"Chain of Command or Bolt Action" Topic

I want to start WW2 small action in 20 or 25/28mmmm (not sure which scale) but as both mentioned rules can be used I need some advice which would be suitable.
I'm a beginner in WW2, have no figures yet for this period and rules must be easy as it will only be a side period for me. There's no club in the neighbourhood so can't join/don't have guidance.
And while on the subject, advice on scale (but please 20mm or 25/28mm)is welcome as well.
Thanks

I bought into WW2 for the first time with Chain of Command.
I've yet to play the game… but, what attracted me was that it uses small forces and promised to encourage using real historical tactics… rather than playing to the rules as seems common with systems designed with 'tournaments' in mind.
Also, the way the game played in those demo vids the Lardies put up really appealed to my tastes in game styles. Kind of casual and rules lite… but with emergent complexity.
I also like the Lardies sense of humor.
Also, I don't feel like I'm buying into a neverending treadmill of future expansions, bigger and bigger battles, 'official' miniature lines, etc.

Bolt Action certainly looks nice but I'm finding that nowadays glossy production values tend to put me off a bit… and from what I read it just seemed like the 'gamier' of the two systems.

I went round and round with myself about scale but decided to stick with 28mm. Not that I have any WWII figs prior to this… but it will allow me to use other 28mm scenery I've got and if I want to branch out into Weird WWII then a lot of other stuff I have (zombies) might come into use as well.

My vote is for CoC – clever, challenging fun simple to learn but hard to master system – just how I like them.
BA seems simple and fun

Get both! They are very similiar and very different. After buying and painting miniatures and matching terrain the price of another ruleset is small.

Get the assault on normandy set, this will give you the BA rules and a selection of miniatures and ruins that can be used both with BA and CoC

Suggest you buy metal figures, you don't need that many for chain of command.

I have a few bolt action plastics, and I think the weapons look thin (I think they are spot on, but the metals are obviously thicker and therefore they look out of place)

I liked some of the wargames factory figures.
You do need a fair bit of terrain… walls, hedges, houses.

Do you want troops at one end of Pegasus Bridge to be able to shoot at an enemy at the other end of the bridge? If so the you'd better go with Chain of Command as those rules allow you to fire futher than fifty yards. Bolt Action don't.

For the Eye Candy go for Bolt Action. I think you can get this quite cheaply from Amazon .

For the rules Chain of Command look promising and these would be my choice.

I have played both. Bolt Action is very much a game. It reminds me of Warhammer 40K. It does not encourage the use of real tactics or real organisations. (You can use both of course) The games are enjoyable. More a game than a simulation.

CoC is built around real unit ToEs and rewards the use of real tactics. Games are fun and challenging. To be it gives a reasonable simulation of platoon level combat whilst still being a fun game.

I will be sticking with CoC rather than BA.

You also need less stuff for CoC. I would suggest looking at the 500 point Bolt Action deals from Warlord. These would give a good platoon for CoC.

The BA rules are the easier of the two, but only by a very small degree. The same exact figures can be used for either game (indeed, I think the BA figs look really nice and if I were playing in 28mm I would use them, but I'm a 15mm collector). Scale wise, either game can handle 15mm up to 28mm with no changes, some people are playing CoC with 40mm figs too. If you change the ground scale from inches to centimeters then 6mm figs could be used for either game as well.

Personally I think it really boils to what kind of game you prefer. If you want a game driven more by competition style gaming then BA is the game you are looking for, while if you are looking for a more history based game then CoC is the one you are looking for.

I need some advice which would be suitable

A good question would be: what other games do you like?

If you like games like 40K, Warmachine, Infinity, etc. Then Bolt Action might be better.

OTOH, if you like designing scenarios and armies for both sides while musing about what may or may not be "historical" then go with CoC.

I am generally with what getback has said.

BA is a fun game, with solid core rules and produces games that most people (who enjoy BA regardless) come away from having had a blast. However it falls down big style for me in that every German list, and to remain generally competitive, has Assault Rifles in, and the ranges are the 40K style 24" for a rifle, 12" for an SMG etc etc. I was interested in trying to get into a tournament sometime soon, but every list plays the rules, not the period, has the optimum number of guys in and Assault rifles to hope to win. Stick with a historical list for Germans (my most familiar one admittedly) and it doesn't appear that you might do too well.

Vehicle armour classifications and armour penetrations are much more general (similar to the AV 10-14 in 40K etc) which is fine in itself, and still broadly in keeping with the history its modelled on, although I do prefer a bit more granularity in the armour. There's things like close combat where a unit loses by one casualty the entire unit is removed regardless of their numbers, morale etc (with the exception of a couple of special rules) and again I prefer a bit more granularity within any rules I play. I really like the simplicity of the pinning mechanics, but then it falls down again for me where the with unit/squad organisation. You can only have a minimum of 5 guys in a squad/section, and so cannot reorganise/split squads mid game. CoC as I understand does cover this quite eloquently (as do other platoon sized games) BA is very cut and dry in some respects (hence the speed of play too) so if that floats your boat then go for it.

The random unit activation makes for a reasonable Fog of War simulation and results in a fun game with plenty of 'who's going to get their chance to move a unit next?' within each turn. Everything will eventually be activated within a turn. This really breaks up the IGOUGO system and is a plus for me, generally.

If you want a fast paced game, fun, and a bit light on the finer historical side then BA is a great choice (even though my tone above seems at times bit negative admittedly) I suspect BA will go as a larger game than CoC too, and would suit several players a side with a reworking of the orders dice rules a little. It is also within its first year since publication so may well get a V.2 soon to clarify several rules that are a bit out, CoC may need the same too of course.

I haven't played CoC and only watched the YouTube vids and read threads but it seems much more of a simulation, and with the randomness in unit activation found in BA but more refined if you like. In BA every turn every unit will get a chance to activate (pinning and casualties received aside) In CoC it seems that due to the random results of the dice, you will likely get certain units, and they may get several chances, but others won't, resulting in tactical choices in a different way. Random too, but with restrictions, and more tactical choices. Where the unit activation doesn't work that well for me in BA is that you may will only get one unit at a time to activate, although you may get several activations in a row. CoC seems that, when the dice gods are with you, you amy get 2, 3 or more units to activate at one time, and seems like it would simulate a commander giving orders to several units to coordinate an attack/defence at the same time, but maybe not the whole force getting or carrying out the orders entirely as he wishes.

TFL tend to simulate history and their moto is 'Play the period, not the rules' I believe so it depends what you want from your gaming experience. Personally I think I will dive in with CoC soon (and up size to the Battlegroup system for larger games up to a company etc) as it seems much like the rules I wrote a while back.

Hope that helps,

A

The same figs. can be used for both, so try them both.

I got in to 28mm WWII with BA, but CoC is going to be my main focus going forward.

BA just isn't grounded enough in reality for me. The main rules are generally good, but there are way too many issues with the various army lists and equipment.

Brownbear, what period/theatre is it that you are most interested in?
For example, the Perry boys have just released 8th Army and DAK in plastic 28mm. perry-miniatures.com
I have painted my first Brits (http://getitpainted.blogspot.se/2013/09/first-few-perry-desert-rats-minis.html) and they are lovely. With these two boxes and a PDF of the CoC rules you will be up and running for about £60.00 GBP
Or do you want to do Western Europe? Early or Late War, both can be started in plastic at 20mm or 28mm at reasonable cost and the expanded in metal.
Whichever way you go, you will spend far more on mnis and terrain than on rules. I suggest you get both BA and CoC and try them out to see what style you prefer.

Dont play either of them, but for 20mm its gotta be AB…

20mm has everything you will ever need for WW2… and everything you wont.

Like 21st Panzer…

I would go with Chain of Command – a great set of rules with some really clever elements.

Figure wise – 20mm gives you the option of Airfix style figures – these are very cheap – you will only need 1 box per side. (not sure of current prices but probably £7.00 GBP-10 a box)

If you go 28mm there are lots of hard plastic options – around £20.00 GBP for a platoon.

There are metals available in both scales – these are more expensive, but can be very nice.

To be fair its a darn sight cheaper doing 20mm than 28mm with a range of vehicles as Piers has said that you may never need. The Battlegroup series is I think, my game of choice for the 'next level up' from the standard Platoon level games, although it does cater for (relatively) smaller (platoon) sized games too. If you wanted larger battles then the BG system would be a great way to go I think…

Played them both, CoC is, by a country mile,
The best system, IMHO.
John

I'm new to WW2 and until CoC came was demoed on You Tube really grabbed me enough to want to get into the period. No surprises then that I will be going for CoC and since I love AB Napoleonic figures I shall be using AB 20mm. They aren't cheap but they are fabulous and you don't need that many.

Armourfast has a range of cheap easy to build 1:72 vehicles. It is a little limited, but you get 2 in a box for £7.00 GBP, same as a single 'hobby kit'. the tracks/wheels come as one piece, so no fiddly gluing on loads of wheels

Do you have any usable terrain already?
If so that would be the decider in scale for me as you need lots of terrain for a good skirmish game and 28mm buildings don't come cheap, neither do 28mm vehicles

I've played both BA & COC & they both have good and bad things in them – I haven't yet decided which I like best. Two Fat Lardie's moto "play the period not the rules" is pure hype – to play COC well you have to master the game system just as much as BA. I fail see how the COC command system is in any way a better simulation of reality than BA's simpler system. BA is criticised for having rortable lists, but that's in the hands of the players – there's nothing to stop you making lists you think are more historical in either system. I suspect you could make a really good set of rules by taking either of them & adding some aspects of the other.

Played CoC for the first time this week – excellent game.

" Two Fat Lardie's moto "play the period not the rules" is pure hype"

No, it's a attitude and philosophy.

IMO,I haven't seen anything to take from BA that would make CoC better, but there are many things that could be done to BA to make it better

Bolt Action gets quite a few things wrong about WW2. Machine guns efficacy, weapon ranges, and lethality of fire. It is much more interested in being a "game" than in representing any kind of historical accuracy and provides oftentimes silly or overpowered special abilities to units that force unit choices that are not realistic (each American platoon shows up with close air support, each Russian platoon will have multiple "mine dogs", & smart players will abandon machine guns as a waste of points)

That being said it plays quickly and enjoyably.

Chain of Command is also easy to pick up & is enjoyable but makes an attempt to represent WW2 combat tactics & units.

since chain of command is an "all in one" book (army lists included in the rules and popping up for free on their website) it is still a cheaper alternative than Bolt Action which will require rule book, & then army books and will most certainly be in version 2 (then 3, 4, & 5)in the next 18 months. . .

Well obviously knowing how the rules work will give you an advantage over those who don't – that's a fact inherent in the fact that physics has to be simulated, so artificial rules are needed. However those rules should (and in TFL usually do) be guessable from real world situations: the further you move in to close combat the more the advantage to the defender.

It is also a philosphy that players should aspire to. If something is historically correct then you should allow your opponent to do it, even if not mentioned, or even not allowed in the rules (the latter because of a non-ordinary circumstance).

For instance, Leaders can't really man the MG- they are separate to the section itself, and only add firepower on their activation, not the activation of the section they are with.

However we had a situation where the MG team were reduced to 1 man (so suffering a penalty). Of course I allowed my opponent to use the Leader with it – no NCO is going to say 'No- my job is to lead, not to load'

I enjoy both different dynamics.

Having played both. BA is a very entertaining 'game'. CoC has the feel of WWII as wel as being an entertaining game.

If you read first hand accounts of platoon level actions then you will find that CoC can simulate them quite well. BAs mechanics will not let you do so.

Bolt Action is all the better if you discard the points/arm,y list stuff and pitch valid units against each other. We find that on platoon in defence will generally lose out to three in attack, but if the atack id to succeed within the usual five or six turns it'll have to be pushed along pretty quickly and the casualties will be that much higher. We also found that on those occasions when the firers need a '7' to hit, the 'roll a six then another six' system is unreasonable – as well as being dodgy math, so we've gone for 'roll a six then a four, five or six. If the firers need an eight to hit then we make it a six, then five or six.
Neither BA not CoC really gives that good a simulation compared to having an umpire and no actual figures on the board until the umpire says they've been seen and neither really strikes me as actively encouraging the use of small unit practice the way I was taught – which was in the sixties/seventies by men who were trained and served in the forties/fifties, there again, how may players actually learn about what the guys were trained to do or how they applied that in action(or did n't). It's worth having a look at Rex Wingfield's 'The Only Way Out' for well-educated infantryman's view of thins in 1944-5.

"Neither BA not CoC really gives that good a simulation compared to having an umpire and no actual figures on the board…"

So uglyfatbloke have you actually played CoC? Seems to be a pretty strong comment for somebody who hasn't played the game.

Thanks for all the great answers.
Have now read a lot of both systems but yed undicided I will buy both (well, have already the pdf CoC: they are quick to deliver) and BA is on its way. So decide then.

I think I will go the 25/28mm route as we have already some terrain .
For sure, 20mm has its advantages and I would use these if we would playing bigger battles- BG, RF or other (don't know them all)
So again, thanks

Chain of Command, without any doubt or hesitation – if you want a more detailed and realistic experience.

In my opinion, from what I have seen and experienced Bolt Action is a gamey and gimmicky WH40K:WW2 re-skin compared to Chain of Command.

Chain of Command offers a vastly superior historical accuracy in every department, has no silly stereotypical special rules, has proper platoon/squad sizes and armament, it doesn't allow min/maxing of lists, it is ton more detailed when it comes to vehicle combat and a lot more interesting and multi facetted when it comes to infantry combat.

" Two Fat Lardie's moto "play the period not the rules" is pure hype"

No, it's a attitude and philosophy.

Given that TFL have 2 sets of rules for platoon level WW2 combat – Chain of Command and Troops, Weapons & Tactics it rathers begs question if you are playing the period not the rules with TW&T why you need another set? If they got it right first time what do you get with CoC that you don't get from TW&T?
I'd have to agree with the first quote – you have to know how to play the rules with CoC – the patrol phase at the start of the game which can give you an advantage once the on table game starts doesn't represent any sort of real world tactic IMHO.

Neither BA not CoC really gives that good a simulation compared to having an umpire and no actual figures on the board until the umpire

Richard Clarke is a very competent Kriegspieler (I have played with him, but then so has Paddy Griffiths) who uses Kriegspiel to inform his MINIATURE rules.

why you need another set?

Yeah – if only people would publish just one set of rules for each period. One must be the best of the bunch, thus all the others are superfluous. CoC is a different way to try and represent what happens.

I'd have to agree with the first quote

I repeat Well obviously knowing how the rules work will give you an advantage over those who don't – that's a fact inherent in the fact that physics has to be simulated, so artificial rules are needed.

There's a set of rules called "Chain Reaction" that is meant for solo play. I think you can still down load it free.

Chain of Command is what got me back into WWII (28mm) gaming after many, many years. Splendid, elegant system.

To be honest I never played Bolt Action although some of our clubmembers do.It seems a bit too 'tournament style' for me, but I could be wrong.

and I thought I was the only one to ever have read "The Only Way Out" – fascinating stuff, particularly the importance of putting your boiled sweets in easy reach :-)

Neither set is perfect but Bolt ACtion will teach you nothing about why infantry fought the way they did, CoC will at least show you glimmers and will reward the historical tactics better.

The problem will be many gamers don't want to be challenged, they're happy with reskinned 40K – which is pretty much what BA is.

Fred, surely that's a bit like saying that Henry Ford built the Model T and shouldn't have built any other model since?

Maybe I'm dim but there seems very little in BA that's anything at all like 40k. I think a lot of people who havent played both are making this judgment.
I find BA a good fun "game", and I recommend it as such. I am waiting for the postman to bring my copy of COC and then I can see which one that I enjoy the most. No game can ever be "realistic", just fun, even more fun or no fun at all, that is up to the player himself.

Fred, surely that's a bit like saying that Henry Ford built the Model T and shouldn't have built any other model since?

No – Henry Ford never claimed it was perfect or couldn't be improved, but if TW&T plays the period not the rules what does CoC do that is better? Or is it better? Or is it just different? If so how so? I did start a thread here entitled do you prefer CoC or TW&T intending to find out from those who had played both which they preferred and why, but it got nuked by the Ed after half a dozen posts.
I just picked up a new set of platoon level WW2 rules by Frank Chadwick called Men Under Fire or MUF for short. What is it with WW2 rule designers and acronyms?!
I will have to ask now if gamers prefer MUF, CoC or TW&T!! :-)

I did start a thread here entitled do you prefer CoC or TW&T intending to find out from those who had played both which they preferred and why, but it got nuked by the Ed after half a dozen posts.

Odd… I see the thread you started just fine and it's got 22 posts and counting.

Did the Lardies ever claim that any of their rules were perfect, or couldn't be improved? I would doubt that?

I too can see that thread.

Maybe I'm dim but there seems very little in BA that's anything at all like 40k. I think a lot of people who havent played both are making this judgment.

I strongly disagree. I've played 40K for years and there are a lot of similarities. I've also played Bolt Action & Chain of Command.

1. Running into the open in 40 & BA is not a big deal (where in other WW2 games and in RL it is) I've run troops out into the open for 2+ turns straight at LMGS and took few casualties, and was never even concerned about being pinned down. In another game 1 unit ran into the open and with stood fire from a 3 MG tank, & 3 10 man enemy squads and for 2 full turns and was still alive and had not checked morale. . .

2. Unbalanced "special rules" Gurkhas who can delimb anyone in hth, Soviet infantry with breastplates that can only be killed on a 6+ by small arms fire. driving your vehicles straight into the enemy line in hopes of getting blown up to deploy farther from the blown up vehicles and get directly into close assault sounds like Blood angels, Terminator armor, and rhino rush tactics. None of these rules belong on a WW2 battlefield.

3. Power items you must have to be competitive that will eventually be nerfed flame vehicles, .50 cal machine guns, codex creep. Inevitable v2. of the rules to fix obviously broken rules. . .

No game can ever be "realistic", just fun, even more fun or no fun at all, that is up to the player himself.

This is a common plea for BA. but it is a cop out. Bolt Action does not get WW2 anywhere close to right. Chain of Command does and it's got pretty solid historical evidence to back up its reasoning for all its rules. I've kicked the tires pretty hard and found myself learning a lot more about WW2 tactics than I had known before the game.

B.A. is a fun game, but has no business trumpeting itself as a ww2 game. It is 40K with a ww2 skin. Not bad but not WW2 historical game

I have not seen COC yet but in BA favour it has introduced lots of Warhammer players in our club into the WW2 period which I don't think would have happened without their introduction.

I have played several games of BA and whilst they may lose out on WW2 feel they give a playable game in an evening without much reference to the rulebook. I know the purists hate them but do give a fun game.

I'm considering COC, the only thing putting me off is that I didn't enjoy the TFL previous games. Tried the ACW, Napoleonic, WW2 and Vietnam rules and they just didn't gel with us. Before anyone has a go I'm not saying there is anything wrong with them but they just didn't suit us and our style of play.

So I am hesitant to buy these and they end up in my big pile of bought and never played again rules (thats the trouble with PDF versions can't sell them on if you don't like them unlike a physical book).

Odd… I see the thread you started just fine and it's got 22 posts and counting.

Weird I could have sworn it disappeared for a couple of days. Interesting posts, from the look of it, even though I hesitate to say it, it looks like CoC might be more my thing. :-)

Of course I haven't played MUF yet so that might be my thing after all. I have a soft spot for Frank Chadwick's rules having had many fun games of Command Decision.