Category Archives: Punic Wars

Flaminius’ Legions

My first 15mm Ancients army was a Polybian Roman army assembled for DBA 1.0 back in 1990. At the time DBA was relatively popular in my local town but having to relocate and keen for opponents I reluctantly expanded the army to DBM size. With my local opponents at the time more interested in competition games, and my dislike for non-historical games or at least those between armies of too great a time difference, my Romans were dispatched to the back of the cupboard.

Eventually some interest in DBA locally allowed me to pull the Polybian Romans out of storage and to repainted sufficient for standard DBA purposes. While I had plans at some stage to repaint the other figures the remainder languished in storage while other projects took precedence.

For the last three years at Conquest we have had a Big Battle tournament and this year I found myself pondering options. Several armies were considered but the decision was finally made when it became clear that Mark would likely be bringing Carthaginians. The Polybian Romans needed to be reformed. Over the coming weeks evenings were spent cleaning, priming, painting and basing the Romans until finally the legions of Rome could take the field. Most of the miniatures were well over 20 years old, and some almost 30. Fittingly on the morning of Conquest’s BBDBA tournament they deployed facing Mark’s Carthaginians. Now to their first outing in their reformed state…

Having first eluded an ambush along near Lake Trasimene, Gaius Flaminius had now successfully combined his army with another under Gnaeus Servilius Geminus and together they advanced on the Carthaginian invader. Flaminius’ scouts had been active and with Hannibal’s army near the coast the legions advanced to offer battle. On his left was the coast while on his right an area of marsh promised to negate, to some extent the Punic superiority in mounted. In between a small hamlet and a steep hill, with rocky slopes, broke up the field.

img_14671

The Romans had two strong wings, that on the right under Flaminius contained the majority of Roman and allied cavalry while that on the left, under Servilius, fewer. However, Servilius wing was supplemented by some Italian extraordinary fighting in more traditional styles. In the centre the legions under Porcius Licinus were devoid of mounted with even the Licinus opting to fight on foot. In all three sectors the hastati & principles, comprising Romans and Italians fighting in Roman style, were supported by triarii & velites.

Above, the Romans on the left and the Carthaginians on the right. An area of marsh is visible in the right foreground and in the distance a steep rocky hill. In the extreme distance another marsh and finally the coast are visible.

The battle opened with a general advance by the Punic host. Gallic mercenaries moved rapidly forward to secure the rocky slopes opposite the Roman left. Yet more dramatic movements occurred against the Roman right where the massed Punic horse wheeled and advanced. Hannibal clearly hoping to expand the Punic line while light troops moved to dominate the marsh on the Punic left. Countering, Flaminius ordered forward his right. The hastati, principles and triarii moved forward, supported by the cavalry who now expanded the Roman right

img_1474

Above, Flaminius’ flank with a portion of his cavalry and the infantry of the wing advancing. The triarii are deployed forward in an untraditional deployment. Below, another view this time illustrating the Roman centre, under Licinus, as well as the infantry of the right flank. Opposite Carthaginian foot of the centre are visible.

img_1476

Reacting to the advancing Roman right the Punic mounted started to retire reforming on the Punic foot of the centre. The Roman advance continued, soon the respective centres were locked in combat.

Flaminius’s plans was relatively simple. Using the terrain and his mounted he hoped to neutralise the Punic mounted and then with the hastati & principle of all the wings bring his heavy infantry against the Punic foot. His multiple lines would, he hoped, provide adequate reserves to plug gaps and exploit the Punic line as it began to break. Unfortunately, this meant the Roman left under Servilius would need to fight a desperate delaying action.

Soon in the centre the Romans started to gain the advantage. Yet the Carthaginians fought with determination and many Romans fell as well. The resulting gaps in both lines were plugged by reserves. Below, both Punic and Romans lines are suffering casualties.

img_1493

Turning to the left Servilius’ flank the delaying action was working, due in part to the lack of determination by the Punic commander. Having successfully secured the steep and rocky slopes his ability to command his wing was compromised. Eventually however the Gallic mercenaries poured down the slopes only to be held by valiant Roman velites.

img_14941

The velites fought valiantly allowing Servilius on the Roman left flank to bring forward his Italian reserves and bolster the line, which can be seen below. Servilius, had already committed many of his hastati to the assault on the Punic centre.

img_1496

Returning to the centre the fighting had continued unabated. A Roman breakthrough seemed imminent with Carthaginian casualties reaching critical levels. Yet the Punic centre maintained its cohesion, mostly as a result of additional mounted filling the widening gaps.

img_14971

Even the last valiant attacks led by Porcius Licinus at the front of his legions failed to cripple the Punic lines. Now, as dusk wrapped its arms around the battlefield Gaius Flaminius accepted that the might of Rome had failed to destroy the invader, and worse robbed him of victory. Still he took heart that his reformed legions had fought well.

Advertisements

The Glory that is Rome

Last weekend we managed a short trip north to visit our son in Auckland. Taking advantage of some wet weather we managed a number of excellent DBA games. In fact we played seven classical games over the course of the weekend, as well as one in the New World which I won’t cover here. Restricted by the limits of carry-on luggage I could only take one army with me so I opted to for my Polybian Romans which, when fighting Joel’s classical armies, the Romans ensured a wealth of historical opponents. I will provide a brief description of the games and a small selection of photos from the weekend.

Our gaming began with a couple of clashes on Saturday between the Romans and Later Carthaginians. The first found the Carthaginians using the two elephants, while in the second the elephants were abandoned.

One of the strengths of the Carthaginians, when not using elephants, is their increased mounted component when combined with troops able to move through bad going. Combining these two however can be difficult. Above, Carthaginians press the Roman right flank in the second game. A lack of PIPs prevented them successfully exploiting the eventual domination of the hill.

Sunday’s games included two encounters between the Romans and Gauls. I find these armies provide very interesting challenges. For the Gauls there are of course decisions on the number of dismounted warriors compared to mounted. For the Romans, prior to the game consideration must be given to taking allied troops, such as Italians or in my case Spanish and how to best use the velites to delay the inevitable charge of the Gauls. These games resulted in a win for the Gauls and one for the Romans showing the balance between the armies.

Above, Gauls engage Roman velites who have been thrown forward to disrupt the Gallic host. Spanish auxilia can be seen on the left. Below, another view of the same battle before the Roman defeat.

However, Rome soon dispatched another army and this time the Roman light troops were on the offensive once again. Below, Spanish auxilia and velites concentrate their attacks on the Gallic left before the Roman hastati and principes surge forward. On the left both the Spanish and velites drove in the Gallic right causing recoil pressure.

Finally, we finished the gaming off with three excellent encounters against a Lysimachid Successor. While not an historical opponent it was not to far from a potential opponent. All three games included some excellent manoeuvres, classic breakthroughs as well as some humorous moments.

Above, the Greeks have advanced over a gentle hill. Lysimachus is deployed in the centre of the Greek phalanx and would punch a hole in the Roman line, shown below.

Now exposed Lysimachus was driven back by Roman triarii, just after his supporting phalangites had smashed Roman principes themselves surrounded. Unable to recoil, being a three element column, Lysimachus was cut down. A fascinating game.

Our final game between Lysimachid Successor found the Romans using a Numidian ally on a battlefield broken by two steep hills, as shown below.

Greek light auxilia eventually secured the hills but were then restricted due to command limitations caused by these hills and raids by Numidians on the Greek camp.

Above, Numidians raid the camp, just visible on the right, while the Greeks prepare to attack the hill on the Roman left. Below, the Roman velites fall back before the main Greek attack in the centre.

In this final clash Lysimachus again broke through. However, a Roman counterattack drove him back on the flank of the phalanx, visible below. As can be seen from the photo the Roman camp is near to being captured. At this point both armies had suffered equal losses. With Lysimachus wounded the Greek command and control was further compromised. The Romans now surged forward breaking the phalanx.

So ends a short summary of an excellent weekend of gaming. It highlighted for us the advantages of DBA. A series of excellent and very dynamic games between historical opponents with victory within grasp of either player.

Polybian Romans & Allies

Readers here will have noted that for a while my Polybian Romans have featured over the last year in a few games featured on this site. I thought it worthwhile out lining some of their history in my wargaming collection and how they have found new life in DBA 3.0.

Some of you may recall that DBA was first published back in 1990, goodness some 25 years ago. With its publication I purchased my first 15mm Ancients army, which just happened to be a Polybian Roman army. I had played Ancients before this but always with 20mm plastics and with mixed results. With DBA however Ancients was far more accessible. In time my Romans grew to provide a DBM army, yet DBM just failed to provide lasting appeal. I infrequently fought historic opponents and to be honest the people playing DBM were just too competitive. After a few years however, and reestablishing an interest in DBA locally, I considered pulling my Polybians out of retirement. The list was however a little too restricted being one army with no options. As a result they infrequently made an appearance on the table.

With the release of DBA 3.0 the Polybian Romans have changed considerably, in my view they are now more historical representative and interesting on the table. In previous versions of DBA the Polybian Romans (II/33) had a set list of 12 elements with no variation. Under DBA 3.0 the Polybians can field 1 x General (Cv), 1 x equites (Cv), 4 x hastati/principles (4Bd), 2 x hastati/principles (4Bd) or allies (3/4Ax), 2 triarii (Sp), 2 velites (Ps).

I decided to pull a number of figures out of retirement and repainted them from scratch. Above, the basic army without allies. They are comprised of a mixture Essex and Museum figures, 25 year old veterans. The general is with the Roman cavalry (right) while Italian cavalry are on the left. Below, the very important camp.

The first change in the basic troops is the rating of the triarii, who now can count as supported spear in some situations. Under 2.2 the triarii were inferior to the hastati and principles while now they are on similar factors, at least when supported. Further, they show a little more control in the melee as they do not pursue enemy foot. I think this is a very useful and certainly subtle change that is not appreciated at first glance.

In the list above you will have noticed the Polybians now have a couple of options in their base list. Specifically, one or two stands of hastati/principles can be replaced by allies and are rated as auxilia. These stands must all be represented as 3Ax or 4Ax, that is, they can’t be mixed. The DBMM list provides some additional detail on what the stands of auxilia would represent. Prior to 211BC many are likely to represent allied Italian troops fighting in more traditional styles. I have yet to paint some figures to represent these, but it won’t be long I’m sure. However, other light troops can to be fielded, though in more limited numbers. These include small numbers of Spanish or Illyrian mercenaries or if representing armies in Greece and Asia from 198BC, Macedonian, Thracian or Ligurians. For my Polybians I therefore have a stand of Spanish (3Ax) or Ligurians (4Ax). While they can’t be used together I’ve provided a photo of the two stands. These provide some additional infantry to contest areas of bad going.

Yet the variety of troops for the Polybians doesn’t stop with these troops. One of the fascinating additions to DBA 3.0, at least in my opinion, was the introduction of allied contingents into the standard DBA army. In DBA 3.0 the Polybian Romans can draw allied contingents from no less than six different lists. So how is this achieved?

If a single ally is selected three elements of the army are removed from the primary army and replaced by three elements drawn from the allied list, with some restriction on the choice. The first element is that of the allied armies general while the second is that of the most common type. The third element can be selected freely from elements not selected.

As way of an example a Numidian allied contingent, which was historically used in Africa between 204 to 202BC would contain: 1 x General (Cv or LH); 1 x horsemen (LH) or javelinmen (Ps); and one other element. This very different army, with the potential for two stands of light horse, would be well at home on the fields of Zama.

An alternate ally for the Polybians, historically used from around 212BC in Spain, could be the Iberians (II/39a) or Celtiberian (II/39b). Here an Iberian allied contingent would contain: 1x General with long-shield cavalry (Cv); 1 x scutarii (3/4Ax); and one other element. In contrast the Celtiberians would contain: 1x General with long-shield cavalry (Cv); 1 x scutarii (3Bd); and one other element. I suspect that when I field these options I will use two stands of scutarii. These two contingents provide additional variety, and an interesting feel well suited to campaigning in Spain. While not battle winning they provide a little of the frustration of using local allies.

Romans fighting in Greece or Asia, from 198BC, called on contingents from their Greek or Pergemene allies. A Pergemene allied contingent (II/34) would comprise: 1x Pergamene General (3Kn or Cv); 1 x mercenary peltasts (Ps); as well as one additional element. This provides a very different army from the Numidian contingent, especially if you select a 3Kn. A few armies are allowed two allied contingents at the same time and the Polybian Romans are one such list. In this case (II/31j) and (II/34) which represents those armies in Greece and Asia. In this situation four elements are removed from the base army and two each from the allied armies are used. I suspect the PIP penalties with this arrangement may be very prohibitive.

In the game two very simple rules are used to model these allied contingents. Firstly, the allied general gains no combat advantage and secondly the elements of the allied contingent can not be moved as a group with elements of the main army or another allied contingent. This of course means that the allied contingent can be a drain on PIPs unless consideration is given on how the contingent will be used.

When using a Numidian Ally I tend to drop the two stands of triarii (Sp) and one stand of velites (Ps). I replace these with two stands of Numidian light horse and one of Numidian light infantry (Ps), shown above. This allows me to mass the Numidian light horse on one flank and the Roman cavalry on the other. This potentially creates command issues, as the general’s element is on one flank. However, as light horse operate at an increased command range this tends to be less of a problem than it would seem. Of course all this can quickly go pear shaped, and sometimes a more traditional deployment, without allies, is safer.

Carthago Delenda Est! – The Punic Wars with DBA 3.0

Joe Collins provides a second article for this blog which follows on from his very popular article Back to the Dark Ages and my own With Hoplon to Victory. This time Joe provides some thoughts on the Punic Wars using DBA 3. I’ll hand over to Joe at this point…

Few periods capture the average wargamer’s attention more than the Punic wars. Republican Rome in all its glory with a functional republic run by democratically elected leaders and a tough citizen soldier army is opposed by an exotic enemy comprised of hoplites, hired mercenaries, strange and fascinating elephants, and great hero commanders. There is much here to engage one’s interest and imagination.

Keith_Punic_Long_Shot

I received a double dose of Punic history as a school boy from David Harris, my Roman history teacher (who could fling an eraser from the top of a map hook and hit a pen tossed into the air from across the room) and from my Latin teacher, Harry Anderson (a decorated WWII RAF pilot… he used to stand in front of the class teaching and click his heels together – we didn’t misbehave in his class, ever). Together they conspired to bring the period to life to the average high school kid. No doubt, most if not all wargamers had teachers like this. Everyone knows of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal! Everyone dreams of commanding in a great victory like Cannae or Zama.

In fact two of the first 15mm armies I built for DBA were Rome and Carthage as matched opponents. The earliest versions of DBA unfortunately didn’t simulate this period well. The Carthaginians were usually completely manhandled by the Romans in short order. Later updates to the rules and army lists helped the situation only marginally. While I built four other armies of the period for a six player campaign, they mostly went unused. Fortunately, DBA 3 has addressed many of the issues with fighting this period. The standard 12 element game is greatly improved in both balance and in generating a satisfactory historical narrative. The real change however, is with the Big Battle and Historical Battle Rules. Using these one can now refight the great battles of the Punic wars with great satisfaction. What has changed?

Army Lists:

The first change one might notice is with the Roman army lists. Now the Romans have the option of having their Italiot allies. This may not seem a large change, but it is important. According to Polybius and Livy, up to half of the Roman armies of the period could be composed of Italian allies. While some of the allied Italian cities adopted Roman fighting techniques, most were probably still using their native tactics and weapons. It would not be until later, probably the wars against Philip V of Macedon, that the Roman army would become homogeneous in armament and tactics. So, the Roman army of the Punic wars now should probably contain: 4x 4Bd (2x Hastati and 2x Princepi), 2x 4Aux (Italiot Allies), 2x Sp (Triarii and Italiot Hoplites), 2x Ps, and 2x Cv to represent the proper number of allies. Cutting the number of blades by two greatly adjusts the combat power versus Carthage.

The Carthaginian army has also changed. The list is now split in two. The first represents the Carthaginian armies that fought in Italy and Spain. It resembles the DBA 2.2 list with some important differences. First, the list now requires 2x Ps. Second, the Gallic mercenaries are now available optionally as 4Aux rather than Warband. This change allows for a better representation of the performance of the Gallic mercenaries in Hannibal’s army and can help produce combat outcomes that resemble events at Trebbia and Cannae. The rather odd three spear elements are still required as under DBA 2.2, and can still cause rather lopsided deployments. The option for two Elephants still exists, though the Carthaginian commander will find their performance much different under DBA 3.

The second list gives the Carthaginians mostly Sp elements, representing the calling out of the city and North African hoplite militia during the final invasions and battles for control of Carthage. While the list is dated for the end of the Punic wars, it can also be used as the basis for some of the earlier battles at the end of the 1st Punic war during the first Roman invasion of the Carthaginian homeland.

Troop Types:

Lets look at some of the changes to the various troop types.

Elephants under 2.2 with a mediocre combat factor and a high pip cost to keep in combat were fairly ineffective against foot. They were therefore used mainly on the flanks to scare opposing mounted. Now their foot and mounted combat factors have been flipped. More importantly, they are impetuous and pursue. Suddenly elephants are terrors against foot. Roman blades face them at + 3 to +5. The odds of a double during a combat with an elephant substantial.   Their capability of pursuit alleviates the issue of high pip cost. Though countered by Psiloi and Auxilia, elephants are now capable of taking their rightful place in the battle line. One caveat however, they now trample almost everything in their retreat path.

Elephants___Spear

Spear has also been given new life in DBA 3. Side support now gives spear equal footing with blades on the initial contact. A solid wall of Greek Hoplites will initially fight their Roman Legionnaire opponents on equal terms. Lucky recoils can see isolated blades fighting victorious spears at +3 to +5. The spears however shouldn’t be too content. The chaos of battle coupled with the Roman blades now pursuing (all blades pursue most foot in DBA 3) will quickly nullify the advantages of side support. Careful sequencing of combats can quickly see the spear phalanx thrown into disorder and defeated. Still, a well controlled hoplite phalanx can hold its own versus a Roman Legion for some time.

DBA 3 also features some major changes to the Blade and Auxilia troop types. Blade is now impetuous. Roman Legionnaires now pursue most foot. This is a major change over DBA 2.2. Remember the plight of the Romans at Cannae where the center legions pursued the Carthaginians into a trap? This is now very possible with DBA 3. This pursuit however also features some distinct advantages. Once the legionnaires are engaged, no pip expenditure is necessary to keep them fighting. With a combat factor of +5 versus foot, one wants to keep them fighting. In essence this frees up a large amount of command pips to be spent elsewhere.

blades_Aux

The poor, lowly Auxilia has also changed.  DBA 3 splits most foot troop types into “Solid” and “Fast. For Auxilia this produces two distinctly different flavored troop types. The Roman Italiot Allies and the Carthaginian Spanish and most of their Gallic mercenaries are rated 4Ax. These are still useful in bad and rough going, but they also have the benefit of recoiling mounted on ties. This coupled with their combat factor being increased to +3 versus mounted give the 4Ax considerable staying power in holding off and even defeating mounted. The 3Ax troop type is not present in these armies and functions much as it did under DBA 2.2.

The Standard Game:

What do these changes mean for the standard sized DBA game? The balance of the Carthaginian vs Roman match-up has significantly shifted. Under 2.2 the Carthaginians struggled for a win. The game somewhat mirrored the standard flow of battles like Bagradas, Trebbia, and Cannae with the Carthaginians desperately trying to hold their center while using their superior Cavalry and Light Horse to crush the Roman’s flank, but this rarely was successful for the Carthaginians. Only a superior player with a good deal of luck was able to pull a Punic victory.

Carthage_at_war

Under DBA 3 the Romans still hold an advantage. The Roman Legionnaires still live up to their reputation as fearsome opponents. But with the change of two of those Blade elements to 4Ax the Romans have less combat power to project forward. In essence their center is narrower and the Carthaginians will be able concentrate their best troops to hold it. Their best troops now, the tough Liby-Phoenician hoplite spearmen can also hold the legionnaires for some time. All this allows for a good Carthaginian commander to win the flanks, and possibly the game.

While estimations of matchups are difficult to quantify, my opinion is that the Carthaginian Versus Roman match-up has moved from 20% to 80% under 2.2 to be 40% to 60% under DBA 3.

Historical Punic War Battles:

With the standard sized battle game being greatly improved by DBA 3 we now turn to fighting actual historical battles. The first problem that must be faced is the Roman triple battle line and the way it functioned. The standard battle game makes no attempt to replicate it. In fact, the truth of the matter is that we have no idea of how the system actually worked. While Polybius and Livy both confirm that such a fighting system existed, neither give us any real indication of its actual functioning. All the scholarship on it boils down to just supposition and guesswork.

TheLinesClash

What we do have documented however is the Roman command system. The citizen soldiers of the Republic were lead by citizen generals. The quality of this generalship varied widely with the whims of politics. The Romans seemed aware of the vagaries of democratically elected leadership and structured the Roman military system according. The early Roman battles all seemed to feature a rather fearsome army able to project tremendous combat power over a long period of time, but in an incredibly inflexible way. Xanthippus and Hannibal were able to take advantage of this inflexibility. Only with maturation and professionalization of the Roman generalship, first under Fabius Maximus and later under Scipio were the Romans flexible enough to stymie the Carthaginians and then to defeat them.

For refighting the Punic battles on foreign soil I suggest the following model. The average Roman legion should consist of a standard DBA 3 Polybian Roman army with an addition of six Italiot allies (1x Ps, 1xSp, 4x4Ax). Thus, the Roman army at a battle like Bagradas would have two commands of 18 elements each (roughly) representing two legions and a reduced contingent of allies (a complete consular army). For a Roman army in Italy, double the number of Italiot allies to 2x Ps, 2xSp, 6x 4Ax, 2x Cv. This gives the average Roman command 24 elements with a break point of 8.

They would be faced by a Carthaginian army with three commands of the standard 12 to 18 or so elements apiece. This produces a game where two large, tough but unwieldy Roman commands face three smaller, but more flexible Carthaginian commands. The Romans should be deployed in their triple line with the allied 4Ax on one flank. This structure and deployment will produce Bagradas. Scaling it up will produce Trebbia and Cannae.

Bagradas as mentioned works well as two consular armies with depleted allies fighting three Carthaginian commands (though at Bagradas, one of the Carthaginian command would have been all Greek Mercenaries). Trebbia scales up from this. Though the actual order of battle is lost to history, it seems that two consular armies were involved with full contingents of Italian Allies. Polybius mentions that only half the army was Roman. Here, four commands of 24 elements apiece should face perhaps six commands of Carthaginians with 16 elements apiece. While we have no idea of the breakdown of command between the consuls, it seems one on either flank commanding the cavalry and the allies while the remaining two each command two full legions (of all Romans) seems best. The Carthaginians should be more free to determine their command structure.

Cannae featured eight consular legions with allies, twice the size of Trebbia, and probably is best fought scaled down unless one has a huge number of figures. The Carthaginians should be scaled accordingly.

The larger Roman commands help to make sense of the Roman triple battle line. DBA’s command distance restrictions demand a deeper deployment of multiple lines to retain control of such large commands. This also nicely fits the view of the Romans being able to project combat power forward for very long periods of time. The second line of Principes can easily fill the gaps caused by causalities while the Triarii hold the flanks and prepare for a last effort.

The smaller and more numerous Carthaginian commands allow a would-be Hannibal to have more tactical options. A flanking contingent such as the one at Trebbia still allows Hannibal 5 commands to directly face a Roman army. Flanking cavalry can be under a single command unlike the Roman player who will be saddled with a command consisting of allied foot as well as the mounted troops.

Only after the rise of Scipio Africanus should one begin to give the Romans more commands. In the battles for Spain we begin to see Scipio segment his army and move away from the standard triple battle line structure. At Ilipa he, along with his sub general Silanus, commanded two consular armies and a large allied Spanish contingent.   Holding the Carthaginians in the center Scipio was able to march his second line of legionaries to the flank and crush the Punic flanks. Giving the Romans an extra command under Silanus drawn from the existing pool of troops enables them the articulation and command pips to carry out such a maneuver. The only outlier to this trend is Zama. Here both Scipio and Hannibal opted for less flexible deployments.

Though DBA 3 does a wonderful job recreating the battles of the Punic wars, there are a few optional rules that may help in scenario building.

  1. Roman Command Discipline. Though the early Roman generals seemed to be mostly inept and in some cases simply political hacks, there is no doubt they had a well structured command system. In the smaller battles (one consular army) allow the Roman player to award his pip dice at will. In the larger battles, roll for the all Roman command separately and award those dice at will. The allied commands get what they roll.
  2. Hannibal’s Auxilia. Though personal charisma Hannibal was able mold Gallic and Spanish tribesmen into troops able to stand against the Romans. Though not able to defeat them outright, Hannibal’s allies were able to hold the Romans for enough time for the rest of the Carthaginian army to defeat the Roman flanks. Allow the Punic Auxilia the option of recoiling either their base depth (as normal) or their base width (thus breaking contact with pursuing foot).
  3. Superior and inferior troops. DBA 3.0 handles solid (heavy) foot and fast (lighter) foot well. Some troops however in the Punic wars were certainly inferior. This includes many of the hastily raised Roman legions and some of the earlier Carthaginian Spearmen. For these troops use a 12 sided die (blank ones are available at most game stores) marked 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,6,6. For superior troops, perhaps the Roman Triarii and Hannibal’s veteran hoplites use a 12 sided die marked 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6.
  4. Light troop frontage. DBA 3’s historical battle scale assumes 4-500 troops per foot stand (with some exceptions). This includes Psiloi. In larger battle games this can cause an issue with frontages occupied by the lights. To correct this use the scale of 200 to 250 for the Psiloi. Count then as ½ a stand for losses. Suspend the rule exempting them from corner overlap. Finally, amend the combat results versus elephants to: “If doubled and the Ps unmodified combat roll was a 1, flee, else recoil.”

Hopefully you found Joe’s article interesting, I certainly did. I use Punic Wars armies frequently, as such many of Joe’s thoughts resonate with me. Hopefully you will consider the trying the Punic Wars, a truely fascinating struggle, with DBA 3.0.