The War that 'no-one' wargames..will that change?

[HerbertTarkel]

As a Canadian, there is a fair amount of interest in WW1, but most people view it as “trench warfare that is just get out, run, get mowed down”.

In reality there are so many scenarios that would be interesting to game - the first gas attack, for example - if you haven’t huffed your own urine to defeat chlorine gas, are you really Canadian? Nah.

Vimy.

The cavalry action by the LdSH(RC) - “it’s a charge, boys!” - where the entire cavalry of the Canadians were brigaded together, but the Strats came round the wood to charge.

The 100 Days.

And the post WW1 where Canada sent troops in support of the Whites in the RCW.

Those are just a few that I can think of. Having served in a Great War regiment, that Harcus Strachan got his VC at Cambrai, WW1 is important to me.

[ChrisBBB]

The question is "do you think WWI could gain more popularity in the gaming community over time? And how?"

On the negative side:
- Each new war competes for wargamers' attention, so WWI's share will tend to diminish
- In other periods, the 'holy trinity' of firepower-mobility-protection is in better balance. The interactions of infantry/cavalry/artillery (or infantry/armour/artillery, or light missile inf/heavy armoured inf/cavalry) generate interesting tactical decisions. In WWI, relatively speaking, firepower kills mobility, so it is relatively less interesting than other periods, hence at a disadvantage. (Note the word relatively.)

On the positive:
- A good new ruleset could boost popularity
- A good new scenario book could boost popularity
- A good new figure range could boost popularity

So the answer is yes.

PS I do occasionally wargame WWI, eg here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-biggest-wwi-battle-in-africa-mahiwa.html

[Andreas Johansson]

Actually, the Great War is probably the single specific war I've gamed the most, though it's all been aerial or naval. I'm arranging a Jutland game later this week.

But I doubt there will be any great renaissance in WW1 gaming. It'll remain as a second-tier subject, never as popular as WW2 - but not likely to go away either.

[HerbertTarkel]

Actually, the Great War is probably the single specific war I've gamed the most, though it's all been aerial or naval. I'm arranging a Jutland game later this week.

But I doubt there will be any great renaissance in WW1 gaming. It'll remain as a second-tier subject, never as popular as WW2 - but not likely to go away either.

WW1 aerial is by far the most air gaming I’ve done. Wings of Glory/War was something I had everything that came out for it - even rare “gold” and “silver” “prize planes” for tournaments. It was a staggering collection, but one that I used a LOT! My dog even liked it 

[carlos marighela]

Gorgeous!

Glad it's not our pooch. My wife has 'trained' it to piss on anything resembling a mat. That said, ours is either so stupid or short sighted that it typically pisses next to the fucking mat, rather than on it. There are frequent occasions when the queston is asked as to whether the Russians need any more crew for Sputniks.

[monk2002uk]

The Great War is my specialty. My interest started with my grandfather who, unlike many veterans, did talk about his experiences in the New Zealand Division on the Western Front. Back in the 60s when he was still alive, he talked at length about the misinformation around Donkeys leading Lions. He was very clear. The Germans were determined, excellent soldiers. There was no way of achieving a quick win with different generals. My grandfather's insights laid a different foundation for the work over the last 50 years. Understanding French and German has helped too, providing access to information from other sources.

WW1 represents the first time that 'million man' armies took the field, supported by 'modern' weapons and logistics. It was not firepower that killed mobility. It was the ability to deny open flanks. On the Western Front, logistics lagged behind. For the first two years or so, manufacturing capabilities were limited. In the second half of the war, logistic supplies enabled the problems of continuous trenches to be overcome.

The Eastern Front showed what happens when logistics on one side could not keep pace with the other.

Static warfare on the Western Front in the first two years is not particularly interesting from my perspective. There was too little artillery ammunition for many of these early battles. I have written a lot of scenario books, however, on the open warfare periods in France, Eastern Front and Mesopotamia. Gallipoli was absolutely fascinating. It is the scenario book that I am most proud of. The Somme is next on the list. I have included scenarios from the Race to the Sea and from 1915, which help set the scene for July 1916. The battles that followed illustrate how tactics evolved in the face of unlimited artillery supplies essentially.

Next on the list is the various battles featuring tanks. Cambrai 1917 will be showcased at Joy of Six this year. There are other scenarios related to Matz, Chemin des Dames, Amiens, and the Last 100 Days.

Robert
Robert

[thestoats]

monk2002uk,
I love that you dispel the "Lions led by Donkeys" myth and point out that firepower did not kill mobility (as further proven by the Russian Civil War). However, I'm confused about what you mean when mentioning that the logistics of one side of the Eastern Front (presumably Russia and Romania) were inferior? I had always assumed that the arms shipments from the Western Allies somewhat remedied these concerns and read that the collapse after the Tarnopol Offensive was largely due to a lack of morale rather than a lack of material.

[HerbertTarkel]

Cambrai also features the finest cavalry charge of the trench warfare era, ironically.

https://valourcanada.ca/military-history-library/harcus-strachan-vc-mc/

[Gribb]

The Great War is my specialty. My interest started with my grandfather who, unlike many veterans, did talk about his experiences in the New Zealand Division on the Western Front. Back in the 60s when he was still alive, he talked at length about the misinformation around Donkeys leading Lions. He was very clear. The Germans were determined, excellent soldiers. There was no way of achieving a quick win with different generals. My grandfather's insights laid a different foundation for the work over the last 50 years. Understanding French and German has helped too, providing access to information from other sources.

WW1 represents the first time that 'million man' armies took the field, supported by 'modern' weapons and logistics. It was not firepower that killed mobility. It was the ability to deny open flanks. On the Western Front, logistics lagged behind. For the first two years or so, manufacturing capabilities were limited. In the second half of the war, logistic supplies enabled the problems of continuous trenches to be overcome.

The Eastern Front showed what happens when logistics on one side could not keep pace with the other.

Static warfare on the Western Front in the first two years is not particularly interesting from my perspective. There was too little artillery ammunition for many of these early battles. I have written a lot of scenario books, however, on the open warfare periods in France, Eastern Front and Mesopotamia. Gallipoli was absolutely fascinating. It is the scenario book that I am most proud of. The Somme is next on the list. I have included scenarios from the Race to the Sea and from 1915, which help set the scene for July 1916. The battles that followed illustrate how tactics evolved in the face of unlimited artillery supplies essentially.

Next on the list is the various battles featuring tanks. Cambrai 1917 will be showcased at Joy of Six this year. There are other scenarios related to Matz, Chemin des Dames, Amiens, and the Last 100 Days.

Robert
Robert

Very interesting. Have you done any particular scenarios for battles in August 1914 that were published?

[monk2002uk]

However, I'm confused about what you mean when mentioning that the logistics of one side of the Eastern Front (presumably Russia and Romania) were inferior? I had always assumed that the arms shipments from the Western Allies somewhat remedied these concerns...

Arms shipments helped but were nowhere near sufficient, especially for heavy and super-heavy artillery, to cover the problems with manufacturing within Russia. Rail connectivity was problematic. Hope this is clearer.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Very interesting. Have you done any particular scenarios for battles in August 1914 that were published?

Yes. The scenario supplements include: 'All Fine Men' (Eastern Front) here; 'Summer Harvest' (Galicia and Serbia) here; 'Marching to War' (Western Front) here; and 'Miracle of the Marne' (Western Front, mainly September though) here.

Robert

[Gribb]

Yes. The scenario supplements include: 'All Fine Men' (Eastern Front) here; 'Summer Harvest' (Galicia and Serbia) here; 'Marching to War' (Western Front) here; and 'Miracle of the Marne' (Western Front, mainly September though) here.

Robert

Much obliged.

‘Marching to War’ is the one I’d like to purchase. Are the rules intended for smaller scales(big battles), or will they work for 28mm (small skirmishes) as well?

[monk2002uk]

The scenarios are designed for division- and corps-level games, not skirmishes.

Robert

[sundayhero]

what do you think about Great escape Games 1914 ? I particularly like the iron cross and seven days to river rhine system. I'"m wondering if 1914 is similar, and if it "works" well for the period.

[fred]

GEG 1914

We enjoyed Iron Cross a lot - it is essentially platoon to company a side pretty much 1:1 scale. The activation systems works really well at this scale, and we have had some fun games.

But for 1914 rules which are a much higher representative scale (IIRC one stand is a platoon) we didn't find the activation mechanism worked very well, it felt like units were doing loads of things in a turn. We did play mainly remotely during covid, and I don't think the players really made best use of the interrupt mechanism. But you also need quite a high dice roll to interrupt so I suspect they felt keeping their activation counters was more effective.

The games looked good, you get plenty of figures on the table, and move along. But they don't feel very WWI.

The photos in the rule book are odd too - nice figures but the terrain looks more like Middle Earth with great rock formations, rather than northern France.

Edit - one good thing about the higher level WWI rules is that the same figures work for all the rules - perhaps with the addition of the odd different type of command figure.