Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

On The History Channel's Decisive Battles, Gamed 49

Posted by simoniker from the little-napoleon dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for its interview with the creators of the 'Decisive Battles' TV show, as they discuss the "new History Channel series [that] re-creates some of the most pivotal battles of the ancient world, including Cannae, Thermopylae, and Marathon.. [using the engine from] upcoming real-time strategy game Rome: Total War." We've previously discussed this endeavor, but the interview explains specifics ("We'd... build the battles in the same way as we do for all the 'historical battles' in the game - but then use a few cheat codes when we play them out in order to be able to choreograph the exact movements of the troops for that particular battle"), as well as plans ("Future episodes will include the battles of Thermopylae, Adrianople, Chalon, Carrhae, Pharsalus, Spartacus and the Slave Revolt of 73 BC, Cynoscephalae, Kadesh, Teutoberg Forest, and Watling Street.")
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On The History Channel's Decisive Battles, Gamed More

On The History Channel's Decisive Battles, Gamed

Comments Filter:
  • some of the most pivotal battles of the ancient world, including Cannae, Thermopylae, and Marathon

    Wasn't Bungie's reenactment good enough? (Well, someone had to say it...)

  • Needs some extra chatter (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:18PM (#9997798)
    Xerxes says: Hy sparta yuor epedurmis is showng! LOL
    You say: go f*k yrslf dickwad
    Xerxes says: dont fuck wit da Persians mofo!!11!1!11eleven
    You say: more like pussyans u fuckin l4m3r
    You say: oh shit
    Xerxes says: kekekekeke
    Xerxes says: PWND!!!!111 WTFOMGLOLBBQ
    Your armies have been defeated! Play again?

  • Great (Score:2, Funny)

    by Osmosis_Garett ( 712648 )
    I suppose next we'll start seeing Columbine or Waco re-enacted with the Doom3 engine.
    • Not exactly the Doom 3 engine, but I remember that some guys were working on a reenactment. Don't know if it's a mod or a standalone, though.
      No link either. I recall they wanted to include stuff like the "terrorist" leader (what do I know what those sides were called?) can cast spells via voice comm and other things that might be better for gameplay than accuracy.
      • I can just see the mod now.
        2 Guys play as the gunmen with no flashlights, everyone else has fists and a flashlight, and they try to escape to the "safe zone".

  • More Useful Engines (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Satertek ( 708058 )
    Looking forward to seeing a game engine used for something other than a game. Hey, some day soon I bet Hollywood will be using game engines for their special effects, as it'll all be rendered in real time, which will save time.
    • What I want is the opposite--an RTS game that uses MASSIVE as its engine :)

      • Re:More Useful Engines (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        By the time the regular joe has the hardware to run MASSIVE, people will be playing Duke Nukem Forever.

    • Re:More Useful Engines (Score:3, Informative)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      Looking forward to seeing a game engine used for something other than a game. Hey, some day soon I bet Hollywood will be using game engines for their special effects, as it'll all be rendered in real time, which will save time.

      It hasn't hit Hollywood yet, but there's a very active scene around "Machinima" [machinima.com]. Slashdot has posted stories [slashdot.org] about machinima before, as well, such as the Anachronox [machinima.com] movie [slashdot.org].

      • I don't even see why the Anachronox movie counts. It's exactly like the game, but they made it for zero players instead of one. They didn't use the engine to create anything significantly new, they almost just string the cutscenes together. Give me something like RvB over that any day.
      • A-yup - and it seems network TV is finally waking up to it too.

        For those who haven't heard about the movement that is Machinima [machinima.org], here's a rip from the ol' FAQ.

        So, what is Machinima?

        Machinima (muh-sheen-eh-mah) is filmmaking within a real-time, 3D virtual environment.

        In an expanded definition, it is the convergence of filmmaking, animation and game development. Machinima is real world filmmaking techniques applied within an interactive virtual space where characters and events can be either controlle

    • Re:More Useful Engines (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @12:47AM (#9998248)
      Stargate SG-1 [sg1archive.com] just had an episode last Friday ("Avatar") using some in-game footage from an upcoming SG-1 game. It wasn't a particularly effective use of the footage, though - it seemed more like it was wedged in there by marketing than by the writers.

      Molyneux and friends are also working on a game called "The Movies" [gamespy.com] which could ostensibly be used to produce amateur renditions of movies or shows.

      And, of course, who can forget the use of the Halo engine in Red vs Blue, [redvsblue.com] the second season of which was just released on a hilarious DVD.

      • Stargate SG-1 just had an episode last Friday ("Avatar") using some in-game footage from an upcoming SG-1 game. It wasn't a particularly effective use of the footage, though - it seemed more like it was wedged in there by marketing than by the writers.

        It was actually rather clever, that. Tel'c is in a simulation of battle using an alien machine (from a previous episode), and the crew watches from a human-built monitor. A CGI view on the screen is _more_ appropriate than using straight footage.

  • FOX should do this too.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by madstork2000 ( 143169 ) * on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:38PM (#9997884) Homepage
    I think it would be cool if you could download (or even watch live NFL games over the internet) that are rendered using Madden...I know on the pre-game shows they have used game footage, but imagine a live stream for when your game is blacked out (DAMN NFL), or you are out-of-town.

    Technically the games would not be being "rebroadcast" since the data used would be silly be facts describing the action as compiled by a person/computer on the scene. The video and audio track would be created on the fly. . . It would be neat to pause replay and view from multiple angles. Obviously though it would not be totally accurate, but it with some work could be close enough to be entertaining. It would beat the little game boxes on most websites thats for sure.

    In time it could augment "real" radio play-by-play nicely. What I am thinking hear is the "audio" track comes from the live broadcasters, and the data stream broadcast digitally, this would probably only be available with the satellite radio broadcasts.

    There could be a "fantasy" mode (in addition to the normal "broadcast") where you could watch your fantasy team play against your weekly opponent (or at least highlights of all your fantasy players) on demand. The system could also be used to compile and view player stats and possibly give you "predicted" hilights, based on existing stats.

    Anyway, it seems like the real-time rendering for games has yet to tap it full potential of uses outside the traditional games world.

    • Yes because American men need more incentive to ignore their wives. =) [joking] [uh, sorta..heh]

    • Re:FOX should do this too.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by perlchild ( 582235 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @12:03AM (#9998005)
      Except that the point of the blackout is not to save money producing the slot, it's to DENY live coverage, because of legal/marketing reasons.
      The short version is that someone decided(an executive) that they weren't being paid enough to show you football at that particular time.
      Using a game as a technical solution will not solve the human situation. Expect instead that radio broadcasts will also have blackouts, because advertisers aren't making enough profits for the radios.

      To compound this useful axiom: using a machine to fix a human will
      a) only work as long as the human stays fixed
      b) works a lot better if the human wants to be fixed(or at least doesn't mind too much)

      In this case, someone would mind if you got to see that game of football. Not because they can't show it to you. Because if they showed it to you, it would cause a market pressure downwards on the perceived value of that football show, and that would affect their profits. Changing the production technology would only help if the NFL accepted that using the game engine to describe the real game is not a cheapening of their product. Smart money says they'd object to using the game engine to describe the real game, and that they'd win on trademark issues, if the events replayed actually happened in a game! You haven't found a way to get around a blackout, you've found something else they have to blackout in your area.

      The comparison with software copying is apt:
      Once the show is produced, it doesn't cost more to show it to ten people than to show it to one(the antenna doesn't need more power if your radio/tv is on or off). But the perceived value is quite literally decuplated if 10 fans se it as opposed to one. So marketing principles militate in favor of making the 10 pay, and if for some reason, you can't collect from two of the ten, you have to make a best effort to deny it to those two. In fact, it makes more sense to charge double, and only show it to five, tell them it's "exclusive" than to charge the same amount to eight.

      Why are there so many people who will pay double for an exclusive, is a psychological question I leave as an exercise to the reader.

      disclaimer: I'm not a football fan, except when my local team wins, and even then...
      • The point of blackouts is to try to get people to buy tickets to see the games in person. Any money milked from people who are still too lazy to go to the stadium is just gravy for the NFL.

      • Except that the point of the blackout is not to save money producing the slot, it's to DENY live coverage, because of legal/marketing reasons.
        The short version is that someone decided(an executive) that they weren't being paid enough to show you football at that particular time.

        That's the core of blackout games, but it gets more convoluted. The NFL has decided that if a game does not sell out its stadium, the local fans should be punished by not having the game broadcast. The assumption there is that

    • Technically the games would not be being "rebroadcast" since the data used would be silly be facts describing the action as compiled by a person/computer on the scene
      It does fall under the NFL's Rights to accounts & descriptions [lsl-law.com] for live broadcast.
      There could be a deal done, they already have live broadcast of the game on yahoo (just the info, no recreations).
      As others have mentioned the NFL's blackout policy is counterproductive. The NFL would make more money in markets such as here in Phoenix wher
    • I've often thought that this would be a great idea for football matches ( proper football - you know, with feet [fifa.com])
      The most basic idea would be to stick a transponder on each player and on the ball. Relay all that positional info to a multicast server somewhere which will will then draw a map of the pitch and the position of all the players in realtime. Kind of like watching the match on Championship Manager. Coupled with audio commentry, this would give you a good idea of what was happening for not a lot of b

  • I saw some of these shows (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @11:56PM (#9997957)
    And they kind of sucked. The animation itself wasn't that great, and the battlefield overview didn't really give a good idea of why one side won or lost.

    I think what a lot of military historians don't want to admitt is that no one really knows why one side or the other won or lost. Generals didn't know what was happening when they gave the orders to move here or there, and the soldiers receiving the orders didn't know where here and there were and received the orders hours later. Most of the "brilliant flanking movements" and shit like that is just someone getting lost and then stumbling into the enemy, and they spin it afterwards for the political advance of the winning side.

    Heck, in most modern wars it's not til long after the fact that they even manage to pick out the beggining and end of a descernable battle (modern being Civil War and afterwards). They often don't know who "won" the battle until much later either. All these strategy stuff is mostly written back into the story with the benefit of hindsite.

    There are exceptions, of course; I think you can find some in N. Africa and in Naval engagements. But these games should be more realistic -- the general should make up a plan, no one should follow it, and while the general was still refining some alignment of troops somewhere a trooper comes over and either arrests him or informs him he won, depending.

    • Re:I saw some of these shows (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zibblsnrt ( 125875 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2004 @01:13AM (#9998334)
      Sigh, and I was going to moderate on this story..

      I think what a lot of military historians don't want to admitt is that no one really knows why one side or the other won or lost. Generals didn't know what was happening when they gave the orders to move here or there, and the soldiers receiving the orders didn't know where here and there were and received the orders hours later. Most of the "brilliant flanking movements" and shit like that is just someone getting lost and then stumbling into the enemy, and they spin it afterwards for the political advance of the winning side.

      Meh. I think that depends on the battle as much as anything else. Some of what you're saying - soldiers tending to get lost, or recieving orders hours later - doesn't pass muster for a lot of historical battles. It does moreso for modern ones where there's immense distances and numbers of troops involved with a zillion things to go wrong, but most pre-gunpowder battles were small (or cramped) enough that one could manage his whole army on the field if he could signal well enough.

      This isn't to say that not all battles have the WTF factor. The Battle of Actium has that; Antony's right wing wheels out, comes into contact with Agrippa's ships, and the whole thing just.. falls.. apart. Some of the sources have Octavian coming up the night after the battle and wondering when it was going to start - things imploded that quickly. However, even this had some reasons running far earlier than the battle; one of the morals of the story is Pay Your Troops, Dipshit, And While You're At It Don't Send Them Into Battle While They're Starving And Ill, but...

      On the other hand, to say something like Cannae was a stroke of luck (other than "wow, the enemy general is that bad") is pure ignorance. Things are documented clearly and in detail - from the side that lost. They sync well with what's known of the remainder of the campaign and the fighting styles of both empires' armies. The whole of the evidence points to an almost literally perfect battle, one that needed either absolute coordination or a series of flukes so ridiculous as to dull Occam's Razor to a nice, safe edge.

      I could go on at quite some length about ancient battles going one way or another. Flukes do exist in them - Alexander had no business surviving the Granicus, and if he hadn't, Things Would Be Different - but battles were far, far removed from the typical crap you'll see on movies where two disorganized rabbles charge head-on into a series of well-spread-out duels. I won't say it's easy to coordinate groups of these sizes, but I will say that it's eminently possible, especially to people who spent their entire lives training for this sort of thing.

      You're also showing a tendency to look at ancient battles in terms of modern ones; comparing Cannae or Qadesh to something like Medina Ridge or Stalingrad is silly, because you're comparing apples to oranges. Or Volkswagens, for that matter. Except in the broadest strokes, like the WWII double-envelopments against the Soviets, things are different enough that comparisons of how they were actually commanded aren't really fair to either era.

      -PS

      • I don't know much about ancient wars so lets take the normandy invasion instead. Exactly why was Omaha so damn hard? I wasn't there so I have to go by people telling me about it and re-enactments in movies and documenturies.

        If you watch "The longest day" you might get the idea that Omaha was the only defended beach and that all the others were a cakewalk. You see some brits fall down but no actual fighting. No germans to be seen. DESPITE the fact that the opening bit of the movie (with the fat german and t

        • I really have no idea why you're rambling on about WWII and D-Day. For one thing, warfare is completely different between ancient times and WWII. I wish people would get off this WWII kick and none of it is relevant to the ancient combat we're discussing...

          Stuff happens so fast at so many different places, and involves so many different troops, in modern warfare that it quickly gets confusing.

          In the case of an ancient battle like Marathon or Guagamela, we know good details because records were written f
        • I don't know much about ancient wars so lets take the normandy invasion instead.

          Let's not, because they're so indescribably different that it's quite useless to see something like the Normandy landings compared with ancient battles. Either way, The Longest Day is a movie, not a documentary.

          If even a war as recent as WW2 still turns up new facts that shed a different light on events then how the hell do you suspect accurate facts in a re-enactment of something that happened hundreds if not thousands of

    • I think what a lot of military historians don't want to admitt is that no one really knows why one side or the other won or lost.

      Depending on the era, the size, and the scale of the battle. In a case like the Battle for Marathon yes, things were unclear if the Greeks had truely 'won' since they had to race back to meet the enemy's flanking attempts. However, that only lasted, what? Less than two weeks? And their entire army could be observed from on top of a hilltop. Compare that with, say, a WW2 battle l

  • Big Whoop (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People playing Combat Mission [battlefront.com] have been doing this for years, probably more accurately than the Total War engine could ever hope to achive.
    • Yes but... and I know this may come to a shock to you... there *IS* history prior to World War II. A big shock, I'm sure. But yes, there IS history outside of World War II.

      Doing something like this with a WWII-based game would be pointless because it's easy to envision and demonstrate what happened in those battles. The beauty of Decisive Battles is that you finally get to see, to scale, what happened in ancient battles that noone's ever really been able to demonstrate before.

      Nobody's ever done an accu
  • I saw the original series some time ago, and it was interesting for a while but each program basically degenerated into people accusing each other of not listening to what they were told to do. It was a nice demonstration of a game engine, but not very entertaining TV. I liked the original Total War a lot: I'd love to get those campaigns on the Rome engine, if that's possible.
  • I wonder what other battles they have planned? I think that an episode of Masada, where the Roman Legions attempted to lay seige to a Jewish fortress on a mountian top with very very few men would make for an interesting show.
    • Going to include where they start eating each other?
      • They didn't eat each other, they just killed the women and children in their sleep and then committed suicide. Much better than being captured by the romans IMO
    • I doubt they'd be able to do Masada. A better, similar sort of siege-battle would be for them to do Alesia (which I would love), and Alesia has way more style and interesting things to report than Masada anyways. They're trying to include a sufficient amount of non-Roman battles though, and I can understand that.

      -- Primis.
  • I think this is the same series in its US franchise form.

    Anyone interested, the link is here [totalwar.com]. A slightly critical review of the series here [digital-lifestyles.info].

    It wasn't a bad programme, but you were rather at the mercy of the TV studio contestants, some of whom clearly had no idea about about basic tactics (ie. it was clear they had never played anything like it before) or the time period in question (some very questionable uses of shield walls in the face of cavalry kept cropping up IIRC).
    • The difference here is that you're not throwing random schmucks in to recreate the battle like on the British show. This show is first and foremost a voiceover documentary and recounting of the battles while the R:TW visually demonstrates the maneuvers and tactics the host is explaining. It's 20-billion times better than them showing blocks move around on a 2D map, and it's not really the same show at all as the British one was.

      They clearly spent a lot of time setting up certain aspects, scenes, and what

      • Actually, I must disagree with you. I love the concept of the show, I love the subject matter, I even loved all of the Total War games. But the show itself, well, it kind of sucks. I've been Tivo-ing it since it first came out and I've been disappointed. I don't know what the show is missing, but it's definitely missing something.

        Of course, I'm also waiting desperately for the game to come out. I can then spend many an hour ignoring my wife while I conquer Europe. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close