Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: max on October 16, 2013, 06:06:49 PM
-
I was considering the other day about including the patrol phase and jump-off points from Chain of Command into Bolt Action, and maybe a couple of other rules (splitting squads perhaps?), and was wondering if anyone has tried this already.
-
Why not use, simply, "Chain of Command"? It is the best rulebook of these two.
-
Why not use, simply, "Chain of Command"? It is the best rulebook of these two.
Generalized value judgments (even if right) are better with specific reasons (for example "why the dice mechanic doesn't work for this game,") and assumptions ("I think BA is a good fun 1-2 squad level game but bogs done at reinforced Company level,") and I would like to know why you evaluate them that way.
Played less than a half dozen BA games (all with platoon per side) but not CoC. Looking at possibly (eventually) buying THW WW2 rules (I like the mechanics, especially as the game mechanics have evolved/improved by little tweaks,) but not buying much of anything not committed previously (like the upcoming supplement to IHMN that will arrive (hopefully on time) with a set of IHMN rules.)
So specifics behind that statement would be helpful to me to understand the applicability of the game, it's style, and it's mechanics to my interests.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
It is better because it's not made by ex-GW employees ;)
But sure, mod away to your hearts content - that's how rulebooks come into being in the first place!
-
It is better because it's not made by ex-GW employees ;)
Wow, there's a value added statement! :?
I only have and play Bolt Action. I am not a tournament gamer, only play for fun, and thoroughly enjoy Bolt Action. I have no reason to change rules. The alternating dice draw for command is one of the best features for BA; also I like the pinning system and how that affects other actions in the game.
From only what I've read, the two items from CoC that are equally innovative are exactly the two items that the OP is considering adding to Bolt Action, therefore I honk it's a good idea. Why not take a game that one enjoys, and add more enjoyment to it? I don't think either of the items would affect gameplay or upset the core mechanics. They are more like accessorizing something that already works well.
-
Wow, there's a value added statement! :?
I was just poking a bit of fun at the blunt statement that COC was better than BA; I prefer neither the one nor the other but I'm all in favor of having a personal choice and a homebrew that works for you and your playing group.
In fact, of the two I'd probably lean more towards BA because it seems a lot simpler :)
-
Thanks for the replies, i was thinking of using BA for club games as it's quick and easy to learn, and i've got to explain it in French. CoC might be a bit harder, especially as i don't think they have even heard of Toofatlardies! I also want to use more vehicles than normal for a CoC, not sure if having too many might bog things down a little (opinions???)
I plan of playing CoC soon (solo) so i might end up with a preference, was just wondering if someone had done it before. I think adding the Patrol Phase could be interesting in Bolt Action, makes a change from the typical set up i usually play and better for more 'chaotic' modern battles (rather than pitched battles i mean).
I'll give it a go sometimes and post up some thoughts.
-
I was just poking a bit of fun at the blunt statement that COC was better than BA; I prefer neither the one nor the other but I'm all in favor of having a personal choice and a homebrew that works for you and your playing group.
In fact, of the two I'd probably lean more towards BA because it seems a lot simpler :)
Sorry! Missed the humour on the Internet. The simplicity of the rules is also a great feature. They are a lot of fun, and we hardly have to look at our books when playing.
-
Just adding another voice, if you don't mind.
I would happily mix some CoC mechanics into Bolt Action. Not done it myself yet but intending to do so very soon. Both Patrol Phase and Jump-Off Points are features more or less separate from actual gameplay as they just speed up setup and the initial maneuvering phase. Thus they're easily transferred to other system, I think. I'd probably restrict deployment zones from the Jump-Offs to a minimum to stay in concert with general range limits in BA.
Okay, got to admit I'm a big TFL fan, and I would much prefer if more people were playing (or at least willing to play) TFL games. That said, their rulesets require you to get your head around certain mechanics and the general tone of presentation – which isn't everyone's cup of tea and certainly not suited to your average after-work pickup game. You need to stick with TFL rules, play them over and over again, and this replayability is maybe their strongest selling point.
However, more often people don't play one set of rules at a time, and then BA comes along which is definitely more easily accessible (even if this might just be due to its close relation to some "mainstream" concepts) and more quickly sorted, even for casual gamers, than CoC (which, in turn, rewards good preparation and guidance by experienced players).
Therefore I wouldn't want to judge which one's the "better" game. It really depends on your particular 'gaming environment' and your own requirements. Why play one off against the other?
-
Surely any game worth playing will require you to get your head around some of the concepts therein?
When we prepared Chain of Command for publication we spent a lot of time on getting the wording right in order to introduce some of the new ideas and concepts within the rules. To make sure that worked and they were clearly understandable we had a number of wargames clubs who then acted as guinea pigs; players who hadn't see the rules before, who hadn't been involved in their development or playtesting. Those were clubs where English English, Australian English and American English were used, as well as English as a second language.
Firing and movement are simple D6 based mechanisms, morale is simple. People seem to understand the patrol phase and the jump-off points well enough if they are considering nailing them on to other sets of rules. The ONLY area where the new gamer will really need to get his head around anything new is the area of Command & Control. The reason for that being that command and control is at the heart of the game, and yes, it is different. But it is different because I believe that it create an interesting and challenging game which, once that one section of the rules is learnt, will be a really enjoyable gaming experience.
It becomes very difficult for any rule developer is gamers are not prepared to invest a couple of gaming evenings to learn something new. Its a bit like the teenager who gets into a car and doesn't know how to drive, but they do know that after learning to do so it will be worthwhile. If we have really reached a point where gamers are not prepared to invest some time in learning something new, then the hobby will simply become awash with derivative games based on the 1980s systems we see so much of. Some people may be very happy with that. That's fine. I simply try to present an alternative.
On the original question of using the pre-game patrol phase with any set of rules. What I will say is that Chain of Command uses realistic ranges. A WWII soldier with a rifle can hit targets at long distances, even is Space Marines can't. Hence my basing weapon ranges in Chain of Command on reality. The distance between typical "front lines" in Chain of Command is designed to be outside the shortest range band. With a system where a rifleman can only fire 24" you are likely not to be deploying into the heat of the action, but to a point out of enemy range. Now, I am not saying that won't work, but that it will change the nuances of what the rule achieves. I am minded that a simpler solution would just be to use a smaller table :D
Rich
-
Rich, I hope you didn't take offence at my post in particular. Like said, I'm for all things TFL.
It is a reality, however, at least in the gaming circles I am or have been part or simply heard of (dedicated clubs are few and far between in these parts), that gamers don't meet up regularly to play a single set of rules in a row. Or, for that matter, concentrate on a single period/setting to game in. Therefore it isn't that easy to introduce a game to these circles which takes, as you said, several sessions to learn or, rather, adapt to. Especially if you aren't an experienced gamer yourself or, not surprisingly, haven't had a chance to properly grasp the rules by just playing them a couple of times beforehand.
For such reasons people tend to centre on certain mainstream products, perhaps with the odd "secondary system" thrown in. Sad? Maybe.
To be honest, though, I don't necessarily see BA as a simple reiteration of worn-out concepts. True, fixed weapon and movement ranges are awkward. But there are certain mechanics included which I would deem pretty alien to your typical 40k-whatever ruleset – random(ised) unit activation or combined hit/morale effects spring to mind. So, there is change, even if it's pretty slow.
Off to our second 'learning session' of CoC. ;)
-
Despite aimed at the same 'level' of game, they are very much at opposite ends of the spectrum. I can see why Max would want to mix and match... but it is a very unique situation that he's in.
Likewise I can see why some people prefer one rule set and not so much the other... we all have different needs and wants after all. I have my preferred set out of the two and for my own needs, there's no reason to 'pick and mix'... but I'm hoping this thread doesn't descend into a rule set 'A' is better than rule set 'B' debate, but sticks to topic.
;)
-
Doc, not in the slightest! :D
I was merely attempting to scotch the myth that Chain of Command is particularly complicated. It really isn't. We absolutely intentionally stripped down all of the core rule sections to be as simple as possible. So, for example, shooting is the type of D6 roll and roll for hit effect that you would find in any set of rules. We did this so it really only left the one section Command & Control to need any learning.
In my experience most clubs get introduced to a set of rules by one member who is interested in them, buys them and they tried them out solo first. If he likes the rules he takes them to the club and introduces them to his gaming pals. Where rules DO tend to look complicated is when a bunch of friends open the rule book and then attempt to collectively work out what's going on. That usually ends in chaos!
What I will say is that there is huge pressure on rule writers to explain every possible situation that could ever occur in detail and with illustrations. To my mind this does have a tendency to make even very simple rules appear more complicated than they are. Often by asking for more potential clarifications we are making the general flow of the rules less clear, as the key issues become hidden behind layers of explanations.
I picked up a set of rules yesterday from 1983. It was about ten pages long and had more holes in it than a tramp's vest. However, what was clear was the authors general intention, and where there were holes the gamer could make a recent fist of filling the gaps in for himself. All of the good ideas were there clearly on display.
To add to what Arlequin says, no set of rules is better than another, they just suit peoples' individual preferences more.
Rich
-
I picked up a set of rules yesterday from 1983.
Don't go there, you just gave me a flashback to a time when you had to hold a protractor to the side of a tank so as to work out the correct armour value for penetration... I need to go and sit in a corner and rock for a while now.
;)
-
Don't go there, you just gave me a flashback to a time when you had to hold a protractor to the side of a tank so as to work out the correct armour value for penetration... I need to go and sit in a corner and rock for a while now.
;)
I've got WRG 1925-2000 for moderns; haven't played them yet but they look great, actually. Micro scale, mind you.
-
I've got WRG 1925-2000 for moderns; haven't played them yet but they look great, actually. Micro scale, mind you.
They pretty much did the job actually... but some of the 'platoon' sets that came out were incredibly complex. :-I
-
Don't remind me!
I was actually talking about one of the more exciting sets that came out of WD at that time. That spawned the "back of a postcard" rules fashion which pretty much did for the Newbury genre and similar.
Rich
-
I'm hoping this thread doesn't descend into a rule set 'A' is better than rule set 'B' debate, but sticks to topic.
;)
Not in my thread! ;D
Personally i have no preference. I like CoC because it is more realistic i think, the short ranges in BA are odd to me and when i have played solo i have increased the weapon ranges.
I just like having the choice and not being married to one set or the other. More is better in this case, and to make BA 'better' (for me!!!) i was considering modding it with bits from CoC.
In all honesty though, i bought the CoC rulebook to see about adding bits into BA, but now i will probably use CoC more as i like the rules, patrol phase, squads and all that, using BA perhaps for going to a club, depending on what people there want to play.
-
Today we have played in my local club a game of "Bolt Action", and it has been fun but, with only six turns to achieve the objetive, it has been, in the end, a Space-Marine-style run towards the enemy.
I have missed the command mechanisms of "CoC", the Patrol Phase with its many defiances and the greater level of detail this ruleset has in general. This is the "because" of my opinion, but, on the other hand, "Bolt Action" is a nice ruleset for a club morning (or evening) game or an event/show, IMHO :).
-
I am a big fan of the TFL games. I have not tried CoC, but I have played and run Sharp Practice games. I adapted the card unit activation of SP to one of the other rule sets I game (Disposable Heroes). The nice thing about sharing variations between different rules, is that if a variation doesn't work, just scrap it, and go back to the original rules. We aren't doing open heart surgery, we're just rolling dice and having fun.
I do like the simplicity of Bolt Action, but that isn't to say that I won't get a hold of a copy of Chain of Command, and become enthralled with that too. Wargaming has come a long way since I played my first game of Angriff where you had to have a minor in mathematics to determine the percentile chance of armor penetration :)
-
I have and enjoy both! One day my mates and I feel the mechanics of CoC would be nice and then on another we think BA's mechanics will deliver a nice game. The only problem I see is that having these two, with their unique mechanics, for my skirmish games I need look no further.
-
On the original question of using the pre-game patrol phase with any set of rules. What I will say is that Chain of Command uses realistic ranges.
Rich is right. try playing Pegasus Bridge with the Warlord Model. You can't shoot from one end of the bridge to the other in Bolt Action.
I have played several BA games but only 1 COC game. Yes it took us a couple of hours to get our head around things but then we were flying. Which game would I choose to play again COC. The patrol phase was excellent and the whole game felt like WW2. BA doesn't feel like WW2.
-
Rich is right. try playing Pegasus Bridge with the Warlord Model. You can't shoot from one end of the bridge to the other in Bolt Action.
I actually played a FoW game the other day, first in a long time, and although i had fun i did notice something; ranges! Even though my tanks can normally plainly see and be in range of the enemy, they're just over 24 inches so can't >:( So frustrating and something i like in CoC. Getting back into more modern rules the range thing is very important to me now, i can't stand silly range limits!
-
I played my 2nd game of Bolt Action the other day, and afterwards I watched the Youtube tutorial on Chain of Command. I like the unique game mechanics of CoC, and the patrol phase is very cool. I'm not sure I am fully understanding the option of not activating units when the opportunity arises, but I am sure I will when I have a copy of the rules in front of me (an inevitable purchase).
Here is my spin, and I may be totally out of whack, since I have not had a chance to play CoC. Like Disposable Heroes: Point Blank, Chain of Command is an exceptional set of rules that provides the feel of combat, and offer a whole lot more detail than the Bolt Action rules. While you can play multi-player games with both DH:Point Blank and CoC. BA would be a better set of rules at a gaming convention where you may have folks who have never played a WWII game.
I like all three sets of rules, and will play all of them from time to time, but if I run another game at a convention, I will probably choose Bolt Action.....you can never have enough sets of rules (unless you ask my wife).
-
The BA games played locally don't stick to only 6 turns.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Of course.
I have played BA games of six, seven or eight turns and some of them have finished with a mad run over the table from the part of one or both players (like the last one of them; the medic himself was running with a revolver in his hand, looking for the objetive). No problem with it, because this is really fun.
BA is, IMHO, perfect for a determined type of gaming. But not for other. It depends, again IMHO, of the gamer´s area of interest.
Cheers.
-
Glenn
I am not bothered about what set of rules people use, so long as they are enjoying them. That, surely, must be the first rule of any game!
I am interested, without any prejudice, to understand how you feel about the 24" range for rifles. Does that work for you? And if so, how do you rationalise this when you compare this with real weapon ranges?
Rich
-
Glenn
I am not bothered about what set of rules people use, so long as they are enjoying them. That, surely, must be the first rule of any game!
I am interested, without any prejudice, to understand how you feel about the 24" range for rifles. Does that work for you? And if so, how do you rationalise this when you compare this with real weapon ranges?
Rich
Upfront - I like what I see in the videos online for CoC. :) If I ever get more than a minimal force for WW2 (right after Air Combat/1700's North America skirmish/SAW and SAW era VSF/ACW/Fantasy mass battle/napoleonic battle/SF Combined Arms Company to Battalion level games) ::) I will have to play CoC to evaluate if it is a "fun game with a semblance of reality" which is my target for WW2 skirmish. I see where you are coming from (I think) in those videos and I find it a good approach if the game plays as it appears to do.
Answer - Not counting toy soldiers I have been war gaming since 1960's so it depends: ;) lol
Pro - I see BA as a game for fun - if I want Simulation I can get that from the DOD software (although it's the logistics software which is the true to life; Professionals study Logistics...) I did the S&T thing when the magazines/games were new and that style of games were appealing at the time (when I was single and had no commitments beyond schooling.)
Con - No, ranges are not "true to life" in the shooting on the range sense. I have problems when people assume ground scale is the same as figure scale because they never are or we would be playing in Library meeting rooms (done that too, come to think of it.)
Pro - As a researcher, I have studied the statistics (where available) from shooting in combat and since WW1 no army has used the effective range of rifles at anywhere near those distances. I feel it would be optimistic to say most soldiers of competent armies used what is strictly "aimed shots" like on a range in combat more than 25% of the time. And I am stretching to get that number. Most shots are snap shots or suppressive fire. Limiting the spread of the statistics to D6 creates unrealistic results other than short range (where individual firing is most effective.) Since my main WW2 interest is in Early (1942 - mid 1943) War in the PTO most of the combat once you are off the beach is far less than the theoretical ranges. Edit: I am excluding snipers obviously...
Con - I have seen armor games with BA and, to be kind, it is almost comedic in that the best tactics are to have the best armor/gun and stay at max range. That may just be because the gearheads who play BA locally always seem to choose late war East Front games. But I think BA is best as an infantry game in dense close terrain where support is essentially towed/deployed or carried: FT/LMG/MMG/Mortars/Light guns. A true WW2 era Combined Arms simulation the game is not.
Basically I can live with that in closed terrain and without Armor involved for the games played locally.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Granted that there are some *ahem* 'anomalies' with regard to weapon ranges in BA, they aren't hard too hard to fix in the main. Having a pistol class is a bit ridiculous, especially given its comparative range to other weapons. 'Combat pistol' courses generally use 25m as 'long range'. On my SAI, I was told to fire the rounds as a distraction and then put everything into an accurate throw of the weapon itself. There are frequent reports of 'gun battles with police' in some countries, which result in no injuries on either side.
;)
That being said, people often confuse 'maximum range' and 'cyclic rate of fire' with 'effective engagement range' and how troops were trained to use a particular weapon in a particular army and indeed the traits of a particular weapon. The SMG is typically fired in aimed single shots at the limits of its range, but in 'full auto' bursts at close range, so the ROF should vary (accuracy not so much apparently, as at least one shot from a burst is inherently likely to hit the target if the user knows his weapon).
As another example: automatic weapons are perhaps the trickiest, as firing some of them at 'full rate' generates a large amount of heat, which can cause 'cook-offs', jams and frequent barrel changes (in those weapons where you can actually change the barrel in combat). As a result, the actual difference in the 'combat' rates of fire between these weapons is therefore a lot closer in reality than in rules based on what they could 'theoretically' achieve in a factory test (x bullets fired in y seconds and then calculated to give rpm). So Brits were taught 'double tap' (or even triple and 'hammers') and some modern US soldiers to mentally say "Die, Mother*&$*$, Die" to gauge their burst lengths.
It's a commonly accepted more that typical small arms engagement ranges are in the region of 3-500 metres/yards, but its less commonly known that tank engagement ranges were on average at less than 1,000 yards... Patton actually half-jokingly threatening to shoot any tank commander who opened up at more than (iirc) 600 yards. Obviously terrain would effect this, so shorter/longer distances might be the reality (as found in Afghanistan, prompting the need for a weapon usable at greater distances than 'usual').
While 300 yards is not exactly a hard shot on a range over 'iron sights', it has been shown that accuracy deteriorates significantly once you take a soldier off the range, even more so in a combat exercise and even more so again if that exercise includes 'enemy tanks and vehicles'... how much more so in real combat? Paper after all doesn't shoot back.
Even given all of the above, restricting 'all' weapon ranges in a 28mm game is a bit silly imo, especially as the reduction across all of the weapon types isn't done on the same ratio, giving a few anomalies to say the least. The 'effectiveness' of shooting from one end of the table to the other is a different matter however. In BA I would just add an extra open range band (for most, but not all weapons) with an additional 'minus' modifier to that of the 'official' maximum range of the weapon.
Rule sets are a bit like selecting a movie though... sometimes you want believability and realism, other times you just want to sit there stuffing snack food in and watching the explosions and gunfights.
:)
-
Arlequín
Great points!
Especially the last line (and of course the pistol line...)
Saw a study/report a few years ago that said 5% of the bullets fired by police officers in gun fights actually hit someone (where it moved beyond stupid criminal pulls gun fires wildly at close range and wounds or misses officers and then dies as officer/officers empties his revolver/automatic in an intense desire to not be the fatality in the report.) Anecdotal evidence lead (no pun intended) the researchers to conclude that most police fire was, paraphrasing, "... suppress the bastard from hitting anyone until he or she runs out of ammunition... then hope he or she is smart enough to surrender." The report did not address the phenomenon called "suicide by Cop" but that would appear to be to be a small part of the statistics about crimes where gunfire is present.
I hope most military members are better trained in combat then Police officers but, truth be known, no one knows how they will respond when under fire until it happens.
"That was the moment that separated the brave people from the scared people ... I realized I was a coward." the quote is from from [usual Wikipedia warnings] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I can certainly attest that at least several 'rated marksmen' in the 80's achieved their qualifications by being able to 'group' a crate's worth of beer in the Range Sergeant's boot (trunk to you colonials) without ever putting a shot into a target. Wargame rules would likely give them a +1 to hit on the strength of that.
;)
-
Great thread! J’espère que ton mélange de CoC et BA serait très agréable! Remettez un reportage au sujet svp!
-
Apologies for coming in late on the thread (resurrection) but one interesting concept I saw mooted elsewhere was that all weapons have an equal chance to hit, but the range depended on weapon and firer. So for some weapons and standard infantrymen, under combat conditions, range might be as short as 100 metres, as that's when they would be confident enough of hitting to actually fire. (Assuming of course they had enough fire discipline to not just start blazing away as soon as they saw a target.)
-
<snip good stuff> (Assuming of course they had enough fire discipline to not just start blazing away as soon as they saw a target.)
I rather had the opinion, based on what Vietnam Vets related, (back when the war was on,) when they returned was that all too often everybody either fired, post mines/booby traps, very short range (ambush/counter-ambush) "effectively enough" or sprayed "suppressive fire" and tried to not become a casualty. Doing both at the same time might have been likely in many cases. Exceptions were when a buddy went down and someone brave enough to recover him needed cover fire. While not exactly "aimed" like on a target range people tried to point weapons at known enemy positions to allow the recovering person to get in and out successfully.
Back in my day gang fights seldom involved fire arms beyond revolvers (and rare then) and (Thank God) I was never under fire while in the military so I can't speak first hand about behavior in combat (I really don't think 1960's gang fights had the same level of firepower involved as a 'force multiplier' back in those days.)
Fire discipline seems hard to maintain in combat - seeing the wonders of biathlon shooting in the rare winter olympic coverage tells me that the physics of exertion and shooting accuracy is possible but very difficult even without be shot back at.
Any way this has been avery interesting thread. Many thanks to all who contributed. Thinking about the line between game and simulation was good. Play what pleases you seems the best summation.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I rather had the opinion, based on what Vietnam Vets related...
The experiences of Vietnam vets in live fire would be quite different than WWII vets.
Studies run after WWII showed that something like 30% of troops actually fired in combat. Consequently fire training prior to Vietnam was changed quite dramatically in an attempt to increase the percentage of troops firing.
-
Another old thread but i was wondering did anyone try some of the suggested modifications to Bolt Action. I really enjoy the game but I need to do something with the assault "unpinning rule"
-
To be honest i've barely played recently. I did try changing BA a bit but it was mostly changing weapon ranges and such. In my games we never got that close so i can't help with the assault rules :/