How would you game 1914?

[Patrick R]

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.

[carlos marighela]

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.

[former user]

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

[yancey5]

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.

[Emir of Askaristan]

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

[cdr]

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

[DRDHauser]

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.

[huevans]

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?

[huevans]

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?

[Etranger]

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.

[Etranger]

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.

[Pijlie]

We played it in 15mm with Black Powder. Worked very well.

http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/2014/02/battle-of-mons-2014.html

[janner]

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 

[huevans]

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.

[Etranger]

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.