I was about to say

Now this tells you how special this video is. For it was a sign of estranged destiny that such things would happen. Guess this means we require more videos on this from you (and some more Combat Team and maybe a edited scenario that makes said game feel quite WW1 ish or forces a WW1 situation but in WW2)

another problem with ww1 from a game/sim perspective is that many that know more than the laymen about the tactics still see it as basically ww2 but with less toys

@@matthiuskoenig3378 That's a good point actually, and I've never really thought of it that way. I get why no one wants to make such a game, and suspect the market for it would be tiny, but we can all dream!

It's strange because the operation is often regarded as an abject failure yet Haig achieved a lot of what he wanted to achieve.

@@andreass2301 I await ‘Combat Mission: Somme To Amiens’, though I doubt we’d ever get it sadly

Sure, maybe 60s historians went intoo hard on the futility of the Somme, but this reads like cope. The Somme's original goals were not met at all. The Western Allies did not gain any initiative. Huge casualties were spent for very little gain. The German army managed to spare massive reserves to basically single-handedly stop the Brusilov offensive while all this was happening. And, let's be clear, the Germans and Austrians were faced with an entirely new front (Romania) in the middle of these dual offensives--and not only did they stave off Romania, but basically conquered it wholesale by the end of the year.

Yeah. Aiming for more detail on that in the next one.

Hah, might have to finally unfuck their janky ass fortification/trench system first.

Play CM:FI as Italy vs Italy, infantry only

that sounds good in theory but how to make a ww1 game that will actually be interesting for the typical modern day gamer is the real issue

@@d.c.6065 Think the main issue is that Combat Mission, to put it mildly, doesn't have a very fleshed out field fortification system.

@@mcsmash4905 Early war, Eastern Front, Tannenburg, Bellau Wood, possibly even the theatres outside Europe...there's lots of potential scenarios outside of Western Front trench warfare scenarios. Even within the context of trench warfare, the game could explore the very significant differences between the different stages of the war. Early trench warfare (when everyone was still figuring things out), then the massive gains made during the Spring Offensive, then finally modern-ish mechanized warfare with British and French tanks. Lots of room for variety.

Do love a bit of Blackadder. It's just a pity that it entrenches some of the mythology.

It's on the cards, but I want to get modern warfare out of the way first.

I think you are talking about Ernst Jungers, Storm of steel.

Oh, no worries man! Glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks very much! The WW1 videos were part of a quick run-through of the development of modern warfare, for now with the War Room I'm hopping about history a bit, but for sure WW1 will pop up again!

Somewhat. Tanks are an immature technology at this stage so to some extent the Entente could afford to devote resources to them while the Germans couldn't. Even then, they were still mechanically unreliable and too few in number to be a game changer. That- and what happened in 1918- is another video though ;) Maybe two.

Yeah, little mistakes like that are going to creep in. As long as people know what I mean I'm ok with it.

@@usuallyhapless9481 Doesn't help that they basically switched names in the rematch.

Yep. Those are grenade buckets. To begin with at least, grenadiers (or bombers for the Brits) were on the specialist side so, not everyone carried grenades. As to the mechanics, pretty much everything was tried but I suspect that in bombing teams there were bombers to actually throw the greandes and bomb bucket carriers to lug them around.

So to help with this. Yup those are Bombers (essentially grenadiers) who were specially trained to grenade trench lines and break them up for the assault teams - other objectives would be grenading MG, Mortar, bunker and dugouts. Note these lads just weren’t “anyone” but were usually quite experienced and strong lads who had previous backgrounds in throwing sports or competitions (I.e. they may have been the bowlers at cricket, or stone throwers, etc) As for why centre around them. It mainly fell on the structure of the British platoon at the time - separate sections to achieve different activities. I.e. the machine gun section suppressed the enemy trench as the men advanced on it; the bombers tossed in the grenades to separate the defenders and cause confusion and casualties; the assault team went in with the rifle and bayonet to take the trench and begin to sweep the line; the bombers and machine guns would follow with the machine guns creating a overwatch and fallback position and the bombers going between positions blowing dugouts and mgs. As such keeping each man concentrated on his sections job meant you didn’t have each section getting to split up over several trench sections or having to split up sections to do multiple jobs. Essentially it was a help for officers and NCOs to better and easily coordinate men under their command who didn’t have the same military structure and experience as the regulars. - and you can guess as the war went on and the green turned to regulars and veterans more advanced unit tactics began being initiated as the men following them now had the knowledge and experience to understand said instructions.

Vimy Ridge is a strong contender ;)

I actually have no idea exactly where I got it from- I think I must have stumbled on it during a google image trawl and saved it before I lost it. This might be a good bet though: maps.nls.uk/view/101464801 Not quite what you're after I think, but might be a map from that site with the right details.