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.

My German forces are in good shape, and I have some Soviet stuff, so that's where I'm going to expand. There's a part of me that wants to build U.S. forces but I'm not going to lie - I really want to build Nationalist Chinese armies. I mean, I wrote a book on them, so I've got reasons.

But this really does seem to be the culmination of what 40k was always meant to be.

You might want to check pete's the wargamer channel, he's got a video developping a suggestion on how to convert natianalist chinese.

Edit: there you go

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
You might want to check pete's the wargamer channel, he's got a video developping a suggestion on how to convert natianalist chinese.

Edit: there you go

I'll have to take a look at that. I imagine one could use a bunch of different armies for them because they got gear from so many places. Soviets with soft caps would work for the old NRA cadres, of course the Germans equipped and trained a bunch, then some got British and American gear and Japanese weapons and kit had been circulating for decades.

When I was selecting the cover art for my book on Chinese military history, I very nearly went with the German-trained troops from the 1930s because it's so unexpected to see Chinese in M35 helmets. I ended up going with columns of British-equipped moving along the Great Wall because that matches the title of the work, "Walls of Men" (it's a reference to an ancient poem declaring that the people are the true fortifications of a kingdom).

The nice thing is that now I can collect again. My existing armies were almost complete and I was mostly finishing off strays. Now I get to start fresh!

That's actually a great theme to have! You'll just need a japanese opponent to make it a little historical I guess.

Not sure were the rules for them were though, maybe under "armies of france and the allies"? Only know of this very old army list: https://www.warlordgames.com/bolt-action-chinese-army-list/




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Starting a new collection is always cool besides, but I'm always worried about overdoing it as I know i'm kind of a haorder and not too much into selling stuff to buy more. Gotta stop before my house becomes a storage container.

I just checked my France and allies army book. Unless there's a second edition I'm unaware of, China isn't in there.

Made a bit more research after reading your reply, actually it seems it was in a campaign supplement called empires in flame. And not in France and the allies, as you rightly pointed out.

For the Nationalists, the Japanese torso/German head, weapons gets things pretty close. I would also scavenge some BREN guns to use as LMGs since they are similar to what the Nationalists had.

One could, of course get away with using Arisaka or Mosin rifles (but not the M1930, which was used mostly for training and by sentries).

And of course the Korea models would work for the Chinese Red Army. I think it would be safe to go with maximum 12 squads, and not much else because the KMT was chronically short of artillery and support weapons.

That'd be a strange force to play against, almost full nfantry and no support... Could surprise us though!

My platoon of Soviet infantry arrived and I'm pretty impressed. Lots of options, sculpts seem on par with GW (but better proportions), price is excellent.

I'm also happy that they seem compatible with my 25mm Old Glory Soviets, which was a concern. The 28mm are just a touch taller, but the bases are thinner than the GW ones I used, so it will seem like normal height variation. (Put a basketball player next to an average person and it looks like 15mm next to 25mm).

Looking forward to playing over the holidays!

I wouldn't say they are on par with GW sculpts (although they might have become better, the one my brother bought is from 2016 or so), but definitely enjoyable and way better proportionned safe for the american heads in my opinion.

Let us know how you first game goes pal!

Early Bolt Action plastics are a bit primitive. Casting quality has improved since then. I want to say since the release of German grenadiers some years ago, but maybe that's only the first time I noticed.

I think the difference to GW is more down to style. Detail on Bolt Action models is plenty good, but comparatively shallow due to less decoration and exaggeration in proportions and size. And of course simply due to overall smaller model size. Where GW models really shiny is the depth and coverage of finer details that give you more space to layer paints and make individual areas stand out better. Also since it's all fictional rather than scaled down real stuff, GW designs for the final scale rather than having to scale down and adapt life sized designs. That makes creating clean designs easier.

Agreed. WG metal sculpts were worth it though, in my view.

 Geifer wrote:
Early Bolt Action plastics are a bit primitive. Casting quality has improved since then. I want to say since the release of German grenadiers some years ago, but maybe that's only the first time I noticed.

I think the difference to GW is more down to style. Detail on Bolt Action models is plenty good, but comparatively shallow due to less decoration and exaggeration in proportions and size. And of course simply due to overall smaller model size. Where GW models really shiny is the depth and coverage of finer details that give you more space to layer paints and make individual areas stand out better. Also since it's all fictional rather than scaled down real stuff, GW designs for the final scale rather than having to scale down and adapt life sized designs. That makes creating clean designs easier.

It's almost an apples and oranges comparison, given the two genres. WW II uniforms were designed to be ergonomic and also blend in with the environment. 40k's are all about LOOK AT ME! NCOs and officers have flags sticking out of their backs on long poles (or used to).

A better comparison would be the LotR range vs Bolt Action, since both were rooted in showing humans (albeit some in makeup) in their proper proportions. The LotR metal remains amazing.

I don't think the comparison are really apple and pies as we focus on the level of details including faces and stuff, but I get the drift, pretty much what geifer said about the GW models being designed to allow details to be molded while WW2 figures try to render as many detailed as possible on a credible scale.

For better comparison I guess you could look at other WW2 or even modern ranges, as they too normally would try to achieve the most details within properly scaled minis. Lotr is still some fantasy with the liberties it allows. Granted, they are more properly proportianate though.

I have an extensive mid-war German army using Old Glory 25mm lead miniatures, which I based for use in 40k (they are my Imperial Guard), so they are ready to rock. Seriously, I consider the army done, because it's got just about everything one could need because of its lengthy fighting career in the 41st Millennium. It even comes with a Pak 40 and a Panther (in lead!).

My Soviet forces are a bit thinner, but I'm well provided with lead MMGs, LMGs, command section and a handful of rifles and SMGs. Having bought the Soviet Army box (40) models I'm looking at adding snipers, a commissar, some AT rifles and then a healthy infusion of rifles to strengthen the line. A T-34/76 is under requisition because tanks are cool.

Tonight I finally got a chance to clean off the painting table, which necessarily required me to put away some unfinished orks (sorry boys, priorities!) and start the assembly line. Already I'm looking ahead to future purchases. I'd like an AT gun and my next army will be Americans, after which I'll look at Nationalist Chinese.

These selections are partly my area of interest, but partly based on what my friends have.

I use a few spare spures of infantrymen from BA as conscripts for my IG, but my BA armies regularly ended up being used as PDF, cannon fodder, pro tau insurgents and whatever

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
I use a few spare spures of infantrymen from BA as conscripts for my IG, but my BA armies regularly ended up being used as PDF, cannon fodder, pro tau insurgents and whatever

That's very sensible.

Bolt Action in many ways is what 40k should have been - an affordable game driven by the quality of rules and the willingness of players to embrace new factions.

BA's advantage is that it is restrained in what it can add due to being WW2. Whereas 40k probably not always handle it's liberty as EMA fictional setting right! Konflikt 47 didn't go out of hand though as far as I'm aware.

Plus, BA was written by GW veterans if memory serves

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
BA's advantage is that it is restrained in what it can add due to being WW2. Whereas 40k probably not always handle it's liberty as EMA fictional setting right! Konflikt 47 didn't go out of hand though as far as I'm aware.

Plus, BA was written by GW veterans if memory serves

In retrospect, it's clear that the Rick Priestly and co. were not allowed to bring their designs to completion.

Bolt Action shows what that would have looked like. It is intuitive, simple, and efficient.

Note that the designers actually had more control over 40k than WW II - I mean they literally could make it up! The issue was that management kept pushing them in various directions. With Bolt Action/Warlord Games, they had more control over the design.

The results speak for themselves.

Too much liberty probably doesn't really help in designing rules like this, in my opinion the fact you must make up every rule and weapon and stuff without an actual frame of reference would make it harder.

But that doesn't change the fact that even in WW2, BA is a deliberately gaming oriented ruleset, and it does it excellently. For collectors or tabletop reenactors -probably not the target audience.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Too much liberty probably doesn't really help in designing rules like this, in my opinion the fact you must make up every rule and weapon and stuff without an actual frame of reference would make it harder.

But that doesn't change the fact that even in WW2, BA is a deliberately gaming oriented ruleset, and it does it excellently. For collectors or tabletop reenactors -probably not the target audience.

Counterpoint: complexity does not necessarily equate to realism.

A friend of mine who is embracing Bolt Action compares it to Phoenix Command, a rules set from the 1990s that was maddeningly detailed, as in the time scale was so short, you had the travel time of ATGMs accurately represented. Speed of turret rotation was a thing.

Abstracting the small stuff to focus on the big picture (and key decisions points) is the essence of good game design. This is a big part of why I'm a fan. As a designer, I agree with their design decisions.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
You won't be disappointed pal! I'm for one still thinking at getting a little romanian army... But I need to refrain my wargaming urges

I'm going to note that the Romanian lists as published in the Axis Minors book are inaccurate... and leave it at that.

I brought the issue up repeatedly in the past on Warlord's forums, and was completely ignored (iirc aside from "Why are you making a fuss about it?" comments from some on the forums).


That's what's in the Axis Minors book. The Axis Minors book didn't include the post-defection Romanian army. Warlord eventually published a lone post-defection Romanian platoon in the Fortress Budapest book. But I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it.

See what you mean, in fact, I agree.

Especially in the case of a fictional universe where it can't really approach any realism many times.

However, I think their is a place for complex games or realistic games which while not necessarily being complex, would probably need to go into way more details nonfme the less. Granted, those details don't need to be excruciating once translated as gale mechanics, but that would still be a game with a lot of stuff to keep track of or take into account. This is also available to fictional setting as you dig into the universe, but inevitably will increase the risk of glitches as you go, even if the team manages to avoid clunky designs which, absolutely agreed, is a conception flaw and not an inherent issue to complex, detailed rules.

Anyway, in such a ruleset, I think it is not so much the game then the simulation you would look for.

I believe BA's target is gaming, and so it made the right choices to reach it. But at the same time, while not being realistic in my view, the game still feels absolutely credible because it is logical. So it achieves credible effects with simpler, streamlined mechanics that flow easily and close the door to a great many glitches.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
BA's advantage is that it is restrained in what it can add due to being WW2. Whereas 40k probably not always handle it's liberty as EMA fictional setting right! Konflikt 47 didn't go out of hand though as far as I'm aware.

Plus, BA was written by GW veterans if memory serves

In retrospect, it's clear that the Rick Priestly and co. were not allowed to bring their designs to completion.

Bolt Action shows what that would have looked like. It is intuitive, simple, and efficient.

Note that the designers actually had more control over 40k than WW II - I mean they literally could make it up! The issue was that management kept pushing them in various directions. With Bolt Action/Warlord Games, they had more control over the design.

The results speak for themselves.

I think you're reading in a narrative there that doesn't really exist.

Eumerin wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
You won't be disappointed pal! I'm for one still thinking at getting a little romanian army... But I need to refrain my wargaming urges

I'm going to note that the Romanian lists as published in the Axis Minors book are inaccurate... and leave it at that.

I brought the issue up repeatedly in the past on Warlord's forums, and was completely ignored (iirc aside from "Why are you making a fuss about it?" comments from some on the forums).


That's what's in the Axis Minors book. The Axis Minors book didn't include the post-defection Romanian army. Warlord eventually published a lone post-defection Romanian platoon in the Fortress Budapest book. But I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on it.

Sorry pal I was answering to commissar and actually overlooked your post on the Romanian list as my browser didn't upload it in time, please excuse the late reply on that!

I haven't read warlord's list ATM, I'd be interested if you could explain me in more details what is inaccurate in the list! And if you have got any good substitute/base material to make one up from scratch, could be a fun project as well.

No worries. I figured that was the case.

As for the list issues, I'm at work at the moment, and don't have it handy. But off the top of my head, the two biggest issues were squad size, and AFVs. The squad size listed in the book is accurate for Romania's entry into the war during Operation Barbarossa. But in December of that year, the Romanian Army switched to a smaller squad size of (off the top of my head) ten men per squad. There's no mention of this in the list, and IIRC even the *Late War" Romanian squad is still the incorrect larger size. The list of AFVs received from the Germans is also an obvious cut and paste of the Hungarian list, as it includes the Panther and Tiger. The Hungarian had those, but the Romanians never got anything better than STuG IIIs and Mark IVs (there was a shipment of Hetzers on the way when Romania defected, but they were rerouted for obvious reasons before arriving).

I used to be more familiar with the subject (I've even got Mark Axeworthy's book on Romania in WW2), but it's been a while since I last looked at it.

Given how Bolt Action treats anything that isn't infantry, the items I listed above are probably the only things that you need to worry about. IIRC there's a national rule that encourages you to take big guns, and I'm not happy with that because the Romanian Army was perpetually short of big guns until the Soviets forced them to reduce their manpower post-defection. But that's not as big of a deal as the squad size and AFVs.

Already a clear update on the subject, thanks! Hopefully I was intended on using my spare german Stug for them so that was close enough on that side.

As for the free canon rule... Maybe they actually just struggled to find a special rule, and came up with something because it was necessary. I mean, the romanian army for all the braveness of its soldiers never really shined. I read somewhere that even contemporary romanian military held a pretty dim view of their own army, citing training, mistrust towards higher echelons, and few obsolete equipement as the main flaws.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you're reading in a narrative there that doesn't really exist.

In one of the Oldhammer threads there's a Youtube of Rick Priestly talking about how management short-circuited some of the design work. He was talking explicitly about WHFB, but the same would apply to other designs.

As I read through the Bolt Action rule book it seemed obvious to me that this was very much how 40k would have gone. For one thing it felt complete, a fully finished design. There were also design features that were elegant in their simplicity. A great example is eliminating the need for M1 Garand and M1 Carbine rules by simply allowing Americans to fire without penalty while under Advance orders. Brilliant - actual game effect, but it saves on making new weapon rules.

Basically, the designers were able to say "Right, we can do it the way it should be done," and did it.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

As for the free canon rule... Maybe they actually just struggled to find a special rule, and came up with something because it was necessary. I mean, the romanian army for all the braveness of its soldiers never really shined. I read somewhere that even contemporary romanian military held a pretty dim view of their own army, citing training, mistrust towards higher echelons, and few obsolete equipement as the main flaws.

The Romanians actually did use tactics and doctrine inspired by the French, at least at the start of the war (I'm not sure about later on). But the number of guns in use was much less than the number on the orders of battle (i.e. the authorized unit strengths). This was a problem right up until the defection. After Romania defected, the Soviets forced the Romanians to reduce the number of men in their army. And, with the stroke of a pen (and stacks of discharge papers), the ratio of artillery to troops finally ended up where it was supposed to be on paper.

So giving them that particular special rule might match up with the theory, but completely ignores the actual practice.

I see, well, at least they tried something! BA would probably survive well enough a few house tweaks to make it more historical hopefully