RoE versus Bolt Action?

[Cubs]

Interesting. I'd say it's just the other way round. ROE rules are not very clearly written
...
BA I find very easy to play from the rules.

Right, herein I think lies the difference between personal taste. RoE have an awful lot of errata to their original ruleset and more seems to appear every week. This is unwieldy and awkward because you need to continually adjust as the rules slightly tweak. Not very playable at first, but at least they get marks for trying to fix the issues in an official way, but continually updating online. If you find a situation not covered, they will answer any queries as quickly as possible. Not ideal, but there we go. However, their system has been based around real tactical doctrines (as in, the option to split the squad into MG team and rifle group) and it 'feels' realistic.

BA is certainly more playable, no doubt about it. But it feels over simplistic to me and  too often historical realism has been papered over quite nastily. If you want a full list, pop over to the Warlord forum and ask for a run-down of the latest loop-holes. The whole empty transport/crewed transport thing is a classic, as is the ease of assaulting MG's and the AT guns vs armoured vehicles mess.

It's down to what you want out of your game. Do you want something with more accuracy or a hazier approach for simplicity? Each to their own and your taste might even change from one week to the other. 

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

I'll check for the latest ROE errata then.
The Warlord forums have a couple of funny guys in them and I've given up following these forums .

Personally I like all three rulesets but I don't like the constant militant bashing of BA.

[Cubs]

I'll check for the latest ROE errata then.

It's not easy to find, but here's the page with the errata -

http://www.greatescapegames.co.uk/rules-of-engagement/downloads

Note I put the link up for all downloads, which also includes a bunch of free 'Orders of Battle' for forces not covered in the book.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

Already got it and it was easy to find.
Thanks!

[pixelgeek]

I'm not shure if DH and ROE allow that but I doubt splitting of MGs makes sense when playing these games.

CoC allows it. Given that BA has rules for two and three man teams I don't see why they couldn't do it.

Its not whether it works in the game necessarily but if the game lets you model proper tactics. Standard tactics were to leave the MG team to provide covering fire.

[maxxon]

Different people are looking for different things in the game. It really depends on what you're looking for.

Bolt Action is maybe closer to Commando comics than real warfare, but so what? Who says you can't play Commando comics?

That said, I tried Chain of Command. I think the patrol phase and the jump off points are a great idea, but I didn't care much for the rest of the rules. Though I must say I didn't read the rules myself, I relied on someone else teaching the rules and there may have been some miscommunication there.

In my opinion the most brilliant WWII rules set I've seen is Crossfire. It's just operating on a slightly higher scale. It's just very easy to break if you don't set the terrain up properly, which may lead to people getting a negative opinion of it. And don't muddle the brilliant infantry game with the naff vehicle rules -- Crossfire is at its best when kept to the basics.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

It would be very interesting to play the same game with the same people (who are very familiar with all the the rules) several times with different rulesets and see how the outcome is.

...

Its not whether it works in the game necessarily but if the game lets you model proper tactics. Standard tactics were to leave the MG team to provide covering fire.

What prevents you doing this by yourself? It's hardly a complex house rule. Simply put another order die in the pot and tell your opponent that your unit does split.


  

[Stan Hollis]

I think most everyone is arguing the old 'immovable vs the irresistable' here.

Much as I do not have a diverse span of having read/played a myriad of rulesets, I used to work for the evil G-Dubya retail chain for many, many years and have spoken to lots of wargamers in various guises of the years.

I always struggled to get into the WW2 gaming that I always wanted to from being a small child and all through my time with Workshop.  What scale?  Do I want to have lots of tanks and armoured engagements?  Do I want to focus on small scale detailed skirmishes?  Which period of the war etc etc.  I have ventured to Triples and Partisan and local shows on my quest too.

I realised that one 25mm chap representing a platoon and 4 15mm tanks representing a company did not float my boat.  I wanted that little 25mm guy to be Lieutenant Blitherington-Smythe and his platoon command section of 4 men to include his trusty sergeant 'Smudger' Smith.  One for one was for me! But I never really found a set the covered platoon level games that could feature some armour and other elements well.  Bolt Action has fit well for that purpose but I do want to read some other rules to see how they work and what it can do and if I want to adapt them a little more for how me and my mates like to play.

I think that we have truly entered another 'golden age' of wargaming that was last listed as the 60's and early 70's from my reading on our lovely little hobby.  Technology, materilas and easy pubishing has led to the cottage industry we have equally enjoyed and endured has become so much more.

I think that there is probably a ruleset out there for everyone and with a little self modification, your perfect game.  I think we should all give a few rulesets a try to allow the folks who go out and build them a little funding of their business dream to allow them to improve on what they have already done.  I am done with smack talking rules/games that do not suit me and appreciate what they are trying to contribute and do.

To the original poster of this thread I would say buy a few to try based on what you have seen from this thread already and also check some of the blog battle reports links listed within the forum as they will hint at the size/level of game you may want to enjoy.

Vive la difference!  

[Cubs]

What prevents you doing this by yourself? It's hardly a complex house rule. Simply put another order die in the pot and tell your opponent that your unit does split.   

You've hit upon the very nub of the gist. A lot of the BA stuff needs house rules to work properly, which might make you wonder why the rules don't work as written? After a while, it stops being BA and begins to be the mutant lovechild of BA and your particular gaming group. This is unexpected in a set of rules designed to be used 'raw' for the tournament circuit.

But like I say, it's only an issue if it's an issue and you pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Mike D. Mc Brice]

Yes, and that's true for every set of rules.
Simply adjust what you don't like.

[Cubs]

Oh dear, I don't think I'm explaining this very well. If you want to recreate historical realism with BA it's not so much about tweaking little bits here and there for fun and preference, as changing them to make things work as they should. Like I say, within a single group for laid-back gaming that's not really a problem, so long as everyone agrees and likes the changes.

Of course, if you've planted a flag and decide to champion BA against all and sundry because you like it, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Why should you, if you're having fun? I'm not selling anything, flinging mud at Bolt Action or trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to make sure I'm communicating my own reservations properly.