Yes the spearmen in the middle got squashed but the Syracusans were winning on the flank in rough terrain. I think with Romans it will always be a race to see if the legionary hammer can hit home before the flanks collapse.Ulysisgrunt wrote:The Syracusans put up a surprisingly stiff resistance to the Roman invaders. Although the Romans were victorious they had heavy casualties, particularly among the elite legionaries.
Syracusan losses were 100%; The Romans lost 33 out of 40 points.
Danny Weitz
LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
-
Morbio
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
- Location: Wokingham, UK
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Carthage (Morbio) 40/44 v Rome (Uheng1997) 42/41
An intriguing battle where Carthage led Rome a merry dance until the place to fight was found. Had Rome caught Carthage in the open then it would have been a different story.
An intriguing battle where Carthage led Rome a merry dance until the place to fight was found. Had Rome caught Carthage in the open then it would have been a different story.
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
fogman (Pyrrhic) 14/40 vs morbio (Carthaginian) 44/44
the carthaginians tried to break up the pikes formation through extensive manoeuvres but its wing of spanish scutarii and cavalry got sucked into a fight in the open, precipitating a general battle where pyrrhic pikes and interior lines turned out to be too strong to overcome.
fogman (Pyrrhic) 15/40 vs uheng1997 (republican romans) 41/40
the roman cavalry was quickly chased off the field allowing for the pyrrhic pikes line to slowly wrap itself around the romans' left wing, eventually grinding down the entire roman battle line.
the carthaginians tried to break up the pikes formation through extensive manoeuvres but its wing of spanish scutarii and cavalry got sucked into a fight in the open, precipitating a general battle where pyrrhic pikes and interior lines turned out to be too strong to overcome.
fogman (Pyrrhic) 15/40 vs uheng1997 (republican romans) 41/40
the roman cavalry was quickly chased off the field allowing for the pyrrhic pikes line to slowly wrap itself around the romans' left wing, eventually grinding down the entire roman battle line.
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
fogman (pyrrhic) 24/40 vs batesmotel (imitation pyrrhic) 44/39
pyrrhic cavalry gained mastery over its counterpart allowing the pikes line to start creeping around the enemy's right flank, resulting in a salient. it was the base of the salient that eventually broke, unexpectedly quickly.
pyrrhic cavalry gained mastery over its counterpart allowing the pikes line to start creeping around the enemy's right flank, resulting in a salient. it was the base of the salient that eventually broke, unexpectedly quickly.
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
uheng1997 (Republican Roman) 11/40 vs Blathergut (Gallic) 48/44
Gallic chariots and cavalry got tied up on the left in poor terrain allowing the legions free reign to grind up the Gallic center composed entirely of Gallic warriors. The warriors were no match for the legionaires and the center folded while the fight on the left was still on going.
uheng1997 (Republican Roman) 37/41 vs Batesmotel (Pyrrhic) 39/39
Had an extra BG by mistake in this one, but Batesmotel graciously allowed the game to continue instead of starting over. This board was dominated in the center by a mass of terrain consisting of hills/gullies/woods/impassible and a water feature (6-8 hex lake) . Most of the fight took place in this area with a couple of skirmishes on the flanks with little or no terrain. The Romans edged out the Pikes in a bloody slugfest.
Thanks guys for a couple of good games, Chris.
Gallic chariots and cavalry got tied up on the left in poor terrain allowing the legions free reign to grind up the Gallic center composed entirely of Gallic warriors. The warriors were no match for the legionaires and the center folded while the fight on the left was still on going.
uheng1997 (Republican Roman) 37/41 vs Batesmotel (Pyrrhic) 39/39
Had an extra BG by mistake in this one, but Batesmotel graciously allowed the game to continue instead of starting over. This board was dominated in the center by a mass of terrain consisting of hills/gullies/woods/impassible and a water feature (6-8 hex lake) . Most of the fight took place in this area with a couple of skirmishes on the flanks with little or no terrain. The Romans edged out the Pikes in a bloody slugfest.
Thanks guys for a couple of good games, Chris.
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Battle result:
Romans (Deeter) 11/39 vs. Syracusans (Ulysisgrunt) 43/43
Rome had the good fortune of a very large and very rough hill that dominated the map forcing the enemy to attack up hill with predictable results. A potentially decisive rear attack by an enemy general imploded when the general died, fragging his unit.
Thanks for the game, Denny and good luck in the U.S. Open.
Deeter
Romans (Deeter) 11/39 vs. Syracusans (Ulysisgrunt) 43/43
Rome had the good fortune of a very large and very rough hill that dominated the map forcing the enemy to attack up hill with predictable results. A potentially decisive rear attack by an enemy general imploded when the general died, fragging his unit.
Thanks for the game, Denny and good luck in the U.S. Open.
Deeter
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Battle result:
Romans (Deeter) 30/39 vs. Pyrrhic (fogman) 46/40
A straight-up melee fough mostly in the open. Once the real pikes routed, the rest was easy. Thanks for the game, fogman.
Deeter
Romans (Deeter) 30/39 vs. Pyrrhic (fogman) 46/40
A straight-up melee fough mostly in the open. Once the real pikes routed, the rest was easy. Thanks for the game, fogman.
Deeter
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Battle result:
Romans (Deeter) 31/39 vs. Romans (uheng1997) 42/41
Another straight-forward engagement in the open. I was feeling pretty good about events when suddenly my center collapsed. Fortunately, I was just able to end the game before feeling the consequences. Thanks for the game, uheng.
Deeter
Romans (Deeter) 31/39 vs. Romans (uheng1997) 42/41
Another straight-forward engagement in the open. I was feeling pretty good about events when suddenly my center collapsed. Fortunately, I was just able to end the game before feeling the consequences. Thanks for the game, uheng.
Deeter
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
fogman (Pyrrhic) 14/40 vs blathergut (gauls) 47/44
a head on collision that went to the longest pointy implement.
fogman (Pyrrhic) 1/40 vs iandavidsmith (carthaginian) 46/44
about the only thing that went right for the carthaginians was the inability of a fragmented pyrrhic lf to rally.
a head on collision that went to the longest pointy implement.
fogman (Pyrrhic) 1/40 vs iandavidsmith (carthaginian) 46/44
about the only thing that went right for the carthaginians was the inability of a fragmented pyrrhic lf to rally.
-
batesmotel
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
blathergut (Lowland Gauls) 46/44
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 37/39
A swirling battle that left both armies in not much shape to continue fighting. Gaesatii are nasty and even ordinary warriors are no slouches. Thanks for a great game.
iandavidsmith(Later Carthaginian) 47/44
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 27/39
Thanks for the game.
lydianed (Lowland Gauls) 44/44
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 35/39
More nasty Gaesati and warriors and what seemed to be unkillable chariots! Despite a run of bad luck towards the end of the game, Pyrrhus held on to get another Pyrrhic victory. Thanks for an exciting game.
Chris
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 37/39
A swirling battle that left both armies in not much shape to continue fighting. Gaesatii are nasty and even ordinary warriors are no slouches. Thanks for a great game.
iandavidsmith(Later Carthaginian) 47/44
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 27/39
Thanks for the game.
lydianed (Lowland Gauls) 44/44
batesmotel (Pyrrhus in Italy) 35/39
More nasty Gaesati and warriors and what seemed to be unkillable chariots! Despite a run of bad luck towards the end of the game, Pyrrhus held on to get another Pyrrhic victory. Thanks for an exciting game.
Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
-
iandavidsmith
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1379
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:56 am
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
iandavidsmith (carthaginian) 39/44 win
vrs
morbio (Carthaginian) 45/44 loss
My first and probably only win of this round.
The map was fairly open with some steep hills on my enemies side
and some open fields in the centre on one flank.The sides where similar
being a civil war the only difference was that i had a elephant and HF Gauls
while the enemy had MF Gauls. The two sides met and my enemy took the
brunt of bad dice and luck which gave me a massive lead.Then the comeback was vicious
which brought the scores so close , i could feel the whiskers off Morbio's beard.
Fortuantly a rear charge set-up in the previous move brought the game home
for the true Carthaginians.I imagine the next game in round 2 will not be such
a happy one .
Thanks for the Game,
Ian
vrs
morbio (Carthaginian) 45/44 loss
My first and probably only win of this round.
The map was fairly open with some steep hills on my enemies side
and some open fields in the centre on one flank.The sides where similar
being a civil war the only difference was that i had a elephant and HF Gauls
while the enemy had MF Gauls. The two sides met and my enemy took the
brunt of bad dice and luck which gave me a massive lead.Then the comeback was vicious
which brought the scores so close , i could feel the whiskers off Morbio's beard.
Fortuantly a rear charge set-up in the previous move brought the game home
for the true Carthaginians.I imagine the next game in round 2 will not be such
a happy one .
Thanks for the Game,
Ian
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
anybody still playing in first round?
-
batesmotel
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
I still have a game going against Deeter's Romans. We've both been fairly cautious so slow to start fighting. The real fight is just getting started now.fogman wrote:anybody still playing in first round?
Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
we'll start the next round mid week.
-
ulysisgrunt
- Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
- Posts: 1413
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:59 pm
- Location: The California Central Coast Wine Country
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
I'll be on a cruise up the California Coast from Monday thru Saturday morning;
Then I'll resume the tournament.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
Danny Weitz
Then I'll resume the tournament.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
Danny Weitz
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Battle results:
Romans (deeter) 26/39 vs. Gallic (lydianed) 46/44
The barbarian cav and chariots challenged the legions for control of a long skinny ridge. They were eventually forced off just as the soldurii closed. Roman grit carried the day in a tough melee. The Gallic CnC died on the last turn. Great game.
Deeter
Romans (deeter) 26/39 vs. Gallic (lydianed) 46/44
The barbarian cav and chariots challenged the legions for control of a long skinny ridge. They were eventually forced off just as the soldurii closed. Roman grit carried the day in a tough melee. The Gallic CnC died on the last turn. Great game.
Deeter
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Battle results:
Romans (deeter) 18/39 vs. Carthage (Morbio) 49/44
Morbio tried to turn both Roman flanks, but the pathetic masses of spearmen in the center couldn't stop the legionary buzz saw. Good game against a weak army.
Deeter
Romans (deeter) 18/39 vs. Carthage (Morbio) 49/44
Morbio tried to turn both Roman flanks, but the pathetic masses of spearmen in the center couldn't stop the legionary buzz saw. Good game against a weak army.
Deeter
-
batesmotel
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
A truly Pyrrhic battle.
deeter (MRR) 43/39
batesmotel(Pyrrhic in Italy) 41/39
Chris
deeter (MRR) 43/39
batesmotel(Pyrrhic in Italy) 41/39
Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
A truly Pyrrhic battle.
uheng1997 (MRR) 31/40
iandavidsmith(Later Carthaginian) 44/44
Carthaginians sent a strong flanking force that easily defeated a Roman covering force in the fields. But this left the center weak and unable to stand up to the Roman hammer. The victorious Carthaginian wing arrived at the center too late as the Romans were cleaning up the last of their countrymen.
Chris
uheng1997 (MRR) 31/40
iandavidsmith(Later Carthaginian) 44/44
Carthaginians sent a strong flanking force that easily defeated a Roman covering force in the fields. But this left the center weak and unable to stand up to the Roman hammer. The victorious Carthaginian wing arrived at the center too late as the Romans were cleaning up the last of their countrymen.
Chris
Re: LORDS OF ITALY circa 280 BC
Lydianed (Gauls) 36/44 vs. Fogman (Pyrrhic) 42/40
The Gauls took advantage of some low hills on each flank which the pikes weren't able to dislodge them from. With superior chariots on both flanks the gauls were able to stop the pyrrhic horde flanking them. Tough warriors on the hills had the best of it against the pyrrhic heavy foot. Thanks for the game.
The Gauls took advantage of some low hills on each flank which the pikes weren't able to dislodge them from. With superior chariots on both flanks the gauls were able to stop the pyrrhic horde flanking them. Tough warriors on the hills had the best of it against the pyrrhic heavy foot. Thanks for the game.