Trashdome - Hammer Of The Scots VS Hannibal RvC

WELCOME TO TRASHDOME!

This is part of a series of bloody matches to the death. Show support for your favorite game so it will do better in the fight. You can support it by writing why you think its the better game and more importantly by betting on it. End your first post in this thread with the title of the game you're placing a bet on (i.e. voting for) so its clear to me when reading it later. You have until Friday when I tally the bets and declare the winner. Counting expansions or not is entirely up to you just as playing with them or not is. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.

Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;

Two games enter! One game leaves!

Vote: Hammer of the Scotts.

Vote: Hannibal

Vote: Hannibal

I miss the time when people wrote arguments for the game they were voting.

OOOOO this is a good one!

I'm a newcomer to HotS and the Columbia block games and after the first play I thought it was a fabulous game. With only 8 pages of rules (mixed with historical notes) it really does A LOT in terms of providing a rich and exciting gaming experience. I dig, that most Nobles will switch sides after being defeated. It gives me sense of how fragile and fickle this war was in terms of allegiance to one side or the other.

This is a conflict that I'm not familiar with (no I've never seen Braveheart). That is another reason why I'm drawn to it and to most other wargames I've played.


HRvC on the other hand, I fell for after reading the rulebook a few years back. The idea that it took political points to determine the victor was mind-blowing to me. Depending on how great of a loss you suffer after a battle reflects itself in the loss of support from cities you once had influence over and I love the controversial battle cards.

After reading "The Punic Wars" by Adrian Goldsworthy I had a better understanding and became a fan of the Punic Wars saga.

All that being said, I vote for: Hannibal: Rome versus Carthage based solely on the amount of times I've played. HotS could overtake Warriors of God, with more plays, for me.

FREEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMM!!!!

(somebody was going to say it)

Vote: Hammer of the Scots

Schweig! wrote:

I miss the time when people wrote arguments for the game they were voting.

Says the guy who didn't even fucking vote.

Vote: Hammer of the Scots

This is my game of the 00s. Little old Columbia has shot to the top of my favorite game company list due to this title. This is the game my gaming arch-rival and I pull out for bragging rights. Mabuse had it right, rarely has so much theme and strategy been placed on so few pages. Awesome game!

However, though I love HotS, I really wish Columbia would diversify their line again. The Rome vs Rome rules posted sounded ace, but now I hear it's going back to the A, B, C, blocks and card format of HotS, CR, Liberty, Texas Glory, RIII, etc.

Hammer of the Scots is a more tactical game. It's also a game for people who like lots of battles and rolling dice. One of the keys to the game is know when and where to attack and how to get you nobles and armies in position so you won't lose them during wintering. Hammer is a lot of fun.

Hannibal is more strategic. Part of the strategy is playing a string of strategy cards to give you a military or political advantage over your opponent. The battles are very exciting in Hannibal because the results are unpredictable. You can end up losing your entire army or it can end with one side only losing 1 or 2 units. Hammer is great but Hannibal has an extra layer that gives it the edge. I played 3 games of Hannibal this weekend and if somebody asked me to play right now I'd jump at the chance.

My Vote: Hannibal

Vote: Hammer of the Scots

great matchup.

I love both games.

This really is the battle of two of the best in their respective styles of wargame.

In my mind, this comes down to which one does what it wants to the best. and Hammer has one big downside in my mind.

The "nobles" are the unique thing that Hammer adds. unfortunately, the effect of them being the primary combat unit, and always returning home limits the Fog of war effect. rather than maneuvering armies and bluffing, it feels more like a "where's waldo" game while searching for Wallace or a specific noble. In the end, there feels like more than alittle bit of puzzle in the game to me.

Hannibal may have alittle New-game love for me right now (despite first playing it back in 2000), but I think its the deeper, stronger design. I'm kinda ambivalent to the whole Battle-card system, but overall Hannibal is a great example of card drive wargames, and great step up from Twilight Struggle.

vote: hannibal

Mad Dog wrote:

Schweig! wrote:

I miss the time when people wrote arguments for the game they were voting.

Says the guy who didn't even fucking vote.

Hey, I get the same response when I complain about the government.

HANNIBAL

'Cause I love the battle cards, and Rommel in the Desert does the block game soooooo much better than Hammer of the Scots. Seriously, the fog of war is insanely intense in that game when you don't know how much supply your opponent has, which can make the difference between getting slaughtered and just barely holding the line. I do really like Hammer of the Scots, though, nevertheless, especially 1) the side-switching nobles and 2) the resetting of the board every year. I disliked that at first, but now I like how each year you set a new goal for yourself, and don't have to worry too much about looking forward past that. Hannibal is just meatier, though, and also? The wife likes it more. I think I have NEVER won a Hannibal game against her.

These are both very good games. I give a slight edge to Hannibal. I think it gives more opportunity for tactics and manuvoeuring, and I like the wide variety of events in the cards.