Disclaimer: Everyone has their own opinion, and none are more valid than any other. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder so whatever you play just have Fun! There is no "one rules system to rule them all"
Bolt Action: for me this is a fun and cinematic, Hollywood-esque style of game. If you want to play Commando/Battle Comics (with appropriate quotes such as "Gott und Himmel, these Englanders fight like madmen!") then you'll have a lot of fun with these. Chances are that you can easily find an opponent and there are lots of tourney opportunities if thats your thing. The new(ish) 2nd edition rules iron out a few of the loopholes which were exploitable and introduce the ability of officers to activate more than one subordinate unit in a coordinated fashion - that can quite change game play and makes Officers far more valuable (and thus juicy sniper targets too!).Pros: Large community, tight rules sets, relatively quick play, easy to learn (Reilly beat me in his first game!), and quite expandable (we have played 3 v 3 and 2 v 2 games with minimal changes)
Cons: Several abstractions (to make the game quick and tourney friendly) which can be frustrating, lots of extra rulebooks to buy (not that you need them), no historical organisations mandated (you can use them, like I do, but that wont be optimising you effectiveness)
Personal Note: BA allows player to build units from scratch to their hearts desire, regardless of historical ORBATs. Personally, I like to use historical section/squad organisation to retain the right feel.
Chain of Command: I also very much like these rules from Too Fat Lardies. They are in my opinion a much better tactical game, and sometimes just trying to overcome your situation is the most satisfying challenge to overcome. It also has a great scouting phase at the start of the game to establish the front line and deployment areas, which is really interesting. C2 really impacts the game in a really interesting way and delivers lots of flavour. However, as a result I think they suffer from less balance (which is, ultimately, historical right?!)Pros: more depth/historical feel, historical organisation (well, its a pro for me anyway), good campaign system, lots of nice cheap Campaign supplements available.
Cons: less balance, smaller community, longer play time, rulebook less well laid out and difficult to read/comprehend IMHO
I quite like Anatoli's detailed review here: http://anatolisgameroom.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/chain-of-command-rules-review.html
Conclusion: There are many other rules sets out there at the WW2 Platoon level, and each has their champion player or gaming group. Please see my disclaimer at the start; as long as you and your friends are having fun then all power to you!
For me both BA and CoC are good games for different reasons - I recommend both and will keep playing them both. However, I find that BA is a much easier game to pickup again quickly after an absence, while CoC is more difficult to do that with.
Bolt Action is actually much closer to I Ain't Been Shot Mum, or even Flames of War in terms of its movement, ranges and whole squad system. The only parity with CoC is that both are popularly played with 28mm figures.
ReplyDeleteI'm very much a CoC man, but BA will handle up to a company on the table, while CoC can only do that as a somewhat shaky multi-player game.
Good point Jim - I've played some great 2 v 2 and 3 v 3 BA games with minimal changes
DeleteOf the two I much prefer COC but I do not condemn anyone who likes BA. But most of the BA games I see are tactically set up like a ww2 40k, but with order dice. No real use of cover or tactics all Dakka ! It my just be my local players so I am happy to be proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut as long as you enjoy a game it is just finding a set of rules that suit the individual. And we are all very different
I prefer CoC when I have the time to play it and like minded opponents. I find that BA is a better throw down game, quicker to play and less challenging in mechanics so it leaves more time for socialising, banter and chat. Very different vibe so I dont feel that I have to choose between them.
DeleteI have both...and have played neither. Too many games, not enough time. One day!
ReplyDeleteWe all have that problem Gordon!
DeletePlayed both and enjoyed both too. CoC does feel more tactical but has a tendency to bog down in units sheltering in cover exchanging fore...probably pretty realistic though.
ReplyDeleteBA works well as a multiplayer game, better than CoC (and easier for new players to pick up) so my preference is probably CoC for 1 on 1 games and BA for multiplayer.
Not a bad way to look at it!
DeleteAm read through CoC now and they seem like a really good set of rules.I do like BA and have played it a few times. I will probably just end up playing both!
ReplyDeleteThat was my ultimate conclusion too!
DeleteWho says we have to only choose one anyway? :-)
Nice review. I am partial to CoC but I appreciate BA's simplicity and it's use as a gateway from 40k to historical 28mm. Having said that, I haven't been able to pay either yet. actual play might change my opinion entirely.
ReplyDeleteWell said!
DeleteI have enjoyed both, BA as part of a Bolt Action Boot Camp at MOAB concention and CoC I have played properly at the club and at home. I do enjoy CoC but totally agree that it is hard to get your head around the rules at times as the book lacks some organisation. I want to give it another run but am finding it hard to convince the 40K gamers at the club to move over. Yet maybe this is where BA2 might work. That said my minis are maninly 15mm and so CoC and even Battlegroup suit me more. Do I jump for the fun game with the club or do i stick with historically "more realistic?" systems? Thanks for the discussion Paul.
ReplyDeleteBA is probably going to be the more popular cross over game as some of its mechanics are more similar to 40k. Then again, maybe the leap to CoC will give them something different. I do suggest having someone who is very familiar with the CoC rules talk through the first game or two as they can be very confusing at first glance!
DeleteA bit of advice I gave to one of my mates who started with BA was "Build your platoon to a historical orbat, and then add the fun stuff you want/are game winners/power gamer cheese to that. That way you can take your BA force and play CoC with me." I also gave him a copy of the German army list from CoC and explained how the force selection worked.
ReplyDeleteSo as long as you organise your force somewhat historically you can play both games. And other skirmish games which follows historical orbats too.
I did the same thing when building my Para force Leif - useable in both systems and scratches by historical itch
DeleteI am partial to CoC as I like realism. I also play a LOT of Cross Fire for company-Btn sized games. As mention by others here I have too many rule....one statrs to use a rule from one set in the gaming of another!
ReplyDeleteDick Bryant
"Luck with dice does not mean you are a good general!"
I do like Crossfire too - wow, haven't played that in a long time. I tend to use Battlegroup for my 15mm WW2 fix but am also ways partial to Crossfire and was sad that the v2 project never came to fruition. Take a look at what Steve is doing with it over at his Blog "Sound Officer's Call" here:
Deletehttp://soundofficerscall.blogspot.com.au/search/label/15mm%20Crossfire
Well, yes, but what scale should we all use?
ReplyDeleteWhichever you and you gaming buddies prefer! There are lots of guys who enjoy both systems in 15mm, though 28mm is more common and thus easier to get a pickup game.
Delete