Bolt Action Update

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 2]

Bolt Action: Third Edition – Army Composition!

 

Saw this today and it has me excited for Third Edition. To make a long story short, moving away from the pick whatever you want within certain limits to support your platoon to a more historical version where you can pick one support platoon and fill it out per rifle platoon you take.

Support platoon options include: heavy weapons platoon, engineer platoon, armored platoon, recce platoon, and artillery battery.

This seems to fit more the histories I’ve read (outside of DDay and the few days after which were just chaos for the allies with all sorts of ad hoc formations emerging.

[somegeezer 18392xp 2]

I posted a very cynical response to a past 3rd edition army composition post on these fine pages. From the description it sounded like “unlimited inexperienced mortar teams” or some horror.

I’m happy to say I was very wrong and this does sound promising. I’m sure there are min max joys there for those that will find them but to me it does sound like a very good development.

I really think I should get some more Brits done and start looking for a game or two.

 

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 4]

Seems like you can take an armoured platoon with 5 different AFV types. Not very historical I would have thought.

[grantinvanmanParticipant 2090xp 2]

Hopefully medics won’t be able to use half-track MGs anymore, and will gain the “fix armour” special ability instead 🤣

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 2]

That’s a fair criticism with the armored platoons. I think that goes to the type of players you deal with. Min maxers will always mess with that kind of stuff. I avoid those players. Learned my lesson when I played with a guy (don’t play with him anymore) in a D Day game of my airborne vs his German rifle platoon. He showed up with maxed out STG44s a Tiger and a Panther. It was awful.

For the guys I game with now this moves us from current rules lists to two platoons a piece. Definitely already looking at adding more sdfkz251s and Panzer IVs to get my panzer grenadier force up to spec. I’m sure Warlord’s changes here had nothing to do with players needing more vehicles, officers, and teams to support their rifle platoon

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 3]

It’s outrageous to suggest a games/miniatures company might tweak their rules occasionally to compel additional purchases. I’m sure there’s not a single games company would stoop so low…  😀

Your point about player vs rules is well made. Anyway, hope everyone picking up BA3 enjoys their games.

[jamescutts 6881xp 0]

I’m liking what I’m seeing, adds some more structure that feels like a nice mix between balancing things our and adding some slight historical flavour while still keeping the core flexibility of not following rigid on paper strengths.

I think this will be a good change, refocuses on the core infantry platoon but still allows those supports in.

Bolt action for me has always been those commando comic, Hollywood style battles, I don’t think its every claimed to be going for perfect historical accuracy so I see no issue there.

[limburger 21618xp 2]

The ‘reinforced platoon’ format always felt odd and strangely limited to me. (why do I get to add anti tank or flak ?)

You don’t get the radio operators and related non combat roles like in Battlegroup, but it feels closer to a real army now.

It will be interesting to see how nation specific platoons will differ from these defaults.

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 0]

Duplicate post. See below. Freaking phone.

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 2]

I am curious on the nation and theater specific differences. One in particular is that the generic recce platoon must be motorized.

My grandfather was an NCO in a radar warning battalion before the war started. He deployed to New Guinea in 1942 but due to manpower shortages his company was pressed into service as a rifle company. His CO and XO were both killed and he ended up leading the platoon for a while. They conducted regular recon patrols on foot through the jungle. There was no motorized recon happening on most of New Guinea or most of the Pacific islands for that matter.

[elessar2590 18202xp 1]

For me the issue is still tanks. Not only are you now not allowed to just take one (making the problem worse) but if you want to effectively counter enemy tanks you have to either take your own tanks (again more tanks less good) or take an entire platoon just to get anti tank guns.

 

I was excited, I was looking at the Recon Platoon in the carriers and the engineer platoon and thinking how cool this was. Then I was reminded that basically if your enemy has tanks you’re limited to either tanks yourself or AT Platoon.

 

I get people buy the big shiny vroom vroom tanks but they don’t really belong in a game like this. Oh cool you’ve got a firebase, oh wow now two or three, sitting there that I can’t even hope to scratch because I took a Recon Platoon instead of being forced into AT or Tanks.

 

Nothing makes a game less fun to me than not being able to stop the enemy. I hate games where my enemy can kill half my stuff in turn one before I even move and I hate games where my enemy can take units that I cannot engage with.

[grantinvanmanParticipant 2090xp 1]

Flames of War was horrible with tank parking lots. At BA scale, it will look even worse.

Typically a tank troop was attached to a company of infantry, so to have a single tank with a platoon is fair, I think – but now it’s not possible? Silly, says I. Silly.

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 0]

I get the tank issue. My US force is airborne. I typically don’t have any vehicles with them. I always make sure to have bazookas and anti tank grenades. Assaulting tanks isn’t the most fun thing in the world but it was absolutely necessary.

Since vehicles can’t capture objectives I always tried to make good use of cover to hit enemy infantry and then take objectives. Kill tanks when I need to. Avoid them when possible.

I love the recce and engineering platoon ideas. Sounds like fun with a chance to have a much wider variety of scenarios. I’m hoping they were smart and designed some scenarios where taking a tank platoon would be an obviously bad idea.

[limburger 21618xp 1]

I’d argue that tanks are only going to be a problem in tournaments, but then those types of players will find any gap and abuse the heck out of it while they can.

Tournament organizers could simply rule : “no platoons of [type]”, which kind of makes their life easier compared to the reinforced platoon system. Heck, the rules already appear to state that you need a rifle platoon for every ‘extra’ platoon. The one thing we don’t know is if there are any minimum squad sizes. I wouldn’t be surprised if they followed V for Victory and set the default squad size at 8 for example.

Besides … we don’t know what the campaign and “army of …” books will have in store for us.

So … plenty of unknowns at this time and as always we can house rule whatever the heck we want.

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 0]

Well Polish army squads were 13 – 14, Japanese Army squads 14. Italian Army 18.

US para squads were 12, even ‘standard’ UK and German squads late war were 10 (bigger Early War).

6 men isn’t a squad, it’s a ‘fire team’ to use current terminology.

So an infantry platoon with two compulsory squads ranging in size, isn’t really (for example) the Japanese platoon of 3 squads of 14 plus the grenade discharger team..

[Author]

Posts