"How would you wargame 1914?" Topic

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….

I game at whatever scale my good friend Mike decides he wants to play. He has 20mm single figure skirmish, and based 15mm.
He puts on great games, and his wife Kathy feeds us well. PLUS, I don't have to paint anything!
So, I do not have to make any heavy lifting decisions like that. Mike plays in my AWI games, and he doesn't have to do anything except show up.

15mm, Over the Top (Command Decision). I have roughly a German and BEF Division

I would use Great War Spearhead 2 which is a great set of rules and try and make it battle as large as possible

GWSH2 uses 1 base=company

Also Great War Spearhead 2. I have a Russian Corps and a Turkish Division. Need to paint some more Turks…

I already have a large painted 25mm forces for small unit actions. I'am also starting to do 15mm and I'am going to use either the peter pig Square bashings rules or Opt 14.

I am planning on meeting engagement skirmishes starting with Cavalry

I would do a company level game in 28mm.

While I'd be game for company-level (I already have This Quar's War…), I have a feeling that even early 1914 you're looking at divisional actions for the most part.

I would do a company level game in 28mm.

These will be 15mm. Guys, don't know all these rules so a general idea of scale would be very handy!

I plan on doing very early war skirmishing. Then, trench raiding (more skirmishing). Oh – and some air and naval skirmishing as well.

I agree that my thinking is that you'd be dealing with at least Divisions and Corps. The problem you run into Early war is that Companies were huge compared to WWII. Plus, Companies in the Early war were the lowest level of independent command/initiative. Yeah, platoons could see action in a variety of situations. But it was rarely by design.

YMMV.

Thanks,

John

I am thinking of using the Baccus 6mm's new WW1 line with Square Bashing.

I've been toying with the idea with some 1914 action if HaT ever releases their BEF/East Africa stuff in 1/72.I thought a company level game would be fun.

Eastern front using Pendraken 10 mm, Russians vs. Austrians. The cavalry battles were huge.

Dan

20mm, 15mm, 10mm or 6mmm Great War Spearhead II – best way to experience WWI is at the Div/Corps level. You can play at 28mm too and would look spectacular but man the cost would be over powering.

khususanminiatures, as you can see (and probably expected) there are many angles to this issue. In weighing up the options, there are some key things to keep in mind.

Firstly, the opening weeks of the war are still largely misunderstood in terms of how tactics played out on the battlefield. The misunderstandings take many forms, including (but not limited to):
- The idea that infantry fought in massed ranks reminiscent of Napoleonic armies.
- The misconception that WW1 tactics were similar to WW2 and so rules systems for the WW2 can be modified simply, leaving unit frontages and troop densities unchanged.
- Fire and manoeuvre did not exist below company level.
- Cavalry had no role except to be easy targets for machine guns
- Battles like Mons or Le Cateau can be represented with a company of infantry and few machine guns on both sides. This is akin to having two opposing lines of trenches on table plus 3-4 tanks and saying it represents the Battle of Cambrai.

The other issue to consider is what you want to get out of a game/s. My personal approach, FWIIW, is to reproduce historical scenarios as accurately as possible. Wargaming is a valuable tool in understanding how and why tactics and operations played out as they did. The Donkeys and Lions concept has never held truck with me, not least because of the information that my grandfather passed on to me when he was still alive. He fought in the Great War, surviving several major battles. My grandfather constantly reinforced the fact that the Germans were very tough and competent opponents. This meant no easy wins at all – just like it took the combined might of the major powers to subdue German resistance in WW2 as well.

Equally, WW1 games can be about having fun with the period and not getting too hung up about the specifics of an historical action. To this end, many players appreciate using rules systems that they already have for WW2 for example. Several WW2 rules have supplements already, either official or otherwise. These are ok if you realise that the ground scales are usually wrong by an order of magnitude. WW1 forces did not fight like dense lines of Napoleonic infantry but they were more compressed than their WW2 counterparts. A company of WW1 infantry would occupy the same frontage as a WW2 platoon.

If you go for a platoon or company on table as the maximum force size then please be aware that fire and manoeuvre of small units was practised from the outset of the war. Doctrine and training for all major powers on the Western Front dictated that the closer you came to the enemy's defensive position then the smaller should be unit of manoeuvre. Within the last few hundred metres (i.e. what gets represented on a table), sub-sections and even individuals were expected to get forward using defilade or very short bounds under cover of fire from their colleagues. Given that supporting weapons such as MGs and artillery were much less widely distributed, this made fire fights into a more protracted affair unless the enemy left a major hole in the defences or made a fundamental error in deployment.

Given the more compressed nature of forces on WW1 battlefields, the impact of neighbouring units was that much greater. In games with smaller units, the focus is with those forces that are on-table. This works for a meeting encounter of advance guards for example. But in representing a major battle such as Mons or Le Cateau, small unit representations miss the fact that off-table forces could and did have a major impact. Enfilade MG and artillery fire are but two examples of this. My preference, again just FWIIW, is to use divisions and corps on table. That way the interrelationship between forces is better preserved and the need for excellent positioning and use of reserves.

I use Crossfire for smaller actions and Great War Spearhead II for the major battles.

Robert

My 1914 stuff is 15mm. It is based for Great War Spearhead (so company sized bases) but I have used the same stuff for everything from company sized skirmishes with section bases to Army level stuff at one base per battalion.

The figure poses are largely irrelevant, as long as I can tell who is who.

I will be using 10mm Pendraken based for Great War Spearhead, but also will play Square Bashing with them.

Just got to finish them also got to do my late war armies.

doing French, German and British for Early and Late war

The most recent First World War wargames I have taken part in used Richard Brooks' OP14 rules. The figures are 15mm and organised to represent brigades, divisions, and corps.

link

link

OPerational. Like this:
link

I have 15mm.
1914 BEF two brigades, German division, Russian Cav division & inf Div, Austrian Cav Div, Turks and Australian Light Horse brigade and German East Afrika Germans and British Indians.(yes I know the last few were 1915 on)

Mostly Minifigs.

Originally for Over the Top So have aprox 32 figures per batt (24 for Germans)but am going to be redoing as Spearhead 2. (Have used Volley and Bayonet for BEF 1914 worked quite well.and Square bashing which was…ok..)

NEED Higher Command (Colonels, Generals etc,)for everyone, heavier artillery (anything above 77mm Soixante-Quinze 18pdr 76mm 3 line field gun) (and yes I know there is a 105mm and a 60pdr) Don't want Big Berthas or rail guns.
plus decent German artillery crews and FOs

Also have 1918 Britsh, Germans, Russo-Polish armys Latvians and Friekorps but have never done anything with them.

I prefer big battles, with a corps or more on a side. I find 15's too big and too expensive for big battles and prefer 10mm Pendraken, but I like to get other 10mm and even N-scale when they fit in size-wise and add variety.

I developed fast-play large-scale rules just for 1914 that our club likes. One stand is a company or battery or squadron, or a HQ. Players can run anything from a regiment (about a dozen stands) to a corps (around 150 stands). But a brigade or division per player seems to work best.

I am currently doing the opening 2 months of the war on the Western Front using 10 mm figures based mainly as corps, with some divisions. Each base is a corps .

The impression I'm getting is what I thought I'd see -- 1914 tends to be played at a larger scale, meaning each figurine often represents more than one man and movement on the tabletop is at least preliminarily not under direct enemy fire.

So do marching models make the most sense in terms of poses? Or perhaps advancing?

I think I would rather see a mixture of kneeling firing,standing firing and a march/ cautious advance figure, but no prone/lying down figures though

I suppose I should point out that 1916/1917 trench warfare can also be played at the large scale..Just depends on what rules allow you to make a game of this..but that would be a completely different range of figures

khurasan – there is one theater wide open for someone to step into in 15 mm: German East Africa. No one does this. And many would like this. And the big benefit of doing such a range is that the figures can also be used for pulp style gaming and/or some later period Darkest Africa style events. Also, it fits nicely with having plenty of the 'line of battle' troops but also some colorful characters as well – something I think fits well with Khurasan.

As to scale – the largest armies for this period tended to be around or below 20,000 – and often much smaller than that, maybe 2500 Germans and, say, 10000 allies. Yes, I know, vastly larger numbers in the theater, but rarely in the field in opposition to each other.

And here the company is the unit, around 200 men or so.

If you go this way you have some ready made customers. Otherwise you are jumping into a very crowded field – as the above replies clearly indicate. Enough to make it worthwhile? Heck of I know. But at least you'd be covering something others are not – in 15 mm.

May I support Early Morning writer ? I have read "Mosley, Leonard (1964). Duel for Kilimanjaro. An Account of the East African Campaign 1914–1918. New York: Ballantine Books". Nice read BTW, but the reason I mention this is because of his description of the Askaris. A German East Afrika Army could not be complete without the non-combattants to follow them. There is one story of a woman who is in labour while her husband is fighting a battle, and after giving birth is recovered soon enough to make him supper ! Another image is that of an Askari warrior who goes into battle with his little son on his shoulders.
The problem with the European front is that the armies simply are too big. Of course we will try to fight 1914 too (15mm Peter Pig, Mons or La Cateau, rules perhaps Black Powder), but the "real" battles are beyond reach.

And be assured that I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay for East African troops in advance if this could help you !

I have played 1914 for a number of years using 15mm Peter Pig figures. I have 4 figures on a 40mm base and 12 bases is a battalion plus 1 HMG so 50 figures to a battalion. The Germans have a Division of 12 battalions as have the French. The Belgians and BEF are approximately half that size. I do have cavalry but these are mainly represented by dismounted figures.

Battles therefore can be quite large and last a few weeks. See reports on my blog The Wargamorium Blog. link

As for figures I would suggest advancing or firing but not marching. Also needed are HQ troops including telephone troops, cyclists, dismounted cavalry, engineers and signalers. Cavalry machine guns would also be very welcome as well as a broad selection of mounted cavalry.

I eventually gave up pestering Peter Pig to complete this range.

Hope this helps

I made my cyclist stands by using the loose cycles. Minifigs and Irregular also have extensive 15mm ranges which can fill some gaps.

I did East Africa using colonial figures painted in appropriate colours, but the Pendraken 10mm EA range is a thing of beauty.

While I game The Great War in 28mm I will join the East Africa crowd. It is a wide open territory for new products, and I've heard the same from others who do not read TMP.

(for what that's worth. Good Luck)

All my WWI collection is in 15mm. All units are either company or battalion in size. I prefer Battalion size for early war, and company size for late war.

Love to see someone do some good Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians.

I know Eureka does Bulgs and Serbs, but I just don't like the sculpts, plus the rifles and bayonets are too brittle.

Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide to do. (I'm going to jump into your WSS ranges very shortly)

Eric Burgess

28mm very early western front. Max of about 100 figs per side

Up until the Race to the Sea, probably 15mm. After that, 6mm or 3mm.

15mm all war is great for me. I like skirmishing & advancing figures. Don't like prone figures.

15mm a real mix of figures and manufacturers. I only have late war however. 1914 strikes me as very much like FPW, though that's not a criticism. There are some critical missing figures. For example rifle grenadiers. Minifigs makes a nice late war British kneeling figure. But that's it. I would like for rules and organization something between M&B and OtTop. Battalion to brigade level. Am playing around with 2-man stands four to a platoon representing for late war Brits one each bomber, rifle grenadiers, Lewis gun and riflemen bases. I'd like something quick. RFTCM Square Bashing looks interesting but a little abstract. Very interesting period to figure out and simulate on the tabletop. Wish someone would make terrain pieces with wargamable trench systems under ground level. Oh! 1914! Never mind.

Just read Max Hasting's "Catastrophe 1914". Good book. The 1914 battles to me read like Napoleonic battles with huge armies slamming into each other with machine guns and breach-loading artillery to increase the body count. If I was gaming it I'd want battalions as the basic unit and to play with corps-strength armies.

Being Belgian( Flemish) we're doing a participation game in 28mm based on the Armoured Cars sorties out of Antwerp.
In our game no gloriuous straightforwrad victory against Geman Uhlans but a dogged fight trying to extricate hapless Belgian cyclist under the withering fire from German Jaegers and Infantry.
2015 will be the obvious Napoleonic year, but we'll go back to WWI in 2017 with the Belgian trench raiders on the River Yzer.

Personally, I like to focus in smaller engagements, say a couple of platoons per side, perhaps with some support from battalion assets. For bigger games, I do not use miniatures, but boardgames.

German buglers in all periods. Not just Jagers. One part of Martian Middlebrook's "The Kaisers battle" that struck me 23 years ago was the passage about "Potato Soup" being heard being sounded by the troops off the flanks.

kartoffeln soup
kartoffeln soup
den grossen tag
kartoffeln soup

I have to agree with BASILEUS66.
The smaller engagements of WW1 are the best games. My many 15mm figs. on round 12mm bases, adds a balance of visual and colour, pleasing the wargaming eye. The WW1 East Afician battles also produced many conflicts for many other countries colonies other than that of Britain vs. Germany. I am currently writing a quick and simple ruleset just for all those conflicts.

Cheers All

WillieB, I like the Belgian sorties too. For Great War Spearhead, I created a scenario based on the Belgian Cavalry Division's sortie towards Pellenberg. My favourite cavalry of the war are the Belgian Guides, with their distinctive and beautiful uniforms. I have their regimental history plus the 4 volume 'La Belgique et la Guerre'. These contain plenty of details for various scenarios.

Robert

gee and I was going to say with some rules, miniatures, and some dice.

Firstly, the opening weeks of the war are still largely misunderstood in terms of how tactics played out on the battlefield. The misunderstandings take many forms, including (but not limited to):
- The idea that infantry fought in massed ranks reminiscent of Napoleonic armies.
- The misconception that WW1 tactics were similar to WW2 and so rules systems for the WW2 can be modified simply, leaving unit frontages and troop densities unchanged.
- Fire and manoeuvre did not exist below company level.
- Cavalry had no role except to be easy targets for machine guns
- Battles like Mons or Le Cateau can be represented with a company of infantry and few machine guns on both sides. This is akin to having two opposing lines of trenches on table plus 3-4 tanks and saying it represents the Battle of Cambrai.

WW1 forces did not fight like dense lines of Napoleonic infantry but they were more compressed than their WW2 counterparts. A company of WW1 infantry would occupy the same frontage as a WW2 platoon.

If you go for a platoon or company on table as the maximum force size then please be aware that fire and manoeuvre of small units was practised from the outset of the war. Doctrine and training for all major powers on the Western Front dictated that the closer you came to the enemy's defensive position then the smaller should be unit of manoeuvre. Within the last few hundred metres (i.e. what gets represented on a table), sub-sections and even individuals were expected to get forward using defilade or very short bounds under cover of fire from their colleagues. Given that supporting weapons such as MGs and artillery were much less widely distributed, this made fire fights into a more protracted affair unless the enemy left a major hole in the defences or made a fundamental error in deployment.

A very interesting post. Being an interested newbie in this period, it makes me raise the following questions:

In a company or smaller game, would the OC have the operational flexibility to pick alternate routes of attack or alter his timing the way a WW2 company commander might?

Were there doctrinal differences between the major powers in terms of delivering / resisting a company level attack?

Was there any degree of cooperation between artillery and infantry at a sub-unit level?

Appreciate any information.

With regards to operational flexibility, it depends on the scenario you are reproducing. In large battles, forces were far more compressed than their WW2 equivalents. Because frontages were so much smaller, operational flexibility was significantly reduced.

During periods of movement warfare, such as the first weeks of the war, advance guards would advance with more space in which to manoeuvre. This gave company commanders the possibility, indeed the imperative, of moving his forces in response to what was discovered by point patrols etc.

There were almost no doctrinal differences between the major powers in either delivering or defending a company level attack. All armies considered fire and manoeuvre to be the appropriate method of attack, with manoeuvre units becoming smaller and smaller, even down to sub-sections, as the attacker approached to within assault distance of the defender. Even the distances at which the changes in attack took place were similar across all nations.

Defense was built around good fieldcraft, including light entrenchments if necessary, and musketry – the use of controlled (but not volley) rifle fire.

At war's start, there was great emphasis on cooperation between artillery and infantry, even down to the sub-unit level when operating as combined arms advance guards.

Robert

I use 15mm for all of my The Great War gaming.

In 1914 these is the Affair at Néry were cavalry on recon bumped into each other. Will be running it in the fall using Through the Mud and the Blood by TOOFATLardies. Troops are based individual.

There are also the actions in East Africa were I have run Tanga and other skirmishes in 15mm. Rules were If the Lord Spares Us, also by the Lardies. Units are by company.

At divisional level I game using 3mm and 6mm. Good look and feel for these battles.

Jon, not sure what you mean by cavalry on recon bumping into each other at Néry. Are you referring to the patrols of British 1st Cavalry Brigade and German 4th Cavalry Division that bumped into each other in the fog north of the village in the morning? The rest of the action involved far more men than could be represented with TTMB. Both forces were bivouacked within a very short distance of each other without realising. It was the lack of patrols that enabled this to happen overnight. When battle was joined, the huge ravine played a decisive role in preventing the German cavalry from making direct contact. The action was broken off when large numbers of British reinforcements arrived on scene.

Robert

Would "I'd do it as a board game" be considered too flippant?

There were a number of vignette moments in the 1914 campaign that might make an interesting game. It is hard to see how those small scale encounters would have had much of an impact on the overall campaign. To actually alter the outcome of the campaign you'd probably have to go larger scale than most of us could represent in a figure wargame.

I would do 15mm, company size units, division size battles, mostly Eastern Front.

Can I ask whether hope upon hope you look a little further than another 1916 – 1918 Western Front range. Economically I can understand the draw, but please any chance of spreading the net further afield. Peter Pig and Blue Moon both cover this area. Any chance of an outstanding range of figs for East Africa and the Middle East in 15mm? It's a huge area of untapped potential.Imperial troops, Rugga Rugga, Askari's, German, Belgian, British as well as Empire troiops not to mention Masai scouts.

Here's hoping, best of look with the range