WWI Rules Review (Kind of, Sort of)

Following on yesterday's post, I wanted to put my notes on the WWI rules I've been playing with individually-based figures in one place, and thought I'd share them in case it helps anyone else. 

The rules I've been testing for WWI single-figure games are: Contemptible Little Armies, a WWI variant of Bolt Action, and, H.M.G. I still use Trench Hammer, and included it as well, for completeness's sake.

I want to play games with no more than say, 40 or so figures per side. Other that that, there is no methodology, no particularly consistent criteria, or anything like that.

While I list the pros and cons of each. these are relative to my idiosyncratic preferences, and what I remembered when I wrote this up - and I think that's important to remember.  

If you don't care about representing an Austro-Hungarian stormtrooper unit on the table, then you won't care about that pro or con. 

Although not listed below, I can and will, of course, still use One Hour Wargames (the 'Machine-Age' rules with my own modifications). Where one-base is a company, I feel it gives a decent feel for the period, and I can use the Austro-Hungarian stormtroops in a historically appropriate manner.

As they are typically played with multi-figure bases (I guess you could play with individually-based figures, but I have not), and I already know I like them, I saw no need to break them out for this post.

Finally, Too Fat Lardies is not represented - I have seen Through the Mud and Blood at the FLGS, but it seems like it's intended for closer to 100 figures per side (which is outside my scope at this time).

About the Sample Game

The sample game, as mentioned in my previous post, was small - smaller than any these rules are likely intended for. That was on-purpose.

I wanted to see how usable they are for games that are a too big for man-to-man using One Hour Skirmish Wargames, while getting a feel for the mechanisms. Heck, I didn't even put out any scenery for most of the games, I just played on the living room floor and used the edge of the area rug as a trench boundary.

The Italians had three infantry units (figure count varied based on the rule set) attacking one unit of Austro-Hungarians infantry (again, figure count varied per rule set) with MG support, defending a trench section. Thus, it could be a platoon to a regiment assaulting a trench held by anywhere from a section to a battalion.

Some games also included a single commander-type figure where the rules allowed for that.

Contemptible Little Armies 

This set has been around awhile, now in its 3rd edition, and is currently published by Rattrap Productions (the link is to the print edition but they also come in PDF format).

Although there are theater books, they are not required - the basics of most combatants are in the core rules. If you want more detailed suggestions/limits by year of conflict or theater, then they are worth grabbing. I have the book in print and the theater book in PDF and that works for me.

Pros -

• 1:1, yet author explicitly states units have no set figure count and can represent whatever you want. 10-12 figures is pretty common based on the various message board and blog posts I read.
• Wonderfully toy-soldier-esque design philosophy.
  
• Commander represented on table and has a role to play with regards to morale and orders
• Variable movement rate (as in roll dice, not just the result of terrain changes)
  
• Figures in unit don't have to do the same thing.
  
• Infantry may either move or shoot in a turn but not both (I know a lot of people don't like this sort of thing, but I do)
  
• Close Combat is by individual match-ups.
  
• Successive morale failures increase impact.
• 1st fail is just a marker.
  
• 2nd fail, unit can't advance
• 3rd fail, unit routes
• Air power is represented on-table.
  
• Written orders for attackers. (I think this is great for this era, especially the Italians, whose regular troops - as opposed to alpini or arditi - even in the later part of the war, don't seem to have operated with the independence seen in say, the British or German armies)
  
• Depending on what a unit represents, an Austro-Hungarian sturmpatrouille (9 men) or sturmcompany (two sturmpatrouille ) may be represented on table.
• Turn structure incorporates reaction fire without having to play both sides simultaneously.

Cons - 

• Weapon ranges are ... odd (People complain about Bolt Action ranges, but 12" for a rifle in a 1:1 game? This implies that maybe the game is aimed higher. Except 40" for an MG (which I believe accounts for indirect fire as well))
• Because individuals in a unit can do different things - you need to keep track of who moved and who didn't because those who moved can't shoot that turn.
  
• Units are what you want them to be but three infantry units tends to look like a platoon with too short rifle ranges, as much as they resemble a company, battalion, or regiment.
  
• Depending on what a unit represents, you may not be able to represent a sturmpatrouille (9 men) or sturmcompany  on the table-top but with very few figures and therefore very fragile.
• Every figure participating in combat rolls a die. That can be a lot of dice.
  
• Modifiers apply to results of shooting, so it is possible for "hits" to have no effect. (In practice, this is still enjoyable when the roll is to see how many of your side are removed and they escape danger. It's less enjoyable when it's to see how many of the other side will be removed.)

Bolt Action WWI Variant

I played the Bayonet & Spade variant available for free download: https://www.reddit.com/r/boltaction/comments/upp1y2/bayonet_spade_bolt_action_in_the_great_war_v05/

The other well-known WWI variant, the GAJO WWI rules for Bolt Action, are also free, but GAJO doesn't cover Italy or Austria-Hungary: http://www.gajominis.com/gajorules.html#baww1

Either requires the Bolt Action 2nd Edition rule book (available in print and PDF. I have the latter, I should have gotten the former).

Pros - 

• I love the initiative mechanism of drawing dice from a bag.
  
• The weapon ranges make sense to me (short-ish, but cinematic without seeming incongruent with what's represented)
  
• The ability for units targeted to receive fire to take a Down order if they haven't had any other order this turn and reduce the ability of the enemy to hit them. Great for troops crossing no-man's land!
  
• Units are HQ, single heavy weapons, or sections and make no claim otherwise
• Section minimums and maximums are given for most combatants.
  
• Units act as units not individuals, so you stay focused on managing the unit as a whole (you're generally in the platoon leader role, not the squad leader's role. Although I guess you can argue that the PL should be controlling fire-teams - like a lot of other WWII rules.
• It's like figures on a tray with individuals removed as shooting casualties.
  
• Independent leader figures provide additional initiative dice, allowing you a greater chance to act before the other side
  
• An Austro-Hungarian sturmpatrouille or sturmcompany can be modeled 1:1
• Modifiers apply to hit and hits result in pins, then check for figure removal. In other words, if you roll to hit, and you hit, SOMETHING happens to the target.
  

Cons - 

• Despite being 1figure = 1 man, units act as units. You can't detail some figures to fire and others to advance. This may not be so much of a con depending on the force you field and the era of the war. Still, Rommel's Infantry Attacks has plenty of examples where just a few men were detailed to something while the rest did something else, and he did this all war long. It seems unlikely he was the *only* person doing it.
  
• It's like figures on a tray with individuals removed as shooting casualties.
  
• Related to the above, total unit participation and destruction in close combat (If I am understanding the rules correctly, and I readily admit I may not be).
  
• Example: Italians had infiltrated an Austrian trench, and two Italians (at the front of a unit five figures strong by that point) made contact with the left-most two figures in a 10-strong Austrian unit in a line. All figures participate in close combat, and the losing SIDE (i.e. unit) is removed. Not unreasonable (if you imagine the forces running down the trench to fill in for their fallen comrades) but not as enjoyable and toy soldiery as figure vs figure for my money.
• If a unit on side A is given an Ambush order it requires remembering that and looking for opportunities to fire when activating side B units
• Every figure participating in combat rolls a die. That can be a lot of dice.
   

H.M.G.

This is PDF-only as far as I have found (available on Wargame Vault), although I imagine at one time it was a print product.

It's relatively inexpensive and more so if you wait for a sale, like the Wargame Vault Winter Offensive. The Agema website (they're the publisher) was apparently built in the 90's and has kept the same aesthetics since - sadly, H.M.G. is not listed there.

Pros - 

• Using ranges as written with 54s makes the table seem bigger but even doubled, they are fine.
• Units are companies (1:25 figure:man ratio) and the ranges work well with this. 
• Weapon ranges are more realistic than either of the other two rule books discussed here.
• Weapons have multiple range bands, so shooting at different distances is more or less effective
  
• Differentiation of weapon models is handled efficiently with #dice/figures shooting (example, the rifle used by the Italians has them roll 1d6 for every 3 figures, the rifle used by the Austrians let's them roll1d6 per 2 figures). This mirrors the effect rather than worrying about specifics of particular weapon models more typical of man-to-man rules.
  
• Close combat is figure vs figure.
  
• Force list of combatants is vast and varied, with number of figures per company varying per nationality and year of war. How accurate, I don't know.
  
• Turn structure incorporates reaction fire without having to play both sides simultaneously.  
• Morale check failure results vary based on troop quality and situation.
  

Cons- 

• Leaders have NO role and aren't represented on table at all. That just seems odd to me given the tight controls commanders kept on most of their troops for most of the war - at least on the Southern Front.
  
• A sturmpatrouille is too small to be represented at 1:25, a sturm company would be 1figure, which makes them unusable - a single hit would remove them, and assuming the same rifle as the regular army, they could not shoot as they would need two figures minimum to roll 1d6.
  
• Maybe differentiation of weapon models is too low-level detail? Even Bolt Action doesn't distinguish between makes of bolt-action rifle. Then again, you can argue that it's not about the details but the way it averages out, and 1d6 per X figures is more accurate in the aggregate.
  
• Modifiers apply to hit but all hits remove a figure. There is no variety in result.
• Troop quality is given but is only the starting point. Prior to the game you roll to see if it's higher or lower than indicated. Sounds great, except for those rated likely to route. They can be removed before the game even starts!
  
• Morale check failure results vary based on troop quality and situation. I doubt I'll ever remember the details.
  
• Morale checks are frequent (every turn a figure is lost).
  
• Air power is handled by dice, not models.

 

Trench Hammer

 

Trench Hammer has been featured on this blog a number of times before. It's available from Wargame Vault and is a bargain for what you get.

There is an expansion book as well, although it's not required. Many of its ideas are already appearing in the v2 of the main title (available when you purchase the main title).

Pros -

• Units represent sections, but can be called whatever you want and they still work. There is official precedent for this in the RCW variant.
  
• Figures-on-a-base but explicitly notes you can use single figures in groups of 5-6.
  
• When using single figures, you still track hits, not figure removal, so your toys stay on the table longer
• Overwatch is accounted for as part of the phasing side's actions - no need to have a split personality when playing solo.
• Commander represented on table and has a role to play with regards to morale and orders
• Using a leader to issue commands runs the risk of them being hit by a sharpshooter. 
• Weapon range is realistically unlimited on most tables, with a benefit for being in "firefight" range.
  
• Wide variety of unit types covered. 
• Single roll of the dice (just two!) to resolve a unit's action.

 Cons -

• When using single figures, you track hits, not figure removal. I'm sure there are good ways to track hits, but my units trail little dice all over the table.
• Units suffer penalties depending on how many hits they've taken - I can never remember the penalty levels.
  
• Units are either on the table or completely removed. Sometimes I prefer the toy-soldiery single-figure removal and seeing a unit degrade.
• Despite the claims many make about CLA for quick and bloody, no game of the sample scenario was as fast as Trench Hammer. 
• Not much in the way of force builder/army lists for different nationalities (given the limited coverage in English of either Italy or Austria-Hungary in WWI, while it's not necessary to have force lists, it could be helpful or at least, serve as a jumping off point)
  
• Air power isn't covered.
  

Conclusion: 

Unsurprisingly, none are perfect, all do different things better or worse than others. All issues could easily be house-ruled using mechanisms from the others.

And there's enough I like about each of them to make the choice difficult.

Do they all feel like WWI? I think so. Or at least, they don't feel like WWII. In fact, a lot of people say Bolt Action doesn't feel very WWII when playing WWII, so there's that. The real issue though isn't if they feel like WWI, but which part of the war? I'm not sure I feel like getting into that. I'll just say, they work well enough for the Southern Front - whether you want to play out scenarios from Hell in the Trenches or Many Wars Ago. 

Where they all will struggle or outright fail, like just about every set of rules, is small groups of soldiers taking on large groups, and  the small group dominates the battle (think Rommel and a few men with LMGs capturing a company of Italians, but also arditi and Austro-Hungarian stormtroopers, where 9 men capture entire battalions). I'll add that I don't think this is a flaw so much as a limitation of the medium. A role-playing game would handle this much better (Not D&D or another tactical game, but something more narrative).

CLA might be able to pull that off - if units are platoons, but you'd have to do something to make the smaller unit less fragile. I'd probably use GASLIGHT because in that game, I tend to treat single-figure units as one person while 10-figure units represent "a company" at 1:10 or 1:20 even. You also have options for heroes, saving throws, etc. I don't know why I do it that way, but it works for me in that game.

Back then to which rules will I use for WWI?

The issue as I see it is. do I choose one set and modify it, choose one and stick with it as is, merrily rotate through them but pending time relearning/house-ruling each time I switch rules, or do I make my own rules,which will likely be an amalgamation?

As I joked in my previous post, I guess I'll have to play more games to find out.