This is going to get abstract, so if you don't like text discussing intangible and theoretical ideas, navigate away now.
Perceivable consequence is self-defining. It is the sense that a player can perceive what will become of his actions. It is what connects a player to something like an abstract game and gives him or her the sense of agency. It allows for the mastery of a skill, or the understanding of how the game works. It allows that knowledge or mastery to be put to use in an effective manner. This concept applies to a wide range of topics. From video games, to chess. Anything that has a system abstracted made to represent something.
Take Chess for an example. The perceivable consequence of Chess is extremely high, and extremely obvious. Often the immediate counter-move to your own provides enough feedback to understand how your action affected the game. You will know if the move you made is a good one or a bad one by the end of the game. This is a good idea in games involving strategy, as it allows the player to feel in control of the mechanics. It allows him to feel like he is the master of his own destiny. It allows both the application of skill and the knowledge of the system to be used deliberately to achieve a goal. There is no random element to chess. A Chess player who makes no mistakes or blunders will always win. Two people playing Chess against each other who make no mistakes or blunders will always tie. This sets it apart from many tabletop games.
Tabletop gaming is not Chess. For starters, the systems don't attempt to mirror match up the opponents. More importantly though, there are dice rolls. Dice rolls add randomness to the formula. They add chaos. In the eyes of many, and in the eyes of many who write the rules, they add fun. Fun or not, they also erode perceivable consequence. Imagine if you had to roll a 4+ when you tried to trade a piece in Chess. If you rolled under a 4, the move failed and you lost your turn. No longer would the superior player win, and no longer would either player have control of the mechanics. Many players who play table top games know it is not Chess, and are not looking for a Chess experience. It is not an inherently bad thing for a game to have randomness. It is not inherently bad for a game to not always work out in favor of the superior player. However, there is a point where the lack of perceivable consequence is so lacking, that there is a disconnect between the player and the game mechanics. I am going to argue that the level of this disconnect and the lack of perceivable consequence is rather high in Bolt Action. I am not stating that is a bad game. Nor am I stating that this is anyone's immediate fault, nor should they take responsibility for it. I'm simply providing an interesting look at the recent perceptions I have made.
Typically in a strategy game there will be degrees of randomness. Sometimes these degrees will vary very harshly. It is not intrinsically the level of randomness that attributes to the degradation of perceivable consequence though it does hold a strong effect over it. One of the primary mechanics guilty of this are the ones that have a single die carrying the weight of a powerful shot. When infantry fire, they typically are rolling between 10 or 15 dice depending on their level of casualty. Often, these shots aren't extremely effective, and it is rare that they will alter the outcome of the game in a single turn. It is the gradual, and continued use of strategic placement and orders that will win an infantry battle. Who has better cover? Who has better sight? Who has more firepower, and how can one reduce enemy firepower while maximizing his own? The firefight teeters and totters back and forth between. Certainly the outcome is subjected to a level of randomness, but with the amount of dice thrown, and the generally less-than-heavy-hitting effect of small arms, the fight is often decided with wit, tact, and application of skill. Occasionally the superior player will find he is on the losing end, but more often than not, he finds himself the victor. This is where Bolt Action is at its best. This is where the pins mechanic is used tactically and with clear perceivable consequence. This is not how weapons that are large Anti Tank guns, or heavy caliber artillery work.
When something as powerful as a medium (or heavier) anti tank gun (or howitzer) is fired with a single die, it becomes a weapon that can swing the outcome of a game in a single roll. These are weapons that can remove 200 points worth of something off the table and they're operating under something as wildly variable as a single D6. Certainly there are degrees a player can increase these chances if he wants, or if he is on the receiving end, lower them. Apart from removing line of sight however, there is nothing he can do to stop it completely. This is where the lack of perceivable consequence shows in the gaps. A tank battle is often decided by who rolls better, not who was in a better position. Many times you can have the superior position, or even an equal one, and there is no stop to the 6 that was just rolled to hit you. Did you make a mistake? Were you out played? Should you have done something differently? Perhaps there was a mistake. Perhaps there should have been a different choice, but there is such a stark loss of perceivable consequence that there is no way to know, or learn anything from the incident. This removes player agency, and it goes both ways. The player who made the good choice but got burned for it feels cheated, and at least on my end, if I get stupidly lucky I don't feel like I earned it. I don't feel like I made a good choice. I feel like I just chucked a die and something happened, regardless of my input. The lack of strategy is not the bigger issue. Surely some people aren't interested in a strategic game and just want to have fun. It is the lack of a feeling of agency, and the feeling of being cheated that are toxic to a game system. If you've cornered someone in the most brilliant tactical play you've made, and you were robbed by some single arbitrary dice roll, it leaves a rather bitter taste. It's a taste of "am I even affecting the game?"
So how can this be repaired? Well for starters, weapons that are more reliable would help in closing the gap of disconnect. If players could feel more confident about what would happen when they take an action, instead of feeling like they're always throwing caution to the wind and banking on a single roll. This would of course mean reigning in the power of the weapons. I find the "risk-reward" system of balance to be a poor choice in a game of chance. It rewards nothing to but luck. Specifically to Bolt Action, perhaps making medium and higher Anti Tank weapons gain a permanent +1 to their to-hit roll. This might represent the high muzzle velocity, or perhaps just the more careful aim a crew would take with a weapon they know has a long reload. A counter argument to this change might be that it would make these guns far too accurate, and increase the value of going first. I do not find this to be a valid complaint though, as it only shifts the focus to both the better management of your order dice, and to the more intense maneuver game of cat and mouse a tank hunt can be. As for howitzers, the indirect fire ability is far too complex to analyze in this essay but when fired directly, an accuracy bonus of +1 might be a suitable solution as well. Of course this requires a reduction in their potency, and I dare not be so bold as to suggest what that reduction is. High Explosive requires a deeper look on its own.
These changes may not be "balanced" and they may result in certain units becoming more effective over all, and less effective in a single turn, but that is the exact idea. Players should have a grasp of what will happen when they activate a unit, not feel like they're tossing a die with no input on the game. Overall, I think that less powerful, more reliable weapons would increase the feeling of player agency.
