Bolt Action Update

[somegeezer 18431xp 3]

Those are paper strengths. A squad of 10 might have stepped onto the beach at Normandy, they’d be lucky to still be 10 at the end of that day. Understrength squads were the norm in a lot of theatres.

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 0]

With all due respect, that’s a bit of a cop-out to justify unrealistic numbers. Do your games start after the battle?

Different armies had different practices but most had pretty effective replacement systems including using HQ company ‘spares’ to fill gaps.

Failing that, they would merge under strength platoons and squads because they needed minimum strengths to adopt their tactical doctrine. So for UK forces a fire team and a manoeuvre team, German forces, LMG teams with supports etc.

If you read accounts like With the Jocks, you’ll see they were rarely significantly understrength at the squad level, though other units might be broken up for replacements.

[jamescutts 6925xp 3]

With all due respect (man I hate that term) I don’t think it’s a cop out at all, there paper strengths and ideal doctrine.

When you see battalions and regiments taking 50% casualties in the Pacific campaigns sometimes in a single day with weeks of fighting before reinforcement or rotation even with heavy consolidation your going to see understrength units at every level from squad/section upwards at some point. It’s also assuming that every engagement starts with that paper strength, ideally it would but in the chaos of some of the ongoing engagements that would be sure to break down, not every battle ever unit went into pre planned and organised, quite often the chaos of war saw things happening unexpectedly and ad-hoc, what’s to say our games aren’t representing some mid day action either after some earlier fighting thats seen their strengths depleted?

It’s all a mute point really anyway, bolt action has never been about creating those perfectly formed on paper organisations, it’s been about letting people have fun wargaming how ever they want. Want to rock up with two 5 man squads as your platoon, you do that, want to have a perfect Japanese platoon including it’s support you so that. The rules offer guidance, your free to play it how you wish.

It just seems odd to be complaining about it for Bolt Action, when its clearly for the last 12 years been first and foremost a wargame rather than a simulation.

• This reply was modified 5 months ago by  jamescutts.

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 1]

It might be a moot point, but it is one of the criticisms of BA as a games system, as it encourages unbelievable ‘army’ compositions. When you see a game, and one side has Tiger II and 6 infantrymen with STG44 fighting against some equally unlikely home brew organisation, it just doesn’t look like folk are playing a historical game.

It’s not a universal criticism, there are plenty of BA army compositions that are perfectly credible historically. It’s just the flexibility allowed is open to what I see as abuse. Very much depends on who you play with I guess.

I’d be interested to know if you have read some of the accounts of the Pacific by Leckie, David & McManus.  They do talk quite a bit about the reinforcement process. It was unusual to not have on hand replacements, and they discuss the impact of that on squads. The FNG syndrome, to use the later Vietnam War term. There’s also a general lack of rigour in some of the numbers bandied about. So 50% casualties can mean anything from 50% killed over the course of a campaign, to 50% receiving some sort of injury, with half of those returned to duty within a very short period.

You’ll also see in most cases, that troops engaged in combat would be replaced by supporting units when they had seen a decrease in efficiency through loss of combat effectives. If you look for example at NWE, battalions would be used in an attack with a supporting battalion ready to come up to the line to replace them if they had been deemed to have become degraded to a certain point. It really is all about the reserves.

Another thing to remember is that typically losses would be heavy among NCO and junior officers, so if you lost squad leaders it was often easier to reduce the number of squads in the platoon, and allocate additional squads from another platoon or at company level. Different armies had different approaches of course.

Interesting discussion. I haven’t seen any articles or research comparing replacement systems. I do know the US and UK systems were quite different. Would be interesting to know if anyone has the info to hand?

[somegeezer 18431xp 2]

I’m by no means defending “2 x five man squads plus all the toys imaginable” lists but on campaign 10/12/whatever man squads were an aspiration for many commanders.

[phaidknott 7023xp 4]

Remember tho, at the end of the day, Warlord doesn’t make most of it’s profits from the rules (they make it from selling the models and miniatures).

 

I think it’s a problem inherent when miniature manufacturers publish their own ruleset. It’s always going to be a major factor in writing those rules that the commercial need to sell the minis is going to be probably a major factor in the writing. It’s also probably why I tend to find myself buying rulesets where the publisher isn’t directed towards any particular mini manufacturer (it hasn’t been a deliberate decision when I buying them, it’s just ended up that way).

 

So now you can’t field a single tank (the minimum is now two), I can’t think of any reason “why” this is better over the old edition (but it is for selling your minis/models). I must admit I’ve been looking at buying the new “V for Victory” over getting Bolt Action 3rd edition (I quite like the methodology of morale being the major factor than just casualty removal, too often I’ve seen on a regular basis whole squads wiped out to a man in games of Bolt Action). And it looks like the usage of using tanks/apcs is going to be a lot more limited vs games of Bolt Action. So I’m going to try something different rather than getting another edition of rules that I’ve never been totally happy with (although everyone plays Bolt Action or Flames of War these days for WW2 games (and don’t get me started on Flames of War rules 😀 ).

[jamescutts 6925xp 2]

I just find the whole argument about paper strengths and bolt action a bit tiresome of a discussion, not that i dont find them interesting on their own, it can be fascinating research, but its really not the sort of game that’s aiming for that level of accuracy, its first and foremost a game, with historical flavour, that’s a great entry point into the historical hobby and  a framework you can use as your see fit.

If somebody comes over from say that G’Wulla game, and has a Tiger II and 5 guys with STG44’s I’m all for it, just in the same way am all for somebody using Bolt Action to create a perfect German platoon with 3 9 man strong Gruppen the rules also allow you to do that. I cant really criticise that myself as I think it achieves what it aims to, a system that’s highly flexible and focused on being a game first, other games take different approaches and I think having the choice to pick what you prefer in the hobby is one of its great strengths.

I think the changes previewed offer a bit more historical flavour than was there in the past, it refocuses the game on the core infantry platoon, and groups additions under roughly historical structures in a way that’s generic enough to remain focused on being a game, I think that on the whole is a good thing. Those are just the generic organisations through, we haven’t seen the army lists yet, I suspect those will offer more detail as will any following army and campaign supplements.

 

[jamescutts 6925xp 1]

Its an approach that’s got its strengths and weaknesses @phaidknott as you point out there’s a natural tendency assume the rules are there to sell minis, I’m not sure if you could categorically state that without Warlord and the author disclosing it, it may or may not be an intention but could be a side effect of the changes, equally people may decide rather than two tanks to venture into more infantry instead, only time will tell.

On the flip side I think rules linked to minis is a crucial buy in for our hobby, your not exactly going to snag a normie by saying go buy this chain of command rulebook off the lardies, then go buy these infantry minis from here, but they dont do support weapons so get them from there etc. Meanwhile Bolt Action and what Battlefront does with Flames of War you can put on a shelf as a game and get people into it much the same way G’Wulla does with Whamster, it gives you a WWII game in a box, you can then grow and venture out from there however you see fit. I think once you’ve been wargaming a few years, particularly out side of the G’Wulla sphere you become more open and adaptable, seeing minis as agnostic things to let you try out new rules.

[grantinvanman 2181xp 1]

@jamescutts indeed – FoW and BA are geared toward the GW players, in that they offer off the shelf one-stop rules+minis solutions. People don’t have to think.

There are FAR better minis for either game out there – Perry’s fantastic 28mm range with the Blitzkrieg tanks attached, for example. But thought would involve forethought, planning, and more work.

Instant buy-in I’m 100% certain plays an important but somewhat sad factor in both FoW and BA’s popularity, not to mention people who follow the “gotta buy all my minis as Warlord make them” mentality.

Daring to dream outside the box is just not encouraged…

[limburger 21708xp 0]

The image of the ‘armored platoon’ says you need 2 vehicles.
It doesn’t say that both have to be tanks … although the min/max-ers are likely to take two tanks (and use whatever is the biggest bang for the points as well).

Besides, we don’t know the points cost so we don’t know what will be possible.

One of the best things about historical games is that once you get into it you can go down the rabbit hole if you want to.
So what if folk start out with Tigers and a few troops ?
Maybe they start digging into the history and either pick a set of rules that is more simulationist or simply change their army list to something that more accurately reflects what a real army would have been like.

Games are always best enjoyed with like minded friends.

At the end of the day WaaahLaad wants to make a profit and we want to have an enjoyable game.

We can complain all day long about the bit of info we’ve got, but based on what has been released so far I am liking what I’m seeing. The old system was far too gamey. This new version feels like a step in the right direction and to me that’s good enough.

BA was never and most likely won’t ever be a set of rules for folk who crave historical accuracy from day 0.

IMHO that is a good style of game to have, because it opens the hobby to folk who might not have considered ‘historical’ games.

Heck … look at how Warren went from ‘add UFO to a stug army’ to trying to write rules for the crusades …

Maybe I’m a bit biased, because I’ve pre ordered my copy.

Only a fool walks into McDonalds and expects a 5 star meal. I’d say we need to approach rules for (historical) games like that as well. What are they trying to do and how good are they at getting to that goal ?

[khusrauParticipant 1169xp 1]

“Only a fool walks into McDonalds and expects a 5 star meal.”

Great observation, but how do you get people who only know McDonalds to know what 3 Michelin stars tastes like? I don’t know. I would hope rules authors know.

 

 

[frankeleeParticipant 1364xp 1]

Yeah if a game’s not for you, the right choice is to not play it. All other options taken are a mistake.

[limburger 21708xp 0]

Great observation, but how do you get people who only know McDonalds to know what 3 Michelin stars tastes like? I don’t know. I would hope rules authors know.

Same way you get someone who has only ever tasted 3 star food to try McD’s : trigger their curiosity and treat them with respect.

You can’t force people to try things outside of their comfort zone, but curiosity can get them to try it at least once.
The one thing that definitely won’t work is talking to them as if they aren’t worthy of playing the game.
It also depends on the community.

/off-topic

I’m curious what other changes WaaahLaaad!!! has in store for 3rd edition.
I know I’ve already committed. The choice for a winter campaign is a good one *because* it shows of things that haven’t been available (or in plastic) before.

[limburger 21708xp 0]

Changes to (medium) machine guns in 3rd :

THIRD EDITION MMGs – BIG CHANGES

The explanations all make sense to me. The simplicity of the change is beautiful.

[smithscoParticipant 1212xp 0]

I like the MMG change as well. Logical and simple. In 1st and 2nd editions when I would include a tank to support my airborne I would always do a Sherman with the 75mm and maxed out machine guns. Absolute squad wrecker but not particularly historical. This feels more correct.

[Author]

Posts