Many gamers have a conception of World War I as an era where units were all but annihilated in short periods of time in futile attempts to assault enemy positions. Hence, the period has not attracted much attention in simulations. In reality, though causalities were horrendous, a single day's action (which is generally the most that can be simulated in a wargame) would result in casualty rates that were not that different and often lower than many other eras of history that are popular for wargamers. When one considers the half million casualties that the French and Germans each suffered in the battle of Verdun, it must be remembered that the battle lasted for about 9 months. Single day casualty rates in many Napoleonic or American Civil War battles were often much higher than those in WWI. The principal difference was not so much in casualty rates as in the strategic results of such battles. The earlier period battles often resulted in strategic victories and sometimes decided a whole war in one battle. There was also a great deal of maneuver at the operational level. This contrasted sharply with WWI, especially on the western front. There, the massive battles that were fought resulted in no change in the strategic picture. Little or no ground was gained. There, was no movement of armies at the operational level. Even in those instances where success was gained at the tactical level, the massive rail systems on both sides allowed the transfer of reserves to block potential breakthroughs quicker than the attacker could exploit them. Hence, futility and attrition was the result. The same ground would have to be fought for over and over. The ingredients for strategic success would have to wait for WWII, where fully motorized, self-contained fighting formations (panzer divisions) possessed sufficient mobility to achieve and sustain breakthroughs and where air forces could disrupt enemy communications to prevent the transfer of reserves in sufficient strength to plug the gaps. At the tactical level, the western front quickly evolved into a form of siege warfare with extensive defensive works from the North Sea to Switzerland. This posed a problem for both sides. Both sides achieved technological successes to try to break the deadlock. The Germans introduced gas, flamethrowers, and grenade launchers. The Western Allies countered with tanks and fight machine guns. For both sides, tactical systems evolved that were designed to deal with the situation. The Western Allies tended to develop rigid, inflexible doctrine. All too often, such doctrine was developed and dictated from supreme HQs by individuals with little or no experience or conception of the actual situation. Decentralization of tactical control was also lacking due to the reluctance of western officers to grant tactical freedom to junior officers and NCOs. Western tactics usually relied on massive bombardmcnts followed by the "big push". These tactics were less successful than those developed by the Germans. The German army traditionally was mission oriented; whereby higher commands gave lower levels missions, and left the details of how to achieve those missions to those in command at lower levels. This resulted in German tactics evolving from the bottom up. The advantage of this was that those with the requisite experience in real war were the ones who eventually developed the most effective tactics. Hence, a German captain named Rohr, who was a front line officer (not general staff) was able to have a profound impact on German offensive tactics. Tactical control gradually shifted to the lowest levels in the German army, with NCOs and junior officers given control over the actual units going into battle, and higher commands relegated to a manager status. Control of support weapons also filtered down to the lower levels, resulting in their more effective use by being in the right spot at the right time under control of the man on the spot. Hence, the German small unit leaders were given the means to solve many of the tactical problems confronting them. Being more self dependent than their allied counterparts, German squads and platoons became less concerned with their flanks and were in a position to take advantage of local successes via local initiative which allowed small tactical units to penetrate and outflank strong enemy positions. In western sources, there has developed many misconceptions regarding German tactical doctrine in 'WW1. This is due to the fact that the Western Allies never really understood the new German doctrine and interpreted what they saw within their own framework and bias. They inappropriately described German doctrine as "infiltration tactics". It was the decentralization of control and support weapons and the introduction of initiative at the lowest levels that allowed successes being pursued at the small unit level, hence infiltration'. The allies missed much of the lesson. The lesson would be repeated again in 1940 with more dramatic results, using the more modern weapons of war. Bear in mind that in 1940, the Germans were inferior to the Western Allies in men and material (except for air power). For those interested in German WWI tactical doctrine, I strongly recommend STORMTROOP TACTICS (Reviewed in The Couier # 59 ED) by Bruce Gumundsson, which coherently and correctly describes the development of German doctrine. Because these are intended to be a simple and playable set of rules for WW1, it is not my intent to give extensive details on tactical doctrine or tactical organizations. There is too much variety in both instances to allow for anything but generalizations. Players should utilize their own research skills in these areas, The same holds true for the rules themselves. They are, for the most part, written in generalizations which will allow for alterations to be made as desired. As long as all players know the rules, any desired adaptations are permitted. These rules are not intended to be a set of rules and regulations that are created to be exploited and debated. They are a guideline to a fun game. The only rule that should be absolute is that of good sportsmanship and fair play. The game is not intended to prove the superiority (intellectually or otherwise) of one garner over another or to prove the superiority of one nation over another. After all, it is often times better to be lucky than good. If necessary, resort to an umpire system. The umpires word is law. If someone attempts something that is not strictly forbidden but goes against the spirit of the game, don't allow it. The principal feature of "WWI on a Shingle" is brevity. The overall objective was to create a simple, playable set of rules that captured the flavor of WW1 and was also quite fun to play. There is endless room for modifications to the framework to take into account unique circumstances. For instance, if a battle in Flanders is contemplated, players may decide of a "one-eyed Jack is drawn", there is a chance for rain (and mud, etc.) to commence. A second joker can be added to the deck as well. While Minifig makes an excellent fine of figures, terrain adds a unique challenge. Trench systems can be sculpted out of wood or tiles or styrofoam. I opted for a much simpler system that has proven to be very functional. I purchased a 4x8' sheet of cardboard from a cardboard box manufacturer for a couple of dollars. I then used magic markers of different colors to draw terrain. The terrain was drawn such that the game plays with a 4' frontage and allows for die necessary depth for the various trench lines. This allowed me to be creative and have unique irregular features. I can also flip my sheet of cardboard over and create an entirely different configufation. There are many sources available which derail the layout of a trench system. Typically, each side would have three lines connected by communication trenches. Artillery pits for the field guns would be behind the third fine. The heavier guns would generally be further back and abstractly handled in the game. In designing your system, no man's land should be 15-20" across. The different trench lines should then be about 10-12" apart. Players can design their own objectives for victory to fit the scenario. Generally, we have required the attacker to clear the first two enemy fines and achieve a foothold in the third to claim a victory. The defender can be required to counter attack and recover lost ground by providing additional forces to enter on board on a random turn (i.e., 2+ a D6 Die roll). A sample organization would be for an infantry brigade to have two regiments of three battalions each or six battalions total. Each battalion should have about 24 figures. We based our two per base with about 1-1/2" frontage. In early war scenarios, a regiment should have a machine gun company of two-three bases. In the later periods, each battalion would probably have a machine gun company. By mid war, each regiment should have a trench mortar base attached. A field gun and crew should be allocated for each regiment, and for each brigade, one off board heavy gun should be provided. For each four feet of trench frontage, the attacker would need a division, while the defender would generally require a brigade on board with a regiment off board in reserve for counter attack options. These ratios can be adjusted for play balance or to fit a desired scenario. Turn Outline 8 turns = a game I Action Phase II Close Combat III Morale I: Action Phase: Normal deck of cards (52 + 1 joker). Shuffle each turn. Draw: Red Card: Defender option for action for 1 unit (2 if face card) Black Card: Attacker option for action for 1 unit (2 if face card) Joker: GAS drift 2d6 distance; possible wind change Roll 1d6: 1= change (roll again: odd 1 point left, even 1 point right) MISC MORALE 12 11 10 9 8 ELITES Sappers Pioneers Stosstroop Alpini Foreign Legion Jager German Guard British Regular German A/R Other British French A All U.S. Other German Other French Other 'A' All Others FORCES ARE ORANIZED INTO "UNITS' Infantry Bttns (+attached MGs) 24 figures (2 per base) Mortar & Crew Artillery & Crew or OBA Individual Tank Model Elite Coy. ( if not of Btn Strength) TANKS If they overrun an enemy base base in movement, roll 1 D6 with 4,5,6 causing one casualty and enemy fall back 2. Direct fire by field gun vs tank.-1 DRM for accuracy, effect is: 1 D6 5-6 destroys, 3,4 immobilized, 1- 2 No Effect Infantry CC vs a Tank must roll 3 higher than tank to destroy it May be announced in lieu of HE (roll 1-4 ok)."Blast" area 2X normal. Casualties on a 6 (5 or 6) if no counter measures are available). NA to troops in bunkers. Will last till end of turn (may drift). Nounit may be attacked more than once per turn by gas. MAX USE: Attacker 10; Defender 8 CASUALTIES Generally, the ower may allocate amoung eligeable targets of same status. A MG crewman must be selected (if available) on subsequent die roll of a 6. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #60 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com