Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: Khurasan Miniatures on 31 January 2014, 12:49:06 AM
-
At what scale would you wargame 1914 in Europe? Of course this is before trench warfare fully set in.
Would your basic units be squads/sections, companies, battalions, or even larger?
I ask because preliminary work is being started on a range and the scale at which a game is fought does have some effect on poses to be made. Poses that work for units which are sections might not look right when the unit is a battalion.
Any input appreciated....
-
I'd go 10mm and make a huge battlefield with lots of trenches, no mans land, ruined villages etc.. 5-10 infantry each stand, single tanks and artillery. Something like Blitzkrieg Commander.
On the other hand, 28mm would make for some Stormtropper trench raiding actions :)
-
No no, not figurine scale -- scale of unit size. Unit is a section, unit is a company, unit is a regiment, unit is a division....
-
a mate and I are doing it in 20mm, Infantry units are 15-16 men, Cav 8-12
-
I guess 1914 would have the large companies as useful manouver unit, in or outside the trenches
-
I would game larger skirmishes with 28mm miniatures.
-
Given that the company was pretty much the smallest tactical unit in 1914, i couldn't see much point in doing sections or parts thereof. When I did game the period we used Greg Novak's old Over the Top rules, a spin-off of Command Decision where each stand represents a platoon but the lowest level of command is the company. Gave great games for brigade sized actions.
Were I to game the early part of the Great War again, I would still see no reason to chane my approach or rules.
-
This ~
http://talesfromghq.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/The%20Great%20War
The Battalion is the basic unit of infantry with ten bases. Cavalry has six figures, artillery one gun and crew. We have developed our own rules to suit our view of the game, but there are plenty out there.
-
I'd go 10mm and make a huge battlefield with lots of trenches, no mans land, ruined villages etc.. 5-10 infantry each stand, single tanks and artillery. Something like Blitzkrieg Commander.
On the other hand, 28mm would make for some Stormtropper trench raiding actions :)
I think I would go this way. Painted up 28mm in the past but didnt feel right scale wise for me personally. Something like Great War spearhead would be a sight to see however.
-
Except the OP was asking about 1914, so tanks and anything beyond the most rudimentary of trench lines aren't really in it.
And despite his extremely roundabout way of asking it, the question he really seems to want an answer to is "What poses would you buy?"
-
Poses that work for units which are sections might not look right when the unit is a battalion.
this aspect needs to be elaborated on slightly....
-
Except the OP was asking about 1914, so tanks and anything beyond the most rudimentary of trench lines aren't really in it.
And despite his extremely roundabout way of asking it, the question he really seems to want an answer to is "What poses would you buy?"
I see what you mean. I am guessing they will be 15mm? I still think open warfare would be better on the larger scale, cavalry and horse drawn artillery etc.
Pose wise you have two options I would think Advancing and moving or static defence e.g. standing firing/reloading, kneeling the same etc
-
maybe also a lot of sitting in the trenches with daily routines? ;)
-
1914 didn't see an awful lot of sitting in trenches. A more typical pose for that year would be an exhausted soldier doggedly marching, or collapsed in a heap on the roadside for a few minutes of precious rest. :)
-
For the British - probably firing line poses, shooting, reloading, reaching for extra rounds. Standing and crouching. Oh, and writing poetry. ;)
Germans - advancing under fire, march attack that sort of thing.
-
1914 is like the ACW or even Napoleonics with formed bodies of men manoeuvring and shooting as units, but unlike their forebearers they go prone when defending and increasingly look for cover as the battles went on, because the weapons were far more effective.
Companies were the tactical element. The procedure was that the platoons would alternate movement and fire. Troops fought using cover unlike the soldiers of the 19th century, so ditches, walls, buildings and other features became very important because concentrated rifle fire could be murderous, troops attempting the old "Thin Red Line" get blown away. Troops would advance in short bursts, running from one position to the other in groups, some training manuals suggested ducking or going prone just before each volley, but in practice platoons used mutually covering fire which made such tactics useless, reloading times were too quick to try to duck every volley.
Troops were kept in large groups because it was easier to manage them with a handful of officers and NCO's, troops marched, ran and fired in entire platoons/companies. German officers rejected the idea of smaller units acting independently, or giving troops more than basic firing training because a swift advance and highly concentrated rapid fire at close range (think Prussian drill in the 18th century) was the best way to defeat the enemy, they knew this would cause more casualties, but the result was considered superior to the British method of "shooting from afar". Mons proved them wrong. The Germans suffered heavy casualties trying to get into proper firing range.
Of course once artillery and machineguns get involved casualties get even worse. So come fall and winter 1914 troops that aren't busy marching somewhere are digging shallow trenches. This isn't proper trench warfare yet, this is positional warfare where defenders automatically dig in whenever they have an opportunity. Once the front lines stabilize, the trench system progressively is improved over time until both sides are deadlocked.
I based my 1914 10mm troops on rectangular bases to invite players to line them up, while their 1918 counterparts are on round bases for looser, more open formations.
-
The British Army was trained to fire from the prone position. Alas, that rarely makes for a practical or aesthetically pleasing pose for toy soldiers. A lot of trench digging went on in October and November 1914 btw.
Me? I prefer, advancing figures, they're easier to base and show off the equipment.
-
Me? I prefer, advancing figures, they're easier to base and show off the equipment.
2nd that, however all too often the holding of the rifle is very repetitive and the dynamic of the movement not convincing.
I also see soldiers at ease not very often, but this is a different matter than the OT
-
I agree that 15mm with larger units would be the best approach to 1914, ignore trenches and keep an open area, with sections of cover. Cavalry is intersting, although, in combat it gets wacked easily.
-
Poses -
British advancing at the trail - various head and arm positions plus a mix of formal cap/unwired cap and Gorblimey for the Brits, and highlanders in glengarry and tams. Oh and Indian army!
Germans concentrate on movement poses advancing quickly - a la "right shoulder shift" plus at the trail,some jaeger
French - charging, with èlan, bayonet fixed!, ligne, zouaves and turcos
Belgians - defensive poses
Cavalry - scouting, pickets and lancers
As for firing poses - kneeling and standing and possibly prone too - but a minimum amount of these
:)
-
1914. offers a lot of variety. There is a lot of similarity with the FPW (visually the French are not that different) Firepower is however a lot heavier. You can have German attacks (flag waving and everything) against Belgian forts and trenches (Belgian redoubts were quite elaborate here)in the early attacks on Liège
Infantry large scale actions on more open terrain but there is always plenty of cover. If you look eg at the battle of Mons it took place in a very industrial area.
Belgian army tried to avoid large scale encounters with a larger and better trained German army
Cavalry still played a part untill the end of the year. Germany tried large scale incursions with little succes (Halen) near the end of the year German cavalry did spend some time in Ypres. British and German cavalry fought both mounted and dismounted. Belgian cavalry fought almost always dismounted. French cavalry dismounted rarely
By late august 1914 there were about 30 Belgian armoured cars in use who frequently saw action against German lines of communication. Around Antwerp you even had armoured trains in action !
Small scale actions do take place (reconnaissance, demolition jobs etc)
You will need some HMG and LMG (rare)
hope this helps
Carl
-
I'm in the process of building 48 figure battalions in 15mm for Early War Eastern Front. Cavalry Rgts will be about the same size. I hope to be able to place a Corps on the board for each side when finished; it is an on again off again project.
-
1914 is like the ACW or even Napoleonics with formed bodies of men manoeuvring and shooting as units, but unlike their forebearers they go prone when defending and increasingly look for cover as the battles went on, because the weapons were far more effective.
Companies were the tactical element. The procedure was that the platoons would alternate movement and fire. Troops fought using cover unlike the soldiers of the 19th century, so ditches, walls, buildings and other features became very important because concentrated rifle fire could be murderous, troops attempting the old "Thin Red Line" get blown away. Troops would advance in short bursts, running from one position to the other in groups, some training manuals suggested ducking or going prone just before each volley, but in practice platoons used mutually covering fire which made such tactics useless, reloading times were too quick to try to duck every volley.
Troops were kept in large groups because it was easier to manage them with a handful of officers and NCO's, troops marched, ran and fired in entire platoons/companies. German officers rejected the idea of smaller units acting independently, or giving troops more than basic firing training because a swift advance and highly concentrated rapid fire at close range (think Prussian drill in the 18th century) was the best way to defeat the enemy, they knew this would cause more casualties, but the result was considered superior to the British method of "shooting from afar". Mons proved them wrong. The Germans suffered heavy casualties trying to get into proper firing range.
Of course once artillery and machineguns get involved casualties get even worse. So come fall and winter 1914 troops that aren't busy marching somewhere are digging shallow trenches. This isn't proper trench warfare yet, this is positional warfare where defenders automatically dig in whenever they have an opportunity. Once the front lines stabilize, the trench system progressively is improved over time until both sides are deadlocked.
I based my 1914 10mm troops on rectangular bases to invite players to line them up, while their 1918 counterparts are on round bases for looser, more open formations.
Would there be any scope for small unit patrolling or reconnaissance?
-
I'm a newbie to early WW1 gaming, but find the figures and uniforms quite "shiny".
Do the offensive doctrines of any of the combatants have much hope of being successful? "Run forwards into a hail of Lee Enfield fire, fellows!" doesn't seem to be a recipe for success. OTOH, I guess much depends on whether the defensive fire is concentrated along a sufficiently narrow front or spread out thinly and whether the attackers are hitting a flank / weak spot or have artillery superiority.
Is there any notion of "fire and movement" and obtaining fire superiority over your adversary?
-
Would there be any scope for small unit patrolling or reconnaissance?
there was quite a bit during the Battle of the Borders & the Race to the Sea when the fronts were quite fluid & both sides were very much in the dark as to each others (and occasionally their own) movements. Cavalry skirmishes, rearguard actions & probes were fairly common. The BEF's first engagement in WWI involved mounted and dismounteed cavalry action against German reconnaissance patrols. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/firstshot_01.shtml
Once the front stabilised then these become far less common, but trench raids and reconnaissance parties remain staples of small unit warfare throughout the war.
-
Is there any notion of "fire and movement" and obtaining fire superiority over your adversary?
The BEF trained and used 'Fire and Movement' tactics extensively, as did the other combatants to greater or lesser extents.
-
We played it in 15mm with Black Powder. Worked very well.
http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/2014/02/battle-of-mons-2014.html (http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/2014/02/battle-of-mons-2014.html)
-
From my readings, companies were the basic tactical formation, but they manoeuvred by platoons.
However, there is still plenty of room for patrol actions on both the Western (before things bogged down) and Eastern fronts, as well as elsewhere, especially between cavalry units :D
-
Thanks, guys. I partially solved my own queries by borrowing Terence Zuber's book The Mons Myth from my alumnus library. The book's thesis is that the Geman army won both Mons and Le Cateau resoundingly and pasted the BEF both times with greater German professionalism. While I suspect that Zuber's thesis might swing the pendulum far too much towards the German side, he does spend much of the first part of the book dealing with German small unit tactical doctrine in vast detail.
There is ample fire and movement and fire superiority emphasis and as well, considerable emphasis on sub-unit leaders conducting most phases of the battle. So EXCELLENT wargames material!!!
OTOH, I cannot but suspect that the French, Brits, Russians and everyone else had the same tactical doctrines - Indeed, they were the only sensible ones to employ.
The latter part of the book is a detailed day-by-day of the German advance into Belgium and again, I expect it to be great for wargames scenarios and rules-tweaking.
Interested in anyone else's comments on this book or any other useful ones.
-
Zuber is very much pro-German so read what he says with a grain of salt. The claim of 'greater German professionalism' in particular doesn't really chime with reality IMHO.
-
28mm skirmish is what we're going to do. Living in Belgium where it all happened may seem as if we know all about it, but a ridiculously high number of young people in our country can't even say when the great war ended.
After the breaktrough at Liege, the German army swept across Flandres in the direction of France. This gave the Belgian army the time to retreat in Antwerp which was protected by a double ring of forts and redoubts. From Antwerp sorties for recce or disruption and or sabotage reason were frequently made either by cavalry or by armoured cars which a certain Henkaert invented and built on his Minerva car. So it happened that three of these cars found themselves on a sortie near Herentals/Westerlo. There they fell into an ambush made by German uhlans. In the event several of the crews were mortally wounded or instantly killed. Three of them were nobles amongst which was the Prince de Merode. It was these sorties that made the Germans decide that it was time to take out Antwerp and they attacked it with the biggest guns they could find to destroy some of the forts. Most of the army and the Royal family managed to escape and conclude the war at the Ijzer enclave.
The incident at Westerlo (then still written as Westerloo) was used as a starting point for our game. We had to beef it up a little to get to a viable game (nothing funny about getting your troops killed in a hopeless situation) We 'll be touring the museums and exhibitions around Antwerp for the remainder of the year with it, but will also present the game at salute.
-
We play "Square Bashing" (rules from Peter Pig) although we mainly play 1919 Spartakist vs Freikorps, but the rules cover early war (actually described as rules for 1900-1928).
They have a battalion as the smallest unit on table (represented by 4 stands of figures).
For 1914, don't forget the Eastern Front - everyone seems to make BEF, French & Germans, but some seem to ignore Russia, Serbia & the Austro-Hungarians - and also Africa, the German East Africa campaign doesn't bog down into trench warfare at all.
-
Really depends on what you are looking for. For me, I find that the skirmish level games don't capture the flavour of WWI - awesome Minis but the rules just don't do justice to the time period. Again for me - I think it needs that higher level of control so I game at the Div/Corps level using Great War Spearhead II. The stands represent infantry companies or cavalry squadrons, artillery batteries etc. It gives you a good feel of the difficulties of the time period. We have refought Mons, Le Cateau, parts of the Marne, Mount Cer, Tannenberg, Lemberg etc etc. But like I said in the beginning it depends on what you want. I just don't like the feel of the skirmish games for WWI. Would love to do GWSH II in 28mm though :)
-
At what scale would you wargame 1914 in Europe? Of course this is before trench warfare fully set in.
Would your basic units be squads/sections, companies, battalions, or even larger?
I ask because preliminary work is being started on a range and the scale at which a game is fought does have some effect on poses to be made. Poses that work for units which are sections might not look right when the unit is a battalion.
Any input appreciated....
10mm I think is the smallest you can do it. Unless you are GHQ, and can pull off proper 6mm.
Grand, epic, large numbers are what's important - at least to me. A 4x6 table needs to be epic in scale.
-
I would use either the company or the battalion as the basic element, and either battalion or brigade as the lowest command echelon.
-
Johan,
Henkart did not use a Minerva. He used his own cars (Opel and Pipe)
no Prince de Merode but a Prince de Ligne who died some days after the skirmish.
Carl
-
I must add my opinion that Zuber is a very, very dangerous source indeed. He is of German origin and holds a very bright candle for the soldiers of his (grand)fatherland. Unfortunately he has a reputation for only presenting evidence which supports his theories.
Rich
-
Lardy would that be along the same lines of some of the BEF stories that have been standard since the war?
There was an interesting debate on the WWI Forums on (I think) the long long trail back in 2008. This debate showed a lot of rather sizeable holes in the assertions the BEF was made up of Supermen. One of my favourites was the point of how could the British casualty totals (of the Germans) be held as accurate at Mons and Le Cateau, given that it was the Germans who held the fields and thus did the burial work etc, and that there is no evidence to suggest that someone was doing accurate counting of the German fallen. Anecdotal eye witnesses are always to be used with caution regardless of the nation they support.
My point is, I think all sources have to be used with caution, doesn't mean they are or are not valid just that they have to be used with care. So I think your caution is correct but should be used with most writings as there is always at least 3 sides to any story and only by looking at all angles do we get close to the all elusive truth.
-
Shawnt. There are lots of legends which have grown up around the BEF and I am inclined to agree with you that like most legends they include very little fact and less hard evidence. Largely these grew up from the contemporary belief that the BEF had somehow miraculously been saved from destruction and the myths grew from there. However, the evolution of a myth is not the same as an individual historian who manipulates facts to suit his own theories. Most of my studies have tended towards the second half of the war, but even a cursory examination of maps whilst reading first hand accounts and the official histories suggests to me that there was no miracle at Mons and Le Cateau, the British simply managed to fight a good enough delaying action to get away. But this was combined with some pretty spectacular route marches, which leads me to think that boot leather as much as marksmanship was responsible for a very narrow escape from absolute destruction. So, no, I certainly don't do myths and legends. Sadly Zuber seems to be attempting to create some new ones.
Zuber does make some interesting points about German tactics. However, he doesn't tell the whole story and he is very selective in what evidence he presents. In fact when one views a broad range of data one finds that the German adoption of tactical doctrines was a very mixed bag; some units did, some units didn't. The BEF had a more homogenous approach to tactics, their experiences of the Boer War were far more recent than the Prussians' own last was in 1871 and there was a universal acceptance of the need for loser formations in the face of the enemy on the British side. That was not the case on the German side where there were two very distinct camps, one supporting "Boer tactics", the other believing that open order formations led to a breakdown in command and control. It is possible to trace the debate through from the 1870s onwards (and I have as part of my own research on the period and the general evolution of infantry tactics from 1848 to 1945) and in the end it was an argument not resolved until 1914 when it because perfectly clear to the Germans that close order formations which some contributors has suggested would lead to greater control actually just led to greater losses.
That said, it is simple for us with retrospect to say that open order formations were the best, but you can understand the German desire to emphasise the importance of command and control when they had just one officer for each platoon of eighty plus men. I found it an intriguing debate to follow.
Amongst professional historians specialising in the Great War, Zuber is largely through of as only slightly better than Mosier (who is thought of as laughable). I think the real shame is that Zuber clearly does the leg-work in his research, but he is so rabidly one-eyed in his desire to present the Germans as the victim (no Schlieffen ever existed plan) whilst at the same time proving them to be militarily superior to anyone else, particularly the British, that he undermines his own plausibility.
Cheers
Rich
-
I have not read Zuber myself, although have read a lot of debate regarding his thoughts and research. I agree with you that the BEF was more homogenous in their tactics. You can also read how the Germans learned as they went but the key training tool was actual combat. Even as late as the race to the sea phase there were still German units trying to use close order tactics on the attack, these were by and large (although perhaps not all - I have not delved into the whole package as it were) fresh units with no battle experience. Nothing like learning on the fly :)
I am glad to see so much more interest in gaming WWI - to me it is the forgotten uncle/aunt/brother/cousin of the wargaming community and one which I myself have gamed in for close to 25 years or so.
Thanks for the exchange!
Shawn
-
Just finished reading Zuber's Mons book myself and largely agree with Rich. Zuber does manage to demolish some of the "BEF = supermen" myths, in particular the accounts of "the mad minute" and the suggestions that BEF firepower was massively better than German. The rest of his theories are a bit contrived.
-
While on the topic with Rich, how would the Lardies game 1914? I glanced over Mud & Blood, but the ground scale of 12" = 40 yards would make it very difficult to do a 1914 style attack with Germans assaulting from out over 600 yards away and attempting to close.
It would be tempting to pick up an attack with the Germans already within 400 yards and using a formula to calculate casualties already taken / inflicted in the preliminary phases of the assault. Or else to switch from board-game to tabletop partway through the scenario.
-
You could use If The Lord Spares Us, or the adaptation of IABSM in one of the Lardie specials. That's what I plan to do once the lead mountain has diminished slightly.
-
You could use If The Lord Spares Us, or the adaptation of IABSM in one of the Lardie specials. That's what I plan to do once the lead mountain has diminished slightly.
Yes, I was thinking of IABSM. I have IABSM3, but it would work w tinkering surely.
Never got a copy of ITLSU. It was published before I discovered TFL.
-
I am used to 400 yards being one step away from the assault. I use GWSHII as I prefer large scale action. Doing a refight of Vimy for example gives a great indication of how things can go so right or so wrong with just a few minor mistakes in timing or orders. We have done refights of Mons and Le Cateau amongst other. I was at Wargames in Reading a few years back and we were redoing Cambrai (in 6mm) with 90 mk IV tank models supporting the 5 British infantry divisions. As I walked around I found a WWI skirmish battle going on in another end of the hall, there were 3 nominal platoons of British attacking 2 platoons of Germans. The Brits had a MkV tank (if I remember correctly) and 2 Vickers. The Germans had a trench mortar and a MG. So we did some comparatives on the two games - and it was amazing to see how the skirm game fit into the same distance that two stands in GWSH would occupy. Gives a whole different perspective of what was going when you can cross compare the two levels.
-
I like GWSH too - and I hope to get 2 soon ;)
I would definitely recommend it for the traditional sweeping view of WWI battles, but in Lardie terms, brigade actions ITLSU is very good, and for company+ actions so is IABSM. M&B of course is good too, but I find it quite fiddly trying to work out who has which particular weapon in a squad when there are that many models on the board.
-
Huevans
I actually wrote a piece in the Christmas Special on 1914 tactics and representing forces with Mud & Blood (British and German, no French yet). I focussed that action on a small historical rearguard action during the retreat to the south west of Mons. I found it an interesting game to play through as the Germans do have huge command and control issues, but they have a much larger platoon.
We have a piece on converting IABSM for the Great War in one of the older Specials (I think it was in 2007) called Sturmabteilung Vor! which sounded really interesting. I never played it, but I keep meaning to. I have actually been working on some Divisional level rules for the Boer War as a precursor to they extending that to the Great War. You really do get distinct operational boundaries at that level so the battle you fight can be discrete to that Division, but with just some Corps guns added to the mix. Something like the 36th Ulster Division on July 1 1916 would be an interesting action to fight.
Some of the most enjoyable games I have ever had have been kriegsspiel type games played on British Army 1:100,000 maps of the period using some rules we wrote called "Corps Blimey". We have refought a number of major actions such as Amiens 1917 in an evening. They are really absorbing games but rattle along at a fair pace. I have the whole western front covered by my map collection so I am lucky in that I can really do any actions I fancy with that. Save a lot of painting too!
Rich
-
Thanks, Rich. I d/l-ed the 2013 Xmas special and glanced it over. Interesting points about German C&C issues due to the larger platoons and more numerous sub-sub-units. I'll try and work through it more carefully over the next few days. Appreciate the hints.