"Bolt Action and Chain of Command" Topic

I know that Chain of Command are being pretty widely play tested at the moment and due or releas shortly. I am hoping that someone who has played both could make a comparison with Bolt Action. The seem to be aimed at a similar size game, how do they compare?

Thanks

this 28mm WWII skirmish stuff is a bit like buses

Very helpful. Thanks.

Do we know when these will be published?

There has been a few episodes of the Meeples & Miniatures Podcast looking at this, so:

For Bolt Action:

link

& For Chain of Command:

link

link

Hope that helps

Regards

"Do we know when these will be published?"

I thought I heard this summer. And I'm hoping they continue with the pdf option.

Yes this summer from what I know.

My personal take, BA is a fun solid system with generally good support and an ever increasing fan base. At the light end of historical games it does have some abstractions that grate with some, but those that 'just want go play' don't mind (even welcome) them. Fast paced but fun is would I think provide a good evening's entertainment with a pinch if salt. Armour classes and penetration values are in general bands (light armour, medium armour etc, light AT, heavy AT etc) and a bit reminiscent of 40K with armour AP given between 10 – 14. Command and control is a bit light too in my opinion, with officers provind local morale boosts rather than s more strategic orders type C&C. On that note the orders don't really mean anything (with a couple of exceptions) so if you pull a dice it generally means you can use a unit. Worth a pop if you are not too historically tight.

CoC I have only seen in the TFL videos on YouTube, but I like the look of the game very much. I feel the relative weights of fire of the squad's weapons are well represented (gerries roll 8 dice for an MG34/42, rifles 1 a piece) whereas BA is a little more generic I feel (MGs get 3 or 4) The orders dice seen to mean something other than 'use a unut' as the numbers relate to certain units to activate. Ranges (unlike in BA) are more to scale it seems, most shooting will reach avcriss the table apart from the likes of SMGs, whereas BA has rifles at the obligatory 24", LMGs at 36" etc. I much prefer the TFL approach here by a long margin. The are almost opposite sides of the same coin, so it probably is very dependent upon your taste I think, hope that helps,

A

For the record I meant to say I hunk CoC would be much more my type of game but obviously can't say as I haven't played it yet…

*ahem* hunk (as written above) = think (dang iPhone!)

You think Rich is a Hunk?

Absolutely… A finer Wargaming specimen I have yet to meet or aspire to be :) what a guy!

Been watching these CoC youtube offerings.

The guys do a good job of explaining the rules ideas.

They look like they will be a popular set in a crowded field.

Personally – I don't like the rolling dice and then planning your move bit, but I know most gamers will enjoy that as it brings in a measure of skill that is lacking in more random activation systems.

Shooting and moving are quite nicely done in the buckets of dice (handfuls really here) vein and probably provide a decent simulation at a fraction of the effort of numerous tables, modifiers and factors.

Is there any opportunity fire? I heard mention of 'overwatch' but haven't watched all the videos yet.

> Is there any opportunity fire? I heard mention of 'overwatch' but haven't watched all the videos yet.

Yes. Going on overwatch allows OpFire.

Bolt Action: Killing Soviet infantry in body armor requires a 6+ on a d6 after hitting them. Seems too much like space marines to me. The game I played I was able to charge a squad of infantry over open ground into machine gun fire. I lost 2 guys out of 8 and took out the MG nest with almost no problem.

CoC seems really cool. I watched the youtube video and am interested in trying out the rules.

Bolt Action: Killing Soviet infantry in body armor requires a 6+ on a d6 after hitting them. Seems too much like space marines to me. The game I played I was able to charge a squad of infantry over open ground into machine gun fire. I lost 2 guys out of 8 and took out the MG nest with almost no problem.

They must have been veterans then and would have saved on a 5,6 without body armour. As they can't "charge" as such being limited to a 6" move even in run they must have been very lucky to lose only 2 and survive all the pins without failing their command rolls.

I didn't take out the MG with the soviets. I haven't played them in a game yet.

I did it with a 9 man squad of veterans running across open terrain.

my point being that soviets wearing body army should not be impervious to MG fire in open terrain, which they pretty much are.

Way too much like 40K

The MMG puts 1 pin on units if it hits

hitting on a 3+ = less than 4 hits per turn

killing veterans on a 5+ = 1.33 kills per turn (roughly)

2 rounds of running over open ground put 2 pins on the infantry. Both of which they rolled off with ease.

Aren't these facts true about the game? Or did we play it wrong?

Bolt action is easily tweaked to give a better historical flavour – start by using sensible units in sensible proportions and make sensible objectives – at least two platoons in attack against one in defence. We have found that having to roll a six and then another six when you needed a 'seven' is a bit too harsh and we have made it a 'six followed by a four/five/six' and we also allow belt-fed LMGs a fourth dice.

"Bolt action is easily tweaked to give a better historical flavour"

I don't want to have to tweak a historical game to get historical aspects of the game (like machine guns" to work correctly. They should do that on their own.

start by using sensible units in sensible proportions and make sensible objectives

but if the game has already included nonsense units (like MMG's that cannot control infantry coming across open ground, Jeeps with .50 cals that can disable tiger tanks, and veteran soviet infantry that can waltz across the board and avoid almost all casualties because they have a tin pot strapped to their chests) I don't have the time or desire to ban units that aren't sensible.

People who designed this game are not stupid, they made conscious decisions to design the game the way they did. The are not attempting to appeal to historical gamers, it seems they are targeting a broader demographic and hoping to reel in a larger market share of gamers with cool figures, flashy books, and an easy to play game with lots of neat bells and whistles. I think they succeeded

Could n't agree more. We don't do Russians (our games revolve around my British paras being eaten up by my wife's panzer grenadiers) so the tin-pot thing is news.
We have neither 50 cals nor tigers so that's an issue that has n't arisen…..I can't imagine how the writers allowed for that. I'm not a great fan of Bolt Action (but my wife is and the guys at the club like it), but equally I'm not a fan of Rules of Engagement where the effectiveness of MG42s explains how Germany won WW2 in 1943….or something….
I think most – if not all- rule sets need tweaking to make them fit a specific location and period; the practices of 1939 were very different from those of 1945, so a rule set for WW2 mut either be extremely stylised or have gigantic lists of unit organisations/modifiers/whatever.
There is also an issue around the romantic preferences (and loose attitudes to research) of rule writers and it's not just an issue for WW2…check out the astonishing lethality of longbows in most medieval rule sets.

Unfortunetly Uglyfatbloke is right: most games need lots of tweeking to work right. Game Design is not the story suit of our hobby.

Playtesting seems to be limited to the designer and a couple of buddies and army list construction not tested at all.

I'm always reassured at a con when the game master announces a few changes to the written rules – shows he's played the game and noted the problems and tried to correct them.

Given the cost of these big glossy rule books it would be nice if a bit more quality control was exercised.

TomT

most games need lots of tweeking to work right. Game Design is not the story suit of our hobby.

I don't think the game designers are thumping their foreheads and suddenly realizing "Oh my goodness soviets with body armor are nearly unkillable"

I think that was the game mechanic they designed, because a lot of gamers will look at the new soviet assault engineer models and realize how much fun it would be to walk directly into their opponents hail of gunfire (or even better, ride a tank or truck across the battlefield) and suffer almost no casualties.

I remember the joy of 40K where I would figure out the loophole in the game. I'd order fistfuls of mini's, feverishly paint them while cackling with glee, and then dump 10 Death Company marines via deep strike drop pod directly into the center of my enemies gun line and proceed to butcher them all. . .

That's the feeling Bolt Action is counting on, with little concern that it has any historical basis, because it will sell product.

I don't think the game designers are looking at their final product and saying "hoo boy we made a ton of mistakes" because just like any big company rules set (40K FoW) change is good.

formula= "Make this tank's stats uber= increase in this vehicle sales"

"tone down the Soviets body armor"= these units become less playable and less useful= buy more figures to fill the void in my army list

Big name games (40K, FoW, and now B.A.) have to continue to grow to stay alive and generating money.

Small scale games (like Chain of command) are not trying to sell miniatures and thus can focus on making a playable realistic game that appeals to a much smaller market share.

> Bolt Action: Killing Soviet infantry in body armor requires a 6+ on a d6 after hitting them

Is that in the Soviet suplement? I don't remember it in the core rules. Realistically (strange word to use with armor like that) such troops should cost 5x the normal cost and move at a speed of 2" rather then 6".

link

located in the soviet supplement.

making veterans killable on a 5+ is unbalancing, giving them body armor as another pip of protection is mind-boggling.

I've played quite a few games of Bolt Action and had great fun. The rules must be doing something right as before we started playing there were absolutely no WW II games being played at my club. Now there are 8 players, most with several forces each. I'd like to know how a jeep with a .50cal HMG disables a Tiger though!

I haven't played Chain of Command but I'll give a go with the same attitude of wanting a fun game and hope it delivers.

I've played quite a few games of Bolt Action and had great fun. The rules must be doing something right

I think B.A. is a fun game to play. it's got nice simple mechanics, an interesting pinning mechanism, & I like how it calls in artillery.

But for me, it is not attempting to be a WW2 game. it gets too much wrong from my viewpoint.

as before we started playing there were absolutely no WW II games being played at my club. Now there are 8 players, most with several forces each.

I'm curious, what WW2 skirmish level games did you try before BA?

In the Bolt Action all units (vehicles, infantry etc) have to take a pin marker when hit by a round of enemy fire. However vehicles (unless open topped) do not take pin markers from small arms shooting, only from weapons with a proper armour penetration ability. The .50 Cal has a light armour penetration capability so is able/allowed to put a pin on a vehicle. If that vehicle is an armoured car at 3" away or an IS2 at 36" away they both receive a pin marker for being hit by that type of weapon. A pin imposes a -1 to the unit's leadership value that they then roll 2D6 to shake off, if they manage then they take their turn. It isn't exactly 'taking out tiger tanks' with a heavy machine gun but the system does allow heavy vehicles to be affected by weapons with even quite light AT ability.

My feeling is that the infantry rules were written first and then expanded to cover vehicles so this generic mechanic does seem a bit OP at times. The result is that there is much talk of players spamming list that are totally unhistoric and as a game winners only. So you could have US lists with several jeeps carrying .50 Cals on, then 3 or 4 of them popping round corners and shooting at (and hitting but not necessarily penetrating) your AFVs thus drowning them in pins, and is on the border of being 'historically representative' as admittedly there were times that tanks would receive a huge amount of infantry fire given so that the tankers knew well and truly that they were known to be there, even if the shooting didn't actually manage to damage the tank it could make the crew hesitant to push forward. However I think to automatically have even the heaviest tanks take a pin from a relatively light weapon is a bit much, and there should be a bit more of a limit on this IMO (I even suggested that enclosed AFVs should take a pin if taking a high volume of small arms fire for the reasons given above, I doubt my amazing suggestion will ever be heard out though)

I suspect this level of debate about what's reasonable, what's historical etc will ever really arise with CoC.

BA is s solid fun system with dome great mechanics but it's rules like this (as well as the Soviet body armour rules) that push the game beyond the envelope of what many knowledgeable and historically minded players would want from their games. If you don't care about history that much (I'm not trying to illicit a 'well every game is not really historical, as it's just a game' type comment) then you will likely enjoy BA. Warlord are great on advertising and self promotion (well done to them) where as so many other systems are by companies that are not, so (without trying to be negative) it could be easy to be drawn in by their product etc. I bet the main reason this thread was written was because TFL have been putting it 'out there' about CoC too thus giving a rival to BA's seemingly sole representation to the Platoon sized game for the uninitiated. But what of all the other systems that are out there (I hadn't heard of A Fist Full of Tows for instance before coming on the TMP) and suspect that many systems are known by word of mouth. It's a great time to be a wargamer though with a myriad of systems to cover nearly all periods at nearly all scales.

With all that said I haven't played CoCbut suspect it will be exactly my dirt of game. BA is a fun system but there's so much I would want to change about it that I'm now thinking I couldn't be bothered to try to reign it in to be a game to play with anyone other than friends who feel the same way as I do.

Why do people not like games that require rolling several dice (referred to as buckets of dice) and always want results with just 1-3 dice tops? Surely that just means less dice = more DRMs (or tables) to compensate? I obviously don't want to have to roll 20+ dice all the time but a unit's shooting that would mean I roll in the 8-15 region doesn't seem that bad to me really.

Cheers,

Ark

Ark, good post.

in regards to .50 cals

and is on the border of being 'historically representative' as admittedly there were times that tanks would receive a huge amount of infantry fire given so that the tankers knew well and truly that they were known to be there, even if the shooting didn't actually manage to damage the tank it could make the crew hesitant to push forward

So if this game is trying to model the "history" of ww2 events. Wouldn't rifle, LMG fire also rattle the crew as it pinged harmlessly off the armor? Can someone inside a tank

A) discern the difference between .50 cal fire and other small arms

B) if you can tell the difference but know neither weapon can penetrate the tank then what is the fear from? Wouldn't it just be the presence of infantry in the immediate area?

I don't think Bolt Action is interested in the history of WW2 except for the big flashy bits that catch a player's fancy (and there's nothing wrong with that! It's starting to sound like a Seinfeld episode). I think Bolt Action is interested in taking the stereotypes of ww2 and turning them into hard and fast rules. Did every American infantry platoon have superb air support? Was every Gurkha a close combat machine? Only Americans knew how to use self loading rifles (Germans & Soviets had them, but they have no benefit to using them in B.A. rules)? Soviets had body armor so they were 1 pip harder to kill. . .

These special rules are enticing to people, and make gamers more interested in collecting a specific army. But for me they seem arbitrary and can lead to imbalance in a game as the new rules are released and the "codex creep" of 40K sets in.

You would need a number of those pins to do any real harm, and since anything can take out a jeep that is a dangerous force to choose. Frankly I don't see the problem(*) – other then the normal problem that comes along with point based silliness to begin with.

(*) in order for this to be a problem the jeeps would have go get multiple hits on the tiger since a passed activation test removes a pin. The german player would have to have picked a very unbalanced force (two tigers versus 10 jeeps or something similar) in order to get swamped before putting hits on the jeeps, etc…

Here's how I see your problem. I don't have the American rule book in front of me, and I only looked it over 1 time so my memory may be incorrect.

I think Americans can take HMG jeep transports as add ons for a lot of their squads at about 50 points a piece while that is a significant hunk of points it has a lot of bang for their buck.

Let's say the Americans have a light tank with 2 HMGs attached. and 1 regular HMG and then 3 jeeps with HMGs

That is 6 HMG's. These units are fragile, but mobile and relatively cheap. They are not wasted points, & can be pretty useful in any game.

Not sure of ROF for HMGs( think it's 3) so if you're hitting the tank on a 5+ (again that's a guess) you will average 1 hit per burst from the HMG.

If all 6 of the HMG's can see the tiger. It will be combat ineffective quickly.

Even if the Tiger stays out of sight of all of them, it's actions can be controlled by .50 cal machine guns.

And while MG's are ridiculously underpowered against infantry in BA. they can still use their range to keep other infantry in check (which is useful)

forcing a tiger to cower behind terrain because it can be made combat ineffective by massed HMG fire is a silly mechanic.

I have never seen it on the table, but have been listening to Bolt Action Radio link

which is a podcast and site devoted to this game. The guys who do the podcast and hilarious and really love the game, but it is their description of .50 cal's that informed me of this mechanic.

> Not sure of ROF for HMGs( think it's 3) so if you're hitting the tank on a 5+ (again that's a guess) you will average 1 hit per burst from the HMG.

That is part of the problem, no matter the ROF the MG can only cause one pin per turn, as long as they get a hit. Getting a hit vs a tank I would have to read up on again but it is maybe a 1 in 3 chance per MG shot. So half the MGs will cause a pin, if all they do is shoot at the tank – and while they are doing that they will be shot to pieces by any friends the tiger has nearby.

Edited to fix poor quotation attempts

That is part of the problem, no matter the ROF the MG can only cause one pin per turn, as long as they get a hit. Getting a hit vs a tank I would have to read up on again but it is maybe a 1 in 3 chance per MG shot.

with 3 shots hitting on a 5+ that means statistically speaking each HMG should hit the tank with each burst

So half the MGs will cause a pin,

wrong. Each HMG that can see will statistically cause a pin

if all they do is shoot at the tank

With 6 HMG's I can possibly make the Tiger combat ineffective on turn 1. And I can also force your Tiger into hiding due to this fact. Or if you pop out I can turn your expensive piece of armor (be it a tiger, panther, crocodile, IS-2 or whatever) into combat ineffective rubbish. At the same time your tank can engage one jeep at a time and maybe blow it up. Still leaves 5 HMG's waiting to pile the pins on next turn.
This is the point I am trying to make

Say I only manage three pins on your tiger tank in turn 1

Next turn you burn off one pin now you're down to 2 pins. This time I get statistically appropriate rolls. you manage to activate burn off 1 pin (2 pins on a tank is -2 to shooting)and still manage to a knock out another HMG but I put 4 more pins on your tank. your are now up to 6 pins on the tank. That means you've got about a 16% chance to activate your tank (if you spent the points on veterans).

and while they are doing that they will be shot to pieces by any friends the tiger has nearby.

subjective, what if you have veterans with smgs/rifles? you aren't going to be in range of my HMG's on turn one. The points I've spent on my jeeps and HMG's are roughly equal to your tiger tank so I still have allies too, but I've got something you don't have. . . a lot more activation dice. So chance are I am going to be a lot more likely to move then you are. .

The point of the problem/argument is HMG's can effectively neutralize the threat of heavy armor through weight of pins
forcing a very non-historical rendering of ww2 where tanks are playing hide and seek with .50 cal jeeps. . .

These are not my arguments, they are what I have learned about the game from listening to players who post problems on BAR.. .

if I am misrepresenting the rules please point out my inaccuracies. . .

> Edited to fix poor quotation attempts

You have your way and I have mine, don't be a jerk.

> with 3 shots hitting on a 5+ that means statistically speaking each HMG should hit the tank with each burst

Actually it is a roughly 71% chance each, if they had to move into range to fire that is a -1 to hit making it a 1 in 6 chance then it is closer to the 50% each.

You are also assuming the jeeps all get to fire before the tank does, statistically that is not going to happen. A couple will in most cases, one getting blown up possibly when the tiger's chit is pulled or the Tiger has enough pins that it needs to rally (reducing pins by 1d6+1).

You have your way and I have mine, don't be a jerk.

Not sure what you mean by this, but someone is getting agitated. I was fixing my own quotes that weren't working.

You are also assuming the jeeps all get to fire before the tank does,

No I am not assuming that.

A couple will in most cases, one getting blown up possibly when the tiger's chit is pulled or the Tiger has enough pins that it needs to rally (reducing pins by 1d6+1).

You're still not disproving my argument.

a weight of HMG's can suppress a tank and will force it to remain in hiding or risk being pinned up by the # of HMGs fire. Making people less likely to take expensive armor or use it in a non-historical fashion due to the rules.

Go back and address my points and we can continue the conversation

OK so I can see now you're not actually talking about disabling a Tiger with a .50 cal machine gun but using a group of such weapons mounted on Jeeps to stop the Tiger receiving an order which is a different situation to that I envisaged from reading the initial post.

I've faced a Tiger in many of my games as it does seem to be many German players tank of choice. I don't use it myself as I think my Stug or Panzer IV was a much more frequent supporter of my Fallschirmjagers historically, though I'm not saying Tigers weren't involved in any Fallschirmjager skirmishes in Normandy! In my experience there would be several serious practical problems with trying to execute the suggested tactic.

1. As other posters have mentioned, the Tiger will not be alone (unless you're playing someone very inexperienced perhaps, in which case some advice should be offered). If the Jeeps can hit the Tiger then the Tiger and its nearby friends will be able to hit the jeeps who, being soft-skinned vehicles, are destroyed by a single casualty and that includes small arms fire. The jeeps aren't going to last long against any real firepower.

2. My opponents (being experienced players) invariably support their Tiger with nearby infantry, including an officer. Now, depending on rank, he is going to give the Tiger a bonus on its command roll (it's usually 2 in the games I've played but it could be more if facing a sadistic opponent!) which will effectively cancel out the first 2 Pins inflicted by the jeeps.

3. I don't have the American army book so there may be a special rule for Jeeps that I'm unaware of but if not then don't forget that to be able to fire the HMG, the Jeep would have to be carrying a unit. With a capacity of only 3, the Jeep would be restricted to carrying Officers, Observers or weapon teams so this will probably at least double the cost of each Jeep.

I think this may be one of those situations where you read something in a rulebook which immediately causes serious concerns only for those concerns to fade with the practical problems of the event actually happening.

I'm certainly not suggesting BA is a perfect set of rules as it isn't. We are continuing to develop our own club amendments/additions as we continue to gain experience. One of our members has already mentioned trying the CoC set when they appear and I'll do so happily. My own experience with BA is that you really do need to work your units together as much as possible to get the best out of the game. I feel the order system really does help recreate the chaos of the battlefield and, though the Dice Gods will occasionally give you a good slap, the side that can maintain the greatest cohesion with its force will usually win through.

With 6 HMG's I can possibly make the Tiger combat ineffective on turn 1. And I can also force your Tiger into hiding due to this fact. Or if you pop out I can turn your expensive piece of armor (be it a tiger, panther, crocodile, IS-2 or whatever) into combat ineffective rubbish. At the same time your tank can engage one jeep at a time and maybe blow it up. Still leaves 5 HMG's waiting to pile the pins on next turn.

Major problem with this – none of the lists in the US book let you take 6 jeeps with HMG's. You can't take 6 tripod mounted either. The only way to get 6 jeeps is to take them as transports for your infantry, but the rules state that a jeep with MMG or HMG loses all transport capability. So your jeeps have to be unarmed. So with 1 HMG armed jeep vs 1 Tiger I'll take the Tiger any day!