Question about Tanks

[Wolfsun]

I've watched a number of videos both on steam and you tube. I get the impression that the game has tanks showing up in 1914. As I said that's just an impression.

Is it a correct impression. Does this game have tanks showing up in 1914?

[DropShot]

In 1914 campaign, no. mid to late 16 if you rush the research. I didn't get mine until 1917 in my last playthrough.

[ShandoKhan]

No, there are different game start dates and at the 1914 start date, no one has tanks, or can get them in that year.
You recieve a certain amount of research points each Month. 1 for the first few months, later through an event that gets increased by another 1, so you get 2 per month.
The ealier game starts in Dezember 1914 and you need at least 20 research points, to unlock tanks, so you can consider seeing tanks around early to mid 1916... if you completely ignore other techs for this.

[Wolfsun]

Thanks for the heads up, guys. Appreciated.

Historically tanks in WW1 were 1st deployed in Sep 1916 by the British. I was worried about historical accuracy in the game. Seems like with a research tree that this game is an RTS loosely based on WW1. I like RTS' but only in a fantasy/Sci-Fi setting as in those anything goes.

[ShandoKhan]

The game is inspired from ww1. But it of course takes some gameplay choices, to get some fun and replayability.
You are the high commander and when in battle field comander... but you also decide what you "research" or special troops you buy directly appear. It doesnt take time to produce a tank or a plane, just gold and you can directly send it to the front.


Otherwise it could be quite boring, knowing that the allies alway will have tanks 1916, or the germans will only have I think it was 14 tanks at all.

But I think this game is showing quite good, how war in that time went. How terrible it was, what casualities appeared.
And how slow it went. This is no game where you rush the enemy base in the first few Minutes and every battle will cost at least a few 1000 lives on both sides.... only to repeat it a month later and another month... to break through 1 single point of the enemy front.

[Wolfsun]

Originally posted by ShandoKhan:

Otherwise it could be quite boring, knowing that the allies alway will have tanks 1916, or the germans will only have I think it was 14 tanks at all.

There is truth in what you say Shando. However, that truth is a function of the type of player playing the game.

As a single example there are the Gary Grigsby series of war games (there are other's but none can match Grigsby's stuff - the closest would be the Strategic Command games and the Ultimate General/Admiral games). Highly detailed, historically extremely accurate and extremely large that are played by 1000's and 1000's of gamers (like me).

If one is a gamer that always must have something happening (like my son) then the type of war game Grigsby creates will never be of interest and would indeed be considered boring (my son tried one once and seriously asked me how I could enjoy such a thing). If one is a gamer who loves the details, who spends hours planning a turn involving 100's to 1000's of units and planning 5 to 10 turns into the future then one will love Grigsby's type of game. And Grigsby's games are highly detailed, historically extremely accurate and extremely large. I once spent over a year playing his War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition and never did finish it.

It's all about what one enjoys and about the span of time the game covers that determines whether a gamer finds a game boring or not. (In my case I don't believe I would find Western Front boring - just inaccurate, annoying and very frustrating).

Games that try to cover historical wars that are years long are difficult to create with a high level of historical accuracy. But - it can be done - Grigsby and a few others are good examples - but they appeal to a specific type of gamer. Most devs stick to single battle style war games which can provide both a high level of action (read instant feedback to players regarding current results) and the necessity to effectively plan a move. Both types can and do retain historical accuracy and usually the main goal is to see if the player can do better than the historical commanders did.

That said games like "The Great War: Western Front" tend to stray much too far away from historical accuracy in order to retain the instant feedback and instant sense of success so very often craved - no necessary - for the younger generations to be of interest to gamers like me (there are of course exceptions to every rule).

Then again: As a game - I have yet to find a WW1 game that isn't boring - as a game subject I cannot imagine a more boring war to simulate - as terrible as WW1 was (and strangely that seems to by what publisher marketing seems to be highlighting) machine guns and trenches made it drag on and on and on for 4 years with a terrible death toll (though not even close to the death toll of WWII). The nature of that war does not lend itself well to making a good game for either gamers like me or the action craving gamers of the current generation.

Ehhhh... long winded rambling post. Not unusual for an old guy like me who playing war games long before probably 75% to 90% of this forum's members were even born.

Think I'll go get a beer now. Cheers!

[Shadow]

The battles would be more historical accurate if you plan an offensive for several rounds, gather troops, supply and equipment for an offensive, then setup fireplans for artillery , infantery to attack and then watch them hit open rear areas,try to have them go moving and by the time they actually start moving the chance is over and they get slaughtered trying to exploit a weakness that is not there anymore.

[Steppenrazor]

such historical war games can never be 100% accurate.. its all a game of "What IF?"

other wise why play them? they have to give both sides options.. research, community, spies, government changes.. side line stuff that give the player options to change the war to how they wanted/feel it should go.. (enemy response not counted)

they gota keep it balanced.. but.. there is little point in playing a game where.. like this one Germany is doomed to lose.. unless they start the game a year or 5 even 10 before the war.


what.. really is the point? with out options to change history.. research different things, make different attacks?

the Germans lose. game over. thanks for playing.

but what if... the Germans got tanks sooner? what if they managed to surround Verdun? what if the allies got bombers in early 1915? what if the allies were the ones to first use gas weapons?

these kind of games are all a matter of - What if? - and YOU are the one to find it out..

[Wolfsun]

Originally posted by Steooebrazor:

such historical war games can never be 100% accurate.. its all a game of "What IF?"

100% - can't argue with your contention that historical 100% is not possible all the time. correct.

However it is the mechanics and the way that events are implemented is a function of how they are implemented is what is criticical.

The best example I can provide of the proof of that is the Gary Grigsby's games. Extremely historical - extremely. He creates very historical war games by the implementation of historical mechanics.

The test of historocity is by playing the AI vs the AI. If the historiocal result in real life occurs then the game can be considered historically accurate..

Adding the human element in tests the ability of the human player vs the AI to change the historical result.

Based on the youtube vids and what I've seen here I don't belive that (assuming it is possible) that pitting the AI vs AI would end in the actual historical result - which to me means that Western Front is not an historically accurate game.

It is possible that I am not correct in that assumption as it is based on reviews and descriptions.

If I am wrong please point it out and why. I am a fan of wargames. BUT only ones that are historicaly accurate. The Strategic Command series is an example. The Ultimate General/Admiral series is an example. The Grigsby series is an example. The SPI boardgame series (both paper and ported to PC) are examples.

If the game mechanics and units are historical the the game can be historical. emphasis on CAN!

It all depends on what the devs of any particular game are trying to present and the gamers that are their target audience.

I had mucho hopes for Western Front since for years and years I have wanted a reasonably accurate simulation of WW1. Currently that doesn't seem to be the case as much as I wish it were.

I play games and I play simulations. They aren't even close to being the same.

Games are fun; sims can be but are also historical recreations of what could have been if as you stated Steppenrazor the devs can successfully create a good sim that addresses the "only if" aspect.

[Lord Ornithorynque]

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

Then again: As a game - I have yet to find a WW1 game that isn't boring - as a game subject I cannot imagine a more boring war to simulate

"Paths of Glory" and "Verdun, enfer d'acier" are 2 example of great boardgame/wargame about WW1 with good historical accuracy. But good video game about WW1 are hard to find for sure.

[Yuithgf]

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

Then again: As a game - I have yet to find a WW1 game that isn't boring - as a game subject I cannot imagine a more boring war to simulate

Hadn't caught that because i frankly couldnt be asked to read all they had typed.

I feel like nothing they could put forward to explain this comment would make it not dumb. WW1 was static? well tell me, in RTS games, do your offensives often count their gains in dozens of meters, or thousands?

The notion that a ww1 game has to be boring does really seem to stem from misunderstandings of what the war was. Misuderstandings this game here doesn't really help clear mind you, as it removes the vast majority of the tactical aspects of infantry battles.

[holy-death]

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

That said games like "The Great War: Western Front" tend to stray much too far away from historical accuracy in order to retain the instant feedback and instant sense of success so very often craved - no necessary - for the younger generations to be of interest to gamers like me (there are of course exceptions to every rule).

Then again: As a game - I have yet to find a WW1 game that isn't boring - as a game subject I cannot imagine a more boring war to simulate - as terrible as WW1 was (and strangely that seems to by what publisher marketing seems to be highlighting) machine guns and trenches made it drag on and on and on for 4 years with a terrible death toll (though not even close to the death toll of WWII). The nature of that war does not lend itself well to making a good game for either gamers like me or the action craving gamers of the current generation

I disagree. Strongly. With both paragraphs.

I think The Great War: Western Front does an excellent job at portrying WW1 without making it feel boring.

You can suffer terrible losses trying to capture a point, because time is running out. Or you don't have supplies left to call artillery support suppress the enemy. Trench hand-to-hand combat is a gruesome affair as it'll leave your units greatly weakened and open to enemy counter-attack (unless properly softened up beforehead with heavy artillery or with the proper use of trench-clearing specialists).

Sure, you could up the historical accuracy even futher (such as introducing delays between giving orders and units acting on them), but even as it is - it's a pretty good representation of actual WW1 experience in a video game. I don't think there even is a better one as of today, despite having some bugs, balance issues and not ideal mechanics that could use a rework (being able to hold captured points between battles if a battle didn't end in a Sweep, for example).

Also - contrary to what you seem to imply - the game is not suited for people who want "instant sense of success". Making a breakthrough in the frontline, or taking just a single province, is a much longer process (and involving more work) than it usually is the case in RTS games, which also suits the time period perfectly.

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

As a single example there are the Gary Grigsby series of war games [...] Highly detailed, historically extremely accurate and extremely large that are played by 1000's and 1000's of gamers (like me).

"Played by 1000's and 1000's of gamers"? More like "A few dozens. At best":

https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Gary+Grigsby%27s+War+in+the+East

[DeepPoseidon]

Tanks in this game are pretty OP.
You can unlock tanks for your side when you get the research for them at any point in the war. But this game focuses on accuracy so the Germans shouldn't have their tanks before March 1918 if you're playing as the allies and the allies shouldn't have tanks before September 1916 if you're playing as Germany.
And the idea that the A7V is crossing trenches without getting stuck is... well a little BS IMO as opposed to their Mark IV counter parts.
Tanks need a rework IMO and they shouldn't appear for the ai side until the historical appearance date.

[Cyberpunk Falangist]

Originally posted by DeepPoseidon:

Tanks in this game are pretty OP.
You can unlock tanks for your side when you get the research for them at any point in the war. But this game focuses on accuracy so the Germans shouldn't have their tanks before March 1918 if you're playing as the allies and the allies shouldn't have tanks before September 1916 if you're playing as Germany.
And the idea that the A7V is crossing trenches without getting stuck is... well a little BS IMO as opposed to their Mark IV counter parts.
Tanks need a rework IMO and they shouldn't appear for the ai side until the historical appearance date.

I would add they also need to be slower, maybe prone to mechanical failures, immune to rifle fire, and heavy artillery should effectively stun them as a means to counter them

[Dregora]

Originally posted by holy-death:

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

That said games like "The Great War: Western Front" tend to stray much too far away from historical accuracy in order to retain the instant feedback and instant sense of success so very often craved - no necessary - for the younger generations to be of interest to gamers like me (there are of course exceptions to every rule).

Then again: As a game - I have yet to find a WW1 game that isn't boring - as a game subject I cannot imagine a more boring war to simulate - as terrible as WW1 was (and strangely that seems to by what publisher marketing seems to be highlighting) machine guns and trenches made it drag on and on and on for 4 years with a terrible death toll (though not even close to the death toll of WWII). The nature of that war does not lend itself well to making a good game for either gamers like me or the action craving gamers of the current generation

I disagree. Strongly. With both paragraphs.

I think The Great War: Western Front does an excellent job at portrying WW1 without making it feel boring.

You can suffer terrible losses trying to capture a point, because time is running out. Or you don't have supplies left to call artillery support suppress the enemy. Trench hand-to-hand combat is a gruesome affair as it'll leave your units greatly weakened and open to enemy counter-attack (unless properly softened up beforehead with heavy artillery or with the proper use of trench-clearing specialists).

Sure, you could up the historical accuracy even futher (such as introducing delays between giving orders and units acting on them), but even as it is - it's a pretty good representation of actual WW1 experience in a video game. I don't think there even is a better one as of today, despite having some bugs, balance issues and not ideal mechanics that could use a rework (being able to hold captured points between battles if a battle didn't end in a Sweep, for example).

Also - contrary to what you seem to imply - the game is not suited for people who want "instant sense of success". Making a breakthrough in the frontline, or taking just a single province, is a much longer process (and involving more work) than it usually is the case in RTS games, which also suits the time period perfectly.

Originally posted by Wolfsun:

As a single example there are the Gary Grigsby series of war games [...] Highly detailed, historically extremely accurate and extremely large that are played by 1000's and 1000's of gamers (like me).

"Played by 1000's and 1000's of gamers"? More like "A few dozens. At best":

https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Gary+Grigsby%27s+War+in+the+East

He's obviously advertising/simping hard for that game.

[puree]

Tanks need a rework IMO and they shouldn't appear for the ai side until the historical appearance date.

Absolute no, the AI should use techs just like a player, not work to a hard script. The AI is meant to be the opponent for single player, and the closer they can make it like a human the better.