"Are Bolt Action THAT Dominant?" Topic

Lots of mentions of Chain of Command here and more people seem to like it than BA. If any rules are "dominant" round here it's CoC. I'm a Bolt Action fan myself though, even though I play both sets, CoC does nothing that BA doesn't and is far more complicated in the way it does it, so let's pull another order dice out of the bag and on with the (Bolt) action!

'CoC does nothing that BA doesn't and is far more complicated in the way it does it'

There is a much greater palette of choice in a command order than that given in bolt action.

however, I can understand why people would prefer bolt action. It rigidly gives a simple structure without surprises. My dice are in the bag and they will definately come out the bag!

The unpredicability of CoC is it's strength as a simulation and a weakness in gameplay from the gamer's point of view.
CoC has a good balance, but it appears that games can be ruined by flukes. That doesnt happen with Bolt action.

I've never played CoC, but kevanG points out how gamers might sour on the flukes of the activation draw, and especially if there's a turn-ending mechanism included with it. This is part of what I meant about the rules getting in the way of the players, and the game playing the players instead of the other way around. My first experience with another set of WW2 rules, I suffered three consecutive turns while within range of the opponents forces where I got no friendly card pulls before the turn ended with a "tea break". Finally, at the end of the fourth turn in a row of "combat", and after being thoroughly shot to pieces, I got a draw…..it was too late by then. The "storybook narrative" I took away from this, my first and last game with that set of rules, sure, anyone can out-maneuver and out-fight an opponent, if the other player doesn't actually get a chance to play the game!

It's was a totally unremarkable and underwhelming experience, and something I wouldn't wish on any player. I'll never host games using a "tea break" turn-ending mechanism, as I do want participants of my scenarios to play my games. Perhaps this potential for immediately and randomly ending a turn lends some excitement to game matchups, but I wonder how a hosted scenario can be balanced if one player side might not get activations for complete turns on end? I would certainly never put the time into crafting a scenario, and especially one to be presented at a gaming convention, that would risk falling apart because of "tea breaks".

I'm thinking of several accounts I've both read and watched whereby there would be a battlefield with the two armies fighting it out. The commanders were focussing their forces where they needed, generally to attack, counter-attack of to shore up defences. As a result there's times when areas of the battlefield are just not being used. That would not just no fighting happening, but that there were times when units would be located there but with no commanders present (the were concentrating on whichever key area of the battlefield) the soldiers would hunker down and wait it out.

We often think that the communications in WWII were pretty good, but with radios down to even platoon level not necessarily being available and the reliance on sending a runners with a message, its a very slow way to effect command and control.

With all that in mind I think CoC and the likes of the Battlegroup series do a nice job of giving you only some units to be able to activate a turn, for ing the players to choose which units to best effect knowing that it is just not possible half the time to use them all. Bolt action has it that every unit (by way of the order dice) can activate a turn, obviously restricted by the in-game pinning etc. It's all about what you are after in a game, but it is this aspect of warfare that I think pushes BA into being more a game, CoC more of a simulation. Both are acceptable of course, and both are of course games, so it does come down to personal preference, although I don't think you can quite say that there's nothing CoC can do that BA can't for this simple difference (BA moves all units, CoC only moves some).

Well reasoned argument Ark3nubis but when I said "there's nothing that CoC can do that BA can't" I was thinking more of tactics than game mechanisms which, of course, are quite different.
In both games you order your squads and the odd tank etc. If you prefer one method over the other that's fine but both sets of rules give you a smilar game in my experience, it's just how they go about it.

I like what Ark3nubis wrote above about BA being more of a game, and CoC seeming more like a simulation. Again, having not played CoC I can't claim to know, but I think Bolt Action is very much a game, and I like that. There's times where I feel the forces designed for one side could be labeled Team Red, and other Team Blue. Except for the few nationality differences, selective experience ratings, and odd weapon here and there to add period flavor to the units, when speaking of the infantry, much of it is a plug-in for their opposite numbers. This is where the game works, because it becomes clear that with such similarities, the game outcomes depend very much on the decisions of the players. With any miniatures rules, if you're putting together your own scenarios, one must have an idea of what force ratios make for competitive mission types.

I'm of the mind that the players themselves will cast those intangible traits to their units, by their own aggressiveness, coordination, or lack thereof.

"there's nothing that CoC can do that BA can't"

How do you detach and deploy scouts in bolt action?

We use "Mud & Blood" for WW1 which has a "Time for a Snifter" card. We use 2 of them in the deck. So it's not that I don't like the "Snifter" or "Tea Time" card, I do. Some people add a different die to the BA bag & when that die is drawn, well, turn over. Just have fun, damnit!

"there's nothing that CoC can do that BA can't"

How do you detach and deploy scouts in bolt action?

Yes there's no doubt there are more choice options with CoC but I think as FlyXwire has already mentioned its more the overall consequences of tactics that seem to achieve very similar results in both systems. (I've actually experimented with this in simple small operations…taking a fixed position etc… and I can see that reasoning.

For me it comes down to do you want to sacrifice the details of those options (throwing grenades, going tactical while still having the option of firing at less effect, applying leadership influence to squad actions, detaching scout patrols…)for a game that feels slightly less fussy and has less to remember. I certainly feel this is an advantage to games when there's been time limitations, or when certain friends want to play skirmish but are a bit intimidated by remembering these different options…but I think personally prefer CoC for my solo games…but I really enjoy both

"Just have fun, damnit!" Excellent advice :)

What about breaking squads down into separate teams, does Bolt Action do that?

Grey Panda. Interesting. But I am not sure how the tactics can get the same result when suppressing fire doesn't actually suppress. Real tactics cannot work when troops apparently degraded by fire immediately recover to full ability when charged.

Anyway, this thread has clearly shown that no one set of rules dominates in the hobby, but maybe each club just has it's own preferences?

Agreed on just have fun. I just find my fun really affected in a bad way when I use proper tactics and get penalised for it.

Tin Solider Man wrote :

But I am not sure how the tactics can get the same result when suppressing fire doesn't actually suppress.

Don't think that's necessarily a fair statement unless I'm taking it out of context :0 I think BA's fire suppressing system is really impressive…IMO one of the strongest elements of the game…of course if you are referring to suppressing fires ineffectiveness in the context of what you mention in the following statement (which I'm pretty sure you're doing)

Real tactics cannot work when troops apparently degraded by fire immediately recover to full ability when charged.

For me at least this is a seriously controversial rule, on a historical basis it just hasn't been explained or justified for me to accept it or understand it fully and it undermines the proven tactic of providing suppressing fire so as to get in close and rout the enemy.

I'd be interested in actual accounts of conflict especially WW2 where this effect is recorded.

I should have mentioned that in my little experiments this rule never arose… My one assault was heavily in favour of the attacker and the result easily went their way.
…So the potential result of a heavily suppressed unit beating off an attacking enemy and then suddenly springing to action never materialized.

Yes, you're right, that is what I refer to. Essentially it is standard military tactics right through to today. You overcome your enemy's ability to resist with firepower and then assault with grenade and bayonet.

Not only is this effect recorded, all nations had this as a central pillar of their tactical doctrine. It's just too big an issue to have wrong in any rule set.

I've got a WW2 scenario prepared for putting on in a few weeks, where there will be a couple of "half-squads" initially deployed by the defending German players, reflecting a mission where these troops have just been barraged in their billets (in a garrisoned French farm complex), and have just turned out to defend their prepared squad positions. The idea is that these units have already been attrited by preparatory artillery fire, so their combat state and reduced numbers reflects this…..then the battle will begin. As the scenario progresses, German reinforcements will arrive (in succeeding turns), but in greater squad strengths, reflecting their fresh, fully assembled condition (in comparison to the initial, more ad-hoc elements which started the game on-board). I don't see why a couple of reduce squads couldn't reflect fire teams, or function as such as individual maneuver and fire support elements, and still be coordinated as if they were a single squad in Bolt Action…..first an element with an LMG team can be ordered to fire, then on a succeeding dice pull a rifle team (element) advances.

Here's the game map – the American contingent moves into the area road-bound from on the right. There's going to be a "trigger" which will activate their ability to deploy off-road, and the real battle begins!

Nice looking table. The important thing is that you are enjoying the rules. They just don't cut it for me I'm afraid.

Thanks Tin Soldier Man!

(it'll look nicer on my actual game mat)

@FlyXwire Very nice…yet us know how it works out

I think there should be an allowance for splitting units to deploy scouts but I'm not sure if I'd add another command dice or if for the purposes of the game they're seen as a single unit still or they become two separate units but no added die?

Thanks Grey Panda (I need to get a blog so I can link AARs here).

I'll be trying out an idea on enabling hidden unit placements with this scenario, where there will be delineated zones on the German's reference map showing areas that correspond to deployment locations open to their forces. Now some of my buds might be scoping out this thread, so let me show the map with just one these deployment zones showing (the lt. green area below):

Without spilling too much here, there are a few more of these color-coded zones on the German players reference map, areas where players can place their troops within during the game's progression (arriving on certain predetermined turns during the game). The players placing these units will have the option of where to do so within the areas shown (thus maximizing their deployments in reaction to the enemy's progress), and this will be a way that these units can appear "hidden", until the enemy would be encountering them in the course of the battle. This eliminates the need to track hidden movement of forces on a map (or by using dummy counters/blinds), as the units will activate at certain time intervals during the scenario. It ought to work! If it doesn't, I doubt I'll be presenting an after-action report here! ;) :)))

Sounds fascinating and well thought out…we need to know how it works out though…I don't want to go to all the trouble of plagiarism if it doesn't work out :)

hehehe….I'm sure it's been done before – you know, one of those ideas that just comes to you, and later you find out it's been written up before in one of those old mimeographed gamer newsletter from the 1960s. :))) Lets just say we're perhaps adapting the idea anew, for trying out with our current fav. ruleset(s).

we play a lot of BA is 10mm and are having a lot of fun, dont always use points and we play a few tank battles, looking at doing a kursk game with 18 soviet tanks vs 12 german tanks, just waiting for them to arrive. have not worked out the points.

Have ordered Britton's Final Combat rules for skirmish game and their Micro Melee company level rules, have even thought of getting some bases to play TTG firefly rules.

Have ordered Britton's Final Combat rules for skirmish game

I'd be very interested in how you get on with that; super detailed, I would like to try it out solo but I wonder how much fun it would be with more than one?

Grey Panda,

From the video's (links are on their site) I have seen it looks best run with an umpire as with the mortar example. The target does not know the mortar has fired at them. it took 5 chips to get there. and just before it hit they got to roll to see if they have heard it coming.

I like the look of 1:1 ground scale as HE has a large blast radius if i remember the light mortar had a 7" blast radius when playing with 54mm figures.

This should stop players keeping all their figures next to each other.

I will let you know how it goes. may take a bit of time as I have been playing BA a lot and still miss things out and that's a simple set of rules.

Rich.

Chain of Command – tried it did not like it. Too low level detailed and fiddly for me, very "realistic" though.

Flames of War – used to play it a lot, got a bit silly, stopped playing it

Bolt Action – a LOT of FUN, though not terribly realistic, we use house rules to deal with some of the obvious problems, this is very easy but annoying you have to.

Battlegroup Kursk / Overlord / Fall of the reich – I like these rules they are more realistic than FOW or Bolt Action but take quite a long time to play with a descent sized force.

Just my opinion.
some of the guys at the club prefer chain of command
Some prefer Bolt Action
Quite a few still play Flames of War

Andy

Andy,

I would be interested in the house rules you use for Bolt Action?

Many Thanks

Rich.

Well we only play Battlegroup… But then Im biased as I write and test them!

That said, none of my lot have shown an interest in BA or CoC. I think they see them as '28mm' sets though I suspect they work fine in 20mm. I see no reason why they wouldn't.

Personally Im just happy to have finally got a set of WW2 rules that give me a fun evening of gaming and 'work' for my group.

As long as whatever rules you use do that, it don't really matter what you use.

I would be interested in the house rules you use for Bolt Action

Count me in too.

"I've never played CoC, but kevanG points out how gamers might sour on the flukes of the activation draw, and especially if there's a turn-ending mechanism included with it. This is part of what I meant about the rules getting in the way of the players, and the game playing the players instead of the other way around. My first experience with another set of WW2 rules, I suffered three consecutive turns while within range of the opponents forces where I got no friendly card pulls before the turn ended with a "tea break". Finally, at the end of the fourth turn in a row of "combat", and after being thoroughly shot to pieces, I got a draw…..it was too late by then. The "storybook narrative" I took away from this, my first and last game with that set of rules, sure, anyone can out-maneuver and out-fight an opponent, if the other player doesn't actually get a chance to play the game!"

I can recognize the game you were attempting to play (but was playing you instead). We had the exact same problems with this game and it almost ended interest in WWII gaming. Do not, however, let this sour you on command control rules and games other than BA. Many games (Command Decision and the Battlegroup system) have good command control rules that do not depend on drawing a random card (the player has some way to influence the situation). Don't let Shot Mom prevent you from trying other WWII games.

TomT

Thanks Tom! I remember decades past when we had the inclination [and time] to really dissect our game rules, and played them quite a lot to find the "magic therein", (of course sometimes there's nothing more to be found that wasn't recognized from the get-go)……it's just sort of human nature to want to master puzzles though.

Believe me, amongst my group of gamer friends, I'm one of the most willing to try out a different rules system, but these guys are getting tired of learning new things (that's something that needs to be part of the "consideration" equation too – just from my personal experience though).

Rule sets:
FAST RULES – ok for kids
TRACTICS – too complicated but good for the time (1970's)
WRG 1925-50 – pretty good set after we made the infantry units each squads or fire teams instead of 2-3 fire teams each and converted the WWII set to the modern set's time frame. Problems with the English vs American language and last update had the movement/action procedure come over as gibberish to us colonials.
BREW UP – revised version of Fast Rules
BATTLEGROUND WWII – detailed and not bad skirmish set but adding armor (armor rules seemed realistic) really slowed it down. EXPENSIVE!!!! Lots of supplements needed.
CROSS FIRE – good set. Told our game shouldn't have worked with all of that open space after publishing AAR. Still preferred our home grown WRG.
ARC OF FIRE 1900-2000 – very good skirmish set. Updated AFV stats. Results as BGWII but in shorter time, easy to teach at Con, Card driven, $20 USD for rule set. No supplements (updated AFV charts for WWI, WWII, Modern AFV on line) NO link to TO&E in rules or figure maker. Runs good modern skirmish. Co-author is author of CHECK YOUR SIX. Recommend.
IABSM! – good set for Company level gaming. Harder to teach at Con. TEA CARD also can be a problem at a Con.
FOW – good set for Company level gaming. I ignored the tournament aspect. $$$ due to Supplements. Most errors corrected by version 3. SU-100 still wrong. Lack of general opportunity fire balanced by recon rules. NOT a simulation but they didn't include the 40k errors, plays fast, and well publicized.
TW&T and its replacement Chain of Command – different like IABSM! is from FOW. Both sets look good and we plan on playing CoC. Didn't use as AoF is so good. TEA CARD not a problem. "No Battle Plan lasts upon contact with the Enemy"
BOLT ACTION – tried these but had problems. Liked the dice orders but felt the rules were gamy and had a lot of holes in them. Orders of battle screwed up by the Points system.
FINAL COMBAT – TRACTICS ON DRUGS. Very complicated and applicable at squad or single vehicle level. 1-3 second turns (a MG34 gets 17 dice for a long burst). Have played it in 54mm. Doable with a GOOD judge running it. Might be very applicable to a double blind skirmish game. Had some problems with armor/gun penetration in play test version. Think that was fixed. Did I say very detailed. Ignore most of the detail and it can be played.
GW WWII set – too detailed and dropped as they took as the average German infantry division 78th Sturm division, average PGD GROSS DEUTSCHLAND, average tank division PANZER LEHR, etc.
NUTS! 2nd Edition – I do play these. Working on Version 3 with full list of almost all WWII AFV. Different but usable movement system. AoF still better.
COFFIN for 7 BROTHERS – played once at a Game convention. Fair set but not AoF. Problem with easy spotting from buttoned up AFV of infantry at long distance to flank No way. Game mechanics OK except for that. Won because US artillery wiped out their own attack. FUN at least.

Afraid all MHO, but have been playing WWII skirmish since 1962. Experience should count for something.

Personally, having played Bolt Action, I don't find it to be sophisticated at all. It's kind of simplistic and has some gamey aspects that just don't simulate action well. I get it, it's easy game to "pick-up" on and therefore makes for an easy convention game or for beginners to learn, but it doesn't represent battle simulation very well. It has some clever features like the action dice, but overall, reading newbies reaction to it, leaves me feeling that they are getting a misconception that this game is "realistic" like the action/war flicks they watch. Having visited some Bolt Action fan websites I was appalled by the poor application of armor being foisted with the introduction of "Tank War", Bolt Actions new supplementaty Armor game component to the rules. You just can't have a very representative tank battle at the large scales this game promotes. I'll say their models are nice, though.

"Chain of Command – tried it did not like it. Too low level detailed and fiddly for me, very "realistic" though.

Flames of War – used to play it a lot, got a bit silly, stopped playing it

Bolt Action – a LOT of FUN, though not terribly realistic, we use house rules to deal with some of the obvious problems, this is very easy but annoying you have to.

Battlegroup Kursk / Overlord / Fall of the reich – I like these rules they are more realistic than FOW or Bolt Action but take quite a long time to play with a descent sized force.

Just my opinion.
some of the guys at the club prefer chain of command
Some prefer Bolt Action
Quite a few still play Flames of War

Andy"

Andy:

We are in general agreement. As to Battlegroup, better data organization and few rule tweeks would have made this game play much better and faster. A very good foundation though a bit over-wrought in places. They seem a bit negative toward feedback and this may have discouraged reform minded playtesters from speaking up.

Still best of lot re 1:1 games. Look forward to second edition.

TomT

BA and FOW seem the two sets in play for WW2 in this neck of the woods. People like them and play regularly. If someone is willing to provide rules and figures for a different game or scale people are usually willing to show up and play that too. Some sets have been tried and not liked.

I don't think it is a case of game snobbery, more this is what we like so we play it.

Playing FoW or BA? Ever thought of playing a WW2 game instead if Warhammer in different uniforms?

"They seem a bit negative toward feedback and this may have discouraged reform minded playtesters from speaking up."

Really? That seems a little bit of unfair comment matey.

Odd never noticed it on the BG forum. Indeed the opposite seems apparent with discussion on a variety of rule issues without censure.

I also dont know how you can pass judgement on the playtest teams unless you know them and their comments. They have in several instances directly changed rules from their input. Some are very forthright in their comments, that's why we picked them! ;)

Its not really that a rules system should automatically be better than another.

I really think Bolt Action services a community. Quick Play, accessible, easy to learn and great to play when time limitations are a consideration.
I have played a lot of Bolt Action recently and am still fond of it even if my opponents have torn it apart a bit.
We personally play it in 20mm, mainly due to the immense abundance of 20mm / 1:72 that most people had or could buy and paint quickly.

Gripes around the points system, transport weakness, German unbalances ( not in their favour I note ) special rules and rule holes have hurt opinions a lot.
I think because I cant resolve… "well I could do this in FOW and I can't do it in BA… these rules are poor" sort of thinking, makes it difficult for BA to get a positive bend for my gaming group.

I like the innovative nature of the rules myself, the lack of IGOUGO is brilliant and the games Ive played are generally fun… however personally I think the BA Scenarios are terrible. The end games arent satisfying, they end up being embarrassing…"so my guy ISNT within 3 inches of that marker" so I lose? Even if the player was sweeping up the forces and defeating everything in detail.
Im going to keep playing the rules, but I fear I may have lost a lot of opponents, due to disatisfaction with the rules. ( I wasnt actually winning the games… they were winning too! )

Conversationally I started playing Flames of War after BA and I am boggled by the amount of complexity, detail in the rules set. I dont think its any more realistic or meant to be than BA, its just had more time to mature.
Its suffers equally from obvious power gaming, codex creep or whatever you call it. I could play a realistic list… and I do, but I lose to a well thought out "player" list every time. The jury is still out on FOW, recent developments in the supply of the minatures (esp in NZ) has made me very dissatsifed with Battlefront, without even rolling any further dice.

I am actually attempting to advocate to a shift to Chain of Command, because I think the rules are pretty great. I cant see the level of obvious beardyness that BA can suffer from.
I think it has the deeper detail and focus most of my group are looking for.
On a plus, all the 20mm minatures fit right in… perfect.

We decided to keep BA for the quickplay easy access and fun pickup game… to entice new players and knock out a fun game now and then and play deeper CoC or Fow with the gaming veterans.

Downloaded BA as it was only £1.19 GBP on Kindle. I was struck with how similar they are, especially in the shooting. I like the accumulation of the BA equivalent of shock (don't have the tablet in front of me for the proper name)

I think the biggest weakness of both is the weakness in too many games: Too Bloody: too many kills.

The weakness of BA from my read is as mentioned abouve, the inability to break down into teams – this impacts on British doctrine – the Brens shooting in the rifles, etc

Bolt action is very popular at (WAR) Reading wargames club, like them myself, though only with 2 pages of house rules, i find the RAW unplayable, but hey nothing is perfect!!

A small number of players also play chain of command and like it. Tried it once but a bit too boring for my like.

I lilke fast moving high action "kiddy games" which is pretty much Bolt Action :)

Whatever they're doing, they're doing it well, as Bolt Action is stupidly successful to the point that Warlord has been releasing a new plastic kit every month… and that is accelerating. Tiger comes out next week, followed by plsatic T-34/76, Soviet infantry in great coats, plastic Panzergrenadiers… all by end of February.

Can't honestly say that any WW2 rules I've tried give a good representation of WW2 combat, but at least they all have strong points…I've yet to find a medieval rule set with any historical validity at all.

The only WW2 rules I have ever used have been CD2 & 3 with 6mm, then 15mm FOW 1st & 2nd editions haven't played 3rd edition and probably won't. The last set of Skirmish rules I had where the Easy Eights Battleground WW2 rules which I liked allot but those dried up and I have Rate of Fire now but never used them yet.

I looked at BA but, ehhh, IDK… Right now concentrating on other things. But wouldn't mind trying out doing some 6mm WW2 again or 15mm Desert War, except nobody to game with around here in Southern Illinois.