006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC)

** This thread discusses the Content article: 006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) **

Eric S. Raymond wrote some comments about this scenario on his webpage. CLICK HERE to read full article.

First time I played this one was as a flip-flop set; the score was 6-3/4-6 and I lost.
In neither game did the Roman right/Carthaginian left see any combat at all. The Romans have to get their units off the lakeshore line or be dispersed by forced retreats. Conversely, the big variable for the Carthaginians is how quickly the warrior infantry can close with the Roman line and what damage they do when they get there.
I think this scenario is (despite its complexity) very well balanced, better so than the Crimissos, Bagradas, or Ticinus River Scenarios. I wouldn't change a thing.

Solo Play:

This should have been a complete massacre of the Roman army. The opening hand for Carthage included a mounted charge as well as several cards to maintain a sustained attack on the Roman line. It started off strong with the Romans being cut to pieces. It was unclear if the Romans would even manage to get a single banner. Then the tide began to turn. Flaminius led his unit to slaughter several of the cavalry units including their leader. In the end, the Romans were a single block away from victory (they needed one more green hit, but the light cavalry evaded). The Carthaginian left did not fare very well, getting hit hard by a well played Clash of Shields to beat back their attack.

Carthage 6 - Rome 5

The Romans completely dominated this battle thanks to a well played Clash of Shields allowing 8 units to attack at +2 to take four banners for the win. More conflict on the Carthaginian left flank this time, but surprisingly only a single banner earned for each side. This is despite 10+ blocks of damage to each army. The cavalry charge on the right this time proved much less effective. The initial impact did almost no damage requiring four units to finish off an unsupported light infantry unit. Rome most likely would not have lasted too many more turns as they were severely weakened, but they stuck when they needed to.

Rome 6 - Carthage 3

A complete blowout for the Carthaginians, with the Romans failing to take a single flag. The Roman center first advance, losing Flaminius in the process, then the Roman right advanced but failed to break through. However, while the Carthaginians won decisively, it was a near-run thing - six of its units lost half or more of their strength and if the Romans had been able to push just a little harder it would have been a very different battle.

This scenario is very surprising. It does look hopeless for the Romans, but it is not.

I played a solo game as I am learning the VASSAL program. The game started with both sides pressing forward to respectively avoid the lake and utilize the lake.

The Carthaginians willingly moved the Warriors and Medium cavalry against the Roman left as they player had two "Order Medium Troops" cards in hand. Some dice rolls favorable to the Roman player and a bit of luck as the Romans were holding "Order Left Section" cards, and all 5 medium units were destroyed. The Romans lost 2 light units. A bit of shooting finished off a damaged Slinger and the Romans win 6-2.

I have played this twice before with narrow Carthaginian victories. The difference in this game seemed that the Carthaginian player had access to only one "Line Command" or "Double Time" card early in the game...and the Romans used a "Counterattack" to match it.

The best strategy for the Romans appears to be attacking the Carthaginian left aggressively. The Romans need two banners early or the Command Card difference will cause such a poor position, the game will be decided.

The best strategy for the Carthaginians seems to be to press in the center while protecting the cavalry units.

Solo Play: Carthaginian won 6-4. Despite only +2 banners for Carthaginians I find this scenario as heavy unbalanced. Cartaginians are too strong, no evade chances for Roman units and the Roman strong right flank troops never came into play effectively.

Dylan Dog wrote: Solo Play: Carthaginian won 6-4. Despite only +2 banners for Carthaginians I find this scenario as heavy unbalanced. Cartaginians are too strong, no evade chances for Roman units and the Roman strong right flank troops never came into play effectively.

That is exactly how that battle looked like. No need for additional Carthage banners - the set-up reflects the real, historiucal Roman disposition and yes, that is very, very weak position...

2 solo plays: Carthage winning 6 - 2, and the Romans winning the second 6 - 3. In the first, a well timed calvary charge by the Carthaginians on the Roman left flank was the deciding factor. While in the second, the Romans broke through on the right flank and destroyed the Carthaginians units there.

2 plays. First Carthage win handily, 6-3 destroying Roman right flank. Roman left and Carthagian right were static for most of the battle while the action happen on the other flank.
Second game went to Rome 6-4; Roman left flank stopped Carthagian cavalry charge and inflicted serious damage there. In ensuing slugfest Rome pulled a (partly) lucky win.

6:5 Carthage win, barely. It could have gone the other way. Didn't feel imbalanced, some people complaining about balance should maybe play chess instead. While highly stylised, this system does base itself on historic battles, maybe Hannibal could have warned the Romans and give up on his ambush to make everything fair. In any case, a superb scenario and great fun!