How would you game 1914?

[Johan]

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.

[fastolfrus]

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.

[Shawnt63]

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

[grant]

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.

[Ahistorian]

I would use either the company or the battalion as the basic element, and either battalion or brigade as the lowest command echelon.

[cdr]

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

[Lardy Rich]

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

[Shawnt63]

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.

[Lardy Rich]

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 

[Shawnt63]

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

[huevans]

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.

[huevans]

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.

[Ahistorian]

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.

[huevans]

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.

[Shawnt63]

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.