"Why is Chain of Command" Topic

So popular?

As we have had the question asked about Bolt Action, and a subsequent passionate debate. I thought it might be interesting to ask the same question about what seems to be its major rival.

My 3 cents:

It's well written and the book is gorgeous.

It's clever but in the right way where the clever bits make the game more fun.

It's made by a very popular company.

Is it? I could walk into any of the local game stores and mention Chain Of Command and get nothing but blank stares. Bolt action might get a couple of "I heard of that" responses. To be fair most of the local game stores play nothing but 40k and Warmachine.

"Popular" is always relative. Back in the day (later 90s early 00s) DBM was the most popular historical rules. Over 100 players at the national convention in Australia. Only recently overtaken by FOW. But even then you'd walk into the local games store and nobody had heard of them.

Cheers,
JohnG

This may be heresy BUT I have never really got on with IABSM or CoC. It's probably me…… I don't know why, but there it is.

Chain of Command IMO gives the best historical platoon level game of any on the market

- encourages and allows historical tactics to be used which are historically correct for each nations doctrine but retains playability and doesn't become a dry/boring simulation
- allows historical forces to be fielded with appropriate levels of support
- appropriate weapon ranges and no Nebelwerfers firing on table in support of a platoon!
- innovative activation system which is easy to understand but forces command decisions and leads to a real sense of tension
- well supported by the author – not only with rule clarifications/explainations
- friendly bunch on the Yahoo and Forum who don't take the fanboy "any critisism is sacrilage!" attitude
- free pdf's for army lists, cheap scenario/campaingn booklets (pdf)

But above all – clear and easy to pick up rules that give a really fun game.

You may have guessed that I like them!

Cheers

Nick

Nick B, Disposable Heroes does all that except for the free PDF's. Why is Coc better? Not a criticism but wondering why CoC is in vogue and why DH is no longer the top shelf pick.

I'd venture that CoC isn't very popular in absolute terms. It's probably massively outgunned by BA and FOW in numbers of players.

I am of the camp that believes that TFL made a game that does a very decent job at representing the essence of WWII infantry combat. Some things are abstracted in order to simulate them effectively and make for a faster flowing game.

I understand that some wargamers might not understand the appeal, they would rather have more a conventional approach that feels less abstract, or that there are those who prefer to push figures around on the table "shooting everything in their way" and play what they see in films and their own theater of the mind. Nothing wrong with that.

My personal conclusion is that CoC is a darn good attempt at doing a playable WWII simulation.

I'm not totally sold on Chain of Command yet. I finally had a chance to play in a pickup game at Fall-In and I think it's got some interesting bits.

But I'm still more attracted to Crossfire.

Time will tell.

Eric

Not really a WW2 gamer- played the odd game of Spearhead, battlegroup and Chain of Command. To me it is a really fun game, I particularly like the initial " scouting" mechanism, which ensures that you don't have wall to wall forces lined up along the table edges. I think it handles infantry better than Battlegroup ( for my Russians in BG it's usually machine gun opens up on them, they are pinned and then destroyed!) and it doesn't need so many toys to play with.

It's a great game that gives me, the player, what I feel is an insight into the decisions you have to make as a small unit commander.

Quite a simple game mechanism for spotting, firing, melee, etc. but a very well though out command phase.

Interesting and useful discussion – one of the guys I game with wants to get into WWII with Bolt Action, and we are discussing which rule set we should get; I have always done grand tactical so used Spearhead

Sounds like I should have a look at Chain of Command

I'm with scrivs. Although only played 1 game against an opponent, I've played a few solo quick mini-games and like it's feel. Won't use the patrol phase when I'm playing against a static position, but that's just the way I play the rules

I have not played CoC but it looks very interesting. As noted the scouting ides are pretty cool.

Bolt Action I have played several times. It feels completely generic to me. If you swapped figures and used it for, say, Lord of the Rings, and called the pin markers "morale markers" you'd never know the difference. A weakness in some ways, a strength in others (I'm thinking BA is perfect for kids, just swap out your figures and go).

I think the Patrol Phase is extremely clever. It's a quick mechanic which replaces the entire "trying to outmaneuver your enemy across the tabletop" part of most games, and jumps right into the "now that I've got him let's let him have it!" part. It just seems to me that, even though this is an abstracted and fast part of the evening, most my thoughts drift back for the rest of the night on how I might have done that differently.

The Command dice are also an interesting mechanic. I'm not convinced they provide for all the historical simulation I might wish for -- trying to boil the essence of "early war Russian squad leaders were so inexperienced that troops often simply ran to the Platoon leader for direction" all the way down to "you roll one less die" does the job, but I'm not sure it's as thorough as I'd wish. But what they do offer lends itself for an extremely fun game experience. I'm often charmed by simple mechanics representing complex realities, and the number of Command dice rolled is a very good model.

It ISN'T "so popular", but it should be! It's the best platoon level WW II game on the market, bar none. But as many have said above you wouldn't find it being played in too many places in the US…

Some will like it some won't it comes down to personal taste.
I haven't played BA or Disposable Heroes so can't comment on those. I have played FoW once and will play again if the club was playing it, the same as many rules I may play a different set at home as the Fow basing can be used for IABSM and CoC with a singles here and there.

For CoC and IABSMI like the idea that certain weapons are in range for the entire table as it makes the terrain have meaning from the get go. I also like a random element to how things move and who moves when.

The issue I have with IGOUGO such as FoW and others is the occassional scenario where it drags into stagnant dice rolling contests as you know how far anything can move, what the penalties are for assaulting dug in, how a model (cannon or Stug depending on period) is exactly placed to cover 180 degrees to the front.

Ends up more about the rules than the actual conflict I am gaming.

Some times I want to be a Napoleonic/ACW/WW2 Company commander. Sometimes the NApoleonic/ACW division challenge or that of the Corps/Army commander is more interesting.

Horses and courses as they say.

David

Great thing about all the Lardies games is you don't have to follow a planned basing, within limits any thing goes.

It's popular on TMP :-)

It's like Crossfire back in the day. On TMP it was the game of choice but I never came across it in stores (though I did my best to introduce it)

CoC's not all that popular, yet. The problem is BA has a virtual monopoly on WWII skirmish in this scale (28mm) and maybe other scale(s) as well. Other rules like CoC, DHC7B (Iron Ivan), Nuts! (Two Hour Wargames), Rules of Engagement (Great Escape Games), Rate of Fire (Crusader Miniatures), and even Warlords' own simplistic and undermarketed 'Operation Squad' have their own diehard fans but no widespread following.

By the same token I'm beginning to see that 1/72 (20mm) appears to have its own "go to" set of rules, the popular Battlgroup system and supporting miniature lines from PSC. The number of AAR's on TMP for it attest to the fact.

I've been researching both and I must say that BA does seem to be very strong in North America, whereas Chain of Command seems to do better in Britain and maybe Europe.

What is interesting is that both sets seem to have plenty of people who dislike them on the basis that they prefer the other set. That does suggest pretty close competition.

We use 20mm for CoC (and other less played rules). Another nice thing about TFL rules is that they are designed for no specific minis. And you don't need to buy numerous codexes for various armies. The lists are free.
No meta gaming the codexes for a killer army. Just historical ToEs and tactics.
Its fun and you can actually see a believable narrative unfold as the game progresses.
Mark

As one of the authors of Disposable Heroes, I won't wade into the debate about which rules sets are better. But I will say that when I read about the patrol phase and how it worked, I had one of those "Damn, I wish I had thought of that." moments.

I got to play a game of CoC a few months ago and I really enjoyed that part of the game.

Over all well done game and fun to play, and real tactics work.

Both BA and COC are good rule sets in their own way. It really depends on what the gamer or gaming group wants or looking for.

In the beginning I thought BA was the best thing since Rapid Fire. A couple of years later have sold the rules armies the lot and gone over to CoC using 20mm that I used for RF. My BA moment came when I found i could not enter a comp with a list based soley on the rule book lists.

CoC much more realistic no naf order dice, patrol phase brilliant, army lists individual free downloads.

It would be more popular if published by Osprey.