Messing with Magnesia

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

For your consideration, a report of a counterfactual of Magnesia, played with slightly modified Tactica II rules.

I have reviewed it five times and hope that I have caught most if not all of the silly and not so silly errors.

Here is the link:
https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Messing%20with%20Magnesia


Thanks in advance for your time and attention.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

As you know Chris, my interest is in following the narrative or story of the battle so having the photos (taken from the same perspective) as part of the story is my preference. But it may not be for others!

You mentioned at the start that the Roman commanders were concerned but still ordered a general advance. How did you determine those two potentially contradictory aspects?

[Chris]

Mea culpa, DK. The photo section was an experiment. Evidently, based on the few replies, it was not a good decision. In future, rather uncertain at this point, I shall return the old way and sprinkle photos throughout a post/report. I will keep your preference in mind, however.

Yeah . . . another case of "it looks good on paper, but . . ." In the historical battle, it does appear that the Roman right was outnumbered. Interestingly, the Pergamon contingent was able to turn away the chariots which led to a general collapse of the Seleucid left. In my revision, the Roman right was well outnumbered, so I did not advance in that sector, I thought a delay would be best. As for the other sections of the line, well, I thought that terrain might help a little. Further readings will, I expect, discover more holes in the report than are in a decent piece of Swiss cheese.

Perhaps a refight is in order, but one where I employ a different set of rules and try to balance things a little more?

Thanks for taking the time.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

I suppose that it depend on whether you are trying for a historical re-fight or a battle based on a historical battle as a solo battle. In the latter case you can employ a lot more flexibility, depending on how you "characterise" your commanders. So if the Roman consuls were concerned (an not rash) then they might not have performed a general advance.

[Chris]

Yes indeed, David, there is some supposition when solo gaming. My adaptation was based on the historical engagement, but as stated, involved the doubling of the army sizes in most every respect (save the Seleucid skirmishers and Silver Shields). As far as I am aware, there is little room in Tactica II for rating or characterizing commanders. The army generals can be "vanilla" types or "follow me" types, which provide a +1 bonus in some situations. I think one can add other attributes for scenario play, but this kind of chrome seems rather outside the spirit of Tactica II. Again, the sub-commanders have no personality at all; they are simply markers through which command radius is determined.

Depending on how things go, Magnesia may be worth revisiting at some point.

Cheers & good gaming,
Chris