"Bolt Action - Doubtless not the first, or Last Review" Topic

From the outset, I'm going to say I think they are flawed, and derivative. This is not to say they don't work, with some provisions; and being as readily available as they are, I'm sure they'll do well…

link

Enjoy

Well I enjoy them, and was able to win a game by using what I thought were historical tactics (The Arnhem game at MOAB if anyone was there…)

My vicories are few and far between so I am heavily biased in favour of these right from the start!

I presume you don't have a problem with the fact that a unit recieving heavy fire in the open can't do much but try and become unpinned?

After all, wasn't one of the main lessons of WW1 that trying to beat Spandaus by hoping that brave men's chests would eventually absorb all the ammo was eventually discredited – and not without giving it a damn good try?

…wasn't one of the main lessons of WW1 that trying to beat Spandaus by hoping that brave men's chests would eventually absorb all the ammo was eventually discredited…

Apparently not, as many countries in WWII continued to believe in the supremacy of well-motivated and trained soldiers – US Marines, Japanese banzai tactics, Italian light infantry…

I'd have no problem with troops in the 'open' being so handled, but experience over six or seven games to date shows that troops in cover are even more screwed, holding a static position in the game can be rendered suicidal if all the enemy does is use his whole force to paste one spot at a time with all his fire. Some of it is just approach and game balance, some fundamentally flawed rules.

Personally to more reflect findings like SLA Marshalls research, I would prefer to see the first pin marker in the game apply a minus one to firing, and each additional marker reduce the number of fire dice by one – e.g the unit has three pin markers, so that's minus 1 to hit and two less fire dice than normal. This would still make it harder, but possible to hit, but also reduce the volume of outgoing fire absolutely, as some of a squad keeps its heads down…

I wouldn't want anything added or subtracted from ANY game to reflect the largely discredited SLA Marshall "research"!

Although your suggestion for that rules change is nice.

holding a static position in the game can be rendered suicidal if all the enemy does is use his whole force to paste one spot at a time with all his fire

I have found it much more desirable to spread pins among multiple units rather than concentraing on one.

It is true that 3 pins on one unit will shut down any shooting. Effectively removing about 5 returning hits from that unit.

If you put 3 pins on different units those three will need to make leadership tests to act AND failing these rolls tends to cause more disruption in planning and coordination. You also are removing returning 4.1 hits (assuming Regulars) from among the three squads based on the chances of failing and doing nothing.

Officers in the mix, of course, allow you to discount the pins when making the leadership tests.

I've not played them enough to say whether I'm sold on them or not but your central gripe seems to be that concentrated fire on one unit will cause it take so many pins that it's ineffective regardless of whether it takes many casualties or not. I think this actually sounds like a great mechanic. Concentrated fire should have that result.

If one of your units is drawing all the fire the others should be relatively unharassed.

The things I have minor issues with at the moment are:

1) The order dice on the table… why? All actions are executed one at a time. I'm not issuing a dozen orders during a command phase simultaneous with my opponent and then executing them. Why mark the order on the table?

2) Close combat. Haven't used these yet. They just seem y on the read through.

Sounds like fair criticism to me. The ranges are the most screwed part of the game and take the telescopic approach that seems to be the norm nowadays so that players can cram loads of minis on the table.

I'm always cynical of rules developed by a miniatures company. They just want to sell more models at the end of the day!

Why mark the order on the table?

After taking its activation, a unit can be in one of three possibly states: "used this turn", Down (-1 to hit), or Ambush = able to opportunity fire.

Leaving the die indicates the state.

Close combat is easy enough to resolve but also risky enough for you to prefer shooting as opposed to risking the melee.

Marking orders on the board also makes it easy to see which units had been activated. Which in games like this certainly helps.

As for the ranges, I wish more games would take he approach of Force on Force, and say if you want realistic on table ranges then all weapons can fire an indefinate distance, but are better at shorter ranges. Logically if a rifle fires upto 24 inches, and in real life was sighted for 200 yards the rules are effectively saying 12 inches equals 100 yards. In which case in Bolt Action a 75mm KWK L70 has a mighty range of 600 Yards!

Given the explicit intention is for most games to be played on a six by four foot table, why even bother with such ranges? it's virtually impossible to ever be out of range, line of sight is a far bigger issue.

Oh, and I didn't even mention the hugely broken 'Recce' rule, on a table with terrain that blocks line of sight, Recce vehicles are virtually indestructible!!

Dean I second you thoughts on this. I wrote my own WWII platoon scale game and apart from very short range weapons (SMGs, Bazookas etc) all longer ranged weapons had effectively two ranges;

1. Effective range (M1 Carbine, STG44s etc up to 16", Rifles up to 21") the damage roll at these ranges would allow for a reasonable mix of kills hits and suppression hits
2. Long range – over the Effective ranges for the weapons (as given above) all hits would be Suppressive with a small chance of a wounding hit, and will only supress a unit at best but not kill them.

This gives a more realistic view of the weapons and their actual ranges of effectiveness, and if LOS at longer ranges is possible it introduces harrassing and suppressive fire, resulting in the need to coordinate attacks and maneouvres.

FoF sounds like it considers this quite well, and I agree, 28mm scales on a board smalelr than 12 ft x 18ft should just be considered as unlimited

"I wouldn't want anything added or subtracted from ANY game to reflect the largely discredited SLA Marshall "research"!"

If by "discredited", you mean that people wishing to push their own agendas, who disliked his findings, (especially about the performance of the US army) would claim that he said things in his books (which on investigation werent actually there…they were auther fabrications) and "prove them incorrect" by anicdotal rambling, sometimes repeating the very points that they just slammed SLAM for, would then also claim that because they cannot find original records, they didnt exist and therefore he had obviously made them all up….and ignore that subsequent research accurately mirrored with his original findings which he himself would often state could not be considered as complete.

He is a much maligned researcher, normally by people who want to sell revisionist pulplike historical books that need an angle. He didnt sell pulp books, He wrote books about approachs to operational research without having the analytical power to assess the full interaction of all the variables.

Quick question to people that have been playing Bolt Action…

Units in buildings, it seems that they are almost impossible to kill with inf.. -2 to hit, only dmg on 6+, and since pins don't help you once you are in close combat and because of the building CC is simultaneous, pinning them and charging them is of little help…

did I miss something, or do I simply need other tools to attack the buildings

I'm leaving all historical/tactical/simulations considerations aside.. I'm just curious about what other BA players have seen from the point of view of rules implementation

cheers
Francisco

Love Bolt Action, best game I have ever played, and I have been playing wargames for almost 40 years.

Infantry in buildings – that is in deed a fairly good defensive position, as it should be, but I have never had undue difficulty getting people out of a building.

1st you can shoot at them from say 2 infantry units. Their pins will mount rapidly and they will lose some losses.

Close assault them with a unit with SMG's or similar, even if they have not yet had their turn and you start more than 6" away the pins on them will make the defensive fire largely ineffective. You don't remove the defenders pins until the assault takes place.

Yes the assault will be simultaneous? So? Does anyone seriously think that a smaller less experienced, less well equipped unit should be able to drive a larger, better equipped more experienced unit out of a building? Make sure you use a vet unit or one with smg's.

In the unlikely event your opponent has a 10 man SS team loaded down with assault rifles, panzerfausts, MG42's etc in a building, then leave him there. That is a stupidly expensive unit to just sit in a building and do nothing if the enemy do not choose to approach that building.

Plus of course the big one is artillery. When you fire HE weapons at a building they lose the only killed on a 6 rule, and revert to normal ability. Mortars are perfect as once they have ranged in they stay ranged in and hit on a 2+

So yes buildings are great, but they do have their drawbacks (they don't move) and it is not that difficult to bring several units against them.

As someone earlier in this thread said, several units ganged up against one will almost always win. As another person said… Good that is as it should be!

Andy

Thanks Andy

Francisco