• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There's plenty of ways of designing a grand-strategy game to model trench warfare - armies dig in automatically, launch furious bombardments as they attack, you keep up a steady supply of arms, ammunition, and men. Actually a tactical game may suffer more from problems related to the historical scenario than a grand-strategy game.

I agree, however, that next year's 100th anniversary is the perfect time to produce a game on WW1.
 
I would imagine one reason they wouldn't do a huge simulation HoI-style for WW1 is that it would in fact compete with HoI. How many people would regularly play both? It's been a few years since HoI 3 came out, so the possibility of HoI 4 being the next 'big project' after EU4 is released is probably fairly high.

On the other hand, a March of the Eagles style Sandbox game for the 1900-1925 period, while not perhaps as in depth as a full WW1 game, could be an option. MotE kinda introduces you to the concept of EU4. Why not one for WW1 that's a more basic introduction for HoI4? Time will tell how much of a success MotE proves to be, but a dynamic alliance system to keep the equality of power for this period could be more successful. WW1 is bigger in the publics mind than the Napoleonic wars after all, especially with the 100 year anniversary.
 
Too easy - the answer is very, very doubtful.

There are all kinds of games and they should generally be fun in some way or they will not be played. My assessment in no way means any game group is superior to others.

Check out the somewhat negative reactions to March of the Eagles from the gamers who prefer Character based games or more sand-box approaches.

There is a market out there for a good WW 1 game, but it is a narrow one which is why you probably will only see it as an add on mod to either Vicky-x or HoI-x. The East-West Game (moving HoI3-ish into the Cold War) is longer time frame than the original. This plays more to Paradox game's strength - broad strategy with alternative historic possibilities.
The WW 1 game would be less time line than HoI3 (1936 - 1945 = 10 years while WWI would run at most 1912-1920 = 8 years). More likely the game would be 1914 to 1919 = 5 years: Half the time span with no room to sandbox. Not that there should be much room to sandbox in a good WW 1 game - it should begin with the nations ready to tee-off on each other only needing some unfortunate spark to send them into the oblivion.

Further, the static nature of WW 1 trench warfare with emphasis on large supply stockpiles and concentrated frontage with command and control issues to resolve -- way different game plan than roping off a few 'armies' with your mouse on a beautiful map and marching them half way across France to 'kick some ass' in mid-winter and experiencing little or no supply attrition. In an HoI3 style of army and fronts, yes it could be done. That isn't the issue.

Will there ever be a dedicated WW1 game from Paradox? That is a question that would have to be gauged by PDS and Marketing against their known customer base before committing resources to a game that might not pay off. Without access to sales data, the above is just personal speculation from reading the boards.
 
there is only a limited interest in ww1 compared to ww2 despite the fact that ww2 was just a continuation of ww1, most people don't know or care about ww1 and their lack of knowledge influences their pre conceptions on that war and the very interesting great power game that led up to it. There are many ways the first world war could have happened, many of the nations where not prepared for it or expected a very short war.

i belive east vs west will offer a good base for a ww1 mod just based on the dev diaries posted so far, if you just want to play out the war, you can easily use hoi 3 to fight it, there are already a pretty decent mod out there, i just want to get in a lot more content, get social and political events in, history and technologies, despite there being no war between the great powers, the period had many other smaller wars, including the pacific war of 1879-81, the russo-japanese 1904-5 and many other small wars... the post war situation is another great place for scenarioes, most of which would be ahistoric jap-us conflicts of dreadnoughts in the pacific and other potential conflicts...

as for a dedicated ww1 game from PDS... Johan has said no, so there wont be one... not unless there was a burst of interest in the period next year at the centenial to kickstart it
 
Wouldn't the best solution be to rework the combat system for a future Victoria 3 be a better idea than giving it its own game?

The Victoria series deals with the period already, and is in dire need of more a more complex war/combat system, so it makes perfect sense. Make armies able to go into "entrenched" mode when entering the same region. While entrenched the player can order mass attacks, artillery strikes, gas attacks, etc. At great monetary and human expense, of course.

The use of air reconnaissance can be used to spot troop movements behind enemy lines and help counter great offensives and the like. At home the player has to spend money on propaganda to keep morale up and the threnches filled. He can divert resources to improve fortifications, work on finding weak spots or try to starve out the enemy by issuing blockades and isolate him from his neighbours.

With deep enough mechanics one could simply add a suitable start date and voilà... you got yourself at least a decent WW1 game. It all depends on how far you go.
 
Wouldn't the best solution be to rework the combat system for a future Victoria 3 be a better idea than giving it its own game?

The Victoria series deals with the period already, and is in dire need of more a more complex war/combat system, so it makes perfect sense. Make armies able to go into "entrenched" mode when entering the same region. While entrenched the player can order mass attacks, artillery strikes, gas attacks, etc. At great monetary and human expense, of course.

The use of air reconnaissance can be used to spot troop movements behind enemy lines and help counter great offensives and the like. At home the player has to spend money on propaganda to keep morale up and the threnches filled. He can divert resources to improve fortifications, work on finding weak spots or try to starve out the enemy by issuing blockades and isolate him from his neighbours.

With deep enough mechanics one could simply add a suitable start date and voilà... you got yourself at least a decent WW1 game. It all depends on how far you go.

that depends on that future v3... it has not been announced...

also victoria is... more of an economic game than a combat game...
 
that depends on that future v3... it has not been announced...

also victoria is... more of an economic game than a combat game...

Well obviously it hasn't been announced, but neither has a dedicated WW1-game. Yet here you are discussing it.

Victoria is more of an economic game, a point I expected someone to make, but that doesn't mean that it can't expand its vision at all. It's not like the game wouldn't benefit from a more complex system, is it? It certainly seems to be on peoples wish list for an expansion (HoD will give us a better naval system, so that's something). Managing tax sliders provide only so much fun, and if you are a great power, and certainly now with the new HoD expansion, you will be dragged into a Great War sooner or later and they are always dreadfully boring and messy. Troops everywhere. Just crap load of units trying to occupy enemy territory.

The fact that you can play a whole campaign without firing a shot doesn't mean that most people do. People industrialize to be able to kick som butt. Adding more dephth to the butt kicking will only enhance the experience.
 
Last edited:
The expansion after HoD (which concentrates on Naval and the Scramble for Africa) Could well be a late game expansion focusing on Great wars, and warfare in general. Improving and changing combat, supply issues and units so forth.
 
The expansion after HoD (which concentrates on Naval and the Scramble for Africa) Could well be a late game expansion focusing on Great wars, and warfare in general. Improving and changing combat, supply issues and units so forth.
yes it could potentially do that... but i prefere not to comment of HOD...
 
The expansion after HoD (which concentrates on Naval and the Scramble for Africa) Could well be a late game expansion focusing on Great wars, and warfare in general. Improving and changing combat, supply issues and units so forth.

No expansion is going to be enough to alter the game as it is to accomodate WW1 combat - this would require a new product.

Vicky 3 might be a opportunity to do this, but in all previous iterations of Vicky they have preferred to us EU3-style stack-based combat rather than HOI-style "move=attack" combat. WW1 simply won't happen if the combat system is based on moving one stack into the same province as another. That actually this system can result in fairly uninteresting and predictable battles is one of the problems that MotE is having right now.

Theoretically Vicky 3 could accomodate WW1-style combat, but this would be at the cost of realism in other areas - particularly combat in the period 1836-90.
 
Theoretically Vicky 3 could accomodate WW1-style combat, but this would be at the cost of realism in other areas - particularly combat in the period 1836-90.

If that is the case I would like to see specific examples. In what way would realism in the period of 1836 - 90 suffer? A lot of things in WWI was different, but an awfull lot seems to have remained the same. Infantry assaults, en masse, with bayonets and cavalry charges (even with the occational use of lances, apparently). Couldn't technology perks mold the combat gradually, leading to WWI style combat in the late game?

I will admit that my knowlege of tactics in WWI is limited at best, but it seems to me that a simulation of WWI would require little more than the simulation of trench lines from Switzerland the Channel coast. Not such a daunting task by the looks of it. Sure, the situation on the eastern front was quite different, but the question still remains: why would it be impossible to implement better WWI mechanics?

Vicky is not about warfare, so I wouldn't count on a WWI simulator in this case ;).

What Vicky is about is not written in stone. As far as I am concerned, the game is about a certain period in history. Its focus on industrialization, colonialism and trade springs naturally from this. It does not mean that the game is about that and only that. As it happens, Victoria also covers the period of one of the largest conflicts the world ever saw; a period it covers poorly. Yet people seem hell bent on maintaining this blatant shortcoming.

On the western front the war developed into a static war of exhaustion, where the "war at home" became just as big a part of the war effort as the fighting men in the trenches. It looks to me like it developed into an exercise in mobilizing as much as possible of the society (manpower, industry, research, food suply, etc.) towards the war effort, rather as an exercise in tactical brilliance.

Call me ignorant if you want, I might well be, but at least give some reasons. :happy:
 
If that is the case I would like to see specific examples. In what way would realism in the period of 1836 - 90 suffer? A lot of things in WWI was different, but an awfull lot seems to have remained the same. Infantry assaults, en masse, with bayonets and cavalry charges (even with the occational use of lances, apparently). Couldn't technology perks mold the combat gradually, leading to WWI style combat in the late game?

I will admit that my knowlege of tactics in WWI is limited at best, but it seems to me that a simulation of WWI would require little more than the simulation of trench lines from Switzerland the Channel coast. Not such a daunting task by the looks of it. Sure, the situation on the eastern front was quite different, but the question still remains: why would it be impossible to implement better WWI mechanics?

The problems is that there are, at the moment, only two ways of modelling combat in province-based games. Either combat is something that happens "inside a province" between stacks located in the same province as in EU3, or "between provinces" between armies located in different provinces as in HOI3.

WW1 was a war across continual fronts hundreds of miles long, and involved battles lasting months. The defensive power of a single army corps in WW1, and the range of the weapons they had, was sufficient to defend a province a prevent anyone entering it without a heavy battle. A WW1 general could arrange attacks from multiple directions at any point along the front, and could call those attacks off relatively easily. It is therefore reasonable to model fighting as something that happens "between provinces" using the HOI2 "move = attack" system, since this allows the pincers-movements and front-to-front battles of WW1. Since there was a limit to the number of troops that could usefully be concentrated on a single front, stacking hundreds of thousands of troops in a single province and attacking from there would simply result in many unneccessary deaths without meaningfully increasing the attacking power of the attacking force, and would also result in the weakening of other fronts. The "inside a province" EU3-style model is therefore not appropriate.

The Franco-Prussian war, fought over much the same ground as WW1's western front, involved armies of hundreds of thousands concentrated into what, in game terms, is a single province, and fighting for a day or a few days at most. No army could really defend an entire province from attack, at best they could bring another army to battle once it had entered the same area. It was not possible for an army corps to defend a front many miles long in the way you can in HOI3. During the Franco-Prussian war, to have lined the frontier with troops in the way the generals of WW1 did would have been suicidal, since they could easily have been destroyed in detail. Instead battles in the Franco-Prussian war were more along the stack model, since the range and power of the weapons used was small enough that hundreds of thousands of soldiers could line up shoulder-to-shoulder.

There is no way of easily accomodating a move=attack system and a stack-based system in the same game. Since the two options are digital with no middle position between them, there is no way of gradually transitioning from one to the other. If you try to switch from one system to another based on, e.g., technology, you will still be left with the problem that during the transition some armies will be using one system and others the other - what will happen when these armies meet?

EDIT: pretty much the same thing goes for Vicky's inability to model WW1-style naval warfare properly. Here's Podcat explaining why submarine warfare in Vicky is still impossible:

I really wanted submarines, but I didnt want half-assed submarines that were basically torpedo boats with a different name. Adding proper submarines would have taken longer than the entire expansion so it was not feasable. To work it would need:
- HoI3 style detection and sub hunting mechanics where ships need to be found randomly by patrols
- a different market and trade system where goods were transported so it could be attacked and sunk
- new blockade mechanics to make building submarines a good choice like Germany tried vs a stronger navy

If a modding group wants slightly different torpedo boats with low hull, good evasion and range they are free to do so, the system is very moddable, but I thought that to be a proper feature it should be done right

The main thing here to note is that, according to the developers, you need to go way beyond building an expansion to model WW1. You basically need a new game.
 
Last edited:
Good points.

Should be noted that I never suggested that an expansion would do. I am just saying that since a dedicated WWI game is unlikely to happen (with Johan simply answering "no", a surprisingly blunt reply), improved mechanics in a hypothetical Victoria 3 could be, at the very least, a good compromise. If we forget about the combat mechanics for a second, I think a lot of your ideas could be implemented in a Victoria game.

Just as importantly, the game can be designed so as to make the most of this conflict. For example the player can be allowed to build long-range guns, set fire-missions for them (e.g., supply interdiction, support, counter-battery, fortification-destruction etc.), and then faced with the challenge (as it was historically) to keep them supplied with shells. Give the player detailed control over mobilisation of the population both into the army and into the war industries - putting more men in uniform should come at a cost to production.

It certainly sounds like it could fit. It wouldn't be the game of your dreams, perhaps, but still a worthy addition, no?

Also: I am perfectly willing to sacrifice realism in the early game to make way for a more exciting late game. Not that there is that much to sacrifice in its present state.

Would all the Fanbois who keep telling me that Vicky is perfectly capable of modelling WW1 please read this.

I'm offended! :p

This is different from the points you made above, though. Here it is only a question about time and effort. podcat lists what is needed to make submarines work. It is all very doable, it would just take too much time and resources.
 
This is different from the points you made above, though. Here it is only a question about time and effort. podcat lists what is needed to make submarines work. It is all very doable, it would just take too much time and resources.
Which makes this a no-brainer. It's pretty simple - in order to do the WWI right, you have to create a game that is focused on the subject, not a game that covers 100 years and has a very simplistic combat model.

It should be sth like HOI3, but with every feature designed with WWI in mind. Sure, you can mod HOI3 or play DH or whatever and it won't be that bad, but it will still be a far cry from a proper WWI game.
 
Which makes this a no-brainer. It's pretty simple - in order to do the WWI right, you have to create a game that is focused on the subject, not a game that covers 100 years and has a very simplistic combat model.

It should be sth like HOI3, but with every feature designed with WWI in mind. Sure, you can mod HOI3 or play DH or whatever and it won't be that bad, but it will still be a far cry from a proper WWI game.

Exactly. When it comes to games there is no 'good compromise' because the gamer plays to enjoy a certain experience which must feel true to them.

I am just saying that since a dedicated WWI game is unlikely to happen (with Johan simply answering "no", a surprisingly blunt reply), improved mechanics in a hypothetical Victoria 3 could be, at the very least, a good compromise. If we forget about the combat mechanics for a second, I think a lot of your ideas could be implemented in a Victoria game.

I'm not going to place too much weight on Johan's previous 'no'. I don't doubt his judgement - he's a master of games development and very smart guy - but what is yet to happen is for a credible proposal to be placed on the table for making a WW1 game in a way that would make money for Paradox. If someone can come up with such a proposal, the equation will change.
 
Try the WWI mod for HoI3. Its fantastic.

Last I checked, which was admittedly a while back, it was vapourware with a dev team who kept getting themselves banned. All the same, even the best mod for HOI3 would still be just a mod.