Printable View
where on Earth has Time Commanders dissapeard too ? ~:mecry: it was a cracking little show, and now it seems to have dissapeard off the face of the earth!!! ~:angry:
The repeats aren't even on the Sky channels! I am very dissapointed, as it was a great way to get younger people interested in history, using the RTW battle engine.
Hmmm....... mabe not enough people were watching it. ~:mecry:
I have heard that the BBC are currently getting contestants for a second seires of Time Commanders so with any luck it should be back soon :knight:
Hurah! ~:)
It was an alright show but it really could have been so much better. The episodes should have been lengthened to allow more stratergy to the actual battles and it would have been much more interesting if they'd got some people who at least had the slightest clue what they were doing.
Sadly, as with all things BBC (or UK television really), they have to appeal to the lowest level and they basically round up 4 goons with a common interest from Middlesex and watch as they bumble around and usually lose unless they decide to take pitty on them and let them win. Because let's be honest, of the few times they did manage to win on TC, it was because they had such an advantage in the battle that losing was nearly impossible (though occasionally they lost these) like the one against the Romans where the players team holds a river crossing and outnumbers them 5 to 1. In the other instances, the program must just let them win, because no matter how you disect what they did and what the AI did you can't see how they won - they get flanked and waste troops but still come out on top.
If they are going to pitch Bev, Kev, Gary and Kelly against each other every week it would be nice if they faced another team, equally as gormless. Then it'd be like a circus of terrible commanding. Otherwise, get some people who at the least know how to play chess (checkers would do).
Oh and I wish they'd please please please remove the stupid two generals, two lieutenants thing. What is the point of splitting the command infrastructure in such a terrible way. Even for a good commander this would be infuriating, not knowing who to give orders to or who commands what or whether their decision will be overuled by their counterpart. If it has to be four people make one general and three lieutenants and make it clear to the general somehow who commands what. An army is not a democracy and to win all someone has to do is tell everyone else to shut up and do what they're told. It may not make them very popular, but generals don't need to be - they NEED to win.
I agree with Al Khalifah
I remember the episode where they were romans and were attacked by Gauls. They decided to place the skirmishes and archers and slingers on hill far ahead of the front line and expect them to be ignored. Of course the Ai just sent a few cavalry units and rode over them like a car goes over a speed bump. They then decided to just hold a small area with their legions. They won because the gaullic charge did not crush them and eventually the gauls ran.
Dunno how they did it.
The show used to be an hour long for several weeks but then reverted to a shorter 45 minute format. I really, really enjoyed the series, particularly some of the idiotic things the contestants did. One thing that sticks in my mind was when a team were playing the Romans and they had to stop Bodicca's army and they thought that mobilising the tortoise formation for their units was the best way to deal with the British horde ~:dizzy: . I also remember when one of the generals, knowing that the game was virtually up, shouted "Lets surrender! Surrender!" ~:joker:
Great if there's another series planned! ~:) ~:)
Yeah the Politicians wanted to Surrender, that was pretty funny.
Great show to give you detailed accounts of how and why battles went certain ways. I hope they improve the format next time - was good, but could've been great.
There were some classic moments in the series.
I would like people with some level of competence fight each other. Maybe have a tournament and have members like Historians, Army, Navy, Air Force and some other people who actually would know, not some average village idiot playing.
I agree that the idea of two generals is stupid and there can only be one (Highlander ~:p )
I prefered having normal people playing, im much happier sitting back critisising then wathcing people do it right, its all part of the fun.
That said id love to see the different branches of the forces battling it out.
If there was only one general there would be no arguments or debates over what to do next, you may aswell watch someone else play your copy of RTW!!
I don't mind the normal people playing, but usually the people who play seem to be very sub-normal who don't know ANYTHING about strategy. The woman who insisted on forming the tortoise formation because she wanted to see a tortoise formation was a prime example.
While I'm not sure if they do this or not, perhaps the contestants should be given information about the troups they command prior to the show so they can learn a little about them and what they do. Obviously they shouldn't be told which battle they will fight, but some troop familiarity is only fair since a real general would at least know his own men (Sun Tzu - "Know thyself"). Maybe then Eddie Meir wouldn't be reduced to making sarcastic comments and staring in disbelief at the contestants total lack of understand about the uses of the arms of a command structure.
I know they get told this during the program but the information given is always really brief and never provides enough information to give the generals a full idea of their troops strengths and weaknesses.
Forces battling it out would be great to see. Maybe even get Dr Arych Neusbacher (definite sp) down there to see if he's as good as he makes out.
Oh and maybe a big siege battle might be cool if a little basic.
I highly doubt that a bunch of Estate agents from somerset could match alexander the great.And in that episod "the battle of Issus" the contestyants got alex Killed! and then the presenter said "oh well one of sopns be able to continue the conquest", But his sons were only 9 and something younger yEARS OLD! .
Note: bad spelling. sorry
Al Khalifah, sound slike you take things very seriously, but personaly i think having Joe & Sandra Bloggs battling it out, is more fun than watching the proffesionals. Even the Eatsenders bunch did well.
Although, it would be nice to see Dr Chewbaccha & Co. tackling a random battle on occasion. Just seeing the RTW battle engine in action on the big screen is the main part for me :duel:
I think perhaps for all their knowledge and funny academic accents the sandhurst professors are afraid of being whupped by the cast of eastenders ~D
Mmm, yes, I've seen this episode too (it was "Watling Street", right?). I couldn't help but :laugh4:. It made me think of the incredibly stupid moves I made (and sometimes still make) when playing MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Despot of the English
They were stretching their infantry in a very long 2-unit deep formation and were surprised that there armies couldn't take the shock charge of the Britons. Their archers were positioned so isolated that the AI just sent his cavalry around the engaged Roman lines to mop its archery up.
Poor guys, even though I had a good laugh, I felt a bit sorry for them in the end. They were really utterly crushed.
PS. You guys are so lucky to have all these great series!! A friend taped the last episode of "Battles of Britain - 1588: Armada", but unfortunately her vcr tapes in hte "long-play" mode, which my vcr can't display (so I only got some bad sound). :cry:
I think I read a review of RTW in a magazine that the TW engine was used on TC and went out to 6,000,000 viewers. It's hardly a flop so I'm hopefull there will be another series. I enjoyed the celebrity one with Al Murray as he seemed to have the best tactical savy of any contestant to date
I finally get to see an abbreviated version of the show, the HC here in the US is finally showing the American version on Friday nights but it is only 1/2 hour long so I feel like I am missing some things. Why can't we do TV as well as BBC?
The BBC has one major advantage over the majority of channels its not a private company, theres not as much risk involved in making a flop, and because of this they are adventurous, they make shows any American (or other) channel would regard as too risky, and some really hit the mark.
Another thing worth mentioning is the lack of adverts, a full episode of time commanders could be over an hour on some channels!!
If i remember rightly they changed the format and shortened the show half way through the series.
Another show worth tuning into is Battlefield britain, not as in depth as many would like but i think its the right direction for history programs, once you get an interest going, people will go to an effort (such as reading, yes, reading!!) to learn history, but you need something flashy to get them started!
Its on fridays at 9, one of the BBCs, dont know which
BBC2 has Battlefield Britain.
The BBC also takes everyone's money every year for a TV licence. think it's around £150.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickyt694
The BBC dont always make great television, but when they do, its usally classic. I feel sorry for you, that you only get half an hour of the show, where as here in the UK it is one hour. And they just about fit everything into that!!! i cant imagine how they can squezze a decent showing into 30 minutes ~:confused:
Also, one major thing i like about the BBC, is that they dont have any adverts!!! I find them really annoying, when a programme that should be on for say 1 hour, is on for like 1 hour and 30 minutes, with 30 minutes of t.v commercials inbetween the show.
:rtwyes: All hail the BBC :rtwyes:
You lucky people, I don't have the BCC network, so I can't see time comanders. ~:mecry:
I think it's all the more amusing for the fact that these people clearly agreed to appear on this show because they thought they knew what they were doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
However much anyone would crave to be seen on TV, would you want to do it voluntarily if there was the slightest chance that you were going to make a complete ass of yourself?
I think you're missing the point. These are 'normal' people. They are either groups of friends or all people working at the same company. Their basic lack of mastery of ancient and medieval strategy and tactics is meant to reassure them into the belief that they are 'normal'. Similarly, the viewer who is equally befuddled about outmoded forms of warfare is made to feel normal as they can easily see themselves making all the same mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
The historians on the show get to show off how clever they are by making comments about what they should be doing at any given moment and finish the show by telling us all how it was really done.
It is us who are the freaks. Whatever skills we perceive ourselves to have, what use are they in the modern world, eh?
I quite agree with you on this but I think I know why they did it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Firstly, with a single general, all the viewer gets to hear and see is the orders going out, not the thought processes behind them. With two generals, you at least get a dialogue as they discuss what they should do, so the thought processes (if you could call them that) are out in the open and there is an extra level of interest where an internal conflict develops, either between the pair of generals or where the lieutenants begin to think they know better.
Second, with a single general, it might as well be a single-player game, so why have team members as lieutenants at all? Perhaps the show aims to give the lie to the maxim that "two heads are better than one"?
I remember, when I first saw this show, I thought the whole point was to put bunches of management consultants (or victims of same) in charge and watch as their modern theories about command structure (democratic) totally break down when it comes to the context of ancient battles. ~:rolleyes:
To my mind, the purpose of putting a team member in the lieutenant role, instead of a 'regular', provided by the BBC say, was to play on the 'team dynamic', see how well they interact with one another in a crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Also it adds a level of unpredictability. Orders can be carried out but, if sufficiently vague, they may get interpreted in a way other than intended. The lieutenant may even decide to act independently (eg Jerome's uncommanded attack at Waterloo) or that they've got information which the general does not have ("send the cavalry to attack X"... "err, our cavalry were wiped out in your previous attack, sir") or that a certain order is inappropriate, or it's too late to make a difference.
This represents the fact that the real-life general would not be able to see the entire battlefield at any given moment and can only go by the information their lieutenants provide. The lieutenants, however, lack the 'big picture' and ought not to interfere with the overall plan. If they have been assigned to look after separate sections of the force or are remote from one another on the field, they shouldn't be allowed to confer with one another, only with the generals, though I've seen this happen in at least one episode, where there was a touch of insubordination going on. ~;)
By the way, the generals should know who commands what since, most times I've seen, they tend to put one lieutenant in charge of each flank, or one looks after foot troops and the other in charge of cavalry.
For me, there's as much interest in watching a group of colleagues transpose their workplace command structure to the battle and failing as there is in the battles themselves. Some teams which ended up doing well were actually peers in the workplace and even admitted that there was a bit of a debate about who should be the generals, to begin with. In that situation, not everyone leaped at the task either - knowing that if it all went wrong, they would get the blame. Probably explains why they're not in a management role at work. ~D
So, if this was a show about a team of people working together in a problem-solving situation, I'd probably want to watch it just as eagerly. The battle/history side of TC is a bonus and did draw me to watch it initially but the 'formula' would work just as well with something else.
I agree with EatYerGreens. All of Al Kalifah's suggestions are sound in themselves, but would make the show boring: if one general had absolute command the show would be over in fifteen minutes and all you get to see is the battle. Part of the fun is trying to see the team cope. Problem is that coping often goes frustratingly bad: they don't know what they are doing at command level and have only a vague idea what's going on at the battlefield. Therefor I agree that they should get some preparation about warfare and about the command structure. Perhaps they should allow them to fight a training battle without the command structure to get the feel for the game (and gauge each others skills).
The next series of TC has accepted teams which include gamers, and it will have more familiarisation for the players so that they're not just walking in cold. Whether there will be unity of command or not is still an open question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickyt694
What time is the History Channel showing Time Commanders? I have not seen this on there. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Decisive Battles (which also uses the RTW engine)? I'll be pretty fired if you are correct, though, as I've wanted to see this show since its inception. I just recently got digital cable, and it has a couple of BBC-America stations on there, so I'm hoping they'll air the episodes on there.