|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 9, 2016 18:06:06 GMT
The Franco-Prussian War was the main influence on infantry tactics up until WWI. In the FPW the tactics started out very Napoleonic. Attack columns protected by skirmishers were the preferred attack formation. But with the very flat trajectories of the new rifles, it was quickly discovered that the skirmishers could not screen the columns. The bullets went right on past the skirmishers and still hit the columns. The columns went to ground under the heavy fire (or got annihilated if they refused to go to ground as happened to the Prussian Guards at Mars la Tour). The skirmishers engaged the enemy line and the boldest men in the pinned down columns would make their way forward to join the skirmish line. Often the arrival of these reinforcements would push the skirmish line forward 40 or 50 yards. If the attacker could keep feeding fresh men forward into the skirmish line it could sometimes force the defenders back as they became fatigued or low on ammunition. However, if the defenders had reserves of their own to feed into the line they could usually hold.
After the war, the idea of a continually reinforced skirmish line became the standard practice of all the European armies and the Americans copied it. By the time the 1891 Drill Regulations were adopted, the whole thing had become very well defined, with a forward 'fighting line', a support line, and a reserve. The fighting line would engage, helped by the support. If there was a flank which could be turned, the reserve would go for that (very much like the 'holding attack' which became the standard US tactic in WWII). If there was no flank, then the reserve would assist the fighting line.
By the 1904 Infantry Drill Regulations, the Americans had gone to ridiculous lengths in regulating this. There were step by step procedures for exactly when to adopt skirmish formation, when to halt and fire. How many vollies (yes, in 1904, the American army was still using volley fire) to fire, when the reserve should move forward to assist the firing line, etc. etc.
Interestingly, as the lessons of the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War started to be absorbed, things got very much looser. By the 1911 IDR, all the strictly regulated movements were abandoned and the men at the sharp end were given much more freedom in how to attack.
Of course attack was what everyone wanted to do. Every army realized that the advantage was shifting to the defense with machine guns and barbed wire, but it was universally accepted that well-trained, high-spirited troops could still prevail. WWI proved them wrong, of course. Martian heat rays would probably do the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 9, 2016 22:30:20 GMT
Amen. TY wonderful expose of the whole affair. Got my order with your book today - will be submitting a glowing report to Amazon by Friday or Saturday, based on my speed reading Then, will go slow through it a 2nd time!! Centruion!!
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Mar 15, 2016 20:34:37 GMT
One thing to remember about History: The night before a battle the commander does not say to himself:
I have 50 points left, do I want a Type S tank or a type Q gun? Rather he looks over his roster of what's available and says to himself: What the heck do I do with this cluster?
Real life commanders are inclined to look at the the personalities of the men they command. Very few if any games allow for this unless one player is "commanding" others on his team.
In the United States, Officers had more of an attitude that enlisted men were men whose lives were valuable, while European Officers regarded their enlisted troops as semi-humans of scant value.
It was easier for US units to have enlisted pass up the ranks and become officers. It was also easier for US upper level commanders to regroup and reorganise because there was no distinction between aristocrat and commoner.
There is lots of interesting detail about command and organization.
Once, a long time ago, I had a game where each "base" had its own hit record sheet. To save time I named each base and its corresponding card. The cards were in alphabetical order, so the players called of the names and got their sheets. The named stands developed histories. On particular unit was known for getting the snot shot out of it, but it always came home. Another was the one that seemed to attract golden BBs.
Scott: When did the Federal Government of the US completely take over TO&E? IIRC, in the Spanish American War there were still "Volunteer" regiments and local (State) militia units that had their own TO&E.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Mar 16, 2016 13:03:33 GMT
An excellent point! I remember on the first forum where some people argued forever about how the game was broken because machine guns were too powerful and then they produced all sorts of 'ideal' US forces with all the tanks carrying nothing but machine guns. I pointed out repeatedly that a real commander couldn't do that because he was supplied with tanks armed with cannons rather than machine guns. He had to fight with what he was given, not with what he might want. My words fell on deaf ears As for the US organization, after the chaos of the Spanish American War where you had regulars, volunteers, and state militias all jumbled together, the government passed the National Defense Act of 1903 (which is still in effect, if I'm not mistaken). This officially absorbed all state militias into the National Guard. Technically the Guard was still under state control (until just about 20 years ago), but in practice the Federal government had the say on how the Guard was trained and equipped (the same as the Regulars). The states went along with it because the Feds paid for almost all of it. So by the time of The Great Martian War, this would be the situation. Of course in the war fervor that would erupt, I would expect there to still be a mob of volunteer units springing up at first. These would probably disappear as time went by--but that's up to you!
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 17, 2016 11:39:58 GMT
Not all the ears were deaf. I'm not sure how to incorporate the 'random' setup of forces. Short of a table or chart to roll against in each battle, I suppose you could design scenarios with more individual units in mind as well - kinda like 'the history of' X squad or Charlie Company and follow them through battle after battle. And index card system would work, maybe a morale or to hit reward system for veterans that survive. As for the random rolls, you'd have to insure that there were at least enough BPs to make a fair battle to a point - and take in the terrain, etc. As much as we like trying to simulate warfare of the period, it's supposed to be a game which implies a chance to win for both sides. I'll see what I can come up with. The idea of a continuing campaign for given units is appealling and seems already to be done through various authors on this forum (the 29th Division for example). I could see having this as a setup for conventions, store, and home group campaigns, index cards with the units for the entire upper structure, being handed out for a given game. I see point systems as necessary evil to making it difficult to have silly things like an 'all mg' formation - you can use points to make 'rare' certain game balance changing units. One in 500, 1000, or 2000 points limits the number of these nicely. Also using scotts timeline certainly can limit some other types of weapon systems, for both sides. Wish I could get him to do the Brits as well - but, no they sorta showed up with most everything didn't they?? And yes, the NDA of 1903 still stands with a few out additional 'acts' post that - but its still the basis of 'Federalization' of the military here in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Mar 17, 2016 18:51:44 GMT
I was also not deaf, Scott. Just didn't jump into the argument. It touches on one of the main reasons I do not play tournaments. I get so tired of the munchkin min-maxing of army lists. As you said, in life a general or every era had to fight with what he had not what he wanted. That creates tactical problems to solve of how to effectively use what you have. That is what I find interesting in a game.
Thanks for mentioning the National Defense Act of 1903. That is something I have not researched and so it was interesting to hear.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Mar 18, 2016 10:14:12 GMT
Based on the above discussion, I'll try to create a chart to be rolled before a club or store game. Basically everyone bring what you have and together they field per the random roll system. It'll have to take some thinking to create a cohesive and somewhat balanced force. In the past, I tried to use militia and special ad hoc formations to create this affect. We'll see
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Mar 19, 2016 18:38:40 GMT
To Scott: I Salute you for your fine work. You know more than I. and I don't have to say that often.
There are certain game manufacturers that require a slavish attention to TO&E to "encourage" players to spend lavish amounts of cash on otherwise unpopular figures. Some also publish "cheeseball" lists to get people to buy stuff that isn't selling, only to publish the "answer" to the tactic in a later issue to get sales on other figures.
Before "Stuff Happened" with me, I was creating a game where you bought a Faction with ALL the figures (paper, of course.) Players drew a card for their forces, then another card for their mission. Any or all players could win, or lose. That's one way to go. It will be pretty hard to do this with AQMF.
Having a "planned" scenario and then having players pull cards for additional mission objectives is another. Have players draw for a known and unknown objective. As AQMF is a scenario driven game and not used for tournament play, the idea of additional victory conditions might keep things interesting.
Madmorgan's idea is great.
One thing I try to remember, is that "both/and" is usually a better outcome than "either/or." I'd like to hear some other options; the more the merrier
|
|