Given the man-to-man superiority of the legionary wrt training, weapons, shields, and armour, and using army lists suitable for the second Punic war, what kind of numerical superiority is appropriate to give the Africans a 50/50 chance? I ask because I have certainly over-compensated at times, and because I'm seldom happy with points cost systems; these don't usually reflect the deadly potential of lots of tribal light cavalry against a heavy infantry army, for instance. Apart from which, I haven't devised points costs under my rules series anyway, other than for SYW in Europe, where things are suitably quantifiable, counterpointed, and reasonable.
This isn't an invitation to debate whether legionaries were or weren't super-soldiers, which everyone had a chance to shout about a few weeks ago.
How do you propose to measure any answers given the chocolate box variety of troops available to the Carthaginians without some sort of points system? Hannibal (apart from Trasimene) used his superior cavalry to beat the Romans, should cavalry count as 1:1 with infantry? I fear a simple ratio of for instance 1.5:1 of Carthaginian / Roman troops is too simplistic.
Hannibal; a general of some talent, famously marched his army from Spain to Italy across the Alps. During this march fully two thirds of his troops were lost but the remnant that arrived in Italy supplemented by Italian Gauls was unbeatable by anything the Romans through at him.
I mention this because this army in Italy was always outnumbered by the Romans and should probably be classified as "veteran" or some other applicable combat multiplier to make it better than the standard "levy" or "mercenary" troops available to the Carthaginians.
If you are not using a points system I recommend you model your armies on an actual battle or campaign.
Cheers, Rob :) :)
Hannibal's army did, of course, have the immense advantage of stupid enemy generals. He stopped winning when that changed.