First Great War game

[Arlequín]

Space is an issue for the majority of gamers, I would have to rely on a club for space for anything over 4' square, even then storage limitations prevent me having a board even that size knocking around.

When you move above anything larger than, say a platoon sized skirmish, the table size stays relatively static, only the figure scale and ground scale changes. However you play your games, whether it is battalion, brigade or divisional level, the number of figures is pretty constant too. A GW company (1:3) is around the fourty figure mark, a battalion at 1:20 would be 30 figures strong, with a brigade at 120 or so, the same really as a GW battalion.

If a larger figure scale was chosen you would have to group battalion level assets within a brigade, otherwise you would have a different and unrepresentative scale than the remainder of your troops, or ignore them completely. So with a GW Battalion you'd have one MG model, a 1:20 Brigade would also have one MG model representing the MG sections of its constituent battalions.

So that leaves us with the same number of figures, the same number of support weapons, just what we call them is different. Not, I would have thought, a major issue. I think the selection of 1:3 as a ratio is 'unusual', but the best option for this period. As for the rules you either like the Warhammer system or you don't, but you'd get the same game whatever you want to call your units.

[Plynkes]

My games so far have been of a much smaller scale than this, proper skirmish games. I have had a hard time from folks on other forums who have told me that skirmish gaming is impossible for anything but trench-raiding in the Great War.  Rommel in his book talks of doing such-and-such with his 2nd section, while 1st section does something else. Was he such an able commander that he was the only one who did this kind of thing?

Say you have a pocket of resistance on your flank, five or six of the enemy in a walled garden firing at you. Is your only option to attack them with the entire platoon, (ignoring the enemy in the farmhouse to your front) just because the book says so? You can't detail a few men to deal with them while the rest continue to advance? Were they really so inflexible?

Most of my books (other than the Rommel one), deal with things at a much higher level. They tell you in vague terms what whole battalions were up to. "The Worcesters assaulted the village, driving the Bavarian reservists to the far end after a sharp fight", without describing the actual details of the action. So I really don't know. Maybe everyone except Rommel would have used an entire platoon to assault a chicken coop with a single marksman hiding in it, but something makes me think not.

[Poliorketes]

I have a bookon the war in the alpes, "Die steinerne Front" (front of stone). Most Actions in the alpes had a commando-attitude ideally suited for skirmish warfare, but on the other hand that's been a very special battlefield.

[twrchtrwyth]

Great looking game.

[Arlequín]

My games so far have been of a much smaller scale than this, proper skirmish games. I have had a hard time from folks on other forums who have told me that skirmish gaming is impossible for anything but trench-raiding in the Great War.  Rommel in his book talks of doing such-and-such with his 2nd section, while 1st section does something else. Was he such an able commander that he was the only one who did this kind of thing?

Say you have a pocket of resistance on your flank, five or six of the enemy in a walled garden firing at you. Is your only option to attack them with the entire platoon, (ignoring the enemy in the farmhouse to your front) just because the book says so? You can't detail a few men to deal with them while the rest continue to advance? Were they really so inflexible?

Most of my books (other than the Rommel one), deal with things at a much higher level. They tell you in vague terms what whole battalions were up to. "The Worcesters assaulted the village, driving the Bavarian reservists to the far end after a sharp fight", without describing the actual details of the action. So I really don't know. Maybe everyone except Rommel would have used an entire platoon to assault a chicken coop with a single marksman hiding in it, but something makes me think not.

Well it is ridiculous to think that anyone could say with all honesty that 'Skirmish games are only possible as Great War trench raids'. Smacks of some type of Wargame snobbery to me... probably some Napoleonic gamer with 24 figure 'battalions'. I'd imagine there isn't a period within which you couldn't play a skirmish game.

From the time armies first appeared there would have been low level combat involving a few troops in a variety of scenarios. Within even the greatest battles involving masses of men, you still come down to one man with his rifle/spear/rock against another. It wouldn't be impossible to game a skirmish based around one tiny segment of a larger battle.

The majority of historians are a lazy bunch. The majority crib from the official histories and regimental records. These obviously give you the big picture of a battle, campaign or war, but lack detail. If you want to find out lower level information, you have to go to individual's diaries and letters etc. Understandably the further back you go, the less common they become. Historians tend to baulk at doing something as time consuming as tracking these down and using them .

I chose 'platoon' in my previous post as it is about the biggest size of unit I would expect to see in a 'skirmish game'. Obviously you could still play a game with a section, or even a fire team of 3-4 men. Any leader uses what is at his disposal to achieve an objective. If a section is all he has, he has to make do with that. Of course if he could call in artillery or air and save his guys some work, then fair enough, doesn't make for much of a game though.

In your walled garden example, presuming you had a platoon to use, you would likely use a couple of sections to face the farm and despatch a section to try and outflank the walled garden. Or a variety of other options depending on troop quality or armament etc. Many armies had a tactical level below the platoon and section, so yes they could send a few men to deal with a problem like that.

[Will Bailie]

The evolution of tactics during the Great War showed a delegation of authority to lower levels of command.  By mid-war, there are detailed manuals designating some very specific jobs, right down to platoon and section.  Manuals on trench clearing allocate men to specific jobs, such as bayonet men and grenadiers, who need to work together with split second timing.  Different sections within the platoon are allocated different tasks and weapons, such as Lewis gun or rifle grenades, and instructions provided for the best way for the sections to support each other.

I'm looking forward to receiving my copy of WHW GW - I'd like to see if these tactics can be acheived with this rule set.  GW charged my credit card on the 26th of April, so hopefully the book will arrive before too much longer...

[Plynkes]

26th of April? Blimey. I've had my copy for a couple of weeks now. They're making you wait. Hopefully you'll get it soon.

Yes, I have experienced that wargame snobbery, Jim. "One cannot possibly play a skirmish-level game as during the Great War the smallest manoeuvre unit was the blah, blah, blah..."

Reading Rommel's book, sometimes his smallest manoeuvre unit consisted of just him and a sergeant, and the individual sections of his platoon seem perfectly happy doing their own thing without the sky falling on their heads (and this is in the summer of 1914). These Württembergers weren't I think particularly exceptional soldiers either, though they did consider themselves to be much better at soldiering than the French they were facing, who they formed quite a low opinion of.

Maybe this attitude comes from reading too many books about tactical doctrine, and not enough about stuff that actually happened. Anyway, each to their own. We enjoy our games, and that's the main thing.

[Will Bailie]

26th of April? Blimey. I've had my copy for a couple of weeks now. They're making you wait. Hopefully you'll get it soon.

I am trying to import printed materials into Canada - that always involves a delay.  I'd like to think that I'm being protected from foreign smut and subversive materials, but I think that it's really the Canadian publishing industry trying to force me to give up on anything not published here.  So I'm not ready to blame WHW for something that MAY not be their fault (although when I contacted them on May 9th, I was informed that my book was being sent "tomorrow").  As they say, patience is a virtue.

I'm with Plynkes and Jim - I play these games for fun, and as long as the game provides that then I'm happy. 

[Plynkes]

I forgot you were in Canada. I didn't take that into account when I was Blimeying.

[Arlequín]

To be fair Will, the book is a bit heavy for Canadian Mail carrier pigeons, I guess its coming through the rapids by raft, or dog sled, depending on where you live 

You'll have to wait a tad longer to try the tactics you mentioned too. You'll have to tinker with it a little to get a skirmish level game out of it, or wait for the first supplement to come out.

[DRDHauser]

Great looking game; I suspect I will break down and buy the rules.

[Chuckaroobob]

Nice looking game, I've ordered the rules and they should show up soon. In the meantime, I'm going to have to get serious about painting up my Sikhs and Turks.

[Musketeer]

I've just finished my first company of Turks from Gripping Beast. They paint up great and Soapy has put in loads of different uniform styles. I'll post pics once they are based.