"Trench Hammer AAR and Mechanics demo" Topic

Here is a small game I trench hammer, with commentary on mechanics, I hope you enjoy!

link

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I used the same scenario to walk through the October Hammer rules last week and I'm really enjoying this system. I got started with historical games playing DBA in the early 90's and it's nice to see something that plays fast and is just as easy to pick up for more modern periods.

Thanks! Glad to have contributed something to the hobby.

A couple of observations on the mechanics but a question first. Was the German attack supported by any sort of barrage?

My first observation is around the first turn, when the German MG08/15 teams crested the ridge and immediately opened fire of the Lewis gun teams. How did they know the teams were there? It wouldn't be usual to see hunkered down defenders if they haven't opened fire first – the empty battlefield concept.

Second is that the MG08/15s were not cumbersome. They should not be penalised compared to Lewis guns.

I have some further comments but look forward to feedback on the above first.

Robert

Here are some quick answers for you.

My main mea culpa for all sins in the rules is that we were aiming at making a fast play set that can be used as a toolbox as well.

Was the German attack supported by any sort of barrage?
- No, I assumed this was after initial penetration and the British had already been beaten up by a barrage and fallen back, they were at 50% strength.

- There are spotting rules in Squad Hammer, but nothing in Trench Hammer on spotting. But… Like Squad Hammer, you are encouraged to use your judgement. I could have penalized the To Hit roll severely for firing on a previously unseen enemy, or it would be easy to use blinds a la TFL and make spotting rolls.

The MG-08/15 to my understanding was 45 pounds without ammo and I felt would take a little more time to position than flopping down with a Lewis Gun to a prone position and opening up. I would not be offended if anyone played with MG08/15 squads acting as Lewis Guns. I may be exaggerating the differences.

But back to spotting… Since we are dealing with few maneuver units, some extra optional spotting rules would be good. Have you picked up a copy of the rules? If so, I am thinking a 2d6 roll with modification to fire on any enemy inc over that has not previously fired at you, with modifications for terrain.

Thoughts? As this is Wargames Vault, it is not inconceivable that we add some spotting rules. Let me know what your suggestions are and I can fiddle with them on the table.

Thanks for your thoughtful response and paying any attention to my poor efforts!

Oh and for "game" purposes, I assumed the German Platoon Leader has crawled up the hill and sussed out the British positions.

Let me know what you think about spotting!

There are film clips of MG08/15s being brought into action. It was a very quick process for well-trained teams. The men who carried them were often chosen because of their physique and strength. FWIIW, the two types of LMGs/automatic rifles (which is what the BEF designated automatic weapons on bipods) should be treated as equals IMHO.

There is a difference between 'spotting' and 'scouting'. Generally speaking, automatic weapons teams (LMG and HMG) on the defensive would not allow themselves to be 'spotted' until and unless they opened fire. The scenario you chose is about the relatively open warfare that pertained in the wake of the successful German spring offensives for example. Therefore an NCO might presume that the British might be defending a position at a crossroads but he would be unlikely to spot all (indeed any) of the British defenders, unless they were not doing their job properly. Remember that the British most likely had a scout on the hill who raced back to the teams at the crossroads when the Germans first hove into sight, probably off-table.

An alternative to the use of scouts (or in conjunction) was reconnaissance by fire, a process that was used in WW1. So your MG08//15 teams could, in theory, open fire in the hope that this will elicit a response from suspected British defenders. If the defenders had good fire discipline then they might not reply, leaving the Germans with the dilemma of crossing the open ground to be sure. Only one or two men would be chosen to scout forward in that circumstance.

Typically there would be a move to circle around the crossroads, with the LMGs on overwatch. Such a move to outflank would likely be off table rather than straight ahead. If there was an urgency about the pursuit then a more direct 'probing' move would be made but remember that you don't want your scouts moving forward in the zone of covering fire from your overwatch team/s.

There were numerous examples examples from British and German sources where, in the pursuit of retreating BEF, German units walked right into heavy rear guard fire because there was a lack of scouting functions. In the case you described, the MG08/15 and bomber sections (more likely rifle sections during a pursuit) would have crested the hill in the open, advanced towards the cross roads, and been taken apart by the LMGs and MMG. Not particularly exciting so I appreciate why you want a situation where there is a more cautious German NCO in charge.

Robert

Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it. I will dig some more on the MG08/15 and look for the films you mention. Easy enough to pull the negative for moving from them.

My pictures were not terribly good, but I did make sure not to mask the fire of the LMG teams with my maneuver squads, I have made that mistake many, many times before.

I think the optimal solution to recreate the "Empty Battlefield" is to run a double blind, umpired game. I might actually be able to pull that off, especially with these rules. I should have enough figures and enough terrain to do two 30" x 36" tables with identical terrain, side by side separated by a divider. As each player would be driving 4-5 maneuver elements, it should be manageable. Going to think on that, gets some more painting done, and try to give it a whirl in the next few months maybe.

It might make an interesting convention game, I could cycle 2-4 players through a game in about an hour and just run it all day. There are not too many opportunities to play in this fashion, so folks might like it. Maybe add a couple of scouts from platoons that can be detached, I need to ponder that.

Otherwise, I am mostly playing solo. Thinking the most streamlined approach, instead of having a separate spotting roll would be to have a severe penalty for firing on enemies that have not yet revealed themselves. It would not add another die roll (which would be anathema to our design goals) and the defending player can either stay hunkered down and maybe take a trickle of casualties or fire back. Under 12" units are required to fire back, so it would still work out with the attackers having a terrible to hit roll and he defender firing at a target probably in the open.

Then there are really no extra rules and that can even fall under the "player Judgement" part of the rules.

When I get a chance, I'l set roughly the same scenario up and give it a go.

I appreciate the time you have taken and the feedback. We were aiming for something that gives a good tactical feel while balancing simplicity / elegance and speed of play. It is a tough balancing act, and why we borrowed the Kriegspiel like idea of adjusting target to hit numbers as you see fit.

Out of curiosity, have you played Through the Mud and the Blood? They seem to have some great spotting rules with blinds, but I have just never been able to get them to the table.

I shall experiment with that and rerun the scenario

I understand the aims.

It is always better when you can run a double-blind umpired game but it does limit your 'market'. You should consider a much lower effect than you first intimated from the MG08/15s (or other small arms weapons system) if firing on enemy units that are 'hidden' (typically behind cover and have not fired or moved) but visible to the players, as in the scenario you demonstrated. This would mimic the concept of recon by fire, with some potential to do damage but much less than if the enemy is truly spotted.

My comment about masking was not related to what happened in your specific scenario. It was a general comment about the way that fire and manoeuvre was conducted. Width was exploited if possible, though frontages in WW1 were very compressed by comparison with WW2 for example. Open warfare scenarios do provide an opportunity for exploiting flanks, where the defender is a weakened and isolated rear guard, with the mission of delaying the attacker.

In general terms, it doesn't look as though the German force had enough strength to force the British position quickly. It feels like the attacking force had too much 'power', given that the British forces had multiple Lewis guns and a Vickers MMG.

Relatively small rear guards often had a disproportionate effect on the pursuit forces, forcing the latter to deploy more 'fire' resources in order to gain fire superiority before sending in the 'manoeuvre' elements. You can see this effect from the beginning of the war, when the BEF was praised for the quality of its retreat from Mons and Le Cateau, then berated for not pursuing the German retreat from the Marne more vigorously. In reality, the German cavalry operated the same high quality delaying tactics against the BEF as the British had displayed in their retreat.

Robert

PS: my comments are not meant as criticisms but merely observations. Many players want something that is simple, elegant, and fast. If it is possible to weave in some more historical flavour then even better. The challenge is not to let the latter get too much in the way of the former, if possible.

Robert

Oh no, I did not take your comments as criticism at all! In fact, I appreciate your feedback and I agree completely with your assessment. I want the game to reward good tactics and punish bad. Thank you for taking the time, you have given me good food for thought.

I am going to replay soon with the firer heavily penalized when shooting at a previously unrevealed enemy as you suggest, and I will post the results. This is easily accommodated by the rules.

The scenario is based loosely on the training scenario from TFL's Scenario Book Stout Hearts and Iron Troopers, which has the roles reversed.

Talking about 'good' and 'bad' tactics, you have to wonder about the British defending the locality of the cross road and not the high ground in front ;-)

What is the ground scale, just as matter of interest?

Robert

Ground scale not specified, table should be considered all within rifle range, I spitball about 1/300 -ish, putting my figures at only about twice ground scale, so about 12" = 100 meters. At least in my head. so table was about 250 meters wide or so.

As for the position picked, let's call it one of the those "Defense of Duffer's Drift" moments when the LT picks the exact wrong spot to defend. Or he was cleverly doing a reverse slope defense, at least that is my usual excuse for all my tabletop failures!

As I said, I modified the scenario from TFL's scenario book, I cannot over recommend it if you don't have it.

The reverse slope defence was a very important concept. It developed as a mechanism to prevent forward slope defensive positions from being overwhelmed by observed artillery fire, prior to an infantry assault going in. Not only was the reverse slope harder to target and soften up by artillery but also the defenders had the benefit of the attackers being skylined as they crossed the crest.

A key to reverse slope defence, however, was maintaining observation of the attacker for as long as possible on the forward slope. Thus observation posts would be maintained wherever possible along or oversighting the forward slope.

Another key was the empty battlefield concept, where observable defensible positions such as trenches were not actually occupied by the defenders.

The reverse slope defence would not generally apply, however, to a pursuit scenario. For rear guards, it was important to engage the advancing enemy at as long range as possible. This forced the enemy to deploy early and slowed the advance or pursuit significantly, allowing time for the rear guard to get back to or past the next line of defence.

Anyway, back to the example under discussion. It will be interesting to see what the repeat play test reveals.

I know the TMB ruleset well.

Robert