I, and a lot of other Paradox forumites, have long looked forward to the day we might be able to play a game made using Paradox's trademark real-time map-based game play centred on World War One.
Why? Well, The first world war was an world-shattering event that wrecked four of the largest empires known to history and battered every country in Europe, the countries involved in it were engaged in a deadly struggle that saw significant action on three of the world's continents and all of its oceans. It involved complex diplomatic conspiracies, espionage, political intrigue, uprisings, revolutions, and civil wars. The countries involved in it fought not only to out-maneuver each other on the battlefield, but also in terms of industrial production and diplomatic influence.
Despite the obvious attractiveness of such subject-matter, Paradox has understandably been wary of making a game centered around a war the most important front of which did not significantly move for 2-3 years. However, releases such as Matrix's "Commander - The Great War" and AGEOD's (unfortunately deeply flawed, at least in its initial release) "World War One", as well as DH and Vicky 2 (which both touched on the war even if they are not designed to make the most of it) show that there is a market for it. For DH in particular many forumites were explicit that the only reason they were getting it was because it included a WW1 scenario, and the inability of Vicky 2 to adequately portray wars like WW1 is one of its very few drawbacks.
Doubts have also been raised as to the degree of fun to be found in such a game. Some say that the conflict was mostly static and therefore would be boring for the player, others point out that it would likely be easy for the Central Powers to score an early victory and thus end the game, whilst others point out that only Europe saw major action and therefore it would lack the world-bestriding scope of games like HOI3.
A look at history shows, however, that the first world war was one of maneuver throughout the war on the eastern and middle-eastern fronts, and saw large scale maneuvering in the west in 1914 and 1918, so we should not exaggerate the static nature of the war. More to the point, as games of HOI3 show (e.g., fighting in the west in the allies manage to survive the initial Axis onslaught), battles of attrition can actually be nail-biting affairs requiring high-skill-play. Holiding out on the Somme as the Germans, or in Verdun as the French, would not be a simple act of keeping your units in place, but instead a juggling act of feeding fresh troops into the defence whilst keeping campaigns elsewhere supplied with sufficient troops to achieve their objectives. Run out of troops, and you face disaster.
A successful Schlieffen plan was no more likely to result in an end to the war than Germany's successful campaign against France in 1940 was historically. This is because the German demands in 1914 were just as unacceptable to the allies in 1914 as they were in 1940. Britain would still have held out (at least, for game play purposes, we can assume this just as we do in HOI3), requiring an invasion of that country, and the US would still have intervened sooner or later so long as Britain carried on the fight.
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. If you think that Europe and its immediate surroundings were the only important theatre of war (which I would dispute), then create a Europe-only map, but take advantage of the processing power and developer time saved by omitting the rest of the world to add detail to remaining part.
Obviously Paradox don't need me telling them their business, but I hope a WW1 game is somewhere in their plans for at least the above reasons.
Why? Well, The first world war was an world-shattering event that wrecked four of the largest empires known to history and battered every country in Europe, the countries involved in it were engaged in a deadly struggle that saw significant action on three of the world's continents and all of its oceans. It involved complex diplomatic conspiracies, espionage, political intrigue, uprisings, revolutions, and civil wars. The countries involved in it fought not only to out-maneuver each other on the battlefield, but also in terms of industrial production and diplomatic influence.
Despite the obvious attractiveness of such subject-matter, Paradox has understandably been wary of making a game centered around a war the most important front of which did not significantly move for 2-3 years. However, releases such as Matrix's "Commander - The Great War" and AGEOD's (unfortunately deeply flawed, at least in its initial release) "World War One", as well as DH and Vicky 2 (which both touched on the war even if they are not designed to make the most of it) show that there is a market for it. For DH in particular many forumites were explicit that the only reason they were getting it was because it included a WW1 scenario, and the inability of Vicky 2 to adequately portray wars like WW1 is one of its very few drawbacks.
Doubts have also been raised as to the degree of fun to be found in such a game. Some say that the conflict was mostly static and therefore would be boring for the player, others point out that it would likely be easy for the Central Powers to score an early victory and thus end the game, whilst others point out that only Europe saw major action and therefore it would lack the world-bestriding scope of games like HOI3.
A look at history shows, however, that the first world war was one of maneuver throughout the war on the eastern and middle-eastern fronts, and saw large scale maneuvering in the west in 1914 and 1918, so we should not exaggerate the static nature of the war. More to the point, as games of HOI3 show (e.g., fighting in the west in the allies manage to survive the initial Axis onslaught), battles of attrition can actually be nail-biting affairs requiring high-skill-play. Holiding out on the Somme as the Germans, or in Verdun as the French, would not be a simple act of keeping your units in place, but instead a juggling act of feeding fresh troops into the defence whilst keeping campaigns elsewhere supplied with sufficient troops to achieve their objectives. Run out of troops, and you face disaster.
A successful Schlieffen plan was no more likely to result in an end to the war than Germany's successful campaign against France in 1940 was historically. This is because the German demands in 1914 were just as unacceptable to the allies in 1914 as they were in 1940. Britain would still have held out (at least, for game play purposes, we can assume this just as we do in HOI3), requiring an invasion of that country, and the US would still have intervened sooner or later so long as Britain carried on the fight.
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. If you think that Europe and its immediate surroundings were the only important theatre of war (which I would dispute), then create a Europe-only map, but take advantage of the processing power and developer time saved by omitting the rest of the world to add detail to remaining part.
Obviously Paradox don't need me telling them their business, but I hope a WW1 game is somewhere in their plans for at least the above reasons.
Last edited:
- 4
.
