World War I and Games: My thoughts.
Why aren’t there any? In my opinion it would be a successful concept for tactical warfare games. Guiding you’re squad across the no mans land, piloting a tank or fighter, getting trench foot. 
It would be a breath or fresh air, far away from these WWII clones we see.
I also don’t think that WWI vets aren’t given the attention they deserved. I wonder how it must be for the men and women who fought on the battlefields and home fronts, to see that the sacrifices you made being completely overshadowed by another. (I also feel this way about Korean War veterans.)
Back to the point, a WWI game would give players new battlefields to fight on, I for one am sick and tired of fighting the same battles over and over again. I am especially tired of seeing Normandy and Stalingrad! I wanna see the Somme, or the Hundred Days Offensive!
I am sorry if I’m offending anyone, I’m tired of World War II. I wanna see more World War I. The closest thing I’ve seen of one is the 1914 mod for Hearts of Iron 2. Which is a WWII game, ironically!
May 9th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Yeah, I agree with you that World War I is a really rare kind of game. I think the only game that I know cover that era is Imperialist. It’s a kind of colonial game, where you build your economy and conquer land. Protect your trader fleet stuff like that. It’s an old game that is now free I think. It start in napoleon era and end with world war I stuff.
I know there was a RTS of world war one, but never checked if that was ever publish.
There is some old Flight Sim game like Red Baron and stuff like that. But never played them.
I don’t think there is any FPS of that era, maybe some mod.
I think the main reason why there is soo few game on world war I, is that there is really few color movie on the subject that show “heroes” and the “glory” of war. Like it is the case for World War II. The World War I is mostly a bloodbath…
I think if they brought back on TV movies like “All quiet on the western front” more people would gain interest in that war.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Yeah i like that movie, and as a guy that likes war history one of the resons is that the battles is pretty much the same. 10000 guys attacking, losing 2000 men falling back, the enemy conter attacking, they losing 2000 men and falling back. But i agred with you there shuld be some 1st world war games.
May 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I’m afraid u guys are somewhat stupid… There is a simple reason that there are no WWI games. The tactics during that era was pretty much the following.
Fire upon the enemy with artillery and then charge the enemy with infantry and (if any) tanks. If they were successful they would gain some trenches or maybe even a village. If not they would simply have been mown down by machine guns
May 9th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well, that’s the way the world war one ended up (on the western front), but if you considerer the Russian front, it really wasn’t the same reality. It was a lot of strategic movement and Cavalry move, that had little in common with the West front that we refer to as the “World War I”. There was also many naval battle. There Was many battle in the Colonies.
I think that reducing the World War I to the strategy we all know as Fire artillery and charge trench is really far from being an accurate description of the war. This description only apply in our ego centric western view that concentrate all our interest in what happened on the West Front.
But if you start opening your eyes on what happened from a global point of view, other then the tiny western front you will realize that there was a lot of tactic and strategy around the place. We don’t call that war a World War I for nothing.
If the war was limited to the western front we would have call it a “franco, brito, germano, austrio, ilaliano, canado, unitedo War”. The “World” isn’t just western europe.
The more I think about it the more I think, it is possible to make an awesome strategy game with that war and context, especially if you include the diplomatic aspect of it.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
maybe, but it would get repetitive, very fast
May 10th, 2007 at 7:53 am
well… as point out matt, Stalingrad and Omaha beach a getting a little repetitive in games… I think I fought those battle to death… I wonder how world war I could be more repetitive then that…
May 10th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Maybe they don’t have that much info on WWI or that developers think that WWI is too boring. I myself want to see No Man’s Land and Beau’s Wood.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
i think there are many reason why there are barly any ww1 games is
1) as pointed out it was a bloodbath on every front,
2) no offense to any americans but when you play a ww2 games most of the time your an america soilder or your controling an american army, the usa did not join till 1917 do missed out on key parts of the war. so if you were controling anothe amry it would not appel to the american market.
3) no ww1 movie i think the lates one set in ww1 that i have seen was deathwatch and that was a horror movie
4) would trench warfare be veribul in a streage/fist person shooter, it just be “right over the treches, lads” and then all get killed or they take the trench at a huge cost, but then that could be what is best about that game
i would realy like a game set in ww1 there is so much potentshall in it using gas calvery seeing the evolution of warfare from 1914 to 1918 ect
May 11th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
“So if you were controlling another army it would not appeal to the American market.”
Hmm that’s actually an interesting way to look at it… I think it’s common knowledge that when the Americans joined the war they didn’t do the best strategy or tactical report. The had tons of dead and little success.
In a way like German said many time after the first world war, they didn’t ended it vanquish. they could have made it last far longer, but every one was tired and they would have lose anyway.
Maybe the world war one doesn’t attract that much the US publish because it does lack “patriotic” “nationalist” interest. Or simply because the movies didn’t created an audience before hand. When you check most recent WWII games they all look like Save Soldier Ryan… So maybe developer just create for an already existing market instead of trying to explore new one.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Yeh but i think a game about the musket era would be good.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Keithzzz, for games about the musket era, I would recommend Imperial Glory and the Napoleonic mods for Rome:Total War. On the WW1 subject, the only real problem I can see is that there were no hand-held automatic weapons. You had rifles, pistols, and mounted machine guns. There wouldn’t be a lot of weapon variety. Then again, if you could play as some of the cavalry Atila mentioned earlier, a WW1 game might have some potential.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:58 am
one problem with cavalry idea in ww1 they stop using horse in 1915 as the cauties where to high it was more effect to turn them intro infetree as horses are big targets they were replace by tanks in 1916 , i think they used though on the eastern and in the middle east frount though out the war but even then they were over rated.
about the american cautiy a quote from wiki “The AEF sustained about 360,000 casualties, including 116,000 dead - some 50,000 of them were killed in action or died of wounds - and 234,000 wounded. The high casualty rate sustained at a time when Allied casualty rates were lighter can be attributed to Pershing’s insistence on doing things his way and not incorporating the latest field tested tactics that were proving successful to other Allied commanders on the ground. Earlier in the war, Allied casualty rates had been horrific, but by the time American forces entered battle new technology and advanced tactics had reduced casualty rates dramatically. Although he was quick to adjust, his slightly outdated tactics, lack of equipment and poor logistics proved costly in American casualties. Also, as a result of grave medical and sanitary problems in training camps as well as in Europe, many troops of the AEF fell victim to disease”
not the usa armys finiest hour no one in the key market (the usa) would want to play
this is quote from a sargent serving in the royal scots guards “i went to an American camp and they told me to tell them a few things so i did, i told them how you must always jump to the group as quickly as you can when you hear machine gun fire, how you must always find cover when you hear artillery. When i had finished the American officer came on to the stage and said bearing in mind the Europeans have been using theses tactics for 3 years now and look what mess there in so i want you all to forget everything he has told you. i was gob smacked”
ps no offences intendid to any americans
May 12th, 2007 at 3:18 am
I don’t know why you people think that Americans won’t buy it if they don’t play as Americans. We are not like that, we could be playing as Germans or Ottomans for we care. The only we care about is if the game is good.
May 12th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Keithzzz
I don’t know if you have either Half-Life 1 or 2, but if you have you should check the Mod Battle Ground 2
it put you with a musket during the independence war. Not hyper popular, but really fun to play. It’s surprising.
Saint Nicholas
It’s hard to say if the game would have much weapon diversity, but when you think of call of duty you don’t need that much diversity to enjoy.
I think there was some innovation during world war one, but of course I far from being a weapon expert.
chris
Yeah, the American really did many mistake in world war one. But we can also point out the period during the peace negotiation when those camp started to negotiate. Instead of relaxing all fronts, they increased the number of attack and campaign to make as many gain in territory and put pressure in the negotiation. I think many soldier die in that context for really no good reason.
Matt13333
Yeah i also don’t think and hope! that Americans are not that limited in interest.
May 12th, 2007 at 7:25 am
look at all the ww2 games
name one were you are not playing an american or controling and american army, you might get the odd game were play the ussr but other than that i can’t find any.
heres hopeing
May 12th, 2007 at 8:24 am
hmm.. well Soldiers heroes of World War II actually my you play Russian first
But of course… that’s a Russian game…
Personally “I have a dream” to play the Canadian army one day…
I guess that could only happen in a Korean war game…
May 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
And I dream to play the Vikings in some game one day. But there isent any WW2 game whit no american gameplay. But in Codname Panzer1 and 2 you can play the germans and russians to. And in panzer2 you can play the britons and italians (often combaind wiht americans and germans). In my opinon they are the best rts WW2 games (exsept company of heroes).
But if any game maker got really intoe it he (or she) could make a really good WW1 game.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
thanks for the info guys.
Yeh well the best thing i think they could do with WW1 games is putting you in charge of the keeping trenches etc and doing it with limited men. You would need to go into big detail to make such a game.
May 13th, 2007 at 6:47 am
yep, or that you are the germans and changing fronts one or two times. You know being trannsferd from the west to the east and to the west agein. That way you get all the tactical and stratigic aspects of WW1
.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Attila
——
You sed you wanted to play as the Canadians… Call of Duty 3 has Canadians
General
———
I think the main reason that there isn’t any WWI games out there is not because the American public won’t be interested in them, but because there simply isn’t anything to build on… The designers and producers would need to go into extensive research to only make one level, but in WWII, designers and producers already have the cold, hard facts. Also, the tactics for an RTS would just repeat themselves every level, and for an FPS there simply wont be anything to shoot at!
Overall I think a WWI game would be exciting and fun to play, but will have a limit of levels
May 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I hate all world war 1 and world war 2 games. but theres no games set in africa…. apart from AoE 3 which is crap and it isn’t totaly set in africa and talk west africa mainly and the rest of africa
May 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
call of duty 3 i think has one level in africa, medal of honor europen assult has another
africa corp vs the desart rats is another there are lots you just have to look
August 12th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Interesting editorial, the main reason could b bcuz there r no survivors of the Great War 2 interview and gather info from, almost no POV books on the subject, the overall war doesn’t have a damned purpose either, the boys who fought that war came home shaking, scared. WWI was a major bloodbath, just like Attila said, nbdy likes so much blood spurting around.
Although there mayb a chance they’re gonna make 1, WWI was a total war, remember? So the folks at Sega and The Creative Assembly might take on the project themselves, make strategy tactics missions 4 WWI and all wars started by it except WWII, I bet both studios could make an outstanding achievement on that.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
mayb WWII looked cooler in WWI, WWI looked like some shit stuffed up a guy’s ass.