Home Forum
23 | 05 | 2012
Main Menu
Rules
Variants



Visitors



JoomlaWatch Stats 1.2.9 by Matej Koval
C&C: ANCIENTS
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) (1 viewing) (1) Guest
Go to bottom Post Reply Favoured: 0
TOPIC: 006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC)
#22
alecrespi (Admin)
Alea Iacta Est
Admin
Posts: 274
graph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Gender: Male alecrespi CCAncients Location: Italy Birthdate: 1978-07-31
006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) 3 Years, 12 Months ago Karma: 4  
** This thread discusses the Content article: 006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) **

 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
 
Last Edit: 2008/06/03 07:07 By alecrespi.
 
Alessandro Crespi - CCAncients.NET ADMIN
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#371
alecrespi (Admin)
Alea Iacta Est
Admin
Posts: 274
graph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Gender: Male alecrespi CCAncients Location: Italy Birthdate: 1978-07-31
Re:006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) 3 Years, 6 Months ago Karma: 4  
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.
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
 
Alessandro Crespi - CCAncients.NET ADMIN
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#384
badweasel (User)
Legionary
Posts: 14
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) 3 Years, 6 Months ago Karma: 1  
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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#951
Anduril (User)
Legionary
Posts: 10
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) 1 Year, 7 Months ago Karma: 0  
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.
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#1009
religon (User)
Legionary
Posts: 10
graphgraph
User Offline Click here to see the profile of this user
Location: Central NC
Re:006 Lake Trasimenus (217 BC) 1 Year, 5 Months ago Karma: 0  
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.
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
 
I can be reached on hotmail email with the same user name.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Go to top Post Reply
Powered by FireBoardget the latest posts directly to your desktop