Erzherzog
Magister
I have half a dozen WWI-inspired Armored Brigade mods which I will never release.
Then the point of your post is...?
I have half a dozen WWI-inspired Armored Brigade mods which I will never release.
TOAW3 doesn't get enough love!If you get the Operational Art of War(possibly the best strategic old school hex and counter game ever made), they have a bunch of WW1 scenarios you can play that have some cool elements like using Trains, cavalry, trenches, gas, etc. All those things we know and love. You have to not be a graphics-whore, of course, and it's one of those games you have to be "in the mood" to play and willing to set aside a few hours for each gaming session. Otherwise, you won't really get into it, and it will just collect dust.
Edit: Also, PBEM and hotseat are pretty fun for those. Hotseat makes it feel like a boardgame, can be fun. One of the few times I wish I had a tablet with full functionality for games like that.
Here's the linky: http://matrixgames.com/products/317/details/Norm.Koger's.The.Operational.Art.of.War.III
It's my go to strategy game for that scale. I remember somebody even made a scenario with the entire planet and fully functional research/industry etc. if you wanted to play through WW2. Each turn took about an hour though, and the AI took about 15 minutes to think.
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...
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.
When playing Dreadnoughts, the shitty signal commands were the fun part.I would love to try out a Battle of Jutland style game, though I don't know how well it would work what with prior knowledge of the battle. Maybe just a general capital warship flagship simulator with different scenarios. I guess a lot of it would boil down to who crosses the T first and I'd imagine dealing with shitty signal commands wouldn't be all that fun. Maybe it wouldn't work out all that well but still, I think just the randomness of shells hitting might make it entertaining if the engine was nice enough.
oscar Have you ever watched The Lighthorsemen by the way? It shows the famous charge of Australian Light Horse, in which a previously impenetrable position was stormed by cavalry. The best film about horses I know!!
This is such a great movie sequence that I had to look it up: