Replacing Commanders ?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Or 66 dice in CWC game Mark.

[Big Insect]

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! 

[holdfast]

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?

[Big Insect]

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

[holdfast]

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.

[sultanbev]

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

[Ithoriel]

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?

[sultanbev]

"Charge for the guns!" he said.

That's covered by the blunder rules, as well as the existing CV value, I would suggest.

Mark

[Big Insect]

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

[holdfast]

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.

[Itinerant Hobbyist]

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..

[Ithoriel]

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

[sultanbev]

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

[Raider4]

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.