Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I looked at it, haven't had a chance to play it though. Held back mainly because its online only and none of my pals were into it and I'm past my prime days of random pub gaming

 Vaktathi wrote:
I looked at it, haven't had a chance to play it though. Held back mainly because its online only and none of my pals were into it and I'm past my prime days of random pub gaming

Yeah it's definitely a game you need a few friends for.

I'll second that it's absolutely worth the $10 to $15 it normally costs. The rifles feel excellent and the machine guns are very scary, but have counters if you're smart.

Where the game really shines is when you're in the trenches. Close quarters with bayonets, rifle butts, and if you're lucky, maybe a pistol or trench knife. I've seen some pretty awesome moments when it gets down to those bloody trench battles.


I am kind of sad that this is coming out for the Verdun guys though. They did a lot of great work and did pretty much all the hard work, risk taking, and testing ideas and now odds are a good portion of their potential audience is gonna get taken from them. I would be extremely surprised if battlefield one wasn't partially inspired by the fact that Verdun was pretty warmly received, although EA wouldn't admit it in a million years. (of course on the flipside, it's not like verdun had a copyright on it.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I am kind of sad that this is coming out for the Verdun guys though. They did a lot of great work and did pretty much all the hard work, risk taking, and testing ideas and now odds are a good portion of their potential audience is gonna get taken from them. I would be extremely surprised if battlefield one wasn't partially inspired by the fact that Verdun was pretty warmly received, although EA wouldn't admit it in a million years. (of course on the flipside, it's not like verdun had a copyright on it.

Yeah, it's really sad that just because a triple-A company like EA (even though I feel their products don't really deserve the title of triple-A) makes a videogame based on WW1, most of the casual players looking for new fresh FPS experiences will be looking at some WW1-skinned-Battlefield-nearly-as-identical-as-the-previous-ones while missing such a good game as Verdun (yep, I'm not precisely a huge fan of EA, as you may have noticed).

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
It's an alternate version of WW1. Not the real WW1

Even though this is true, this feels more an excuse than a feature to me. I love realistic games, and if I finally give it a try (probably at a friend's house) I imagine myself talking with someone like this:

Me after 4 mins of in-game experience: "But this does not feel WW1-ish at all! Every time I enter a server most of the players fight with sub-machine guns just because they've unlocked them"
Random friend friendly enough to let me play such game: "Welp, you know, this is an alternate version of WW1, not the real one~"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Not sure about the practicality of this helmet.

Spoiler:

That one must be an alternate method to protect the eyes from shrapnel, I presume

The helmet with the maille drape was used by tankers, with the idea being to prevent shrapnel from things failing to penetrate the tank and all the hot metal bouncing around inside of it. Like these bad boys.



It'll be fascinating to see the options they provide, and whether the armor will simply give you extra health, or in fact make you proof against some weapons.

 GloomyFenix wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I am kind of sad that this is coming out for the Verdun guys though. They did a lot of great work and did pretty much all the hard work, risk taking, and testing ideas and now odds are a good portion of their potential audience is gonna get taken from them. I would be extremely surprised if battlefield one wasn't partially inspired by the fact that Verdun was pretty warmly received, although EA wouldn't admit it in a million years. (of course on the flipside, it's not like verdun had a copyright on it.

Yeah, it's really sad that just because a triple-A company like EA (even though I feel their products don't really deserve the title of triple-A) makes a videogame based on WW1, most of the casual players looking for new fresh FPS experiences will be looking at some WW1-skinned-Battlefield-nearly-as-identical-as-the-previous-ones while missing such a good game as Verdun (yep, I'm not precisely a huge fan of EA, as you may have noticed).

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
It's an alternate version of WW1. Not the real WW1

Even though this is true, this feels more an excuse than a feature to me. I love realistic games, and if I finally give it a try (probably at a friend's house) I imagine myself talking with someone like this:

Me after 4 mins of in-game experience: "But this does not feel WW1-ish at all! Every time I enter a server most of the players fight with sub-machine guns just because they've unlocked them"
Random friend friendly enough to let me play such game: "Welp, you know, this is an alternate version of WW1, not the real one~"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Not sure about the practicality of this helmet.

Spoiler:

That one must be an alternate method to protect the eyes from shrapnel, I presume

On the whole "alternate vs reality" thing, I'd be very down for more alternate history games. They just need to do service to the original history and keep it feel familiar. I don't care if they go full DUST and have walking tanks and whatnot, they just need to keep the feel of the period around, as obviously most equipment wouldn't have been replaced overnight. Battlefield 1 could be great if they decided to focus on what could have happened had the war continued to 1919 (and there were a lot of crazy plans and new weapons that would've been brought into it had that occured)

Battlefield 1942 for example had an awesome "battlefield 1946" expansion pack called secret weapons or something like that, and it was awesome. Jets, super heavy tanks, jetpacks, etc. It was really awesome and a breath of fresh air built upon an already solid game. The thing was it was built on the base game, so most of the time players were still running around with their same weapons and equipment, and regular tanks/planes were still around. It was just the new crazy stuff was added in as well, which made it feel like the war was evolving, and hadn't just changed overnight.

Will it be period correct? defender 10 tickets attacker 1000?
Decomposing bodies in no man's land, gas attacks, shelling by the enemies and allies, deadly wires, huge rats, death by cold, and an option to kill civilians in conquered lands?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Will it be period correct? defender 10 tickets attacker 1000?
Decomposing bodies in no man's land, gas attacks, shelling by the enemies and allies, deadly wires, huge rats, death by cold, and an option to kill civilians in conquered lands?

Not sure if serious, but in case yes or semi; that's a daft standard to hold the game to. For a start, because it's a Battlefield game, and their formula from the start of the series has been a veneer of authenticity over a fundamentally arcadey shooter engine, so marking down BF1 because it's not "ARMA, Somme Edition" isn't really on. Also, because WW1 was more than just grinding trench warfare on the Western Front, and thank jeebus it looks like we're finally going to get a game that acknowledges that.

Honestly the thing I'm most looking forward to are the inevitable Horse + C4-equivalent youtube videos

Well if they will be period correct, the more open battles were in the eastern front and the Balkans, western front and Gallipoli were mostly static affairs.

But if they have horses on the western front (there were, but mostly for transport) it will be fun to charge with tank and horses (and the horses go faster )

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Well if they will be period correct, the more open battles were in the eastern front and the Balkans, western front and Gallipoli were mostly static affairs.

But if they have horses on the western front (there were, but mostly for transport) it will be fun to charge with tank and horses (and the horses go faster )

I just want dynamite and Horses, so I can do "Horse stuff".

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
On the whole "alternate vs reality" thing, I'd be very down for more alternate history games. They just need to do service to the original history and keep it feel familiar. I don't care if they go full DUST and have walking tanks and whatnot, they just need to keep the feel of the period around, as obviously most equipment wouldn't have been replaced overnight. Battlefield 1 could be great if they decided to focus on what could have happened had the war continued to 1919 (and there were a lot of crazy plans and new weapons that would've been brought into it had that occured)

Battlefield 1942 for example had an awesome "battlefield 1946" expansion pack called secret weapons or something like that, and it was awesome. Jets, super heavy tanks, jetpacks, etc. It was really awesome and a breath of fresh air built upon an already solid game. The thing was it was built on the base game, so most of the time players were still running around with their same weapons and equipment, and regular tanks/planes were still around. It was just the new crazy stuff was added in as well, which made it feel like the war was evolving, and hadn't just changed overnight.

Yeah, I know I can't blame DICE for not making overly realistic games, if they like creating those type of games good for them, and I wish them the best luck, just like to every other company out there. It's just that I'm so used (and tired) of hearing people saying they make extra-realistic videogames when they're not that I've started thinking about DICE as a company that tries to make realistic games, that's why I judge their games like that. I know I shouldn't do that, but sometimes I fail (just like before)

Western Front WW1 was a colossal pointless waste of life and is a depressing subject matter. WW1 has a gaming environment is best set elsewhere, there are campaigns with resolutions and comfortable body counts to achieve them. Allenby's Palestine campaign for example. However most of WW1 was turn up with hundreds of thousands of men, and expend them in their tens of thousands for yards of progress.

The western front is a meatgrinder with no resolution other than continued death, where people with eyes shut or eyes open were forced by their society to enter and could find no way out from doing so. The civilian society was twisted to support the slaughter as a dogma, which prevented any form of mental dissent, and enforced the mindset that the sacrifice of millions of purportedly free thinking democracy's citizens in the meat grinder was pure and right.

To me this is a political nightmare regime right at home It was pure luck if you survived trench warfare and depending on the campaign the odds could be stacked very heavily against you. 80%- 100% casualty rates were not uncommon for units, which is otherwise uncommon in war.

Mweanwhile it was safe and peaceful even a few miles from the front lines, and many of the roles involved, including all the positions from which the slaughter was enforced were from positions of not only safety but also in most cases luxury.

The two cassus belli were in fact oil and a murderous forms of nationalism, including terrorism and the actions of one or two individuals who lied top their own leaders out of spite for a scapegoat they wanted to attack for no better reasons than personal hatred and bigotry. Yet once it started nobody could stop it., The profits of the economic reasons for the war effected a handful of peoples fortunes for which millions would be sacrificed.

The monsters of WW2 had some sort of logic to their actions. and achievable goals. WW1's monsters had no goals beyond continued aggression itself, and refused to learn. Yes there were economic reasons to fight, but they effected much larger sections of the societies of the nations concerned.

That being said the last veterans of WW1 are safely in their graves and it is now acceptable to make light of it. But I wont be touching trench warfare gaming outside of a complete fantasy like 40K with a mobile trump or a medieval investment.

 Orlanth wrote:
Western Front WW1 was a colossal pointless waste of life and is a depressing subject matter. WW1 has a gaming environment is best set elsewhere, there are campaigns with resolutions and comfortable body counts to achieve them. Allenby's Palestine campaign for example. However most of WW1 was turn up with hundreds of thousands of men, and expend them in their tens of thousands for yards of progress.

The western front is a meatgrinder with no resolution other than continued death, where people with eyes shut or eyes open were forced by their society to enter and could find no way out from doing so. The civilian society was twisted to support the slaughter as a dogma, which prevented any form of mental dissent, and enforced the mindset that the sacrifice of millions of purportedly free thinking democracy's citizens in the meat grinder was pure and right.

To me this is a political nightmare regime right at home It was pure luck if you survived trench warfare and depending on the campaign the odds could be stacked very heavily against you. 80%- 100% casualty rates were not uncommon for units, which is otherwise uncommon in war.

Mweanwhile it was safe and peaceful even a few miles from the front lines, and many of the roles involved, including all the positions from which the slaughter was enforced were from positions of not only safety but also in most cases luxury.

The two cassus belli were in fact oil and a murderous forms of nationalism, including terrorism and the actions of one or two individuals who lied top their own leaders out of spite for a scapegoat they wanted to attack for no better reasons than personal hatred and bigotry. Yet once it started nobody could stop it., The profits of the economic reasons for the war effected a handful of peoples fortunes for which millions would be sacrificed.

The monsters of WW2 had some sort of logic to their actions. and achievable goals. WW1's monsters had no goals beyond continued aggression itself, and refused to learn. Yes there were economic reasons to fight, but they effected much larger sections of the societies of the nations concerned.

That being said the last veterans of WW1 are safely in their graves and it is now acceptable to make light of it. But I wont be touching trench warfare gaming outside of a complete fantasy like 40K with a mobile trump or a medieval investment.

What? Where did you get your history? Hollywood? I bet you think soldiers walking to start their attack was crazy stupid too right?

In war frequently units in heavy fighting suffered but overall it was hardly different from any other war. By in large the soldiers who went to war didn't simply go to die. It was far more common for officers to die than it was for the soldiers they lead to battle. To claim that the generals happily and merely sent men to die is incredibly ignorant and offensive. Refusal to learn? Helmets, uniforms, new weaponry, ever evolving technology and constant new tactics where developed during the first world war.

Soldiers in WW1 didn't sit in a trench waiting to die and be replaced. They got constant rotations on and off the front, generally ate better than at home and enjoyed huge quiet periods of no fighting. Like all wars people do die, some fronts/units more than others but WW1 is no different in this regard.

WW1 is not some unique horror among wars. All quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory and Warhorse are not good historical accounts of the war. It simply bugs me when parrots push the "lions led by donkeys" idea when for most this simply was not true. high command, like in ALL wars, have to both know the terrain and see the terrain. They didn't go around inspecting the trenches with blind folds on.

Heck, wikipedia since it's easy:

During World War I, France was one of the Triple Entente powers allied against the Central Powers. Although fighting occurred worldwide, the bulk of the fighting in Europe occurred in Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Alsace-Lorraine along what came to be known as the Western Front, which consisted mainly of trench warfare. Specific operational, tactical, and strategic decisions by the high command on both sides of the conflict led to shifts in organizational capacity, as the French Army tried to respond to day-to-day fighting and long-term strategic and operational agendas. In particular, many problems caused the French high command to re-evaluate standard procedures, revise its command structures, re-equip the army, and to develop different tactical approaches.

And that's just for France.

Britain:

The war also posed problems for the army commanders, given that, prior to 1914, the largest formation any serving General in the BEF had commanded on operations was a division. The expansion of the British Army saw some officers promoted from brigade to corps commander in less than a year. Army commanders also had to cope with the new tactics and weapons that were developed. With the move from manoeuvre to trench warfare, both the infantry and the artillery had to learn how to work together. During an offensive, and when in defence, they learned how to combine forces to defend the front line. Later in the war, when the Machine Gun Corps and the Tank Corps were added to the order of battle, they were also included in the new tactical doctrine.

It's like they put those bits right at the top specifically due to the incorrect ideas many have on the war. I advise looking at a history book, the First World War is fascinating and colourful and most certainly not how the now famous poems and movies depict it.

Indeed. The front lines might not have gone anywhere, for the best part of 3 years on the Western front, but that wasn't for lack of trying! And by that, I don't mean just throwing men at it by the thousand as popular history likes to describe it, I mean that it took the Allies that long to actually come up with something that could actually work. Facing exceptionally well-prepared defences occupied by a well-equipped, numerically immense army, while sitting on the back foot geographically and strategically, with a terribly inexperienced conscript force, a dearth of officers with any experience of this kind of warfare, your options are pretty damn limited.

Do nothing until you have a war-ending wonder weapon, and France and Belgium are now functionally German territory, and every month you're not attacking, the Germans are digging in deeper and deeper, making your eventual offensive harder and harder (or worse, massing for an attack that would roll across the rest of those nations). The frequent attacks on the Front lines were absolutely necessary, and moreover, constantly innovative. New methods, equipment and doctrine were being implemented every time, and while a great many were unsuccessful, they were at least trying, not just doing the same thing again and again; that is a joke in Blackadder, and a funny one at that, but not remotely historically accurate.

As for the whole 'the generals were always at the back behind the front line' thing, well, yes, of course they were! This isn't Ancient Sparta and it's not 40k either, the role of an army's commander is to command, best done when they are in a consolidated position with access to good lines of communication to and from the front, and not in imminent danger of getting sniped or blasted to bits by artillery. In fact, the British senior command actually had to issue orders against high ranking officers visiting the front as in the first couple of years there was an appallingly high casualty rate among the upper echelons that had no business being anywhere near the fighting.

The fact remains that the Allied position for most of the war was to all intents and purposes impossible. No one on the planet had any kind of experience of
static, total warfare, the technology of the time ensured that static defence would in almost all cases trump an attack of similar proportions (restoring some kind of mobility to the front was the biggest challenge facing the Allies, as in a static war in which they had to go on the offensive or functionally lose, they were screwed). the army was inexperienced at every level (the only battle experience being that of colonial warfare. Again, not as silly as Blackadder might suggest, but nothing like the total, modern conflict of WW1) and under the circumstances, in most cases I think it's fair to say the Allies did the best job they could. Of course, there were definitely massive catastrophes, and under any circumstances death on that scale is horrifying and appalling, but to say it was motivated only by the aggression and desire to kill the other side, or that it was consistently mishandled, is entirely unfair.


Hope this isn't considered off-topic for this thread, if it is then I'd definitely be interested in continuing the discussion in new thread.

Oh nvm

 Paradigm wrote:
The frequent attacks on the Front lines were absolutely necessary, and moreover, constantly innovative. New methods, equipment and doctrine were being implemented every time, and while a great many were unsuccessful, they were at least trying, not just doing the same thing again and again; that is a joke in Blackadder, and a funny one at that, but not remotely historically accurate.

To be fair, "doing the same thing again and again" actually happened in many instances. Not saying that they also weren't trying other things, they obviously were (particularly in the development of the usage of artillery), but the reason the Blackadder joke hits as hard as it does is because it did happen (though I'd argue that the Austro-Italian front, rather than the Western front, was probably the one that most exemplified it, it wasn't just unique to Britain & France, and the Germans did a fair bit of it themselves).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The frequent attacks on the Front lines were absolutely necessary, and moreover, constantly innovative. New methods, equipment and doctrine were being implemented every time, and while a great many were unsuccessful, they were at least trying, not just doing the same thing again and again; that is a joke in Blackadder, and a funny one at that, but not remotely historically accurate.

To be fair, "doing the same thing again and again" actually happened in many instances. Not saying that they also weren't trying other things, they obviously were (particularly in the development of the usage of artillery), but the reason the Blackadder joke hits as hard as it does is because it did happen (though I'd argue that the Austro-Italian front, rather than the Western front, was probably the one that most exemplified it, it wasn't just unique to Britain & France, and the Germans did a fair bit of it themselves).

Like what out of interest?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The frequent attacks on the Front lines were absolutely necessary, and moreover, constantly innovative. New methods, equipment and doctrine were being implemented every time, and while a great many were unsuccessful, they were at least trying, not just doing the same thing again and again; that is a joke in Blackadder, and a funny one at that, but not remotely historically accurate.

To be fair, "doing the same thing again and again" actually happened in many instances. Not saying that they also weren't trying other things, they obviously were (particularly in the development of the usage of artillery), but the reason the Blackadder joke hits as hard as it does is because it did happen (though I'd argue that the Austro-Italian front, rather than the Western front, was probably the one that most exemplified it, it wasn't just unique to Britain & France, and the Germans did a fair bit of it themselves).

Like what out of interest?

Taking the Austro-Italian front as the prime example, most of the Battles of the Isonzo

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The frequent attacks on the Front lines were absolutely necessary, and moreover, constantly innovative. New methods, equipment and doctrine were being implemented every time, and while a great many were unsuccessful, they were at least trying, not just doing the same thing again and again; that is a joke in Blackadder, and a funny one at that, but not remotely historically accurate.

To be fair, "doing the same thing again and again" actually happened in many instances. Not saying that they also weren't trying other things, they obviously were (particularly in the development of the usage of artillery), but the reason the Blackadder joke hits as hard as it does is because it did happen (though I'd argue that the Austro-Italian front, rather than the Western front, was probably the one that most exemplified it, it wasn't just unique to Britain & France, and the Germans did a fair bit of it themselves).

Like what out of interest?

Taking the Austro-Italian front as the prime example, most of the Battles of the Isonzo

Can you be specific though?

They (Italians) repeatedly tried new methods of attack. Repeated failure doesn't mean they did the same thing over and over, it simply means anything they tried still failed.

I'd also be interested to hear how this is any different from other wars compared to the first world war?

It will only be realistic if you can die from disease or get trenchfoot and be sent back to the rear.

More people died from non-combat related causes in WW1 than they did from direct combat wounds.

Now that would be an absolutely brutal mechanic- which I don't expect to be present here. A disease meter that moves up and down as you spend more time in the trenches, and potentially impairs your movement or affects your next respawn timer. Sort of like Fallout's radiation bar.

 SickSix wrote:
It will only be realistic if you can die from disease or get trenchfoot and be sent back to the rear.

More people died from non-combat related causes in WW1 than they did from direct combat wounds.

I don't think you die of disease 20 minutes after arriving in the front lines.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
It will only be realistic if you can die from disease or get trenchfoot and be sent back to the rear.

More people died from non-combat related causes in WW1 than they did from direct combat wounds.

I don't think you die of disease 20 minutes after arriving in the front lines.

A round would have to be pretty long to die from disease.

Another trailer has come out.




Good to see there will be more weapon and vehicle varieties.

Well I dont think that those tanks could move that fast buuuuuttttt
That was so cool! And they have MP18's and other such exotic weapons, this looks so amazing!

I watched some gameplay of it yesterday. One thing irked me bad.

How fast the tanks moved. WAY TO FAST!

 SickSix wrote:
It will only be realistic if you can die from disease or get trenchfoot and be sent back to the rear.

More people died from non-combat related causes in WW1 than they did from direct combat wounds.

That is ridiculous and outside the scope of this game. Is it realistic? Yes. How realistic is it for them to send wounded and sick into battle? Not realistic. This is a game set during battles in WW1 I would be awed if they had the gals to send out sick people and those with missing limbs to do battle because that's sick, useless, and not historical. Your whole argument is ridiculous. That's like saying if someone made a love story set in the Napoleonic Era that unless your love interest is drafted into the grand army and then they get a letter saying their husband is dead that it's unrealistic. That's not the point of that story. It's supposed to be a love story and having that happen is usually outside the realm of the typical romance/love story.

Honestly looks pretty mediocre. A fast-paced modern FPS engine doesn't really capture WWI as well as it captures modern combat IMO.

How many bombs where they dropping? IIRC most bombs where hand dropped over the size and where essentially hand grenades with fins.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Hey, I was just saying how a WWI setting would be awesome!

The dieselpunk WW1 with more horsemen, train robbery, plane chasing wild west + Lawrence of Arabia. + Medieval trench raiders. NICE!

Im a BF nut. Like since 1942. The more of these alpha videos I watch the more I think Im going to chuck money at it - continuously.

TL;DR. Unless it has some serious netcode/MP issues ala BF2142 or bf3 Im in!

Kudos to Dice - less so to EA for the release price.....