Chain of Command and Bolt Action mix?

[Arlequín]

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

They pretty much did the job actually... but some of the 'platoon' sets that came out were incredibly complex. 

[Lardy Rich]

Don't remind me! 

I was actually talking about one of the more exciting sets that came out of WD at that time.  That spawned the "back of a postcard" rules fashion which pretty much did for the Newbury genre and similar. 

Rich

[max]

I'm hoping this thread doesn't descend into a rule set 'A' is better than rule set 'B' debate, but sticks to topic.

 

Not in my thread! 


Personally i have no preference. I like CoC because it is more realistic i think, the short ranges in BA are odd to me and when i have played solo i have increased the weapon ranges.
I just like having the choice and not being married to one set or the other. More is better in this case, and to make BA 'better' (for me!!!) i was considering modding it with bits from CoC.

In all honesty though, i bought the CoC rulebook to see about adding bits into BA, but now i will probably use CoC more as i like the rules, patrol phase, squads and all that, using BA perhaps for going to a club, depending on what people there want to play.

[Juan]

Today we have played in my local club a game of "Bolt Action", and it has been fun but, with only six turns to achieve the objetive, it has been, in the end, a Space-Marine-style run towards the enemy.

I have missed the command mechanisms of "CoC", the Patrol Phase with its many defiances and the greater level of detail this ruleset has in general. This is the "because" of my opinion, but, on the other hand, "Bolt Action" is a nice ruleset for a club morning (or evening) game or an event/show, IMHO  .

[Captain_Hook]

I am a big fan of the TFL games. I have not tried CoC, but I have played and run Sharp Practice games. I adapted the card unit activation of SP to one of the other rule sets I game (Disposable Heroes). The nice thing about sharing variations between different rules, is that if a variation doesn't work, just scrap it, and go back to the original rules. We aren't doing open heart surgery, we're just rolling dice and having fun.

I do like the simplicity of Bolt Action, but that isn't to say that I won't get a hold of a copy of Chain of Command, and become enthralled with that too. Wargaming has come a long way since I played my first game of Angriff where you had to have a minor in mathematics to determine the percentile chance of armor penetration 

[z1pp132002]

I have and enjoy both! One day my mates and I feel the mechanics of CoC would be nice and then on another we think BA's mechanics will deliver a nice game. The only problem I see is that having these two, with their unique mechanics, for my skirmish games I need look no further.

[freewargamesrules]

On the original question of using the pre-game patrol phase with any set of rules.  What I will say is that Chain of Command uses realistic ranges. 

Rich is right. try playing Pegasus Bridge with the Warlord Model. You can't shoot from one end of the bridge to the other in Bolt Action.

I have played several BA games but only 1 COC game. Yes it took us a couple of hours to get our head around things but then we were flying. Which game would I choose to play again COC. The patrol phase was excellent and the whole game felt like WW2. BA doesn't feel like WW2.

[max]

Rich is right. try playing Pegasus Bridge with the Warlord Model. You can't shoot from one end of the bridge to the other in Bolt Action.

I actually played a FoW game the other day, first in a long time, and although i had fun i did notice something; ranges! Even though my tanks can normally plainly see and be in range of the enemy, they're just over 24 inches so can't  So frustrating and something i like in CoC. Getting back into more modern rules the range thing is very important to me now, i can't stand silly range limits!

[Captain_Hook]

I played my 2nd game of Bolt Action the other day, and afterwards I watched the Youtube tutorial on Chain of Command. I like the unique game mechanics of CoC, and the patrol phase is very cool. I'm not sure I am fully understanding the option of not activating units when the opportunity arises, but I am sure I will when I have a copy of the rules in front of me (an inevitable purchase).

Here is my spin, and I may be totally out of whack, since I have not had a chance to play CoC. Like Disposable Heroes: Point Blank, Chain of Command is an exceptional set of rules that provides the feel of combat, and offer a whole lot more detail than the Bolt Action rules. While you can play multi-player games with both DH:Point Blank and CoC. BA would be a better set of rules at a gaming convention where you may have folks who have never played a WWII game.

I like all three sets of rules, and will play all of them from time to time, but if I run another game at a convention, I will probably choose Bolt Action.....you can never have enough sets of rules (unless you ask my wife).

[Conquistador]

The BA games played locally don't stick to only 6 turns.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Juan]

Of course.

I have played BA games of six, seven or eight turns and some of them have finished with a mad run over the table from the part of one or both players (like the last one of them; the medic himself was running with a revolver in his hand, looking for the objetive). No problem with it, because this is really fun.

BA is, IMHO, perfect for a determined type of gaming. But not for other. It depends, again IMHO, of the gamer´s area of interest.

Cheers.

[Lardy Rich]

Glenn

I am not bothered about what set of rules people use, so long as they are enjoying them.  That, surely, must be the first rule of any game!  

I am interested, without any prejudice, to understand how you feel about the 24" range for rifles.  Does that work for you?  And if so, how do you rationalise this when you compare this with real weapon ranges?  

Rich  

[Conquistador]

Glenn

I am not bothered about what set of rules people use, so long as they are enjoying them.  That, surely, must be the first rule of any game!  

I am interested, without any prejudice, to understand how you feel about the 24" range for rifles.  Does that work for you?  And if so, how do you rationalise this when you compare this with real weapon ranges?  

Rich  

Upfront - I like what I see in the videos online for CoC.    If I ever get more than a minimal force for WW2 (right after Air Combat/1700's North America skirmish/SAW and SAW era VSF/ACW/Fantasy mass battle/napoleonic battle/SF Combined Arms Company to Battalion level games)   I will have to play CoC to evaluate if it is a "fun game with a semblance of reality" which is my target for WW2 skirmish.  I see where you are coming from (I think) in those videos and I find it a good approach if the game plays as it appears to do.

Answer - Not counting toy soldiers I have been war gaming since 1960's so it depends:    

Pro - I see BA as a game for fun - if I want Simulation I can get that from the DOD software (although it's the logistics software which is the true to life; Professionals study Logistics...)  I did the S&T thing when the magazines/games were new and that style of games were appealing at the time (when I was single and had no commitments beyond schooling.)

Con - No, ranges are not "true to life" in the shooting on the range sense.  I have problems when people assume ground scale is the same as figure scale because they never are or we would be playing in Library meeting rooms (done that too, come to think of it.)

Pro - As a researcher, I have studied the statistics (where available) from shooting in combat and since WW1 no army has used the effective range of rifles at anywhere near those distances.  I feel it would be optimistic to say most soldiers of competent armies used what is strictly "aimed shots" like on a range in combat more than 25% of the time.  And I am stretching to get that number.  Most shots are snap shots or suppressive fire.  Limiting the spread of the statistics to D6 creates unrealistic results other than short range (where individual firing is most effective.)  Since my main WW2 interest is in Early (1942 - mid 1943) War in the PTO most of the combat once you are off the beach is far less than the theoretical ranges.  Edit: I am excluding snipers obviously...

Con - I have seen armor games with BA and, to be kind, it is almost comedic in that the best tactics are to have the best armor/gun and stay at max range.  That may just be because the gearheads who play BA locally always seem to choose late war East Front games.  But I think BA is best as an infantry game in dense close  terrain where support is essentially towed/deployed or carried: FT/LMG/MMG/Mortars/Light guns.  A true WW2 era Combined Arms simulation the game is not.

Basically I can live with that in closed terrain and without Armor involved for the games played locally.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Arlequín]

Granted that there are some *ahem* 'anomalies' with regard to weapon ranges in BA, they aren't hard too hard to fix in the main. Having a pistol class is a bit ridiculous, especially given its comparative range to other weapons. 'Combat pistol' courses generally use 25m as 'long range'. On my SAI, I was told to fire the rounds as a distraction and then put everything into an accurate throw of the weapon itself. There are frequent reports of 'gun battles with police' in some countries, which result in no injuries on either side.  


That being said, people often confuse 'maximum range' and 'cyclic rate of fire' with 'effective engagement range' and how troops were trained to use a particular weapon in a particular army and indeed the traits of a particular weapon. The SMG is typically fired in aimed single shots at the limits of its range, but in 'full auto' bursts at close range, so the ROF should vary (accuracy not so much apparently, as at least one shot from a burst is inherently likely to hit the target if the user knows his weapon).

As another example: automatic weapons are perhaps the trickiest, as firing some of them at 'full rate' generates a large amount of heat, which can cause 'cook-offs', jams and frequent barrel changes (in those weapons where you can actually change the barrel in combat). As a result, the actual difference in the 'combat' rates of fire between these weapons is therefore a lot closer in reality than in rules based on what they could 'theoretically' achieve in a factory test (x bullets fired in y seconds and then calculated to give rpm). So Brits were taught 'double tap' (or even triple and 'hammers') and some modern US soldiers to mentally say "Die, Mother*&$*$, Die" to gauge their burst lengths.

It's a commonly accepted more that typical small arms engagement ranges are in the region of 3-500 metres/yards, but its less commonly known that tank engagement ranges were on average at less than 1,000 yards... Patton actually half-jokingly threatening to shoot any tank commander who opened up at more than (iirc) 600 yards. Obviously terrain would effect this, so shorter/longer distances might be the reality (as found in Afghanistan, prompting the need for a weapon usable at greater distances than 'usual').  

While 300 yards is not exactly a hard shot on a range over 'iron sights', it has been shown that accuracy deteriorates significantly once you take a soldier off the range, even more so in a combat exercise and even more so again if that exercise includes 'enemy tanks and vehicles'... how much more so in real combat? Paper after all doesn't shoot back.

Even given all of the above, restricting 'all' weapon ranges in a 28mm game is a bit silly imo, especially as the reduction across all of the weapon types isn't done on the same ratio, giving a few anomalies to say the least. The 'effectiveness' of shooting from one end of the table to the other is a different matter however. In BA I would just add an extra open range band (for most, but not all weapons) with an additional 'minus' modifier to that of the 'official' maximum range of the weapon.

Rule sets are a bit like selecting a movie though... sometimes you want believability and realism, other times you just want to sit there stuffing snack food in and watching the explosions and gunfights.
 

[Conquistador]

Arlequín

Great points!

Especially the last line (and of course the pistol line...)

Saw a study/report a few years ago that said 5% of the bullets fired by police officers in gun fights actually hit someone (where it moved beyond stupid criminal pulls gun fires wildly at close range and wounds or misses officers and then dies as officer/officers empties his revolver/automatic in an intense desire to not be the fatality in the report.)  Anecdotal evidence lead (no pun intended) the researchers to conclude that most police fire was, paraphrasing, "... suppress the bastard from hitting anyone until he or she runs out of ammunition... then hope he or she is smart enough to surrender."   The report did not address the phenomenon called "suicide by Cop" but that would appear to be to be a small part of the statistics about crimes where gunfire is present.

I hope most military members are better trained in combat then Police officers but, truth be known, no one knows how they will respond when under fire until it happens.

 "That was the moment that separated the brave people from the scared people ... I realized I was a coward."   the quote is from from [usual Wikipedia warnings]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Gracias,

Glenn