Chain of Command and Bolt Action mix?

[max]

I was considering the other day about including the patrol phase and jump-off points from Chain of Command into Bolt Action, and maybe a couple of other rules (splitting squads perhaps?), and was wondering if anyone has tried this already.

[Juan]

Why not use, simply, "Chain of Command"? It is the best rulebook of these two.

[Conquistador]

Why not use, simply, "Chain of Command"? It is the best rulebook of these two.

Generalized value judgments (even if right) are better with specific reasons (for example "why the dice mechanic doesn't work for this game,") and assumptions ("I think BA is a good fun 1-2 squad level game but bogs done at reinforced Company level,") and I would like to know why you evaluate them that way.

Played less than a half dozen BA games (all with platoon per side) but not CoC.  Looking at possibly (eventually) buying THW WW2 rules (I like the mechanics, especially as the game mechanics have evolved/improved by little tweaks,)  but not buying much of anything not committed previously (like the upcoming supplement to IHMN that will arrive (hopefully on time) with a set of IHMN rules.)

So specifics behind that statement would be helpful to me to understand the applicability of the game, it's style, and it's mechanics to my interests.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Torben]

It is better because it's not made by ex-GW employees

But sure, mod away to your hearts content - that's how rulebooks come into being in the first place!

[grant]

It is better because it's not made by ex-GW employees

Wow, there's a value added statement!

I only have and play Bolt Action. I am not a tournament gamer, only play for fun, and thoroughly enjoy Bolt Action. I have no reason to change rules. The alternating dice draw for command is one of the best features for BA; also I like the pinning system and how that affects other actions in the game.

From only what I've read, the two items from CoC that are equally innovative are exactly the two items that the OP is considering adding to Bolt Action, therefore I honk it's a good idea. Why not take a game that one enjoys, and add more enjoyment to it? I don't think either of the items would affect gameplay or upset the core mechanics. They are more like accessorizing something that already works well.

[Torben]

Wow, there's a value added statement!

I was just poking a bit of fun at the blunt statement that COC was better than BA; I prefer neither the one nor the other but I'm all in favor of having a personal choice and a homebrew that works for you and your playing group.

In fact, of the two I'd probably lean more towards BA because it seems a lot simpler

[max]

Thanks for the replies, i was thinking of using BA for club games as it's quick and easy to learn, and i've got to explain it in French. CoC might be a bit harder, especially as i don't think they have even heard of Toofatlardies! I also want to use more vehicles than normal for a CoC, not sure if having too many might bog things down a little (opinions???)

I plan of playing CoC soon (solo) so i might end up with a preference, was just wondering if someone had done it before. I think adding the Patrol Phase could be interesting in Bolt Action, makes a change from the typical set up i usually play and better for more 'chaotic' modern battles (rather than pitched battles i mean).

I'll give it a go sometimes and post up some thoughts.

[grant]

I was just poking a bit of fun at the blunt statement that COC was better than BA; I prefer neither the one nor the other but I'm all in favor of having a personal choice and a homebrew that works for you and your playing group.

In fact, of the two I'd probably lean more towards BA because it seems a lot simpler

Sorry! Missed the humour on the Internet. The simplicity of the rules is also a great feature. They are a lot of fun, and we hardly have to look at our books when playing.

[Mad Doc Morris]

Just adding another voice, if you don't mind.
I would happily mix some CoC mechanics into Bolt Action. Not done it myself yet but intending to do so very soon. Both Patrol Phase and Jump-Off Points are features more or less separate from actual gameplay as they just speed up setup and the initial maneuvering phase. Thus they're easily transferred to other system, I think. I'd probably restrict deployment zones from the Jump-Offs to a minimum to stay in concert with general range limits in BA.

Okay, got to admit I'm a big TFL fan, and I would much prefer if more people were playing (or at least willing to play) TFL games. That said, their rulesets require you to get your head around certain mechanics and the general tone of presentation – which isn't everyone's cup of tea and certainly not suited to your average after-work pickup game. You need to stick with TFL rules, play them over and over again, and this replayability is maybe their strongest selling point.
However, more often people don't play one set of rules at a time, and then BA comes along which is definitely more easily accessible (even if this might just be due to its close relation to some "mainstream" concepts) and more quickly sorted, even for casual gamers, than CoC (which, in turn, rewards good preparation and guidance by experienced players).
Therefore I wouldn't want to judge which one's the "better" game. It really depends on your particular 'gaming environment' and your own requirements. Why play one off against the other?

[Lardy Rich]

Surely any game worth playing will require you to get your head around some of the concepts therein?

When we prepared Chain of Command for publication we spent a lot of time on getting the wording right in order to introduce some of the new ideas and concepts within the rules.   To make sure that worked and they were clearly understandable we had a number of wargames clubs who then acted as guinea pigs; players who hadn't see the rules before, who hadn't been involved in their development or playtesting.  Those were clubs where English  English, Australian English and American English were used, as well as English as a second language. 

Firing and movement are simple D6 based mechanisms, morale is simple.  People seem to understand the patrol phase and the jump-off points well enough if they are considering nailing them on to other sets of rules.  The ONLY area where the new gamer will really need to get his head around anything new is the area of Command & Control.  The reason for that being that command and control is at the heart of the game, and yes, it is different.  But it is different because I believe that it create an interesting and challenging game which, once that one section of the rules is learnt, will be a really enjoyable gaming experience. 

It becomes very difficult for any rule developer is gamers are not prepared to invest a couple of gaming evenings to learn something new.  Its a bit like the teenager who gets into a car and doesn't know how to drive, but they do know that after learning to do so it will be worthwhile.  If we have really reached a point where gamers are not prepared to invest some time in learning something new, then the hobby will simply become awash with derivative games based on the 1980s systems we see so much of.  Some people may be very happy with that.  That's fine.  I simply try to present an alternative. 

On the original question of using the pre-game patrol phase with any set of rules.  What I will say is that Chain of Command uses realistic ranges.  A WWII soldier with a rifle can hit targets at long distances, even is Space Marines can't.  Hence my basing weapon ranges in Chain of Command on reality.  The distance between typical "front lines" in Chain of Command is designed to be outside the shortest range band.  With a system where a rifleman can only fire 24" you are likely not to be deploying into the heat of the action, but to a point out of enemy range.  Now, I am not saying that won't work, but that it will change the nuances of what the rule achieves.   I am minded that a simpler solution would just be to use a smaller table    

Rich
     

[Mad Doc Morris]

Rich, I hope you didn't take offence at my post in particular. Like said, I'm for all things TFL.

It is a reality, however, at least in the gaming circles I am or have been part or simply heard of (dedicated clubs are few and far between in these parts), that gamers don't meet up regularly to play a single set of rules in a row. Or, for that matter, concentrate on a single period/setting to game in. Therefore it isn't that easy to introduce a game to these circles which takes, as you said, several sessions to learn or, rather, adapt to. Especially if you aren't an experienced gamer yourself or, not surprisingly, haven't had a chance to properly grasp the rules by just playing them a couple of times beforehand.
For such reasons people tend to centre on certain mainstream products, perhaps with the odd "secondary system" thrown in. Sad? Maybe.

To be honest, though, I don't necessarily see BA as a simple reiteration of worn-out concepts. True, fixed weapon and movement ranges are awkward. But there are certain mechanics included which I would deem pretty alien to your typical 40k-whatever ruleset – random(ised) unit activation or combined hit/morale effects spring to mind. So, there is change, even if it's pretty slow.

Off to our second 'learning session' of CoC.

[Arlequín]

Despite aimed at the same 'level' of game, they are very much at opposite ends of the spectrum. I can see why Max would want to mix and match... but it is a very unique situation that he's in.

Likewise I can see why some people prefer one rule set and not so much the other... we all have different needs and wants after all. I have my preferred set out of the two and for my own needs, there's no reason to 'pick and mix'... but I'm hoping this thread doesn't descend into a rule set 'A' is better than rule set 'B' debate, but sticks to topic.

 

[Lardy Rich]

Doc, not in the slightest!

I was merely attempting to scotch the myth that Chain of Command is particularly complicated.  It really isn't.  We absolutely intentionally stripped down all of the core rule sections to be as simple as possible.  So, for example, shooting is the type of D6 roll and roll for hit effect that you would find in any set of rules.  We did this so it really only left the one section Command & Control to need any learning.  

In my experience most clubs get introduced to a set of rules by one member who is interested in them, buys them and they tried them out solo first.  If he likes the rules he takes them to the club and introduces them to his gaming pals.  Where rules DO tend to look complicated is when a bunch of friends open the rule book and then attempt to collectively work out what's going on.  That usually ends in chaos!  

What I will say is that there is huge pressure on rule writers to explain every possible situation that could ever occur in detail and with illustrations.  To my mind this does have a tendency to make even very simple rules appear more complicated than they are.  Often by asking for more potential clarifications we are making the general flow of the rules less clear, as the key issues become hidden behind layers of explanations.  

I picked up a set of rules yesterday from 1983.  It was about ten pages long and had more holes in it than a tramp's vest.  However, what was clear was the authors general intention, and where there were holes the gamer could make a recent fist of filling the gaps in for himself.   All of the good ideas were there clearly on display.  

To add to what Arlequin says, no set of rules is better than another, they just suit peoples' individual preferences more. 

Rich

 

[Arlequín]

I picked up a set of rules yesterday from 1983.  

Don't go there, you just gave me a flashback to a time when you had to hold a protractor to the side of a tank so as to work out the correct armour value for penetration... I need to go and sit in a corner and rock for a while now.

[grant]

Don't go there, you just gave me a flashback to a time when you had to hold a protractor to the side of a tank so as to work out the correct armour value for penetration... I need to go and sit in a corner and rock for a while now.

I've got WRG 1925-2000 for moderns; haven't played them yet but they look great, actually. Micro scale, mind you.