Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: Galland on 22 January 2014, 06:05:54 PM
-
I see that a large part of the gamers here seems to prefer Bolt Action as the primary system for WWII wargaming. I take it, that the main reason is that they now serv as some sort of Games Workshop alternative for the non mainstream wargaming community?
I fail to understand why people dont play Rules of Engagement from Great Escape Games, but then, they dont use a points system, wich I can understand is a bit anoying.
So, please, do tell me a bit about Bolt Actions WWII game, pros and cons :)
-
I never use point systems when I plan a game.
I had never heard of RoE before so I used a search engine and found this: http://www.greatescapegames.co.uk/rules-of-engagement
I have italicized items in the copy/paste below that would have had me regretfully step back from considering buying such a set of rules for what I would see as a (for me) niche period without the experience of playing the game several times with people who are experienced with the rules first.
Paste begins.
Rules of Engagement (RoE)
This book provides gamers with all the information they need to get started with the Rules of Engagement system. Below is an outline of what the book contains, follow the link in the title to have a look at pages from the book itself.
Rules of Engagement is a tabletop wargame for two or more players that allows you to recreate battles of the twentieth century to the present day. Players use miniature soldiers on model terrain and in this 240 page hardback book you will find a comprehensive rules system that will allow you to field your troops on the battlefield.
Game rules:
The complete gaming rules covering movement, weapons, close quarters combat, artillery and more. Includes opportunity fire, hidden troops, snipers, tank support and fortifications. With clear examples and diagrams, Rules of Engagement is easily accessible yet offers plenty of depth for experienced players.
Scenarios:
Nine scenarios from take and hold missions to desperate rearguard actions. Each scenario includes specific rules covering, for example, reserves, unacceptable losses and additional orders.
The Second World War 1944-45:
A detailed history of the War on Western Front from D-Day to the Fall of the Reich. The Orders of Battle section gives listings of the forces available including company and divisional support options. Forces covered: German Grenadiers, Panzergrenadiers, Volksgrenadiers, Fallschirmjäger and Waffen SS, British Infantry, Airborne and Commandos, Canadian Infantry, US Infantry, Armored Infantry, Parachute Infantry and Rangers and the Maquis.
Hobby section:
A complete colour guide to painting your miniatures and creating a battlefield. Uniform and equipment guides for all the forces featured in the Orders of Battle including British and Canadian Infantry, British Airborne and Commandos, German Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers, Fallschirmjäger, Waffen SS and Volksgrenadiers, US Infantry, US Airborne and the Maquis.
Paste ends.
My thoughts:
Initially I thought "240 pages of rules"? But then I see that you include stuff I don't need/want in a rule book: History, (and not from the early years of the war that are my interest either,) when I prefer to read history separately from the rules book; the TO&E stuff for forces I will never put on the table is extra pages to me; and I don't need painting schemes for same. Additionally you don't have some of the very forces I would like to consider creating for a WW2 game.
While BA isn't the "end game" of WW2 rules I think buying the rules and two supplements after playing the game several times with local fans was a good investment even if I think I possibly won't take WW2 rules into retirement. I am thinking of trying, buying, and comparing CoC and THW's Nuts! (second edition coming) and PTO/Korean Supplements to see which, if any I might take into retirement.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Using points in a historical wargame?......I'm sorry you've completely lost me :?
I just throw models on the table making rumbling noises and going bang when my tank fires its big killy gun thing.
As for RoE vs BA I haven't got experience of RoE, but the idea of replacing my disposable heroes books makes my head and wallet hurt
-
RoE plays like WH40k with a ton of counters : meeehhh.
-
RoE plays like WH40k with a ton of counters : meeehhh.
Oh, I didn't know that. [slowly backs away from the table]
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I disagree, I have played lots of RoE. You don't have to use the counters for everything, we only use something to mark suppressed etc squads, we don't use the order counters. I own and have read but not played Bolt Action (nor have I ever played 40K) but I should have thought that Bolt Action was much more WW2 40K than RoE.
RoE does have points but it calls them "Combat Effectiveness" and "Support Points". The force choices are much more restrictive than Bolt Action and there is absolutely no scope to try and build "super armies" for competition play.
edited for slight typo..
-
First of all, I know that there is some sort of style here now, where rules, counters, dice and whatnots are not allowed and deemed non kosher, however, I did write:
I fail to understand why people dont play Rules of Engagement from Great Escape Games, but then, they dont use a points system,
Not that I wanted points in a system. RoE do NOT use a points system, something I am fine with, even though I can understand that its easier with a points system, so do you, but maybe you dont want to say it out loud? ;-)
However, I understand that Bolt Actions game system use a points system? Like MOST wargaming systems do. I am by no means a supporter of Beer and Pretzels games, in fact I hate them, I also like complicated and extensive rules. RoE on the other side is almost to simple for my taste, but we do have a lot of house rules.
So, with this in mind. Anyone here actually playing Bolt Actions game system, your comments and input would be most welcome.
-
What soldieroftheline wrote ^^
-
(It shall be know that I dread WH40k after playing it A LOT)
I must confess that my experience with RoE is really limited (and old), but it really tasted like a WH40k ersatz. (but with tokens)
I'll take the advice of the more experienced players though.
-
Okay Barbarian, thats fair enough. I am not a great fan of 40K either, well, I like the whole concept art thing and bla bla bla, but I havent played it in 20 years or so.
I have been contemplating buying the Bolt Action system, not really for playing, but for input and to see how they have done it. I also must confess to the fact that I am working on my own rules (with friends) as we speak, so its a bit like research.
-
I was tempted too, but I play WWII in 10mm, and when I saw that the rules plus the supplements needed would cost more than my armies, I just give up on that.
I'll ebay them some day.
-
You should ditch both ROE and Bolt Action, and use Chain of Command. These are the best ww2 rules produced for platoon level games. They are simply the bees knees as far as I can see for Ww2 gaming but I can see the lack of Points Lists will put off certain types of gamers. Nuts are an interesting game too, and theses two rules are the ones for me. the others just seem to gamey by comparison.
-
Not familiar with Chain of Command. But will look in to it. I really like RoE, but it needs tweaking and lots of redoing, since the german tanks are too weak compared to reality, but thats easy enough to do. Luckily, there are unlimited with WWII test material.
-
...
So, with this in mind. Anyone here actually playing Bolt Actions game system, your comments and input would be most welcome.
I play Bolt Action. It's taken off at the local store. The points system is great for pick up games. Friday is Bolt Action day, with 400 point missions. Saturday is open day with 1000 point games. I can roll on in on those days (or a lot of other days too) with an army of my choice and get a fairly balanced game. Stores that have regular game nights for various systems go well with point systems. The store also runs monthly special events that are more scenario based, rather than pure-generic points games. But it's the growth in the playerbase from regular weekly points games that makes that possible.
The main selling points for the game (at least locally) are: A wide range of plastic models that are cheap (compared to GW), number of models in play (reinforced platoon, like 40k), same scale and table size as 40k so store terrain and tables can do double duty. None of these are unique to Bolt action. The rules themselves are decent. A couple bumps here and there but really any other 28mm-friendly ruleset could be substituted. It's just that Warlord has done a good job packaging up models and rules and distributing to stores.
-
This might help with the discussion abut BA (and CoC) since it gets into some design differences and possibly some specific factual/perception issues.
Gracias,
Glenn
Edit: darn, the link didn't post. I will try and find it again. Sorry.
Still looking but found this: http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=59230.0
-
I must admit, I had very high hopes for BA. But after playing it for about a year I fail to see how this game could ever be considered "historical" by any means. I have travelled far n wide playing at different places and different people. The more I play the worse it gets. Power lists are only the beginning of this rulesets problems. I find more n more people playing on 6x4 tables with very little terrain, which makes that classic 40kish I line up my guys you line up your guys and roll dice to shoot n save thing with little movement all too common.
Instead of ranting on I can recommend two games I have read great reviews about in the historical community. "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" and "Chain of Command". By TFL. Check it out.
-
Chain of Command by TFL?
I must admit, I had very high hopes for BA. But after playing it for about a year I fail to see how this game could ever be considered "historical" by any means. I have travelled far n wide playing at different places and different people. The more I play the worse it gets. Power lists are only the beginning of this rulesets problems. I find more n more people playing on 6x4 tables with very little terrain, which makes that classic 40kish I line up my guys you line up your guys and roll dice to shoot n save thing with little movement all too common.
Instead of ranting on I can recommend two games I have read great reviews about in the historical community. "I Ain't Been Shot Mum" and "Command Decision". By TFL. Check it out.
-
Yes sorry that's what I meant. o_o thanx
-
I played my first two WWII games this weekend using a customized combination of RoE and Bolt Action funnily enough. Mind you, it was simplified for a convention but I picked it up quickly and decided to play a second time. Then bought the rules and two forces. lol
The bulk of rules and charts/templates were from RoE. I believe the priority rules (a bag of colored marbles representing each players units) was from BA.
The only con I noticed was the lack of point system but that perhaps fell on the GameMaster. The Canadians and German forces had the same number of units. 1 command, 2 squads, 1 mortar, hmg, anti tank team and 4 tanks. The problem was evident when my panther, stug and two panzer 4s systematically knocked out 3 Canadian tanks in 3 turns.
I would recommend RoE
-
So, please, do tell me a bit about Bolt Actions WWII game, pros and cons :)
I think Bolt Action is great fun. The pinning and activation rules are very interesting. It's easy to learn, most of the time you don't really need the rulebook. It's easy to modify the rules as well since it's based on the idea that "all regular dudes with rifles are the same", I'm working on a couple of WWI forces which I'll use with BA rules, most conflicts of the 20th century should be applicable. Personally I think the point system is a good thing, but if you want to use OOBs instead go ahead, the gaming police won't arrest you. o_o
I don't get the comparisons to 40K and think they play totally different. Sure, a dickhead that used to play 40K may now play BA, but that's nothing to do with either game system, he's just a dickhead. :-I 40k is the quintessential IGOUGO game, and BA is nothing of the kind. It's never your turn.
I wouldn't mind giving you a demo. :)
Stockholm doesn't really have a "Bolt Action scene" so it doesn't suffer from any maladies other people may have experienced in other countries.
-
You will probably get more opponents with BA.
I own and use BA, RoE and CoC.
RoE is, in my opinion, best for larger scale games. CoC is lovely for smaller games.
Bolt action is more popular in general. Doesnt mean its better.
-
I don't get the comparisons to 40K and think they play totally different.
They are both focused on tournament play and despite a wealth of background material neither plays in a manner that matches the background :D
BA strikes me as being a very tournament friendly set of rules that was created to make a fun and cinematic game that was easy to play. The emphasis is on the game and the game experience and not necessarily making a game that is historically accurate.
-
They are both focused on tournament play
How can a game be focused on tournament play? Nothing in the BA rulebook say that "you have to play in a tournament, and if you don't you're doing it wrong". The fact that a few people play BA in tournaments doesn't change the rulebook one iota. They have to adapt the game for tournament play, the tournament doesn't make the game adapt.
Chess is a tournament game, and anyone not called Kasparov is doing it wrong. Obviously. ::)
-
I also would recommend Chain of Command and for company-level battles I Ain't Been Shot Mum by Too Fat Lardies.
-
How can a game be focused on tournament play?
The way the game is written and the way that it is marketed. Also its intended audience. And how the army lists are structured.
Nothing in the BA rulebook say that "you have to play in a tournament, and if you don't you're doing it wrong".
What a strange thing to say
-
Not played RoE but do play BA.
The BA activation adds a really nice element to the game and does lend to a more piecemeal reactive action which in my mind does evoke a sense of ebb and flow that would have been within a battle. The rules are fairly simple to pick up and yes they are not giving a sense of massive historical accuracy and depth. Warlord have gone down the simple and fun route which means that it is really accessible.
You can find situations where a tank can be a bit of a steamroller but it just makes you build a diverse force I have found. The army lists are fairly 'abusable' for all those who like to meta/power game. However within a group of 'gentlemen wargamers' you can have some really enjoyable games and do not have to break the bank to do so.
Definitely worth a try...
-
The way the game is written and the way that it is marketed. Also its intended audience. And how the army lists are structured.
What a strange thing to say
You never answered the question. How exactly is BA written and marketed as a "tournament game" in a manner that CoC or RoE is not?
Tournament games, in my experience, tend to be more simple, so that set up, playing to an unambiguous result and clean up can be accomplished in under 2 hours. That makes BA a better game for competitive play than say, Disposable Heroes, a game I also enjoy.
"Power gaming" is a defect of the player and not the rule set. It is frankly ludicrous to assume that certain rule sets are immune from exploitation by these individuals. Unfortunately, tournaments tend to attract this type of person.
People get their panties in a bunch because a rule set includes a point system? Aren't there more important things to fret about?
-
You never answered the question.
Mostly because I didn't like the tone of the post.
How exactly is BA written and marketed as a "tournament game" in a manner that CoC or RoE is not?
Well I think you answered that in part yourself
Tournament games, in my experience, tend to be more simple, so that set up, playing to an unambiguous result and clean up can be accomplished in under 2 hours. That makes BA a better game for competitive play than say, Disposable Heroes, a game I also enjoy.
BA is a much simpler game, has quite generic army lists, doesn't focus on historical accuracy in order to maintain the consistency of the rules and the ability to have "even" games.
They picked a person to write the rules that was/is a dedicated tournament gamer, they promote and run tournaments for the game and the biggest market for the game and the biggest audience that I have seen so far are people that play the game competitively.
I'm not really sure why one would need to point out something that is really so glaringly obvious from reading about the game on fan sites and the manufacturers site.
-
People get their panties in a bunch because a rule set includes a point system? Aren't there more important things to fret about?
Who is this addressed to exactly?
-
The BA activation adds a really nice element to the game and does lend to a more piecemeal reactive action which in my mind does evoke a sense of ebb and flow that would have been within a battle. The rules are fairly simple to pick up and yes they are not giving a sense of massive historical accuracy and depth. Warlord have gone down the simple and fun route which means that it is really accessible.
It is a simple and fun game and if it brings more people into historical gaming then I think its a good thing.
-
As much I am scared by Pixelgeek avatar... lol I have to agree with him.
Some time ago there was also an article by Mr. Priestly on WI on Bolt Action and its philosophy. It was clear that neither him or mr. Cavatore had done any real research on the topic. As Delta Vector pointed out in his blog (as much Delta Vector blog is dedicated to Sci-fi it has some very good rules commentary) there are lot of recycled conventions (especially for movements and ranges) that do not survive a close scrutiny. On thing that turned me off from BA was mr. Priestly awful article.
On the other hand I have tried CoC, ROE, and DH. They, at least, are supported by good research. If you know Richard you will have realized that he is not afraid to go down with original After Action Report while designing a game. Stuart's work for ~RoE is commendable and also the people behind Iron Ivan games had tried their best to create a set of rules that portrays low level combat in WW2. On the other hand BA is using standard mechanics (range/movement/fire) added to their own activation mechanic to produce a fun and simple game. Until that no problem, different products for different cups, but then Warlord is actively using BA as a method to sell their own figures thus they have to encourage a certain mindset on the players...
Again nothing bad, but certainly skew the experience toward a specific direction. There is a large part of the gaming population (majority? minority? actuall who cares... but it is still a segment) that does not like this specific direction. Thus BA is a game that (in the same way as FoW) will raise shields and swords...
Also being a quite generic engine bolted over WW2 what Bolt Action does on the table is often at odds with what the background or individuals' research say.
Yet it seems BA is putting troops on the table so... again I have to agree with Pixelgeek, it is good thing, as long peolle understand the goals and posts along the way. Before you scream at me I, from the high standpoint of a BA in history, an MA in War Studies, and a PhD in the same specialty (plus seminars, teaching, conferences on WW2 and post war related subject) have been repeatedly told that because something happened in a FoW game it had to be historically accurate... ok it has happened in the Italian Peninsula and the education system here is not that good but... once a friend of mine walked out of a FoW tournament yelling "if the Germans were so good and invulnerable why they lost the war?" :o ). What worried me of BA is that, with all its apparently accurate background it could delve in something like that...
-
Thus BA is a game that (in the same way as FoW) will raise shields and swords...
When it shouldn't. Take the market that is developing as a way to help expand the market for other games. Its even easier than it was for existing 15mm WWII gamers when FoW first came out because no-one has to rebase anything to play CoC, ROE or DH.
If you see some BA gamers then why not chat them up, talk about the period and offer to put on a demo game of your favourite 28mm rules for them? Be friendly, be open and maybe you'll find some players that are interested in trying out your rules.
-
Of course (even if usually I see gamers in England, and my collection is in Italy). but BA (personal experience) is, like FoW, the game that attracts some people that are less happy to talk that to roll dice and win...
But again there is a potential to be exploited by the whole gaming community as a while, with the caveat we can have a FoW effect (not as nice). The 'Game in a Box (more or less)'tm concept tends to creat closed environment where some people tend to be territorial about their game or foster the idea that there is only one rule...
-
Of course (even if usually I see gamers in England, and my collection is in Italy). but BA (personal experience) is, like FoW, the game that attracts some people that are less happy to talk that to roll dice and win...
I think that is always the danger when you create a set of rules that aim to have "balanced forces". The obverse is though that those sort of games are more generally popular than scenario based rules.
I don't think it is any co-incidence that CoC has made moves towards being a more mainstream game system and its probably also no co-incidence that it seems to be getting a lot of attention.
-
Just to pipe in for a moment, I haven't had that much experience of I Ain't Been Shot Mum, Chain of Command or RoE but I have played Disposable Heroes quite a few times and have found it to be a little too brital in the casualties department. Too easy to die IMHO.
As I say, just my tuppence worth :).
Darrell.
-
Who is this addressed to exactly?
To no one specifically. It just seems that there is a feeling that a "points system" disqualifies a rule set from consideration.
Pixelgeek, thank you for answering my question. I'm not sure I totally agree with you, but thanks for expanding on your viewpoint. I do hope your comment of, " I didnt like the tone of the post" wasn't directed at me. If it was, I do apologize.
My experience with BA tournaments is radically different from yours. The ones run at the conventions I go to are started up and run by individuals that enjoy the game and not by Warlord. Once that is done, the GM may or may not approach manufacturers and distributors for contributions as prizes. I've been running tournaments ( not BA) for years, and that is how I've done it too.
-
I think that is always the danger when you create a set of rules that aim to have "balanced forces". The obverse is though that those sort of games are more generally popular than scenario based rules.
I'm not sure I buy this dichotomy. For instance I'm GMing a BA game (Burma, 1944) this Weekend at Adepticon. I have to entertain 6 players, that may have never played before. I have Indians, Gurkhas, and Chindits attacking a Japanese position. I have no idea what the "points" are, and don't care. The game is scenario based, as the allies must retrieve the post-Imphal evacuation plans from the Japanese commander. The allied advance will trigger hidden units that may be anything from a single Jap soldier in a foxhole all the way to a Shinoto Type 97 in a bunker. Like I said, my job is to entertain 6 players and keep them involved. I have to finish the game in a reasonable time frame (about 3 hours) and make sure that everyone, especially the losers, have enjoyed themselves.
I find BA is the perfect game for this sort of challenge.
-
Personal thing, but I prefer RoE to Bolt Action. Why? Tricky one really, but BA seems to have too many bits in it that don't quite work. I don't know if this is a multitude of glaring loopholes, or a multitude of microscopes directed to find them, but for whatever reason, they grate with me.
As stated, I do think this stems from the focus of trying to make a GW-esque game as an introduction to WW2 gaming, with some quite annoying inaccuracies from limited research/understanding of the subject by the designers.
I'm not saying RoE is better, it's just that I prefer it. Having said that, Chain of Command has been getting rave reviews so I must check that out before too long.
-
Personal thing, ...
Interesting. I'd say it's just the other way round. ROE rules are not very clearly written, the few games I played we always had to search the rules for answers on various gaming situations and often we weren't sure how things should be played. At the end we had to search for answers on the web, and most often didn't find any.
I like the basic ROE infantry rules, they work very well but once it comes to special rules and items of equipment it becomes hit and miss. Never looked into the vehicles rules. I'd love to get deeper into the rules one day.
BA I find very easy to play from the rules. Things usually work very well and any problems are easily solved from the written rules. Also it's one of the few WW2 systems that actually transport the feel of combat on the tabletop. I've not found any glaring loopholes in BA and I'm usually quite interested in rule mechanics. I guess one could exploid the army lists but that's as easily done with DH and ROE which also have army lists and points.
Some things BA does very well is:
-Infantry movement and covering fire.
-Halftracks as transport vehicles.
-Handling of special weapons like mortars and especially AT teams (that are pretty useless in most other rules and have at least a chance in BA).
-Troops in buildings.
Boltaction is written for regular tables (4x6 to 5x8) and I prefer the game with less troops. Too many troops and it becomes to crowded.
-
Disposable Heroes is not brittle. Use terrain. End of the line. Do not expose yourself, end of the line. Keep you *ss down. Have heard this several time in training. You go over exposed ground without smoke or cover fire... enjoy the results. Disposable Heroes, as every good skirmish game benefit from proper laid out terrain. I am living in a dried up marsh area. It is suppose to be flat and plain, still if you go out for a stroll you realize that there is pleny of concealment and covered avenue of approach even in the open farmland.
Some things BA does very well is:
-Infantry movement and covering fire.
-Halftracks as transport vehicles.
-Handling of special weapons like mortars and especially AT teams (that are pretty useless in most other rules and have at least a chance in BA).
-Troops in buildings.
Respectfully I do not think that Bolt Action does well in these areas, Actually they are they greatest weaknesses. The baseline is that being a GWesque approach it has such scale distortion that I found puzzling someone can find these thing well simulated in BA. If you look at tactical manuals you will find that halftracks were not supposed to go into battle with infantry mounted. Let's look at FM 17-42 (1944) Armored Infantry Battalion. It states that:
in the attack some vehicles may be placed in position defilade to support the attack by fire. Those vehicles of assault companies which are not used for fire support are placed under the best available cover and concealment in the rear of their respective companies
Usually in a skirmish except in convoy attacks you will not have mounted infantry. Infantry dismounts, deploy and use the vehicles for fire support. The transport vehicles are usually left outside the normal table. I found AT teams quite useful in other rules when properly employed. They become different beasts in BA due to the scale distortion the rules use.
-
I'm not sure I buy this dichotomy. For instance I'm GMing a BA game (Burma, 1944) this Weekend at Adepticon. I have to entertain 6 players, that may have never played before. I have Indians, Gurkhas, and Chindits attacking a Japanese position. I have no idea what the "points" are, and don't care.
You can do that for any game system though. You could create a scenario driven game of 40K as well. :-)
I'm talking in general terms and one's personal experience is always going to be different.
I think that scenario driven games, whatever the system, are usually a lot more fun to play, especially at an event, but point systems make it possible for people to just show up at a club or open gaming day and play their opponent. Scenarios are a lot of work :-)
-
Some things BA does very well is:
-Infantry movement and covering fire.
-Halftracks as transport vehicles.
-Handling of special weapons like mortars and especially AT teams (that are pretty useless in most other rules and have at least a chance in BA).
-Troops in buildings.
I'd agree with these except for "Infantry movement and covering fire". BA doesn't let you split off the MG teams in a squad to provide covering fire. I can see why they do that but its quite odd for a WWII game.
The rules do play very well though and it is a very coherent set of rules.
-
Disposable Heroes is not brittle. Use terrain. End of the line. ...
There is no realism in wargames. In each of the three rulesets discussed each player does always know exactly in which postitions his own troops are, in which position the enemies troops are and he also knows exactly about their fighting capabilities. This is never the case in real combat. The idea to translate real combat into wargames statistics doesn't work because of this basic error - the godlike knowledge of the gamer.
And everything you write about the problems of BA rules is true but it's even worse in DH where it is much easier to use Halftracks or tanks to attack without infantrie support.
-
I'd agree with these except for "Infantry movement and covering fire". BA doesn't let you split off the MG teams in a squad to provide covering fire. I can see why they do that but its quite odd for a WWII game.
I'm not shure if DH and ROE allow that but I doubt splitting of MGs makes sense when playing these games. Small units of 2-3 models are way to fragile in DH and in ROE. As far as I know DH it's much more efficient to keep units big so they can soak up some casualities and you get more attacks. That's the case with most wargames rules.
-
There is no realism in wargames.
Of course, this is the reason why the UK M.o.D does not pay me to design games for them... uhm no they pay me to do this!
If there is no realism in wargames how you can correctly handle specific elements? There is a deep contradiction in terms here.
This is utter nonsense. Usually used out of context. Usually used as a proven argument. Define realism before stating there is no realism. Anyway I will not turn this in an academic discussion. It is a pointless argument. Person A states a game is not realistic for some reasons (specific or not) person B says there is no realism in wargames usually without addressing the specific concerns of person A... boring, pointless, a tad silly. :?
Well I am not changing my point. Bolt Action is a bad rule set incapable to portray proper WW2 tactics. Do a mounted charge with anything resempling a proper defense in Disposable Heroes and you will see wrecks. Do it in a GWesque flatland and maybe it will work. Anyway there is a reason why infantry tends to avoid trying to stop tanks in flatlands... With the movement and ranges as they are now Bolt Action is a fantasy game. Especially when you see how the terrain is often laid... There is no coincidence that the game has been designed by people who had no real knowledge of period tactics.
Said that Bolt Action has been created with specific design goals that does not require any kind of accuracy but use of innovative mechanics, re-use of familiar measurement and procedures, and a familiar setting where two completely unknown gamers can simply 'plug in' and play. In that it succeeds.
I'm not shure if DH and ROE allow that but I doubt splitting of MGs makes sense when playing these games.
It makes sense, but probably it is a concept too difficult to explain in this context.
-
Interesting. I'd say it's just the other way round. ROE rules are not very clearly written
...
BA I find very easy to play from the rules.
Right, herein I think lies the difference between personal taste. RoE have an awful lot of errata to their original ruleset and more seems to appear every week. This is unwieldy and awkward because you need to continually adjust as the rules slightly tweak. Not very playable at first, but at least they get marks for trying to fix the issues in an official way, but continually updating online. If you find a situation not covered, they will answer any queries as quickly as possible. Not ideal, but there we go. However, their system has been based around real tactical doctrines (as in, the option to split the squad into MG team and rifle group) and it 'feels' realistic.
BA is certainly more playable, no doubt about it. But it feels over simplistic to me and too often historical realism has been papered over quite nastily. If you want a full list, pop over to the Warlord forum and ask for a run-down of the latest loop-holes. The whole empty transport/crewed transport thing is a classic, as is the ease of assaulting MG's and the AT guns vs armoured vehicles mess.
It's down to what you want out of your game. Do you want something with more accuracy or a hazier approach for simplicity? Each to their own and your taste might even change from one week to the other.
-
I'll check for the latest ROE errata then.
The Warlord forums have a couple of funny guys in them and I've given up following these forums o_o.
Personally I like all three rulesets but I don't like the constant militant bashing of BA.
-
I'll check for the latest ROE errata then.
It's not easy to find, but here's the page with the errata -
http://www.greatescapegames.co.uk/rules-of-engagement/downloads
Note I put the link up for all downloads, which also includes a bunch of free 'Orders of Battle' for forces not covered in the book.
-
Already got it and it was easy to find. :)
Thanks!
-
I'm not shure if DH and ROE allow that but I doubt splitting of MGs makes sense when playing these games.
CoC allows it. Given that BA has rules for two and three man teams I don't see why they couldn't do it.
Its not whether it works in the game necessarily but if the game lets you model proper tactics. Standard tactics were to leave the MG team to provide covering fire.
-
Different people are looking for different things in the game. It really depends on what you're looking for.
Bolt Action is maybe closer to Commando comics than real warfare, but so what? Who says you can't play Commando comics?
That said, I tried Chain of Command. I think the patrol phase and the jump off points are a great idea, but I didn't care much for the rest of the rules. Though I must say I didn't read the rules myself, I relied on someone else teaching the rules and there may have been some miscommunication there.
In my opinion the most brilliant WWII rules set I've seen is Crossfire. It's just operating on a slightly higher scale. It's just very easy to break if you don't set the terrain up properly, which may lead to people getting a negative opinion of it. And don't muddle the brilliant infantry game with the naff vehicle rules -- Crossfire is at its best when kept to the basics.
-
It would be very interesting to play the same game with the same people (who are very familiar with all the the rules) several times with different rulesets and see how the outcome is.
...
Its not whether it works in the game necessarily but if the game lets you model proper tactics. Standard tactics were to leave the MG team to provide covering fire.
What prevents you doing this by yourself? It's hardly a complex house rule. Simply put another order die in the pot and tell your opponent that your unit does split.
-
I think most everyone is arguing the old 'immovable vs the irresistable' here.
Much as I do not have a diverse span of having read/played a myriad of rulesets, I used to work for the evil G-Dubya retail chain for many, many years and have spoken to lots of wargamers in various guises of the years.
I always struggled to get into the WW2 gaming that I always wanted to from being a small child and all through my time with Workshop. What scale? Do I want to have lots of tanks and armoured engagements? Do I want to focus on small scale detailed skirmishes? Which period of the war etc etc. I have ventured to Triples and Partisan and local shows on my quest too.
I realised that one 25mm chap representing a platoon and 4 15mm tanks representing a company did not float my boat. I wanted that little 25mm guy to be Lieutenant Blitherington-Smythe and his platoon command section of 4 men to include his trusty sergeant 'Smudger' Smith. One for one was for me! But I never really found a set the covered platoon level games that could feature some armour and other elements well. Bolt Action has fit well for that purpose but I do want to read some other rules to see how they work and what it can do and if I want to adapt them a little more for how me and my mates like to play.
I think that we have truly entered another 'golden age' of wargaming that was last listed as the 60's and early 70's from my reading on our lovely little hobby. Technology, materilas and easy pubishing has led to the cottage industry we have equally enjoyed and endured has become so much more.
I think that there is probably a ruleset out there for everyone and with a little self modification, your perfect game. I think we should all give a few rulesets a try to allow the folks who go out and build them a little funding of their business dream to allow them to improve on what they have already done. I am done with smack talking rules/games that do not suit me and appreciate what they are trying to contribute and do.
To the original poster of this thread I would say buy a few to try based on what you have seen from this thread already and also check some of the blog battle reports links listed within the forum as they will hint at the size/level of game you may want to enjoy.
Vive la difference!
-
What prevents you doing this by yourself? It's hardly a complex house rule. Simply put another order die in the pot and tell your opponent that your unit does split.
You've hit upon the very nub of the gist. A lot of the BA stuff needs house rules to work properly, which might make you wonder why the rules don't work as written? After a while, it stops being BA and begins to be the mutant lovechild of BA and your particular gaming group. This is unexpected in a set of rules designed to be used 'raw' for the tournament circuit.
But like I say, it's only an issue if it's an issue and you pays your money, you takes your choice.
-
Yes, and that's true for every set of rules.
Simply adjust what you don't like.
-
Oh dear, I don't think I'm explaining this very well. If you want to recreate historical realism with BA it's not so much about tweaking little bits here and there for fun and preference, as changing them to make things work as they should. Like I say, within a single group for laid-back gaming that's not really a problem, so long as everyone agrees and likes the changes.
Of course, if you've planted a flag and decide to champion BA against all and sundry because you like it, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Why should you, if you're having fun? I'm not selling anything, flinging mud at Bolt Action or trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to make sure I'm communicating my own reservations properly.