Battle of Chalons - 451 AD [Archive]

Frankymole

12-15-2003, 21:06

"Attila the Bun"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Loved the music: 'country' for the scout chase, perhaps historically inappropriate bagpipe lament after (yet another) massacre and even the Medieval: Total War campaign map theme (complete with birdsong) during the 'parting shot' just before the great Butch n' Sundance freeze-frame on the forlorn final charge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Best of all was Nus' bread bun representing the Huns' supply camp. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Attila the Hun mk II: all I knew about AtH was that his horde swept through Europe like a dose of salts... here, they swept in then, er, stopped, and waited, and died
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

Frankymole

12-15-2003, 21:08

Quote[/b] (Mount Suribachi @ Dec. 06 2003,17:56)]No, they're new recruits who are at "officer school" for want of a better phrase. When they graduate they will be 2nd Lieutenants.
Not quite, they're too old to be regular officer recruits. The British ACF (Army Cadet Force) is basically a youth organisation, kind of a cross between a part-time military academy (as the US understand the term) and the Boy Scouts. Kids around 13-16 join it - these were the adult volunteers who run it on behalf of the British army. Nothing to do with officer trainees.

The_Emperor

12-15-2003, 22:35

Oh man that was such a disaster

Those guys didn't have a clue and just blindly followed the "Ex-Army Guy" who was general (well they did to start with, when it all went bad they just ignored him) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

"Take the hill and hold it" Sounds good if you have a big army with a lot of infantry, but they had a lot of Horse Archers and Cavalry and very little Infantry... That should have been some sort of hint for them to go out there and mix it up with the Romans using hit and run tactics to knock them off balance.

But no we shall stand here on the high ground, wait are those enemy Horse Archers shooting at us? Nevermind it does not matter, we are on the hill http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

And to make matters worse they sent their own Horse Archers charging head-on into the enemy without giving them a volley http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Quote[/b] ]Loved the music: 'country' for the scout chase, perhaps historically inappropriate bagpipe lament after (yet another) massacre and even the Medieval: Total War campaign map theme (complete with birdsong) during the 'parting shot' just before the great Butch n' Sundance freeze-frame on the forlorn final charge

I think it was more about poking fun at the team and creating a very comical atmosphere (and lets face it that chase with the Scouts was funny)... I noticed that at least one guy in the team had a kilt on I guess that may explain the choice of the bagpipe music when things went bad

The Butch n Sundance final shot was a great finishing touch (and the slow-motion of the general's death in the past couple of episodes) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

And the look on that Ex-Army guy's face when the battle went pair-shaped was priceless (it bears some resemblence to this smilie --> http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif)

How many times must we say it... "it isn't a magic hill" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

econ21

12-15-2003, 22:37

Seemed a little bit like a re-run of the episode the with "magic hill" (Gauls vs 2 Roman armies). As someone here commented of that earlier episode, perhaps it is just a very English mentality to find a nice hill and try to hold it? I suspect I might do the same.

But given the army connection, it was a little chilling to imagine this team in a real war situation - stalwart lieutenants lacking initiative and dieing as ordered on the field, ineffective and out of touch martinet and boneless sidekick back at HQ.

The use of the heavy cavalry was stereotypically British military too - "charge" and then they clear off on their own for the rest of the battle, chasing hares until it is too late.

I'm not saying the battle would have been easy, however. Even Attila got whipped - in TW, with legions vs horse archers, my money is on the legions any day.

DemonArchangel

12-15-2003, 22:39

well, junior part time military academy is called JROTC in Emerika

The_Emperor

12-15-2003, 23:08

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 15 2003,21:37)]in TW, with legions vs horse archers, my money is on the legions any day.
Well mine isn't, I have fought too many armies of Byzantine Infantry with Turcoman Horse to come to the same conclusion.

Those heavy troops have no hope of catching the horse archers if they are well ordered and used correctly, they can run rings around the infantry and deplete their numbers with arrow fire... and also remember that the RTW engine is said to have the "Shoot while Moving" ability for Horse Archers. (which we do not currently have for Horse Archers)

When the enemy numbers are depleted(and their morale sapped by casualties and missile fire) enough you can always charge the Horse archers into the rear of the enemy formations

As for the "holding the hill", well it seems you only gain the bonus for being on a hill if your fighting down it. When those Romans got within range of the Huns the ground was almost level... Now if the Huns had charged down the Hill towards the Romans before they got near the top that would have had greater effect.

Sadly it just turned into a bunch of guys fighting on a hilltop, not a downhill charge to disrupt the enemy.

econ21

12-15-2003, 23:56

Quote (Simon Appleton @ Dec. 15 2003,21:37)
in TW, with legions vs horse archers, my money is on the legions any day.

Quote Emperor:
Well mine isn't, I have fought too many armies of Byzantine Infantry with Turcoman Horse to come to the same conclusion.

Fair point - the AI can be annoying with horse archers and tackling them with swords is far from optimal. [On an aside, archery does seem strangely more potent in RTW than MTW - I would have thought the reverse should be true.]

But horse archers are rather difficult for inexperienced human players to use. In today's programme, I am not even sure they did any shooting as the Romans marched up the hill, let alone use "hit and run" tactics that I would be hard pushed to pull off. By contrast, give inexperienced human players a mass of armoured heavy infantry to tough it out with - legions, phalanx, whatever - and they have a fighting chance. I believe two (the only two?) player victories in Time Commanders came from such a set-up.

Frankymole

12-16-2003, 01:24

This was posted at Wargames Directory before the prog:

"Hello everybody - I'm the Exec Producer of Time Commanders from Lion TV. We have just completed the editing of the final shows for this run. I just wanted to let you know that the production team have all been regular readers of this forum - its been great to get all of this feedback during the production process.

Next week's show is the last before Xmas and then BBC Two are playing out the final two episodes in the New Year. Chalons is a real cracker - very funny stuff.

The BBC are currently debating whether to go for a second series for 2004. I think they will, but these things can take time. If anybody feels moved to contact the BBC and let them know how much you have liked the show and that you want to see a second series, then the number to call is 08700 100 222. It would be a great help.

Have a good Xmas" -- Posted by Adam at 15:50, 12 December 2003 GMT

So ring tomorrow (or as soon as you can) to keep Time Commanders on the air

Teutonic Knight

12-16-2003, 01:43

anybody have any idea when this will be uploaded to legiontotalwar?

Zawath

12-28-2003, 21:00

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Dec. 15 2003,18:43)]anybody have any idea when this will be uploaded to legiontotalwar?
Now

Basileus

12-28-2003, 21:01

yep its on legiontotalwar now, i would grab it if my damn line would work properly heh

alman9898

12-29-2003, 02:22

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif Freaking awesome... just wish we had the show over here in the US of A.

Jacque Schtrapp

12-29-2003, 22:41

This has to be the most pathetic effort I've seen so far. There was absolutely no communication and the main general looked like he wanted to wring his hands or cry half the time. Why is it that it always seems the lieutenants would by far make the better generals? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I was appalled at their complete inability to utilize their forces with any amount of effectiveness. What is the unholy fascination with hills? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Why would anyone park their most mobile troops to the rear and leave them their?

Attila says: GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Monk

12-30-2003, 01:36

Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Dec. 29 2003,16:41)]Attila says: GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
hmm i seem to have found myself here in the Colosseum once again.

Quote[/b] ]This has to be the most pathetic effort I've seen so far. There was absolutely no communication and the main general looked like he wanted to wring his hands or cry half the time.

Yeah i agree, the general couldn't handle the presure. If the battle went against him just a bit then he looked down at the board with a sad look.

Quote[/b] ]Why is it that it always seems the lieutenants would by far make the better generals? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I do not know, maybe since the lieutenants are right there looking at their units staring the enemy in the face they have a better understanding of how to fight em, im not sure really but thats the only thing i can think of.

Quote[/b] ]I was appalled at their complete inability to utilize their forces with any amount of effectiveness. What is the unholy fascination with hills? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

It might have something to do with the last century of warfare. If the teams had some sort of missle units, like longbows or muskets then holding the top of that hill would be the right thing to do in some cases. However the fact is that they go up there, most times only infantry without archer or cavalry support only to get thrashed.

Quote[/b] ]Why would anyone park their most mobile troops to the rear and leave them their?

Maybe the same reason the sacred band was left behind in the Luectra episode, possibly they were worried about losing them. however at the end they just threw them at the enemy and got the slaughtered. It's more than likely they did not know how to use the horsemen, for if they did they would have been running flank attacks all night long with those archers.

At the point they got up the hill imho it was over, only because they had no support op there and their infatry became nothing more than goths with big targets on their shields. In fact by the time Visigoth reinforcments arrived there were no huns left to fight, most had been killed to archery.

Quote[/b] ]Attila says: GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

He and all other great commanders who now watch TC from the beyond http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Ashen

12-30-2003, 03:20

did you see how few troops were actually left on the magic hill by the time the romans walked up it? They must have some damned good archers

Also, the early cavalry flank. What happened to it? I saw the huns getting stuck in and doing some nasty damage..but then...nothing until the very end and half a unit. Can anyone elaborate for me?

kataphraktoi

12-30-2003, 06:04

Who knows what happened to the early cavalry flank attack, the generals just lost control of their whole army and had no idea what was going on at all.

Bleh, I can't believe was killed. And he just stood there.

Losing is not interesting. Its painful watching.

Math Mathonwy

12-30-2003, 11:37

haha someone needs to make a poll on the dumbest TC team. i think these guys would win hands down. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

CBR

12-30-2003, 12:41

I thought Telamon sucked but this team.... Yes it was actually painful to watch this battle gah.

That cavalry unit doing the early flank attack..well it seemed like they forgot about it and let it chase off some routers. When they finally ordered it back it was too late.

CBR

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-30-2003, 16:29

I'm actually really puzzled about Telamon and Chalons... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The reason is that, I'm not sure if we really witnessed something real. It was like a surreal animated painting.

Although impossible to believe, the previously mentioned spectacles roled before my bewildering eyes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

I deem that any moderatelly inteligent life-form (like a chimp or gorila) that had seen such dreadfull exibitions of the human intelect, would have been puzzled, even perplexed, asking himself the question:

"How the heck did these idiots achieved domination over the planet?"

This life-form would have to pinch itself hard, like I did, to understand that this wasn't a dream... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Kraxis

12-31-2003, 01:09

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 30 2003,09:29)]I deem that any moderatelly inteligent life-form (like a chimp or gorila) that had seen such dreadfull exibitions of the human intelect, would have been puzzled, even perplexed, asking himself the question:

"How the heck did this idiots achieved domination over the planet?"

This life-form would have to pinch itself hard, like I did, to understand that this wasn't a dream... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
We took over because those people, who were as 'impressive' as these guys, actually died in battle back then. So they wouldn't be available to go around and destroy it all for the human race.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-31-2003, 07:01

Quote[/b] ]We took over because those people, who were as 'impressive' as these guys, actually died in battle back then. So they wouldn't be available to go around and destroy it all for the human race.
Good explanation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But then, how come there are still some like them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Kraxis

12-31-2003, 12:41

Not all the buggers were generals or warriors, some might have lived very peaceful lives and thus survived... GAH

The Wizard

12-31-2003, 13:11

Bah... this team was even more stupid than the team of Watling Street.. my god how agonizing to see them put the complete Hunnic army to waste single-handedly *faints*

Aymar de Bois Mauri

12-31-2003, 18:31

Quote[/b] ]Not all the buggers were generals or warriors, some might have lived very peaceful lives and thus survived... GAH
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ludens

01-01-2004, 17:06

Oh come on, how many of you wouldn't have made the "magic hil mistake" when you were new?

Yes, these guys did pathetically, but we wouldn't have done it much better when we were new. If a Org patron makes errors like, you can laugh at him, because he is supposed to have some experience, if only from playing the tutorials. These guys had the additional disadvantage of the command structure (the general could not really see the small battle, the liutenant didn't see the big picture. Good communications prevent this, but that is easiers said then done in the heat of battle), and no experience at all with this kind of game.
I'd like to remind you also that we get information from the "experts" about what they should be doing, while they don't.
Lastly: how many of you can handle horse archers properly?

The programmers appearently assumed (like us) that these guys new something about warfare. They didn't, and got the thoughest scenario of all: an army whose strength lay in horse archers, with almost no heavy cavalry, against an army WITH heavy cavalry AND strong (missile proof) infantry.
The fact that they managed to butcher horse archers in close combat with spearmen is because they hadn't got anything else to prevent those spearmen from flanking (their small unit of heavy cavalry having ran of in pursuit of their first target. That was what happened to the early cavalry flank).

This was the biggest debacle since Watling Street. But here it is understandable, because the battle was beyond their capability. You need to know warfare to use a complex army with specialist units properly.
The Watling Street scenarion went wrong because that male general obviously thought that, whatever he ordered, the legionares would carry it out. March then down the hill, and order them to attack the Britons. The fact that the Britons would be activily resisting this, and surrounding them didn't matter. Set them in 2 ranks and order them to attack, doesn't matter.

When everything was going wrong, the female general said they should pull back, but... But her colleague wasn't listening, he ordered the luitenants to pull back, doesn't matter that they are surrounded, does not matter that the Britons will be cutting up their backs... Whatever he order, it would be carried out.

So, yes, it often becomes a debacle because of inexperience. But try doing something when you know nothing about and you only get a very short introduction to it.
What they should do is get some experienced players to really difficult battles. But that isn't interesting for the public.

Ludens

01-01-2004, 17:11

Despite me critique on the last episodes, does anybody know when the next one comes up? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Michael the Great

01-01-2004, 19:25

NOOOO
Flanking is BAD
Blindeslly charging in to a wall of pikes is GOOD

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-01-2004, 21:53

Quote[/b] ]These guys had the additional disadvantage of the command structure (the general could not really see the small battle, the liutenant didn't see the big picture. Good communications prevent this, but that is easiers said then done in the heat of battle), and no experience at all with this kind of game.
Yes. You're right about this point.

I think the line of command is really faulty (2 generals). Also, their awareness of the battlefield is deficient, to say the least. So, their control over their troops is hampered by it. This increases confusion and reduces reaction habilities.

Nevertheless, they were all very poor planners. I believe that disasters such as those we've seen, can be avoided through strict analysis and good planning.

Ludens

01-01-2004, 22:20

They've got only fifteen minutes, they have several task to do, and they haven't got the faintest clue what is going to happen next. Try planning then.
Planning also assumes the availability of information. Now, you and I look to a battlefield, and note important things, because we have experience. They haven't got the faintest clue as to what is important and what isn't (famous example: the magic hill).

Additionally you are working in a group, oppinions are pointing in different direction (and you cannot know who is right until you fight) and some persons will dominate the others. The last thing is especcially bad if it is a luitenant. It was HIS plan, but the generals must execute it.
That is not going to work.

So, yes, planning can help, assuming you know what you are doing. If you can't figure that out in the 15 minutes...

Kraxis

01-02-2004, 20:39

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 01 2004,10:11)]Despite me critique on the last episodes, does anybody know when the next one comes up? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I believe it will be Marathon. The producer has posted this in a few places.

But you do know they have more than 15 minutes right? The crew will film it all and then cut it down to those 45 minutes we see (or 60 minutes we saw earlier). THe 45 minutes aren't effective time.

Ludens

01-02-2004, 21:24

Yes, I know that the show has been cut and edited. But they do have fifteen minutes to gather information and come up with a strategy. In the first episodes they showed a timer, it was removed later (because it was annoying and didn't help), but in a later episode Mair refered to the fifteen minutes the team had to find out everything.

I don't know if they continued with this into the second series. Most of the planning phase was cut out of the show, but I think they still have fifteen minutes for it.

--------------
Marathon sounds interesting. But when is it? Next monday or next week?

mercian billman

01-03-2004, 06:02

Taking out 15 minutes may be a good thing because for it to be on American Television it would have to be under a 45 minute format.

When I was new to MTW (just a few months ago) I used to make stupid mistakes like believing I had a advantage just because I held a hill or I outnumbered the enemy(with Peasents and, Urban Militia) using Artillery in battles where I was the attacker etc... Luckily I've had you people at the Org to help me out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The mistake this team(and Telamon) made was they tried to fight a battle as if they were the Romans. They tried to use Barbarians troops as if they were legionares. They lost before the fighting began. Imagine being Regulus or Aetius(?) and, seeing the Barbarians lined up neat rows waiting for you to attack.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-03-2004, 06:20

Quote[/b] ]They've got only fifteen minutes, they have several task to do, and they haven't got the faintest clue what is going to happen next. Try planning then.
Planning also assumes the availability of information. Now, you and I look to a battlefield, and note important things, because we have experience. They haven't got the faintest clue as to what is important and what isn't (famous example: the magic hill).

Additionally you are working in a group, oppinions are pointing in different direction (and you cannot know who is right until you fight) and some persons will dominate the others. The last thing is especcially bad if it is a luitenant. It was HIS plan, but the generals must execute it.
That is not going to work.

So, yes, planning can help, assuming you know what you are doing. If you can't figure that out in the 15 minutes...
That's why it would be interesting to see how some of the ORG guys would fare in such a situation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]The mistake this team(and Telamon) made was they tried to fight a battle as if they were the Romans. They tried to use Barbarians troops as if they were legionares. They lost before the fighting began.
Yes. You've hit the nail on the head. If they were the Romans, they wouldn't have performed that badly.

Quote[/b] ]Imagine being Regulus or Aetius(?) and, seeing the Barbarians lined up neat rows waiting for you to attack.
They would find it hard to believe their luck... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Kraxis

01-03-2004, 19:39

It is not that they liked the hill. Damn anybody who is new to this kind of warfare will make that mistake.

But these guys were absolutely confined to that thinking. Nothing else penetrated to them until the very end.
When I played some of my first STW battles I too lunged for the hills, but I sure knew that I had to attack the enemy when he got close, and try to overwhelm him where possible.
The generals failed this miserably, despite the fact that they could see that the Velites (for instance) were out alone and firing on cavalry (which is the main enemy of Velites).

If they had done like this they would not have won, that is sure. But they would not have looked completely incompetent. In that case the focus on the hill would actually look rather sensible.
But as it was said, the hill itself would never win them anything. They should have the sense to strike out from the hill and return when it is done.

Ludens

01-03-2004, 20:31

I assume you are refering to the battle of Telamon.
You don't know whether they could see that the velites were holding a genocide (equuscide?) of cavalry. Remember that what we see is NOT wat is seen on the big screen. In the first episodes the big screen seemed to have a low framerate, while what the viewers saw was fluent. They just save a replay and then use this to gather material for the show.
The luitenants reported the danger, but the message did not convey the fact that they were actually slaughtered, not just suffering a few casualities.

Of course, the generals were obsessed with the map. Probably, they suffered from information overflow, so they concentrated on one thing. Result: disaster.
The team-structure also played a part, the luitenants couldn't convey the actual situation (that the cavalry was rapidly being turned into, frankly, a lot of horsemeat) and were under too much stress to show any initiative. The generals on the other hand, were also under so much stress that they reacted with the age-old stress-routine: If it doesn't work, try harder They kept focussing on the hill. If they would stop and think, maybe they would have thought twice about this. But they didn't. Because of the stress.

Main causes of defeat: lack of initiative (stress) and lack of knowledge. Both are caused by inexperience.

Kraxis

01-03-2004, 21:08

While I'm certain that they couldn't see what was going on directly (it was obvious from their actions as you say), I could see on the big map in front of them, the one they looked at very much at the time that the Velites were very exposed, far away from the heavy infantry.
What they shoul have done was to ask what those troops were and then launch the attack.

But the problem is that they dared not attack down the hill of risk of getting down to the flat land. A downright stupid idea. If you aren't prepared to fight for the hill, then don't sit on it.

Revenant69

01-03-2004, 22:49

Well I finally got meself an account over at LegionTotalWar (dont ask why it took so long http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) and downloaded a few movies of theirs.

I must say, watching Attila's "fearsome" hordes being so successfully destroyed made me cringe in agony many a time. This episode was wicked in every sense of the way. I absolutely loved the music for it - was superbly selected and well done and appropriately placed. The scout chase music was so hilarious that I found myself laughing uncontrollably 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

"You you've disorganised them..." LOL WHAT? Those scouts didnt do jack sh*t LOL well besides giving me a laugh. I have found myself replaying this scout scene close to ten times and each time laughing with more intensity 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

I must say this team sucked, the only person who had some semblance of tactics was Pat with his cavalry flanking manuever which was SOOOO awesome to see. I really really cant wait to be able to play Parthians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

One thing the "General" should have realised when the Alans started firing at the Hunnic infantry, is that it was probably a good idea to do the same with HIS horse archers. But NO, sitting idly on the hill with his light infantry, being shot up by Alans and, eventually, charged by heavy roman infantry was apparently a better way of doing things http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Atilla's death slow-mo was very kool as well. I must say this episode made me miss the fact that I do not get BBC2 here even more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

The other obvious blunder was commiting their mobile horse archers into a prolonged melee without even firing off their arrows.

But there is one thing that i can sort of forgive the team. How many of us were able to use (effectively) an army full of Horse archers and light infantry and defeat far superior force when playing MTW for the first time??? The answer would be "Not many (if any)".And, we also have the advantage of knowing the MTW engine. Since the battle demanded the team to use hit-and-run tactics which is quite didfficult to pull off, I can see why the team got slaughtered so badly. They totally did not understand the strenghts and weaknesses of their troops.

Oh well.
"Good luck, The Romans are coming"
"The Romans ARE coming" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

The woman was absolutely useless. Hehe, also Nusbauchers bun serving the role of Hunnic camp was simply "sweet" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

All in all it was a very entertaining episode to watch.

Ludens

01-03-2004, 23:08

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 03 2004,21:08)]While I'm certain that they couldn't see what was going on directly (it was obvious from their actions as you say), I could see on the big map in front of them, the one they looked at very much at the time that the Velites were very exposed, far away from the heavy infantry.
What they shoul have done was to ask what those troops were and then launch the attack.
I suppose that by that time the generals were almost panicking so they were clinging to the original idea. They couldn't think up anything else because of the panic. Hill, hill, hill is all they thought. As long as we are on the hill everything will be all right.

Quote[/b] ]But the problem is that they dared not attack down the hill of risk of getting down to the flat land. A downright stupid idea. If you aren't prepared to fight for the hill, then don't sit on it.
No argument there. But if you want to win a battle, you shouldn't put these fools in charge.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-04-2004, 20:11

Quote[/b] ]Hill, hill, hill is all they thought. As long as we are on the hill everything will be all right.
Yes. They suffer from MIS*.

* Magic Hill Syndrome.

Quote[/b] ]But if you want to win a battle, you shouldn't put these fools in charge.
Unless you're commanding the opposite army... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Ludens

01-04-2004, 20:44

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 04 2004,20:11)]Yes. They suffer from MIS*.
* Magic Hill Syndrome.
A quite common disease in Britain, it appears, with an incidence of 3/14 (including the "victory" at Triganocerta).
But seriously, I really think that this is what they thought at Telamon. If you are under stress you tend to stop thinking and just go on with what you are doing. There are examples of a crowd of people being unable to open the door in theater to escape from a fire. Lateron it was found that the door could be easily opened if somebody had thought of pulling the door to themselves instead of pushing But because of the panicking crowd, the people didn't think of that. They just started pushing harder.

If you are experienced: 1) the stress will be less because you have seen it before and 2) this experience will suggest a better alternative.
Experience is finding or creating routines to deal with known situations.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-04-2004, 23:49

Quote[/b] ]There are examples of a crowd of people being unable to open the door in theater to escape from a fire. Lateron it was found that the door could be easily opened if somebody had thought of pulling the door to themselves instead of pushing But because of the panicking crowd, the people didn't think of that. They just started pushing harder.
It probably wasn't a question of thinking.
They didn't pull because they were squeezed by the crowd behind. The crowd behind just pushed, because they wanted to rush the people in front. It's an uncontrolable situation.

Quote[/b] ]Experience is finding or creating routines to deal with known situations.
True. But improvisation in unknown situations, is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Human inteligence. If it wasn't like that, the Human species wouldn't have been able to survive. So, they really weren't any good at imitating our ancient ancestors.

Ludens

01-05-2004, 15:30

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 04 2004,23:49)]It probably wasn't a question of thinking.
They didn't pull because they were squeezed by the crowd behind. The crowd behind just pushed, because they wanted to rush the people in front. It's an uncontrolable situation.
IIRC the exact wording of the text excluded this possibility. It was an (admittedly old) psychology book. But that does not matter, it was just an example to show what stress does to your abilities to solve problems.

Quote[/b] ]But improvisation in unknown situations, is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Human inteligence. If it wasn't like that, the Human species wouldn't have been able to survive. So, they really weren't any good at imitating our ancient ancestors.
Improvisation under stress is one of the most difficult things to accomplish. You are not sure whether it would work, and you have only one chanche to find out. I'd rather not be improvosing under stress. I would do something that (I think) works. Like defending a hill.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 15:57

Quote[/b] ]IIRC the exact wording of the text excluded this possibility. It was an (admittedly old) psychology book. But that does not matter, it was just an example to show what stress does to your abilities to solve problems.

Yes, it was a good example.

Quote[/b] ]Improvisation under stress is one of the most difficult things to accomplish. You are not sure whether it would work, and you have only one chanche to find out.
True.

Quote[/b] ]I'd rather not be improvosing under stress. I would do something that (I think) works. Like defending a hill.
I see your point. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kraxis

01-05-2004, 16:23

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,08:30)]Improvisation under stress is one of the most difficult things to accomplish. You are not sure whether it would work, and you have only one chanche to find out. I'd rather not be improvosing under stress. I would do something that (I think) works. Like defending a hill.
Yes, that is natural.
But here we have a case of not even defending the hill. It became 'standing on the hill'. If a hill defense is going to work it needs sallies.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 16:30

Quote[/b] ]But here we have a case of not even defending the hill. It became 'standing on the hill'. If a hill defense is going to work it needs sallies.
Correct, but their ignorance didn't allowed that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ludens

01-05-2004, 19:05

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 05 2004,16:23)]But here we have a case of not even defending the hill. It became 'standing on the hill'. If a hill defense is going to work it needs sallies.
I second what prince Aymar says, and add that defence is (generally) passive. You stay in one place, and let the enemy come to you. That is the way the Roman legions worked, although they usually were (activily) throwing javelins at their enemies. I guess that what they had in mind (apart from the javelins). They had the wrong kind of troops to do that, but this information might not have reached them.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that they realized the danger. They saw (on the map) a unit Romans stand still just before their lines. The luitenant warned them but didn't really inform them of the damage the velites did. The generals couldn't see it either because they were just staring at the map. A moment of reflection might have told them that this was the intention of the Romans, and that it were troops who killed out of melee-range, but they obviously didn't take that moment of reflection.

Kraxis

01-05-2004, 20:11

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 05 2004,12:05)]Anyway, I'm not convinced that they realized the danger. They saw (on the map) a unit Romans stand still just before their lines. The luitenant warned them but didn't really inform them of the damage the velites did. The generals couldn't see it either because they were just staring at the map. A moment of reflection might have told them that this was the intention of the Romans, and that it were troops who killed out of melee-range, but they obviously didn't take that moment of reflection.
Ahhh we are going in a ring here.

I believe that one of the basic tactics of combat is "Engage the enemy when you can defeat him". In this case they didn't even need to know what types of unit there were. Just that they had three units and the enemy had one. They could easily have overwhelmed the enemy and pulled back in time.

I have employed such tactics always, or at least tried. Even when I knew nothing of combat.
In school I used it (along with my friends) to overwhelm a few of the older kids during winter and give them a good snowover.

I have just gotten the feeling that these guys would have let basically any enemy close as long as they didn't attack in melee. They should be happy the Romans weren't Parthians.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 21:11

Quote[/b] ]In school I used it (along with my friends) to overwhelm a few of the older kids during winter and give them a good snowover.
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

One thing we are ALL forgeting is the "warning" they recieved in the beginning of the show:

"Defeat them in detail. Go for one before the other."
- Dr. Mark Urban refering to the 2 Roman Armies.

Shamus

01-05-2004, 21:15

I wonder how far in advance contestants know they are going to be on the show. It would seem prudent to me if you were aware you were going to be on the show, to take some time before hand and read up on military strategies of the time. Even a basic understanding of these concepts would have made a difference.

I honestly think it would be of great benefit if they were to do away with having two generals, using just one instead. One of the biggest problems that seem to plague teams is indecision between the generals. In one of the episodes I watched in horror as the enemy rained arrows down on a stationary group of soldiers, while the generals consumed tea and crumpets, mussing over what would be the best course of action. In almost any case, doing something is better than doing nothing. Using light infantry against mounted archers is folly, but using them as human pin-cushions is even worse.

With so little time to debate the best course of action, having one general with one set of ideas might help to improve the chances of success for the TC teams. Just my two c’s.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 21:31

Quote[/b] ] In almost any case, doing something is better than doing nothing. Using light infantry against mounted archers is folly, but using them as human pin-cushions is even worse.
You got that right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]With so little time to debate the best course of action, having one general with one set of ideas might help to improve the chances of success for the TC teams.
I agree. 2 generals is just tactically dumb.

But I believe I know why they use this system. It allows to for a "democratic" victory or defeat (most cases).

What do I mean?
Well, if the team loses there isn't a single "escape goat"...

(I hope I got the expression right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

Ludens

01-05-2004, 21:56

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 05 2004,21:31)]I agree. 2 generals is just tactically dumb.

But I believe I know why they use this system. It allows to for a "democratic" victory or defeat (most cases).

What do I mean?
Well, if the team loses there isn't a single "escape goat"...
I rather think it is because one inexperienced general cannot be expected to keep up with the battlefield (especially when they didn't have an active map) and allows them to coordinate two different manoevres at a time. But the contestents never do that. Anyway, it is easier for the luitenants to accept two generals than it is to accept one. A team of one general and one luitenant doesn't make sense and a single men commanding an army wouldn't be interesting (you also wouldn't know what he is doing, now the team constantly has to communicate, and so the viewer knows what they plan).

Quote[/b] ]I hope I got the expression right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Almost, Prince Aymar, almost. I looked up in my English dictionary and it is... scapegoat.
Why it has to be a goat is beyond me.

Kraxis

01-05-2004, 22:24

well in this case 'escape goat' is a rather good choice anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think I agree with Ludens on the number of generals. They were meant to work together, splitting the work up, pretty much like the lieutenants. But as it is now the stronger personallity is just trampling the other. That was very visible at Chalons, where the main general was the only man with military experience so he asumed total command, and basically didn't listen because of it.

A better structure would be a general and a colonel or major. Then a direct commandstructure would be easier to maintain and the shared workload would still be possible. A democracy is always going to be a dinosaur to get decisions out of... extremely heavy and slow (Leuctra anyone?). Therefor they quickly find the upper general.

Ludens

01-05-2004, 22:41

Yes, one general and one assistent general. As long as the general is the sensible one, this should work out fine. I think that it would be better if they were explicitly asked to divide the tasks (who commands who, who looks mainly at the map, perhaps who does the thinking). Then you would have the same situation with less chance of people screwing it up by trying to have just one general do everything, or both generals doing everything.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 23:18

Quote[/b] ]A team of one general and one luitenant doesn't make sense and a single men commanding an army wouldn't be interesting
My sugestion was 1 general, 3 lieutenants (less units for each to command, more specialization, less loss of time).

Quote[/b] ]Almost, Prince Aymar, almost. I looked up in my English dictionary and it is... scapegoat.
Good to know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Quote[/b] ]Why it has to be a goat is beyond me.
Beyond me too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , although this expression exists in Portuguese too:

Bode expiatório

Frankymole

01-05-2004, 23:24

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 04 2004,19:44)]If you are under stress you tend to stop thinking and just go on with what you are doing. There are examples of a crowd of people being unable to open the door in theater to escape from a fire. Lateron it was found that the door could be easily opened if somebody had thought of pulling the door to themselves instead of pushing But because of the panicking crowd, the people didn't think of that. They just started pushing harder.
Although I agree with m'Learned Colleague above that in these cases it's more to do with panicking crowds pushing into the back of those at the door, thus making it impossible to pull it open (silly design having an emergency exit that opens inwards&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I have seen CCTV footage of dumb bank robbers who panicked on hearing the alarm and kept battering at the main exit door they thought had been sealed. In fact it opened inwards. In one case, an elderly lady customer eventually entered and the exhausted, demoralised criminal practically trampled her to get out when he realised his mistake. I guess if these prats had a brain cell between them, they'd be in a paying job instead.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 23:39

Quote[/b] ]I have seen CCTV footage of dumb bank robbers who panicked on hearing the alarm and kept battering at the main exit door they thought had been sealed. In fact it opened inwards. In one case, an elderly lady customer eventually entered and the exhausted, demoralised criminal practically trampled her to get out when he realised his mistake.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]I guess if these prats had a brain cell between them, they'd be in a paying job instead.
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Kraxis

01-06-2004, 00:41

Saw those too... In one case a really determined robber managed to crash through the door, forcing it the wrong way. It took all his strength and then some... he just looked hilarious all those times when his best efforts just bounced him off the door.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-06-2004, 02:04

Quote[/b] ]In one case a really determined robber managed to crash through the door, forcing it the wrong way. It took all his strength and then some... he just looked hilarious all those times when his best efforts just bounced him off the door.
Talk about putting dumba**es in stressing situations... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Ludens

01-06-2004, 12:02

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 05 2004,23:18)]
Quote[/b] ]A team of one general and one luitenant doesn't make sense and a single men commanding an army wouldn't be interesting
My sugestion was 1 general, 3 lieutenants (less units for each to command, more specialization, less loss of time).
One general might be a bit more difficult for the team to accept. I think they need to have specified roles.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Why it has to be a goat is beyond me.
Beyond me too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , although this expression exists in Portuguese too:

Bode expiatório

In Dutch it is "Zondebok" which means sin-(male goat). An alternative expression is "zwarte schaap" which means black sheep.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-06-2004, 13:35

Quote[/b] ]An alternative expression is "zwarte schaap" which means black sheep.
In Portuguese, we have a similar expression to black sheep, but the meaning is somewhat different. It means someone undesirable, not an scapegoat.
The expression is ovelha negra (black sheep) or ovelha ranhosa (sheep with the nose full of mucus - yeah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif it sounds weird in English, because I can't translate the 2nd word)

Kraxis

01-06-2004, 15:50

That 'black sheep' is quite universal (generalizing here) as it was not so desireable to have one single black sheep among all those white sheep... its coat wouldn't be worth anything on the market (messes up the uniformity of the wool), basically it would only be worth its meat.

Shamus

01-06-2004, 15:57

The term “Black sheep” was once used as a racially derogatory term, and has been around for many years. It is rather obvious what race it refers to. The term basically denotes someone who sticks out in a crowd – one who is undesirable to that crowd based on their differences.

Kraxis

01-06-2004, 16:41

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Jan. 06 2004,08:57)]The term “Black sheep” was once used as a racially derogatory term, and has been around for many years. It is rather obvious what race it refers to. The term basically denotes someone who sticks out in a crowd – one who is undesirable to that crowd based on their differences.
WHAT???

That only has something to do with the common traits the sheep and the person had. The comment itself is much older than that. As I said a black sheep was not worth a lot (in the medieval times before cotton) as only white wool was worth money.
Just imagine how a strain of black would mess up the whole batch.

Of course the herder would curse the black sheep as it would be a strain on him.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 17:08

The 'black sheep' in Dutch is the person who always gets all the blame. For everything.
The 'scapegoat' is the person who gets all the blame in this specific situation. A 'black sheep' is a permanent scapegoat.
Of course, Dutch is a rapidly changing language. We are continually changing our grammar rules, to the great discomfort of every one who has anything to do with languages. But does it become any simpler? NO.

This is all you need to know about the Dutch.

Shamus

01-06-2004, 19:21

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 06 2004,09:41)]
Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Jan. 06 2004,08:57)]The term “Black sheep” was once used as a racially derogatory term, and has been around for many years. It is rather obvious what race it refers to. The term basically denotes someone who sticks out in a crowd – one who is undesirable to that crowd based on their differences.
WHAT???

That only has something to do with the common traits the sheep and the person had. The comment itself is much older than that. As I said a black sheep was not worth a lot (in the medieval times before cotton) as only white wool was worth money.
Just imagine how a strain of black would mess up the whole batch.

Of course the herder would curse the black sheep as it would be a strain on him.
That is why I stated that it was once used (adopted) as a racially derogatory term, and not that it originated as one. While that was not it’s original intent, it was adopted to refer to Black people in a degrading manner.

Shamus

01-06-2004, 20:11

On the topic of black sheep, the nursery rhyme “Bah Bah Black Sheep” was written in the late 1200’s (about 1275 I believe), in protest of wool taxes. Supposedly the king took one third of the wool made by the shepherd, and is referred to as the “master” in the part “one for my master”. One third went to the lord who owned the land on which the shepherd worked, and is referred to in jest as the “dame”. The last third went to the shepherd, who is referred to as “the little boy who lives down the lane”.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 20:22

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Jan. 06 2004,20:11)]On the topic of black sheep, the nursery rhyme “Bah Bah Black Sheep” was written in the late 1200’s (about 1275 I believe), in protest of wool taxes. Supposedly the king took one third of the wool made by the shepherd, and is referred to as the “master” in the part “one for my master”. One third went to the lord who owned the land on which the shepherd worked, and is referred to in jest as the “dame”. The last third went to the shepherd, who is referred to as “the little boy who lives down the lane”.
All very interesting, but this is getting out of hand now. If you want to talk about sheep, go to the nearest farm. Here we talk about WAR.

I don't know whether Prince Aymar's idea of 1 general and 3 luitenants is good. Some contestants might have problems with accepting one leader. Three luitenants is also a bit to much. This is probably one of the reasons why the program-makers chose for dual generalship. The second reason should be that they could divide tasks (a third reason would be that the discussion between the generals would make the viewers and the historical experts understand what is going on). But dividing of tasks seldom happens, usually they are standing at the map arguing. My idea would be to specifically ask which general is going to do what, and not accept an answer like "were are going to do everything in cooperation" or "We'll just see". In the battle, you don't have time to discuss things, so before the battle starts, it should be clear who is going to do what.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-06-2004, 20:36

Quote[/b] ]All very interesting, but this is getting out of hand now. If you want to talk about sheep, go to the nearest farm. Here we talk about WAR.
HEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Don't be so hard on him. He was trying to contribute to the discussion... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]My idea would be to specifically ask which general is going to do what, and not accept an answer like "were are going to do everything in cooperation" or "We'll just see". In the battle, you don't have time to discuss things, so before the battle starts, it should be clear who is going to do what.
Very true. My idea is that he should make a general plan and sugest alternatives against problems, also about tactical actions and reactions, prior to the start of battle. Then the lieutenants would sort themselves out, getting one or two tips along the way.

Ludens

01-06-2004, 20:43

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 06 2004,20:36)]Very true. My idea is that he should make a general plan and sugest alternatives against problems, also about tactical actions and reactions, prior to the start of battle. Then the lieutenants would sort themselves out, getting one or two tips along the way.
That should be specifically asked, else it won't help against the "we'll just do"-kind of strategic plans you get. But wouldn't you expect such a plan from someone who could know what is going to happen?

Ludens

01-06-2004, 21:07

Lord Shamus,

I have come to the conclusion that I was to severe on you friendly contribution to our discusion about animals. I wish to be apologized and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
:bows:
:looks to Prince Aymar:

Shamus

01-06-2004, 21:18

Quote[/b] ]Don't be so hard on him. He was trying to contribute to the discussion... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Not to worry, I don’t take anything personally in a forum. We did get way off topic there.

I still think you need to have one person in charge. Two generals would work, exchanging ideas, only if one of them makes the final decisions. Have a conference beforehand, fine. But if I was the ruler of a nation, I wouldn’t want to have two generals on the battlefield debating tactics, while their troops were running around in confusion and being slaughtered (or in the case of several of the TC generals, standing still and getting slaughtered).

Shamus

01-06-2004, 21:23

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 06 2004,14:07)]Lord Shamus,

I have come to the conclusion that I was to severe on you friendly contribution to our discusion about animals. I wish to be apologized and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
:bows:
:looks to Prince Aymar:
I just read this after I posted the above. No apologies necessary. I assumed your comments were made in good humor. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kraxis

01-06-2004, 21:32

Quote[/b] (Shamus @ Jan. 06 2004,14:18)]I still think you need to have one person in charge. Two generals would work, exchanging ideas, only if one of them makes the final decisions. Have a conference beforehand, fine. But if I was the ruler of a nation, I wouldn’t want to have two generals on the battlefield debating tactics, while their troops were running around in confusion and being slaughtered (or in the case of several of the TC generals, standing still and getting slaughtered).
The result of that can be seen readily in Xenophon's Anabasis... Those Greeks constantly discuss and debate any action. They damn near got killed that away (in fact some did).

But in reality, only once have the team stayed true to their democratic setup (Leuctra), in all the other cases I have seen one general has taken over, and left the other to become more of an advisor or adjudant. That is also the logical move.

I wonder how a team of MTW veterans would work. I suspect extremely lousy, as we are used to work together on a "help when asked"-basis. Meaning, we don't order each other around. Thus I get the feeling it would be a very nasty fight to to be the generals, who might get ignored because the lieutenants would think "Bloody hell, I know better than that"
Eventually the battle would be won because of the small tactical advantages the lieutenants did and not because the team was great in either strategy or communications.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-07-2004, 00:22

Quote[/b] ]I have come to the conclusion that I was to severe on you friendly contribution to our discusion about animals. I wish to be apologized and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
:bows:
:looks to Prince Aymar:
HEHEHEHE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]That should be specifically asked, else it won't help against the "we'll just do"-kind of strategic plans you get. But wouldn't you expect such a plan from someone who could know what is going to happen?
Correct. Some tactical and organizational experience is required to maximize results. Like in a MTW team.
But organizing early and acting later is logical, in a general way. Better than making MIS decisions and trying to organize after the start.

Quote[/b] ] But if I was the ruler of a nation, I wouldn’t want to have two generals on the battlefield debating tactics, while their troops were running around in confusion and being slaughtered (or in the case of several of the TC generals, standing still and getting slaughtered).
Preciselly my point. It happens all the time. With one general, the time loss discussing wouldn't be as great.

Quote[/b] ]But in reality, only once have the team stayed true to their democratic setup (Leuctra), in all the other cases I have seen one general has taken over, and left the other to become more of an advisor or adjudant. That is also the logical move.
True, it's logical, but they made it so on poorly organized terms. It didn't work... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]I wonder how a team of MTW veterans would work. I suspect extremely lousy, as we are used to work together on a "help when asked"-basis. Meaning, we don't order each other around. Thus I get the feeling it would be a very nasty fight to to be the generals, who might get ignored because the lieutenants would think "Bloody hell, I know better than that"
Eventually the battle would be won because of the small tactical advantages the lieutenants did and not because the team was great in either strategy or communications.
It would be much more difficult than we are used to. Although, I think that the team that would get the best results would have to be concentual. All would have to go along with command priorities. Then, a good overall tactical plan could be implemented and executed. Experience counts a lot... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif