Matrix Games Forums

Per treefrogs's thread and manual and my own in-game experience, Numidian cavalry, arguably one of the finest weapons Hannibal wielded, is the worst Carhaginian cavalry unit in game.

Let me explain: Numidians have the same attack as the average Carthaginian cavalry (2 rolls), one defense factor (again, there are better units, Companion and African cavalry) and these things alone would make them somewhat undesirable when recruiting new units in Africa. But there's more.

Sticking to history, Numidians are subject to desertion by Roman card play, which makes me want to sacrifice them and not other cavalry during battles. They are worse than any other cavalry units when it comes to defending at camp and the city. I mean, they are as bad as the elephants when it comes to defense, which I have no problem with. And once again, I despise them for it.

So, this constitutes a problem. Numidians, a favored unit by Hannibal, find themselves on my crappy-try-not-to-use-this-unit-at-all-costs list.

So far, this was mostly whining, aka repeating the obvious. Here comes the suggestion: to compensate for Numidian cavalry shortcomings and keep them somewhat more valuable, double their roll during cavalry pursuits (or, instead of doubling it, give them a bonus... maybe both). They may have an effect on cavalry generals, forcing us to lke this unit and try to keep it in our armies.

This is historically accurate use of Numidians. Hannibal would approve it. Will it unbalance the game? Maybe slightly, there are normally a small number of Numidians to matter much on the battlefields of Spain and Italy. Africa, once invaded by Romans, will see a larger number of Numidian cavalry in use, but then the Romans will have access to it as well.

You raise a very good point. For one thing, I think that there is sometimes too much of the "2 2" African cavalry available. But I don't think that I want to adjust the distribution of the recruiting pool in Zeugitania, however. (I certainly would not simply lower the African Cavalry without increasing other things). I say this from the point of view of players' expectations and play balance.

Your suggestion about a bonus for Numidian cavalry in pursuit is a good one. As a variation on your idea, what do you think about an extra AF in pursuit for them? That is, normally they'd be a 3 AF in pursuit, and a 4 if Cavalry Maneuver is in effect.

Mercenarius,

I can't say that I've ever felt there were too many 2-2 African cavalry in the mix. In 5 full games at Intro and Normal I think I received as many as 2 (maybe 3) only once, and only 1 in the other games. In all those the African recruiting pool was largely if not completely empty.

Well, it does vary from game to game because the distribution relies on percentages and random chance.

Back to the original post: now that I think about it, a bonus in pursuit (indicated by the circle around the attack factor) for the Numidian cavalry might be the better way to go. I'll have to think about it. It's definitely a valid suggestion.

A bonus is definetely a better way to go than an extra AF (or both). Add that and I will test to see if the unit becomes more attractive (Hannibal without Numidians is defeated Hannibal at Zama after all).

As for African Cavalry, I think the reason you keep seeing too much of them is rather simple - a human player tends to loose Spanish, Gallic and Numidian cavalry first, leaving Companions and African Cavalry. The recruitment pool for AC is limited, but they are almost always preserved to the end of the game, creating an illusion of being numerous.

Btw, historically speaking (and not suggesting any changes yet), African Cavalry (wouldn't they be better called Punic?) - why do they stand at "2 and 2"? Hannibal did not have them in overwhelming number, most of his cavalry was Spanish, Numidian and Gallic. Along with semi-fantasy Companions, I believe African Cavalry is stealing Numidian thunder in this game (i.e. serving as Hannibal's signature units).

In conclusion, since I briefly touched the subject of names, I am a bit confused when using Spanish vs Iberian and African vs Lybian (in case of infantry) or Punic (in case of cavalry). I see the rationale behind using slightly more modern terms, but it feels slightly anachronistic. True, Zeugatana became Roman province of Africa and Iberia turned Hispania under Roman rule, but isn't the purpose of the game to deny the Romans their victory and the right to name these lands?

A great idea to give the Numidians such a bonus. Light cavalry should definitely excel at harassing withdrawing enemy troops. Historically speaking, Hannibal made great use of his powerful cavalry, and the horsemen almost always had a crucial role in defeating the Romans, whose armies usually had much more infantry than cavalry.

Speaking of fantasy units, the Sacred Band infantry in Carthage didn't exist anymore during the 2nd Punic War, or at least the sources don't mention it after the end of 4th century BC. But I'm not really troubled by them or the elite Companion cavalry. We know so little about Carthage that it's completely possible such units did actually exist during the 2nd Punic War. Maybe the Greek and Roman historians just neglected to mention them. And since we have no actual Punic sources, there's definitely some room for creativity in depicting their armies in wargames.

Sacred Band, imo, is easy to allow for: a body of select citizens with high quality weaponry called upon service when Carthage is dire danger. This kind of draft happened in Carthage up to the time of her destruction. The name wasn't applied after 310 BC, but the service remained.

On a whole, it's fighting abilities are slightly exaggerated, but then Romans are compensated with their fantasy "urban legions", which really were nothing but glorified military police.

Companions are a different story. While Companion cavalry was common in Successor states, I do not recall any mention of the use of such cavalry in Carthaginian armies. However, Hannibal is famous for using his cavalry with great skill, so there is a possibility that a unit of select cavalrymen existed in his army, cavalry guard of sorts.