AC09 Caudine Forks (321 BC)

Details
Written by: alecrespi
Category: Second Samnite War (326-304 BC)
Hits: 9447
Victory Results:
 100 %
Record a victory for BOTTOM ARMY  0 %
Total plays 3 - Last reported by ancientdoge on 2026-03-09 01:09:40

Historical Background
The Samnite commander, Gaius Pontius, hearing that the Roman army was located near Calatia, sent soldiers disguised as shepherds with orders to give the same story which was that the Samnites were besieging Lucera in Apulia. The Roman commanders, completely taken in by this ruse, decided to set off to give aid to Luceria. Worse, they chose the quicker route though the Caudine Forks. The area round the Caudine Forks was surrounded by mountains and could be entered only by two defiles. The Romans entered by one but when they reached the second defile, they found it barricaded. They returned at once to the first defile only to find it now securely held by the Samnites. At this point the Romans, according to Livy, fell into total despair knowing the situation was quite hopeless.
The stage is set. The battle lines are drawn and you are in command. The rest is history.

War Council

Samnite Army
Leader: Gaius Pontius
Take 6 cards
Move First

Roman Army
Leaders: Titus Veturius Calvinus, Spurius Postumius Albinus
Take 4 cards

Victory
6 banners

Special Rules
Units cannot battle UpHill to hill hexes. These hexes are unreachable from the "middle line" area.

Samnite army flee is realtive (up army must flee on the top side of the board, down army must flee on the bottom side).

Roman army on the Left Flank must flee left, Roman army on the Right Flank must flee right and Roman army on the center can choose which side to flee. Every Roman Unit that exit the map count as Victory Point for Samnite Army.

 

Log in to comment

Posts in discussion: AC09 Caudine Forks (321 BC)
alecrespi replied the topic:
#190975
1 month 4 days ago
Hi! It’s incredible to see this scenario still being played after more than 15 years—thank you so much for the feedback!

To be honest, back then I didn't have the chance to do extensive playtesting, so your input is extremely helpful. Regarding the Broken Ground tile count: you are absolutely right. I used the Vassal module for the initial design, and since digital tiles are infinite, I completely missed the physical limits of the base game components!

A 6-1 score is definitely too one-sided, even for a historical ambush. Based on your experience, I’m considering a v2.0 update with these adjustments to improve the balance:
  • Command Cards: Reducing the Samnite hand to 5 cards.
  • Map Layout: Widening the Roman rear to avoid the 'bottleneck' effect and allow better movement.
  • Unit Composition: Removing the Roman Cavalry, which would be more historically accurate for this trapped position.
  • Hill Rules: I actually like your take on the Hills (allowing only ranged attacks or moving down). It emphasizes the "trap" nature of the Forks, though it's much more restrictive than standard rules. I might formalize this as a specific scenario rule.
I’m definitely open to updating the scenario based on these notes.
If you happen to try it again with these changes, please let me know how it goes!"
ancientdoge replied the topic:
#189821
1 month 6 days ago
played this yesterday against a first timer. I played as Rome as a handicap. I got beaten 6-1, despite having good opening cards.

also, terrain is short by 1 Tile for Broken Ground in the base game I think.

My interpretation, Units on hill can only do ranged attack or go down, but cannot do Close Combat downhill.

If I were to play this again, I probably make balancing adjustment to have wider opening at the back end of Roman line (without cavalry), less command cards of the Samnites (5 should be sufficient), and maybe less 1 Unit for the Samnites as well.
SpicyC replied the topic:
#4067
4 years 4 months ago
Battle ended 6 - 1 for the Samnites. The Romans were not able to break out of the confines of the hills, as the Samnites plugged the broken ground holes while raining ranged fire from the impregnable hills.

We played it with the following two interpretations:

1) Roman Units have to retreat *directly* left or right (no upward or downward movement).
2) Romans *can* attack from hill to hill, or from the "sides" of hills or the "backs" of hills (front behind defined as towards center).
mk20336 replied the topic:
#2636
7 years 8 months ago

Mark-McG wrote: I looked at playing this today, but it simply seemed too hard, and the retreats too odd.
Not even sure this was an actual battle, wikipedia describes it as "an event"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caudine_Forks


It seems you are right Mark.
This is also confirmed in podcast which I was recently listening to (The History of Rome).
itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474 - episode 15b I think.
Mark-McG replied the topic:
#2633
7 years 9 months ago
I looked at playing this today, but it simply seemed too hard, and the retreats too odd.
Not even sure this was an actual battle, wikipedia describes it as "an event"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Caudine_Forks
Read More...

Maps with similar TAGs