Hi All
Anyone remember 'Time Commanders' on the BBC?
Well its back, with Gregg Wallace ?!!
See here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2016/50/time-commanders?ns_mchannel=YT&ns_linkname=description_link
Cheers Paul
Can't see me sparing the time to watch this as I understand that the contestants will be from Joe Public and the host is a guy who thinks he can cook.
Seem to remember something akin to that from a (good ?) few years back...(Which I found mildly interesting)......But the name of the prog doesn't ring any bells, at all.
(Why won't the undecided smiley come up in the preview ?)
Lots of computer generated battles, once the 'generals' had decided on their tactics/deployment etc ?.....That the one ?
Cheers - Phil
Thanks T13A. I think I saw something about this a while back but then promptly forgot about it. Glad for you mention of it. I'm going to try to find some old episodes and see what it's like. May try to find a way to get a stream of in from Channel Four if I like it.
Quote from: jimduncanuk on 28 November 2016, 03:56:17 PM
Can't see me sparing the time to watch this as I understand that the contestants will be from Joe Public and the host is a guy who thinks he can cook.
Nonetheless, almost everyone on this forum is also Joe Public, and some of us can cook (not me, mind you). Says nothing about anyone's ability to wargame...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Commanders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwJdGShUy8I
Quote from: Wulf on 28 November 2016, 04:24:37 PM
Nonetheless, almost everyone on this forum is also Joe Public, and some of us can cook (not me, mind you). Says nothing about anyone's ability to wargame...
At least everyone on this forum is likely to be a wargamer ...
Looking forwards to it!
If can't persuade Mrs W. to watch, it looks like it will be BBC i-player for me. Graphics should be better, too. Wonder who 'the military experts' will be? According to Wikipedia, Dr Aryeh (now Lynette) Nusbacher featured in every episode but no sign on IMDB that she will be appearing in the new series. By the way, d-guy, Channel 4 in the UK is a different (commercial) channel from BBC Four in the UK.
Yeah, we applied to be on it - they didn't want people with any actual knowledge of the periods. . .
It's an entertainment show, can't have the contestants displaying more knowledge than the host - which probably excludes anyone who's read a ladybird book on Wellington or Alexander. Or maybe, just maybe the bald grocer is a secret history buff. But I'm not holding my breath.
Still we shouldn't sniff, it's about as close to prime time wargaming as we're going to get outside of YouTube
Thanks Westie! I can't even keep up with how many channels ESPN has here and I'm a college sports fan.
Jim, Thanks for the YouTube link - I'll give it a look.
Given how little wargamey stuff finds its way onto our screens, I intend to give it the benefit of the doubt until I have actually seen it.
Mollinary
I remember this the first time round and it was utter b******x - so count me out.
Eddie Mair was a good host in the original series - so tongue in cheek. Dr Nusbacher was as ever very precise and the guy who was the fight arranger was good on the kit of the time. The other experts were given very little to do which was a waste as Goldsworthy is excellent and Mark Urban is of course a noted wargamer himself!
The game software and team set up was unhistorical but made for a pleasant 40 minutes.
My son who was 9 at the time seem to have a better grasp of the ancient battles than many of the contestants. It seems the contestants were chosen for their lack of any historical knowledge as some wargaming mates applied and were turned down straight away.
New series supposed to have some Age of Gunpowder battles being portrayed
As there is so very little on gaming on tele I'll give it a go, but will probably be screaming at the box by the end!
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?
Quote from: Westmarcher on 28 November 2016, 05:22:23 PM
Dr Aryeh (now Lynette) Nusbacher
When did that happen?
I enjoyed the first series, probably because I like Eddie Mair as a broadcaster. Greg Wallace as a replacement :o? Will watch the first episode just to see what it's like.
Quote from: fsn on 28 November 2016, 08:40:06 PM
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.
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.'
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.
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! =)
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.
Re. the above: might I refer you back to the man advertising his availability thread to help understand that point.
Quote from: Leman on 28 November 2016, 07:15:30 PM
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
Quote from: Nosher on 30 November 2016, 03:16:08 PM
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 ( :o :o :o :o) Gregg Wallace! :D
Mollinary
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.
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!
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. :(
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 =O
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?
So, they should bring Edward Woodwoodwoodwardwood back, then. Along with awful '70s shirts and slacks for the contestants :D 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!
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. :P 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!" :)
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 :D
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*
Edward Woodward is dead ;)
I know, but probably reanimatable with some decent CGI ;)
And even without, still likely a better presenter than Greg Wotshisface :D
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.
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.
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.
And I had a jolly good beer and my wife's homemade flapjack to enjoy whilst watching it! 🍺
Ooo, beer!
I might add that element later, although flapjack is unlikely ;)
FlakJack maybe if we play anything WW2 tomorrow evening :D
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
I hope that isn't a typo Jim! :)
Well, have now seen the second half which shows the replay of the battle. Well said, Lemmey. Yes it has its limitations, one presenter is rather over-exuberant (but he doesn't make you fall asleep) and it's clearly not a prog that's going to be hailed as an academic masterpiece that will be held up for eternity as a paragon of historic wargaming, etc., yaddy, ya ya ya .... but I will tune in next week because, overall, it was fun and I liked it. Just disappointed they didn't deploy the mice ..... would love to have seen how the hefalumps would have coped (blooming Romans .... didn't they eat dormice?).
Quote from: Jim Ando on 13 December 2016, 02:57:13 PM
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.
Aaaargh! They're everywhere now! :D
(Next week, will it be the Miceaneans?)P.S. Meant to say, the presenter has to be R.Lee Ermey! Wouldn't he be great? Imagine him shouting at the players! :-S
After having it on my mind to watch it - I did of course miss it.
Hard to get the enthusiasm to press the catch up buttons on the remote in view of what has been said so far.
I wonder what a non-wargaming audience would make of it - they may give a more forgiving review and get something enjoyable from it and of course there are a ton of computer wargamers out there who will have their own likes and dislikes of such a beast.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 13 December 2016, 05:10:02 PM
R.Lee Ermey! Wouldn't he be great? Imagine him shouting at the players! :-S
Given that he has very little clue what he's talking about (the limit of his historical analysis being "Hoorah!! Simper fi!!" if YourTube is any indication) I suspect we are better off without him.
Personally I'd have drafted Dan Snow for the general public, and someone like David Fletcher for the wargamers.
Just trying to inject some fun, Luddy.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 13 December 2016, 02:32:09 PM
... but after watching the skirmish, it is no wonder the nellies were wasted as a wonder weapon. We know that, but did they? Doubtful.
I rather got the impression they lost control of the elephants and they just raced off - they were quite desperate to get some infantry support up with them.
And that represents two things I think the show could do a lot better:
a) describe the nature of the actual combatants - we know the elephants at Zama were the scrapings of the circus and working animals not combat elephants and were of dubious value. The impression however was given that they were wonder weapons - that's perpetuating myth, not good.
b) it's never really made clear how the command and control works - I think that because the captains didn't give a "hold order" to the elephants the AI took them off impetuously but I don't know. It's possible other troops may have had different defaults (or the same) but that's never made clear so the viewer never knows what the baseline is - most would expect the baseline to be "units stand still and fight /shoot if contacted / shot at" but is it?
And yes the twit playing Scipio was by far and away the most annoying entity on the show - and when you consider the host's The Grocer, that's a real achievement! :D
Watched about 15 minutes of ti and frnakly it just didn't grab me. I found it too bity and disconnected compared to the originals, IIRC.
I've not read any comments on this thread until I watched the program. My thoughts:
Good:
* I like the idea of the 2 teams.
* Graphics are much better than in the previous series.
* The real life training
Bad:
* Greg Wallace looks like a demented parrot
* The experts look like the parents of the bride at a shotgun wedding
* Still don't get suffieicent of a feel of the battle from the screens.
Will I watch again? Probably. It would, IMHO be better with a proper table and real models.
Entertaining rubbish, with a smattering of vaguely historical pellets - watched it last night.
Greg Wallace not as annoying as expected, but the two experts were. Teams were both rubbish, although the wrestlers had shown promise initially they just let things get away and the legions did what legions do no matter how bad the commanders are ;)
I'll catch the next, it's more amusing, representative and factual than Question Time, to be fair :D
Discovered on Rock, Paper, Shotgun site
'Gregg Wallace, by the way, is not just any old friendly BBC presenter rolled out for this. He's big into strategy games, going by years of tweets about crushing Napoleon: Total War, getting annoyed with Civ IV (imagine his face as he's beaten to a wonder by one turn!), not enjoying Total War: Rome II and trying Europa Universalis, and returning to Medieval: Total War. Though it seems unlikely we'll see him shouting "GIT GUD SCRUBS!" and grabbing the mouse to win Time Commanders himself.'
So that's how he got the job =)
Quote from: fsn on 14 December 2016, 08:37:42 AM
It would, IMHO be better with a proper table and real models.
Indeed it would sir!
Quote from: SV52 on 15 December 2016, 01:16:33 PM
Discovered on Rock, Paper, Shotgun site
'Gregg Wallace, by the way, is not just any old friendly BBC presenter rolled out for this. He's big into strategy games, going by years of tweets about crushing Napoleon: Total War, getting annoyed with Civ IV (imagine his face as he's beaten to a wonder by one turn!), not enjoying Total War: Rome II and trying Europa Universalis, and returning to Medieval: Total War. Though it seems unlikely we'll see him shouting "GIT GUD SCRUBS!" and grabbing the mouse to win Time Commanders himself.'
So that's how he got the job =)
Good lad!
Unfortunately we war gamers are not the prime target audience for Time Commanders. Time Commanders was always a 'real time' computer game and it remains a computer game. It's billed as a refight of some of the most significant battles from history in an innovative mix of genuine history and game show competition. It's played in 'real time' because it puts the teams under pressure and that makes for more exciting viewing (that's why I playfully suggested R.Lee Ermey would be a fun choice. Imagine him shouting insults and expletives in your ear whilst you're trying to keep a clear head and make the right battlefield decisions!)
Whilst Battleground has its nostalgia, slowly pushing toy soldiers around a table in a hushed atmosphere is snore time as far as main stream TV is concerned. Somehow that format has to be made more interesting, to make it fast, dynamic and compelling to watch - I don't know what will work - perhaps time-lapse photography to illustrate 'bursts' of action like an attack on a position or unit caught in line by cavalry, etc., expert discussion and a brief analysis of each action or series of moves, short but dramatic cgi or re-enacted action clips for dramatic effect and to set the scene before switching to the table, atmospheric sound effects and music, etc.? Considering the wonderful imagery film makers can now show on programs like Life on Earth, surely some of these close up techniques can be applied to the miniatures and scenery items also? :-\
Clearly, the programme is trying to reach a wider audience and not an audience of 'experts,' so a certain element of dumming down is of no surprise. I also wonder how much ends up on the cutting room floor to fit the prog into its one hour slot.
Anyway, although the next battle is Waterloo between a team of aquarium workers and a team of competitive archers(!) :o , I will be tuning in nevertheless to see how the teams react, what the graphics are like and trying not to worry (too much!) about the irksome stuff. :)
Quote from: Westmarcher on 15 December 2016, 06:30:10 PM
... trying not to worry (too much!) about the irksome stuff. :)
So that's basically trying to ignore the teams, the presenter, the experts and the travesty of history? :)
Sam? Is that you? :P
Actually, I like the wee expert guy (can't be bothered looking his name up) and, as I say, like to watch how the teams (people who, presumably, are not experts or wargamers) react.
Mike Loades?
http://www.mikeloades.com/ (http://www.mikeloades.com/)
Yes, Norbert. Thank you.
Well, I watched Episode 2, The Battle of Waterloo, between a bunch of archers (might as well have been from the Radio show) and three aquarium guys. Like most of us, I've read various books on Waterloo and I've also visited the actual battlefield. This incarnation of Waterloo was barely recognisable and lay somewhere between the actual battle and the Batley Townswomens' Guild's re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour. On reflection, it was just too big a battle for this show's one-hour format. Whilst the graphic depiction of columns, lines and squares was reasonably good, the game engine itself had its limitations (e.g., another game engine would have had infantry in the vicinity of enemy cavalry form square automatically).
The 'experts' were also disappointing this week, both talking about "a race to occupy the farms on the day which the Allies won." No. The Allies had fallen back to this position. They had already occupied "the farms" at least the day before the battle. I like Mike Loades but only for his slash, chop and stab era historical weapons expertise - historically, you were out of your depth here, Mike. As for the performance of the contestants, I always find that fascinating. Its always interesting to see how they cope under pressure and with an era of warfare they know nothing about. In this case they were like rabbits caught in headlights. The archer's commander was probably the best choice for her team whilst one of the aquarium's subordinate commanders should have been in charge of his. I wonder how I would perform. I think I would be able to be better but, I need time to think, to plan. I'd be looking for killing zones, dead ground to advance along etc., but whether I would be allowed such time for reconnaissance and planning is another matter. So, verdict overall was poor. Will I be tuning in next week? Er, yes. :-[
Haven't watched ep 2 yet. I have it recorded and ready to go ... but I'm not in a hurry.
I'm a big Mike Loades fan, but he seems so confined by the program.
Saw it last night, enjoyed it.
Ended as a mate said about all Total War battles - a scrum of exhausted units in the centre, feebly battering each other until one side finally collapses!
Nice looking but awkward to view map - I couldn't make out the ridgelines at all...
Quote from: toxicpixie on 21 December 2016, 11:05:55 AM
a scrum of exhausted units in the centre, feebly battering each other until one side finally collapses!
Disappointingly incoherent, I thought. I know we here are not the intended audience. All the more reason for it to be clearer. Yes, it's fun to see people trying to make decisions under pressure, but it would be more fun if we had been given a better understanding of the factors affecting their decisions. Opportunity missed to explain about the beautiful rock-scissors-paper triads of Napoleonic warfare: relative strengths and weaknesses of infantry-cavalry-artillery, firepower-protection-mobility, column-line-square. And at the operational level they could have been clearer about Napoleon being outnumbered by the Anglo-Dutch and Prussians combined, hence his efforts to keep them apart and defeat them in detail. Simple stuff that should have been easy to present clearly. Unfortunately being shouty and emphatic is not a substitute for clarity.
Agreed,
as Waterloo it was unrecognisable - the instructions and scene setting given the teams was deplorable. And woefully inaccurate, "race for the farmhouses" indeed - no mention of Quatre Bras or rain or mud, a single comment on the 'skirmish' at Ligny, no Prussian pursuit or Grouchy. Not even the Imperial Guard were singled out.
The worst was the absence of tactical info for the teams - the Aquarium Frogs got no help at all, no information on line, column, musketry just advance into artillery that seemed to be firing 150mm HE, The Anglo-Archers got some limited info on squares and that was it. So the actual battle was a mess, no tactical knowledge just hurl everything at one farm and hope for the best.
I actually thought the Archer captain was trying to do the right thing but like a chess grand master playing a numpty who doesn't understand the rules of 'proper' chess she was a bit flummoxed by the random incoherence of the French
This might be how 12 year olds play Waterloo in total battle but really that's no excuse to project such a travesty on the BBC "intellectuals" channel. It either has to have some historical credibility or outright entertainment, currently it doesn't have either - I can't see who the programme is aimed at.
I watched most of it, but switched off before the end as I was confused at what was what and what was where, it just became a swirling mass of graphics to me. Thought the room was very peaceful immediately after hitting the off button.
To be honest, we could probably all do with playing a few wargames whilst under utterly chaotic, confused, loud and obnoxious conditions where we can barely function, with objectives and systems we don't really understand (or if we do, they don't work). It'd likely give a good air of verisimilitude to our proceedings and a great appreciation for actual command :D
I do.
And I'm a solo wargamer.
Who writes his own rules.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 21 December 2016, 03:23:02 PM
To be honest, we could probably all do with playing a few wargames whilst under utterly chaotic, confused, loud and obnoxious conditions where we can barely function, with objectives and systems we don't really understand (or if we do, they don't work). It'd likely give a good air of verisimilitude to our proceedings and a great appreciation for actual command :D
Don't be silly, all is serene and quiet in the chateau bar the gentle clink of crystal and slight glugging noises. I made my plans at leisure yesterday after luncheon, they have been written up and disseminated. No reason for anything to go wrong dear boy, just follow the bullet point guide like a good chap, chin-chin.
QuoteTo be honest, we could probably all do with playing a few wargames whilst under utterly chaotic, confused, loud and obnoxious conditions where we can barely function
Sounds like an average club night or some wargames shows ;)
Okay, having watched episode 2, was it accurate: no.
Was it fun: yeah!
Will I watch again? Of course!
All I'll say is this: we are not your average viewing public. We know a hell of a lot more than they.
Are they representing what MIGHT have happened? No, but they are trying to give a flavour of the period to the uninitiated.
Did they succeed, yes, with elan!
I noticed they had what looked like a big poster sized picture of Chinggis Qahan up there on the wall amongst all the other military 'luminaries' including Olly Cromwell, Joan of Arc and possibly Sun Tzu. Wonder which of their battles they will chose? If they chose Naseby for Cromwell, that's it, I will be voicing my extreme displeasure as to the accuracy of the BBC!
MickS
Quote from: fsn on 21 December 2016, 03:58:06 PM
I do.
And I'm a solo wargamer.
Who writes his own rules.
Isn't that most of your life as well?
Yup. Pretty much.
Clueless contestants, an irritating presenter, under-used and underwhelming experts and graphics such that the action is almost impossible to follow. What's not to like?
Definitely a Marmite topic, this one, eh ?
(For our friends overseas,.....Marnite is a yeasty, salty 'spread' you can put on toast, bread...whatever. Folk either love the taste....or loathe it !)
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: Subedai on 21 December 2016, 08:47:18 PM
I noticed they had what looked like a big poster sized picture of Chinggis Qahan up there on the wall amongst all the other military 'luminaries' including Olly Cromwell, Joan of Arc and possibly Sun Tzu. Wonder which of their battles they will chose? If they chose Naseby for Cromwell, that's it, I will be voicing my extreme displeasure as to the accuracy of the BBC!
MickS
They should have had a poster of Genghis Khan as he is much better known.
Quote from: Zippee on 21 December 2016, 05:11:36 PM
Don't be silly, all is serene and quiet in the chateau bar the gentle clink of crystal and slight glugging noises. I made my plans at leisure yesterday after luncheon, they have been written up and disseminated. No reason for anything to go wrong dear boy, just follow the bullet point guide like a good chap, chin-chin.
"Who is... General Haig!"
Do I win?
Or are you Louis XIV? Better clothes, worse personal hygiene...
Quote from: Steve J on 21 December 2016, 05:17:49 PM
Sounds like an average club night or some wargames shows ;)
It is very like playing with "the noisy table" behind you, as some of my fellow club mates call themselves. It can be quite hard work sometimes. Oh for a real life Zone of Silence 15ft radius :D
God! I know that feeling only too well, especially when trying to work out a complex set of variables.
It's even better when trying to explain rules or demo something. It makes introducing even simple systems really hard work.