Time Commanders

[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!

[Westmarcher]

Watched part of the prog last night on BBC IPlayer right up to the end of the skirmishing phase. Graphics are better. Quite enjoyed it.    Will make my own judgement when I watch the rest later.     And, agree with Nathan, it does have a lot more life about it than Battleground. 

Only disappointment so far has been the Roman commander's lack of tactical knowledge for dealing with the entrance of the rampaging Carthaginian elephant.  I mean, really!  Every classical wargamer knows what the command is for dealing with elephants!

.... "Release the mice!"   

[toxicpixie]

Given what people above have said, i'm half surprised they didn't have Greg Wotshisface in a Centurions helmet waving a rubber sword around

I shall bring popcorn and my amused face and treat it as entertainment with the same level of factual integrity as a News UK or Rothermere publication

The CARTHAGINIANS attacked with AN ELEPHANT, and you WILL NOT BELIEVE what the ROMANS did NEXT!!! *tits, legs, sensationalism, lies etc etc*

[cameronian]

Edward Woodward is dead 

[toxicpixie]

I know, but probably reanimatable with some decent CGI

And even without, still likely a better presenter than Greg Wotshisface

[Zippee]

Pretty much agree with the Luddite.

Although I was less bothered by The Grocer's enthusiasm than I expected, if it was a choice between deleting him or Lynette, I'd delete Lynette - s/he was useless in the original series and no better now s/he's in a frock!

Most frustrating was the total lack of accurate scene setting - who knew that the only light troops Carthage had access to were slingers or that actually they were machine gun sling equipped killing machines?

very annoying in that it's such a wasted opportunity to discuss what actually happened in an informative way - sadly the impression any casual viewer would take from the programme would bear precious little resemblance to history.

And that's despite a weird attempt to explain Roman manipular tactics - tactics that the computer game utterly failed to duplicate as it seemed to have the Romans deployed in cohorts.

Just a mish-mash ultimately, the architecture of the show needs severely overhauling - there's a good product in there somewhere but it's being squandered by the production team.

[d_Guy]

Luddite,
Thanks for taking the time write a thoughtful review (they probably should hire you as producer/director  )
I wont be able to see it anytime soon and will now likely wait for its YouTube appearance.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Still better than their first efforts, I have to say (only because we watched the original series Qadesh the other day with my class and it took an awfully long time to become watchable), so dry. At least with the new format the uninitiated are getting a go at the tactics, weapons explanation and getting into the mindset. Greg running round stating the obvious fills some of the narration gaps, and as a non-historian, wanting the two sides to get in there has to make for better entertainment than waiting!
We, as a body (if a hive mind has a body) are probably better informed about things than your average punter. Yes, there will be mistakes, but as a historically minded person, isn't that part of the fun? For a stand alone battle, Zamia is a pretty good battle for a new punter, open plain, lots of decent foot and horse, BIG scrap! I thought the attempt to limit the troop types was good, as too many would be too much to handle for some, for instance, all those Gauls should have been charging wallies, with elephant support, which could have really upset the Romans, but as it was, it got across it was a very tight battle, and the wrestlers did well, killing Scipio for the loss of Hannibal shows how desperate they were!
I'd not seen Total War:Rome II before, loved the new details.
The good Dr looked far more comfortable as she now is, and their camera asides were clearer than the first series; they are still trying to explain it all to the lowest common iq (which, tbh, on BBC4 is much higher), I have to say because with the new format the uninitiated are getting a go at the tactics and getting into the mindset. Yes,it was a thin plywood shield, but it showed what a pila COULD do. I suspect they hyped the importance of the slingers, but then the Wrestlers were rather successful with them. Amazing what you can do in the edit!
I thought the wrestlers played well, but were unlucky. Zama should be a hard win for the Carthagians, I think they did well. If they had held the trunkies back to deal with cavalry or as a second line, they could have really upset the Romans, but after watching the skirmish, it is no wonder the nellies were wasted as a wonder weapon. We know that, but did they? Doubtful. My main complaint was the gamers c-in-c was an upper class numpty who I wanted to sleep down a social class every time he opened his public school mouth! But thats my lower middle-class bias for you!
As I said, I enjoyed it.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

And I had a jolly good beer and my wife's homemade flapjack to enjoy whilst watching it! 🍺

[toxicpixie]

Ooo, beer!

I might add that element later, although flapjack is unlikely

FlakJack maybe if we play anything WW2 tomorrow evening

[Jim Ando]

Hi

My ten year old son loved. It's got him talking about the pumice wars which is a good thing for getting new blood in to an aging hobby.
Jim