Time Commanders

[Antigonid]

Posted at both the .com and .org for responses

I have had 5 days to reflect on the performance of the team and have revised my opinions

Personally I feel sorry for them - the reasons being:

1 - They obviously had no knowledge of military matters whatsoever. One of them called Cavalry 'Generals' (the guy Lieutenant).

2 - They were a team of workmates..... that means that there was an inbuilt hierarchy where the potentially more 'able' were subservient to the 'longest serving' employee (he was a manager too). Even when the girl General showed a rudimentary grasp of the principals she was forced to defer to the moronic guy General. therefore they went into this with their 'hands tied'.

3 - They were shown a video which included romans going into testudo...... why? this was bound to influence them.... and it did. Okay the commentary mentioned it was useful in sieges..... but they were complete novices i bet they dont know what a siege is (see point 1 for confirmation)

4 - They were NOT clearly told what was expected of them at all.... except for a 'the Generals tell the Lieutenants what to do ' manner...... completely unhelpful.

5 - They NEEDED to be told HOW TO communicate with each other AND the 'technicians' - they werent.

6 - They were told only of 2 of the troop types under their command - when they asked for more information they were ridiculed by fat ba$tard.

7 - They were in a TV studio and obviously nervous of that yet when they made errors they got the $hit ripped out of them by fatso.

8 - Yes they left units with their backs to the enemy BUT the technicians should have corrected that..... it was unfair of them not to have

9 - Why was the movement of Boudica emphasised to the players? wouldnt you order an attack on her given the way her position was portrayed?

There are more points I could make here but I wont..... they deserve better from us and indeed given the points above I dont think any of us AT THEIR LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE and with the Help they didnt get could have done better


THE TIME COMMANDERS FORMAT IS WRONG
The whole format needs to be made 'pro team'.

How?

1 - Sack the Presenter, replace him with someone less smug and certainly less sarcastic..... Hey I KNOW Give the job to the tall 'Expert' (Nieusberger????? cant recal his name sorry)... he's enthusiastic, conveys ideas well AND looks as though he knows what he's talking about (in TV image is everything).

2 - Give the team a 'Coach' woooohoooooo a job for the other expert.... he's a 'livewire' and can really get the teams 'fired up for the fight' he could tell them more in 2 minutes than they learn in 15 at the moment. HE could set up the badly underused 'sandbox' and give hints as to how the armies could deploy and how the units should be used

3 - Organise a command structure for the teams....

The C in C decides on overall deployment (or at least allocates units to the Lieutenants) & dictates orders / tactics to them (aided by expert 2 if needed), he should also directly control a 'reserve'. He solely issues such orders as 'Advance the Left'etc'

The 3 Lieutenants each should take one command (Left Centre or Right) their job is to interpret their orders and deploy then use their forces as best they can.
(no longer should we see people with troops under their command on both flanks of the army - see episode 1)

At the close of the game we should see the battle played out historically on the BIG screen to see how it really went because the sandbox finale is really crap

These are a few quick thoughts on how to improve the program format....... ideas guys?

[Duke John]

You're completely right if you want this program about knowledgeable generals who know in general headlines what to do. But perhaps the programmakers simply had something else in mind where people picked from the street are put in charge at the head of army and see how they fare. If that was indeed their intention than the program is a success.

I think the basis of that is a good idea, and the contestants do not have to be generals with knowledge on military history. I think it would be even more irritating if a team comes up with Oh yeah that battle, but we must correct you in that we don't think the attackers army had 300 spears but more like 200...blah, blah.
The real problem lies with the total unfamilarity of the contestants with the setting. I believe that most gameshows have a testrun in which you can get familiar with the rules and interface.

Although last weeks show was so irritating that I fast forwarded through the program it was an interesting psychological experiment as one of the experts rightly said: The battle was not fought between armies but between the contestants. The presentator whispered encouragingly (sp?)to the female general that she was also a general and should stand up for herself.
So don't look at this program as recreating history but more as a psychological game (which is warfare in a way). The only reason why this program could be irritating is because some contestants simply won't listen to each other or are illogical (I want the tortoise the girl begged).
The presenter and experts are fine, especially the experts are excellent because of their enthusiasm.

We can whine about the contestants putting up a bad fight, but I've been in quite a few multiplayer battles where some people spoil the game with bad tactics or even using faults in the game-engine (cheating IMO). The communication is most of the time pretty bad if there's indeed one. But hey, talking about others is always easier, right?

Cheers, Duke John

[squippy]

I think... if any computer game shipped with a player interface as broken as the interface that those players encountered, it would be doomed. By interface I mean all aspects of their ability to obtain information (not just data) and execute their decisions.

Yes the presenter did try to encourage Jo - twice in fact. Kudos to him for both spotting the poblem and attenmpting to address it. But he didn't do so strongly enough, and even if he had it would only have made him a participant in the argument.

The players should be able to fail on their lack of tactical insight - not on their inability to understand the mechanics of TW in 15 minutes, which is in effect the problem they are actually presented with. A BASIC fmailiarity with their units should be enough.

The generals should also have direct control of the Big Screen. And yes, they should have a coach - a sergeant. Many real life generals have been ignorant an incompetent, but good sergeants mitigate this problem by correcting the generals errors on the fly. No real Roman unit would have adopted the Testudo in the face of onrushing Celtic hordes merely becuase the general said so, IMO.

Basic stuff, like when outnumbered cluster up, should be ocnveyed to them. Not set out for them like a recipe, but just a word to the wise, thats not such a good idea sir, we might be surrounded and destroyed in detail, etc.

Watching people getting whipped becuase they made mistakes is one thing, watching em get whipped becuase they never understood their tools is another.

[BDC]

It needs the Time Team chap, the one who plays Baldrick in Blackadder. And they need a team who know what they are doing. Maybe the historians would be a good idea. A new, nicer studio too.

[frogbeastegg]

Quote[/b] (BDC @ Sep. 16 2003,19:53)]It needs the Time Team chap, the one who plays Baldrick in Blackadder.

You mean Tony Robinson? I agree he would be very suitable.

There are some excellent ideas here; here is a list of the ones I think are most important or most likely to improve the show without spoiling the idea.

I think they need to educate the teams a little more before they start, nothing drastic just a quick rundown of what the units do, basic controls (yes I know they just have to give orders but they need to know what kind of orders they can give) and so on.

Giving the team little, subtle hints on very general tactics (for example keeping to the high ground) would help them without mollycoddling them.

They also need to do something with the block map, maybe have a technician in charge of setting up and moving the blocks so the team can concentrate on the battle.

Perhaps the programme length should be increased? This would give the team more time to plan a strategy.

The idea of having a historically accurate replay of the battle on the big screen is good, the more RTW the better

Perhaps they could do the occasional special programme with real experts like military historians, gamers etc making up the team. As long as they didn’t have a team of experts on too often they would be interesting to watch. However if they had experts in every week the programme would get dull, as the team would win easily each week.

[GilJaysmith]

The point of the programme is to see how ordinary people react when confronted, probably for the first time, with military tactics and a reasonably realistic response. This is why it's extremely unlikely that, for example, there will be an MTW clan appearing on the programme.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Sep. 16 2003,18:49)]The point of the programme is to see how ordinary people react when confronted, probably for the first time, with military tactics and a reasonably realistic response. This is why it's extremely unlikely that, for example, there will be an MTW clan appearing on the programme.

and add a few more lines

Honestly Gil what do you expect from the layman? Are you surprised that they got their a** kicked? I know it is not your decesion, please dont take this personally, but what is the point sending untrained and unedjucated noobs into their fates? What kind of insights can you gain? Is this a psychologial experiment or a program designed to entertain? Was it funny in any sense? I have not seen the program but judging from the repsonses it seems that it was more irritating than funny. So, if it is neither insightful nor funny then what is the point?

OK, end of rant

I think that we had a few good ideas here, I agree with all the comments of Antigonid about command structure, pro team format, etc. Also, they should have a detailed knowledge of their units, not just some rough ideas: oh, this is an infantry unit, oh that is a cavalry. We know very well that there are big differences between infantry and infantry or cavalry and cavalry units. It is quite absurd that a commander cannot tell his units apart even if the idea is that the unedjucated layman should solve a problem that gave headache to the professionals. Sending the team into battle without a good knowledge of their unit types is like sending them blindfolded into battle.

[Duke John]

It's too quick to judge anyway. We've only seen two shows, and in one the team performed very good and in the other very badly. Lets see what the next one does.

[GilJaysmith]

I'm not at all surprised they got their asses kicked, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happens more (although I had nothing to do with the programme so I don't actually know what the forthcoming results will be). But I doubt anyone would watch Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? if someone won it every week.

Also, if the team was better-prepared and knew more than the average viewer, the average viewer would have more difficulty relating to them and feeling that they could do better from the same starting point (which is one reason why people watch quizzes, and why we were all convinced we'd do better than those fools each week on The Crystal Maze, and so forth).

Doubtless everyone who's seen it has their personal wishlist for improvements, but please remember it isn't CA's show: we just provide the technology. If we hadn't had the Rome engine available then it's entirely possible that the programme would have been made some other way.

[squippy]

I fully agree CA has nothign to do with it, or that is what I would assumed anyway, its clearly being trun by the TV company.

The problem IMO is that the show appears in serious danger or being Not Interesting. This will be ebcause nobody will make intelligent, and therefore interesting, decisions.

Imaging how different it would be if we were watching military cadets from Sandhurst instead of random members of the public. They would have and get a better grip on the situation even though they don't know the game. They would make intelligent decisions even if they were bad, mistaken decisions. They would be more likely to fight, and be defeated, than just being overrun. We would get to see a real battle.

[Duke John]

Quote[/b] ]Imaging how different it would be if we were watching military cadets from Sandhurst instead of random members of the public.

Then the format would be better for the Discovery Channel and not the BBC in my opinion. GJS is right with saying that people like to think I could have done better than that. If the contestants are military knowledgeable than the program looses its game format and merely becomes an historical program which probably has less viewer ratings.

Cheers, Duke John

[amagi]

I suppose the format is determined by having a game show disguised as a history show. It might be less contrived if television integrated games simulations into their documentaries, or produced a show where ordinary members of the television audience are forced to deal with the principle of computer games for the first time. If they had to fight Cataclysm's 'Beast' you might get the double dome response, though perhaps Tony Robinson wouldn't be as appropriate a replacement presenter. At least it helps Creative's costs.

[Cheetah]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Sep. 17 2003,03:04)]I'm not at all surprised they got their asses kicked, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happens more (although I had nothing to do with the programme so I don't actually know what the forthcoming results will be). But I doubt anyone would watch Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? if someone won it every week.

I have to admit that I do not enjoy these shows, and I have never watched the hungarian counterpart Also, I am much more impressed if I see someone who can answer the difficult questions.

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Sep. 17 2003,03:04)]Also, if the team was better-prepared and knew more than the average viewer, the average viewer would have more difficulty relating to them and feeling that they could do better from the same starting point (which is one reason why people watch quizzes, and why we were all convinced we'd do better than those fools each week on The Crystal Maze, and so forth).

Why on earth should they feel that they can do better?

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Sep. 17 2003,03:04)]Doubtless everyone who's seen it has their personal wishlist for improvements, but please remember it isn't CA's show: we just provide the technology. If we hadn't had the Rome engine available then it's entirely possible that the programme would have been made some other way.

We understand it

BTW, if it were up to me I would invite different teams. So, lets say a team of laymen, then a team with gaming experience, then a team of experts, then again a team of laymen, etc. This could give a rythm to the series, could create a tension, and would give us some basis of comparison.

[squippy]

Last nights battle was much better. this time, their main mistake was underestimating distances, but at least they won more or less through their own efforts.