"WW1 Rules Recommendations " Topic
25 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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Early 20th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Profile ArticleThe tramp steamer that dreams are made of!
|
GreenLeader | 19 Apr 2015 6:59 a.m. PST |
Can I impose upon the great minds of TMP to suggest some WW1 rules with the following emphasis: 1) main unit of manoeuvre is the battalion / battery 2) infantry focused (not interested in armour / planes) 3) adequately cover 'friction' and command-control 4) encourage relatively realistic tactics / deployments / maintenance of a reserve etc 5) hidden movement / recce I don't suppose my preferred figure scale is really relevant, but if it is, I would like to use the rules to play with 6mm miniatures. Thanks in advance, |
Maddaz111 | 19 Apr 2015 8:24 a.m. PST |
|
martin goddard | 19 Apr 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
Do consider the Per Pig "Square bashing" as an elegant system which gets games done in about 2.5 hours. Uses gridded 3 foot by 4 foot table. martin |
Weasel | 19 Apr 2015 9:06 a.m. PST |
I haven't played any ww1 rules that use hidden movement but Square Bashing seems to fit the best otherwise. Great War Spearhead is pretty good too but each stand is a company. |
Stosstruppen | 19 Apr 2015 9:06 a.m. PST |
|
Maddaz111 | 19 Apr 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
Ah, I see that your idea of a manoeuvre element, is different to mine.. I had several bases representing companies, that moved together as battalions.. each unit was a battalion, but it was made up of a number of troop elements.. I have square bashing, and a number of other games.. I don't know of any other game that simulates battles of the first world war… |
FreddBloggs | 19 Apr 2015 10:05 a.m. PST |
WWI surely manoeuvre unit is a misnomer? |
WCTFreak | 19 Apr 2015 10:15 a.m. PST |
Field of Battle WW1 should fit your requirements. |
Trebian | 19 Apr 2015 10:57 a.m. PST |
Square Bashing from Peter Pig / RFCM is really worth a good look at. It ticks pretty much all of your boxes. The use of squares/gridded movement seems particularly effective for WW1 Western Front. |
Billy Goat Wargaming | 19 Apr 2015 12:55 p.m. PST |
Highly recommend Square Bashing. Quick game with plausible outcomes. |
monk2002uk | 19 Apr 2015 2:03 p.m. PST |
With Great War Spearhead, the smallest infantry stand is a company. It is a battery for artillery. The smallest unit of manoeuvre is the regiment or, in the case of the British and Dominion forces, the brigade. GWSH is focused on infantry. You can see an example of a game with tanks though here: link The rest of Robin's web site is well worth browsing. You will find plenty of scenarios and after action reports. The largest set up I know of in GWSH can be reviewed here. It was a very cool reproduction of the Battle of the Marne: link There is another example of early war infantry-heavy game here, though cavalry featured as well: link The 'friction' and command/control elements are very very good. This is what drew me to GWSH. You have to plan carefully but this is no guarantee of success. Once committed to a course of action, it is hard to change things around. GWSH is not for players who like to move units at will across the battlefield. It creates a tense moments in games, which I enjoy.. A huge amount of research has gone into GWSH. The process is ongoing, with a focus on primary sources in particular. I only game historical battles in order that I can get a feel for what happened. It has been a very effective way to double-check the game mechanics. The rules come with a handy 'by year and by theatre' summary, so you can quickly assess what rules are relevant. Recce is catered for. After a lot of research, the recce rules were updated in GWSH II. They are simpler now, capturing the relatively limited effect that recce had on the plans of higher level commanders, i.e. at division and corps levels. Hidden movement is possible and adds a fascinating dimension to meeting engagements especially. I can't recommend the rules too highly. 6mm gives a good feel for the scale of these battles, though I have used 2mm right through to 20mm without any problems. Robert |
rxpjks1 | 19 Apr 2015 2:41 p.m. PST |
|
Vimy Ridge | 19 Apr 2015 7:31 p.m. PST |
Great War Spearhead II gives a great game! |
Martin Rapier | 19 Apr 2015 11:19 p.m. PST |
Great War Spearhead, although you can use the same stuff for Square Bashing too. In both cases one base is one company, battery or squadron, and they are grouped into battalions. The manoeuvre element for GWSH is the regiment or brigade though. For really big battles we use OP14, elements are brigades, manoeuvre units are Corps. |
GreenLeader | 23 Apr 2015 9:24 p.m. PST |
Thanks to all – I downloaded a pdf of Great War Speadhead II and (at first glance) it seems to be pretty much what I am after. It goes without saying that I will instantly start tweaking and 'making it better' and will never play it as the writers intended… |
rsutton | 23 Apr 2015 10:40 p.m. PST |
Greenleader You can do whatever you please on your own games table. I would highly recommend using the rules as written .. they do effectively model many aspects of WW1 combat at this level that are supported by good research into primary sources though. Kind regards Robin |
monk2002uk | 24 Apr 2015 3:12 a.m. PST |
As Robin says, no-one feels precious about the rules least of all Shawn and Arty who wrote them. Just watch out for unintended consequences. Do feel free to raise any issues or aspects of the rules that you would like to mod. There is no requirement to do so whatsoever but it often generates a lot of discussion and further research. The Yahoo Group is a good place to surface anything like this if you would like to. Robert |
GreenLeader | 24 Apr 2015 7:12 a.m. PST |
Robin and Robert I wasn't being entirely serious, and will give them a go as they stand. One thing I am not sure about is the removal of units by ranged fire – I am not a big fan of that in general. I would perhaps prefer to see a 2nd 'suppressed' result see the unit break and run / surrender or something. But it is a little unfair of me to say that before I have played them. |
monk2002uk | 24 Apr 2015 10:10 p.m. PST |
No worries, GreenLeader ;-) In practice it is not common for units in GWSH to be put out of action completely (rather than 'killed', which is not really what happened in practice) with a single instance of ranged fire. This is especially true if the unit is in protective cover. It normally takes two suppressions. There is no question, however, that massed rifle fire, MG fire, or an artillery salvo, particularly from large calibre guns or howitzers, could knock out an infantry company in the open in minutes. GWSH is providing you with a commander's view of a game. If I have understood your point correctly (come back at me if not) then increasing the difficulty in removing the effect of an infantry company from the game will cause you to plan accordingly. There won't be the same tendency, I suspect, to husband forces carefully, handle reinforcements according to the potential fragility of frontline assets, and to rely on the cooperative fire and movement that was so integral to any success on the WW1 battlefield. Robert |
GreenLeader | 24 Apr 2015 10:55 p.m. PST |
All good points, Robert. One question which you (as someone who obviously knows the rules well) might be able to answer more easily than my searching for it in the rules: If (eg) a battalion attack is brought to a halt (ie. suppressed) in front of an enemy position, can the fire of (eg) one company keep them pinned there? Or can that defending company only hope to suppress one attacking company? I am not sure if I am explaining myself well here, but I have yet to find a set of wargames rules which allows a small defending force to 'hold off' a larger attacking force in this fashion defending units generally are only allowed to fire once, and thus will hammer one attacking unit, while those on either side of it are left untouched to advance merrily on. I suppose what I am rambling about is that (I feel) if an attacking company is suppressed / forced to ground / pinned down (call it what you will), those companies on either side of it (or coming up behind it) should be likely to also go to ground. And once any unit is pinned, it should remain pinned down as long as it is within effective fire range of an unpinned defending unit unless somehow inspired to re-start the advance by passing a (pretty stiff) morale check. We were always told in the army: it only takes one bullet to keep a section pinned down. Also, once an attack stalls, I think it should be very difficult for the attacking player to get his men moving again, so I don't like the idea of a 'suppression' automatically being removed after a turn and the defending force having to try to suppress the attackers again I am not saying that is what happens in GWSH, only talking in general. I am keen to experiment with rules which differentiate between attacking units coming under fire (and being suppressed) at long range and those which come under fire at effective range – the former should be fairly easy to pull back, whereas troops suppressed within effective enemy fire range won't be going anywhere in a hurry – neither forward, nor back. |
monk2002uk | 26 Apr 2015 3:30 a.m. PST |
Great questions, GreenLeader. Not least because I played a game yesterday and some of these issues arose during the play. I didn't pay any mind at the time but your questions prompted me to go back over these aspects. There will be an AAR posted so you will be able to get a much better sense of the context from the details and photographs. My response will address things in a slightly different order but don't hesitate to challenge or query anything. The first key point is that GWSH is about the divisional commander's perspective. To that extent, the planning of a battle should not take into account 'unrealistic' behaviours of units or formations. Therefore it is important to understand how tactics play out on the battlefield. If I understand correctly then your question is about the level of influence that a smaller defensive force can exert on a larger attacking force. A divisional commander needs to have some awareness of this in order to allocate forces in the operational orders. The first point to consider is the mechanics of suppression. As noted before, two suppressions need to accumulate to render a stand incapable of further action. Sometimes a single 'hit' on a unit moving in the open will inflict the equivalent of two suppressions, i.e. take out a whole unit within the time frame of a move. If a suppression has been taken then the unit will stay pinned until the suppression is lifted. To your point, suppression is not automatically lifted in GWSH. If an attacking player attempts to bypass around one of his stands that has been suppressed then the unsuppressed stands are likely to be eligible to come under fire from the stand that caused the suppression. This means that a smaller force can have a significant effect, both in game terms and on the psychology of the attacker, on a numerically superior force. The use of cover and of mutually supporting defensive positions will act as force multipliers in this situation. It should be noted, however, that an individual stand is not able to fire at more than one enemy stand per turn except in the case of artillery regiments or late war MG companies. Suppression of one infantry company, for example, does not automatically propagate to its neighbours. This reflects the fact that, at the scale represented in GWSH, there isn't that level of communication between or knowledge about the status of neighbouring units such that a neighbouring company (as opposed to a section) being suppressed can somehow exert an effect. There is an indirect effect in that the oblivious unsuppressed company is now exposed to fire as it continues to advance. Remember that in age that pre-dated battlefield radios, an understanding of your neighbours depended on the flank patrols or contact patrols that tried to maintain touch with their equivalents. A flank or contact patrol would rarely have anything like a complete understanding of what was happening in the rest of its company and therefore could pass on little more than our patrol is here and we are in contact with your patrol. If the neighbouring patrols were not in contact then mostly the only message your patrol could send back to company HQ via a runner was that no contact could be made, without necessarily knowing why. This assumes that the runner could make it back. In practice, an attacking commander has to gain fire superiority in a systematic way, making use of cover and the build-up of mutually supporting units to overcome smaller well-positioned defensive forces. Pushing straight in with all guns blazing is not usually conducive to victory ;-) Robin has provided a really nice description of the process in his 'Attack in the east 1914' AAR: link GWSH does not support multiple ranges. 'Long range' has been taken out because the undulations and other defilade that protect troops against 'long range' fire cannot be represented on a battlefield at this scale. Terrain is very important in GWSH games but not at such a granular level. Robert |
GreenLeader | 26 Apr 2015 4:57 a.m. PST |
Robert thanks again for taking the time to post, and to give such an interesting and detailed reply. I take on board all your points and look forward to reading the AAR I cannot access it here at work, alas, as the website is blocked by the company thought-police. Re. suppression 'spreading' to neighbouring companies. I agree that one has to remember one is playing the part of a Divisional commander, so must resist the temptation to get sucked into the minutiae of the battle. That said, I feel the men of a company advancing to contact would (in most situations) be well aware if the company to their right (or left) had been driven to ground by effective enemy fire, and there would thus be a chance of this 'rippling' along the line. We wargamers tend to think in terms of 'that unit is firing at that unit', but I wonder if there is any mileage in thinking that 'some' of the defensive fire would be directed at the neighbouring company the defender is most likely going to see a long time of enemy soldiers coming towards him, and will not be aware of (or care) which company he is shooting at. Even if an advancing company is not taking fire itself, if you see the guys to your right (or left) suddenly dive to the deck, there must be a temptation to do likewise! For this reason, I thought it might be worth experimenting with making the companies on either side of one which is suppressed also roll for suppression (perhaps making it half as likely to happen, or something). And when I say 'on either side', I don't mean those who are hundreds of yards away, but rather those who are part of the same general attack and can be considered to be advancing in a line together. One can abstract that in one's mind if one prefers, and say that it represents the defending force splitting their fire across the whole advancing line. Anyway, its just an idea bouncing around in my head at the moment, and I won't be able to give it a try for a while as I am stuck in the sandpit at the moment. Interesting thoughts on why 'long range' fire was taken out of GWSH I fully agree that it is difficult for many players to acknowledge that 'open ground' is not really flat, cricket outfield style terrain, and infantry will almost always be able to find some sort of cover somehow. I still wonder, however, if it is worth differentiating between a unit which comes under fire at (eg) 4" and one which comes under fire at (eg) 8". This would be (roughly) 500 yards and 1000 yards… and I know which one I'd rather be fired at from! My main interest is in the Boer War (and I am thinking of tinkering with GWSH to re-fight Boer War battles it is certainly a great starting point) and, from my reading, there was a big difference between being forced to ground at (eg) 800 yards and being forced to ground at 300 400 yards. A unit 'pinned' at the longer range might not be able to advance, but could pull back or perhaps even work to its left or right (Modder River is a good example), wheras a unit pinned at 300 yards really was pinned and was not going anywhere in a hurry. Perhaps losses (rather than just suppressions) should only be applicable at effective range – just another thought that popped into my head. The reason I think of this as important (or, perhaps, more important than I should!) is that the Boers lacked fire discipline and tended to open fire as soon as they could, rather than waiting for the advancing Tommies to be within truly effective range I would like to be able to model that feature somehow. Perhaps this is all a bit granular, though but maybe I am focusing on it more than I should as I plan to play relatively small battles a Division being about the largest force, rather than a Corps. Anyway great discussion and really appreciate you sharing your thoughts, experience and knowledge. |
monk2002uk | 26 Apr 2015 11:42 p.m. PST |
Greenleader, the write-up on our latest game is here: link It seems possible that the men of a company advancing to contact would be aware of what was happening with neighbouring companies. In practice I am not sure this was the case. Bear in mind that most WW1 battles started with the two sides in contact across No-Mans Land. Once battle opened, there was a huge din and lots of smoke and dust. The individual soldier appears not to have had much of a view at the best of times. The focus was typically very narrow but the conditions in a major offensive exacerbated this tendency. At the company command level, the situation was also difficult. It was hard to get direct observation of neighbouring companies. Mention has already been made of the problems with contact patrols and the limited means of communication. From my reading (and this is an area that I have paid a lot of attention to, for the very reasons that you are raising these questions), it was often the case that a company would first learn of its neighbour being in trouble when enemy enfilade fire tore into the flank platoon/s. This was different from following the lead of your neighbours diving to the deck. Anecdotal reports usually do not point to this but rather to the direct effects of the incoming fire itself once the neighbours had gone to ground or been destroyed. More serious were the situations where companies found themselves isolated in an advanced position, only to be cut-off by German counterattacks and destroyed. This led company commanders to be very cautious and, in the absence of solid information feeding in, slow their advance right down. Later in the war there were admonitions for company commanders to push forwards regardless. The very fact that the problem existed, however, points to the relative lack of effect from observing neighbours. I agree that soldiers would be focused on their zone and would fire on whomever, regardless of the unit that the enemy belonged to. The problem is trying to abstract this up to the company level. The logical consequence is that a company could exert a major effect on three attacking companies the one to its immediate front and the other two companies, one on either side. Under these circumstances, defending divisional generals would distribute their forces accordingly. Infantry companies would be separated by large gaps that were at least two company frontages wide. This was not the case, however, which shows that while some fire might be directed on neighbouring companies by sections within a defending company, the overall effect was not as you suggest. As you will see from the AAR on Marchais-en-Brie, my game table ends up with lots of terrain that obscures line of sight. In practice, as in reality, engagements end up being in the under 500 yards range. In GWSH it doesn't pay to open fire too soon on an enemy advance as it will only permit the enemy to spot and then manoeuvre against you while keeping out of effective range. Using the one distance helps with game flow too. It keeps the game focused on higher level command decisions rather than detailed mechanics at the lowest tactical level. But you are very welcome to try out a different approach. I have given some thought to the Boer War. I will dig out my copy of the German Official History again and give this some further consideration. Robert |
GreenLeader | 27 Apr 2015 2:36 a.m. PST |
Good morning, Robert Many thanks again for your post. I managed to follow the links you sent previously last night, and enjoyed reading the AARs greatly. I think you make a good point about companies not being aware of their neighbours perhaps I am thinking too much from a Boer War perspective (no smoke shells, more open battlefields, daylight actions etc) than from a WW1 perspective of men scrambling over churned up ground and trying to get through wire and all the rest. I particularly like your point about a company pushing on and getting isolated this is an excellent example. Anyway, its just an idea and I will play with it and see if it is worth doing I was thinking it would only happen to the flanking company of a roll of a 6' or something, so it would by no means be a regular occurrence in any case. Likewise, my idea of differentiating between long and effective range I see your point and agree that not worrying about this will certainly help with the flow of the game, though as I am planning on playing small games / less units, that might not be such a big deal. As I said, my focus is more on the Boer War than on WW1, really, so I am sure I will have to make a few small changes to make the rules fit' with a slightly different conflict. That said, I am very grateful to all those who suggested GWSH it seems to be pretty much perfect for my needs. |
monk2002uk | 27 Apr 2015 9:50 a.m. PST |
When you get a chance to try out these options then please let us know how you get on. With regards to the Boer War, I agree that limited changes are all that will be necessary. Robert |
|