Could you lead men into battle?

[Jimbuna]

Interactive and really quite fascinating....how well did you do?

High Wood
The reality of war means making difficult decisions – what would you have done if it was you?

Running at around 20 minutes, the interactive episode of Our World War is set during the attack on High Wood – part of the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Against this backdrop, you will follow the journey of a young corporal struggling to keep the men in his section alive.

Imagine what information and guidance a soldier of the time would have had. You will have to make critical decisions for him based on that – decisions that could result in you saving or sacrificing lives. They may also have some surprising outcomes that will only be revealed to you if you choose certain paths through the story.

After each act of the 3-part story, you will be presented with feedback based on the effectiveness of your choices.

Within this feedback you will be assessed on military tactics, the morale of your men and your overall abilities as a leader. From here you can also go on to unlock more content about the characters in the story and continue your journey with a curated selection of World War One iWonder guides and videos.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1kWsQcfTPFjfz9sdxfTGFhC/our-world-war-interactive-episode?intc_type=promo&intc_location=news&intc_campaign=ourworldwarinteactive_promo&intc_linkname=news_index_preview

[Jimbuna]

I'll not spoil it for anyone by divulging the decisions I made but my last one was not my best and I ended up with a score of 67%

[Oberon]

60% here, Corporal IIRC. My failings were in the second chapter. :dead:

[Betonov]

0%, lives of others are too valuable to be wasted for my personal glory :O:

[STEED]

I did this twice first in the mindset of the time and next as present day.

Then 86% Slipped up on one I knew but did not act on.
Tactics good, moral down.

Now 65% I felt on one decision was better but of that time it was wrong.
Tactics poor, moral better.

Thanks jim.

[mapuc]

"Your current device is not supported"

Markus

[donna52522]

60% :down:

[ikalugin]

I have some issues with it for example:
in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

[Buddahaid]

I did about 50%.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Tried this twice, the first time I got 67% and the second time a 97%.


In certain decisions such as either to hold fire or open fire could of gone wrong in either case. Sure that could of been a Hun or you could of just had one of your own men killed or wounded by friendly fire. Same thing with the decision to either shoot the sniper or try to drag your wounded buddy back to safety. The sniper could of killed the guy who goes out to rescue the wounded man or turned his gun on the who ever else was in his line of site.

[Oberon]

Sadly with snipers, it's a common tactic, as old as the hills, to wound one soldier deliberately in order to entice the others out to attempt a rescue, then you take them out one by one.
Unfortunately until the sniper is put down, the zone just isn't safe enough to attempt a rescue.

Agreed on the friendly fire, but that just highlights that in order to protect your platoon you have to make unpopular decisions, I also held fire on that incident, which could very well have gotten myself and what was left of my section killed.

I think in regards to doing it twice, the best thing to do is to take the first score as your final score, because the second time around you know what it's looking for. :03: You might want to wrap some of that text in spoilers too, for those who haven't done it yet.

[Oberon]

I have some issues with it for example:
in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

Good spotting, but the moral of the situation is a bit more abstract than that, what if...for example, you couldn't see the rifle the soldier was carrying due to the weather conditions? You have a split second decision to engage or not, and standard orders were to engage when in a battlefield situation, and if it was a friendly then that was the risk that the soldier advancing towards you took. Many people did hold fire, and lots of lives were saved in that respect, but many were also lost, if it had been a German soldier then he would have a split second advantage in which he could feasibly kill either yourself or one of your men. That's why the SOP was written.
Likewise, sadly, the rules on prisoners. The reason I did so badly in the second mission was because I let the German machinegunner live, I knew that taking him prisoner was pointless under the circumstances, but I could not bring myself to kill him. Morally this was the correct decision, but tactically I could very well have doomed my entire squad.
It's tough at the top, as they say.

[Sailor Steve]

I think in regards to doing it twice, the best thing to do is to take the first score as your final score, because the second time around you know what it's looking for.
On the other hand that is exactly why units play war games and officers go through training with others who have been there. Real officers take tests such as this to try to improve their command skills.

On the other other hand, you're correct that this is to see how you would score now, not after more training.

[Oberon]

I just took it again, deliberately putting the same decisions in that I took when I did it so I can get the same score.

Episode One:
Tactics: 60%
Morale: 62%
Total: 20%
I decided to send a runner, because a flare would either not be seen or be seen by all the wrong people, and there was no wires around for a phoneline.
In regards to who I chose, I chose the best soldier, because I figured that he would need a fighting chance out there...apparently that was the wrong choice, but that's fair enough.

Episode Two:
Tactics: 20%
Morale: 75%
Total: 29%
Two very difficult decisions, I can't recall what made me hold fire, it might have been recognising the outfit, either way, as I outlined above, it was against the standard rules for infantry in that position and could have gotten us all killed. Likewise leaving the wounded German. But that's the kind of person I am, I have never pretended I would make a good soldier. :03:


Episode Three:
Tactics: 100%
Morale: 71%
Total: 60%
I must admit I thought I'd wind up in front of a firing squad for ordering a retreat, perhaps if I was in Russia I would have done, but in this instance it was the right decision.
The sniper situation would probably have gone a different way if I had not seen a similar tactic used in other films, where the sniper wounds one soldier and waits for the others to try and rescue him before killing them too.

Ah, so my total was 60%, not 70%, I'm glad I did the test again just to make sure, my memory is patchy at the best of times. :haha: :/\\!! :haha:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Sadly with snipers, it's a common tactic, as old as the hills, to wound one soldier deliberately in order to entice the others out to attempt a rescue, then you take them out one by one.
Unfortunately until the sniper is put down, the zone just isn't safe enough to attempt a rescue.

Agreed on the friendly fire, but that just highlights that in order to protect your platoon you have to make unpopular decisions, I also held fire on that incident, which could very well have gotten myself and what was left of my section killed.

I think in regards to doing it twice, the best thing to do is to take the first score as your final score, because the second time around you know what it's looking for. :03: You might want to wrap some of that text in spoilers too, for those who haven't done it yet.

I agree about the score.:up: As for the sniper trick I've done that a few times myself in games like Sniper Elite V2 and Sniper Elite 3, it's a dirty trick but it does work.

[Sailor Steve]

54%, Which is about what I expected. I've never wanted to be a soldier, especially a leader, and I try to avoid games in which I have to command.

[Skybird]

95% it was for me, or was it 97% - I already forgot it again. Does it mean anything? :)

[Platapus]

It is not a question of whether you can lead, but whether people will follow.

Being a leader is easy... getting people to follow is the hard part. :03:

[Skybird]

Being a leader is easy... getting people to follow is the hard part.


Not if you drop those who don't. :D

:woot:

[Stealhead]

Wow my connection is amazing to nite got dropped off in the middle. It says that it saves your progress.

I got 62% fair enough I suppose. I thought some of the choices where vague though to be honest. I thought a few times I might do that but are they going to do it the way I would have it done.

Of course being able to lead and being able to lead when real death is around the corner and real lives are in your hand vs a game two different things. a person could ace this and utterly freeze up in combat or bomb this and do well.

I a real situation you can only do your best.

[Wolferz]

In not being familiarized with British military SOP of that era, I found no reason to even give it a go.

[Stealhead]

In not being familiarized with British military SOP of that era, I found no reason to even give it a go.

Neither did anyone else that tried it.

[Jimbuna]

54%, Which is about what I expected. I've never wanted to be a soldier, especially a leader, and I try to avoid games in which I have to command.

Remind me not to enlist in your army cometh the revolution :)

[Onkel Neal]

I think in regards to doing it twice, the best thing to do is to take the first score as your final score, because the second time around you know what it's looking for. :03: You might want to wrap some of that text in spoilers too, for those who haven't done it yet.


Exactly. If it were up to me,. I'd wait for the Americans, we need the extra troops.

I have some issues with it for example:
in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

yes, plus if you had shot your own man, you would still have the machine gun nest to contend with.

[swamprat69er]

extra troops=extra cannon fodder

[Sailor Steve]

Remind me not to enlist in your army cometh the revolution :)
I've spent my whole life making the wrong decisions. Why should I change now? :dead:

[Onkel Neal]

extra troops=extra cannon fodder

Yeah, but they only have so many cannons :arrgh!:

[Wolferz]

Yeah, but they only have so many cannons :arrgh!:

And we have air power.:yeah:

[Pisces]

"Your current device is not supported"

MarkusCheck the faq: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3tpDFSDlJnJpT9qNf2rklL2/interactive-episode-faqs

Browsers supported for desktop:

Chrome (version 31 or higher)
Safari 7
Internet Explorer 11
Firefox (version 29 or higher)
Tablet devices supported:

iPad 2 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad 3 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad 4 (iOS 7.1 and above)
iPad mini (iOS 7.1 and above)
Support for a number of Android devices is coming soon.

[Oberon]

Exactly. If it were up to me,. I'd wait for the Americans

Well, sometimes you don't have the time to wait two to three years. :O:

yes, plus if you had shot your own man, you would still have the machine gun nest to contend with.

Actually...

The guy you would have shot had already taken out the machine gun nest with a mills bomb, that was why he went missing in the retreat, he went up to the nest with a grenade and took it out, then went running back to inform the rest of the troop. Of course, if you'd shot him then you wouldn't have known that, unless he said it before dying or something.

[Jimbuna]

And we have air power.:yeah:

Nobody wants the blue on blue scenarios thanks :O:

[Lionclaw]

Total: 89%

[Task Force]

I ended up with a 76.

Some of the decisions where kinda Iffy. (act 2 part 1 I'm looking at you).

[swamprat69er]

I got 87%......
in real life,
I don't know if that would happen.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I have some issues with it for example:
in episode 2 you see the running figure, which is clearly armed with a british rifle, why should I have engaged it?

I didn't recognize the rifle, but it sure looked like a Brit. In fact, the entire scene is constructed to provide the cues to a modern viewer that if I had fired it would have been Friendly Fire. They might be trying to re-enact World War I, but the scripting uses modern mentality.

[Stealhead]

I didn't recognize the rifle, but it sure looked like a Brit. In fact, the entire scene is constructed to provide the cues to a modern viewer that if I had fired it would have been Friendly Fire. They might be trying to re-enact World War I, but the scripting uses modern mentality.

An enemy combatant can always pick up and use your weapons especially in a close range battle in a forest. :cool: I based my choice on the fact that I was not certain if it was a friend or foe so hold fire sights are upon the unknown so as soon as he becomes known then you go. Pretty sure that "friendly fire" has been a problem for a very long time the name(Friendly Fire) is more modern true but not the fact that it might occur and would be something to avoid if at all possible. Do you think that a WWI solider would want to accidentally shoot a friendly solider? Of course not did they have some form of fire discipline of course they did . The old term is fratricide.Therefore I disagree on your opinion about the modern cue. The point was to test ones discipline do you attack when uncertain or when certain? An attack should be committed to when the objective is clear if not you may be causing harm to your side rather than good.