Rear Line:
In the rear line rule it says that a unit:
Cannot move with 30 of the enemy
During initiative the unit must take a tactical move to achieve the 30 cm separation
Understand that this rightly applies to transport Lorries etc – but what about their occupants? Can they disembark / deploy before being compulsorily carried off into the distance?
Fast:
I like this idea – having a Honey Regt and a MC Bttn. So it's -1 d6 to hit when moving, so if you had 4 fire dice it drops to 3. I'm fine with that. BUT, does this only apply to opportunity fire; OR, can it be used when ordered fire is performed against a fast target that moved in the previous player turn. Does the Fast vehicle need to have moved its FULL move?
Motor cycles with a move of 25 are fast, but vehicles with the same or faster move are not. Why's that?
Thoughts and answers much appreciated
Rear Line
The passengers can dismount - that would need to be an Initiative action upon their individual account.
Good spot - we need to include that.
Likewise tows/limbered artillery/AA/AT etc can also be deployed as an Initiative action.
Will pick this up in the errata - likewise pretty much all Transports (unless specifically stated) will be Rear Line - unless they are half-tracks or some types of animal transports (camels being an example in question).
Fast
This is an interesting one as the Fast special characteristic is not just about speed - but a combination of mobility, speed and to a certain extent profile. Moving fast but having a large profile will more than likely negate the Fast capability.
Motorbikes and Motorbike & side cars (including Kettenkrads etc.) are interesting and caused us a few challenges generally. I originally had a stabilized move and shoot option for side-car machine-guns, but again playtesting and feedback from reviewers (who felt it was unrealistic) meant it was removed - despite there being some very well documented references in WW1 of offensive shooting on the move.
Aerosani are likewise an issue as they move at one heck of a speed and seemed to shoot very effectively in their forward arc ...
It's just a subjective thing ... if you have any obvious other candidates for Fast, do let me know?
Thanks
Mark
Got it - and thanks.
The rear line thing I thought you'd want it the way you describe - but who has camels?
I like the idea of some units being fast - but you'd not count it if they were stationary or in cover surely? That was what I was after - your thoughts on how fast is fast for those few types that might qualify.
I'm tempted by X is "fast" so -1 die against it in opp fire so long as it has moved at least Y cm
Apologies - I forgot to cover your question about whether Fast applied if moving or not.
My original though was that all Special Abilities should apply at all times - as I hate book-keeping.
It might seem 'odd' but again I am of the view that whilst our 'Fast' motorcycles are not driving frantically around in circles whilst 'stationary' they can be laid on the ground or are such low profile as to make them almost impossible to see.
With Stuart tanks ... they are a lot bigger I agree, but I'd also make the observation that in Special Characteristics it states clearly that a unit with 2 characteristics that create the same effect (e.g. a -1 to hit) does not double that up to a -2 to hit.
I'll check the lists but I think (hope) that most of the Fast units also have Low Profile.
Whilst the Low Profile units are not necessarily Fast.
Does that make sense?
Mark
Yes - makes sense. Though I'm not sure how you can lie a motor cycle combination down. :-
I think that what you've created is a set of interesting special abilities. It's just a case of how and when to apply them to what things. The problem is that we use the words wargames rules - at which point people think that there is a right and an utterly wrong rather than choosing what works and leaving out what doesn't. It's a "Black Powder" framework type situation and some people simply cannot use those rules.
I agree Dr Dave & I also get the "cannot lay a sidecar combo on its side" bit ... ;)
I am personally not in favor of the Black Powder approach - ideally Rules should be Rules - or it all ends in tears. It's why we tried Black Powder and also Dux Bellorum and found them 'wanting'.
However, there are some special circumstances in this instance - due to the BKCIII 'history'.
I'm probably being a lot more collaborative and tolerant than I'd normally be :D and also some of the issues that are surfacing are due slightly to me having to unravel certain aspects and rework them. But we will make some definitive judgments based on the surfacing errata and once these are out then it's up to individual players or groups as to whether they stick with them or not.
With CWC and also FWC it will (hopefully) be a lot easier as I'll have just the upgrades to do.
My intention with BKCIV was to try and create (or pull out from all 3 rules) a set of core game-play mechanism - hopefully as Pete had intended - and 'fix' these across all 3 time periods and also supplement them with specific period flavour elements. CWC will be interesting as there is already a debate about whether we close CWC off at the fall of Soviet Russia or continue it on through to 'today', as it can be argued that we are still now in another version of a Cold War. But as 'modern' warfare advances technologically can a single set of rules that starts back in 1945 really accommodate drones, cruise-missiles and cyber warfare adequately? Increasingly CWC is starting to look a lot like FWC in terms of some mechanisms.
As is the intention with Spanish Civil War - do we add a Korean War supplement between BKC and CWC that allows players to play that particular conflict - potentially using either set of rule? It's an interesting thought. There are those who view the Korean War as an extension of WW2 - others who view it as the first of the Cold War conflicts. There are also aspects of WW1 that bare a remarkable similarly to the later Korean War as well ... but that leads on to Great War Commander and chronologically before that Imperial Commander (a potential colonial warfare set).
All interesting stuff ...
Again - thank you for your positive active participation
Mark
Mark - dont start CWC til 1956 - 1st use of air-air missiles, SS10 entered service and the last M4 left US service.
I agree: Start it post Korea. Then a mini supplement / guide for Korea?
End CWC with GW1. After that too many armed drones and directed energy weapons.
We are all thinking on broadly the same lines chaps ... thanks
Well I AM ALWAYS RIGHT :D ;)
Yes, WE are! ;)
To bring Fast and Low Profile up again
Fast: -1d6 to hit with direct fire when moving
Low Profile: all direct shooting subtracts 1d6 from the attack value
There is also the note that no combination of abilities ... doubles a defensive factor.
To confirm this means that anything with both Fast and Low Profile is -1d6 to attack?
As mentioned above the fact that Fast only applies when moving, seems to be irrelevant, and rather hard to track.
I've only spotted two units with Fast, which don't have Low Profile, British A13 (for the BEF, not in North Africa) and Mongol Cavalry.
But as virtually everything that has Fast has Low Profile, it seems Fast is redundant as a rule, as you can only get -1d6 when being shot at, if you have both Fast and Low Profile, and there are only 2 units with only Fast, and I would question the A13.
Without the rulebook to hand, I would have thought that the Low Profile would kick-in when the unit was stationary? I only see Fast as working when the unit actually moves and is subject to Opportunity fire. With the book in hand I could be talking absolute b*ll*cks!
Just as a general observation - the fact that a Special Characteristic might only occur once in the lists (or even not at all) is (in the nicest way) neither here nor there.
We will be adding more lists in future and also there are players who will want to change or augment the lists to better represent their own views of a units capabilities or characteristics by adding or removing special characteristics. Unlike FoW, BKCIV was not designed as a competition circuit set of rules (although I am not saying it couldn't be used as such).
On the matter of Low Profile and Fast - there are some units that are Low Profile, but not Fast. StuGs are a classic example of this. Some of the early tankette types are also Low Profile and in some of the proposed new lists the early ones are even classified as Unreliable. In fact, one of the lists in most need of 'correction' on this matter is the Italian lists, as a lot of the armour and some of the AT and IS Guns should have been Low Profile, but this slipped through the net.
On the Fast v Low Profile combo question - the two factors combined cannot make a unit impossible to hit - this is to avoid your motorbikes charging around with total immunity because they are Fast and Low Profile - as they could be a 7 to hit.
Fast units do not actually have to move or have moved to utilize the Fast ability. That is to avoid unnecessary book-keeping.
So yes, in a direct shooting situation your unit that is Fast and Low-profile is a single -d6 to hit.
However, and I have not specified this in the Special Characteristics section of the rules - as it was getting down deep into the detail of the design theory - where such a combination of Characteristics exists that would negate another, only 1 is costed in the points for the unit. So, other than causing a bit of confusion (apologies) there is no real harm in having both Low Profile and Fast on one unit. I am sure we have probably missed out a few larger vehicles that should be classified as Fast ... but somebody will no doubt draw this to my attention :D
I would also gently draw people's attention to a statement at the start of the Army Lists in BKCIV (Page 74):
"These lists are not designed to be an exhaustive reference guide, rather a framework of the forces available to you during your game".
Hope that helps ... and is not too 'defensive' :)
Quote"These lists are not designed to be an exhaustive reference guide, rather a framework of the forces available to you during your game".
I couldn't agree more. I tweaked BKCII and will do with BKCIV to suit my view of gaming WWII. It may not be right, but it works for me, which afterall is what matters most.
Mark,
Now I am confused
Quote from: Big Insect on 03 May 2019, 01:58:05 PM
Fast units do not actually have to move or have moved to utilize the Fast ability...
But if it doesn't even have to move -
it could be stationary and get the fast benefit?
If there's no threshold as to how fast the vehicle must move in order to benefit from it. Personally I think it is a
good rule that is
unworkable. Imagine a vehicle with a fast 25 cm move. Say it has been qualified that it needs to move 25 cm to benefit from being fast. But it only moved 20 cm, all the owner has to say is that it did move 25, but in a wavey-line-drive up to the spot 20 from its start point. :-
If first point is right - uhhhhhh OK. I probably wont be able to swing that one past me fellow players in a game.
If the second point is right - uhhhh, OK. But I can't see people liking that either.
The odd thing is I've always thought that bkc lacked some rule on target speed - but this seems to be unworkable.
With all this it needs to be remembered that a unit is not a single tank/vehicle - it's a formation consisting of a number of vehicles and their support, conducting various actions in a move.
It could also be argued that a particular formation might have a more dispersed doctrine than another, this might vary from country to country or even between different unit organisation in the same army. Should that be depicted? I'd argue it is going down to a granularity that applies more to a skirmish level game - in which case Bolt Action or Crossfire might be a better set of rules to play.
In fact, the Mongolian scout cavalry in the Early Russian list probably could be classified as 'dispersed' but it was equally fast moving and also relatively low profile. :)
The principle of 'Fast' as a characteristic was introduced to cover off the very issue you've raised, that a unit moving quickly is a more difficult target. I did consider giving the -1 d6 effect on Fast for area fire templates as well. As it could potentially be argued that a Fast vehicle moves more quickly through the zone of fire than a slower one. But does that expose it to more shells or aircraft cannon rounds or less than if it remained stationary or moved more slowly ... I don't know but it all seemed too much detail.
There is also a Commander series rules principle, that you try minimize 'book keeping' as much as possible. So recording if a unit had or hadn't moved to gain the Fast benefit was a step too far IMHO. There is the overall question as to whether a unit that moved in the Active players turn is considered to be moving in the following turn (the opponents active turn)?
I suppose you could use small brown stained cotton wool 'dust cloud' markers to indicate that a unit has moved - but as you say - has it moved far enough to qualify as Fast or not.
TBF - if you find the concept so difficult, by all means in your own games do just drop the Fast Special Characteristic.
Cheers
Mark
Thinking about it - 'Fast' is a bit like 'Hover' or 'Grav' capabilities for units in FWC.
Units are considered to have the benefits or disadvantages of this type of movement/characteristic even if they are stationary or even in defenses.
It's just a game mechanism
Cheers
Mark
Were doing a 1940 BEF game tomorrow.
The Vickers A13 is fast. Fast represents them generally "milling about"
A13s on a hill and get the +1 for the cover - which represents them being hull down? +1 for fast as well means they are hit on a 6.
Surely they can't benefit from both - they cant be in cover and driving around a lot. It's a tank.
I can see the benefit of the fast rule in the open - hence the British cruiser "charges". But surely only one of those modifiers can apply at a time?
Sorry to pester, but I'm going to have to "sell" this to a bunch f hairy arsed ne'er-do-wells tomorrow :(
Quote from: Dr Dave on 23 April 2019, 11:04:40 AM
Though I'm not sure how you can lie a motor cycle combination down.
Try riding one without a passenger in the wind :'(
Cheers
Ian
But on it's side a combo would be bigger than on its wheels.
What can I say Dr Dave!
If you want the 'Fast' special characteristic to only apply if a unit with it has moved (any distance at all) then that's fine by me. That's your prerogative :)
I hope the game goes well ... a game report is always well received and much appreciated.
Cheers
Mark
Ok.
Yes it's was a great game thanks. The guys were unclear on how to resolve the A13 question so we did 1st Army tank brigades effort at Arras. The Brits (me) got a tonking. I had some dire command rolls and just as the Matilda's got into range the blunders came thick and fast. Eventually the CV was permanently reduced from 8 to 6, so a bit crippling under the barrels of 3x 88s and 2x 105s.
It was tremendous fun and very very atmospheric. My Pal has everything beautifully painted up in 15 mm, and showed us his Pz regt for Poland 39 - grey and brown camo with white crosses. He has 2 in just grey with black/white crosses for 1940 as well. A proper megalomaniac. He has a house just south of the original battlefield nr Arras so is very familiar with the area.
We'll hold off on the A13 actions until we've given more thought as a group and folks have decided if they are fast or if it's a typo.
I thought the A13 was the first based on the Christie Suspension and thought it was a fast tank at 30mph and was the basis for the Coventer/Crusader. The A10 was also designated as a "cruiser" tank, but originally designed as a Close Support tank and was very slow. I did Arras as a weekend game a few years back, it was a fun game.
Andy
Yes, but it's fast in the BEF list but not in North Africa, so we assumed one of them is a typo. Fast isn't solely based on speed. Just awaiting a clarification but Mark has buried his books on British cruiser tanks in his garden. :'(
The A13 Mk.1 had speed 48kmh on road, 38kmh cross-country.
The A-13 Mk.II had speed 48kmh on road, 22kmh cross-country.
For a christie type suspension this is actually quite slow road speed, when you compare it to say BT-5 or BT-7, with only the 38kmh cross-country of the Mk.1 particularly fast.
To count as a "fast" characteristic whilst the model is halted hull down is a bit peculier, but could represent the tanks firing a few rapid shots, reversing then reappearing quickly somewhere else on the ridge. Appropriate for a Hellcat, not something I've heard of for British tank tactics.
Mark
I'm not sure bkc was granular enough in design to differentiate twixt mk1 and mk2? Besides, both types are in France surely?