008 Dertosa (Ebro) (215 BC)

I needed a C&C fix this week and Tom D obliged, wanting to try Ancients for the first time (he knows Memoir '44 and Napoleonics, but hasn't played this one before). I gave him an intro, emphasising the importance of leaders, and he picked this scenario, taking the Roman side.

Tom immediately spotted the usefulness of the "Line" card he started with and the legionaries crunched forward. What he didn't know was that I had a "Counter attack" and a "Line" of my own. I used the former to get my Auxilia in range and started peppering the Roman line.

Using my "Line" let me close on the advanced Roman elements and take out one Light and one Medium infantry for the loss of one Auxilia. Tom retreated two one-block units and got the left flank Roman cavalry into the action. I lost another Auxilia, leaving a nasty hole in the Carthaginian line right of centre.

Right, three Light cavalry versus one Medium: gotta be worth a go. Result: two dead Light cavalry and the third reduced to one block and retreated to the back row. At least the Mediums were battered and my slingers finished them off.

I got the Elephants into action on the left to little effect- it was the Auxilia that removed two more legionaries to make the score 5:4 in my favour - one more needed. The Roman heavies had shifted across from their left and smashed into the Carthaginian centre. Two Auxilia went down in quick succession to give Tom the win 5:6.

We re-set and didn't have "Line" cards this time. I advanced the Roman flanks under fire from the Carthaginian slingers and skirmishing from the Medium cavalry. Then Tom used a "Mounted Charge" to unleash the Elephants and Light cavalry. As he quickly found out, Light cavalry doesn't do well against Medium infantry with a Leader. Result: three dead Light cavalry for battered Medium infantry (one reduced to a single block by the Elephants).

I pushed the Romans forward centre-right, past the Elephants, to engage the Carthaginan left flank with Heavy and Medium infantry under Publius. I removed another Carthaginian Auxilia while Tom brought his Heavy infantry against mine and both fell (4:1 is the score).

Continuing to push the attack on the right unsupported, Publius and two Medium infantry pinned two Carthaginians against the edge and only needed to eliminate one. That's 6:1 and 11:7 in aggregate, with two wins for the Romans.

A rather bruising initiation for Tom, mainly due to his attack with the Light cavalry, but good fun (and enough time left for something else to finish off our evening).

Three Roman wins with a couple of runaway 6-2 6-2 victorious but then a better showing from Carthage to go down to a close-run 6-5 Roman win. The third game had the Carthaginians play more tactically to keep the Spanish Auxiliary foot alive by running them away from heavier opponents whilst finally getting Hasdrubal's heavy foot and elephants into combat and doing some damage.

I really like this scenario as it is a definite challenge to the Carthaginians to pull a victory out of their hat but also a danger to the Romans if they don't co-ordinate their troops and think victory is "in the bag" before it actually is.

We had 4 players taking part and the pairs were swapped round each game.

Played three times, with final scores (Roman-Carthage): 6-4, 3-6 and 6-2. The Carthagianian victory came from an effective elephant attack and a couple of blatant mistakes made by the Roman player (me).

A Roman victory. The two armies basically matched each other blow for blow on the flanks, but that wasn't good enough once the Roman center started rolling forward.

I am sorry if my comments caused any offence.

I certainly did not question the accuracy of your results as that would be tantamount to saying you made them up, which you certainly did not.

I do believe your results give a misleading picture of the scenario balance, but not that you personally set out to mislead, which is why I posted the results from Don Clarke's site to present a more balanced picture.

Yes you are correct that in any set of games on a particular battle any range of results is possible, but it is my personal opinion, that statistically such results are more meaningful if those battles are played by differing oponents. This does not in any way be-little your results that were honestly achieved and presented.

My expressed opinions are just my own and are frequently nonsense.

The Admiral
aka Jim Duncan

How many more posts do I need to get a promotion! and what rank will I be?

Ken and I play Commands & Colors: Ancients on a regular basis. We like elephants. We like playing elephant scenarios. One of our favorites is Dertosa. We had played it twenty-two times. We have had similar experiences in playing the scenario as what were described in Alecrespi’s post of November 12, 2008 and Badweasal’s post of November 13, 2008. Since Ken and I recorded the outcomes, I thought if might be constructive to post our results. When we played, the Romans won 54.5454545% (I want to be accurate about this.) of the time.

Then a gentleman, whose handle is “The Admiral”, submitted a response on November 1, 2009. Even though he never played the scenario he implied that my entry was inaccurate and misleading. The basis of his position was his method for assessing battles.

He also cited that Don Clarke had post different results on his results page. Out of twenty-two games the Romans won 77.27272% of the time.

OK. So. Did I have to include a disclaimer that our results should not be considered definitive? If John Doe played the game solitaire twenty-two times, he might get different results? If Jackson and Johnson played the game twenty-two times they may get different results? Was it really necessary? Should not common sense dictate that others may get significantly different results? One of the great qualities of C&C:A is the replay ability of the scenarios. In most wargames, the play eventually degenerates into a timeworn routine.

I am not an expert on playing C&C:A. There is no doubt in my mind that if I played the Romans in Dertosa against “The Admiral” twenty-two times, the Carthaginians would have won 77.27272% of the time.

I have spent the last week trying to think of an adult response to “The Admiral”, but I could not.

I do not believe in fighting battles that can not be won. I will not engage in a meaningless pseudo-intellectual debate in a vain attempt to justify my data.

“The Admiral”, I will let you have the last word.

“The rest is silence...”

I have never played this battle, but looking at it I was rather surprised by your results.
I have a very basic method for assesing battles based on five criteria: Number of troops, quality of troops (objective I'll admit), number of leaders, number of command cards and who goes first. In this battle the Romans are superior in all aspects.
So I then Looked at Don Clarkes results page where by wierd coincidence there are 22 battle results listed with a very different picture.
Carthage has 5 wins (6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5)
Rome has 17 wins (6-0 x2, 6-1 x4, 6-2, 6-3 x6, 6-4 and 6-5 x3).

This is exactly what I would expect from an initial perusal of the battle. I know playing can make a big difference.

It can be that when the same people play a battle, solo or ftf, play can become similar.

alecrespi in post #373 give a very good description of this scenario. My regular opponent and I have played it 22 times with the following results:
Carthage 6-1
Carthage 6-1
Carthage 6-2
Carthage 6-3
Carthage 6-3
Carthage 6-3
Carthage 6-3
Carthage 6-5
Carthage 6-5
Carthage 6-5
Rome 6-2
Rome 6-2
Rome 6-2
Rome 6-2
Rome 6-3
Rome 6-3
Rome 6-3
Rome 6-3
Rome 6-3
Rome 6-4
Rome 6-5
Rome 6-5
Although the Romans have a slight edge, the most lop sided victories were pulled off by the Carhaginians.

Solo Play:

The battle initially seemed to be going the way of the Carthaginians. The auxilia and slings in the center were constantly providing range fire to harass the Roman line. No Roman unit was able to make it intact. As such, there was only a single battle between infantry in the middle. The Romans kept pulling their weakened units away to prevent their elimination. Fortunately, the Roman crushed the Carthaginians. Given a couple more turns, Carthage may have pulled it off, but they were too fearful of the legion to close with their auxilia.

Rome 6 - Carthage 4

The Carthaginian left flank was devastating this time. They completely destroyed anything the Romans threw in their path. The initial impact of the elephants severely weakened the line, which was quickly exploited by the medium cavalry and the heavy infantry led by Hasdrubal. Again the Carthaginian center prevented the Roman legion from approaching in strength. The effective use of range fire in this battle really can give an advantage to the Carthaginians. The only unit the Romans managed to eliminate were the elephants which essentially are kamikaze troops anyways.

Carthage 6 - Rome 1

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

At first sight this scenario may look pretty seriously unbalanced. "Just 4 Command Cards      for Carthage?", you'll wonder. Don't. Used properly, the Carthaginian flankers will crush the Romans with ease. I won this handily, 6 to 1, without moving the Carthaginian infantry line at all and firing from it exactly once. Your true slaughter-makers are the elephants and heavy infantry; waste no opportunity to move them forward and engage aggressively.
The Romans, on the other hand, want to close with the enemy line. where their mediums will have the weight advantage. They need to use their light troops to disrupt the enemy cavalry with fire combat; this is especially true on the right flank, where the enemy elephants will wreak havoc if they aren't maddened into rampage and retreat.

This one plays fast. Do it as a flip-flop set.