Help support TMP


"Differences between CoC and BA?" Topic


444 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Rules Message Board

Back to the Getting Started with WWII Message Board



13,977 hits since 21 Feb 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Microsoft Chrome Inactive Member21 Feb 2018 6:29 a.m. PST

Hi, I've been out of WW2 gaming for a while. I seeing a lot of talk about about Chain of Command and Bolt Action. What is good about these two games, and what is different? Basing, scale, complexity, anything else?

Londonplod21 Feb 2018 6:53 a.m. PST

There are some good play tests on YouTube that will give you a good idea of how the two games play.
I play both, each has its own merits. Both are platoon level but can be played higher.
BA uses random dice draws, each separate unit has a die and they all go into a bag. If you pull a grey die then the German player moves/fires/takes cover etc. Pull a green die and the Allied player does the same. If a section/tank/HMG etc is wiped out then that die is removed. Once all dice are drawn they are returned to the bag and play carries on.

CoC starts with a 'Patrol' phase, where markers are used to establish jump off points for bringing your forces onto the table, thus not every unit will enter via a table edge. Play then takes place according to D6 that are rolled, allowing for junior or more senior leaders to issue orders.

CoC has a great campaign system that adds depth so has a slight edge over BA due to this, it also works best if you use correct tactics for the period whereas BA can be a little 40k in this approach.

advocate21 Feb 2018 7:31 a.m. PST

LondonPlod's summary is good. In addition, Chain of Command expects players to field historical platoons with limited support (for the most part). Bolt Action allows more player flexibility in this regard, at a cost of historical accuracy.

Big Red Supporting Member of TMP21 Feb 2018 9:46 a.m. PST

I agree that LondonPlod's summary is good.

As far as how one plays either game depends on personal style and figure availability in one's collection.

Chain of Command does expect players to field historical platoons but again, you could play it with units organized however you choose.

Bolt Action has "army" lists with organizations that can be assembled for historical scenarios or min-maxed for tournament, pick up or club games.

CoC is a little more towards the process oriented side of the scale and BA is a little more towards the results oriented side.

Both work well for historical or generic scenarios and are fun to play.

An important consideration would be what other gamers in your area play?

BobGrognard21 Feb 2018 1:13 p.m. PST

CoC gives the player a platoon of infantry and then they select what supports they want for the battle. So, for example, you might get a US Armored Infantry platoon and select a Sherman and a 0.50 Browning whereas your opponent might have a Wehrmacht platoon and select a Pak 40 and a battery of mortars controlled by an FO. You work out your force according to a simple points system but the core force will usually be a "real" unit.

With BA you get more latitude so your force could be one squad of SS, one of Wehrmacht, one King Tiger and an air attack. I saw one game recently where a player had three katyusha rocket launchers on the table. The fact that they took 45 minutes to load in reality wasn't important as it was "a game". That seems to sum up the difference in approach.

Bolt Action has an active competition scene, CoC players tend to use more historical scenarios or use the campaign systems designed for the rules. Chain of Command has active forums, discussion groups and Facebook groups attended by the rule designer who supports the game enthusiastically. Bolt Action no longer has a forum and I believe that the game designer is now busy designing games for fans of My Little Pony.

If you like competitions and spending hours maxing up the ultimate force then Bolt Action has many like-minded gamers. If you are interested in WWII history and scenarios and campaigns based on history the CoC will be more you.

BattleCaptain Inactive Member21 Feb 2018 8:56 p.m. PST

CoC seems to attract people who can't resist taking cheap shots at Bolt Action.

Bolt Action players just have fun.

Realism? It's all just pretend soldiers.

nsolomon9921 Feb 2018 10:52 p.m. PST

CoC is a pretty decent attempt at replicating WW2 warfare as we see it in Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, etc

Bolt Action is Warhammer 40K with WW2 uniforms and vehicles.

jdginaz22 Feb 2018 1:08 a.m. PST

Here is a really good and I think balanced comparison of the two games

link

And a review of Chain of Command

link

GReg BRad22 Feb 2018 3:15 a.m. PST

Like all have said each have their own merits and I too enjoy both. CoC for the more seasoned players and opponents and BA for newbies from my experience, not that Coc is difficult but one needs to understand wargaming terminology to understand what you are doing and BA is just easier in that regard. Both have unique mechanics and way of activating and both do away with the traditional IGOUGO style of play which I simply hate.
Basing the same, compatible with any scale, games tend to be of same length. Have you got anyone to game with? do they have a gaming experience? What are you looking for tournament (BA) or historical (CoC) style play?

Dynaman878922 Feb 2018 8:18 a.m. PST

> CoC seems to attract people who can't resist taking cheap shots at Bolt Action.

And yet the first cheap shot in this thread was yours.

Microsoft Chrome Inactive Member22 Feb 2018 8:49 a.m. PST

Thanks for the replies all! It was very helpful.

Microsoft Chrome Inactive Member22 Feb 2018 11:48 a.m. PST

If anyone is still reading – how does Battlegroup compare to other two rulesets?

Dynaman878922 Feb 2018 1:22 p.m. PST

Isn't Battlegroup up a level? Squad or team stands instead of individuals? Or am I thinking of something different?

saltflats192922 Feb 2018 8:07 p.m. PST

Battlegroup claims to slide in scale but it "feels right " with platoon to company size with the ability to call in artillery on the board (coc maxes out at mortars- artillery strikes are abstracted as a pre game occurrence).

@dynaman: it is still 1:1, but i see people play it in 15mm with their FoW bases so it might give that impression. Players must still track individual casualties with some form of marker.

daler240D Supporting Member of TMP Inactive Member23 Feb 2018 12:19 p.m. PST

Battlegroup is more of on the same scale as I Ain't Been Shot Mum. (I always feel stupid typing that name…) Both are good games and more the scale I'm interested in, as mentioned in previous posts, up one level of command.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 Apr 2018 3:59 a.m. PST

Chain of Command is heavily dice driven. Both sides will have similar forces (HQ + 3 sections) but whether you get to use those sections and when will depend on die rolls. Same with support, what you can have depends on what you roll. Movement again depends on what you roll.
Bolt Action, you use points to choose what you can have with limits on what you can choose. Everything in your army gets to move/fight but when you can do it depends on picking orders out of a container, shared with your opponents orders.
Basically I would go with what your local group plays and if you don't like the rules, go and find another set.

TacticalPainter0125 Apr 2018 3:55 p.m. PST

Chain of Command is heavily dice driven.

Just like Backgammon. Yet the great Backgammon players don't win because they are lucky, they win because they know how to deal with the good and bad fortune that befalls them. Just like any military commander.

Chain of Command is not a game of luck, it's a game with a level of unpredictability. Good Chain of Command players are like good Backgammon players. The number of command dice each phase offers players many options, as opposed to BA where a single dice offers a much more limited option and is therefore more susceptible to random results. In CoC a well placed platoon commander or NCO in the right spot at the right time can further enhance the options available. A command roll can have multiple possible outcomes which the player can determine.

When I play CoC I feel as though I'm in command of my units, even if, from time to time I have problems getting them to do what I want amidst the chaos and unpredictability of combat. That feels right to me.

There's a big difference in a dice roll that says, things don't always happen when you want them to, to one where the result is purely random and a hostage to luck.

SeattleGamer Supporting Member of TMP26 Apr 2018 10:54 a.m. PST

I can see both sides. Full disclaimer: I have played a half-dozen games of Bolt Action solo. I recently purchased Chain of Command (mostly because of this very thread), but have not played it yet.

I like Bolt Action, and knowing that every unit will get to do something. The chaos is in the order the dice are pulled. The command decisions are how one manages the dice. So if the most important thing to do is have an AT gun ready to attack any vehicle that heads down a road, that is where you place your first dice. If some other action is more important, you spend your dive there, and risk the enemy dashing down the road with no AT gun watching. Etc.

I like the sound of the Chain of Command dice-driven command points, and would like to try it.

But I will draw a comparison to Memoir '44. Some of my friends loved the easy-going board game, where you push minis around. The cards determine which sectors can act, and w3hat they can do when acting. Other friends hated that game, because they didn't like the restrictions of the cards.

I suspect those same friends will not like Chain of Command. Roll a couple of times really low for your command points, and the situation may be too bleak to continue. Whereas at least in Bolt Action, you are guaranteed that every unit will get to do something.

I suspect that Chain of Command will not be the WWII game that most of my friends will enjoy. But I am willing to give it a try.

soulman27 Apr 2018 3:36 p.m. PST

After buying what a tanker the other week i came across youtube videos of CC and started to watch. I had to buy them as i was enjoying the battles. I have BA but CC feels more alive as units try and act and the tank damages rules are much better. Each to there own, but i look forward to testing out both systems soon. So pleased i kept all my WW2 stuff

TacticalPainter0127 Apr 2018 4:58 p.m. PST

Other friends hated that game, because they didn't like the restrictions of the cards.

I don't like that aspect of Memoir 44 because I have to ask myself, how does that reflect the command and control issues of WWII? I don't believe it bears any real relation. On the other hand I think it works much better in C&C Ancients and for more linear warfare.

A rule mechanic is only useful if it can try to replicate in some way the issues a commander of the period experienced.

In WWII a platoon commander did not have wireless radio communications with squads and weapon teams. Orders and communication was by voice and hand signal. Read any first hand accounts from the period and you discover platoon commanders had problems transmitting orders and making things happen on the battlefield. Command was not a smooth, orderly process, it was at times chaotic. That said, it wasn't total chaos.

A good commander would get himself in the right spot to influence the action; he would assign his most capable NCOs to difficult tasks and rely on training and doctrine. So while your rules should reflect some chaos and unpredictability, it should recognise the ability of key personnel to manage and bring some of the disorder under a degree of control.

BA acknowledges the uncertainty and unpredictability of events through the random drawing of command dice. Chain of Command does the same thing, but takes it a step further and factors in more of the command decisions by recognition of the impact of junior level commanders. But even they are not super human, the rules allow for moments when even they are frustrated and unable to act.

TacticalPainter0127 Apr 2018 5:39 p.m. PST

I suspect those same friends will not like Chain of Command. Roll a couple of times really low for your command points, and the situation may be too bleak to continue.

Life is not perfect, so players should plan for it. In CoC you could place units on overwatch, allowing them to fire in response to enemy action without the need for a command dice. Once you have accumulated one or more CoC dice, you can use these as an interrupt, to move or fire without the need for a command dice. A good commander plans for good and bad, for the expected, as well as the unexpected.

A well placed senior leader can activate up to three other units using his command initiative, have you optimised his location to give you the best command options?

It goes back to my Backgammon analogy, the good players know how to optimise their game at moments of good and bad luck.

captaincold6927 Apr 2018 9:38 p.m. PST

Hey SeattleGamer…where does your group play?

blank frank29 Apr 2018 6:07 a.m. PST

BA Coc fight!!!!!
As there seems a forever discussion over the merits of these two sets of rules…both of which I like, it would be interesting to take an actual historical platoon action and try to model this using both sets of rules. Oh course the Society of Ancients does this every year.

soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day

Would anyone like to suggest an action?

VVV reply Inactive Member29 Apr 2018 1:30 p.m. PST

Chain of Command is not a game of luck, it's a game with a level of unpredictability

including the 'unpredictability' of not getting your units on the table. To use your Backgammon example, I have not heard of games where you don't get to roll your dice, likewise its going to be tough to win a game where you are arbitrarily deprived of your units.
BA acknowledges the uncertainty and unpredictability of events through the random drawing of command dice.

However you know that at some point in the game, you are going to have enough command dice to give orders to each of your units in BA, just not when that will be.
I will repeat my earlier comment about Chain of Command (CoC)
Both sides will have similar forces (HQ + 3 sections) but whether you get to use those sections and when will depend on die rolls. Same with support, what you can have depends on what you roll. Movement again depends on what you roll.

That is the reality of CoC and no amount of chatting about the skill involved in playing Backgammon will make any difference to it.

VVV reply Inactive Member29 Apr 2018 3:34 p.m. PST

Try this for an action, Hunt the Tiger (based on the film Fury).
Its a simple action 4 Shermans vs a Tiger I
takes around 15 minutes to play it through, so can be run multiple times (to see if die rolls makes a big difference)
link

TacticalPainter0129 Apr 2018 5:31 p.m. PST

That is the reality of CoC and no amount of chatting about the skill involved in playing Backgammon will make any difference to it.

No VVV, that is just your opinion about CoC. An opinion that you invariably follow with a pointer to the WWII rules you have written. It's all very predictable.

Both sides will have similar forces (HQ + 3 sections) but whether you get to use those sections and when will depend on die rolls. Same with support, what you can have depends on what you roll. Movement again depends on what you roll.

Again, that's your opinion, that you want us to take as fact.

I have an AAR of a CoC campaign, The Road to Bremen, where a powerful British force takes on an unreliable and motley late war German defence from Volkssturm to Fallschirmjager. I am playing the Germans in a campaign I can only lose, but at least try to lose less badly than my historical counterpart. The forces are not 'balanced' yet the campaign is, if you take the time to read the AARs I'd argue you won't read a story of some sort of dice off between two forces.

The campaign feels very historical. Both sides are playing to their historical strengths and it feels right. VVV will never be convinced, I know, but others might find it interesting (the campaign is based on historical events).

The Road to Bremen campaign AAR

VVV reply Inactive Member30 Apr 2018 2:30 a.m. PST

No VVV, that is just your opinion about CoC

No its a reality that I can point to the rules to show.
If you wish to show that units do not arrive on the table due to die rolls (p15), or that what support is available is decided by dice (p80), or that movement is decided by die rolls (p27). Then you are welcome to do so. I cannot imagine how you will but I am willing to learn.
We can disagree on what we like but we cannot disagree on what is written in the rules.

jdginaz30 Apr 2018 12:52 p.m. PST

"No its a reality that I can point to the rules to show."

Only you don't seem to understand what you are reading.

You only have to roll if you have no Senior leaders off table pushing those units forward, kind of like the real world. Plus if you fail to get them on the first attempt you get a +1 on the second, a +2 on the third and they automatically come on the third attempt. I suppose you've never read that troops are sometimes reluctant to move forward into danger on occasion.

Only a portion of the amount of points you get are determined by the dice roll and the same roll affects both sides. You then get to pick what support you take from a list choices. So influenced by the dice not determined. Sometimes commanders don't get all the support they want.

Well at least you got one thing right. Yes movement is determined by the roll of the dice but you decide whether you roll one, two or three dice. sure sometimes you will roll very poorly. That reflects the reality that sometime troop are not real enthusiastic about getting up and exposing themselves during combat kind on like the real world.

As is usual you seem to be parsing bits and pieces of the rules to make the points you want instead of engaging in an honest discussion of the rules. I suppose that is an attempt to make your own rules look better.

jdg

VVV reply Inactive Member30 Apr 2018 3:08 p.m. PST

So influenced by the dice not determined.

If you prefer, limited by the die roll.
So far as I am aware there are no points in CoC. That could be considered good, as points systems are never fair.
And no this not about an honest discussion of the rules, I suppose that has been done else where. Its about the differences between CoC and BA and in summary, CoC is a lot more dice driven.
And you are quite right, I see nothing about units left off-table becoming easier to arrive, page reference please? And rolling to bring the troops on table, just gets harder if the senior leader is on the table (p15), nothing about bringing units on being automatic, so where does that come from?
As I repeat, everything I say, I can point to the rules and say, yes thats it there, with a page reference.
BTW I have just played through Hunt the Tiger with CoC rules. It was not long (report will follow). A total of 3 turns and 8 phases, with 400 dice thrown (between 5 tanks).

jdginaz30 Apr 2018 5:01 p.m. PST

CoC doesn't have rules for building your platoon but it does have them for how much support you are able to get for your platoon. Page 42 "Choosing your Scenario" you compare the force rating of the opposing platoons and the side with the smaller rating gets the difference. Example, a PzGr platoon is rated at +3 and a US rifle platoon is rated as a 0 the US platoon would then get +3 points and the PZGr platoon 0. Then depending on the scenario you roll one or two dice and add that to your number to get your total points. So if playing the Patrol scenario a D6 would be rolled and on a 1-2, one point would be added to each side's number, 3-4 two would be added and three on a 5-6. You then use that total to "purchase" support for your support list.

Actually my mistake on the plus 1 and automatic I must have accidentally ported that over from Sharpe's Practice.
But on page 15 section 4.3 "Deploying onto the Table" covers needing to roll only if both you senior leaders are already deployed on the table. Other wise it takes a roll of 4-6 on a D6.

Why would you use an all armor scenario to test a set of rules that are designed for infantry games with support i.e. combined arms games not tank vs. tank games. Unless your not interested in giving the game a fair test of course.

Triplecdad30 Apr 2018 6:55 p.m. PST

All I can say, is everyone I know who played Bolt Action, and then played Chain of Command, never played Bolt Action again.

TacticalPainter0101 May 2018 2:10 a.m. PST

If you wish to show that units do not arrive on the table due to die rolls (p15), or that what support is available is decided by dice (p80), or that movement is decided by die rolls (p27). Then you are welcome to do so. I cannot imagine how you will but I am willing to learn.

The odds of rolling any number between 1 and 6 on 1D6 is utterly random. There is an equal chance of any number, the result is therefore totally random.

When you roll 2D6 the odds of rolling a 2 or 12 are 1 in 36. The odds of rolling a 7 are 1 in 6.

Rolling two dice to move a unit means the chances are much greater you will move 6, 7 or 8". Like real life, sometimes you cover that distance in a lot less time, sometimes it takes longer than anticipated, however more often than not you will move the average.

We have moved from an utterly random result, that reflects nothing but luck (rolling 1D6), to a bell curve of probability (rolling 2D6) where there is unpredictability, not total randomness.

Rolling dice, ain't just rolling dice. As a game designer I wouldn't think you'd need this explaining.

Can you explain why your Hunt the Tiger scenario is not broken. By your own admission the Americans can only win with a level 2 hero in a Sherman 76. So if the Germans take that one out with the first shot (why wouldn't they?), they can't lose. Is this supposed to be an example of good game design?

VVV reply Inactive Member01 May 2018 11:26 a.m. PST

But on page 15 section 4.3 "Deploying onto the Table" covers needing to roll only if both you senior leaders are already deployed on the table. Other wise it takes a roll of 4-6 on a D6.

Yes that adds to the difficulty of deploying the troops. The basic roll to deploy a unit is rolling the Command Dice, with 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's each allowing the appropriate unit to deploy. Once all your senior leaders are on the table, in addition you have to roll 4+ on a D6 to get the unit you have chosen to deploy. So the basic test to deploy means rolling the right dice, the 4+ is additional, not 'otherwise'. All on p15.

And to Tactical Painter, quite right, the probabilities will change depending on the dice used and how they are combined. The point of actually playing a scenario with the different rules is to see how the game plays through under each set. The Chain of Command play test produced some significant conclusions. Basically the US player (with 4 tanks to command) was never able to activate more than 2 of them in a phase. The German player mostly got the Tiger to activate every phase. The Sherman 75mm would have had to have got very lucky (or the Tiger very unlucky) to inflict damage on the Tiger. The 76mm had a chance, not a good one to be sure but did damage the Tiger once.
Why did the Germans leave the 76mm tank to last, well thats what they did in the film, so that was a parameter of the test, the 76mm Sherman can only be attacked if the other Shermans have already been hit and damaged. Frankly if you allowed the Tiger to target the 76mm Sherman first, all the Shermans would die under the CoC rules. But hey the 76mm Sherman is commanded by a Section Leader (Brad Pitt) so its a bit better than normal (and it did help). Any heroes in CoC?

Why would you use an all armor scenario to test a set of rules that are designed for infantry games with support

Because its fast and simple. Both sets have the rules to handle all the units (Tiger I, Sherman 75/76), so what you get is a true comparison of how the different sets work. And if you feel inclined to get involved, get those dice out and start rolling.

jdginaz01 May 2018 2:58 p.m. PST

So you feel that using a scenario that one of the set of rules is not designed for makes for a fair comparisons?

While CoC handles tank vs. tank adequately it was primarily design with infantry plus some support battles in mind.

jdginaz01 May 2018 3:02 p.m. PST

Rolling 5d6 it's very rare that a player has a roll where he can't deploy something and if that happens it very rarely happens more than one phase. If you want to test a TFL rule set with that scenario use "What a Tanker!"

Have you ever read that troops sometimes are reluctant to expose themselves to enemy action? That is what is represented by a failure to roll the correct number. That uncertainty which replicates real life is what most CoC player like about it. The fact that your little soldiers don't automatically do exactly what you want all the time, just like in RL.

TacticalPainter0101 May 2018 3:25 p.m. PST

The basic roll to deploy a unit is rolling the Command Dice, with 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's each allowing the appropriate unit to deploy. Once all your senior leaders are on the table, in addition you have to roll 4+ on a D6 to get the unit you have chosen to deploy. So the basic test to deploy means rolling the right dice, the 4+ is additional, not 'otherwise'. All on p15.

This is true, but as jdginaz says, rolling five dice per phase would take extreme bad luck several times in a row, to be unable to deploy, so much so in fact, it doesn't really figure in the scheme of things.

If you read my AARs in the link posted earlier you will see that, as the defender, in nearly every scenario I chose NOT to deploy a single unit for several consecutive phases. Not because I could not, but because I did not want to. Why show the enemy where I am? I was waiting to see the main avenue of approach and wanted the attacker to commit his forces first.

Was I worried that I might not be able to deploy later? Not in the least, it just didn't figure in my thinking. Once I felt an area was threatened I'd consider deploying a unit and placing it on overwatch. That way I didn't even need to concern myself about a command dice to have that unit fire.

The empty battlefield; the unnerving approach by an attacker to a defended locality; the sudden appearance of enemy units at an unexpected moment and the sudden fury of a firefight. This all feels like WWII tactical combat as I've read about it and that's why CoC works for me.

BA isn't broken, in my opinion CoC just handles this better, but that's me.

This whole debate about units unable to deploy subject to the dice is just a diversion. The rules were thoroughly play tested and have since stood up to the rigours of many thousands of games.

VVV, I can live with the fact you don't like them, but the fact you always make a point of directing people to your own set of rules when the discussion is about the difference between CoC and BA is getting a little tiring.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 1:16 a.m. PST

OK first turn of CoC test
Hunt the Tiger scenario played with Chain of Command (CoC) rules
Bear in mind that I am a newbie with these rules so expect mistakes, which I am sure others will correct.

Background,
taken from the film Fury. 4 Shermans (one a Sherman 76) are ambushed by a Tiger 1 attacking from their flank, the Tiger behind their flank. The starting range is 800 yards (40 inches)

Scenario basics
As in the film, the Tiger can only shoot at the Sherman 76 once all the other Shermans have been hit and damaged. Its silly but thats what was done in the film.
All tanks are commanded by junior leaders, except the Sherman 76 which is commanded by a senior leader (Brad Pitt). Junior leaders can be activated on die rolls of 3's, the senior on a 4.
Command dice rolls of 1 or 2 do not do anything but can be added together to give 3's or 4's. Die rolls of 5's produce 1/6th of a CoC die. Die rolls of 6's can alter the phase sqeuence (p25) and may

produce special events, as indeed happened in the test.
Targets in the open are hit on 5+, behind cover (Tiger) they are hit on 7+.
Damage rolls cause hits on 5+ from the front or 4+ from the side. Save rolls succceed on 5+.
A Tiger rolls 16 attack dice (if target has been hit) and 14 save dice. Shermans roll 7 attack dice (10 for the Sherman 76) and 6 save dice.
The command dice rolled in each phase are important, as they show what options were possible each phase, so are listed each time. Attack and save rolls, just take my word for it.
A commander (tank) can only be activated once per phase, even if there are more command dice available. Junior leaders can issue 2 instructions when activated (Initiative p18), senior 3.
In my view there was no point moving toward the Tiger as the only advantage would have been shooting into the rear of the Tiger due to its Heavy Armour, range is unlimited. So the Shermans would only

move to present their front armour to the Tiger (and reduce effectiveness of the Tigers attack) and then concentrate on shooting. This may have been a mistake! No smoke ammo available to any tank, so

that option in the film, not available.
Overall this was fast, took about 15 minutes to run through. 3 turns, 8 phases with over 400 dice rolled betweeen 5 tanks.
German goes first.

Turn1
Phase 1
German rolls: 2, 3, 2x4, 5 one point toward CoC die (CCD 1)
Tiger spends 2 Init points on gunner, 2D6 = 9, hit, roll 16 attack dice, 10 hits (4+ needed), Sherman rolls 2 saves, difference of 8 hits, Sherman KO (a difference of 3+ hits is a KO)
US rolls: 1, 4, 5, 2x6 (CCD 1, will be first in next phase due to 2x6's)
Uses the 4 to activate the 76, turn and fire. Radio command to get another Sherman (remember 2 normal Sherman remaining) to fire.
76 2D6= 9, hit 10D6 = 1 hit, 14D6 = 4 saves no efffect (NE) – if saves are more than number of hits its automatically no effect.
75 2D6= 6, miss
Phase 2
US goes first (see above)
US rolls: 2x4, 2x5, 6 (CCD 3)
Uses the 4 to activate the 76, fire. Radio command to get another Sherman to fire.
76 2D6= 6, hit (gunner given 2 points) 10D6 = 1 hit, 14D6 = 6 saves NE.
75 2D6= 4, miss
German rolls: 2x2, 2x5, 6 (CCD 3) German used the 2x2 to activate Tiger, not sure if partial use of die is allowed, Tiger shoots
Tiger 2D6= 9, hit 3 hits, 1 save roll on damage table for a difference of 2 hits Sherman immobilised and 1 point of shock
Phase 3
US rolls: 1, 5, 3x6 (CCD 4) no activations possible, 3x6 means phase ends and new turn starts.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 1:21 a.m. PST

So you feel that using a scenario that one of the set of rules is not designed for makes for a fair comparisons?

Both BA and CoC are designed for infantry actions. So yes its fair and reasonable. As I said earlier. If you want to run a different scenario, feel free. Then you can tell us how yours goes.
While CoC handles tank vs. tank adequately it was primarily design with infantry plus some support battles in mind.

I will agree that CoC is designed only for platoon actions, so thats a fair point to make. You can fight bigger battles with BA?
Yes just checked in BA there are the option for multiple platoons but the basic force is a single platoon. So I would say that the basic idea of what each set is designed to do is not that different.
This is true, but as jdginaz says, rolling five dice per phase would take extreme bad luck several times in a row, to be unable to deploy, so much so in fact, it doesn't really figure in the scheme of things.

And thats the point of the test, to show what dice are rolled and what can actually done. That is one of the important differences between the two sets. In CoC dice limit what you can do with your troops, BA does not. Now further to that there may be other differences which will come out in the testing. No smoke rounds for tanks in CoC for example.
Checked, seems no smoke in BA for guns either. So no difference there.

jdginaz02 May 2018 1:40 a.m. PST

I didn't say that CoC was good for only platoon actions. I said that it was designed for actions with supported infantry fights. Sometimes that support is a tank. What it isn't designed for are purely tank actions. So your little test is of little value.

"If you want to run a different scenario, feel free. Then you can tell us how yours goes."

That is your little idea, I don't own a copy of BA and have no interest in buying a copy.

In my group we regularly play with multiple player a side up to 3 vs. 3.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 1:43 a.m. PST

What it isn't designed for are purely tank actions.

Neither set is. They are both designed for infantry platoon actions. BA has the option to add more platoons and I see no reason that CoC could not do the same.
So in that respect they are both the same.
The value of the test is to show clearly how the set works, for the same scenario. And that it certainly does. The conclusion is at the end of the report.
That is your little idea, I don't own a copy of BA and have no interest in buying a copy.

Then you will have to leave it to others to compare. I own both BA and CoC plus many other WW2 rules. I am interested in the differences.

jdginaz02 May 2018 1:48 a.m. PST

Seems obvious then that if neither set is designed for tank actions the whole "test" is invalid and has no value.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 2:03 a.m. PST

Seems obvious then that if neither set is designed for tank actions the whole "test" is invalid and has no value.

No because you can still compare how both sets work the point of the thread. As pointed out, there is no basic difference in what the rules are designed to do, just the way that they do it. Different ways of doing the same thing.
I can see that you are a firm player of CoC, so what other rules do is of no interest to you. You might better employed checking my report of the CoC game and seeing where I went wrong. My first game of CoC!

TacticalPainter0102 May 2018 2:38 a.m. PST

I hate to remind you VVV, but this discussion is about the difference between BA and CoC. Not CoC and your ruleset.

You might better employed checking my report of the CoC game and seeing where I went wrong. My first game of CoC!

Oh great, so you've spent a fair bit of time telling us what is so bad about CoC but it turns out……you've never played it. Hilarious.

As in the film, the Tiger can only shoot at the Sherman 76 once all the other Shermans have been hit and damaged. Its silly but thats what was done in the film.

Ah, so our benchmark for assessing sets of rules covering WWII tactical combat, is not WWII, it's actually a Hollywood fictional version.

3 turns, 8 phases with over 400 dice rolled betweeen 5 tanks.
German goes first.

Say what? You rolled 400 dice in 8 phases with only five units on the board. Let's just rewind. That would be 50 dice rolled per phase, an average of 10 dice per unit per phase. This from the man who thinks that too much is dependent on dice rolling in CoC.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 3:28 a.m. PST

Say what? You rolled 400 dice in 8 phases with only five units on the board. Let's just rewind. That would be 50 dice rolled per phase, an average of 10 dice per unit per phase. This from the man who thinks that too much is dependent on dice rolling in CoC.

You have it precisely, 5 dice per side per phase, 2D6 to roll to hit, 16D6 from a Tiger for damage, 14 from a Tiger to save, 10/7 from a Sherman for damage, 6 from a Sherman to save. Plus a few more die rolls for other stuff here and there. And people say that Games Workshop is buckets of dice. Lots of dice get rolled in CoC.
Oh great, so you've spent a fair bit of time telling us what is so bad about CoC but it turns out……you've never played it. Hilarious.

You have it, because I can read rule mechanics and I could see that using die rolls to limit what you could do in a game was going to make a big difference to game play it does, just like DBx and the Black Powder style rules. In fact I would say thats the key difference between CoC and BA. But finding out just how many dice you roll for damage/saves was a bit of a shock. Of course you don't need more than 26 dice to play as thats the maximum number of dice in use at any one time.
But yes thats the big difference between BA and CoC, you are going to roll lots more dice in CoC.
Nice touch to the Command rolls in CoC, though. You can combine the lower dice that are not doing anything, to make them up to 3's and 4's. That does stop dice getting wasted.
I hate to remind you VVV, but this discussion is about the difference between BA and CoC. Not CoC and your ruleset.

And what that has to do with anything, beats me.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 7:11 a.m. PST

Part 2 of the Hunt the Tiger scenario played under CoC
Turn2
Phase 1
US rolls: 1, 2x4. 5, 6 (CCD 5) activate 76 + 75
76 2D6= 9, hit 1 hits, 3 saves NE
75 2D6= 7, hit 2 hits, 8 saves NE
German rolls: 2x2, 3, 4, 5 (CCD 4)
Tiger 2D6= 7, hit (undamaged Sherman) 6 hits, 2 saves KO
So the US have the 76 and an immobilised 75 left
Phase 2
US rolls: 2x1, 2, 3, 6 use 1+2 to activate immoblised Sherman, 1+3 to activate 76
76 2D6= 7, hit, 4 hits, 3 saves 1 point shock and Tiger cannot fire
75 2D6= 9, hit 3 hits, 4 saves NE
German rolls: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (CCD 5) Tiger cannot shoot but does remove 1 pt shock
Phase 3
US rolls: 2x1, 2x4, 5 one CCD point generated
76 2D6= 12 (bonus of 3 damage dice) 6 hits, 5 saves damage 1 shock and Tiger gunsight damaged
75 2D6= 5 miss
German rolls: 3, 4x6 ready to fire, the turn will end, German to go first and the random event is Jabos, no one can move in the next phase
US uses CCD point to interupt the German phase and shoot. No shooting from Tiger but 76 fires
76 2D6= 5 miss
Turn 3
Phase 1
German rolls: 1, 2x3, 5, 6 CCD points 2
Tiger 2D6= 4 miss and removes shock point
US rolls: 2x3, 4, 2x5 (CCD 2)
German uses a CCD point to interupt US and to shoot
Tiger 2D6= 8, hit 4 hits, 2 saves. Target 76 damaged 2 shock, commander wounded, command level -1
76 2D6= 5 miss
75 2D6= 11 hit 1 hit, 5 saves NE
Phase 2
German rolls; 1, 2x2, 3, 6
Tiger 2D6= 11 9 hits, 1 save. Target is 76 which is KO.
That leaves one immobilised Sherman 75 left and I ended the scenario at that point.

Conclusions
The game involved over 400 die rolls which I feel is extreme, The inability of the US side to use all their tanks because they need to get the right dice rolls to perform actions does seem strange and removes the advantage of having more US tanks than the single Tiger (it is highly unlikely that they would ever get the right dice to get all three Shermans moving and shooting). The US could have had 10 Shermans and still would not have been able to use them all, But then again the CoC rules do seem geared up to only one tank per side. I don't understand the reasoning behind having only part of your force able to do anything.
I liked the combat system (large number of die rolls apart) and the occasional failure of the Tiger to hit or do damage. Everyone misses. I did not like having to remember all the damage done to a tank.

Range not making a difference did seem strange but then CoC does seem designed for short range actions, so probably suits the game intended. Certainly the fact that there was no range advantage, made me as the player decide to shoot with the Shermans rather than move.
My tactics, certainly wrong, the Shermans are never going to win a fire-fight with the Tiger frontally unless they get really really lucky. The US 76 hit in phase 3 of turn 2, shows what might happen, the bonus 3 attack dice really made a difference. Moving the Shermans might just get a win for the US but that adds more die rolling for movement as that is dice driven as well.
In the film the Shermans used smoke to obscure the Tigers visibility but neither BA or CoC allow that.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 10:22 a.m. PST

Hunt the Tiger under Bolt Action rules
Range is 24, all tanks move 9
Tiger has armour of 10, super-heavy gun gives +7 to penetration.
Sherman has armour of 9, 75mm has +5 to penetration, 76 +6
Only range bonus is to be within 6 of the target and penalty at over half range (which none are). Bonuses for flank/rear shots.
Same conditions as used for the CoC test.
A D6 needing 3+ to hit, damage is a D6+bonus needing to at least equal armour value (although that can only cause superficial damage)
Turn 1
Tiger rolls 4, hits. Roll of 2+7+1 (side armour)=10, Sherman on fire. Passes morale and fire put out. Pin 2.
Only 3 Shermans can fire, the one on fire is busy
Two normal Shermans and 76 fire, all miss. All turn to face the Tiger
Turn 2
75 rolls 6, hits. Damage roll(DR) of 1, fail.
75 rolls 6, hits. DR 6+5=11, Tiger immobilised and Pin 2.
75 rolls 5, hits. DR of 1, fail.
76 rolls 3, misses
Tiger rolls for morale, passes pin down to 1. Rolls 4, hit. DR 1, fail
Turn 3
76 rolls 5, hits. DR 5+6=11. Rolls a 6 on the damage table and Tiger KO.
All over in 5 minutes. Total of 23 dice rolled and Tiger dead.
Conclusions
Do I think that was the right historical result, no. Difficult to imagine 4 Shermans taking out a Tiger frontally. Luck was certainly on the Sherman 76 side, a 5 on damage roll and a 6 on the damage table (although a 4 or more would still have done the trick).
The damage table is just a die roll with a 50% chance of destroying the target. Although a really good penetration can result in Massive Damage. On points a Tiger is worth 2x the points of Sherman 75, so in this test the Tiger was outnumbered in points by 2 to 1.
No movement of the Shermans needed, indeed the disposed of the Tiger in a swift and brutal way. So fast and easy to play.

jdginaz02 May 2018 12:11 p.m. PST

Sigh, I really can't understand how somebody can't understand that using a situation that the rule set isn't written to handle is a fair test of that rule set, it boggles the mind.

I've wasted too much time on this. should have remembered the old adage about wrestling with pigs. I'm out of here.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 1:00 p.m. PST

Ah well, the rules are written to handle it, both sets. So no problem there. And no effort needed or put in by you,

captaincold6902 May 2018 2:08 p.m. PST

Really sad how this thread turned out.

VVV reply Inactive Member02 May 2018 3:06 p.m. PST

And why is that? Comparison of the two rule sets asked for and delivered. Now people can make their choice of which they prefer.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9