Instigating Question:
What kind of wargame would result if the script was flipped for the pivotal 207 BC/BCE engagement between Hasdrubal's army and the seven legions led by a triumvirate of Roman officers?
Guideline(s):
It would not be a simple reversed historical refight, but more of a foundation or template on which to further develop the idea of a scenario.
Rules:
To The Strongest! (Version 1.1)
Supplemented by Even Stronger V12 (revised 24/3/23)
> Minor amendments made re the demoralization (demoralisation) rules
Note:
I went back and forth - for several days - over the pros and cons of Simon Miller's rules and Arty Conliffe's Tactica II rules. At one point, I considered employing a completely different rulebook (one the did not bother with attempting to model/replicate the three-line system of the Polybian/Republican Roman legion). Finally, the debate ended and a decision was made. At the risk of making a bad wargaming joke, it was decided to "roll the dice" and use Simon's rules.
Table Size:
29 squares by 8 squares, so an overall area of 232 squares or boxes.
Translated into inches, the model battlefield measured 116 inches (9.6 feet) by 32 inches (2.6 feet).
Terrain:
The key feature of the historical battle was modeled, though not in any way, shape, or form that could be called aesthetically pleasing by the average historical wargamer or indicate an advanced level of artistic ability. However, it was functional. There was no mistaking the "model" ravine for a small yard enclosed by a white-picket fence. A strong-flowing stream divided the field into uneven portions of one-third and two-thirds, or upper and lower sectors. There were additional features as well as purely decorative pieces positioned to break up the otherwise flat and nothing-to-instagram-your-followers-about landscape.
Excepting the stream, a survey of the model battlefield informed that there were 19 squares containing terrain features, so about 92 percent of the tabletop was left clear and open.
Opposing Armies:
The majority of both armies were drawn from the Middle Carthaginian and Polybian Roman lists contained in the Free Army Lists PDF book/supplement, updated 30/6/2020. I also looked at the related lists provided in the Tactica II rulebook, as well as those offered in the catalog of D.B.M. ARMY LISTS - BOOK 2: 500 BC to 476 AD.
As for general Orders of Battle, I can offer the following . . .
Carthaginians:
A variety of troops, organized into tribal or national contingents.
There were African spearmen, Gallic warriors, Iberian scutarii, Ligurians, and Greek mercenary hoplites. For the cavalry arm, there were Numidians, Spanish, more Gauls, Greeks, and Campanians. There were quite a few elephants as well. Added together and then reviewing my sums, it was found that there were 665 points in this army. The Victory Medal count was 138, so the polyglot force would run away (to fight another day, as the saying goes) when it had given up 46 of these light-weight coins.
Romans:
Two consular armies, so 8 legions (4 Roman and 4 Allied). An additional 2 legions led by a Praetor. Supporting Latin and Roman cavalry, as well as a few light units.
Contingents of allied Italian infantry, some light troops, and a handful of Gallic allies.
Taken all together, there were 657 points in this force. It had a Victory Medal count of 158, so would have to quit the field when 53 of these token coins had been secured by the Carthaginians.
Deployments:
Essentially, these were fairly traditional and close to what the historical sources often describe. Both sides placed cavalry on their flanks and massed their infantry in the center. The modifications caused by the division of the stream saw both sides place some infantry on the smaller sector of the field. The Romans arranged all of their legions on the larger part of the field. Four of these formations were in reserve. The Carthaginians placed most of their elephants and all of their Gallic warriors (on foot) in the center. They weighted their left with most of their cavalry. The Romans sought to match these numbers by supporting their Roman and light horse with a command of Latin/Allied cavalry.
Summary:
Another fairly straightforward scenario, with the battle being separated into sectors due to a stream that ran across the field.
On the Roman left, their Latin cavalry managed to apply a lot of pressure against the enemy horse and foot assigned to this sector. This pressure cost the Latin squadrons quite a few losses, however. In fact, the Roman contingent on this flank became demoralized after suffering so many casualties. It had been a local as well as Pyrrhic (and eventually meaningless) victory for the Carthaginians, as their formations were very nearly at a morale tipping point.
On the main part of the tabletop battlefield, there was desperate fighting in and around the ravine. The Gauls made a lot of noise and caused some damage, but they could not gain any purchase on the hill defended by supporting lines of inexperienced legionaries. Various and rather uncoordinated attacks were launched against other portions of the Roman line. Again, there was hard fighting and quite a bit of back and forth - especially when the cavalry formations of each side were involved. In general however, luck (in the form of drawn numbered chips) was just not with the Carthaginians. Their missile volleys were usually off the mark, and their melee attempts did not strike home often enough. Their embedded heroes did not make a better name for themselves on this day. Additionally, too many of their subordinate formation commanders were lost due to poor luck or having no more men under their command.
To be sure, the Romans experienced their own frustrations with the "Gods of battle," but as they had assumed a defensive posture, they needed only to wait for the Carthaginians to come at them and try to make an impression or turn a local advantage into a larger one. When the Carthaginian command saw the Roman writing on the wall and made the sensible decision to concede, there were four legions that had not thrown any pila or drawn their swords and readied their shields.
For a visual summary of this fictional engagement (simple color maps substituting for pictures of painted minis), some additional remarks, and detailed orders of battle, please visit: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Meddling%20with%20Metaurus
Evaluation:
It seems reasonable, if not obvious, to state that this was a rather large wargame.
(I would have to check to see if my tabletop had more squares than Simon's excellent Raphia scenario. I know this scenario was quite a bit larger than the Pharsalus brief that is currently up on the To The Strongest! Forum. Anyway.) Perhaps it might have been too large for a single wargamer to handle efficiently and therefore derive a suitable degree of enjoyment from the challenge. Then again, it appears to be a testament to the rules written and amended by the talented gentleman, that a reasonable decision was reached in approximately three hours. Of course, this playing time is separate and distinct from the additional time spent on related admin tasks such as typing turn notes, cleaning up parts of the tabletop after a period of play, and reviewing points or sections of the rules before, during, and after a gaming session.
Though simple and functional, the terrain, especially the ravine that witnessed quite a lot of fighting, proved sufficient and broke up an otherwise flat and featureless tabletop. A similar sentiment could be offered about the representative troop types. These various formations were colorful in their own way, and again, were simple to fabricate as well as easy to move around the battlefield and fight with. Even though the battle has been over for a couple of days now, I still find it a challenge to distance myself from the contest. As the only player, I was very much in the thick of it for the duration of the engagement. I could not help but take it personally when a command failed to move or had its plans interrupted, failed to hit anything with missiles, or performed poorly in a combat situation. On further reflection, I suppose this tabletop clash might have shared some qualities with an actual battle between Carthage and Rome circa 228 BC/BCE. There was a lot happening on a fairly expansive plain; there were local successes and set backs; there were heroic moments; there were lulls in the fighting, and after seeing how little "money" he had left, the Carthaginian general ordered his army to disengage and quit the field. So, admitting to a degree of bias here, I think there is something to be said for flipping the script when it comes to developing scenarios.
As this latest solo wargame was winding down, I started thinking about - but just thinking about - how something similar might play with Tactica II, Grand Triumph!, or another set of rules. This is not to remark that I have caught a mysterious case of "Second Punic War Syndrome," however. It is simply to comment that, obviously, there are quite a few historical battles to choose from within this limited time frame, and even more derived-from-history scenarios that may be set up on a small or large tabletop as a result.
Other Notes that may or may not be of Interest:
> I did not use 80-count decks of regular-size or smaller playing cards. I did not employ 10-sided dice. Instead, I drew from two containers, each having 100 small poker chips of a dedicated color. Each pail contained 10 Aces, 10 "2s," 10 "3s," 10 "4s," etc.
> No stratagems were utilized.
> Neither army had any camps on the tabletop.
> It was decided not to adhere strictly to the 'free zone' rule regarding the short-edges of the model battlefield.
Only 3 hours for such a large game :o
You must have been dashing round the table Chris.
speed playing!