A very long time ago back when the interwebs was still slow and we still had LANs, a show emerged called time commanders. It used the original Rome total war engine. It was a lot of fun to watch. It involved a gent (now a chick) that taught at Sandhurst military academy commentating a battle between two groups of people controlling each army. The people on each side came from two different real life groups. For instance if I recall, one particular side were all from the same yachting club. These groups organised themselves into different commanders controlling different parts of the army and also elected an overall general. At the end and during the fun the commentators compared the groups performances to the real battles. Well now they are back in 2016. Going to have a look.
EDIT: Just watched some:
When the historian answered the contestant's question about how to take down an elephant. I thought the answer of with spears was fairly weak as they had no ranged units. However I guess the contestants could have thrown their pila. But the troops with pila were engaged.
The lengths the actual historical Romans went to in order to avoid them all together by opening their ranks and letting the elephants through shows how dangerous it was to simply let them into close combat and try to stab them with spears. The best way to take them on is to pepper them with arrows, sling bullets, spears etc from range or let them through as an elephant like a horse will generally want the path of least resistance.
I thought the initial skirmish phase was a stitch up for the Romans!
P.S. A Total War youtuber "Lionheart" and two fairly well know youtube channel military weaponry buffs, Lindy Beige and scholagladiatoria are also going to be in the TV show
second episode was better than the first the graphics looking pretty good for Waterloo, play was silly though
I will confess I'm still a bit tripped up by Ayreh Nusbacher's transition, but that aside this iteration enrages me.
Given that you could easily tart up legitimate tactics and strategy -- Dr. S., Capt. Darwin, and the rest of the crew do it every single Origins -- there is no reason not to find an engine to replicate the real thing and use that. If memory serves, they originally tweaked the TW engine to make it more accurate, particularly in terms of numbers of troops.
I am not asking the ADHD generation we now serve to love Game of War -- I will be compelled to cuddle with it alone in the darkness -- but this is a wasted chance.
:P My god that was awful. Just freaking awful in every way. This aint got no better with age the first one was freaking awful too, but at least that was long enough ago that everything from that time looks awful now.
I agree though - if you had some proper grogheads on there would be much better - instead of a bunch of twats who just want to be on TV.
freaking awful,
It is indeed rather tacky. But I still enjoy watching them for what they are. A little bit of fun. There is simply put, nothing else of it's kind to compete with it on TV.
The engine does not make too much difference to the outcome. I don't know of any engine that simulates Roman manipular tactics as well as being colourful enough for TV.
Imagine having a Grogheads battle with a modded total war engine streamed to youtube in the time commanders manner? It is easy to split forces with the total war multiplayer interface.
The problem I have with total war though is its really just about lining up your troops on a small battlefield and then going for it. No real strategy and only a few tactical options by that stage.
Where with Scourge of War things are happening across the battlefield that can affect the outcome. I own scourge of war waterloo but could not get past the ugly eye assaulting terrain, performance
and the horrible UI, but will eventually get around to it when they mod it. Scourge of War would have been a far superior engine for time commanders.
What exactly did you notice was wrong with the engine Cyrano?
I am hoping that when they get Lindy Beige on we will see some nice tactics. He is a history nut and a historical re-enactor who has done a fan funded historical comic on hannibal.
Nikolas Lloyd, aka Lindybeige is a filmmaker, historian, archeologist and all-around Englishman who's been on YouTube since 2007.
P.S. Yes Ayreh Nusbacher changing to a female makes it very hard to watch him now. He also has much less to say where he used to play a major role.
The Napoleonic one.
@Destraex: It's all pretty square button stuff, but:
1. The engine has never known an undulation it doesn't like. The map makers seem incapable of creating gentle slopes. Problem is, there were no cliffs at Waterloo.
2. The unit frontages versus the ground scale are absurd.
3. The number of units is wrong.
4. One does not drag Napoleonic units about on a leash like that.
5. Waterloo comes off as a meeting engagement. What's all that rubbish about "scouting" prior to the battle's start?
6. And, the most ghastly thing, the episode leaves that bogus if classic image of heavy cavalry as the Napoleonic tank.
For all its manifest technical deficiencies, watch this instead:
The host should be familiar and Gilder is a groghead demigod. And the commentary isn't breathless nonsense.
Or, hell, watch this:
Watched this live at the time.
The host is a chef.
very cool...
Has anyone noticed the pure lethality of fire in these shows, whether you are looking at Zama or the Waterloo scenario. It's just silly. The Zama battle shooting was more appropriate to the killing at Verdun, than an exchange between slingers and cavalry... :pullhair:
Guys - I think you may be blowing things out of proportion here somewhat :nerd:
It's a "mainstream" TV show. It's not meant for experts like us. It's mainstream TV entertainment for the masses. And from a pure TV enjoyment perspective (that is, removing all grogheadness), it does what it needs to do.
I'm enjoying it so far even though I only saw Zama. But it made me fire up Rome II TW the other day and I actually enjoyed it.
So ymmv, but come on...just remember what it is and what it's NOT meant to be.
I'm with JD on this - it's just a bit of entertainment really. Did make me want to play TW again, also. The battles in the game may not be realistic, but they are a bit of fun. One thing I did notice in the Zama prog was a realistic (to my mind) reluctance for either side initiate an attack and thus risk getting "hit on the break". I reckon a lot of battles would have started in this way - but obviously it wasn't making for good TV, to judge from the chef's comments.
Quote from: Cyrano on December 20, 2016, 08:43:08 PM
@Destraex: It's all pretty square button stuff, but:
1. The engine has never known an undulation it doesn't like. The map makers seem incapable of creating gentle slopes. Problem is, there were no cliffs at Waterloo.
I thought all total war did was gentle slopes until I saw warhammer total war. Gettysburg civil war is a good example of a game that basically is impossible to tell slopes in without a squint! There are much worse things out there.
2. The unit frontages versus the ground scale are absurd.
Completely agree. but that is total war. What if I was to say to you to think back to when you were a youngster and tabletop also had absurd scaling and terrain scaling and any computer games
you loved were completely absurd compared to total war (excluding those that do not even show frontage like counter games)
3. The number of units is wrong.
I only know of one engine capable of even coming close to realistic unit numbers without simply turning into a counter board game on computer.
4. One does not drag Napoleonic units about on a leash like that.
As for the leash. I do not completely agree there as there was some degree of difficulty getting orders to units as they were going from general... through captain and then to the guy actually controlling the units who was not part of the team really. Not as good as the scourge of war system I grant you but still better than most games, including turn based games that are in existence.
5. Waterloo comes off as a meeting engagement. What's all that rubbish about "scouting" prior to the battle's start?
True, that's what you get for using people who know nothing. You get variation. I still found it fun.
6. And, the most ghastly thing, the episode leaves that bogus if classic image of heavy cavalry as the Napoleonic tank.
Yes. but it is probably debatable that some generals of the day did not think that they were like tank! Certainly units used to run if charged rather than stand to the bayonet and I imagine that heavy cavalry could be considered tanks just for that reason?
For all its manifest technical deficiencies, watch this instead:
The host should be familiar and Gilder is a groghead demigod. And the commentary isn't breathless nonsense.
Or, hell, watch this:
Watched this live at the time.
I will enjoy those videos you posted thanks. But time commanders is a bit of fun and light hearted experimentation with a nice historical twist
Ahh the Scourge of War marathon, good times! Still a bit annoyed with all the technical issues we had with sound and microhpones etc. It was rather tough to pull it off, but still pretty cool in the end :)
It is to be taken as self-evident that people enjoy what they enjoy. I just regard this show -- and the TW engine for that matter -- as a lost opportunity to truly educate. The only thing that makes me honestly peevish is that they try all the pseudo-academic bits (guys farting about with 1776s and pila) and then make mock of what they just said when they fire up the engine.
To a few specifics:
1. The engine has never known an undulation it doesn't like. The map makers seem incapable of creating gentle slopes. Problem is, there were no cliffs at Waterloo.
I thought all total war did was gentle slopes until I saw warhammer total war. Gettysburg civil war is a good example of a game that basically is impossible to tell slopes in without a squint! There are much worse things out there.
Real slopes are hard to see. What I can't stand are the Warhammer-y hills you get a lot of in Empire and Napoleon. Completely illogical and they disfigure the field.
2. The unit frontages versus the ground scale are absurd.
Completely agree. but that is total war. What if I was to say to you to think back to when you were a youngster and tabletop also had absurd scaling and terrain scaling and any computer games
you loved were completely absurd compared to total war (excluding those that do not even show frontage like counter games)
Here you open an old wound. This is why I walked away, under the tutelage of Dr. Griffith, from miniatures. They've never been able to get it right, save for 2mm scale which defeats the point.
3. The number of units is wrong.
I only know of one engine capable of even coming close to realistic unit numbers without simply turning into a counter board game on computer.
Use that engine :D.
4. One does not drag Napoleonic units about on a leash like that.
As for the leash. I do not completely agree there as there was some degree of difficulty getting orders to units as they were going from general... through captain and then to the guy actually controlling the units who was not part of the team really. Not as good as the scourge of war system I grant you but still better than most games, including turn based games that are in existence.
This is to confuse the friction of giving orders with the difficulties of controlling a 19th Century cavalry, what, regiment, squadron, they never day; but I digress. The former is one of the really good things about the show that makes the balance seem, to me, so dreadful.
5. Waterloo comes off as a meeting engagement. What's all that rubbish about "scouting" prior to the battle's start?
True, that's what you get for using people who know nothing. You get variation. I still found it fun.
This is on the presenters. Neither Napoleon nor Wellington had any doubt about where the other was. There was no need for scouting and this should have been explained -- how tough would that have been?
Grogheads Central Command Presents: MEN PLAYING AT WAR
Dr. S. and the On Target crew run the sim and Brant and Doug offer pithy commentary. I kill jeeps.
Oh, and @Surtur, please know that your efforts made my having to be at work rather than at the battlefield much more bearable.
I still re-watch it from time to time.
Jim
Quote from: Cyrano on December 21, 2016, 09:50:13 AM
It is to be taken as self-evident that people enjoy what they enjoy. I just regard this show -- and the TW engine for that matter -- as a lost opportunity to truly educate. The only thing that makes me honestly peevish is that they try all the pseudo-academic bits (guys farting about with 1776s and pila) and then make mock of what they just said when they fire up the engine.
To a few specifics:
1. The engine has never known an undulation it doesn't like. The map makers seem incapable of creating gentle slopes. Problem is, there were no cliffs at Waterloo.
I thought all total war did was gentle slopes until I saw warhammer total war. Gettysburg civil war is a good example of a game that basically is impossible to tell slopes in without a squint! There are much worse things out there.
Real slopes are hard to see. What I can't stand are the Warhammer-y hills you get a lot of in Empire and Napoleon. Completely illogical and they disfigure the field.
2. The unit frontages versus the ground scale are absurd.
Completely agree. but that is total war. What if I was to say to you to think back to when you were a youngster and tabletop also had absurd scaling and terrain scaling and any computer games
you loved were completely absurd compared to total war (excluding those that do not even show frontage like counter games)
Here you open an old wound. This is why I walked away, under the tutelage of Dr. Griffith, from miniatures. They've never been able to get it right, save for 2mm scale which defeats the point.
3. The number of units is wrong.
I only know of one engine capable of even coming close to realistic unit numbers without simply turning into a counter board game on computer.
Use that engine :D.
4. One does not drag Napoleonic units about on a leash like that.
As for the leash. I do not completely agree there as there was some degree of difficulty getting orders to units as they were going from general... through captain and then to the guy actually controlling the units who was not part of the team really. Not as good as the scourge of war system I grant you but still better than most games, including turn based games that are in existence.
This is to confuse the friction of giving orders with the difficulties of controlling a 19th Century cavalry, what, regiment, squadron, they never day; but I digress. The former is one of the really good things about the show that makes the balance seem, to me, so dreadful.
5. Waterloo comes off as a meeting engagement. What's all that rubbish about "scouting" prior to the battle's start?
True, that's what you get for using people who know nothing. You get variation. I still found it fun.
This is on the presenters. Neither Napoleon nor Wellington had any doubt about where the other was. There was no need for scouting and this should have been explained -- how tough would that have been?
Grogheads Central Command Presents: MEN PLAYING AT WAR
Dr. S. and the On Target crew run the sim and Brant and Doug offer pithy commentary. I kill jeeps.
You guys should apply to play. It would be amazing. However I would bet they will cut all of what they consider "boring" from your explanations and complaints on stage. Shame really. Grogs are always marginalised in favour of the common man. Let's see how Lindy Beige does and his videos afterwards. He is a bit of a crackpot but does know at least a bit about history. As does the other lad, Scholagladiatoria?
WAIT! The show itself would be easy enough to setup online via streaming services. All you need are a few cardboard backdrops and some computers connected to the net. DONE. Of course the commentary is really what you want as well as the human interaction :(
Would be much better if they got rid of the failed grocer, Greg Wallace, and employed someone who knows something about History such as Dan Snow.
I switched straight over as soon as I saw Wallace's inane grin.
Whilst I agree with you, I would hate it just as much with Dan Snow as a presenter, who I think is total a pillock. One of these days, the way he flaps his arms about, he's going to take off.
Very much personal choice, of course.
In fairness Wallace does bring enthusiasm to the show, which Neusbacher used to bring prior to his "re-sexing". Also after many attempts by me it was the original iteration of this show that got my son into war-gaming so as an intro for non-wargamers I think its a good thing.
I also can enjoy it for what it is - for me its always interesting to see what people with no interest in military history make of war/battles - some do as badly as expected, others fare much better.
The show also gives people a better idea of what wargaming actually is - hopefully informing the 90% of people who think a wargame is Call of Duty or Sniper Elite.
Regards
Keith
Quote from: bob48 on December 22, 2016, 02:32:52 PM
Whilst I agree with you, I would hate it just as much with Dan Snow as a presenter, who I think is total a pillock. One of these days, the way he flaps his arms about, he's going to take off.
Very much personal choice, of course.
lol - say what you see bob. :notworthy:
I quite liked the show he and his father did - 20th Century Battlefields I think. Quite quick, no messing around and some good historical detail for the time allowed. I bought the book and the DVD and they were both excellent.
Oh, Destraex.
If you only knew what you started in my head.
Doug, Asid, guys, whatcha doin' over Christmas :D.
Best,
Jim
Destraex. Welcome to the Grogheads by the way.
Thanks Jomni. Good to see you as well.
Watched the Napoleon one, and I loved the way that the battle ended in the way that all TW battles seem to end - the last unrouted units on each side trying to nail the enemy general.
The shows have loads of nits to pick. Totally agree with that.
But for younger kids looking at a hobby, they are a great gateway drug.
When I was a kid, it was shows like Combat, The Gallant Men, Victory at Sea, Airpower, and so many more on commercial television.]
Today, there are so few shows thatwould engage me. Seen as an introduction for beginners, who aren't sure if they could like history, makes this almost worthwhile.
@Destraex: Your arrival was so seamless, I didn't notice you coming in :D. Great to see you!
Omnia: I have an eight-year-old. I want him to appreciate the hobby (those who have hung out with him at Origins know he's already groggier than many). Certainly Dr. S.'s son is well on the Paduan path in his own way. Frankly, and I do not jest, I spent a chunk of time in senior facilities over the holiday and was wondering why no one plays games with their kids. They've got a ton of recreational space and it's usually unused. All equal, it's how I figure my son and I will while away his visits when the time comes.
Add to that that I did a history show at a RenFaire for 14 years. Sure it was silly and big, but it was accurate too. Suggesting they can't be both is a classic example of the fallacy of the wicked alternative.
Consider yourself all cast in my spec script by default. I'll need ringers for the first two teams. MD and Vance are the commanders (for my own reasons); Dr. S., Cap'n Darwin, Rob, and Brant run the sim; Doug, Jason, and Mirth offer pithy commentary; and I'm the carnival-barker host.
The crew in the "Six Days" KS prove to me that there's a great deal of both wit and historical insight here that COULD -- stress COULD -- be made interesting.
I have a plan.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on December 26, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
@Destraex: Your arrival was so seamless, I didn't notice you coming in :D. Great to see you!
Omnia: I have an eight-year-old. I want him to appreciate the hobby (those who have hung out with him at Origins know he's already groggier than many). Certainly Dr. S.'s son is well on the Paduan path in his own way. Frankly, and I do not jest, I spent a chunk of time in senior facilities over the holiday and was wondering why no one plays games with their kids. They've got a ton of recreational space and it's usually unused. All equal, it's how I figure my son and I will while away his visits when the time comes.
Add to that that I did a history show at a RenFaire for 14 years. Sure it was silly and big, but it was accurate too. Suggesting they can't be both is a classic example of the fallacy of the wicked alternative.
Consider yourself all cast in my spec script by default. I'll need ringers for the first two teams. MD and Vance are the commanders (for my own reasons); Dr. S., Cap'n Darwin, Rob, and Brant run the sim; Doug, Jason, and Mirth offer pithy commentary; and I'm the carnival-barker host.
The crew in the "Six Days" KS prove to me that there's a great deal of both wit and historical insight here that COULD -- stress COULD -- be made interesting.
I have a plan.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Ummmmm...Cyrano? Should I be nervous?
Quote from: besilarius on December 26, 2016, 09:25:42 AM
The shows have loads of nits to pick. Totally agree with that.
But for younger kids looking at a hobby, they are a great gateway drug.
Agree wholeheartedly, and it's a shame that (as far as I can see) no one mentions the fact that they're playing a videogame which is available to all
@MD: Always. Only steel sharpens steel...or some other aphorism appropriate to the moment.
@Father Ted: I certainly did mentioned it and that it's rubbish from a history perspective. Napoleon is absolutely the worst of the lot. I hate myself for enjoying it aesthetically as much as I do. I want there to be something better and believe there can be. We settle too easily.
@ Cyrano - I meant that it's not mentioned on the programme that they're playing a commercially-available videogame.
My point being that the programme could very well act as an introduction to our hobby, but , as far as I can tell, if you didn't already know that they were playing TW, you'd think it was just TV, not something you could easily buy and play yourself.
I agree Ted. Wargaming light edition.
Heck a mate of mine just got scourge of war waterloo which I was looking forward to getting into to have a game with... first thing he started whinging about was that the shade of the French cavalry uniforms seemed a little off!!
Horses for courses I say. Still great to see the units in total war looking so magnificent. If only the scourge of war fellas had access to the engine.
P.S. Another example of free market and trade is that I cannot watch this outside the UK. The video was taken down. I would be happy to pay a fee to gain access to it. But no such option. Regional discrimination is the name of the game.
Ted - You're point's an exceptional one and I'm a bit shame-faced it didn't occur to me. Curious if they had the rights to say so, but I can't believe CA wouldn't pay THEM to say so.
If memory serves, the earlier iteration made plain that they were using a modified version of TW.
My wife uses some form of tunneling software to get me to be able to watch episodes on her iPhone, for heaven's sake. Why we're doing that in 2016 is well past me.
I know very well how to get around all of the protections... I just don't do it.
Australians have a reputation as the worst pirates in the world even though we are first world.. why? Because our media here (originally Murdoch and Fairfax) simply do not have the population base
to justify purchasing entire series just for Australia. Thus we are always years behind the rest of the world. Our Netflix service is not netflix but a cheap australian license of the real one that occasionally purchases the first season of something and then does not bother to get a second season for years.
So very weird.
I'm right here in the middle of mighty 'merica and couldn't get Jonathan Strange for months and now have to squint to see "Time Commanders". I don't understand why they can't dun me $2.99 to watch an episode or some such.
I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange :bd:
And if you liked that, then I bet you would like this;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06vbmfq
Quote from: Cyrano on December 27, 2016, 02:20:41 PM
So very weird.
I'm right here in the middle of mighty 'merica and couldn't get Jonathan Strange for months and now have to squint to see "Time Commanders". I don't understand why they can't dun me $2.99 to watch an episode or some such.
I think dear old Aunty is in a slightly strange commercial situation. We (the great British public) pay for the BBC through a mandatory licence fee, and yet it makes money through exporting programmes, so I'm not sure how it stands legally with all that. Also some programmes are commissioned externally and I suspect some of those are the ones which the BBC aren't allowed to show on other networks.