Which WW1 game do you like more?

[TheCommanderHimself]

Just felt like asking a question on the forums to see what everybody thinks. So, as the title says, which of the two games do you like more? Verdun or Tannenberg? And if you feel like explaining, then why?

Personally, I like Tannenberg more, Verdun is fun and all, but since I generally play more against NPCs, Tannenberg is more fun to me because I have a better chance of winning a match without it becoming a stalemate, I don't hate Verdun, its just a trench warfare issue, there were barely any clear winners on each side, unlike the eastern front.

[Clanging-Cosmo]

Verdun for me

"there were barely any clear winners on each side, unlike the eastern front."
Yeah... those clear winners being almost exclusively Central. Central has a Marginal advantage over Entente, meaning those clear winners are one sided.

[TheCommanderHimself]

Originally posted by Clanging-Cosmo:

Verdun for me

"there were barely any clear winners on each side, unlike the eastern front."
Yeah... those clear winners being almost exclusively Central. Central has a Marginal advantage over Entente, meaning those clear winners are one sided.

I understand it was a complete swipe on the eastern front, but I really meant gameplay wise, I've come to notice that I perform better on Tannenberg than Verdun, I don't know if it's the maps or something else.

[Clanging-Cosmo]

Originally posted by Starred109:

Originally posted by Clanging-Cosmo:

Verdun for me

"there were barely any clear winners on each side, unlike the eastern front."
Yeah... those clear winners being almost exclusively Central. Central has a Marginal advantage over Entente, meaning those clear winners are one sided.

I understand it was a complete swipe on the eastern front, but I really meant gameplay wise, I've come to notice that I perform better on Tannenberg than Verdun, I don't know if it's the maps or something else.

yeah, and I also meant gameplay wise

[TheCommanderHimself]

Originally posted by Clanging-Cosmo:

Originally posted by Starred109:

I understand it was a complete swipe on the eastern front, but I really meant gameplay wise, I've come to notice that I perform better on Tannenberg than Verdun, I don't know if it's the maps or something else.

yeah, and I also meant gameplay wise

Oh, didn't notice that, my mistake.

[Thomas]

I like Verdun much more, because Tannenberg is an absolute chaos. In Tannenberg, most people/bots are running around everywhere. If you fight on the right flank, the left flank will fall. If you go to reinforce the left flank, your right flank will fall. You really need multiplayer gamers to play Tannenberg. Try Hell Let Loose, it has even way bigger maps and open front lines, but people play together and it is fun. Tannenberg is a multiplayer game full of singleplayers and that is not fun and it doesn't work.

I experience the opposite of you. I think if you don't have players that play with you, you are more successfull in Verdun, because there, a single player can make the difference. You can nearly always reach the enemy trench (alone). Then spawn in your squad, no matter how good they are and this will make a difference. But in Tannenberg... as I said, while you conquer one flank, your other flank will most probably fall. Tannenberg has its potential, but too few players to make it work. It just does not work.

[Honey Mary]

Originally posted by Thomas:

I like Verdun much more, because Tannenberg is an absolute chaos. In Tannenberg, most people/bots are running around everywhere. If you fight on the right flank, the left flank will fall. If you go to reinforce the left flank, your right flank will fall. You really need multiplayer gamers to play Tannenberg. Try Hell Let Loose, it has even way bigger maps and open front lines, but people play together and it is fun. Tannenberg is a multiplayer game full of singleplayers and that is not fun and it doesn't work.

I experience the opposite of you. I think if you don't have players that play with you, you are more successfull in Verdun, because there, a single player can make the difference. You can nearly always reach the enemy trench (alone). Then spawn in your squad, no matter how good they are and this will make a difference. But in Tannenberg... as I said, while you conquer one flank, your other flank will most probably fall. Tannenberg has its potential, but too few players to make it work. It just does not work.

+1
I prefer Verdun for this reason as well. In Verdun, it's like we're corralled into going for one direction/one objective, while in Tannenberg, even as an officer with human subordinates, everything/everyone for the most part ends up all scattered. Tannenberg seems like a game where it's better to have friends with you, while Verdun seems more like a game where most people have a similar idea of how to advance the team, so randoms aren't as hit or miss.

[Sharpe's Sword𓅣𓃠]

I like both but Verdun moreso. Mostly for the gameplay style as well as some squad selection choices.

Verdun

+I like the Entente selection here more and weapons (such as SMLE)

+More focused and more strategic in some ways

+More close quarters combat. Also less likely to be one sided.

Tannenberg

+Better Central squads

+More forest maps (I like forest maps like Vosge/Aisne).

+Arisaka type 30 and 38 (favorite weapons between both games)

[Sh@d0w]

Graphically and Sound both are excellent and in the same level. Verdun has a larger and more active playerbase than Tannenburg. I just wish both games were integrated into one game with 1 remade map to select the battle.

[Some Rando]

Verdun is checkers.
Tannenburg is chess.

[Anomander Rake]

Tannenburg is fun. Verdun is a lot of fun! Tann requires a lot of teamwork and that rarely happens which means you run around trying to put out fires by yourself a lot. However if you have a few teammates that are on the same page as you, you can do a lot. Also it is rarely a close match, usually one side rolls the other. Verdun is pretty straight forward and unique. Teamwork helps but it is not as important as in Tann. I think more people play Verdun because it is unique and not so like other games.

[tigerbarr]

I feel Tannenberg is a more mobile game, more movement more running around almost more CoD like, Verdun I feel is ether sniping of hand to hand combat. Both encompass their front style. I personally play and enjoy both, but depending on how my play style is that day dictates which one I log into.

[Blood Raven is hot]

Just wanted to point out how obviously biased the answers are going to be given it's on the Verdun section. lollll

I've played Verdun a lot more, but Tannenberg, imo, really feels like a 2nd game made by devs -- a lot of the technical mistakes of the first game were fixed, like it or not. Shame it's not as popular...
Now if that makes one better than the other, that's for you to decide. Not even my point here. There's more than balance and technical considerations...

[THE TICKLER]

I started playing Verdun back when it was on Kongregate and when they first published it on steam, and I'd honestly say that I wasn't super impressed by the stiff gameplay, the gameplay had quite a learning curve for a shooter, lack of amenities that you get in most shooters (i.e. ammo replenishment, weapon attachments, perks, etc.). I really liked what the dev's were trying to achieve, and so to give them an honest shot I put a few hours into it, and I began to feel like there was something very compelling about the game that I couldn't quite put my finger on at first. Well, the ball got rolling and I steadily began to fall in love with the game. It was challenging. Even for someone who is well acquainted with, and a fan of the shooter genre, it doesn't cut you any slack or give you any breaks. But it wasn't just that it was difficult to play, I began to realize that the gameplay is designed to be sort of an anti-shooter. If you wan't to enjoy Verdun, the first step you need to take is to unlearn all the habits and expectations you've picked up from Battlefield, CoD, MoH, etc., which is a big hurdle for many new players to overcome, and so they often don't bother.

...at least not in one go. I think most new players are met with the brutal meat-grinder that Verdun does a phenomenal job of capturing, and they get heartbroke, maybe dabble here-and-there. But, over those brief, irregular sessions, they gradually begin to zero in on what this game is all about. I often see people in chat lamenting about how low their K/D is. Anyone who's gotten to lvl 100 or higher will tell you that K/D is an arbitrary ratio, and to stop letting it inform your gameplay. You're going to die, a lot, really, a huge number of deaths over the course of a play session when you PTFO, but you'll often land amongst the top scoring players at the end of each match.

With all those deaths, and having to turn one's habits on their head, you'll very likely find yourself learning not to take yourself too seriously in this game, and just let loose and have some fun. And it's because of that, I argue, that makes this game a true gem:

The Banter and the LolZ