A suggestion for the next CM setting: WW1

[whyme943]

So, WW1. A famously static war, at least In the West. Why would I want a Combat Mission set there? (and yes, I was thinking of the western front. I don't really know enough about the eastern front to make a proper request for it). Essentially, I want a game set on the western front of WW1 because the commanders on that front get such a bad rep. I think that facing the tactical problems of trench warfare could be educational, helping explain why WW1 generals chose the tactics they did. Players would get the opportunity to try out tactics such as creeping barrages, night raids, stormtrooper tactics, and early tank warfare. Fire support would pose a unique challenge, as you have even worse communications than in WW2,  favoring greater use of pre-planned bombardments- just like the real war. Having to set up, say, field telephones in order to call in artillery from a recently-captured enemy trench, and then dealing with enemy shells cutting the line, would be a unique tactical problem.

In summary, a Combat Mission set in WW1 would be educational. It would teach players the following key concepts:

1. Why Militaries used the tactics they did
2. Why and how so many WW1 attacks failed
3. Why and how successful attacks were carried out.

I hope this post gets at least a couple of ideas in people's heads. Obviously, any implementation of this idea would take a long time, but I wanted to put a unique setting out there as an option for future games.

[SimpleSimon]

Well right off the bat you're sort of highlighting the importance of a mythbusting effort with "a famously static war at least in the west" because you're setting up a known premise here but not really addressing it. Why is the First World War known for being a static conflict? 

Discussion about fighting in the First World War rapidly tends to degenerate into visions of either the static siege lines of the western front or of the more conventional maneuver warfare in the East, but neither of these interpretations ever proved strictly true. The highly mobile Battle of the Marne happened in France and the Kerensky Offensive looked conspicuously like the worst days of the Somme. The issue is that much of the war's history was written by British historians and those historians were mostly pre-occupied with the British sector of the front which was characterized by some of its infamously imprudent and disappointing offensives that often failed to deliver results that matched their hype.

Officers in 1916 were perfectly capable of appreciating the importance of the tank and the airplane, but would frequently find their optimism crushed by the grave limitations both of those weapon systems faced not only because of infancy of the combustion engine as a technology, but also because the circumstances for their employment were not universal, and not always ideal. The point is to understand that it's important to avoid stereotypes and understand the transient nature of all tactics and strategy throughout history as being independent from the story of the war happening around them, which was largely defined by news media and politicians for their own ends. It's why I take issue with the whole "trench warfare" stereotype for instance. Trenches were not a recent invention in 1915. Nor even was their existence limited to prevalence of firearms on the battlefield. What happened in 1916 was a siege plain and simple, it's just that up until then sieges had generally been things that only happened to cities and forts, not whole countries. With that in mind, why is World War 1 frequently described as "trench warfare" when the definition for that as often described would have to include many wars before and after the First World War?

If what we're getting at is the emergence of modern tactics, more or less definable as "infiltration tactics", it's important to understand that the scope of these questions could easily widen beyond the First World War and require parsing of details and sources that aren't necessarily "in" that conflict. Like how much fighting in the Second World War could in many places, surprisingly resemble the fighting at Verdun or look even worse than that. That is: artillery/infantry slugging matches in which the usefullness of tanks and airplanes could vary anywhere from useless to absolutely decisive all at the same time regardless of the year being 1916 or 1943. 

SO 

Before anyone can answer your questions (which are good questions) we need to find and have concrete examples and details of the fighting and avoid trying to shoehorn those examples into fitting melodramatic stereotypes while trying to spot real correlations between the examples. It would be useful for people to highlight or show us stories of battles that happened in concrete terms during The First World War and then perhaps comparing what was happening to similar battles before and after that conflict to establish a frame of reference. 

One handy way to do this is to have a source, a "textbook" for our course which ideally we would all have access to somehow. We need a text that we can all see and discuss so we can see how our differences of perspective lead to the emergence of the lessons and rules that we refer to as...well...tactics. I suggest Infantry Attacks not only because Rommel's recollections of his actions in World War 1 are frequently very lucid, but also because of the audience's familiarity with him. His career exploits are well known, as are his potential pitfalls as a source. I don't have access to my copy right now due to the pandemic, but if anyone else has it or wants to jump ill grab a digital copy off Amazon and for a read along.

So if anyone does, I suggest that they get a source with lucid details of fighting, and just come here and talk about what they read. Get some impressions, make some observations! I will participate in discussions as much as I can using examples. 

[Glubokii Boy]

2 hours ago, whyme943 said:

 Essentially, I want a game set on the western front of WW1 because the commanders on that front get such a bad rep. I think that facing the tactical problems of trench warfare could be educational, helping explain why WW1 generals chose the tactics they did. Players would get the opportunity to try out tactics such as creeping barrages, night raids, stormtrooper tactics, and early tank warfare. 

 

2 hours ago, whyme943 said:

 

1. Why Militaries used the tactics they did
2. Why and how so many WW1 attacks failed
3. Why and how successful attacks were carried out.

 

Where these decission not made outside/above the scope of a normal CM scenario..?

That is...something like a battalion sizrd force..

Would a standard battalioncommander have any say in those matters at that time ?

 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

Given the fact that BFC can't even fix Normandy should you be loading more on their plate?

[Glubokii Boy]

12 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Given the fact that BFC can't even fix Normandy should you be loading more on their plate?

Eastern front WW2....sure 

But WW1 ?

Imo...NO !

A WW1 game would be pretty much limited to artillery and infantry i fear...

Sure...late war there where a few tanks around but not a great variation of those...germany for example only had one i belive...fielded at the very end of the war...and these machines where not exactelly fast...perhaps not superfun gameplay...

Same thing goes for support weapons...would we have all that many to chose from that could be brought forward to join the infantry in an advance ?

A WW1 game would probably be fun for a while but imo it would soon become quite repetative and boring compared to the other CM titles

If we ever are to experience early tank warfare i would very much prefer to do it in 1939, 40 Poland, France or north Afrika

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by RepsolCBR

[Warts 'n' all]

1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

If we ever are to experience early tank warfare i would very much prefer to do it in 1939, 40 Poland, France or north Afrika

Me too.

[Bulletpoint]

I think WW1 is not a good fit for the CM engine. It would be much more suitable for Graviteam games.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I will be the dissenting voice here.. WW1 combat at the CM level was not all about static trench warfare and trench raids with a few tanks thrown in for flavor.  In the opening phases it was a war of maneuver, punch and counterpunch,.. I highly recommend you look up the Battle of the Frontiers.  Also warfare on the east, in Romania, and in Italy was more about maneuver than static combat.

I have read Rommel's Infantry Attacks several times and it definitely does not illustrate a static war... although I can also see where trench raids etc. would be very interesting at this scale too (and yes there are a few of those in Rommel's work). 

I also have no problem with it being primarily an infantry focused game (though tanks were not all the large slow lumbering behemoths you picture).. it would be a unique and little gamed period that was the birthplace (or the re-birth IMO) of modern infantry tactics.  Very interesting and rich period that I would love to see represented in CM someday.

Sign me on.  Bil

Edited June 29, 2020 by Bil Hardenberger

[Glubokii Boy]

4 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I will be the dissenting voice here.. WW1 combat at the CM level was not all about static trench warfare and trench raids with a few tanks thrown in for flavor.  In the opening phases it was a war of maneuver, punch and counterpunch,.. I highly recommend you look up the Battle of the Frontiers.  Also warfare on the east, in Romania, and in Italy was more about maneuver than static combat.

I have read Rommel's Infantry Attacks several times and it definitely does not illustrate a static war... although I can also see where trench raids etc. would be very interesting at this scale too (and yes there are a few of those in Rommel's work). 

I also have no problem with it being primarily an infantry focused game (though tanks were not all the large slow lumbering behemoths you picture).. it would be a unique and little gamed period that was the birthplace (or the re-birth IMO) of modern infantry tactics.  Very interesting and rich period that I would love to see represented in CM someday.

Sign me on.  Bil

It would require quite the effort on the part of BFC to give you all that though...If they could do it fairly easy...then by all means...go ahead and do it...and I would buy it ! ...

But how long has it taken them to complete ONE year of the WESTERN front during WW2 ?

10 years or something like that (CMBN to the final modul of CMFB) ...

Granted...a WW1 game would probably be faster to develop due to less complicated TOEs if nothing else...far fewer vehichles to design etc...but how much faster ? 3 times ? 4 times ?

To include the early year fluid battles, the other fronts appart from the western,  the later years to allow for some armour...etc, etc...

It would mean lots and lots of work...taking MANY years to complete....or should they perhaps only do a 1918 game and forgett about the rest ?

Or do you see WW1 as a CM3 game

CM2 has been around for a long time now and Imo they still have a lot of things left in WW2 to complete before CM3 comes around

To namne one...the eastern front ...

I agree with you though that it would be nice to try something different...

The current WW2 games are pretty simular

A Sherman tank is still a Sherman tank regardless of if it has a red or a white star painted on it...and a Tiger is still a Tiger regardless of if its fighting in France, Italy or Russia...

Therefore i think it would be a good idea if BFC could skip staight to Barbarossa and go forward from there...instead of taking small steps backwards from 44 to 43 to 42...

The change of equipment will be to small this way to feel completally fresh...and something new...

A skip straight to 41 though would allow us to try something new...

As would north africa...

Not doing a WW1 game is obviously a personal prefrence....i would much more prefer that they concentrated on WW2 compared to devoting time to a completally new multi year, multi front game that would souk up precious resorces...

Their current releaserate is simply to slow to embark on such a project imo...

 

 

 

 

[37mm]

Infantry in Battle is a good book  on US actions (mostly in 1918) & shows how fluid the fighting had become by that stage.

Basically, by 1918, everyone could succesfully attack everyone else.

[whyme943]

Thanks for all the Replies in this topic!

 

I'll start with SimpleSimon:

I am, at best, a history enthusiast. Your post was thought-provoking, and I'll see about looking into WW1 situations that aren't 'Static West' or 'Fluid East'. Definitely, about as far as I've gotten past the 'Trench War' stereotype is 'There was also the Eastern Front'. Apparently that is incomplete.

 

To Repsol's first post:

I am aware that a real battalion commander would probably not be in charge of these decisions. However, as CM players (at least in Quick Battle/ Multi-player), we are in charge of what forces we bring and the way we employ them. My suggestion is that the terrain and equipment (both C&C and weapons) of the time would lead players to discover for themselves why WW1 was different from WW2- different force capabilities require different approaches. I hope this would induce a certain amount of empathy for WW1 commanders, and lead to a more complex understanding of that war. Based on the replies I've seen here, that may be preaching to the choir.

 

To Bill:

It is somewhat cathartic to see someone in at least partial agreement! And yeah, I'm hoping that a 'CM: WW1' would naturally have less emphasis on tanks and more on infantry and prepared artillery attacks. Hopefully this tactical style would be different and therefore interesting! (or perhaps the other way around...). One thing that SimpleSimon pointed out is that there were 'Trench-Warfare-like' scenarios in WW2, and his post has me interested in just such a scenario in a WW2 Combat mission. The primary difference to a hypothetical WW1 combat mission would then seem to be fewer tanks and worse C&C/  artillery call-in. I do think this would still be enough to warrant it's own game.

 

Finally, to everyone pointing out development and time considerations:

My post was definitely made from the perspective of a fluffy-unicorn-land where these constraints could be ignored. Battlefront knows more about their capabilities than I do, and in general I do agree with the principle of finishing projects you've started. In regard's to Repsol's alternative, early-war 'Next CM' games, I'm also interested! I will point out that AFAIK one can do a pretty good mid-war North africa using CMFI, but Early war campaigns and Tech like Poland, France, Barbarossa, Finland, and even Stalingrad aren't well-covered by CM and would probably be quite interesting. My desire for a WW1 game is largely based on being even more different from, say Fortress Italy than theses scenarios. That's why I think a WW1 Combat Mission would have more value.

 

In summary, thanks for all your opinions! I don't agree with all of them, but it's interesting to see what people would want in a hypothetical next combat mission (and yes, I do think current games should be made as complete as possible first).

[SimpleSimon]

24 minutes ago, whyme943 said:

Thanks for all the Replies in this topic!

 

I'll start with SimpleSimon:

I am, at best, a history enthusiast. Your post was thought-provoking, and I'll see about looking into WW1 situations that aren't 'Static West' or 'Fluid East'. Definitely, about as far as I've gotten past the 'Trench War' stereotype is 'There was also the Eastern Front'. Apparently that is incomplete.

There was also campaigning in the Balkans, Italy, Baltic Ocean, and African fronts as well. Little known is the great number of amphibious invasions that happened in the First World War which are usually overshadowed by all the British historians shrieking about Gallipoli. An example of such is Operation Albion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Albion

There was also lots of naval fighting in the Baltic during World War 1 as well and frequently the Germany Navy had to balance deployments of ships between that theatre and the North Sea. Contrary to the "Fleet in Being" inactive German Navy rhetoric, naval forces of the Central Powers were often very active. It's just that since the oceans they tended to be active in weren't where the Royal Navy was...you don't hear much about it lol. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[Glubokii Boy]

47 minutes ago, whyme943 said:

 Based on the replies I've seen here, that may be preaching to the choir.

 

The forum as a whole is VERY inactive right now...close to nothing being posted by anyone unfortunatelly...

If that was not them case i'm sure you would get far more support for your suggestion...

Probably alot of guys who would like a WW1 game...

 

[MikeyD]

A few years ago a suggestion about WWI would have been met with a decisive NO! Because the CM game engine leans heavily on mechanized armor-heavy warfare and that theater all but discards it. But lately they've become more confident with their depiction of old-school infantry fighting. If they don't choose WWI per se they might not be averse to an equivalent theater of operations. Howzabout the Franco-Prussian war of 1870? Europe learns lessons in modern warfighting from having watched the carnage of the American Civil War.

Quote

Given the fact that BFC can't even fix Normandy...

BFC 'fixed' Normandy awhile ago. But its no simple task to assemble an across-all-titles game engine patch. Also lets recall we're kind'a in the middle of a global pandemic with a lot of business entities working skeleton staffs, working from home or entirely suspended. When you phone to ask a site to host your patch is there going to be anyone around to answer the phone? Or if they are around will they be staffed for timely troubleshooting of problems once people start downloading?

[Freyberg]

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

But lately they've become more confident with their depiction of old-school infantry fighting.

The right sort of infantry-only battle can give you something of a sense of WWI fighting, especially if you choose forces heavy in bolt-action rifles...

[SimpleSimon]

I think the big picture for me is that in the abstract, there was really no great difference in how fighting happened in 1917 vs how it happened in 1943. Tanks Divisions could prevent frontlines from bogging down and were why the front wouldn't remain static for years now, but frontlines and trenches and static fighting indeed still happened a lot and were little different in execution between the two wars. 

The World Wars were fundamentally wars of attrition, World War 2 enabled more maneuver this time but a lot of that was also due to far different political circumstances of that war which were happening outside of the purist military perspective. There was less of some stuff in 1917 than there would be of it in 1943, but the only major innovation of 2nd World War as far as organization goes was the Division-Level Tank Formation. The Armored Division, Panzer Division, Tank Corp, etc. If you want "World War 1 CM" you seriously get 90% of that by just leaving out tanks and vehicles entirely and abstracting infantry movements in the planning phase as "dismounted cavalry troop". 

[SimpleSimon]

Oh god here goes Simon again...

If we widen our scope even more it's worth pointing out that even the Tank Division sort of falls out of consideration as a major innovation. The chief benefit it granted a combatant was in efficient use of manpower. Five men in a tank could go many battles and encounters and never suffer any casualties because armor plating means you're immune to 99% of the threats present on fragmentation and machine gun saturated battlefields. This would not be reflected by a simple glance at casualty figures suffered by Armored Formations, in fact you'd frequently see higher than average figures because Tank Divisions were frequently tip of the spear and this naturally meant the enemy would throw every kind of arm and the kitchen sink at them. That's a losing proposition for the enemy though, because the necessary investment on his part to stop an armored thrust is disproportionately higher than what you're paying for a Tank Division or a Panzer Corp. Remember the Soviets constructed a defense like no other and bogged themselves down quite a bit just to achieve a very narrow victory over German Tank Armies at Kursk. 

This is where the big ideological split between Schwerpunkt and Deep Battle happens by the way. Because the German's idea of that manpower efficiency use was inherent to the tank's mobility and using that to stretch frontlines to such length that the enemy becomes overstretched and formations mutually unable to support eachother-thus enabling defeat in detail. The Soviet idea thought more from the former notion I listed above wherein the defender was simply overwhelmed by facing multiple simultaneous and catastrophic manpower shortages at critical points of the front, just crumpling and melting the entire frontline rather than unhinging it and swinging it open. Only at a level above the Wehrmacht's world (the world of politics) it was hoped that the enemy's leaders would crack and throw in the towel, that shock would prevail, because in fact if the enemy had enough time to start offsetting the German's tank/manpower advantage with their own tank/manpower investments the German Armies would quickly find themselves in the same unwinnable war-by-attrition that we all say was unique to World War 1. Well hmm sort of? 

It's also tempting to highlight the airplane as a major innovation and again, from a military perspective it's a crucial difference between the world wars, but in fact it's another form of manpower-efficiency in wars of attrition. The chief benefit of the airplane was its reach. The ability to fly past the frontline and strike enemy targets or even the enemy's home itself required the enemy to again make disproportionate and costly investments into intricate anti-aircraft defense networks, as well as set aside huge reserve armies of workers to repair infrastructure damage. 

It's true that on a rather conventional analysis of the 8th Air Force's performance, strategic bombing looked rather disappointing. It certainly fell far short of all the pre-war claims by lobbyists that bombing would win wars by itself. Lots of heavy losses in men and equipment failed to stop Germany's arms production from increasing every year right up until 1945 when the frontline finally began to overtake industrial centers. However, this sort of ignores the mere 200,000 men of the 8th Air Force were in fact pinning down over 1 million men in Germany who had to man AA batteries, and staff Luftwaffe airfields. That's 1 million men who might otherwise have ended up at the front. (Tooze) What's that not counting even, is the huge numbers of men being retained in cities to clean up and repair damage everywhere too for which i've heard numbers thrown around for that workforce of anywhere from 500,000 to one million. 

In the First World War neither the airplane or the tank had proven sufficiently able to tie down large enough numbers of men and equipment to materially affect the frontline. Airplanes began and ended the war still fundamentally best for reconnaissance and tanks remained seen as self-propelled siege engines swatting individual machine gun nests so the infantry could advance. After the war politicians frequently seized upon strategic bombers to argue and push points about national defense though, but ironically they usually highlighted the capabilities of strategic bombing to point out how investment and rearmament was pointless and that war could only be prevented via diplomacy otherwise the bombers would flatten Paris and that'd be the end of it. 

Without a way to sink manpower on other activities, it naturally tended to end up with the Army. This is why few of the Ground Forces of the First World War's powers were broken in battle. They were all more or less defeated by the outbreak of political instability at home (so called "stab in the back" mythology). Because strategic reserves were just so plentiful! There could be chronic manpower shortages but there'd never be an acute manpower shortage. The kind of shortage that would cause whole frontlines to collapse and roll up and induce million man Army Groups to retreat 500 miles all at once as they would in 1944. Not generally a problem until the Bolsheviks happen or the Czechs declare autonomy right? 

Edited July 1, 2020 by SimpleSimon