Time commanders new series success or faliure?

[Epistolary Richard]

I agree we've lost something of the tactical overview of the battle, which I found really interesting, in place of more focus on the contestants (which I imagine the production company thought would appeal to a wider demographic than just RTW players).

As for the battle itself, it was a bit like the Battle of Stamford Bridge as fought at CentreParcs

For all this talk of the indomitable shield-wall that was the standard battle-plan of the period, we never saw one being formed on either side, but I doubt there were any mods to the game engine itself to try and replicate it. And the Norwegians seemed more hell-bent on throwing their troops in as soon as they could rather than forming up as an army as they did historically.

No mention of the Norwegians forgetting to bring their armour either!

[Fridge]

And, bearing in mind the programme is - I'm assuming - supposed to be at least a little educational, there seemed to be very little mention of what happened next week; ie, Hastings, Harold's death and the Norman invasion.

Maybe it would have upset little Mash, knowing that no matter he did, Harold was still going to get it in the eye a week on Tuesday.

In fact, have they done Hastings before? Seems like it would be an interesting one to do, with a very real possibility of rewriting history...

[RJV]

I'm expecting that one (Hastings) to be later in the series - having built it up in some of the commentary last night, it seems like a logical thing to do, especially as they are obviously trying to wring a few more viewers out of it.

To be fair to Lion TV (or whoever it is that holds the purse strings), if you ask people whether they'd want Stamford Bridge or Gaugamela, then we know where the votes will go, regardless of how 'interesting' the battle would be.


And a little aside - has anyone spotted that Aryeh looks like he's been at the mince pies over the holiday period? Celebrity status seems to be transferring itself into extra pounds round the old tummy...

Cheers,

Rob.

[Fridge]

To be fair to Lion TV (or whoever it is that holds the purse strings), if you ask people whether they'd want Stamford Bridge or Gaugamela, then we know where the votes will go, regardless of how 'interesting' the battle would be.

Let's be honest, the answer would probably be along the lines of, "Guagamela at Stamford Bridge? He'd be good cover for Lamps, but why aren't we looking for another centre-half? Innit. Anyway, I heard he'd already been linked with Sir Alex, The Great twat."

[Butcher]

Let's be honest, the answer would probably be along the lines of, "Guagamela at Stamford Bridge? He'd be good cover for Lamps, but why aren't we looking for another centre-half? Innit. Anyway, I heard he'd already been linked with Sir Alex, The Great twat."

Now that's just genius!

[The Stranger]

on wich channel is this show/program

[Placid Tramp]

I've been following a thread in www.wargamesdirectory.com where a couple of people involved in the show (including nus himself) have made some interesting coments:


"The producers of the second series were initially going to go to the certainly more effective command structure of a single general. I was very keen to keep the deliberately divided command structure. A single general has the opportunity to keep his thoughts to himself. Two generals present opportunities for discussion, potentially encouraging the commanders to discuss their ideas or at least shout them at each other.

I do not by any means consider unified leadership to be the only historically accurate means of command. Many armies were commanded by divided groups of leaders; and even single leaders often had to conduct councils of war to gain consensus for plans. During operations limitations of command and control often meant that independent commanders, rather than a single commander's tactical vision, governed the course of events.

Historical issues are important, but by no means the only consideration. The show is not meant to re-create all aspects of warfare, certainly not authentic means of command and control."
Posted by Nus at 22:12, 23 January 2005 GMT


"The first series had some sort of ban on wargamers as players. The second series did not. I don't imagine the producers would introduce a ban for future series. People who are interested should contact Eliza Barber at Lion Television Scotland."
Posted by Nus at 17:00, 24 January 2005 GMT


"Yep. I am the bloke who controls the big screen in the studio and responsible for capturing all the graphics in the edit.
People are saying that it's too easy this series. The Vikings were meant to be scattered initially, but if the team had dithered and messed up the bridge crossing, they would have found the Vikings all too ready for them. They were a good team. Don't worry though, there are some absolutely hiliarious defeats not too far away."
Posted by Aderm at 11:58, 24 January 2005 GMT


To me that last post sounds encouraging, i'm starting to miss the hilarious deafets of the 1st series.

[Prodigal]

Didn't anyone notice the comment by one of the historians about the General single handedly taking on the entire army?

[bones58]

I thought this episode was poor.I am 14 but having kids on the show did not appeal to me... but it has to be said i was cringing with jealousy.Anyway we saw it last series the first few episodes were continually getting chopped and changed so dont dispair!

[mambaman]

sadly missed Stamford Bridge but saw last weeks-much better all round really

As for the Bishops-i am an ex Tank Commander and i have to say that the General (the vocal one) was excellent-just the mettle that would be needed in real battle i assure you...there are times for Generals to be quiet and times for them to grip the situation-the scenario demanded the latter

Interesting that they are now doing battles that verge on the mediaeval.....

[AquaLurker]

Is there a way where I can get to watch the show in asia pacific , the other side of the earth... You peeps are so lucky.