"More realistic Bolt Action?" Topic

I like the order dice mechanic of Bolt Action. I don't like the absurdity of having Katyusha trucks on the board. Or any heavy long range artillery for that matter. I know Warlord's gotta make a buck selling models, and I think they have created a (mostly) wonderful range of figures.

There are other more minor gripes about the game of course, although the sometimes weird and wonderful unit combinations don't bother me too much. What I'm getting at is this, how many of you have introduced home brew modifications to the rules? And if so what are they? How about special rules?

Frankly, one of my biggest gripes with the game is the hassle of looking up unit costs, but that's another matter.

What you point out is one of the problems with the rules publisher selling the figures and vehicles.

Absurd games just to sell stuff.

But, today's wargamers want everything in one package. It's easier for them.

Good luck getting guys who play those games to go along with modifications. I am not sure that is allowed in games with these antecedents.:)

Just my opinion.

Tom

It is pretty absurd for a company of troops to have air support and/or heavy arty support on a routine basis. Most companies would have been very happy just to have a mortar team available as long distance support. As Garyowen states, this is a product of today's wargaming environment.

We gave up on the game for the most part. For infantry games we're back to Crossfire.

It's partly to sell models and make the big $$$, but part of it is also a nostalgic "tip of the hat" to the pioneers of Wargaming. In Charles Grant's "Battle", for example, he develops a set of WW2 rules from the ground[scale] up and builds his forces at the same time. He starts with his infantry elements and works up through recon and armour until he gets to his supporting companies, including AT guns, 80mm mortars and artillery. Back then he was using ROCO Minitanks to provide his prime movers, etc.

It is playing a Game rather than a Simulation.

If your not in a tournament, play scenarios with an OOB. Then there is no need for things like points costs or having to wince when 88s or SU 152s show up at a skirmish level game. That way you don't need home brew modifications or special rules.

If your gaming partners find this a bit constraining then let them pick, from a limited and plausible list, of support options for their platoon.

If one of the guys has a model of a Katyusha truck and really wants to use it, make it a scenario objective. The Russian player/team gets a victory point for every turn it fires on an off board objective and the German player(s) gets 5 VPs for knocking it out.

Do a little research on historical TO&E. Use your group's imagination for scenario ideas and objectives. Have some fun with a fun set of rules.

coopman, indeed. But when that artillery support is up on the firing line with the infantry it hurts. I would also add that having armor involved in just about every action is equally absurd but does not make my stomach churn quite so much.

And Tom, yes, most players are 40k guys and see no problem. And there is certainly, let us say, a reluctance or resistance to introducing any sort of custom rule. The mere suggestion results in a blank, slack jawed look. Oh for the good old days of my old game club. Fearless men who thrived on home brewed systems.

One good point is that you can pick and choose. I like the simplicity of the game rules for the infantry. You can choose to use or not use what you wish, which is what we all do at some point in any game rules anyway. I am thinking of adding a Stuart to my USMC infantry to use once in a while; a support vehicle for the infantry in a particular situation. I am slow to learn rules and BA is easy to learn, so they are good for me. I most likely will rarely play with much off-board artillery or air support as it just complicates things. (At heart I am a horse and musket gamer.) To each his choice.

Using battalion or higher level support opions like Katyusha trucks or Panzerwerfers is not realistic for a squad-to-platoon-level game like BA, but they're powerful and have a "cool factor" that gamers go for.

It's really the gamers' fault for wanting to use them. Warlord Games is just taking advantage of demand and the chance to make more money. If you've grown into a more "historical" WWII gamer, do what many others have done: play CoC instead.

Big Red: +1

My biggest gripe is the literalist approach to figs and building for scale but weapons that are not equivalent in range at the scale of the fig. OoB is not something I let the rules dictate

.That said it was a real hoot to once play a game with a U-boat on the table and a Stuka both providing useless fire support. The nun 4th column saboteurs achieved as about as much. A cinematic game if not historical. It's akin to sword and the flame.

There are other rules that deal with the issues that you don't like. I would suggest taking a look at "Chain of Command" for one.

+1 Chain of Command

TFL's motto is "Play the period, not the rules"

Yes, the ranges are a bit mind bending when you find your pistol can't shoot across the street. One mod I want to try is allowing any weapon to fire anywhere on the board, with increasing negatives.

I also want to try a game where each player controls only one man. One side consists of a squad tasked with clearing the board of enemy "snipers" (which may or may not be actual snipers, or just enemy riflemen. The sniper side may be one or two players that are deployed actually hidden as opposed to the game's version of hidden, their location indicated on a map that can be verified after the game but their figures not placed on the board until they are spotted. The hidden sniper would use the additional special rule borrowed from the classic Squad Leader where those fired on have to guess where the shot came from and make a morale role to spot them. Until spotted the sniper is not placed on the board. The squad can also use reconnaissance by fire and fire at windows or other likely places a man might be concealed. The sniper would always be on ambush until such time as he moves or does any action other than shoot or is spotted. Just for fun, hidden mine fields may be present.

Battalion support is entirely appropriate for company level actions. CoC is nice but no better than BA in this regard. It is probably more likely you'd have a tank with a platoon in CoC than BA in my experience. BA tends to breed more 2nd platoon (short albeit) lists than single platoon with tank.

Battalion support for platoons would and should be rare imho.

There was an interesting question brought up recently in a different thread. When was a platoon tasked with taking a farmhouse? Something like that. The premise was that we were designing games and objectives that utilized too small of a forces compared to what was reality. The poster mentioned the lack of battle reports at the platoon level.

Is this "A walk in the Sun" delirium? Should it have been a company taking the farmhouse?

I'd prefer not to use special rules to make a rule set "work". I like them to make things fun though.

+X for Chain of Command

As others have mentioned give Chain of Command a try. Used to play bolt Action and still think it's a good game so not knocking it, but after trying Chain of Command we never looked back as it reflected perfectly the kind of gaming experience we were after for platoon level WWII.

Christopher

The grumbling and eye rolling of the history savants over the lack of historical plausibility of Bolt Action is so tiresome.

Bolt Action is unabashedly a comic book- Hollywood version of WW2 It's first and foremost a game and doesn't purport to be a simulation or anything like it. And it attracts the 40k crowd intentionally.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the indignant snorting about Katyushas being on table is so cranky old wargamer.

And don't fool yourself into thinking that people who play it don't understand the inaccuracies. It doesn't matter to them because they just want to have fun playing with their toy soldiers

Hey Neli, get off my lawn!

I've always thought that a successful historical war game requires a certain degree of verisimilitude: we want our games to be sufficiently "like" what we imagine the battle to have been like. The critical variable is in what we imagine. For some of us, the more we know about a historical period, the more demanding we become. Our Viking Age battles are savage clashes between rival bands of hungry, poorly armored, erratically motivated warriors, reluctant but hopeful armed farmers, and terrified "others." For others of us, we imagine a more cinematic, "romantic," or fantastic experience, and our battles tend towards the History Channel "Vikings," 13th Warrior, or (God help us) Game of Thrones. We just need to find rules and opponents that share our vision, and we are good. I like Bolt Action just fine -- but I'm a medievalist.

Once you get past the initial deployment/patrol sequence, which most of our group that uses Chain of Command have dropped since it is too tedious, and the "unique" turn sequence, which generally leaves one or more players just sitting on their hands for most of the game, the mechanics of Chain of Command and Bolt Action are just the same…you get dice for the weapons, you roll to get hits, you roll to get kills, you assign morale loss and you move on.

The grumbling and eye rolling of the history savants over the lack of historical plausibility of Bolt Action is so tiresome.

Bolt Action is unabashedly a comic book- Hollywood version of WW2 It's first and foremost a game and doesn't purport to be a simulation or anything like it. And it attracts the 40k crowd intentionally.

It's not everyone's cup of tea, but the indignant snorting about Katyushas being on table is so cranky old wargamer.

And don't fool yourself into thinking that people who play it don't understand the inaccuracies. It doesn't matter to them because they just want to have fun playing with their toy soldiers

Yep, Neli, you nailed it. It's a good chance to paint models, play with people on a Sunday, have some good laugh.

If I want a wargame that looks a bit closer to "reality", I usually switch to a paper wargame.

More realistic Bolt Action?

Play chain of command instead ;)

Chain of Command over BA everyday.

Chain of Command. The realistic game where your toy soldiers teleport onto the battlefield.

So, no one is playing BA with home brew alterations. It's a take it or leave it situation. I wonder how prevalent this is.

I would like to play Chain of Command, if I can convince anyone else to do so. I think what I have isn't a rules problem at all. My problem is perhaps a generation gap. I think my ideas about what a wargame is are outdated, very much the same way as my ideas of what a war movie should be. To me a good war movie is "A Bridge Too Far". To the younger generation it's "Fury".

My problem is perhaps a generation gap.

Not so much a generation gap than an interest gap. As your fascination with WWII grows from a passing interest to becoming a history buff after reading more books and watching more documentaries on the subject, you expect more realism in the games you play. It's a natural evolution gamers go through. Some of those people who don't go through this transformation call them snobbish grognards.

Not sure that it always wrong to give battalion or divarty support to just a platoon. It had to get used in support of some platoon somewhere ina battle, it might as well be at the action we happen to be gaming. It just would not be so dedicated or timely or of unlimited duration. One firemission or even two in support of the tip of a spearhead is fine although it might be some many minutes before it becomes available, if at all.

A pretty simple change would be to have all "off table indirect stuff" deployed in their own Off Table areas. Either a separate table or if space restricted just have each players 6" edge area as ruled off table. Anything there can only target and be targeted by indirect fire. They would be attacked only one unit at a time as they would not be anywhere near each other despite being deployed adjacent on the gaming table. So no missing the 25prds and getting a 3" Mortar by lucky accident, if anything it simplifies things as you would only care about direct hits for indirect fire to those areas.

You could take things further by allowing any vehicles that reach that line to have a chance of finding and attacking the big guns after a suitable delay. Say every turn a 6 needed to find something then the following turn its moved adjacent to a random unit for close range firing, If the vehicle kills it, it would have wait till it gets another 6 to get an attack at another random unit. This is just a quick thought and there is more or less detail could be added but something like that would encourage players to try to break through and be a bit more realist without adding much complication.

I think Panzerfaust is onto something here. I've know guys down at the local stores for over 30 years who played Tractics, Command Decision, etc., and would argue about armor thickness, realistic orders of battle, etc. Today they all play Bolt Action and Flames of War without batting an eyelash, explaining away any historical inaccuracies, unrealistic situations, etc., as "design for effect". It's far more important to get as many painted figs on the table and finish the game in under three hours than worrying about realism. I don't have any problem with it as long as they're having fun, but I find it interesting how things have changed over time.

Chain of Command. The realistic game where your toy soldiers teleport onto the battlefield.

Not teleporting. CoC isn't sci-fi. Appearing unexpectedly in an ambush because of uncertainty and "fog of war" due to faulty or incomplete real-time intel is a common occurrence and realistic battlefield effect.

OTOH deploying neatly in classic set-piece fashion and having a "God's eye view" of the tabletop are anything but.

Tired Mammal, that is a very good idea. This is the kind of thing I originally had in mind for this thread.

I agree with Neli and don't understand why people always suggest CoC whenever someone mentions Bolt Action.

Personally I don't get on with TFL rules and find them too "gamey" in their mechanisms that intrude into the game.

I play Bolt action and enjoy it for what it is…

Mike

Bolt Action can be a very fun, fast paced game. There is a lot to like about it. But, another nit pick I have is the rule book itself. It's pretty, and I like all the glossy pictures of minis, but if I had my choice they would be bunched together in one section away from the text. More importantly I would like to see a table or list of unit costs with at most small silhouette or line drawings of the unit next to the text. If a player doesn't know what a Sdkfz 222 is they can look it up somewhere else in the rules or google it. Maybe someone has already created such a format, if so feel free to post a link to it.

Once you get past the initial deployment/patrol sequence, which most of our group that uses Chain of Command have dropped since it is too tedious, and the "unique" turn sequence, which generally leaves one or more players just sitting on their hands for most of the game, the mechanics of Chain of Command and Bolt Action are just the same…you get dice for the weapons, you roll to get hits, you roll to get kills, you assign morale loss and you move on.

That describes absolutely no game of CoC that I have ever played or seen.

Some Bolt Action players just use the more historical platoon and support options from the Chain of Command freely available Army Lists to select the forces for their games. Works for them.

More realistic Bolt Action? Just use the scenarios from the Skirmish Campaign books. Most of these are attack/ defend types. So the defender puts no troops on the table and are on over watch (Hidden deployment positions drawn on a map). Use markers for moving troops not in line of sight or when troops come within 12" of hidden defenders. Once defenders fire they are put on the table. Having an umpire would make things a lot more tense in players not knowing just what the size and troop type the enemy are. Of course there are lots of ways of doing this.

Not so much a generation gap than an interest gap. As your fascination with WWII grows from a passing interest to becoming a history buff after reading more books and watching more documentaries on the subject, you expect more realism in the games you play. It's a natural evolution gamers go through. Some of those people who don't go through this transformation call them snobbish grognards.

Wrong and insulting.

Historical knowledge and enjoying a game that's not historically accurate aren't mutually exclusive. Only snobs feel that way.

Historical knowledge and enjoying a game that's not historically accurate aren't mutually exclusive.

I stand corrected. aegiscg47's "design for effect" comment pretty much says the same thing. Maybe it has nothing to do with age difference or interest level and is just a matter of personal taste and preference.

I think if its paint your own bring your own army then you should stick to the rules. If someone is setting up a scenario and providing the bilk of the forces then bring on the special rules, I'm happy to do it.

The problem in a points based, pick up game, is that you can't just "nerf" or "boost" certain unit types and be fair unless both parties agree. Pushing the unrealistic assets off table messes with the points value. Seriously, save it, don't bother going on about people who need or are obsessed about points. "Get off my Codex!"

"So, no one is playing BA with home brew alterations. It's a take it or leave it situation. I wonder how prevalent this is."

I use a modified version of BA. I have incorporated sighting rules, so now to shoot at it you must see it and if you saw it once and it moved you have to sight it again. I have also jettisoned the armor rules and imported armor rules from another rules set that is more detailed. I've used both modifications to run BA games at conventions, and the response from players used to standard BA has been good.

We use our 'field-stripped' version of BA all the time and mostly play company in attack/platoon(ish) in defence or company encounter games. For the latter we generally only allow one platoon on the table for the first turn, sometimes 2 turns depending on the scenario. It's not uncommon (but not usual either) to have a troop of tanks, but often a pair of mortars or a section of MMGs or AT guns. We sometimes have a pre-attack bombardment phase but never field artillery on the table unless an attack on a gun line is the scenario – in which case there will be 4 or 6 or even 8 guns. It does call for a big-ish table mostly, though not necessarily for an urban game – I did an article on that which is on the WL website. Ranges….none at all save where it makes sense – PIATs for example – but everything is a +1 modifier over 12 inches, however we do stuff our tables with scenery so there's seldom much LoS anyway.
I have been tinkering with our own rule set for 1:1 figure scale company actions with historically comprehensible units (no parachute fireflies. A certain publisher was interested for a while, but decided it would clash with other products.
Really, with very little amendment BA is historically just as good and just as bad as any other set I've used or watched in action and is more robust than most, so it's easier to adapt…we have played lots of multi-player games at battalion level (a couple were bigger) and had them work our fine and a lot of fun for as many as 8 or 10 players….you do need access to a big, big table admittedly.

Uglyfatbloke,

Would it be possible to view your "field-stripped" version of the rules? They sound like an excellent way to play a large, multiplayer or convention game.

Thanks,

BR.

I use Bolt Action for 28mm WW1 games. The order dice mechanic makes for exciting games, which my adult sons and I enjoy. I am reasonably well versed in the historical aspects of the Great War and have thought carefully about modifications for this period.

The most obvious modifications relate to unit compositions. This is pretty straightforward as you can imagine. There isn't the same range of weapons systems but it is quite surprising what is on offer. There are some lovely models these days – the German truck-mounted flak gun that was used in direct fire mode as an AT weapon or infantry support weapon; the Canadian motor machine gun vehicle; the Seabrook; etc, not counting the various tanks that most wargamers are familiar with.

Given that infantry/cavalry troopers make up most of the figures on any table, there is the issue of the WW2 combat mechanics. Many wargamers recognise that these mechanics can apply to the late war period (1916 onwards). There is a tendency, however, to think that the earliest weeks of the war were more Napoleonic in character. This is not at all surprising because the secondary literature is full of descriptions of German troops advancing in mass columns or lines, only to be shot down in droves by BEF infantry trained in the 'mad minute'. The other myth is around the mindless love of the offensive, which drove French officers to throw their infantry against barbed wire and machine guns. In reality, all major powers trained infantry and cavalry in fire and manoeuvre tactics at the section level. The Bolt Action rules do not need modifying in this respect, even in 1914 games.

A bit trickier is the likes of the concept of Stosstruppen, which are often modded with extra capabilities. Again, these types of mods are not surprising when you read many descriptions of how the specialist assault forces were trained and operated. Reading more deeply (and having picked up information from men who were in such units during the war), it is clear that the very specialist assault units (from Sturmbataillon Rohr for example) relied very heavily on massive supporting firepower rather than special superpowers of the infantry. The effects of excellent training and morale, which was a feature of these infantry, are already accounted for in Bolt Action.

For things like cavalry and rifle-grenades, which are not covered fully in the main rules, I have found the relevant supplements (Soviet Union supplement for cavalry; French early WW2 for rifle-grenades) to be fine. Tanks require some specific mods, apart from the FT-17 that is covered in WW2 rules. It isn't difficult to align the other tanks to BA though.

Off-table artillery support works fine with a mix of preparatory bombardment and the use of FOOs. Air support is probably best left out. Mostly it operated off-table in the BA context.

I have laminated cards with the various unit stats and the quick reference guide, which makes it easier to look things up during a game. Otherwise I haven't felt the need to introduce major mods.

Robert

Big Red… we adjust some things for specific big games depending on the scenario and to some extent the player group – if they are all or mostly history geeks there's more you can do without having to explain very detail.
Some basic things…no 'exceptional damage' means not having to think about loss of an NCO or the LMG; we assume someone takes over either role. If a 2-man officer team is fired on and takes one casualty we throw a D6 -- 1.2 or 3 and the officer has bought the farm, 4,5, or 6 it's the other guy.

All platoon commanders can activate their entire platoon (but nothing else) with the 'snap to it' rule.

Players are responsible for their own orders dice….usually rather fewer than they have units; we play with companies and usually about 8-10 dice per player. There's a deck of the required number of cards – say 8 red and 8 black. Turn over a red card and all the Allied players make an activation, turn over a black one and all the Axis players do so. At the end of the turn everyone picks up their dice and a new turn begins. Naturally if you use snap to it a point will come where a card is turned over but you have no dice …tough.

Also, you may neglect to pick up an order dice by mistake…tough…fortunes of war and all that. There is an explanation of this on the Warlord website in an article called 'Arnhem at the Rijn Hotel'.

Some forces may be …unusual…. but not unnatural for a big game; my wife has a very nifty Carrier platoon for her Canadians/Brits so that might be deployed in 3 quite distant part of the table; we like a 20-25 foot table so that can call for a good deal of dashing back and forth.

Some changes are radical – Battalion mortar platoons can be deployed to company commanders as sections of 2; 6 to hit at the first attempt in the usual way, but in the next turn anything but a 1 is on target…forces people to move their guys or go down…or die horribly.

We don't do 'howitzer in the front line' stuff. If there is a battery of guns (and we treat them like mortars) they are on the table somewhere and as much of a liability as a target as anything else so you have to keep them well-protected.

AT gun crews, bazooka teams crews etc…they were issued with small arms so we let them use their small arms – one SMG and X rifles, but they are never allowed to make close assaults.
We tried the shell template thing…did n't like it and went back to dice.

Historical units only, but in some scenarios we work from the principle that units are seldom up to strength – also I like to sew a bit of dismay where I can – so…two average dice for each infantry squad right at the start and remove that many (if any) figures. We don't do turret jam…if your turret got jammed you'd get the hell out of Dodge toute suite.

That's about it really. We use BA for WW2 in 28mm and 54mm and we also use it for Vietnam. If you're close to Edinburgh we're having a big Vietnam game at Claymore in August; come and have a shufti.

uglyfatbloke,

Thank you for all the info and the link. I would love to play in one of your games. I have the right name, visage and girth but I'm in the wrong continent.

I thought you might not be quite as local as all that. Pity; you could have joined us for a BA Arnhem game in 54mm – my company of Paras against my wife's veritable hordes or Germans; it does call for a very large table and a modest hall to set it up in and we have not yet found one since we've moved….but we're working on it.

+1 for this from Tired Mammel
"A pretty simple change would be to have all "off table indirect stuff" deployed in their own Off Table areas. Either a separate table or if space restricted just have each players 6" edge area as ruled off table. Anything there can only target and be targeted by indirect fire. They would be attacked only one unit at a time as they would not be anywhere near each other despite being deployed adjacent on the gaming table. So no missing the 25prds and getting a 3" Mortar by lucky accident, if anything it simplifies things as you would only care about direct hits for indirect fire to those areas.

You could take things further by allowing any vehicles that reach that line to have a chance of finding and attacking the big guns after a suitable delay. Say every turn a 6 needed to find something then the following turn its moved adjacent to a random unit for close range firing, If the vehicle kills it, it would have wait till it gets another 6 to get an attack at another random unit. This is just a quick thought and there is more or less detail could be added but something like that would encourage players to try to break through and be a bit more realist without adding much complication."

I've used this for various games and it works just fine. It's also very simple – a 25pdr for example can't be reached by a mortar, so no counter-battery fire there. Air can be abstracted as a force that interrupts or even destroys off-board artillery. A motor force that exits the table towards "close" off-board artillery like 3" mortars has a certain chance of interdicting it or destroying it faster than a foot force that does it.

The issue is not rule mechanics, the issue is SCENARIO mechanics.

In my experience, most wargamers are very weak when it comes to scenarios and laying out proper terrain. Those are skills that can all be developed.

+1

"I agree with Neli and don't understand why people always suggest CoC whenever someone mentions Bolt Action.

Personally I don't get on with TFL rules and find them too "gamey" in their mechanisms that intrude into the game."

Not a single person in my area plays any TFL rules anymore – they tend to be as clunky and unreliable as an old Triumph motorcycle. Personally, I gave mine away or sold them at flea markets. So I don't care what anyone says about CoC, it just goes right out the other ear when I see TFL attached to it.

Agree with Neli 100% So tiresome hearing from players from other games, especially one where units auto-magically 'beam down'right where you want/need them. If you don't like the game, don't play it and leave the people who do, alone. Just go away, thanks.

In our group, we don't play BA as written in many instances as it is a tournament game and we play scenarios. Often I will convert ASL scenarios. No need to count points or adhere to list min/max for types of unit. Also, we don't allow a 1 in 6 chance of air support or artillery hitting friendly troops, usually an 1 in 6 followed by another 1 in 6, but we have had it happen! We also don't allow artillery units on board; they would be so far from the action. An exception is if the scenario hinged on taking out the gun. Common sense must needs replace tournament rules in some areas. Snipers remain hidden on board until they successfully hit someone…

Another house rule we use is when units enter off board, we only put one model to represent the unit until someone has a clear LOS to it. We also use 'dummies' (usually 1 dummy per 3 real units). They are not revealed unless a clear LOS exists (no cover). In this way, the defenders do not have 100% intelligence on the enemy. We use 'hidden' units, but not on board, that's silly. We record their position(s) and they can stay in ambush until they move/fire. In a game where one force entirely enters from off board, the entire defending force can be set up hidden. It completely changes tactics and thinking. It works for us.

But, as a rules set, it is perfect for guys who don't claim to be 'simulating' anything except a great afternoon/evening of fun with toy soldiers. Tabletop games simulate exactly, uh, nothing. No game does; don't let your own ego argue that it's anything other than grown men playing with toy soldiers. There's nothing wrong with that. We work, or have worked, hard, all our lives. We deserve to spend our leisure time doing anything we damn well please. Listening to the 'others' denigrate BA is so tedious. My advice is to them is to spend your energy painting your models. Take your ball and go home, no one cares what you think about BA.

Sincerely,
Steve