Cannae - unit frontages and depths

[CharlesdeBatz]

Reposting here as I unintentionally posted to the "Scenario Design" subforum.

In the battle of Cannae as presented in FOG2, it appears close to impossible to replicate the (commonly referenced) encirclement of the Roman army by the Carthaginian forces. In particular, the frontage of the four African Spearmen units is extremely small relative to the minimum depth of the Roman formation, meaning that the spearmen are unable to flank a significant portion of the Roman force at any time. There are other examples which I can elaborate upon if desired.

I have seen some research concluding that the "pop-history" depiction of the battle may be erroneous, and that it was more of a conventional engagement as opposed to the classic double-envelopment maneuver often associated with it. Does the setup in-game reflect this alternative view given the aspects discussed above?

Alternatively, this could be a limitation of the FOG2 system in that it does not emphasize accurate frontages, but rather adopts a top-down approach in its design.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[rbodleyscott]

See my reply in the subforum, which I saw first.

[fogman]

I have seen some research concluding that the "pop-history" depiction of the battle may be erroneous, and that it was more of a conventional engagement as opposed to the classic double-envelopment maneuver often associated with it. Does the setup in-game reflect this alternative view given the aspects discussed above?

I'd be curious to read the argument for this 'alternative view'.

[oscarius]

The Romans did not make their typical deployments during this battle, instead opting for narrow 'assault columns' due to their large numbers and the short frontage of the battle site (for similar reasons to the Napoleonic French favouring this formation, it was easier to move on the battlefield then wide formations which inevitably lost cohesion during movement unless very well trained and tended to be a terrifying sight to enemies). This even worked fairly well for a time, successfully pushing the Celtic and Spanish line front line back. Fortunately for Hannibal the Roman cavalry quickly disintegrated under pressure allowing a grand flanking (combined with unleashing the fresh Punic infantry reserves) and the rest is history. Had the Roman cavalry held out a bit longer the result could have been much different.

This would be quite a tough battle to simulate under FoG unless you gave the Romans infantry fewer units (but larger in size) and perhaps degraded them to un-manoeuvrable.

It's also another reason I advocate for keeping the controversial pushbacks. Hannibal quite literally banked on them and used them to his advantage here (and conversely the Romans exploited them in their conflicts with Hellenic pike-centric armies). In-game terms though Hannibal was very lucky (his barbarian infantry being pushed back without routing and his cavalry swiftly dispatching their Roman equivalents).

The 'feel' should be the Romans want a long attritional fight where their numbers and armour will inevitably prevail. Carthage needs a quick cavalry breakthrough before their infantry succumbs to the massive Roman push.

Worst comes to worst I think you could downgrade much of the Roman foot to average (and even then they will still have their armour advantage over the barbarians). Though I do like my idea of making fewer but larger Roman unit sizes for this battle as well as making them un-manoeuvrable. Perhaps the Carthaginian cavalry needs to be strengthened/enlarged for this battle too.