"Bolt Action vs. Chain of Command Rules?" Topic

Thank you Trajanus, don't know what happened there and of course no way now for me to edit the post and correct.

No problem, its well worth a read! 😃

Ah, I see what you are saying. It's ridiculous that you can't always have a Tiger tank, because the Germans did always have Tiger tanks. Any system that doesn't always allow that is clearly broken.

Sure if you want to use Tiger tanks.

Literally you could play multiple games and roll poorly each time thus limiting your support to next to nothing and consigning models to shelf queens.

Note often common kit is very expensive in CoC – EG A Pak 40 is 7 support points (and a dud buy as tanks are really poor in COC and usually points are better buying something else – more infantry, minefields, entrenchment etc etc).

And the support system makes things like ATGs a poor buy.

There's also the ommission of a fewq supports eg Soviets don't get any infantry guns ala Obr 1927 or multi-role like Zis-3. Soviets used more direct fire artillery than anyone and Zis-3 was commonly used in AT role. Note Germans get an LeIG18.

----

For what it's worth I own 0 Tiger tanks (as well as 0 Panthers)and only a single Churchill – rest of my armour is light, medium and common assault guns .

I do like to use what I have (provided it fits scenario or I have paid points for) and don't like the idea that the brand new toy I've painted may not get any table time simply due to the vagaries of dice.

the force composition and the activation system did not feel really realistic.

BA composition can be as realistic as you like (much like many WWII game out there)..

The COC obsession with full TO&Es for squads (not command squads which the system ignores) is also unrealistic.

As for activation, both systems are highly abstracted. Real war doesn't have activations!

Tactics used were IMO historically accurate

The tactics are only realistic from certain sides perspectives. Forces like Soviets, Japanese, Romanians, Italians etc etc certainly did not use the tactics promoted by COC which is tailored to modern concepts of fireteams. Germans and Brits used these.

Eg Italians manoeuvred by demi-squad – each platoon had two squads, each consisting of two-demisquads with 11 men each. One demi-squad was the firesupport squad and the other the maneouvre element. No separate machine gun team.

Soviets generally manoeuvred at company level unless it was specialist situations. COC assumes Soviet NCOs are same as German or British which is wrong – Red Army (and modern Russian army) always had weak NCO corps (usually it was just a senior conscript. NCOs were more for dispensing discipline than command.

And it completely underestimates power of artillery (which makes sense cause it's a platoon level game though that make it unrealistic from a WWII perspective).

COC does a better job of simulating two modern western platoons out than WWII. Literally the game feels like an exercise being conducted by the British Army on Salisbury Plain in 2019 than a slugfest in 1939-45.

Also from a tactical perspective CoC assumes its composite units don't have sets of orders and that units are incapable of acting without micromanagement.

And as I mentioned its biggest problem is everything is random.

Adding my two Reichsmarks worth, my preference is Chain of Command. Three basic reasons:

1. I like TFL products. I think with some exceptions (like Sharp Practice 2), they are well thought out.

2. C-o-C addresses terrain as a tactical factor more to my liking, (a little aspect of realism that is hard to ignore).

3. I prefer their combat resolution.

Either set works, it's what you like. Although I have purchased a footlocker load of Bolt Action figures, I found their overall "Warhammer" approach to rules and distribution a little difficult to follow.

Once in the UK, Ipswich I think, I saw a young leather-clad street vendor literally yelling and pounding the pavement with his fist to make a sale. In a way, that's the approach I see from Warlord sometimes, and then there are the limited edition specials, price increases, etc. Like Warhammer and the Sistine Chapel, by the time you see the objective, the subjective has already left you behind.

No harsh criticism intended. Just preference.

Its not hard to be critical of both sets of rules for different reasons. What is hard is to be totally objective. We tend to come at rules and periods from individual perspectives.

Bolt Action is done no favours by the Warlord marketing approach, which serves to reinforce the Games Workshop image of BA, along with many You Tube videos of people playing in a "Bang your dead!" manner, that offers no idea of any kind of tactical approach. Fine if you play that way, off putting if you don't.

Not to say that's the only kind of game you can construct from the rules but not a good look.

CoC is too British Empire centric and along with some other TFL games has a number of game devices or concepts where correct history is bent to fit the system. I would have to agree that out side of Germans and Brits others are pushed into using organisation and tactics they didn't really use. As a US and USSR player I can speak on that from experience.

If you play with people that accept this its not a deal breaker. Workable adjustments can be made if you are not plagued with rules lawyers, who insist that the platoon organisations in the book are holy writ.

Personally, I have managed to convince my gang that a one size fits all approach to fire and manoeuvre teams is rubbish and our games haven't suffered as a result.

Not least because one of the guys likes playing British Paras and finally had to conceded that the "challenge" of confronting them boarded on the ridiculous and a little give and take was in order.

All that said I still like them. I openly admit I haven't played BA and that one read through a friends rule book was enough to know I wouldn't like them, at all. Many years playing many rules, in many periods, may have not achieved much but it has given me insight in that regard.

Which is, were I came in, as they used to say.

PS: Pyrate Captain is totally correct. What Lard Lovers see in Sharpe Practice is beyond me. It sucks.

Trajanus,

Totally agree Warlord's marketing is on the nose. I don't think it's doing them any favours either.

Though the game certainly doesn't do 40K esque "bang your dead" first turn alpha strikes despite whatever Youtubers are doing (and I have a massive issue with the whole Youtibification of wargaming social media – I read fast and Youtube videos are long and boring and time consuming).

With regards to non-UK/German forces, I think nearly every single wargame developer gets them wrong. It doesn't help most wargamer writers are British or similar and were raised on a steady diet of Commando comics, biased 1950-60s war movies and general NATO propaganda about incompetent Russians and others and superiority of western military model.

The sad thing is that despite evidence to contrary, the wargame designers keep pushing it. Their attitudes are basically stuck in around 1970.

It's one thing that really irritates me with the TFL approach – they present themselves with this air of superiority given their historical "accuracy
yet they repeat the same disproven clichés and stereotypes big wargames like Warlord (BA) and Battlefront (FOW) do.

One of the problems with any rules for WWII is its so dammed big a topic area and things were in a constant state of flux.

To some degree this is CoCs downfall. Although as I said, I do like it and for all the reasons TP1 has already mentioned.

The fact that the have only been minor revisions to the rules since they came out and although some changes have been made to the organisation section the fact still remains the organisational template for the waring powers still doesn't reflect alterations to make up and tactics.

Some of this has been addressed in the "Pint Size" campaign books and they are pretty good for what they are. Oddly enough, I have never played US or USSR variants of these so I can't comment on their efficacy in that regard. Any one reading this who has may like to comment.

As a result the one size fits all approach to organisation etc in the original rules still gets in the way.

The changes in US practice in NW Europe after finding a single BAR per squad needed improving, or the concept of "Heavy" or "Light" Soviet squads, not to mention Sub Machine Platoons. All absent.

The biggest crime to my mind is that this gives a false picture and that new players think its how it should be because it says, or doesn't say so, in the rules.

Now TFL are not alone in this, nor are other rules, in this or any other period. Of course you can say its not the responsibility of rules authors to educate players and people need to dig stuff out for themselves. However, writing a line in your new rule set that says "Look this is not definitive" when you are trying to flog the bloody things remains unlikely!

The changes in US practice in NW Europe after finding a single BAR per squad needed improving, or the concept of "Heavy" or "Light" Soviet squads, not to mention Sub Machine Platoons. All absent.

Having said I wouldn't write any more on this I just want to offer a few points of clarification, particularly when it comes to force composition.

The scenarios and sample units in the rear of the rule book are really just a starting point. TFL are very open that they are driven by scenario based games not point based games and I think they offer the scenarios and forces in the main rulebook to assist players who don't want to devise scenarios and are interested in quick pick up games.

To address arealdeadone's point about never rolling high enough support for a Tiger I'd say simply, then don't roll. Give the attacker a fixed amount of points and the defender half (or in whatever proportion the scenario suggests). Done.

The heart of CoC is in the campaign system, of which there are now plenty, both official and unofficial. These address a number of the issues discussed here. I've just finished a Bulge campaign ( Bloody Bucket ) where the US platoons are able to add an additional BAR to each squad. They have ample access to company assets like 30cal and 50cal MGs. Each campaign adds specific period rules and tweaks the units to reflect these changes. I think you will find these address several of the issues you have raised.

Similarly with the Soviets. I played the Westwind campaign set in East Prussia in 1945 and fielded a Soviet SMG platoon (not the wisest decision as it turned out!).

The first of many theatre specific handbooks was published with the Blitzkrieg 1940 book link which features listings for a vast number of different unit types from early war Germans through to the Dutch. It also includes additional theatre specific rules. There are several good campaigns to cover the period (we played Taking the Gembloux Gap ). TFL have several more in the pipeline, the next one will cover the Far East and there is another covering Operation Market Garden in the works. I understand this is likely to be followed by the Eastern Front (that said the TFL Specials and Lard Magazine have featured several campaigns and additional force lists to cover these theatres already).

It should go without saying that if you have access to an historical TO&E then there's absolutely no reason why you cannot build whatever platoon you wish. If points are really important to you then there is the CoCulator which allows you to assign an appropriate points value and force rating to that platoon.

Personally I see the scenarios and platoons listed in the main rule book as just a bare bones starting point and quick tool kit for those eager to get some troops on the table and playing a game.

Hasn't Chain of Command won the Wargames Illustrated vote as Best Historical Wargame for four or five years running? Bolt Action has never won.

It does seem that some Bolt Action players really have a downer on Chain of Command. To say that the basic rule book doesn't contain endless variety of army lists for each nation seems incredibly unfair when Bolt Action makes no effort whatsoever to reflect historical orbats. As Tactical Painter says, the 1940 handbook for Chain of Command and the Campaigns contain endless variations based on very specific unit organisations.

TP1,

Operation Martlet was my intro to CoC Campaigns. Not the best place to start, if you are playing the Germans! 😃

Good to hear that the US/USSR changes I mentioned are available.

In the non campaign setting I've opted to use a US Armoured Infantry Platoon and follow the practice of doing away with the .30Cals as a support weapon and putting them directly into the otherwise BAR less Squads.

What went wrong with the Sub Machine Gun Platoon BTW?

Apart from the fact all that potential fire power is restricted by the range they have in the rules. Were there no opportunities for infiltration tactics?

I'm waiting with mixed feelings on the Market Garden book. My almost tame Para enthusiast will be a nightmare!

What went wrong with the Sub Machine Gun Platoon BTW?

Well, historically the Soviets had encircled the Germans with their ‘offensive' units, who then found themselves on the defensive with the German breakout. The campaign gives an option for the Soviets to defend with these platoons or more regular rifle platoons. I liked the idea of the SMG platoons but they are primarily units designed to attack, so I found their limited range less useful in those circumstances.

In the right circumstances they could be very effective, particularly when I used them in an ambush type role as I did in this scenario Gardening in Metgethen

Nothing wrong with the rules in this instance – this was purely operator error 😂

Well that's a relief! I'm hoping to scare the German players with them as soon as I get chance!

BTW: I'm confused about this CoCulator thing and where to find it. All I've turned up on the TFL Forum so far is guys quibbling over the fine points and what actually is or is not the definitive version.

I seem to recall ages ago seeing something from it which seemed to include points for AFVs based on the actual frontal armour. If that's the case or representative of content, I may stop looking!

TP01 the failure of the Soviet SMG platoon in a CoC context is literally due to the way CoC shoe horns British concepts into forces that didn't use those concepts.

It is also a failure that is often associated with wargames – SMG range is usually consigned to next to nothing even in a platoon based game (noting CoC has very long rifle ranges).

The scales and gods eye view means that SMG units will struggle.

If SMGs were such a poor choice no country would have used them.

In fact the Ak-47 wouldn't have even been developed and Russians would be using battle rifles with a full size rifle cartridge!

Also CoC like all WW2 games over emphasises long range combat. Sure a rifle has 500 yard effective range but most effective engagements are less than 200 yards and most hits at up to 75 yards.

This is why SMG units were effective.

Couple poor range with gods eye view (as opposed to "empty" battlefield of real life) and SMG is a poor choice for a wargamer despite historical successes.

Flanes of War is worst for it – SMGs (range 4 inches) can't fire the length of some tanks or across a street.

BA and Battlegroup do it better As rifle ranges are limited to 24/30 inch respectively so an SMGs 12 inch range has utility if you play aggressively.

In CoC when the "Standard" Bolt Action Rifle fires at Close Range (0-18in) against Regular troops you hit on a 4-6. Over that range it drops to 5-6. This is a rate of one dice per figure firing.

The chance to hit is exactly the same for SMGs. The difference is their Max range is 12", when you roll two dice per figure and at Close range 0-6" where you roll four.

Most fire fights tend to be 0-18" in my experience. Players tend to want to maximise "death". Providing you put enough terrain on the table and make it something other than a flat plain. I have lost count of You Tube games I have seen with little or no elevation change.

Where terrain is properly done, a lot of the time SMGs are only initially out ranged by 6" and if you then close to even 12", you out gun individual rifles 2:1 in dice.

On that basis BA at 24" Max rifle range is a lot more. Although I have no idea what modifiers may apply at that or lesser range.

My maxim (no pun intended) is "Both God and Man put a lot of stuff in the way, so should wargamers!"

I would add that a close assaulting Soviet SMG Squad, including its DP28's is quite alarming.

Oh, good God. Somebody had to mention TERRAIN. Now I've gone and set my hair on fire again.

I have played <<<some>>> CoC and <<<just a few>>> games of BA over the years. Terrain has come away as my biggest complaint with the way these games are played. From my experience, it appears that the definition of "open ground" is perfectly flat "parking lot quality" level ground planted with nothing higher than manicured putting green grass. And this will stretch for 100's of yards – no humps, bumps, ditches, holes, crests, irregularities or bushes. Might as well be fighting on a football field or soccer pitch.

Ridiculous IMO.

B

<Gulp>

Wolfhag

Great rant, huh?

B

Blutarkski and Trajanus, yep the terrain is the issue and not just in COC/BA!

It is very hard to model gentle rises on a terrain board and players don't seem to think about alternate methods of doing this (eg demarcation by a piece of string or felt).

The CoC scenarios tend to have less terrain than average BA scenarios in scenario book (assuming similar theatre).

Blutarski,
Age has not diminished your game. Now get back on your medications.

From my time in the infantry and reading accounts here's what I do as it's impossible to model small rises and undulations of terrain.

When a foot unit comes under fire they can "Hit the Deck" and have two options. One I call an Improved Position. This is where the team/squad/platoon spreads out taking advantage of available cover and returns fire. However, they are exposed enough to hit by return fire from the enemy.

The other is Hunker Down. This is like Improved Position but the unit is not shooting back so is almost immune to direct small arms fire from the same ground level.

You could probably work that into almost any game.

Go out into what appears to be a flat field, lay down on the ground and check out what you can see. Enemy mortars were normally registered in dead zones created by these undulations. Wait until the enemy congregates and then drop the barrage.

Wolfhag

You seem to be ignoring the fact that terrain is not treated in that way in Chain of Command. You have an option of moving tactically. This is slower, but represents troops specifically taking advantage of what cover the ground provides. This increases cover by one level., it's designed to overcome the flat putting green nature of the wargame table.

But hey, why let's facts get in the way of a good rant?

BobGrognard,
Is Blutarski's definition of Open Ground correct or not?

From my experience, moving tactically involves being in some type of tactical formation: skirmisher, diamond, Vee, echelon left/right, etc. You move to stay spread out and keep the formation, not take advantage of the terrain but it could happen on an individual basis while moving along.

A small two to four-man team on their could tactically move slow or infiltrate while taking advantage of terrain as you posted. Infiltration definitely would but you don't normally infiltrate through open ground.

Unfortunately I'm not sure of the designers intent or level of abstraction on this rule so I can't comment on that.

Wolfhag

BobGrognard moving tactically is not same as topography.

A low rise can obstruct line of sight regardless of speed of movement.

There is a very shallow one near where I live that obstructs LOS to vcars approaching at 50 km.

Neither BA nor CoC do this though BAs limited range on rifle fire could be argued to achieve this to a degree (though I doubt it is writers intent).

Battlegroup had a spotting mechanism but to be honest it was too easy to spot in most circumstances.

TP01 the failure of the Soviet SMG platoon in a CoC context is literally due to the way CoC shoe horns British concepts into forces that didn't use those concepts.

Huh? That's not what I said and that's not what the AAR demonstrated. As I make abundantly clear throughout my commentary on that campaign I selected the SMG platoon primarily because I had just painted one, not because I made a sound tactical decision to do so. I paid the price, not because CoC does know how to handle them but because I tried to use a hammer to do the job of a screwdriver.

I really wish you would stop asserting your opinion like it's fact. Its not. It's just your opinion and frankly I'm not convinced it's always very well informed or grounded in good analysis. I get it, I honestly do….. you really don't like TFL or their rules. However, it prevents this being a meaningful discussion about comparing two rule sets. It's all about who can shout their opinion the loudest or the most persistently.

Also CoC like all WW2 games over emphasises long range combat. Sure a rifle has 500 yard effective range but most effective engagements are less than 200 yards and most hits at up to 75 yards.

Now here's an example of what I'm saying. You assert the ‘fact' that CoC over emphasises rifle range but your analysis is flawed. At the scale of CoC a 6x4 table represents an area 240yds long. Funnily enough, just about the range at which you say the ‘most effective' engagements take place. If you understand how CoC is played you would also know units deploy to jump-off-points which are at least 12" in from the table edge (in fact it's possible to have opposing jump-off-points only 24" apart), so most engagements would start at 100-150 yds, well within your own definition of ‘most effective' (ironically the range the CoC rules refer to as, wait for it…….effective range). However, even then CoC requires units to be within 18" (60yds) to be considered close range at which point the chance of a hit increases from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2.

paid the price, not because CoC does know how to handle them but because I tried to use a hammer to do the job of a screwdriver.

Not really. The Russian SMG platoon in real life would have been required to defend quite common especially as German doctrine emphasised counter attacks (this was a very costly doctrine too).

The bigger issue is that the Soviets didn't generally manoeuvre by platoons, they manoeuvred by companies. As I've already discussed the Soviet NCO corps is garbage compared to western ones (historical fact) and Russian operational doctrine is vastly different to western one (again fact).

---

As for game rules, yes I am aware of those. SMG range in COC is 12 inches which is 40 yards and realistic.

However the rate of fire of rifles makes the longer range more murderous than it seems.

Hitting on a 5-6 still means that a unit of say 6 riflemen will hit at least twice per shooting stage at ranges more than 18. That will mean on average at least 1 shock or fatality.

Movement is also randomised so even 24 inches can be a long way away if you're rolling poorly.

Also JOPs don't mean defensive troops are all deployed around them and close to enemy. Some can be deployed further back to plink away enemy.

And if you look at the scenarios in the campaign books, they are very open in terms of terrain with huge swathes of open terrain even in areas you would assume higher density (some of the urban ones or the Battle of the Bulge).

Couple with randomised movement and that makes the whole concept of assault a painful and rather tedious process (and which is why the game can and does degenerate into pointless firefights) especially when your SMG has range 12.

To summarise movement:
Tactical – 1D6 (1-6 inches)
Normal movement – 2D6 (2-12 inches)
At the double – 3D6 (3-18 inches but take shock)

Makes it hard for those SMG boys to get into action without taking a ton of fire initially.

And once you add in randomised activation then it's even more problematic to get across 12 inches let alone 24 inches

Finally game has no rule for night fight which a key concept of offensive action for Soviets and Japanese but also British infantry from El Alamein).

Soviets also don't get certain important support weapons which were used in support like direct fire Zis-3s. Artillery and especially preparatory bombardments (pre-game barrage) are handled poorly and unrealistically in COC and it's main purpose is delaying things. Yet devastating barrages were a central component of both Soviet and western allied offensive operations. Of course COC focusing on platoons means it can't give artillery it's due credit). But no God of War here.

So the SMG platoon is trash in COC even on assault simply because of:

a.) Game promotes open terrain
b.) Randomised movement
c.) Ease of at least loading up shock from long range fire.
d.) The game assuming Soviets operate in same manner as British.
e.) No rules for night fight
f.) randomised activation + randomised movement prevents aggressive game play.
g.) lack of support options – most support options are expensive (whereas Germans somehow get the cheap LeIG 18).

In Bolt Action an SMG platoon has slightly better chances:

a.) No random movement (move 6 or 12)
b.) Has night fight rules
c.) Rifle range restricted to 24 inches (SMG also 12).
d.) You can play forces at company level thus allowing more realistic force composition and tactics (eg use of armour).
e.) Artillery preparatory bombardments are better and can cause considerable pins and even damage to enemy units.

And it's not just me who sees a lot of this as problematic – eg this group is running a Finnish CoC command and the amount of house rules they implemented is insane yet it all makes total sense when you read it:

link

For a game that prides itself on realism, CoC is anything but.

From what I've read about player feedback on CoC realism it's about the command dice and as the "leader" putting together an attack or defense based on the limited actions of the command dice and tactics to use them. The player has options and makes decisions based on the dice.

The BA command dice are a great way to break out of a traditional IGYG game.

I think both games help new players enter the hobby which is great.

Personally, I don't like randomized movement unless there's a reason for it. I don't like games with an abstracted concept of time as it's hard for me to wrap my mind around. But that's me.

Everyone has some level of objective or subjective expectation of what combat should look like or simulate. Some games designs fit their expectations better than others. Some people are looking for a simple set to move their pretty figures around and take pictures. Some are looking for a more detailed and hard core level of reality that they can relate to based on their experiences or research. Both systems have a lot to offer, just not to me.

Overall I think games should be judged on what the designer wanted to portray and simulate. As a designer I'd try to keep away from using the word "realism" as it's in the eye of the beholder and you'll never get everyone to agree.

Wolfhag

From what I've read about player feedback on CoC realism it's about the command dice and as the "leader" putting together an attack or defense based on the limited actions of the command dice and tactics to use them. The player has options and makes decisions based on the dice.

Yeah and that's great for people who are into that.

But to argue it's somehow more historical than other systems is wrong.

The BA command dice are a great way to break out of a traditional IGYG game.

BA activation system also creates friction as you have to decide what order to allocate order dice based on priorities and anticipated enemy and friendly movements.

Sadly it can be fudged by investing points in cheap "dice order" caddies but I have not seen this except in one game.

As a designer I'd try to keep away from using the word "realism" as it's in the eye of the beholder and you'll never get everyone to agree.

Nail hit on the head.

So the SMG platoon is trash in COC even on assault simply because of:
Arealdeadone

You clearly dislike Chain of Command, but you are making some very wild claims about it that are just wrong.

You say that the "Game promotes open terrain". It doesn't. I don't know any game that actively promotes open terrain. But I do know that even in open terrain in CoC you can move cautiously, representing your troops taking advantage of folds in the ground, and be treated as if in light cover.

You say that it's too easy to load up shock from long range fire. However, you don't seem to have a problem with Bolt Action ranges which don't allow you to shoot from one end of Pegasus Bridge to the other side of the river. Chain of Command has a ground scale of 12" = 40 yards. Allowing a bolt action to hit targets at over 60 yards is not just reasonable, any other outcome would be absurd.

You say that the game assuming Soviets operate in same manner as British. It doesn't. The soviets have totally different structures and totally different strengths and weaknesses.

You dislike the combination of randomised activation which you seem to think is overly random. That's actually not true. In Bolt Action you know you can activate one unit now, but you've got no idea which colour dice will be pulled next. In CoC your command dice allow you to activate multiple units at the same time or sequentially, allowing you to have coherent tactics with units working together. That's far less random that BA.

You mention a lack of support options – most support options are expensive (whereas Germans somehow get the cheap LeIG 18). Well, the Soviets get to select their own M1927 76mm Infantry Gun, which has exactly the same cost as the German gun for the same number of points. Or they can have a 12.7mm HMG which is a bigger hitter than any German MMG for the same points value. No nation gets a better deal than others. As for lack of supports, you can just choose to have more support points and get more toys on the table.

You also mention random movement. In truth the movement isn't random. Normally, you'll roll 2D6. You can roll 3D6 if you run. Both of these are VARIABLE but not random. You can predict with confidence that you're pretty likely to move 7" with 2D6, whereas trying to move 12" is highly risky. There are risks involved, but it's not totally random. You can predict how likely you are to get somewhere, but you can never be certain.

Actually I think this sums up your objections to CoC. You just don't like the way the game does stuff. You don't like random movement rates and for you that makes the game "bad". Yet lots of people do like random movement. They understand that what the game is trying to do is present you with command challenges where you make decisions without absolute certainty.

Now like that and as I result it's a game I enjoy playing. However I don't then describe the game as being perfect for everyone because I accept that not everyone likes the same thing. I actually don't enjoy BA because it doesn't tick the boxes I want from a game. But I have no problem with other people enjoying it.

What I'm finding odd here is that you seem to actively dislike the fact that some people prefer CoC to BA. Why not just accept that it's horses for courses and let them enjoy their gaming? We don't all have to like the same thing.

For a game that prides itself on realism, CoC is anything but.

Just your opinion, nothing more.

Bob my issue is the CoC mob are always raving how much more superior their game is in terms of realism.

As for other points:

- Scenarios have quite open terrain

- Folds in terrain. – no, tactical movement isn't the sane. I already gave a real life example example a car travelling at speed limit of 50 kph being obscured by a low rise. It would be obscured if it was going 200 kph.

And as I mentioned BA does this badly too. Both games assume terrain is flat unless specifically modelled.

- BA allows multiple activations with an officer. At least you know at some point your units will activate when the dice comes out.

In CoC it is so random you could activate something/everything/nothing or if enough 6s are rolled never even get a turn.

"I rolled a 1, three 5s and a 6. Yay I can activate one team." So much for coherent tactics.

Or

"Geez my opponents keeps rolling double 6s. Will I even get a turn?!?".

- Coc movement is random- you roll a dice and that is what you get. You can call it variable but 3 – 18 inches movement still means you can't rely on it to get you to where you want.

- Core rulebook doesn't have IG for Soviets.

- Sure Soviet platoon structure is different to Brits in CoC but is operated in the same way. As mentioned this seldom happened in Soviet army as the NCOs Corps were different and Soviet tactical doctrine emphasises movement at company level not squad.

I don't like COC cause it is too random. If people like it that is their thing but as mentioned I am sick of COC players slagging out other systems for not being as historically accurate (when it is not). Coc players even come to Ba Facebook to do this.

Hence I have taken a stand here against this kind kind elitism.

Personally I liked much more the way activations and NCOs and Officers worked on Troops, Weapons and Tactics ruleset also from the lardies.

One thing I think we can all agree upon …
Getting the balance correct between order and chaos on the battlefield is a challenge indeed.

B

Hmmmmm, so if neither of these two, which rules do you prefer, for platoon, to multiple-platoon (company level) sized games?

Looking for rules that promote and support historical tactics, reasonable results, use of infantry AND tanks/vehicles, etc.

It's about whatever gets your mojo going.

Maybe lots of dissatisfaction with rules – that'll never change (flavor of the month club).

More important to get the game on I think (just make your scenarios more interesting – most rules should be fine).

Thresher01,
Download this pdf and then email me:
link

Wolfhag

Hmmmmm, so if neither of these two, which rules do you prefer, for platoon, to multiple-platoon (company level) sized games?

For company level you might want to look at Crossfire, a very innovative set of rules that provide a very challenging game environment. No fixed turns provides very dynamic game play that escapes the predictability of IGOUGO. Simple but historical command and control. No measurements, with units moving in tactical bounds makes the game flow. Stands are squads. Good blog here with lots of info and scenarios link

Another option is I Ain't Been Shot Mum, company level again, from Too Fat Lardies. Historical unit structure and command, played at 1 figure = 1 man. Card driven activation and well supported with theatre supplements, scenarios and campaigns.

The question was about Boltaction or Chain of Command not Tread or crossfire.
Based on that, I would say Chain of Command for an Infantry based platoon level game is the best option.
If you want lots of tanks Chain of Command is probably not for you.
Chain of Command gives a good feel for the period, realistic platoon Orbats and troops behave realistically. What I like is that you can lose 6 or 7 men and the platoon will fold and fall back. Reading accounts from the period that's about the right level of casualties to throw back an assault. Bolt action platoons normally fight until the majority of the platoon are killed.

The question was about Boltaction or Chain of Command not Tread or crossfire.
Based on that, I would say Chain of Command for an Infantry based platoon level game is the best option.

You're not following the thread. We've thrashed out the OP's original question, he then asked "if neither of these two, which rules do you prefer……", hence my answer.

Mea Culpa.