WW1 and Movies..off topic? kinda

[Magnum MGG]

I know the following two questions are probally off topic, but Battlefront got me into WW2 history, and most visitors here seem to have an advance knowleadge of the topic, so here they go...

1. Why are there no games, simulations ect ect of WW1, always WW2? (Very few people even know how WW1 started), just wondering why WW1 has pretty much been forgotton, compared to WW2?

2. Sure I've seen my share of WW2 movies, (Bridge to far, Tora Tora Tora, Longest day, Sands of Iwo Jima, ect ect) but whats the best WW2 movie that has armor/infantry battles? kinda like the stuff we would see in CMBO and CMBB?

Just wondering the above 2 questions... just started getting into WW2 history myself, fueled by playing CMBO and CMBB.

[Nippy]

"1. Why are there no games, simulations ect ect of WW1, always WW2? (Very few people even know how WW1 started), just wondering why WW1 has pretty much been forgotton, compared to WW2?"

You want a WWI game? Okay. Just boot up CMBB, make a small flat map, insert trenches for both sides, give each side lots of HMGs and Conscript riflemen, and put a single VL flag in the center of the map. Ta-da! You now have a recreation of the first 3 years of WWI.

As for movies, A&E's "The Lost Battalion" warrents multiple viewings.

[Barrold]

I'll second the recommendation for 'The Lost Battalion' with a special accolade for Rick Schroeder's performance as the commanding officer.

'All's Quiet on the Western Front" is a classic of course and even the 1978 remake starring John Boy Walton and Ernest Borgnine is not terrible.

BDH

[Sytass]

True, World War 1 is highly misrepresented in computer wargaming. There is a game called Fields of Conquest, depicting the conflict at strategic level.

Then there's of course History Line, which adapts the Battle Isle system for WW1.

Whatever you do, though, stay clear of the new game "1914 - The Great War" by JoWood. It's nothing but a 3D version of History Line, only with dumber AI, less realistic gameplay, and far less fun!

There are World War 1 scenarios for Operational Art of War - Century of Warfare and for Wargame Construction Kit 2 - Tanks!, though. For Age of Rifles there's some Desert Mounted Corps scenario about the fighting in the Middle East.

Overall it seems that World War 1 is widely popular only for flight sims, and that ground combat (at least a dedicated game) is vastly underrepresented.

[V]

Originally posted by Magnum MGG:

1. Why are there no games, simulations ect ect of WW1, always WW2? (Very few people even know how WW1 started), just wondering why WW1 has pretty much been forgotton, compared to WW2?

WW2 was bigger in just about everything. WW2 used more combined arms and was more fluid overall than WWI.

WW2 was black vs. white, good vs. evil, while in WWI, there was much more grey.

2. Sure I've seen my share of WW2 movies, (Bridge to far, Tora Tora Tora, Longest day, Sands of Iwo Jima, ect ect) but whats the best WW2 movie that has armor/infantry battles? kinda like the stuff we would see in CMBO and CMBB?

Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers (best), Stalingrad, Iron Cross...

To name a couple that jump to mind..

[Foxbat]

WWI was fought almost exclusively at the strategic level, even when small unit action and infiltration and whatnot became important. Not much fun to play a company-level game where 85% of the time is spent waiting, 10% is spent going "over the top" and into enemy fire and 5% to fluid action (infiltration, exploitation and the evitable meeting engagement).

[Michael Emrys]

If you are willing to play cardboard games, there have been a whole host of them devoted to WW I. In fact, one of the most compelling titles for a wargame IMO is attached to a game simulating the battle of Cambrai, which saw the first large-scale use of tanks in war: To the Green Fields Beyond.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

WWI was fought almost exclusively at the strategic level, even when small unit action and infiltration and whatnot became important. Not much fun to play a company-level game where 85% of the time is spent waiting, 10% is spent going "over the top" and into enemy fire and 5% to fluid action (infiltration, exploitation and the evitable meeting engagement).

While there is much in what you say, there was also a fair amount of war of movement in WW I. The first month or two on the Western Front; the Battles for the Mansurian Lakes and Tannenburg in East Prussia; the fighting in Rumania; the Brusilov offensive; Italy 1917; Palestine 1918. Probably best simulated on the operational level rather than tactical as in most cases there is not much hard information available on squad level fighting on most of these fronts.

Michael

[Jagdwyrm]

1914 Havent played it..so don't know if what Sytass says is true.

[ October 06, 2002, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Jagdwyrm ]

[Sytass]

Well, it probably works as an abstract tactics game with a WW1 backdrop, a realistic simulation of WW1 1914 is certainly not.

Units always block LOS, trenches don't give significant protection (not that the AI would stay in them, anyways), every shot is a hit (you only score more hits with more experienced units), every unit has 10 hitpoints, there's no moral of troops.... to name but a few.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Nippy:

... You want a WWI game? Okay. Just boot up CMBB, make a small flat map, insert trenches for both sides, give each side lots of HMGs and Conscript riflemen, and put a single VL flag in the center of the map. Ta-da! You now have a recreation of the first 3 years of WWI.

Just to correct a few things :

a) The WWI battlefield was not (always) flat.

The troop quality in WWI was not 'Conscript'. The grunts were as good as any other soldier in history. The leader ship on stratic level was conscript.

c) The problem of WWI battles is indeed not a lack of action on battalion level. The problem was the strategy, tied to 19th century traditions which were useless in the industrial era. It was the total lack of a new stratic concept. But indeed the Germans started to develop this new concept already in 1916 during the Verdun battle, when using small assault troops - always moving, always advancing, hard to nail down with static artillery barrages. This concept were developed further and more and more used on greater units, but not on a great stratic level before the final German offensive in 1918, which wasn't stopped by the Allies, but by the German lack of supply and fresh men - the assault concept was difficult to realize with the limited mobility of this era. Tanks were moving at less then 10 km/h, trucks were not much faster and relativ rare, so the attack was only running until the troops were simply exhausted. But the assault tactic was the base for the mobil operational concepts of WWII and partially still today, developed by Fuller, Liddeldell Hart, Martel and of course the great Heinz Guderian. They were the key for the German Blitzkrieg success.

Hard to say if a WWI battle with a game engine like CM would work. I guess because there are only two important branches (infantry and artillery ) we would miss variety after some time? Games about the Pacific war in WWII have a similiar problem.

[ October 06, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Nippy]

"a) The WWI battlefield was not (always) flat."

Eh...set map damage to 90% and no one will notice.

"b) The troop quality in WWI was not 'Conscript'. The grunts were as good as any other soldier in history. The leader ship on stratic level was conscript."

I meant "conscript" from the unit point/purchase aspect. Have to make sure there's lots of fodder for the guns.

"Hard to say if a WWI battle with a game engine like CM would work."

What? You mean you wouldn't be thrilled to play the CM "Battle of the Somme" operation?

"WTF! The only command I can give is human wave!?"

[Sytass]

Originally posted by Nippy:

"Hard to say if a WWI battle with a game engine like CM would work."

What? You mean you wouldn't be thrilled to play the CM "Battle of the Somme" operation?

"WTF! The only command I can give is human wave!?"

ROFL!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Nippy:

... You mean you wouldn't be thrilled to play the CM "Battle of the Somme" operation?

"WTF! The only command I can give is human wave!?" ...

What is not a problem of the tactic on Battalions level - this was the stratic ordered by the high command. I wonder why you are so fixed on the Somme battle. Is it the only one that was documented on TV?

[Brendon]

I agree, WW1 wargames are underwhelming in their volume.

I doubt that most of the people that have replied have really studied WW1 tactics and battles in any detail. (Here go all of the replies!) When I say detail I mean looking at Corps, Division, Battalion, Company, Platoon and (at the end of the war) Section level tactics of any given battle. Also try looking at personal accounts of the battle you study. The extent of integration of new weapons - Lewis guns, Stokes mortars, smoke, light artillery in direct fire modes, early tanks, aircraft, changing flexibility in artillery support. Studying the folds in the ground (Why is it that people think that WW1 battlefields were flat when WW2 battlefields - many the same ones - are not, is a mystery? Why not walk a few of them?)

The real problem with wargaming WW1 battles lies in the difficulty in getting people to appreciate the variety of tactical methods employed - it was not all lining up and marching one yard apart into machinegun fire. Perhaps anyone who thinks that is the case (presumably from events on 1st July 1916) should look into why that particular tactic was used.

WW1 showed a greater degree of tactical diversity than any other war of the 20th century - it evolved from Victorian tactical units and formations to the embryo of modern combined arms tactics.

Perhaps the difficulty also lies in emulating the extent of change that affected so greatly the level on which the fighting took place.

I hope that one day there will be sufficient understanding of this conflict to support a proper wargame on this fascinating and diverse conflict.

[Shosties]

Playing out the exploits of Sturmabteilung Rohr and the young Rommel in Italy would certainly be interesting. Even within the scale of a CM-like game.

My Cliff Notes understanding of the Western Front in WW1:

Rapid-fire breech loading artillery and, to a lesser extent actually, the machinegun put an end to manuever for cavalry and traditional infantry on the battlefield, static warfare results.

All sides grope for an answer to the deadlock:

French: artillery destroys, infantry occupys

British: as French, but then finding a technical solution in the tank

Germans: independent squads and even fireteams, SMGs, LMGs, trench mortars, infantry guns, flamethrowers, smoke and gas shells and using all of the above in a coordinated and rehearsed manner.

American: Uh, what problem? Fix bayonets, boys!

The problem noone got around to addressing: OK, so you've cracked the enemies defensive depth in the target sector... you're leading wave is exhausted and is beyond artillery support, and the enemy is sending reserves to the breach by rail while your follow-on forces are slogging through shell-churned mud....

Offensive operational mobility (horse and foot mainly, especially across the shelled area) vs. defensive operational mobility (trains). Big mismatch there. Hence mechanization of forces (at least your spearheads) for WW2.