"Le Cateau 1914 test scenario" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Early 20th Century Scenarios Message Board Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleMal Wright experiments to find a better way to mount aircraft for wargaming.
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
ChrisBBB | 27 Feb 2015 6:09 a.m. PST |
I have drafted a scenario for the battle of Le Cateau. I'd be very interested in people's comments on both its accuracy and its playability. I think it could produce a pretty tense and rather different game: the BEF will have some delicate decisions to make about when to withdraw and when to make a stand, having to be conscious of possible threats on both flanks. The 3-page scenario is here:
Le Cateau scenario map by bbbchrisp, on Flickr
Le Cateau scenario draft p1 by bbbchrisp, on Flickr
Le Cateau scenario draft p2 by bbbchrisp, on Flickr This has been designed in response to numerous requests about using the "Bloody Big Battles!" rules for WWI. I have drafted a short document with a few suggested rules tweaks to scale up BBB for WWI. Anyone interested in that can find it in the files of the BBB Yahoo group. I hope you like the scenario. It is still a bit rough around the edges, so constructive criticism welcome. (The other kind less so, but I'm sure I can take it.) Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
Ponder | 27 Feb 2015 12:50 p.m. PST |
Howdy, No hills, topography shown on the map. The BEF actually outnumbered the Germans at LeCateau – this seems an unlikely occurrence based on your OB. Troop quality seems inverted, why would the BEF be rated as Veteran? The BEF was composed of 60 percent reservists, and their actual battlefield performance would not seem to justify such a rating. Here's a thought experiment, based on actual occurrences during the campaign, could the BEF have accomplished the variety of missions German formations actually did? Ponder on, JAS
|
alan L | 27 Feb 2015 2:11 p.m. PST |
Chris, Sounds like a good idea. I would be keen for operational level rules. Presently, the only ones I could find were OP14 from The Nugget and I couldn't really get my head around them. GWSH II is fine for Divisional/Corps Level games but something at a higher level would be interesting. Alan |
monk2002uk | 28 Feb 2015 3:49 a.m. PST |
Jessee, which of the German Corps would you drop from their OOB? Robert |
Ponder | 28 Feb 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Howdy, You have a virtually complete OB for the Germans, but only give them one target. Gamers being gamers, they will take advantage of the situation to unhistorically mass against II Corps. Is the objective here to re-fight LeCateau, or play around (examine) the operational challenges faced by both sides? Ponder on, JAS
|
ChrisBBB | 02 Mar 2015 5:42 a.m. PST |
Alan, glad you like the idea in principle. This is early days but I think it can be made to work to do what you want. Howdy Jessee, Thanks for your comments. The objective is to put the players in the position of Sir John French or von Kluck on 25 August 1914, and see how they deal with the operational challenges they faced. A simple direct recreation of just the fight at Le Cateau itself doesn't seem to me to be very itnreresting – just a frontal assault – so I framed the scenario to include the much more challenging fighting withdrawal/pursuit that led up to it, which then may or may not produce the historical fight as a climax to the game. On topography: indeed, no hills on the map. Given the scale of the game, I don't think there are any major hill features significant enough to be represented. On troop quality: you may be right that I have been Brit-o-centric and overrated the BEF. I know some of the reservists were not physically fit enough. But they at least had been trained. Veteran rating in BBB is more a reflection of the strong core of career NCOs and officers and long-service professional soldiers, which I think makes for stronger unit cohesion. But perhaps they were no better than their German opponents in this respect, so I will look again at this. On OB: I might have given the Germans too much heavy artillery (need to check that), but apart from that I'm puzzled. I think those are the historical formations, in their historical positions on the map. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome specific correction. I don't know how closely you read the scenario, but some of the units on the German OB only get to arrive if the Brits miscalculate their withdrawal and let themselves be outflanked. I'm also confused by your comment about giving the Germans "only one target". There are three objectives in the scenario. Massing against II Cps is not necessarily easy, as I Cps is allowed to move as well. The dynamics of the situation and of the rules mean that – I think – it will be hard for the Germans to catch up with the BEF without some straggling, so if it does come to a fight on the line of Le Cateau, they will be suitably historically dislocated. Time being short, they may have to launch some outnumbered attacks in the hope of unlikely success. Chris |
monk2002uk | 02 Mar 2015 7:48 a.m. PST |
Chris, what you have described is more like 'The Retreat from Mons' or similar title. Le Cateau wasn't just a frontal assault. In fact it was won by the Germans through the concentrated attack on the weakened British II Corps right flank, breaking into Le Cateau itself and then taking the British defences behind Sussex Hill in enfilade. There weren't any rifle pits to the east of Le Cateau. This is because I Corps had moved away to the south-east, becoming further separated from II Corps after the march around Mormal Forest. In order to understand Le Cateau, you do need to take into account what was happening to the west. Von Kluck's forces struggled to bring overwhelming force to bear on the opposite (left) flank of II Corps because of the delaying tactics of the British cavalry division and because of the fear of the French operating out of Cambrai. If Le Cateau is to feature then I would recommend moving the map to the left. Robert |
ChrisBBB | 02 Mar 2015 9:53 a.m. PST |
Robert, Thanks for your expert comments, much appreciated. I agree "The Retreat from Mons" is a better title. "Le Cateau" is what I started looking at, and then when I drew the frame wider I didn't change the title to reflect the expanded scope. I will change it now. "Frontal assault": thanks for the correction. That was my careless shorthand for a simple attack-defence scenario where both sides' options are relatively limited, which is a type of game I prefer to avoid if possible. I know there weren't any rifle pits east of Le Cateau. I didn't want to straitjacket players into having to have their defensive position exactly where it was historically, so I allowed the possibility of siting the trenches further east (or south). I do understand about I Cps diverging from II Cps, and I do know about the important action to the west – the scenario mentions "significant French forces to shore up the left". My design decision was to focus on the BEF in its entirety, and to abstract the actions of French (and German) forces on left or right. I think that the way I have done this will give the British player suitably historical anxieties and incentives, and could well result in the two British corps becoming separated and being exposed to German attacks on their internal flanks. I didn't want to omit II Cps, because I want the scenario to explore some of the what-ifs facing the BEF, so simply moving the map to the left is not an option. And I didn't want to extend the map any further left as that would mean including the French forces there, making it a bigger game, and creating a problem of how to reproduce the poor Allied coordination on the table. All these things could be done, of course, but I wanted to focus on the BEF this time. Thanks again for your comments, and I hope my replies make sense. Chris |
McSorley | 02 Mar 2015 10:09 a.m. PST |
|
ChrisBBB | 03 Mar 2015 5:19 a.m. PST |
|
monk2002uk | 03 Mar 2015 11:58 p.m. PST |
Chris, I understand your replies. Here are some further comments for information. A few historical things first. The British Cavalry Division operated mainly off map to the left. The French forces were at least another map's width away to the west, if not further. Maubeuge was a huge fortress complex that required a significant detour by the German forces. Some German units were detached to mask the fortress but the main forces gave it a wide berth. Von Kluck and his staff had presumed, after the Battle of Mons, that the BEF would head for the 'safety' of Maubeuge. First Army's pursuit was set up accordingly, which is one of the reasons why it couldn't bring overwhelming force to bear. Mormal Forest was considered unpassable essentially by the BEF (hence the divergence of I and II Corps) but not the Germans (hence I Corps being taken by surprise near Landrecies). On a more philosophical note if you will, it is useful to try and reproduce the thinking that underpinned the highest level commanders in the area – von Kluck and French. The problem is that both were operating without a clear idea of where the enemy's main forces were. For French, the issue was more straightforward. Get out of a situation where the BEF could be outflanked on both sides. It is much harder, IMHO, to mimick the uncertainties that von Kluck grappled with. How have you thought of tackling this aspect? I understand your point about wanting to avoid a 'simple attack-defence scenario'. Stepping back in time, however, this is kind of akin to saying that you want a scenario where you model the movements of the Confederate and Union forces towards Gettysburg (or First Manassas or whatever) but not the actual battle itself. My guess is that it is not so much the 'attack' part but perhaps the concern about the implications of attacking a prepared defensive position? The current map layout represents a series of minor delaying actions by very small units (from a BBB perspective – I suspect) against very small German advance guard detachments. These types of actions are hard to represent with rules at a lower division/corps level because the units were so small. They are the types of actions that work best for the company- or battalion-level rules systems. Probably 99% of the forces never saw action until the major battle near Le Cateau itself. It may be that this is what you are trying to model, in which case the use of hidden movement becomes important to keep the opposing generals off balance (though the table itself says that the enemy must be on it somewhere and von Kluck's concerns about the location and direction of the BEF were spread more widely). On the other hand you may be wanting to encourage a completely different type of game that is loosely based on the historical context but sets up different challenges for the players. This is perfectly acceptable of course. It is just a matter of being clear about the focus. If the scenario goes down this latter route, do you foresee that there will be major battles between the German and British forces but just not next to Le Cateau and not of the simple attack-prepared defence type? My own preference is for the attack-defence scenario part but I have read quite widely around how the Le Cateau battle (and others of this period) came about. The events and decision-making leading up to such battles are very interesting but also challenging. It is helpful to examine these issues in preparing this scenario. Thank you for the discussion. Robert |
ChrisBBB | 04 Mar 2015 5:50 a.m. PST |
Robert, this is great input, thanks very much. Brit Cav Div: OK, maybe I should make that a (possibly optional/variable) reinforcement. Maubeuge fortress: a significant oversight, so thanks for pointing it out. (And I see I transposed the numbers of the British inf divs – right locations but wrong units – that's what comes of writing it on a plane from notes without access to my library.) I believe the best tabletop wargames are those where the situation changes significantly every turn and presents players with significant new decisions to make every turn. Attack-defence actions where the defender mostly just rolls firing dice and maybe has one decision to make (where and when to commit his reserve) can be interesting, of course, but it is better if the action can be expanded to give players more choices. (Gettysburg is a more interesting battle because both sides get a series of reinforcements from various directions over the course of the three days, it's not just a simple line-out.) The scenario was prompted by people asking about using BBB for WWI, and Le Cateau was suggested as a sample action. So I started out by looking at Le Cateau – from a British perspective – and it seemed to me that focusing on the BEF and expanding it to "The Retreat from Mons" would make for a more interesting game. Fog of war is always a problem, of course. BBB mostly handles that by requiring units to dice for movement. The Germans could perhaps be penalized with a -1 (as "Passive") to reflect von Kluck's uncertainty. I think the rule mechanisms will do a reasonable job of representing von Kluck's uncertainty and of potentially dislocating the BEF. And I think they will also enable the BEF to fight small delaying actions to disrupt the German advance and be able to outrun them to set up a line at Le Cateau. I think there is a good chance that the game could take a reasonably historical shape. Equally, depending on how the random variable flanks progress, it might turn out to be a mirror image, and it could be I Corps that has to do the hard fighting while II Corps is relatively untouched. Or it could be different again with the BEF forming a solid line through Solesmes and Landrecies and holding the Germans there. We'll try it and see. Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. I'll make the necessary corrections for historical accuracy. The scenario as currently framed should suit my main purpose of playtesting the rule mods. Down the road, a more comprehensive scenario that includes the French and all of First Army might address the situation from von Kluck's point of view. Chris |
monk2002uk | 04 Mar 2015 9:50 a.m. PST |
I took a quick look at the BBB review posted in another thread. This has helped me to understand the mechanics better. Based on the description of other scenarios, I can see why you have opted for a Retreat from Mons option. When describing the scenario, it might be more helpful to think of the C&C aspect at the level of division commanders, say, rather than at the level of von Kluck and FM Sir John French. Both would have issued high level orders that gave a general (pardon the pun) direction to their subordinates. Each player would start off with this high level perspective and then would consider himself as each of the divisional commanders in turn. That way it makes sense that 'you' would know all of the units on the table and where they were located in respect of each other. Obviously each divisional commander would have focused only on the divisions either side. As the player changes focus across the battlefield, moving from one division to another, it will make more sense of the frequent decision making that you refer to. These decisions will arise from the frequent interactions between significant forces, whereas in reality there was hardly any contact because it wasn't a case of attacker versus defender – the latter was actually withdrawer/retreater (not that there are such terms but, hey, you know what I am getting at). The BEF formed long narrow columns weaving their way south, pursued by the long narrow columns of the German forces. By altering the focus of the command, it also makes more sense of the fog of war mechanic. Von Kluck was uncertain but his orders weren't. He gave clear orders that required the various Corps to move in set directions, albeit less than helpful directions if the object was to annihilate the BEF. If you wanted to mirror this aspect of command then you would dice to modify the direction that a Corps was travelling in, rather than whether it was passive or not. Where the dice for movement comes in is where the divisional commander analyses the local situation and thinks my flanks are exposed or whatever, then slows things down but still in the direction of travel that was ordered. Robert |
ChrisBBB | 05 Mar 2015 5:40 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Robert. In BBB units won't always do what you want them to, but it's true that there is no way in the rules for units to 'blunder' and advance in the wrong direction (as opposed to rolling so badly they have to fall back). So it would require a scenario-specific constraint of some kind. For this game I think I'll leave the players hands untied. I can actually imagine that in some circumstances players might still want to execute von Kluck's left wheel through the Foret de Mormal – and possibly with the same result. If it looks as though they might catch British I Corps in flank, and if II Corps is escaping too fast, a wheel through the Foret could be very tempting; and some good I Cps movement rolls and poor German ones on the next turn could then let the Brits dodge the trap, and the action could unfold historically. The time/space considerations are about right: with average rolls and following the historical plans, the Brits and Germans should end up about where they did on the evening of the 25th. Thanks also for the maps you posted in the 6mm group. I had used the one from von Kluck's book for the starting points of the German Korps. I think I need to adjust the arrivals of IV.RK and the Kav, though, and your maps are helpful for that, thank you. Again, a big thank you for all your great input. The scenario will be much improved as a result, and I really appreciate your help. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
monk2002uk | 05 Mar 2015 7:16 a.m. PST |
No problem, Chris. Happy to be of help. It is perfectly reasonable to approach the game as you suggest – give the players more a free hand and if the German commander chooses to execute a left wheel (from the German commander's perspective) then on his head be it… You can see more clearly though how, with respect to this battle, the Intel (or lack of it) played a huge role in the decision-making of the highest level commander. IV RK was lagging behind because of von Kluck's earlier decisions, pre-dating Mons even. HKK 2's situation was even more interesting, having been sent hither and thither by von Buelow and then von Kluck. Even so, the cavalry command made excellent progress and was at least within striking range by the evening of 25th August. I have details of the individual movements of the units within HKK 2. The main point is that HKK 2 was not in a position to outflank II Corps, even if Sordet's Cavalry Corps had not been there to stop them anyway. In setting up the game, it sounds like each infantry stand will represent a battalion. I noted the 24 guns per stand for artillery, which is a sizeable contigent of field artillery per area covered by a stand in comparison to their infantry colleagues. For MGs, there was a note about one stand equating to 24 MGs. This could be a problem for early WW1, as each side only had the equivalent of 2 MGs per infantry battalion. It might be better to abstract MGs into the infantry stands? A cavalry stand of 1000 troopers will be roughly the equivalent of a British cavalry brigade. This means you would have 4 British cavalry stands if the division came on table (if you held that 5th Brigade was part of the division, in addition to 1st, 2nd and 3rd Brigades – strictly speaking 5th Cavalry Brigade was an independent unit. Gough ran 3rd Cavalry Brigade in the same way ;-). Robert |
ChrisBBB | 05 Mar 2015 9:34 a.m. PST |
Actually to do WWI battles on a serious scale, even BBB really needs to be scaled up. (A different title has been facetiously suggested here: keefsblog.blogspot.co.uk ) So for this Retreat from Mons game I wanted to test a modified scale. One foot on the table is now 5 miles (maybe stretch it to 10 miles in some games). One game turn is 4 or 6 hours (3 or 4 turns per day). And the basic unit is usually going to be a division, with each stand representing 3,000+ men. Most field artillery and MGs are treated as "assets": a division would get an FA or MG marker if it had 72 of them (a normal divisional FA complement). I may have overrated the strengths. I thought both British and German infantry divisions in this action were ~18,000 strong + 72 guns, and that the British cavalry division was ~9,000 (only 24 guns – too few to matter), and HKK 2 about 18,000 and 72 guns. Am I off the mark? Chris |
monk2002uk | 05 Mar 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
The cavalry is definitely an over-estimate of the fighting strength. Remember that a significant proportion would be horse-holders during a battle – at least 1 in every 4 men. The other way to understand the relative strengths is to compare what happened when the British dismounted their cavalry for a while at the end of 1915. Basically a cavalry unit was a tier lower than its infantry counterpart. A cavalry division equated to an infantry brigade, i.e. one stand in your revised scale. Robert |
ChrisBBB | 10 Mar 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
OK, thanks, Robert. I will shrink the cavalry formations accordingly. Chris |
ChrisBBB | 19 Mar 2015 6:44 a.m. PST |
The scenario and rule mods got playtested earlier this week. For those who'd like to know how it went: The scenario went reasonably historically in that it finished up with a big punch-up along the line of Caudry-Le Cateau, with the Germans finally breaking through and taking the objectives. Divergences from history included British 3rd Div getting caught north of Le Quesnoy and pretty much destroyed; and a div of I Cps getting involved in a serious fight east of the Foret de Mormal which it eventually lost because it counterattacked when it could have withdrawn. Apart from maybe some minor fine-tuning, the scenario seems basically sound and was a good game. Rules mods still need some tweaking and calibration but generally worked OK. Chris |
Los456 | 29 Mar 2016 11:24 a.m. PST |
I certainly would not rate British Troop formations any higher than German troop formations. As both Zuber and Hart have covered in their recent works, there' is little to trump up as veteran about any of these British divisions within the context of 1914 operations. Particularly since at brigades, divisions and corps, the shambolic British logistical, staff and command work at many levels work against any perceived British superiority in musketry. |
ChrisBBB2 | 01 Apr 2016 3:58 a.m. PST |
Los 456 – thanks for endorsing what others said earlier in this thread. I have revised the scenario accordingly. Will post revised version to the BBB Yahoo group. Thanks for commenting. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
|