Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: racm32 on March 19, 2019, 09:15:56 PM
-
Hello lads. I would like some of your recommendations for WW1 rules. Specifically for the eastern front between Russia and Germany but can include Austrians. If the rules covers force usage and composition it needs to have those 3 or supplements that do. My collection is all 28mm and single based on 25mm square or round bases (for infantry). I have cavalry for both Russia and Germany so rules support there would be nice. I'd also like to know what it is you like and/or dislike about your recommendations. Will also be happy with offical/homegrown WW1 supplements for non WW1 rules.
-
Bolt Action WW1
-
Cant find bolt action WW1 supplements with Russian or Austrian forces.
-
The stats are not going to be any different from western forces buddy.
-
Through the Mud & Blood works for Eastern Front. I recall seeing Austrian & Russian army info in one of the Lardy specials.
-
The stats are not going to be any different from western forces buddy.
You mean other then the recommended unit size, composition, quality, and equipment that Bolt Action uses to make a balanced and historically accurate game?
-
Through the Mud & Blood works for Eastern Front. I recall seeing Austrian & Russian army info in one of the Lardy specials.
I'm familiar with the rules but not their specials. Where can they be found?
-
You mean other then the recommended unit size, composition, quality, and equipment that Bolt Action uses to make a balanced and historically accurate game?
We use Bolt Action for our WW1 games which latterly have been set in the Eastern Front. We use the rules more less as they are. Are far as I am aware most armies in the lists allow considerable variation in the size of infantry sections (from memory minimum 5 to 12 max). As for force composition and units quality, we usually go with what seems right for the scenario. Restrictions by the lists are more for competition style games.
To answer your original question, we like BA particularly for the pinning rule. Units take pins when taking hits (even if they save them). These accumulate (unless you take time out to rally them off) to inhibit your ability to give units orders. Sort of like a running morale status. It is quite a simple rule which has a realistic feel.
Not played Through the Mud and the Blood though they come with lots of scenarios adaptable for Eastern Front I would have thought. I also hear good things about Chain of Command. Again another WW2 set but I believe there is a WW1 supplement for them?
-
"Through the Mud and the Blood" with the "From Empire to Revolution" (eastern front supplement) will work great. The "Specials" also have articles (there is a table of contents in the item description for each issue) that pertain to the various rulesets. They can all be found at the Too Fat Ladies web-store here;
https://toofatlardies.co.uk/
regards, Bill
-
Thank you armchair general and bartman. I have been using Bolt action for modern games with supplement so might try the WW1 supplement first.
I have played a game or two of through the mud and the blood but when reading through the rules now they seem confusing.
I also have Chris Peers Contemptible Little Armies but they seem a bit too simple.
-
I am a firm believer in keeping it simple. Bolt Action can be used pretty much as written for any period from about the turn of the century up to ww2 Its more fun to game than read and try to remember and deal with the next rule change and what it means to the flow of the game.
-
Bolt Action works just fine. What period of the war are you interested in - early or late?
Robert
-
Pretty much from the start until Russia pulls out of the war.
-
You mean other then the recommended unit size, composition, quality, and equipment that Bolt Action uses to make a balanced and historically accurate game?
You are reading too much into the game matey, it ain't no Warhammer 40k with a bucket load of special rules for each unit. A regular solider is going to operate pretty much the same regardless which nation they belong to.
-
Pretty much from the start until Russia pulls out of the war.
Thanks. Early war is pretty straightforward. TO&Es become a bit more tricky as you get into late 1915 and onwards. Details are more difficult to compile around the composition of squad/sections and associated support weapons. The pick-and-mix approach of Bolt Action will suit the later period because there was considerable variability on both sides. I'm happy to post some details if that would help.
Robert
-
I have some good books on the Eastern front which is why I know the unit quality and composition was so different and important to the outcome of the war. I think I can work within the parameters of Bolt Action with a bit of modification for the theater.
-
Differing small unit organisations and tactics is something which Mud & Blood explores very well. I don;t know if Bolt Action does the same.
-
I have a copy of through the mud and blood, I'll pick up the supplement for Russian and Austrian forces and see how it looks.
-
Certainly interested in your views after you've played a few games of it.
-
Thanks. Early war is pretty straightforward. TO&Es become a bit more tricky as you get into late 1915 and onwards. Details are more difficult to compile around the composition of squad/sections and associated support weapons. The pick-and-mix approach of Bolt Action will suit the later period because there was considerable variability on both sides. I'm happy to post some details if that would help.
Robert
I'm always interested in anything you contribute to any WW1 discussion, Monk - if only to increase my knowledge of the period!
-
Differing small unit organisations and tactics is something which Mud & Blood explores very well. I don;t know if Bolt Action does the same.
I respectfully disagree. M&B does promote the concept of national differences in small unit tactics for sure but these should be considered as specific to the ruleset and not historically correct. Both rules promote differences in small unit organisations.
Robert
-
Here is some information specific to Bolt Action small unit organisation for the Russians and Austro-Hungarians:
For the Russians in the early war, you should use the following options from the standard rules but without submachine guns:
- Officer
Artillery Forward Observer (but not Air Force Forward Observer)
Regular Infantry Squad
Veteran Infantry Squad
Inexperienced Infantry Squad
Machine Gun Team
Sniper Team
Light Howitzer
The same list can serve for the Austro-Hungarians in the early war.
Russian cavalry will be as per the Cavalry Squad in the Armies of the Soviet Union supplement:
- No submachine guns
An LMG option from the start of the war (Madsen) would be historically correct, though not one per squad. This will unbalance otherwise equal size forces in the early war when the Austro-Hungarian cavalry did not have LMGs at all.
Both sets of early war cavalry can have a medium machine gun team and a light field artillery gun team as options.
Anti-tank grenades and submachine guns, as per the WW2 rules, are not available to any Russian infantry.
You can let Russian infantry have a Madsen LMG/s if you permit the Austro-Hungarians to take the Schwarzlose with the bipod ('back pack') mount. It wouldn't have been an LMG per squad, more like one or two per company. Alternatively, Russians can use captured Schwarzlose though I am not aware of any 28mm figures that are released with this option ;-).
Late war Austro-Hungarians get flame-thrower, light mortar, and/or 37mm light infantry gun teams.
If you add stormtrooper options for late war Austro-Hungarians then you can do so for Russians too. Specialist teams were trained for the Brusilov offensives, leading the way in many attacks.
Both sides operated armoured cars so you could consider this option. Tanks did not feature.
Robert
-
GAJO Games published WW1 adaptations, which are a good starting point for Bolt Action v2 (http://gajominis.com/rules/rulesgajo.html). I totally endorse the point that 'the [Bolt Action] rules as published do not need significant changes to reflect World War One actions'. Here are some additional comments and suggestions, FWIIW:
1. Air Support was divided into two broad categories:
a. Artillery fire control, typically controlled by aerial observers in aircraft and/or captive balloons. Normally this type of fire was directed at enemy forces identified off-table. Firing at enemy in close combat with friendly forces, which is what Bolt Action represents, was not encouraged because of the very high risk of blue-on-blue. That said, Bolt Action is about introducing a taste of some of these elements of battle. The variant, as described, is ok from this perspective bearing in mind that the Air Force Forward Observer would actually have been in the air in reality.
b. Strafing and low level bombing runs from ground attack aircraft. Fighters and dedicated fighter-bombers began operating this way in 1916.
2. The Chauchat LMG has been given a 'jam' Special Rule. All LMGs were prone to this in muddy conditions. There is a famous video of a German MG08/15 being set up and fired in a training exercise. It jams multiple times in the minute or so of the clip. The French army conducted a thorough review of all weapons systems, including the Chauchat, when Pétain took over in 1917. There were lots of positive reports about the Chauchat. The issue of maintaining cleanliness during battle was emphasised but this was not unique to the Chauchat. Furthermore, the Chauchat was highly prized by Stosstruppen, who would receive financial and other rewards for capturing these weapons for re-use in their units. I recommend not using this Special Rule.
3. 'Infiltration Tactics' are frequently referred to in relation to German Sturmtruppen. The term is used to imply that units could slip between frontline defences. The attacks on British Fifth Army during Operation Michael in March 1918 are often cited as an example. The 'infiltration' achieved by German attackers was not down to something inherent in the units themselves. It represented the very dispersed nature of the British defences. In other words, you would model this by spreading out the defender rather than apply a Special Rule to the attacker. Operation Mars was a complete failure because 'Infiltration Tactics' could not work against normal defences.
4. Mk V* (often referred to as Mark Five Star). Apply the same stats as the Mk V but add the 'transporter' Special Rule. It transported MMG teams. The A7V transported a wider range of assault troops.
5. Captured Weapons - also allow the Germans to swap for the Chauchat LMG. The Madsen LMG can also be used.
6. Stosstruppen, Elite Stormtrooper, and Assault Squads should not have different Special Rules from their British, Dominion, and French counterparts. German histories refer to these counterparts as 'Sturmtruppen', reflecting the similar nature of assault tactics across all major nations on the Western Front.
7. Granatwerfer should have 3 crew, mirroring the requirements for the 37mm Infantry Gun Team.
8. Americans and French should have the Schneider as an option: 1 x MMG on each side; 1 x light howitzer - otherwise same as Char St Chamond Tank. Note that French tank forces used pioneers to turn difficult terrain into 'normal' terrain.
9. All tanks can disembark MMG teams when bogged.
10. The French should have the equivalent of 'elite' assault troops, reflecting the dedicated assault teams and/or the use of colonial troops such as the Sengalese for this capability.
11. Bergmann SMGs were very rare. I would leave them out or make them much more expensive to include in a squad.
12. Flammenwerfer are better modelled as separate teams IMHO. The French and Americans should have an option to include dedicated flamethrower teams as well (French flamethrower teams were attached to the Americans, eg the Big Red One's attack on Cantigny).
Robert
-
Thank you so much for the loads of information. Think I'll start with Bolt Action first since I know the rules.
-
I would say that for fighting on the Eastern Front, German use of captured Madsens would be far more likely than captured Chauchats.
-
Thanks for all the information Robert. Really useful.
-
I would say that for fighting on the Eastern Front, German use of captured Madsens would be far more likely than captured Chauchats.
Yes, large numbers of Madsens were captured or intercepted en route from Denmark to Russia. There were enough to arm two infantry battalions as Madsen-only fire teams, the so-called Musketen Bataillonen. These battalions were based on the Western Front. They served with distinction during the Battle of the Somme, after which the Madsens were replaced with Lewis guns. I haven't seen examples of Germans using Madsens on the Eastern Front but it is quite possible.
Chauchats were used by the Romanians after the French re-trained and re-armed the Romanian army, following the fall of Bucharest. I haven't seen examples of Germans or Austro-Hungarians using Chauchats on the Eastern Front.
Robert
-
Bolt Action WW1
Ugh. No.
-
The stats are not going to be any different from western forces buddy.
What? o_o
-
No particular game bashing please.
If you fancy other games name them.
Thank you.
-
Yeah guys. Remember I asked what rules you would recommend and why.