• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The future of 'Ost Front - will it be going Unreal 3?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#64
Quietus said:
Why hasn't anyone made an awesome FPS based off of ALIEN 2 the movie? (recently & with modern technology 1994 DOS version is somewhat obsolete by now, guys.) Jesus ****ing Christ it's about time!! Hello!!! I guess all these game developers are just gonna harp on WW2 western front games till the end of time.
Click to expand...
It was recently announced here :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
#65
SasQuatch said:
WW2 lasted more then 4 years ;)
Click to expand...

yes but i meanth that if ww1 consisted of such succesfull storms over and over, i don't think it would have lasted that long, afterall they fought in the same area most of the war.

ww2 lasted longer yes, but it covered an area 20000x bigger then ww1, europe, part of asia and north africa!
ww1 covered mainly a limited area between france and germany, belgium included. plus other area i forgot

also military politics were different back then, especially the british army had no bad feelings about losing 20 000 men a day, this war deserves a mod, but not a complete game!
 
Upvote 0
#70
SchutzeSepp said:
yes but i meanth that if ww1 consisted of such succesfull storms over and over, i don't think it would have lasted that long, afterall they fought in the same area most of the war.

ww2 lasted longer yes, but it covered an area 20000x bigger then ww1, europe, part of asia and north africa!
ww1 covered mainly a limited area between france and germany, belgium included. plus other area i forgot

also military politics were different back then, especially the british army had no bad feelings about losing 20 000 men a day, this war deserves a mod, but not a complete game!
Click to expand...
Assaults where generaly as succseful as that. the only thing was that they didnt lead to breakouts as the enemy would just dig another trench behind the one you just took.
To say that generals cared little for their men is wrong, it was just that there was little other way than to lose great numbers of men in taking objectives.
 
Upvote 0
#71
A-tree said:
Assaults where generaly as succseful as that. the only thing was that they didnt lead to breakouts as the enemy would just dig another trench behind the one you just took.
To say that generals cared little for their men is wrong, it was just that there was little other way than to lose great numbers of men in taking objectives.
Click to expand...

wrong there, in ww1 most armies(especially the british army) concidered their men as expandable, when 10.000 men just got slaughtered, instead of canceling the attack. they would order the remaining 10.000 troops to charge again (all ended up killed)
there were other ways, take the belgian army.
they had 267,000 soldiers, and only 14,000 got killed! in 4 years of non-stop trench warfare.
the difference is that, the king would only order an attack when it could be won, because they couldn't afford to lose soldiers like all other armies could.
so they defended and kept the germans off, and when they attacked, the belgian army took as much terrain in one day, as what the entire british army had taken in one year!
some armies still worked by the napoleon -style warfare, walking in formation toward the enemy...
 
Upvote 0
#72
SchutzeSepp said:
wrong there, in ww1 most armies(especially the british army) concidered their men as expandable, when 10.000 men just got slaughtered, instead of canceling the attack. they would order the remaining 10.000 troops to charge again (all ended up killed)
Click to expand...

reminds me of a great movie by stanley kubrik- paths to glory (not sure about it- just translating it from my mother language), so I guess his depiction of what goes on behind the scenes in HQ was pretty damn true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#73
SchutzeSepp said:
wrong there, in ww1 most armies(especially the british army) concidered their men as expandable, when 10.000 men just got slaughtered, instead of canceling the attack. they would order the remaining 10.000 troops to charge again (all ended up killed)
there were other ways, take the belgian army.
they had 267,000 soldiers, and only 14,000 got killed! in 4 years of non-stop trench warfare.
the difference is that, the king would only order an attack when it could be won, because they couldn't afford to lose soldiers like all other armies could.
so they defended and kept the germans off, and when they attacked, the belgian army took as much terrain in one day, as what the entire british army had taken in one year!
some armies still worked by the napoleon -style warfare, walking in formation toward the enemy...
Click to expand...
Lets take the somme as an example. Only in sectors where attacks where succesful was a second wave sent in on the 1st day. A good example being the action in the north at gommercourt wood. The first wave of staffords failed to take their objective and whoever was in command gave the order not to assault again. Where as in the south divisions where reinforced to try and capitilse on the realtive succses of the push.
As for walking towards the enemy trenches the tactic was already considerd ineffective by 1915. Its use on the 1st of july was due to a combination of succseful application of it by the germans at verdun, and a belief that the New armys where not up to the task of employing more advanced tactics. I believe it was never used again after that.
I must admit i dont know much about this belgium offensive you talk of. Please elaborate. How much impact did it have on the war? Where any enemy troops moved from over battles to stop it? And most importantly in this kind of a war, how many enemy did it kill?
 
Upvote 0
#74
i dont remember where i got that info from, maybe a ducumentary or history classes. but it is a fact that the germans they were fighting were weakened, so you cant really compare it to the grand campaigns of other armies.
but i do recall that in one day they took miles and miles of terrain for wich the other allies had been fighting years.
 
Upvote 0
#75
SchutzeSepp said:
i dont remember where i got that info from, maybe a ducumentary or history classes. but it is a fact that the germans they were fighting were weakened, so you cant really compare it to the grand campaigns of other armies.
but i do recall that in one day they took miles and miles of terrain for wich the other allies had been fighting years.
Click to expand...
Of course those troops they where up against would probly not have been weakened if it was not for the allied offensives. Also dont forget the miles of land taken by both sides in 1918.
 
Upvote 0
#77
I think saying it depends on the desing means the same as saying it depends on the theatre.
Some theatres could be interesting ie. you have the feeling that you can change something that you are important - like the colony in Africa forgot its name as well as the commander's name. Basically WW1 was more random in the feeling (you are important you can change something) than WW2, as it was more static. No matter what the figures say after all, it is the feeling.
 
Upvote 0
#78
yeah, ww1 surely is interesting, but enough for a new game??
it would only appeal to a select group of players, no smg's, no semi's only bolts and heavy mg's. and lots of mud! a bit like lyes krovyi 24/7, i know there were other theatres but it was mainly like that
verry limited tank action, non stop artillery during the battles.
in ww2 the individual soldier was important, he could take out a tank, he could do important things and be a hero.
in ww1 the individual doesn't exist, you are one of the 1000 guys that will die today because someone above dicided to.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu