tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post7487242079277127922..comments2024-03-27T12:37:27.837-07:00Comments on Tim's Miniature Wargaming Blog: Bolt Action: Stalingradtimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-34386844210379960492013-02-12T15:22:12.554-08:002013-02-12T15:22:12.554-08:00Yeah, I really don't like that special rule, o...Yeah, I really don't like that special rule, or any of the other nationalistic rules, AT ALL. As for the BAR, I think that ROF 2 is a bit much. Just treat it like any other LMG, as on this scale, it should be functionally no different from a Bren. Even the MG42 rule is junk - just because it could fire a million rounds per minute doesn't mean that there was ammo on hand to do so. Sure, it was the superior MG of the war, but with any MG ammo is the limiter, not rate of fire.Christian Knudsennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-82609965549839688572013-02-12T14:52:12.484-08:002013-02-12T14:52:12.484-08:00One little hiccup in the whole point system I'...One little hiccup in the whole point system I've noticed is that some American troops can have a BAR - it's +5 points shoots a bit further - i think the same as an LMG (30"?) - and gets 2 shots. An LMG, however, is +20 points, throws three bullets a little bit further than a rifle, but requires a loader. So the total output of that team of two serving the LMG is the same as a trooper armed with BAR and a rifleman armed with a rifle... You're paying +15 points to have one shot go an extra 6"...? That combined with the fact that most American squads have option of having up to 2-3 BARs... and they get that special rule about not having -1 to hit on advance orders (being all semi-automatic and such)... could potentially make American infantry pretty nasty - point of point... timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-55248693236185927142013-02-12T10:26:29.331-08:002013-02-12T10:26:29.331-08:00Thanks Thomas!
I will definitely keep that in min...Thanks Thomas!<br /><br />I will definitely keep that in mind next time! timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-7851035667344980082013-02-11T18:38:30.463-08:002013-02-11T18:38:30.463-08:00Yeah, I think that if we were to use field arty, i...Yeah, I think that if we were to use field arty, it would have to be in a DF role only. <br /><br />Despite it all, I agree that we need to try one or more the base scenarios, but include things like FOs and vehicles, and so forth, and with a terrain mix. And then again with FvF, to see which handles better.Christian Knudsennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-77488661826764488942013-02-11T12:31:49.712-08:002013-02-11T12:31:49.712-08:00Great fun to read about your first few try outs wi...Great fun to read about your first few try outs with Bolt Action. Got my own book before Christmas, but have npt had time to try out the rules myself.<br />But it seems to me, that you missed some of the more essential points of strategy in the mission. As far as I can tell from reading the boko, you should use a fairly broad front (they talk about using 4x6 tables, and in the force set-up drawing in the book, it looks like you should use the broad edges for deployment). This would make it far more difficult for the defender to hold the whole front).<br />By placing forces in reserve, the attacker can send them on a flanking mission - essentialy shielding them for fire for a couple of rounds, and then placing them about the middle of the table at one front, making it far more possible to break through the defenders line).<br />Both points makes it a smart move for the defender to place units in reserve, in order to be able to effectively counter a concentrated attack, since troops placed during set-up will have a difficult time crossing the length of the table in order to close a hole in the line.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Thomas :o)Thomas Jakobsenhttp://www.skizofrenia.dknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-49439386504427248722013-02-10T17:04:56.571-08:002013-02-10T17:04:56.571-08:00We could actually, at some point, try using the Fl...We could actually, at some point, try using the Flames of War(hammer) scenarios - it's just that the "units" involved would be squads instead of platoons. <br /><br />As I recall their standard attack/defence scenario involved the defender was required to keep half of his force off the table in reserves and had to DICE for them to arrive starting on... I forget which turn... or how it worked... but they would only trickle onto the table. any tanks in a force would HAVE to be in reserve. Any of the defenders forces that start on the table may start "dug in"...<br /><br />Or course in FoW if you want a preparatory bombardment you have to take an artillery battery as a support option, plop them on the table and blow them up with that! I suppose you can actually buy field artillery in Bolt Action... but it seems a little silly to have a 25 pounder on the table for such a small skirmish battle - let alone a 155!! I guess there's also FOOs, but the ONE BARRAGE per game...? Maybe a barrage is pretty devastating... We'll have to try them out! <br /><br />I can't remember the victory conditions... they had a standard condition whereby when half of your forces had left the table you had to start doing company morale tests at the beginning of each turn and if failed it was game over... <br /><br />Of course before getting ahead of myself here I'd like to try and play the envelopment a couple more times - except with the convert to kill rules!? DOH!! and maybe some FOO and tanks... maybe some terrain with not-so-much hard cover everywhere!! timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-5727338590428537412013-02-10T14:41:18.891-08:002013-02-10T14:41:18.891-08:00I did catch the six-and-six-again is always a hit ...I did catch the six-and-six-again is always a hit thing. <br /><br />Another thing that I could have done - which I didn't because I feared it might make it too hard for the attacker - i started with my units hidden. Like, on the table but declared hidden so they can't be engaged until spotted... <br /><br />The scenarios seem like variations on meeting engagements. The one we played was close to an assault, so the attacker gets the prep barrage. The defender doesn't really have prepared positions, per se. I had some good positions only because of hte terrain set-up; ruined streets of Stalingrad. But the same conditions game me little in the way of fields of fire and the Soviets were able to advance to within close range entirely under cover in most cases and then remain in hard cover or their own... <br /><br />I have a feeling there will eventually be companion books with more rules... probably an assault scenario with entrenchments and a better preparatory barrage to balance things... or bonus points for the attacker... <br /><br />The thing to keep in mind is they're trying to follow the GW/Warhammer model where two guys can meet up at a club (or in a tournament!) with their own 1000 point armies and throw down with a game that's "balanced" - it won't ever actually be "balanced" but that's what they're shooting for. Ultimately I'll ignore all that junk, but what I'm trying to determine is, at the core of it, is there a decent set of quick playing rules that I can use for playing scenario games? I still have a sense that there is. <br /><br />Certainly it flowed better than Savage Worlds - a battle that size would have bogged down and taken forever... and ultimately ended with almost everyone being wiped out... timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-89977090454774858842013-02-10T12:08:53.807-08:002013-02-10T12:08:53.807-08:00Whoops - yes, not rolling for damage would mean si...Whoops - yes, not rolling for damage would mean significantly more casualties. Keep in mind to that if the required total to hit is greater than 6, you still roll. Each 6 rolls again, and if another 6 is rolled, you get a hit. As for pins, you really need to concentrate fire to get initial pins, but then split it in order to get them to stick, I guess.<br /><br />I really don't like the scenario arrangement (or the scenarios), which is largely why I disregarded them for the first game. I don't mind the points so much, however, inasmuch as it gives one a rough idea of starting balance. But it is annoying that there is no points given for stuff like prep bombardments, or entrenchments (or any defensive obstacles, for that matter). <br /><br />Basically, scenarios really only come in 3 flavours: assaults (in all their varieties), meeting engagements, or delay/withdrawal actions. That's it. Tell me how many points I have, what the attacker bonus is going to be, and what everything costs, and I can take it from there. Then it comes down to balancing. And that's the hard part. But Bolt Action refuses to do this, and that irritates me.Christian Knudsennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-62920160076892298162013-02-10T08:35:51.231-08:002013-02-10T08:35:51.231-08:00Well I'm an idiot... I completely forgot about...Well I'm an idiot... I completely forgot about converting hits to kills... Well that's not entirely true - I had thought of it the first time someone was hit, but in the mess of tables and charts I had on various different sheets I could not for the life of me (or the poor fellow that was hit by the mortar round) find it and while reading something got the idea that hit=out of action and figured I was getting this confused with Force on Force (with it's first aid checks...). <br /><br />If we'd been doing that there would have been even LESS casualties... which makes sense - tow forces in hard cover blazing away at each other from a distance aren't likely to cause much in the way of casualties. <br /><br />With being in the open considerable less deadly, however, perhaps the Russians would have been a bit less timid and tried charging in. which would have made the scenario hell-a-tough for the defenders! <br /><br />Still, we couldn't seem to make pins stick. a unit might take some hits in a turn from one unit - get a pin. the next time they activated they would received a fire order, pass the order test, and that pic would go away... I guess you really have to concentrate fire on units from multiple opposing units to make a LOT of hits - or have more mortars or other sources of HE.... <br /><br />Entrenchments would be easy enough to do - there, that's hard cover for you wherever you want it... and maybe you are counted as "down" for HE shots... But how many entrenchments is a defender allowed? In a standard scenario, like the one we played, the ability to do that would be a great advantage to the defender... Do you pay points for them? How much should they worth? As the current scenarios work - two opponents have their own force of a set point value and dice for a scenario THEN decide who is attacker and defender - if you "buy" trenches and they turn out to be attacker in a scenario where having entrenchments would be useless it's a waste of points... <br /><br />I'm probably thinking about this too much. Once I have the system more or less figures out, we can abandon point values and play scenario-based where we can choose to give the defender however many entrenchments and have break points written into the scenario... <br /><br />timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928949644765765070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-16720419340156431252013-02-10T07:26:57.808-08:002013-02-10T07:26:57.808-08:00Sounds like you guys had a fun, if late night!
My...Sounds like you guys had a fun, if late night!<br /><br />My first reaction was that you guys had a lot of troops - how was the force density?<br /><br />I could not find any rules on force breakpoint either - squad level seems to be as high as they go. Nor could I find anything for increased levels of cover beyond hard to reflect improved positions/entrenchments. However, did you use any of the building rules? Infantry in buildings are harder to kill, although it does say to treat ruined buildings and rubble as rough terrain rather than an actual building.<br /><br />I think you are right in that the objective of the rules system seems to be to close and assault as quickly as possible. But in close terrain with lots of hard cover, this is a recipe for disaster, as it was in reality. Of course the required offensive tool vs troops in hard cover is HE and lots of it. But in close terrain this is harder to arrange - artillery is hard to do at street fighting ranges, and direct HE must operate at close range where it is vulnerable to counter-attack. <br /><br />One of the issues with the canned scenarios is that they don't talk about force balancing. Were equal points in this situation fair? I realise that the scenario special rules favour the attacker, but is it enough? I wish they would say "give the attacking force 1.5x defender points" (or whatever) and then allow bombardments/flanking forces to be purchased.<br /><br />Anyhoo, I would like to try it out with FvF, and see what happens...Christian Knudsennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140646711960604590.post-28706273954715002502013-02-10T07:17:00.885-08:002013-02-10T07:17:00.885-08:00Great AAR, the thing I have seen is that for units...Great AAR, the thing I have seen is that for units to break by morale is to give them a few pin markers first before hitting them with a big item that will cause the morale test (like a flamer, large damage weapon like a medium or heavy artillery, etc). Usually if a Vet unit has about 3-4 it gets very touch and go. styxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10149216774007558819noreply@blogger.com