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
