Victory Results:
 80 %
Record a victory for BOTTOM ARMY  20 %
Total plays 5 - Last reported by SimSportPlyr on 2023-09-16 00:57:01

Historical Background
Following his defeat at Raphia, Antiochus III campaigned continuously to restore his empire. He re-conquered Asia Minor, Armenia, Parthia and Bactria. Next, he avenged Raphia with a decisive victory over the Ptolemaic Egyptians at Panion in 199 BC. By these victories he earned the title ‘the Great’. Meanwhile, Macedon’s defeat at Cynoscephalae in 197 BC left a power vacuum in Greece. Antiochus, seeing an opportunity, invaded Greece, but Rome quickly drove him back. A Roman consular army under Lucius Cornelius Scipio pursued Antiochus into Asia Minor. Antiochus accepted the Roman challenge near Magnesia.
Antiochus fielded a large army featuring his Greco-Macedonian phalanx, Galatian warriors, cataphracts, chariots and elephants. The Romans had two legions supported by Greek and Pergamene allies under their king Eumenes II. Though the Seleucid Army was larger, the Roman legionnaires, veterans of the War with Hannibal, were far more effective soldiers.
The action started on the Roman right when Eumenes launched a combined skirmisher and cavalry force against the Seleucid chariots. The Legions then moved forward against the Seleucid phalanx. Seeing his army giving away, Antiochus charged forward with his heavy cavalry in an attempt to turn the tide. He broke through the Roman right, but was forced back by the Roman elephants before he could flank the Legions.
Then the Seleucid elephants in the center stampeded, Antiochus’ phalanx collapsed, and his entire army routed. Antiochus managed to escape and later made peace with Rome by yielding Asia Minor and paying a large indemnity. However, the defeat led to the rebellion of his eastern provinces, and Antiochus’ life’s work was undone. Rome emerged as the dominant Mediterranean power. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Magnesia
The stage is set. The battle lines are drawn and you are in command. The rest is history.

EpicMagnesia.png



War Council
Seleucid Army
(Use Eastern blocks)
• Leader: Antiochus III (Emperor of the Seleucids)
• 8 Command Cards

Roman Army
(Use Roman & Greek blocks)
• Leader: Consul Lucius Cornelius Scipio
• 10 Command Cards
• Move First  

Victory
16 Banners

Special Rules
• The River Phrygios is impassable.
• Roman elephants battle other Elephants with only 2 dice. (North African elephants were smaller)
• Camel units are Bow armed. Treat as LBC for ranged attacks.
• Companion cavalry hit on Leader symbols even with no leader
• Optional—Roman Tactical Flexibility. An unsupported Seleucid heavy infantry unit may only battle back against a Roman medium or heavy infantry unit with 3 battle dice (which reflects the ability of the more maneuverable legions to gain the flanks of the phalanx and strike decisively).

Page link: https://www.commandsandcolors.net/ancients/forum-main.html?view=topic&catid=36&id=1612#4408

Log in to comment

RiverWanderer replied the topic:
1 year 6 months ago

If we take the classical sources as reliable (which is never clear), then the Romans were outnumbered about 5:2

Roman advantages were their built up experience from the Punic wars, and tactical flexibility. 
Antiochus wasn't inexperienced either, and brought a menagerie of troops (probably to keep an eye on them).

Scipio sought out a battle, before being replaced, deliberately opening his right flank.

From this starting point, there needs to be a way to have the Roman flanks do better. In the playtest that the Romans won, they crushed the Seluccid centre, which is also ahistorical. Potentially more Pergamese cavalry units? 


 

Worth a try - I certainly hope to play this scenario a few more times.

Perhaps one of the issues is that "menagerie" and the way it interacts with CCA - having powerful units of all types means you're very likely to have great potential in your hand all the time, at least after some minimal reorg of the line. Whereas, I imagine in history that such a disparate force would in fact have been harder to manage. 
Mark-McG replied the topic:
1 year 6 months ago
If we take the classical sources as reliable (which is never clear), then the Romans were outnumbered about 5:2

Roman advantages were their built up experience from the Punic wars, and tactical flexibility. 
Antiochus wasn't inexperienced either, and brought a menagerie of troops (probably to keep an eye on them).

Scipio sought out a battle, before being replaced, deliberately opening his right flank.

From this starting point, there needs to be a way to have the Roman flanks do better. In the playtest that the Romans won, they crushed the Seluccid centre, which is also ahistorical. Potentially more Pergamese cavalry units? 

 
RiverWanderer replied the topic:
1 year 6 months ago
2 games played; swapping sides. Both Seleucid wins by a landslide... 8:16. Both good games and maybe no less balanced than most other Epic scenarios.

In our games, the Seleucid wings proved very strong in complementary ways compared to their Roman counter-parts and their centre was never in danger of disruption as victory could be pursued at leisure elsewhere.

Perhaps a command of 7 would rein the Seleucids in a bit but maybe there should be fewer of them as well, to make the historical narrative more likely.