[video=youtube;AchJpEGgQ5k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AchJpEGgQ5k[/video]
Been waiting for this!
Hell yeah the American Expeditionary Force! It's really rare to see them in games.
:terrists:
I have nothing but love for the fact that more games are starting to have flamethrowers. After CoD:WaW, it seems that almost all game companies decided that war games shouldn't have flamethrowers, but when Rising Storm came out, it's like suddenly everyone went, "We need those things which werfen flammen."
Without a doubt, flamethrowers make every game better. In retrospect, it's kinda sad that games like Planetside 2 removed them.... And games like CS:GO haven't added them.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49991758]I have nothing but love for the fact that more games are starting to have flamethrowers. After CoD:WaW, it seems that almost all game companies decided that war games shouldn't have flamethrowers, but when Rising Storm came out, it's like suddenly everyone went, "We need those things which werfen flammen." [/QUOTE]
I think that has more to do with the fact that everyone stopped making WW2 games. Flamethrowers only really fit in WW2 games or Vietnam games, they kinda have no place in modern combat.
can anyone confirm if the coop is like a wave defense thing or is it fully fledged 'play all the battles with a buddy'?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49991758]I have nothing but love for the fact that more games are starting to have flamethrowers. After CoD:WaW, it seems that almost all game companies decided that war games shouldn't have flamethrowers, but when Rising Storm came out, it's like suddenly everyone went, "We need those things which werfen flammen."
Without a doubt, flamethrowers make every game better. In retrospect, it's kinda sad that games like Planetside 2 removed them.... And games like CS:GO haven't added them.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, some games don't really need a flamethrower. CS GO is one of those games. Not only it wouldn't really fit the theme of the game, balancing it would be hell.
I just have to wonder if and when they will put in the Russian side of the conflict.
[QUOTE=simkas;49991772]I think that has more to do with the fact that everyone stopped making WW2 games. Flamethrowers only really fit in WW2 games or Vietnam games, they kinda have no place in modern combat.[/QUOTE]
Yeah if you want to burn people in a modern setting you need to use incendiary grenades and burn them with a gas.
What I really want is a game where a flamethrower shoots liquid fuel so you can cover an area with fire, rather than just shooting a gas and making a cone directly in front of you dangerous.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49991811]can anyone confirm if the coop is like a wave defense thing or is it fully fledged 'play all the battles with a buddy'?[/QUOTE]
It's wave defense. Sorry.
Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49993053]Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.[/QUOTE]
WW1 wasn't all trench battles though.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49993053]Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.[/QUOTE]
During WW2 soldiers didn't always attack/defend 24/7 either
In WW1 the attacking or defending was just (mostly) done from a trench
Besides, in 1918 the stalemate was broken and there was combat with movement again
The more I read about WWI outside of the trench warfare stereotype, the more the post-1914 trench stalemate on the Western Front appears as a unique 3 year aberration; there was plenty of open mobile warfare elsewhere (Eastern Front, Caucasia, Middle East, Persia, Africa), culminating in the Russian Civil War and the wars of the Chinese warlord period.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49991758]I have nothing but love for the fact that more games are starting to have flamethrowers. After CoD:WaW, it seems that almost all game companies decided that war games shouldn't have flamethrowers, but when Rising Storm came out, it's like suddenly everyone went, "We need those things which werfen flammen."
Without a doubt, flamethrowers make every game better. In retrospect, it's kinda sad that games like Planetside 2 removed them.... And games like CS:GO haven't added them.[/QUOTE]
Why would Counter Strike have them? They wouldn't fit in with the theme of the game at all. Even on T side, they wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;49993513]The more I read about WWI outside of the trench warfare stereotype, the more the post-1914 trench stalemate on the Western Front appears as a unique 3 year aberration; there was plenty of open mobile warfare elsewhere (Eastern Front, Caucasia, Middle East, Persia, Africa), culminating in the Russian Civil War and the wars of the Chinese warlord period.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that this was down to the relative density of the infrastructure in Northern/Eastern France and Belgium, as the amount of railways there made quick movement of troops possible, meaning that there could be higher troop densities in the area, meaning that any attack or probing thrust would always lead to contact with enemy scouts, holding forces or even large concentrations of forces, making the offensive impossible, and making digging in necessary, plus the advantage at that time of the technology of defence.
Of course by the end of 1918 new tactics and equipment allowed the technology of offence to overtake the technology of defence, and this advantage has been preserved through WW2 and into the present day, meaning that we'll most likely not see the style of trench warfare commonplace in the Western front in 1914-1918 again.
In addition with the notable exception of the Eastern front, most of these secondary fronts were sideshows with low numbers of forces committed to them, the war-winning battle was always the Western front in the eyes of most generals, meaning a higher number of troops were committed, leading to the density of force described above. In regards to the Eastern front, even though it was a primary theater, it's simply vast, meaning that Generals on both sides simply wouldn't be able to build up the density of forces that was present on the Western front, plus the German generals regarding the Eastern front as a sideshow, reinforced by Tannenburg and later battles.
The Isonzo front was static though because of the appalling terrain, and you have to remember that the Germans managed to roll up even the significant obstacles of the mountains there with their Stormtroopers.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49991958]Yeah if you want to burn people in a modern setting you need to use incendiary grenades and burn them with a gas.
What I really want is a game where a flamethrower shoots liquid fuel so you can cover an area with fire, rather than just shooting a gas and making a cone directly in front of you dangerous.[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen of The Order there's a thermite gun that fires flammable powder which can be ignited at a later time. But well, you only get it like 3 times in the game and its singleplayer so I guess that's moot if you want to burn randoms on the internet.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49993053]Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.[/QUOTE]
You know SHIT about WW1.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49993053]Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.[/QUOTE]
You do realize trench warfare wasn't only disease and mud right? It was only really in 1914 and 1915 that those were a huge problem, and even then it was mostly on the allies side. By 1917, both sides had it down in how to avoid such problems with things like troop rotations and building accommodations for the troops actually in the trenches.
I'll be writing a post up in like an hour or so on how wars are conducted (with emphasis on WWI). stay tuned.
[QUOTE=markfu;49993675]From what I've seen of The Order there's a thermite gun that fires flammable powder which can be ignited at a later time. But well, you only get it like 3 times in the game and its singleplayer so I guess that's moot if you want to burn randoms on the internet.[/QUOTE]
The thermite rifle is actually pretty crap, you basically have to shoot the enemy with the thermite, then shoot a flare out to ignite them. Basically any conventional gun is more effective and the thermite rifle isn't even fun to use.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;49993053]Is this supposed to be a realistic shooter? Because it looks an awful lot more fun than the real World War One, which was basically just a bunch of miserable guys dying of dysentery and gangrene in a muddy pit filled with shit and rats, the monotony only rarely being broken by skull shattered shell fire and the occasional suicide. :dance:
Yes I know that wouldn't be very fun, that's the joke. Although, WW1 might be an interesting setting for a narrative game that focuses more on character and story than good muliplayer action. Verdun looks quite good really, I've been waiting for a price drop for a while now. WW1 is understandably quite a rare setting in gaming.[/QUOTE]
ok so this is farily rambly and stitched together but eh
So, wars and how they’re conducted.
Wars are not easy to fight for either side, ever. So much shit can go wrong, and there are a lot of variables to take into consideration. Both in regards to the people involved, and the environment. That’s why for a large portion of recorded history wars were fought in what is referred to as the “campaign season”. This would really be the summer. Your real opportunity to attack and fight was limited to when your soldiers would actually be there. Professional Armies are a relatively new idea, historically speaking – Professional Armies and Navies did not truly develop until well into the Modern Period (starting at 1453, the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans). So for a lot of rulers, especially looking at Europe, their soldiers tended to be the peasants and farmers. They would need to plant and harvest their fields. In addition to that, summer weather tended to be best for campaigning.
The other major factor that rulers faced on a campaign was supplies. As a professor of mine once told me, King Frederick the Great of Prussia did not have his army more than 3 days march from a major body of water – as that’s how much of his supplies were carried on the campaign. You need to make sure that your troops can be fed, clothed, and generally taken care of. Doesn’t have to be fancy, it doesn’t even have to be the best, but you need to keep a supply train running. Not to mention, you have to be able to keep weapons and ammunition in stock (This became a problem for the English Navy during the Spanish Armada campaign, she didn’t want to pay for the English ships to be Refit and Resupplied after their failed raid on the Spanish coast only 2 weeks prior!) And for much of history this was always a huge problem, and armies did tend to stick towards major bodies of water (rivers, oceans and at least in the modern period of Europe) so they could actually supply their armies (transporting stuff via water was far more efficient).
What does this have to do with WWI? Quite a lot actually. WWI ended up being a watershed in terms of a lot of this changing. Reliable railroads made transporting supplies and troops easier, and for the past few hundred years European Leaders had been fielding professional armies and navies (They were expensive, so during the early modern period rulers opted not to have them). In addition, how wars were fought changed. But, how wars were conducted stayed relatively the same (except for time frame, due to better supply trains and professional armies [and the concept of total war] armies fought year round).
Prior to WWI, during WWI, and after WWI, wars were not a constant barrage of people just shooting at each other. There were established front lines, and attacks and retreats and defences. The only difference really being, that on the Western Front in WWI the Front Line was very well defined – primarily due to the “Race to the Sea” in which Allied and German armies rushed to outflank each other, but neither did and the evolution of the Trench system truly started and didn’t really become what we think of as Trenches until later that year (1914), into 1915. They just couldn’t outflank each other. But, like in any other war soldiers had a lot of marching, and drills, and doing nothing. And while life in the Trenches, when you were graced with being in them, was fairly monotonous – it wasn’t much different from camp life in any other war except that you were at the front.
Which brings me to another point, only about 12% of British Soldiers in the war died. While many more were wounded, that’s a fairly small percentage of dead (Of course a larger percentage were injured mentally and physically, but they survived) . This is because of how Trenches were actually operated. For starters, every day wasn’t a battle (just like any other war). The big “exciting” moments were the battles, and it tended to be more of chance that you ended up in the Front Line Trench during a major assault.
The British Trench system, by 1916 or was organized as such (Communication trenches connected the Firing Line trenches to the Support Trench, and the Support to the Reserve).
Firing Line Trench
Communication Trenches
Support Trench
Communication Trenches
Reserve Trench
Reserves (Behind the trench line)
15% of a British Soldier’s time was spent in the Frontline Trench
10% in the Support
30% in the Reserve
And then 45% of one’s time was spent in the Reserves.
Now of course, you may be saying “But battles lasted for MONTHS!!”. While it is true that battles lasted for months, that does not mean it was months of non-stop machine gun fire and artillery barrages. While an unprecedented amount of shells and bullets were expended during the war, a systemic firing for that period of time would have been catastrophic to the side doing the firing (guns break down, ammo costs money and time to make), and the side being bombarded. Battles came to describe periods of time in which a specific strategic goal was attempting to be achieved, and there were some slower days and there were some extremely deadly days it wasn’t necessarily a 24/7 hell.
Then of course came the evolution of tactics. By 1915, the Platoon had become the dominant unit on the battlefield. Platoon and Section (Squad) tactics were the norm. Leaders had realized that large scale tactics would not win the day, and rather their smaller teams would – the Germans took great advantage of this with their Stormtroopers in 1917 and 1918 especially. While there were a hell of a lot of men fighting, the focus on tactics had certainly shifted its focus to small scale units and the war was fought as such.
For those of you interested in World War 1, this is a pretty great channel: [url]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcyEsEjhPEDf69RRVhRh4A[/url]
[video=youtube;6FgaL0xIazk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FgaL0xIazk[/video]
I would play Verdun religiously if it didn't run like hot poopoo.
For some reason you can only get the t-gewehr in deathmatch?
Might be a balance thing I guess.
Is that super grenade a real thing?
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49996663]Is that super grenade a real thing?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[IMG]http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/72/7218/4Q4N100Z/posters/wwi-german-stormtroop-officer-demonstrating-the-use-of-cluster-grenades-against-tanks-and.jpg[/IMG]
So I bought the game and I've been playing it for the last few hours. It's great, but [I]very[/I] rough around the edges. The weapon animations are really poor and don't have sounds synced properly, with some actions not even having associated sounds at all. There's also lots of poorly designed terrain, places where you can see through walls (The sides simply not being modelled), and places where you should logically be able to get to, but will get stuck doing so. Also invisible barbed wire is a thing.
Other than that though it's a pretty solid game.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;49996446]I would play Verdun religiously if it didn't run like hot poopoo.[/QUOTE]
They've improved the optimization a lot. Like, a hell of a lot.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49996949]So I bought the game and I've been playing it for the last few hours. It's great, but [I]very[/I] rough around the edges. The weapon animations are really poor and don't have sounds synced properly, with some actions not even having associated sounds at all. There's also lots of poorly designed terrain, places where you can see through walls (The sides simply not being modelled), and places where you should logically be able to get to, but will get stuck doing so. Also invisible barbed wire is a thing.
Other than that though it's a pretty solid game.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've ever encountered those problems, especially the invisible barbed wire one. What map did that happen on?
Feels weird to be able to play my country for the first time in a video game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
