WWI Simulations

[virebel661]

Hello everyone at Battlefront!

I think it would be a great idea to make a Combat Mission style game set during World War I. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen anything out there like this. I would buy it in a second. Does anyone else out there think this would be a cool idea? If this has already been covered accept my apologies, I'm a forum newbie.

Off topic, but I just wanted to say a big THANK YOU for your continued Mac support - I play Combat Mission on my Macs and it's really awesome.

[Moon]

Hi! One of the CM forums is probably a better place to discuss this, not the Technical Support forum I am moving this thread there.

And as for making a WW1 game, I don't think that there is anything comparable out there, and who knows. Our new engine that we're working on might be flexible enough to allow us to explore WW1 - and other periods!

Martin

[Michael Dorosh]

WW I tactical combat is greatly underrepresented in the wargaming world. I think there would be too many changes to the CM engine to make it feasible.

The "typical" mission would be a trench raid, generally done at night. So you would need new routines for

starshells

stealth - men were trained to freeze when flares went up, and to move silently

troops in No Man's Land that weren't patrolling were often working - putting in wire entanglements, especially - you would need some way to simulate these men being out of their trenches but not actively spotting the enemy or indeed even armed

The other main combat activity was of course the full on battalion assault. Like CM, you could focus on the actions of a single company, but again, you would need to be able to simulate such things as

early war doctrine - which involved company waves, and in some cases even officers on horseback

late war doctrine is something we can do in CM right now - small parties of attacking troops using fire and movement. What we can't do are such things as cutting barbed wire with artillery, which was often a prerequisite.

Other than those two activities, First World War infantry warfare was often simply a case of occupying positions and counting the dead and wounded inflicted by enemy fire. Tours of frontline trenches were generally a week or two in the line, then a week in reserve trenches, and finally a week out of the trenches, before going through the whole rotation again. At least from the British or Canadian perspective. So the notion that units spent "years" in the trenches is not technically accurate.

The other operations involved with these moves were of course the forced march (veterans remembered them not very fondly, as it meant carrying everything you were issued and marching for miles) and the relief in place - always dicey if the enemy got wind of what you were doing and usually therefore done at night also.

You would need a good simulation of moon phases, cloud, etc., as well as be able to simulate noise detection, stealth, flares, and a variety of things in order to do this correctly.

It would still not be all that interesting though if you had the capability to wrap it into a campaign it might have some level of amusement.

I suppose the average player would cry out for tanks to over-represented, just like they are in CM!

[Redwolf]

A WW1 version of CM would remove a lot of things that bring variance to gameplay.

Obviously, AFV usage would be severely limited.

Machine guns would be more static, no squad-carried LMGs, no SMGs, no automatic rifles. So you shift firepower towards static positions and away from maneuver elements. Not good for gameplay.

As said, night combat was relatively more important, and you miss that in the current CM engine.

Artillery would be less responsive and hence shift more to pre-battle combardement or pre-planned walking boxes.

Fortification details would be more important, the current CM model would be insufficient in a number of ways.

Having said all that, I have seen some CMBB scenarios which model WW1 engagements. You might want to search the scenario depot.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by redwolf:

[QB] A WW1 version of CM would remove a lot of things that bring variance to gameplay.

Obviously, AFV usage would be severely limited.

Machine guns would be more static, no squad-carried LMGs, no SMGs, no automatic rifles. So you shift firepower towards static positions and away from maneuver elements. Not good for gameplay.

Every infantry company by 1917 had an LMG platoon - armed with Lewis guns. The Americans had the BAR in 1918, the US and the French used the Chatellarault (sp) and the Germans had submachineguns.

Artillery would be less responsive and hence shift more to pre-battle combardement or pre-planned walking boxes.

You mean like CM models now?

I agree with most of your other points.

[flamingknives]

If you stick to the western front in the mid-period of the war, then chances are it will be a bit static. However, if one were to scoot off and add in engagements on the eastern front and with Turkey, maneuver would become more significant.

The early meeting engagements would also involve a fair amount of movement, and horses!

Likewise, late war, with combined arms operations, would see combat more akin to WWII tactics.

I expect to see starshells etc. in the next CM regardless of what era it covers.

[Sergei]

Dunno about WWI, but trench warfare things should be improved under the new engine. Things like moving unseen in trenches or storming them, separate trenches for guns and normal infantry, night combat, anti-tank ditches etc. CMBO didn't even have trenches, so they right now are like foxholes but of different size and shape and better protection.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

A WW1 version of CM would remove a lot of things that bring variance to gameplay.

It would remove the full panoply of tanky stuff, which we know if what most WW2 wargamers still want to see above all else. But practically every other aspect of WW2 combat occurs in WW1, and variety is enriched by having chemical warfare to consider (chlorine, chloropicrin, adamsite, lewisite, phosgene, mustard, a veritable feast of yuckies). Horsed cavalry, shrapnel shells, and considerably improved models of field fortifications and night combat are really needed for both WW1 and WW2.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

and variety is enriched by having chemical warfare to consider (chlorine, chloropicrin, adamsite, lewisite, phosgene, mustard, a veritable feast of yuckies).

And in game terms, this would mean what, exactly? Either troops are unprotected (Second Ypres) or else are wearing gas masks - which may inhibit vision slightly and movemement.

Would there be any way of simulating the effects of these weapons with any degree of variation?

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Would there be any way of simulating the effects of these weapons with any degree of variation?

Have Seanachai wander over to your house, pull an old, dirty sock over your head, lean in until he's about three inches from your nose, and mouth breath for an hour and a half.

Repeat for every one minute turn until you pass out.

The variation lies in what ethyl-alcohol substance he happened to have imbibed on any given day.

Steve

P.S. Avoid 'Plastic Container Vodka by the Gallon' Day at all costs. Just surrender and be done with it.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[snips]And in game terms, this would mean what, exactly? Either troops are unprotected (Second Ypres) or else are wearing gas masks - which may inhibit vision slightly and movemement.

Would there be any way of simulating the effects of these weapons with any degree of variation?

Certainly there would. Some respirators are primitive, like the hypo helmet, while the late-war ones are almost as effective as current issue kit. Some gases are persistent, and some are not. Some gases incapacitate promptly, others do not. Some gases require heavy concentrations to be effective, others do not. HC degrades respirator filters. Heavier-than-air agents sink into entrenchments. Livens projectors offer better quick bulk delivery than arty shells. Mustard incapacitates by skin contact even if you are wearing a respirator (and bad luck if you're wearing a kilt). Do they not cover this in Canadian Armed Forces' NBC lessons, or have you no sense of fun?

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

I just don't see what difference it would make in game terms - something you still haven't addressed. :confused: Though if it makes you feel like you've said something important lecturing me on things I already know...please continue.

Did you reread your Robert Lawrence yet?

I think John Hill said it best - troops so exposed (to whatever) will either be incapacitated, suffer some degree of discomfiture, or be unaffected. However the gaseous agents are portrayed in the game, the end result will still be one of the three results mentioned in this paragraph.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I just don't see what difference it would make in game terms - something you still haven't addressed. :confused:

In the game, some respirators would be more effective than others.

In the game, some gases would be persistent, and some not.

In the game, some gases would incapacitate promptly, others not.

In the game, some gases would require heavy concentrations to be effective, others not.

In the game, HC would degrade respirator filters.

Does this make it any clearer? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse so you can indulge yopurself in another bleat about my "lecturing you on things you already know"?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you reread your Robert Lawrence yet?

Nope, never read him in the first place. I'm baffled as to what relevance you think this has to the present thread, but hey, if you think it's sensible to wear a soft hat in a firefight, don't let me "lecture" you.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think John Hill said it best - troops so exposed (to whatever) will either be incapacitated, suffer some degree of discomfiture, or be unaffected. However the gaseous agents are portrayed in the game, the end result will still be one of the three results mentioned in this paragraph.

While John Hill's "design for effect" philosphy is admirable, you could say exactly the same thing about exposure to bullet fire or HE, and so by the same argument claim that it's not worth modelling the factors that affect those in any detail.

John.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think John Hill said it best - troops so exposed (to whatever) will either be incapacitated, suffer some degree of discomfiture, or be unaffected.

There is a rather broad range implied by "some degree of discomfiture" - all the way from "unaffected" to "incapacitated". Dismissing all that variation with the wave of a hand into one of three distinct categories seems ... coarse.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

In the game, some respirators would be more effective than others.

In the game, some gases would be persistent, and some not.

In the game, some gases would incapacitate promptly, others not.

In the game, some gases would require heavy concentrations to be effective, others not.

In the game, HC would degrade respirator filters.

Does this make it any clearer? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse so you can indulge yopurself in another bleat about my "lecturing you on things you already know"?

None of which says a thing about what effect this would have on the game....what effects would this have? Panic? Morale? Immobilize? Disappear into thin air?

You are talking about equipment not modelled "ingame". Look at optics for example in CMBB. This is equipment with a direct result on the game mechanics - spotting (I presume) and gun accuracy.

So how would faulty respirators effect how the "pieces" for lack of a better term move or fire? Or could it not all just be treated generically?

Nope, never read him in the first place. I'm baffled as to what relevance you think this has to the present thread, but hey, if you think it's sensible to wear a soft hat in a firefight, don't let me "lecture" you.

mmmmm....you tried to tell us wearing a helmet would be preferable to a soft cap for someone being shot in the back of the head...still trying to sort out your logic. For that matter, he was shot at point blank range with a .308...not seeing what difference a helmet would have made to him. I rather thought the whole point of a helmet was to protect against shrapnel, falling debris, and low-velocity projectiles.

If I was in command of a platoon, at night, I might even prefer to have my hearing unimpaired and wear the soft cap rather than a helmet...

While John Hill's "design for effect" philosphy is admirable, you could say exactly the same thing about exposure to bullet fire or HE, and so by the same argument claim that it's not worth modelling the factors that affect those in any detail.

So you're saying the modelling of gasses needs to be more complex than the modelling of infantry small arms fire in CM? I wasn't aware that the latter was "modell(ed)...in any detail..."

[ August 10, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[virebel661]

My apologies to everyone for posting in the wrong forum orginally - I'm a newbie!

Many fascintaing responses - and very informative. I just think it would be interesting and fun to play with that period machinery, tanks, etc. Trench warefare, etc., could be a bit of a challenge - but if anyone could do a playable, entertaining, and historically accurate game it's Battlefront. As you well know, this subject matter really hasn't been covered before (save for Dawn of Aces - same era at least). Thanks everyone...

[Ketil]

One possible approach would be that used by GDW in their "Over the Top" rules in the Command Decision line. They figured that late war Western Front WW1 would end up a rather dull miniatures game so you get scenarios like:

The 1914 campaign

Tsintau -Brits and Japs vs Germans in China

Western Desert- Brits vs Libyans

1st Ypres

Tanga, East Africa

Samakh on the Sea of Galilee- ANZACs vs Turks

Some thoughts by Frank Chadwick:

"We often forget the arrival of the tactical radio system during WW2 had a major impact on the ability of a commander to control his troops on the battlefield. True, during WW1 one could use such modes of communication as telegraph, telephone etc. Other modes of communication existed but all these basically required both ends of a communication line remain tied to a fixed point and not move."

" For artillery much of the war was a waste. The seige-like nature of the war meant that more and heavier weapons could be used, but to what purpose? As the war progressed, gunners found that they could destroy an enemy trench line if they really wanted to, as at Verdun, but to what avail?...... If one massed ones artillery to destroy a section of the front, one telegraphed the location of the assault. If one spread out the artillery, one might not have any effect on the area being attacked. The spread of trench lines pushed the arty back further from the front....this often meant if a breakthrough occured, ones own artillery would be unable to support it for some time, while the enemy was able to use any and all of his."

"Chemical warfare is an excellent example of an idea that seemed good at the time it was thought of, but never quite worked out in reality as on paper. As noted, the first attempts to use chemical warfare failed- the Germans used it against the British in 1914 during the "Race to the Sea" and then on the Eastern Front in 1914-15. The concentrations used against the British were too light to be noticed, while the use of agents in sub zero weather negated their effect. Only in 1915 were they first used effectively and then the problem was how to follow up an attack successfully. The Germans created a major breach in the line but were unable to exploit it.

The use of cylinders ended when it became clear that any wind shifts could negate the effects of the planned attack..... The Livens system was an excellent means of hitting an area quickly and quietly but it took time to set up and prepare. The use of mustard gas solved the problems of drifting gas clouds and made gas a defensive weapon for the first time..... By 1918 the British and French units did not mind being shelled with mustard gas in that the Germans would not use that agent on any sector they planned to attack in the next 72 hours.... "

"As a gamer, the sideshows of WW1 are far more interesting... trench warfare, while the rules do cover it is damned dull and boring until you get the use of StossTruppen on a wide scale basis......The sideshows on the other hand, have always been more fun to game....the troops tend to be more interesting......"

Im not sure the company level action portrayed in CM would do much justice to the trench warfare side of the Great War. Would be fun gamig out some of the "sideshow" operations though.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[snips]None of which says a thing about what effect this would have on the game....what effects would this have? Panic? Morale? Immobilize? Disappear into thin air?

Fairly obviously, if "some gases would incapacitate promptly, others not", one of the effects would be incapacitation.

Equally obviously, if "HC would degrade respirator filters", another of the effects would be degrading filters.

So it seems to me that I have explicitly said two things about effects, but more won't hurt. If one takes the current CM as a basis, I would expect many gases to degrade fitness over time, depending on accumulated dose. For future versions of CM where spotting is dealt with differently, it would make sense to degrade spotting capability when wearing respirators. One might also want to model a coupling between degree of exertion (currently reflected in accumulated fatigue) and inhaled dose rate: The faster you move, the faster you breathe, and the more gas you put through your lungs if you aren't protected. Troops wearing respirators might also be subject to more rapid accumulation of fatigue and reduced command control effectiveness.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You are talking about equipment not modelled "ingame".

I am talking about modelling CW. CW is not modelled in any current release of CM. So, clearly, I am talking about a different, hypothetical game that might be constructed in future.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So how would faulty respirators effect how the "pieces" for lack of a better term move or fire? Or could it not all just be treated generically?

Faulty respirators increase the dose rate of the troops wearing them as compared to fully-functional respirators. Higher dose rates produce casualties more promptly.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So you're saying the modelling of gasses needs to be more complex than the modelling of infantry small arms fire in CM? I wasn't aware that the latter was "modell(ed)...in any detail..."

What you count as "in any detail" is obviously a question of personal taste, but small arms fire in CM is modelled by a range-dependent contribution from each individual weapon, and its effects produce individual casualties and one of a number of different suppression levels, depending on the troop quality of firer and target and the posture and exposure of the target. That's more detail than you find in either AH's "Tobruk" or most of the professional combat simulations I've seen. I think a comparable level of detail in a CW model would be interesting; but I doubt that many people share my fascination with CW.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Ketil:

[snips]

As noted, the first attempts to use chemical warfare failed- the Germans used it against the British in 1914 during the "Race to the Sea"

Fascinating, I never knew that. Have we got any sources describing this usage?

Originally posted by Ketil:

"As a gamer, the sideshows of WW1 are far more interesting... trench warfare, while the rules do cover it is damned dull and boring until you get the use of StossTruppen on a wide scale basis......The sideshows on the other hand, have always been more fun to game....the troops tend to be more interesting......"

I suspect that "sideshow" here is being used to mean "anything but the Western Front", which may have been important but was nothing like the while war. And on the Western Front, there is plenty of mobile warfare of tactical interest in the early days (the battle of the frontiers, the retreat from Mons, the miracle of the Marne) and some interesting bits mid-war (Fort Douaumont, Canmbrai). Even at the Somme and Passchendaele there were parts of the front where tactical progress at the brigade and division level was considerable.

Then again, if one could fix up a variable-length bound system, players might have fun digging tunnels under each others trench systems...

Originally posted by Ketil:

Im not sure the company level action portrayed in CM would do much justice to the trench warfare side of the Great War.

I would have thought it would have made sense to make the platoon the basic unit rather than the section, at least until the Stosstrupps arrive.

All the best,

John.

[John Kettler]

May I commend to your attention the highly praised and groundbreaking historical study SEEKING VICTORY ON THE WESTERN FRONT: The British Army & Chemical Warfare Warfare In World War I, by Albert Palazzo?

While anyone with half a brain knows gas was used

during the War, this book tells all about the different gas types used, their relative lethality, defensive options against them, intro dates, etc.

All well and good, but the real value of this book lies in showing how gas was actually not just used in combat, but was implemented into the overall British war strategy, going on to such important aspects as logistics needed to get the gas where needed, manpower to emplace and protect it, conditions where it worked well or didn't and why, plus much more. At it's core, the book shows how, despite a fundamental distaste for "ungentlemanly, unBritish weapons," the British learned to fight and win on a modern battlefield, using war gas as a fully integrated, vital part of that victory.

A simply amazing deeply and broadly researched book, this University of Nebraska Press work is a must read. Got mine at www.halfpricebooks.com but believe the firm's no longer doing online sales. There are stores in the U.S., though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ketil]

Thanks for the book tip John, will give it a read:)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I would have thought it would have made sense to make the platoon the basic unit rather than the section, at least until the Stosstrupps arrive.

All the best,

John.

I would agree with this.

In the Canadian example, by April 1917, platoons were divided into four sections - a rifle section, a "bombing" section, a Lewis section, and a rifle-grenade section.

In 1915-16, you are correct, there were no sections, simply four platoons per company. Before the Somme, infantry advanced heavily laden, in company lines.

After the Somme, according to Desmond Morton, "fighting order" was adopted, and not only was the platoon reintroduced as a tactical unit (rather than the company), but the actual permanent assignment of platoon officers and even section commanders allowed for greater flexibility.

As well, the heavy Colt and Vickers machineguns were moved to special MG units and the Lewis LMG was issued one per platoon. At 42 pounds, not the "light" MG we would see in WW II but a good start- it also required the rest of the section to haul the ammunition panniers...

All of which would be easily recreated in CM, I think.

A permanently constituted platoon with four specialized sections represented a fighting team that an officer might be able to control....

Byng's transformation of his corps's (sic) organization and tactics was hardly unique. By late 1914 the Germans were already feeling their way towards that all-arms teams they called Stosstruppen, or "stormtroopers." So were some French divisions. Unlike the German army, with its powerful tradition of decentralization of tactical doctrine...Haig's headquarters periodically reminded senior officers that the 1914 manuals were still in effect. Canadian officers had studied those manuals too, but they felt less obligation to live by them if that meant early and needless death. Divisions that moved from corps to corps needed standardized tactical responses. Because the Canadians, like the ANZACS, stayed together in their own formations, it was easier for them to innovate.

Desmond Morton - WHEN YOUR NUMBER'S UP: THE CANADIAN SOLDIER IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR ISBN 0-394-22388-8

[Falcon988]

Pshaw, you just need some imagination. Why, just recently I recreated World War 1 in PBEM.

Fortified German position. Trenches, machine guns, 105+ millimeter artillery, mortars, the works. I, being the tactical genius that I am, decided that the best course of action would be a frontal assault by my British infantry lying prone just out of LOS. So I unleashed a big artillery barrage, popped smoke in the open ground between my troops and the trenches, blew a trumpet, and watched as my troops jumped up ran ran towards the German position with bayonets fixed and shouting all sorts of curse words.

It was really quite a show to camera lock onto a British squad and rotate it around so I could see all the artillery smashing around my men, machine guns cutting people down, etc etc. My men charged valiantly, and ended up being butchered valiantly. Computer made me auto surrender less than 5 turns later.

[Kitty]

Yes, there is. Machine Gunner: 1916-1918. Best FPS I've ever seen.