Any strategy games set in WW1?

[GarfunkeL]

*le sigh*

Good thing I have to go to work in few minutes. Someone else can take this one.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Speaking of innacuracies. The only thing I wonder is if it wouldn't take galloping horsemen less time to cover "twenty-six hundred meters"?

For the rest you should simply read before barging in. You sound like the Turkish commander *they won't charge!* Though you have almost a century of knowledge at your disposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)

The first half mile was covered at a walk with the next mile at a trot.[9] The first line then commenced the charge. Realising the Light Horse were charging, Ottoman artillery opened fire with shrapnel but it was ineffective against the widely spaced horsemen. Ottoman machine-guns that opened fire from the left (which might have inflicted heavy casualties) were quickly silenced by a battery of horse artillery. When the line of horsemen got within range of the Ottoman riflemen in the trenches, they started to take casualties but the defenders failed to allow for the speed of their approach so once they were within half a mile of the trenches, the defenders' bullets started passing overhead as they found it difficult to alter the sights on rifles quickly enough when confronted with rapidly moving horsemen. This kept the numbers of casualties low for the charging Light Horsemen.

The light horsemen jumped the front trenches, one and a half miles from the town, and dismounted behind the line where they turned and engaged the Ottoman forces with bayonets. The Ottoman forces were in many cases so demoralised that they quickly surrendered. One Australian, who was dazed after having his horse shot from under him, recovered to find his five attackers with their hands up, waiting to be taken prisoner.

In commenting on the attack I consider that the success was due to the rapidity with which the movement was carried out. Owing to the volume of fire brought to bear from the enemy's position by machine-guns and rifles, a dismounted attack would have resulted in a much greater number of casualties. It was noticed also that the morale of the enemy was greatly shaken through our troops galloping over his positions thereby causing his riflemen and machine gunners to lose all control of fire discipline. When the troops came within short range of the trenches the enemy seemed to direct almost all his fire at the horses.

He also noted that "this method of attack would not have been practicable were it not for the absence of barbed wire and entanglements."

 

[Bill101]

Hi

Just popped in to say that for those of you considering a WWI strategy game, we've now released a free demo of WWI Breakthrough!

It includes the first stages of three of the main campaigns:

1914 Call to Arms - Breakthrough Edition
1918 Ludendorff Offensive
1918 Russian Civil War

Also included in the full game is our scenario set in German East Africa, starting with the British and Belgian invasion of the colony in early 1916 that led to von Lettow-Vorbeck's successful use of guerrilla warfare to survive longer than Germany itself. Of course, success in the game depends on the strategy you choose.

I hope you enjoy it, and the demo can be found here:

www.battlefront.com/breakthrough

 

[Brayko]

Also, WW1 is heavily regarded by leading military strategists as a very stupid war, especially on the western front.

The war was basically over by 1914 with the British naval blockade of German ports.

If the original Schlieffen plan was conducted, Germany could have beaten France early in the war.

For 4 years, there was nothing but static warface in France, very little strategy and just infantry killing infantry.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Downol

Hi

Just popped in to say that for those of you considering a WWI strategy game, we've now released a free demo of WWI Breakthrough!

It includes the first stages of three of the main campaigns:

1914 Call to Arms - Breakthrough Edition
1918 Ludendorff Offensive
1918 Russian Civil War

Also included in the full game is our scenario set in German East Africa, starting with the British and Belgian invasion of the colony in early 1916 that led to von Lettow-Vorbeck's successful use of guerrilla warfare to survive longer than Germany itself. Of course, success in the game depends on the strategy you choose.

I hope you enjoy it, and the demo can be found here:

www.battlefront.com/breakthrough

Downloading the demo.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Also, WW1 is heavily regarded by leading military strategists as a very stupid war, especially on the western front.

The war was basically over by 1914 with the British naval blockade of German ports.

If the original Schlieffen plan was conducted, Germany could have beaten France early in the war.

For 4 years, there was nothing but static warface in France, very little strategy and just infantry killing infantry.

Oh lol, utter retard detected.

How about you shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Brayko]

Notice how no counter arguments of any kind were presented in that post.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Because writing an actual counter-argument would be utterly pointless, when every library in the world is filled with actual history books about WW1 that do NOT repeat ridiculous myths that have very little, if any, basis in reality.

 

[Brayko]

And still nothing. To ignore or not to ignore?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Tell me that you are trolling and I fell for it.

Or if you aren't trolling, go ahead and let's ignore each other. I'm too hungover to bother writing you a fucking essay on a topic that hasn't been argued amongst historians since, well, never.

 

[oscar]

And still nothing.

Go to page 2

 

[Khor1255]

This is a good question. What are the best strategy games for WW1?

 

[Trash]

Funny to see this thread when suddenly there seems to be a flood of WWI wargames. Personally I'm very excited about John Tiller's Squad Battles: First World War. Which kinda sneaked up from out of nowhere. Their previous Squad Battles range from classic to meh but with a setting like this and a system like theirs it should be interesting. Commander: The Great War also looks nice (and reminds me of the kind of playstyle ye olde Clash of Steel had) and I'm curious about Strategic Command: Breakthrough.

 

[Raghar]

This kinda reminds me of people who can't create graphics at all, or about early version of games from these who are learning by selfeducation, and doing main job as a cleaning lady.

He can't do tilling, and he doesn't understand main principles of creating proper UI.

 

[doggfookker]

so bros:

is HoI: Darkest Hour a good bet for the WWI trench-on-trench action? Or should I skip it?

and should I do Victoria's WWI campaign, or just stick with industrializing the shit out of my nation c. 1845?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I think the trench warfare is what put a lot of developers off when they contemplate a WW1 game. It just doesn't sound like a plausible or enjoyable tactic when you're moving your army on a world map. :Ok, stop here, dig a trench, and then, wait for the enemy to dig a trench, and then, try to suppress that trench with mortars and biplanes, and if uh the fails then, um, dig a bigger trench".

I think you can see how WW2 would be the more favorable if the two...

Yes, but I think that's bullshit. I think a lot of people have not done their research, and a myth has been created. WW1? Ah, 4 years of pointless trench warfare, right?

WW1 warfare was actually very fluid except in the West and Alpine fronts. When people think of WW1 they think of Verdun but there was also the German offensive in 1914, the East front, Carpathian front, the Suez Canal, Galipoli, Colonial Africa and the German Kaiserschlacht offensive in 1918.

Yes there was a long period of deadlock in the West, but the Entente tried all the time to achieve a break through, while the Germans tried to bleed France until she collapsed, so it was not like it was static, or predictable war.
Throughout the war there were always many possibilities. France could have collapsed in a Revolution (it was really close at times), Russia did eventually break down. Germany could have defeated Britain on the sea, or through the uboat campaign.
Turkey could have defeated Britain in the Mediterranean. Etc. Only with hindsight it looks like the two sides had "agreed" on three years of trench warfare. Several times a breakthrough looked imminent, but the attacker ran into problems, or the defender could stabilize. There is of endless material about the many offensives in the West, I recommend studying them.

Basically, the Germans had dug up in a defensive position because they needed to control France and Britain with only a part of their army, until they could finish the more successful campaign in the East. Once Russia was defeated in 1918, the Germans went on the offensive, and instantly broke through. It looked for a short moment like Germany could win the war militaricaly, even though they had already lost economically, but of course that can't work. In 1918 German troops stood before Paris for a second time, but were stopped by the incompetence of the german high command, total exhaustion, and fresh American troops.

I think a properly researched WW1 game would work, and be absolutely overdue. It would be particularly interesting because of the many technical innovations, more than in any conflict before.

God you krauts love sniffing your own arses. Fuck me...

 

[Brayko]

Yeah WW1 sucks who gives a crap? Static warfare is fucking retarded. Jesus loves mobile divisions and indirect strategies.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Yeah WW1 sucks who gives a crap? Static warfare is fucking retarded. Jesus loves mobile divisions and indirect strategies.

Troll or ignorant detected. GarfunkeL is right. No point arguing with you.

Anyway - there is a new mod for AJE called "The Guns of August" dealing with the first year of WWI. I wanted to try it but no chance - yet.

There was also a mod-made-game using Cossacks engine called "The Entente". It is best avoided - no trench, building tanks authorized from the very first map (the Marne)...

There is also a game using the Blitzkrieg engine called "World War One" (original !). Well, if you like to see mass tank assault from 1914 and bomb the same pixel for 2 hours to get rid of one soldier in a manhole - go ahead. Else, best avoided. I suppose Brayko was historical advisor for both these games.

 

[Brayko]

Dude, it was fucking static warfare in WW1! Ask any German general in WW2 and they'll agree to that. Since they were defeated they decided to look to modern means of fighting (theories mostly written by British authors, ironically), whilst the British and French completely ignored these modern methods and fought WW1 style in France which is how they got owned so easily from the getgo, it wasn't until late in Africa when the British started adapting to more progressive warfare.

WW1 was basically old tactics mixed with very dangerous equipment and long range artillery, which is how the trench came to be, the only way to survive the massive bombardments was to dig trenches and wait for the shelling to stop.

Troll or ignorant detected.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Dude, it was fucking static warfare in WW1! Ask any German general in WW2 and they'll agree to that. Since they were defeated they decided to look to modern means of fighting (theories mostly written by British authors, ironically), whilst the British and French completely ignored these modern methods and fought WW1 style in France which is how they got owned so easily from the getgo, it wasn't until late in Africa when the British started adapting to more progressive warfare.

WW1 was basically old tactics mixed with very dangerous equipment and long range artillery, which is how the trench came to be, the only way to survive the massive bombardments was to dig trenches and wait for the shelling to stop.

Troll or ignorant detected.

Obviously, you never heard that there were other fronts than the Western front. But then, EVEN your assessment of the Western front is wrong :

Also, WW1 is heavily regarded by leading military strategists as a very stupid war, especially on the western front. => Wrong. Case of Defense > Offense. Once everyone understtod this (and that was quick), everyone tried to find a solution

The war was basically over by 1914 with the British naval blockade of German ports. => Stupid.

If the original Schlieffen plan was conducted, Germany could have beaten France early in the war. Which "original" Schlieffen Plan ? The one of 1906, which involved going through Netherlands ? A later plan ? But the one of which year ?

For 4 years, there was nothing but static warface in France, very little strategy and just infantry killing infantry. More like artillery killing infantry...

 

[oscar]

Eastern Front had plenty of mobility and manoeuvre-based battles.

World War One is also a lot more interesting in that it could have gone either way even in 1918, while the Second World War was pretty much a forgone conclusion by 1942.

 

[Brayko]

Well I would agree to the fact that the war was basically over with the British naval blockade of 1914...

Anything extra was just the great bang of the German fighting spirit.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Well I would agree to the fact that the war was basically over with the British naval blockade of 1914...

Anything extra was just the great bang of the German fighting spirit.

This is not very incorrect.

Neither England or Germany were agricultural economies in 1910's. This meant that ANY long term blockade on food would utterly devastate internal situation leading to strong public outcry.

The fact is that Britain indeed realized this post WW1 and tried very hard to develop both agriculture and husbandry to become independent. This has been cited by a variety of economists as a central reason why the mid WW2 attack on Britain failed to bring her to her knees.

 

[tuluse]

Saying that attacking and being on the offensive is a winning strategy sounds like confusing correlation with causation.

Do forces on the attack win because they're attacking or are they attacking because they're winning?

 

[Captain Shrek]

Saying that attacking and being on the offensive is a winning strategy sounds like confusing correlation with causation.

Do forces on the attack win because they're attacking or are they attacking because they're winning?

Could it be, god forbid, both?

EDIT: Or neither?

 

[Brayko]

"The entire art of war consists of a reasoned and circumspect defense followed by an audacious and rapid offense"

-Napoleon

There's a lot of blanks to fill in but that's the broad stroke.