View Full Version : Creative Assembly Time Commander's - Next 2 Episodes
Barkhorn1x
10-06-2003, 17:35
We know that this week it's Pharsalus - "a cocky Roman rebel faces an over the hill has-been."
But the following week the rumor is - the Battle of Cannae
Can anyone confirm??
Wanna bet the Roman's get a victory here as there is no way that the "buffoons du jor" are going to come up w/ the tactical finess to pull out a win.
Barkhorn.
20:00 Thurs 16th BBC2
Time Commanders
Military strategy game in which contestants recreate historical battles, presented by Eddie Mair. A team of police officers attempt to reproduce the tactical genius of Hannibal against 10,000 Roman soldiers at the Battle of Cannae of 216BC
Duration: 60mins
From www.onthebox.com
My GOD
They are going to pit another bunch of hapless peasants up against a much superior Roman army...
They will get butchered
They should have been the Romans.
Well if they follow the actual battle and have read up all about it, they will know that it is all about cavalry, oh and of course the romans need to mass there superior numbers and then loose formation while the Carthage cavalry surround them and kill them all.
So not much chance of that happening http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I wonder if the Romans will be setup not to be as strong and thus give them a chance.
If they can get around the back of the roman legions then they have a chance to break up the roman formation. But that will have to be a general plan and executed with precision.
No cannot find any way of them winning, he said hoping that he was not going to be eating his words in a couple of weeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
I guess we should see some parthians against phanlax. Then will know better how mobility works and if the phanlax can hold their ground.
o_loompah_the_delayer
10-10-2003, 16:01
I would like to see the contestants attack for a change and see how the AI defends.
This would be particularly good here I think b/c I very much doubt that any of the teams so far would be able to pull it of as Hannibal at Cannae. It would be better if they were Romans.
Michiel de Ruyter
10-10-2003, 20:58
Candidates playing the Romans: "Hmm... Hannibal has driven off all our cavalry on the right wing.... but we seem to do fine in the centre..."
A few moments later... a lieutenant:" Guys, while you were so busy with the centre, we have lost the cavalry on our left wing as well..." general: "Yes, but we have almost broken through their centre... and that would finish it..."
A few minutes after that...: " the Carthaginian cavalry has attacked us in the back...with their light troops... and we suddenly have these Spanish whatevers catching us in the flank... and we still have not broken through the centre..." And then the computer yells: "Defeat imminent, defeat imminent..."
I think they should let them play the Carthaginians (I wonder by the way if the candidates do have a choice which side they command). I only do hope that they do not almost exactly tell them what to do, like they did at the trebia 8the first episode).
JeromeGrasdyke
10-11-2003, 10:43
Well, if they played the Carthaginians they'd probably move advance with "those seasoned infantry in the middle" and forget to move the cavalry up to join the battle until it was too late... it doesn't matter which side they play as long as they use the right tactics, the battles are fairly carefully balanced http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm with Jerome here. There is a much greater chance for a giant loss with the Carthies. They would get steamrolled as them. As the Romans they would at least have plenty of soldiers to draw on.
mystic brew
10-16-2003, 20:48
the players are Hannibal and they are policemen. They seem pretty competent, so far.
I'm not sure that they'll use the cavalry envelopement.
the romans are biting on the bait, and their cavalry .... waits... yup, the Roman cavalry gets mullered.
Right. what's next?
mystic brew
10-16-2003, 20:58
oooops.
as usual, the team are scattered and getting overrun.
They had the right ideas. I wonder if they don't have enough time to put together the plan...
The Wizard
10-16-2003, 21:32
Quite the pity... it started out well but it mucked down.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
some_totalwar_dude
10-16-2003, 21:38
they were quite good actually.
Atleast ntil the roman heavies started killing there infantery.
Jees to bad the didn't knew how to use there pikes and gallic infantery together effectively.
we had teams like this before. tacticaly prommising but they lack experience. And when there mainplan doesnt work there pretty much finnished.
Well... A full battlereport please... I want to know how they butched up Hannibal's great victory.
The Wizard
10-16-2003, 21:55
Actually I know a guy who converts the episodes into movies... he posts them over at the TWC... if you want them go there..
if you dare http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ShadesPanther
10-16-2003, 22:03
I thought that the Generals did very well but the leftenants were quite poor when the battle started.
They defeated the Roman cavalry on the flanks without a problem but they just vanished after that.
They seemed to lose track of the battle when they clashed and were divided up into many parts.
The main worry is: Where did all their cavalry go?
The Wizard
10-16-2003, 22:28
The left flank cav stayed fighting but the right flank went off chasing the enemy, as I feared. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
o_loompah_the_delayer
10-16-2003, 22:37
I thought the team was quite decent this time round unlike last weeks lot. They didnt fare badly sut the battle from Hannibals perspective is hopeless unless you are VERY good, as good as Hannibal probably
Basically four people from different bits of the police -
The Generals:
One man - calm, organized, efficient and as usual took charge.
one lady - some nice ideas, but clearly wearing the trouser, very much general no. 2.
Lieutenants:
one man - not too effective, mainly controlled the infantry.
one lady - seemed very efficient and calm, handled the cav mainly.
The Map:
River on one side, hils on the other, some trees in the plain where the battle took place.
What Happened:
Neither side seemed to have slingers/ archers as before. SO first action was the Carthaginian cavalry enticing and smashing the Roman cav on both flanks and then I think they went of to chase the routing Roman Cav b/c they didnt make much of an impact later.
Roman marched up the centre straight at the Carthaginian infantry. Devastating pilum throws at the Carth. Libyan Infantry (pikeman) from the flank and who are then engaged, though the Carth had been recommened that the gaulish infantry be used to engage the Romans first. Then engagement spreads all across the line, and as in last week it ends up in a series of small battles in different bits of the field where the Carth (Libyans, Gauls and Spanish) are all outnumbered and eventually outclassed. General repeatedly tried to get Carth cav around the back, but as I said earlier the Cav seemed to have mostly disappeared. Eventually Romans numbers told, the Carth commited their reserves but too no avail - the Romans pulled of units form the battle and rested them while commiting their reserves (very nicely done by the AI), and the Carth Inf, starting with the Gauls, routed.
I think the battle if it was to be won would have required enormous skill in handling all the complementary bits of the Carth army, but its not possible for any team as seen so far to have aquired the necessary depth of understanding of unit strengths/ weaknesses and also the coo-ordination ot pull it off.
Thanks loompah.
As I thought Cannae is impossible for normal mortal men. But of course any of us would have won... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
The_Emperor
10-17-2003, 01:59
The big problem with most of the teams that have been on TC so far is that they spread out their forces way too thin
Seems to me that each and every team makes this mistake and their lines just get isolated and crumble... Its probably the fact that everyone expects there to be a thin, wide front line. They probably think they are armed with guns or something (or have seen too many Hollywood movies)
Anyway it would be nice to see someone come on there who makes use of focusing their strength and using combined arms tactics.
Yes - I agree about being spread too thin, Emperor.
I don't know if I missed it, but the team did not seem to have a plan after wiping out the Roman cav. I kept waiting for their cav to go for the flanks later, but all I saw was legions charging into their cav They all seemed totally passive after their great opening.
But it was a tough situation - a mass of legions and the historically successful strategy seemed to hinge on only TWO units of Libyan pikemen (and, of course, the cav). It will be fun to see if the historical victory could be replicated in the game.
The Carthaginians seem a really fun army to play - great unit variety: Libyan pikemen, Spanish heavy cav, Gaulish warriors on foot, Moorish (?) light cav, slingers, (theoretically) elephants. I can see it being a favoured choice for players.
Lord of the Isles
10-17-2003, 11:29
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 17 2003,00:59)]
The big problem with most of the teams that have been on TC so far is that they spread out their forces way too thin
Right. Too thin and also uncoordinated. Either the operators should be allowed to help the lieutenants or the players should be given some hints before the battle. As it is, they give piecemeal commands to individual units (move the spearmen forwards, move those ones left, etc) and end up with blocks spread about and often facing in different directions.
I thought last night's Carthaginians were going to be better after they'd beaten the Roman cavalry but they seemed paralysed after that. Instead of sending their cavalry round and behind the Romans, they left them where they were. Stationary cavalry were getting charged by Roman infantry and I was screaming at the TV. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
frogbeastegg
10-17-2003, 11:52
I agree with pretty much everything that has already been said. Did anyone else notice that the cavalry was able to mow down fleeing infantry without stopping? Nice. I also noticed that any Javelins that missed their targets got stuck in the ground and stayed there for a quite a long time.
Quote of the week: (In reference to a bunch of Carthaginian troops on the battlefield) "They're dead, I don't think we can use them" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Sir Chauncy
10-17-2003, 12:09
No Way Frogbeast I never noticed the javalins sticking ion the ground. That is awesome, a really nice graphical touch. I was dead impressed with the elephants at the start though, I was really quite upset when the narator said that Hannibal had lost all of his famous elephants.
*sniffle moan*
The Wizard
10-17-2003, 12:11
I also got annoyed at seeing the Libyans standing around idle at more than one occasion... that was terrible the key troops standing around, getting isolated, and constantly on hold formation so that they won't attack when being flanked http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
ShadesPanther
10-17-2003, 16:09
other quotes
"we have some nudan cavalry" talking about Numidian cav
"They have Tridai" = Triarii
all by the female Leftenant.
They played well for peelers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Just wondering about the point the Emperor made that every team keeps their units too spread out. I wonder why that is? I mean, even if they are thinking "thin red" line tactics, it was a line rather than a row of dashes.
I was thinking it was that they can't get to grips with the computer representation, but that seems charitable as when they deploy the blocks on the normal map, they are also dispersed. By contrast, at the end of the shows, the historians always seem to show the historical battles in terms of a few very packed masses of blocks.
I am wondering if they are thinking in terms of contemporary warfare, when units are often deployed to cover wide areas?
Or maybe the analogy they are making is not military but with something like football, where players again are deployed fairly spread out.
I still find it puzzling, as keeping close together and mutually supporting would seem to be such a natural and intuitive self-defence mechanism when under threat.
The_Emperor
10-18-2003, 01:46
Its a puzzling question to answer isn't it Simon? Why they disperse their units so much.
I think it must show modern misconceptions about history. Probably brought about by the way battles are depicted in Movies and TV and the like.
But they probably are getting mixed up with modern day warfare tactics that do not need depth in the way units are deployed.
Who knows what makes so many people do the same thing... hell I think many of us must have made the same mistakes back when we played our first ever TW games
The Wizard
10-18-2003, 09:56
IMHO, I think the players in TC are too ill-imformed. This gives them a hard time taking full control of their army due to the very indirect control they have over it.
Think of it: While we have direct control over our armies, they have two generals who must make quick decisions, pass these over to the luietenants, these must pass these over to the operators of the two computers controlling one army... it all sounds quite cumbersome to me.
rasoforos
10-18-2003, 11:33
This was the first time i saw the series. Really nice and exciting to see. However , seing a bunch of unexperienced people use wrong tactics and get butchered by the enemy is a bit annoying. They should use more experienced teams (like army officers , military historians) so we can see a decent battle.
To my oppinion what lost the battle was :
1) the fact that the male general never listened to the female (she had better ideas )
2) the fact that they did not use the river , which protected their flanks , to their advantage. They tried to engage the enemy from both sides and since they were outnumbered it proved fatal since there was nothing decent left to engage the main roman infantry force. I believe they would have done better if they had attack the roman flanks and left wing and crush their formations one by one.
The Wizard
10-18-2003, 14:32
Actually, they had nearly the identical plan Hannibal had. Only their center line was different from his, in the fact that his was better able to withdraw when the Roman "steamroller" came in... then stopping and turning when the Libyans were in place to flank. The cavalry topped it all off by trapping the Roman wedge... it was slaughter, 50,000 Romans dead. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Mount Suribachi
10-18-2003, 18:32
One other thing which no-one else has mentioned is that previous episodes have shown how tough the Roman Legionaries are, and the Romans had a lot of legionaries in this battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif As soon as I saw those big blocks of them, I knew the team were in trouble.
The Wizard
10-18-2003, 18:36
But remember.. These were not the real legionaries (Marian), these were the old maniples of the early Republic
I agree with Mount Suribachi - this was one famous historical victory (like Agincourt) that it might be hard to repeat in a computer wargame. However, if CA do try to fine tune their engine to recreate the outcome of historical battles, that would give me great hope for the future. (Dreams on, undisturbed by visions of Sherwood Foresters and Jomsvikings...)
chilling
10-20-2003, 15:05
I think there are two main problems with the show.
Fristly every team seems to think that the blocks on the table top map represents the size that, that individual unit will occupy on the map in game. The table top blocks are way overscale, leading to them setting up a decent enough looking position on the table. But when they implement it in game the end up with a bunch of strung out units.
Also they won't let people who play computer games play. I applied with a few mates and were told that because we'd played MTW before we wouldn't be considered for the show. Needless to say someone else has applied for the show (we are all work collegues now!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
This week it's a bunch of celebrity generals so I guess the strategy books can be thrown out of the window.
It would be much better if the split them into teams of two and let them command against each other.
The_Emperor
10-21-2003, 19:32
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Oct. 20 2003,13:47)]this was one famous historical victory (like Agincourt) that it might be hard to repeat in a computer wargame.
I must have heard that in the Aftermath of every battle where the teams have been outnumbered... but I do not agree.
With the correct tactics you can defeat a sperior quality force in TW, we all know it from our own games in MTW.
The problem is in part tactics, but it could just as easily be balance. Maybe the Romans are too tough in the game at the moment and need to be toned down a tad? I know the same was very much true in VI where the Huscarls would stomp on anything against them...
The Romans are a bit too good it seems at the moment.
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Oct. 17 2003,19:24)]Just wondering about the point the Emperor made that every team keeps their units too spread out. I wonder why that is? I mean, even if they are thinking "thin red" line tactics, it was a line rather than a row of dashes.
I am wondering if they are thinking in terms of contemporary warfare, when units are often deployed to cover wide areas?
Or maybe the analogy they are making is not military but with something like football, where players again are deployed fairly spread out.
I still find it puzzling, as keeping close together and mutually supporting would seem to be such a natural and intuitive self-defence mechanism when under threat.
It is just a lack of experince. If you have never played this game before you wont be able to judge the area that your unit will cover after it has engaged its opponent (provided it is on engage at will, but I doubt that these players know the difference between hold-formation and engage at will).
The Wizard
10-21-2003, 21:08
Also, I believe the command structure is simply too indirect - without very good explanations and at least a bit of time alone with a PC and the game it is very hard to control a TW army through the plans of two people, who give those plans through to two other people controlling two separate parts of the army, who have to pass on the plan to an operator of the game... I know it's more like how a real army was led at the time but isn't it better if it were a bit more direct?
Having watched the video clip of the battle of Cannae it seems clear to me that the show's central concept of using people completely unfamiliar with the period in question, let alone the armies, players, strategy, tactics, etc. involved is proving to be a foolish one. The human players consistently lose in spectacular fashion or barely win thanks to overwhelming numerical superiority. Because of this the only entertainment value this show holds for me is watching the RTW engine in action and hearing the commentary of some of the historians. Watching these human players bungle and fumble about in glorious fashion is downright painful. The Carthaginian team completely lost focus after the Roman cavalry was defeated and those infantry columns hit their front line. What the hell happened to the surviving Spanish heavy and Numidian light cavalry once the Roman cavalry was routed? The human generals had not even a semblance of a clue as to what to do when the Romans met their main line.
The main problem I have with Time Commanders is its use of 'the man in the street' playing the part of generals and lieutenants. I want to see competent players compete against the AI or better yet, have two competent human teams compete against one another. I would sooner have Time Commanders use historians (preferably those well versed in military history) or even real life military officers. In the very least this would make for a far more entertaining and educational experience.
chilling
10-22-2003, 00:25
That's my point I suppose. If you're going to use people who are unfamiliar with the game you might as well get them to play against each other.
Then at least each army would have a general of roughly the same valour ;o)
I agree,
Also they do not get long enough to deploy thier troops, in serval episodes when the enemy attacked they were spread out and disorganised which lost them the advantage.
The police had a very good plan and reconned well prior to the battle but as soon as the Romans attacked they just became reactionary.
I appreciate that any army would attack if it saw its opponent strung out trying to manouvre into position.
Perhaps both armies should be in column and a period of deployment for both, may not be completely accurate but would give the contestants a chance.
For me the enjoyment goes when you see them working hard to get organised and then have to watch them get annialated.
Ho hum, will still watch it but if could be alot better. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hopefully one team will be made of competent people.
But I agree, the normal guy on the sidewalk can't possibly hope to win unless he has some great luck or a single good idea (like at Trebbia). It would be great to see Adrian Goldsworthy and that other guy be the generals having two MTW players as their lieutenants. That would be great Then pit them against an impossible battle... Say... Cannae again (though that wouldn't be good for ratings).
chilling
10-22-2003, 16:49
More interesting would be the historians vs a couple of experienced MTW players. Now that would be entertaining.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
o_loompah_the_delayer
10-22-2003, 17:10
Quote[/b] (chilling @ Oct. 22 2003,10:49)]More interesting would be the historians vs a couple of experienced MTW players. Now that would be entertaining.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You would have to be a bit selective with the history Profs, some of them live mentally in the stone age When I was at Uni, I used to work part time at the computer help desk for a while. Our clients were mostly history/ english lit/ german etc profs. The most memorable example:
HP: my computer isnt working
me: what is wrong with it?
HP: the screen is all black
me: is the monitor on?
HP: how do I tell?
me: is there a green light and a switch somewhere near the bottom right or left corner?
HP: I see a switch but not a light.
me: Press the switch and turn the monitor on
This happened during a bank holiday and the prof's secretary hadnt come in
The last thing I want see commanding an army in Time Commanders is people who have played a Total War game. Military officers (or trainees) or war historians fighting the battles would be far more interesting and entertaining in my opinion.
chilling
10-22-2003, 18:57
Well we get a comedian and a TV presenter as generals and a couple of soap stars as lieutenants this week.
I don't hold out much hope for them.
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Oct. 22 2003,12:19)]The last thing I want see commanding an army in Time Commanders is people who have played a Total War game.
Why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
BTW, it seems that the organisers have the very same oppinion so you have nothing to fear http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The Wizard
10-22-2003, 19:34
How about we have two clans pit against each other in TC after they manage to get into the finals of some big tourney with the prize mentioned earlier in this post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ Oct. 22 2003,13:09)]
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Oct. 22 2003,12:19)]The last thing I want see commanding an army in Time Commanders is people who have played a Total War game.
Why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
BTW, it seems that the organisers have the very same oppinion so you have nothing to fear http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Because they know to much about TW most likely.
And I would just prefer to see military officers or war historians, at least someone who knows (well) about strategies to fight the battles, but don't know to much about the game itself, gives for more interesting battles (imo) and to see if those persons really have a neck for ancient warfare. (An) experienced TW player(s) will most likely defeat the enemy most of the times. So the outcome is more known I think. Whereas with people who have no knowlodge of the game might "struggle" abit more, but might still be victorious due to strategical "genius" without relying on how the game works (mainly due to training on strategies and tactics in the army and/or background information about how the real battle went).
I do agree to at least not use complete and utter idiots from the streets who'll most likely lose every battle given to them.
In short I just don't really like having TW players on the show, but still competent people. But that's just my opinion.
The problem is that any idea is implemented through the interface of the TW game. If the players are not familiar with the interface and with the different options, formations, etc., then they cannot implement their ideas and even the most ingenious idea would fail. I think we had some good example for this, and the list of sad examples just will grow even larger if the they continue to enlist completely unexperienced "players".
Quote[/b] ([DnC] @ Oct. 23 2003,00:21)]Because they know to much about TW most likely.
(An) experienced TW player(s) will most likely defeat the enemy most of the times. So the outcome is more known I think. Whereas with people who have no knowlodge of the game might "struggle" abit more, but might still be victorious due to strategical "genius" without relying on how the game works (mainly due to training on strategies and tactics in the army and/or background information about how the real battle went).
In short I just don't really like having TW players on the show, but still competent people. But that's just my opinion.
Well, I agree. A TW player as general will know what to do to outplay the game (if it is an AI, which seems more and more unlikely). But if he is placed under the command of a historian general then he would have to do what the historian says, but he wouldn't butch it up like other people would. He would charge perfectly, he would use the correct formation, he would pay notice to flanking maneuvers and so on, but he wouldn't be able to outfigth the machince, that would be the job of the historians.
See the best of both worlds. No fools to destroy the great idea of the historians, and no fools to give the lieutenants impossible and stupid commands.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.