Question about doctrines and unit cost.

[Zookie]

In the rule book it says that the game uses a "Random Points Modifier" to adjust point available to a battle group based on tactical doctrine. I see how the random points modifier is used, butt I cannot find anywhere in the rules that state how battle group points are adjusted based on doctrine.

Can someone tell me what page that is on or provide a brief summary. I want to build my own army list but I cannot find were doctrine and point costs are addressed or how the cost of air superiority is addressed when building your own battle group.

Thanks!

[Big Insect]

Ah well - if you were able to get onto the old Commander website still - I am sure Ian still has the link - there was an army list calculator calculator that you could download.
In that very same army list calculator there was an option to agree to all sorts of random points cost variables - at the click of a single button.
Lord knows how it work and lord knows why anybody would have wanted to use it - as it was a real menace. But it was there.

As to your other questions on points value - again these are some of the great mysteries of FWC. As it is to a certain extent in BKC & CWC as well. There is a major IT coding project that has been commissioned by Leon to "sort out" points costs once and for all. This will provide us with basic points costs and digital army list calculators.

Some things (like Air Superiority) currently just don't have costs - they are just what they are.
It is one of the reasons why we need to remodel the FWC points costs, when we get to FWCII.
In the mean time, I'd not worry about the cost of Air Superiority (for example). The costs for the different Tac.Docs are in the rules though.
There is also a cost variable around the Advanced Tech weaponry - which meant it was cheaper for the more advanced tech armies and hideously expensive for low tech ones. But again you need the downloadable FWC unit calculator to do that.

All these points issues are a legacy of Pendraken buying the rules from their original author, who knew a lot of these variables inside-out - in his head - but that knowledge was not transferred across with the sale. But the rules are playable and if we can get hold of the old calculator (I'll see if we can get a copy loaded onto this site somehow) you can produce new FWC lists easily. I did a number - such as the Prador list as well as the Cyber Undead (Necron) list in the past.

Not much help, I know, but it might easy the frustration ... you are not alone (none of us are) 

[Orcs]

You can still get onto the website, Just managed to download the Unit cost zip file

[Leon]

The FWC cost calculator is on the old Downloads page here: http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com/Content/Downloads/default.aspx

The new builder is currently using the BKC-IV points values so we'll need to adjust those to fit any new points system we come up with.

[Battleback]

The FWC cost calculator is on the old Downloads page here: http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com/Content/Downloads/default.aspx

The new builder is currently using the BKC-IV points values so we'll need to adjust those to fit any new points system we come up with.

Leon do you have a ETA for the new BKC4 army builder or did I miss the release?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Leon]

Leon do you have a ETA for the new BKC4 army builder or did I miss the release?

No ETA at the moment I'm afraid, I'll be checking in again after we get moved to get an update.  Hopefully we'll have something ready in the next couple of months.

[Battleback]

No ETA at the moment I'm afraid, I'll be checking in again after we get moved to get an update.  Hopefully we'll have something ready in the next couple of months.

Sounds good, thanks for the information!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Zookie]

Thank you for the responses.  The FWC calculator is still up and working but does not address doctrine values. I am still pretty new to the Commander Series and am just starting with FWC. I think I might have possibility cracked the code of doctrine costs but if someone more experienced in the game could weight in and let me know if this sounds right or if it would at least make for a suitable house rule.

The rulebook states that the "Random Points Modifier" adjusts the points of the battlegroup based on tactical doctrine. The Random Points Modifier has six scores, so each scores may correlate to each doctrine. 

Since "Normal" has the least going for it it would seem like it would have the greatest bonus. So if I list them out it order printed I get this:

Normal: 25% point bonus
Flexible: 10% point bonus
Rigid: No bonus 
Mob: No bonus 
Swarm: 10% point penalty
Cyborg: 25% point penalty

Does this look about right when playing FWC when sorting out the overall advantages and disadvantages of each doctrine?

It seemed counter intuitive to me that normal would have more points to play with then rigid, mob or swarm. But as I read the manual it seems like the writer was not overly concerned about making a system that was above abuse and assumed that each player would would put a premium on a sensible narrative and sportsmanship. For example why air superiority is not given a value (honestly I am not sure how that could be fair because the value of superiority would depend so greatly on the army build and the opponent's army that it would be useless to assign any across the board value.

So I imagine that a rigid, mob or swarm army would outnumber a normal army but that would be based on their units being cheaper, not that their doctrine would allow for more points.

Anyway I can see that a simple sentence or two may have been omitted from then rule book that correlates the Random Points Modifier to the doctrine list. Does this seem sensible or is it not suitable for a house rule?

[Big Insect]

Perfectly sensible for now

It is also a matter of combinations - if you give your Hunterscavenger armies - with rigid or mob tac.doc a lot of high-tech weaponry they will be very expensive (so you get fewer of them).

[toxicpixie]

Yeah, the not-Orc "not-Gargants" really suffered from that.

[flamingpig0]

Perfectly sensible for now

It is also a matter of combinations - if you give your Hunterscavenger armies - with rigid or mob tac.doc a lot of high-tech weaponry they will be very expensive (so you get fewer of them).

Kravak!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Kravak!

Stop swearing.

I suspect that the system I devised for our CWC games would be clumbersome for BKC IV. It's in Excell and has pages for various NATO and WarPact armies futher split down to Division type, all for roughly 1986. There are also pages for Finns and Sweeds due to some of the scenarios we have done over the years. It has points limits built iin, and most possible combinations, so a Soviet Tank Division has Tank companies for T55 and its upgrades, T62, T64 T72 and T80, also with upgrades, as well as BTR50, BMP1 and 2.

Thats complex enough, but with BKC covering form SCW to hopefully Korea (HINT Mark, Leon) with principle tanks changing roughly every 6 months it's going to take months to input the data. Size may well also be prohibitive for running on older lapotops and any tablet, with little or no chance on a phone.

The FWC calculator which is still there is no right, every thing costs too much when I use it.

[Big Insect]

Kravak!

Yes - but Kravak are really 'Predators' so should in theory be a High Tech Advanced doctrine army - with Stealth and adaptive camo. (IMHO)

[flamingpig0]

Yes - but Kravak are really 'Predators' so should in theory be a High Tech Advanced doctrine army - with Stealth and adaptive camo. (IMHO)

My take would be hight tech//stealth/adaptive camo but hunter scavengers so they get stuck into the hunt.

[Big Insect]

My take would be high tech//stealth/adaptive camo but hunter scavengers so they get stuck into the hunt.

The challenge is that Mob doctrine requires that they attack/assault if within initiative range - not really very 'Predator' like.
They are ruthless and savage (gratuitously violent) but not 'impetuous' - it is a possibility for an additional Special Characteristic - or a modification to the blood-thirsty characteristic maybe?