Greetings!
Well, there are a few problems that I have noticed with Bolt Action.
(1) Disparate Effectiveness of MMG's and LMG's when compared to the cost-effectiveness of standard Rifle Squads. What the frigg is up with that? Historically, the more machine guns you have, the more you kick ass. Bottom Line. And yet, with the point costs involved, and the dice mechanics within the rules with the units, machine gun units are actually a disadvantage.
(2) Minimalizing or Banning of Air Power in Competitive Games.
What is up with that? Superior air power is a key component of how the Western Allies wrecked the Wehrmacht from Africa to Europe. Furthermore, in the Pacific, the loss of air superiority for the Empire of Japan spelled fucking doom for their forces at every level, in every battle, whether such battles were land forces or naval forces at sea. Not to be forgotten, the slower but gradually growing strength of the Red Air Force along the Eastern Front did much to further savage the Reich's war machine and fighting effectiveness at every level.
(3) Point Costs of Tanks and Transport
This especially hurts the German forces. It becomes apparent that in so many scenario match ups, it is like a common menu of 1,000 or 1250 points where both sides are totally evenly matched in points, with one MMH team, one mortar team, one artillery gun, and one Light or Medium Tank. Maybe a truck or Half Track. That seems to be pretty much it, along with standard Infantry Squads.
That set up sounds nice, but it essentially handicaps the relatively few advantages that the Germans possessed--Tiger and Panther Tanks, and lots of strong armoured assault guns and artillery variants. The Germans were not feared across the battlefields of Europe and Russia because they supported their infantry with armoured cars or Panzer III Light Tanks.
(4) Dissonance Between Theater Forces and Maxed Homogenous Standard Forces
Similar to aspects of all of the above mentioned, a player using various cool Theater Forces, which are more historically accurate--is essentially wasting points on expensive units, when there are more effective standard units at a cheaper cost--or they are buying themed units that mechanically are just not as effective. These dynamics ultimately mean that a player seeking to deploy a more historically accurate force will likely simply be outclassed and ploughed by a player that deploys the Maxed Homogenous Standard force.
Anyone see these problem dynamics? Or am I just too new to Bolt Action and missing something?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Heya Shark! I've been playing for around 7-8 years or so, and here's what I've found in my experience.
(1) LMGs in squads aren't bad, but they are pricey. An LMG gunner is 30pts for a Regular, plus it uses up a squaddie to be a loader. So that's roughly 40pts for 4 shots: that's equivalent to 4 individual Riflemen that cost 10pts each. The advantage, however, is that you're getting 4 shots from just 2 guys. Essentially you're doubling the cost of two models to double their shots.
(2) I can't say as to exactly why this is, as I don't play competitive games. Honestly I think Bolt Action is best when played with friends.
(3) With the Reinforced Platoon you pretty much each get the same thing, but it comes down to what you prioritize. Some armies will favor more infantry, while some Veteran forces use less infantry and supplement themselves with more support squads. From what I've seen, most forces tend to be pretty different outside of some choices. I've never seen a list run without a MMG Team, but I have seen forces eschew a Tank or a mortar.
(4) In this case, and I can't remember if it's mentioned in the rules, but both forces have to abide similar Theater Selectors. So if a Soviet Player wants to play a Stalingrad Force, his German opponent has to play with the German Stalingrad Theater selector, or the nearest equivalent. That way he can't run a reinforced platoon or something like a Berlin defense force.
If I've learned anything playing Bolt Action, it's that it runs a fun line between historical wargame and beer and pretzels gameplay. It's fun, but it has its flaws. Personally, I still don't understand how to run a good Inexperienced force, but people do it all the time. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been playing?
I think part of the issue is scale. You're looking at a game about what are really very small, minor skirmishes. A couple platoon's dusting it up might not be an air support or heavy tank priority. From a tournament perspective tanks verses infantry can be pretty one sided and air support is pretty all or nothing, you don't really want those things in a tournament. Points costs are, of course never perfect but I think they intentionally discourge tanks a little because if you're infantry, even an R-35 is still a tank and in the period you'd run into one, your guys won't have bazookas.
Bolt Action is fast, fun, and gamey. For a better WWII wargame, I'd suggest Plastic Soldier Company's Battlegroup if you can find it. It's playable, more detailed, and more scalable than Bolt Action or Flames of War and is set up so you can run anything from 1/32 to 1/300 scale miniatures. There's a game called NUTS! that does a great job of larger battles with 1/300 figures, it really feels like you're commanding larger forces. But there's no shortage of WWII games out there.
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 19, 2024, 10:50:47 PMHeya Shark! I've been playing for around 7-8 years or so, and here's what I've found in my experience.
(1) LMGs in squads aren't bad, but they are pricey. An LMG gunner is 30pts for a Regular, plus it uses up a squaddie to be a loader. So that's roughly 40pts for 4 shots: that's equivalent to 4 individual Riflemen that cost 10pts each. The advantage, however, is that you're getting 4 shots from just 2 guys. Essentially you're doubling the cost of two models to double their shots.
(2) I can't say as to exactly why this is, as I don't play competitive games. Honestly I think Bolt Action is best when played with friends.
(3) With the Reinforced Platoon you pretty much each get the same thing, but it comes down to what you prioritize. Some armies will favor more infantry, while some Veteran forces use less infantry and supplement themselves with more support squads. From what I've seen, most forces tend to be pretty different outside of some choices. I've never seen a list run without a MMG Team, but I have seen forces eschew a Tank or a mortar.
(4) In this case, and I can't remember if it's mentioned in the rules, but both forces have to abide similar Theater Selectors. So if a Soviet Player wants to play a Stalingrad Force, his German opponent has to play with the German Stalingrad Theater selector, or the nearest equivalent. That way he can't run a reinforced platoon or something like a Berlin defense force.
If I've learned anything playing Bolt Action, it's that it runs a fun line between historical wargame and beer and pretzels gameplay. It's fun, but it has its flaws. Personally, I still don't understand how to run a good Inexperienced force, but people do it all the time. If you don't mind me asking, how long have you been playing?
Greetings!
Yeah, my friend! I am somewhat torn or mixed. On one hand, I can be very competitive, so building an army capable of winning in a competitive game is important. Then again, on the other hand, honestly, I'm very much into history, so playing an army that sticks to being very historical is probably my highest priority, and fun! Indeed, playing against friends is likewise more my focus. Lighting up a good cigar, and moving soldiers and tanks around a cool battlefield is the best! Drinking some fine coffee or some beer, perfect, you know? And of course, roleplaying jabbing my friend with insults and proclamations of glory! *Laughing*
And of course, the joys of growling at your own troops for being stupid or disobedient! FIGHT! Move there, you idiot! Get over there! Hurry the fuck up! *Laughing*
Yes, 1st level Wizard, I realize that I think you are right. Theater forces are a selection that requires theater forces to be chosen. It just bothers me that if you did want to play a competitive game--unless Theater Mode is selected--then there seems to be this kind of "One Style Track" with the various min-maxing requirements and point exploitations. Just like there seems to a be a "Meta" against choosing Veteran troops, because you can get almost as good troops for much cheaper cost in points. More game rules BS getting in the way of historical accuracy. Sorry, Veteran troops always kick ass on lesser troops, hands down. Just like troops loaded up with machine guns are far more ferocious and effective than troops that just have rifles. That kind of grinds me, because it seeks to really downplay historical truth. If that makes any sense? Yes, I will probably never seek to compete at a Bolt Action tournament. *Laughing* That's ok though.
I have only been playing for a few months!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: David Johansen on April 19, 2024, 11:36:28 PMI think part of the issue is scale. You're looking at a game about what are really very small, minor skirmishes. A couple platoon's dusting it up might not be an air support or heavy tank priority. From a tournament perspective tanks verses infantry can be pretty one sided and air support is pretty all or nothing, you don't really want those things in a tournament. Points costs are, of course never perfect but I think they intentionally discourge tanks a little because if you're infantry, even an R-35 is still a tank and in the period you'd run into one, your guys won't have bazookas.
Bolt Action is fast, fun, and gamey. For a better WWII wargame, I'd suggest Plastic Soldier Company's Battlegroup if you can find it. It's playable, more detailed, and more scalable than Bolt Action or Flames of War and is set up so you can run anything from 1/32 to 1/300 scale miniatures. There's a game called NUTS! that does a great job of larger battles with 1/300 figures, it really feels like you're commanding larger forces. But there's no shortage of WWII games out there.
Greetings!
Yes, good observation, David. I should remember the scale involved. BA is really focused on just a few squads, maybe a Company-sized force at best. I realize there is some dissonance there in expecting air power and heavy tanks, so you are right on that, I admit.
It's my own hang up, I suppose. I somewhat grind even with the whole even points scale. Of course game play is critical, but history wise, most any battle after 1942 the Axis were facing an uphill slog. They were always outnumbered, and increasingly outmatched in almost every category of equipment and supply. I always kind of think that Allied forces should simply always have some more troops and gear. Not necessarily overwhelming numbers, of course, but some advantage.
Yes, I also very much appreciate that Bolt Action is fast and fun. That is definitely a huge benefit!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
In just a bit here, I will have the Warlord Games "Battle For Stalingrad: Enemy at the Gates Collector's Edition" for Bolt Action. It seems like a really fantastic game box!
As I have began to contemplate building and developing terrain for a Stalingrad Game Board, I think a statue of "The Motherland Calls" would be a nice, motivating feature for the game board, set on Mamayaev Kurgan, the commanding heights that overlook the center of Stalingrad. Yes, "The Motherland Calls" monument was actually built in Volgagrad after the war as a memorial--but I think placing it on the game board is a very nice morale booster and spiritual touch, motivating the Soviet player as to what is at stake in the great battle!
I am looking forward to building a German Army, and the Soviet Red Army as new forces for my collection.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
At least you can't drive a veteran Tiger off the table with anti tank rifles and heavy machine guns in second edition.
Quote from: SHARK on April 20, 2024, 08:26:43 PMGreetings!
Yeah, my friend! I am somewhat torn or mixed. On one hand, I can be very competitive, so building an army capable of winning in a competitive game is important. Then again, on the other hand, honestly, I'm very much into history, so playing an army that sticks to being very historical is probably my highest priority, and fun! Indeed, playing against friends is likewise more my focus. Lighting up a good cigar, and moving soldiers and tanks around a cool battlefield is the best! Drinking some fine coffee or some beer, perfect, you know? And of course, roleplaying jabbing my friend with insults and proclamations of glory! *Laughing*
And of course, the joys of growling at your own troops for being stupid or disobedient! FIGHT! Move there, you idiot! Get over there! Hurry the fuck up! *Laughing*
Yes, 1st level Wizard, I realize that I think you are right. Theater forces are a selection that requires theater forces to be chosen. It just bothers me that if you did want to play a competitive game--unless Theater Mode is selected--then there seems to be this kind of "One Style Track" with the various min-maxing requirements and point exploitations. Just like there seems to a be a "Meta" against choosing Veteran troops, because you can get almost as good troops for much cheaper cost in points. More game rules BS getting in the way of historical accuracy. Sorry, Veteran troops always kick ass on lesser troops, hands down. Just like troops loaded up with machine guns are far more ferocious and effective than troops that just have rifles. That kind of grinds me, because it seeks to really downplay historical truth. If that makes any sense? Yes, I will probably never seek to compete at a Bolt Action tournament. *Laughing* That's ok though.
I have only been playing for a few months!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah I understand what you're saying. It definitely isn't the most realistic in terms of the combat. I think Warlord Games tries to keep the units accurate, but the force organization isn't. Rough, but when it comes down to it I think it's a more abstract Platoon skirmish. I've also heard a lot of praise for Chain of Command, but I've never played it personally.
As for Veterans vs. Inexperienced, there is a difference but it all comes down to how you play them. I have German Veteran Grenadiers and Siberian Crack Troops + Red Guards, and I found that the Waffen do better because they're all Vets, while the Siberians/Guard are a mix. It's like you either go all in or nothing. My Dad plays Bolt Action too, and he's never liked how there aren't rules for grenades.
Mortars always bugged me too. Realistically speaking, a Veteran mortar team would be able to zero in on a position and shell it after a few rounds. But, by the rules they only improve their shot by 1 every time they fire on an enemy that doesn't move. Sure it's nice for forcing units to move, but it skirts how realistic a mortar team should be.
The Stalingrad kit sounds like a really fun time! It's a really big, badass set! If you don't have it already, I suggest picking up the Stalingrad Campaign book. I got it for my birthday a few years ago and it's gotta be the best campaign book I've seen in a wargame. Good historical details, and the map campaign is really interesting.
Quote from: David Johansen on April 20, 2024, 08:54:02 PMAt least you can't drive a veteran Tiger off the table with anti tank rifles and heavy machine guns in second edition.
Greetings!
Is that something you could do in Bolt Action 1st Edition?
That would be super retarded, you know? *Laughing*
I am somewhat concerned about how, say as a German player, the game seems to penalize you if you actually select a force say, comprised of elements of the Waffen SS divisions, or the Gross Deutschland Division, or Panzer Lehr Division--or the Fallschirmjaeger divisions, or the Gebirgsjaeger divisions. These German divisions were usually always filled with hardened, elite troops, with very much veteran skills and experience, and the very best equipment from the Reich.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 20, 2024, 10:39:12 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 20, 2024, 08:26:43 PMGreetings!
Yeah, my friend! I am somewhat torn or mixed. On one hand, I can be very competitive, so building an army capable of winning in a competitive game is important. Then again, on the other hand, honestly, I'm very much into history, so playing an army that sticks to being very historical is probably my highest priority, and fun! Indeed, playing against friends is likewise more my focus. Lighting up a good cigar, and moving soldiers and tanks around a cool battlefield is the best! Drinking some fine coffee or some beer, perfect, you know? And of course, roleplaying jabbing my friend with insults and proclamations of glory! *Laughing*
And of course, the joys of growling at your own troops for being stupid or disobedient! FIGHT! Move there, you idiot! Get over there! Hurry the fuck up! *Laughing*
Yes, 1st level Wizard, I realize that I think you are right. Theater forces are a selection that requires theater forces to be chosen. It just bothers me that if you did want to play a competitive game--unless Theater Mode is selected--then there seems to be this kind of "One Style Track" with the various min-maxing requirements and point exploitations. Just like there seems to a be a "Meta" against choosing Veteran troops, because you can get almost as good troops for much cheaper cost in points. More game rules BS getting in the way of historical accuracy. Sorry, Veteran troops always kick ass on lesser troops, hands down. Just like troops loaded up with machine guns are far more ferocious and effective than troops that just have rifles. That kind of grinds me, because it seeks to really downplay historical truth. If that makes any sense? Yes, I will probably never seek to compete at a Bolt Action tournament. *Laughing* That's ok though.
I have only been playing for a few months!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yeah I understand what you're saying. It definitely isn't the most realistic in terms of the combat. I think Warlord Games tries to keep the units accurate, but the force organization isn't. Rough, but when it comes down to it I think it's a more abstract Platoon skirmish. I've also heard a lot of praise for Chain of Command, but I've never played it personally.
As for Veterans vs. Inexperienced, there is a difference but it all comes down to how you play them. I have German Veteran Grenadiers and Siberian Crack Troops + Red Guards, and I found that the Waffen do better because they're all Vets, while the Siberians/Guard are a mix. It's like you either go all in or nothing. My Dad plays Bolt Action too, and he's never liked how there aren't rules for grenades.
Mortars always bugged me too. Realistically speaking, a Veteran mortar team would be able to zero in on a position and shell it after a few rounds. But, by the rules they only improve their shot by 1 every time they fire on an enemy that doesn't move. Sure it's nice for forcing units to move, but it skirts how realistic a mortar team should be.
The Stalingrad kit sounds like a really fun time! It's a really big, badass set! If you don't have it already, I suggest picking up the Stalingrad Campaign book. I got it for my birthday a few years ago and it's gotta be the best campaign book I've seen in a wargame. Good historical details, and the map campaign is really interesting.
Greetings!
Yeah, 1stLevelWizard! I really do enjoy Warlord Games dedication to making the game awesome, and mostly historically accurate. I really do appreciate these kinds of details. But yes, force organization does show up some jarring historical deficiencies! If a person had never read a few history books, then they would never know better. *Laughing* In reality, a skilled machine-gun team could halt the advance of entire Platoons or even Companies for hours!
I remember reading for example how several dug in, pre-sighted Japanese machine gun teams would slaughter American troops for hours in island battles in the Pacific. It was such a gore fest. Ultimately, only continuous storm tactics and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with flamethrowers finally put an end to them. They were often so well dug in and fortified, that they were immune to HE artillery fire, or mortars. The Japanese would create reinforced bunkers supported by coconut tree logs that easily absorbed artillery and mortar fire--which is a bitter lesson that we learned the hard way.
Mortars were brutally effective in the war, my friend, as you note well. I agree, the mortars in Bolt Action are definitely neutered in ferocity! I think Inexperienced Mortars should zero in after say, two or three rounds, top. Veteran Mortar teams should be jacking you after sighting in for only ONE round. Yeah, you get one round of sighting in. You need to move, next round, or the pain is coming. It should be brutal, especially when using Veteran Mortar teams. These guys are trained to get their shit wired right within *seconds* you know? Certainly merely a few moments at most. They search through their binoculars, change the elevation and range configuration of their mortar, and then *BOOM*--it is all about placing rounds downrange. FIRE FOR EFFECT!
I had a few buddies in the Marine Corps that were Mortar men, in our Infantry Weapons Platoon. I almost went into Mortars, but I originally trained as a Dragon Master. Basically a modern version of a Bazooka. The Dragon rocket is a TOW weapon, a wire-guided rocket. The wire drops off, the rocket goes slow, and then accelerates and *BOOM*! Death and destruction! Piercing armour, steel, concrete, and exploding with 2,000 degree molten copper. It annihilates tanks, armoured infantry vehicles, buildings, bunkers, whatever. Then, I switched over to being a Machine gunner, with the SAW. (Squad Automatic Weapon). The M249 SAW Light Machine Gun. Yeah, I am very partial to how awesome machine gun teams operate! OOH RAH!!!
I am soooo looking forward to getting Siberian veterans! I also love the Russian Ushanka. The furry hats! The heavy winter coats! warm, furry gloves! You know, the Germans really envied the Russians. Guderian talks about how his troops loved capturing Russian winter outfits! The Russian gear was always so furry and heavy and warm! It meant that the Germans lucky enough to have these outfits wouldn't freeze to death! *Laughing* But the Russians really do look awesome in their Winter gear!
I am also contemplating somehow kit-bashing some Russian Cossack mounted troops. Yes, mounted on horses, with traditional Cossack clothing, and their own special furry hats! The Cossack hats are taller than the traditional Ushanka hat, and typically made of black fur. Yeah, you can envision that! Cossack warriors, bearded crazy fuckers, wearing winter overcoats, baggy Cossack trousers, and black furry hats, wielding PPSK sub machine guns and curved Cossack sabres, charging into the rear areas of the Germans and the terrified Axis troops, like the Romanians and Hungarians and Italians! *Laughing* So glorious! Pay the points to also make the Russian Cossack troops Veterans, and Fanatics, and also equipped with AT rifles. Watch the fun begin!
Oh yes! I will definitely get the Stalingrad Campaign Book! So awesome! I am very much looking forward to playing those scenarios!
Your father plays Bolt Action with you? My god, that is awesome! Cherish that, my friend! I still remember my own Father playing Squad Leader with me, when I was a kid! It was always such fun getting stomped by my Father in so many games! My Father could play any faction--Americans, British, Germans, even the Japanese, all very well. He didn't need to pay to much attention to the rules, though he did, of course. My Father was a veteran of World War II, and had experience fighting against the Germans and Italians, as well as the Japanese. He knew what the British were like as allies, and also had experience fighting with Australians and Indians in the South Pacific, India, and Burma. Every game I got to listen to little stories and memories of different experiences, different commanders, and realities of war. Fighting in different terrain and climate, and so many different things going on. I always cherish such memories with my Father. He has passed on now, sadly. I hope you are able to very much enjoy playing with your Father, 1stLevelWizard!
Do you make Terrain for your games, my friend? What are your favourite paints? Do you like Army Painter's new paint set? Goobertown seems to like them very much. He is a cool guy, and an awesome painter. His videos on miniature painting are very skilled and informative.
Do you like buying game terrain and buildings? I've seen *LOTS* of stuff I still want to get. Geesus. A whole fortune can be spent on terrain, huh? *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If there's one saving grace it's the pinning system in Bolt Action. A machine gun team can put a pin on a unit and potentially keep it sitting in place if it can't pass it's leadership test. Imagine if, in game, a machine gun could put down a wider spray and split its shots between two close units to put pins on them both. It'd be useful for sure. As for vehicles, they are somewhat easy to deal with as long as you can punch through their armor. One well placed Panzerschreck and you've just slagged a tank
As for terrain, I usually make my own when I can just because I can make whatever I need. Hedge rows, stone walls, forests, hills, roads, fences, etc. I have bought things like ruined buildings and cottage houses since those are a real pain to make from scratch.
Paints-wise I like Vallejo the most, although I use Citadel Shades for a wash. Vallejo used to sell army-specific paint sets which were always nice. They came with a guide and most or all the paints you'd need for a given force. Plus they're fairly cheap for how much paint you get.
I have something of a ritual whenever I get new models to paint. Typically I sit down in the afternoon and put on a documentary to listen to while I put together/paint new models. That way I'm learning something while I get my new unit together.
My Dad though, he's a huge strategy gamer/wargamer. He's a Seabee, and he's the one that introduced me to D&D and wargaming. He always tells me stories about how he played D&D in the Navy, and all the places he's been to. I've been blessed to have a hobby to bond over with him, and there's a lot of memories wrapped up around our gaming table. Hell, as I type this he's playing Sudden Strike.
Do you still play Squad Leader, Shark? I've never played it myself, but I have played Firepower. It's similar, but designed for more modern combat (1965-85).
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 21, 2024, 09:46:16 AMIf there's one saving grace it's the pinning system in Bolt Action. A machine gun team can put a pin on a unit and potentially keep it sitting in place if it can't pass it's leadership test. Imagine if, in game, a machine gun could put down a wider spray and split its shots between two close units to put pins on them both. It'd be useful for sure. As for vehicles, they are somewhat easy to deal with as long as you can punch through their armor. One well placed Panzerschreck and you've just slagged a tank
As for terrain, I usually make my own when I can just because I can make whatever I need. Hedge rows, stone walls, forests, hills, roads, fences, etc. I have bought things like ruined buildings and cottage houses since those are a real pain to make from scratch.
Paints-wise I like Vallejo the most, although I use Citadel Shades for a wash. Vallejo used to sell army-specific paint sets which were always nice. They came with a guide and most or all the paints you'd need for a given force. Plus they're fairly cheap for how much paint you get.
I have something of a ritual whenever I get new models to paint. Typically I sit down in the afternoon and put on a documentary to listen to while I put together/paint new models. That way I'm learning something while I get my new unit together.
My Dad though, he's a huge strategy gamer/wargamer. He's a Seabee, and he's the one that introduced me to D&D and wargaming. He always tells me stories about how he played D&D in the Navy, and all the places he's been to. I've been blessed to have a hobby to bond over with him, and there's a lot of memories wrapped up around our gaming table. Hell, as I type this he's playing Sudden Strike.
Do you still play Squad Leader, Shark? I've never played it myself, but I have played Firepower. It's similar, but designed for more modern combat (1965-85).
Greetings!
Nice! Making terrain can be such fun! Vallejo Paints, huh? Yeah! I think rituals like that can be cool, too! I also tend to listen to World War II documentaries, or I put on some Big Band Music from the war years, like music from Jo Stafford, Kay Kaiser, the Andrew Sisters, and Glenn Miller. Your dad sounds awesome! Funny thing, too, the first D&D campaign I ever ran as a DM, was with my mother and father playing. My mother played a savage barbarian fighter, and my father played a righteous, crusading Cleric.
SQUAD LEADER! Damn. Yeah, I used to play Squad Leader as a kid, with my father. It was great! Unfortunately, I haven't played Squad Leader since those years. Back then, I also had some friends that played Squad Leader as well, in addition to my father. I think counter/chit and map-based boardgames have passed on, really. They seem to have been largely replaced by computer wargames. Miniatures Wargames of course are popular, because of hobby intersects, painting, modelling, and gameplay--as well as the tactile and visual appeal and fun. Larger scaled tactical wargames and strategic wargames though, I admit that the uber details and processes that come along with them are more efficiently performed and modelled by computer games now. Technology has definitely made a huge impact!
I have never played Firepower! Modern warfare, huh? Interesting. I remember playing a World War III game back in the day, by GDW, which was essentially Third Reich, but for World War III in the 1980's. Multi-coloured counters with military unit symbology and all that. Played on gigantic coloured grand strategy world maps. Lots of fun! I remember playing these epic games with friends that would last all weekend! We would get together at someone's house, have pizza delivered, and our parents would provide lots of sodas and snacks, and we would stay over all weekend, playing these epic wars! Our parents seemed so joyful watching us play these games! Moving units around, rolling dice, screaming and laughing together. Such fun, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 02:26:50 PMGreetings!
Nice! Making terrain can be such fun! Vallejo Paints, huh? Yeah! I think rituals like that can be cool, too! I also tend to listen to World War II documentaries, or I put on some Big Band Music from the war years, like music from Jo Stafford, Kay Kaiser, the Andrew Sisters, and Glenn Miller. Your dad sounds awesome! Funny thing, too, the first D&D campaign I ever ran as a DM, was with my mother and father playing. My mother played a savage barbarian fighter, and my father played a righteous, crusading Cleric.
SQUAD LEADER! Damn. Yeah, I used to play Squad Leader as a kid, with my father. It was great! Unfortunately, I haven't played Squad Leader since those years. Back then, I also had some friends that played Squad Leader as well, in addition to my father. I think counter/chit and map-based boardgames have passed on, really. They seem to have been largely replaced by computer wargames. Miniatures Wargames of course are popular, because of hobby intersects, painting, modelling, and gameplay--as well as the tactile and visual appeal and fun. Larger scaled tactical wargames and strategic wargames though, I admit that the uber details and processes that come along with them are more efficiently performed and modelled by computer games now. Technology has definitely made a huge impact!
I have never played Firepower! Modern warfare, huh? Interesting. I remember playing a World War III game back in the day, by GDW, which was essentially Third Reich, but for World War III in the 1980's. Multi-coloured counters with military unit symbology and all that. Played on gigantic coloured grand strategy world maps. Lots of fun! I remember playing these epic games with friends that would last all weekend! We would get together at someone's house, have pizza delivered, and our parents would provide lots of sodas and snacks, and we would stay over all weekend, playing these epic wars! Our parents seemed so joyful watching us play these games! Moving units around, rolling dice, screaming and laughing together. Such fun, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Man I love chit-based wargames! It's a shame more people don't get into them since they're just as good as a miniatures game. You could put any Avalon Hill classic down on the table and I'd play it in a heartbeat. It's a shame some of them don't have modern computer counterparts. That was one of the reasons I really enjoy BattleTech: it combines the confined space of a hex map while also giving you cool miniatures to paint.
And I hear you on the big weekend wars! I still do that once in a while with my friends, albeit nowadays we're drinking some beers instead of sodas haha. Still not sure whether or not hops improves tactical acumen.
Greetings!
Yep! Man, Avalon Hill was the greatest! I actually went to some game conventions way back, when I was on leave in the Marines, and at one convention I was playing Third Reich. It's actually "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich"--but somehow, it always got nerfed to just "Third Reich". Anyhow, some buddies went with me, and on one day, we were taking a break, and went into the game hall next to us--they had several enormous tables set up for miniatures wargaming. This one table, probably 12 x 12, it was enormous! It had this fantastic scene of the beaches at Normandy, with this little village inland, hedgerows, trees, everything! They had weird netting set up like a foot or two higher than the board, with occasional Christmas lights. Then there were all these painted miniatures, infantry troops, artillery, tanks, half tracks and trucks. It was pure awesome! About a dozen older men gathered around, playing this game. The leader of the German side was this large, older black man, dressed in full Waffen SS Officer uniform, including a patch over one eye! *Laughing*
I found out he was a retired US Army Master Sergeant, a veteran of like, 30 years in the Army. His buddies were all Army, Marine, and Air Force veterans, as well. It was a spectacle! They definitely made an impression on me with miniatures wargaming!
But yes, the old Chit-style of wargame! *Laughing* I played Third Reich, Squad Leader, Russian Campaign, Russian Front, Panzer Blitz, and Panzer Leader! I had all the modules for Squad Leader, and Advanced Squad Leader. Yeah, and that big orange binder!!!! Tabbed rules and notations and everything. Rule 162.56. *Laughing*
Yeah, fun games! I don't think I could convince anyone near me to play them though, so I have them stashed away on my bookshelves. Hanging out, nice and pretty. I have kept them all in mint condition, too.
Have you made up your forces all awesome? Do you use any of the unit decals?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 11:08:21 PMHave you made up your forces all awesome? Do you use any of the unit decals?
SHARK
Spray, block, dip and I still haven't dull coated them.
Quote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 11:08:21 PMGreetings!
Yep! Man, Avalon Hill was the greatest! I actually went to some game conventions way back, when I was on leave in the Marines, and at one convention I was playing Third Reich. It's actually "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich"--but somehow, it always got nerfed to just "Third Reich". Anyhow, some buddies went with me, and on one day, we were taking a break, and went into the game hall next to us--they had several enormous tables set up for miniatures wargaming. This one table, probably 12 x 12, it was enormous! It had this fantastic scene of the beaches at Normandy, with this little village inland, hedgerows, trees, everything! They had weird netting set up like a foot or two higher than the board, with occasional Christmas lights. Then there were all these painted miniatures, infantry troops, artillery, tanks, half tracks and trucks. It was pure awesome! About a dozen older men gathered around, playing this game. The leader of the German side was this large, older black man, dressed in full Waffen SS Officer uniform, including a patch over one eye! *Laughing*
I found out he was a retired US Army Master Sergeant, a veteran of like, 30 years in the Army. His buddies were all Army, Marine, and Air Force veterans, as well. It was a spectacle! They definitely made an impression on me with miniatures wargaming!
But yes, the old Chit-style of wargame! *Laughing* I played Third Reich, Squad Leader, Russian Campaign, Russian Front, Panzer Blitz, and Panzer Leader! I had all the modules for Squad Leader, and Advanced Squad Leader. Yeah, and that big orange binder!!!! Tabbed rules and notations and everything. Rule 162.56. *Laughing*
Yeah, fun games! I don't think I could convince anyone near me to play them though, so I have them stashed away on my bookshelves. Hanging out, nice and pretty. I have kept them all in mint condition, too.
Have you made up your forces all awesome? Do you use any of the unit decals?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Man that scene of Normandy sounds familiar. I've seen some large displays, but probably nothing of that size. As for those Avalon Hill games, they could be a marathon but damn if they aren't fun! I'll have to check out that Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I've been wanting to get a really big WWII game for a few years now, but I haven't found anything yet. Actually want to get a WWIII game by Compass Games but it's a monster. But for those games on your shelves, I hope you can find someone to game with them. Those things are practically gems.
As for my own forces for Bolt Action, most of them are painted. I've got a few platoons for Soviets, Germans, and a single Japanese platoon. I tend to stick to Soviets vs. Germans just because I find that theater so interesting to study. I only use unit decals on my tanks and vehicles, however. I've tried like hell to use the helmet decals for my Germans but it is way too difficult at that scale. I'd like one more platoon, but it'll either be Australians, Brazilians, or Italians. Not sure yet.
Squad Leader was the best. And Advanced Squad Leader even more so. I have all of them.
MBT and IDF from avalon hill were, to me, the best versions of Jim Days designs.
Bolt Action, being 'skirmishy' never appealed to me.
If you like SL/ASL, you will like 'Armored Fist'(ww2) and 'Modern War' by Walter Moore Games.(on wargamevault)
They are minis rulesets that cover a lot of detail, but is still quick and manageable. and cheap.
Modern War is going to need more polish to add in all the drones and stuff.
Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 22, 2024, 08:55:29 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 21, 2024, 11:08:21 PMGreetings!
Yep! Man, Avalon Hill was the greatest! I actually went to some game conventions way back, when I was on leave in the Marines, and at one convention I was playing Third Reich. It's actually "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich"--but somehow, it always got nerfed to just "Third Reich". Anyhow, some buddies went with me, and on one day, we were taking a break, and went into the game hall next to us--they had several enormous tables set up for miniatures wargaming. This one table, probably 12 x 12, it was enormous! It had this fantastic scene of the beaches at Normandy, with this little village inland, hedgerows, trees, everything! They had weird netting set up like a foot or two higher than the board, with occasional Christmas lights. Then there were all these painted miniatures, infantry troops, artillery, tanks, half tracks and trucks. It was pure awesome! About a dozen older men gathered around, playing this game. The leader of the German side was this large, older black man, dressed in full Waffen SS Officer uniform, including a patch over one eye! *Laughing*
I found out he was a retired US Army Master Sergeant, a veteran of like, 30 years in the Army. His buddies were all Army, Marine, and Air Force veterans, as well. It was a spectacle! They definitely made an impression on me with miniatures wargaming!
But yes, the old Chit-style of wargame! *Laughing* I played Third Reich, Squad Leader, Russian Campaign, Russian Front, Panzer Blitz, and Panzer Leader! I had all the modules for Squad Leader, and Advanced Squad Leader. Yeah, and that big orange binder!!!! Tabbed rules and notations and everything. Rule 162.56. *Laughing*
Yeah, fun games! I don't think I could convince anyone near me to play them though, so I have them stashed away on my bookshelves. Hanging out, nice and pretty. I have kept them all in mint condition, too.
Have you made up your forces all awesome? Do you use any of the unit decals?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Man that scene of Normandy sounds familiar. I've seen some large displays, but probably nothing of that size. As for those Avalon Hill games, they could be a marathon but damn if they aren't fun! I'll have to check out that Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I've been wanting to get a really big WWII game for a few years now, but I haven't found anything yet. Actually want to get a WWIII game by Compass Games but it's a monster. But for those games on your shelves, I hope you can find someone to game with them. Those things are practically gems.
As for my own forces for Bolt Action, most of them are painted. I've got a few platoons for Soviets, Germans, and a single Japanese platoon. I tend to stick to Soviets vs. Germans just because I find that theater so interesting to study. I only use unit decals on my tanks and vehicles, however. I've tried like hell to use the helmet decals for my Germans but it is way too difficult at that scale. I'd like one more platoon, but it'll either be Australians, Brazilians, or Italians. Not sure yet.
Greetings!
So true, my friend! Yeah, I could never sell my Avalon Hill games. They are icons of my childhood. I got into wargaming before D&D, when I was like, in the 6th grade. Probably a natural progress of course from "Army Men." I'm not exactly sure, but I'm guessing there is a mental and intellectual shift there at about 10 years old--when you can make the leap from just playing with imagination, and then reaching a point where you combine that, with reading game manuals and playing with increasingly complex set of rules. Such a glorious time!
Australians, and Brazilians, huh? *Laughing*! Very nice! Damnit! I have likewise been chewing on being attracted to developing a force of British Commonwealth forces--Australians, Indians, Sikhs, Gurkas, and also some Nationalist China forces. There was actually *years* of brutal fighting that went on throughout China, Burma, and India!
Can you *IMAGINE* if the Empire of Japan had conquered India?
The British got a sad wake-up call when Japanese carrier stroke aircraft attacked and fucking sank the Renown and Prince of Wales from 300 miles away at sea. The poor, primitive British. Strangely, of course, because they also contributed to developing carrier airpower--like with their use of carrier airpower against both the Germans in the Atlantic, and the Italians in the Mediterranean. Somehow, though, in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, the British Navy never got the memo, and were stuck in World War I naval thinking.
The Imperial Japanese Navy actually raided the island of Ceylon and India, over there in the Indian ocean. While initially a raid--it definitely announced Japan's arrival, and demonstrated that it was the Japanese Empire that was the master of the seas. That was definitely clearing the deck for Japanese Marines to make landings against India. Meanwhile, the Japanese Army marched through Burma and into India!
While most of India remained loyal, there were elements within Indian society that viewed the Japanese Empire as liberators. The Japanese were certainly capable of taking out India. The British had their hands full scraping up equipment and supplies to support more troops to defend India. India of course had plenty of manpower--but an enormous supply of uniforms, guns, ammunition, and other equipment was needed to turn all that raw potential into actual army units that could resist the Japanese Army.
Britain was pathetically unprepared everywhere in Asia though. Malaya, Singapore, India, Burma. They were very weak, and ripe for being ruthlessly conquered by Japan. Just like how Japan fucking hammered America. America was in pathetic condition for war too. Gaming wise, of course, that is what makes these early years so interesting and dramatic--the Axis had a window of opportunity, with time ticking down. They had the troops, the power, and the momentum, but that window was rapidly closing against them. Could they conquer and win before the avalanche rose up against them?
It is insane when you really get into the economics and logistics of it all. Japan was down to like, 18 months of oil. Germany likewise was on increasingly shrinking oil rations as they invaded Russia. Time was ticking!!!!!
It is interesting though, how, in contrast to the glorious dreams of the Austrian Painter and the Japanese High Command--critical supplies like Oil have far-reaching effects on everything throughout the military, stretching into air sorties for aircraft, pilot training programs--Japan had pitiful Fighter-Pilot training hours, compared to America, which placed hundreds of hours of training before a pilot was ever sent to a front-line squadron. America also rotated actual combat aces back to the states to serve as training instructors for 6 month rotations. Germany nor japan could ever really afford to do that. Looking over so many economic factors, yeah, Germany and Japan--and yeah, Italy too!--were in many ways beginning the war on a shoestring. In every case, Germany, Italy, and Japan, their economies were tiny compared to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States.
The campaigns in Indonesia and India and Burma are very interesting. Certainly, as you develop your Japanese forces, the terrain and climate are absolutely brutal factors that influence the war, and the various battlefields. I think that there are some great opportunities within the Pacific theater for crafting and developing terrain pieces. Imagine the rivers, the elephant grass, lots of palm trees, bamboo groves, marshes and jungle plants! MOUNTAINS were massively difficult, as well. Just moving troops from Point A to Point B was a major process and adventure! It seems like nothing in the Asian and Pacific theaters was ever simple, quick, and easy. Gorges, mountains, flooding, diseases like Malaria, snakes, elephants, monsoon rains, all of these things could influence even a small military force just trying to march somewhere. *Laughing*
I'm hoping that I can do the camouflage paint scheme justice! The Japanese were also very good at using palm leaves and grass matting as part of their uniform camouflage.
I'm making some fresh coffee!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: orbitalair on April 23, 2024, 12:50:07 PMSquad Leader was the best. And Advanced Squad Leader even more so. I have all of them.
MBT and IDF from avalon hill were, to me, the best versions of Jim Days designs.
Bolt Action, being 'skirmishy' never appealed to me.
If you like SL/ASL, you will like 'Armored Fist'(ww2) and 'Modern War' by Walter Moore Games.(on wargamevault)
They are minis rulesets that cover a lot of detail, but is still quick and manageable. and cheap.
Modern War is going to need more polish to add in all the drones and stuff.
Have you ever played Avalon Hill's "Anzio"? I've played it a few times, and I really enjoy it. I like how you can play out alternative scenarios to see what a landing would've been like at another location. The step reduction system is intimidating on the onset, but it's really clever when you start playing with it. I'll have to check out "Modern War" that sounds like a really interesting wargame.
Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 05:01:20 PMCan you *IMAGINE* if the Empire of Japan had conquered India?
The British got a sad wake-up call when Japanese carrier stroke aircraft attacked and fucking sank the Renown and Prince of Wales from 300 miles away at sea. The poor, primitive British. Strangely, of course, because they also contributed to developing carrier airpower--like with their use of carrier airpower against both the Germans in the Atlantic, and the Italians in the Mediterranean. Somehow, though, in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, the British Navy never got the memo, and were stuck in World War I naval thinking.
The Imperial Japanese Navy actually raided the island of Ceylon and India, over there in the Indian ocean. While initially a raid--it definitely announced Japan's arrival, and demonstrated that it was the Japanese Empire that was the master of the seas. That was definitely clearing the deck for Japanese Marines to make landings against India. Meanwhile, the Japanese Army marched through Burma and into India!
While most of India remained loyal, there were elements within Indian society that viewed the Japanese Empire as liberators. The Japanese were certainly capable of taking out India. The British had their hands full scraping up equipment and supplies to support more troops to defend India. India of course had plenty of manpower--but an enormous supply of uniforms, guns, ammunition, and other equipment was needed to turn all that raw potential into actual army units that could resist the Japanese Army.
Britain was pathetically unprepared everywhere in Asia though. Malaya, Singapore, India, Burma. They were very weak, and ripe for being ruthlessly conquered by Japan. Just like how Japan fucking hammered America. America was in pathetic condition for war too. Gaming wise, of course, that is what makes these early years so interesting and dramatic--the Axis had a window of opportunity, with time ticking down. They had the troops, the power, and the momentum, but that window was rapidly closing against them. Could they conquer and win before the avalanche rose up against them?
It is insane when you really get into the economics and logistics of it all. Japan was down to like, 18 months of oil. Germany likewise was on increasingly shrinking oil rations as they invaded Russia. Time was ticking!!!!!
It is interesting though, how, in contrast to the glorious dreams of the Austrian Painter and the Japanese High Command--critical supplies like Oil have far-reaching effects on everything throughout the military, stretching into air sorties for aircraft, pilot training programs--Japan had pitiful Fighter-Pilot training hours, compared to America, which placed hundreds of hours of training before a pilot was ever sent to a front-line squadron. America also rotated actual combat aces back to the states to serve as training instructors for 6 month rotations. Germany nor japan could ever really afford to do that. Looking over so many economic factors, yeah, Germany and Japan--and yeah, Italy too!--were in many ways beginning the war on a shoestring. In every case, Germany, Italy, and Japan, their economies were tiny compared to the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and the United States.
The campaigns in Indonesia and India and Burma are very interesting. Certainly, as you develop your Japanese forces, the terrain and climate are absolutely brutal factors that influence the war, and the various battlefields. I think that there are some great opportunities within the Pacific theater for crafting and developing terrain pieces. Imagine the rivers, the elephant grass, lots of palm trees, bamboo groves, marshes and jungle plants! MOUNTAINS were massively difficult, as well. Just moving troops from Point A to Point B was a major process and adventure! It seems like nothing in the Asian and Pacific theaters was ever simple, quick, and easy. Gorges, mountains, flooding, diseases like Malaria, snakes, elephants, monsoon rains, all of these things could influence even a small military force just trying to march somewhere. *Laughing*
I'm hoping that I can do the camouflage paint scheme justice! The Japanese were also very good at using palm leaves and grass matting as part of their uniform camouflage.
I'm making some fresh coffee!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
That's one of the parts of WWII history that always fascinated me since I was a kid. There are so many single points you can look at and realize how close the Axis was to victory and the Allies to defeat. As insane as Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union was, they very well could have done it had a few small differences occurred. Or perhaps what if Operation Sealion happened instead of Barbarossa? Would Germany remove Britain as an enemy, or would it have motivated the Soviets to move in?
As for Japan vs. The United States, I remember wondering why Japan would attack the U.S. as a kid not understanding that the Japanese had their own internal struggles. And then again, what if that gambit worked? It's nuts to think about. I mean seriously, you could write a 10 volume series on WWII and probably still have to leave out parts. Each nations' internal struggles, external struggles, critical points, failures, accidental successes. View points from High Command down to the lowest enlisted all with their own story to tell.
Then when you consider just how much the war itself influenced in the last 87 years. I mean it practically shaped our modern conflicts, relations, culture, politics, etc. It makes me wonder how similar we are to post-Punic Wars Rome, or Europe after Napoleon's Wars.
Greetings!
Oh yeah! So many little points of conflict and strategy that balanced on a knife edge!
With Sea Lion, it is not widely known--but the German Luftwaffe was very close to annihilating British air power over Britain. Maybe just a few more weeks of constant focus and hammering of British radar stations and airfields, and the RAF would have been crushed entirely. Lots of chain "Ifs" involved, but plausible. Once the RAF was crushed, German air superiority over Britain and the English Channel would have check mated British naval power operating within the English Channel. From there, Britain would not likely have been able to defeat an airborne assault made by 20,000 German Fallschirmjagers--which is precisely how the Germans overwhelmed and conquered the island of Crete. First, air superiority; then, checking the naval superiority; thus enabling a bold airborne assault, which was then supported by amphibious troops and reinforcements from sea. The Greeks and British forces holding out in Crete were thus doomed, and Germany was eventually victorious.
Germany, following that similar strategy, could have proceeded with Sea Lion. The Fallschirmjager could seize a port or two, and then be reinforced with additional invasion forces. Can you imagine the 7th Panzer Division--the "Ghost Division" of Erwin Rommel unleashed at Dover? Guderian leading more panzers into London. The British after Dunkirk had a decent army of 300,000 plus troops in Britain, though they had very little artillery, trucks, or tanks, and honestly, not even much rifles, machine guns, or other infantry support equipment. Churchill himself said that Britain was next to empty, with nothing but broom handles and beer bottles to resist a German invasion with! *Laughing*
That would not have boded well for a German invasion force of well-equipped infantry, Panzers, lots of artillery, while the skies were filled with Messerschmidt's, Heinkel bombers, and of course, the infamous Ju-97 "Stuka" Dive Bomber. Britain would have thus likely fallen by Christmas of 1940, or sometime in the spring of 1941. Can you imagine if *that* had happened?
Of course, following from that epic disaster for the Allies--when the Reich then turned East afterwards to launch Barbarossa against the Soviet Union--imagine Barbarossa being waged with +25% more German ground troops and tanks--and +40% more of the Luftwaffe--and, ZERO prospect of there ever being any kind of "Second Front." No North Africa campaign. No invasion of Siciliy and Italy. Italy never being knocked out of the war. And no invasion of Normandy. Just as importantly--NO STRATEGIC AIR WAR crushing German cities to ashes and grinding German industry down. And no need to keep 40% of the Luftwaffe or more, guarding the skies over the Reich.
That, and with the increase in manpower--no need to keep 20 German divisions in Norway, or 20 divisions in Yuhoslavia, or 300,000 troops in North Africa. All that, and more--would have been able to be sent against the Soviet Union. Oh, yes, and NO LEND LEASE CONVOYS to Russia, bringing the Soviet Union tons and tons of valuable supplies, tanks, trucks, clothes, food, radios, train locomotives, and the precious high-octane AVIATION FUEL--which made the Red Air Force able to field dangerous and competitive fighters, ground attack aircraft and bombers in the Red Air Force. All of that would have gone away. And, furthermore, an unleashed Italy and a German Afrika Corps under Rommel could then certainly have swept victoriously into Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and--the Caucuses region of southern Russia.
Yeah, as can be seen, the domino effects all cascading together, stacking up--the Soviet Union would have likely gone down as well, eventually. Then you would have a German Reich and Italian Empire dominating all of Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains, and from Norway to the Congo in Africa, and the entire Middle East as well. Both Iraq and Iran were moving closer to being allies of the Reich. So, yeah, that is likely what would have happened. Then, you would have Rommel on the Indian border at the Kyber pass from the West, looking to invade India from the West--while the Japanese Empire was invading India from the East.
Truly mind-boggling!
Interestingly, this is exactly the scenario envisioned by the American High Command, as seen in the 1942-made government film, "Why We Fight!" The US high command were very well versed in the whole immense importance of the grand strategy of "The Heartland." Basically, controlling Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains in Russia is "The Heartland" and the resource keys to enforcing absolute dominion outwards over the entire globe. THAT is exactly what we were very worried about happening looking at the war in the spring of 1942 through the smoke and ashes of Pearl Harbour.
All this talk about "Nah, the Axis never had a chance. That's all BS." All that kind of talk is smug arrogance, triumphalism, and borne from the comfort of hindsight and being victorious.
I remember my own father telling me that yeah, the Axis could have won the war. Damn right we were worried about winning. He told me it was not a sure thing at all. We had a very long and hard struggle facing us, everywhere.
It was definitely not a forgone conclusion in 1941 or 1942, maybe not even in 1943.
Thankfully, though, the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, all had the troops, the power, and the momentum to achieve victory--but they also suffered from several critical strategic thinking mistakes that ultimately cost them the war--and would end with them all being crushed by fire and ashes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
During WW2, the US army produced wargame rules. Not miniatures, but with actual soldiers running around fields pretending to shoot each other. These are listed in Field Manual 105-5.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf
Inside those rules, on page 14, is a chart of weapon effectiveness for resolving combat.
(https://i.imgur.com/3kDOzhu.jpg)
"Automatic Rifle" is the BAR while the "Light Machine Gun" is the air-cooled M1919 .30 cal which is usually described as Medium Machine Gun in most current day wargame rules such as Bolt Action.
In this chart a rifle get 1 point which, in wargame terms, matches up to 1 shot. So the number of shots in a wargame for various weapons would be:
Rifle: 1
SMG: 3
LMG: 3-4
MMG: 6
HMG: 10
If you compare these numbers to the shot in Bolt Action, you can see that Bolt Action undervalues machines guns by quite a bit. The only 28mm wargame that uses numbers close to these is Chain of Command. That game is great for infantry vs infantry but their vehicle rules are a bit crap.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 24, 2024, 10:09:14 AMDuring WW2, the US army produced wargame rules. Not miniatures, but with actual soldiers running around fields pretending to shoot each other. These are listed in Field Manual 105-5.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf
Inside those rules, on page 14, is a chart of weapon effectiveness for resolving combat.
(https://i.imgur.com/3kDOzhu.jpg)
"Automatic Rifle" is the BAR while the "Light Machine Gun" is the air-cooled M1919 .30 cal which is usually described as Medium Machine Gun in most current day wargame rules such as Bolt Action.
In this chart a rifle get 1 point which, in wargame terms, matches up to 1 shot. So the number of shots in a wargame for various weapons would be:
Rifle: 1
SMG: 3
LMG: 3-4
MMG: 6
HMG: 10
If you compare these numbers to the shot in Bolt Action, you can see that Bolt Action undervalues machines guns by quite a bit. The only 28mm wargame that uses numbers close to these is Chain of Command. That game is great for infantry vs infantry but their vehicle rules are a bit crap.
Greetings!
Excellent, Hedgehobbit! It is awesome to see the historical roots even within the mechanics of a midern wargame. Yeah, I agree too. Bolt Action seems to nerf machine guns quite a bit. I'm not sure why. Rifles re of course excellent. Assault Rifles, well, they are superior to rifles. Machine guns fucking rule, sorry. Yes, I was a machine gunner in the Marines. I know the SAW very well. Marines get *excited* hearing the SAW going off, you know? The buzz of a SAW by itself is a strong boost to the men's morale. They know that some heavy firepower is there to help them, and bring death to the enemy. And, let us not forget--just hearing an enemy machine gun buzzing, is intimidating. It does bring fear, down inside you. Machine guns are fucking absolutely deadly.
Bolt Action's handling of machine guns is definitely underwhelming! *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK