Pages

Monday, October 9, 2023

Thoughts on Lake Trasimene and D3 OHW

photo courtesy Gridbased wargaming
As reported in the battle account on Peter's blog (see Battle of Lake Trasimene), last week, Peter hosted a remote game to refight the Battle of Lake Trasimene.  If you have not already read Peter's account, I recommend doing so especially since scenario and background details are contained therein.  No need to retell the battle either.  Hannibal's Carthaginians drove many of the Romans into the lake and Flaminius' army perished on the banks of Trasimene.

Instead, today's post examines modelling of this battle on the wargames table with a closer look at Peter's variant of Neil Thomas' One-Hour Wargames (OHW) rules.  For simplicity, I refer to Peter's work as D3 OHW.  These rules can be found on his blog. 

First, how does one model the debacle that was the ambush at Lake Trasimene?  Having fought Trasimene several times using Commands & Colors Ancients (CCA), I have seen victory go to both Hannibal and Flaminius.  While the Roman Army is initially hamstrung by only having one command card to play, the outcome is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.  With careful play (and the right card), the Romans can hold on long enough to see the situation stabilize and fight back.  There are hazards to seeing the Romans triumph at Trasimene, however.  In one game, the Romans roared back to defeat Hannibal in spectacle fashion.  The ersatz Hannibal threw up his arms exclaiming that "this is not Lake Trasimene!"  Unfortunately, he never played CCA again...but I digress. 
CCA battlefield deployment.
How does CCA handle Trasimene?  With no facing, units cannot be struck in the flank.  Yes, a retreat will push Romans back into the lake but being supported and with Flaminius nearby, up to two RETREAT results may be ignored.  CCA game results show that Carthage wins about two-thirds of the contests.  In repeated playings and given a one out of three chance to overcome Hannibal, does this scenario model the battle satisfactorily?

What about Thomas' OHW?  Could this model Trasimene with more historicity?  While units in OHW have facings and flanks, and flank attacks are possible, a unit can turn to face after the first round of combat.  Being susceptible to a flanking attack improves the chance of launching a crippling ambush.  With no retreats, though, every clash is a fight to the death.  Having an advantage in heavy infantry, the Romans can prevail the longer each engagement lasts.
Peter's initial deployments
photo courtesy Gridbased wargaming
Now let's examine Peter's amendments to OHW.

Since a D3 is used for combat resolution rather than a D6 in the original, these rules are denoted as D3 OHW.  Unit elimination drops from 15 to 9 hits.

What are the other changes introduced?
  • Morale Checks.  A unit suffering hit(s) must now take a morale check.  Pass, and the unit remains in place.  Fail, and the unit retreats.
  • Retreats.  A unit failing a morale check moves to the rear six inches.  Friendly units in the retreat path are pushed back.  Encountering impassable terrain or enemy units forces unit elimination.
  • Veteran Heavy Infantry.  Immune from taking morale checks.
  • Army Resolve.  Each army has an Army Resolve computed before the beginning of battle.  This Resolve is decreased for each friendly unit destroyed and for each failed morale check. 
Do these changes to the base rules alter the nature of play and the Battle of Lake Trasimene specifically?

To recap the game, as the Carthaginians rush down toward the Romans marching along the banks of Lake Trasimene, Flaminius has great difficulty deploying his army.  With restricted maneuver space, only about one in three units turn to face the enemy.  At the tail end of the Roman march column, matters are even worse.  Carthaginian cavalry hit the enemy before there is time to deploy.  
Carthaginians charge down from the heights...
while the defile is blocked.
Romans struggle to deploy to face the enemy.
Hannibal's horsemen catch the enemy in flank!
Having been struck in column, the back end of the Roman column panics.  Two failed morale checks see two retreats.  Those retreating units crash into their supports.  Both supporting units are driven into the lake to perish.  Still reeling from the retreat, the wavering Roman is hit again and destroyed outright.  Carthaginian cavalry turn in to roll up the enemy flank.  In the Roman center, a third unit is compelled to retreat.  This retreat takes it to the banks of the lake.  With Roman infantry packed together near the defile, Carthaginian light infantry hit the enemy in flank.  Casualties are high until support comes up to drive off the enemy light infantry.
Romans are driven into the lake.
photo courtesy Gridbased wargaming
Two more Roman units bite the dust.
photo courtesy Gridbased wargaming
The battle is over.
photo courtesy Gridbased wargaming
But it is all too late.  Carthaginian cavalry break one more Roman infantry and all is lost.  Flaminius loses his army.

Did Peter's amendments allow the nature of the battle to be replicated on the table?  Yes, they did.  I thought tension from the Roman desperation was present on the gaming table throughout.  Flaminius struggled to deploy his army from march column into battle while being pressed by the enemy.  With little space to deploy, only a portion of the Roman Army turned before the enemy struck.  Overwhelmed, some Romans broke and fled as they were attacked in flank.  Their panic spread as supporting units were pushed back into the lake.  In minutes, it was all over.  Could the battle have played out differently?  Certainly.  That is why we play the game. 

Good fun especially as commander of the Carthaginian Army!  If you play and enjoy OHW but are searching for more depth and "realism" while maintaining the base game engine, I recommend giving Peter's D3 OHW rules a look. 

Thanks to Peter for hosting such an entertaining game.

40 comments:

  1. Excellent and helpful analysis Jonathan. Very thoughtfully produced and a good advert for the adapted rules. I must go and have an even closer look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much, Richard! I appreciate your encouragement. If you have played OHW, give Peter's amendments a read.

      Delete
  2. Nice report off to dig out my copy of the rules and read Peter’s blog report

    ReplyDelete
  3. It has been a few years since I last read an account of Trasimene but this seems a fair balance. The Romans are not totally without hope, as in the real battle itself. If memory serves the head of the Roman column tried to rally forward but Hannibal had foreseen this and had units waiting further up the lake to cover this eventuality, but they could well have done so successfully and returned to support the remainder of the column.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your recollection of the actual battle sounds spot-on to me. Peter chose to leave out fighting out to the east beyond the hills. I may try to include that portion of the battlefield when we refight this using Basic Impetvs. The Romans certainly can win here. Peter reports that before our game, he saw one victory apiece.

      Delete
  4. One of my favorite types of posts is a comparison of a scenario played using different rules. Thanks for this, Jon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great! We plan to refight the battle using Basic Impetvs at some point. That result will add one more data point into the comparison.

      Delete
    2. First, more Biblical games in the queue and then back to Punic Wars.

      Delete
    3. Either sounds perfect to me.

      And, another oddball link that you might find of interest:

      https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04153

      This one concerns coin-flipping, and how it might not turn out to be a 50/50 split in some cases...

      Delete
    4. Greg, you always come up with interesting articles. When you think about it, the mechanics of actually flipping a coin could introduce variation and bias. I wonder if the act of flipping was actually studied?

      Delete
  5. A most interesting read. When starting to prepare the scenario command and colours was the first place I looked before searching around. Flank attacks and difficulty in manoeuvring did turn out to be an important part of the game for both players. It was an enjoyable game from my perspective trying to turn the Roman situation around, without success alas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, the game could have ended much differently. Your Romans were in the process of hollowing out the Carthaginian center when the Roman Army collapsed. Had the Roman left withstood the early attacks without failing morale tests, my Carthaginian cavalry would likely have been ground to pulp.

      Great fun no matter the outcome.

      Delete
  6. Lake Trasimine is such an interesting battle although I ask myself how to win with the Romans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The essential ingredients of the scenario appear to be FLANK and RETREAT and it is interesting the limitations of both (original) sets to be able to cope with something like Trasimine. Perhaps this is the scenario that would be the useful benchmark for many Ancients sets.

    OHW (in my humble opinion) desperately needs a morale rule in the base system that causes a reaction (retreat) whenever suffering casualties. In my own house rule, a unit that fails a morale check retreats AND takes an extra 2 hits.

    This is because the system is fire or move and a retreat actually takes a unit to a safer place because the attacker now has to move to re-engage instead of firing, while the defender can just stand and spend their ‘turns’ firing - it is punishing for an attacker to include a retreat rule without also inflicting some casualties on the retreating unit.

    Peter’s inclusion of a morale rule has made a success of the scenario, because the failing of morale and being thrown in to the sea and disordering ones own troops, has an intuitive method of compressing the defender.

    Going to CCA - well I can sympathise with the player that did not play again after Trasimine … The system can fudge the simulation by the dice (totally random) throwing up retreat flags against the defending Romans ….. but no flanks!

    I imagine it gives a game, even a good game to EACH player considering the dire Roam situation and I can understand going down to one card for the Romans as it one of the few tools that the system has, but it is too far from a simulation of the situation to satisfy this gamer!

    Yes … Transimine just might be the benchmark test for all ancient related rules - how would Impetvs cope I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Norm. I think OHW could desperately use several additions besides closing some of the HUGE gray areas.

      Next time the Punic wars armies are back out onto the table, a test with Peter, Trasimene, and Basic Impetvs is planned. We will see how BI copes with this battle.

      Delete
  8. A thoughtful piece as always Jon. It does highlight how different rulesets can affect the perception of a historical scenario and how one might need to tweak things with the core mechanics to give a good 'game' and one that 'feels' right too.

    I think the lack of flanks in CCA would have been a big issue for me, ditto the lack of retreat on OHW. Peter has certainly addressed this with his additions. I look forward to seeing how BI works for this scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed my ramblings!

      Having no flanks in CCA may require some adjustments for some but keep in mind the level of play and abstraction. Perhaps at this level of command, generals have no hand in forming units up with a particular facing? That is the job of the subordinates. I say, let the dice decide if a friendly unit was subject to a flank attack or not. Still, a general must maintain LOC and retreat lanes open in the event of a setback and retreat.

      For OHW, adding the possibility of retreat opens up the game and reduces the attritional nature of the rules a little bit.

      Delete
  9. Thanks for an interesting report and blog post, Jon. I read Peter’s batrep, which was, as ever, well worth it. I’m a fan of the simplicity of OHW, but also of Peter’s tweaks to it in various eras on his blog…he shows admirable restraint, only applying a few minor amendments to Mr. Thomas’s original rules, but those changes he does introduce are a significant improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome, Martin! Good to see you stopping by again. Peter's efforts improve the play of OHW greatly.

      Delete
  10. Good presentation for the battle. Easy to follow and see the mechanics of the rules. Quite a change from chariot warfare. Thanks once again for being so thorough. The battle is a classic and a good test of what a rulebook can do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much appreciated, Joe! Always enjoy seeing encouragement for my efforts here.

      Delete
  11. Big fan of C&C but even I can see that its limitations are thrown into stark relief by a scenario like this. Peters rules make it a far more realistic outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CCA is one of my favorites too and I can always get an opponent for a F2F game. Peter's rules make for a much more realistic game.

      Delete
  12. Sounds like a fun asymmetrical battle with something in it for the Romans, I like that OHW is stripped down enough to deliver what it sets out, but I always wanted more, though the scenarios are worth the cost of entry on thrir own!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the scenarios in OHW are reason, alone, to purchase the book.

      Delete
    2. I'll be interested to see how it works in Basic Impetus as I'm more familiar with that and I think it is a bit more of a nuanced ruleset.
      Best Iain

      Delete
    3. I look forward to seeing how the battle is recreated using BI too.

      Delete
  13. That's an interesing game, Jonathan. It looks like manuevering units could play an important part of the overall flow of the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The game was very interesting. A replay using Peter's rules and swapping sides might be just as interesting.

      Delete
  14. Most I interesting, I like the rules tinkering. That's one of the attractions of Neil's rules, highly adaptable to ones own interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reckon many of us are rules' tinkers at heart. Thomas' rules often have plenty to tinker with since there are often huge holes lurking on every page.

      Delete
  15. I have never really played any Ancients, nor have I played C&C and I have never heard of Trasimene until I read yours and Peter's posts. As such, on the face of it, I'd be inclined to think that OHW as written would satisfy me.

    However, your analysis of what Peter's modifications bring to the table (quite literally), tells me right off that his version would provide a much more enjoyable and dynamic game than the RAW version. I'll have to give them a closer read and possibly an outing with proxy armies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, John! When the mood strikes to pull some proxy figures out onto the table, give Peter's scenario and rules a try. Of course, then report back!

      Delete
  16. Interesting analysis Jon…alWays hard to manage an ambush in an effective and balanced way ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Matt! Ambushes are tough to balance, no doubt. The Romans are not without options, though. Seeing how Trasimene plays under BI or another go using D3 OHW will be equally interesting.

      Delete
  17. Great report Jon and others have said, although I have never played OHW I can definitely see how Peters modifications would improve on the original!
    All the CnC variants are fun games, but I have never felt they simulate very much - the random distribution of possible actions via the cards means it's almost impossible to make an actual plan - you really just have to adjust to what fate deals you and play the cards you get, the best way you can - then rely on the Dice Gods! I have generally enjoyed the games I have played (on hexes with figures) but as a system, it's really only a couple of steps up from Risk! (That is probably a bit harsh.....)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Peter’s changes make for a more interesting game. I enjoy CC games and find they are much less random than you. They require proper hand-management and planning but the games are almost always interesting and exciting. Good planning and timing can beat better cards and dice. “A couple of steps above Risk”, is harsh in my opinion.

      Delete