The Great War demo is finally out and holy shit.... I dont know how those frickers did it but the actually managed to make a strategy game on one of the least strategic wars in history fun. Between the grand map persistant ground battles and choices in how to push a trench line the game is a masterpiece AI in battles seems decently competent they responded to tanks with arty and mortars to great effect.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
nice thumbnail OP
Can't get my artillery to fire. They will say that they have my fire orders and are about to start a barrage (trying to use them to suppress a machine gun nest in the demo), but they don't do anything.
Are you playing as the Russians?
The only battle I can play has me as the Canadians at Paschendaele
He's making an epic history joke
Don't worry anon, I get it. Russian shell shortage
Didn't everyone have a shell shortage those days?
Yes
Also these days. Which suggests also next days too.
Jünger points out in Storm of Steel that the British had far more guns and ammunition than they had.
maybe they had more than the germans but not as many as they themselves would have liked
Memoires are not a good source for information like that. I will look for a source tomorrow but I don't think that is true. The British had a very small volunteer based army. Germany had used conscription for decades to build a mass army at that point. There is no comparison. Maybe if every single gun the British navy had would be added then the numbers might be comparable. The French might actually have had more guns than the Germans but the Germans had more heavy howitzers, it was these types of guns that did the damage in WW1. The Germans also borrowed a lot of these heavy howitzers from the Austro-Hungarian army to quickly smash the Belgian fortresses arround Antwerp when the French front was starting to stagnate.
Also everyone had ammunition problems after a few months of fighting because no one had the industrial base geared towards war time production. Everyone was producing for small colonial wars and smaller conflicts at the time. The very concept of mobilizing a national industrial base is something that took shape in WW1.
But memoirs are a perfect source for that, especially since Jünger wasnt just anyone but participated as an officer in the war. It was known amongst all german folderis by experiencing their own volume of fire against that of the enemy, that the british had superior as more numerable artillery. We werent talking about the number of soldiers either, just about the quantity of british artillery shelling. Obviously since Germany thought on 2 fronts, against several enemies, both the french and the british, they were likely to use more soldiers.
Memoirs are colored by the fact that human memory is plastic and it will lie to it's self and forget it lied.
Hard numbers written down at the time are the best data.
statistics can be inaccurate, manipulated, misinterpreted and fail to represent the actual process of warfare. Look for example at the Dresden debate, where the official numbers are completely irreliable, while the new statistical methods that try to give a realistic number are dogshit speculation. In that case the ferocity of the bombing, while not being exactly measurable, are more easily communicated by the witnesses of it, which is why Dresden is still remembered.
In the same manner, the accounts of soldiers who lived in the trenches for years and became experts in trench warfare (read the book if you havent, it will give you true insight on how WW1 played out) are very reliable sources for something as easy to distinguish for the human mind as comparing the volume of fire dished out by ones own forces and by the opponents forces. Also since Jünger was an excellent soldier, war hero, officer and diary writer who participated in numerous essential operations, particularly his insights on trench warfare are very valuable. They are so valuable in fact, that they played and play a major role in research on world war 1 warfare.
>the memoirs of one man are a more accurate source than a composite of logistical/organisational documents
oy vey!
>I've been so thoroughly rebuked all I can do now is shitpost to pretend I never actually cared
why has nobody cited the these accurate sources yet?
>impossibly small view of the front
false assumption
>But to say Junger in his trench could accurately tell the number of British artillery pieces and shells?
Never said that. Why should the insight of Jünger, be restricted to german assault tactics? Whats so unbelievable to you that a soldier, who again was not just anyone but created one of the most significant and influential accounts of world war 1, was a military expert, war hero and also one of the most significant german writers in the 20th century, can give us accurate estimations of force quality and quantity, which are of course not enough to draw up exact numbers but which would be foolish to ignore or outrightly discard.
Im not sure whether im surrounded by half-witted history undergrads who try to larp as academics by insisting that only statistical accounts matter, but there seems to be a general ignorance of how incomplete and lacking most documents are, how incomplete an assumption is, that is only based on numbers, particularly in warfare.
Its a simple fact. If you want to study trench warfare, in all its aspects and oddities in world war 1, you have to draw on personal accounts. Nobody will know better than the soldier.
not me
Read the book, instead of making instinctual assumptions on Jünger falsifying his reports. He also never stated or implied what you said. Jünger is actually one of the few significant voices that did not fall for the Dolchstoßlegende.
The question was whether all sides suffered from shell shortage. I pointed out that Ernst Jünger, who is one of the most credible and significant sources for ww1 warfare, said that there was a significant imbalance between the volume of fire between german forces and the british forces they faced in the trenches in several operations.
And you're a history post-grad I take it, well versed in historiography.
Memoirs provide more peculiar and particular viewpoints. Each one of the memoirs is like a historical record by different historian. When those memoirs are integrated, we can get more objective views and deeper understanding. It is dangerous to thoroughly believe the memorial ability of authors. No one can sure about the validity of a description about an event that happened long time ago. There is bias as with evey source.
Relying upon one single localised source when given the option of many to form understanding is always foolish.
That's a lot of cope to defend a mediocre book of a mediocre man.
>statistics can be inaccurate, manipulated, misinterpreted and fail to represent the actual process of warfare.
How the hell are the writings of Private Atkins any LESS inaccurate? Surely the way to counteract statistical manipulation is to gather a large amount of reliable sources, not rely on the writings of a single person with an impossibly small view of the front.
If you want to use Jungers memoirs to talk about German assault tactics, that's 100% fair. But to say Junger in his trench could accurately tell the number of British artillery pieces and shells? You'd have to be brain dead
unless you are dealing with the irish
>Memoirs are a perfect source for statistics
Memoirs are a dogshit source for information on the other side of the author, are you moronic
Oh you mean the percieved bombarding of the Germans where the BEF was active? It is very well possible that the British had a higher concentration of guns in their section of the front. It's also possible that at times they had more shells than the Germans. However don't forget that in numerical terms the British army was tiny compared to the German and French mass armies. Also the British industrial base was geared towards supplying that tiny army for small colonial conflicts it took them the entire war and a newly created ministry to solve the problem if they ever managed to do that. For most of the big battles shells were saved up beforehand.
>Also since Jünger was an excellent soldier, war hero, officer and diary writer who participated in numerous essential operations, particularly his insights on trench warfare are very valuable.
This means nearly nothing for the quality of the book. He's not all knowing so you can't use memoires in that way. A memoire can tell you a lot implicitly. Who wrote it? For whom was it written? When was it written? Where was it written? Did the author base it on his own findings or did he borrowed certain parts of ideas. All these kind of questions can lead to a better understanding of the situation of the author. Historical text books are based on cross examined sources, in the case of shells and guns probably mostly on military adminitration documents. It is those text books that can give a clearer answer in this case.
>the grass was greener on the other side and nobody had it harder than us
t. memoir
there's russians in this game? isn't it only about the western front? or is this some joke about the war in ukraine i'm not getting
they're out of range, moron
Yeah im thinking Petroglyph did something right here
Really good demo, both gameplay and out-of-game presentation
Voice acting is terrific too
Troops are super duper fragile though so if you let a trench line in front of your men un-suppressed for literally two seconds every one of your doods gonna die
Up to chapter 5 in the demo
seems pretty good so far
kind of like Steel Division with the strategic/tactical levels but less painful to play
infantry were incredibly fragile but that's par for a ww1 game I guess
What is this? A world war FOR ANTS?!
WW1 more like WW 5'1
I downloaded the demo but I had to go to work. When I get home I must drink.
And tomorrow I must sober up, clean the house and prepare dinner for me and my uncle who is coming over to drink.
Then on sunday I must sober up and cook for the rest of the week and maybe sneak in a drink if I can.
It's phyisically impossible to play video game
Nice blog drama baby
You're right, I'm sorry about that post.
take it to the Ganker alkie containment threads homosexual
kino
Why do you cook so much?
Cooking for more than one person is a decent excuse
Frick cooking for just one it isnt worth it unless you do mealprep like i assume that anon is doing
But imo that just seems like making leftovers on purpose
>imo that just seems like making leftovers on purpose
... yes? a lot of dishes are better with some time in the fridge anyway, like stews
Frick you leftovers are great. Restoring 6% of your Hp every turn is a really invaluable ability.
stop cursing, Black person-zoomer.
its fun but this looks nothing like jünger senpais storm of steel
So is this more RTS or more grand strategy? Or have the madmen finally made a good hybrid of the two?
You don't even have control over your entire nation so it's not
I just wish the bodies/wrecks stayed. But it's still great
I think with the sheer amount of corpses that would pile up would cause slowdown, even with the really low res soldiers. You can casually send over a thousand troops to their deaths.
It would make sense (and it wouldn't hurt the fps) if the wrecks stayed but 90% of the bodies vanished. Most of the bodies in the real war got evaporated or buried by the constant shelling, hence the high number of "MIA" infantry
make the dead bodies be sprites that slowly sink into the ground until they disappear
>make the dead bodies be sprites
Forget dead bodies - why not make the infantry in general be sprites? You can't even rotate the camera or zoom in close enough to notice. Making them 3D adds nothing.
>one of the least strategic wars in history fun
you are moronic
It was extremely strategic. The amount of mind games going on was insane. The tech just wasn't there yet.
no you're moronic, it's well known very few of the generals knew how to command efficiently, hence why the most common tactic was to send thousands en masse to their death, hoping to chip away enough at their numbers.
>Have men with rifles, heavy MGs, grenades, and artillery
>Need to attack an entrenched enemy who has the same
>Unprecedented situation but you need to attack NOW
>No tanks yet, planes are paper, tactics and strategy are being developed on the spot
Even the final 100 days offensive with all that materiel and knowledge built up has a 1-1 loss rate and a staggering 2 million dead
You could just dig under them and blow them up with a mine.
they did
But they stopped cause it took too long for a certain someone.
>dude just blow up every trench with mines lol
>tactic that poses little risk to the entire army
>nah frick it just charge machine guns
>just wait 3 months to lay one mine and advance a single trench line, if it's not just immediately retaken
>just send attack after attack for 3 months to get a single trench line, if it's not immediately retaken
Casualties mostly didn't happen during the initial rush on the enemy trenches. The casualties mostly happened when the infantry surged past the enemy trenches, out of range of their own artillery, and tried to create a decisive breakthrough. Mines don't solve this.
Huh. Couldn't they just wait for the artillery to be carted forward where the enemy front trench was, which was just recently taken, to facilitate a breakthrough after the fact?
Presumably if you cut through no-man's land you already made a strong advance anyway
But yeah i suppose the Passchendaele mission illustrated nicely how cancerous it feels to be just outside your artillery's range, but you cant move your artillery either post-deployment phase
But then they're vulnerable to enemy artillery zero'ing in on them in that period when their own artillery is out of range, but the enemy artillery is in range.
>wait for artillery to move up
>enemy is waiting for you in the next line of trenches
>with another line set up behind that
This is why tanks (eventually with air support) have been key to breakthrough for over a hundred years, combining speed, protection, and firepower. Foot infantry are too slow in such deep, static, fortified conditions
Tanks were actually a huge technological culdesac. Completely obsolete by the 1960's, it's just everyone was too invested and had sunk cost syndrome. Artillery has always been king.
>*stand-off weapons have always been king
Fixed that for you.
Ok cool, so what do you use instead of tanks when you need to advance? Foot infantry with artillery? Has old become new?
>artillery is king
In theory, yes. What would be more accurate is "long range support is king" since aircraft now mostly fulfill that role. Aircraft are just expensive flying artillery that sometimes needs to be used to shoot down other flying artillery.
>aircraft now mostly fulfill that role
not in Ukraine
>Tanks were actually a huge technological culdesac. Completely obsolete by the 1960's, it's just everyone was too invested and had sunk cost syndrome.
the new midwit armchair military historian line
The role of tank fleets is changing. This has happened before with the death of the cavalry tank vs infantry tank concept. Their will be new tanks, designed around new doctrine.
Tanks were most vulnerable at their invention.
In 1918 tanks could be killed by rifle fire if using the correct ammunition, any direct artillery hit, a big fricking hole, some metal in the way, the engine killing it's self, the engine killing the crew. People now think that just because dedicated AT weapons can kill tanks that changes anything.
The solution is a massed artillery barrage while troops charge. The problem in ww1 was their lack of willingness to have infantry charge into artillery and that allowed the defenders time to reorganize. By charging into the artillery you force the defenders to rise during the bombardment or be engaged in melee. You will blow some of your own up but they would all die if the artillery let up mid-charge anyway so there is no downside. They learned this most obvious solution late war. There's no guarantee that you will take the trench but if you are forced to attack a trench now, but it will cause the highest amount of casualties should it fail.
>WW1
>least strategic war in history
You are moronic
You are extra moronic
Shit was stupid for the first few months but believe it or not, people figured things out pretty quick. Or let me guess, you're also one of those people who think musket line warfare was people taking turns shooting each other right? Or that every theatre in WW1 was France and involved nothing but bayonet charging machine guns all day?
>115x65
>least strategic wars in history
Way to out yourself as a moron. The war was almost exclusively won from a strategic standpoint; nothing of relative importance happened on a tactical level.
great thread OP.
>healthbars
Take your bing boing yahoo 1up shit and be gone
I'm almost entirely convinced there's a single schizo who makes snide comments about upcoming games. I've seen it happen too many times for it to be a coincidence.
Cant wait to cover the frontlines in brraps
It's really easy to tell who gets their military history entirely through video games and wikipedia.
Most of Ganker?
Is manpower persistent or is it like company of heroes where buildings create dudes ex nihilo.
What do you mean? Like you have to figure out how to transport your fresh troops from a rail station or something??
Not saying it's a bad idea, if anything a WWI game should focus heavily on logistics to add more depth once the battles become static. Maybe instead of recruiting "stormtrooper" units you just upgrade your basic conscript infantry to fill that role, similar to the Soviet conscript's ability in CoH2 to merge with understrength units.
you only get a set amount of doods per battle, and in the campaign purchasing and deploying them happens beforehand
if you posted a handful of guys on a section of the front one turn and the enemy decides to attack it in force, you're stuck with whatever you posted there
but insofar as the one scenario battle in the demo you get a whole lot of doods to work with though
You don't manage manpower, per se. You have a limited amount of resources to buy fresh troop formations, which are full stacks of troops like in total war.
In the demo, these stacks were set, and meant to represent operational level forces, like an infantry "corps" (more like a brigade if going by the number of men in it). There were also smaller support formations, like battalions of tanks.
I'm hoping in the full release there might be some more customization if the stacks, or greater variety in support units, although a lot of that is handled by the fortifications and fire support emplacements you build during the tactical battles.
almost 100 posts and no photos or webms or whatever
you guys are a bunch of wienersuckers
There's a free demo.
I'd rather play On the Western Front.
I would try it if I could find a free copy
>laughable amount of unit types
>people die in hundreds and immediately vanish into thin air, making it seem arcadey
>every battle is either defend the trench or take the trench, enjoy playing out the same exact thing 50 times in a row during campaign
This Warfare 1917 remake could use some work. Can't even hope for Eastern front or the more open battles that took place in the West in 1914 being added cause I'm pretty sure that would work like shit with the systems they have.
>My WW1 western front game is nothing but trenches
This is such a vanishingly rare niche that to finally find a game focusing on the most iconic trench warfare in history and complain about its content is like saying you are mad that woodcutter simulator 2013 is full of lumber
>My WW1 western front game is nothing but trenches
...which is why if you're making that game you probably shouldn't make an RTS/TW-like. Some foreman at the Royal Arsenal probably had more of an impact on the performance of the British Army at Somme and Passchendaele than "commanders" like Haig did. I think this game is stuck in the exact worst place in terms of how zoomed out or zoomed in the scope.
Or if you really want a game in this exact style then cover all theatres (with mechanics for that in mind): you play as British you get both the trenches of the West and the desert warfare in Middle East, you play as Germans you get western trenches and eastern mobile warfare etc.
To counter your woodcutter simulator comparison: imagine a game where you play as a gunner on a British battlecruiser at the Battle of Jutland. It's a historically accurate game, so you miss 95-98% of your shots and don't really have a good idea if the ones you hit did anything. You either have to sacrifice historical accuracy to make the game more fun, or change the scope of the game so you don't have to play as the gunner. In a WW1 game I'd rather play as Lloyd George or some unlucky lieutenant than Haig or Gough.
>"commanders" like Haig
Haig did nothing wrong. The BEF continuously changed its tactics throughout the war. You blame him for the Somme but ignore his successes
>he only attacked in Flanders
Where else would he attack? He was the commander in Flanders.
>every battle is either defend the trench or take the trench, enjoy playing out the same exact thing 50 times in a row during campaign
this is what my main concern is right now.
of course maybe the battles have more going for them, maybe i would have known if fricking steam hadn't removed my access to the demo and i was able to play more than the first 3 chapters of it
there isnt even ww2 games that cover all the theaters of the ear and you expect someone to make a single rts that covers all of them in ww1? best you can hope for is a series like the verdun-tannenberg-isonzo games. if scale is your problem then there are a lot of grand strategy games and hex based ww1 games
VGH
at last a good RTS that isn't RBT
but anon, this isn't a strategy game either
it's tactics
trench warfare is a strategy not a tactic, strategylet-kun
>RBT autist so mindshattered he's trying to force his meme in other threads
stop being mad at nothing
>115x65
moron