Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This link here is from August 1st, however my reason for posting it now is that this just came up on my newsfeed on facebook.



Also, that and I hear that Warlord/Osprey are putting out a Bolt Action WW1 rulebook sometime around next September. :good:
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm quite interested to see how this will work to be honest, as WW1 wasn't all trenches and barbed wire. :)
 

·
Dazed and confused.
Joined
·
8,496 Posts
I'm quite interested to see how this will work to be honest, as WW1 wasn't all trenches and barbed wire. :)
The Western Front pretty much was after the initial invasion of France and Belgium. The Eastern front was definitely more mobile, with the Serbs kicking the living shit out of the Austro-Hungarians, and the Russians coming close to invading Germany. But that's not were the glamour(for glamour see British and American interests) is, so probably won't get much attention.
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Very true. It's nice to think that Warlord will go completely balls-out with WW1 and delve into as much as possible :good:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Knowing what I know of WWI, squad based combat will be hard to master. When it came to the trenches, the process of breaking through those lines in a meaningful way involved sudden bombardment in the middle of an attack along with rapid exploitation of breakthroughs. So for the defender this means, inevitably, an immediate and overwhelming blow by superior numbers of coordinated attackers with significant off-map fire support. Aside from the early months of this where massive slaughters occurred in No Man's Land, these battles were usually sure-fire victories for the attackers, and it was the 'pursuit' of the attack that lacked and was always repulsed. Trench lines were not invincible.

As for maneuver afterwards, the breakdown of communications is often what prevented attackers from holding onto what they gained. Late-war saw sheer attrition take effect, in which case even plodding forces could get by simply by weight alone. In both cases you're dealing with scattered, less-than-WWII style warfare, with lackluster tanks, limited air support, and no real mechanization otherwise, which honestly isn't very compelling or original. Most of the mystique of WWI was the trenches in the west, the attrition in the east, the mountains in the Tyrol, and the camels in the middle east. All of these are tactical and theater-level traits, not squad-level.

So about the only compelling fight I can imagine would be a thick trench line assault, or a battle within a large fort, where the defender has plenty of room to fall back. In essence, it would be a fight over the trench works themselves, breaking down into individual dugouts, strongpoints, munitions and communication bunkers, etc. and not the immediate attack into them or the confused exploitation afterwards. Not even cityfights hold appeal because they often just didn't happen: Both sides were content to shell towns and cities flat from afar, and it was major forts that were the main focus.

It'll be interesting to see how these game mechanics boil down, to say the least. As a stickler for history I'm tough to please.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top