"Bolt Action gripes" Topic

"I've played Hail Ceasar and found tactics went out the door due to dice rolling for everything (I had units that never moved throughout the whole game thanks to poor dice)."

"These kind of games seem to be aimed at people who aren't interested in history or tactics but rather like tanks and pushing little men about without having to think too much about it."

I love Hail Caesar and I am interested in history and tactics. Of course, I understand that troops will not always behave the way their commanders want them to, move the same rate throughout, fight with equal skill or aplomb, etc. I understand that flexibility is the key to battlefield tactics, not rigid adherence to predictable behavior patterns to achieve forgone conclusions.
So, yeah, if you are someone who needs to unrealistically control everything in a constrained environment, a game like Hail Caesar won't appeal to you.

I'm not quite sure why a number of people who dislike too much randomness hate the buckets of dice approach.

Regardless of whether you like other aspects of Bolt Action or not (and it's not terribly to my tastes either, but I'm not going to spend ages kvetching about it), having buckets of dice for each situation in which dice are involved, or repeating the frequency of situations which call for the use of dice, REDUCES the random element.

Now, you might think that there are too many things that are determined by dice rolls which shouldn't be random in the first place, but that's different from saying you don't like rolling lots of dice for similar situations.

"Now, you might think that there are too many things that are determined by dice rolls which shouldn't be random in the first place"

This is my point exactly.

As for similar situations it is tedious rolling dozens of dice when a handful will suffice.

When I played 40K, I was rolling up to 80+ dice per unit for my Orks for just the 'To Hit' component of an assault (which was followed by X amounts of "To Wound Dice" and Y amount of "Save" dice all dependent on whether how well I was rolling).

That's between 80- 240 dice rolls for a SINGLE unit in one step of one turn and excludes movement (if in terrain x 2 dice), shooting (assuming all armed the same 20- 60 dice) and random assault range (another 2 dice). All up that single Ork unit's actions require 102 (104 if in terrain) – – 302 (304) dice rolls in that turn.

I fielded about 6 such big units and equal numbers of small support units.

B the way if I used full size Ork units, I'd be rolling 120 for the To Hit!

Other armies are similar – I was watching a 40K game and saw a unit of Chaos Marines rolling 36 dice just for the assault "To Hit" component.

I much enjoy being able to play a game where I roll a handful dice and get a result and I don't have to keep tabs on batches of dice. (FOW does this as does FOG).

"Of course, I understand that troops will not always behave the way their commanders want them to, move the same rate throughout, fight with equal skill or aplomb, etc. I understand that flexibility is the key to battlefield tactics, not rigid adherence to predictable behavior patterns to achieve forgone conclusions.
So, yeah, if you are someone who needs to unrealistically control everything in a constrained environment, a game like Hail Caesar won't appeal to you"

Yes I agree. Fields of Glory is a lot better for people who like control as most basic movement does not require a dice roll.

It is not a forgone conclusion as dice rolls kick in at key points – e.g. a unit doing a complex maneouvre and during the fighting phase (of course).

My one game of Hail Ceasar was a disaster – due to extremely poor dice rolling most of my units never moved at all and were slaughtered in their deployment zone. I tried to make the force fit historically so ignored the special rule that enabled 1 free move.

As for Bolt Action, other reviews on the webiste indicate as to why I am not keen to play it. It seems little based on history and too based on 40K esque model of "look pretty models."

Splitting ww2 sections was theory. In practice, only elite organisations had enough effective leaders to do this. Real british platoons often had only 2 effective leaders so they had a bren fire support element and an assault element. For assaults.
Leaders were more likely to get shot.

Ww2 riflemen pretty rarely hit anything beyond 50 yards. With some exceptions. Suppressiive fire doesn't need to hit though.

A us army study rated an mg42 as effective as 20 garand armed riflemen.

Real life studies also showed that most soldiers (up to 70% from memory) never fired their weapons or fired without intention of hitting anyone even when under direct threat.

So apparently machine guns etc were assigned to those viewed most likely as being able to fire them.

Of course this would suck in a wargame but it does provide further evidence for making machine guns more effective in wargames in addition to the pure ROF equation.

As for squad splitting, if it is down to having an effective NCO pool then the Germans, British (and thus most Commonwealth) and Americans certainly did. The French did as well and had their Fusillier-Voltigeur squad system in place.

The Russians never developed an effective NCO pool (and apparently still don't have one to this day).

No idea about the Japanese or the minor powers.

Well this thread has taken on a life of its own, but I did have a second game of BA on the weekend. My opinions haven't changed much – some parts of it feel a bit silly and unrealistic, but it provides a fast and easy WW2-flavoured game.

This time around we abandoned the army lists and played a historical game taken from the Red Devils Of The Orne book from Skirmish Campaigns. The force rosters were pre-determined by the scenario, as was the map and victory conditions. It felt a lot more like a WW2 fight than our previous effort.

We had one questionable moment when a 2-man PIAT team was assaulted by a 5-man grenadier squad. After a round of combat the PIAT team got one kill and the grenadiers zero, so by the rules the grenadiers were wiped out to a man. I can understand why the assault rules are set up the way they are from a game-play standpoint, but the result left us kind of scratching our heads, wondering how to justify it.

Another daft rule is allowing fixed weapons teams ala mortars, ATG and HMGs crews to launch assaults.

The German army specifically forbade this and I doubt other armies would allow it. These are after all specialists and not line infantry.

But then 8cm mortars or 105mm guns on 28mm 4x 6 battlefields is also a bit ridiculous.

I've noticed Warlord locks any threads that question the ruleset too!

You can take the designer out of GW, but you can't take the GW out of the designer. :P

Hey snodipus,

That exact situation came up for me too with combat, so we have done a rule around combat and it depends which side won and how many before tests are taken.

Unit A wins (kills more) and out numbers Unit B by 2:1 or more = Auto killed the unit, so unit removed (as per the main rules)

Unit A wins but outnumbered less than 2:1 through to being outnumbered by no more than 1:2 = Command test required by the losers, failed means losers removed, passed means the combat goes till next turn

Unit A wins but is outnumbered by 1:2 or more by the enemy = The losers will remain in combat

We had a situation where 8 US assaulted a lone german in some woods and they lost one, so the German remained, it seemd daft that the 7 remaining would be put off by one lone fella, especially as most of them were just about in the same cover and on assault orders. You do end up with additional (and I suppose 40K ish) rules with units being moved into comabt in subsequent rounds, but all fits in with the feel of it all. Hope that helps,

Ark

Whilst I have not played BA nor never will . I just think there are better skirmish type rules sets out there already .

Going back to the hand to hand and the German Grenadiers losing . Could the result of being wiped out to a man represent the Germans losing stomache and just diasppearing off as opposed to actually being killed. Sounds a bit abstract but I am just wondering if this is what the authors were looking for ?

ThomasHobbes,

Instead of continuing this self-flagellation of having to play such obviously defective games, why don't you do yourself (and us) a favour and play something more to your liking? Simple, isn't it?

As to your point:

My one game of Hail Ceasar was a disaster – due to extremely poor dice rolling most of my units never moved at all and were slaughtered in their deployment zone.

I'd be interested to find out in what historically accurate, warfare simulation game (obviously not written by anyone infected by GW mechanics) does not punish poor dice rolling?

I appreciate ThomasHobbes "points of view".
Clear and different.

Roby

"Real life studies also showed that most soldiers (up to 70% from memory) never fired their weapons or fired without intention of hitting anyone even when under direct threat."

I'd like to know who carried out these real life studies in a combat situation. They certainly weren't anywhere near my unit. We were trained to shoot to kill and that's what we did. The other side weren't playing at it either. The evidence of that I can definitely vouch for.

"Real life studies also showed that most soldiers (up to 70% from memory) never fired their weapons or fired without intention of hitting anyone even when under direct threat."

I'd like to know who carried out these real life studies in a combat situation. They certainly weren't anywhere near my unit. We were trained to shoot to kill and that's what we did. The other side weren't playing at it either. The evidence of that I can definitely vouch for.

I may be wrong, but I believe that was a WWII study from the Western Front, so may not be directly comparable to your experiences. Friends of mine in the military with combat experience say the same thing as you.

Can't say I've played BA WWII rules but as long as people enjoy it and can incorporate a few house rules it sounds like fun.

This may be accounted for by tactical doctrine: the biggest player on the Western Front was the US Army, and the doctrine was suppressive fire across the front of the squad; the drill was for each individual rifleman to lay down fire to his immediate front, whether he could see an enemy or not. This ensured the opposition kept their heads down while the maneuver group advanced to contact. So yes, the GI's probably did direct 70% of their fire at nothing in particular. On purpose. Something you can't do in the 21st century with 'rules of engagement' drawn up by people who don't get shot at.

I'd like to know who carried out these real life studies in a combat situation. They certainly weren't anywhere near my unit. We were trained to shoot to kill and that's what we did. The other side weren't playing at it either. The evidence of that I can definitely vouch for."

As Bandolier stated this was WWII (and Korean War) studies.

Apparently a problem in Vietnam that caused more psychological problems was the change to smaller level operations whereby all members of a platoon or squad were required to be directly involved in the firefight.

Of course we've had 40 years of training development since then and the military no longer uses conscripts.

We've also had cultural change (e.g. desensitisation of societies to violence either due to internet/tv/news in West or increased sectarianism and fundamentalism on the other side).

From a gaming perspective this isn't really relevant anymore as most modern troops are equipped with assault rifles and not bolt action weapons!

Those "real life studies" were conducted by S.L.A. Marshall and have been pretty much completely discredited because of the fact that he made up the "interviews" that he claimed to have used to base his conclusions on.

Although discredited some still use Marshall to try and back up their own claims.

I have read similar accounts from several sources that attested to soldiers closing their eyes when shooting during WWII (i'm sitting at my desk having lunch so can't quote those sources ATM). It appears that much of the fighting and actual combat WAS performed on a regular basis by a few main individuals with the rest of the unit as support and milling around. This issue was addressed in the post war years with training to break this unwillingness to kill another person and so making most members of a squad combat more effective since WWII and likely to shoot the enemy.

The US were citizen soldiers in many respects too and lacking in hardcore indoctrination that their Axis counterparts were subject to.

I can only liken this (bear with me please…) to when we go paintballing. I have noticed that when the balls are flying most people in a team get their heads down and gingerly snap a few loose shots at best somewhere in the direction of the other team. This leaves the majority of the work being done by about an approximate quarter of the team each time. I have played loads and have a get-em and go play style that means i run through curtains of paintballs half the time and don't even get hit. Experience and competitivness advantage maybe, but it does highlight that even willing participants (the whole team) don't even get 'stuck in' when needed and in the most effective way possible, and this is in a situation where the chances of death are near nil. There was one game where it was very dense shrubbery with only a few clear sight lines accross the field, and I had been screaming to the Marshall to come over and give me my 3rd reload while everyone on both teams were lying down doing sweet FA.

It seems right that when real bullets are flying only the few would be daft or courageous enough to stick their necks out get on with it when the others wouldn't.

Ark3
Interesting point. I had 3 sons fighting in the middle east. They all commented that the enemy almost never sticks his head up from cover. The lift up the gun and spray the area. For them that is "doctrine".

So in all this conversation, I have not seen a consensus on what ruleset should be used in place of Bolt Action. Or is Bolt Action fixable with house rules?

The rule structure is such that it is easy to add house rules as desired.

My player group has done so as to bring the game in line with our normal 28mm WW2 game conventions and historical deployments.

Hmm, a consensus you probably will never ully get skyking20, however it seems that Disposible heroes is popular, Troops, Weapons & Tactics (TW&T) is another popular system, then there's Rule Of Engagement and Great Escape Games. I have only had intros of these so am not experienced enough to say fully, but it seems a good way to go (oh, and a coffin for 7 brothers too if I remeber correctly)

Laregr scale Battle Group Kursk and all related systems seem to be the shizzle too…

As for sticking yer head up, that's the sign of good morale, great training and personal motivation I expect will be found most commonly in Special Forces units. I can't imagine actually killing someone, so it all seems very reasonable to me that that is the case, training or no training in war.

Those "real life studies" were conducted by S.L.A. Marshall and have been pretty much completely discredited because of the fact that he made up the "interviews" that he claimed to have used to base his conclusions on.

Except not all the studies were conducted by SLAM – there was a British one from Sicily which agrees pretty much with SLAM's figures. I forget the name of the man who did it. If Martin Rapier pops up on this thread I'm sure he can provide the answer. The critics of SLAM have never been able to come up with any evidence to prove he is wrong. You can criticise his methods, but unless you can show from your own evidence that his figures are wrong the best you can say is not proven.

I have played Nuts, Operation Squad and TW&T as well as Bolt Action.

I didn't like Nuts at all.

Operation Squad is a really good game, which almost nobody has played. I haven't tried the vehicle rules yet, but it's ace for small infantry actions. The only downside is that it becomes really cumbersome if you have more than a squad per side, which rules out some of the larger-scale actions I would like to play.

I like a lot of the elements of TW&T (blinds movement, emphasis on scenario play, card activation) but don't like other elements (the game plays much better with an umpire than without, the rules are very "loose" and rely on player consensus for a lot of factors).

My current favourite rule set is Force On Force. There are unofficial WW2 force lists, which I haven't tried yet. Maybe once I do I will have found my personal holy grail of WW2 rules (well, once hidden movement on blinds is added…)

I'm with ThomasHobbes too

You wrote: "It seems little based on history and too based on 40K esque model of "look pretty models."

What did you espect from GW autors Tom? A GW game.
Did lemons grow on oaks?
If you go under an oak tree waiting for lemons… I think you should wait for a long long time ;-)

X Snodipus:
I play OperationSquad and I like it too for small squads. Platoon version is near to come ;-)

"So in all this conversation, I have not seen a consensus on what ruleset should be used in place of Bolt Action."

You are not going to find a consensus. Rules preferences are a personal thing. That's like asking which flavor of ice cream is best.
It really comes down to what you think is fun and representative of the period.

Those "real life studies" were conducted by S.L.A. Marshall and have been pretty much completely discredited because of the fact that he made up the "interviews" that he claimed to have used to base his conclusions on.

You may want to read 'Closing with the Enemy' by M. Doubler.

"Our greatest need is to get riflemen to fire their weapons" – Lt. Colonel John Hentges, 7th Infantry, 3rd Division.

Those "real life studies" were conducted by S.L.A. Marshall and have been pretty much completely discredited because of the fact that he made up the "interviews" that he claimed to have used to base his conclusions on.
Except not all the studies were conducted by SLAM – there was a British one from Sicily which agrees pretty much with SLAM's figures. I forget the name of the man who did it. If Martin Rapier pops up on this thread I'm sure he can provide the answer. The critics of SLAM have never been able to come up with any evidence to prove he is wrong. You can criticise his methods, but unless you can show from your own evidence that his figures are wrong the best you can say is not proven.

If you read the revisionists who slam SLAM, you realise that they have no evidence to suuggest he is wrong, just that they cannot find the interviews.

They slaughter his numbers and then offer nothing…and I ruly mean nothing….to conradict them.

The "I can't find the interviews, so they don' exist and ergo SLAM made them all up" is just rubbish…unworthy of a sunday sport hack headline.

The truth appears to be hat they just dont like the reuslts as SLAMS numbers show

1. the US and British were not that effective compared to the germans.

2. The british had less success and less casualties

3. Air power and superiority was such a force muultiplier.