SirRodneyOfGout
Posts: 41
Joined: 6/28/2004 Status: offline
|
Actually WW1 was as much about the development of tactics, if not more so, than WW2. All the new technology - machine guns, long range artillery, tanks, aircraft, submarines, etc. - required development of new tactics to make good use of. In WW2 those tactics continued to be refined as the weaponry evolved. The stereotypical image of a stalemated, stuck in the mud Western Front often obscures the realities of the war. IMHO, most gamers are more interested in WW2 partly because of the perception that WW1 was largely a stalemate: a static attrition exercise. This wasn't at all true, even on the Western front. In 1914 and again in 1918 there were dynamic battles and large scale manuevers in France and Belgium. And the other fronts, the East in particular, were never stalemates (at least for very long). After all, the Germans in 1917 managed to do what Napoleon and later Hitler's vaunted panzers were never able to do, defeat Russia. I don't think the UV / WitP model can be compared to a strategic WW1 game. Not just an apples to oranges comparison; more like bananas to watermellons due to the very different nature of the warfare being simulated. And the styles of the respective developers, Gary Grigsby and Frank Hunter, are also very different, given the games they have previously made. Have you ever played Frank's American Civil War game (aka Road from Sumter to Appomatox)? It might give a better idea of the 'flavour' of GoA.
_____________________________
"Consult the book of armaments!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
|