"Bolt Action? Yea!" Topic
63 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 don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Rules Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
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.
Pages: 1 2
FlyXwire | 15 Jul 2018 6:44 a.m. PST |
Big Red posted – "Artizan Afrika Korps, Blitzkrieg PzIII and Warlord tank commander."
Good gosh, those are stunning! Really inspiring work, and right there – excellent leads on manufacturers to consider if collecting the theater. |
Joes Shop | 15 Jul 2018 11:08 a.m. PST |
|
Big Red | 15 Jul 2018 1:19 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the kind words. As a side note, my tanks leave a burning trail back to their starting positions. |
Thomas Thomas | 16 Jul 2018 10:50 a.m. PST |
Bolt is in many ways a more successful conversion of the 40K engine than Flames (and as noted the Konflict 47 rules actually help simulation value – the assault rule is much better, likewise some of the Antarias stuff also helps esp. using d10s). The design suffers from some marketing constrains: the need for tournament balance, use of d6s, large scale (28mm – note how much more effective 20mm is in the pictures), short ranges due to small 4X6 tables and distortions in order to get heavy weapons on table etc. I'd like a bit more WWII feel in the game but that said actually prefer it to the odd ball mechanics of Chain of Command and the really weird What a Tanker. Nevertheless we should never be sold the old false dichotomy between simulation and Game. YOu can have both it just takes a longer and more thoughtful design process. We should look at Bolt as the floor – its is low as we will go simulation wise and push for better designs with less emphasis on selling us figures. TomT |
kevanG | 17 Jul 2018 10:07 a.m. PST |
During my first game, I found them very bland. Second game reinforced that belief. roll on three or four years and the fantasy guys were playing them. Things take time to gell into their market. |
TacticalPainter01 | 18 Jul 2018 6:03 a.m. PST |
that said actually prefer it to the odd ball mechanics of Chain of Command and the really weird What a Tanker. Care to elaborate? What mechanics do you prefer and what are ‘odd ball' and ‘weird' exactly? |
Snowcat | 18 Jul 2018 6:13 a.m. PST |
|
trailape | 31 Jul 2018 5:33 a.m. PST |
I played the original BA and found them to be a fun 'beer and pretzel' game. I much prefer Chain Of Command. It really is a personal preference but I prefer more a realistic, 'gritty' and challenging experience. I see no reason both these rules or any others cant be played side by side. |
The Young Guard | 14 Aug 2018 3:21 p.m. PST |
I do get tried of the old simulation argument or it doesn't give a feel to the period. I've thankfully never been in a war and the nearest I got to being a soldier was in the cadets (let me tell you, fighting off a section of Cornsih cadets is a hairey experiance…in more ways than one) I don't have a clue about what ww2 was like. I've read many books and enjoy finding out about peoples experiances but speaking to my grandfather about his time in Malaya (I know this was after the war) his version of a particular skirmish was very different to his captains. It all reminds of Blackadder when George says "cor I won't half miss this. Maybe after that war we should all meet up and re live this" to which the reply is "what, you want us to dig big holes in your garden, fill them with water and get your butler to take pot shots at us?" It's all perception. I've played a range of rules, some I like, some just board me to tears. Are some more realistic than others? God knows I wasn't there in the war. But some are more fun than others. BA I play when I want a quick game Battlegroup for something a bit more meaty IABSM when I want more friction and a company level game. All good games, just different takes. Plus I totally agree that a good scenario makes a game, not an army list |
The Young Guard | 14 Aug 2018 3:22 p.m. PST |
Plus, some lovely painting there! That's the other aspect that makes the games grand! |
TacticalPainter01 | 14 Aug 2018 8:23 p.m. PST |
I've played a range of rules, some I like, some just board me to tears. Are some more realistic than others? God knows I wasn't there in the war. Realism in gaming is an interesting topic, but I rarely find people are discussing the same thing. Some people equate the discussion with games reflecting the violence and horror of actual combat, while others see it as more about a realistic representation of the way command and control worked, or how weapons systems operated. If I showed you a set of rules that allowed a Lee Enfield rifle to penetrate the front of a Tiger, you'd tell me those rules were unrealistic. Why? Because you could back it up with evidence that a 303 round cannot go through 100mm of steel. That's one straightforward concept of what could be considered 'realistic' or otherwise. We know that at platoon level in WWII all commands were via voice or hand signal, there was no radio communication below this level. So if I showed you a set of rules where a platoon commander could influence the actions of men under his command far beyond his ability to project his voice and/or out of his sight, we could probably agree that those rules are not a realistic representation of the way platoon level command worked in WWII. If the same rules allowed you to operate a Panther in France in 1940, again we could agree that is not a realistic representation of German tanks used in that period of the war. This attempt to create rules with mechanics that try to put you in the position of making the same sorts of decisions the commanders of the period faced is what differentiates say a set of Napoleonic rules from a set of WWII rules. Otherwise our rules would not reflect any particular period, we would just be playing games with miniature soldiers who could be on any battlefield at any time. Not saying that wouldn't be fun, just that it wouldn't bear any relation to a particular period. No matter how great the rules, it will never be just like 'being there' and thank goodness for that. |
The Young Guard | 15 Aug 2018 7:26 a.m. PST |
Well put sir and you are right on many levels. I would be annoyed if a panzer turned up in France in 1940. I guess my point is there's sensible realism and realism that goes to so far as to create a simulation that just becomes a drag. |
TacticalPainter01 | 16 Aug 2018 4:08 p.m. PST |
I agree, which probably explains the multiplicity of rule sets for any period and why we will have endless discussions in these forums. What is fun and engaging for some is too light and ahistorical for others. On the other hand the gritty detail of a simulation that is a highly rewarding experience for some would be considered the antithesis of fun for many. It all depends what you are looking for from the experience. However I do think if a set of rules advertises itself as a game set at a particular level of command in a particular historical period (for example brigade level American Civil War, or, company level Vietnam), then they can expect to be scrutinised by those familiar with the period and its command issues and judged as to how plausible the game process and outcomes are when measured against the history. I think that's what separates an historical gamer from a general gamer. The other factor then is the game itself and that's going to be purely subjective and down to what engages you in a gaming experience. I think the real skill in historical rules writing is how well you abstract all the detail and keep it playable, without drifting too far from the history. |
Pages: 1 2
|