mods aside, fitting WW1 into one of the game franchises seems tricky. which one should be held responsible for WW1 between Vicky and HOI? or would it warrant its own stand alone?
-
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.
its probably that WWI is both
1) overshadowed by its much more intense sequel: WWII
2) much less variable than WWII.
in WWI you had infantry, almost-too-early-to-be-flyable biplanes, infantry, too-early tanks (until 1917 really), different kinds of infantry, cavalry (no not halftracks or attack helicopters, actual horses), and a few automobiles with plates of iron bolted to them and a machine gun sticking out.
in WWII you had biplanes, monoplanes, push-pull planes, rocket planes! light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, tanks meant to kill other tanks, hell armored cars meant to kill other tanks!
for games like HOI, the World of tanks/LOLplanes/warships, War Thunder, Men of War, and Steel Division; these kinds of variables is the teamwork that makes the dream work. WWI lacks much of this, and that why in gaming as in IRL, it is the forgotten world war.
TL;DR a WWI scenario deserves a spot as a DLC and/or standalone for HOI 4 and future HOI games. anything more will be either money wasted or a case of diminishing returns.
1) overshadowed by its much more intense sequel: WWII
2) much less variable than WWII.
in WWI you had infantry, almost-too-early-to-be-flyable biplanes, infantry, too-early tanks (until 1917 really), different kinds of infantry, cavalry (no not halftracks or attack helicopters, actual horses), and a few automobiles with plates of iron bolted to them and a machine gun sticking out.
in WWII you had biplanes, monoplanes, push-pull planes, rocket planes! light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, tanks meant to kill other tanks, hell armored cars meant to kill other tanks!
for games like HOI, the World of tanks/LOLplanes/warships, War Thunder, Men of War, and Steel Division; these kinds of variables is the teamwork that makes the dream work. WWI lacks much of this, and that why in gaming as in IRL, it is the forgotten world war.
TL;DR a WWI scenario deserves a spot as a DLC and/or standalone for HOI 4 and future HOI games. anything more will be either money wasted or a case of diminishing returns.
I guess HOI mechanics can make it work ok -- Darkest Hour is a good example.
It really is the culmination (or disaster event) of Victoria though. To paraphrase Churchill, everyone brought all the immense wealth and riches of the Victorian age and made war on one another.
It really is the culmination (or disaster event) of Victoria though. To paraphrase Churchill, everyone brought all the immense wealth and riches of the Victorian age and made war on one another.
If only Vicky had ever been capable of simulating in anything like realistic terms.
Nah, it fits way better within the HOI model. This is not a surprise, since all of the weapons and tactics of WW1 existed in some form somewhere in the world in 1936.
The main problem in V2 that it doesn't really model the transition from Napoleonic armies to those of the World Wars. But it does the economic and social effects of such a war much better. If Vicky 3 can pull of the militairy transition, it will be de defenative WW1 game
Tbh honest Victoria 1 Revolutions is the game to get. It has a WW1 scenario and when the game ends in 1935 you can import your save into HOI2/Darkest Hour.
The military mechanics in Victoria 1 are far superior to those in Victoria 2. Victoria 1 has attached brigades for a start and the Victoria 2 military tech gets abit flaky past 1910... no submarines or armoured cars???
The vannilla WW1 scenario in Darkest Hour is ok but it doesn't set you up for the cour de grace of WW1 (let alone starting from the 1836 startof Vic 1) the inter war years and leading upto WW2. Well there is the Grand Campaign mod for DH. Didn't like the Russian campaign in this as it felt harder than what it should be. Haven't tried the Grand Campaign mod self yet.
The WW1 mod for HOI3 is worth alook and also has a 1912 start. Playing as Russia doesn't let you play as the Civil War from what I've found. You get defeated by Germany or have the Revolution and it's game over quite literaly.
So I would recomend both Victoria 1 and HOI2/Darkest Hour
The military mechanics in Victoria 1 are far superior to those in Victoria 2. Victoria 1 has attached brigades for a start and the Victoria 2 military tech gets abit flaky past 1910... no submarines or armoured cars???
The vannilla WW1 scenario in Darkest Hour is ok but it doesn't set you up for the cour de grace of WW1 (let alone starting from the 1836 startof Vic 1) the inter war years and leading upto WW2. Well there is the Grand Campaign mod for DH. Didn't like the Russian campaign in this as it felt harder than what it should be. Haven't tried the Grand Campaign mod self yet.
The WW1 mod for HOI3 is worth alook and also has a 1912 start. Playing as Russia doesn't let you play as the Civil War from what I've found. You get defeated by Germany or have the Revolution and it's game over quite literaly.
So I would recomend both Victoria 1 and HOI2/Darkest Hour
Vicky in both editions was rubbish at modelling WW1.
The battle of the Somme did not consist of the British getting out of the their trenches in one massive stack, marching for weeks to reach the Germans, then having forces from both sides swarm from all over to dog-pile in the same province, then the British either retreating back to their own lines only to find the Germans already there, or magically retreating behind German lines. This, however, is what would often happen in Vicky.
It was literally possible to march the Russian army all the way to Berlin without having a line of supply back to Russia, because Vicky does not require lines of supply.
The fact that Vicky had some token techs to research is neither here nor their if the actual units you command do not behave at all like the armed forces of WW1.
Then there's that stupid occupation mechanic. You have to keep your army in a province for weeks before it becomes occupied for some reason, even though historically the Central Powers able to rapidly assert control over, e.g., Romania when it blitzed that country in 1916.
This is all without even mentioning naval warfare.
I would love to see an HOI WW1 DLC, and I think there is still a great WW1 game waiting to be made (Commander: The Great War was actually quite good). It might be considered niche and not of general interest, but games like Battlefield 1 show that needn't be the case.
Thing is, the sweet-spot for releasing a WW1 game ends next year with the 100th anniversary of the end of the war, and Paradox have said they won't do a WW1 stand-alone, so I think you're right that we're unlikely to see a WW1 stand-alone game.
Last edited:
I would love if when Victoria 3 eventually happens that the tech and war mechanics will be able to represent the development from USA Civil War era warfare to an 'early modern' style towards the end, and include a "The Great War" start date so people can play with that stuff if they want.
sure that would be a head ache for the devs to make, but Victoria intrinsically has these kinds of issues sense it covers the period of history containing both those wars, while also having nations all over the world being playable(with all the different levels of development that implies) to take into account...
sure that would be a head ache for the devs to make, but Victoria intrinsically has these kinds of issues sense it covers the period of history containing both those wars, while also having nations all over the world being playable(with all the different levels of development that implies) to take into account...
I think Victoria's mechanics model it better - a real dynamic depletion of manpower and need for materials. Army specialization isn't as critical in WW1 as in WW2.
Warfare changed from the decisive point to the linear front during the 19th century. Napoleon at Borodino is a good example of the point, while the Russo-Japanese war (specifically the large clashes in Eastern Russia) is a good example of the linear front.
The chief driver of this dispersion of forces was the ability to attack the enemy from dozens of KM away using contemporary artillery. Under those circumstances napolenic style concentration of forces with thousands of soldiers in a square KM is suicidal. With that dispersion came an essentially endless battle of small clashes and turning maneuvers across frontages that started as a few dozen KM but eventually grew to encompass all area between the Baltic and the Black Sea.
WW1 and 2 reached a new type of warfare yet again. The turning movements (going around and surrounding the enemy) that had been beloved by 19th century theorists (see the Schliffen plan, one giant turning maneuver) were no longer possible in an environment where no empty land existed. At which point warfare changed again, from the linear war of the 19th century to the 20th century's war of depth. Frontages that started with a depth of a couple dozen KM eventually extended hundreds of KM to the rear with multiple operational and strategic echelons of forces intend to defeat offensives like those of Brusilov, the 1917 offensive by the Germans in the west and the 1920 offensive by the soviets into Poland.
So if you think about it Vicky has an impossible mission with regard to warfare. It must capture the decisive point of Napoleon, the linear warfare of the 19th century and the deep warfare of the 20th century. No single system can possibly pull that off. If it were up to me, V3 would start in 1836 and end in 1904 and HoI4 would become a more traditional paradox game with WW1, WW2 and Russo-Japanese war starting scenarios. V3 would also make use of HoI3 style "divisions" but the combat width consumed by component battalions would expand until the 1890s when you'd have maybe a dozen divisions per province.
Modern warfare (for the curious) has evolved yet again to a nonlinear type where the concept of fronts no longer makes sense. There's a lot of interesting arguments going on over what that means and how it should be handled.
The chief driver of this dispersion of forces was the ability to attack the enemy from dozens of KM away using contemporary artillery. Under those circumstances napolenic style concentration of forces with thousands of soldiers in a square KM is suicidal. With that dispersion came an essentially endless battle of small clashes and turning maneuvers across frontages that started as a few dozen KM but eventually grew to encompass all area between the Baltic and the Black Sea.
WW1 and 2 reached a new type of warfare yet again. The turning movements (going around and surrounding the enemy) that had been beloved by 19th century theorists (see the Schliffen plan, one giant turning maneuver) were no longer possible in an environment where no empty land existed. At which point warfare changed again, from the linear war of the 19th century to the 20th century's war of depth. Frontages that started with a depth of a couple dozen KM eventually extended hundreds of KM to the rear with multiple operational and strategic echelons of forces intend to defeat offensives like those of Brusilov, the 1917 offensive by the Germans in the west and the 1920 offensive by the soviets into Poland.
So if you think about it Vicky has an impossible mission with regard to warfare. It must capture the decisive point of Napoleon, the linear warfare of the 19th century and the deep warfare of the 20th century. No single system can possibly pull that off. If it were up to me, V3 would start in 1836 and end in 1904 and HoI4 would become a more traditional paradox game with WW1, WW2 and Russo-Japanese war starting scenarios. V3 would also make use of HoI3 style "divisions" but the combat width consumed by component battalions would expand until the 1890s when you'd have maybe a dozen divisions per province.
Modern warfare (for the curious) has evolved yet again to a nonlinear type where the concept of fronts no longer makes sense. There's a lot of interesting arguments going on over what that means and how it should be handled.
well if WWI was only the beginning of 20th century warfare, and one of the big factors that lead to the extreme horrors of that war was how few understood how to use or counter the new developments, using outdated tactics, and so on.
so having Vicy 3 just need to handle the transition between Napoleonic and 19th Century warfare(maybe have a HoI4 style strategic planner where new techs and units unlock new options to use or upgrade/replace others) with the latest techs interacting with these systems in a weird way to represent the awkward use of these technologies at the time.
Honestly I would represent warfare in Vic 3 as in Hoi instead of the EU model. The late game wars are more interesting than the early ones, and things like the ACW or the french Prussian war are probably better represented with linear fronts than the current huge stack battles
TBH, WW1 as a stand-alone could be interesting, but given the track record of March of the Eagles, it is doubtful that PI will make such a game [also insert jokes about DLC here]
That being said, it's quite interesting to know that MotE was designed by Chris King, who also designed Vic 2 ....
But on topic, if I would fit it anywhere, then it's best as a HoI, especially given the focus on combat.
That being said, it's quite interesting to know that MotE was designed by Chris King, who also designed Vic 2 ....
But on topic, if I would fit it anywhere, then it's best as a HoI, especially given the focus on combat.
indeed, to expand on my comment above; designing the game's warfare around the 19th century style that takes up a majority of the time period that the game takes place in, and then remove some features and/or add handicaps to the beginning of the game that are re-enabled/removed as the relevant technologies are developed.
the trench warfare seen on the western front is properly the hardest part of WWI to simulate; sure the existing "dig in" defensive bonus is there, and could be made both stronger, and faster to build up with late game tech, but maintaining that stalemate for lengthy periods of time would be unlikely(though some would argue that that's a good thing from the pov of wanting the game to be fun over realistic).
maybe the HoI4 style macro-planner would include trench lines as fallback lines in the late game providing defensive bonuses, resulting in two parallel lines of trenches with a string of no-man's land provinces between them that frequently swap hands as each side tries and fails to advance past the other...
I really love the Idea to have a WW as endgame of 100 years development. You prepare for it, develope and then destroy your country and industry in a global Desaster. But It needs a good, engaging mechanic wich is fun but also devastating. I hope Vic3 can do it, I have to believe it.
But it also needs it's own war diplomacy where you can offer allys war contributions before they join. Like Italy in WW1. And also peace congress after the war.
But it also needs it's own war diplomacy where you can offer allys war contributions before they join. Like Italy in WW1. And also peace congress after the war.
As already touched on, both the American Civil War and Great War were instances of tech being way ahead of tactics. This is tough to simulate for the player -- we've already learned that Fredericksberg or the Somme were not great ideas.
In terms of WW1, I think abstraction is a good solution. Not being in charge of the movement of individual brigades or divisions -- but trying to guide your top Generals toward the preferred goal and strategy. All the while controlling how divisions are built, economy, industry, politics etc.
I don't see how cycling brigades around a front could be interesting or rewarding for a player. Some of what I described could be replicated well by HOI4 -- provided they fixed the battle plan system. More of what I imagine though is an entire "front" window where you get battle reports, help plan and set goals, etc. Probably not everyone's cup of tea but I'd like it
.
In terms of WW1, I think abstraction is a good solution. Not being in charge of the movement of individual brigades or divisions -- but trying to guide your top Generals toward the preferred goal and strategy. All the while controlling how divisions are built, economy, industry, politics etc.
I don't see how cycling brigades around a front could be interesting or rewarding for a player. Some of what I described could be replicated well by HOI4 -- provided they fixed the battle plan system. More of what I imagine though is an entire "front" window where you get battle reports, help plan and set goals, etc. Probably not everyone's cup of tea but I'd like it
.this is true for many historically set strategy games, especially for ones as dynamic as PDX's grand strategy games.
I've advocated that a HiO4 style macro-planner would likely be the best option to cover Vicy3 by adding/removing different options from it as tech was developed, but having abstraction go so deep as to not control what units go where seems a bit to much. while having the wars be handled by primarily AI vs AI would enable a historical stalemate to happen, that isn't particular fun for the player to sit back and watch, with their only option being "give the general more men/guns/ammo/money and hope he finally brakes through".
in fact if tactics were tied to those macro-planner lines then the player could be forced to use outdated tactics because it's their only option, with the new better tactics being slow to develop unless the relevant units have been used in combat(which means using them ineffectively, possibly even detrimentally).
Vicky 1 had pretty good combat mechanics, especially as your combat output was tied intimately to your industrial power. You'd also have to compromise economically, converting factory workers into soldiers, watching your economic output dip as the war drags on and on.
Late game combat was an absolute meat-grinder too, with the only way to definitely break through enemy lines being to use tanks. The only reason I wouldn't recommend Viccy 1 entirely is a) the AI just isn't up to late game combat, and b)it's now a very old game with some very janky systems.
Late game combat was an absolute meat-grinder too, with the only way to definitely break through enemy lines being to use tanks. The only reason I wouldn't recommend Viccy 1 entirely is a) the AI just isn't up to late game combat, and b)it's now a very old game with some very janky systems.
I do not know if you meant this to be so but that is a really good overview of one of the many solid arguments Stephen Biddle's makes in his book Military Power.