"Bolt Action for the Korean War" Topic

I don't own a copy of BA; despite being a member of the Airfix generation and consequently being able to identify most of the vehicles, aircraft, and troops of WW2, I've never managed to self-generate sufficient interest in gaming that conflict to justify purchasing one, however, I've maintained a long-standing, dormant interest in the Korean War. With a BA KW supplement and complementary plastic Warlord figures soon to hit the shelves, I find myself seriously contemplating the idea of giving it a try.

I've read here on TMP and elsewhere many comparisons of BA and CoC, with the consensus being that while BA makes for a very enjoyable game, CoC matches it or comes close in this department, but is the undoubted superior game on the realism front. What I'm wondering is whether the features of BA that are commonly cited as detracting from its realism when it comes to playing WW2 games might be less of an issue in the case of Korean War games because of the very different nature of the later conflict, the tactics used by both sides, and the types of actions it generated; eg. does the Communist emphasis on close action and the nocturnal timing of a large proportion of the fighting make the short weapon ranges less problematic, and do the relatively primitive Communist tactics and the static character of most actions remove the problem of squads being indivisible?

It would be good if the answers to these questions were 'yes', because the popularity and accessibility of BA make it attractive as a Korean War gaming entry point.

Please see my 'bugged' post under the spurious title 'Operation Bluecoat AAR'.

Bolt Action, for me, is a good tournament game for two people. You can play with more people, but the game slows down. CoC is better suited for a game between 2 or more people. I like CoC as you have to think tactically about how you want to accomplish your mission. I feel that Bolt Action is really focused on dice count and trying to figure out how to maximize the number of dice any one unit can fire at a time.

I find just the opposite of Major Mike, I can easily play a multi player game of BA, non tournament, but of the CoC games I've witnessed I've had several players grumble that due to the mechanics of the game there are long period of inactivity for some in a multi-player game and it is better suited to 2-4 players.

I'm hoping someone will actually address the topic and the questions I posed… or is that a vain hope?

@Henry … I suspect that a comprehensive answer will be hard to come by. Like asking which is better, a hamburger or a hot dog?

They are both games. They are both fun. I've only played them both solo, and found BA easier to do in that format.

I long ago got used tot he fact that buildings, if they were "true to scale" would dominate the board and make games less fun. Same for "real" effective ranges versus what we get in the rules.

I tried Squad Leader one time, decades ago, and hated ever minute of every hour, and swore to never, ever play that again. I don't want to play a simulation of war. I want to play a war game, push some appropriate minis around the table, have "some" tie-ins to the period I am gaming (but I don't want to keep track of bullets, for example), and have fun.

Not being able to split up a squad may go against doctrine and actual tactics of the time, but since both players have the same limitation, it remains fair (to me).

If you are "the guy" who is going to invest in the minis and the rules, and get your buidies to play, you can get both rule sets, or either rules set, and you will have fun.

And without investing heaving either way, my guess is that BA:KW will have army lists for the main participants included. So no initial need to buy separate army books. And CoC will have free downloads of army lists.

So you are just talking about two core rulebooks.

Compared to the cost of the minis, those two books are not going to set you back hugely.

Seattlegamer – the sort of people I expected would be able to answer my questions and who would therefore respond to this post would have experience of both rule sets and a thorough understanding of their differences, and an equally thorough understanding of the Korean War. For now, the wait continues.

I found a couple of photos of the contents of forthcoming Warlord figure packs for the Korean War supplement, and a few words from a company source, both of which make it clear that, disappointingly, there'll be no plastic sets; only metal figures. The numbers of Communist troops required make this too expensive a prospect in 28mm, so if I do go with it it'll be in a smaller size – probably 20mm – which is fine, considering that I already have a decent quantity of sandbagged foxholes, entrenchments, bunkers and such terrain pieces in that size purchased for another modern project.

It's a shame there'll be no Warlord plastic Communists at least. No doubt the numbers of BA Korea gamers will pale into insignificance compared to the WW2-playing hordes, but I'm sure those collecting NKPA and PLA armies would have bought enough boxes to partially compensate. After all, the technological and numerical disparities are similar to those found in 19th century colonial campaigns; it's a sort of mid-20th century Zulu War.

I like BA as a GAME.. but it has nothing whatever to do with WW2. A game where it's a detriment to take an LMG… is just not WW2. Artillery on the table, magically moving fleets of pumas, the list goes on and on… but it is a fun game. CoC is a game that is WW2 from the ground up. I'm not sure I have seen Korean War platoon lists for CoC however. But with the "coculator" it should be easy enough to put something together. Heck, other than a few minor changes a late war US leg platoon and late war Soviet leg platoon would work fine.

In a pinch you could use US WW II and Russians.

Sorry to hear there will be no plastics. Maybe that is not true? I will be getting the BA:KW rulebook when it comes out, to check out what they have done. I assume they will push some of their own minis so that people can play using their stuff. Will be interesting to see what they offer up initially.

If someone hasn't already prepared Chain of Command Korean War army lists (I have never gone looking for any), they will. Lots of fans of that system, and it just takes one knowledgeable person to start turning lists out.

Meeplemart has a few packs on its 'coming soon' page, including NKPA and British rifle squads/sections, all in metal.

As others have noted, it's unlikely we'll see Korean War plastics from Warlord because of the up-front tooling costs (rubber moulds for metal figures are vastly cheaper to create) and the company's tentative 'let's just see what happens' attitude to the supplement and associated products (as expressed in interviews with company reps on certain podcasts). I suppose if the supplement leaps off the shelves WG might review the situation, but that's unlikely in my view.

As I said above, if in its advertising campaign WG had promoted the Korean War as an asymmetric 'numbers versus firepower' conflict like the Zulu War, with massed Communists against vastly outnumbered UN troops, I think it would have made marketing plastic Communists feasible.

What I'm wondering is whether the features of BA that are commonly cited as detracting from its realism when it comes to playing WW2 games might be less of an issue in the case of Korean War games because of the very different nature of the later conflict, the tactics used by both sides, and the types of actions it generated; eg. does the Communist emphasis on close action and the nocturnal timing of a large proportion of the fighting make the short weapon ranges less problematic, and do the relatively primitive Communist tactics and the static character of most actions remove the problem of squads being indivisible?

It's hard to answer this before I've seen the game in question. I suspect that there will be special rules for the armies, but have no idea what they will be.

I'm very interested in Korea, and am starting to paint an army in anticipation:

That's going to look like this when I'm done, hopefully:

Nice one. Pretty sure that M4A3(76)W HVSS belongs to the 5th Regimental Combat Team (assigned to the 24th Infantry Division). I think I can make out a 5-I on one front fender, and TK45 on the other.

BTW … there is a very nice side and front color image plate of this tank in "Tank Warfare in Korea" by Steven Zaloga & George Balin. Concord Publications.

In what other historical conflict do you get to paint your vehicles like SF/fantasy vehicles and not get called out for lack of realism?

Agreed! Normally it's fighter aircraft that get the fancy faces, and bomber aircraft that get the colorful nose art.