Why do people think it's okay to paint WW1 as a super sad war that is totally unique and different to every other war? When in reality it was just the first modern war. The trenches aren't unique, the gas attacks aren't unique, the human wave attacks aren't unique, the stalemate isn't unique, the use of flamethroweres aren't unique. All this shit was done in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's even, literally a repeat of WW1 to the letter. What was unique about WW1 was that it was the first use for a lot of these things, as well as combined arms tactics. So the shock of all this new stuff impacted our cultural psyche's a lot, but people don't realize that a lot of this stuff continued to be used in later wars, it just wasn't new anymore.
I bet you when Battlefield 1 comes out, there will be hordes of dumb faggots complaining it's unrealistic because it isn't a "horror" game where you sit in a trench doing nothing but getting gassed all day. Protip homo, a realistic game about any fucking war ever will have you sitting around all day doing nothing. A realistic Iraq war game will have you sitting in a FOB base all day playing video games or doing sentry duty, a realistic WW2 game will have you standing guard in some small french town doing fuck all as you watch supply trucks drive by. Vietnam, you are doing latrine duty then a 5 hour patrol where nothing happens then you catch malaria.
Yet WW1 is this designated sad war were everyone is obligated to point out all the atrocities of war, since America has taken ownership of every other way in the 20th century of jingo'd them all up, this is all iEurofags and Auscucks have, so by god you will feel bad about this war. You know, It is not okay to just revise history so you can have a dramatic tragedy to virtue signal over how much you hate war. Not even Vietnam was turned into such a pity party of a war than WW1 has been turned into. Muh trenches and muh gas are literally a Euro's version of muh d-day.
Look at these Ausfags riding around fast as fuck in Egypt, jumping over Turkroach trenches and slaughtering with ease.
So depressing and such a sad war of attrition right, oh wait, that's right, one front of a war isn't the entire war, especially a war classed as a world scale war.
So glad battlefield is including the fast paced horseman gameplay as shown in my OP picture.
>>339520403
>A realistic Iraq war game will have you sitting in a FOB base all day playing video games or doing sentry duty, a realistic WW2 game will have you standing guard in some small french town doing fuck all as you watch supply trucks drive by. Vietnam, you are doing latrine duty then a 5 hour patrol where nothing happens then you catch malaria.
>his only military experience are from POGs
toppity kek m8
BF1 will only be good at one thing, being shit
>>339520403
>first modern war
Not really. If we want to get technical, the modern era has been going since ~1500 CE.
In any case, the first "modern war" was arguably the Crimean War (1853-1856) or the American Civil War (1861-1865). Trenches had been used for decades, and human wave tactics for centuries
>>339520851
>tfw you will never drive around raiding Ottoman village garrisons in your brand spanking new armoured car with your britbro mates in 1915.
I hope they include tons and tons of vehicles in BF1, it would be unrealistic to not have vehicles in WW1.
>>339520864
You are actually correct here in that Crimea and US Civil Wars are the first modern era wars, but WW1 was the point where the technology forced tactical changes. So it's like Doom compared to Wolfenstien 3D, to keep it vidya.
>>339520851
Regardless of weather it's shit or not, I just want it to be realistic, so I don't want the whole thing to be fucking trenches, because that is unrealistic.
>>339520403
>Muh trenches and muh gas are literally a Euro's version of muh d-day.
D-Day was the europiean D-Day you disgusting burgerlander.
Or do you just think it was Tom Hanks & Co who landed on the beach?
Look at the sadness and utter desperation in this mans face as he flys around in a plane above the battlefield literally chucking bombs over the side by hand. Truly nothing this horrific has ever happened in war previous or since.
>>339521674
Regardless of the fact that British and Canadians also landed at Gold, Sword and Juno, Americans have made it their own through years of propaganda. Euro's have been cucked out of their own war history, and that is why they cling to WW1 so dearly and go on and on about muh trenches, and ausfags are obsessed with muh gallipoli. It's a national identity thing.
>>339521397
>technology forced tactical changes
You mean the Crimean war? Where bayonet charges were still a thing against machine guns?
Crimean War will always be the first modern war. It made all the tactics they had used for hundreds of years be one obsolete.
This one is from a game (Darkest of Days, a pretty good WW1 and US Civil War shooter) because it was hard to find good pictures of Zeppelins over the battlefront taken from the ground on short notice.
But imagine this giant fucking armoured air barge that acted like an early helicopter in military function, with guys up there with snipers and machine guns and just gunning down people below and dropping bombs by hand as seen in the images above. Armies on the ground would aim their artillery pieces at them to try to shoot them down.
The only thing that was missing was a gramophone playing Senators Son.
>>339521397
>Regardless of weather it's shit or not, I just want it to be realistic, so I don't want the whole thing to be fucking trenches, because that is unrealistic.
No battlefield has ever been realistic. Do you even understand what a realistic battle looks like? Protip it's not running around shooting random people deathmatch style.
>Yet WW1 is this designated sad war were everyone is obligated to point out all the atrocities of war,
Because WW1 is the first time said atrocities were done in massive numbers
Chemical attacks were literally so inhumane that every country agreed not to use them after the war
>>339522716
I know that. What I am saying is because WW1 is the designated feels war, every other fucking pleb things WW1 has to be super fucking realistic, while every other war gets a free pass to be a jingoistic gung ho shooter.
WHy does WW1 have to be a trench simulator? Every fucking WW1 game thread, there is some undereducated fuckwit that prances in and says "But a WW1 game would be boring, all you'd do is sit in a trench doing nohing the whole game" being oblivious to the fact that a realistic game about any war would be that.
Why can't we have a semi realistic WW1 game, where we have all the right weapons and vehicles (early tanks and early SMG's and LMG's) yet still focus on the big battles and skip the in between. I think what BF1 seems to be doing is the right direction, it's the exact same thing everyone did with WW2 and no one had a problem with people skipping over the boring parts of WW2.
>>339522760
>Because WW1 is the first time said atrocities were done in massive numbers
No
>Chemical attacks were literally so inhumane that every country agreed not to use them after the war
No, oh my god, this is the shit I am talking about. Atrocities have been done in massive numbers in fucking every war ever. Nothing was any more worse about WW1 aside from maybe the Somme since it was such a fuckhueg battle.
Chemical attacks were not banned by every country you fucking pleb. Literally learn your history, I said in my very first post that they were used extensively in the Iran Iraq war for example. Hell, Iraqi's literally stuck electrical cables in swampland, and then electrocuted entire armies of Iranians as they tried to pass through. You think atrocities only happened in WW1?
But anon, I don't play video games for the realism
I play video games to escape from real life
>>339524419
You misunderstand, I guess a better word would be authentic. Not realistic. I am arguing against a super realistic portrayal of WW1. Since for some reason WW1 must be realistic at all times unless it's some horror game with demons in the trenches.
What I want is an authentic experience. All the right weapons, the right vehicles, uniforms, etc, but using the magic of gaming, skip all the travelling, waiting, sitting around eating etc, and just do the battles, you know like every other fucking war game on the planet.
Yet nooooooo, plebs insist WW1 shooter must be trench foot simulator. If you did a WW2 game realistically, lets say a realistic version of COD World at War, you'd spend a month on a fucking boat getting sea sick, get off onto an island the marines already took, spend weeks breaking your back doing manual labor making an airfield, then get bitten by a mosquito, get some tropical disease and die shitting your guts out in pain and shame. Yet W&W skips that, puts you as the Marine Raiders, starts you 30 seconds before you land, gives you some top tier weaponry, and has Sherman Crocodile tanks driving past just as you land, and you happen to be the first guy off the LVT and onto the beach and you kill all the Japanese yourself. Highly unrealistic, but authentic stuff for the period, army, theatre etc, and it's fun to play as. There is literally no reason the same cannot be done for WW1. It's these designated sad war faggots stopping it from happening with their trench foot feels brigade.
I can't wait for BF 1 2 where you go repopulate yurop with your BIG BLACK COCK AND THICK NIGGER SEMEN MADE FOR WHITE WOMBS
i love sweden
Because that's how history fucking went, OP.
The Great War started as gentlemen's war, only to turn into a massive horror in which people were dying in fucking droves mostly in ways so stupid, It's unbelievable. I'm not even talking about the trenches. It's all about the lack of any common sense as afar as warfare went.
It's impossible to describe here in a way that you will believe, but WW1 destroyed the West. The more reading you do on it the more you realise how incomprehensibly massive its impact was on the culture of Western European nations.
Prior to WW1 there was incredible optimism about the future. The benefits of the industrial revolution had finally begun to materialise, and technology was allowing for new and marvellous feats every day. People saw a world that was getting better every year. The early 1900s has been called the age of wonder. It was the time of Titanics - of Barnstorming - of the very first skyscrapers - of opening up the Dark Continent. People were still very morality-driven and religious back then, and they connected the technological and quality of life advancements with their spirituality in a way that is totally alien to us today. There was a genuine belief in the "Concert of Europe" and the convergence of rationalism and religion into a perfect order. It lacked the cynicism and "witty" barbs that politics today has.
All of that was destroyed by WW1, and the Great Depression and WW2 served to grind it further into dust. This all sounds very romantic, but it's all true. The more you read from that time period the more you see how people connected the improvements they were seeing in their lives with a perpetual grand march of progress and great men like Dr Livingstone who were lighting the way.
World War One destroyed an entire way of seeing the world. It turned us by half into bitter cynics, and what followed did the rest. Nothing in history had such a massive negative impact on the whole goddamn world.
>>339520403
I agree about the sentiments about the war. It was also one of the more idiotic wars out there. Born entirely out of fruitless alliances that made no fucking sense and were simply there out of tradition and not sound policy.
Best part of the war was new introduction of mass produced machine guns, introduction of tanks, and fuck-awesome completley improvised aerial warfare.
Literally just chucking bombs out of the plane by hand and shooting guns attached to the plane haphazardly. The trench shit was fucking retarded. Hence Germany adopting Blitzkrieg just to get around it next time.
>>339525910
Those are the after effects, not the war itself. You admit yourself that WW2 was the same, in grinding western culture to dust (BTW I agree with you on both points, both wars were useless wastes that should never have happened and the west would have been better without having them) yet WW2 still gets fun video games and pretty good action movies made about it.
The only legitimacy about WW1 being different, was that it was the first one that really fucked our culture and way of life up so hard, it was a culture shock. And even then as the other anon said, Crimea and US Civil War were before it, but those were smaller scale wars.
>>339526127
Yeah it was stupid I agree, doesn't mean you can't have a good game about the battles though. There are too many cool inventions and crazy stuff that happened in that war to ignore just because muh feels muh sanctity.
>>339525910
So what happened? What exactly was so horrible that everything was ruined forever?
Don't say Belgium, that shit's made up.
>>339520403
WW1 is a """pity-party""" because it was a completely pointless Imperial war that destroyed Europe, killed millions of people and ended Christianity in Europe. An entire generation of young men was just wiped out in horrendous ways over feet of ground.
>>339525910
It was bound to happen though. It could have been mitigated if Germany hadn't been put into such a shit position afterward or, barring that, hadn't been appeased.
Hell, it could have stopped right at Czechoslovakia or the Sudetenland or hell with simple fucking oversight from anybody. Hitler build a fucking behemoth right under everyone's nose and the Versailles Treaty was essentially toilet paper once they allowed him to walk unopposed into any country he wished.
Switzerland is the reason everything sucks. 'Oh i'll be NEUTRAL no one better enter my territory though or i'll shoot your planes down!'
Fuck the swiss we should of dropped a nuke on them instead of Japan
What drives a nation to be neutral? Lust for gold? Or are they just born that way?
>>339527219
Or Hell, Britain could have just learned from past mistakes and stopped being an imperial warhawk dickhead nation looking for a fight and just let German reclaim it's lost clay. Watch a small regional border dispute war play out and forget about it after a year when it's all over and both Germany and USSR get a little bit bigger.
We would have had no Poland today, but no USSR control over half of Europe and no cold war either (though something similar between Germany and USSR might have happened, or even USA but without all that war time profiteering who knows if they'd even have the money to ascend to super power status so quickly, it might have been a much slower rise to power.)
It takes two to tango, I think Britain is as much at fault for the waste that was WW2 as Germany was. Put shit conditions on a country then start a war 20 years later trying to enforce them still. Should have just fucked off.
>>339527201
These are the results and surrounding situations. How does this stop someone making a game about British and Australians fighting the Ottomans for example? There is no good arguement against making a WW1 shooter in the same vein as the best WW2 shooters.
OP, are you just THAT GUY? You know, the one that always plays devils advocate, always presents contrarian opinions, etc?
Nobody likes you, you're an asshole.
Historians don't make the claims you do about WWI. They simply acknowledge it's brutality and unique combination of technologies meeting on the battlefield.
>>339527970
Swiss were basically germans
>>339528030
>Britain could have just learned from past mistakes and stopped being an imperial warhawk dickhead nation looking for a fight and just let German reclaim it's lost clay.
But that's exactly what they did until Germany took more than half of Europe and had Britain and France by the the throat and a tentative alliance with the fucking USSR.
If anything they should have been warhawk as fuck and never allowed Germany one footstep into the Sudetenland. Shut it down before it becomes a problem which it did.
>>339527970
It was a smart move on their part. Did they even lose any Jews? I don't think they even had an agreement with Germany on any level.
>>339528725
They turned away anyone fleeing Germany on grounds of race, religion, or creed.
Basically they fucked over a lot of people.
>>339528839
Well, fuck. Far less than neutral then. Oh well.
>>339528408
>a few former areas of the old German Empire
>half of Europe
Nah. Hitler was reclaiming some lost clay, getting some pride back. All the invasions of the low countries, Norway and Denmark, that was after war had already been declared, that was pre emptive strike denial of area type of invasions. Gotta take them otherwise Britain will and then then use it as an airbase.
We could argue about motivations for years, but what we do know from facts is that before war was declared he'd done nothing but reclaim former German clay that was given away by the allies after WW1. I think Britain should have just fucked off and let them be, let Hitler go get his path through Poland into Konigsberg like he wanted, get back some old Prussian core lands and that's it.
Any stuff that came afterwards like disputes between Hitler and Stalin is none of Englands business. And for Britian to declare war on Germany, but not USSR, and then to ally with USSR later on too was pretty bullshit and reeks of warhawking and imperial interests. Britain has always seen Germany as a huge threat it it's empire.
>>339528367
I am not denying it's brutality, I am denying it's uniqueness as as "sad war". Every way is sad. I did acknowledge it was a very early mixing of old war tactics and new war tech though, but that is no reason not to make a game about WW1.
>>339529231
>Hitler claims fucking Norway
>he's a good boy, muh old German Empire
Plz, no. He was pushing outward. Pushing buttons he knew to push. Getting under Britain's skin. He wanted war and he knew how to do it.
You'd have Britain just let an alliance between a huge chunk of Europe plus the USSR just go unaddressed? Are you Neville's ghost in internet form? Plus, declare war on the USSR? For fucking what? Existing? They're not pushing at anyone's borders at that point. They're just existing and Hitler turned on them anyway.
>>339531062
>Plus, declare war on the USSR? For fucking what?
For invading Poland, the thing they declared war on Germany for, who was Germany's ally.
This whole "Hitler wanted to take over the whole world" think is retarded and I don't believe it for a second. If you just think about the logistics and manpower needed for that only an idiot would even attempt to try to take all of Europe let alone the world.
>You'd have Britain just let an alliance between a huge chunk of Europe plus the USSR just go unaddressed?
Yeah. I've never liked the world Hegemon, weather it be Britain, USA or anyone else. I like Putin today because he challenges American supremacy on the world stage. I don't think Britain had any reason to meddle in the affairs of other nations like it did except for world policing, empire building and selfish imperialism. If it's some asshole dictator who challenges the hegemon, then so be it.
Do you think Bush 43's Iraq war was justified because Bush 41 made Saddam sign some deal about weapons inspectors and if he didn't let them in whenever USA wanted, it gave them cassus belli for war? Or do you think it's just a bullshit pretext for more warhawking, world policing and imperialism? I don't think treaties and deals like this should hold for more than a single administration, certainly not a whole government system change. Otherwise you'd have one nation controlling anothers destiny for thousands of years because of some victory in a war long forgotten. Nations and the people in them should have the right to self determination. Versailles treaty was fucked from the outset and was a huge cause for the war and the blame lies on France and Britain. The new borders were fucked, you gonna give Germany an exclave in another country and expect them to not want to connect it back to the mainland. Fucken retards. You know Sudentenland was majority German populated anyways and the local populace were happy that they were apart of Germany again.
>>339527219
>>339528030
What was wrong with the treaty of Versailles I'm genuinely curious?
>>339533245
A short answer is it was extremely incredibly harsh, and half of it was just France getting revenge and being petty as fuck. It ended up being a source of unrest and hurt pride for the German people for an entire generation, and it directly gave rise to Hitler and is a huge reason why WW2 happened. If the treaty had been more reasonable and humane, WW2 would have never happened and Germany would not have been put in the position it was that caused them to elect Hitler in the first place. The treaty is acknowledged as being so bad, and is widely regarded as a leading cause for the war, that every successive treaty at the end of every war since then now takes this into account, and it's why America now tries to nation build and help a defeated nation, instead of trying to Jew it out of billions of dollars for reparation money like Britain and France did. It fucked the economy so bad with hyper inflation, there were points that 1 US dollar was worth trillions of German money.
A longer answer you should just research it yourself, the number of fucked up things about the treaty is unbelievable.
>>339532719
Hitler's goal was never to conquer europe, but to subjugate all of it in some way, shape, or form.
For example, look at Norway. Sure there was military action, but largely it turned over based on mutual self-interests. Norway had strategic resources that Germany needed, was Germanic, and Norwegians were kinda indifferent. They didn't like it, but they knew it was better than fighting.
Norway is a perfect example of what Hitler hoped he could mold Europe with. Self-interests and money leading to an empire. An empire by the sword cannot stand on its own. This is why he was so successful in twisting local, regional, and national politics in foreign countries.
The USSR is an anomaly. It really was not a strategic decision, as it was one based on principle. He knew he would have to deal with them eventually. It might as well have been a sneak attack. He knew that the USSR/Stalin was going through serious purging.
>>339534509
I wont deny that Hitler probably wanted Germany to replace Britain as world Hegemon. But the fact he was the underdog compared to Britain who was the title holder makes me root for Germany more. I don't like super powers or hegemons as I said before, a balance of power is better. The west has always had 2 or 3 big powers competing against each other until very recently when the USSR collapsed. This American Supremacy is terrible, cold war is preferable even.
I'm not a Euro so I don't have any national or regional bias about the area, and what nation controls what area doesn't effect me and I don't care beyond historical and academic arguments about rights and such. If Germany had managed to subjugate Europe with the coin and mutual interests, I think I would have preferred that over 50 years of communism ruining eastern Europe, and then an even longer period of time of Americanization of the rest of western europe.
>>339533965
Interesting thanks, any recommended reading on the subject?
