"AI suggestions for Bolt Action" Topic

My prompt: do research from real military manuals and after action reports (do not use other video, board or miniatures rules or game systems or wikipedia) into WWII squad tactics to include "course of actions", "fire and maneuver", movement formations and tell me the best way to implement them using the bolt action rule and command dice with a minimum of changes to the rules. do you understand?

Here is the updated response:

Yes, and I think this is exactly the right approach.

In fact, I would narrow the scope even further because I think we'll end up with a much better product than simply creating "house rules."

My Understanding of Your Goal

You are not trying to turn Bolt Action into Advanced Squad Leader or another detailed simulation.

You want to preserve the things that make Bolt Action successful:

the Order Dice
the fast play
the simple mechanics
the cinematic feel
the easy learning curve

…but have the decisions made by the players mirror the decisions made by actual WWII squad leaders.

That is a very different objective, and I think it is achievable.

The Research Methodology I Would Use

I will deliberately exclude:

Wikipedia
Other tabletop games
Other miniature rules
Computer games
YouTube personalities
Secondary game designers

Instead, I will base every recommendation on primary or authoritative historical sources, such as:

U.S. Army WWII field manuals (e.g., FM 7-10 Rifle Company, FM 7-20 Infantry Battalion and wartime training doctrine)
German Army manuals (e.g., H.Dv. 130/2 Truppenführung, Merkblatt series, infantry training publications)
British War Office infantry training pamphlets
U.S. Army historical studies
U.S. Army Center of Military History publications
Official after-action reports
Combat interviews conducted immediately after battles
Operational Research Section reports
Historical Division studies
Official wartime lessons-learned documents
Memoirs only when they corroborate official doctrine or reports.
What I Think We Will Discover

Based on my preliminary review of the doctrine, I already see something interesting.

Real WWII squad leaders did not make dozens of decisions every minute.

Instead, they repeatedly chose among a surprisingly small number of "battle drills" or standard courses of action. Doctrine emphasized rapid execution of rehearsed responses with minimal orders rather than inventing a new plan under fire.

Typical decisions were:

Deploy
Return fire
Suppress
Flank
Bound forward
Break contact
Assault
Consolidate

Those are exactly the kinds of decisions that could map naturally onto Bolt Action's existing order system.

Where I Think Bolt Action Can Be Improved

Rather than adding more rules, I suspect we can improve realism by changing what an Order Die represents.

Currently, an Order Die is essentially:

"This unit gets to act."

Historically, it would be closer to:

"The squad executes a rehearsed course of action."

That subtle change could make the game feel much more authentic without increasing complexity.

My Proposed Research Deliverable

I recommend producing this as a structured design study.

Part I – WWII Squad Doctrine

How U.S., German, British, and Soviet squads were organized.
Differences in doctrine.
Role of the squad leader.
Role of NCOs.
Machine gun doctrine.
Riflemen doctrine.

Part II – Battle Drills

React to fire.
Meeting engagement.
Attack.
Hasty defense.
Break contact.
Assaulting buildings.
Woods fighting.
Crossing open ground.
Night operations.

Part III – Fire and Movement

Base of fire.
Bounding overwatch.
Alternating bounds.
Successive bounds.
Fire superiority.
Suppression.
Assault timing.
When units stopped to fire versus continued moving. Doctrine consistently stressed establishing a base of fire and then maneuvering another element by bounds.

Part IV – Movement Formations

Squad column.
File.
Wedge/arrowhead where appropriate.
Skirmish line.
Echelon.
Column under fire.
Movement in woods.
Movement in urban terrain.

Part V – Historical Courses of Action (COAs)
For each common battlefield situation:

Historical doctrine.
Common decisions.
Actual examples from after-action reports.
What usually worked.
What usually failed.

Part VI – Bolt Action Conversion
For every doctrine:

Which existing Bolt Action rule it uses.
Whether any rule changes are needed.
If needed, the minimum possible change.
Effect on game speed.
Effect on historical realism.
One Additional Suggestion

Because you are an experienced wargame designer, I think we should go one step further.

Instead of writing house rules, we could create what amounts to a WWII Tactical Doctrine Supplement for Bolt Action.

Rather than replacing existing mechanics, it would introduce a set of optional Doctrine Cards or Battle Drill Cards. A player drawing or assigning an Order Die would choose from historically grounded actions such as "Base of Fire," "Bounding Advance," "Assault Bound," "Break Contact," or "Consolidate." These would mostly reinterpret existing movement, fire, and morale rules, adding only a few tightly focused mechanics where doctrine requires them.

That approach preserves the speed and accessibility of Bolt Action while encouraging players to behave like actual WWII squad leaders. It also has another advantage: because it builds on the existing engine instead of replacing it, it is easier for current Bolt Action players to learn and adopt.

I believe this has the potential to become a genuinely valuable design supplement, because it addresses Bolt Action's most common criticism—its departure from historical small-unit tactics—without sacrificing the features that made the game popular in the first place.

Is this of any help to anyone? Also posted in the bolt Action section where I started it.

When you ask "do you understand" it should respond to the degree you have customized the prompt to get the right data and not AI slop. It also showed the links it used to generate the info.

Wolfhag

The joy of chat-bots, returning responses such as "I believe this has the potential to become". As if there could be judgment much less "belief" in the algorithm.

That said, the approach is valid. Attempting to focus the player on choosing from what the level of commander would have to work with. This is not novel, but it is sound game design. The implementation via cards of a set doctrinal responses is also good. Especially if the set would reflect the differences between the different national doctrines.

Would players go for it? This might be the rub. Players often chafe on such limitations.

An example of implementation of such a system is "Wings of Glory (the older name "Wings of War"). Each pilot can only choose from a limited set of cards. These reflect both equipment limits and doctrinal limits. This game had very good player buy in. I do not recall many people complaining about the fact that their plane and selection was so limited. In part because it was so up front in the mechanics of the game.

I think implementing a set of tactical response cards into the "Bolt Action" system might work well. One could also reflect not only national differences but the level of training/experience of the commander by allowing a set of tactical response cards that is smaller or larger to reflect this (like the + and – system in ASL, or the number of maneuver cards to choose from in the old Avalon Hill "Richtoufin's War").

Thanks Dyehard.

Yes, many players, mostly with no military experience, don't like limitations. I think if you can prove a valid historical reason for them it may get them to understand.

I ghost all of the chatbot responses. I'm not looking for a relationship.

Before modifying someone else's design, I think it's a good idea to understand if your ideas were considered by the designer and if it is abstracted into his design or left it out for a reason.

Tactical response card, if based on historical tactics and executions, should help new players come up to speed and understand tactics better.

Wolfhag

The rules I have long been working on hinge on three basic sets of standing orders: assault, hold, skirmish. A commander assigns one of the three to a unit, and the commander can change the order later by expending command influence. So a unit automatically does certain tings, and a commander is only required if it is to do something ELSE. That is for "operational" level games. But for small unit tactics, yes, the unit commander is like a qb calling the play, at which point everyone knows what to do.

Wolf,
I give you my 11B seal of approval. One of the issues I have with many "platoon" level games: CoC, BA, 40K, OPR is that the infantry squads are just "blobs" of troops who act very little like anyone executing FM7-8 (that was my bible back in the day).

Generally speaking, once the OPORD is given, the commands given during contact are fairly small in number, and overwhelmingly based on battle drills: "base of fire here, flank left/right." We also still used whistles to communicate several pre-planned changes of fire or consolidations. No one gave individual commands on where to fire upon contact other than maybe follow the team/squad leader's tracers, or shift fires right/left/up/down.
The more a team/squad leader talked (shouted) meant poop was hitting the fan and the system was breaking down. Talking was generally limited to pointing out targets and relaying the SL's orders.

I'm not sure exactly how to translate a platoon attack into Bolt Action without taking away that "2LT" command style that every player wants, with constantly changing objectives for each squad.

But I applaud your atempt anyway!

Yeah, it is generally a waste of time to tell a man who to shoot at. He will shoot at the man he thinks is most dangerous to him. We may recall Sam Watkins writing that he never shot at officers -- what are they going to do to me with a sword? -- but always at a rifleman.

Reading this discussion reminds me why I ended up gravitating toward NUTS WW2 Skirmish.

A lot of the comments are about wanting squads to behave more like real WWII squads—using fire and maneuver, establishing a base of fire, flanking, bounding, and making decisions at the squad leader level rather than simply moving every unit independently.

That's largely how NUTS already plays.

One of the concepts built into the game is what infantry manuals often describe as Fix, Flank and Finish:

• Fix the enemy with suppressive fire so they can't effectively react.
• Flank with another element while they're pinned or focused elsewhere.
• Finish the fight with an assault or close-range attack once you've gained the advantage.

I was sold on the system during a Battle of the Bulge game years ago. A Panther entered a town occupied by U.S. infantry. One element occupied an upper floor and engaged the tank from the flank, forcing it to button up and reducing its awareness. While it was focused on that threat, another squad maneuvered to the rear and placed a demolition charge underneath it. The Panther never had a chance.

It wasn't something we scripted—it simply emerged from the mechanics. The game rewarded the same sort of coordinated actions described in WWII infantry doctrine.

If what you're looking for is a game that naturally encourages historical squad tactics rather than adding optional doctrine cards or house rules, NUTS is worth a look.

link

SBminisguy,
I like NUTS! mainly for the reaction rules and tactics.

Maggot, have not see you for awhile.

I've played Bolt Action several times, not a big fan. I did the prompt mainly messing around with AI to see if it would suggest and improvements.

Overall the AI feedback looks accurate because I had it focus on the manuals and what I know are true. That's how you stay away from AI slop and hallucination.

Wolfhag

Just for the heck of it, I've watched some WW2 British training films (at youtube, Imperial War Museum) and US training films and gamed them out with NUTS, works surprisingly well. What's your preferred WW2 skirmih rules?

SBminisguy,
Our group plays different games every month. I think RapidFire is the one I liked best. However, my favorite is actually mine, the infantry version of Treadheads.

It uses the same system overall OODA Loop Timing system (no IGYG, activations, random initiative, command points, etc.)as the AFV game. Formations are important for Situational Awareness, reacting, and returning fire. There is no die rolling to see who is active or has the initiative. Initiative is "seized" by the unit which can respond the quickest. So when a Mutual LOS is established, both units take a Situational Awareness Check. If you are in the wrong formation type, suppressed or poor unit you respond slower.

The unit which was fired on first or ambushed performs a Course of Action: Assault (must pass an Aggressiveness Check to move under fire), hit the deck (Improved Position) and return fire, hit the deck and seek full cover, fall back out of the enemy LOS. The player, not the dice normally decides.

Assaults and Fire & Movement must be coordinated within the squad or platoon. The more the target is suppressed the more the maneuver element can move safely.

I was a Grunt in the early 1970s (Maggot can relate to that) and I wanted something that related to my training and experience which is pretty much unchanged from WWII as was most of our equipment. It does what I want, that's what is important.

I'm willing to bet you are from the San Jose area and we've met at KublaCon or at the church where your group games at. I did run my game there one weekend with Chuck S. (and his AtA game) and a number of times at KublaCon. I moved to Tennessee 5 years ago.

Wolfhag

Well, we probably gamed together back in the day! Rapid Fire is my preferred system for Batallion level games. Did you game with Manny Granillo's group at all? We played lots of Rapid Fire as well as Panzer Korps and Corps Command. He loved "Spectacle Games" like a multi-table Invasion of Crete game using Rapid Fire.

The rules are well structured, easy to get into and share some similar design ideas and mechanisms with NUTS, like as players units come into LOS you make a mutual "In Sight" test to see who reacts first and how they react. So it's very dynamic, non-IGOUGO. Hope your move to TN has been a good one. If the ruling powers here get their way and eliminate Prop 13, my property taxes will double and I will probably be seeking a new home state…

People have made some good points above.
It is often a case of what are you going to "abstract". Rapid Fire has made some very cleaver selection on what to abstract.

IMHO "Bolt Action" was an attempt to draw players for games such as WH40K into WWII play. It has many of the GW skirmish game type mechanics to provide a very familiar feel to that audience. So, there is good and ill in that approach. I think home brew add-on are a fine idea.

And speaking of abstraction and card driven game, consider the old Avalon Hill "Up Front"
link
It abstracts potions on the battle field, driving people to a very on the ground POV as opposed to the view of God that dominates miniatures games. The main options to the players at any one moment is to either move or to fire. It was really rather eye opening to play a game with so little over-view of what is actually happening.

DyeHard,
Yes, it appears BA is an offshoot of WH40K.

Balancing detail and abstraction is the key.

Wolfhag