|
Reguarding the tone and everything about the game you pointed out, if you really want a more sort of brutal misery fest All Quiet In The Western Front experience maybe getting some booze, rounding up three close special guests and attempting to survive the more (I guess traditional misery and trenches?) style Verdun for a break in the middle of the LP perhaps? Be warned though, said game is a lot more brutal and leans towards the light realism sort of deal. Oh, and every year they do a lovely Christmas truce DLC where both sides just play football, throw snowballs and send postcards to each other instead of killing. It also really is quite a narrow focus (Western Europe from 1914 to 1917 compared to BF1 being set through 1918 and possibly alternative 1919?) I myself feel the only trumps it has on BF1 really personally is the uniform evolution feature and the common bolt action rifle being avaliable for pretty much everyone more or less. It goes to show that WW1 games have their own micro niches. Also, I have hunted down some interesting URL that cover the actual background history of the maps and single player campaign battles for any casual history buffs/curious newbies reading the LP too. And just for fun, a IMGUR gallery of cute era relevant propaganda tips for the multiplayer campaign too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Oh, and every year they do a lovely Christmas truce DLC where both sides just play football, throw snowballs and send postcards to each other instead of killing. I was really hoping BF1 would do this but I'm glad someone out there is using the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:45
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I was really hoping BF1 would do this but I'm glad someone out there is using the idea. Sadly until Battlefront 2 is done, I have a feeling interesting content for Battlefield 1 for the time being will be the French and Russian themed DLC they are planning to drop during this year.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
It still boggles me a bit that the base game includes relatively minor, or at least lesser-focused-on nations like the Italians and ottomans (and Americans, deal with it) but the French don't get to play until a dlc. It's like making a WWII game and not including the USSR What?? What do you mean, "happens all the time"??
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
GoneRampant posted:Ah, the game that was one of the reasons why Titanfall 2 bombed in sales so hard. At least this one is good, and not just for the variety of seeing WW1 instead of another sci fi/modern/WW2 setting. W.B. Yeats (1865–1939). 3. An Irish Airman foresees his Death I KNOW that I shall meet my fate Somewhere among the clouds above; Those that I fight I do not hate Those that I guard I do not love; My country is Kiltartan Cross, My countrymen Kiltartan’s poor, No likely end could bring them loss Or leave them happier than before. Nor law, nor duty bade me fight, Nor public man, nor cheering crowds, A lonely impulse of delight Drove to this tumult in the clouds; I balanced all, brought all to mind, The years to come seemed waste of breath, A waste of breath the years behind In balance with this life, this death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:It still boggles me a bit that the base game includes relatively minor, or at least lesser-focused-on nations like the Italians and ottomans (and Americans, deal with it) but the French don't get to play until a dlc. It's like making a WWII game and not including the USSR Dice said they wanted to do some of the lesser known and seen fronts/battles, which is their way of saying "we had to make it so Americans and English speaking audiences would buy this" French and Russian stuff is coming in DLC, which DICE is pitching as dedicated showcases for those factions. Sort of a weak excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Let me play as German already! At least with WWI you don't have deal with issues while making the campaign
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I imagine when DICE were trying to pitch the setting and the moment they mentioned the vast variety of weaponry, setting and faction somebody got a boner and post release DLC was immediatly brought up. They've pretty much confirmed that this will be the only active Battlefield title in the next few years so expect to see a lot of Battlefield 1 DLC announcements to come. Just hope they continue to support the really nice Operations game mode and actually get around to giving both Serbia, Belgium and Greece some lip service too. JcDent posted:Let me play as German already! Well, they kind of do. I mean it wasn't nazi level but all the major Central Powers and Russia had a bit of a nasty habit of not letting go with the usual 19th century occupation and slash and burn war crimes that awkwardly happened during the conflict now. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Well, they kind of do. I mean it wasn't nazi level but all the major Central Powers and Russia had a bit of a nasty habit of not letting go with the usual 19th century occupation and slash and burn war crimes that awkwardly happened during the conflict now. See German occupation of Belgium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Samovar posted:See German occupation of Belgium. The Deutsches Heer's obssession with partisans certainly carried over to the Wehrmacht. The German army starts off being perfectly civil up in Belgian towns, but it only takes one partisan attack before men with Pickelhaubes start shooting women and children en mass. Similarly, Wehrmacht POWs would often curse the brutality of the Gestapo and SS, unless partisans were mentioned. For anti-partisan activities, they would often say the Nazi line wasn't brutal enough. To be fair, this attitude was not unique to the Germans. After WWII, French counter-insurgency tactics in Vietnam and Algeria often degraded into "we had to shoot every man, women, and child in the village to save it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Things I Noticed: I really enjoy that the first war shot of the campaign is a black man wearing a French Adrian helmet; and not just for the deserved prominence of the Harlem Hellfighters, following in the footsteps of hundreds of thousands of men from France's colonies in Africa. It's a nice clear symbol that this is not the WWII-era USA, which poo poo out everyone else's war production even before they were in the war; a lot of AEF soldiers ended up being issued French-made or licenced copies of French-designed weapons and equipment because the US Army was in 1917 totally unprepared for anything more taxing than the odd jolly over the Mexican border, and the plan for 1919 was pretty much "load the Yanks into a fleet of Renault FT tanks and point 'em at Berlin". Mind you, one thing they did bring to the table? Shotguns. An excellent weapon for close-quarters combat in confined spaces (like, for instance, in a trench), the Germans genuinely did register a brass-necked protest against them on the grounds that they caused unnecessary suffering (as opposed to, say, chlorine gas and the Flammenwerfer) and the Entente powers genuinely did tell them to get hosed. American purpose-built pump-action shotguns had a neat little slamfire system that allowed them to be fired automatically on pumping, and a bayonet socket for those situations when only sticking a large pointy knife in your enemy's eye will stop him. That's not the only accurate close-quarters combat weapon on display; the maces and spiked clubs were generally not issue items (unless you were a Bosnian fighting for Austria-Hungary) but were still around; and the most popular hand-to-hand weapon after the bayonet was indeed the personal entrenching tool. Deliberately designed to be light and easy to carry, long enough to get some momentum on a swing but short enough to not be unwieldy, and with a nice digging edge that could be sharpened for added effect. Plus, you can still use it for the intended purpose and dig yourself a hole to hide in when necessary. (Speaking of which, before the Canadians take over with telling us, with some justification, how good they were at doing some things, I'd like to mention the apogee of their hilariously awful procurement: the MacAdam Shield Shovel, which was neither an effective shield nor a useful shovel, although it was invented by MacAdam.) On the subject of "we showed up and won" being inaccurate for the USA; I'm actually not so sure it is that inaccurate. For me the problem with it is that, like many other things, it carries WWII implications of everyone using American equipment and fighting under American supreme command and the other allied nations being basically adjuncts to this shitload of Americans rolling through Western Europe, all while the Americans are also fighting a whole separate war on the other side of the world basically by themselves, which of course are completely inaccurate. On the other hand: the offensives of late 1918 that won the war would absolutely not have been possible without the US Army, although not because they were primarily launched with American troops (they only had about half a million in the American Expeditionary Force in summer 1918 who were considered ready for combat). The real problem was that the French Army was right at the point of running out of men to replace its losses, and running out of morale in the survivors; what the American entry into the war meant was that it made their chiefs willing to join one more big push in 1918, alongside the AEF and the BEF. It wouldn't matter whether the French could replace their losses because the Americans could fill the shortfall and more besides over the winter, and then provide the core of the forces for the decisive attack in 1919 (which in the event proved not to be necessary). So I'd argue that yes, they were just as vital a part of the eventual victory as in the next war; but in a completely and totally different way. Let's talk about countries who were involved that you might not know about. Lazyfire mentions Portugal, who sent a corps to the Western Front, which spent most of its time being desperately shunted around quiet northern sectors to keep it out of everyone's way; they were actually relevant in the vast and entirely ridiculous war in Africa because Angola and Mozambique were Portugese colonies and both shared a land border in 1914 with German colonies (Angola with what's now Namibia, and Mozambique with what's now Tanzania), with a significant amount of fighting in both Mozambique and Tanzania. Yeah, there was an entire war in east Africa that almost nobody ever talks about. Maybe someone in South Africa does? Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Cameroon, Congo, DR Congo? There's still a ship tooling round on Lake Tanganyika that fought for the Germans in the war, the last remaining ship of the Kaiser's navy doing a proper job of work. Here's one for WWII buffs; did you know that Japan declared war in 1914 on Britain's side? See, there were a whole bunch of European countries who controlled various small spits of Chinese port territory as a concession from the Chinese government. The Germans had Qingdao (then translated as Tsingtao) and maintained the powerful East Asia Squadron of cruisers from it; Britain had a bunch of naval agreements with Japan and brought them into the war basically to free up resources so they could focus on stopping the Squadron from acting as commerce raiders. The Japanese did quite a bit more than that, seizing German possessions in the Pacific and besieging Qingdao until the Germans surrendered to them after a couple of months, and then settled into a policy of "wait until the war ends and then we can get a seat at the peace table to make the European powers take us seriously and treat us like real people instead of inferiors", and you probably know how well that worked out. Brasil did the same thing in 1917, joining the war because they were pissed off at German submarines sinking their merchants, and had their navy put to work protecting shipping all round the Atlantic. The best minor involvement is certainly Siam, though; the King sent a battalion-sized force of rear-area troops to France, managed to wangle it into the Meuse-Argonne Offensive for some street cred, and mostly succeded post-war in getting his former allies to piss off and leave the country alone. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
The Germans may not have been Nazis in WW1, but you can't deny that the public sentiment in the major markets for the game is "Eh, close enough".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I never noticed that when I put on the mask, neat. The sound in the game is loving killer too. Shame they didn't get somebody to Austrian German/have the soldiers for Austria-Hungary speak Czech or Hungarian instead though.  So two things here. You can see in the left lens there's an image of a room (notably, not a reflection of that particular room) and the right lens, because it isn't in light, is translucent instead of reflecting anything. I just found that kind of neat as it's the kind of detail I expect out of Uncharted games and not the multiplayer side of a massive FPS game.  Here's a better look at that right lens. Notice you still have some reflection on it and there's that lead/weld (it's black, I assume lead) web structure in there. Again, not really anything major or groundbreaking but such a small detail that DICE could have easily not bothered with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Another thing to praise this game for design wise is the animations, firing, loading and operating all kinds of weapons are all very detailed and impressive. One thing I've not seen since the 1st Planetside is the physical act of getting into a vehicle by opening a door or hatch something I've not seen since the 1srt Planetside. Somehow the game makes open a door drat entertaining.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Purely as a hypothetical, would you consider a zeppelin attack on London very viable? So viable it actually happened. German Zeppelins and airplanes bombed London and other major cities across The South and The Midlands between mid 1915 and mid 1918
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
 This first multiplayer video is really for people who haven't played BF games before or are woefully out of date on BF games. As such it provides a high level overview of the basics. Customization, controls, classes and the Conquest game mode are all discussed. I'm a big BF fan and I absolutely love BF1's multiplayer. It takes some of the better elements of the little loved Battlefield: Hardline and combines them with the game Battlefield 4 should have been at launch and also manages to fix some longstanding franchise issues. It introduced a slew of new ones as well, but there's more good than bad here. One of the unexpected departures in BF1 is the way weapon customization works. I rush over it a bit in the video and so I wanted to talk about it in greater depth in the post. In BF3 and BF4 every weapon in the game had a slew of customization options. These ranged from camouflages to grips, laser pointers, gunsights, barrel attachments to stocks. Each one of the attachments did something a bit different and you could mix and match to fit your need per gun. This is standard practice in class based multiplayer shooters and so it wasn't exactly controversial. The issue with this system is that you eventually have people picking through the various options and finding a really good combination that puts other weapons to shame in some or most situations. If you played BF4 you probably remember the AWS being that gun when combined with a potato grip and muzzle break. BF1 has nowhere near the amount of weapons BF3 and BF4 had and has almost no customization options for the weapons on hand. Instead, the player purchases (with in game currency you get from leveling up) different versions of weapons that come with different base attachments. As I show in the video, the customization options after that are limited to things like weapon sights and if there is a bayonet or not. This change was controversial as players have more or less come to expect the ability to kit out weapons to their heart's content. I thought (and still think) it makes perfect sense as now DICE can introduce flaws and benefits to weapons without players being able to overturn their decisions by slapping on a grip or a laser sight or a combination of things. My favored MG Suppressive, for example, comes with a scope on it. I can reduce the zoom on it, but I can't remove it entirely. It makes it less ideal for up close fighting, but great if I'm at medium or long range, plus, there's a bipod on it, so I can down fools from a distance if I go prone. Thankfully, DICE also recognized that by making guns fit roles players would have to switch out weapons a bit more often and so the game launched with the ability to save multiple versions of the same class and switch between them in match instead of having to go into the customization screen and make a bunch of changes. This sort of package customization was also applied to armored vehicles and airplanes. You get two to three options for each type with the understanding that while none is perfect, each has their specific uses. While I miss the ability to put a bunch of modifications on a single gun I like to make it better for one aspect instead of another I can't fault the system that much. It solves the issue of having too many weapon options while also making it a bit easier for the designers to make each weapon loadout unique in some way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
I have to add this series is one of the first ones that actually makes sidearms not only useful, but in some cases very vital for survival (unless you have super fast reflexes a dude with a LMG/SMG is always going to kill you with am ambush if you roll with the bolt action rifle) and the ammo for you primary weapon can run out very quickly if you don't conserve. Plus they really went nuts with the lesser known firearms with the secondary weaponry. You get the well known (The Luger and Mausers) to the obscure but was used (The awkward old Austrian Gasser revolver or the Howdah/Lancaster Pistol which is essential IRL a pistol for hunting African level game for British Indian army officers on shooting leave) all of which will save you because you don't have a few seconds to look at your wonderful ammo pressing and gun fondling reload animation. All that is sadly missing is the option to crudely pistol whip dudes when out of ammunition for the sidearm. But then again, you do have the melee weapons. Some of which are designed for charging, stealth, smashing static light defenses and even hurting lighter vehicles.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Man this game is neat but I find it pretty disingenuous for Battlefield to be talking about the global tragedy of war. Especially since every other battlefield game has been pretty "oo-rah war is great!" It's almost like they have this tone-deaf obligation to clasp their hands and say "oh yes definitely, our humanity failed us at this moment." It's like each major conflict has a theme in American culture. WWI was mud and horror and a kind of mysticism - fog and barbed wire. WWII was a righteous crusade, won by American grit. Vietnam was CCR, madness and the compromise of the individual's humanity. The Gulf War was almost Camusian absurdity, a fool conflict fought at arm's length with SCUD missiles. Anyway I guess my point is, a war FPS seems like the last place for moralizing about war, especially since your character could take 20 bullets and kill a dozen enemies. I'm interested to see how things change in the other chapters. Is T. E. Lawrence going to pontificate on the scars he is leaving on Africa, or is he going to channel the spirit of Richard I, leading the charge against the Saracens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I have to add this series is one of the first ones that actually makes sidearms not only useful, but in some cases very vital for survival (unless you have super fast reflexes a dude with a LMG/SMG is always going to kill you with am ambush if you roll with the bolt action rifle) and the ammo for you primary weapon can run out very quickly if you don't conserve. I especially like how pistols get used in Hardcore, as the increased damage makes even relatively weak guns more useful and the lack of friendly icons over allies' heads (unless you put the crosshairs directly on them) reduces the efficacy of twitch shooting, so you don't get as many people sprinting and hopping around with shotguns and SMGs shooting on reflex. On service rifle only servers, you see everyone hauling out pistols to do building raids. One weird oversight is that you can't use the iron sights of any weapon while wearing a gas mask. This is realistic for rifles, SMGs, and shotguns. But it keeps you from using pistol iron sights, as if your soldier can't hold a gun in front of his face. You'd probably see pistols get used more if they patched that in. Also gas mask raids on buildings flooded with poison gas are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:Man this game is neat but I find it pretty disingenuous for Battlefield to be talking about the global tragedy of war. Especially since every other battlefield game has been pretty "oo-rah war is great!" Oh, yeah I'm in complete agreement about the nature of basically any game that portrays real life events and wars. I think it is tough to impossible to make a game that would be 100℅ accurate and realistic in its mechanics and still be able to make enough money to justify the budget this game had. I consider the way BF1 treats WWI as a step up over a lot of games on the market, especially EA's rebooted MoH franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
That said I agree with you in the video - they should have let us play as the Central Powers. Germans are people too!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Another interesting thing DICE is doing with the game is that they are experimenting and hosting basicaly custom variants of the game modes on offer which tweak and twist the gameplay and flow in very different ways for those who want either a bit more order or a certain flavor of chaos that really leans on the class system. For example, there is hardcore mode which is essential realism light which more or less strips all the user interface elements and jacks the damage up for all weaponry, whilst rifle only mode and back to basics restrict weaponry and certain vehicles from the conquest game mode.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Somebody already posted about Canada's dumb shovel with a hole in it, but didn't mention our dumb rifle. It couldn't really tolerate any dirt of grit (perfect for trench fighting!), and if you reassembled it wrong the bolt wouldn't lock but you could still fir a round, launching the bolt right back into your face 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
I was actually reading a Ian Kershaw book on Europe from 1914-1949, and it was really disheartening to see how the horrors of WWI didn't really turn the majority of people against war afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I was actually reading a Ian Kershaw book on Europe from 1914-1949, and it was really disheartening to see how the horrors of WWI didn't really turn the majority of people against war afterwards. I don't think there ever has been or will be a "war so destructive that it turns everyone away altogether". At a very minimum, you'll have groups like ISIS or the Syrian government that don't give two shits about massive destruction and genocide as long as they get what they want out of it. They'll look at a ruined landscape of burnt-out husks full of skeletons and say "Good" as long as it's not their side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:Oh, yeah I'm in complete agreement about the nature of basically any game that portrays real life events and wars. I think it is tough to impossible to make a game that would be 100℅ accurate and realistic in its mechanics and still be able to make enough money to justify the budget this game had. I consider the way BF1 treats WWI as a step up over a lot of games on the market, especially EA's rebooted MoH franchise. I've heard war described to me as "boring, but the kind of boring where even though you have days of absolutely nothing happening you always have a lingering sense of dread and horror that at any moment, you or your buddies in your unit may end up dead at any moment when poo poo gets real. Then eventually poo poo does get real and it's all pandemonium and it all devolves down into suppressing fire". I have absolutely no idea how you'd translate that into a video game to be perfectly honest. Even as a psychological horror game that'd be difficult to pull off, so it's probably for the best that games based on real life conflicts focus on those specific battles rather than the war experience itself as a whole, even if it is extremely unrealistic that one soldier could take down an army pretty much by themselves with decent accuracy and have regenerating health when they get shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Mr. Fortitude posted:I've heard war described to me as "boring, but the kind of boring where even though you have days of absolutely nothing happening you always have a lingering sense of dread and horror that at any moment, you or your buddies in your unit may end up dead at any moment when poo poo gets real. Then eventually poo poo does get real and it's all pandemonium and it all devolves down into suppressing fire". The most realistic war game I ever played was operation flashpoint, which, as infantry, was pretty much a "hit the dirt as soon as you see the enemy and hope they shoot your teammates before they shoot you" simulator. I assume the arma series is the same thing but I'm too old to enjoy that kind of game these days, where you spend 30 minutes literally crawling through a forest and then get shot in the head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
I think they got the tone mostly right, to me it seems neutral, but positive and dedicated to making the player remember a)the events and b)people a century ago were more or less people, some caught in the middle of war trying to get along and survive. This conflict is a tricky one for us Europeans. It changed the maps, politics and how we see things and more or less spawned the rest of the events of the 20th century.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Skippy Granola posted:Man this game is neat but I find it pretty disingenuous for Battlefield to be talking about the global tragedy of war. Especially since every other battlefield game has been pretty "oo-rah war is great!" Speaking of being tone-deaf, I quite like this kind of WWI-as-horror treatment in games and movies.  Stuff like Deathwatch. I'd love to see more of this sort of thing being made.I played Necrovision recently in the hopes that it might be in that vein, and it had a promising start, but quickly took a pretty... different direction.  Ainsley McTree posted:The most realistic war game I ever played was operation flashpoint, which, as infantry, was pretty much a "hit the dirt as soon as you see the enemy and hope they shoot your teammates before they shoot you" simulator. I assume the arma series is the same thing but I'm too old to enjoy that kind of game these days, where you spend 30 minutes literally crawling through a forest and then get shot in the head. It's like you're my doppelgänger; I'm exactly the same. Those black-ops missions, wow. Hunched over the computer late at night, squinting into the green glow of the night-vision goggles, crawling through the countryside to avoid patrolling tanks. It was an incredible pay-off when you successfully touched off the bombs you'd silently and painstakingly planted in the enemy vehicle depot or whatever, but man - getting to that point was an ordeal. I don't know that I'd still be able to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Purely as a hypothetical, would you consider a zeppelin attack on London very viable? I've only seen that one video of Battlefield 1 where the Zeppelins attack by daylight; that would end in a bunch of burning Zeppelins very quickly. As for the history, Zeppelins attacked London quite a few times in WW1. Initially London didn't have air defenses (because in a real, non-trivial sense, they hadn't been invented yet) so between 1915 and the middle of 1916 the Zeppelin raiders had a fairly easy time of it. If you want to know more, a few years ago in the AI thread I did a series of posts on German Zeppelins (concentrating on the Naval Zeppelins) in World War 1. The first post links to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
The German Imperial navy in the first year of the war did a few ballsy attacks and shelled some coastal towns and villages too. I am quite surprised they didn't do a map dedicated towards the Zeebrugge Raid.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
One of the few things I have no plans to cover in the multiplayer with a dedicated video is cavalry. I made a compilation video that shows all horsies have to offer in BF1. Picking the horse as a spawn point gives you a unique class that has more health, two light anti-tank grenades and both bandage packs and ammo pouches and a sword as a melee weapon. You can use all that equipment from the back of the horse and if you jump off you gain a pistol as a secondary. If someone who is not a horsie officer jumps on an abandoned horse they gain access to all that equipment for as long as they are on the horse. I suck shooting things from horseback and so end up doing a lot of slicing and running over of people. Worth noting: if you cut someone down from the back of the horse they are still revivable by a medic, or at least sometimes they are. Melee kills are supposed to lock the ability to revive the victim, but it appears to be tied to the melee kill animations playing. If there is no animation then there is no "real" melee kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
 Our first full level has us taking total control of a landship. I try to express this a bit in the video, but you don't get this kind of control driving one in the multiplayer, instead you get a Heavy Machine Gun or tank killer gun in a very limited view range and have to rely on the side gunners to keep you from being completely destroyed by anything. Sad to say, most players would rather do the gunning equivalent of eating paste in these seats than be useful, so landships often end up being points pintas for heavy tanks and the Assault class. That's too bad because Landships can be totally terrifying due to their larger health pool and two side guns, it's completely possible to have a landship fight and win against two other armored enemies and win with some smart play by all inside the landship. On to the level: I think this is a pretty great introduction to Bess and her various difficulties. Yeah, she's completely wrecking things when stuff is going well, but if there are problems she's a huge goddamn target. Tanks in WWI in general are a neat topic as they were one of the new inventions of the war. It's kind of impressive how fast they went from not being a thing to being introduced. It took a bit over a year from the first design meetings to having tanks roll across No Mans Land for the first time. By the end of the war the UK went through some stage of production and/or development on ten "Marks" of tank. As the game depicts, the things were just not super reliable at any stage of the war and tended to monoxide their crews at times. There isn't much of that latter fact represented in the game as it would be sort of bad if you just died suddenly because the exhaust wasn't venting properly. The level itself has the potential to drag on a bit, mostly due to the time it takes to repair the tank internally and the need to be reasonably sure you aren't walking into an orchestra of field guns when you round a corner. As you can see in the video, they are everywhere. That is something you have to watch out for over the entire War Story as a field gun will take off a good amount of your health and if you happen to also be facing another tank or enemies with anti-tank grenades you can be in a bad way. For that reason it pays to be careful in the tank, but still, the feeling of invulnerability is difficult to deny for most of the mission. You do get the sense of being a Juggernaut, crushing anything laid before you. Germans fold faster than the Flash at an Origami contest, walls tumble over when you drive into them and entire structures crumble in a single shot from the cannons. If nothing else the game gives you a sense that Bess can wreck poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
My only real issue with their depiction of the Mk. IV is the tank being treated as having a single gun that needs to be reloaded between shots, when in fact it should have prioritized whichever one could hit the target from that side so you could keep shooting from both sides. I think the machine gun is likewise depicted as a "single" gun for the purposes of shooting. Overall the weird battleship-like tank ends up controlling like a regular WW2 or modern tank with a 180 degree firing arc instead of 360.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:My only real issue with their depiction of the Mk. IV is the tank being treated as having a single gun that needs to be reloaded between shots, when in fact it should have prioritized whichever one could hit the target from that side so you could keep shooting from both sides. I think the machine gun is likewise depicted as a "single" gun for the purposes of shooting. Overall the weird battleship-like tank ends up controlling like a regular WW2 or modern tank with a 180 degree firing arc instead of 360. Well, it wasn't really 360, was it? There were a good few degrees unreachable at front and back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Best way to simulate a western front ww1 game is probably some kind of survival game instead of a straight out fps game. Basically most of the time you would be more just looking for stuff to survive like if food wasnt coming to the front youd have to find rats or shoot the messangers horse. Disease would be an issue too. Random events could be gas attacks, artillery fire which would lead to the opposing side forces doing a pointless attack where they all die and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
I do like this chapter for some of the crew dynamic, yet it is slightly cliched but it is still pretty cool to get a crew a little bit more ethnically varied now the usual bland copy and paste English soldier stereotypes we've seen in media before. I can even sort to relate to the crew as I had a relative on my mothers grandmothers side of the family who was a tank crewman who got poisoned by the crude monster of those engines. He was a Irishman too. I feel myself in the prototype of the single player some levels were possibly shared between certain characters, the ones with the longer more open world bits especially. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a few characters and campaign stuff on the cutting floor now. Also, god drat those field guns. For the codex entry you have to hunt down all 35 of the things so if your doing that hope you got a good memory because if not, your going to be using a guide and getting very intimate with Mud & Blood part 1. Iretep posted:Best way to simulate a western front ww1 game is probably some kind of survival game instead of a straight out fps game. Basically most of the time you would be more just looking for stuff to survive like if food wasnt coming to the front youd have to find rats or shoot the messangers horse. Disease would be an issue too. Random events could be gas attacks, artillery fire which would lead to the opposing side forces doing a pointless attack where they all die and so on. You lost me on the other half going straight into over the top WW1 misery porn, soldiers usually had just enough to eat. It was the people (especially on the Central Powers) on the homefront that were just on the edge of starvation. It got so bad the general defending Vienna had to have his soldiers hijack a grain barge to prevent the starvation of the city. Eating horses wouldn'r because they were barely getting fed themselves.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Any interest in hearing a bit about family stories in this thread? I did some genealogical research recently and discovered that, not only did I have ancestors fighting on both sides of the war, I was able to get ahold of some of their service records. Spoilers: the French-Canadian one, who was a volunteer, had a pretty horrible time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 14:41
|
|
David Corbett posted:Any interest in hearing a bit about family stories in this thread? I did some genealogical research recently and discovered that, not only did I have ancestors fighting on both sides of the war, I was able to get ahold of some of their service records. Spoilers: the French-Canadian one, who was a volunteer, had a pretty horrible time. Go ahead and post, feel free to share the stuff in the goon ask and tell milhist discussion thread. Anything that stops the eventual return to WW2 is welcomed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
The battles seem awfully skillfully coordinated for ww1.  The pigeon bit was pretty neat, but the precision of the artillery was just silly. Not to mention the ludicrous luck involved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 14:57
|
|
