Kraxis
11-22-2004, 00:41
I was so lucky as to keep an eye on Discovery Europe tonight (sunday). It was a big Alexander night, and one of the shows was called Clash of the Generals or something.
Well, it was two Gulf War generals, a brit sir Peter and an american Chuck (who was apparently one of the minds behind the defeat of Saddam's forces).
The scenario was counterfactual in that Alexander had somehow managed to get himself into Italy and face Hannibal at Cannae. Sir Peter was Hannibal and Chuck was Alexander (they were great fans of either so it was obvious choices). They went over Issus and Cannae to determine the skill and effectiveness of the two commanders. And let me tell you the Roman army at Cannae was massive! And the Persian army at Issus was even more impressive in size. I'm quite certain that both were made to resemble the correct sizes as they filled the field completely.
Then the generals stood at a commandtable moving blocks, much like in Time Commanders, only bigger and with more explaination. With those movements the troops moved about on the battlefield. Quite nice actually, making it easy for the uninitiated to follow the game by looking at the blocks to understand the situation. To any veteran of Total War it was very broad and not focused enough on the individual units.
Both sides were forced to set up like the two sides had at their respective battles.
This was in fact what we have demanded time and again, a real fight between real people with real knowledge, not just people dragged in from the streets. ~D
Just prior to the fight each general explained his strategy. Chuck went for the classical Alexandrian tactic of heavy cavalry attack on the right. Sir Peter saw this coming and developed a counter to it.
Well, both genreals were conservative at first. Chuck went on the offensive as Alexander had and sir Peter was defensive. Chuck easily wiped out Peter's skirmishers and drove the Numidians back with his own skirmishers. But then sir Peter showed his insight and preempted Chucks planned attack on the right (Peter's left) by moving most of his cavalry into the big cresent of infantry. His plan was to lure in Chuck (and Alexander at the head) and then charge his flank. Chuck understood this and moved his own cavalry behind his own infantry, and it was here he failed miserably.
Sir Peter siezed the moment and changed formation to a turned front, Chuck followed suit and thus presented his elite troop's flank to the Spanish cavalry. Not entirely though, but the turning of the front meant the flank was now very far from the Macedonian cavalry and quite close to the Spanish. Sir Peter acted on this, charging the flank while fixing a unit of Thessalians with another unit of cavalry (not engaging though).
For Chuck it wasn't lost yet as his infantry was grinding down sir Peter's on the same flank, so he chraged in his Macedonian cavalry, but he made a critical error. He didn't mirror sir Peter's action by fixing the cavalry unit sent to fix the Thessalians with the Thessalians, instead he charged at them, giving sir Peter a chance to charge Alexander in the flank. And so he did. Alexander died and the entire army was wiped out.
I was impressed with sir Peter, while I was far from impressed with Chuck. He gave away the initiative, he opened up his flank and he failed to take decisive action when it was needed and he chose the wrong target when he finally went in. Sir Peter was wiping the floor with him, supposedly one of the best american generals alive.
Well, it was two Gulf War generals, a brit sir Peter and an american Chuck (who was apparently one of the minds behind the defeat of Saddam's forces).
The scenario was counterfactual in that Alexander had somehow managed to get himself into Italy and face Hannibal at Cannae. Sir Peter was Hannibal and Chuck was Alexander (they were great fans of either so it was obvious choices). They went over Issus and Cannae to determine the skill and effectiveness of the two commanders. And let me tell you the Roman army at Cannae was massive! And the Persian army at Issus was even more impressive in size. I'm quite certain that both were made to resemble the correct sizes as they filled the field completely.
Then the generals stood at a commandtable moving blocks, much like in Time Commanders, only bigger and with more explaination. With those movements the troops moved about on the battlefield. Quite nice actually, making it easy for the uninitiated to follow the game by looking at the blocks to understand the situation. To any veteran of Total War it was very broad and not focused enough on the individual units.
Both sides were forced to set up like the two sides had at their respective battles.
This was in fact what we have demanded time and again, a real fight between real people with real knowledge, not just people dragged in from the streets. ~D
Just prior to the fight each general explained his strategy. Chuck went for the classical Alexandrian tactic of heavy cavalry attack on the right. Sir Peter saw this coming and developed a counter to it.
Well, both genreals were conservative at first. Chuck went on the offensive as Alexander had and sir Peter was defensive. Chuck easily wiped out Peter's skirmishers and drove the Numidians back with his own skirmishers. But then sir Peter showed his insight and preempted Chucks planned attack on the right (Peter's left) by moving most of his cavalry into the big cresent of infantry. His plan was to lure in Chuck (and Alexander at the head) and then charge his flank. Chuck understood this and moved his own cavalry behind his own infantry, and it was here he failed miserably.
Sir Peter siezed the moment and changed formation to a turned front, Chuck followed suit and thus presented his elite troop's flank to the Spanish cavalry. Not entirely though, but the turning of the front meant the flank was now very far from the Macedonian cavalry and quite close to the Spanish. Sir Peter acted on this, charging the flank while fixing a unit of Thessalians with another unit of cavalry (not engaging though).
For Chuck it wasn't lost yet as his infantry was grinding down sir Peter's on the same flank, so he chraged in his Macedonian cavalry, but he made a critical error. He didn't mirror sir Peter's action by fixing the cavalry unit sent to fix the Thessalians with the Thessalians, instead he charged at them, giving sir Peter a chance to charge Alexander in the flank. And so he did. Alexander died and the entire army was wiped out.
I was impressed with sir Peter, while I was far from impressed with Chuck. He gave away the initiative, he opened up his flank and he failed to take decisive action when it was needed and he chose the wrong target when he finally went in. Sir Peter was wiping the floor with him, supposedly one of the best american generals alive.