why isn't there a proper world war 1 game?

[Empireprolett]

hey guys,

i've been looking for quite a wile for a WW1 game, and what I found was not very nice to see. I don't know why this is, but there's loads of really great WW2 games like hearts of iron, men of war or blitzkrieg. I played them all and they were really tough and difficult at times. but what always interested me more than WW2 was WW1, i don't know why this is, maybe due to the fact that it basically was the "old" imperial powers fighting a modern war.
however, even after having googled for quite a time, i have to draw the conclusion that there isn't a real "modern" ww1 game.
Of course i know and own many of the games available, which at least partly have this war as a setting, but either the games are too old ("history line"), too undetailed, or the military part is bullshit (victoria, victoria 2).
i was wondering why there isn't a game which could combine the best characteristics of all the old games, maybe diplomacy from victoria 2, fighting from hearts of iron 3 and maybe details from world war one gold edition?
why is paradox not producing a game like that? does it always have to be either the era of imperialism or the 2nd world war?

 

[Mjuice]

There has always been a lack of ww1 games. The main reasons are I think that for mainstream games it just isn't as marketable and cool (no "evil nazis" etc) and for serious wargaming it just doesn't make for as interesting a game due to the very static nature of the war.

 

[Dominatus]

Your just in luck mate, the new HOI2 Spin off expansion Darkest Hour is going to have ww1 and ww2!

 

[von Sachsen]

Check the WWI in the historical games section (though to find out more about it you'll probably have to go to AGEod's website.) There are still some issues with it, but it really is pretty fun.

 

[Beleg32]

Check the WWI in the historical games section (though to find out more about it you'll probably have to go to AGEod's website.) There are still some issues with it, but it really is pretty fun.

+2 Really fun and addictive game, must buy for WW1 fanatic, and the Gold edition fixes a lot s well.

 

[unmerged(2609)]

The perception regarding WWI is that in the main theater there was little or no movement. If the game is true to life, you end up with a static bloodbath. If you get around that by making things move, it wouldn't be WWI.

With WWII you can have the Germans invade Britain rather than the USSR and it's still WWII. With WWI, I can't name a decision point that makes any sense.

It may be possible to make a good WWI game but it's hard to imagine the Paradox combat system or AI generating a campaign that's sane looking. There would have to be huge changes.

 

[Weijun]

The perception regarding WWI is that in the main theater there was little or no movement. If the game is true to life, you end up with a static bloodbath. If you get around that by making things move, it wouldn't be WWI.

With WWII you can have the Germans invade Britain rather than the USSR and it's still WWII. With WWI, I can't name a decision point that makes any sense.

It may be possible to make a good WWI game but it's hard to imagine the Paradox combat system or AI generating a campaign that's sane looking. There would have to be huge changes.

Perhaps on a map with 100,000 provinces rather than 10,000 things would not seem quite as static.

 

[Fernando Torres]

Darkest Hour is a grand strategy game published by Paradox Interactive that allows you to play as any nation during WW1 and WW2.
It should be quite interesting if you are looking for a good WW1 game.

 

[Captain Gars]

The perception regarding WWI is that in the main theater there was little or no movement. If the game is true to life, you end up with a static bloodbath. If you get around that by making things move, it wouldn't be WWI.

That's because many people tend to equate the western front with WWI. The eastern front were never as static and the greater length of the front forced the defenders to spread out, thining their lines, offering better chances for break throughs. Becasuse of great distance it also made it harder for defenders to react once a breakthrough was made. It sheer size of the eastern front compared to the western front also allowed more maneuvrability in general.

For an interesting board game of this period I can recommend The Cossacks Are Coming!:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11241/the-cossacks-are-coming
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11993/the-cossacks-are-coming-2nd-edition

 

[SAS]

I just want one game....Revolutionary France and Napoleon's empire! I think Paradox could make a great game.

 

[Beleg32]

Well there is game by AGEOD called Napoléon's Campaigns that follows that period, quite intresting game.

 

[Empireprolett]

The perception regarding WWI is that in the main theater there was little or no movement. If the game is true to life, you end up with a static bloodbath. If you get around that by making things move, it wouldn't be WWI.

With WWII you can have the Germans invade Britain rather than the USSR and it's still WWII. With WWI, I can't name a decision point that makes any sense.

It may be possible to make a good WWI game but it's hard to imagine the Paradox combat system or AI generating a campaign that's sane looking. There would have to be huge changes.

i totally disagree. if you handle it like in hoi3, with a couple of years prior to the war, where you can make alliances, improve your army or your economy, and maybe, like in world war 1 gold edition, you could choose between separate military plans.
For example you could try to knock out Serbia within a couple of weeks when you put full emphasis on this point of the front, of course with the risk of the russians crushing your front. you could try to keep Italy out of the war by making concessions and just having better relations with them. for example you could start in the late period of the 19th century, maybe 1890, where the basic alliance system already existed but for example the russians yet weren't fully on the entente's side. same thing for italy or the ottomans on central powers side.
and really, take a close look on the east and south east front, there it wasn't a stalemate at all, both russians and central powers broke through several times with the central powers winning at the end and advancing as far as the ukraine?

 

[King_Richard_XI]

+2

You're schizophrenic, I presume?

Perhaps on a map with 100,000 provinces rather than 10,000 things would not seem quite as static.

The borders still never shifted much, as trench warfare meant that every inch of ground took thousands of men and weeks on end to take, and the changes in land ownership would rarely be over 500 metres at any one time.

 

[unmerged(184154)]

In the same way that everybody plays European countries in these games, almost everybody would play the Western front, and no body would care about Cameroon. So I think for most people, it is what is remembered from it.

Though what won the war, in addition the American intervention, was the slow interior attrition in Germany. Giving the player the chance to be winning a tiny bit more than the historical Germans did could be enough if done before the US arrive. Actually, the 1917 German offensive, though ultimately unsuccessful, did move the front a bit. With more élan, it arguably can be enough to knock out at least France. And winning the Marne could just be enough too.

And as the Great War is mostly the prequel to WWII, the post-war implications are not as shattering as with HoI.

 

[Beleg32]

You're schizophrenic, I presume?
The borders still never shifted much, as trench warfare meant that every inch of ground took thousands of men and weeks on end to take, and the changes in land ownership would rarely be over 500 metres at any one time.

I Don't think so, ..yet

 

[unmerged(192716)]

There has always been a lack of ww1 games. The main reasons are I think that for mainstream games it just isn't as marketable and cool (no "evil nazis" etc) and for serious wargaming it just doesn't make for as interesting a game due to the very static nature of the war.

This is why we don't see more WWI games. People misunderstand the nature of WW1. It was static in one place, and only one! The western front. And as with WWII, the western front has been taken by historians and regular folks alike to be the center of the action, and the most important part. There was SO much more to WW1 than just trench warfare. There was shockingly modern guerilla warfare in Palestine against the Ottoman rulers. Australia and New Zealand conducted a staggeringly poorly planned amphibious landing in Turkey, 60 British sailors dragged two torpedo boats, yes dragged them, over 600 miles through central African jungle just to drop them into a landlocked lake for the sole purpose of sticking it to the Germans in a purely symbolic engagement. Did you know that the Royal Navy operated the first organized mechanized armor unit? (as in armored cars and motorised infantry) In Algeria? The British and Japanese conducted a seige of a German-held Chinese port in 1914, and this is one of the engagements in which the namesake of the SMS Graf Spee made a name for himself. The Japanese, btw, provided a significant fraction of the ASW effort in the Mediterranian during the Great War. The SMS Seeadler (Sea Eagle) was the last sailing ship of war used by a major power, and created more than her fair share of headache in the South Pacific. Two of the biggest battlewagon engagements of the Great War took place off Chile and the Falklands. In fact, the German Fleet wasn't able to do more damage to Allied shipping precisely because the Royal Navy was chasing it all over the Pacific.

Again, there's SOOO much more to the war of 1914 than just trenches and barbed wire. It was an incredibly diverse and dynamic conflict, all the more remarkably so because of the common perception of it.

 

[Captain Gars]

[a lot of interesting facts]

Exactly. I totally agree with you. The problem is how to get this across to all gamers who has the perception that a WWI game would be a snoozefest. Hand out free copies of the BBC documentary The Great War?

 

[SAS]

Well there is game by AGEOD called Napoléon's Campaigns that follows that period, quite intresting game.

I already own it!

 

[gigau]

hey guys,

i've been looking for quite a wile for a WW1 game, and what I found was not very nice to see.
[...]
why is paradox not producing a game like that? does it always have to be either the era of imperialism or the 2nd world war?

What about World War I (haven't tested it yet) ?

 

[safferli]

Also, there is Darkest Hour which has a WW1 part.