Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: jetengine on 14 September 2016, 04:10:04 PM
-
Can someone lay out the differences for me ? Which is better etc ?
-
The best should be for you to try both games and see what game is your cup of tea.
I personaly prefer the feel of bolt action, but both games are good, for me bolt action was easier to learn. The biggest difference was the what the leader could do in chain of command, more tasks then the leaders in BA, and the fact that in the bolt action you have national rules, for me BA played faster than CoC, but i only played CoC once so is kinda of a biased opinion.
Again, if you can try the games first do it, in my experience other people opinions in terms of wargames normaly don't help a lot
-
There are videos in youtube. Watch them and decide. For me, CoC is the best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiT70m6CJO8
-
I agree with Cambra, we all have our ideas of how games should work, which tends to inform our opinions on particular rule sets. My own personal opinion was that BA didn't really allow units to act in combination, but I understand that BA2 has changed that. There are a number of people who play both of course, so I imagine they feel that they both offer valid depictions that only differ in detail.
Chain of Command is more anchored to 'real' weapon ranges, although the ground scale is telescoped more towards 1/100th scale. BA on the other hand uses a more truncated depiction of ranges, which to some appear unnaturally short, depending on the figure sizes being used. This however is not a feature that is so unusual in any rule set, as the balance between playing area and what is being represented on it results in accommodations being made.
BA's rules are more clearly defined by what can be done and what can't, while CoC relies on some common sense being involved... the relevance of these approaches would depend on who you will be routinely playing with.
BA's army lists tend to be quite free-form, which allows players to min-max their forces to the point that they can create a force that bears no resemblance to the real formation (if they choose to do so). CoC on the other hand uses a set 'paper' infantry platoon as the core, to which support is added. The difference being that you have to go through the entire force construction 'balance' mechanics of CoC if you wanted to represent an under-strength or 'unusual' force, while you can build one up more easily using Bolt Action's points system.
BA is (or was) tied to a 'one of each' support option, so one tank, one armoured car, one anti-tank gun etc. was the norm. CoC is far more liberal (and for me realistic) and if you had the support points available, there is no reason why you could not field a tank platoon as your entire support choice. Whether this has changed from a couple of years ago and the subsequent BA supplements, I don't know... somebody else will need to confirm that.
BA of course has extensive support and a quite vast 'community', Too Fat Lardies is more or less a one-man-band, with a committed but much smaller 'community'. The relevance of that aspect is quite subjective to you as an individual.
I opted for CoC over BA myself, but that was based on the first edition of BA. I've not examined BA2, so I can't say that my opinion might not change. Despite that I don't write off BA as a good and enjoyable rule set, it just wasn't for me at that time.
-
A medic can't crew a hanomag MG in Chain of Command.
-
As I understand it, he no longer needs to in BA, as armed transport vehicles can now utilise a mounted weapon when empty.
That a player can 'crew' a vehicle with a medic to avoid the empty transport rule, is ultimately the fault of the player being 'cheesy'; just because the rule book doesn't say you can't do something, doesn't mean you should. I would hate to have to leaf through a rule book in which every exploitable possibility is ruled for and against to avoid such play.
Many of the criticisms I see of BA come down to the players rather than the rules themselves.
-
Bolt Action - easy to learn with some weaknesses from a historical point of view and a lot of arbitrary abstractions. V2 has improved some but not all. It's very popular and there is a lively scene in the US, UK and Oz as well as others. Can be played with historical forces but some forces struggle. Points used to balance forces so it's easy to have pick up games.
Chain of Command - tricky to learn HARD to master. Rules can be a little hard to follow to start with having an old hand teach you is better. It demands the players plan properly and use proper fire an manoeuvre tactics. It's very satisfying to pull a plan off. Ground scale is reasonable, phase and turn system works well.
I short they are both 2-3 hour games once you are up to speed, both fun and both popular. Forces are pretty much interchangeable. I play both and they are good fun.
-
Played both, love both. BA is good fun, but not very realistic. More cinematic though. CoC felt more authentic but was longer to learn and play. I play BA more as that is were the tastes of my fellow gamers lie, but CoC really did get me thinking and immersed me the reality, all be it heavily abstracted, of platoon tactics. If they were women, you would snog BA, but marry CoC.
-
What Rich H says is very true.
I found the abstractions, and short ranges very odd in BA. Support artillery units moving forwards on table to get in range, then being shot at by rifles, and because they rolled a 6 the gun was destroyed very odd.
CoC is more detailed - I really like the command mechanism, and the patrol phase. We have played some great games. Not totally sure about the points - we played Elite US airborne vs Green Germans, it was a total walk over for the US airborne. You would certainly expected the airborne to be better, but the Germans should have had the numbers to whittle them down.
-
CofC does throw up some balance issues but it also encourages improvisation.
Elites vs Green will always be one sided... no amount of extra support will make up for the lack of command resources.
We play regs vs regs or regs vs Elites at most.
Easy modification is to make the Elite extra command dice a different colour and discount it for phase rolls
For greens roll an extra dice for phase (and CofC points if you want)
This stops to steamroller effect of double phases the elites get and also gives the greens a bit of a chance.
-
Good ideas. We were playing an Operation Market Garden scenario, of a first day bridge assault, (I forget which, but was pleased to be able to set the table up like the photo in one of my books!)
So the elite vs green was the setup, but yes it was a steamroller. The greens had a lot more support points, and took a decent AFV but struggled to activate it.
-
If they were women, you would snog BA, but marry CoC.
Wait till Rich C sees this ......he will use it on his advertising! lol
I play both CoC really comes into its own when playing mini-campaign battles or scenarios
BA is good when you want a quick throw down game were you just want to roll dice and not worry too much about tactics or reality at all
-
I personally would also vouch for Chain of Command, its currently my favorite wargame I played in the past ten years. Between the the various scenarios and the way it structures list building I have had a lot of fun with it! (It allows for some great extra hobby work through things like engineering teams, and minefields). If I had to pick a primary reason for it over Bolt Action I would say the vehicle rules feel better and more interesting, and that it handles all the possible command and combat aspects of the period in more elegant manner (With its use of grenades as an example).
-
That's very true.
Vehicles in BA are very 'thin' with no depth to the rules. move/fire
CofC tank and anti tank fire is far more detailed with the individual crew taking actions and getting hurt and so on
-
Chain of Command gets my vote as well.
I played Bolt Action once, hated it....played Chain of Command once, went out and bought the rules. It's down to personal taste but for me BA felt like playing Warhammer 40K (which I had tried a couple of times and also hated!).
-
Chain of Command gets my vote as well.
I played Bolt Action once, hated it....played Chain of Command once, went out and bought the rules. It's down to personal taste but for me BA felt like playing Warhammer 40K (which I had tried a couple of times and also hated!).
Yup totally agree,mind you I have picked up Konflikt 47 for that reason as an itch needec tobe scratched :)
-
They are very different games
CoC is an amazing game and feels more historical
however its not without its issues, the rules are quite 'gentleman's agreement' in places and it can be quite dependent on luck (I once got 4 turns in a row). Also you have to take the same core platoon every game. Balance is also an issues sometimes and you often get 2 vehicles which cost the same support level in the game but one is just plain better then the other
Bolt Action is also a good game for different reasons
as people have said it can feel a lot like 40k (it is written by ex GW chaps - not that this is a bad thing) and is a lot more welcoming but not as historical. Your officers (certainly in version 1) don't really do anything accept stand around trying not to get shot, you can have heavy artillery on the table and tanks lack depth
I have 2 friends who I game WW2 with
One hates BA ("its to gamey")
One hates CoC ("its to complicated and I haven't had a turn in ages")
I'll happily play both and use the same armies for both
-
I too enjoy both depending on the level of my opponents. People starting of in Wargaming I go with BA and for the more seasoned players CoC. I think BA v.2 will attract even more players now with the changes.
-
I'm still laughing at the idea that BA is the 'booty call' of WWII gaming. lol
It's odd that I should be defending the game, but some of the issues raised as evident with V.1 have apparently been addressed in V.2, although not all of them obviously. As for CoC, it is also not without its issues; certainly if you've ever faced a six dice elite force, you'll know what I mean.
Two different games with different appeals, which I gather are now somewhat closer together on the spectrum. If your funds run to it, why not try both? BA is a more expensive option with all of its books, but unless you play the whole of WWII you won't really need to get them all.
-
Cambra already gave the wisest answer. But I will try.
I played BA once. It was easy to learn and easy to play, it all felt very familiar but didn't leave much of an impression. I walked away with the feel that any troop type with guns and some vehicles would have produced the same game and that it had little to do with WW2, barring the miniatures we used.
I played CoC dozens of times. It is harder to learn and MUCH harder to play. The rules are not perfectly edited and leave some room for debate. The learning curve is really long and you might have to work hard to discover its charms. But such charms....
Playing CoC is emulating WW2 tactics and using WW2 resources and getting the results you might expect when you read about WW2. Attacking a stronghold without handgrenades is foolish. Charging a MG42 is suicidal. Mortar barrages are lethal. All of these things would have come as no surprise to a WW2 soldier, but might be one to a wargamer who doesn't know his WW2.
At first playing each game with the "same" platoon seems boring. But the enormous amount of options from the resource lists give the game a multitude of layers. The pre-game is very important, without resorting to crude min-maxing. That "same old platoon" might play the same mission in a dozen different ways.
And it has innovative aspects too. The game has a special deployment phase (the "Patrol Phase") that is a small tactical game in itself and will kick off each game differently.
-
I play both.
BA when I can't be bothered and just want to push my toys over the table and at GHQ.
CoC when I don't mind my brain hurting.
Now I have passed 60 it's more the former I'm afraid.
-
We play both as well - in 15mm which helps with the ground scales in BA a bit. I think most people have covered this well. In our little group some people will only play one or the other.
If describing them, Bolt Action is a decent game which uses ww2 figs but really has little relation to real ww2 tactics. CoC is a WW2 based game but requires more effort and knowledge to generate a decent playing experience.
At the end it depends what you are after in your gaming as to which you prefer and both have their place.
-
There is a 20% off CoC at the moment.
-
There is a 20% off CoC at the moment.
This. I would also add that using the Coculator you can fairly quickly create a core platoon and support list for any force or specific engagement that you have information on. For example, Vietnam and WWI projects are underway.
There has been some commentary on elites and greens. It's more of a relative rating than an absolute. US Airborne vs SS would likely give a better game if you class them both as regular. Elites really should be for outfits like Commandos and greens should be utter crap units like Volksturm. You can also make units partly elite or green and do further tweaking through the national characteristics. For example my SS HJ will be regulars with a bonus to overall morale reflecting their lack of combat experience, but good training and leadership, and reputation as hard fighters. They won't be super-trooper true elites like the FJ at Eben-Emael but they will be harder to grind down.
-
I'm sure its been mentioned, but it is worth repeating, that both rules can happily be played with the same figures and terrain, which is great as you swap between the rules.
-
I'm sure its been mentioned, but it is worth repeating, that both rules can happily be played with the same figures and terrain, which is great as you swap between the rules.
That's the thing. They are both historical wargames. You are not buying into one system or another, whichever one you buy you can stretch to another £20 for the other rule set and still use the same minis. My collection get used in BA, CofC and a variety of Pulp type games. Don't go through the agony of choosing, have both!
-
Well it does depend on what kind of game you want...
For me, BA just doesn't feel like a WW2 game it could be anything really. Swap the names and use Space Pixies and you wont notice.
Chain of Command feels like I'm playing a WW2 game, has great depth and some of the best researched campaigns available. And despite what has been said in an earlier post it does have national characteristics.
So if I had to play Bolt Action I would, but I'll be thinking about Chain of Command...
-
At first playing each game with the "same" platoon seems boring. But the enormous amount of options from the resource lists give the game a multitude of layers. The pre-game is very important, without resorting to crude min-maxing. That "same old platoon" might play the same mission in a dozen different ways.
Too true, every time I finish a game of CoC after the game a have keen for at least two replays just to try different tactics and to see about a platoon swap to see how I would have handled that side of the fight. I really is a great feeling to have for a wargame in my opinion.
-
Evening chaps.
Thanks for all of the kind words about Chain of Command. I feel that I should chip in here just to make a couple of things clear.
1. There is no "better" or "best" set of rules for any period. My wife likes a nice glass of rose with a meal, I prefer a crisp white or a robust red. She isn't right, and I am not wrong.
2. My experience playing Bolt Action is very limited, but I must say that I do not see CoC as more complicated than BA. When you draw a dice from the BA bag you choose which unit to activate; when you roll the Command Dice in CoC you decide which units (note plural rather than singular in first edition BA) you activate. To my mind this is not more complicated, but rather that you are presented with more choices to make. So, for example, when you draw your dice with BA you say Unit X is doing this, whereas with CoC you are likely to have a wider range of options, so Unit A could fire while unit B lays down smoke and then Unit C charges home. That is not more complicated, it just presents more command decisions to be made.
On elite troops, we had to include them in the rules but anyone buying the supplements and campaigns will note that troop quality is more likely to be controlled by the number and quality of leaders rather than the blunt implement what is Green and Elite.
Anyway, I hope the OP finds that he likes one set or the other. I am sure he'll have fun with either.
Cheers
Rich
-
I like both and Bolt Action 2 is an improvement. My problem is i have to play solo and BA seems to play easy solo where as CoC takes more doing. If I had a regular opponent I would opt for CoC as my main set for ww2 every time as I feel it is more of a re-enactment than BA. If any one has any tips on making CoC more solo friendly i would be very greatfull.
-
if I had to play Bolt Action I would, but I'll be thinking about Chain of Command...
Hahhaha I like that - even more true now for BA V2 where they have multiple activations based on your leaders
-
Truscott,
That's interesting. How does that work? If a Leader decides to activate two units, do you then rummage around in the bag and remove those two dice?
Rich
-
As there are only two dice colours in the bag, it would hardly be onerous rummaging. I assume that the number of units that can be activated would be tied to his 'rank', sort of much the same as leaders have set CI in CoC.
I see CoC and BA as quite different games. If they used identical ground scales there would be a point of comparison, but they don't. Slogans and catchphrases aside CoC covers the low-end of tactical combat at single platoon level, while for me BA sort of (but not quite) falls between that and IABSM in its scope; and I would suggest closer to IABSM than CoC.
Taking away that both games are 'skirmish games with 28mm figures'... If we were being 'real' CoC would be played with 15mm figures (as some people do), while BA would be played with 6mm figures (which I've never heard of)... that both games are modelled on the use of 28mm 'playing tokens' is their only point of comparison.
That players of both can be routinely heard to say "I can see that figure" to claim line of sight, when in reality 'that figure' is something like 12' (CoC) or 30' (BA) tall, goes towards making a comparison of the two games as being like comparing Chess with Drafts (Checkers) because they use the same board.
-
Truscott,
That's interesting. How does that work? If a Leader decides to activate two units, do you then rummage around in the bag and remove those two dice?
Rich
Yes you rummage and extract 1-4 dice depending on rank and allocate them to units in command range then activate them one at a time in any order. No friction or chance of slippage you just do it. I have hundreds of people tell me its a good minor change and will not upset the balance of the game..........they have not played me tho lol
-
Arlequin
I wasn't suggesting that the rummaging would be onerous in any way. Just that from a game designers perspective if you invent a game where the core mechanism is about drawing dice from a bag in order to determine the order of events, then having people stop and remove a number of dice from the bag is a big change in emphasis. In fact, you are potentially moving so far away from that core mechanism that you change the nature of the game entirely.
This is not a criticism, but an observation that there is potential there for the end result to be a bit like Cross of Iron, where the decision is about how many dice you use immediately, potentially giving you an immediate advantage, as opposed to how many you leave in the bag for later in order to stop your opponent having an uninterrupted run of play later in the turn. That is quite a significant move from the original and will very definitely 'change the balance of play' in that it creates some very different command decisions which were not present before. From a professional perspective, I find that rather interesting.
Rich
-
There has been a lot of presumption that using an officer early is a good idea for an 'alpha strike' but i want to save my officer until late in the turn if possible so the enemy has moved as much as possible.
Though i suspect tournaments may eventually limit or exclude snap to action
-
Rich
That's precisely how I was envisaging the tactical options which this would throw up.
The big issue seems to be that the phase of play in CoC and the pulling of a dice in BA are two totally different things and you can't compare them. Indeed, the phase in CoC seems to be more like a turn in BA, but again they are not really comparable. Apples and Oranges really.
Rich
-
This is not a criticism, but an observation...
Of course and I took it as that. Had it been a case of sorting through different dice that mean different things, then indeed selection of a few dice would have been onerous.
I certainly agree that changing the rules to allow things to be different as in this case, is indeed a fundamental change in the way the game will be played. Some will see it as an improvement, others the opposite; some may see it as a totally different game. There may even be a YouTube burning of an army or two as a result. A game should evolve however, which is not the same as introducing change for the sake of it. If it produces a better game, then great. Another game did something similar I recall, but seemed to just build upon its mistakes with successive editions; according to some players at least.
As I tried to point out before, my opinion is that BA and CoC are two very different games (still) and nobody is limited to an either/or choice. We may have our preferences and indeed there can be 'community pressure' to play one and not the other at risk of being 'shunned', but the bulk of us are adults and such things don't matter. The apples and oranges/chess and drafts analogies say it all to me.
I do tend to get annoyed by the "in game X you can do this" guys though... Vive la difference! ;)
Jim
-
I notice our Lardy friend (say hi to the M&M cast for me :) ) mentioned cross of iron. I've only ever seen it played once using 15mm armour. Is that the correct scale and idea ?
-
Is our group the only lot still playing Battleground World War 2? lol
-
Is our group the only lot still playing Battleground World War 2? lol
Yes... and only once you've got all the cobwebs off it.... ;)
-
You laugh, but we've been playing battleground ww2 since it was released and we love the shit out of that game.
Afew months back a guy hooked me up with many, many new vehicle charts, and its been working out great.
We were looking to get into the Kursk series of rules, but I've read that they have some goofy stuff going on re the way german squads use mg's.
-
i bought BA ,read it and sold it without playing it,world war 40K springs to mind
CoC have played and enjoyed and want to play more
read into that version of my humblest of opinions what you will
-
We were looking to get into the Kursk series of rules, but I've read that they have some goofy stuff going on re the way german squads use mg's.
If by that you mean Battlegroup (as Kursk is the first book) there is nothing goofy about how they use MG's. Read a bit about it online, join the Battlegroup FB group or the Guild if you are more into a forum format. The author and co publisher are quite active on both and will happily answer any questions. Do read the very extensive FAQ though, we are now a few years in and any question that could be asked can be found there.
-
I've played both (and a few others in different scales) and too be honest I much prefer Bolt Action.
I'm not by nature a Historic gamer but more a casual gamer/collector of many aspects such as Sci-Fi, Fan &, Apoc. So what I liked most is that it's not really a Historic game at heart but rather a game system with a Historic skin, so allowing gamers to go as historical as they want too.
Now a year later after first dipping my toe into WW2, BA has become my favourite ruleset out of everything I play and that's down to the ease of play and not getting too bogged down with record keeping/list making.
Oh I do get a slight WW40K feeling too but it's from the earlier editions of the WhFB40K game, 2nd 40k rather then the latest trash GW throws out.
Just my 2 cents :D
-
Just to note that 15mm single based figure are great in CoC games.
-
i bought BA ,read it and sold it without playing it,world war 40K springs to mind
CoC have played and enjoyed and want to play more
read into that version of my humblest of opinions what you will
Totally agree.
-
I have played both, and find I prefer Bolt Action, especially in its 2nd Edition incarnation - that pretty much replaced most of the House Rules we were using. It makes for a faster game, and while its not a simulation I find (with the right players) it makes a good wargame.
Having said that, I don't hate CoC at all, and find it to be playable as well.
I did recently get introduced to a game titled 5 Men at Kursk that I enjoyed immensely. Smaller scope than either BA or CoC, but quite fun.
-
I think Lardy Rich and Fat Bloke Sawyer should have a charity boxing match and settle this matter once and for all.
(http://www.barbershopwindow.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/600x600/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/r/professional_pugilism.png)
-
Seconded :D
I think Lardy Rich and Fat Bloke Sawyer should have a charity boxing match and settle this matter once and for all.
(http://www.barbershopwindow.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/600x600/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/r/professional_pugilism.png)
-
I notice our Lardy friend (say hi to the M&M cast for me :) ) mentioned cross of iron. I've only ever seen it played once using 15mm armour. Is that the correct scale and idea ?
I love Cross of Iron and I sort of.defaulted to 15mm because I wanted a shedload of tanks.on the table. I keep meaning to pick up the BA starter.box and try it in 28mm
-
I like Cross of Iron as well but infantry vs. Infantry can feel a little odd at close range - as they can't kill each other without multiple actions. One house rule we tried is that an extra (single) kill die just keeps being rolled as long as it hits if under 12" in range when shooting infantry. It makes things even more random and deadly at close ranges for infantry.
But Cross of Iron is for much bigger games than either BA or CoC.
-
AzSteven: "I did recently get introduced to a game titled 5 Men at Kursk that I enjoyed immensely. Smaller scope than either BA or CoC, but quite fun."
Looked this rules set up after reading your post, AzSteven, and it sounds more like I am looking for in a WWII skirmish game (I like skirmish games with a strong campaign element where you can see your surviving soldiers develop over time - Mordheim is a good example of this approach). Would it be appropriate to ask more about this game here, or should I start a separate thread?
-Michael
-
I can't say I found that a huge problem at all, but then i play a lot of TFL games and Chain of Command is a vast improvement on the layout of some of the older rules!
I found the series of introductory videos to be a great help getting started https://www.youtube.com/user/toofatlardies/videos
-
It's very much written to read from start to finish and it does sort of make sense... most of the time.
The TFL games have a serious following and the games are great once you get your head around them but initially they can be a steep learning curve which never quite levels out...
CofC this evening: Barbarossa
I'm going to take some hopeless Russians and jam in a T28 :D It'll probably die to a door knocker in phase 3.
-
I didn't have a problem reading and understanding the rules. Got a few things wrong in the first game, but that's normal.
I wouldn't say the rules are badly laid out or particularly hard to find stuff in. Not perfect, but perfectly OK. ;)
I didn't need to look at the videos to figure out how to play, but then again, I've been reading wargame rules for almost 50 years.
-
If you need a series of introductory videos to learn how to play the game then that speaks volumes.
Functional literacy is declining; sometimes people learn in different ways and videos are just another way in these changing times.
-
Well, I suppose you can view the glass as half full or half empty. The reason we produce videos for our games is because people tell us they find them helpful. When we write the rules, every key point has not just the written rule, but also an illustration and an example to clarify it. The chief reason is that English is an imperfect language and however one writes something people can read an alternative meaning into it. We try to cover all bases to help make things clear. We also have a forum and a yahoo group where less experienced players can get advice from those with more games under their belt.
You could argue that means the rules are badly written, or you could come to the conclusion that we provide the best support that we can. It's up to you.
Cheers
Rich
-
I love the idea of using a video to help clarify rules. I dont see this as a downside, and maybe even helps more if watched before reading. When something comes up on the page, one has already seen Rich explain it on the video giving greater context. Hot to play videos are a staple of the boardgame hobby, where one can argue that the average rules are far more simple than the games we all prefer, so I dont see the videos as a reflection of complexity. Just my 2 euro cents.
-
"Prickly" is not something I particularly get, and certainly not in this instance.
With fifteen years experience of writing and publishing rules, I have always attempted to make each set we produce better than the last when it comes to presentation and clarity. This has never involved pretending that we are perfect and that what we produce does not have issues.
That said, you may be interested to know that each time we produce the final document for the printer we are very keen to improve on last time. Getting professional proof readers involved is pointless as they have absolutely no idea what wargaming is about. We have got involved with teams of lawyers, professional writers, technical writers and just about anyone you can think of to try to "get it right first time".
All that happens is that we get 50% of people who get the whole thing first time, 25% who het 95% of it and 25% who are utterly all at sea. Each time it is a different set of people filling those groups, but there is a real consistency in that however we write things, some people just won't get it.
As we have seen from this thread, I think much is about what preconceived ideas people have a bout a rule set. Several people have stated here that they have had no issues with the wording, but then they have also stated that they are 'regular' Lardy rule players. That suggests to me that we are comfortable with stuff which fits patterns we are used to working with.
I also think that if you want a set of rules which are nuanced and sophisticated, then you need to expect to go through a learning curve when you meet them. What I attempt to do is to make that learning curve as shallow as possible by providing whatever support I can, including videos.
I speak to a lot of game designers and this is the one issue that all of us have thrown at us (Barkerese anyone?) and we all feel the same way. We wrote it as well as we could. Equally, we all want to get it better next time.
Cheers
Rich
-
Put me in the 50% - the rules seemed perfectly fine to me. I also liked the layout and illustrations - very attractive and made you want to rush out and start collecting appropriate armies.
I think there are two things at play:
1. pre-conceived ideas of what a miniature wargame does. If you have pre-conceived notions of how wargames work then when you are presented with something that sits outside that mould it feels confusing
2. Interconnectedness of rules. You have to compartmentalise the rules into manageable sections (eg shooting, morale, movement, etc) but a number of those sections interrelate and refer to other sections. How you layout the rule book then becomes a subject of debate. Do you have shooting rules before morale but shooting refers to shock which you then have to explain in the morale section. Or do you put the shock in the shooting section? Either way the first time reader will be presented with ideas and information that is only referenced before being explained sometimes many pages later. Combine this with item 1 and you have a recipe for pleasing some of the people some of the time.
-
I think that what also needs to be taken into account is different people have different ways of absorbing information and of learning. Some people like to read, some like to do, some like to see & listen.
We are very used to the reading method, as it is the easiest for the provider of the information. But it's not always the best, and it's certainly never the best for everyone.
I found the videos for CoC very useful, both interesting and informative. And I'm someone who is normally very happy to digest rules from writing. To me the videos help explain the shape and flow of the game, showing you the key mechanics. The written rules help with the details and the exceptions. Often in writtten rules the details and exceptions will have far more text devoted to them than the core mechanic. This is understandable but can make it hard to learn the core bit, i.e. the bit you use all the time, and need to know to play, vs getting to grips with all the details and nuances that you ultimately need to get the full depth of the game, but don't need right at the start.
-
Just finished reading a thread on the BA website where the tactic to outwit the new Tiger Fear orders test is to hide one tank behind another then pop the tank out and fire without the -1!
Nuff said lol
-
Just finished reading a thread on the BA website where the tactic to outwit the new Tiger Fear orders test is to hide one tank behind another then pop the tank out and fire without the -1!
Nuff said lol
What that's not std practice :o
I think the new emphasis (meta) to use trucks with machine guns as battle units in BA2 is another little thing that doesn't teach people much.
Both systems don't particularly work for me but I'm old school and grew up on WRG 1950s, Challenger 2000 and Firefly rule sets. Both these current sets are really the offspring of Rapid Fire but with better presentation and much bigger market share. But as the gameplay systems fit in nicely with the modern boardgames that flood kickstarter all aimed at a couple of hours play and with the BA "GW" style one stop shop for rules, vehicles , troops, decals and scenery I can see why they are both so popular.
-
BA V2 seems to have added 80% improvements but also 20% cockups and typos.
Play testing seems to have been inadequate and by people who didn't play hard enough to break the rules (or were not empowered to make suggestions!) Really disappointing.
CofC is harder to learn especially as some things are very different to the 'GW standard' but far more rewarding.
I'll continue to play BA as my local club play BA and there is an active and fun event scene in the UK. Most of the regular characters play for fun not for the win. But away from the club I play CofC when I can (or our home brew modern derivative) as its more challenging.
-
What that's not std practice :o
I think the new emphasis (meta) to use trucks with machine guns as battle units in BA2 is another little thing that doesn't teach people much.
Both systems don't particularly work for me but I'm old school and grew up on WRG 1950s, Challenger 2000 and Firefly rule sets. Both these current sets are really the offspring of Rapid Fire but with better presentation and much bigger market share. But as the gameplay systems fit in nicely with the modern boardgames that flood kickstarter all aimed at a couple of hours play and with the BA "GW" style one stop shop for rules, vehicles , troops, decals and scenery I can see why they are both so popular.
Chain of Command appears to have very little in common with Rapid Fire other than being set in WWII and using D6. Bolt Action is clearly the offspring of Warhammer 40K which was the offspring of Warhammer Battle.
Chain of Command doesn't fit into the one stop shop since it is just a ruleset. Are you sure you are not getting mixed up with Flames of War?
-
Nope, BA is a one stop shop and CoC is what I call a piggy back rule set as its rules only and relies on an existing troop and vehicle supply base. As for them being similar to rapid fire hmmm .... core d6's compressed solution mechanic, pretty similar in both cases to RF.
The differences are put on top of that, for flavour and to to try and be unique so they can be considered "different" enough. Both systems use the same core mechanic of command dice to achieve random unit activation. Bagged random drawn for one, rolled varied by command levels for the other. BA2 has even added the new officer rules to get closer to the command style of CoC. Both use buckets of dice to help spread the limits of the d6 system.
Where CoC pulls away from BA is with the unique patrol/deployment zone phase, longer effective ranges and the fact units are more historically grounded, whereas BA is unashamedly fantasy war.
Anyway, just my observations. Both have a good following and provide what's advertised on the tin, good fun beer n pretzels gaming.
-
That's interesting. When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures. If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets.
Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby. Most enlightening.
Rich
-
BA V2 seems to have added 80% improvements but also 20% cockups and typos.
Play testing seems to have been inadequate and by people who didn't play hard enough to break the rules (or were not empowered to make suggestions!) Really disappointing.
It was like that in v1. I made a list of changes to Il Duce's Cavatore's post once and he lost his mind. I left the forum shortly after and gave up on Dolt Action. It's just fantasy with a ww2 spin.
He controls it all. It's crap.
-
New rules should have a fresh feeling and should introduce something. CofC gave that feeling to me. It introduces the patrol phase for example which is a good idea and new to me.
Bolt Action has nothing new. It is really a bit like 40 k in WW2 . Which is a shame cuz when you introduce a new WW2 game there should be something special in it.... but it seems that this is not disruptive to its buyers. They sold 23000 copies.
I enjoyed the game of BA which I played with a good friend but I must admit. I am not hooked.
Most of my wargaming buddies who are connected to ww2 prefer CofC.
I also like watching the videos. Be it either BA or CofC. I watch this videos mainly to see if that game is interesting for me or not.
So videos can be helpful.
Cheers
Björn
-
That's interesting. When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures. If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets.
Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby. Most enlightening.
Rich
Wow "parasite" that's a bit sensitive so if you feel like it - but sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. I thought I made a bunch of complimentary points to explain where the two sets are similar and where they are different (better to some) but my term "piggy-back" apparently rubbed a nerve. If it makes you feel happier probably 90% of all rule sets would fit into that category including the ones I write for myself and any other in-house rules. And yes there also are figure and vehicle manufacturers that throw up a set of rules to support what is there primary business of figure sales but most rules I and others I know own are primarily stand alone and pretty much useless (SJW terms - specialised, specific, unusable) unless the stuff to bring them alive is purchased for them.
So to explain myself, I use the term Piggy-back (not parasite or anything even close to that meaning) to describe rule sets that require independent purchases to enable them to be used, not as some form of perceived attack. Pretty much GW first followed by Flames of War/Battlefront and then BA are the leading examples of one-stop shops. By the way being a one-stop shop doesn't always mean "better" but it is one significant draw card that they use to differentiate themselves and improve uptake of all linked products. Stand alone rule sets have to rely solely on their content to generate sales, which is the goal yes?
btw the "which came first, the rules or the figures" comment would make a pretty interesting discussion on its own. Gaming figures are derived from the original toy-tin soldiers so probably figures.
cheers
Brent
-
How would Disposable Heroes compare against Bolt Action or Chain of Command? Anyone tried those rules?
I'm trying to decide on a - simple - set of WW2 platoon level skirmish rules. And I saw the upcoming kickstarter for a new edition of Disposable Heroes advertised in the mailer I received from Brigade Games today. The promo contained the magic words 'Historically accurate. Easy to learn. Fast to play'. Sounds like what I'm looking for.
Any thoughts on that set? :)
-
Queeg - I think your classification of one-stop shop and piggy-back are a little odd.
I think I would choose closed system and independent as the descriptors. Independent being what we started with, were rules, figures and terrain were produced by many different companies, and you were free to pick and choose what you wanted to use. Until very recently with FoW and BA this was always how historicals were.
The closed shop, where a single manufacturer produces rules and figures and paint and terrain, and tries to instill the idea in their player base that anything else is wrong, and shouldn't be used, certainly started with GW but has spread wider. This business model also seems to like to produce new rules to make new models more appealing to the potential purchaser.
To me the independent model feels much better - but the closed shop model certainly seems to generate a lot of sales for the core companies, so a lot easier of people must like the option of having everything presented to them, even if it is at a premium price.
-
That's interesting. When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures. If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets.
Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby. Most enlightening.
Rich
I always knew you would turn into a parasite if you kept drinking that cheap cooking larger Rich! :o
-
Queeg - I think your classification of one-stop shop and piggy-back are a little odd.
Lol, that's because I'm a little odd, we need a like button :)
Yeah agree, never said my terms were universal, just my own and probably a hang over from years of marketing discussions .... Independent and Closed Systems are much nicer.
As for forcing players to use their own flogged product, certainly this is more prevalent when playing particular game systems at tournaments and LGS play than what we do in our own sheds. Which is reasonable to a point, if sponsored then someone paying the bills has a little right to have a little say in how things are run. GW is the obvious extreme example here even extending to older generation figures not being allowed in some cases, but FOW jumped in pretty hard too although I'm not sure if that's still the case. To my knowledge BA has never pushed this approach and the player community is very tolerant on suppliers and even scales. CoC has no horse in this so as an "Independent" is in an even better situation to welcome all.
-
The promo contained the magic words 'Historically accurate. Easy to learn. Fast to play'.
Isn't that the blurb for every rule set in recent years? ;)
I confess I have not played them recently (or often in any case) and I'm sure someone here has, but I thought they were okay and did the job. Some games last an hour, some games can last two or three. They abstract some things to make life easier; if one figure can cross an obstacle, his team/squad mates can too, so there's no measuring for each figure. There are small oddities too, like only half a squad will fire at any time.
Bearing in mind a new edition means new rules, you would assume that fan feedback (and the rules do have quite a few fans) might have addressed any issues (whatever they might be).
If Chain of Command hadn't come along I'd probably be playing them myself.
The closed shop, where a single manufacturer produces rules and figures and paint and terrain, and tries to instill the idea in their player base that anything else is wrong, and shouldn't be used, certainly started with GW but has spread wider. This business model also seems to like to produce new rules to make new models more appealing to the potential purchaser.
I think this is pretty accurate - take the blurb for the Warlord M3 Stuart 'it has five machine guns'; no mention of how or who would fire them all. Closed systems generate sales by making anything new to the range sexy and essential. Independent systems are more "It's 1942, your fast tank options are Stuarts or Crusaders, they're both rubbish, so your call, take them or leave them; seriously dude, crimp your points somewhere and get a Sherman instead".
That being said... that 'closed system' has resulted in a pile of figures and models becoming available that were not before and it's not like they self destruct if you don't play BA with them.
-
With historicals especially, there are so many sources for minis and such, one good comprehensive set of minis can be used with a wide variety of rules. I see the 'closed system' really having an impact for sci fi and fantasy where the entire genre is contrivance. So if you want a Space MarineTM you need to buy GW.
-
Queeg, fear not, the parasite remark was a joke. I'm not the slightest bit offended.
My own thought is that when an independent rule writer/game designer sits down to create a game system he normally does so with the self-created brief to develop a game which is as good as possible.
On the chicken and egg question, figure manufacturers regularly ask me what rule set we are working on next so that they can develop products to compliment our rules. I have always considered that to be a compliment, but in this context it does make me wonder who is doing the piggy-backing.
I certainly don't see Chain of Command as a parasite product on the back of anyone else's figure range. The fact is there are oodles of companies producing nice WWII kit and the gamer can select the toys he like best.
Cheers
Rich
-
Queeg, fear not, the parasite remark was a joke. I'm not the slightest bit offended.
My own thought is that when an independent rule writer/game designer sits down to create a game system he normally does so with the self-created brief to develop a game which is as good as possible.
On the chicken and egg question, figure manufacturers regularly ask me what rule set we are working on next so that they can develop products to compliment our rules. I have always considered that to be a compliment, but in this context it does make me wonder who is doing the piggy-backing.
I certainly don't see Chain of Command as a parasite product on the back of anyone else's figure range. The fact is there are oodles of companies producing nice WWII kit and the gamer can select the toys he like best.
Cheers
Rich
Writing rules to use established figure lines = parasite..... does not seem to compute.
-
On the chicken and egg question, figure manufacturers regularly ask me what rule set we are working on next so that they can develop products to compliment our rules. I have always considered that to be a compliment, but in this context it does make me wonder who is doing the piggy-backing.
True, I paint commission stuff mostly so I have no problem comparing professional painters in a similar vein. We piggy-back on the hobby, no figures, no rules = no paying gaming paint work. There are collectors out there sure but I've only once in about 8yrs of painting been asked for a solely collectors piece, but then there are others with much more art in their work than mine, I'm a craftsman no more. So in these terms clearly I/painters need the hobby far more than it needs me/us.
As an aside I view the recent kickstarter trend for board games to have minis, rules and card terrain is most correctly the true closed loop system. Everything contained, supplied even down to dice and all somewhat transportable.
The main thing is rule sets all have their supporters and detractors. That's life and gamers as a group tend to look for the next "thing" as a matter of course, despite probably having rules in their collections (maybe some quite old sets too) that are really quite adequate. That's why discussions like this are intellectually interesting but rarely sway anyone from their entrenched positions.
cheers
Brent
-
As an aside I view the recent kickstarter trend for board games to have minis, rules and card terrain is most correctly the true closed loop system. Everything contained, supplied even down to dice and all somewhat transportable.
Not to forget that at times the figure size presented is purposely chosen to make the 'official' figures incompatible with any potential proxies that might be purchased elsewhere.
-
Not to forget that at times the figure size presented is purposely chosen to make the 'official' figures incompatible with any potential proxies that might be purchased elsewhere.
Lol reasonably common in historical ranges too. Some ranges are noticeably bigger and/or chunkier and some smaller to promote purchasing multiple sides from the same manufacturer. As it relates to BA/CnC play I know of one manufacturer in particular that I suspect made their figures overly small to limit what they can be comfortably mixed with ..... :)
-
Queeg - I think your classification of one-stop shop and piggy-back are a little odd.
I'd say spoon-fed and independent thinkers ;)
Perhaps it's an age thing, or nationality bias, but almost all the wargamers I personally know in the UK tend to buy figures that they like to use with rulesets that they like, regardless of whether the rules have official figures or not. They may play some rules with the "proper" figures, but not to the exclusion of all else. And after years as a trader, running competitions and membership of several national societies I'm not just talking about the 2 or 3 mates I game with.
Walking around the trade area at Warfare I would still say that the majority of wargame miniature manufacturers are producing ranges designed to be used with whatever ruleset the customer wishes.
-
Not played much of Coc but go for that game.
Bolt Action is promising as more lighter game but suffers from some strange rules, i.e. you can deploy on a 6x4 table 75 mm howitzer in 28 mm scale! o_o (such artillery should be definitely off-table), also sniper rule where sniper is able to easily eliminate enemy's MMG/HMG team.
Another strange thing is that infantry squads are indivisible, hence it skews infantry tactics from that times where squad rifle team was advancing while squad LMG team was putting covering fire from behind....not to mention weapons range limits and so....
-
I have, and have played, both BA and CoC, although almost all the games we play are Bolt Action, which is very popular here.
Weapon range has never been an issue in the games I have played, which usually see my IJA vs. an assortment of Allies in the jungles of Burma or New Guinea. We use our own mods for movement and visibility/spotting rules; clear, open fields of fire are the exception rather than the rule. In this kind of environment, artillery being used in the direct fire, up-close-and-personal role was by no means uncommon, as a lot of the contemporary combat footage shows.
BA has some odd quirks, but any that really jar we have ironed out with simple house rules, or otherwise just left them in as they do not really detract from the game or from the decision-making involved.
Undoubtedly BA has more of that Commando Comics feel to it, but that works for us. In my mid-fifties, I'm not about to consider switching careers and becoming an infantry officer; we are not purists about the need to replicate infantry and armour tactics in detail. In general, we are happy with a certain level of abstraction if it means keeping the game moving quickly, achieving a clear outcome, and indeed letting us use all our models, including artillery.
That said, we play to what we feel is a reasonable standard of historical plausibility. We use the point system strictly as a rough guide; our games are scenario-driven and we organize our platoons historically. All our squads have the requisite LMG's 'coz they did, and we don't go in for tournament gimmicks, such as having Japanese flamethrower teams darting around the battlefield in Kurogane utility cars.
Your mileage may vary, of course. Personally I think I would prefer CoC for games set in Europe. But for jungle and island-hopping warfare in the Far East, we are having a great time with BA, and are currently having a lot of fun with a series of linked scenarios based on the Kokoda campaign.
The one issue for us with CoC has been the learning curve, which is steeper than that of BA. Most of the guys I game with have young children and live in different corners of the Tokyo area, so we are never able to get together and game as often as we would like so that everyone could develop a real familiarity with the rules. Especially as the lads want to play other wargame periods from time to time as well.
When we do get together the last thing people want to do is spend most of the time poring over a rule book when they could be moving figures and rolling dice.
Same problem I have with getting people to try Sharp Practice II, which is one of my favourite rulesets.
-
Personally I think that BA and CoC work very well in tandem, BA makes an excellet gateway drug to those coming away from 40k, i started there before falling in love with CoC and it's realistic platoons/w support choices.