This evenings time commanders

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The team tonight were bloody awful but managed to win by sheer numbers alone. The Armenian Cataphracts looked very cool. The male general and female(if you could call her that) kept calling them "Cataracts" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Also Armenian peasents, armed with small javelins and also slingers with an eastern variation. They looked good also but i don't think they would stand long.
The historians were as usually on top of there game with the presenter not wanting to be there at all but with those morons on tonight i can't really blamre him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ Oct. 02 2003,21:40)]The team tonight were bloody awful but managed to win by sheer numbers alone. The Armenian Cataphracts looked very cool. The male general and female(if you could call her that) kept calling them "Cataracts" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Also Armenian peasents, armed with small javelins and also slingers with an eastern variation. They looked good also but i don't think they would stand long.
The historians were as usually on top of there game with the presenter not wanting to be there at all but with those morons on tonight i can't really blamre him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeah, I agree. The team were rubbish-Commiting archers without ANY support? what is that?-and won purely because they outnumbered the enemy 10-1. They would have had to have been monkeys to lose...

[The_Emperor]

I agree a useless team that only won by force of numbers. I mean 10 to 1 odds in their favor, can anyone lose when they have odds like that? (except the original king, but hey he had it comming for being such a tyrant) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Basileus]

sounds fun, wish i could have seen it heh

[Knight_Yellow]

it wasent the numbers that won it for them.

it was the incompetent AI.

and to be honest the "river crossing" is the EXACT same as a bridge crossing:

still 1 unit at a time

still a deathtrap

still only 1 of them per map

but now your men are mutch slower going across.

so realy the "shallows" are just bridges from MTW with a new model.

[BlackFireStorm]

Beg to differ, Knight_Yellow.

The battle was a recreation of an actual historical battle, where there was one river crossing. It also looked considerably wider than any bridge in MTW. I'm betting more than one unit could cross at once, or at the very least units would spend less time faffing about reorganising themselves to cross than they do in MTW.

Having said that, the AI was 'kind' to the players. The Roman units assembled near the ford without actually crossing it, giving the Armenians time to assemble their forces. Had the Roman cavalry (who were first across) headed right for the archers they would have easily taken them out before the rest of the Armenians could arrive.

Most laughably in this show, the battle started with a rush for position - the Romans wanted to cross the ford quickly, the Armenians to get their archers in position to rain death on the Romans. When one of the lieutenants asked a general 'do we want the archers to run?' they answered 'oh no, we don't want them to get tired'. Myself, I'd rather be tired than dead, but hey.

Something susicious seemed to happen during this rush for position. Initially the team sent just one group of Archers to the ford, but by the time the Romans were coming across, all of them were up there firing away. Anyone else spot this, or am I wrong?

If I was leading the troops, I'd have headed for the plateau, further from the river crossing and used the "cataracts" and archers to devastate the climbing Roman forces. This is the plan the Armenian king had (I think) but he was hampered by being unable to see the Romans approaching, and so lost, despite having the 10-1 manpower advantage.

Now, are CA going to sort out those giraffe-necked horses before release?

[Mount Suribachi]

I agree with KY, the AI was back to the awful state it was in episode 1. Too slow getting across the river, then when they got their cav across instead of charging the one unit of isolated archers and driving them off, they *withdrew* out of range, then when the incompentent human team finally decided to send the rest of the army to support their 1 unit of isolated archers, the AI charged its cavalry huh? And then the AI committed its infantry piecemeal and was torn up by the large numbers - especially by the kataphracts which seemed pretty dominant.

The team were totally useless, as bad as, if not worse than episode 1. Oh for a team that knew what they were doing They had *loads* of archers and slingers, if they could have rushed their army to the ford and put their archers on the hill next to it then it would have turned the river red with Roman blood - a classic TW bridge scenario.

typical lines from team

"do we want the archers to run to the river?" (which the Romans are in the process of crossing)

"oh no, we don't want to tire them out, let them walk"

or

General 1 "shall we charge the cataracts?"

General 2 "I don't care what you do with the cataracts"

Most of the time the 2 generals just stood staring at the screen, looking gormless and issuing no orders whatsoever.

GAH

[Shono]

Yeah I agree,

The Romans were built up to be superior with better leadership, although out numbered.

The team had not real cohesive plan especially the bald guy who did not have a clue. The young lad seemed to have some idea and would have made a better general.

It did seem a bit strnage that at one point there was one Archer unit and then suddenly the whole army was there. Also compunded by the fact that the "experts" were saying how spreadout they were.

However IMO they were given the victory by the Romans. I wonder if it is AI controlling them or humans?

[Lord of the Isles]

Quote[/b] ]It did seem a bit strnage that at one point there was one Archer unit and then suddenly the whole army was there. Also compunded by the fact that the "experts" were saying how spreadout they were.

However IMO they were given the victory by the Romans. I wonder if it is AI controlling them or humans?

I noticed that too. The Armenian main body were quite a distance away as the Roman cavalry first crossed the ford, then suddenly they were there and the Romans still weren't fully deployed over the river.

The only explanation, and it saddens me after the AI seemed not too bad in some earlier battles, is that the AI controlled Romans acted stupidly. The ford crossing took far too much time: did anyone else think Roman units were moving about aimlessly on the far bank at around the time their cavalry were crossing?

As for who controls the enemy forces in TC: there's a post somewhere by a CA person that says it's the RTW AI controlling it, with a few tweaks to it to allow things like the pre-deployment scouting. Sorry I can't remember where I saw it.

Speculation follows: the battles where the AI has done well or reasonably (episodes 2, 3, 4) were relatively simple open battlefields with forces already deployed sensibly. The two where it has looked bad (1, 5) were different maps (both fords if I remember but I haven't seen 1 so am not 100% sure). The AI may be useless at getting to a bottleneck, passing it and then redeploying its army sensibly on the other side. Certainly, the way they withdrew their light cavalry beyond the unsupported archers in 5, instead of attacking them, was stupid. And then they sent their cohorts one at a time up a hill as the Armenians were arriving in force.

Episode 5 was the most annoying I've watched so far. The team were useless but got away with it because of their numerical advantage and mistakes by the AI. The only nice thing I can think of to say about them is that at least they were less useless than King Tigran himself, back in real life. What an incompetent he must have been. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Lord of the Isles @ Oct. 03 2003,09:41)]
The only explanation, and it saddens me after the AI seemed not too bad in some earlier battles, is that the AI controlled Romans acted stupidly.

There is another explanation: that there is no AI, it's humans controlling both sides and they rigged this one so that the gomers could win.

The only nice thing I can think of to say about them is that at least they were less useless than King Tigran himself, back in real life. What an incompetent he must have been. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

I really doubt that this battle went at all as described by that fantasist Plutarch. As I've posted elsewhere;

According to Plutarch - the Armenians had 125,000 men, Lucullus had 17,000 - and he ATTACKED
The casualties are listed as 100,000 Armenians dead, 5 Romans killed and 100 wounded. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Therefore, we have to come to the conclusion that the description of this battle is a complete fantasy. And that Plutarch is worthless as a source.

Barkhorn.

[Sir Robin]

I would guess that it is the RTW AI controlling the hostile forces. However I believe the AI is being closely supervised by CA to keep it from being too good. That doesn't explain when the AI is being too stupid.

Maybe just trying to make sure the players win?

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Barkhorn1x @ Oct. 03 2003,16:41)]I really doubt that this battle went at all as described by that fantasist Plutarch. As I've posted elsewhere;

According to Plutarch - the Armenians had 125,000 men, Lucullus had 17,000 - and he ATTACKED
The casualties are listed as 100,000 Armenians dead, 5 Romans killed and 100 wounded. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Therefore, we have to come to the conclusion that the description of this battle is a complete fantasy. And that Plutarch is worthless as a source.
Either that or the entire army upon seeing the Romans marching in thought "I gotta get the Hell Outta Here"

But the way the historians told it at the end it seems that the routing Cataphracts trampled their own side to death before the real fighting had begun... Causing a mass-rout in the many troops who "didn't want to be there".

Sounds like another Agincourt/Watling Street-style victory that is next to impossible to simulate in a game engine.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 03 2003,12:21)]But the way the historians told it at the end ...
So these guys blindy follow Plutarch and his description of the battle?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Those are some kind historians I tell ya. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Barkhorn.

[The_Emperor]

I think there must have been other sources used for the facts rather than just Plutarch... And they probably accounted for his own embellishment. Historians don't like to rely on a single source for their information.

The fact remains that when an army panics it doesn't inflict many casualties... and if the army was bunched up so tightly when the rout began many would have been trampled by their brethren.

They didn't have the discipline of the Romans, so it makes sense that once the mass-panic began that was it.

[frogbeastegg]

Generally I agree with what has already been said so I shall just add a couple of observations.

What happened to the romans archers and slingers? They were shown in the beginning and they moved up to the ford before vanishing off the battlefield. Once they reached the ford half the Roman army (the archers, slingers and a unit of legionaries) just seemed to turn into mist. Was I imagining this or did it happen? It is a good reason for the Romans getting so badly pulped.

Did anyone notice that the music was very similar to Arabbattle2 from MTW? In places it was almost identical - was it borrowed from MTW for the programme or is the similarirty down to the Armenians being an Eastern faction?

The Roman barbarian cavalry was moving out of sync when it chargedThe difference was only slight but it was definitely there and it looked damn good. I think that CA are owed a pat on the head for that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

The follow arrow camera is still there and you can really hear the arrows thudding home, most gruesome and very addictive http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

The pikemen (why did they keep calling them spearmen? ) kept the Romans at bay, only a few legionaries managed to get past the pikes into range with their swords. When the pikes lost their formation slightly the Romans managed to get in better. This observation is based on what was happening in the background near the end of the battle so don't kill me if I am wrong

It looks like we will be having personalised peasants - the Armenian peasants looked very different to the Celtic ones last time and they seemed to have a set of javelins to throw along with a knife. The Celts just had a normal spear.

Can I just say I liked the cataphracts? Yes, good - I liked the cataphracts

As an end note I wish that team had lost - they made too many bad mistakes and lost their best troops. They only won because they swamped the Romans (the ones who were left after some magically vanished) with peasants. In MTW attacking FMAA with peasants wouldn't allow you to win (assuming valour was equal) when the peasants were more tired than the FMAA, even if you did have a big numerical advantage. This team did not win credibly and the way the experts came down and praised them to the skies after spending an hor slagging the team off made me sick. They should have repeated what they were saying earlier or not bothered saying it in the first place.

[NagaoKagetora]

Who was more incompetent? The Team or the AI? I still cant decide.

The Historians recognized the fact that the "Team" didnt have a bloody clue from a very early stage.
To the normal viewer you would have got the impression that the efficient romans were about to give the Team a good kicking once they crossed the river en-mass. But that never happened. The AI crossed the river piecemeal and attacked piecemeal. There was a distinct lack of purpose in anything either side did.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.crozier/gas6.jpg

[The Witch-King]

Indeed, I just shook my head when they send out their archers without support, something many teams have done in previous episodes and which is a fact that still baffles me. Why on earth would you send out your archers without proper support but they do again and again?

I also noticed that the Roman infantry became disorganized because of the archer fire. If the team hadn't put their cataphracts in the middle of nowehere but close to the battlezone that would have been an excellent moment for a cav charge from two sides. But their cav was somewhere lese doing nothing and the moment passed.

I myself would've made a line on top of that hill near the crossing, with my reliable infantry in front (aka not the peasants), archers behind them and cav somewhere on the flanks (either all cav on one flank or divided in two groups on both flanks). Use the archers to pepper the Romans as they cross, then use the infantry to pin them down while attacking them in the flanks and rear with the cataphracts. It's an old tactic but considering the Armenian advantage in numbers fancy tactics are not really required. I consider myself to be a mediocre general but even I sometimes shudder at the 'tactics' these teams employ.

And yes, I also noticed the units going missing. It's probably because of the editing to make it suitable for tv.

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (The Witch-King @ Oct. 04 2003,19:08)]Why on earth would you send out your archers without proper support but they do again and again?
Because they keep geting people who haven't the first clue about strategy or TW games. At least give 'em a few hours playing the MTW tutorials to give them a semblance of a clue.

*Hopefully* things will get better after episode 6. Someone from CA said they just recorded another 6 shows, so you would've thought that the 2nd lot od teams would have seen the previous few shows and had a chance to *study* for their battle

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

I remember some forum members had posted at the start of the series that they had submitted teams to the TC producers, mentioning they play MTW - did any of these guys have any luck? Was playing STW/MTW in their favour/ held against them?

[22(ReAl II]

I think they have humans on the other end..... and the humans try to be as stupid as possible so the other team can win http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



I also think that if it is the "ai" then it must be the below very easy setting. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

However since I do not live in England I have not seen the show so I could be wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Shono]

The sad thing for me was the team used good tactics.

They used there numbers to attack the romans before the Romans could mass and organise themselves.

The only problem was the team did not know it, so they looked like (insert "complete" for added affect) idiots but still mananged to win.

Prehaps the team should have one of the "experts" as an advisor?

[Spino]

Are the TC producers actually letting the AI fight the human teams or are there people controlling the opposing side? If so then so what's the verdict regarding the AI?

[Shono]

Its difficult to know,

If you were sending your units across a river, you would scout with fast moving Cavalry, however if they came under pressured attack from many units, why continue to cross in dribs and drabs only to be defeated in detail. Would you not retreat and take up defensive positions on your side of the bank and await the enemy. Especially since they are numerically superior.

However if you were the attacking AI you may just keep pushing across the river.

Then in the other battles, especially Wataling Street, the opponents seemed very competent and capable of subtle manouvre, changing deployment and tactics.

You could use heavliy scripted AI or humans to ensure some historical accuracy, which we know they are trying to do.

I dont know how much the battles are changed for the TV, it may not be about accuracy or clever AI, it may be just what they think is good viewing and manipulate it for that purpose.

They would have the most control over the opponents if they used humans and would probably require less retakes and thus reduced studio time.

As it is "made for TV" I would not be too judgemental over the AI if it was AI contolled as they still have plenty of development time.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

If they are using the AI it has to be on the easy setting dont you think as most of the contestants seem to be new to this? I think this was the only one where the AI truly abysmal, coming across in drips and drabs. But River crossings are always difficult anyway. If you look through the battles:

1 - Trebbia, river crossing AI lost.

2 - Bibracte, AI routed one flank and until the very end when the Roman legions, heavy infantry showed what they were made of.

3 - Watling street, no comment the human team was not quite there.

4 - Mons Grapicus, the AI did a good job with its cavalry routing one flank and then rolling up the Scottish line, despite fewer numbers. Again the team mishandled archers but they stil more in numbres.

Overall the AI has won two out of five so its not that bad.

[ShadesPanther]

Sometimes the ai is really poor and in some cases they do look like an expert is in control.


TBh i've noticed a pattern
next week they will lose and the next they will win http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[hellenes]

Looking at the Armenian episode from TC ive observed that the armenian pikemen fought WITHOUT usin their PIKES
They managed to kill two horsemen(at the end of the video) WITHOUT using their pikes
CAN ANYONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS PARADOX TO ME????????? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

PS:the attack of a pike unit with their pikes up its very imaginative and innovative IMHO.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[squippy]

I think thwe experts were right to indentify that the team won more or less by accident. But I don;t thibnk their deployment was that silly - accidental, yes, but I disgree, frex, that the deployment of the cataphrafts and the archers were wrong.

I mean they had 10,000 archers. With that sort of numebrs, you really can afford to deploy some to harrass the enemy and expect to lose them. Secondly, the catphracts were quite intellkgently deployed behind the slope and out of site of the legions, and effectively launched a surprise flanking manouver. It is definitely true to say that the players themselves had not a clue as to the fact that this is what they were doing, but as was pointed out, even if only by luck, they had effectively seized the initiative and compelled the Romans to react to them.