RoE versus Bolt Action?

[Arrigo]

As much I am scared by Pixelgeek avatar...  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?"  ). What worried me of BA is that, with all its apparently accurate background it could delve in something like that...

[pixelgeek]

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.

[Arrigo]

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...

[pixelgeek]

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.

[Atheling]

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.

[Bowman]

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.

[Bowman]

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.

[Cubs]

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.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

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.

[Arrigo]

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.

[pixelgeek]

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 :-)

[pixelgeek]

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.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

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.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

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.

[Arrigo]

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.