Login

09-15-2003, 11:42 AM

Regarding both teams, I think that the first team did have an advantage(besides their ability to scout the enemy without any units). A chess champion and a military re-enactor? Come on, with those two working together, and their better organisation, they were able to formulate a good plan and beat the Romans. The second team were rubbish. Im no expert on the Roman art of warfare, but I do know that Romans would have used the advantages given to them, and know that the idea that spliting up is SUICIDE. Also, the team had no clear command structure, no clear idea of how to fight the battle, and definitely no brain power. I, on my own, could have fought better.

09-15-2003, 11:54 AM

Hi, 
 
Who programmed the computer ? Berserkers ? Celtic axe men ? 
 
I thought I could faintly hear legionaries asking where has my Pilum gone ? 
 
I cringed through the whole thing ... i got the impression that they knew the group dynamic that would produce the result that they got. 
 
Eddie Meyer ... great face for radio !!! 
 
Conal

09-16-2003, 11:38 AM

QUOTE 
 
Eddie Meyer ... great face for radio !!! 
 
END QUOTE 
 
You got that right! 
 
I hear its the Battle of Bibracte, where Julius Caesar fought. Is there a recurring theme in ALL the shows? They have to have Romans in them? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=admiralofthefleetwg>admiralofthefleetwg</A> at: 9/16/03 1:40 pm

09-18-2003, 10:54 AM

In fairness to the team that fought 'the battle of Watling Street' it was clear that they had no experience of wargames or military history and that there was no attempt to brief them with even the rudiments of good tactics. 
 
For the programme makers and probably for most viewers, the programme is at least as much about the players as it is about the battle and what fun would it be if every battle turned out much the way it did in history. 
 
Another episode tonight.

09-19-2003, 09:10 AM

That team were lucky weren't they? They almost lost the battle, and they didn't have really good recon(they missed the ambush!), and yet they still routed the Helvetii. Not bad, but then the right wing of the army fulfilled its duties. Would have been better, perhaps, if heavy troops were closer to light ones, and also that they should have placed the light troops on both sides and to the front. Blunt the charge, it doesn't matter about losing the skirmishers, and then laugh as the Helvetii try to attack in piecemeal!

09-19-2003, 01:21 PM

Hi, 
 
was a bit worried that the "expert" said that the Gauls had the advantage close in due to their longer swords which could reach over the Roman shields !!! And that guy lectures at Sandhurst !!!! 
 
Conal

**Robert Vermaat** · 09-19-2003, 01:31 PM

I think that last comment is not so much about reality as it has to do with the computer game. 
Of course, we all notice that the Romans have square scuta, which is not according to reality - in fact there's much more not according to historical details. 
The worst of these is how the troops fight, especially the Romans. Never do the Romans fire volleys of pila, they always seem to need attached groups of archers or slingers. The Celts do throw spears. Why not the Romans? 
Nor do we see the cohorts lock shields and present a front, it is always man against man. This is due, however, to the basics of the game, which go back to bardgames, where units or individuals fight as individuals, with the dice as deciding factor. 
 
This does not make Time Commanders interesting for historians, whatever the strategic or tactical capabilities of the teams who play the game. It's just another fantasy game. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

09-26-2003, 09:03 AM

I saw the battle of Mons Graupius last night, and I am thinking, why did the team send in chariots against cavalry? Thats sheer madness! And the daughter was thinking just about the archers. This was the 1st century BC. I reckon she was thinking about Agincourt or something like that. Short bows were only used for troops to keep the enemy head down. To try and use then as the main force was also sheer madness. The reason they did better than the actual Caledonii(?) was sheer luck. Anyway, whats on next week?

09-26-2003, 09:11 AM

QUOTE 
 
"I think that last comment is not so much about reality as it has to do with the computer game. 
Of course, we all notice that the Romans have square scuta, which is not according to reality - in fact there's much more not according to historical details. 
The worst of these is how the troops fight, especially the Romans. Never do the Romans fire volleys of pila, they always seem to need attached groups of archers or slingers. The Celts do throw spears. Why not the Romans? 
Nor do we see the cohorts lock shields and present a front, it is always man against man. This is due, however, to the basics of the game, which go back to bardgames, where units or individuals fight as individuals, with the dice as deciding factor. 
 
This does not make Time Commanders interesting for historians, whatever the strategic or tactical capabilities of the teams who play the game. It's just another fantasy game" 
 
END QUOTE 
 
But the game is designed to give non-wargamers, or gamers who game in other periods(like myself) an image of what they expect. The average non-wargamer will always view a Roman force as being in red, with large shields, short swords and spears, advancing with a sheild wall similar to the tuotilo. I remember seeing a preview of a film with Asterix in it, which had the Romans supposedly forming tuotilo. No army in history would use this formation in open battle. Thats essentially what the game is for. Its to try and get more people interested in computer wargaming, and then onto 'real' wargames, where the army doesn't form tuotilo all the time, but actually uses real tactics

**Robert Vermaat** · 09-26-2003, 09:58 PM

Hi Admiral, 
Since you're quoting me (in full, no less), I think I'll answer that one. 
Of course, my criticism is not just about the game, but also the entourage in which it is presented by the BBC. This is not 'sold' to the viewing public as a game which is "designed to give non-wargamers, or gamers who game in other period an image of what they expect." The BBC presents it as the real thing - 'feel what it is to command at such-and-so battle'. BE Caesar, etc. If what you say about the purpose of this particular game is correct (I hope so), then the BBC is misrepresenting it. 
 
Is there a computer wargame which does give a better credit to the ancient Roman army? 
 
I must confess that, after whatching most of the previous episopdes in full, I fell asleep even before the armies engaged in battle... 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me