"Chain of Command or Bolt Action?" Topic

Both seem very popular, but which would you recommend and why?

Both seem very popular, but which would you recommend and why?

Both seem very popular, but which would you recommend and why?

Apologies, I have no idea how this was duplicated. I'd be grateful if Bill could kill the extra posts.

Chain of Command because it's a tactical simulation – Bolt Action is beer and pretzels game that has some serious flaws in my opinion. But can still be fun.

I'll second PMC317 on how the two match up. CoC rewards using the tactics of the day.

Well Bolt Action seems to have the edge in popularity and has lots of supplements you can buy.

Popularity is not a reliable indicator of quality. I prefer Chain of Command, but have plated the odd game of Bolt Action. I think the judgement of PMC 317 above is correct.

But popularity gets you more games. I disagree that Chain of Command is any sort of tactical simulation. Now if you are happy with that OK. If you want reasons, read on
1) You need to be able to see your enemy, not just have line of sight to it, to be able to engage the enemy effectively.
2) A unit is on over-watch all the time, it does not need an order to do so.
3) Ammunition supply. The amount of ammunition that troops can carry is limited and firing uses it up. Keep on doing it without replenishment, means you are going to run out.
4) Weather does make a difference to; visibility, mobility and morale.
And this one is perhaps personal to me, there are people out there who perform extraordinary actions, the sort of people who get awarded medals.
So those are my reasons.

VVV reply

Apart from your disliking the Chain of Command rules for overwatch (when Bolt Action which you recommend has no such rule at all), what do the rest of your points have to do with Chain of Command? I have played both BA and CoC and can't see your points having anything to do with either game.

Both rules determine visibility. Both rules ignore ammunition supply as they represent short, sharp skirmishes rather than protracted battles. Chain of Command has weather changes are a random event, Bolt Action doesn't cover this. Both games see heroic actions from time to time, but Bolt Action bills itself as the heroic WWII game.

I'm not really sure what your criticism is?

As to getting more games, that seems to differ from club to club in the UK.

The claim was made that Chain of Command offers a tactical situation – I have given my reasons why it does not.
So getting back to the OP, go with Bolt Action as it is the more popular system.
Both rules have no system for visibiliy other than what is in line of sight, you can see (and fire at). Both rules have no ammo supply and I hope you realise that a squad has enough ammo for about 5 minutes fire at full effect. Looking at my copy of Chain of Command I see no rules for fighting in rain, snow or dust storms, only perfect weather in your world then?
My criticism of both sets of rules is that they are not at all realistic. Both are just games, so best to judge them on that. You might like to say 'I like dicing for the orders I can make' (Chain of Command) or I prefer picking orders out of a cup (Bolt Action). Both of those would be different but talking about what actually happens in the set of rules. Rather than a comment about a game being a tactical simulation. Lets get real.
Round here (Preston, UK) Flames of War is the most popular WW2 set.
But there are lots of WW2 rules out there of various flavours.

I didn't make the claim that it was a simulation, but certainly I would say that the general comment is that the game involves more real world tactics than BA. For example, I can use my bren team to put down covering fire while my rifle team move tactically forward, thereby allowing fire and movement. That's a big difference to BA where you can't split your squad, you have no covering fire option and no choice to move tactically, ie carefully making the most of cover.

As you rightly say, whether you roll Command dice or pull action dice from a bag is not the key thing, getting real world tactics is the important thing. My group feels that CoC can claim to encourage that and reward players who do things right.

As I said earlier, CoC does have weather change as a random event, but I have yet to come across any set of rules that really factors weather into the game. That is normally left to scenario specific rules. Thinking about it, CoC also limits ammunition on some weapons, such as flamethrowers, but like most skirmish rule sets which only purport to cover a few minutes action, neither it nor BA have ammunition limitations for most small arms.

But do we really want to simulate small unit logistics in a game. Surely the important thing is to simulate real world tactics as that's the bit we as gamers are really interested in? I think that rather than use words like simulation, we'd be better to say that CoC is a game which gives a good WWII tactical feel.

As you rightly say, whether you roll Command dice or pull action dice from a bag is not the key thing, getting real world tactics is the important thing

Actually I am saying precisely the opposite, bring up the real differences in the rules. Like dicing for what you can do.
Yep there are rules that factor weather in as a basic part of the game. Anyone who has been on a military exercise, knows what a difference weather makes. Rain reduces visibility and makes the ground muddy. Snow will slow down your movement and probably make you slower at doing everything.
Ammunition is important, although most of the time it does not matter, armies make provision for ammo resupply. So as long are you are in contact with your HQ, resupply should be forth coming. But parachutists or glider troops will run out fairly soon. So lets say you are a US infantryman with 96 rounds for your rifle, how long do reckon that will last you in combat?
No you don't want to slow down the game, so you include the important bits and leave the rest out. Chain of Command, no rules for wounded I believe but they are there in Bolt Action.
And I think you are wrong about what you can do in Bolt Action, you can fire at an enemy, pin them and so make it harder for them to hit you but they won't even be firing at you when you move unless it has been placed on Ambush (the BA equivalent of over-watch).
And as for simulating real-life tactics, I think it is better to give players the option to do silly things and learn from their mistakes. Simply declaring that you are 'Going Tactical' does not do it for me. I would far rather that a player, suppress the enemy and choose the best route to the target, rather than saying 'hey look I have a force field round my unit' it makes it harder for you to hit me :)
And let us not forget, in BA units are very small at the start (around 5 figures) and you add to them if you wish.

I fully understand the importance of weather and climatic conditions having operated in some very extreme conditions. I also understand the importance of ammunition, how much each man carries for himself and for the section LSW. However, I don't think that's what either BA or CoC is modelling, nor do I think they should unless presenting very specific situations which are best handled by scenario specific rules. Issues such as arctic or jungle conditions should be represented in games where fighting is in those conditions. To expect any set of WWII rules to get bogged down in climate seems a bit daft to me. That detail can be added as required.

As for a section sacrificing speed of movement in order to benefit from cover, that seems to be a long way from creating a force field. Just sensible tactics in appropriate circumstances. You move rapidly when you believe you are safe to do so, you move cautiously when you perceive the enemy to be a very real threat. You attempt to cover that movement with fire, you always keep one foot on the ground, manoeuvring off that base of fire. In some situations you engage an enemy with the specific intention of killing him, in other situations you just use weight of fire to suppress him. I think that's basic skills and drills and I want that in the games I play.

I fully understand the importance of weather and climatic conditions having operated in some very extreme conditions. I also understand the importance of ammunition, how much each man carries for himself and for the section LSW. However, I don't think that's what either BA or CoC is modelling, nor do I think they should unless presenting very specific situations which are best handled by scenario specific rules. Issues such as arctic or jungle conditions should be represented in games where fighting is in those conditions. To expect any set of WWII rules to get bogged down in climate seems a bit daft to me. That detail can be added as required. In some situations you engage an enemy with the specific intention of killing him, in other situations you just use weight of fire to suppress him. I think that's basic skills and drills and I want that in the games I play.

As for a section sacrificing speed of movement in order to benefit from cover, that seems to be a long way from creating a force field. Just sensible tactics in appropriate circumstances. You move rapidly when you believe you are safe to do so, you move cautiously when you perceive the enemy to be a very real threat. You attempt to cover that movement with fire, you always keep one foot on the ground, manoeuvring off that base of fire.

However, I don't think that's what either BA or CoC is modelling, nor do I think they should unless presenting very specific situations which are best handled by scenario specific rules.

To expect any set of WWII rules to get bogged down in climate seems a bit daft to me.

Fair enough, thats your choice.

As for a section sacrificing speed of movement in order to benefit from cover, that seems to be a long way from creating a force field.

Now here I understand what you are saying. I read the rules and rather than rewarding tactical movement, a player just gives a unit an order Tactical Move and they gain extra cover benefit from being given the order (the force field I referred to). No effort required on the part of the player to think about what they are doing, its just one of the order options.

>>1) You need to be able to see your enemy, not just have line of sight to it, to be able to engage the enemy effectively.

This is abstracted effectively when considering the level of cover – how hard is it to see my enemy and hit him. The deployment rules allow a unit to remain totally out of sight to an enemy. It's a very clever rule mechanism to represent hidden units without the need for record keeping.

>>2) A unit is on over-watch all the time, it does not need an order to do so.

Really? What if it's doing something else? You are assuming a unit is totally aware of everything going on around it and is able to react immediately. I've not seen much evidence that this is the normal condition of units engaged in combat, they face multiple competing interests plus a fear of what is happening that is unknown. How can they possibly be considered to be in over watch 100% of the time?

>>3) Ammunition supply. The amount of ammunition that troops can carry is limited and firing uses it up. Keep on doing it without replenishment, means you are going to run out.

Without the need for lots of rules and record keeping this is reflected in the command dice. The way they limit activation reflects a myriad of things that could easily include anything from ammo shortage to misunderstandings about orders. You don't need a rule for everything, you just need a mechanism to reflect that there are interruptions and things don't flow smoothly. By the way, can I assume in your preferred rules, units out of ammo aren't on permanent over watch?

>>4) Weather does make a difference to; visibility, mobility and morale.

I've seen rules that take all of this into consideration, so not sure what your point is.

>:And this one is perhaps personal to me, there are people out there who perform extraordinary actions, the sort of people who get awarded medals

There are, but that's a small part of what makes a unit effective in action. Leadership, training, doctrine and armament are just, if not more important. Modern wars are won by soldiers, not by warriors. There's a big difference between the two and there's a very good reason armies train men to be soldiers.

>>So those are my reasons.
Just your opinion actually. Reasoning would require a more considered argument backed with some evidence.

This is abstracted effectively when considering the level of cover – how hard is it to see my enemy and hit him.

Well lets see, I had a mate called Charlie and he always reckoned that you could be standing right in front of the cover he was hiding in and still not be able to see him, he was right, excellent camouflage skills. And thats the problem, real actions in WW2 saw situations where troops were coming under fire without seeing where the enemy was. Hence Gen. Pattons suggestion that troops be trained to fire on the area where fire was coming from, rather than identified targets.

How can they possibly be considered to be in over watch 100% of the time?

Because troops should be keeping an eye on what is happening around them all the time (mainly to their front) and communicating new information to the rest of the squad.
Ammunition supply is quite simple really – after all it is included in my rules, as are all the other points I raised. Just have communication with your supply point and you are OK. Lose that communication, then the unit tests every time it fires for running low on ammunition. No record keeping required. I would not mention these factors if they were not easily and logically incorporated into wargames.
Weather, to include or not to include that is the question. My point is that many rules do not include it. Is it an important factor in fighting a battle? IMHO it is. Is it unrealistic to imagine that fighting always takes place on sunny, balmy days, IMHO it is.
I would say you are wrong to imagine that it is units that are effective in action, not individuals.
Remember,

There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let's get the hell out of here.

I also remember reading in the research for my own rules about a squad (British army) that was pinned down by fire by a German bunker. He tried to get his squad to follow him, they all refused except for one man. Together the two soldiers attacked and cleared three German bunkers. Thats why soldiers get awarded medals, they go above and beyond, not because they are some sort of superheroes. Not included in rules, why not? it is after all what happened.
And those are my reasons, as with all of my reasons explained with argument and evidence. Enjoy.

To say that Chain of Command which focusses so much on the importance of leadership and outstanding individuals on the battlefield does not have rules or a place for heroism leaves me utterly amazed.

However, there is more than that and I suspect that VVV reply has either not played much Chain of Command. Maybe he has been too busy designing his rules?

1. Chain of Command replicates the empty battlefield by using Jump-off Points to allow units to be hidden until they are committed to the action.

2. Chain of Command does not use the Tactical rule to create some kind of forcefield around a unit The unit is moving tactically, it is taking advantage of all of the folds in the ground which are not replicated on our largely flat tabletop. However, in order to get this benefit they pay the price of moving more slowly than they would otherwise. However, they have the choice of moving faster but that doesn't allow them to benefit from cautious movement. Really, honestly, this is not rocket science and replicates the reality of combat.

Weather. I totally agree that weather is important in warfare. However, weather interferes with the normal range of combat activities at the extremes rather than as a norm. We do have situations in Chain of command when the weather can turn and visibility is reduced. However, if one goes beyond the core rule book you will find that very specific weather conditions can be modelled in particular supplements. For example an Eastern Front campaign covering winter 1942 will have very specific rules for that weather, whereas a supplement covering warfare in the jungles of the Far East will have rules for those conditions. There is absolutely no need to overburden a core rule book with rules which, frankly, would only be of interest to a wargaming meteorologist.

Resupply. Logistics is at the heart of military success. Leaders like Monty knew that and understood it. Leaders like Patton were very aware of the risks of being at the end of a long supply chain. However, a game of Chain of Command represents an action lasting minutes rather than hours and in such a situation the game designer has to consider what is and is not important in his game. For me, tracking ammunition in a game which lasts for such a short time is not necessary unless you are looking at very specific weapons. So, a flamethrower has three 'shots'. After that it is out of ammunition. Light mortars and infantry AT weapons can run out of ammunition as it was entirely viable to fire off all of their ammunition in a very short period of time. With a bolt action rifle, we assume that the men will be carrying sufficient ammo for the few minutes the game lasts. An imperfect solution? Maybe, but I don't think it's far from reality and if ammunition shortage is an issue you can always add that to your scenario.

Finally, heroism. I honestly cannot see how anyone who has played CoC even a few times will not have seen how leadership is not just important but absolutely at the heart of the rules. If one looks at the campaign supplement you will see that this is even more specifically covered with a section specifically entitled 'Awards for Bravery".

I am sure that VVV reply's own rules are extremely interesting, but when it comes to understanding how CoC works, I think that he'd benefit from playing a few more games so as to understand the tactical nature of the rules.

Are your rules available VVV reply? They certainly sound like you have taken the bull by the horns and addressed the issues which are important to you. That is the great thing about wargaming; unlike chess, you can find the rules which suit your style of play and reading of history.

Cheers

Rich

However, there is more than that and I suspect that VVV reply has either not played much Chain of Command. Maybe he has been too busy designing his rules?

Who knows. I mean after all I have have is my copy of Chain of Command to look at any time I like, do you have my rules to hand to look at?

2. Chain of Command does not use the Tactical rule to create some kind of forcefield around a unit The unit is moving tactically, it is taking advantage of all of the folds in the ground which are not replicated on our largely flat tabletop.

And my point is that a player gets an extra cover benefit simply by giving the Going Tactical order (p20). They don't have to think about what they are doing. And the effect is to create a 'force field', an extra cover protection (basically giving a +1 protection factor) to the troops that have been given the order.
You are right a squad of troops would be carrying enough ammo for 5 minutes of firing at full effect. Lets say the troops are only firing at half rate, so if you say a game is not representing longer than 10 minutes, then ammo is not going to be important, they will have all they need.
Of course all anyone need to see my rules is to go the Veni Vidi Vici website and follow the links. The play-test version of the rules are available for free download, so I will not be making any money from anyone reading them! And check out p.25 for a list of some of the heroes of WW2 (ground action) and what they did.
For weather, you can see what Gen. Patton thought of it.
link

VW,

"Because troops should be keeping an eye on what is happening around them all the time (mainly to their front) and communicating new information to the rest of the squad.

Well the most important word in that sentence is "should". In reality they don't always do that. Why? They are too busy keeping their heads down, too tired, to busy fixing a blockage on the Bren or whatever, or too busy looking a map to try and find out exactly where they are. Even on attachment to some pretty well trained soldiers I've seen the tendency to let the enemy just walk on by and stay unnoticed ..because engaging them is going to get people hurt…

Ammo supply I would agree with you – but it's a real pain in the neck monitoring every soldiers/sections ammo supply in a game. Hence the "war" tends gives way to the "game" in most wargames design. Or you could assume, that when troops go into combat they bombed up to the hilt with more ammo – so for the short time troops are actualy firing we could assume they have sufficient ammo for the game.

DB

A player should benefit from giving a "Going tactical" order, you go "tactical" when contact with the enemy is likely, we call it smeagling or snurgling but it's just sneaking about. Normal movement is done at patrol pace and posture, taking advantage of cover where possible and not sky lining etc but definitely not hard targeting round the battlefield.

Ironically, Bolt Action has a similar mechanism "Going Down" that is different from Chain of Command's going tactical only in that:

A – it's more powerful (-2 to hit and allows pins to be rallied)
B – it can be done reactively (if a unit hasn't been activated yet, it can go down when shot at)
C- it requires the unit to stay stationary rather than move 1d6"

Now to be fair, VVV Reply was initially arguing that no rules set is better simulation than the other. The problem is that the response to "Chain of Command rewards real world period tactics while BA doesn't" begs the question with whatabout-isms. Nothing in the discussion of logistics, leadership, tactical movement and weather invalidates the point that CoC both allows period tactics to be implemented and rewards you when you do…

I think everyone should play whatever game they want, but be honest about what and why.

Your mileage may vary,
Ed

While you might find more opponents with Bolt Action, I really can't stand the 'draw dice from a bag' mechanic.

I like Chain of Command's Patrol Phase and Jumping-off Points.

VVV reply

You clearly are very committed to the rules that you are developing and, as a game designer I understand the enthusiasm and sheer energy that comes with taking an idea you like and running with that. I honestly wish you the very best of luck with them and I hope they do really well for you.

However, you will find that the best way to promote your rule set is to be enthusiastic about what you have created rather than being negative about other peoples' games. That said, if you want to be negative, get your facts right.

Cheers

RIch

You clearly are very committed to the rules that you are developing

Developed, printed and been on sale for years.
Not negative about Chain of Command, just pointing out what Chain of Command does and is really no better than Bolt Action. Why people chose to claim it was I have no idea. But at least we have looked at what happens in your rules compared to others. And I will repeat, everything I have said is totally correct, so no idea why you would try to take issue with my comments.

So realistic weapons ranges, proper lethality for MGs, the ability to use covering fire, smoke grenades, the use of scouting teams, actual doctrinal differences between armies, command friction, emphasis on leadership and the use of force morale as the way to defeat the enemy aren't differences?

Most of us feel those are all huge differences between the rules sets in question. For some, the speed and ease of play that BA provides outweighs the increased realism of CoC and that's absolutely fine. But pretending they are the same because they don't make the same design choices and the have the same emphasis as your rules set is disingenuous. The vast majority of players on this thread see the differences- you seem to be the lone outlier

Well strangely enough you will find those in BA as well. In BA your covering fire is pinning the enemy. In BA your doctrinal differences are in the army lists, and of course the weapons of the squad.
Realistic ranges in CoC, do you feel you could throw a grenade almost as far as an SMG can fire? Pistol range, whats that, most armies reckoned that effective pistol ranges were about ten paces. That being said CoC ranges are better than BA ranges.
Now there again you make the assumption that CoC is realistic and make the statement as if it is true. They (as are mine) are different rules and make for a different game. I hate the hand-to-hand system of BA for example and for that reason alone, I would never play it again.
Hey you know I could be the only one who tells you what the truth is. I see that as a good thing. But I tell you what I will point you to a comparison of BA and CoC.
link
I agree with his description of the mechanics of the two sets – after all who would not.

VVV – what are your rules called and where can I find them/buy them?

Here is a link to the Veni Vidi Vici website

link

Here is a link to VVV's rules (Amazon)

link

Here is a link to an AAR by the author, which looks like a late-ish playtest

link

Note, I've never met VVV, nor was I aware of any of his rules until now.

For the sake of balance, here is a pre publication CoC report by the author of those rules (who is known to me)

toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=1361

I think the difference in approach, emphasis and game outcomes (including heroism) is plain for all to see.

an smg has an effective range of 50 yards or so, I can throw a grenade that and more, anyone who has played cricket/baseball could.

My biggest gripe in BA was when I played it, don't bother with bren guns for a British section, not worth the points. Given that it was the key support weapon and they would scrounge any spares they could get their hands on, something is up.

Note this was in the early days of BA, so it might have changed in usefulness.

Intersting, the original poster's question was in reference to a comparison between CoC and BA. I am a CoC player and have only watched BA being played so I really can not comment.

It is fascinating to read the evolution of the posts from VVV. They go from a minor statement that BA is more popular , then state that neither are historical simulations and upwards and onwards until it is finally revealed that VVV has his own published set of rules. And then this:

Developed, printed and been on sale for years.
Not negative about Chain of Command, just pointing out what Chain of Command does and is really no better than Bolt Action. Why people chose to claim it was I have no idea. But at least we have looked at what happens in your rules compared to others. And I will repeat, everything I have said is totally correct, so no idea why you would try to take issue with my comments.

That is all good and I think it is great that VVV has put out his own rules, certainly more than I will ever do.

But I have to say I find it rather odd that someone would interject such an aggressive attack on other rulesets while at the same time not making it clear initially that they have published their own set of rules.

John

Shame BGK wasn't included, as I like those. But fun to read, and always interesting to see how partisan these threads can get.

Have fun

Marc

But I have to say I find it rather odd that someone would interject such an aggressive attack on other rulesets

Fascinating that you see a statement of the facts as an aggressive attack. As I have said it important to realise what a set of rules actually do. rather than what some care to say that they will do.
I will also point out the inaccuracies of the TooFatLardies team in his replies.
Is Bolt Actions popularity down to a bigger advertising budget, I doubt it. Warlord Games have a lot of industry contacts. Indeed I used to sell their ancient figures range for a time. But with Bolt Action, they sell the whole package, rules and figures and thats the highly successful GW business model.

Popularity of course not necessarily equating to better. Carlsberg sell a truckload more lager than Samuel Adams, but the gap in quality between the two is manifest (yes, you will get the occasional lunatic claiming the former to be nicer, no that doesn't mean it is).

I don't care for several aspect of CoC (for one I think teams operate as part of squads with far too much freedom for the ability of most WWII forces). However it does give much more of a 'feel' for most aspects of platoon level WWII combat.

I quite like the Battlegroup games (as they've been mentioned), but I think their artillery mechanisms are over fiddly and often a bit silly.

Both those games are better WWII simulations than Bolt Action, unfortunately.

VVV you go for it mate. Tell me where I have been inaccurate? I'd be interested to know what I've been doing wrong.

II have played both and enjoyed both but if only allowed to take one of them onto the desert island of my dreams then it would be CoC for a lot of the reasons outlined above. They are fun but equally thought-provoking with a clever yet simple set of mechanics.

Happily play Bolt Action but CoC is just at the next level.

Mike

Here's a quote from the end of the comparison VVV linked to:
"For me however Chain Of Command is much more challenging and realistic and it truly feels like I'm commanding a WW2 Platoon for only a very slight increase in complexity.
I really appreciate the effort the guys at TFL have gone to produce such a realistic yet elegantly simply system.
From experience I can tell you Chain Of Command is as close as you'll get to the real thing."

VVV's less fevered description of his own rules, without an attempted hatchet job on anyone else's can be found here at 24 Aug 2015 12:00 a.m. PST:

TMP link

In 2015, he recognised that Chain of Command, BA and Action All Fronts were all different rules doing different things.

At the end of the day, you pays your money and you take your choice and I choose Chain of Command although I can quite understand why someone might enjoy Bolt Action. As for Action All Fronts, this exchange led me to read a couple of reviews and the author's posting above and I don't fancy them but others may feel differently.

"And I will repeat, everything I have said is totally correct, so no idea why you would try to take issue with my comments."

What an asinine assertion. What made them "correct?" The fact that you wrote the comments and then agreed with what you wrote?

Not a very convincing way to make a point, buddy.

Chain of Command is much more realistic than Bolt Action, because it models command and control better.
But really, you are best playing what your regular opponents play; trying to make people play rules they don't like is a waste of time.

an smg has an effective range of 50 yards or so, I can throw a grenade that and more, anyone who has played cricket/baseball could.

Really, try this

The Mills had a grooved cast iron "pineapple" with a central striker held by a close hand lever and secured with a pin. A competent thrower could manage 15 metres (49 feet) with reasonable accuracy, but the grenade could throw lethal fragments farther than this; after throwing, the user had to take cover immediately. The British Home Guard was instructed that the throwing range of the No. 36 was about 30 yards with a danger area of about 100 yards.

VVV you go for it mate. Tell me where I have been inaccurate? I'd be interested to know what I've been doing wrong.

I posted it earlier. Developed, printed and been on sale for years.

What an asinine assertion. What made them "correct?" The fact that you wrote the comments and then agreed with what you wrote?

No because my comments deal with reality, rather than imagination. And I will repeat so you understand. Just because you use a rule called Going Tactical, does not mean that the unit is moving tactically, they just get a plus one cover benefit, which they get wherever they are on the table (unless of course they are in hard cover). They can get that benefit walking down a road.Same with Covering Fire, just give the order and the enemy will fire at reduced effect. No need to engage the enemy effectively, the order will do the trick. Those are facts, nothing else, you choose to disagree that thats how the CoC rules work, because I don't see what you would base it on.

Surely you are missing the very obvious point that there is more than one way to move down a road. You can march down the middle, which you would do if not under fire, or you would take a slower tactical approach and move from cover to cover, avoiding exposing yourself to potential fire.

What seems unbelievable here is that this is even being discussed, it is so obvious.

Dear VVV,

you do realise that moving tactically in CoC is very much slower than normal movement in that game? So there is a choice to make. As has been pointed out several times, it simply models an enhanced degree of 'cover hugging'. Of course some players use tables that do model every single feature of ground, and some may even switch between prone, kneeling and upright models to show their stance and allow some kind of true line of sight determination of who is visible and how much. But most don't.

Your rules of course include spotting. But here you have made a gross simplification by decreeing that any model withing a certain distance of an enemy will be spotted. I don't mind that you made that abstraction/simplification, but it is inconsistent to claim that your rule somehow better model the difficulties of engaging effectively.

I also note that your rules are more for company engagements, so your abstractions will necessarily be different at least in part from the suppositions and abstractions underlying a tactical game.

It's unfortunate that I can't find a review of your WWII rules in the two years since publication to see what other people thought of the abstractions and principles you worked from, though your playtest/battle report did give some insight.

Bob, I explained the difference in movement to him a while back, but just got a good ignoring. Rich and the other Lardies put a lot of research into all their games and try to make it as realistic as possible (it's still a game using dice though, so the realism has limits) I've only played a few games, but found it really good. I'm an instructor in infantry tactics up to platoon level, they've hardly changed since 1944, and I can say that BA is fun but compared to CoC it's just a kids game.

All of this has made me want to drop a few bucks down and pick up the rules by VVV … but as usual, those rules do not support the entire war on all fronts. I am used to getting excited about a new set of rules, only to discover that my favored period is not covered (at least not initially).

I like gaming Early War, and that means Poland 1939, France, Belgium, Denmark, Norway 1940, toss in some Finland, and then get the eastern front going with 1941 Barbarossa.

Early desert is also interesting to me, British versus Italian.

Oh well. Perhaps VVV will eventually update his army lists to include earlier conflicts.

VVV,
You are not making any sense.
The Tactical rule in CoC that you seem obsessed with is a pretty straight-forward mechanic.
A unit sacrifices speed for increased protection from making use of small differences in cover/elevation not possible to represent on the table top.
Its not rocket surgery.

>>Here is a link to an AAR by the author, which looks like a late-ish playtest

A scenario described as ‘early war', where Russian infantry swarm a PzIII and destroy it. Hmmmmm.

Developed, printed and been on sale for years.

Here is a link to the yahoo group for the ruleset. link

It speaks for itself.

We've found that field-stripping Bolt Action results in a good vehicle for a 1:1 company-level game, but I think not many people really want to play their games at that level and/or don't have the space that's generally required…obviously if you're in really dense urban or forest terrain a company – even in 28mm – can get swallowed up pretty quickly even on 6x4, but who wants to play every game in those circumstances?
We're here to have fun, and if CoC or BA works best for you that's what's important. They both have strengths and weaknesses. All the same, rules are important and the more immersed you are in the period the more critical you become. I eventually just gave up on medieval games because I just could not find a set of rules that was any good for the early 14th C.