In a recent large multi-player game we had a situation were a number of HQs were destroyed, by being caught by concentrated enemy artillery fire.
These HQs were subsequently replaced by coming back on to the table, at their base deployment line, at -1 to their original CV.
However ... the rules state that a Command unit (our HQs) cannot be replaced more than once in a game. Due to the vulnerability of the HQs and the relative invulnerability of their formations units (which were AFV/MBTs) the HQs were destroyed again in a subsequent turn, leaving the formations without commanders; and as we were playing Fixed Formations with a major issue.
Both formations had come on as a Flank Deployment, so were well over 150cm from their army CO, making it all but impossible for the CO to order them.
Equally, there were no enemy units within Initiative range, so the only actions open to both tank formations was to use Opportunity Fire in response to enemy actions.
As the enemy formations facing the 2 (stranded) tank formations was significantly smaller and significantly out-gunned by the tanks, the enemy player in command chose not to take any actions, other than continuing to rain down artillery on the tanks, to attempt to suppress as many as possible each turn, as he withdrew his units. All of which resulted in a rather unsatisfactory situation for all concerned.
So my question is whether we look to remove the restriction on replacing Commanders more than once? I can see no real disadvantage to doing so. It would IMHO greatly improve game-play and also avoid the unrealistic situation of units stranded without commanders.
I'd propose if we do allow this, that each time the HQ is replaced the -1 to the CV is applied on a cumulative basis - reflecting the impact of the erosion of the formations chain of command. This might ultimately end up with a similar result as the replacement HQs CV get lower and lower, but at least there is a chance that the unit might be commanded.
I'd value your thoughts please.
mark
Mark
Quote from: Big Insect on 16 November 2019, 07:04:01 PM
I'd propose if we do allow this, that each time the HQ is replaced the -1 to the CV is applied on a cumulative basis - reflecting the impact of the erosion of the formations chain of command. This might ultimately end up with a similar result as the replacement HQs CV get lower and lower, but at least there is a chance that the unit might be commanded.
Sounds good to me
I see no reason not to do so. However I like to roll to see if the CV goes up or down, as it can be fun to suddenly have a better HQ (within the army limits) than the one you lost :D.
We've had a few of goes using die with "+", "-" and blank sides in such situations.
We haven't allowed CVs to exceed the list value.
Perhaps we should. A heavily shelled Russian heavy tank unit with a CV10 junior lieutenant in charge could be interesting :D
Quote from: Big Insect on 16 November 2019, 07:04:01 PM
. . . avoid the unrealistic situation of units stranded without commanders.
Is that really an unrealistic situation?
Quote from: Raider4 on 16 November 2019, 10:19:40 PM
Is that really an unrealistic situation?
That was also my though, but then I haven't played the rules so am not sure how crippling the lack of commanders would be :-\
Perhaps the moral is to not get your commanders spotted and so stonked ;)
As noted above, a unit with no commander is pretty much reduced to opportunity fire - assuming the enemy are obliging enough to offer the opportunity!
Ideally, in BKC, commanders need to be close to their units, so hiding them isn't always an option and they aren't necessarily the intended target in any case.
On the + / - cv point. The new cv CANNOT be higher than the CO. So you'd never get a Russian cv10 Lt :(
I'd allow a new officer to be created, but at the second chance I'd not allow him to be better than the one being replaced.
Quote from: Raider4 on 16 November 2019, 10:19:40 PM
Is that really an unrealistic situation?
I would agree that it might not be an unrealistic situation.
I'm not actually sure what would happen in 'real life' - does anybody know of any historical situations?
I had assumed that command would default down the chain. With a tank unit you might end up with the separate squadron commanders taking the initiative I suppose.
But as stated above - without a CO to take on the command roll (or a spare HQ attached as a 2iC - which is something I do in my CWC Soviet formations - who can speed across the battle-field to pick up the reins of command, the formation) without an HQ the units are pretty much useless.
I like the idea of dicing for the quality of the new commander but would agree that they shouldn/t end up with a higher CV than the maximum in the army list.
That might be one to go in the optional rules section.
Interesting
Thanks
Mark
Quote from: Dr Dave on 17 November 2019, 07:46:50 AM
On the + / - cv point. The new cv CANNOT be higher than the CO. So you'd never get a Russian cv10 Lt :(
I'd allow a new officer to be created, but at the second chance I'd not allow him to be better than the one being replaced.
I wouldn't have a problem with a higher CV, an inspired moment for a junior officer winning his nations top awards under fire...
Until Uncle Joe carts him away to Siberia's icy plains for being dangerously free thinking :'(
Cheers
Ian
Also worth remembering that this current rule applies to COs, FAOs and FACs as well (but not Recce or Sniper Teams).
I think allowing more reincarnations would most certainly work.
Having the upgrade & downgrade dice option as an Optional Rule would also be a good option but with a limitation that the upgraded CV cannot be greater than that of the CO makes a lot of sense.
Generally HQs are cheap (in low CV armies) so having as many as you can lay your hands on might also help (in a none-foxed formation game).
Coming late to this, but the issue of the communications kit is as important as the gifted individual. If a HQ is destroyed it probably loses much of its equipment so the new commander's ability to command is highly likely to be less due to his inferior communications, however charismatic he is. Not much scope for heroic leadership then.
Agreed - Command units are a network, rather than an individual - so a destroyed network is big loss, but as 'units'/bases they can relatively easily be destroyed if caught in artillery or air templates.
However, the loss of a Command unit (if it cannot be replaced) is catastrophic from a game-play perspective - especially if using fixed formations.
It means that a large % of the army cannot be commanded at all - so has to fight on using Initiative only. Which makes continuing playing the game pretty pointless in most instances.
Game-play is a balance between portraying reality and creating a game that is fun for all players. It's not an easy choice.
I have not played the BKC4 rules, but in BKC2 it is unusual for an HQ to get destroyed. I assume they are still 6 to hit with a 6 to save.
I would say the base deployment line for a flanking force is the flank they came on. so should have been on that edge.
Secondly as you cannot directly target an HQ you must have had them very close to the fighting units or had some spectacular deviation. That is the risk you take putting commanders to near the action. They either end up dead or take too much local interest in the action rather than commanding.
I believe their were similar comments when Colonel H Jones was killed leading the attack at Goose Green. While his actions were no doubt heroic it was questioned as to what a battalion commander was doing leading a what was a section/platoon assault.
I'd agree, but HQs are often close to the fighting front in BKCIV (or BKC II) as their command radius is limited.
In the case of Flank Attacks they are especially vulnerable, as they move onto the table ahead of their units, which can only come on-table within a certain radius of their position, which means that if the units only make one move on-table (and that move might be shortened by enemy fire and suppression) you can end up with a concentration of units around the HQ. Which mean the HQ can very often get caught in either a Bombardment or Airstrike template.
I the game in question, the flanking armoured formation - that consisted of 2 HQs and 2 lots of MBTs - got repeatedly hit by MRLs (so a large template and a lot of attack dice) and also repeated air strikes, from a very close to target FAC. So whilst there was little deviation the HQs inevitably got caught under the templates. With both HQs dead, that left c.24 MBTs and supports (or what was left of them after the air and artillery strikes) paralysed on the table edge, to be 'picked-off' by more artillery and airstrikes. The enemy armour within range did nothing so as not to attract opportunity fire ... it was a ludicrous situation.
The CO was too far away (across the other side of the table to rake command).
Now it could be argued that this is an exceptional situation - but with Flank Attacks we are increasingly finding this not to be the case.
As in BKCII, in BKCIV Commanders are a 6 to hit but a 6 to save - but if you are throwing 18-24 dice at a unit under a template and that is happening on multiple occasions you still end up with a lot of hits. and a lot of knocked-out units (including commanders).
Or 66 dice in CWC game Mark.
Yes indeed Ian - instant destruction - it's easier just to take everything under the template off in those circumstances - any unit left would just run screaming from the table anyway! ;)
Many times there is a main HQ which does not need to be forward, because it has good communications and a Tactical HQ which is very small but in which the commander can observe the battle. When the commander goes forward to see for himself/inspire by his presence he doesn't take the main HQ with him. He just needs to be able to communicate with it from his tactical HQ. So Tactical HQ is forward and not very vulnerable and main HQ is a good way behind, but with the staff officers able to evaluate the reports from all the places where the commander isn't present. If the commander is caught up in the immediate battle it shouldn't affect the ability of the main HQ under the Chief of Staff to command the rest of the force.
So there may be a need to distinguish between the various elements of the HQ?
An interesting idea - although I fear it will add an additional layer of complexity. It is making the game a lot more granular/skirmish in outlook.
I could also be argued that buying more lower CV HQs (where possible) might have the same effect.
However, the replacement of a knocked-out HQ by a lower CV HQ each time, replicates the slow degradation of the wider command structure.
Eventually, as was the case in high attrition battles historically, there is nobody left in the structure to issue orders. But I'd argue that that does not happen immediately with the destruction of a single command unit. So as each knocked-out HQ is replaced it gets harder and harder to roll the dice to meet the new lower CV.
Mark
The only man I can think of who felt the need to take his entire HQ with him into battle was Browning in Market Garden. He moved it from a spot, in England, where he had good established communications to a soggy field in the middle of nowhere, from where he commanded nothing, without any assistance from the enemy.
I doubt a set of rules could be devised to cater for that eventuality.
The issue here is the ludicrous command ranges. A 150cm command radius is 3000m, which means your CO with all his powerful 15-25km range radios can't contact forces which, in the example given, are within napoleonic horse back runner range.
You don't need to alter the rules on replacement commanders, just adjust command radii. For CWC it should be -1 CV per 200cm, not per 20cm, given modern communications systems.
For WW2 I would drop it to something like -1 CV per 40cm or something like that, it you were going to use it all. Apart from reliability, which along with training is already factored into the original CV value, the main factors affecting radio range were weather and intervening hills, and enemy jamming.
I don't use the -1 per 20cm in my version of the command rolls, as it's a legacy from using an ancients rules set. It's bad enough rolling CV7 or 8 anyway, then with subsequent actions at -1 is sufficient I find to create the expected level of command chaos. If anything, the only modifiers for command rolls should be:
-1 per 100cm distance between HQ and commanded unit(s)
-1 intervening high hills
-1 or -2 for bad weather depending on scenario
-1 per subsequent action
& that would be it.
ECM rules would be a separate thing.
Keep in mind that tank platoons often took up 800m frontage (40cm) in open terrain, based on tanks 200m apart, this is so that if stonked by artillery only one tank would ever get hit - so our tank models are often too small a footprint for the groundscale when using 1 model = 1 platoon, and that in practical terms once you get to a command role of 6 or less it is pretty much out of command - if you deployed a tank company in open terrain historically, it would cover ~1500m frontage (75cm) you'd get the silly situation where the tank at one end is out of radio range of the CHQ, even though they have radios with 4km range on a bad day.
The reality is, with radio comms, it wouldn't matter if your units under command are 400m, 800m, 1200m or 1500m away, within those distances the chance of communicating are pretty much the same. The CV value already factors in the other variables such as reliability, training, curious terrain and weather effects.
Or, put it another, simpler rules writing way, the CV shouldn't be dropped for distance if the HQ has LoS to the unit(s) being commanded, up to say 100cm. If there is no LoS due to intervening high terrain then a -1 per 50cm or 100cm or 40cm or similar could apply, or just a blanket -1 regardless of distance.
Mark
I've always assumed the -1 per 20cms was to reflect the difficulty a commander has giving sensible orders to a unit as the visual and audio clues to their situation are diminished by distance. It's not whether a message gets through but if the message makes sense when it arrives.
"Charge for the guns!" he said. :)
There again, the closest I've come to seeing action is playing "Japs & Commandos" as a kid, so what do I know?
"Charge for the guns!" he said.
That's covered by the blunder rules, as well as the existing CV value, I would suggest.
Mark
The issue of command radius have come up before now.
The problem is really that we are playing a game (obviously) and that if we increase command radius to c.200cm, in most typical evening, 200cm covers pretty much more than the whole table width of a 6 x 4 games table. So you are actually better off just saying there is no Out of Command Radius penalty factors and that changes the game mechanism significantly.
In reality, in the game, Command is not just about distance, it's about the state of the comms equipment, how engaged/distracted the units are who are receiving the order, also the amount of interference or blocking going on or how distracted the command unit/formation/network is that is issuing the order.
The 20cm command radius is an attempt to simulate all these factors in a simple easy to understand mechanism.
Could it be larger? Yes of course. Maybe that is an answer to some challenges - but it still doesn't really resolve the replacement of commander issue, as commanders can be knocked out by being caught in area fire, whilst a long way away from the troops they command.
Taking your point below - if tank platoons often took up 800m frontage (40cm) in open terrain - then by placing your HQ in the middle, the 20cm radius covers all the platoons.
Obviously the CWC/BKCIV ground to tank scale is complicated but in essence it works.
As an aside we use the same command radius' across FWC as well ... keeping it consistent as a games mechanism is important (where possible)
But food for thought
Mark
Much food for thought.
SultanBev seems to be closest to a workable solution.
Is it an option to have the Commander in his tank with his number 2 tank as one dedicated model, and the far more static HQ as a second stand much further back, with a separate, and not necessarily identical, command range for each?
Commander's range would typically be less than the main HQ, since the tanks have less good aerials. After all, when H Jones went down the battle didn't stop, because the 2i/c had access to the battalion main HQ, albeit at reduced strength.
The trouble with the current rule is that it makes no sense and casts doubt on the rest of the rules, which is a huge pity as they otherwise seem to be in the sweet spot between reality and playability.
Off the OP, but I do like the discussion of increasing the command radi...I'll have to consider this for future games. I'm getting ready to play a Command Decision Market Garden Scenario and the British don't have an overall commander, so I'm thinking of playing it without the CO.
Back to OP - I'm not sure I knew the restriction of the limited resurrections. In a recent game, I think I brought some back multiple times. Whoops. But their CV kept reducing. I guess, it would help, after all these games to read the rules again..
BKC, like all the other Warmaster style rule sets, works top down. So what "actually happened" matters less than "the effect of what actually happened."
As I've said before, these games tend to get the right results for the wrong reasons .... but that's way better than the reverse IMNSHO!
That said, the BKC Thought Police aren't going to kick in your front door and drag you off in the middle of the night if you aren't playing the same way as everyone else. :)
So, if you think you've invented a better BKC mousetrap, try it out in a few games and come back and report, if you think it works. Those who like it can use it, the rest can ignore it.
*Other opinions are available :)
I've found not using a command radius at all speeds up command rolls greatly.
In my version of the command rules we do it a bit differently. For a start CHQs and Bttn HQs are combat units, and have their own CV value same as the rest of the troops. But they get a freebie action first. However if you lose your HQ it's not only an instant morale test but also a permanent morale loss for the troops under its command. In BKC you could reflect this by altering the break point, or permanently reducing unit CVs by -1.
However, we dice to see if a unit acts on its orders, rather than dicing to see if a HQ giving orders. Subtle difference. Also, we alternate between sides. So side A activates one unit, up to as many times as he can/wants; then play switches to the other side and they pick one unit to activate. Then reverts back again until all units on both sides have been diced for, or there are two subsequent first-order fails/passes in a row, then the turn ends. We also allow firing and moving in one activation.
So it's quite different. And we don't have to mess about with CV modifiers, other than the -1 per subsequent attempt.
Mark
Quote from: sultanbev on 02 July 2020, 04:14:25 PM
However, we dice to see if a unit acts on its orders, rather than dicing to see if a HQ giving orders. Subtle difference. Also, we alternate between sides. So side A activates one unit, up to as many times as he can/wants; then play switches to the other side and they pick one unit to activate. Then reverts back again until all units on both sides have been diced for, or there are two subsequent first-order fails/passes in a row, then the turn ends. We also allow firing and moving in one activation.
So it's quite different. And we don't have to mess about with CV modifiers, other than the -1 per subsequent attempt.
Oooh, that's an interesting take on it. Something to think about.