Slitherine

1) For the Later Carthaginians, can I mix optional troops with regional sub-lists (ie Italy)? For example, have none vet african spearmen and upgraded Gallic foot at the same time.

2) BGs of 4 stands are certainly fragile. I played with 8 stands of HF and found them incredibly resistant. How do BGs of 6 stands hold up and play? My thinking is if I can have 3x 6 stand BGs (instead of 2x 8 stand BGs) that means that at times I could hold a battle-line with 2 of the 6 and turn a flank with the 3rd. Is this wishful thinking?

3) If no elephants survived to fight after the battle of Trebia, is the inclusion of 2 on the Italy list a non-historical exception?

4) The battle of Trebia occurred 218 bc (elephants) and the battle of Lake Trasimene was in 217 bc (no more elephants), why is the "Italy mainland" list from 216 bc?

Sorry for being a purist!

Monty

PS An amazing resource on Rome and Hannibal is a book called "Hannibal" by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. I really like that he challenges statements by some historians and gives more credit to the most reliable (Polybius) AND went to each location that Hannibal did.

Elephants - can't recall the exact reference but I think it is Livy who records that Hannibal got some elephants amongst reinforcements he received in 216BC.

Montagu wrote:1) For the Later Carthaginians, can I mix optional troops with regional sub-lists (ie Italy)? For example, have none vet african spearmen and upgraded Gallic foot at the same time.

Optional troops can be mixed with special campaign sublists - provided that the sublist does not forbid it. However, this does not permit non-veteran African foot and upgraded Gallic foot to be used at the same time. The special campaign list requires that all African spearmen and Gauls be upgraded.

4) The battle of Trebia occurred 218 bc (elephants) and the battle of Lake Trasimene was in 217 bc (no more elephants), why is the "Italy mainland" list from 216 bc?

Sorry for being a purist!

We are trying to avoid pedantry for the sake of it. 216 is the date by which we feel Hannibal's troops could reasonably be classified as veterans in captured Roman equipment, and Gauls reached drilled status. It is not our policy to have lots of little sub sub sections - e.g. to have the elephant restriction at a different date to the rest of the sub-section.

The purpose of date restriction in lists, in our view, is to ensure that unrealistic combinations of troops cannot be fielded, not to educate players about historical OOB. If players want to use historical OOB, they can read the primary or secondary sources.

If you, as a purist, know that there were no elephants in 217 then don't use them in 217! Voila.

If a non-purist does use them in 217, then you can be secretly smug that his army is really only historical in 218. If you told him, he might answer "Oops, then my army is 218". No great harm done, eh?

Awesome. Thanks for the explanation.

Monty

A follow-up question...

The "Hannibal in mainland Italy" list states that the total number of bases for the Upgraded African, Gallic Foot and Campanians to Roman foot are listed as "All". What does this mean?

Thanks

Monty

It means that all the bases in the army must be upgraded.

Thanks

2) BGs of 4 stands are certainly fragile. I played with 8 stands of HF and found them incredibly resistant. How do BGs of 6 stands hold up and play? My thinking is if I can have 3x 6 stand BGs (instead of 2x 8 stand BGs) that means that at times I could hold a battle-line with 2 of the 6 and turn a flank with the 3rd. Is this wishful thinking?

Any comments on this? I posted it under armies since there really isn't a 'Tactics' section.

Thanks

Montagu wrote:Thanks

2) BGs of 4 stands are certainly fragile. I played with 8 stands of HF and found them incredibly resistant. How do BGs of 6 stands hold up and play? My thinking is if I can have 3x 6 stand BGs (instead of 2x 8 stand BGs) that means that at times I could hold a battle-line with 2 of the 6 and turn a flank with the 3rd. Is this wishful thinking?

Any comments on this?

Not much, apart from your own analysis. There is little more to be said.

As a rule of thumb I work with foot BGs of:

8+ if average protected
6 if average armoured or superior protected
4 if superior armoured

If I am intending the BG to be a key part of my attack and that it is likely to have a general leading it then I will tend towards lager BGs. If I want a nippy little BG of drilled troops then I tend down in BG size.

Hope that helps.

hammy wrote: If I am intending the BG to be a key part of my attack and that it is likely to have a general leading it then I will tend towards larger BGs.

I think this is a good observation. Someone else made it a while back. And while it is perhaps stunningly obvious. I had not thought it through this explictly until i saw it.

Since I have put it to good work. It is basically a requirement for allies. Their general does fight all the time.