Tannenburg VS Verdun

[Kolibri]

I am interested in buying one of the games. Are there any major differences, and is one better than the other? Currently Tannenburg is cheaper, so i am looking more at it. Would like to hear views before i make a choice.

[spacelobster]

Tannenburg builds on verdun in every aspect gameplay wise. As for content, verdun has more currently because it is finished. But this game will be an improvement over verdun and in many aspects it alsready is. Also the playerbase will be larger here. This game is a huge imporvement over verdun already, i prefer quality over quantity. The 4 maps here are very well done

[Bingle]

I like Tannenberg significantly more than Verdun, and that seems to be the general consensus that the community is forming. Tannenberg is more polished and the 64 player aspect is a great improvement over Verdun's 32 players. I'm also really glad that they removed jumpshotting from Tannenberg, which was essentially a plague upon Verdun. Verdun has better weapon and squad variety overall (the two squads for each team in Tannenberg feel very similar right now), but I still think that the gameplay in Tannenberg is way better, and I reccommend it over Verdun.

[Paul]

Tannenberg is like Battlefield or Red Orchestra. It has open landscapes, lots of room for mobility and flanking, and capture points.

Verdun is...well, it's unique and weird. It's trench warfare. You attack the enemy trench when ordered. If you fail, you fall back and defend your trench -- that's it. Constant back and forth. IMO Tannenberg is more fun.

[Poiret -RU]

buy now Tannenberg
for Christmas (discounts will be) Verdun

[what am i doing]

Verdun's combat is faster-paced. Players can remain accurate while strafing and jumping which makes enemies more challenging to hit and allows for much more intense conflict events. It also has no bots, so every enemy you face is a human.

Tannenberg is slower-paced. Players cannot aim while jumping and the ability to hold breath while strafing is vastly reduced. Hitting targets is much easier and turns into a Call of Duty style "whoever sees the other first" rather than a "whoever has better aim and reflexes" contest.

If you are good at shooters in general, prefer PC games like Quake or Tribes, go with Verdun. (Not to say it has fast movement like them, mind you.)

If you are bad at shooters in general, prefer console games like Halo or Call of Duty or Battlefield, go with Tannenberg.

[spacelobster]

Originally posted by ♥♥ what am i doing ♥♥:

Verdun's combat is faster-paced. Players can remain accurate while strafing and jumping which makes enemies more challenging to hit and allows for much more intense conflict events. It also has no bots, so every enemy you face is a human.

Tannenberg is slower-paced. Players cannot aim while jumping and the ability to hold breath while strafing is vastly reduced. Hitting targets is much easier and turns into a Call of Duty style "whoever sees the other first" rather than a "whoever has better aim and reflexes" contest.

If you are good at shooters in general, prefer PC games like Quake or Tribes, go with Verdun. (Not to say it has fast movement like them, mind you.)

If you are bad at shooters in general, prefer console games like Halo or Call of Duty or Battlefield, go with Tannenberg.

uhm? I dont believe your analysis of this game is that accurate at all.

[Bingle]

Originally posted by ♥♥ what am i doing ♥♥:

Verdun's combat is faster-paced. Players can remain accurate while strafing and jumping which makes enemies more challenging to hit and allows for much more intense conflict events. It also has no bots, so every enemy you face is a human.

Tannenberg is slower-paced. Players cannot aim while jumping and the ability to hold breath while strafing is vastly reduced. Hitting targets is much easier and turns into a Call of Duty style "whoever sees the other first" rather than a "whoever has better aim and reflexes" contest.

If you are good at shooters in general, prefer PC games like Quake or Tribes, go with Verdun. (Not to say it has fast movement like them, mind you.)

If you are bad at shooters in general, prefer console games like Halo or Call of Duty or Battlefield, go with Tannenberg.

Someone sounds a bit angry that his favorite exploit was removed.

[what am i doing]

Originally posted by none pizza with left beef:

Someone sounds a bit angry that his favorite exploit was removed.

I'll explain to you why restricting simultaneous movement and shooting is a bad thing: a moving target is harder to hit. When you require people to be stationary or near stationary in order to shoot (via ADS) you make it easier to shoot people. This decreases the level of skill required to play the game, and it's why bad people with poor reflexes and hand-eye coordination flock to games like Call of Duty.

Now, jumpshots countered the ADS slowdown to an extent by allowing players to preserve their full momentum, or partial momentum, while being able to aim and shoot. This resulted in an environment where, to get kills, you had to be able to aim well and fast. You didn't get a second to line up your shot while the other guy stands still, you had to shoot right away. This resulted in more challenging gameplay with a higher skill ceiling.

In Tannenberg, you don't have to make a split-second shot as the enemy vaults into the trench before he can fire on you. He'll stop to aim, because he has to. And you're left with an excess of time to aim and fire as well.

In other words, the game has simply been made to cater towards worse players by reducing the level of skill required to do well.

I've explained pretty reasonably how the decreased combat mobility in Tannenberg has made it a worse game but I'm sure this'll just be met with more LOL U MAD rather than acknowledgement or rebuttal.

[Bingle]

Originally posted by ♥♥ what am i doing ♥♥:

Originally posted by none pizza with left beef:

Someone sounds a bit angry that his favorite exploit was removed.

I'll explain to you why restricting simultaneous movement and shooting is a bad thing: a moving target is harder to hit. When you require people to be stationary or near stationary in order to shoot (via ADS) you make it easier to shoot people. This decreases the level of skill required to play the game, and it's why bad people with poor reflexes and hand-eye coordination flock to games like Call of Duty.

Now, jumpshots countered the ADS slowdown to an extent by allowing players to preserve their full momentum, or partial momentum, while being able to aim and shoot. This resulted in an environment where, to get kills, you had to be able to aim well and fast. You didn't get a second to line up your shot while the other guy stands still, you had to shoot right away. This resulted in more challenging gameplay with a higher skill ceiling.

In Tannenberg, you don't have to make a split-second shot as the enemy vaults into the trench before he can fire on you. He'll stop to aim, because he has to. And you're left with an excess of time to aim and fire as well.

In other words, the game has simply been made to cater towards worse players by reducing the level of skill required to do well.

I've explained pretty reasonably how the decreased combat mobility in Tannenberg has made it a worse game but I'm sure this'll just be met with more LOL U MAD rather than acknowledgement or rebuttal.

You seem to, for a reason unknown to me, have the notion in your head that Tannenberg and Verdun are arcade shooters. They are meant to be played in a manner that is similar to actual warfare, i.e. relying more on tactics and positioning than twitch shooting. They fall into the same tactical shooter genre as Red Orchestra 2 and other such games with "realistic" damage models. You claim that not being able to jumpshot makes the game take less skill, when you are in fact wrong. The game still takes skill, just a different kind of skill. It requires you to actually think about your movements ahead of time instead of blindly charging into combat and relying on your reflexes. And, luckily, you play no role in this game's development, so your opinion means nothing and jumpshotting will remain gone. (Good riddance)

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

The main differences I saw were more open gameplay (no trench lines), spawning in capture zones rather than in captured trenches and bots that fill out the server giving you something to shoot at. Something I wish Verdun would do for standard multiplayer games. Let's not forget heavy machine gun positions either. Which were also not in verdun as far as I am aware.

[Anabolic]

I have Verdun as a Steam gift if you want to trade it for something, but im pretty much only looking for games in exchange, add me if you're interested.

[Kolibri]

Thanks everyone! I think i will be getting Tannenburg then.

[Censored]

Thanks god they removed the strafe/jump-shooting from Tannenberg, it had become a joke in Verdun.

[fighterpil]

Is this thread still relevant? I am looking to possibly purchase either Verdun or Tannenburg, which one is the most realistic portrayal of WW1 in you guys' opinion?

[Bingle]

Originally posted by fighterpil:

Is this thread still relevant? I am looking to possibly purchase either Verdun or Tannenburg, which one is the most realistic portrayal of WW1 in you guys' opinion?

Definitely Tannenberg if you want realism. No jumpshotting and more realistic weaponry.