of the time? Should the game force players to disperse or face attrition at some point? Right now I don't see any profit for Hannibal to move to southern Italy or besiege Capua. I will try some games with alternate first moves. But I'd most like to Beta test a Roman first move of 12 units to Spain.....

Great game. Wonder if you could do Columbia Games Sparta vs. Athens......

Mike Guth

[mercenarius]

I apologize for 'jumping forums', this post was specific to the 1.03 release.

Oh, there's no reason to apologize. I just wanted to acknowledge that some of my reply was repeated from the thread over at Slitherine. We're glad you are here, too. [:)]

I don't know about a project like DBA. But thanks for the suggestion. And I do appreciate your feedback on the AI in 1.0.3. It's good to know where improvement is possible (or needed).

Should there be a maximum stacking limit per province? That is to say, how large an army could actually be supported in any province given the logistics of the time? Should the game force players to disperse or face attrition at some point?

I don't think that there should be a limit per province but more per army based on available supplies and the resources in the province. I am working on this. In trying to improve the game I don't want to ruin it for the people who like it the way that it is. I personally like the idea of some simple logistics that would force the players to keep smaller armies.

Wonder if you could do Columbia Games Sparta vs. Athens......

Well, you will probably have to ask them. I suppose that I would be willing to port the game. [8D]

[SteveD64]

I personally like the idea of some simple logistics that would force the players to keep smaller armies.

Yes, great idea. [:)]

[nalivayko]

Speaking of blockading Africa from the start - are you sure this would make AI invincible? The fleet would need the supporting ports, which could only be found in Africa itself. These ports can be easily recuptured by the player, thus putting the Roman navy at the mercy of storms.

I believe the current naval AI is very adequate and making it more aggressive would damage the Roman side.

[gdrover]

The new AI is actually pretty tough. The only flaw seems to be that it leaves Rome underprotected sometimes. If it had to leave a garrison in Rome of, say, 1/3 of the total enemy armies in Italy, this would be solved.

For now, when the Romans make a mistake and leave Rome open to a quick storming attack, I don't do it. I was winning almost 100% of the time on previous versions, and now I'm only winningabout 60 - 65% of the time. If you take the quick blitz out of the equation, the Romans actually play a very tough game most of the time.

I actually use the stratgy outlined above, but sometimes the Carthaginian Senate does not allow for the perfect implementation of it, especially combined with a now more aggressive Roman AI that likes to send armies to Spain and North Africa.