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.

 Hordini wrote:

Big P wrote:

Im yet to find a good, fun skirmish WW2 game that is reasonably accurate in abstracting a degree of historical accuracy, rewards hisyorical tactical play and doesnt reward cheesey ahistorical list building. Its why I tend to play at the next level up...

Have you ever tried Nuts!?

Yes, not bad but I just didnt get on with the mechanics.

Big P wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Big P wrote:

Im yet to find a good, fun skirmish WW2 game that is reasonably accurate in abstracting a degree of historical accuracy, rewards hisyorical tactical play and doesnt reward cheesey ahistorical list building. Its why I tend to play at the next level up...

Have you ever tried Nuts!?

Yes, not bad but I just didnt get on with the mechanics.

Yeah, my experience with it is limited (I only played it once or twice) and while it didn't strike me as the most elegant system, it did at least seem like a WWII skirmish game that would give reasonably historical results.

Bolt Action is a fantastic ruleset in that it's easy to learn and feels like a WW2 skirmish game. It may not be historically accurate but I can play a big game to a satisfying conclusion and have had fun in an hour with someone else who knows the rules well.

Just started a Polish army to go with my Fallschirmjager and my DAK armies.

How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?

Surely it cant be the former if its not that latter? Im genuinely interested in how it can have the feel of WW2 small unit combat but at the same time be historically inaccurate. The lists seem reasonably accurate, some of the weapons effects are out of kilter with reality a little. Hence why im intrigued by your comment that it is both the feel of WW2 and inaccurate.

Though I dont know what a WW2 skirmish feels like, other than probably gaking my pants during it.

Big P wrote:
How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?

Surely it cant be the former if its not that latter? Im genuinely interested in how it can have the feel of WW2 small unit combat but at the same time be historically inaccurate. The lists seem reasonably accurate, some of the weapons effects are out of kilter with reality a little. Hence why im intrigued by your comment that it is both the feel of WW2 and inaccurate.

Though I dont know what a WW2 skirmish feels like, other than probably gaking my pants during it.

To be fair though, any 28mm (or even 15mm for that matter) game which doesn't let rifles shoot the entire length of the table is not going to feel correct. Heck, SMGs are easily going to shoot out to that distance with some accuracy, even shotguns (a shotgun is not a point blank only weapon, nor a pistol for that matter).

If you want to see an example of a very realistic WW2 skirmish game, check out Company Commander by John Leahy. It's free in a yahoo group's files section. It has a lot in common with Crossfire, but is made for individual troops. I ran it once for some local light infantry officers when they came back from Afghanistan and their reaction was that it felt too right.

I played Bolt action a few times and i am lovin it, liking the activation sequence, and getting mini's is easy, got Russian Infantry from Wargames factory and use tanks from Tamiya.

Big P wrote:
How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?
Surely it cant be the former if its not that latter? Im genuinely interested in how it can have the feel of WW2 small unit combat but at the same time be historically inaccurate. The lists seem reasonably accurate, some of the weapons effects are out of kilter with reality a little. Hence why im intrigued by your comment that it is both the feel of WW2 and inaccurate.

Because I can play a what-if? scenario where US troops fight Soviet troops in May 1945 in Germany, which would be totally not historically accurate but would feel like a WW2 game.

Big P wrote:

Though I dont know what a WW2 skirmish feels like, other than probably gaking my pants during it.

You got me there. It plays to me how I would imagine the battles went.

One of the problems with some of the more granular simulation games (other than usually taking far too long) is that it's often a simulation of what the author _imagines_ it to have been like.

Earlier someone said "Not overly impressed with BA, its a good game but not in the same class as Black Powder or Pike & Shotte, very obviously aimed at 40k players. "

I know what they're trying to say - that BP and P&S are somehow more "sophisticated", but hell, they are probably even less accurate to their period than Bolt Action is to WW2. Especially Hail Caesar.

However, comparing BA to 40k is very apples and oranges... BA is much quicker and definitely simpler, 40k is a pretty granular simulation of someone's imagination of a fantastical future that is as complex as some of these "accurate" smaller press simulation wargames.

Big P wrote:
How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?

See:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I see WW2 miniature gaming as being not that different than making a WW2 movie.

 Manchu wrote:

Big P wrote:
How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?

See:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I see WW2 miniature gaming as being not that different than making a WW2 movie.

I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:

Big P wrote:
How does 'feel like a WW2 skirmish' and 'may not be historically accurate' go together?
Surely it cant be the former if its not that latter? Im genuinely interested in how it can have the feel of WW2 small unit combat but at the same time be historically inaccurate. The lists seem reasonably accurate, some of the weapons effects are out of kilter with reality a little. Hence why im intrigued by your comment that it is both the feel of WW2 and inaccurate.

Because I can play a what-if? scenario where US troops fight Soviet troops in May 1945 in Germany, which would be totally not historically accurate but would feel like a WW2 game.

Big P wrote:

Though I dont know what a WW2 skirmish feels like, other than probably gaking my pants during it.

You got me there. It plays to me how I would imagine the battles went.

One of the problems with some of the more granular simulation games (other than usually taking far too long) is that it's often a simulation of what the author _imagines_ it to have been like.

Earlier someone said "Not overly impressed with BA, its a good game but not in the same class as Black Powder or Pike & Shotte, very obviously aimed at 40k players. "

I know what they're trying to say - that BP and P&S are somehow more "sophisticated", but hell, they are probably even less accurate to their period than Bolt Action is to WW2. Especially Hail Caesar.

However, comparing BA to 40k is very apples and oranges... BA is much quicker and definitely simpler, 40k is a pretty granular simulation of someone's imagination of a fantastical future that is as complex as some of these "accurate" smaller press simulation wargames.

I dont think any game with toy soldiers will ever be realistic or accurate.

The best you can hope for is that it feels right to your perception of a given gaming genre and that you enjoy it.

Can you accept its a miniatures game with a ww2 theme?

A theme doesnt mean realistic or accurate. A theme is merely a skin.

I mean, like you I wish to play more accurate games. But can see why not many do. For many reasons. I look at my Japanese and think about how sucky it would be to play them in an accurate game. Understregnthed, little to no reinforcements, lack of guns and ammo, starvation and poor leadership to name a few. There is no positive outcome for such a force outside of a few theaters.

So I do like bolt action for example, because it provides me the rules and options to play a game thats themed where I have a chance at winning and can forget the stuff I read about in the books. Id rather pretend, sometimes, that my men didnt train 3 times a day to shoot themselves with a rifle instead of fighting, or the poor co ordination of attacks etc.

A theme is very different to game play. The 2 dont go hand in hand as many successful games show.

I just don't get the "realism" argument. These are plastic toy soldiers, reality is exempted, fun is the objective. Bolt Action achieves that fun without complications.

 MadMaverick76 wrote:
I just don't get the "realism" argument. These are plastic toy soldiers, reality is exempted, fun is the objective. Bolt Action achieves that fun without complications.

Without many abstractions nothing is realistic on the table.

Bolt Action just has more abstractions than some games I guess.

All depends where you draw the line.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Can you accept its a miniatures game with a ww2 theme?

A theme doesnt mean realistic or accurate. A theme is merely a skin.

I mean, like you I wish to play more accurate games. But can see why not many do. For many reasons. I look at my Japanese and think about how sucky it would be to play them in an accurate game. Understregnthed, little to no reinforcements, lack of guns and ammo, starvation and poor leadership to name a few. There is no positive outcome for such a force outside of a few theaters.

So I do like bolt action for example, because it provides me the rules and options to play a game thats themed where I have a chance at winning and can forget the stuff I read about in the books. Id rather pretend, sometimes, that my men didnt train 3 times a day to shoot themselves with a rifle instead of fighting, or the poor co ordination of attacks etc.

A theme is very different to game play. The 2 dont go hand in hand as many successful games show.

This is all any WW2 miniatures game is. There is no difference between a WW2 game and a WW2 themed game. Different games have different sorts of mechanics and different levels of abstraction, but they're all WW2 games in the end. Pick which flavor you like better. You can take literally any WW2 miniatures game and play an ahistorical match up if you want to. There is absolutely nothing unique about Bolt Action allowing you to do that. You can do it with Bolt Action, you can do it with Flames of War, you can do it with Battlegroup, you can do it with Command Decision, you can do it with Disposable Heroes, you can do it with Mein Panzer, etc., etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 MadMaverick76 wrote:
I just don't get the "realism" argument. These are plastic toy soldiers, reality is exempted, fun is the objective. Bolt Action achieves that fun without complications.

Without many abstractions nothing is realistic on the table.

Bolt Action just has more abstractions than some games I guess.

All depends where you draw the line.

Except that it doesn't. Plenty of other WW2 games have a level of abstraction similar to Bolt Action.

Well no. A ww2 theme is nothing like a ww2 game. A ww2 theme could be ww2 in space. Its space with a ww2 theme. I think that makes it a very different game to a ww2. So no not really. The rest of your comment had little to do with what I said. Big P said something about why anybody would play a ww2 game that isnt accurate. I said because I dont really want to play a game where my ass gets kicked all the time, but I still want the theme. Thats all...

Your second comment just agreed with me. I said I guess Bolt Action has more abstraction than some other games, because Big P thinks ill of it compared to his games due to the level of correctness is has in comparison. Its abstract to the point where everything is generalized making it far less accurate than a ww2 game that has far less generalization (in theory).

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well no. A ww2 theme is nothing like a ww2 game. A ww2 theme could be ww2 in space. Its space with a ww2 theme. I think that makes it a very different game to a ww2. So no not really. The rest of your comment had little to do with what I said. Big P said something about why anybody would play a ww2 game that isnt accurate. I said because I dont really want to play a game where my ass gets kicked all the time, but I still want the theme. Thats all...

Your second comment just agreed with me. I said I guess Bolt Action has more abstraction than some other games, because Big P thinks ill of it compared to his games due to the level of correctness is has in comparison. Its abstract to the point where everything is generalized making it far less accurate than a ww2 game that has far less generalization (in theory).

Well, okay. I guess if you're talking about Weird War 2 or WW2 sci-fi or something, I would agree that could be considered a WW2 themed game, rather than a WW2 game. But if we're just talking about straight historical games, I'd say that they're all WW2 games.


I don't agree that more abstraction necessarily makes a game less accurate though. It can, but it doesn't have to. In a lot of cases, abstraction has a lot to do with what level a game is played at. For a very simple example: A strategic level game will, by definition, have more abstraction than a tactical level game, but it could still provide reasonably historical results for a historical match up.

 Hordini wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well no. A ww2 theme is nothing like a ww2 game. A ww2 theme could be ww2 in space. Its space with a ww2 theme. I think that makes it a very different game to a ww2. So no not really. The rest of your comment had little to do with what I said. Big P said something about why anybody would play a ww2 game that isnt accurate. I said because I dont really want to play a game where my ass gets kicked all the time, but I still want the theme. Thats all...

Your second comment just agreed with me. I said I guess Bolt Action has more abstraction than some other games, because Big P thinks ill of it compared to his games due to the level of correctness is has in comparison. Its abstract to the point where everything is generalized making it far less accurate than a ww2 game that has far less generalization (in theory).

Well, okay. I guess if you're talking about Weird War 2 or WW2 sci-fi or something, I would agree that could be considered a WW2 themed game, rather than a WW2 game. But if we're just talking about straight historical games, I'd say that they're all WW2 games.


I don't agree that more abstraction necessarily makes a game less accurate though. It can, but it doesn't have to. In a lot of cases, abstraction has a lot to do with what level a game is played at. For a very simple example: A strategic level game will, by definition, have more abstraction than a tactical level game, but it could still provide reasonably historical results for a historical match up.

Well could you agree that some focus more on theme and looks instead of accuracy and representation?

I didnt say it always does effect accuracy, but it can get to the point it does. Like having the medic in bolt action gives units within 6" a 6+ FnP I think. I wouldnt call that very accurate considering the job of a medic. I dont know much about medics in warfare but I doubt they patched people up on the spot for combat again as much as kept them from dying for later on. I would assume (I could be wrong) that a medic would provide moral for a force (knowing they would be taken care of when hurt) instead of magically getting people up to fight again instantly. But the medic has to have a use that isnt covered in bolt action, so its abstracted to the point of a FnP (which, as far as I know and see it, seems a bit far fetched).

So abstraction can push the limits I think.

Not really alot of point in replying as you clearly dont read what I write.

I never said I wanted an accurate game, I stated no game can be realistic as its toy soldiers. Every game is full of abstractions, some manage to give a perceived feel of the period, but that is often a personal perception and will differ from one player to another.

I asked how a game could have a WW2 feel, but still be historicaly inaccurate. To which an answer was given. The comment intrigued me that is all.

Clearly Mr. Swastakowey you want to create an argument where there is none. Its such a shame when fans of a game do this, does more to put me off than encourage me to try a system. Given one of my best chums wrote the German Army book for BA I thought I might.

Good luck to you, I hope you get lots of fun games in, after all thats what the hobby is all about.

For some reason, BA take a lot of flak. (I personally believe it is because it is probably the most visible WW2 minis game.) BA players are sometimes a bit defensive because they are so used to having to defend the game.

 Manchu wrote:
For some reason, BA take a lot of flak. (I personally believe it is because it is probably the most visible WW2 minis game.) BA players are sometimes a bit defensive because they are so used to having to defend the game.

Historical gamers are, by and large, the absolute crankiest gamers possible.

As a gross generalization, they tend to think that anybody that plays anything besides a homebrewed, fully researched rules set is "not sticking to history," while they tend to be aggressively cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think BA is a fun game. It's cheap to build up, and there's enough variety to make the armies flavorful. I think that the rules really encourage players to hug cover, and the dice draw mechanic allows for momentum shifts.

While it gets a little chart heavy at times with airstrikes/vehicles/artillery, the core infantry rules are nice and tight, and the pin marker mechanic is great.

Yay!

Lets trot out baseless stereotypes! Its such fun!


Personally the only cranky gamers I have met were 40k gamers who spent more time arguing about the rules than playing. Though thankfully 99% of gamers I have met over 30 years in the hobby have been fine people regardless of their preferred genre.

Big P wrote:
Yay!

Lets trot out baseless stereotypes! Its such fun!

Whew, I dunno, TMP is the crankiest place on the internet hahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
For some reason, BA take a lot of flak. (I personally believe it is because it is probably the most visible WW2 minis game.) BA players are sometimes a bit defensive because they are so used to having to defend the game.

It's the new Flames of War in that aspect. FoW was reviled for years and years for being "40k with WW2 reskin", and after a very long teething period it's now finally been accepted. Bolt Action is now reviled for being "40k with WW2 reskin" and I'm assuming in a few years it'll finally be accepted, too. (this is despite both rulesets barely sharing anything in common with 40k's core rules) I have a feeling the "breaking in period" is just the length of time it takes a gamer in his 20's to become the new late 30's grognard, while the old grognards just get older but continue to paint Minifigs with glossy enamel paints.

Judgedoug,

TMP... good point, I take it all back!


I think there is always a degree of people in the hobby who dislike any game once its perceived as popular. I know once we got our first 'hater' we knew we had done alright.

Im guessing it's the same with BA on a much bigger scale. Some will just dislike it cos its popular or it competes with their holy ruleset.

Best thing for BA players to do is just keep on playing and enjoying themselves. The hobby is a very personal one, so its best not to suggest your own opinions are anymore valid than anyone elses.

Woaw i don't understand why bolt action would get so much flak, i like the system, it is kind of like the first warzone game activation wise but without the randomness .

And here i thought Dust Tactics was the most historical correct one

It may be because it's an easy and less than daunting gateway into the WWII gaming scene, plus a bit easier to get than some rulesets around here. It is clearly written by guys who have a love for the setting (just look at all the artefacts John Stallard and co wheel out for the decoration of their books) and want it to be as open and easy to pick up as possible. As some like to say, it's 40k but with actual nazis and no lasers. Also, it is cheaper than Flames of War.

Also, whatever happened to calling the cranky historical guys grognards?

 BrookM wrote:
As some like to say, it's 40k but with actual nazis and no lasers.

Y'know I still don't get that comparison. It's 28mm and a miniatures game, but it doesn't play like, feel like, or haves rules similar to, 40k.

 BrookM wrote:
Also, it is cheaper than Flames of War.

That's true. For about a hundred bucks you can get a full reinforced platoon (1000 point army boxes) another 50 for the rulebook and army book, then a pack of order dice - well under $200 for a very usable army with 50+ models and a tank or two and support elements.

 BrookM wrote:
Also, whatever happened to calling the cranky historical guys grognards?

I did in my previous post! "the old grognards just get older but continue to paint Minifigs with glossy enamel paints."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Big P wrote:
Judgedoug,

TMP... good point, I take it all back!

TMP - where the only good game systems and miniatures were released a minimum of 20 years ago. My evidence is that Rogue Trader Nostalgia from 2010 (1990) has now moved to 40k 2nd Edition Nostalgia in 2014 (1994), haha.

As someone who was inspired to start Bolt Action after just one demo game using the Assault on Normandy box, I'll just sidestep the debate and say I agree with the OP .

It's unfortunate that it gets compared to 40K so much because apart from a few basic bits it feels like a very different game. The speed of turns, the huge emphasis on cover and the lethality of firefights were particularly surprising for me after playing 40K.

I don't mind the lack of 100% accuracy. I think Warlord are clearly trying to make it accessible rather than a hardcore simulation, so I wasn't surprised that some things get streamlined. Indeed, throughout the book there are numerous explanations of why they often went for a simpler interpretation over something that would have been more historically accurate at the price of bloating the rules. Given how easy it is to play the game, I don't mind that. As a comprehensible, pacy game it does its job very well.

Something else I find surprisingly enjoyable is the painting and modelling side. After playing something fantastical I actually find it a refreshing change to research historically accurate uniforms, spend time making sure I buy the right paints, equip my models according to proper platoon structures and avoid outrageous conversions...

I am still waiting to play my first game of BA so take my comments as a casual observer only...

I thought the complaints about BA were less about the fact it's abstracted and more about those abstractions lead to the game being played in a fashion that wasn't realistic.

Dude Don't listen to any of that about BA just play it! It's a fun game and yes it's a game not a simulation. If you want a simulation go be a reenactor.

If you are here to play a great game with that has new and innovative mechanics is cheap to get in to and looks great on the table then you will love BA.

If you get bent out of shape that a rifle can't fire all the way across a table you should find a meet up group of WW2 war re enactors and by some uniforms.

In my first game we did indeed let rifles fire the length of the table...!

I hadn't read the rules at all (though I knew how activation and rolling to hit worked) and my opponent had only skimmed them and watched an intro game (some weeks before) on Youtube.

We thought that "long range" meant any range beyond that given for the weapon and that you got a pin marker for every wound inflicted. It made for a very fast-moving, very lethal game...