"WWPD: The Great War Pt I" Topic

The first in a four part series detailing the Great War starts today! Nothing the great Model Dad's video hasn't covered in today's article, but starting tomorrow we dive right into the rules and army lists.

Article: link

Thanks for sharing.

To be honest, I was a little reluctant to get into the Great War. My big concern was the quality of BF infantry sculpts. Their EW Blitzkrieg infantry leave a lot to be desired. Those models look decent.

Any word on lists for the French?

The Blitzkrieg sculpts are definitely among the worst, but plenty of their new ranges have been excellent (I'm looking at you Anzacs and EW Finns!)

French lists will certainly be coming, but no timeline has been given. Personally, I'd love to have a French list as well as I think they'd be the most fun to paint.

If you are interested in late war WW1 I would recommend going with figures from the Peter Pig range. I have both late war German and British figures and think they are excellent sculpts, I'm hopeful some late war French will be around before too long (I hope).

Bede

Just some brief notes, which are just for historical interest and are not meant as criticisms of the authors of the article or the rules. As I have noted before, it is good to have the rules out as they will generate more interest in the period. The article notes that '[the Germans] can take several HMG platoons, which thanks to early efforts at developing armor-piercing ammunition can be an annoyance to tanks as well'. Historically there are two problems with this. The Germans did not have remotely like this number of HMGs at such a low level of organisation. Furthermore, armour piercing ammunition was not that effective at all against the Mk IV tanks. It sliced through the mild steel plate of the Mk II tanks at Bullecourt, lulling the Germans into a false sense of the capability of that ammunition.

There is a comment about Stosstaktiken: 'The Stoss platoons have a whole slew of WW2-Commando style "Stosstactik" rules to give them the extra punch they had (you can see tactics used in WW2 starting to form here! Neat! -S).' The comment reflects the rules. If so then the rules do not reflect what Stosstaktiken were about. There was nothing intrinsically 'extra punch' about German infantry assault tactics in WW1. This is reflected in the fact that German writers of the time referred to British and Dominion troops as Sturmtruppen as well. I will check on the wording of these rules when the supplement is published and post further comments. Again there are not meant as criticisms, just to give a better sense of what WW1 was about.

'It's worth noting that both side's HMGs may fire bombardments, similar to the British in WW2.' The use of MG barrages was developed by the British and Dominion forces. They required immense organisation to get right so were used for pre-prepared barrages in the context of the very large assaults. The battle at Villers-Bretonneux was not such an example. It was a hasty defensive set up for the British, reflecting the first real attempt to stop Operation Michael in a systematic way. The Germans were just starting to use barrages but they used them in defence. During planned attacks, there was heavy reliance on Minenwerfer. Villers-Bretonneux was not such an example.

'Gun teams and tank teams take a penalty when shooting at moving, undamaged landship as if they were moving – they hadn't had a lot of practice shooting at moving vehicles yet!' Tank teams included case shot in both their arsenals. This made it easier to blast away at close range from a moving tank. Gun teams were superbly trained in hitting moving targets, especially tanks. The German artillery crews put a lot of effort into this, following on from the first appearance of tanks in 1916. The Battle of Cambrai illustrated the effects of this training, with the heavy toll taken on British tanks near Flesquieres. German artillery was the tank killer par excellence.

'The defensive battle, as you can be expect, can be quite the uphill battle for the attacker in a trench filled battlefield.' By 1918, trenches played a very limited part in major battles. The photographs of the figures illustrate what many people think is typical of WW1. Trenches were death traps by this stage of the war. Teams were often dispersed outside trenches or in all around defensive positions set well back. The Germans often used trenches as a means of deliberately drawing fire in defensive battles.

Robert

Pt II is now live, going into a bit more detail on the army lists.

link

I guess with 4 x 4 boards we may be talking about smaller forces than we might typically see in WW2 FoW?

Thank you for the further update, indierockclimber. Here are some further thoughts on the historical perspective, just to keep things in context for anyone who is interested. I am not suggesting a change to the rules at all.

'In addition, you can take up to three [German] flamethrower teams (only RoF 2 here!), three anti-tank rifle teams (infantry team, not a gun), two Granatenwefer mortar teams, and one sniper team. The anti-tank rifle teams shoot at AT4, so they will be able to pack some punch to the Armor 1 of the tanks.'

The very clear impression from these TO&Es is that there is a very significant over-representation of support weapons, even for 1918. The basic unit on the table is an infantry company. A sniper team at company level is very reasonable. At the Battle of Villers Bretonneux there were barely 3 AT rifles for the entire German army. Presuming Granatenwerfer refers to the spigot-mounted man-portable mortars then these were actually platoon assets, the German replacement for rifle grenade teams. Flammenwerfer were used in extremely well planned attacks, not hasty attacks as represented by Villers Bretonneux. Flammenwerfer were not infantry company assets.

'You can take up to three HMG platoons.' This is way too many HMGs for an infantry company. An HMG section could (and did) take out an entire infantry company so their distribution was more akin to this ratio.

'Germans have access to up to two Panzer Platoons. Each one may have 1, 2, or 3 tanks, and you can pick either A7Vs or Captured Mk4s.' An infantry company would be lucky to even see a tank. The entire German tank force was spread across three armies in Operation Michael. As it happens, there was a section that went into battle at Villers Bretonneux but even here, an infantry company would have only had one at most in its vicinity.

'The Stoss Platoons.' The highly specialised assault troops were also parcelled out across the armies. They did not use mission-based tactics, as understood in WW2. Sturmbataillon Rohr, for example, was parcelled out for very very specific objectives. One small unit was assigned to clear a quarry near St Quentin for example. It worked in association with an A7V but the 'mission' was very clearly defined and very specific. The orders were very detailed and itemised.

There are similar issues with the British TO&Es. 'You can take up to four 3" Stokes mortars'. Does this refer to four Stokes mortar teams or individual mortars. In any case, this is the sort of distribution that a battalion would have rather than a company.

The key to playing FoW Great War is to recognise that the game is an abstraction (just like all other rule sets) and that the infantry company is really more like a battalion. Then some of the support ratios will make more historical sense.

Robert

Flames of War army lists have always given one company with all the supporting assets of the parent battalion, regiment, and brigade/division.

In WW2 and later, it makes sense to me, as I picture the company on the table as being the tip of the spear, lead company of a battalion+ attack.

Flames of WW2 works very well if you take two full infantry companies and most of the battalion assets (and ONE tank platoon), usually better than a single infantry company and all the divisional support a fairy godmother can provide. I haven't tested this plan with Vietnam or AIW, yet, but I suspect it to be true for any infantry-heavy force.

So I suspect that doing the same for WW1 will prove to be more interesting and better balanced than the Army lists as written.

=====
Does anyone have the expected street date for the August Wargames Illustrated?

Thanks Lion in the Stars. A sensible approach. I am not familiar with FoW so it is helpful to get that insight. I am not someone who gets steamed about the 'historical accuracy' of gaming systems. There are too many abstractions in any gaming system to make them 'historically accurate' IMHO. FWIIW it is just a case of providing some deeper insights into WW1 for those who are interested. You have illustrated how it possible to reconcile some of these things within an existing rule set, if you want. The goal of the rules (apart from sales ;-) is to have fun and I know from the FoW1918 Yahoo Group that this is the case for many players.

Robert

Hi guys, sorry! Been away at Historicon.

Part 3: link

Part 4: link

It might be worth noting that some of the German Mk IV female Beutepanzer were armed with forward-firing AT rifles.

Robert