"Bolt Action and Chain Of Command. Head to Head" Topic

Hi Guys
I've just posted a comparison of these two rule systems on my BLOG:

I've been meaning to do a comparison of these two rule systems for a considerable time but other things just simply get in the way, like other projects (Commissions, my ongoing La Haye Sainte project, painting 100s of Perry Miniatures, and building lots and lots of terrain,..).
Well finally here it is.
Now before I start I just want to say that I'm looking at the two systems through the eyes of a soldier (Artilleryman) of 33 years service (both in a pure training environment and operationally).
Yes, I know they are both 'Games' and playability and pure enjoyment must sit at the top of the list, but some level of realism must in my opinion be evident, otherwise why not simply play Warhammer Fantasy?
I've played about 5 games now of both systems and found both to be enjoyable and challenging.
One system was however MORE challenging, realistic and for me personally, enjoyable.
So let's look at each systems.

Bolt Action (BA) is produced by Warlord Games and works on a system where for each Squad (or Section), AFV, Artillery Piece, vehicle or small team (Artillery Observer for example) you and your opponent get one 'Command Die'. All the dice go into a single opaque container and are drawn randomly. As a die comes out the owner of that die can issue 1 of 6 different commands to his troops as he sees fit. Very suspenseful stuff!

Produced by Too Fat Lardies, Chain Of Command (CoC) works much differently.
Depending on the Quality of your force you get to roll 4 (poor quality) 5 (Regular or standard quality) or 6 (Elite or hardened well trained Veterans).
At the start of your turn you roll your allocated dice.
For each 1 you roll you can activate a small team
For a 2 a Section together with its leader
For a 3 a Section Commander (Leader) with his Section
For a 4 a senior leader such as the Platoon Sergeant, (if you have one) or the Platoon Commander)
A roll of a 5 goes towards building up CoC die, and once you have one of these then there are all sorts of options open to you, like declaring an ambush, interrupting an opponents move, relocating a sniper team, to mention just some.
A 6 is a 'Phasing' Die and let's just say multiple 6s are a good thing,..
READ IT ALL HERE:
link

Comments more than welcomed

Cheers
Scott
trailape.blogspot.com.au

Totally agree with your assessment.

Nice article. Very useful review. You make some great points.

I believe the BA army books are about $20 USD not $40. USD

DM

Very interesting indeed. This leads me wonder, if CoC is indeed a much better system than BA, it surely begs the question as to why it is that BA is so dominant? You see BA on nearly every trade stand and being played at every con/show, but the same is certainly not true of CoC. Any suggestions why that is the case?

Any suggestions why that is the case?

Because gamers feel embarrassed saying to their buddies "Do you want to play CoC next week?" :-)

Any suggestions why that is the case?

Warlord are a much bigger company with a bigger presence (both online and offline) than TFL

Bolt Action is a fine game but I think it is just that a game. I don't think that it gives the feel of being a platoon commander having to deal with situation faced using the troops you would have at your disposal.

Chain of Command deserves a far wider audience than it has.

I've been thinking about picking up CoC for some time, but haven't been bothered to order it online. On the other hand, I picked up Bolt Action at my FLGS as an impulse buy, and have also picked up a number of the supplements as they came out. Availability is key.

BA is easier to make sense of rules wise

So is it an assumption that bigger companies produce better rules?

No, bigger companies command a wider audience

At the risk of making a few enemies I think BA appeals to the Warhammer generation. It's fun, but even after just one game I am beginning to prefer CoC

Thanks for the review of the two rule sets. I own both set of rules. Bolt action look like a game that would be more realistic. But as everyone knows once your moves. With CoC as you explain they just show up. The surprise factor is what I'm looking for.. Looks like CoC does that very well.

Warlord is a significantly bigger company with a much bigger marketing budget and reach than TFL. Bolt Action is designed to be easy to pick up for those who have previously played 40k and produces a fun game those players recognise. As such it's been successful but that doesn't mean it's a better game.

On the other hand Chain of Command produces a fun and challenging game which reflects the tactical realities of platoon command in WW2 much better as Scott's review brings out.

If your FLGS doesn't stock Chain of Command you can easily order a tablet friendly or PDF version direct from Too Fat Lardies and have it in minutes.

I have not played BA and can't comment on it, but I've been playing Chain of Command a lot since it came out two years ago. For those of you who like WW2 skirmish, I can second trailape's recommendation and suggest you give it a try.

Thanks for this review. I have been contemplating changing from BA to CoC for a while now. I think this is the final push I needed to get the rules.

Hi
First off
I'm not saying any one game is BETTER than on other. Well, not in this case.
I'm saying I find CoC to be more enjoyable and realistic. Me. Personally
However to address your question "Why does BA have a larger following"?
For a few reasons in my opinion.
1. Many 40K gamers have taken up BA due to its similarity, ease of learning (it's very similar).
2. Marketing! Warlord Games is HUGE!
3. Ease of play or the "perceived" complexity of CoC.
4. It's well packaged
5. It's aimed at the "spoon fed" Wargamer. No research to do, models are all there, even starter armies. Big online presence blah blah blah
All that said I think CoC will steadily grow.

LOL Fred that's Richard and 2FLs sense of humour (I love it :) and concur wit all that's been said about the two systems.
Cheers

I KNOW THERE IS A PIN RULE IN CoC

The only gripe I have against CoC is the lack of a decent pin mechanism.

I REPEAT – I KNOW THERE IS A PIN RULE (Sorry to shout, but people tend to pick up on 'lack of' and assume I have missed the rule.

In IABSM you can be pinned (or suppressed) by heavy fire, even if that fire deals no shock/kills, its a function of the dice score look up. This represents lots of fire forcing men to keep their heads down, even if otherwise ok. With CoC its a gradual erosion of morale, you need to score more hits than the target has men (because shock has to be more than men left), leading to Pins taking some time.

A fresh British 10 man section is advancing in the open. Suddenly a previously hidden MG42 opens up at close range.

Max Shock/Kill in CoC is 8 – not enough to get shock>men remaining, no matter how you cut the results.

In IABSM that is a guaranteed pin (All Great shots at Close pin), and a 45%ish chance even if the target has some cover (Good at Close) – even if the effect results were no shock or kills. The narrative is easy there: the MG opened up – the soldiers did what they do naturally – dive for cover. They look around and realise the gun wasn't even close- they reacted to the sound not the effects, which seems more realistic. With in a minute or so they are moving again – because Pin is temporary and comes off at the end of the turn.

We have been playing CoC since it came out, WW2 and Winter War. I have enjoyed every game.

Never played BA or read the rules, but I did read many reviews of CoC before deciding to buy it.

I think the success of BA relative to CoC can probably be attributed to the "packaged" nature of the game or the company support (pun sort of intended). That said, the beauty of a historical period is that once you have the figures, you can pretty much use them with most sets of rules for that period, so if you already have the figures, I recommend you get CoC.

CoC is unconventional as a game, and it took me several readings before I wrapped my head around it, and I have been playing wargames for… close to thirty years. That may be a barrier for newcomers to the hobby.

I have also been an infantryman and I really appreciate the rules too. Every single game of CoC I have played was a tense, nail-biting contest.

Different strokes for different folks. BA is highly "playable," quick, easy and intuitive. It appeals to those who are gamers first and historians second.

OTOH CoC is more intricate than BA and has more historical "flavor." It appeals to those who want a more accurate simulation of WWII tactical combat. It isn't solely for the "grognards," but it has less appeal than BA to the "casual gamer."

BA has a much larger footprint than CoC. It's available in more FLGS, and Warlord takes a page right out of GW's and Battlefront's marketing playbook. They sell their starter sets at discount to hook people in to buy their other products, i.e. miniatures and vehicles. The prices of these starter sets are still high and so not really "discounts," but are nonetheless cheaper than if you buy them piecemeal. Rules are not their major source of revenue.

BA came out about a year before CoC and has a greater presence at retailers and online, not to mention higher exposure due to a larger advertising budget. As such it's going to be tough for CoC to break its virtual monopoly in 28mm WWII.

Hmmm,…
I find TFL games a snap to play.
Like I say in my review "Only SLIGHTLY more complexity for much much more realism".

I simply can't understand those who say clam that CoC takes more effort to learn. I have run I have run several games for guys who have never played a TFL game and within a half dozen phases I only need to answer the odd question usualy on something that I forgot to cover.

Nor I
Seems simple enough to me

Great review of both systems. My group has played Bolt Action and Chain of Command. We've gone with Chain of Command as our rule set of choice.

That's quite an endorsement from a 33 year veteran. I've enjoyed CoC. I've never been interested that much in WWII, but the Spanish Civil War looked exotic enough, with early tanks and a wide variety of forces that I tried it and was hooked. It isn't that complicated, no more than rules such as Osprey's rather gamey A World Aflame. The complications are in the tactical nuances.

I haven'at played Bolt Action, but your review affirms what I have heard from others about the game, pro and con. Thanks for the thorough comparative review.

Morning all, and many thanks to Trailape for this throughful review. We thought that with all of the interest here and people saying they'd not had a chance to try the rules yet, we'd give them a great opportunity by launching the Chain of Command Challenge. You can read all about it here:

toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=5132

CoC certainly seems interesting, although I will be sticking with Bolt Action for the foreseeable future. It's been providing enjoyable games for us, and all the time that is the case I see no reason to switch.

I was collecting my Japanese long before either ruleset came on the scene, and as Bolt Action came first, that's what we chose.

For the record; I've been into historical gaming in many different periods since 1970, and have played a number of WW2 rule sets of varying complexity, and have both Sharpe Practice and through the Mud and the Blood.

I've a huge library of books on military history, and read them voraciously. I'm not interested in competitions, and have never been- nor have I aspired to being an actual platoon commander, having a career in a quite a different field.

I have never played Warhammer anything, and the only time I stepped into a Games Workshop store was in Vienna, where I went straight to the Foundry blisters on the wall and picked up some packs of Late Romans.

But for the level of representation that both CoC and Bolt Action aim at, I'm happy with the kind of game that BA has been providing. Simply because it's fun, and our games provide a lighthearted take on a very dark subject- the Pacific War. I take my SYW gaming much more seriously when it comes to what I want out of a set of rules.

Maybe at some point in the future we will give CoC a try. But not now, and the curse of gaming groups I've belonged to in the past has been never settling on a set of rules long enough to get to know it thoroughly.

But I can easily see a time when I may play both quite happily, depending on mood and the guys I game with. Coexistence is possible.

But comparing rules is one thing. Making sweeping generalizations about the kind of people who would choose one set over another, and why, does the hobby no favours at all.

But comparing rules is one thing. Making sweeping generalizations about the kind of people who would choose one set over another, and why, does the hobby no favours at all.

Who did that?

You haven't as far as I'm aware.

But I could go back and cull many a forum and blog for disparaging and dismissive comments from both sides of the fence, but that would be too depressing, and a waste of good painting time.

BA is an eminently playable "WWII flavoured" tabletop game. Well supported by the company its products are widely available including the local model shop. It's ideal for people who like WWII, shooting nazis and not having to deal with too much friction. It's very player forgiving in many ways.

COC is not that much more complex, but it was designed as a "Playable WWII experience" It's much less forgiving, there is a huge amount of friction and overall it's harder to play a-historically than play historically in BA.

@ Stavka
Well, I'm glad to see no one in THIS thread has said anything disparaging about people or rules that they might play.
I think I made it very clear that BOTH rule sets are enjoyable and challenging.
I certainly think CoC is a more historically accurate and provides more of a tactical challenge.
That said, I played a game of Bolt Avtion about 3 hours ago with two young local kids and we had fun.

Oh,…
And why must you chose between the one or the other?
I play both.
I just know which I prefer

I believe the BA army books are about $20.00 USD USD not $40.00 USD USD

Lol
Not everyone lives in the U.S.
Books are about $40.00 AUD here

I have not played BA but have played around 15-20 CoC games.

In my club BA is definitely the more prevalent ruleset mostly I believe because of availability of Warlord Games Product in the shop where the the club games are held. CoC rulebooks are sold but their presence is dwarfed by the WG miniatures and books. I also note that BP/Hail Caesar are often played as well by members.

I am not tempted to play BA for all the reasons listed in the review, CoC is to me is a simulation rather then a game.

2-3 of us play CoC and at our annual Games Day two weeks ago, which attracted about 50 gamers, there were 3 CoC games and no BA games! All 3 games were fully booked. More here link

There are some grey areas in the rulebook but generally the game is easy to pick up. When playing TFL rules, one realises over time that everything is indeed in the rulebook but both the ability to appreciate context and the implication of what is written is necessary to understand every nuance. Things sometimes are not laid out in point form which may give occasional difficulty to those who expect this format.

John

ps the force structure in CoC is very similar to BA (but with a historical basis) so all those WG miniatures one has collected can be easily utilised to give CoC a go.

Thanks for the review…. I have been enjoying Bolt Action, but it looks like I can use the same troops and vehicles to play both.

Curious to see how CoC handles vehicles.

Oh,…
And why must you chose between the one or the other?

I can easily see a time when I may play both quite happily, depending on mood and the guys I game with. Coexistence is possible

Apparently we are on the same page here.

Play both and enjoy both. The only real similarities are the setting.

I'll continue to play both. I've used BA for SCW convention games due to my own perception that it's easier to explain and get the game up and running even for those who are completely new to the rules. After the first two turns the games tend to run themselves.

I'm going to give Chn of Cmd a try and see how it goes. The SCW expansions are excellent.

DM

>>>Lol Not everyone lives in the U.S. Books are about $40.00 USD AUD here.

Yikes. I didn't realize the degree to which the exchange rate has changed.

DM

BobGrognard
I can walk into my local high street book store, Watersons, and find the BA rules and at least 2 or 3 supplements. In our nearest major city there are at least seven places I can find it. CoC has a much smaller, mostly internet, presence.

My opinions pretty much mesh with those of trailape, nice review by the way, BA is well written and fun and CoC is as well. One gives a fast fun game in which real life tactics are not necessarily useful, the other gives a fast fun game were not using real life tactics will kill you deader than a Liberal Democrats election prospects. BA is very easy to pick up and pretty much aimed at the Games Workshop/Flames of War market. CoC is a little more complex to learn but gives a much more nuanced game and is aimed at people who "play the history not the rules.". I have played both and will play them again, given a choice I would play CoC.

Fatman

Who will now go back to setting up his TW&T, THE best Platoon level rules, game.

Foundry blisters, Stavka… in a GW shop? On the way to the wall you must have passed into a parallel dimension.

BA sounds better from your comparison. My experience with TFL rules is that you end up fighting your dice more than the enemy, totally frustrating.

But CoC is harder to play solo ?

Interesting article, Trailape, and I agree with your assessments. I have a large collection of 28mm WW2 minis, and I've played them with a number of rules, including Bolt Action and Chain of Command. I also want to throw out a nod to Battlegroup! While I think Battlegroup's 'sweet spot' is the Company level at 20/15mm, it's an absolutely rock solid game that translates perfectly to the 28mm platoon level as well. I also think, of the three games I just mentioned, Battlegroup boasts the best armor rules. With that being said…

Bolt Action:
Bolt Action is great for its simplicity. You can read through the rulebook once and be ready to go, and there are only a handful of charts and tables to refer to. 40k players can pick it up in a single turn, and it's an exceptional 'gateway game' bridging 40k and historicals. That being said, simplicity is a double edged sword, and while fun, the game often leaves me craving a more tactically immersive experience.

Chain of Command:
Chain of Command really scratches that tactical itch, and I prefer it to Bolt Action. Every move matters, from the earliest scout moves to the final severance of your opponent's lines of command and reinforcement. It really becomes a game of wits, not of dice, as you try to force your enemy to deploy his last reserves before you do, push up an under-defended flank, or ambush an undersupported AFV. But I must admit that it is a lot more complex than the competition: there are a lot of tables to refer to, and the game can really screech to a halt in certain situations (anti-vehicle fire, im looking at you!). I hated the phase system at first, but it grew on me very quickly, and I've come to love the way it allows you to chain together a few units to work in tactical harmony- possibly across multiple phases, if you roll the right dice. Random movement distance is great in principal, not so great when you roll a '1' on your movement distance. CoC's firepower dice feel more realistic than BA's: an MMG can deny an entire flank thanks to its 8 firepower dice, and the game integrates grenades and rifle grenades in a more satisfying way. CoC's covering fire feels a bit tepid, but BA doesn't have it at all, so at least you have the option!

I realize in retrospect I've laid out a fair bit of criticism, so I must reiterate, I really love CoC. I guess it's sort of the way you can really get down and pick apart the starting lineup of your favorite sports team- if you didn't love it, you wouldn't care enough to get so invested! As far as TooFatLardies' Chain of Command Challenge: if you're on the fence, I really recommend taking the plunge. Few games out there put you in the Lieutenant's cap the way Chain of Command does.

But CoC is harder to play solo?

I can't make an comparison, but if both use dice to sequence and determine who moves when, I wouldn't think so.

I haven't found it difficult to play solo.

"…there are a lot of tables to refer to…"

After a few game we hardly ever look at the charts anymore.

Aside from the relative merits of CoC and BA, the fact is without a greater presence in brick & mortar stores in the USA CoC will always come in second to BA in popularity.

Fanatik, I agree 100%. BA has a local presence; whereas my only Chain of Command opponent is another BA player who I introduced to the game. Other than him, I don't actually know anyone who plays CoC.