Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

Started by Leon, 01 October 2015, 12:17:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

toxicpixie

That's a bit sweeping, Ian - you mean you and your group usually ignore said restrictions and follow real world TOE according to the info you have for them :D

TBH mind i'd agree - in terms of "soft factors" that involve changing crunchy bits (e.g. Using 120mm uparmoured M1's in '81 etc), I do the same.

BUT this is an opportunity to point out things that should or need to be amended, so it's valid. You could weigh it down with "if modelling a force from GSFG or its immediate reinforcements yadda yadda" but tbh I don't think that's worth it. That's the sort of details players can find out and model if they want. If not, then perhaps Stavka decided to field test the tank/aircraft/weapon system under different conditions ;)
I provide a cheap, quick painting service to get you table top quality figures ready to roll - www.facebook.com/jtppainting

Le Manchou

What about a 'Great War commander' in a few years, Pendraken has already a very large range of miniatures for it!
Si vis pacem, para bellum

toxicpixie

Pete always reckoned no, as a/ he didn't have any interest in it, and b/ felt the rules system just wouldn't work.

Might be worth a revisit with fresh eyes, mind.
I provide a cheap, quick painting service to get you table top quality figures ready to roll - www.facebook.com/jtppainting

ronan

I remember we talked about it on the BKC forum,
the main "problem" was to simulate planning for the WW1 ( ie. not that much communications ...)


Zbigniew

If I can suggest something. In BCK second edition there are notable omissions in case of some units. For example:

Italian lists don't include 150mm guns (149mm) which is mistake.

Tiger I is missing from German Early Eastern Front list, which covers period from 6/1941 to 3/1943. This omission prevents
from using Tiger I from taking part in Kharkov 1943 battle (January-March 1943). IMO Tiger I should be included in that list with a
restriction of [12/42+]?

Orcs

I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.

We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue

Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6)  To use in the Command Phase.


So I would suggest that you make the  FAC/FAO self commanding
The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

Orcs

Quote from: Red Squirrel on 12 December 2016, 08:11:37 PM
4  Have a different factor for AA guns against air and ground targets.  Just separate the factors with a "/" or something.  I get the impression that currently the number of dice are configured to shoot at aircraft.  So for example a ZSU 23/4 rolls 4.  Fair enough.  However if playing platoon sized forces for example (as we normally do) that gives a platoon of 4 ZSU 23/4's with a total of 16 rapid fire 23mms the same firepower as a standard US rifle platoon with their small arms.  I also sure that a ZSU 57/2 with 2 dice would make much more of a mess of light armour / infantry with those twin 57mm auto cannon.  I'm sure an M163 should be rolling more dice against infantry / light armour as well.


I think the issue here is about ammunition supply. the ZSU23/4 carried approx. 2000 rounds in total. Around 500 rounds a barrel. Its combined rate of fire is 850+ rounds a minute - 45 seconds of firing at best

So while it could lay down a huge amount of fire on a ground target it only had about 45 seconds of fire. Then it would have to re-supply. While CWC does not deal with resupply restricting the dice is a way of emulating the fact that the crew would not normally fire continuously, just in short bursts. 

Yes perhaps it should have 8 dice or more but if that's the case you fire once and remove it from the table or only fore every four moves



The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

toxicpixie

Quote from: Orcs on 09 February 2017, 08:26:13 PM
I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.

We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue

Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6)  To use in the Command Phase.


So I would suggest that you make the  FAC/FAO self commanding


We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...

Btw there's a guerilla doctrine somewhere which fits perfectly for partisans -  blowed iirc where, now!
I provide a cheap, quick painting service to get you table top quality figures ready to roll - www.facebook.com/jtppainting

fred.

Quote from: toxicpixie on 09 February 2017, 10:06:40 PM

We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...


Yes, we always did this. Never really thought otherwise.
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

toxicpixie

The problem there is that some one else spotted there was no rule for it, and argued Pete into accepting that FAO's etc are therefore not allowed to flank march ever at all. It was shortly. Score he sold the rules on so I suspect he gave up :D
I provide a cheap, quick painting service to get you table top quality figures ready to roll - www.facebook.com/jtppainting

Ithoriel

We had FAO's and FAC's flank march on their own CV. Don't think we ever realised that wasn't how it was supposed to work! To be fair, flank marches in our games were only slightly more common than hen's teeth.
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

toxicpixie

I provide a cheap, quick painting service to get you table top quality figures ready to roll - www.facebook.com/jtppainting

BanzaiBeagle

I realize that I am jumping into this conversation way late.... but our little gaming group has been searching for a good set of WWII rules and stumbled upon BKC I a few weeks ago and like them... we were on the hunt for a copy of BKC II when we learned that BKC III will be out shortly so we'll likely skip II...

As far as suggestions, there are many weapons systems missing from the army lists. As a fan of early war Italians, light mortars (Brixia 45mm), Solothurn 20mm AT guns, and the 65/17 regimental mountain gun are noticeably absent... so I am hoping somebody actually went down the Wikipedia post on "List of Italian Army equipment in World War II" (and German, and British, and American, etc) and at least nodded to the most widely fielded weapons. If not, I'll just add them to my copy of the rules :-) 

Also, tactical organization played a huge role in both small unit tactics and firepower. The fact that an Italian platoon only had two squads was tactically significant, as was the squad organization into an infantry fire team (10 riflemen) and a light machine gun fire team (2 Breda 30s and 8 men) with the squad leader normally commanding the LMG fire team and the assistant squad leader (a corporal) leading the rifle team. Compare this to a US infantry squad with 12 men organized into a 3 man security team (squad leader plus two "scout riflemen"), a Browning Automatic Rifle team (3 men) and a "maneuver" fire team (5 riflemen and the assistant squad leader). An American platoon with 3 squads was tactically more flexible than an Italian platoon with 2 squads.

Of course, if you stick with 1 stand = 1 platoon as is the standard in BKC I lists, all of this is subsumed into that one stand... but even then, an Italian platoon of 42 men (4 LMG, 32 riflemen, 5 pistols) was not quite equal to a US platoon of 41 men (3 rifle squads of 11 riflemen and 1 BAR, the platoon HQ of platoon leader (usually with a rifle or carbine),  platoon sergeant, platoon "guide" and two "runners" = 38 riflemen and 3 BARs). And then you throw in the Greeks with those pesky VB rifle grenades... This is of course abstracted in the combat power of a US infantry unit of 4 attacks versus Italian of only 3, but still...

As far as some of the other posts, you guys at Pendraken bought the rules, you can do whatever you want to with them, even change the name. If they are well crafted folks will buy them; if not folks will stick with BKC II or other rule sets. Not sure what your going-in  philosophy was.

I like the points in the lists – people can use them or not. I also like the "any scale" concept but as others have pointed out if you are simulating a platoon of tanks with a single model, you really shouldn't remove hit markers at the end of the turn – if 3 out of 5 tanks have been damaged/destroyed that model should carry over the reduction into subsequent turns. If you are simulating 1 model = 1 tank the issue is less of an issue.  I have been playing 1 tank = 1 model and 1 infantry stand = 1 fire team (½ of a squad or about 5 guys so if basing 5 figures to a stand that works out to 1 figure = 1 soldier). Seems to work okay.