Ok, what I meant was being that you seem to read up on history alot, give us a brief lesson in the hundered years war so that we can discuss how that could be a good Warfare sequel. Most people are not going to look at the links.
Appearances can be decieving. Am I a WWI/WWII History buff? Absolutely. Am I historian? No, and I'm therefore not competent enough to 'teach' about any subject. Ergo, I put up the links.
And there doesn't have to be any interest in the 'Hundred Years' War' for the game to be successful. My friend has no interest in the military, or shooting a gun, but he enjoys playing CoD. So people just have to enjoy the game, and they'll play it.
What about Warfare 1944: Pacific Theatre? It could have alot of the things 1944 had, but take the player through some of the major battles as the war progressed like the Phillipines, Guadalcanal and Okinawa (sp?).
I thought about that too, but then I thought of something else: Warfare 1944. You'd have the US v. Imperial Japan, but you already had a US v. Wehrmacht. So the game would feel the same, because you'd have much of the same stuff. It'd be fun, but I don't think it'd be as popular over the longrun.
I'm going to repeat again that I don't think that the details of how the battles were fought, who had the advantage, what weapons were used by what side, etc are important.
Ask any RTS player, and they'll tell you, accuracy is very important. Its the attention a developer gives to those subtle details that makes the game good, or great. Con has paid that attention, and the Warfare games are fantastic. And I can think a large amount of people would notice if there were consistent inaccuracies throught a game. It shows that the developer doesn't care about paying attention, and doesnt care about the happiness of his support.
Warfare 1917 was guys hopping in and out of trenches. As the game progressed, machine gunners, mortar, artillery and tanks were introduced. It was a simple game.
My strategy for Warfare 1917: Fill a trench with assault men. When full, launch them at the enemy trench. If they succede, have them hold the trench until fresh reinforcements arrived. Them I'd send the assault troops forward, again.
All you had to do for Warfare: 1917 was just continually create units, and keep sending them forward. Warfare: 1945, with its 3-aisle system, allowed for a much more indepth strategy. You had to hold down your flanks, hold the middle, advance, attack, guard your attacking units flanks, watch out for over extension, and then dodge enemy mortars, artillery, and airplanes. It made a funner game, and a more challenging one, because you actually had to think, rather than just exersise your finger spam-clicking a unit.
As Con said in the
ArmorBlog:
Gameplay has been overhauled giving a more strategic and in-depth experience than that of the first game. New unit types, support mechanics and the new cover system will dramatically change the way the Warfare series is played.
The game is Warfare 1917- It's Brittain vs Germany. Brittain entered the war earlier than 1917, Germany fought other countries than the Brits.
Most flash game players are American. The US entered the war in 1917, so thats just a subliminal marketing thing. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy.
Mav, you are more than welcome to weigh in, you DO have the right to post here, just stay on topic or you're done.
Tu quoque?
1) I have stayed on topic. One could argue that you yourself have not stayed on topic, what with your ad homs and such.
2) You have no authority to tell me I'm done, which would imply that I don't have the right to post here.
