anyone else want to see a WWI game?

sapperland · Post by **sapperland** » Thu Aug 31, 2000 5:36 am

Am I the only one? WWI does make it into the gaming world, but so far only as a board game. I have never seen a computer game for just this war. Could a market exist??? Just perhaps.... Alas, no one has yet tried it. The war did start of very fluid in the low countries and France. Russia had alot of movement...eastward. Germany had a navy to fight with. Bi-planes and Zeppelins. All aspects of WWII took place, just at different levels.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 31, 2000 10:26 am

Originally posted by sapperland:
Am I the only one? WWI does make it into the gaming world, but so far only as a board game. I have never seen a computer game for just this war. Could a market exist??? Just perhaps.... Alas, no one has yet tried it. The war did start of very fluid in the low countries and France. Russia had alot of movement...eastward. Germany had a navy to fight with. Bi-planes and Zeppelins. All aspects of WWII took place, just at different levels.

I'm with you. I played AH's "Guns of August" and loved it, except for the large number of units on the board, and most of them stacked. I always thought this would be great as a computer version, but I honestly don't see anyone doing this. It was one thing for Avalon Hill to produce a WWI board game, its another for a company like Matrix to make a computer game of WWI. A major investment, but just not enough people would buy it, I fear.

BTW, for anyone else reading, sapperland is right, the eastern front was fluid, trench warfare froze the western front only because it was a short front, the eastern front was very different. Unfortunately, people have been taught that (WWI == trench warfare). Sigh.

Owl · Post by **Owl** » Thu Aug 31, 2000 6:58 pm

A strategic WWI game would be interesting but I'm not sure I'd be game (sorry for the pun - well, not really) for a tactical level SP type game. I can just about run that now using the gully terrain on the SPWaW map and using all infantry and artillery. It get's really messy quick - bet then so did WWI trench warfare.
Now I WOULD like to see a WWI tactical level naval game very much. Ahhh, back when sailors were sailors and those stinking airplanes were near useless contraptions used occasionally for spotting and little else. Those were the days... (can't tell I was navy can you).

------------------
(.) (.)
...V...

Frank Donati · Post by **Frank Donati** » Thu Aug 31, 2000 11:28 pm

Originally posted by sapperland:
Am I the only one? WWI does make it into the gaming world, but so far only as a board game. I have never seen a computer game for just this war. Could a market exist??? Just perhaps.... Alas, no one has yet tried it. The war did start of very fluid in the low countries and France. Russia had alot of movement...eastward. Germany had a navy to fight with. Bi-planes and Zeppelins. All aspects of WWII took place, just at different levels.

Sapperland you're not the only one who would like to see a WWI PC game. I tried a few years ago to get a game company interested in making one but alas my efforts did not sway them.

Like Ed stated in his post, it would be a major investment for a small company like ours to make such a game for what is more than likely a very small niche in the wargaming community. I strongly doubt we'll ever tackle a project like that but hopefully someday, someone will give it a try.

I've always wanted to try fighting Cambrai using the armor as one cohesive force instead of as infantry support like the Allies used them.

------------------
Frank Donati
Director of Game Development
Matrix Games

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 3:45 am

Frank, thanks for your insights. Yes, it's unfortunate that a WWI game would take a LOT of gamer pushing for it to be considered. However, some enterprising individual could always use the OOB editor to create some of those units and maybe come up with a WWI variant for SPWaW. That could be done, couldn't it? After all, I've seen other successful game engines with editors being adapted for other time periods. Following that line of reasoning, perhaps a Cambrai scenario is not out of the realm of possibility."SPWaW

ecisive Battles of the Great War"?

------------------
"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern (roughly translated, 'Boot em, don't spatter em')"--Heinz Guderian

[This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited August 31, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited August 31, 2000).]

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 4:24 am

I would love to see a tactical level WW1 game. I have done WW1 battles for SPWW2, but only on the colonial level. I plan to do more Africa battles, and some early European and Pacific battles if I can get the data.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

sapperland · Post by **sapperland** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 4:26 am

Every well known war has been done and redone by many game companies. I just think that a WWI game would fair well given that there is NO competition in the market. On the Grand Strategic level you have alot more to play with than trenches. Aside from all the types of land, air and sea combat the game could have technology researched and political aspects to sway countries and even your own population.

Ed Cogburn,
Guns of August is good, but there are several other WWI board games that are fun to play as well. Check out www.bouldergames.com for good board and card game prices and selection. I found them just a month ago.

I think the key is to market the game so would be buyers don't think "oh, just a boring static war game"

[This message has been edited by sapperland (edited August 31, 2000).]

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 7:27 am

Sapperland, maybe you're thinking of a cross between Third Reich, Diplomacy, and 1914, set for the PC format. I used to own a copy of Jim Dunnigan's 1914 AH board game--it was a step forward as far as research was concerned, but NOT very playable--the man was (and still is) a few years ahead of his time. IF we can drum up enough support, maybe Matrix will look into it. I'm with you on that one.

bpolarsk · Post by **bpolarsk** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 4:34 pm

I have more than 100 books on WW1, most of them are memories. Nowadays people focuses on West front, but more than 15 millions soldiers never saw this front! Not convinced ? then consider fighting in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Dardanelles, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, Serbia, Russia (including Caucase), Australia (3 fronts). You quickly realize that there was more movment in WW1 than WW2. Add the fact That this war remained indecise until the last months and you have LOTS of open fields. There are much more 'if they had ...' in ww1 than in ww2. I think there are clear space for a ww1 game at strategic (with strong diplomacy). Such a game can become a huge hit and people still have to discover this war.

------------------

David Heath · Post by **David Heath** » Fri Sep 01, 2000 9:39 pm

Talking as a gamer and not the leader of Matrix Games now..... I still not sold on a game for this era. I will watch the forum and see how it goes.

David

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Sat Sep 02, 2000 6:51 am

OK, guys, NOW is the time to speak up. A WWI game will be considered IF the demand is there. How many of you would be willing to fork over cash for a Matrix WWI game? Count me in.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sat Sep 02, 2000 9:25 am

Save one for me. I'll even pay for complete WW1 oobs for SPWAW.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Sep 02, 2000 1:13 pm

Originally posted by David Heath:
Talking as a gamer and not the leader of Matrix Games now..... I still not sold on a game for this era. I will watch the forum and see how it goes.

David

David you know you'll get more afirmative statements than negative ones in this forum. Sure, a strategic level WWI game? Absolutely. It would allow many what-if's to be tested, Russia-first, or use the true Von Shefflin (sp?) plan, plus other things. If the game gave significant industrial control, particularly in the years prior to the war (the game starts before 1914), other options become interesting, like a stronger attempt by the Germans to deploy a larger naval force, an early adoption of tanks by the Allies, an early development of the Stosstrupen(sp?) (German infantry units using modern tactics). Diplomacy options could change drastically the developments in Italy, the Balkans, Austria-Hungary, and south-east Europe, meaning the game won't play the exact same way twice.

Count me in, but the question remains: Who else will buy, and can you afford taking such a risk? How well can Matrix survive a for-profit game tanking on them at this point?

sapperland · Post by **sapperland** » Sat Sep 02, 2000 7:58 pm

I dont think most people even look at the general discussion area and those that do and comment on the WWI idea would likely be those that are in favor of it.
How about put a question out in the news area or something and ask "would you buy a strategic level WWI game?" and have a spot to vote yes or no. That may give a better idea for how well the game would sell. WWW.gamespot.com does simiple voting like this and that would be seen by many more people. The site, as I'm sure you know, does game reviews.
As for cost of making the game, could a teaming effort be made with another gaming company to share the risk/gain. Just a thought.
Anyways thats my 2 cents.

GulFalco · Post by **GulFalco** » Sun Sep 03, 2000 6:28 am

Maybe once Wars of Napoleon comes out it could be utilized as the basis for a W.W.I game.

------------------
Men are cheap, but women can never be payed for. Napoleon

Wallymanowar · Post by **Wallymanowar** » Sun Sep 03, 2000 10:32 am

I, For one, would be very interested in a series of games based on WWI.

A strategic game opens up a huge realm of possibilities - it could even be used to tie into another game about WWII (ie. would another war have occured if Germany had won the first one?). Consider putting the two wars together with all the minor conflicts in between and calling it the Second Thirty Years War (which in reality it closely mirrors).

A naval game which uses the Dreadnoughts without (as Owl said) worrying about those pesky aircraft. The ultimate in purely Naval warfare - no air, no radar, and in some cases , no wireless - just big guns and big ships!!!

A tactical simulation ala SPWAW - let's see if you can duplicate the infiltration tactics of the Stosstruppen, or pioneer the armour/infantry cooperation of the Allies, or even utilize your Cossacks on the Eastern Front as they were meant to be used.

All the possible avenues to explore WRT WWI are sadly ignored because that war was not as glamorous as WWII, but the lessons learned from that war still permeate the thinking of strategists today.

------------------
'Bitter Mike'

Leibstandarte · Post by **Leibstandarte** » Mon Sep 04, 2000 5:27 am

I would like to see a WWI game. As far as I'm concerned if Matrix makes it I will buy it. At this point I know two things. 1. Matrix makes quality, well supported wargames. 2. I will buy all quality well supported wargames. If you make it Matrix I'm sure I won't be the only one to buy it.

------------------
Cavalry Trooper (8th US) and Grandson of a Leibstandarte Tanker.

bpolarsk · Post by **bpolarsk** » Mon Sep 04, 2000 3:47 pm

Hello,

There have been some attempts in the past to produce a WW1 game, but the specific context this epoch was never understood. The main reason of these repetitive failures was a false appreciation of WW1. These errors come from the influence of Western front, which hide the rest. Memories from the eastern front barely rose any interest in the Western countries.

A Successful WW1 war simulation should contain a very strong Diplomacy and strategic level, Since it is especially in this domain where central Empire looses the war. They did a wrong job with Italy (not obtaining its neutrality), Romania and USA.

In the economic side, you must note that commitment to total war was quicker in WW1 than in WW2. I.e., In Germany, You must wait until 1943 and Speer, while it is effective as soon as mid-1915 in the same country. So the production side of any game should be restricted to the minimum since they are historically immediately at maximum.

In the strategic side, losing 'La Marne' in Sept is a miracle (on the wrong side) when Verdun is a strategic blunder while Russia is at stake. etc ... In the Other side the western countries behave most stupidly. They had materials and lacks manpower and space to manoeuvre, while Russia had manpower and space but lacks material. W. Churchill was right and the allied should have commited an all front assault on Turkey to open a channel towards Russia as soon as 1915 with much more decision than they did. But this is already gaming.

Can you expect return on investment on a WW1 production?

Sure the market is less extended, but competition for Napoleonic or WW2 subjects is also higher. What would be the selling of a Matrix WIR2 in face of 'Normandy 44', TOAW, 'East Front 2' ?
Sure, in order to sell, you must provide a quality game. So any WW1 should much that level of qualities. In case, somebody produces a quality game on WW1, its will have smaller market but less competitions on it.

Another factor in favour of making a WW1 game is that an engine that may satisfy a strategic/operational for WW1 can quickly be reused for an all WW2 European front. Pushing the idea furthers, why not inverse and builds a WW2. There are however some differences, in integrating the speed of units, aviation. Diplomacy in WW2 is limited to Turkey and Spain.

If matrix goes for a WW1, I will surely vote with my wallet.

waynef · Post by **waynef** » Mon Sep 04, 2000 4:44 pm

I think GulFalco has a point! Maybe Wars of Napoleon could be used as a model to build from. I'd like to see some of the diplomacy involved leading up to the Great War! Strategic would be great. Im afraid tactical battles would involve large bombardments with squad after squad of men attacking machine guns. Since armor/air power were not a major players, the game would be large scale infantry attacks on fortified positions. Not my cup of tea, but to each his own. Thats why I think its important to include diplomacy/economy (Europa Universalis ?). Good Luck its a real niche market.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 2:15 am

I too like the idea of a WWI game. But it does not have to be grand strategic, nor human wave assaults. For every grand scale battle in WW1 (and WW2) there were hundreds of small scale probes & patrols to gather intelligence, cut wire, knock out strong points. There are expamples of this in Rommel's "ATTACKS". It was also in WWI where the first experiments in mobile warfare were attempted by people like Canadian Brig. Gen. Raymond Brutinel. I think that the current SPWaW is quite suitable for this.

I don't know why anyone would want to refight Verdun, Passchendael or the like on the computer. They were gross failures of leadership at best. But the small unit action - Ah.

IIRC, Rommel took a well fortified mountaintop position in Italy, without artillery. Just manouever using the terrain, indirect machine gun fire, then a pincer-type assault on the entrenchments using hand grenades.

One would have to play with the terrain features to make trenches work in a reasonable fashion, with a few levels of entrenchment - The shallow scrapes favoured by green troops and commanders of the "school of Elan", normal depth entrenchments and the monsterous works of the Hindenberg Line.

If one wanted to, one could do monsterous slaughterfests in SPWaW as it is now. But who wants to do that? Look at the truely great custom scenarios done by Wild Bill, Redleg & others where it isn't "A Whole $#*%-load of ***" coming at you, but rather a well hidden anti-tank gun, a few units appearing on that "safe" flank, that minefield that has no reason to be there that make them challenging & enjoyable. I think the same would be true in a WWI game. Just my thoughts.

Bonzo

------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay Coordinator: 28th (Northwest) Battalion Headquarters
http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com