Carthage vs Rome 

with Tactica II

Regarding the look of my 78 by 45-inch tabletop, I opted for a landscape design that could charitably be described as “hodgepodge.” For this fictional scenario featuring two familiar and great Mediterranean powers, I selected elements of Chaeronea (338 BC), Metaurus (207 BC), and Pharsalus (48 BC). To add a little more color to this admittedly unusual experiment in terrain “painting,” but being mindful so as not to complicate things, there were a couple of woods (one that was categorized as disordering, while the other was more open and less of an obstacle to the movement and meeting of troops), as well as a couple of patches of rough ground (also divided into two types). These patches being further classified as areas of scrub, which included a tree or two or three, along with a fair number of rocks and stones of varying sizes. There was also a small village. The bordering fields were cared for by the residents of this built-up area. The majority of the playing surface (no attempt was made to determine the exact percentage) was otherwise flat, featureless, and open.

Regarding the composition of the opposing forces, well, being an advocate if not aficionado of larger actions, I prepared a consular army reinforced by a praetor for the Republican Romans. These six legions, an equal mix of Roman and allied formations, were supported by a variety of auxiliary troops. I did not want to load down the model battlefield from table edge to table edge, but I did want to field a subjectively impressive force. The same reasoning or preference applied when the Carthaginian army was drafted for this fictional engagement. The Punic generals would command a polyglot force containing light and heavy cavalry, trained infantry, warbands and skirmishers from various points of origin. These component contingents were screened or supported by a small number of elephants. 

Opposing Plans

Had this been a different kind of solo wargame, I imagine that the plans of the respective commanders would have been decided by rolling dice (2d6 or 1d10) and consulting a chart or table for instructions on deployments and related battle plans. As this scenario was more of an improvised and again, fictional set-piece engagement, it seemed reasonable to develop a “strategy” based on the fairly traditional deployments. Dressed in the attire of a Roman consul (figuratively of course, though I should like to think that I would look fairly distinguished, experienced, and important, etc.), it was discussed in the council that the main effort would be made on our left and center-left, using the numerous cavalry units in conjunction with the full weight of the consular legions. Changing quickly and carefully out of this classical panoply into the simpler but no less indicative-of-rank garb of the Carthaginian commander, I thought that we would press on the wings. These moves would not be aimed toward envelopment, however. The Numidians would “shoot and scoot” instead of engaging in melee. As these flank actions developed, the mass of Celts would surge forward to crash into and hopefully, through the legionary line. The Spanish, allies, and Libyans would form the second wave of this attack. The comparatively poor quality foot on my left would hold the attention of the enemy, but advance no further. 

A Map-based Summary of the Action

Instead of my usual palaver, I thought I might try a type of visual narrative by reporting on the  stages of this fictional contest with a few simple diagrams. While the available caption space did not prohibit a detailed description of the tabletop action, the condensed or selective story of how the battle developed should, I hope, prove sufficient.  

Comments & Critique

To be certain and to reiterate, the look of my tabletop was more functional than eye-catching or fantastic. It would be quite a stretch to compare this miniature battlefield to the much more visually appealing representations found here https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/search/label/Second%20Punic%20War%20Campaign and here https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Operation%20Zama, just to reference two examples. That much admitted and that much aside, the selective combination of three historical battlefields into one fictional landscape served its purpose, and a fairly satisfying if also rather bloody solo engagement was managed. Some license was taken with the listed terrain types or features presented in the Tactica II rules, but I do not believe that this adjustment or tinkering negatively impacted the proceedings. In order to fit the assorted terrain features on my tabletop, I reduced their recommended 25/28mm footprint by 50 percent. A similar process was followed when it came to preparing the two armies and their various formations for the fictional battle. 

Based on my rough calculations, the frontage required for the “sample Republican army deployment” diagram found on page 68 of the spiral-bound rulebook works out to around 110 centimeters or 43 inches in 25/28mm scale. Curiously, the skirmishers arranged in front of this suggested consular deployment have a frontage of 156 centimeters or 61 inches. It appears then, that at least five to six feet of tabletop would be needed in order to comfortably fit four legions, their cavalry, and their skirmishing troops. Restricting my efforts to the legion “problem” for the moment, a 50 percent reduction in suggested basing dimensions allows this same formation to be placed on a frontage of approximately 55 centimeters or a little less than 22 inches. In making and pursuing this modification or compromise, much of the traditional visual splendor can be or is lost, but the functionality, simplicity and within-budget costs are maintained. In subjective summary, a game can still be played. The models are markedly different, but the suspension of disbelief or the capacity for imagination are exercised a little more. 

Initially and indeed, throughout the first half of the recent solo project, there was some concern about the imbalance between the two orders of battle. The Carthaginians had an advantage of almost 80 more massed unit figures and an even greater number of points (around 1,500 more). As the battle continued and as it turned out, these advantages did not guarantee an easy win or even a major victory. Both armies were battered and broken after 11 turns of play. Instead of declaring it a draw, and there are strong arguments to be made for this decision, the battle was classified as a pyrrhic victory for the Carthaginians. (One imagines that two or three months will be spent reviewing how things might have gone better for the Punic generals and their heterogenous force.) This parenthetical offers something like a transition so that the opposing plans may be briefly reviewed. 

On reflection, it appears that the Romans were more reactive than active. Their main idea to strike with their left wing cavalry and to use the consular legions in tandem did not really come to fruition. The Celts and additional foot units were able to gain the temple hill first and so, to a large extent, dictate the terms or tempo of the battle in this general sector of the table. The light cavalry of the Numidian contingent was not really able to “shoot and scoot” as hoped, but they did tie up the enemy allied units and by sacrificing themselves in several chaotic melees, prevent any enemy cavalry from gaining the flank or rear of friendly infantry. From the Carthaginian point of view, pressure by mounted elements could only be made on the one flank. This attempt ran right into opposing cavalry, and the various resulting melees went back and forth for the length of the battle. On neither side was any exposed enemy flank able to be turned or rolled up. 

In slight contrast, the infantry struggle or struggles seemed to follow the respective plans, more or less. The clash between the Celts and the combined Hastati/Principes formations of the several legions seemed realistic and or historical enough. However and speaking as/for the Roman consul, I should have liked the pila volleys to have had more of an impact. The resiliency of the legions was also demonstrated. Even though it was not represented on my tabletop, I did wonder what the terrain in this hotly contested area might look like, littered with all those dead and wounded Celts, Romans, allies, Spanish, and so on. I also wondered, briefly, if I should have drafted a scenario or house rule to address such evolving battlefield conditions. (Here, I was recalling commentary about the state of the field at Zama, before the final clash of the opposing lines of heavy infantry.) And this parenthetical provides me something resembling a transition to a section on how the solo game played, or what modifications, problems, or additional tinkering I contemplated and or encountered. 

This recent effort adds another few pages or hours of experience with regard to the use of the Tactica II rules. (A cursory check of previous blog entries suggests that I have completed around six wargames or wargaming experiments with or on these rules.) Some of the following then, may be redundant. I would hope, however, that if any more experienced Tactica II players read this post, they will make the time to offer constructive remarks and or provide some answers. (Based on what I have observed on the dedicated Tactica II Forum as well as on what I have heard about from other sources, the amount of feedback and or interaction regarding Tactica II matters and material has been very low if there has been any at all.) Anyway, here goes. 

While I think there is much to be said for the missile rules found in Tactica II (especially the possibility of “missile halts”), I find the sequence of play to be a little odd. Ironically and coincidentally, I cut my ancient wargaming teeth with Armati, another set of rules from the prolific, respected and talented Arty Conliffe. Personally, I think having missile fire before movement makes more sense. This change in sequence would impact movement and plans more. It would also make remembering to remove “missile halt” markers and other aids to playing the game simpler, at least in my opinion. While I am on the subject of the sequence of play, I think there is much to be said for the army initiative values found in the Armati army lists. In the fictional Second Punic War battle just finished, the Romans won the move option five times, while the Carthaginians held the initiative for six turns. (The melee direction determination was divided evenly during the ten turns when there was physical contact between opposing units.) This “back and forth” or sharing seems practicable enough for game play, but it does not strike me as very historical. I rather like the idea of one side gaining and holding initiative until the other side is able to wrestle it back or it is lost by some silly (or not carefully planned) mistake on the part of the current owner. To continue. 

During one turn of this fictional solo wargame, a unit of Allied horse failed to roll against pursuit and was subsequently advanced a full move into contact with a nearby unit of Numidian light cavalry. This took place on the Roman left flank, as the provided color diagrams will or should have informed. Given the difference in weight and fighting ability of the opposing cavalry units, it seemed odd to me that the Numidians would simply stand around and wait to be hit by the pursuing enemy horsemen. It seemed to me that they would have evaded instead. However, as the skirmish/evade sub-phase of the move sequence had already been completed, there was nothing that the “frozen” Numidian cavalry could do. I wondered about this. After the turn was finished and notes had been recorded, I took some additional time to review the retreat & reform rule(s) for heavy cavalry, wondering if something similar might be developed for light cavalry in this kind of situation. I also wondered if I was crossing that recognizable line of “adding too much chrome” or “making the rules too involved”? 

Later in the action and on this same flank, the strength of the Numidian light cavalry division was very much depleted. I wondered about divisional integrity and morale at this point. I asked myself how long would these light and made-for-skirmishing cavalry hang around when faced with heavier and more numerous enemy horse? Understanding that the army breakpoint rules are based on the status of the “whole” as opposed to the condition of the “part(s),” I set this particular question aside for another day.  

On another turn, I found it somewhat unusual that a small unit of massed elephants would be able to inflict quite a bit of damage against an enemy unit of light infantry. I understood that light infantry could throw javelins at the elephants, but given the very small difference between range and movement rate and again, given the way the turn is structured, it seemed that this might be a fairly rare occurrence on a Tactica II tabletop. The FV (fighting values) of the two unit types were also noted. Elephants, regardless of their size or breed, are twice as hard to kill as light infantry (FV 5-6 vs FV 3-6). Ironically, I found myself recalling and then turning to the Armati rules, where Section 7.5.1a mentioned the “historical vulnerability of elephants to enemy light troops,” and has the elephant unit “using its special FV when engaged with enemy lights, while lights would use their regular FV.” I wondered about the possibility of drafting an amendment to Tactica II based on this process from another set of rules. 

As a third example or instance of rule revision/adjustment consideration, in a much later turn of the contest, a unit of Illyrian light infantry found itself between a rock and a hard place. In this specific case, the rock was a formation of veteran Libyan heavy infantry armed with spears, and the hard place was a friendly formation of allied foot armed with various. Earlier, the Illyrians had evaded the Libyans, but were now dealing with a confined space and having to decide if they wanted to about-face in order to face almost certain destruction or keep moving towards the friendly line, knowing that it would not really offer any kind of safe harbor. It occurred to me that the light infantry should be able to “dissolve” in this kind of circumstance and pass through the friendly formations of more capable foot. It also occurred to me that this situation was similar to that facing the Numidian cavalry in an earlier turn. The practical sequence seemed plausible, but there was a risk of “adding that chrome” to the sub-phases of an established game move sequence and therefore, an associated risk of complicating the flow of the turn. 

To be sure, these described “episodes” did not detract from the overall engagement and enjoyment of the solo wargame. However, they did provide grounds for further thinking, experimentation, and perhaps additional fictional contests set during the long and difficult years of the Second Punic War. On the whole and in summary, I think the contest went fairly well. Admittedly, it was more of a map exercise than a “proper wargame,” but it did serve as something of a creative outlet, and it did hold my attention for those available hours that could be dedicated to its play, completion, and preparation for a blog post.   

With regard to actually finishing the solo contest, I should like to mention that this fictional battle was the result of a previous attempt that did not go so very well. In brief, this failure saw the same tabletop host a total of 15 Marian legions in addition to numerous auxiliary troop types for a based very loosely on Pharsalus scenario. However and unfortunately, the interaction of dozens of Marian legion cohorts proved too problematic for one brain and two hands. Lesson learned . . . Perhaps. Anyway, at the end of Turn 10 of this much more successful engagement, an accounting was made. The Romans and their allies had suffered the loss of 254 massed unit figures. Their army general was safe, even though he was within javelin range of some intense fighting. The Carthaginians had absorbed 338 casualties. The Celtic casaulties represented 47 percent of this bloody tally. The next turn saw 150 more figures fall on the fictional field. The Romans lost 90, while the Carthaginians suffered another 60 massed unit figure kills. Reviewing the “Tie-Breakers” paragraph on page 55 of the rulebook and doing some quick math(s), it was determined that the Romans had lost 111 percent of their army’s determined breakpoint, while the Carthaginians had lost 103 percent of theirs. Arguably a draw, but as related previously, I opted to label it a pyrrhic victory for the polyglot force containing warbands and elephants. 

Finally, a few sentences about some of the source material (not an exhaustive list to be sure) that was referenced before and during this project. In no particular order, I read the relevant pages of Warfare in the Classical World. Chapters 11 and 12 in Professor Philip Sabin’s LOST BATTLES Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, were also quite helpful. On the topic of terrain, especially in large battles, I relied upon Professor Goldsworthy’s explanation or statement found on page 133 of THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR 100 BC—AD 200. This phoenix-like project was also supported by reading various sections of Lazenby’s Hannibal’s War - A military history of the Second Punic War.

Appendix 1 - Orders of Battle

The Roman Army

Left Wing - 

Division A - 

04 units of 24 Allied HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [96 / 480 points]

Division B - 

02 units of Allied HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [32 / 192 points]

02 units of Allied HC, 9 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [36 / 216 points]

Consular Army 

Allied Legion A

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Roman Legion XII

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Roman Legion V

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, El, spears [12 / 96 points]

Allied Legion B

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 24 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, pila & swords [24 / 192 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Center-Right 

Allied Contingent - 

02 units of 18 Illyrians [LI], 9 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins/various [36 / 144 points] 

02 units of 36 Italian allies [FT], 12 x 3, FV 4-6, Vet, various [72 / 432 points]

01 unit of 36 Italian allies [FT], 12 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, various [36 / 180 points]

Praetor 

Roman Legion XV

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, MG, javelins [12 / 12 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Allied Legion F

01 unit of Velites [SI], 12 x 1, SkFV 5-6, MG, javelins [12 / 12 points] 

01 unit of Hastati/Principes [FT], 12 x 2, FV 5-6, MG, pila & swords [24 / 168 points]

01 unit of Triarii [FT], 12 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [12 / 84 points]

Right Wing 

Mixed Cavalry - 

01 unit of 16 Gallic HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, various [16 / 96 points]

01 unit of 16 Spanish HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [16 / 112 points]

01 unit of 24 Roman HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [24 / 120 points]

01 unit of 12 Tarantine LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 48 points]

Roman Horse - 

02 units of 16 Roman HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [32 / 192 points]

01 unit of 18 Roman HC, 9 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [18 / 108 points]

01 unit of 12 Illyrian LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [12 / 48 points]

By the Numbers . . .

Light Cavalry - 024

Heavy Cavalry - 270

Light Infantry - 36

Allied Foot - 108

Allied Legion Infantry - 108

Roman Legion Infantry - 108

Velites - 72

Total Massed Unit Figures - 618

Calculated Army Breakpoint - 309

Total Army Value - 3,472 points

Notes:

1. To supplement the army list provided on page L12 of the Tactica II rulebook, I turned to several sources. In no particular order of preference, these included Simon Miller’s PDF article, “The Polybian Roman Army in To the Strongest!” (Please see  https://www.scribd.com/document/726980350/Polybian-Romans.) Book 2 (500 BC to 476 AD) of the D.B.M. Army Lists was also helpful. I also studied the appropriated army lists found in the Hail Caesar Biblical & Classical Supplement as well as the information provided in the extensive army list catalog included with the L’Art de la Guerre rules, 3rd Edition.  
2. Strict adherence to the troop type percentages was not followed in the building of this army. For example, in a friendly or normal game, Allied Heavy Cavalry should account for between 02 and 05 percent of the total Roman strength. If my math is/maths are correct, then my model Allied horse units accounted for 26.5 percent of the massed unit figures of this fictional army. In terms of points, these horsemen represented 25.5 percent of the total. 
3. With regard to command and control, each division was assigned a commander. As per the rules, these are simply “markers,” used primarily to determine a unit’s ability to move. The Roman Consul was not identified by name, but he was classified as a “basic” Army General. This meant he would confer a +1 morale modifier when attached to units. If he elected to participate in a melee, he would add 2d6 to the violent proceedings. The value of this anonymous Consul was set at 20 figures against the determined breakpoint of the army.

____________________________________

The Carthaginian Army

Left Wing - 

Division 8 - 

03 units of 48 Allied (Spanish, Campanians, etc.) HC, 8 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, javelins [48 / 336 points]

01 unit of 24 Allied (Greeks) HC, 8 x 3, FV 4-6, MG, javelins [24 / 120 points]

Division 7 - 

03 units of 54 Allied (Poeni, Spanish, etc.) HC, 9 x 2, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [54 / 378 points]

SCREEN of 03 Elephants, FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

The Main Line of Battle [left to right]

Allied Division 6

04 units of Allies (various) FT, 9 x 4, FV 4-6, MG, various [144 / 720 points] 

01 unit of Allies SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of 03 Elephants (Massed), FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

Libyan Division 5

03 units of Libyans FT, 8 x 3, FV 5-6, Vet, spears [72 / 504 points]

01 unit of Moorish SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Balearic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 4-6, Vet, slings [10 / 30 points]

Allied Division 4

03 units of Allies (various) FT, 10 x 3, FV 4-6, Vet, various [90 / 540 points] 

01 unit of Numidian SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Allies SI, 10 x 1, FV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

Division 3 - Celts 

04 units of WB (Imp), 10 x 4, FV 4-6, Vet, various [160 / 1,040 points]

01 unit of Celtic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [10 / 20 points]

01 unit of Balearic SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 4-6, Vet, slings [10 / 30 points]

Division 2

03 units of Spanish Scutarii FT, 12 x 2, FV 4-6, Vet, “pila”/swords [72 / 576 points]

02 units of Spanish Caetrati SI, 10 x 1, SkFV 5-6, Vet, javelins [20 / 40 points]

Right Wing 

Numidian Division

06 units of 72 Numidian LC, 6 x 2, FV 3-6, Vet, javelins [72 / 288 points]

SCREEN of 03 Elephants, FV 5-6, Vet, various [12 / 90 points]

By the Numbers . . .

Light Cavalry - 72

Heavy Cavalry (all types) - 126

Libyans - 72

Celts - 160

Spanish - 72

Allies - 234

Skirmishers - 90

Elephants - 09

Total Massed Unit Figures - 772

Calculated Army Breakpoint - 386

Total Army Value - 4,972 points

Notes:

1. The same sources consulted for more information and variation in troop types were used in drafting this fictional order of battle. 
2. As with the drafting and development of the Roman army, there was no strict adherence to the troop type percentages when assembling this Carthaginian force. 
3. In addition to the “marker” Division Commanders for this host of Carthaginians, there were two general offices present on the tabletop. The Army General was designated as a “Follow Me!” Leader, and so, had a +2 modifier in certain situations. He was also given 4d6 to contribute to any melees he joined. His value was 30 figures. The sub-general for this heterogenous army had a +1 modifier, would add 2d6 in melees, and was worth 18 figures.