Slitherine

The army of the Middle Roman Republic combines enormous power with limited flexibility. Romans have excellent HI, decent MI an LI and little else. They must try to slug it out; Carthaginians must try to maneuver, for which they are well suited.

Romans have 1 or 2 Armoured Cavalry; Carthaginians have up to 3 Elephants, up to 6 HC and up to 5 LH. They can outnumber the Romans 7:1 in the quadruped department, if they like. In addition, Elephants are arguably the only Carthaginian unit that can beat Hastati or Principes in a fair fight -though not Roman Veterans. Carthaginians can also have one Artillery, if they so desire.

In the HI department, with up to 2 Warbands and up to 9 Mercenary Hoplite types, Carthaginians would look quite respectable against anybody who is not Roman. However, Romans are the Godzilla of Heavy Infantry Armies: Up to 4 VHP, which are expensive, but near invincible; up to 10 HP, which can at least match everything the Carthaginians can throw at them. There are also up to 4 Raw Legionaries of doubtful value and up to 5 Triarii.

Triarii in FoG2 are an odd type of unit: With their good Troop Quality and Armour, but low numbers of men in a unit, they can better take than dish out. They will often stick around for a while, even under heavy duress; but they will hardly win anything. I am not really sure I like the way Triarii are depicted in the game tbh.

The Carthaginians rule the MI department, as usual: They can choose from 17 units of 5 different types, up to 5 Scutarii being the most notable. Romans have up to 7 Italian Auxiliaries and that´s that.

Neither side is outstanding in LI: Carths have up to 5 Javelins and their usual one excellent Balearic Slinger; Romans outnumber them significantly with up to 10 Javelins and one Slinger. Both sides are completely devoid of Archers. These armies prefer intimacy to distance.

The terrain on the battlefield is mixed, with a bit of everything. Which army is preferable? The answer is easy: If you want to win, the Romans are always preferable. The Carthaginians have a fighting chance, though. With their choice of 16 unit types and enormous mobility, they may well be able to force their plan on the Romans; but at the end of the day it will be the Romans who have the last laugh more often than not.

Don't underestimate the enveloping power of the Carth. with their superiority in horse supported by elephants. The trick for the Carth is to delay fighting the main Roman battle line for as long as possible to allow their flanking attempt(s) to develop. Given their MF superiority, the more rugged terrain that falls in central area of the field, the better the odds are for the Carth to do this.

Naturally, the Romans are going to want to get stuck in as quickly as possible and cover their flanks as best they can. The Triarii units are really good in that role, given their armor and morale. The Romans can actually have more light foot than the Carth, but need to be careful to keep them close to the main battle line for screening and support. They are useful for helping to counter the elephants and horse as well. The raw legionaries can be a cheap useful reserve which can move up to flank units engaged by better troops.

I do not disagree. Both can win. But the Carthaginians have to put more work in.

The Carthaginians want a wide formation with mobile wings to ride around the Roman flanks. The Romans want a deep formation designed to counter flank attacks while their elite infantry crash through the Punic center. Triarii and raw legions are great for flank protection, while the skirmish mass is great for dealing with Cartaginians camping in rough terrain. Yes, in a simple fight, the Romans can win with their infantry steamroller provided the Carthaginian wings can't outflank them successfully. Still a fun matchup.

I'm not sure the tournament win statistics back up your theory.

Carthaginian (262-236BC) 10-2-12
Carthaginian (235-146BC) 36-4-14
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (218-217BC) 33-2-40
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy (216-203BC) 102-5-73
Carthaginian, Hannibal in Africa (202BC) 115-8-75

Roman (280-220BC) 2-0-1
Roman (219-200BC) 36-1-37
Roman (199-106BC) 109-17-90

The Imperial army lists fare worst still with a pretty poor win rate. Republican Rome is a good list, Hannibal's is great. To be fair that specific list you've cited is easily the worst of the Carthaginian lists though.

The high level meta seems to (generally) favour medium foot and lots of units (with some good quality guys to hold the core) over small high quality heavy armies. Flanking is so deadly in this game that chaff units can easily reduce expensive ones to nothing.