Bolt Action VS Chain Of Command

[Arlequín]

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. 

[Too Bo Coo]

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. 

[Lardy 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

[Too Bo Coo]

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.

[Queeg]

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

[Arlequín]

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.

[Queeg]

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 ..... 

[Sunjester]

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.

[shepard88]

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! (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....

[Stavka]

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.

[Kommando_J]

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.