"Differences between factions in Great War" Topic

Different tanks, stormtroopers or cavalry. The force structures are quite similar across all nations, but what would be the difference between gaming french or british, beside different colour schemes on the tanks? (And the french infantry more visible for my aging eyes…)

Where did this 'faction' nonsense come from? Real world states don't fight against factions, they fight other states.

The Great War was fought between:

The Central Powers:
Germany
Austro-Hungary
The Ottoman Empire.

and

The Allies:
France
The British Empire
Russia
Japan
Italy
The United States (eventually)

There were no tanks in the field until the British used the on the Somme in September 1916.
French tanks appeared in 1917, and the Germans deployed only one tank, the A7V, in March 1918. There were only a couple of dozen built. The first tank v tank battle took place a month later at Villers-Brettoneaux when three A7V stumbled across three British MkIV.

After 1915 few mounted cavalry were seen performing heroic mass charges, they were used to exploit advances and fight as mounted infantry.

Only Germany had Stormtroopers, but other nations developed similar infiltration tactics.

Outside of the Western Front, the war was much more mobile, and fronts more fluid.

There seems to be a misunderstanding: I am talking about a wargame from battlefront.
As a German, I will game either with miniatures representing British forces or German forces. My opponent/gaming buddy (another wargamer from Germany) wants to game with miniatures painted in field grey, but we both like the blue-ish uniform colour of the French forces in WW1.
I do not plan to represent the muddy fields of Flandern, I will try to create interesting scenarios.
My main question is: are there special rules that represent different tactical approaches of the different armies of the big european family? For example can the British choose to attack at night like in Fow V1-3? Are french artillery barrages (sic?) different from german?
I will use the British cavalry as fast moving reserves, not for frontal assaults. And maybe I will even put down some trenches when I feel like.
It might be just kind of a language barrier, but my usage of the word "faction" was meant to take away any patriotic approach in choosing which army to field. Not more, not less.
cheers!
Btw thanks for the info about British Empire, I was not aware that Australia was still part of it, I thought Australia was already an independant state.

"Btw thanks for the info about British Empire, I was not aware that Australia was still part of it, I thought Australia was already an independant state."

The were, has of January 1 of 1901.

British, French and German infantry platoons were all organised differently, and those organisations changed through the war as new weapons such as light machineguns and rifle grenades were introduced. Similarly battalion and regimental support weapons changed as did artillery doctrine.

I've no idea how that is reflected in Flames of War I'm afraid, I didn't even realise they did a WW1 game.

A gaming buddy told me that the British Elite! Division still can choose to do a night attack. Same for the Stosskompanie. The French have already bombardment boni when using 4 guns instead of five.
And I can use French Infantry and Tanks as support for my British, so I am looking forward to play those weird V4 rules. Hopefully I forgot the old rules, is much harder for me to seperate old and new rules than learning completly new stuff.

It's hard to know where to start.

What is the 'British Elite Division'?

Why do the French get a 'bombardment' bonus?

The French and British sectors of the Western Front were separate entities. They did not 'support' each other in the way that you suggest.

You need to do a little more reading about the armies and tactics of the Great War, and probably find a better set of rules than WarHammer on the Western Front.

Right now I read "Erfahrungen der Ersten Armee in der Sommeschlacht" from the Archiv of the Institut für Deutsche Militärgeschichte and "Cambrai 1917 The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle" by Bryn Hammond; after that I will read "The German Army at Cambrai" by Jack Sheldon. I also bought "The Great War: 1914-1918" by Peter Hart. Is there anything you can recommend?

"British Elite Division" is the designation for veteran British troops that received (additional) training and therefore gained the ability to attack at night, unlike fresh troops that were rushed to the front or are night blind.
The 75mm mle 1897 Gun is capable of quick firing while staying on target. Battlefront commemorates this fine piece of groundbreaking innovation by giving it a bonus. That is fine by me.
The British under Haig supported the French during the Somme battle for political reasons. So "separate entities" is debatable. Anyway, if I can put some funny looking FT-17 beside my khaki wearing heroes I am fine.
No I don´t need better rules, wargaming is what you make it. I can have a good time without a deep knowledge of Heeresvorschriften and the differences of horse saddles. Both are interesting topics, but wargaming is only a hobby.

Just to sum it all up: "Great War" as mentioned in the title of this thread refers to the rules system by battlefront, not to the First World War 1914-18. Sorry for the confusion, I posted this intentionally only in the Flames of War part of the TMP forum, I did not intend to start a general discussion about what some of us call "The Great War".

Cheers!

To the OP.
"Factions" is a word that makes SOME "historical gamers" get annoyed. It's a "thing".
So perhaps you stepped into this innocently not realizing the baggage that word carries. Or not. 🤷
It implies a lack of serious intent. As if the members of the "faction" could change sides at the drop of a hat.
Oh, wait…

To quote the OP/me:

It might be just kind of a language barrier, but my usage of the word "faction" was meant to take away any patriotic approach in choosing which army to field. Not more, not less.

I assume the culture of remembering 1914-18 in Great Britain is totally different from what we do in Germany. As we do next to nothing.

cheers

So far I have primarily compared what I know about German tactics with the lists and special rules of battlefronts Great War rule set. And I am absolut delighted: you can field a normal infantry company, of course you can field Sturmtruppen (don´t know why they are called Stosstruppen), Jaegertruppen which are not as deadly in close combat as Sturmtruppen, but have more teams in the platoon. And you can also take a Siegfriedstellung, which is an interesting way to use a deep defence approach. I wouldn´t have considered to field such a company in the first place, but if you buy the support for any other infantry company, you already have those teams available.
I will face those Germans, and I am pretty sure that the infiltration abilities and the other tactical advantages (blitz on 2+) will be a nightmare if used properly.

I have no clue why I should use a different rule set. And I am too old to listen to advice that I don´t ask for and is not properly presented.

And I even enjoy painting British, as those miniatures are quite lovely. Of course the British can field a lot of tanks, but I am really looking forward to use aggressive infantry and artillery to systematically destroy the Kaiserlichen. As the scope of a Great War game is on the tactical level, I don´t miss anything. And as the game is clearly placed in the final part of the Great War, I think the criticsm that I heard so far is inappropriate.

While comparing different tactical approaches and looking how that is converted into special rules is interesting, reading about WW1 and watching videos about it is absolutly horrifying. I really thought about ending my gaming project. Knowing what WW2 did to the mental health of my granddad can only be a hint what WW1 did to the soldiers of all nations on the westfront. My focus is shifting to how WW1 is remembered here in Germany comparing to other nations. The question how the Kriegsschuldfrage/ War guilt question was handled differently after both World Wars and what that meant is much more interesting than who won at Jutland.

I understand, dogtail. My grandfather fought in the New Zealand Division in WW1. He could only ever talk about the war in the third-person as if his experiences happened to someone else.

Kriegsshuldfrage is very different for the two world wars from what I have observed. There is an excellent book that looks at the experience of rural Bavarian soldiers in the Great War. The author examined letters, newspapers, army censor reports and a range of other sources. I will post the reference for you (will double-check as the author is German and I suspect his original version was in German).

Robert

I don't see a German version although Benjamin Ziemann has written several other books around the Great War in German. This book is 'War Experiences in Rural Germany: 1914-1923 (The Legacy of the Great War)'. Highly recommended.
Robert

The Kriegsschuldfrage is quite simple: for the First World War the responsibility lies in the hand of austrian general Franz Conrad von Hoetzendorf. The Second World War is the sole responsibility of the bad painter from Braunau.
Just kidding…
I am reading studies of the Social- and Mentality history of the First World War, published by Hirschfeld. I did not even know such studies exist. One day people will write books about the mental consequences of drone war.