"Bolt Action Ranges- Another viewpoint" Topic
9 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.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Bolt Action Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleA more wintry portrayal of German Riflemen with Greatcoats II.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleCan three Marine players emulate the task of a famous real-life Marine hero?
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Grumpsh | 26 Mar 2018 1:21 p.m. PST |
I've heard a lot of criticism about the short ranges of the Bolt Action game. Thinking along the lines of SLA Marshalls book Men against Fire, I think the short ranges might reflect the hesitancy of soldiers to shoot at targets that are not distinct or are not actually a direct threat. If a soldier shoots at every target he thinks he sees, as a very green soldier might, they might have a lot of friendly fire incidents, a lot of 'panic' fire, run out of ammunition often, or draw a lot of fire towards themselves. If soldiers don't fire unless its 'definitely the enemy and he is definitely coming my way.' the ranges of engagement would shorten. Applying this to every type of soldier and weapon may not be realistic, but its consistent, has a logical basis and makes for a playable game. I have read all the criticism and 'debunking of SLAM's book, but I have also seen plenty of combat footage of soldiers holding their rifles over their heads and firing blindly over a wall rather than exposing themselves to sight a target. |
Northern Front | 26 Mar 2018 1:41 p.m. PST |
Just take some time to look at typical WWII engagement ranges. It is much further then Bolt Action stipulates. This is largely because soldiers would prefer to engage at a safe distance rather then run the risk of being killed up close and personal. Additionally, infantry anti tank weapons should function at their realistic ranges as tanks are built to engage at a distance but do get caught with their pants down in ambushes and such. Conversely, what is unrealistic about some games with realistic weapon range is that the human eye has a sorter engagement range then many modern weapon ranges. This is why scopes and such where introduced. Lastly, because ranges should be longer than they are in Bolt Action doesn't mean that you can't double or triple them, if you like. It also doesn't mean that infantry didn't engage each other at short ranges in real world platoon skirmish situations because they did… but that doesn't mean their weapon range should be truncated. ;) |
jdpintex | 26 Mar 2018 2:06 p.m. PST |
If one doesn't like the ranges in Bolt Action, then simply add more terrain. |
MajorB | 26 Mar 2018 2:14 p.m. PST |
If one doesn't like the ranges in Bolt Action, then simply add more terrain. Or play Crossfire – if you can see it you can shoot at it! |
rvandusen | 26 Mar 2018 3:16 p.m. PST |
Maybe adapt the method from Force on Force – rifles and MGs can fire on anything within LOS. There is also a shorter optimal range based on troop quality, but in general terms if you can see it, you can shoot at it. |
Dynaman8789 | 26 Mar 2018 4:15 p.m. PST |
> If one doesn't like the ranges in Bolt Action, then simply add more terrain. Or play something else. If something this basic to the game is not to someone's liking then it is doubtful the game overall will be a fit. Does not apply to me, I'll gladly play it without points. |
14th NJ Vol | 27 Mar 2018 10:54 a.m. PST |
We used to play a very well done skirmish game home brewed by one of our regular players. Seemed to fill the bill on everything. ONE thing soon became apparent however. We used figure scale to equal ground scale. So our 28mm soldiers could easily shoot over our entire 12 foot x 6 foot table. Maneuver became impossible. You just couldn't move. So we jammed the table full of terrain. Making maneuver also difficult. Bolt Action while not perfect at least lets you move. We looked at increasing the ranges, decided against it. 24 inch rifle range on a 12x6 foot table leaves the flanks plenty open to move around. We try to use as few figures as possible to achieve an objective. The motto "I can't possibly hold this position I don't have enough troops" or "I can't attack that, I don't have enough firepower". So our games turn into MANEUVER battles, whoever gets into position to bring the most firepower to bear usually has the advantage and usually prevails. |
repaint | 27 Mar 2018 2:06 p.m. PST |
Bolt action is a slightly abstract game. Weapon ranges are set relative to one another to represent tactical advantages or constraints that one weapon system may have in a relation to another. If you really want to switch to "actual" scale, then you will be missing the design for effect philosophy which was the path taken rather than "realism". Overall, they do manage to create a fun game without pretence. |
uglyfatbloke | 02 Apr 2018 5:09 a.m. PST |
Depending on the scenario we sometimes abandon ranges altogether, but as general reflection of how far away the average soldier can ID a target on a constricted, smokey battlefield without taking too much of a personal risk the ranges are OK. There again our tables are stuffed with cover so there is seldom much LoS distance anyway. |
|