"Chain of Command Fire vs Bolt Action Fire " Topic

I've been enjoying Chain of Command recently playing mainly solo games. Decided to try out Bolt Action last week and was pleasantly surprised (surprised only because I had read some very mixed reviews) Have to say playing with some pals (who don't always enjoy tabletop games) gave a quick, flowing and hugely entertaining game.

Very different games in lots of ways of course but one mechanical difference that struck me was how fire effects are handled.

Both rules adopt a hit effect modifier based upon the quality of the target, which I happen to like. But while CoC uses the target troop quality to determine fire effect on the morale, order and the actual amount of casualties; in Bolt Action the quality of the troops just influences the amount of casualties or dead.

This difference gave the game a very different feel.

So apparently both rules agree that better quality troops should be harder to kill. But should it be more difficult to pin or suppress an elite veteran unit than a unit of raw recruits? Or would significant modern firepower keep any troop type down regardless of experience and training?

My guess is that the veterans (who are better at using terrain cover) are harder to pin/suppress. But that's just a guess. Or at least the vets would return fire or otherwise recover sooner.

BA troop quality does affect their morale. Vets have a higher morale so it takes more pinning to get the same effect on regular or inexperienced troops (dice test is used).

For example, I want to roll my morale (minus pins) to get a command to succeed in BA. If I have a Vet team with two pin markers, that's equivalent to a Regular team with one marker --- same dice roll needed to succeed.

experienced troops will take good cover move get firing places and fight back. Green troops will take cover and maybe shoot back or just run for it.

If I have a Vet team with two pin markers, that's equivalent to a Regular team with one marker --- same dice roll needed to succeed.

So if I understand this correctly, that would mean while gunfire will have the same chances of pinning down vets and greens alike, the vets will stand a better chance of shaking it off more quickly. Sounds good.

Vets have a morale of 10 base.
Reg have morale base 9.
Inexperienced have morale base of 8.

You have to roll morale (minus pin markers) or less on 2d6 to get units to cooperate if they have any pins at all.
It takes more pins to drag down vet morale.

All units vets, reg, inexperienced will perform commands automatically if they have no pins on them.

And if the squad loses its Sergeant it's another -1. Does not take too long for squads to become ineffective.

I fire in Chain of Command. I build up shock on the target unit until it is pinned. I then assault and as a result of the enemy being pinned I am very likely to defeat them with minimal losses.

I fire in Bolt Action. I build up pins on the target unit until it is ineffective. I then assault but all the pins are now removed, so I am taking a huge risk despite all my preparatory fire.

How can that be right? It's a major flaw in the rules as far as I am concerned.

It is more difficult to pin down, and more to the point render ineffective, a poor unit than a regular one in CoC because the poor unit will suffer more hits from fire, thus take more shock.

I think on that point Tin Soldier you are correct. Pinning a unit in Bolt Action has no effect if you assault it in terms of the pins making them actually less effective once in combat (only their ability to fire at you or use an Ambush order to react to you before contact is made) This is made worse by the fact that the cut and dry 'the side that caused the most casualties wins, remove the entire losing unit' makes it a huge gamble. Personally the main way to balance that it to have the pins keep taking an effect in the first round of combat, thus rewarding the attacking side the benefit of pouring on all that suppressing fire in the first place. If the unit survives the combat by some chance THEN the pins should be removed IMO.

Grey Panda wrote:
Both rules adopt a hit effect modifier based upon the quality of the target, which I happen to like. But while CoC uses the target troop quality to determine fire effect on the morale, order and the actual amount of casualties; in Bolt Action the quality of the troops just influences the amount of casualties or dead.

This difference gave the game a very different feel.

Can you elaborate on the nitty gritty mechanics of what you mean in each system? am struggling to fully grasp what you are meaning old bean.

So apparently both rules agree that better quality troops should be harder to kill. But should it be more difficult to pin or suppress an elite veteran unit than a unit of raw recruits? Or would significant modern firepower keep any troop type down regardless of experience and training?

On this point you could argue both ways for each level of troop type;
Green troops – Their ignorance of the realities of combat make them brash and unlikely to hold them back. They may be hard to pin down. Coordination is the key element that will likely determine their effectiveness,
OR
They are scared sherbet-less and they do not know how to escape being pinned

Veteran/Very experienced – Know the horrors of war and so will keep their heads down to avoid more casualties (they've had enough),
OR,
They use their hard won experience to escape the incoming fire.

Personally I think that in both cases the second situation is the more likely once the bullets start to fly as self preservation takes over. As I have never been in even remotely a combat situation I can only lean on my logic and conjecture at best…

So which did you prefer and why? I'm interested to know (as I haven't had a chance to experience both games together)

Cheers,

A

Tin Soldier Man wrote:
I then assault but all the pins are now removed, so I am taking a huge risk despite all my preparatory fire.

This just came up once in our game and I'll be honest it spun my head around trying to find the logic of what it was trying to represent. My only conclusion is the heavy fire which led to the suppression has ceased and they have beaten off the immediate danger in a morale boosting defensive action! Whatever the thematic reasoning or the gaming justification behind it I absolutely hated this rule for the very obvious reasons pointed out above by Tin Soldier.

How can that be right? It's a major flaw in the rules as far as I am concerned.

Yep… I thought so too…I haven't played this system much so I wonder what the vets of the system think…

Ark wrote

Can you elaborate on the nitty gritty mechanics of what you mean in each system? am struggling to fully grasp what you are meaning old bean.

Yes of course.

Lets say we have a British Bren team firing on an elite SS squad in light cover at effective range (range differs in both games)

A second Bren will fire on a squad of green volkssturm in the same circumstances.

Chain of Command would roll 6 dice for each of the brens:

First bren fires on the SS needing 6's to hit (Elite)

Second bren fires on the green troops needing 3-6.

Now the fire's effects are calculated:
And this is where cover influences the firing. The type of cover determines the chances of morale effects and kills. In this situation morale is effected on rolls of 4-5. Kills on 6's only.

Bolt Action would roll 3 dice each for the brens…hitting in normal circumstances on 3-6. But outside of close range is a negative of 1.

Now we have the cover effect influence but no influence of troop quality here (opposite of CoC) So two negative mods.

So here in BA both SS and Green have exactly the same chances of being hit. But unlike CoC their chances of avoiding being hit benefit from their cover. If they are in fact hit they automatically receive a negative morale effect (a pin marker…in certain ways similar to Shock in CoC)

IMHO What would help more to maintaining calm is if there's a large wall between you and the gunfire (BA's cover)I understand that being fired at alone even if in the relative safety of a building would be unnerving for a green recruit but should it be a greater factor than being in an open carpark surrounded by MG42's firing at you?

Only now the skill of the unit helps them…Green troops are killed on 3-6, regulars 4-6, Veteran 5-6.

Personally speaking I actually prefer BA's way of evaluating the chances of being actually hit. Cover helps. I believe being a vet doesn't influence gun fire's ability to initially cause you to duck and seek cover (an automatic pin marker is given in BA regardless of troop type)

Whats key and supremely important to take into account when accessing BA's system of calculating hits is that

better troops will shake off negative morale quicker and they will have a better chance to maintaining activity despite carrying pin markers.

Without this the whole idea would be wrong. I really think its a fantastic way of simulating the effects of morale.
And remember vets will still be more difficult to kill as in CoC.

I have read this area of BA been criticized in several reviews of the game and I thought it unfair to be honest.

I love BA's morale representation but not as pointed out this strange rule concerning assaults wiping out pin markers…

I'm not saying that I believe BA is a better than CoC bah bah bah but I found this area interesting

Hope that helps "old bean" ;)

The pin markers make defensive fire more difficult allowing the attacker to close to combat easier. Unless fighting over a wall etc, the attacker fights first, usually resulting in fewer live defenders to fight back. BA seems to favor the bold not the timid.

I can live with BA's removal of pins before resolving assault. What I DON'T like is that the winner of the close combat is immediately pin-free, fresh, and eager to get going again. These guys have to consolidate and re-organize; they should get a pin marker or two AFTER the assault is over.

I like even less that the Japanese can charge in BA no matter how many pins they have. THEN the pins disappear in close combat. It makes them almost unstoppable and it is VERY ahistorical besides. As with many above, I think the poorly thought out close combat and army specific rules ruin for me what could otherwise been a pretty fun system.

TI didn't realize that was a rule for the Japs…I think does kind of crass nationalistic characterizations just help to discredit the entire rule set…which is a shame I think as it has some great ideas

The sold core rules mechanisms are sound enough with BA, but the rigid force selection mixed with a lack of granularity of some rules (they are very cut and dry, like the combat rules for instance) put me off a little bit (as much personal taste I think (oh, and MGs are not well represented either, plus other stuff)

I wrote my own WWII game and I had the Banzai charge in as a special rule (can't quite remember the details as it was a couple of years ago now) and I took the approach that for every plus there should be a minus. So the bonus for the Banzai charge would be exactly the same, the unit decides to headlong recklessly run at the enemy, that unit gets to ignore the pins on the them and any that are taken while performing the charge. However the allies, once they got used to the Japanese tactics actually welcomed the Banzai charges as they would;
1. The japanese would scream their heads off, basically saying 'I'm here' which is great when you want to find an enemy to shoot them
2. They would perform the charge once their forces were depleted significantly enough to make them think that 'death before dishonour wasted only option. This would only give the allies more confidence as it would confirm that the Japanese forces were in a desperate situation.
3. The tactic was used in such a rough way with little coordination with other assets, so making the value of the assault/charge very low and easily countered

I had the rule kinda as follows (from memory)
- Japanese units will roll some test or other when down to 25%, or when the Japanese force is significantly pinned/destroyed. This may be on an individual unit basis or the whole force depending)
- allied units must pass a morale test to stand their ground, if failed they either flee or get a minus (can't remember)
- if passed they stand their ground and get a +1 to hit (shooting) the Jaoanese units that are charging them (the charge may happen from well outside of charge range) with all pins being ignored by the Japanese units

My basic aim was to have it as flavour to the army, not to have it as some form of mega rule that they get that makes them super strong or anything. (my mate was after a mega-rule abd still doesn't realise thst historically that the Banzai charge was a woeful 'tactic' in the long run)

The Banzai charge worked against them in the end as all it did was let the allies know they were winning in that particular battle (ok, some exceptions did occur to that) The greatest strength of the charge was the Psychological effect as they screamed their way iinto contact, that may have worked at the time of the Samurai but not really applicae in WWII (although jungle terrain did help)

Might be worth a re-read of the mega-thread I started here Panda :)

TMP link

Ark, , that's what I call a thread! I'm sitting on my "lazy-boy" popcorn in hand and I'm going to enjoy the read…thanks for the heads up :)

No worries Panda-man, I can tell you got right into it, your response time to this thread was considerably slower than usual! ;)~

I will have to re-read that thread too and want to post again on it. I've been trying to tinker with my rules to simulate units in buildings being MORE likely to be pinned when in a building or good cover rather than LESS likely. I reason that self-preservation when being shot at mixed with various other factors leads to units not wanting to leave the safety of their cover,

Cheers fella,

Ark

I've been trying to tinker with my rules to simulate units in buildings being MORE likely to be pinned when in a building or good cover rather than LESS likely.

Sounds very reasonable to me Arky which would more justify CoC's mechanism: Cover offering no help to the chances of being effected by fire but offering protection from kills…very interesting

your response time to this thread was considerably slower than usual! ;)~

My reaction times have slowed with the passing of time but I must have been in complete TMP hibernation to miss that monster thread :)

My understanding based on tesxt books and anecdotal evidence from accounts (no experioence personaly) is that the adage is first win the firefight and then take ground by close assult. The winning the firefight is considered the advantage as the troops get in and are in a position to say toss greanades in to trenches with "Relative Impunity". In other words it lets them win. Any serious simulation should follow this.

However there is a serious consideration that many players do not want to play a simulation.

A game that is mentioned with 40K in comparison may not have a primary target of simulators. Many folk like to gamble and the assult rules may actualy be targeted as an opertunity to gamble. Personaly simple gambeling is not my thing but to many it is. Some games in our club are so random tactics play little part. However this is to the liking of some players.

Designers of popular games are aiming for the lowest common denominator of players not a very specific audiance. Any review of systems mat really need to address what the target audience is.