Mike R
Australia
Ballarat
VIC
-
Following on from epic Cannae, Randy and I still had time for one more scenario. Not quite enough for another Epic though, so we decided to look at expansion 4, to see what Imperial Rome could offer.
Although I'd picked up this expansion last year, Randy and I had been concentrating on expansion 5 so we hadn't played any scenarios from it yet. We decided Carrhae would make a decent introduction to the Imperial pack.
Once again Randy took the Romans, while I the Parthians. This scenario has a large force of Roman infantry (9 mediums, one heavy and 6 lights) supported by a small contingent of cavalry (two lights and two mediums)fighting a Parthian force made up exclusively of cavalry - 9 light bow, 2 regular lights and 3 super-heavy cataphracts. History tells of an emphatic Parthian victory, but looking at these forces I didn't think I could replicate that result - light cavalry are useless in melee and I didn't have enough heavies to press an attack. To have a chance I would need to dance around and hope for accuracy with the bows.
This was the first time we had used cataphracts - they perform like regular heavy cav except they could ignore one sword hit. So my battle plan was to dance and avoid contact, do some damage with the bows, and when I could dance no longer send in the cataphracts to polish off whatever damaged Roman units I could reach.
Carrhae starting position - Parthians in tan, Romans purple.
The battle started with the Parthians firing whatever bows were in range. Average results, a block here and a block there stricken from the Romans in the first few turns. Randy meanwhile advanced his forces, readying for a general assault.
I decided to take the initiative and see if I could grab a cheap flag. On the right a unit of light bow cut off a forward Roman light, and I sent a unit of cataphracts charging in. A good roll saw them eliminated. Randy attacked back in his turn with a medium, which I evaded - but I lost two blocks before I could escape. What was worse though was Randy rolling double helmets for the leader death. One banner all.
The next turn I repeated the dose, with the second cataphract on that side surging forward. They trapped and eliminated a Roman medium, and after Randy counter-attacked they evaded away again. Not without a one block loss though, and Randy rolled for the leader... and once again, boxcars. A second Parthian leader dies, leaving them with a full number of units, but down to one leader. Two banners all.
At this stage I was somewhat worried. Two leaders down, two damaged heavies, and the Romans pressing forward on all fronts.
The next couple of turns saw some manoeuvring on both sides. Some lucky bow shots from me, and deft unit moves by Randy brought the banner tally to four all. Then, a move that almost meant my undoing - I had left a couple of units without a retreat path, and a fortuitous double time card meant Randy was able to charge forward and attack. Both were eliminated, bringing the flag count to 6-4 to Rome.
Desperation time. I had been having a poor run of cards (two line commands in a force of cavalry aren't much use - and it speaks to the quality of my other cards that I used one to activate a single unit), but I had picked up a mounted charge on my last draw. With the card allowing a heavy cav to move 3, I was able to charge my last remaining cataphract into the centre with a light bow alongside, and charge two light bow on the right towards a damaged medium infantry and full strength medium cavalry in Randy's rear.
Desperation charge by the Parthians in the final turn
I was in with a chance. I needed three flags this turn or Randy would definately win on the next (he might well win this turn on a battle back). First up, a light bow attacked a medium infantry down to a single bock in the centre. Three dice, two flags and a miss. He retreated a square and I moved up and attacked again - this time the triangle showed itself and the unit was done.
The cataphract attacked next - five dice against an unsupported medium infantry. Two hits, three misses, no flags. Bugger - I thought for sure I would be able to push him back and destroy him on the follow up. He battled back but could only manage a single hit.
So it was down to the two light units on my right. They were attacking a medium infantry down to a single block, and a full strength medium cavalry. The first light attacked with three dice on the infantry - one flag came up which was all that was required, and the infantry was eliminated. The light cav advanced and attacked the Roman cavalry - one flag is all I needed, three dice - all misses. Randy attacked back needing two hits, and he also fluffed. Last chance. My remaining light cav attacked the medium, threw three dice - and there she was, a beautiful flag. The Romn cavalry ran for the safety of the baggage train and the Parthians secured the field. Parthian victory, 7-6.
Carrhae, final position.
I was pretty happy to win this scenario. I really thought I didn't have much chance, with little in the way of firepower. But that mounted charge made all the difference at the end - with his troops reeling, ready to flee, both of his other commanders dead, the surviving parthian general rallies his men and charges forward in a do or die attempt to break the Romans.
-
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
-
Yet another "next banner wins" game! And I've had similar experiences with my cataphracts-- sort of like my chariots, it seems like I never see a sword hit rolled against them.
This scenario (and a couple other Parthians) has always made me feel the system is pushed a bit to the limit. Where fighting on ground of the Parthian's choosing (like this certainly was), I'm thinking it might be a better illustration if a person played a different sort of 2 map battle-- this time with the maps stacked, rather than connected lengthwise, and the armies setting up near the connection.
So the board is of normal width but twice as deep. Unfortunately, this requires some adjusting (but may give us something useful we can do with the earlier, non-mounted maps--snips anyone?). Giving those bow archers plenty of ground to retire into and then return would probably give the Roman player fits... which means it captures the situation better.
-
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
-
Great report!
It's also wonderful to see folks play the game with blocks standing, the way it was intended! 
-
Mike R
Australia
Ballarat
VIC
-
kduke wrote: This scenario (and a couple other Parthians) has always made me feel the system is pushed a bit to the limit. Where fighting on ground of the Parthian's choosing (like this certainly was), I'm thinking it might be a better illustration if a person played a different sort of 2 map battle-- this time with the maps stacked, rather than connected lengthwise, and the armies setting up near the connection. So the board is of normal width but twice as deep.
You're right, Kevin. A deep map (rather than a wide one) would really add some historical flavour to the scenarios involving the Parthians. I'll suggest it to Randy next time we play... although as a defender of the Republic, I don't know that he'll be all that keen.
One other thing I was thinking of during the battle - the first two banners the Romans scored were Parthian leader deaths. With six cards in my hand cmpared to the Roman's four, I was wondering whether a command card penalty should apply each time one of your leaders dies. So after the first death I don't draw to replace the next card I play, and do the ame after the second death so I'm down to a hand of four cards. I think it would probably reflect the increased difficuly of army command if two out of the three commanders are out of action.
Regards
Mike
-
Randy Dreger
Australia
Sebastopol
Victoria
I love Melissa, but don't tell her. It's a secret if she can find this. Shhhhh....
-
It's all lies. We were never defeated! Victory was ours!
That bloody mounted charge just... um... we just decided on a tactical retreat because... um... it was my daughter's birthday and... I just remembered. I knew Appollinia would be mighty pissed if we didn't show up, so I decided we'd come back some other day to finish those Parthian's off.
Yeah, that's what happened.
-
Brian Sherry
Vienna
Virginia
-
kduke wrote:
This scenario (and a couple other Parthians) has always made me feel the system is pushed a bit to the limit. Where fighting on ground of the Parthian's choosing (like this certainly was), I'm thinking it might be a better illustration if a person played a different sort of 2 map battle-- this time with the maps stacked, rather than connected lengthwise, and the armies setting up near the connection.
I agree completely...the board setup does not capture the encircled position of the Romans, and unrealistically punishes the very mobile horse archers when they are unsupported and forced to retreat, resulting in losses. Very weird!
-
Miguel
France
Caen
(from Valencia, Spain)
-
I've just played this one for the first time, and won 7-6 as the Parthian too! But I didn't feel the Partians had much better odds, to be honest I was a bit lucky on some arrow shots...
mdr003 wrote: A deep map (rather than a wide one) would really add some historical flavour to the scenarios involving the Parthians. I think the setup could have been better without radical changes of the board format. The simplest one would be shifting everything 1 row down. The Parthians start only 2 hexes away from their baseline! The Roman played Line Command and Double Time, and after evading I was already at the baseline!!!
He even played Darken the Sky! Against Parthians!!! I would have made these legions normal, no Julian nor Marian, to reflect weariness. In a home-made scenario they had only 3 blocks, which is maybe too much, but I think making them normal would be just right.
Anyway, an interesting asymmetric battle.
-
|
|
