The game of shame

[Luddite]

the Roman's beat Hannibal by refusing to fight in the open.

Eh?!?

I thought they beat him by scorched earth + guerilla attacks followed by a sound drubbing at Zama. Hehe...

Not when Hannibal was in Italy.

Even in Italy, the Romans conducted small scale geurilla raids on Hannibal's force.

[dave_r]

Eh?!?

I thought they beat him by scorched earth + guerilla attacks followed by a sound drubbing at Zama. Hehe...

Not when Hannibal was in Italy.

Even in Italy, the Romans conducted small scale geurilla raids on Hannibal's force.

But that didn't beat Hannibal did it?

[Luddite]

Not when Hannibal was in Italy.

Even in Italy, the Romans conducted small scale geurilla raids on Hannibal's force.

But that didn't beat Hannibal did it?

Depends how holistically you view the engagements.
The continual harrassments and denial of supplies through 'scorched earth' forced Hannibal to leave Italy (and return home, where he of course found little support as well), and then the Romans beat him as Zama, as i said.

[dave_r]

Even in Italy, the Romans conducted small scale geurilla raids on Hannibal's force.

But that didn't beat Hannibal did it?

Depends how holistically you view the engagements.
The continual harrassments and denial of supplies through 'scorched earth' forced Hannibal to leave Italy (and return home, where he of course found little support as well), and then the Romans beat him as Zama, as i said.

Nope, the fact that the Carthaginian rulers recalled Hannibal to protect Carthage was why Hannibal left Italy. Nothing else.

[Luddite]

But that didn't beat Hannibal did it?

Depends how holistically you view the engagements.
The continual harrassments and denial of supplies through 'scorched earth' forced Hannibal to leave Italy (and return home, where he of course found little support as well), and then the Romans beat him as Zama, as i said.

Nope, the fact that the Carthaginian rulers recalled Hannibal to protect Carthage was why Hannibal left Italy. Nothing else.

Really?

Nothing else?

Not Hannibal's repeated requests for reinforcement from Carthage going unheeded?
Not the negotiations for help from Philip of Macedon failing?
Not the degreadation of his forced through Roman denial of supply?
Not the continual harrassment and geurilla actions that denuded his strength (neccessitating his requests for fresh troops)?
Not his eventual isolation on the southern tow of Italy, and his primary route back to Carthage being cut off by Scipio's fleet?

Hannibal was despised by the Concil of Thirty back in Carthage, who seem to have blamed him and his family for bringing Carthage to a sorry state through years of war with Rome, which it seems is why they denied him his requests for aid. frankly the last person they wanted back in Carthage was Hannibal!

It was only when Scipio landed in Africa that this Council reluctantly reconstituted the War Party, who then asked Hannibal to return, as you say to defend Carthage.

His first action in defense of course was to broker a (humiliating) peace with Scipio that was accepted in Rome until Roman ships at anchor in the Gulf of Tunes were ransacked by desperate Carthaginian civilians.

Hence the battle at Zama, and the rest as they say, is history.

However, the point is, that there were many reasons Hannibal had to return to Carthage, but primarily the lack of support and desperate political expediency in the face of the need for the 'defence of the realm'.


Interesting. it occurs to me that given the effect of the Romans holing up in their cities (Hannibal having a free run of the country for 15 years) perhaps the 'corner sitting' evidenced in the OP picture should illicit an immediate 'decisive victory' for the opponent? Or perhaps not?




EDIT: Hey, multiple quoting gives a sort of 'Austin Powers' style 'time tunnel effect! Cool.

[dave_r]

Depends how holistically you view the engagements.
The continual harrassments and denial of supplies through 'scorched earth' forced Hannibal to leave Italy (and return home, where he of course found little support as well), and then the Romans beat him as Zama, as i said.

Nope, the fact that the Carthaginian rulers recalled Hannibal to protect Carthage was why Hannibal left Italy. Nothing else.

Really?

Nothing else?

Not Hannibal's repeated requests for reinforcement from Carthage going unheeded?
Not the negotiations for help from Philip of Macedon failing?
Not the degreadation of his forced through Roman denial of supply?
Not the continual harrassment and geurilla actions that denuded his strength (neccessitating his requests for fresh troops)?
Not his eventual isolation on the southern tow of Italy, and his primary route back to Carthage being cut off by Scipio's fleet?

Nope, none of that.

[grahambriggs]

However, 6 superior shooting dice against each front corner will grind it down a bit in time

Hitting on sixes against elites? How long have you got. They then need to fail 2 cohesion tests in succession to frag. Being elite and behind fortifications its still not great odds to then charge them with anything as they will be on at least a single + against any foot that charge them and a double plus against any mounted but elephants. Rear support and general giving them a net evens test to take a charge, re-rolling 1's and 2's.

I've done it with the Persians against superior armoured Romans behind fortifications. Turns pass swiftly, in time we knocked a base off, then they didn't last long! Eventually, the Roams decided to come out and fight. It wasn't a big win but it was funny and passed the time.

[grahambriggs]

the Roman's beat Hannibal by refusing to fight in the open.

Eh?!?

I thought they beat him by scorched earth + guerilla attacks followed by a sound drubbing at Zama. Hehe...

Not sure even Fabius Cunctator ever deployed such an utterly defensive force at that seen above!!

Well, they denied a major battle and stalemated him for years. Then he went away. Sounds similar to me!

But I think the tactic is only acceptable against certain opponents

[timmy1]

Or just one really... :)

[dave_r]

Or just one really...

Hammy doesn't play in many singles competitions. I don't think it would be fair to inflict that on him.

[Lycanthropic]

Dave you need to quote quote quote more of the conversation please. Actually is that a record?

[lonehorseman]

At the risk of being burne as a heretic I don't actually see much of a problem with someone doing that. It is historically valid (sort of) and well there is is nothing in the rules saying you cannot. If you know you are not a player who can win a competition then doing this ensures many draws and (if i understamd the scoring system) possibly a better placing than you may have got by playing "fairly". I do not thus see it as unsporting merely an annoying tactic. Admitedly you should play the game out of your FF as that is the only way you will ever improve and you may make more friends that way

[timmy1]

I take it from the Location that you are S'African... Nuff said.

[lonehorseman]

timmy1 please explain? not sure I quite get that one

[timmy1]

Working as I do with a Bishop's Old Boy and someone with an Engineering degree from Witts, their definition of what is acceptable in polite society does not match mine, or that of most Englishmen.

'
I don't actually see much of a problem with someone doing that
'

Even as the player in the world with the highest %age of losing draws in the history of wargaming, I would balk at doing this in a club game or a friendly.

What would have to be done to be seen as unsporting by a South African if this is not considered as unsporting...? Having a cook poison the opposition? (oh no, Luis Leyt has already said that is ok...)

[nikgaukroger]

**Moderator Comment**

And I think, gentlemen, we can stop this there as there is a high risk that it is going to get beyond banter fairly quickly.