The French Create Realistic Trench Warfare Sim

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

ahh, helmets on sticks, my old nemesis, we meet again!

Hopefully with this, my older brother and boyfriend will stop complaining to me about the lack of WWI games.

Wait, the boyfriend will bitch nonstop on how PC gaming sucks. *sighs*

Dangit2019:

Li Mu:
STOP THE PRESS!
A game in which the main characters are not American? Is this allowed? I'm pretty sure there is a law against such a thing happening.

I'm guessing there will be DLC which fixes that. Because as we all know (according to the big devs) Americans wont play games unless it's about an American fighting for FREEDOM!

(I know this isn't true, but it's what devs seem to think, otherwise why would 90% of FPS games be about Americans, despite them making up only a small percentage of the worlds population and also the worlds gamers.)

I'm sure there's an inexplicable scene where American volunteers show up to save the day at the end to make up for this French blasphemy.

Oh, but the USA did join WW1, in 1917 after being attacked themselves.

See a pattern there ? :)

Most trench warfare looked like this, and if you refused to charge you were simply executed by your own commanding officer or forced into the no man's land by yourself to die.

The atmosphere and tension in this game could be absolutely amazing if done well. Although it doesn't look like it will be the most exciting game.

Andronicus:
Despite being barely a blip in the radar for most of the big players in the Great War, WWI was such a defining moment for Australia, it's a shame you can only play as German and French. I mean, it's a French game, so fair enough that the focus would be on the French soldiers, but still, a bit sad I guess.

Also, I agree with others like RT above that the trenches weren't the only aspect of WWI, but it certainly seems to be the part the game is pushing (the hint is in the title), and it's very difficult to make trench warfare fun for a game, especially one focusing on simulating the actual feel of trench warfare, rather than jazzing it up for the CoD crowd. That doesn't necessarily mean I don't think it couldn't be (or shouldn't be) made, I just think it would be extremely hard to find it's audience.

I was referring to a more combat oriented game. Like if you took M&B & reworked it for WW one. It would work & trenches would not be the sole theater. As for making trench warfare fun, since we lack an adequate template, just play(i think) Fort Lyon in Napoleonic wars. Be offensive team & find a crowded server. Its a murder field but people keep going over the top & charging for the goal. An explosive cannon shot will tear a dozen men to shreds but its still fun. Yes its still a niche game but a niche that is bigger than expected. A niche that will accept a difficult game & will support the product to profit. WWI would likely be similar. Its audience would be among those that like difficult games, period games, etc. Its audience would not be World of Warcraft big, but it would be a profitable niche.

OT: First i hated that map. But then i saw the fun in the charge & now i just cant bring myself to play defense on it.

IndianaJonny:

I'm not sure if you re-read over your bit here, chum, but you appear to give a very 'clean and tidy' impression of what trench-fighting involves - nice, neat bullet wounds and all that.

As Karloff mentions in the article, 130,000 unidentified bodies in one burial site alone (God only know how much was left of them to 'identify'). Lengthy barrages churning the ground into mud, leaving German concrete fortifications largely unscathed, men drowning in the mud, wounded men screaming and sobbing through the night out in no-man's land, men shooting comrades by accident..sometimes not by accident, the 'souvenir hunting' that went on. Heck, the video on The Trenches own site doesn't pull its punches.

You're forgetting that these battles raged on for months at a time, and a lot of bodies were left in the middle of no man's land, or even just dumped in mass graves. Either way, after a couple months of battle, then after the time it took to actually look for dead bodies to bury properly, well, the bodies just rotted away. And with no accurate dental records at the time, if you didn't find some sort of identifying feature, like a wallet with a name inside, a picture, or anything of the likes, it was considered unidentifiable.

I always thought if a WWI FPS game was ever made, it would be a story driven game with as much emphasis on atmosphere as possible, all while shocking the player with ingame depictions of real life WWI wounds. The type of game that breaks from the more recent CoDs and battlefields line of thinking that war is clean, and pretty fun with lots of cool toys.

robert01:
Has anyone ever really wondered why trench warfare is often ignored... it was boring as hell in terms of war related stuff. Two sides shooting at each other hiding in the ground until one said built up enough balls or got drunk enough to run into No Man's Land and rush the other side. That is all there was too it (until Germany started using chemicals). Might be an interesting game though.

Maybe someone should try making an adventure game about it. You know: "Go find the valve so we can open the sluice gates."

Hero in a half shell:
But seriously I would say it would even itself out if your enemies also have slow firing rifles, you will all spend a longer time being exposed reloading, and in that situation different tactics are needed than the 'twitch shooting' CoD style.
Positioning yourself is key, finding useful cover, waiting for the right moment to make your shots, making every shot count, and of course when it all goes belly up there's always that delicious tactic of circle strafing your opponent, trying to keep out of his crosshairs while keeping him in your crosshairs, as you bash his face in with your rifle butt. CoD's insta-knife-kill be damned, those frantic close quarter balls ups were some of the funnest moments of any multiplayer FPS.

World War I is not really something I have read a ton about, but "twitch" shooting is what people do when they panic.

orangeban:
it's that they didn't shoot fast because they were rookies.

It only takes a few hours to learn how to work the bolt fast, and I have never been deployed to any war nor received any kind of military training.

I'd be more inclined to believe rookies were under stress rather than assuming that 18 year old males have more motor skills today than back in 1916.

orangeban:
]Suppressive fire was handled by the machine guns, that was the entire point of having the weapon.

If any war was furthest away from being textbook, it was WWI. Besides, using individual riflemen as a form of suppression is perfectly legit.

Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Well this has piqued my interest, I will be watching with interest.

Though I hope the main character isn't a French Officer otherwise we might suffer from horrendous uprisings from the bottom...

dnazeri:
Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Hooray! Another poster with zero imagination, knowledge of history, & a misunderstanding of what the game is doing.

I'm still waiting for Civil War FPS. Let's all die of poorly amputated limbs!

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:

dnazeri:
Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Hooray! Another poster with zero imagination, knowledge of history, & a misunderstanding of what the game is doing.

Your right I forgot to mention the part where you have to put on a gas mask cause of mustard gas.

edit: The point I was trying to make is that our current age marriage to realism in games has a habit of producing unfun shooters with no spirit. This trailer is literally of a guy shooting at someone way off in the distance from a trench. If your trailer looks boring, then you have a serious problem.

dnazeri:

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:

dnazeri:
Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Hooray! Another poster with zero imagination, knowledge of history, & a misunderstanding of what the game is doing.

Your right I forgot to mention the part where you have to put on a gas mask cause of mustard gas.

edit: The point I was trying to make is that our current age marriage to realism in games has a habit of producing unfun shooters with no spirit. This trailer is literally of a guy shooting at someone way off in the distance from a trench. If your trailer looks boring, then you have a serious problem.

Uhm no it's a weapon's demonstration with the guy firing at some enemy helmets in a makeshift shooting range

dnazeri:
Your right I forgot to mention the part where you have to put on a gas mask cause of mustard gas.

edit: The point I was trying to make is that our current age marriage to realism in games has a habit of producing unfun shooters with no spirit. This trailer is literally of a guy shooting at someone way off in the distance from a trench. If your trailer looks boring, then you have a serious problem.

It's more of a tech demo that anything else. And by definition tech demos do not make great games, let alone trailers.

If you think realism is boring, then you've already said it. The game won't be fun for you if you didn't like ARMA/Operation Flashpoint/Red Orchestra. Don't play it, this game will have so low impact on the way AAA games are made you won't be hurt in any way by it's release.

It is a shame that it's not about Canada in WWI, we pretty much reinvented war, and steamrolled german outposts left right and center, starting with vimy ridge, if you don't believe me watch this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHj88WeLohk

Yeah, Canada was fucking awesome in WWI, and in WWII, I really wish some game developer would focus on some of our action, cuz we kick ass.

ElPatron:

Hero in a half shell:
But seriously I would say it would even itself out if your enemies also have slow firing rifles, you will all spend a longer time being exposed reloading, and in that situation different tactics are needed than the 'twitch shooting' CoD style.
Positioning yourself is key, finding useful cover, waiting for the right moment to make your shots, making every shot count, and of course when it all goes belly up there's always that delicious tactic of circle strafing your opponent, trying to keep out of his crosshairs while keeping him in your crosshairs, as you bash his face in with your rifle butt. CoD's insta-knife-kill be damned, those frantic close quarter balls ups were some of the funnest moments of any multiplayer FPS.

World War I is not really something I have read a ton about, but "twitch" shooting is what people do when they panic.

To be honest, I don't have a clue either about the exact reload times for bolt actions, so I can't really add to the discussion about that, but I do know FPSs, and when I said 'twitch shooting' what I was referring to was the incredibly fast speed of games like COD and Battlefield, where the guns can kill in 2-3 hits, and fire fully automatic, with 30 or so rounds in the magazines, so gunfights are reduced to simply who sees who first: it becomes a purely reflex action. While this is some way realistic, the removal of any penalties for death in a multiplayer match has led to a situation where the most successful players are the ones that use the intensely difficult tactic of "run in circle around map shoot anything that moves until death". The most brazen, purely offensive player will always win.

Having a bolt action will mean slowing the pace of the game, no more 1 man Rambos, hopefully positioning and distance should become a lot more important, and most of all teamwork, because a single guy can no longer take out several enemies purely by virtue of coming at them from a flank.

Of course this is all speculation on my part, the game likely won't even have a multiplayer, but I think it's about time developers started tinkering more with the accepted foundations of FPS multiplayer, let's have something different.

ElPatron:

orangeban:
]Suppressive fire was handled by the machine guns, that was the entire point of having the weapon.

If any war was furthest away from being textbook, it was WWI. Besides, using individual riflemen as a form of suppression is perfectly legit.

Ah, yes, but you're assuming WW1 generals had any idea what the Hell they were doing. Remember, they were used to wars were soldiers marched rank & file and it was cavalry that saved the day. Rifle suppression may have been a legit tactic, but it's a matter of whether generals would have thought of using rifles for something other than their traditional use.

This is especially true for the British, who really couldn't be bothered with defensive tactics and just loved offence.

orangeban:

ElPatron:

orangeban:
]Suppressive fire was handled by the machine guns, that was the entire point of having the weapon.

If any war was furthest away from being textbook, it was WWI. Besides, using individual riflemen as a form of suppression is perfectly legit.

Ah, yes, but you're assuming WW1 generals had any idea what the Hell they were doing. Remember, they were used to wars were soldiers marched rank & file and it was cavalry that saved the day. Rifle suppression may have been a legit tactic, but it's a matter of whether generals would have thought of using rifles for something other than their traditional use.

This is especially true for the British, who really couldn't be bothered with defensive tactics and just loved offence.

Rifle Suppression was MOST of what the British high command knew. At the beginning of the war Machine guns were rare in the British army, battalion level mostly company at best, but the rate of fire of the early war British and commonwealth troops was such German reports apparently reported machine guns where there weren't any. Using personal weapons to suppress the enemies is as old as bows and arrows.

People thinking that the war was all walking or running straight from Trench to Trench, need to know Modern Military Infantry doctrine mostly stems from WW1, in particular a German Infantry Officer called Erwin Rommel. His accounts of his battles from WW1 became the military manual that dominated the inter-war period and WW2 infantry wise and still remains on the Sandhurst reading list.

Wars before and since have had extensive trench and fortification works, WW1 was the most dominated by this,due to the relitively close match of the two sides for much of the war. The extent was a symptom of this not the cause.

orangeban:
Rifle suppression may have been a legit tactic, but it's a matter of whether generals would have thought of using rifles for something other than their traditional use.

I don't know much about WWI, but I am pretty sure Generals are not in charge of squad level tactics when the Shit Hits The Fan.

Hero in a half shell:
Having a bolt action will mean slowing the pace of the game, no more 1 man Rambos,

A bolt action will operate at the speed you want it to. The Mauser action is widely known as smooth and the Enfield is considered by many to have the smoothest action in WWI. In comparison, a Mosin Nagant will not be as smooth and it's trigger pull is quite heavy.

Call of Duty 2 was pretty fast paced, and most people preferred bolt actions to semi-autos.

And I think WWI was one of the few wars where 1 man Rambos actually existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An%C3%ADbal_Milhais

Milhais was in charge of one of their Lewis guns on 9 April 1918. During "Operation Georgette", when the German Army attacked his division, Milhais stood up with his Lewis machine gun and defeated, almost single handedly, two German assaults by laying down intense fire. He managed to cover the retreat of Portuguese and Scots alike despite coming under heavy attack himself.[1] He fired in all directions and stayed at his post until he ran out of ammunition. His bravery under severe circumstances managed to convince the Germans that they were up against a fortified unit rather than just a single Portuguese soldier with a machine gun.[1] Finally, the Germans decided to go around and Milhais found himself alone in the rear of the enemy lines where he stayed for three days almost without eating or drinking.[1]

On the third day, Milhais, still carrying his Lewis, rescued a Scottish major from a swamp and the two reached Allied lines.

I'm interested. I've wanted to see a real (not a mod of flash) WWI game. I could see this styled as a TF2 L4D style respawn deal if we're charging no-mans land or a sanctum style game where you prep the defences and then fight FPS style, taking turns between offense/defense... Not sure if that's what they're gonna do or if just gonna be CoD WWI, whatever they do, looking forward to it.

dnazeri:
Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Actually you wait for 12 hours in artillery fire and then run into machine gun fire.

DVS BSTrD:
Greeaaaaaaaat just what we need: Another brown, cover based, first person shooter.

Pffffpfffpffff! I snickered.

OT: Interesting, but I'll pass. I'm still not a military shooter person, although the idea of trench warfare is quite interesting.

tbth im not totally comfortable with the idea of a ww1 game set in the trenches.

i pass a war memorial almost everyday with the names of 7 direct relatives that died on that front and those memorials exist in every town and village in Britain.

it was the last feudal war but fought with the weapons of the modern era.

the people were used en mass as pawns by their societal and thus military "superiors"...and the slaughter and societal effect that resulted was...literally unimaginable to us i think.

all this i have said in the past.

you buy it if you want to.

but i'm not going to glory in the misrepresention of the slaughter of almost an entire generation for the sake of feeling like a hero in a video game for a few hours.

i have plenty other entertainment choices that sit better with me than this does.

Sleekit:

I'm not going to glory in the misrepresention of the slaughter of almost an entire generation for the sake of feeling like a hero in a video game for a few hours.

I know that over in Europe WW1 is a bit more of a hot button issue,but doesn't what you say apply to pretty much every war game on the market? They make shooters about WW2 and Vietnam, RTSs on the Napoleonic Wars and Crusades,and movies about all of the above; Shouldn't it only be natural progression the do somthing on the not-so "Great War"?
Hell, if they do it right, the game might make for a proper representation of a bloody meaningless affair. That may be a near impossible endeavor, but you might as well give them a chance.

dnazeri:
Hooray a game about the most boring war in history, CANT WAIT TO SIT IN PLACE FOR 12 HOURS AND THEN RUN INTO ARTILLERY FIRE.

Press 'X' to surrender.

Li Mu:
STOP THE PRESS!
A game in which the main characters are not American? Is this allowed? I'm pretty sure there is a law against such a thing happening.

I'm guessing there will be DLC which fixes that. Because as we all know (according to the big devs) Americans wont play games unless it's about an American fighting for FREEDOM!

(I know this isn't true, but it's what devs seem to think, otherwise why would 90% of FPS games be about Americans, despite them making up only a small percentage of the worlds population and also the worlds gamers.)

I've played a Russian guy in a lot of games, and I'm American.

To me your post seems kinda prickish and short sighted.

Many game developers are based in the US
US probably has the most recognizable, most publicized and politically charged army
Helped economically and directly in WW1/WW2 so naturally show up where these are depicted
US is probably the biggest market to sell video games to

etc etc.

Regardless, I don't see how anything in your post served any purpose whatsoever. This is a game where what you apparently have a problem with isn't happening, and you're still complaining.

Sleekit:
tbth im not totally comfortable with the idea of a ww1 game set in the trenches.

i pass a war memorial almost everyday with the names of 7 direct relatives that died on that front and those memorials exist in every town and village in Britain.

it was the last feudal war but fought with the weapons of the modern era.

the people were used en mass as pawns by their societal and thus military "superiors"...and the slaughter and societal effect that resulted was...literally unimaginable to us i think.

all this i have said in the past.

you buy it if you want to.

but i'm not going to glory in the misrepresention of the slaughter of almost an entire generation for the sake of feeling like a hero in a video game for a few hours.

i have plenty other entertainment choices that sit better with me than this does.

It's just a game. My Grandfather was in WW2 and Company of Heroes is one of my favorite games.

It doesn't devalue those lost or glorify the atrocities. Personally I find shows, games, whatever about past things like this to be generally a good thing. They educate. The day we forget the horrors such wars have brought upon our race, is the day we'd be closer to repeating them.

Contrary to popular opinion, there was actually some excitement and derring-do in that war in the form of raids, infiltrations, and of course, charges. But in that last one you really don't have any say in what happens so I don't know if that'll work in a game. That said, I still can't figure out how the hell they can make this game interesting and fun to play without skewing the history so much that it'll basically be WW2 with classier uniforms and worse rifles.

To everyone saying the game will be boring because WW1 was a dull, horrendous nightmare: get off your high horse and stop sticking your nose up. What makes you think they'll portray that part of the war? They know there isn't a game in there, you don't need to point that out.

SciFi Maniac:

Sleekit:

I'm not going to glory in the misrepresention of the slaughter of almost an entire generation for the sake of feeling like a hero in a video game for a few hours.

I know that over in Europe WW1 is a bit more of a hot button issue,but doesn't what you say apply to pretty much every war game on the market? They make shooters about WW2 and Vietnam, RTSs on the Napoleonic Wars and Crusades,and movies about all of the above; Shouldn't it only be natural progression the do somthing on the not-so "Great War"?
Hell, if they do it right, the game might make for a proper representation of a bloody meaningless affair. That may be a near impossible endeavor, but you might as well give them a chance.

there was heroism in WW2, there was the chance for personal heroism in Vietnam.
i dunno about you but i generally play games where i'm the hero.

and it's my opinion and that of a great many others that there was precious little "heroism" to be had on that front in WW1. the simple fact is the British war dead of WW1 on the western front are generally seen as victims of "the horrors of war" TO THIS DAY.

indeed our entire Remembrance Day activity are a reflection on this. we don't do gung-ho "they were heros served their country" patriotism like the Americans. its all about reflecting on loss to us.

WW1...WW1 was the last feudal war. entire villages and towns of young men signed up mostly because they were basically told to so by their supposedly societal betters (on all levels) and ofc through the imposition of supposed duty and patriotism.

and then they died.

millions of them.

and because of the way entire villages, neighbourhoods and places of work signed up and were with the promise that they would serve together (the horror of the so called "pals battalions") when they went over the top to be mown down entire towns and villages lost entire generations of their men in minutes.

fathers, sons, brothers, uncles.

all signed up at together and a great many died together side by side.

the fallout of that war in Britain was so horrific that it led for the people to call an end to war (hence "The Great War" or "the war to end all wars")

these weren't mad doe eyed hippy idealists in pursuit of peace.

they were people the same as me and you.

they simply couldn't take any more death.

and that's a very different thing.

WW1 was the beginning of the end for the British class system and in being so societally it changed things for the better.

but i still have no desire to play it.

captcha - end of story

Sleekit:

they were people the same as me and you.

they simply couldn't take any more death.

very different thing.

You aren't seriously implying that WW1 was more tragic than any other war are you? They're all pretty horrible but I can't say that WW1 affected more people than WW2 did, that shit was far more brutal. We made games about that all the time though, and they were pretty sensible about the subject matter. My grandparents suffered through occupation in WW2 - my grandad lost his parents as a kid - but that doesn't stop me from playing the games. Because in the end, they don't really hurt us. You could say they glorify war but they never cheapen the deaths and the horrors. I don't think we should be ashamed of our past so much we should avoid it, even in video games.

el derpenburgo:

Sleekit:

they were people the same as me and you.

they simply couldn't take any more death.

very different thing.

You aren't seriously implying that WW1 was more tragic than any other war are you? They're all pretty horrible but I can't say that WW1 affected more people than WW2 did, that shit was far more brutal. We made games about that all the time though, and they were pretty sensible about the subject matter. My grandparents suffered through occupation in WW2 - my grandad lost his parents as a kid - but that doesn't stop me from playing the games. Because in the end, they don't really hurt us. You could say they glorify war but they never cheapen the deaths and the horrors. I don't think we should be ashamed of our past so much we should avoid it, even in video games.

19,240 dead, 35,493 wounded, 2,152 missing and 585 prisoners for a total loss of 57,47 on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

that equated to some 20% of the British fighting force at the time.

in a single day.

General haig (who believed the use of overwhelming manpower was the key to winning the war) wrote in his dairy "...the total casualties are estimated at over 40,000 to date. This cannot be considered severe in view of the numbers engaged, and the length of front attacked"...

total estimates for the Battle of the Somme sit around 600,000 on the British side and 1.5 million total over 5 months.

result ? "Indecisive" as Wikipedia puts it...and maybe 40 miles of French mud...

sorry but i'm afraid imo sometimes we should be "ashamed of our past so much we should avoid it" -.-

compare the above with how people react to a even a few coffins coming back from Afghanistan and bare in mind the special horror of the "pals battalions" that meant that entire generations of men were wiped out from specific towns, villages and places of work.

as a further comparison the total amount of allied casualties for the entire operation of the D-Day landings are placed at "only" around 12,000 men.

i used to be a Sea Cadet and later RNR. as such it was a great honour for me to serve as the honour guard to The Royal British Legion as per tradition on a great many local Remembrance Day parades. i have spent virtually entire days standing head bowed at the foot of Cenotaphs. i know the The Legion, i know my local and family history and perhaps most of all i know my Gran and my Great Gran and how they could barely even talk of that visited upon my family, village and the wider nation due to "The Great War".

you buy and entertain the idea of being an hero in such a game if you like.

in good conscience however i simply cannot.

While it's only mildly related to the article:

...and occasionally Lovecraftian horror games use the setting to create gloomy tension...

Which games are that? Seriously, I'd like to know so I can go find them and play them...

Sweet I've been waiting for a realistic trench warfare sim for ages... No, really... Yup... I am that boring...

Mekado:

Dangit2019:

Li Mu:
STOP THE PRESS!
A game in which the main characters are not American? Is this allowed? I'm pretty sure there is a law against such a thing happening.

I'm guessing there will be DLC which fixes that. Because as we all know (according to the big devs) Americans wont play games unless it's about an American fighting for FREEDOM!

(I know this isn't true, but it's what devs seem to think, otherwise why would 90% of FPS games be about Americans, despite them making up only a small percentage of the worlds population and also the worlds gamers.)

I'm sure there's an inexplicable scene where American volunteers show up to save the day at the end to make up for this French blasphemy.

Oh, but the USA did join WW1, in 1917 after being attacked themselves.

See a pattern there ? :)

Most trench warfare looked like this, and if you refused to charge you were simply executed by your own commanding officer or forced into the no man's land by yourself to die.

Err America wasn't attacked by Germany in WW1. America entered the war because of German policy but at no point did Germany fire so much as pop gun at the USA before the American deceleration of war. The German U boat campaign of 1915 resulted in the sinking of the Lusitania and which caused the death of 1,198 of the 1,959 people aboard, many of whom where American citizens. However the Lusitania was a UK flagged ship it was not an attack on the USA.

The public retraction in the US to the sinking was enough for the Germans to call of their U boat attacks on non military ships. In 1916 the naval battle of Jutland occurred after which the German navy became convinced that they could not beat the Royal Navy at sea. The German Admirals purposed a return to attacking merchant shipping with U Boats. The German government not wanting the entry of the USA looked around to for ways of keeping the US of the war. They hit upon the idea of getting Mexico to attack the US by offering, after a German victory in Europe, the territory lost to US invasions over the last 50 years. The German government made this offer over the Telegraph lines of the US embassy in Berlin. All transatlantic telegraph lines ran through the UK and naturally when war began the Germans were cut off, the US government offered the use of their telegraph lines for Germany to talk to its embassies abroad. The British government knew this and tapped the US lines. They couldn't admit that they tapped the US government lines so they stole the telegram out of the main post office in Mexico city. The British then published the telegram of Germany offering Mexico the return of California, Texas, New Mexico and Nevada, which the German foreign minster announced was true (perhaps in one the most stupid times ever to tell the truth). After which the American public, unsurprisingly, felt that the Germans had spat in their faces and America entered the war.

American troops or industrial power did not play a decisive role in WW1 on the battlefield. The Germans had an opportunity in the spring of 1918 to launch an attack before large numbers of Americans reached the front. They were afforded this chance by the collapse of Russia in 1917 and by striping vital war production, rail lines and farming of manpower. This attack nearly succeed but in the end failed to produce victory. The British counter offensive of 1918 smashed the remains of the Germany army west of the Rhine. The German surface navy attempted to launch a suicidal attack on the Royal navy causing a mutiny, which rapidly engulfed the rest of country and thus ending the war. The war was won not by US troops but the reality of US manpower meant the Germans could not win a long war because they would run out poeple to man the trenches before the Allies did.

I think it would be cool if there was an expendable lives system. You control a soldier, if he dies the control is passed to another, if you keep dicking around possible replacements die. You lose if a certain number of your soldiers die. It is impossible to complete certain missions without your current soldier being killed (to add drama).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here