View Full Version : Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC
ShadesWolf
11-18-2003, 14:18
Quote[/b] ]Military strategy game in which contestants recreate historical battles, presented by Eddie Mair. A team of childhood friends replay the battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC between Alexander the Great and the forces of the Persian Empire.
lanky316
11-18-2003, 14:32
Guagamela (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/3764/artic/gaugamela.html)
Could be interesting.
Gaugamela Damn, now I'm genuinely alarmed that I cannot watch TC here in the States... yet. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Incompetent players or not I am aching to see this one played out via the RTW engine Something tells me our 'childhood chums' will be controlling Alexander's smaller but qualitatively superior army and that they will massacred in fine fashion by the numercially superior Persians. Watch for Darius' excellent cavalry to ride round the exposed flanks of our fumbling players and make a red ruin of Macedon's finest... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Basileus
11-18-2003, 16:22
I wish i could see this, will be intressting to see if they can win over macedonians.
The Wizard
11-18-2003, 16:44
Ah yes... Gaugamela. Finally an Alexandrian battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Darius' horsemen might've been great, they didn't have the impact that the hetairoi had...
ShadesPanther
11-18-2003, 17:13
Wonder if they will whell and cover a flank or will they charge head on and be overrun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Quote[/b] ]I wish i could see this, will be intressting to see if they can win over macedonians.
I really doubt the contestants will be controlling the Persian army. The appeal of Alexander the Great is too big for the producers to not let the players try their hand at walking in the foosteps of the young conquerer.
However, based on the performance of previous contestants it might be wiser to let them control the Persian army simply because they would have the luxury of a much larger force to command and the TC staff would not have to try as hard to 'fudge' the battle in favor of the contestants. By playing as the Persians they would have lots of cheap infantry and crack cavalry to throw around irresponsibly like those contestants who played the Armenians for the battle of Tigranocerta (who managed to win, albeit in an ugly fashion).
GAH
I want to see this so damn much
This was going to be my first modded battle for RTW, and now it is going to be on TC. And possibly with some people that actually know how to communicate with each other.
YEY But naturally the Macedonians will get trampled by the larger Persian army, unless one of them has read how Alexander won.
rasoforos
11-18-2003, 19:53
Quote[/b] (Spino @ Nov. 18 2003,10:53)]However, based on the performance of previous contestants it might be wiser to let them control the Persian army simply because they would have the luxury of a much larger force to command and the TC staff would not have to try as hard to 'fudge' the battle in favor of the contestants.
you can say that again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , since the only strategy those 'generals' can succesfully perform is to just attack straight line with everything they have persians would be a grat choice....
No, don't let them be Persians, that would be bad.
Can you imagine if the Macedonians did a 'Spartan' maneuver? Would be even worse than a horrible loss.
SgtAndrew
11-19-2003, 04:39
Man this battle is gonna be off da hizook. I'm sure the players will lose though.
ShadesPanther
11-19-2003, 17:12
In the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC Alexander the Great of Macedonia defeated Darius III of Persia.
Combatants
Macedonians under Alexander, 7000 cavalry and 40000 infantry. (According to Arrian)
Persians under Darius, with maybe 40000 cavalry, 200000 infantry and 6000 greek mercenaries. (Arrian gives an exaggerated number of 1000000 infantry)
Location
Darius chose a flat plain where he could deploy his numerically superior cavalry forces. The exact location of the battle is unknown.
Prelude
During the two years after the Battle of Issus Alexander proceeded to occupy the mediterranean coast and Egypt. He then advanced from Syria against the heart of the Persian empire. Alexander crossed both the Euphrate and the Tigris rivers without any opposition.
The battle
The battle began with the Persians already present at the battlefield.
Darius had recruited the finest cavalry from his satrapies and from an allied scythian tribe. Darius also deployed schyted chariots for which he had prepared cleared terrain in front of his troops. He also had 50 Indian elephants supported by Indian chariots.
Darius had placed himself in the center with his best infantry (the greek mercenaries and his guard infantry the "Apple Bearers"). On both flanks were the cavalry. Bessus commanded the left flank with the Bactrians and Scythians and Mazaeus commanded the right flank with the Syrian and Median cavalry.
Alexander commanded the Macedonian right flank himself, with the Companion cavalry and the Hypaspists, and Parmenio the left flank, with the Thessalian and greek allied cavalry. Both flanks were protected by lightly armed troops, such as the Agrianians on the right. In the middle stood the phalanx infantry in two lines, forming a "double phalanx". The second line was to turn around if out-flanked by the Persians.
The Macedonians advanced, as if entering the trap laid before them. Suddenly the whole army changed direction and started to move to the right, taking them away from the prepared ground. Darius now launched his chariots, some of which were intercepted by the Agrianians.
Darius ordered his left wing cavalry to encircle the Macedonian right and stop their rightward movement. This was countered by Alexanders greek mercenary cavalry. As more Persian cavalry tried to encircle the Macedonian right flank, Alexander committed his last cavalry reserves to charge the point where the main Persian line joined the flanking cavalry. This caused a gap in the Persian line. Alexander turned his line and charged this gap with a wedge consisting of the Companion cavalry and the Hypaspists. It then advanced directly at Darius himself.
Darius now saw his left flank crumbling and the Macedonians advancing, in order to kill or capture him. He turned around his chariot and fled from the battlefield. The cavalry on the left followed him in his flight.
Aftermath
The Persians lost maybe 40000 men. Darius fled with his guard and some bactrian cavalry. Alexander pursued him all the way to Arbela about 120 km from the battlefield. Darius managed to escape to Media, but was later killed by Bessus.
Later Alexander was crowned "King of Asia" in a magnificent ceremony in Arbela.
Leet Eriksson
11-19-2003, 19:19
i read the macedonians only lost 200 men,hope this will be reflected in the show...but i bet the team will mess up somehow...
Ironside
11-19-2003, 20:31
Think about it, in MTW (and probably RTW) terms that means that a much larger army routs compleatly thanks to moral problems caused by the loss of the general. If they fail to kill the enemy general this battle will be alot blodier (and with thier general compitence a loss). Or else the Persian army would rout at first contact and that's defenatly not good TV. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]i read the macedonians only lost 200 men,hope this will be reflected in the show...but i bet the team will mess up somehow...
It is highly unlikely that Alexander lost only 200 men in this particular battle. There is little doubt that his army inflicted far more losses than it sustained (a lopsided ratio made that much more fantastic in the ensuing route of Darius' army) but the only sources we have for the battle of Gaugamela were Alexander's own historians who no doubt fudged the figures to make his victory that much sweeter. Keep in mind Parmenio's troops on on Alexander's left flank were under a great deal of pressure, so much so that Parmenio appealed to Alexander during the battle for reinforcements which were unavailable. In fact after Alexander routed Darius' left flank and center he had to stop pursuing Darius himself in order to prevent Parmenio's troops from being overwhelmed. Given that the number of men under Parmenio's command numbered anywhere from ten to twenty thousand I simply refuse to believe he would cry wolf after seeing roughly 100+ men fall over the course of a few hours fighting. Parmenio's troops must must have had one hell of a bloody fight on their hands otherwise how could Persian and Indian cavalry have been able to break through their lines and make a foolish run for the baggage train in the rear? Had that cavalry actually turned around and charged the exposed flanks and rear of Parmenio's troops Alexander's victory might have been marginal instead of decisive.
Quote[/b] ]Think about it, in MTW (and probably RTW) terms that means that a much larger army routs compleatly thanks to moral problems caused by the loss of the general. If they fail to kill the enemy general this battle will be alot blodier (and with thier general compitence a loss). Or else the Persian army would rout at first contact and that's defenatly not good TV.
Well I'm definitely worried about the AI's penchance for sending its general into the midst of combat. While Alexander was notorious for 'leading from the front' other generals of the period (i.e. Darius and Hannibal) were not so brave and/or reckless. It would be nice if they based the AI's likelihood of using a general unit aggressively in combat on a V&V trait.
Leet Eriksson
11-20-2003, 16:01
hmmm,yeah,if parmenios was pleading for help then the losses were probably screwed up.
On another note,alot of losses on one side should have a negative effect on morale,wich is a contributing factor in the persians defeat.
chilling
11-21-2003, 02:38
I seriously doubt it's the AI we are watching. More likely to be a 2 vs 2 multiplayer game. The more I've seen, the more I'm convinced.
There have been too many times when the 'AI' could have slaughtered the contestants and it hasn't happened. Whatever the opposition is, it doesn't even reach MTW's standard of gameplay.
Knight_Yellow
11-21-2003, 20:56
wait.
TC has not been on for weeks.
not in scotland anyway.
f*cking BBC.
rasoforos
11-21-2003, 21:11
Quote[/b] (faisal @ Nov. 20 2003,09:01)]hmmm,yeah,if parmenion was pleading for help then the losses were probably screwed up.
On another note,alot of losses on one side should have a negative effect on morale,wich is a contributing factor in the persians defeat.
There is a case where the 2 facts mentioned can both exist. The way a phallanx was fighting was many times ensuring that an enemy does not have a chance to even reach close to it for a hand to hand combat. Thus if a phallanx is protected from flanking movements and throwing weapons and it does not break it can in theory inflict mass losses without taking any losses. According to that a general would not wait for the phallanx to take multiple losses or break before asking for help , he would ask for help at a moment where even a slight probability of the phallanx breaking appears (like a point where 2-3 dousin losses appear at a certain point in it ) , and since all that stood between a success or massacre for a phallanx was its consistency then we can presume the general would be quiteadamant about help even with a few losses. My two cents...
Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Nov. 21 2003,14:11)]There is a case where the 2 facts mentioned can both exist. The way a phallanx was fighting was many times ensuring that an enemy does not have a chance to even reach close to it for a hand to hand combat. Thus if a phallanx is protected from flanking movements and throwing weapons and it does not break it can in theory inflict mass losses without taking any losses. According to that a general would not wait for the phallanx to take multiple losses or break before asking for help , he would ask for help at a moment where even a slight probability of the phallanx breaking appears (like a point where 2-3 dousin losses appear at a certain point in it ) , and since all that stood between a success or massacre for a phallanx was its consistency then we can presume the general would be quiteadamant about help even with a few losses. My two cents...
That is true enough.
But as it happens Parmenion didn't control the infantry. In fact the infantry on the left never really engaged the Persians.
It was the lighter Thessalian cavalry that took the brunt of the fighting over there. And cavalry combat was desidedly more deadly than phalanx fighting.
Now chance could have been that, as the Campaign series book on Alexander's campaign presents, Parmenion noticed how the Persians moved further and further around his flanks while peppering his men with missiles. Knowing the phalanx is rather bad at bending itself he could have foreseen what could have happened long before it would, and thus called for help while he was still in a stable position.
Though I have to admit I doubt the Macedonian losses. 500-600 losses seems much more consistent with what a very victorious army would suffer in such a large battle.
1dread1lahll
11-22-2003, 03:27
Most of the Persian conscripts routed the moment battle was joined....not a surprise when you have to be flogged into battle....Most came from conquered lands and hated the Persians....so not 'great' victory really....
rasoforos
11-22-2003, 03:39
Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ Nov. 21 2003,20:27)]Most of the Persian conscripts routed the moment battle was joined....not a surprise when you have to be flogged into battle....Most came from conquered lands and hated the Persians....so not 'great' victory really....
considering that these armies conquered the qwhole persian empire i am sure they had a certain level of effectivity...
Fearless
12-01-2003, 17:34
I don't wanna put a damper on everyones expectations but according to the British newspapers TV page the battle showing tonite on Time Commanders is Telamon between the Romans and Gallic forces 225 BC........................I do hope they've got it wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Barkhorn1x
12-01-2003, 17:59
Quote[/b] (Fearless @ Dec. 01 2003,10:34)]...according to the British newspapers TV page the battle showing tonite on Time Commanders is Telamon between the Romans and Gallic forces 225 BC...
No, this is correct , as the TC page on the TW site was updated.
I laughed out loud when I read this description of the poor Gauls;
"the Helvetii faced their destiny - they were to be the tasty and profitable filling in a Roman baguette of death..."
That's some over the top, funny s**t. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Barkhorn.
The Witch-King
12-01-2003, 20:31
Well, they're being doubled as we type. A baguette of death indeed
The_Emperor
12-01-2003, 20:57
Quote[/b] (The Witch-King @ Dec. 01 2003,19:31)]Well, they're being doubled as we type. A baguette of death indeed
As it happened in history, so it happened in the recreation... The guys were obsessed with camping out on the hill while the romans advanced and just pelted them with Javelins (Oh yes lets just stand here while they do that) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
It was very harsh, but the team was terrible. They should have charged down that hill and took out the Romans... They knew that enemy reinforcements would be enroute (errm, we have some blocks left over) so they had to hit them fast and hit them hard.
Oh what a Baguette of Death indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Frankymole
12-01-2003, 21:03
Is it me, or did Eddie Mair get a bit snippy with Nus near the end? (Not that Nus let it put him off - great His charisma is one of the things that keeps non-wargamers watching). As Nus was lashing the Gaulish blocks with wave after wave of Roman infantry blocks, Eddie casts his eyes skywards and mutters something like 'leave it'. Anyway the obvious tactic was to attack the northern Roman army in a pincer movement as they approached the hill, before turning to do the same to the southern one. The Romans thought they were clever attacking the Gauls on two fronts, it would have been easy to turn the tables (the Gauls outnumbered them and had a broader front). Plus the shock of cavalry charges downhill into lightly-armed missile troops was not exploited. One last point - the subtitles this week were particularly poor; not one of the specialised troop type names was used, with just 'ranks' and 'army' substituted for individual units.
Knight_Yellow
12-01-2003, 21:10
That guy from sandhurst milatary accademy is great.
"look at my massive barbarian penis"
"ohh look they are forming into lines, they will die nicely spaced now"
he should go into a 1 vs 4 with the team.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Divine Wind
12-01-2003, 21:16
Quote[/b] ]"look at my massive barbarian penis"
"ohh look they are forming into lines, they will die nicely spaced now"
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
"Barbarians dont look so pretty with javalins stuck in them"
This episode was hilarious The Military experts basically offered the tactics to the team on a plate at the start of the show. God knows why they didnt do what they said....or even listen to the two lieutenants, who actually wanted to commit, and fight the right type of battle. Another episode where the lieutenants should have been the generals and vice versa. Why do these people assume that because there 20 years older there going to be better generals on the battlefield? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
GAH
edit:typo
frogbeastegg
12-01-2003, 21:29
The expert with the unspellable name on the team's obsession with the hill - "It's not a magic hill", also "they won't have to dig them graves - they are all neatly lined up for grave pits" (or something like that).
The grey haired general with the "hill fetish" (yup, Mr Unspellable again) "We have the hill, whoever has the hill always wins". Um, Hastings anyone? In response to a lieutenants request to attack the Roman javelin men who were killing the Gaulish cavalry "no, stay where you are on the hill".
Other noteworthy quotes - "So they marched out and shook their penises at the Romans and challenged them to attack.", followed by "they don't look so hard with javelins sticking into them". Taken together it is almost Carry On Time Commanders http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
I'm beginning to understand why commanders in historical battles sometimes performed horribly. If these guys can't comprehend basic tactics even when they are told what to do, then I would not like to see what would happen if they had a real army.
rasoforos
12-01-2003, 23:01
what do you mean 'basic tactics' ?? who needs basic tactics when there is a HILL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Hmm sounds like I missed another great episode of Time Commanders http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif
CBR
chilling
12-02-2003, 02:00
It was great.
They had a race to the top of the hill competition. Then a who can catch the most javelins competition. Then a who can stand here some more competition.
All finished off with a Roman sandwich. Diced Gaul filling anyone?
I've not laughed so much for ages. I had my doubts about the new historian chap, 'They don't look so hard with javelins sticking out of them', pure comedy.
I still don't like Eddie Meyer though. I'm sure they could find a better host.
Sounds like a battle were a Lt. should have gone Gung Ho and forced the Gauls to attack.
You Brits and your hoarding Time Commanders, POST IT ON THE NET I can't watch it you mean Leprechauns hoarding your pots of TC episodes.
The expert with the unspellable name on the team's obsession with the hill - "It's not a magic hill", also "they won't have to dig them graves - they are all neatly lined up for grave pits" (or something like that).
Geez, that's idiotic.
The Wizard
12-02-2003, 11:23
Missed it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Seems to have been quite the thing to miss, even though I don't like Rome in the time of the Early Republic.
Yeah, it was one of the best Time Commanders episodes, thanks almost entirely to Nusbacher, who has really grown into the role and was hilarious. (Probably one reason Eddie Marr seemed so fed up with him at the end).
However, the team's strategy was understandable and forgivable - it's what the historical Gaul commander did afterall. If you face one army and suspect there is another lurking somewhere, hunkering down on a hill is understandable. As Nusbacher said, if their army had lethal missile power (eg arbalesters from MTW), it could have been sound strategy. The problem was that their army was a horde army best used in melee - they did not seem to recognise this. But the "right" strategy of using it to overpower the visible army required a certain aggressive frame of mind that only the female lieutenant exhibited. I doubt I would have had the balls.
BTW, I'm convinced they are playing a human not the AI. The opening Roman move with the cavalry was not something a Total War AI would do. I thought it was incredibly stupid at first. Now I think it may have been either (a) a recreation of what the Romans did historically; or (b) a very very clever strategy to preoccupy the team and distract them from what they needed to be doing (attacking and looking for the second army). Either way, it is not something an AI would do.
As before, this episode made me even more keen on getting the game. Fall 2004? Ugh.
Konnichiwa,
I 'saw' that episode. It was harsh for the team. Those experts were harsh on that general too. I agree about hill obsession, but it certainly wasn't bad to go for it. The real guys went around it, I would consider that even more stupid.
It seems a lost cause from the beginning. 1 scoutunit, a few minutes and a big map, how could the team ever find out about the other army? Were they warned on forehand that there might be another one? And even so, where to search then, back, left, right?
Running to the hill was a good 1st move. Then what? The Romans were a bit away from the hill, so charging down will no longer yield much extra momentum or height advantage.
Then the Romans sacrifice their cavalry.
There were woods behind and on the flanks of the visible Roman army IIRC, I'ld think that the Romans are trying to drag me from the hill and into an ambush. Leave alone that the Romans I see are smaller in number, yet rather tough.
I'm not a hillcamper, but I'ld probably stay there (may send cav off to cautiously scout more).
Then the 2nd army shows up. Charge downhill? It's not likely that I could kill any of those two within minutes, even if that would happen, my army would be attacked from the back and from higher ground by the other.
All you could do there is lit the grass (assuming it will burn and the wind is right): attack 1 army and let the fire kill or block the other, or get out of there asap (their right hand route was open, or is there a 3th army?). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Lots of retrospect talk. Outclassed and outmanoeuvred from the beginning.
Victory isn't a sure thing when rush attacking the visible army, Roman loses may be higher but you won't beat both armies (and the team didn't had that info, the only certainty was that hill). The only working plan would be to get out of there.
o_loompah_the_delayer
12-02-2003, 13:09
It was quite funny, though at the beginning I thought Nusbacher was a bit high handed dismissing middle aged englishmen as lacking 'elan'" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, Does this Yank expect them to stand on the hill and waggle their privates around? Taking the hill was fine, just afterwards as they pirouetted on the top and then didnt charge even as the cav got massacred by the javelins http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif .
Regarding the AI it must have known that the second army was coming and so waited, remember it did the same thing at Kadesh when it refused the teams bait. Though the cav sacrifice was quite cunning
btw is the show live? I was surpirsed they didnt edit out the little spat between Eddie the Idiot and Nusbacher at the end.
frogbeastegg
12-02-2003, 14:44
No, it’s not live. I would guess they left the spat in because it was in an important part of the programme and so cutting it would make the rest confusing. Either that or the editor really doesn't like Eddie and wants to show him up
TosaInu makes a good point - how could they have won that battle? Even assuming they charged in at the beginning and killed the first army they would have been left with a tired and depleted army. The second Roman army would have shredded them. When taking on an army like the Romans as a bunch of barbarians you need numbers as well as tactics to win, this team didn't have the numbers to take down two armies.
While this programme had some excellent quotes (“it’s not a magic hill”) the more I think about it the more I dislike it. Eddie finally killed off the tiny trace of tolerance I had left for him; he has joined Noel Edmunds and Lloyd Grossman on my ‘most annoying TV person’ list. He is obviously bored with the programme and has little but contempt for the contestants and his colleagues - get rid of him. The unspellable expert was a little too unfair in his post mortem and comments – did the team even know there was another army? I don’t recall them being told about one and the army counters were ready set up with no spares. When they did Quadesh there were spare army counters and this gave the team the clue they needed to guess at a second army. As far as I could see they had no way of knowing they were destined to become a sandwich.
Against a single Roman army holding the hill and charging down onto them would be a reasonable plan, and yet it was always criticised as if the team were stupidly waiting to be surrounded by two armies. By the time the team knew about the second army it was already too late and they did one of the only two options available to them. Charging downhill and attacking the first army, only to get hit in the rear by the second would possibly have been even worse. Their last stand on the hill was a typically British tactic and it is what most people would have done.
If you want to win the battle then the only choice is to attack and defeat the first army before the second gets there. Of course, it is a quite artificial situation since it was assumed that a battle must be fought. In real life other options might have been open, for example (as Tosa noted) retreat without offering a battle. Which is always the safets bet if you are not sure whether you can win or not. However, if we assume that there must be a battle, and that you want to win, then there is no other choice: attack one army before the second gets there. BTW, this is what both Napoleon and AMP would have done in the same situation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
o_loompah_the_delayer
12-02-2003, 16:39
I think they were told that the Romans had two armies and the second army was going ot be a bit late when the experts told them what to do at the beginning - attack Supposing they had attacked, they had a much larger army than the first Romans, and if they used the cav to surround the Romans with luck they might have routed the Romans quickly. Dont pursue - in RTW routers dont seem to rally ever? Then though tired they could again with luck turn round and face off the second lot of Romans who would also presumably be tired from the march (btw I liked the dust clouds from their feet). Though of course they couldnt have known the Romans were behind them, and I dont see how it could have been possible from the initial scouting (size of map, time etc).
Who is AMP?
Frogbeastegg - there were unused counters for the second Roman army on the table. The contestants did strongly suspect there was a second army and seemed to work taking into account that contingency.
frogbeastegg
12-02-2003, 18:42
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 02 2003,17:16)]Frogbeastegg - there were unused counters for the second Roman army on the table. The contestants did strongly suspect there was a second army and seemed to work taking into account that contingency.
There were? Then I have learned two things today:
1. Reading books while watching TV leads to confusion. Bad habit, don't do it.
2. Yes, Dad was asleep while the programme was on even though he insists he was awake Add large dose of salt to anything he agrees with me on in future.
It's a long way from watching each episode closely and noting detail like I used to. At this rate Rome:Total War will be released and I'll be asking if you get to play as Rome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
The Witch-King
12-02-2003, 20:26
Yeah, Eddy Mair is a lousy presenter who is obviously bored with the entire show and would rather be doing something else. Nusbacher was brilliant as usual, though maybe a little harsh on the team, though they were heading for a catastrophic defeat as soon as the second army appeared. Maybe this was a rigged contest, just like the Battle of Leuctra.
Frankymole
12-02-2003, 23:04
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 02 2003,11:28)]BTW, I'm convinced they are playing a human not the AI. The opening Roman move with the cavalry was not something a Total War AI would do. I thought it was incredibly stupid at first. Now I think it may have been either (a) a recreation of what the Romans did historically;
Nah, it's AI. This has been confirmed by the BBC several times as well as participants. Your assumption (a) hits the nail on the head: the AI for each battle has bespoke algorithms and pre-programming to make it act (at least some of the time) in the "historically correct" way for the scenario. This isn't completely restrictive however, as the responses have to be flexible as for normal R:TW/M:TW/S:TW...
Derfal Cadarn
12-03-2003, 00:50
The big clue to this episode about what tactics to use were the fact that the contestants/players/aircraft nerds were told that they controlled the invading force, and that the romans were defending their homeland. now admittably in MTW if you play a time limited battle the defenders win if they are still standing when the time runs out. ok take this into an unlimited time battle and the same applies. The defenders dont have to do anything , their job is to stop the invading army, if that means the invading army decides to sit on a hill and wait to see what happens the defenders win, they have achieved their goal. The problem most players seem to have faced is not so much what their goal actually is , but does the battle plan they suggest help to achieve that goal., as someone has mentioned maybe the team didnt have enough forces at the end of the day to defeat both roman armies, so camping in hostile terrority waiting for the defenders to make a move isnt going to achieve much. who is to say that if they had launched a full assault at the first army, how long the romans would have stood and defended the terrority, they may have routed very quickly with little loss to the gauls, who could then have rested and waited for the roman reinforcements to arrive. however, if they have done that and it had all gone wrong, im sure we would all be sat here saying why didnt they go and sit on the hill. the fact that they played a battle in the same way as the actual gaul commader did, or as near as dammit, and the actually gaul commder had been quite successful in previous battles, from the introduction we were given , would suggest that without hindsight maybe this was one of those battles the players were not meeant to win.
anyway's if we are quoting from the programme, then the male leftenants line to the generals, err guys there are some enemy coming up behind us, ( as a number of red blocks appear on the overhead map, the players blocks are blue), the repsonse from the generals is no its ok they are are reinforcements. what reinforcements are these i wonder, and if your general cant tell teh difference between two coloured armies then i think you are in trouble no matter what your tactics are or how many men you have.
Sits quietly waiting for all the disagreements :-)
Brutal DLX
12-03-2003, 12:45
I can't watch the show, I'm unfamiliar with this specific battle, but from what I gathered (correct me if i'm wrong) is that the attacking force had to defeat two seperate armies that were marching to join and encircle the attackers.
The attackers had access to a hill, the defenders seemingly not. The attacking army outnumbers each seperate force, but probably not the whole Roman army. The quality of the units isn't mentioned but I assume for now that the attackers have at least a good morale and adequate stats compared to the defenders.
This scenario offers a couple of possibilities for the attackers:
1) retreat at once, although that would mean missing an opportunity here because the enemy has split his forces.
2) Rush the closest enemy army at once, rout them and retreat after that.
3) Attack the closest enemy army, rout them, then assume a defensive position on the hill, trying to rest up and see what the other army is up to. This means giving the defenders the choice whether to resume the battle or call it a draw. Given that they already suffered more losses and will be weakened from now on, it is possible they will attack to not let them get away with that strategical victory. In this case the hill camper army still has a chance by virtue of the magic hill. If they don't attack, a draw would be an acceptable outcome for the attackers.
Personally, I would decide between 2) and 3) based on how well the attack on the first army went, 4) as in "march on the hill and camp until the whole enemy army has joined for battle" is not a viable choice for any good commander unless he has a disctinct edge in troop quality and quantity.
Konnichiwa,
I missed the first 5 (?) minutes of the show, watched a small tv screen and likely missed a few things.
It was a bad situation for the Gauls. They didn't seem to have huge overwhelming numbers required to trash a Roman army, the intel was poor and even if they suspected or were warned that another Roman army would/could be on the map it didn't seem clear at all where it could be. There were woods behind and near the flanks of the visible army: 'are there more troops lurking there and how many'? 'Why do the Romans sacrifice their cavalry, do they want me to come down'?
Even if there wasn't and even if there were no other Roman soldiers anywhere at all than just the visible ones and if the team knew that, it didn't seem so clear that the Gauls would have beated that army without a little geographical help. Looking to the bigger picture: what is the use to invade enemy land and waste 75% of your forces? You need to occupy or plunder it too, and what if there are more dangers a few miles away from here?
Only understandable that the general chose for the only certainty he had there: stay on the hill. It was a very good first move, but the experts trashed it from the beginning and ridiculed the team.
Didn't one of the experts say: 'that hill is useless because the Gauls have no longbows'? That is not a very smart remark: height advantage also offers overview, speed, momentum and a hand to hand bonus. The Romans did have missiles: theirs are less effective when they have to work against gravity. So the Gauls still had a missile advantage when occupying the high ground, even if they had none themselves.
The experts do have all this retrospect information, I'm not convinced that the Gauls would have won the battle and/or the war, even if the expert plan was perfectly executed. What would be said then: 'Occupy the hill. You have naked barbarians, there are well trained, well armoured and well armed Romans down there, waiting to kill you. And there are enough forests down there to home 3 more legions. Tsun Tsu is quoted so many times, but do the people ever listen? He also said something about knowing your enemy, and you know nothing'.
The general seemed either paralysed or trusted his hill too much when the 2nd army showed up and allowed the Romans to climb all the way up and kill him off.
Black Arrow
12-03-2003, 14:47
While you can't fault the Gaulish general for wanting to start with the advantage of the hill it was his sole aim in the battle. "Its not a magic hill" sums up his position exactly. Its only an asset to the gauls if they use it to give impetus to an attack. Without lots of ranged weapons they can't defend it from two opposing forces.
When the visible romans didn't move other than with a cavalry feint, it might have crossed the gauls minds "They aren't moving and they've pinned us here. WHY?"
Thats the moment to start looking round for "disturbed birds" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
If they had launched a cavalry outflank followed by a baresark rush they might well have broken the first romans and been able to retreat or offer battle to the second.
According to history the Gauls also had chariots at Telamone but I didn't see them in the battle.
Quote[/b] ]When the visible romans didn't move other than with a cavalry feint, it might have crossed the gauls minds "They aren't moving and they've pinned us here. WHY?"
'They're taunting and want us to come down, why'? Is another valid thought. Was this advanced psychological manipulation by the AI or are we 'just' facing a script that tries to re-enact the real thing (the Roman cavalry went up). I say 'just', but I'm happy if this could be scripted. It will be a good thing when making historical battles.
I agree that the Gauls should be more active from there on, they had at least a visual cavalry advantage and could have done some scouting and some skirmishing. When the team found out about the 2nd army, he said: 'let them come closer'. Interesting, as it may be possible to quickly crush one of the climbing Roman armies and then either get out of it or regroup on top of the hill. Instead he just waited for both to arrive at the top and watched his units getting killed.
Something tells me that the Gauls were lost no matter what they would have done.
Does anyone have some better information about the map and the actual numbers of troops in TC and the real battle?
Yes, chariots seem missing.
o_loompah_the_delayer
12-03-2003, 17:27
They said in the actual battle there were 45,000 Romans and 60,000 Gauls and the first (smaller) Roman army send their cavlry forward which got massacred and the Consuls head was cut off. Then the infantry arrived and also the second army from behind (I am pretty sure the team wasnt told where the second army was coming from) and the Gauls got crushed. I would guess that the Romans were didvided in to 15,000 and 30,000 - though no reason to belive so just the middle of 20/25 (half and half) and 5/45 (part and main army, not two armies)
Not sure about the numbers in TC but I would reckon the Gauls had a numerical advantage, but perhaps not as much 3:2. They certainly outnumbered the first Roman army by quite a margin though.
Frankymole
12-04-2003, 01:11
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 03 2003,11:45)]I'm unfamiliar with this specific battle... The attacking army outnumbers each seperate force, but probably not the whole Roman army....
This scenario offers a couple of possibilities for the attackers:
1) retreat at once, although that would mean missing an opportunity here because the enemy has split his forces.
As I understand it (picking up what I can from Nus' remarks during the show, unfortunately I missed the first 15 minutes of the show, being en route home from work then), the Gauls had raided into Roman territories in Italy and were on their way back North to their own lands in the Alps. They had been travelling with wagons and some camp followers (and families) and had lots of loot they didn't want to just flee and leave it behind. They were travelling parallel to a river, with a round hill in the centre of the battlefield, when a Roman army hove into view to their north. Unbeknownst to them, another Roman army was following them to the south. Retreat was therefore not possible, as they were already retreating North to their homelands after successful raids. However, they supposedly did outnumber BOTH Roman forces (combined?) 3:1 according to one reviewer. But still perhaps not enough to tackle a well-equipped and rested Roman army. I also gather they were specifically told by Nus or the other expert to defeat the first army they met "in detail".
edit: spelling
Oh, so the Gauls would 'only' have to kill the first army to continue their travel to home?
Would the team have been given the victory if they had beaten the first army and thus opened their escape route?
I did some searches for the battle yesterday, didn't really found what I was looking for, but the Gauls seemed to have some 70,000 and the Romans some 50,000. Saw some different numbers, but none mentioned a 3:1 relationship. The 3:1 may be right for each Roman force individually.
Quote[/b] ]But still perhaps not enough to tackle a well-equipped and rested Roman army.
I wonder about this too, wouldn't just the visible Roman army alone be enough to beat the Gauls?
This makes the picture a bit different: they don't have to bother about Romans occupying the hill in their back (given that they would know), as all they want is get out of there (this would be a serious problem if they had to invade).
Didn't the Gauls use scout- and/or satelite armies exploring the way ahead and guarding the back of the main army?
Edit: code
Hi all,
And don't forget that this is TV after all and is geared around whatever aganda they may have. Seems to me they'd have had a hard time winning regardless of what they did.
And I seem to remember the bloke lieutenant warning the general(s) that the second army was coming for some time (OK it was probably a short time, but whatever) before they had the sense to move the clipboard they'd carefully placed over the corner of the map they approached from....
I like the show in the main. Aryeh is growing into a superstar (albeit in an extremely limited field - my house probably...) and the other guy who was on this week is quite dry sometimes too (a compliment by the way). Eddie can be a tad annoying, but I refer you back to my 'this is TV' quote above.
'Look at my big barbarian penis'. Quote of this, or any other, week... (Might use that as my sig in future)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Cheers.
That Nusbacher fellow is quite knowledgable and does a good job of serving up facts and commentary for the home audience but I really could do without his kinetic display of silliness at the show's end. In the episode featuring the battle of Raphia he put the Seleucid cavalry blocks in a cocktail shaker and threw the damn thing across the table. Either Nusbacher is 'wound too tight' for his own good or he genuinely believes people over the age of 12 will find that kind of display to be amusing. Once is fine but throwing, kicking and smashing the blocks about in every damn episode is positively sophomoric.
Based on the episodes I've seen I prefer Goldsworthy(?) to Nusbacher. He may not be as exciting (or for that matter, as excitable) as Nusbacher but he's very concise and to the point.
But Nusbacher is the only guy that is useable in all episodes, being a tactical something, while Goldsworthy is a historian with a fixed span of knowledge (of course he knows a lot more than his books show, but it would often be as much as many of us here knows about it).
Frankymole
12-08-2003, 20:59
Good programme tonight. I liked the Patton quote "hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the balls"). The cavalry wedge and pike phalanx were both demonstrated to textbook standard. Lots of standing around under hails of arrows though
Who would have been Alexander's heir in 331BC? Because he now needs one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Westland
12-08-2003, 21:10
It seems to me that they only won the battle because their troops were superior. Their plan was good but they forgot to sent in the infantry while the cavalry was fighting. This way they lost all the cavalry on the left and a lot of men on the right, including Alexandre.
In the end the phalanx troops won the battle but even the team was surprised. I think there is no way they could have lost this battle.
The_Emperor
12-08-2003, 21:19
Quote[/b] (Frankymole @ Dec. 08 2003,19:59)]Who would have been Alexander's heir in 331BC? Because he now needs one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Thats the problem with sending your Cavalry in unsupported. I was amazed that they did this before sending the Main Infantry into the fray.
While I noticed the Enemy army was large I expected it would be very Poor Quality, similar to the vast peasant/Militia armies we fight in MTW (but they did have some good Cavalry I might add)...
Now if those guys had just kept Alexander alive and sent him in at the same time as the infantry it would have been an even more spectacular rout
Still they did win, even if the key event of the enemy general being killed wasn't planned by the team http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
frogbeastegg
12-08-2003, 21:41
What happened in the last half? I missed everything atfer Alexander taking early retirment. Typical, after last weeks Shogun reading/TC watching confusion I actually paid attention this week and then my boyfriend phoned. Imagine the scene:
BF:I was just phoning to see how you were.
ME:That's nice...probably. Um, is this going to take long only time commanders is on and Alexander the Great just died.
BF:When can I see you again?
ME:Now I can hear missiles firing, agh This sounds like a good battle
BF: I love you
ME:That's nice...I just heard something about Darius dying The team might win now If only I could see what was happening.....
I don't know whether to http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif or http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Frankymole
12-08-2003, 22:00
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif LOL at frogbeast egg Just don't answer the phone... okay I did but I told me lady-love to push off when Darius waved his front rank forward http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I taped it, for once, and just watched up to the post Alexander mop up again. Not that remarkable - the Macedonians' phalanxes relieved the cavalry very slooowllly (marching not running, so as to keep formation, to the chagrin of the cavalry lieutenant) and kept slogging away rolling up the right (Darius's left) flank, and were professional whilst the Persian rabble (peasants) mostly fled, not clear how Darius got pinned but it was by a bunch of javeliners who polished him off much the same way Alexander bought it.
Nice bit: General "Our cavalry are getting decimated" Lieut: "Wait a minute until we tell you" (Nus points out far more Persians lying dead beneath the hooves than dying Macedons). The general wanted to pull the javelin-chaps out but when his lieutenant told him they had a general pinned down, he said "great" and left them to it. After that, Macedon was torn between pursuing or reforming, and before they decided they were alone on the field
Historically it said Darius fled fairly early, but got tracked and killed by an annoyed general of his As Mark Urban said, the Macs had a big orgy where "no biped with a pulse was safe" ;o) but lets not start that Greek gay debate again... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Frankymole
12-08-2003, 22:15
Can I just add that it was great to find out that Lion TV/ the BBC were not excluding wargamers. In fact they made point of mentioning that these guys played.. .strategy games (okay no sign of anything tactical but it seems to show no antipathy or exclusion of gamers fromthe teams).
One of tonight's team posted to Wargames Directory forum that it is indeed AI software, not humans, controlling the enemy (as indeed the BBC and Lion TV have also confirmed!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. The question is... is the AI any good?
Sounds like they did what Alexander did historically... The real Gaugamela didn't see much infantry fighting. Possibly they hoped for such a development.
chilling
12-09-2003, 10:24
GAH
I couldn't get rid of a mate and his children. I only saw the first 3 minutes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ Dec. 03 2003,17:01)]Yes, chariots seem missing.
(Battle of Telamon)
I suppose those "wheel"-symbols represented the wagons with loot, for the replay by the historians.
What happened was just typical for inexperienced players: they are inexperienced so they don't know whats going to work and therefor carefull and unwilling to commit forces. They don't want to make mistakes, because they don't know how much it is going to cost them. And they have only one chance, so there isn't much of a learning proces. Anyway, inexperienced players are usually either too carefull or to careless about the lives of their soldiers.
In this case the lack of initiative was worsened by the two oldest teammembers being the generals. They took the aversion of engaging into the ridiculous (velites "bombarding" their troops: no, stay in formation). Although is suppose this had also something to do with the fact that the generals looked only at the map and didn't have a clue what happened on the real battlefield.
The second error made by rookies is focussing on one feature only. In this case it was the hill, another example was the tortoise in the battle at Watling Street or, to a lesser extent, the river at the Battle of Qadesh.
I mean, in my first battles (of Total War, but also in other games), I usualy was very eager to go to battle and then very unwilling to lose or even engage my men. I also tended to focus on one feature of the battlefield.
I'm sure that a lot of other players have made these mistakes too, but since this is a game, we can always press restart or load. And at lower difficulties your errors aren't always punished.
But these are things one learns with experience. And I suppose I would have tried to fight the battle like them: take the best position and fight them there. The fact that they didn't notice the reluctance of the Romans to fight may have to do with the team structure. You get impatient and suspicious faster when you are alone. And since a team needs much time to deploy, they might have thought it was part of the program to give them a chance to deploy.
About Nussbacher: yes, his tricks aren't appreciated much. I suppose he imitated Mike Loades (from the first three episodes), who was funny. I still remember him starting to trow toothpicks ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) at Nussbacher to represent the Celtic skirmishing. Unfortunatly, Nussbacher doesn't seem so imaginative when it comes to jokes. I sometimes really miss Loades http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif .
Michiel de Ruyter
12-09-2003, 15:35
This was indeed one of the better episodes...
Just getting back to last weeks episode, Telamon. I think they could have won it due to their superior numbers, and far superior cavalry... once the romans charged their cavalry, they shoudl ahve gon downhill, sent their cavalry to the rear of the Roman army and smashed them... They even had sufficient numbers to attack a flank. then slwoly withdraw, and rest your army... remember that the 2nd Roman army has had to march a fairly big distence itself... and then basically try to repeat the performance... send your cavalry into the roman rear, pin them with whatever survivors you have got and hope for the best..
Last night was actually the 3rd battle which was fought how it should be done...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.