Gentlemen (and FSN),
I have been looking into the bolt action ruleset lately and am considering getting into it. We still love blitzkrieg commander (have a beach landing planned for thursday), but we are looking for a game on a lower level to play inbetween. Now i am not fond of the limited ranges and force composition, but i really like the activation system. The force composition problem can be solved by making your units historically accurate, but the ranges are a bit harder.
Would it be more reasonable to play it in a smaller scale on the same board size? Or would the movement distances make it look like the entire force is made up of the best sprinters from the olympics ;D
My gaming buddy really wants to do it in 28mm, doing belgians in early war, but i told him i will not do belgians untill pendraken makes some :D
I would consider doing the pacific in 28mm though, as i don't have anything for that in my collection already, except some old unpainted 1/72 ones. I do however have a load of 10mm british and germans (and partisans) based in singles for USE ME, and most vehicles i would need to make up a force. Would it work ok? If that would be the case, i would be able to get games in right away, making it much more attractive.
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in 10mm Peter.
In fact given the limited range of weapons in BA it might even suit 10mm better than 28mm.
Interesting topic Peter. If you want simple rules with a lot of carnage on the table - Poor Bloody Infantry was written for 15mm. The movement is not too out of place with 10mm.
Quote from: Sunray on 07 December 2016, 12:08:11 PM
Interesting topic Peter. If you want simple rules with a lot of carnage on the table - Poor Bloody Infantry was written for 15mm. The movement is not too out of place with 10mm.
How is the turn structure? Because being a 4-5 man group, the fact that the bolt action turn sees everybody activating, is what interests us the most.
Quote from: Nosher on 07 December 2016, 12:00:02 PM
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in 10mm Peter.
In fact given the limited range of weapons in BA it might even suit 10mm better than 28mm.
Yes, that would make sense, but without changing the movement rates, the ranges would still be short no?
Must add that i don't mind mixing scales as long as we are talking about different theatres.
For example, my plans are (and have been for a while):
-Use my 10 mm for eastern front and normandy/market garden
-start with some battlefront 15mm finnish and russians, so i can finally use my winter set-up (would a 5' by 4' board be big enough for let's say, a 500 point game?)
-start in 28mm for the pacific
-wait for the pendraken belgians and start a bkc army, and purchase some surplus men to base as singles like my normandy guys
-ditto for afrika korps and british, with the general thought here being, more vehicles neeed, so cheaper in 10mm
Terrible set of rules - do something else since they don't work in any scale.
IanS
We only used 15mm for BA, keeping the same ranges for shooting and movement etc. Looked a lot better.
Bolt Action's a great fun set of rules that give a good "game"*. I've not played 2nd edition so can't speak to those, but 1st ed. is a lot of fun.
If you use 10mm and maintain everything else the same (ranges, distances, etc.) it will work fine.
If you scale those down (e.g. drop from inches to millimetres) you'll also want to scale your table down as each game is usually fought over a fixed number of game turns.
*Except vehicle flamethrowers. Damn those things >:(
Quote from: ianrs54 on 07 December 2016, 12:28:54 PM
Terrible set of rules - do something else since they don't work in any scale.
IanS
I've read a lot of comments like yours, seems it's very much a like or hate set of rules actually :-
Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 07 December 2016, 12:34:12 PM
We only used 15mm for BA, keeping the same ranges for shooting and movement etc. Looked a lot better.
Quote from: Luddite on 07 December 2016, 12:55:04 PM
Bolt Action's a great fun set of rules that give a good "game"*. I've not played 2nd edition so can't speak to those, but 1st ed. is a lot of fun.
If you use 10mm and maintain everything else the same (ranges, distances, etc.) it will work fine.
If you scale those down (e.g. drop from inches to millimetres) you'll also want to scale your table down as each game is usually fought over a fixed number of game turns.
*Except vehicle flamethrowers. Damn those things >:(
And what about templates? The 2nd edition uses those for mortars and HE (seen it on a Beasts of war battle report). I would imagine a 2 inch template would kill A LOT of my guys, they are based on 1 eurocent pieces. Best to scale those down then?
We use 15mm and 20mm for Bolt Action, works far better than 28mm. 10mm would likely be even better, tbh.
I like the flow of BA (although the scenarios are general rubbish), but in 28mm the size is just wrong. In smaller scales the visual ratio between movement and weapons and figures looks much, much better.
We play full size, no reductions/changing inches to CM's or other fiddling. You don't gain any space that way, but it looks and feels much much better :D
Quote from: petercooman on 07 December 2016, 01:15:10 PM
And what about templates? The 2nd edition uses those for mortars and HE (seen it on a Beasts of war battle report). I would imagine a 2 inch template would kill A LOT of my guys, they are based on 1 eurocent pieces. Best to scale those down then?
I dunno, we only played 1st ed, and I'm unlikely to pick up 2nd ed.
If you keep the rules as is and space out then it shouldn't matter; the gap allowed between blokes lets you spread out quite a lot even on smaller bases!
That said, like Nick I'm very unlikely to bother with the 2nd Ed. - the first works fine for what we're bothered about.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 December 2016, 01:19:30 PM
We use 15mm and 20mm for Bolt Action, works far better than 28mm. 10mm would likely be even better, tbh.
I like the flow of BA (although the scenarios are general rubbish), but in 28mm the size is just wrong. In smaller scales the visual ratio between movement and weapons and figures looks much, much better.
We play full size, no reductions/changing inches to CM's or other fiddling. You don't gain any space that way, but it looks and feels much much better :D
Space really is no problem, 9' X 4' should do the trick :)
The thing is, a 28mm guy with a thompson can only shoot 12". That looks wrong to me. now a 10 mm guy shooting 12", that looks right :D
Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 07 December 2016, 01:26:13 PM
I dunno, we only played 1st ed, and I'm unlikely to pick up 2nd ed.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 December 2016, 01:40:49 PM
If you keep the rules as is and space out then it shouldn't matter; the gap allowed between blokes lets you spread out quite a lot even on smaller bases!
That said, like Nick I'm very unlikely to bother with the 2nd Ed. - the first works fine for what we're bothered about.
Maybe scale down the templates by the same ratio as i scale down the bases, that should do the trick :-
I think, starting out now, it would be stupid to go for 1st edition. Unless they start offloading first edition stuff dirt cheap somewhere of course :D
anyway, will be looking into chain of command too before i decide, those seem pretty good too. How's the turn order in those?
Not played CoC :D
You could have a bash at PBI from Peter Pig as someone else suggested - the grid system for movement/ranges is a bit chalk and cheese, but it's a really good set of rules (when not exposed to the cheesemongers. HOW MANY FLAK WAGONS?!) that plays very nicely with excellent period feel.
Chain of Command works well, the system is hard to explain, basically you roll command dice, and move teams, sections or officers depending on the score.
IanS
CoC is pretty realistic, but IMHO, doesn't give a good game. My friends agreed as have (unofficially) a club that does a lot of TFL games.
Strange, i read a lot of comments that make CoC the better system. :-
Will have a look tonight, there are some tutorials on youtube
We found that games really depended upon who could get the MG unit into a building to dominate the table and ergo win the game. I think CoC really needs to be played as part of a campaign to get the most out of it. Having said that, if you get off to a bad start, it is pretty damned hard to recover from it.
We've played a couple of campaigns of CoC now as well as one off training and participation games for people who were interested, pretty much all of them preferred it to BA. But I agree that it seems to be a love it or hate it distinction between CoC and BA.
Turn sequence is usually done by rolling 5 dice. you then use the dice to activate things, a 1 will allow a team, a 2 is a squad, a 3 is a Junior Leader, 4 is a senior leader, 5 gives you a chain of command point (Collect them and use them once you have 6) and the number of 6's will determine who gets the next phase. The leaders have initiative points which they can use to activate teams and squads, rally the troops etc..
It is a game which mostly rewards good tactics and the use of cover and you are usually limited to a platoon and some support options. Not much else. But again another system that looks better in 15mm than 28mm, the ranges feel much better.
I have also been looking into WW2 rules. Divided between taking the plunge into skirmish (will be using the Skirmish Campaigns books for scenarios) or holding our for Sam Mustafa's Rommel (cannot do both due to the economic metldown in Turkey. I might even have to give up on making a 1866 Austrian Army that I always wanted, such is life)
See, the thing is, the activation system really grabs me with BA, it's something i liked from the beginning.
The Coc turn sequence doesn't grab me at all.
Will have to look further into the matter...
Chain of Command. Not my cup of tea old boy. Never really got on with any of the TFL rules to be honest, although i know a lot of people who love them. Must be something there...
Quote from: Luddite on 07 December 2016, 08:27:13 PM
Chain of Command. Not my cup of tea old boy. Never really got on with any of the TFL rules to be honest, although i know a lot of people who love them. Must be something there...
Well we play early WW1 with TFL's old (2004) If the Lord Spares Us rules and really like them.
I have a hankering to do some France 1940 skirmish stuff and picked up a copy of CoC etc when I got the ITLSU rules. Read the rules, watched the videos, seen lots of very nicely presented AAR's but still a little unsure about jumping into CoC. Not actual tried a game myself though I have a lot of info on a couple of specific "mini campaigns" involving 51st Division on the Somme that I would like to model. I think CoC would be fine in 10mm on smaller table.
Seen a few 28mm BA games but the players always seem want to turn into an armourfest rather than just platoon level stuff that CoC seems suited for......they must have deep pockets to afford those large scale armour kits and figures :)
Might just stick with 1914 Belgians at Halen for my next 10mm foray :-
Quote from: petercooman on 07 December 2016, 07:58:08 PM
See, the thing is, the activation system really grabs me with BA, it's something i liked from the beginning.
The Coc turn sequence doesn't grab me at all.
The BA activation is probably the best thing about the game. Its really just beads in a bag (even cards in a deck), and is portable to almost any game.
The CoC turn sequence is very good, gives you a good amount of control, but not total control. The patrol phase of CoC is really good too.
Both will play fine with 10mm figures. Probably slightly easier to base in pairs for ease of movement.
I play both (BA and CoC) and in my opinion both transfer well to 10mm.
They give very different games and are worlds apart when it comes to realism.
I use BA for pick up and play games where I want something fast and furious and don't want to have to think too much about what I am doing. The rules are relatively straight forward and easily remembered and after a few games you can play without reference to the rules much at all. There is more flexibility in the army lists and the points system allows you to scale up/scale down your game.
CoC is far more realistic. Army lists are fixed with limited options, its a thinking mans game where you have to use real tactics used by the forces of the time. It really is designed for platoon scale games although you can expand the game using the BIG CoC adaptations which also give for very good game. I find myself referring to the rules more than I have to with BA. The campaign systems are really very good indeed and I have found that when using them you play very differently to how you might in a stand alone game.
If you are playing with a regular friend you should get enjoyment out of either system. BA can be very cheesy against people who power game. In CoC it is almost impossible to power game.
Word of warning about BA 2. The new rulebook is littered with glaring errors many of which are being argued over and debated on the warlord forum. As far as I am aware there hasnt been an official errata and thats almost three months after release. You should be able to pick up a 1st edition set cheaply but you will need army books too...... with CoC everything is in one place on their website and most additions are free with campaigns being priced relatively cheaply and available in PDF format.
Bolt Action doesn't "bake in" tactics into the rules, unlike CoC but it DOES reward using historical tactics and set up. It is more open to player cheese and abuse though, but if you want to keep the focus where it's designed (platoon + supports infantry action) it does work nicely. It's not very detailed on a person to figure basis - a single figure is really just a strength marker for the squad.
Just be prepared if you play random pick up games for someone to have squeezed a dozen flak trucks or got eleventy gazillion fire dice out of five blokes somehow :D
Quote from: toxicpixie on 08 December 2016, 09:57:46 AM
Just be prepared if you play random pick up games for someone to have squeezed a dozen flak trucks or got eleventy gazillion fire dice out of five blokes somehow :D
That's the beauty of our games. one person supplies the armies that we game with. The army lists get made before we get togheter by 1 person, and we randomly determine who plays with what just before battle. putting cheese in the lists does not happen, because you never know if you would play with or against the cheese :D :D
Anyway we like to game with historical forces (or an approximation of), so we don't encounter much cheesy lists...
You're fine then, just structure the army list for both sides to a historical TOE (or approximation thereof) and it'll work like a charm!
Still worth junking most of the BA scenarios and writing your own - they're very "WW40k" - e.g. both sides have a "game ending if the opposition touches it" objective on board, or "collect the secret plans in a conga line of units to auto-hand off the edge of the board and win", and make sure that both sides don't have a super unit. One small armoured car against a force that didn't bring an AT gun or infantry AT or their own AC can lock down a game.
Admittedly the later might well be realistic, but it doesn't make for a good game ;)
I have been pondering whether or not I really like WWII skirmish games anymore? All the games I have played so far have been at Platoon level, where most 'small' actions I have read about tend to be at Company level. So if I played at Company level, I feel I might as well play BKCII and count each base as a section rather than a Platoon. After much thought I think I will stick with Battalion level games for WWII as I really enjoy these (famous last words :D).
The following article has some very interesting observations on WWII skirmish games that is well worth a read IMHO:
http://www.wfhgs.com/PDFFILES/wo40.pdf (http://www.wfhgs.com/PDFFILES/wo40.pdf)
Article is definitely worth a read :-bd
Glad you enjoyed it Paul as it really made me think about skirmish gaming when I first read it. I still enjoy skirmish games, but maybe will just use them for small and fun AVBCW actions.
Quote from: paulr on 09 December 2016, 12:09:08 AM
Article is definitely worth a read :-bd
+1
Thanks for the WO link Steve J - from a quick look seems to be some really good stuff in those issues available on line.
Good article!