Will we ever see an ultra realistic World War 1 game/sim?

Battlefield 1...

383654526
(you)

>>383654431
When we discover time travel

>>383654431
No.

It was a boring, horrifying war full of sitting in trenches shooting at people in other trenches in between dying horrible agonizing deaths from chemical weapons and dying of trench foot and other terrible diseases.

They had to change so many details for Battlefield 1 because there's not much of anything fun about it. There was no glory in WW1. Just a bunch of death and pain.

>>383654431
We don't really see any ultra realistic game/sims at all.

File: 1499615693762.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>383654431

Did you thinking getting killed by mortars in BF3 was fun? That's pretty much what an accurate WWI game would be like, sit in trench and hope artillery doesn't land on you. Then the rest of the game would be camping because we all know how charging across the field went.

There's Rise of Flight, that's about as realistic as you're going to get.

A WW1 sub sim would be a pain in the ass, trying to calculate torpedo trajectories by hand. At least WW2 subs had rudimentary targeting computers.

>>383654431
Verdun exists

>>383656826
It's probably the most authentic WW1 shooter that exists but it's still a very far cry from "ultra-realistic."

>>383654431
there was nothing fun about WW1. I'm glad I wasn't born during that hellhole of a decade

>>383654431
Hearts of Iron 2 had WWI mode.

>>383654431
Ideally it would be something like the Red Orchestra Series, (or SQUAD even).

but with an engine that both supports large numbers of players and terrain deformation.

>>383654526
BF1, if it were moddable (and custom maps could be made) would be a good candidate, but as it's basically locked down by EA's idiocy I don't think that's ever going to be a possibility.

>>383655783
>never played BF 2142; or any RO game, where there's artillery barrages that can provide cover for your team.

>>383656826
>>383657247
Verdun has it's issues.

from a weird class/squad system (apparently they were trying to go with a more RTS-ish approach).

the Unity engine and really small dev-team sort of shows itself in the gameplay to a degree.

the lack of terrain destruction is disappointing.

>>383656241
>At least WW2 subs had rudimentary targeting computers.
AMERICAN ones did. Nobody else had decent ones.

>>383659658
Bluedrake go away

>>383654526
People shit on it, but the Italian campaign was 10/10

File: 1496623144540.jpg (97KB, 809x792px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 809x792px

>>383654786
oh look mommy! I didn't give him the (you)! Even though anyone can blatantly see that you've given him one, you're just messing with the site's functionality at this point you faggot

all the other posters have mentioned it, but trench warfare fucking sucked. stay in your rainy trench for hours, contract diseases from the abhorrent hygiene situation, and wait until either you die because of a mortar strike or because you were gunned down during the dash through no-man's land

File: 1499450438544.jpg (224KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 780x520px

>383662351
>Being this triggered after being denied a (you).

>>383661929
not bluedrake, just find myself aligning with some of his opinions with regards to how a ww1 FPS should be.

>>383654431
Verdun is pretty good, far from ultra-realistic though. Rising Storm / Red Orchestra 2 is pretty good also, despite it being set in WW2.

>>383654431
It would have to be something other than the eastern front.
Lawrence of Arabia would be fun.

>>383662412
Also mustard gas and other chemical warfare was declared so abhorrent that chemical warfare tactics are basically a war crime now.

And in those days even if you got (somewhat) lucky by only getting 1 bullet stuck in you, those days bullets still had lead in them, so you basically got lead poisoning and a nasty infection almost always resulting in amputation, and then infection of the stump due to the hygiene problems at medical camps.

Everybody died in horrific ways.

@383662351

Someone's thirsty for (You)s.

>>383654431
An ultra-realistic World War 1 sim would be a fucking bore and this is coming from someone who studies WW1 for fun.

>>383654431
Where you wait in the mud for weeks on end and die of an infection or where you charge a machine gun with 50 other guys and get cut down instantly?

>>383654431
An ultra realistic World war I game would be boring as fuck or turn into a horror game if you're patient enough

>Sit in a trench for hours on end hoping the enemy pops out a head
>Get vaporized by enemy artillery
>Maybe if you're lucky you get to charge the enemy trench and get killed by MG fire
>Or if you're really lucky die by a gas attack

Daily reminder that the Central Powers were the good guys.

>>383662412
I think that's a very unimaginative view. there's ways to make those kinds of gameplay experiences fun.

I mean AoS managed to be fun, though it was severely lacking a deployable MG (instead it had that dumb SMG)

>>383662624
the key things are

>limited number of machineguns per team.
>Machineguns might border on useless until deployed/set up on a surface.

>most units are equipped with standard-issue rifles.

>>383663042
>Ott*man empire
>good guys
literally nah f@m

>>383663042
>Germany Dindu Nuffin to Belgian civilians.
>Ottomans Dindu Nuffin to Armenians.
>Austria-Hungary Dindu Nuffin to Serbian Civilians (even while getting rekt, they basically murdered a bunch of old men, women, children during their idiotic campaign)

File: 1439491463163.jpg (332KB, 500x674px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 500x674px

>>383654431
No. Certain wars simply arn't conducive to fun gameplay. Strictly speaking there might be some extreme 4 year long play by email wargame simulator out there but that's is the best case scenario.

Any shooter would be boring. Any RTS would be unrealistic. Any strategy game would be unrealistic or so impossible to make progress in that it wouldn't be fun to play. To be a functional game requires simplification. To be ultrarealistic requires a level of detail that damages fluid gameplay.

>>383663378
t. buttmad greek

>>383663042
>g*rmans
>t*rks
>good guys
o i am laffin

>>383663426
>greeks
>not just orthodox t*rks
lmao for real right now

>>383663409
you could argue that any "ultra realistic" sim based on any war would be boring though.


I think OP was basically asking for something that wasn't arcade idiocy like Battlefield 1.

File: 1439483166736.jpg (219KB, 1242x961px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1242x961px

>>383664195
In that case I think there is opportunity if you limit scope. Limiting the timespan to just the early war or the Kaiserschlacht could be interesting since there would be a lot more battles in open terrain. Strategy game wise it always feels unrealistic when you have conquered all of france, italy, serbia, and russia by January 1915 as can be done in Commander: The Great War (which otherwise probably has the best balance between realistic and simplified). Limiting the time down to a single year and going week by week or even day by day with the goals being "take these hills" type goals could maybe work. If you make it clear somehow that "yes, taking this hill resulted in a collapse in the Italian front instead of the THIRTEENTH battle of the Isonzo river" then it could have some victory weight to it.

Whether or not these narrowly focused games would sell at all is a totally different issue.

File: 1406393173632.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>383654431

File: Chef.jpg (28KB, 430x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 430x500px

>>383664892
>italy
>attacked by austria
i was confused for a second until i remembered what those dastardly italians had done

>>383663409
A hardcore strategic/operational WW1 wargame would be interesting. I'm sure there's plenty of what-if literature about the subject already, but there's a number of pivotal moments in the war that, if they turned out differently in ways they realistically could have, the conflict might have been entirely different, and trying out these scenarios would be interesting. And I'm not talking about omniscient control in which you could execute creeping barrage tactics with the finesse seen at the end of the war and force the enemy to capitulate before December - the inexperience the troops and commanders had with these tactics should be simulated also - but suppose the high command of the warring nations were competent from and didn't suicide their best troops with Napoleonic tactics from the get-go, planned offensives well enough to exploit breakthroughs before defensive systems were reinforced so as to become effectively unassailable and didn't waste resources on idiotic ventures like the Gallipoli because m-muh navy. And besides 1914 start in which you could try to avoid turning the conflict into a global years long war of attrition, you'd have other starts like trying to win Verdun as Germans or knocking Austria-Hungary out of the war in Brusilov offensive start.

>>383654526
(((You)))

File: flanders.jpg (51KB, 450x305px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 450x305px

>>383665675
There is a boardgame that could work out fairly if translated into ww1 actually. "A Few Acres of Snow" is a kinda dominion-ish deck building strategy game. But part of the strategy of it is investing more and more troops into a siege and being able to judge when its more worthwhile to try to win the siege vs holding off long enough to distract your opponent while you either spread elsewhere or hit him elsewhere. That same principle applied to WW1 could be fun.

Do you invest more into Verdun and hope to win it? Or do you try and give Verdun juuuust enough to keep France on its toes while you build up for a second offense somewhere else now that the lines are thin.

It's also fun to go alt-history be an Easterner. Defend the Alsace-Lorraine while pushing hard against Russia at the start of the war.

File: tanneberg.jpg (51KB, 460x215px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 460x215px

who here hype

File: swastika is difficult.jpg (41KB, 750x825px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 750x825px

>>383655783

>>383662184
>spacemarine in powerarmor
>hipfiring a 40lb mg
>playing as italians

>>383654431

AGEOD game for WW1 was pretty good.
Darkest Hour for WW1 was even better.
Victoria 2, in a sense, covers that as well.

Commander: World at War was decent.
Battlefield of Empires mod for CoH wasn't bad.

As an FPS, Verdun is probably the best that came out so far.

Do people still believe the "WWI IS ALL TRENCH WARFARE" meme?

>>383655079

You know that there are other games genre aside fps, right?
And still, Verdun did it much better than shitfield 1

>>383661529

German ones as well.

>>383669476
What genre is lying still in trenches for days on end and waiting to die of trench foot/cholera?

>>383654431
Ultra realistic would mean waiting in trenches for weeks

>>383655079
this

WW1 was just a horrible war of attrition. The front lines hardly moved for 2 years. No conquest or tactical goals involved.

>>383662412
Most wars aren't exactly exciting for infantry. You just remove the boring part.

>>383662351
I think that was the point.

>>383655079
>There was no glory in WW1. Just a bunch of death and pain.
So like any other war in human history?