Your toughts on WW1 for games or wads ?

[Freaklore1]

I would like to know the opinions of the forum members on the setting of WW1 for FPS games or Doom related wads .

As much as WW2 is popular when it come to the different games based around that historical event,there hasnt been much games based on WW1,now im not saying there are noone,but compared to the amount of WW2 games,it's a bit low.

With Dice recently announcing that Battlefield 1 will be set in WW1,i got interested in looking more into that era and i must say Dice made an interesting decision by going back in time to that era.

Whe've been fed up with FPS set in modern or futuristic settings in the recent years,and even i started to miss past era's (WW1,WW2 and Cold/Vietnam war),so it's good having an upcoming game set in the past again,especially WW1 since it's a less used setting.

Also when it comes to weapons,some weapons from WW2 were also around during WW1 and there was actually automatic weapons back then too tough some of them were in their prototype stage,take a look at these videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W441RGxQ49A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-qwOg4ktLw

So yeah,i would like to have your toughts on that era and of the subject of wads related to that.

[Boreas249]

Why be sick of games with futuristic settings? It's modern warfare and WWII that have been done way, way, waaaaaay too much. With WWII-era games it feels like they're beating a dead horse.

Futuristic war games I don't mind much; I've seen some that have actually been pretty good and some that are fun and imaginative.

WWI would be nice, but only for a few games, not dropped a dime a dozen like WWII and modern-set games.

[Freaklore1]

Oh i dont have anything against futuristic games,i also like those,but let's just say that i got a soft spot for games set in past-eras,like WW1,WW2,Vietnam/Cold War,Old West,Medieval and others.

[Reactor]

There were a few attempts on this - I remember a strategy game called "Great War", which I could never really play, since it was too complicated - and none of them were that successful. I think the reason for this is that the first world war was mostly focused on Europe, and it also didn't made significant changes on the world map either. Remember, the trench wars kept each armies at bay, and there weren't any great conquests, which is a less favorized setting for a game, especially if the game wants to put world domination at stake (Red Alert for instance).

[darkhog]

I don't think WW1 is as interesting setting for shooters as WW2 is. I think the reason is that gun tech at that point was very limited. There were very little machine guns and most of the tech was single-shot, front loaded rifles. Yes, there were handguns and revolvers, but yeah, not much of gun variety which means that it wouldn't make a good FPS.

[Raziel236]

I definitely disagree and think there was more than enough weapon variety to go around.. Hexen only has 3 weapons, and if you have a demonic setting you could have all sorts of magical weapons in too. Futuristic has been done way too much, and the problem has always been laser weapons and such never feel good to shoot. And all the aesthetics are clean and boring and, meh. But I think the main problem is just that SHOOTERS in general have been done too much. But I'd much rather shoot a bolt-action rifle than a pew pew thing in a white corridor. I have a penchant for ww1/2 things as they are just down to earth and gritty and feel and look good and have lots of atmosphere.

[Reactor]

You might be right I'm especially fond of pew-pew things, preferably LAZORZ!!! Personally I think the arsenal was large enough in the first world war as well. Remember, repeater rifles and chainguns were used in the American Civil War already, just as mortars and turret-guns. Remarque also mentioned in his book that there were flamethrowers and hand-grenades as well. However, things like satchel charges, tripmines, rocket launchers/missile launchers weren't invented in that period.

[Freaklore1]

About there being no rocket launcher,that's where planes come in,if there's a key location to take out like a tower,just crash your plane into it,lol.

Submachine guns did exist during WW1,tough they showed up during the last fews years of the war,some of them were prototypes.

[Reactor]

They existed alright, however they were slightly different. For instance, each required coolant water to operate, not just ammunition. The actual Maxim-machinegun came into business a little bit later.
Albeit rockets and missiles were not actually invented, torpedos DID exist, especially at the German Navy. The Antants discovered the usage of warplanes (Germans were still utilizing blimps), this is what the Red Baron legends are all about. Plus, warplanes also utilized chainguns. The Germans, however, discovered the limitless possibility of attack subs and torpedos, causing heavy losses on the Antant navy.
Another problem is, the first world war had no negative or positive legends on either side. There were no Hitlers or Stalins, and none of them generals became THAT legendary, unlike Patton, Montgomery, Model, Guderian, Zhukov or Rokossovski. In short, if someone makes a WW1 game, there won't really be any big motivations for winning, as there are no big bad evil overlords to defeat, unlike in WW2, where you could beat the crap out of Hitler, or Stalin.

[Ryan Cordell]

I don't think WW1 is as interesting setting for shooters as WW2 is. I think the reason is that gun tech at that point was very limited. There were very little machine guns and most of the tech was single-shot, front loaded rifles. Yes, there were handguns and revolvers, but yeah, not much of gun variety which means that it wouldn't make a good FPS.

Are we thinking of the same World War 1 here or..?

[InsanityBringer]

I think the reason is that gun tech at that point was very limited. There were very little machine guns and most of the tech was single-shot, front loaded rifles.

This isn't the American Revolution, weapons were much farther along than this.

I'm assuming part of the reason why ww1 doesn't show up so much is that battlefield conditions wouldn't really make for a fun fps, I feel. Running out of your trench and getting mowed down by a mounted machine gun wouldn't be very fun. Though to be fair I imagine some of the ideas the Wolfenstein series did might work okay in a WW1 setting

[Tirgal]

I don't think WW1 is as interesting setting for shooters as WW2 is. I think the reason is that gun tech at that point was very limited. There were very little machine guns and most of the tech was single-shot, front loaded rifles. Yes, there were handguns and revolvers, but yeah, not much of gun variety which means that it wouldn't make a good FPS.

WW1 Machine Guns.
1.Bergmann MG 15nA machine gun
2.Chauchat
3.Fiat–Revelli Modello 1914
4.Fokker-Leimberger
5.Hotchkiss M1909 Benét–Mercié machine gun
6.Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun
7.Hotchkiss machine gun
8.Knötgen automatic rifle
9.Lewis gun
10.M1895 Colt–Browning machine gun
11.M1917 Browning machine gun
12.M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle
13.Madsen machine gun
14.Maxim gun
15.MG 08
16.Perino Model 1908
17.PM M1910
18.Ribeyrolle 1918 automatic carbine
19.Salvator-Dormus M1893
20.Schwarzlose machine gun
21.Škoda M1909 machine gun
22.St. Étienne Mle 1907
23.Type 3 heavy machine gun
24.Vickers machine gun

Just to name a couple.

[Hellser]

WW1 Machine Guns.

• Just to name a couple.

Quite a list there. Welcome to the forums, Tirgal.

[Tirgal]

Quite a list there. Welcome to the forums, Tirgal.

Thank you, a couple of those are technically machine guns though their caliber might be more suited to cannons.....

[LilWhiteMouse]

cannons.....

Did someone say the Paris Gun? I heard Paris Gun. Ah railguns. ::squeals::