Author:  Jim Cobb

In this age of large game companies and re-run old game engines, independent game developers with fresh ideas and approach are blessings and antidotes to jaded gamers. A quick run-through of the demo of Forced March Games’ upcoming Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War sparked an interest in this new company. The demo can be found at http://www.forcedmarchgames.com/.

James Warshawsky, designer of the game, granted us an extremely interesting interview about the game and his company.

The Wargamer (WG):  When did you get into gaming – at what age and what genre of games?

James Warshawsky (JW):  I started playing board games when I was about 14. I played war games almost exclusively. I got into computer games in my twenties. I played a variety of early DOS games, but I got away from gaming for a number of years.

I got back into computer games with Warcraft and Command and Conquer.

WG:  Did any part of your educational background lead you to game development?

JW:  Well, I have a degree in Computer Science but I didn’t study anything particularly related to game development in school. I really got interested in game development after school.

WG:  How many are on your team at Forced March?

JW:   I am currently the only permanent member of Forced March Games, but I have contractors that I rely on, especially for sound, music, and illustration.

And I want to acknowledge here that Hannibal is based on a board game that was published in the 80’s. Glenn Kidd designed it. I purchased the rights and modified the design for the current version, of course, but using an existing design accelerated the game’s development.

WG:  What led you to do a strategic ancients game?

JW:  I like “thinking games” more than “reaction games,” and I have had a particular interest in the Ancient Mediterranean period since my teenage years. So when I decided to produce my first “real” game, a strategy game in an ancient period was a natural conclusion.

WG:  What were your historical sources for Hannibal?

JW:   Ultimately, Livy and Polybius are by far the most important sources. But I relied heavily on Hannibal’s War by J.F. Lazenby. Lazenby does an excellent job of interpreting the primary sources – he is one of the top scholars for this period, of course. Adrian Goldsworthy’s book on the Punic Wars also bears mention as a particularly good introduction to the subject.

Of course, there is much in the game from Glenn Kidd’s original design. But I adapted the design according to my own interpretations of the sources, and I have tweaked it where I thought that was appropriate.

WG:  Hannibal’s maps are clear and interesting but not quite state of the art. Are you trying for a period feel?

JW:  Yes. What I wanted was something of the flavor of Renaissance cartography and general inquiry. And I wanted a touch of the kind of anachronisms that you see in the study of history at that time. Things like illustrations of Roman towns that look just like cities in the Renaissance period because they really didn’t know what they would actually look like.

And I have tried to avoid the “over-drawn” look that some games have today. But that judgment is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I haven’t tried for a period feel for a particular era of computer games, but I think that some people see it that way!

WG:  What sort of trade-offs did you make between accuracy and game play?

JW:  Armies can get a little large as the game progresses. The manpower was there but the logistics of that period would usually prohibit it. But I allow that because it’s fun and detailed supply rules would not suit many players.

Battles are somewhat bloodier than they often were in reality, but I have allowed that in order to account – at least in part – for losses from other factors such as disease which the game doesn’t simulate.

The combined province of Umbria-Samnium is probably made more important and developed that it really was at that time, but that keeps a certain kind of symmetry as regards recruiting and control in Italy.

WG:  Which element of Hannibal do you consider most innovative and why?

JW:  I particularly like the rules for activating leaders and restricting units to moving with one leader in a turn. That imposes, in effect, a kind of simultaneity on a turn-based game, without using a system of movement allowances.

I am not putting down systems that use movement allowances, of course.

WG:  What makes Hannibal different for other strategic Roman games?

JW:  This is a tough question. Certainly Hannibal is different from games that take place over a longer time span. Those kinds of games usually involve building up infrastructure to eventually produce more advanced units. Figuring out how to balance growth and recruitment is what that kind of game is mostly about. After that I’d say the player usually masters the game’s tactical system, and then grinds out the campaign all the way to victory.

Hannibal is more about finding the right strategy and then modifying it as events in the game dictate. Figuring out the subtleties of the rules and how to win the game is supposed to be an important part of the game’s fun.

Frankly, I have been working so hard at this game for some time that I haven’t had a chance to play any other games myself!

WG:  Hannibal’s beta has an extended tutorial. How important do you feel tutorials are and why?

JW:  I think that tutorials are very important for people who have an expectation that the interface will explain everything about the game. They are also important for people who don’t like to read manuals, and just want to play the game.

That mindset doesn’t work with many war games, and certainly not with Hannibal. The tutorials are intended to get players “over the hump” as it were, if they don’t like pouring through the manual - because the movement system is significantly different from most turn-based strategy games.

WG: What is your primary goal with Hannibal?

JW:  My primary goal is to produce a game that will be the sort of game that people will want to play intensely until they master the game. And to get their money’s worth in doing so. Then I hope that they will play the game periodically, sort of like watching a favorite movie again and again.

WG:  Is there something you’d like to do with Hannibal but couldn’t?

JW:  I didn’t have the time or the resources to include a detailed tactical system for battles. The current system of tactical battles is rather simple, and is mostly a reflection of strategic considerations and known strengths. So a player cannot win the game through superior tactical skill. That has some validity for a strategy game but I know that many players want to manage battles in a more detailed way.

WG:  What are your plans after Hannibal?

JW:  I want to do a follow-up to Hannibal which would also be set in the ancient Mediterranean, and use a similar system of game play. I also have an idea for an RTS with fantasy elements in it. And I definitely want to do a serious system for tactical battles as an add-on for Hannibal.

WG:   James, thank you for your time and insights. Best wishes for the game.

 

Recommended Reading

About the Author

Jim Cobb has been playing board wargames since 1961 and computer wargames since 1982. He has been writing incessantly since 1993 to keep his mind off the drivel he deals with as a bureaucrat. He has published in Wargamers Monthly, Computer Gaming World, Computer Games Magazine, Computer Games Online, CombatSim, Armchair General, Subsim, Strategyzone Online, Wargamer, Gamesquad and Gaming Chronicle.