But why exactly WWI?
Well, I have a serious interest in the causes, events and the consequences of the First World War. I've studied it in great detail over the span of decades. For simplicity's sake, here's a short summary of "why," then:
Because unlike simply flipping the calendar over to a new page on January 1, 1901, the Great War was the
true beginning of the 20th Century.
That conflict was the first true modern, industrialized war.
It was the first truly global war.
And because the unprecedented horrors of that war cast a
very long shadow over the
entire remainder of the 20th Century. The stresses of the war shattered the three huge monarchies of central and eastern Europe --
Imperial Russia, the
Second Reich, and the
Austro-Hungarian Empire -- while also dragging the world-spanning
British Empire uncomfortably close to the brink of economic ruin, becoming significantly indebted to the United States. These events led straight to:
the Russian Civil War;
the victory of Communism and the rise of the Soviet Union;
the fall of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey;
Western involvement in oil-producing nations of the Middle East;
and the future seeds of WW2.
This had a massive direct impact upon the lives of many hundreds of millions of people, as well as a cumulative impact into the future upon the entire world as a whole.
Almost by default, this major reshuffling of the most powerful nations catapulted the United States onto the world's stage as a major power for the first time. That role is one it would continue to occupy in ever-increasing size until the present day.
...So, let's just say that there's A LOT at stake in this war,
regardless of which way the end result rolls.
With specific regards to combat:
Yes, the Western Front was a deadlocked fiasco. It didn't necessarily
have to be that way, which is why I want a detailed strategic simulation to explore other possibilities. If in 1914 the French had perhaps not been so blinded by wanting revenge for losing Alsace and Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War 44 years before, a concentration of their forces in the north instead of far to the east & the lost provinces on the eve of WW1 would have
seriously impeded Germany's "Schlieffen Plan". That plan was basically for a rapid invasion of France through neutral Belgium, capturing Paris with a knockout blow and a total French surrender in the West before redeploying the army to the East in order to rip apart Russia's armies.
You know, the easy part is creating all those shining graphics.......
Remember, I'm wanting a broad-scope simulator. Not a battalion-level or even regiment-level game, so tactics will be completely abstracted into the background. I'm talking about a
grand strategic-level game. Graphics could be as simple as a game of
RISK for all I would care
:
.....well, okay,
not quite as simple a GUI as a game of RISK, but you get my point. For example, a boardgame doesn't have a zoom function, and my game would need a very powerful zoom.
As long as the gameplay is strongly rooted in the historical realities of the Great War
without being completely imprisoned by them, and also provides me a full economic, manpower and construction simulation as well as all the large-scale campaigns, I'd be absolutely thrilled with it.
[-runs out of steam, looks around him-]
Sorry for the partial threadjacking.
Author
Topic: If you had the computer specs and money, what games would you get? (Read 6265 times)