Bolt Action - Are Mortars worthwhile?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CrazyMez**

Hey guys.

Recently started Bolt Action with the Waffen SS box set. Played a few games and Im really finding that the medium mortar team doesnt really come off for me. Hitting on 6s seems to make it unusable. Any unit is going to move immediatly after you try and hit it. Only manage to hit a sniper team that risked not moving to take out an NCO. Just wondered how everyone felt about this?

Thanks

Dan

**Stormfather**

I like taking a light mortar to counter enemy gun teams. If they don't move, they risk getting hit, and if they do move, they don't get to fire their gun. They're more of a nuisance than anything, but if they can disrupt my enemy's playstyle, they're worth the ~35 points they cost.

**Alfndrate**

Light mortars are great for 2 things: team weapons (weapons that either move or shoot), and units in buildings.

As Stormfather said, if you miss on the first turn and they stay put, it gets easier for you to hit them every turn. A weapon team (such as an MMG, mortar team, sniper team, etc...) is going to need to weather those hits to fire, or move, which prevents their shooting.

Another thing is to target units in buildings. It might be harder to damage them, but with those mortar teams you're just looking for hits so you can put pin markers on them. Units in buildings are incredibly survivable against anti-infantry weapons, so mortars help keep them there and (hopefully) keep them from firing...

**CrazyMez**

This is how ive been using them. But just found that they take a couple of pins and your back to hitting on 6 and it completely undermines them. Ive hit with my medium mortar once in 3 games.

**MDizzle**

Dude mortars are great but you have to use them on fixed units like an MG team or a Howitzer yes in turn one you need a 6 but if you get that 6 next turn you hit them on a 2 up and can do a gak load of damage.

I would also like you to think about inexperienced Rocket launchers if your army gets accesses to them they are great! and cheap they hit every unit with in 6 inches with 2D6 HE Kills Vet squads dead and tanks and if it dies so what it so cheap you don't care and you are just glad they didn't shoot your infantry.

**Pseudosecretivesnack**

Also people forget mortars can put out smoke which is fantastically useful if a unit keeps moving or a stationary one isn't in range

**Spacewolfoddballz**

Medium Mortars are what my friend who playes Germans likes at the moment.. especially if he gets hidden setup with a spotter..., however last game we played spotter got destroyed from preliminatry bombardment and the mortar was pretty useless as he had to move and then became a target for my sniper team (who had turn before killed a MMG team). I just have a light mortar right now and have not played it much as it has such a short range.

**Silver_skates**

I wouldn't leave home without a mortar and a spotter. In every game I've played they've caused damage (once first turn it wiped out a howitzer).

Standard tactic is to fire them at buildings, trenches or stationary weapon teams. The threat often moves the target unit which is just what I want. Of course, if the spotter goes down the mortar is pretty useless.

**jonesy92**

I all ways use a medium mortar in my list, I've been pretty lucky with them I'd definitely take a spotter with it and set him up in cover if you can. Another tip with mortars fire it on your last order dice of the first turn then on the second turn fire it at the same unit with the first dice out of the bag to maximize your chance of hitting again on a 5 if you missed last turn or a 2 if you hit.

Lewis

**Nazull**

I was thinking about adding a medium mortar to my force.

Could you tell me what a spotter dose for them in game terms as I cant find it in the book.. is it a + to hit or some thing like that ?

are they any good with out a spotter ?

I think I found it on the same page 54

They just let you shoot anything to the mortar dose not have LOS to but he dose... is that it ?

**snurl**

Another useful mortar tactic is to shoot up an enemy unit with MMGs and Rifle fire, so it has a few pins to begin with. Then shoot at it with the mortar.
Even if you miss, there is less chance of the target moving before you get to fire at it again

**judgedoug**

Mortars are awesome, imho. Flush out snipers, other artillery, etc.

**Big P**

My issue would be more why are medium mortars on table...

I prefer them to be off-board.

As my Grandfather once told me, a former mortar platoon sargent in NWE in 1944/45, if he was able to see the Germans it was time to pack up the 3" mortar into the carrier and bugger off!

**judgedoug**

Because it's a game, and ranges are compressed (just like all miniatures games). They also have minimum ranges. Alternately, you don't have to take them at all, and instead take an artillery spotter.

**Manchu**

judgedoug wrote:
instead take an artillery spotter

For free if you are playing a British or Commonwealth army!

**Big P**

judgedoug wrote:
Because it's a game, and ranges are compressed (just like all miniatures games).

I know, they are in our rules too (and onboard mortars are in that too).

Just historically I cant get my head round seeing things like mortars and field guns on tables with a platoon of infantry... Regardless of what game system it is.

Just jars with my historical perception of WW2 combat thats all.

Then again, if I was being correct, I guess you shouldnt really have any guns on call at a platoon level, unless you were lucky enough to have the FO with you!

Then again, artillery response times in WW2 make a mockery of any tabletop attempt to recreate impromptu artillery shoots. Unless you are Yanks of course... They got theirs down range pretty quick...

I do wonder if in a skirmish game, arty should just be disreagrded unless its a pre-planned fire mission or perhaps represented by some sort of random card mechanic where a mortar stonk comes down.

Hmmm.... may have to think on that for our skirmish set.

**Eumerin**

Big P wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
Because it's a game, and ranges are compressed (just like all miniatures games).

I know, they are in our rules too (and onboard mortars are in that too).

Just historically I cant get my head round seeing things like mortars and field guns on tables with a platoon of infantry... Regardless of what game system it is.

Just jars with my historical perception of WW2 combat thats all.

Then again, if I was being correct, I guess you shouldnt really have any guns on call at a platoon level, unless you were lucky enough to have the FO with you!

Then again, artillery response times in WW2 make a mockery of any tabletop attempt to recreate impromptu artillery shoots. Unless you are Yanks of course... They got theirs down range pretty quick...

I do wonder if in a skirmish game, arty should just be disreagrded unless its a pre-planned fire mission or perhaps represented by some sort of random card mechanic where a mortar stonk comes down.

Hmmm.... may have to think on that for our skirmish set.

Light mortars make sense to have on the battlefield. Some platoons did have them included. But otherwise I largely agree.

Unless a battery is getting overrun, of course.

**judgedoug**

Big P wrote:
judgedoug wrote:
Because it's a game, and ranges are compressed (just like all miniatures games).

I know, they are in our rules too (and onboard mortars are in that too).

Just historically I cant get my head round seeing things like mortars and field guns on tables with a platoon of infantry... Regardless of what game system it is.

Just jars with my historical perception of WW2 combat thats all.

Then again, if I was being correct, I guess you shouldnt really have any guns on call at a platoon level, unless you were lucky enough to have the FO with you!

If you've got howitzers in your deployment zone, sounds like you're playing a rearguard action or trying to defend against being overrun

But at least they have minimum ranges for indirect fire, I think 24" iirc. But again, compressed distances and time scale and whatnot. I personally don't mind as I just like playing with a large variety of units. I do use the theater selectors, though, in attempt to be pseudo-historical. F'instance, my early DAK army I'm painting this week is based on a real Afrika Korps platoon with rifle squads, with one of the company level light mortars attached, platoon command's AT rifle and MG34, reinforced with an opel blitz to tow the Pak 36... and an attached recon Kradschutzen element and a Panzer II because they're fun

**Manchu**

"X doesn't make sense" is a functional non sequitur because the person making that argument simultaneously poses unspoken assumptions that may not apply to the subject or may be otherwise dubious. Questions are generally better than declarations: "why does BA use on-table mortars and artillery?" Approached from that perspective, we can (and ought to) bypass the whole "realism" bugbear.

I'm dancing around the issue of "wherefore historicals" here. We're all interested in the simulative aspect of history-based wargaming but only to a point; otherwise we'd invest all that time spent assembling, painting, and playing into historical research instead. Furthermore, the threshold is perforce lower for miniatures gaming than, say, board games thanks to scale issues. Personally, I have no problem acknowledging that conceit is the better part of our past time.

**Big P**

Yer... for me the historical research is a big part as important as the other bits. But thats just me, comes from teaching history and a wider interest in it I guess.

Im guessing BA use it for the same reason we do - to have toys on table. Whats the point in having cool models if you cant use them in a game? Its why we have lots of things and all have a role so people can use their toys.

More fun that way. Plus whats not to like about a 25pdr on table...

Got to have 2" on table, widely used. Though by the wars end the Germans and Russians largely dumped light mortars.

Look forward to seeing the DAK Doug...

**Manchu**

I was more pointing out that the historical research informs the priority, which is play. The idea that we can learn about history by playing games is nonsense. Better to say, our enthusiasm about playing games often inspires us to learn about history.

I think you hit the nail on the head about wanting to play with our toys. I mean, if we're honest, that is the foundation for all of this.

**judgedoug**

Manchu wrote:

The idea that we can learn about history by playing games is nonsense. Better to say, our enthusiasm about playing games often inspires us to learn about history.

100% true in the case of a) seeing War of Spanish Succession figures, "what is this Lace Wars business?" b) discovering the Ga Pa ruleset and how great it is and wanting to play with the figures and the rules, then c) spending a ton of time researching the period, and now I own several books on the War.

**Swastakowey**

I personally just see them as tools to make whatever the player feels like. For example I dont use a spotter as a Japanese player because their artillery was useless and not often used properly. Even their own soldiers noticed the huge difference in artillery between them and the Americans etc.

So I sit there and take it enemy arty and try use my superior spirit to live through it.

In game terms though, I use it as a count down timer for another squad/model that NEEDS to remain still to be effective. Each turn they decide to stay still and be effective they are playing russian roulette with a mortar round, each round is one step closer to death.

**Manchu**

Dang, Swatsakowey, your post motivates me to get started on my Japanese for BA! Exalted. Currently in queue, however, are Desert Rats.

**Eumerin**

Big P wrote:
Though by the wars end the Germans and Russians largely dumped light mortars.

Other nations still used them, though. For instance, US Armored Rifle platoons had a 60mm mortar.

And the Germans had a 15cm "infantry gun" that served a similar purpose.

:p

**Swastakowey**

Manchu wrote:
Dang, Swatsakowey, your post motivates me to get started on my Japanese for BA! Exalted. Currently in queue, however, are Desert Rats.

Although the fighting Spirit is stronger than the bullet and certainly stronger than the Americans (and on Par with the Russians) it is saddening to see the cost of that Spirit as a weapon is high.

As long as your officers scream brandishing their sword, they will be worth 10 rifles. (actual belief they had).

So enjoy mixing odd disciplines and beliefs with modern warfare. The Imperial Army is among the most unique soldiers of WW2. For example a lot of them were well educated, but their military system was harsh and their ambitions could not be matched by their factories. So you end up with well disciplined and aggressive fighters who had some of the most useless weapons (in many technical ways) and a lack of materials or food to support them. Chain of command was horrible and the navy could not get along with the army which caused problems later on.

Honestly do some reading of Japanese diaries and watch some documentaries. There is nothing more alien in WW2 (in my opinion) than how the Japanese operated. I still cant fathom some of their choices or designs even though I read about them frequently.

**durecellrabbit**

Japan is good fun to play. I've just broken 1000 points of painted stuff and I don't plan on stopping until I've got a full platoon and enough options to cover Manchuria to Okinawa.

Here is the Saipan speech. It does come across as rather alien but I could also see a similar speech being made by other armies making a famous last stand.

Saito wrote: I am addressing the officers and men to the Imperial Army on Saipan.

For more than twenty days since the American devils attacked, the officers, men and civilian employees of the Imperial Army and Navy on this island have fought well and bravely. Everywhere they have demonstrated the honor and glory of the Imperial forces. I expected that every man would do his duty.

Heaven has not given us an opportunity. We have not been able to utilize fully the terrain. We have fought in unison up to the present time but now we have no materials with which to fight and our artillery for attach has been completely destroyed. Our comrades have fallen one after another. Despite the bitterness of defeat we pledge "seven lives to repay our country".

The barbarous attack of the enemy is being continued even though the enemy has occupied only a corner of Saipan. We are dying without avail under the violent shelling and bombing. Whether we attack or whether we stay where we are, there is only death. However in death there is life. We must utilize this opportunity to exalt true Japanese manhood. I will advance with those who remain to deliver still another blow to the American devils and leave my bones on Saipan as a bulwark of the Pacific.

As it says in the Senjinkun battle ethics, "I will never suffer the disgrace of being taken alive and I will offer up the courage of my soul and calmly rejoice in living by the eternal principal.

Here I pray with you for the eternal life of the emperor and the welfare of the country and I advance to seek out the enemy. Follow me.

It should also make you want to play Japan

.

**Swastakowey**

I personally play Manchuria as I like that uniform scheme the best, plus I love the little Japanese Tanks they had used a lot there.

There is a cool documentary on the Japanese weapons, if you pay attention you will see how much worse they get over time but its one of the few ways to get an indepth look at how their weapons operate and their effectiveness etc.

Thats what made me want to play japan in wargames a long time ago.

**frozenwastes**

Manchu wrote:
The idea that we can learn about history by playing games is nonsense.

I think that's nonsense and demonstrably false. Through the following process which I've put in spoiler tags as it's getting off topic:

Spoiler:

Identify the history you are interested in (the actual primary sources and related secondary sources).
identify the command level decision making you are interested in.
Design rules that concern themselves with those decisions
Play those rules.
Check your results against the history identified in step 1.

For example, you can take the exercises in the field manuals from the later parts of WW2 and if you combine them with a rules set that produces historical results and concentrates on the same decision level as the exercise you should be able to get results you can reproduce and actually learn what types of decisions the historical commanders had to make. Chain of Command by Toofat Lardies for example, was explicitly designed with section to platoon level tactical manuals as their primary historical source and if you play the game, you will learn the types of things a commander in a similar situation had to go through. The original Kriegspiel was written and worked on by people who had first hand experience of Napoleonic warfare and if you played it, you would actually learn about what a division, corps or army level commander had to deal with (identifying the disposition of the enemy and figuring out when and where to either give battle or force the enemy to give battle).

I've also found the same thing with Company Commander, a free skirmish game heavily based on Crossfire. I've run it for Lts and Captains who saw combat in Afghanistan and they said it was "too real" for their liking as a game. Not knowing what exactly happened to a section that came under fire until you can make sense of what you're seeing and hearing was something that was a real issue officers had to deal with in warfare of the 00s (and the decades before that and since) and a set of rules that includes that in its mechanics will certainly teach you about it. And it can even be close enough that those who have experienced the real thing get the same uneasy feeling of not knowing exactly what happened to their co-workers and friends in a section they either lost contact with or are only getting screams of being under fire as the only radio communication.

The only thing that's truly impossible is to try to learn everything that was involved-- that's obviously impossible. The key is to isolate elements. Then you can certainly teach the elements selected from a given primary source through a game. It's also okay to isolate elements that are important to you as a designer and abstract other elements to support game focus. That too will produce a game that has value as a teaching tool for history.

Note: Bolt Action won't work with period field manual exercises. I imagine Battlegroup would. I know Chain of Command does. As does Company Commander, Crossfire and I Ain't Been Shot Mum.

The short version is that games can teach you about history to the same degree a mock parliament or congress can teach you about government process-- selected elements of the larger process. Just like a book will only concentrate on selected elements. You can't focus on everything. Games are a tool educators have been using for a long time and this idea that they'll suddenly fail when you apply them to history is absurd.

To get back on topic, I think mortars are worthwhile in Bolt Action. They're highly variable though. So you'll have some games where they are amazing and others where they literally do nothing. I think they are a good thing to include if the rest of your army is very reliable. I don't think I'd take it in an army with a lot of very variable things though. Like a tank where you have that large portion of your points make its contribution (or not) on a single die roll. The more dice an army could theoretically roll in a turn, the more likely I'm willing to add a single highly variable element that's based on a single die roll. I hope that makes sense.

.

**Big P**

I think gaming can be a tool in the box for learning about history.

If nothing else you will learn about uniforms and camo patterns.

For me I tend to research units that I want to work on so I have learnt a great deal about German Armoured Police Units around the Adriatic last week. Something I wouldnt have bothered to do apart from because of gaming.

If you mean can gaming, to any degree, provide a historical simulation of historical combat, then I tend to agree. Nothing can simulate such extreme events that have a 'risk to life' basis. They are too psycologically involved to allow a simulation and I think its folly to believe they do.

However it can show a student how in theory, say platoon level field drills should work in battle craft. It can give a visual pointer to such things and I have used it to do just that in teaching using a wargaming model to show low level section tactics and how the various parts of a platoon would interact.

So perhaps the game itself, may not provide a teaching element, but depending on the person involved, wider aspects of the hobby can lead to a person expanding their personal knowledge of a historical subject.