"Chain of Command Popularity" Topic

I'm interested to see how much support Chain of Command gets here when people ask for recommendations and in polls when compared to some other systems it regularly beats other big name sets in the votes. Is that a good representation of its popularity in your experience?

It depends on where you live I imagine.

Bolt Action is typically the "club" game in many places but many people I've talked to have played CoC and I've seen several games at conventions.

Well, BA was popular when it hit the street here in Tucson AZ, about 2 years ago. I was not a big fan of 20th century gaming, but I played anyways as the folks in the club here were really excited about it. Then a month later, I was introduced to Chain of Command from another gamer here, and I never looked back to BA.

Our small group here pulls in a good crowd to play CoC games now, and its just crickets for BA.

So to answer your question, I think so, as even the local game store, doesn't run any BA games/tournaments nor have they re-stocked their Warlord BA stuff either.

Hope this helps.

P.

Both BA and CoC played at our club. I far prefer the latter.

BA still played at local shop but it seems to attract the GWers and other fantasy/sci fi types. It is not much of a stretch for them. CoC has picked up the guys who actually like and play historical games and are willing to read a book or two. Both rules are carried along with 28mm minis at the shop. Interestingly, CoC is played locally in 15 to 20mm and BA in 28mm. Another indicator of the gamers it appeals to here.
Mark

The funny thing is that what I really like about CoC is the game part, and I'm not even using it historically. (My 15mm Quar are not all that different from an Imagination, which is done frequently for other periods.)

I guess I'd like the the Bolt Action system alright, but CoC's patrol phase, jump-off markers, command dice, and emphasis on leaders provide the fun I want for my games.

But my opinion may not be all that important as to its popularity, as I've only really played with my son, besides one game at Havoc.

andy

No one in my WWII group plays BA or CoC…

In fact don't think the group plays any TFL games. Then again, don't think any Osprey games are played either.

started with BA, but once we played CoC we never looked back.

Both are played by the local group.

CoC is a great game. Played it many times and enjoyed it every time.

I don't know anyone locally who plays any TFL games, but several have purchased them. BA is played here locally, but not by many.

I play CoC. Really like it

Another vote for CoC, certainly feels like you are playing the period. It won't suit those who like total control over all their units, or those who prefer cinematic outcomes over historical ones, so it depends what scratches your gaming itch.

You have to remember the audience your asking too. While there's definitely a bit of everything here, many of the people who frequent the WWII Rules boards on TMP are more familiar with both history and different game systems and mechanisms than your average "mass market" (can we call it that yet?) tourney player that makes up the majority of the Bolt Action audience.

Bolt Action is more popular out in the world, though I suspect CoC is more popular here.

I really like CoC, but Troops, Weapons and Tactics actually plays better is and is a better game overall. But I'm a Lardie nut. I regularly solo CoC, TW&T, TCHAE, LFS, Algy and IABSM, so I'm a bit biased.

Where I am it's 99.9% Bolt Action. Most local gamers- especially my Japanese friends who are into the hobby- have never even heard of CoC, while copies of Bolt Action are readily available here either online or at shops in Akihabara.

I have a copy of CoC. It looks interesting and I like much of what I see. But I haven't had much success in getting other people here to try it.

The wargames we have been playing using Bolt Action have always been very enjoyable (I have a Japanese force which is always a hoot to play with). Our games are scenario-driven, and our platoons organized historically- no cheezy, tournament excesses on our table.

As we are familiar with the rule mechanisms, and enjoy the kinds of decisions we have to make during the game, no one has so far seen any compelling reason to switch.

I see their point. We all have busy lives, and for the gaming time we do have available to us, we would rather use it developing scenarios and campaigns for existing systems, rather than be constantly cycling through new rulesets (the bane of many a gaming group I have belonged to in the past). We all have different sets of rules that we would to try our hands at, but if we take that course we end up mastering none.

Good points Stavka, also BA is very easy to tweak into a more historically sound/attractive process; it does n't take a lot of effort.

Played it a coupla times, not a fan, BUT, the title has given my gaming group endless fun, ie;
'Are you a fan of Coc?'
'Is that your Coc on the table?'
(while discussing scaling up the forces involved) 'Do you like larger Coc?'
(In an Ambush scenario) 'wow! Coc all around you'
'Oh, having a Coc fight?'
'I'm Mark, and I love Coc'
etc, etc, etc.
Which, if you think about the TFL stand on 'whacky, snigger, snigger' rule titles, is the logical destination.

John

You can't go wrong with a bit of Coc can you John?

I've never had a problem with CoC. All infantry, all tanks a mix of both: it plays well and true to the period.

> Played it a coupla times, not a fan, BUT, the title has given my gaming group endless fun, ie;

Yeah, my kids think jokes like that are funny too. Granted they are 18 and 22

Various people at the club play various TFL rules, but for WW2 it is more IABSM than COC.

My kids think it's funny too and they are 38 and 42. There again they also think their parents are funny for playing games with toy soldiers.

CoC is the only WW2 game in regular play at our club, but we are old geezers. There is a lot of FoW and BA played among the younger crowd I see at the FLGS.

The local hobby shop here plays BA if Historicals hit the table.

I've played twice now and my feelings are mixed. In the one hand, I like the simplicity of the combat mechanics. Straight forward and to the point. The command system is OK. The "Chain of Command Die" seems abstract and arbitrary though. The bit that people rave about, the "Patrol Phase", I am completely unconvinced about. To me, it feels like troops can just teleport to a spot and jump off. Seems that blinds, like they do in other games, would still be the better way to go.

I play COC with a small but dedicated group of players. I think the concepts of the patrol phase and the command dice put them head and shoulders above Bolt Action. Also, the campaign system and the pint-sized campaigns add an interesting dimension to the games.

Joker – think of the Patrol Phase and Jump off markers as a bloke crawling back to the Platoon Leader and saying "If you hug the hedge, and then go through that copse. you can get as far as that big oak tree before you will be spotted.

John Thomas a I prefer Troops, but my friends don't like it because it is easy for a section to get unable to move while in the open, and the difficulty getting united to move

Are there US Game Stores which carry the Chain of Command ruleset?

Don't know about game stores but
Eureka USA
link

On Military Matters
link

and Brigade Games do
link

You can also check out the PDF on the TFL website
link

There are some game stores that carry it. I know Huzzah Hobbies in Ashburn, VA does…

There are some game stores that carry it. I know Huzzah Hobbies in Ashburn, VA does…

Actually, Huzzah carries a smattering of this and that. I did see a copy there. Usually they see what is popular this way. So far, Bolt Action has been played there. I was just there, I only saw two games. One was Star Wars Armada and another fantasy game (maybe?) that I could not identify.

They will happily order the game for you tough.

I think CoC is the best skirmish-level game around (much better than BA).

I think Battlegroup is the best platoon+ to company-level game around (much superior to both FOW or IABSM)

Regards,