Time Commanders

[Steve J]

I enjoyed the first series, probably because I like Eddie Mair as a broadcaster. Greg Wallace as a replacement ? Will watch the first episode just to see what it's like.

[jimduncanuk]

If I remember last time, the teams were divided into Generals and Captains. There seemed to be a lot of shouting and very little ... wait ... what?

When did that happen?

Quite some time ago now.

[SV52]

From the BBC website:

Mon 12 Dec 2016
21:00
BBC FOUR

'Episode 1
Time Commanders Episode 1 of 3

Hosted by Gregg Wallace, a show in which ordinary members of the public go toe to toe with the greatest generals, as they refight some of the most significant battles from history in an innovative mix of genuine history and game show competition.

It's 202 BCE and Rome has had enough of the upstart Carthaginian, Hannibal. Desperate to end his 16-year campaign of war against the Republic, one of its greatest ever generals, Scipio, is charged with freeing Italy of this menace. Scipio elects to fight Hannibal in his homeland - forcing him to return to Africa to protect the city of Carthage itself. This time, a team of wrestlers will attempt to rewrite history by defeating Scipio and keeping him from taking Carthage. As Hannibal and his Carthaginians, they'll be defending their home town. Up against them, a team of historical board game enthusiasts taking on the role of Romans in a fight that will set the course of European history for centuries to come.'

[d_Guy]

My money is on the wrestlers. The boardgamers will lose the initiative by spending too much time arguing about the rules while the wrestlers will know how to immediately come to grips.

[Luddite]

We applied to be on it.  Thought it might be a bit of fun.  

It seems they didn't want people who might have a clue as to what they're doing (not that we do mind you).

As ever in this current climate of "car crash TV" it seems that they think laughing at "incompetent" participants is preferable to watching "competent" protagonists.

Ho hum.

I'll give it a go on catchup (monday nights is one of my game nights after all!)  But personally i'd prefer to watch two teams of skilled military commanders locking horns than the hairdressers vs the driving instructors...look at them muck it up, the idiots!  

[Norm]

It has the potential to be dire ........ but since there is nothing else on TV that even closely gives us a bit of hobby space (no matter how tenuous), I expect most of us will watch episode 1. It's how many survive that experience to watch the second episode that will be the most telling.

I imagine the wrestlers will have a lot of fun and by contrast, the boardgamers will be left looking a bit serious.

We don't get many chances to showcase an aspect of our hobby or selves to the public at large - I hope it serves us well.

[Leman]

Re. the above: might I refer you back to the man advertising his availability thread to help understand that point.

[Nosher]

I remember this the first time round and it was utter b******x - so count me out.

Agreed. And even more unwatchable with a presenter whose as popular as a fart in a spacesuit

[mollinary]

Agreed. And even more unwatchable with a presenter whose as popular as a fart in a spacesuit

Just watched the Battle of Zama. I don't know what people expect from the BBC regarding our hobby, but I thought this was brilliant. It was not dumbing down, there was lots of detail, and an excellent battle with good analysis. If this is not a hit with us, then we don't deserve any attention from the main line media.  I cannot see it being ratings material for non wargamers, but I shall certainly be watching the others.,

Well done BBC, and ( ) Gregg Wallace! 

Mollinary

[jimduncanuk]

Accidentally caught a minute or so of it.

Almost instantly turned off by a presenter manhandling contestants around the studio.

Didn't wait to hear any more.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I really enjoyed it. Thought it was very well done. Yes, maybe Mr Wallace was a tad over enthusiastic, but good on him for attempting to give some life to it.

The wrong team lost!

[Ithoriel]

I managed to watch about 15 minutes of it before the temptation to throw something through the telly was so great that I felt compelled to go do something else for the sake of my blood pressure and TV.

Alas, it lived down to my expectations.

[SV52]

Donning nerd hat. As a historical re-fight of Zama it was a travesty

Donning hard hat. As a pick-up game in Total War - Rome II by newbie players it was pretty typical; I've been there myself on too many occasions

Highlight of the show was Scipio refusing to attack because he was unwilling to risk young Roman lives.  Besides which he didn't fancy writing those letters home

[Luddite]

1. The Battle of Zama

It wasn't, but then of course it wasn't.  The flaws with the set up were too many to number.

I would have liked to have seen more of a "setting the scene" element to the show.  Rather than wasting time on "training skirmishes", would it not have been beetter to run the contestants (and audience) through a few historical facts and background about the army, commander, and battle they were about to fight?  Why were they at Zama?  What is at stake?  What can your forces do?
There was a bit of "reconstructive" stuff with random people chucking spears at plywood shields, but that could have been much better and more cohesive and informative.  Actually getting the contestants involved might have been a good idea?

2. The battle itself

There was no setup, or explanation for example about whether the armies were deployed historically or according to how the players chose to set up.

However, i thought it was very interesting to see how both teams reacted.  Lacking experience or confidence they both did what i've seen many many times at tournaments - sat back and gave the initiative to their opponent.  I'd have liked to have seen some analysis there of why the two teams were doing that, and the respective wisdom of doing to.  This of course meant that much time passed with neither army moving (and this i presume was edited out).

Both teams were super cautious, and initially lost control and cohesion of their forces.  This was actually worse for Carthage as (just like Hannibal did historically) it meant they wasted their elephants in an unsupported attack. 

It was at this point the main presenter lost his **** and started leaping about the set like a loon demanding both sides "stop being so boring and attack something".  Ugh...

I actually thought the Roman team, while more cautious than i would have been, did it right and contrary to the ill-founded frothings of "the grocer" didn't so much let an opportunity to beat Carthage go, but held their nerve and reformed their lines perfectly.  It seems odd that given the previous 30 mins had concentrated on telling the audience that Rome's strength lay in its discipline and coordination, that the players should be derided for ensuring they used that discipline and coordination well!

The result (historically accurate as it turns out, both in form and result) was inevitable at the Romans were better commanded and played.

3. The show

Mike Loades was wasted.  He's an engaging expert and was frittered away here.
Nusbacher was incoherent.  I never much rated her (nee him) and she failed to disappoint here.  I think there are better military commentators out there. 
Greg the Grocer gurned his way through a wildly distracting antic-filled "hosting".  He didn't appear to know what was going on most of the time, and was evidently there to try to inject some energy into the format.  Most of the time proceedings would have been served better by a period if calm (or absence) from him.

The format is ultimately a clash between two teams playing a computerised wargame.  It is what it is.
Personally i think it would be improved by:
1. Better preliminaries, framing, historical context and discussions;
2. Engaging "experts" being allowed to develop some cohesive narratives;
3. A main presenter that gets out of the way and lets the two teams play;
4. A far better focus on the actual players and the game - showing their decision-making, implementation, outcomes, and reactions - which is after all the heart of the matter surely?

Overall though, mildly distracting for a wargamer.  I'd be interested to see some reviews from non-wargamers.  Maybe its pitched just right for a "casual" viewer?

[toxicpixie]

So, they should bring Edward Woodwoodwoodwardwood back, then. Along with awful '70s shirts and slacks for the contestants Perhaps for the losers, that'll provide an incentive to win

Will see if I can catch TimeCommanders reset later, it'll be interesting to paint to!