Carthage vs Rome

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

For your possible entertainment and interest, I submit the following for consideration:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Another%20Plain%20in%20Spain



Thanks in advance for your time.


Cheers,

Chris

[Imperial Dave]

Really very good Chris. Excellent analysis and love the diagrams

[Keraunos]

Thanks very much for the write up and I agree with Imperial Dave on the diagrams.
I agree with you that enjoyment of the game is the key thing.  I have never tried Tactica II but you tempt me to make up some paper army markers to try it out big battles like yours.  There are a few queries though:
a) I am surprised that cavalry were so effective against elephants : I thought that light troops were the best thing to deal with them?
b) Making the Roman formations deep seems to reflect what we understand of how they fought, but it did not appear from the account that this conveyed any advantage to the Romans under the rules?  Indeed, the Roman infantry appeared to do much worse against a range of enemies - and their cavalry significantly better - than the historical record suggests.  Do the rules allow for Hastati and Principes to fall back behind the Triarii and regroup, or once locked in melée you are stuck there until one side or other is destroyed?

[Chris]

Cheers Gents,

Thanks for the compliments and taking the time.

Appreciate the remarks re the diagrams/maps. Ideally, I would like to make them graphic artist quality, but at present, they will do.

Keraunos - Might I recommend visiting/joining the dedicated band of Tactica II enthusiasts? They are about 1/7th the size of this Society's membership.

I suppose I should defer to Simon W. on all matters Tactica II. I do know that he and Paul Innes wrote articles for Slingshot about the rules. Would suggest that you look at these before taking the plunge as it were.

The Carthaginian elephants on the flanks were screens, which meant that they were individual "models." These, being smaller animals, have 4 hit points but are able to roll 3d6 until completely killed. When cavalry engages, their combat dice are halved. So a unit of 18 "figures" in 2 ranks would normally get 9 dice, but this is rounded to 4.5 (I roll 5), looking for 5s and 6s against the nellies.

Ideally, yes, light troops should be employed. My Roman deployment had the Velites screening the legions as opposed to out on the wings. The one formation of auxiliary light infantry was attacked by enemy cavalry.

Again, as to the three-line system and modeling this, Simon would be your best advisor. My impression or thinking is that the Hastati and Principes act as "attritional speed bumps" against larger enemy units. My understanding is that withdrawing or disengaging heavy infantry is not possible in the rules. One can have them about face, but this is very risky. Also, there is no interpenetration permitted between massed units, so falling back behind the Triarii was not an option.

It was often the case in the scenario that the Hastati would be engaged and erased. The Principes would be next to suffer, in most cases.

Thanks again, fellows, for taking the time.

Chris

[dwkay57]

Interesting Chris - at some point I hope to get to the position that you are in of having a dedicated table to play out really large solo battles over an extended duration. The dreams of a grey top!

The discussion on line replacement might go back to the other thread of "the Importance of Being Regular". We know it happened but may not be sure how or how it is best replicated at various levels of abstraction. Having learnt economics my rules "just assume it happens".

There's a bit about how you organised the Roman army Chris, but not too much on their opposition. Did you have any views on this?

[Chris]

Cheers David,

Thanks for taking the time and weighing in.

Taking your remarks in the order made:

A dedicated table is putting it generously . . . Let us just say that I currently have the space. The duration of my solo games might be the product of a shortened attention span. I wonder how I would fare in a traditional or group game lasting 3-4 hours?

Point taken that I need to spend more time sussing out other avenues on certain questions . . . I cannot speak. with authority regarding the Tactica II rules and how these model line replacement. I will only restate what I posted - these are one of two or three sets that actually provide attempts at and instructions for modeling the line relief mechanism.

Ah, another error . . . or oversight. I suppose my views on setting up a Carthaginian force would depend on the scenario. Ideally, it would be nice to reference ancient source materials and prepare an order of battle. From somewhere and at some point, I got the impression that while an ad-hoc army, the contingents would fight in their own groups and using their own styles or methods. For the recently played game, I believe I relied more on the provided army list. I may have taken ideas from other lists. For example, given the stated time frame, the African foot were not grizzled veterans. On further reflection, I may have incorporated too many Citizen units and maybe more than usual number of mercenary hoplites.

Thanks again for checking in.

Chris

[dwkay57]

Your thoughts on how the Carthagians were organised sounds sensible. Most of what I've read (which isn't too much) suggest it was along the lines of each contingent being in its own command under a local commander. What I haven't turned up yet is anything about specific unit sizes, especially for the Carthagian troops.

[Keraunos]

I wonder whether the concept of 'unit size' is one that would resonate with a Carthaginian commander.  Even the Republican Roman legion could vary greatly in size.  Is the search for unit size more a function of modern rules and basing systems than anything fundamental to ancient warfare?

[dwkay57]

Probably a topic for another thread as to whether and how unit sizes and representation are important, but as a Roman legionary legate I'd probably be keen to know how many maniples of triarii I've got available to cover the gaps.