"Bolt Action or Chain of Command Convert?" Topic

Have you converted from CoC to BA, or from BA to CoC? Which way did you go and why?

I did not convert from one to the other, but the 2 were on my short list for my first WW2 rules. I opted for CoC because of the scouting phase mechanism.

I play both as they are very different games and have different appeal. I started with BA then moved to CoC but only because they were released in that order. A decent opponent and using sensible (dare I say more realistic) forces (like those in CoC) eliminates the majority of the perceived 'problems' with BA. CoC allows me to nurture my platoon with the addition of 'at the sharp end' and means I spend my liitle lead chaps lives more cautiously and BA has allowed for some brilliant fun bigger battles. CoC is probably my favourite but BA is more accessible for newcomers and I wouldn't turn down the offer of a game of either.

I prefer CoC since I prefer the more realistic rules but would gladly play either. I might get burned as a heretic but they are really not that different from one another, one goes for more gamey at some points while the other goes for more simulation.

I play both and they are both fun games. BA is a manic romp through WWII and CoC is a slow, contemplative walk through the crucible. Both are too gamey to be my ideal type of rules but both have their strengths and I must say that I very much like the scouting rules in CoC.

I still cling like a petulant infant to my old Battleground WWII by Easy Eight Productions (heavily modified of course as no gamer is happy with all of another's rules) as the most enjoyable mechanism for gaming small unit actions in WWII. What I one day hope to see is a hybrid of all my favorite systems to produce a gritty combat system with effective command and control rules, good pre-battle scouting rules and good armoured rules married to good infantry rules with with effective although not overpowering artillery rules.

If the world had not become so unpleasantly litigious with IP law over the last forty years I likely would have done the rules myself, but today such a synthesis would just be an open invitation to accusations of copyright enfringement and law suits. The enclosure of gaming has happened and we gamers have been cast adrift on the hulks, an unwanted mass of gaming-crofters driven from the commons.

So I still play BGWWII, IABSM, Firefly, BA and CoC and like them all for different reasons.

Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Tried BA and it was GW style fun game with little to associate it to WW II. Once I played Chain of Command I realized I had found THE WW II skirmish game for me. It's a FAR better system and feels right. Plus you have to love a game where a rifle doesn't magically stop being able to hit things after 24 inches.

BA, then CoC. BA seemed a good game at first when played with historical OOBs as an infantry company, but went sour for me when I started playing pickup games with min-maxers who used multiple recon ACs and 150mm artillery on a platoon size game.

I still prefer Disposable Heroes. I tried Chain of Command at Historicon 2015 and I liked aspects of it. The group around here plays Bolt Action so that is what we play.

I just don't understand the mechanics for Chain of Command. I know its is supposed to be superior and all that; but, BA is huge down here in Texas so I do not have to pull teeth (at least not much) to get folks to play a game of Bolt Action. I too loved Disposable Heroes and would play it at a drop of a hat.

I have lots of rules, but CoC seems very well done; I'd like to try it, but haven't yet. Too Fat Lardies seem to do what they do well, and have a nice alternative action going, for many genres. BA is a good, easy system, with a WW2 flavor.
I am waiting for BA2 in September to hopefully streamline play, and fix some issues.
I found their are more players for BA, so more opportunity, so it's worth it just to know the game rules. …and have most of the books.

I prefer more realistic games, or larger games. I am presently comparing IABSM3 and a new Iron Cross game for larger company sized battles. I sold off all of my Battlegroup Kursk Books…. I used to play Battleground WW2 every other weekend for a few years back when it came out. And DH is an easy to play game and to teach; played that for years, it was always fun. The armor rules dragged a little, but where realistic. They are coming out with a larger scale game soon per the Yahoo group.

Any players for BA or CoC, south of Miami, FL in the Homestead area?

I have both and I'll play either happily enough*

Both have problems / flaws – BA probably has more but they're easier to fix, COC has less but they're hardwired in.

*Although only in 15mm – 28mm for WW2 is just daft in my book. And 15mm is close to the actual ground scale, just as 6mm is for IABSM, which by contrast is THE outstanding company level game with no competitors that come close.

I prefer Chain of Command over Bolt Action.

Started with BA, as was released first but for me it has many issues and I soon moved to CoC. I describe BA as a WW2 themed game and CoC as a WW2 game as it actually allows you to do fire and movement tactics. I wont be going back to BA.

I'm a bit of a Lard Fan. Not played BA, but read Kindle version – there are some similarities.

The one thing I don't like about CoC is how Pins work – a slow build up of shock. I feel it should be possible to pin a section briefly with weight of fire, but once that lifts then they are ok – more of a self preservation than a degradation. Its how I understood combat to work.

Bolt Action rules Texas – the Texas Bolt Action Group has grown over the past 3 years and is now over 300 active members. The Lone Star Historical Miniatures (LSHM) Society sponsors many games and tournaments. Our annual convention (MillenniumCon) will feature a huge Bolt Action game event and tournament:

link

I started with BA but switched to CoC.

Torokchar. Nice pictures, but not really relevant to this thread.

I'm really interested in why people change from one set to the other, rather than "I like this one".

I prefer Bolt Action over CoC, though there are elements of COC I do like more, namely the leadership aspects. BA 2.0 should fix some of this I think. I prefer BA since you can complete a game very quickly, and I hardly ever need to consult the rulebook. Although I found the scouting phase of CoC to be interesting, I just didn't find that much value in it as a whole.

I have played both systems and while I enjoy both it is with some limitations. I play CoC more regularly but am leaning BA with conditions.

First up I love the BA fluidity, the toys on the table and the fun of it but as a long time lover of WW2 gaming there are some things that make me twitch. Primarily is the fact that if you are taking a platoon of troops then it should all be riflemen or commandos or SS or paratroops not a mix and match of troops. Yep that makes me a rivet counter but that is how I like my forces. If you want para then take a para force! I like the flexibility of the fit out of the squads too and the options you can make though. And as I have said I like toys on the table. What tid bits I have seen of the new rules I don't mind but will wait and see.

Chain of Command obviously will sooth my need for historical lists and I do like that and the lists for many theatres and years. So you take a 1940 list and play another 1940 list with no concerns. The lists are platoons at full strength though and although you can adjust them using the CoCulator it is fiddly and not as easy as the BA system. The order dice and CoC dice system I don't mind but having been on the receiving end of a 6 turn run without getting a turn is not fun and I had a game of a 4 turn run where I lost the game as my opponent ran all his troops on top of my jump off points and I didn't get a single figure on the table. Aberrations to be sure but not much fun when you don't get to play with your toys.

Also having played over a dozen games of CoC and watching what must have been around 50 at the club they games seem rather static. One side gets into a strong position and then just shoots the blazes out of the other if it dare peek its head out of cover. Yes you can use smoke and terrain to try and screen your troops and reflect the slow and deliberate attacks but the full table range of all weapons means it is very slow and deliberate particularly if you don't get the right order rolls. Yes a more historical approach but I do want to play a game here. A desert game with little cover is complete rubbish in my view after seeing one game as it just degenerates into a shoot out in place to see who runs first. Also while you do get a number of choices for supports for your platoons there is not guarantee they will turn up on the table with the pre-game barrage rules.

BA shorter ranges work for me because they allow a lot more manoeuvre on the table. Sure less historical but I accept this because it makes the game work. Quite possibly the new rules will enhance the game further but we have to see what BA Ed2 delivers before making any real comment.

So I will play both and probably play more CoC at the moment because that is my clubs wont but I lean a bit more to the BA side because I like my toys and I want to play with them! Roll on 2nd Ed.

I prefer CoC all the way for small actions. Bolt action seems gamey and simple to me. CoC is not perfect, i feel the same thing about long firefights standoffs. Playing CoC in the desert or in a terrain without much cover is guaranteed boredom for all players.
But in the end CoC is infinetely superior to BA.
My actual recipe for funny, real WWII games is: CoC for small actions, Battlegroup for larger actions.

If I run a BA game, I set up historical scenario. I don't allow for the min/max crap, or other unrealistic advantage building that some would attempt with buying or building units. One of the reasons I have a couple hundred vehicles and more than a thousand 28mm figures. I can supply all need troops generally, and set up a "realistic" battle. One of the same things that turned me off of the FOW game, was the proclivity by some players to turn it into a Warhammer style fest, and milking the rules versus using real tactics, and flavor. I don't do the tournaments for that reason for Bolt Action (or FOW). I would rather stay away from the whole points issue for purchase.

I have played BA since it arrived and had many enjoyable games of it. Perhaps I'm lucky in my opponents because I've not come across the 'mixing' of troop types within a force. We might well have a veteran or green squad amidst our regulars but they will all be of the same troop type. For us, the biggest issue with BA are the Recce rules but we're hoping BA2 will improve matters. If something really bothers you then just adapt the rules to suit your group. We've introduced the requirement to pass a command test before carrying out a recce move if the unit has already received an order. It's simple but introduces uncertainty and that suits us. If you don't like the 24" range then (with your groups approval) drop it.

I have only played a few games of CoC but enjoyed those as well. I can't think of any real issues with CoC though they did seem somewhat slower than BA but that may well be down to my much greater familiarity with the BA rules.

I, like a few others here, will happily play both.

CoC definitely.

If the game is too slow or a shoot out fest you are doing it wrong.

If you have a clear picture in your head of what you are trying to do with your troops the game is super fast, much faster than Bolt Action.

CoC is all about tactics and one of the few games were knowing the game in detail is less important than knowing how to conduct a platoon attack.