"Talkin' Bolt Action" Topic

There's a language difference between historical wargamers and GW-style gamers. Tonight I played 'Bolt Action' with a group of the latter.

GW gamer: "What kind of army do you have?"

Mexican Jack: "I have a platoon of Germans."

GW gamer: "Do you have 500 points?"

Mexican Jack: "What's that in English?"

GW gamer: "We can work up a list for you. What do you have?"

Mexican Jack:"I have a platoon of Germans."

The platoon list did not include what the excellent resource website 'Bayonet Strength' describes as "--- two runners, a stretcher bearer, and two supply wagon drivers".

I have to say that, once the language barrier was passed, I had a perfectly nice time with affable gamers.'Bolt Action", while not being my idea of a perfect game, certainly does what it sets out to do. It's not 'Warhammer 1940K' as some have suggested – I have played a 40K WWII variant, which was genuinely awful. This was easy to play and didn't have anything wildly unhistorical occur. The activation system, although a clever variant on drawing chits, doesn't really allow for combined actions. It was fun, and I think that's what it was intended to be.

Everybody knows that Flames of War is Warhammer 40K.

I have played "realistic" WWII games. * ptui* on them.

There certainly was some culture shock for me playing with people from the Warhammer background. Once I got past that the game was fun and there is no denying the enthusiasm these guys had for building armies and playing.

Its fun that has some historical flavor.The only consulting wth the lists that I do is to make sure the points arent too unbalanced,other than that I use old Squad Leader scenarios for game reference.

Having played plenty of games with card drawn activation the D&D drawing is just a different flavor. The points system is just what most younger non-historicals players are used to, nothing stops people from agreeing on an unbalanced game though. I think that he defensive bonus of buildings is so great that A: there shouldn't be more than a couple on a board and B: you could easily do an assault on bunkers with the attackers having far more points and it would be balanced. Once we get past the learning stages we'll probably do some custom scenarios. The game, much like 40k though, is designed to be able to play pick up games with strangers without pre-arranging a scenario. I hope you had fun and come back!

Thank for hosting the game, Nate! I did have fun, which is why we do these things.

I don't have any issue with a points system defining my German platoon as a certain number of points. That's helpful, if it's not rigidly approached. What flummoxed me is the language where there's a sort of reversal where the points total becomes the identity of my force in itself.

"I landed on Juno Beach with 120,000 points of Canadians."

I think that's just inherent to a points system and also the 40k/FoW background that a lot of Bolt Action players are coming from where there either is no historical context/TOE or the highly competitive nature of the game calls for squeezing the maximum out of your list, historical makeup be damned! From what I've heard and the smaller amount I've seen the Bolt Action people tend to have a balance between the points system and history. We were playing with a generic 'reinforced platoon' where you can basically take anything regardless of time period. It's just easier to learn with and for people just starting up their force. A lot of people, it seems, do at lease a little bit of research into the real world units they're modeling their forces after and try to fit that into the points bases. The Germans Mark had didn't have assault rifles, panzerfausts or a good anti-tank tank because they were an early war unit sold as a starter set for example.

I'm looking forward to everyone getting the system down and having a well put together force so we can start using the themed 'theater selectors' which are the more time period specific forces. The Americans can only take Sherman tanks in the D-Day theater selector becuase they either hadn't landed anything else or they weren't produced at the time. The Market Garden theater selector doesn't allow ANY vehicles except jeeps landed by glider in the beginning. Several of my first games were Americans vs British because that's what we had and we were looking to get some games in to learn the mechanics.

The more I looked into FoW the less I liked it becuase it seemed the people playing it were hell bent on winning with only the vaguest of nods towards history. The Bolt Action groups I've played with seem to want to fight historical skirmishes that could have happened, with the points based system helping balance the forces, and without doing college level research into an actual battle to figure out what forces were there. I think of it as a perfect compromise where everyone gets enough of what they want out of the rules to enjoy the game.

I like BA. It's fairly simple and fun. Plus, the random activations means that I can play it solitaire if I choose to do so.

Well said whitphoto. The bottom line is that BA brings younger folks in from sci-fi gaming and is a fun fast paced game.

Fortunately that FOW mentality you noted does not seem to be crossing over. Mind you there is some obsession with points and balancing for the tournament crowd.

It's a whole different mind set. I once asked a group of FOW gamers if they ever played historical scenarios; they said they did not because the points would not be even. I reponded that they didn't need a points system to play scenarios; they looked at me like I had two heads, so I just dropped it. I am very slowly working on a historic platoon for BA, but I don't have any idea how many points it will be.

they did not because the points would not be even

The great advantage of points is that it allows people to play a game without needing to playtest the scenario several times before ACTUALLY playing the game.

If you only game a few times a month, it's a great time saver. Nobody wants to show up on game day and play somebody's half baked scenario.

I understand why there are points, but that does not invalidate my comment.

Why do you need to play test a scenario several times before you play it? Don't start with a half baked scenario and you should be fine.

Which is worse, playing a half baked scenario or a half baked points list? Either one will end up in an unbalanced game.

Which is worse, playing a half baked scenario or a half baked points list? Either one will end up in an unbalanced game.

The war itself was unbalanced, so in either case the key would be to find suitable victory conditions.

What flummoxed me is the language where there's a sort of reversal where the points total becomes the identity of my force in itself.

Considering how much difference there is between, say, a British Motor Rifle Company and an American Armored Rifle Company, that's kinda going to happen.

Or for that matter, the difference between a company of M4s and a company of M4A3E8s.

I'll be back to play again. Having just spent way too much time on EasyArmy.com I'm now searching for the figures I need to get a better balanced force. Crossreferencing the lists from CoC to be sure I also get what I need for that game.

> The war itself was unbalanced, so in either case the key would be to find suitable victory conditions

I think you missed my point… (or you are a master of deadpan, not sure which)

I think you missed my point… (or you are a master of deadpan, not sure which)

Perhaps a little of both. Or neither. I don't really see too much value in limiting games by points and victory conditions that revolve around the number of points eliminated or the number of points remaining at the end of the game. The fighting in France 1944-1945 was non-stop delaying and defensive action, since the Allies had a bad habit of disrupting convoys and rail cars carrying equipment that could help with a German offensive action. The theoretical meeting engagement of GW-type games didn't happen frequently because the fighting was never on equal terms as determined by supply lines and capabilities of reinforcements and actual number of serviceable vehicles…

That is why I like the idea of conditional victories, like delaying the enemy for a certain number of turns, or holding a bridge/town square until nightfall, or ambushing and withdrawing without losing too many men, or eliminating a specific target… That is an aspect of Mark Barloon's dissertation on Civil War combat that I appreciated, in that he established a victor (or stalemate status) for his Statistical Analysis of Small-Unit Actions based upon the side that managed to achieve its specific and immediate objectives, instead of basing it on the side that won the big battle.

Hi Rebelyell, agree with all your points. Which is why I am a scenario gamer (even when playing points based games – I dump the points system and adapt scenarios from other games).

My only point was that a badly balanced game can be had with points or scenarios. With scenarios is can be that the victory conditioners are not achievable (vastly outnumbered force holding till turn X might not be possible for example.) In points based games it comes up when the points values are skewed in some way.

It's a fun game that's grown on me.

Currently building some historical units and haven't bothered to calculate any points. Though I could if need be. But I'ld have to do some serious jumping through hoops to figure out how to field my historical units as a legal list, so I doubt I'll ever try tournament play.

I appreciate that they've set up the points and the selection rules in a way that readily allows new players who don't have the history/research background to jump into the game and the period.

Oh, and technically it's "WH1.94K" =^,^=

With due respect, I think the position of Rebelyell and a number of others a) misses the point of why people who like BA like it, b) overestimate the teaching capacity of gaming, and c) have a strange idea of what 'value' is.

Regarding a) nobody to my knowledge who has been seeking a simulation, or detailed accounting of the physics of ammo and armour, or any other technical detail, has gone out and picked up Bolt Action. I suppose in this age there are lots of people who impulse buy, but the sorts of grognards I associate with a detail-fetish should, at the very least, read a review or two.

On b) I don't think there's anyone who really, truly believes that Bolt Action, or Flames of War – or even the vaunted Chain of Command – is going to turn them into platoon and company commanders, or even really teach them all that much about the subject I worked at a store that, at the time, was selling a decent chunk of FoW, and occasionally someone would make some statement or other that mistook the rules of Flames of War for reality. If someone with better knowledge (not myself) had a correction to make, they'd do so and that was that. Bolt Action (which I like) and Flames of War (which I don't like) are basically just there to facilitate us pushing around toy soliders. If we really wanted to learn about infantry tactics, there are any number of books to read ranging from the qualitative to the quantitative – not to mention actual military experience for a few.

When it comes to c) the value is literally that it's an excuse to pull our toy soliders out and push them around on a table. Additonally, for games like Saga or even something like Malifaux, there's a sense of satisfaction one might get from coming up with a completely abstract game-mechanic-related plan and trying to implement it successfully, or from cracking the opponent's code and solving that puzzle.

I'm not sure how points (victory, kill, or army building) are any more or less abstract than "last 7 turns", "nightfall is going to be at this specific moment" "52 men is too many, but 49 isn't" or any other way of measuring victory conditions. The war was unbalanced and meeting engagements rarely happened, but neither did the whole war consistent of two or more folks standing around dinner tables with snacks to hand who'd spent money and time on toy soldiers. Which is just to say there's nothing about gaming that's really all that realistic, though I'll certainly admit that some models likely adhere to reality more closely than other models.

On the scenarios – what, pray tell, would be the process of fully baking a scenario other than a) either playtesting it or b) spending the time to acquire knowledge of what you're trying to invoke?

That's not even to slight scenarios which are just harder for one player than another – there's nothing to say that's wrong either; indeed I can think of various capture the flag type games in MMOs that suggest that some number of people DO like games where you play the same scenario twice and see which team verbed the noun faster, or some such. It may just not be everyone's cuppa, and that's fine.

On top of all that, Bolt Action isn't even that expensive. 12 pounds and I've got the basic rules and one major power's army lists in the electronic format. But look! I might be an Elite Tactical Genius who doesn't need supplements like some sort of lesser hobbyist, in which case it's only 6 pounds. That's notably less than some other favourites' electronic formats, many of which also have as many supplements (nothing wrong with other games or supplements, and plenty of them have lots to recommend). At least in 28mm, Warlord's metals are pretty comparable to other options I've run across. So it's not even like the case of 40k or other proprietary IP games where many do buy into the aesthetics of the game universe.

The wargaming community has a lot of different players, who game for a lot of different reasons. Historical gaming is no different in this regard.

Where it is different is that there is at least some portion of the gaming community who are genuinely interested in the history of the period, not just in the game.

For me, I quickly lose interest in rulesets if the games do not provide at least some measure of insight into the weapons, tactics or commanders' challenges of the period.

If I just want to push pretty playthings around in a competition I could play mechs or dwarves and elves or space ships or some such. Those are all legitimate games, and many gamers enjoy them enormously. I don't.

Sometimes I am in the mood for a game where there is a clear point system, the scenarios are always balanced, there are a variety of playing pieces with differing capabilities, the emphasis is on the game and the competition, and it is almost always played to a clear conclusion. When that mood strikes me I play chess, not historical miniatures.

But in historical miniatures I really don't care if the scenario is balanced or not. I don't object to playing the losing side if the scenario teaches me something of the history of the time and the gameplay teaches me something of the challenges faced by the forces involved.

Admittedly this attitude works better when I game with like-minded individuals … which I usually do. But not always. And so I understand that in some cases balance and the fun of the gameplay are more important than historical accuracy and the fun of playing the role of a period commander.

I've watched FoW games many times. I was never tempted to try it. Just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather play Star Fleet Battles, where my knowledge of the history of the period is limited to re-runs on SyFy channel and graphic novels.

When I have hosted games at cons in the past, I've always welcomed newcomers to historical miniatures, but I have also always talked them through the history of the scenario first, so that they could appreciate that level of the game, not just pushing the tanks and rolling the dice.

(And so they could escape to another game if it wasn't their "cup of tea".) ;-)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I like Mex Jack's idea. Would it be a disaster for players to bring their platoon with some kind of historically realistic organization, and play a casual game of Bolt Action, chain of command, flames of war, or any other rules? Are equal points really necessary to have a fun game?

I like Mex Jack's idea. Would it be a disaster for players to bring their platoon with some kind of historically realistic organization, and play a casual game of Bolt Action, chain of command, flames of war, or any other rules? Are equal points really necessary to have a fun game?

It depends on whether they bought the rules in order to play with the platoon, or if they bought the platoon in order to play with the rules. Which goes back to the GW mindset that it is the game that matters, not the army. I'm inclined to think that historical gamers will look at a ruleset and wonder if it is compatible with an army, or if the rules can be tweaked to fit the army. I have strategic visions of my armies in my mind, and I look for rules that let me field my Texas Brigade, etc. The GW mindset could easily work on an inverse of that, where players are more focused on whether they can add units to improve upon the existing force in a cost-effective manner (point-wise). At least that is how I formed my Imperial guardsmen force back when I player WH40K.

I've played warhammer for years.
I think there are several differences between those players from a warhammer background and the old historicals players.
None of which reflect badly on anyone by the way.

In WFB there is no concept of a platoon, company or whatever. You say platoon they think "what's that?".

The fantasy gamer is more used to pick-up games in store with strangers. The old grognard is probably more used to playing people then know.

The GW orientated player expects rules and background to be presented to them. The grognard expects to go research the background and pick from the 200 rule sets he has played.

At least in my circles it is usual for the grognard to modify a set of rules and often even from game 2. By contrast a lot of GW players are looking for "official" interpretations, FAQ and whatnot.

I find when suggesting playing scenarios to the gw player they're thinking of the 6 options in the rule book. Explain you're talking about designing your own and this is something they're just not used to doing.
Other old fogies have suggested to me they're used to being spoon fed and spoilt.
I think it's more the case that the support is there so they're used to using it. They go in a shop and a helpful chap will enthuse about a game, teach them it and suggest options.
The old fogies often don't have a shop to go in any more let alone an enthusiastic assistant.

Both approaches are of course valid.
Designing scenarios ignoring points and balancing by the scenario is fun and IMO often gives a better game.
Players who aren't used to that often think it must be very hard.
I think maybe they're used to min maxing their lists in the expectation a possible opponent (a stranger) will probably do that themselves.
The sort of oo-operative play often seen in clubs is pretty much some sort of opposite way of playing.

I've played Bolt Action as a scenario and of course with points. I fully admit not paying as much attention to points over the situation however. We just finished a historical fight in Normandy with US paratroops seizing a causeway for the invasion.

When we were through with the OOB and force structures, I THEN went back and counted the points. It turned out that the Germans had 250 more points than the US, but the games were epic and more importantly, felt right. The US got their historical result in 70 percent of the games and the Germans got to see how if the counter-attack were coordinated, they stood a good chance of securing the causeway for themselves. Win, win.

I am not a points gamer nor a competition one either. I have tried it and found out that I am too… well the easiest way to put it is that the desire to win is too much and my fangs come out. But conversely, I love gaming with my friends in historical settings where I don't remotely care about winning or losing over having fun. In competitions, I want to be the competitor. With my friends, I just want to hang out, roll dice and BS.

With Bolt Action, I use the points as a construct only to see how far off I may be. Sometimes it is helpful and I dial it down a bit. In other cases, such as when we first started researching the Normandy game, I found out that what I THOUGHT was fair turned out to be not so much for the Germans and more troops were added to give them their historical chance. As I said, in the end, there were several hundred more points of Germans but the game rocks and is a tight contest – as it should be.
Larry

We've never given a thought to the points aspect. We just have historical units in the format of the country in questions – currently we have Japanese, US paras, UK paras, Canadians, German paras, SS and late war 'ordinary' infantry. Mostly we'll have a platoon in defence vs. 2-3 platoons in attack.
We have brought a bit of uncertainty into the units – especially for larger games – by weakening most, if not all, of the sections (squads) by reducing the figures by the difference between 2 average dice. ..have n't tried this out on our club yet so we'll see how that goes.