Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hello again.

So, another fan of the great Warfare 1917, eh?

Say what you will, but the CA have probably been overwhelmed like heck from all the "suggestions" coming from interested reviewers (myself included), so they are probably a bit tired of it by now.

Anyway, I concur with you on the Upgrades, as WWI was a period of constant and drastic innovation. However, some of your other suggestions may not work as well.

1. By 1917, both sides had been groping around how to break trenches using mainly Infantry and artillery. As several examples have shown (for instance, the infamous Pre-Somme bombardment), it was not easy to work with infantry on the ground while having the heavy guns shelling in the vicinity. In the past, this led to the calling off of barrages early, to allow the troops to move in, in theory allowing them to pounce on a disoriented enemy without taking friendly fire from their own support.

However, as several instances demonstrated (again, 1st Day of the Somme is a sterling example), the theory did not exactly mesh well with what actually happened. For example, the Germans on the Somme were able to come up out of their dugouts to man the parapets and inflicted considerable (to put it lightly) damage on the exposed Western Allied infantry moving up . While- believe it or not- the Western Allies recovered from that, it was still not something they wanted to be repeated.

Eventually (and here we finally get to the relevant stuff), the evolution of the "Creeping Barrage" and Artillery Zoning meant that the prolonged and largely ineffective barrages ala the Somme gave way to blisteringly intense but short volleys to cut the wire, clean a path for the Infantry and Armor, and to keep the enemy's head down. This meant that the "groundpounders" had to actually be on the move DURING the barrage to prevent the enemy from getting a breather. As a result, friendly-fire issues became more pronounced, but the effectiveness of the strategy meant that these were tolerated.

So, in short, it is porbably historically accurate to have the troops have issues with the Arty barrages. Perhaps there should be a "common sense" switch to minimize it, but, other then that, I don't see much to do about it.

2. The buildings on the one side COULD be good, make no mistake about that, but it would depend on what you intend to use them for, and how they function. Needless to say, they would hardly be full-blooded "buildings", as (to state the obvious) No Man's Land was shelled to pieces, and so were most of the above-ground facilities. THe only truly realistic place for those would be on the war sides of the campaign field (as opposed to the battlefield) to represent the Western Allied and German rear facilities, as anywhere else would be right in the middle of No Man's Land (remember, it is worth noting that, IRL, the Campaign would represent the player's force attacking layer after layer of defensive works with little rest in between!) .

However, if by buildings you mean "Dugouts" or "Bunkers," then you may be on to something. The trenches of the Western front were rather well established by this time, and were quite complex. So it is quite likely that each trench line, be it Allied or German, would have some of the same facilities, which would allow the conquerer to use them. So it could be done, though fuction would have to be hashed out.

3. The main problem with having the US as a playable nation is that it was involved for a rather short amount of time in an actual combat role before the German capitulation. Granted, this short duration is partially offset by largess (the US fielded over a million soldiers on the Western Front by the end of the war, with more on the way), but it would still be a pain to plan out.

The three most plausible ways I could imagine this playing out would be:

1. 1910-1918:, starting with Amero-German conflicts for domination of Latin America that resulted in conflicts like the occupation of Santo Domingo, the Seizure of Veracruz, and the Pancho Villa expedition- basically prolonged conflicts with local factions supplied by the Germans- eventually ballooning into climatic and total war between the two that ends in 1918.

2. 1917-19??: as late as a few months before the German capitulation, nobody expected WWI to end when it did. It was only after the defacto disintigration of the German military on the field, brutal and widespread mutinies after a Naval uprising at Kiel, and the OHL (German military dictatorship)'s increasingly fanatical plans for an Apocalyptic Endkampf that the Civilian leadership- disillusioned and surrounded on all sides- went over the military's head to capitulate. Had they not, the Western Allies would have probably been forced to push Germany out of France and the Low Countries, conquer the Western Bank of the Rhine, Cross it, and force their way across Germany- all while facing increasingly fanatical and doomed German resistance.

To get a picture of this, imagine the fall of the Third Reich spun back thirty years, with the might of the Soviet Union replaced by endangered Polish nationalists, vastly weaker airforces, no paratroopers, smaller and less reliable armor, and weaker mobility, and you can get something of an estimate.

This is the campaign that Wilson thought he was going to have to wage when he began to churn out a massive war machine and a million-man AEF. Fortunately, he did not have to face it. But what if it happened differently?

And, Finally,

3: 1910-19??: Combination of the two above.

In any event, the US is probably not a major focus of any ramp-up. More promising leads by far would be more British and German campaigns, the French, the Italians, the Belgians, British Imperial troops (ANZACs, Canadians, etc) Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Balkan War antagonists.

In other words, not likely to happen, as there are bigger fight to fry in all due likelyhood (though, to e fair, it is possible, as the AEF would only need Voice changes and some minor alterations from the Brits to work).

And, before you ask, YES, I am obsessed.