Trebia: Historical Comparison to Demo
I've noticed some problems with the scaling & disposition of forces at Trebia. Some of these have some general game accuracy issues as well. (I'll skip most of the valour and skirmisher issues.) The Roman commander was a fool to attack Hannibal with the force at hand. He really stood no chance, because while he had an equal force numerically, Hannibal had an overwhelming cavalry advantage. The ambush just made it more decisive.
Problems potentially effecting general game accuracy with respect to scaling:
Note that some of this depends on what scale is used. I assume that the normal scale would be about 1 legion = 1 unit Hastati + 1 unit Principes, + 1 unit Triarii + 1 unit velites + 1 small unit cav.
1. Triarii units should be smaller than Hastati and Principes. The distribution of a standard legion of the time was: 1,200 Hastati, 1200 Principes, 600 Triarii, and 1,000 velites and 200 cavalry (400 cavalry for their Latin allies' legions.) So Triarii should be half sized units in the game relative to the other two (or perhaps more 60/100 ratio as was used in MTW for many "standard" unit sizes.) In times of emergency the standard legion was enlarged to: 600 Triarii, 1,600 Principes, 1,600 Hastati, 1,200 Velites) plus 300 cavalry. Note the Triarii remain fixed size.
2. The Carthaginian Peoni (phalanx) are undersized relative to the Hastati/Principes. It should not be a 60 man unit vs. 100. This weakens the phalanx too much. Besides, a phalanx would soak up a lot of men--that is how you make a spear wall. If the unit isn't large it won't have the right defensive character (or facing and mobility problems.)
3. Cav scaling for the Romans could be off some--but I can accept that these differing unit types might need a bit different weighting in numbers than infantry.
4. Elephant unit sizes seem a bit excessive. 7 beasts is a big unit. For Trebia the scale is 14 beasts vs. 37 max for a ratio of 2.6:1, while the army sizes themselves are scaled on the order of 20:1 Roman or 48:1 Carthaginian.
Battle specific issues:
5. The best info I've been able to find so far indicates that the Roman force was probably a bit smaller than the Carthaginian force or at best roughly the same size. The demo battle is 800 vs. 1543...yep, historically it's even worse for Rome than the demo--but those are the breaks!
6. The ambush force was handpicked 1,000 infantry and 1,000 cav commanded by Mago--not the bulk of the very large cav force. I would model these as two ~60-100 man Carthaginian units of high experience and such.
7. The Peoni infantry (phalanxes) are undersized and out of position, plus they are short on depth of ranks on the right. According to Polybius, the Spanish and Gauls (mercenaries) were in the center, with the Africans (Peoni Phalanx) on each side. The legions broke the Spanish and Gauls in the center to escape, but they apparently did not break the African phalanxes. This is supported by the fact that most of Hannibal's losses were Gauls with few African caualties. Probably four or five-100 man Peoni Phalanxes of moderate quality would represent this. There were about 9,000 Gauls/Spanish etc. in the center. Probably more akin to three or four units of barbarian/mercenary infantry/warbands of low experience/valour. This is where the Romans break the center.
8. The elephants are too many scale wise, and mis-positioned. They should be on the flanks of the infantry line and slightly forward (but behind the skirmish line.
9. The main body of Hannibal's cavalry were on the wings outside of the elephants.
The legions broke the Gauls in the center and this allowed 10,000 to escape. They did not break the phalanxes apparently. But Hannibal placed them on the wings of his infantry line (and they were well supported.)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks