You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General and Strategy Discussions
Moderated by GoSailing

Hop to:    
loginhomeregisterhelprules
Bottom
Topic Subject: Let them die for THEIR country!!
posted 10-27-03 04:27 PM EDT (US)   
The Patton Campaign was very enjoyable. I found myself wanting to finish a map just so I could listen to Patton. Whoever did the voice of patton and wrote the script should get an award. The only frustration I had with the campaign was with some of the unit pathing. I liked the Epilogues at the end, it made me feel I was actually playing a game and learning history at the same time. Good Job SSSI for delivering a great product.
Replies:
posted 10-27-03 06:54 PM EDT (US)     1 / 28  
presicly
posted 10-27-03 07:38 PM EDT (US)     2 / 28  

Quote:

I liked the Epilogues at the end, it made me feel I was actually playing a game and learning history at the same time.


Interesting to learn about how Patton fought Rommel and how Italy invented the atomic bomb, huh? No offense, and nothing bad about the great campaign, but it's fictional.

So if you, after having played this campaign, have seized to believe that it was the Manhattan Project that led to the invention of the atomic bomb, I suggest you go hit the books.

Midgard Eagle


Woad Creations veteran, WiC junkie

[This message has been edited by Midgard Eagle (edited 10-27-2003 @ 07:39 PM).]

posted 10-27-03 07:41 PM EDT (US)     3 / 28  
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. --General G. C. "

posted 10-27-03 08:23 PM EDT (US)     4 / 28  
Patton never fought Rommel? He was in France for a while before the assassination attempt thing, wasn't he?

Just because a man is born in a stable it doesn't make him into a horse
posted 10-27-03 10:29 PM EDT (US)     5 / 28  
To be honset, I don't know for sure. But I got the impression that he didn't, as there have been some discussion on these forums on what would happen if Patton ever fought Rommel.

What I do know for sure, though, is that Italy weren't conducting tests of atomic bombs in 1944 (see the introductory cutscene).


Woad Creations veteran, WiC junkie
posted 10-27-03 11:20 PM EDT (US)     6 / 28  
"Interesting to learn about how Patton fought Rommel and how Italy invented the atomic bomb, huh? No offense, and nothing bad about the great campaign, but it's fictional."

Midguard you act like a arrogant prick. I never said that everything in the campaign is factual but alot of it is. If you would like to become more educated about Patton I would suggest you go to this website:

http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html

1. Patton did fight in N. Africa and Rommel was the Primary commander of the German corps there, so they did fight.

2. The Germans were working on a Nuclear program. Everything in the campaign about this, I am sure is pure speculation.

posted 10-28-03 08:04 PM EDT (US)     7 / 28  
I have had that quote in my sig for a long time! Lol

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - General George Patton
posted 10-28-03 09:14 PM EDT (US)     8 / 28  
Ah, Midgard, Midgard... ye of little faith!

To start: I did the research and wrote the stories for the Patton Campaign and the Yi Campaign; Rick and I developed the Richard Campaign together.

Everything in the Patton Campaign is based on accurate history. Unless something was added at the last minute that I don't know about, Patton himself never meets Rommel in the battlefield. This is historically accurate.

What DID happen is that when Rommel broke through the Kasserine Pass, the American 1st Armored Division (commanded by Patton's son-in-law, Lt. Col. John K. Waters), surrendered. Only the British 26th Amoured stood between Rommel and the Allied forward supply dumps. The British wired Patton for help. All he had ready to go was an artillery unit, so he shipped them east pronto. That US artillery (under Patton's command), made it possible for the British to stop Rommel.

This is I believe what's depicted in the scenario.

Next, about the Italian nuclear fission research:

The Italians did in fact discover unstable uranium long before the Manhattan Project. Once the Americans started to develop an A bomb, the man who showed them the way was Enrico Fermi, an refugee Italian scientist from the Via Panisperna Institute.

The Via Panisperna was a group of leading Italian physicists who gathered the top science students in the country to investigate a number of areas of particle physics. They were actually looking for a cure for cancer when they discovered unstable uranium!

When Mussolini joined the Axis, these men fled into hiding or escaped the country, rather than share their work with Hitler. But one of them was never accounted for: Ettore Majorana, known to his students by the nick name : The Great Inquisitor. To this day, the fate of Majorana is a popular mystery in Italy; no one knows if he collaborated with the Nazis or killed himself.

For further reading, I recommend these two links:

Fermi:

http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/welcome/history/08_chicago-reactor.html


Via Panisperna:

http://www.rome-rentals.com/panisperna-boys.htm


[This message has been edited by SSSI_Gordon Farrell (edited 10-28-2003 @ 09:22 PM).]

posted 10-28-03 09:21 PM EDT (US)     9 / 28  
... and Lost Soul: Thank you for your praise of the Patton Campaign! We all labored long and hard the make it the best campaign we could produce. It's really gratifying to hear that people are enjoying it.

And yes, you ARE learning history!!

(Well, except that the subplot about O'Reilly going secretly into Rome is fiction. Patton really was barred from the D-Day operations because he slapped a soldier suffering from shell-shock in Sicily. But think of this like a movie --- we have to take SOME liberties to make sure it's full of surprises!)

I agree with you about the actor playing Patton, too. I just LOVE his confirmation sounds! Damn the consequences! Let them die for their country!

[This message has been edited by SSSI_Gordon Farrell (edited 10-28-2003 @ 11:27 PM).]

posted 10-30-03 06:36 AM EDT (US)     10 / 28  
And Gordo comes out with flying colours

General L. Goobs
Victim of narrow mindedness.
posted 11-02-03 12:41 PM EDT (US)     11 / 28  
Speaking of Patton's voice, btw, he didn't sound anything like George C. Scott. He had a high-pitched voice that tended to crack like a teenager's when he was giving speeches. He is on record in several places saying that he hated his voice. It sounded squeaky and girlish to him.

Here's a wonderful, authentic clip of Patton talking that Hank dug up somewhere when we were working on the Patton campaign:

[MP3]

[This message has been edited by SSSI_Gordon Farrell (edited 11-02-2003 @ 12:51 PM).]

posted 11-02-03 02:29 PM EDT (US)     12 / 28  

Quote:

What DID happen is that when Rommel broke through the Kasserine Pass, the American 1st Armored Division (commanded by Patton's son-in-law, Lt. Col. John K. Waters), surrendered. Only the British 26th Amoured stood between Rommel and the Allied forward supply dumps. The British wired Patton for help. All he had ready to go was an artillery unit, so he shipped them east pronto. That US artillery (under Patton's command), made it possible for the British to stop Rommel.


So we were both right, in a way, I guess.

About the Italians and their unstable uranium: I apologise. I had absolutely no idea of this.


Woad Creations veteran, WiC junkie
posted 11-02-03 08:17 PM EDT (US)     13 / 28  
While the American 1st Armored Division may have withdrawn, retreated, pulled back, got their butts kicked, or whatever from the Kasserine pass, the whole division did not actually surrender.

This website,(below), which claims to be a history of the 1st Armored Division, says it was commanded by General Bruce Magruder. It might be wrong, who knows?

I'm not trying to start an argument. I just never heard of the whole 1st Armored Division ever surrendering.

http://www.1ad.army.mil/History.htm

[This message has been edited by Kingfish17 (edited 11-02-2003 @ 08:18 PM).]

posted 11-03-03 01:43 PM EDT (US)     14 / 28  
Hey Kingfish! First off, thanks for participating in this great discussion. I for one welcome any and all opinions and reactions to my comments. I'm not infallible and hearing from other well-informed people is one of the best ways for me to learn and grow better informed myself. So don't worry vabout "starting an argument"!

With regard to my admittedly "theatricalized" recreation of the battle of Kasserine, you are right in catching me out on two points at least:

Lt. Col. John Waters wasn't the co, though he was a senior officer in the unit with command responsibilities. I did take some "theatrical" license, for the sake of making the script more focussed and dramatic, in unilaterally deciding that he was the commanding officer. So you're certainly right in pointing that out.

With regard to the 1st Armored's performance at Kasserine, my account is in no way meant to be a slight to the brave men who fought and died there. They gave more and did more for this country than I ever have, and we all owe them a tremendous debt. Still, the best place to get an accurate account of what went wrong is probably not the 1st Armored Division's official website . Did the division surrender wholesale? No. Again, I'm guilty of theatrical license in suggesting that it did. However, the battle at Kasserine was a military disaster for Americans that shook the entire Allied effort to its core, and you certainly wouldn't get that impression from the account at their website!

Carlo D’Este, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, reporting on Kasserine in PATTON: A GENIUS FOR WAR, writes:

“At the front, American vulnerability was obvious to the lowest-ranking private soldiers, even if their senior commanders were too remote to grasp the situation. Soldiers possess a marvelous ability to reduce events to their simplest common denominator. And so it was in Tunisia, with an unnamed GI’s pithy observation that, ‘Never were so few commanded by so many from so far away!’

“The penalty for these unsound dispositions was paid in February [1943], when Axis units inflicted disastrous defeats at Sidi-Bou-Zid and Kasserine Pass. Two of von Armin’s veteran panzer divisions surprise-attacked with vastly superior firepower and quickly chewed up units of the 1st Armored Division at Sidi-Bou-Zid... With the Allies unable to contain the powerful panzer forces or to reinforce in time, Sidi-Bou-Zid quickly turned into a first-class military disaster as position after position was attacked and overrun. Farther south a German-Italian battle group of Rommel’s Afrika Korps advanced with little opposition and attacked U.S. forces defending the Kasserine Pass, with equally grave consequences. There the American commander had not bothered to occupy the commanding terrain of the hillsides but instead had deployed his troops across the valley floor ‘as if to halt a herd of cattle.’ It was after Sidi-Bou-Zid that Lt. Col. John K. Waters was reported missing in action…

“Kasserine and Sidi-Bou-Zid were humiliating and disastrous defeats whose results reached far beyond those of a battlefield debacle. American armor and artillery were no match for superior German armaments. Not only were American tactics and dispositions unsound, but once attacked at Sidi-Bou-Zid some troops abandoned their positions and equipment and fled to the rear. It was so bad that Eisenhower’s naval aide wrote in his diary, ‘proud and cocky Americans today stand humiliated by one of the greatest defeats in our history.’”


THE RANDOM HOUSE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD WAR II includes this passage under the entry “Tunisia, Campaign in, 1942-43:”

[Rommel’s] plan was that the U.S. 2nd Corps should be attacked frontally at Sidi Bou Zid in front of the Kasserine Pass, and then in the flank by his own Afrika Korps from Gafsa. The attack was launched on 14 February and inflicted a major defeat on the Americans who broke in several places, and in others were surrounded and obliged to surrender.”

I'm sure it was this last passage which motivated me to have 1st Armored surrender in the script... though I must admit it's really saying that elements of 2nd Corps (of which 1st Armored was a part) surrendered. But it doesn't say specifically that elements of 1st Armored surrendered.

Anybody else have information on this?

[This message has been edited by SSSI_Gordon Farrell (edited 11-03-2003 @ 03:58 PM).]

posted 11-03-03 02:31 PM EDT (US)     15 / 28  
Gordon; you guys have done great job with the map design. I don't care about story much, since I always check out the design

"Especially awe-inspiring is the fact that any single brain is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless stars billions of years ago... These atoms now form a conglomerate – your brain – that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans…the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, is the greatest mystery of all." - Rama
posted 11-03-03 11:58 PM EDT (US)     16 / 28  
I would also like to say that I really enjoy the Patton campaign so far. I find myself thinking up a lot of different plans on how to accomplish the task at hand. So far I'd say my favorite part was the second mission where you have to hold off the tanks from taking the pass. It kind of reminded me of that movie "Saving Private Ryan" where at the end they are trying to keep the germans from taking the bridge.

Move this tin can!

posted 11-04-03 05:00 PM EDT (US)     17 / 28  
So let me get this straight: are we saying that Stalone's WWII sporting nmasterpiece 'Escape to Victory' could also be seen as an important depiction of life in a German POW camp?

Just kidding!

Of course the campaigns are 'hokum' in the best traditions of cinema, (Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Heroes, etc), and none the worse for it too!

But it's interesting that a game's content might, in some circumstances, be taken as a reliable historical record. I am 'aware' of a game with a level set in 18th Century America staring a coloured mayor, wealthy coloured merchants and coloured land owners! How could such an horrific and insulting historical 'mistake' have been made? Because the game's developer forgot to put any coloured characters in the Modern day levels, didn't care about the subject matter and regarded the game's purchasers as uneducated morons who wouldn't notice!

Horrible but all too true I'm afraid!

On the subject of historical accuracy, could I put an appeal to SSSI for the inclusion of the British Rocket artillery (used at Waterloo, for example) in the Imperial age? It'd be great fun to use! I had to mention this so close to Bonfire Night!

posted 11-04-03 06:24 PM EDT (US)     18 / 28  
Lt. Surge:

Thanks for your warm comments. The whole team worked incredibly hard to create the most interesting maps we could concoct. Typically, two or even three attempts at a level would be built, thrown out as "not interesting enough, not fun enough," and started over! At the time it was pretty frustrating but hearing people's praise of the finished product has made it worth all the work.

Fotch:

That's one of my favorite levels too. I did a first draft of Patton2 but it wasn't interesting or fun enough. I'm not sure who finally came up with the final version (Tesseract, maybe?) but it was a real treat when I loaded it up and discovered how much fun it was. The trick to the final stand in the Kasserine Pass is to really exploit all your units' special abilities. It's almost impossible to win otherwise!

posted 11-05-03 02:42 AM EDT (US)     19 / 28  
Hey Gordon!
Am really enjoying the game thus far, spend most time of it in the editor (as usual; the Empires editor has something special that keeps you coming back, though) but I've already finished the Richard campaign and played part of the Patton campaign.

Both are very well done! It looks really good! Someone in the scenario design forum asked "Where are those pretty bridges they used in the Richard campaign? I can't find them!" which really describes how professional it all looks. I'm not sure which bridge he meant, but the bridge that had been torn apart by the river looked really great.

There's a few small historical glitches, though. It looks like you used a bit of an idealised view of Richard, including that he is such an honest man and such. I don't think you'll get very far in that world if can't stand a lie or two
Also it mentioned that Richard's father, King Henry II, conquered both Scotland and Wales during his reign. That's far from true; indeed, in 1159 Rhys ap Gruffudd ("The Lord Rhys", Prince of Deheubarth, south-west Wales) did submit to Henry II; but he had only been reigning for 4 years then. In 1162, it was Rhys who reopened hostilities. In 1172, a new peace treaty was drawn up - heavily in favour of Rhys. Rhys had captured large parts of land, and in the treaty he was allowed to keep them all, curbing in the King and the Marchers' power. I'm sure that if Henry II would've had a tighter grip on Welsh politics, he wouldn't have allowed that to happen. After Henry had died, Rhys would again return to campaigning and was successful once again; however, shortly after a battle fought in his favour he died of the plague; his children weren't as clever as he had been and lost themselves Deheubarth to the Normans.
This was after Henry's death, so can't be called one of his conquests; apart from that, it was only part of Wales that they had conquered, North Wales (Gwynedd) was still independent and would remain so for nearly 100 years. Two powerful princes were yet to rule it. So, what gave you the idea Henry II conquered Wales? Was it just "over-simplification"?

I can't say much about Scotland, but I do know that it wasn't controlled by the English in some measure until the 1290s.


Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
posted 11-05-03 08:22 AM EDT (US)     20 / 28  
I refer all readers to Mel Gibbson's 'Braveheart' movie for anyone interested in Anglo-Scottish history. You'll learn as much about the real historical facts there as you'll learn about history by playing this game...
posted 11-05-03 09:33 AM EDT (US)     21 / 28  
Actually you'll learn more history by playing the game than by watching Braveheart... too many inaccuracies in that movie to list them all.

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
posted 11-05-03 06:15 PM EDT (US)     22 / 28  
No, No, No!!!

I was being sarcastic! I should have made that clearer...
Braveheart is a festering heap of cobblers. Far too many people in Scotland actually believed the events depicted in the film as FACT!

I think the point here is that mistaking a story featuring historical characters set within a historical context as a reliable historical resource is very dangerous indeed.

posted 11-07-03 02:50 PM EDT (US)     23 / 28  
Ah, Braveheart. How I loathe that film.

It's so inaccurate it's horrific, and as you say, Dreadnaught, there are too many people in my country who believe it is true, or that it doesn't matter.

posted 11-09-03 10:51 PM EDT (US)     24 / 28  
Derfel:

You make some good points about the Richard Lionheart story. Richard may very well have been a more seasoned and cynical politcal player in real life than we portray him to be in the script. Still, we felt we needed to make sure the hero of the story was someone players would root for, so we chose not to go in that direction.

As far as King Henry's claim to have conquered Wales, well, he DID wear the Welsh crown. Rhys ap Gruffud DID surrender it to him. Even if later Rhys rebelled, he was never able to force the English to yield up their claim to the Welsh throne.

However, more importantly, you might want to note in the cut scene that it's King Henry himself who claims he conquered Wales. I think it's completely appropriate to his character to have him exaggerate what he did, at least to a certain degree, don't you?

Here's a pretty interesting website that gives a lot of detail about King Henry's empire-building activities, his claim to more than half of France, and his wars with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/henryii_empire_01.shtml

[This message has been edited by Gordon Farrell (edited 11-09-2003 @ 11:07 PM).]

posted 11-10-03 03:09 AM EDT (US)     25 / 28  
Ah, thanks for clearing that up I was playing with the sound off and thought that it was the narrator who claimed that. Yes, English kings never really minded boasting about their achievements and inflating them Though, King Henry can't really have captured a collective Welsh crown, as then Wales was still split up in numerous principalities (Deheubarth, Powys and Gwynedd, to name the principal ones) and Rhys, who surrendered to him, was only prince of Deheubarth. (The Princes of Gwynedd of the 13th century would claim to be Lord of Snowdon and Prince of Wales, though, but they had a lot more power so they could actually make this claim).
Ah, Welsh history, nothing can beat it

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
posted 11-10-03 01:54 PM EDT (US)     26 / 28  
Derfel:

Your command of Welsh history definitely outclasses mine! Hmmm... it would be awesome to see a campaign showing that story from the Welsh point of view... hmmm... (wonders if Derfel can take a hint)...

posted 11-11-03 02:51 AM EDT (US)     27 / 28  
It's a good idea, actually, I already have one Welsh project up my sleeve but this one is very tempting too (I'll just add it to the pile of projects I want to make for Empires )

By the way, Gordon: how long did it take you (and the rest of the team's scn designers) to start and finish those scenarios we now see in the campaigns? They're really well done, they're good pointers to scn designers as to what you can do with the editor!


Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
posted 11-13-03 03:00 PM EDT (US)     28 / 28  
By the way, Gordon: how long did it take you (and the rest of the team's scn designers) to start and finish those scenarios we now see in the campaigns?
______________________________________________________

The process was long and complicated. The first problem we faced at the very beginning -- when there were only two or three members of the team onboard -- was exactly how to create exciting stories that would be full of plot twists and surprises. Eggman, Rick, and I knew we wanted to narrow down the stories to particular heroes, as opposed to what we'de done in EE, where the campaigns covered the entire history of a civilization. But the plots kept coming out too simple and too linear. They just didn't seem exciting enough.

Finally, after looking at WarCraft3, it hit us like a bolt of lightning: The trick is to add subplots!! Stories within the story that would constantly take the player by surprise. So even though we started developing the stories in July of 2002, we really didn't have a solid outline of all three campaigns until November. And then the dialogue had to be written. Every draft was passed through the hands of about four people, revised, and re-evaluated again and again until we were all more or less happy with it. The first complete draft of the dialogue wasn't done for all three campaigns until (I think) February of 2003.

Meanwhile, most of the scenario designers had been hired by this time. They were working on the levels for the Richard Campaign which was the first to get a roughly completed script. In February, I switched over from writing the scripts to helping build the levels. From then on, the whole team worked simultaneously on all 3 campaigns. Soon, guys from the art department came in to help build the cinematics -- which they did an amazing job on, imho. As they got more experienced with the editor, Rick would have some of them help polishing the levels as well.

By that time, the story was set, and our main focus was on gameplay. We wanted to find the most interesting and varied gameplay we could, in every scenario if possible. A level would be built --- and scrapped. Re-built --- and scrapped again. Over and over until the lead designers and the playtesters felt the gameplay was exciting, fresh, and above all: fun. As the gameplay was altered, the script had to be changed, too, so by this time EVERYBODY was writing bits of new dialogue that had to be okayed by the leads!

All-in-all, the levels weren't substantively "set" until the summer. From that point on, playtesters would work double time to discover bugs (which we had to fix, of course!), and then they were told to break the scenarios in every way they could possibly dream up (which we also had to fix!). Some of this was going on as late as August.

So I'd say, after we had discovered an approach to the scripts that excited us, it took me, Rick, and an historical consultant who worked with us briefly about six months to develop all three stories and write the principal dialogue.

After that, it took about seven months for a team of six to eight designers to build and polish the scenarios.

[This message has been edited by Gordon Farrell (edited 11-13-2003 @ 03:10 PM).]

Empires Heaven » Forums » General and Strategy Discussions » Let them die for THEIR country!!
Top
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register
Hop to:    
Empires Heaven | HeavenGames