Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

[petercooman]

[sits into the chair]

[kindly refuses the beer]

[breaks out the vodka]

While I accept that these tanks can go on fighting in a reduced capacity, in my mind that is probably the sort of stuff you don't want in a table top wargame where you are the Battalion Commander or above.  Colonels can't worry about where the Section LMG is.  I also posit these are the exception rather than the rule.

Every infantry stand in my army has a bren, true, we don't care where the LMG is.

Fair?  Just out of interest do we know that those damaged tanks continued to fight rather than the crew go 'Fook' and run?

I believe the rules SPECIFICALLY SAY 1:Platoon OR 1:1, which is my argument re 'Troll Tanks' (and, I suppose, "Zombie Infantry")

I want the rules to work - it means I'll be able to get higher level games. It's no good finding the perfect rule set if I can't get an opponent.  But at the moment I just don't enjoy them.

We don't really care about higher level, lower level. We just like the game and it works for us, So we keep playing. I really can see what you don't like about it, and i understand, but for us it just works. We rarely get to finish a game anyway, because we keep on 'yapping and bugging each other , but that's why we have the games in the first place , for fun 

It's a pity you don't enjoy them, as it is a widely used set, and that always helps with getting games in!

I agree with Luddite (Take a screen shot, folks) who is agreeing with me(!) Decide on a representation/scale and tighten the rules up around that.

Quickly, print screen and put it in the blackmail folder, might come in handy later!

This would allow two things
- a casualties/damaged rule that degrades performance once a certain amount of damage has been received
- Stats based not JUST on vehicle type, but platoon (as I believe we are heading to) nationality.  For instance, the UK used 4 Sherman troops, the US 5 Sherman platoons, so the US platoons have more firepower (more guns), and more resilience (more tanks), though the same defence (same vehicle).  You can also do mixed (gun) platoons by adjusting firepower, but to resilience or defence.

I don't know if this is a step too far, too much of a change.

The first one, i like, and i use a houserule in my sologames to show this. Once a stand has received damage, it can never get back to starting strength, always 1 lower. It doesn't decrease performance, but it makes it easier to kill next time.
The second one, Completely agree !


That was actually quite easy, bet it's the booze who fixed it

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

LH - well argued but -

Platoon size appears to be almost irrelevant. Sounds odd I know, but the US 5 tank platoon was designed to fight in two 2 tank sections, with a "Manager"
British 3 tank troop was lead by it's very junior officer
4 tank troops were introduced to allow for the fireflies, which operated to the rear of the troop. Later when there were 2 Fireflies per troop the operated in two sections, may be 2 Firefly and 2 75's
It appears that the Guards never used 4 tank troops, using 2 and 1 in 44 and 1 and 2 in 45 (roughly).

Point is - losses of vehicles doesn't reduce firepower, since you can never get 5 tanks on, it's hard enough to get 2 engaging the same target. I have written rules (in another system) to allow for strength of platoons - just added un-needed complications. You also have the oddity of Soviet heavies - a KV or IS company has 5 vehicles, so do we use I base or 2 ? In this case I'd use 1, but you could argue 2. On the other extreme a Stuart trop in the 44 Rgt has 11 vehicles - this I suspect would be 3-4 bases of Recce.

The point is that you use the term platoon to reflect tactical usage, strength can vary. Generally I separate out specialist vehicles like Fireflies and ry this one for size, by May 45 in Italy British armour had 3 tank troops with 1 75mm, 1 76mm and 1 Firefly. It's no just a nightmare for the Logistics train.......

IanS

[Ithoriel]

For me the beauty of Warmaster and it's offspring is that they start at the top and work down.

Starting with groundscale and TOE's feels way too much like the bottom up approach of the rules of my youth which regularly got the detail right but the outcomes wrong.

[fsn]

Every infantry stand in my army has a bren.

Which is a bit of a cheat when you're playing ancients.

[sane max]

It is in fact The Troll Rule. It refers to the fact that many BKC players are old grown ups like me who remember AD&D in our youth, when the troll regenerated hit points every turn.

Hey, some of us young grown-ups still play AD&D. And BKC units are better than trolls - they even regenerate Fire Damage.

Obsessing over that rule when there is a perfectly good optional alternative already in the rule-book still seems like picking faults for the sake of it to me.

[Last Hussar]

Ian - The 5 tank may have broken down from the platoon commander or company commander's point of view, but it was, from Battalion level, fighting as a platoon.  Its like a British infantry platoon on the assault.  Often the Brens would be grouped under the Sgt to 'shoot the platoon in', while the Lieutenant would lead the rifles in, but we don't model that, we just, as O/C, say "that platoon will close assault that platoon".  Of course, if it was the case that 5 US Shermans had the same results as 4 UK ones then the distinction doesn't have to be made.

When we do H&M the normal unit size is the Battalion or Regiment, even though it is made up of companies and platoons, because of the linear nature, we don't worry about those, and you manoeuvre the battalions - Until you play F&F, where those 8 stands represent an entire Brigade, and you don't worry about the location of the 4 constituent regiments, even though in BP, RF&F or TCHAE you are moving them separately

Ithoriel - agreed: Wargames should be top down - FOR THE PLAYERS.  This is the purpose of a games designer.  He should understand what he is modelling, and, in my view, "Black Box" it. ie once he is clear what result he wants design the simplest but plausible method to represent that.

This seems to be a AT combat blind spot: We will happily roll d10 to represent 100's of muskets firing, but when it comes to a Sherman we want to know each stage of the shot- a too hit number, penetration, effect.  the extreme is Yaquinto's Panzer, an Eastern Front Tank to tank game, where every shot is plotted- as its simultaneous movement- then the To Hit number is calculated using the data card which defines each gun on a 20 (TWENTY) range band table (2 hexes per band).  This is cross referenced with the base chance, which starts at 20 and is what the mods are applied to.  Cross ref the Hit number with the Base chance on a table, to get the % chance to hit.

If you hit, Roll hit location, which will depend on if the shot is rising, falling or flat, as well as angle of attack.  Once you've found the location- on a % table (where Turret Front and Mantle are 2 separate locations) you find the armour thickness.  Oh this depends on the angle of shot - 0', 30, 45' or 60. (90 is 0' from the side if you think about it) and compare it with the penetration value for that range band.  If the penetration is higher you roll for damage - KO, compartment hit (lose tracks or turret basically) or no effect.

I prefer it if when you do the calculations you find tank type A kills Type B 40% of the time, design a system in which the dice roll(s) kill if you roll the equivalent of 40%. BUT THE DESIGNER NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

Peter - can you tell Sunjester that? (One word - Irishkernsinthewarsoftheroses. Yes I'm still bitter.)

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Ian - The 5 tank may have broken down from the platoon commander or company commander's point of view, but it was, from Battalion level, fighting as a platoon.  Its like a British infantry platoon on the assault.  Often the Brens would be grouped under the Sgt to 'shoot the platoon in', while the Lieutenant would lead the rifles in, but we don't model that, we just, as O/C, say "that platoon will close assault that platoon".  Of course, if it was the case that 5 US Shermans had the same results as 4 UK ones then the distinction doesn't have to be made.

Point I was try to make is that the platoon strengths are irrelevant - a troop of 3-5 vehicles would be given the same job. The tactical usage would be the same. In a platoon level game you manoeuvre by Btn/Rgt. Platoon size is NOT an issue. Neither is mixed weaponry, detach it out. Remember by July 44 most US medium tank Btn had a proportion of 76's, which gradually increased. It was roughly 1/3rd, so a Btn would have 3 of those and 6 of the standard Shermans.  I suspect the best way to differentiate between unit sizes give it an extra hit, BUT NOT EXTRA SHOOTING DICE. I refer you to the article in S&T "Combined Arms" by DAve Isbby about platoon sizes.

IanS

[Last Hussar]

Fairy Nuff

[Ithoriel]

Ithoriel - agreed: Wargames should be top down - FOR THE PLAYERS.  This is the purpose of a games designer.  He should understand what he is modelling, and, in my view, "Black Box" it. ie once he is clear what result he wants design the simplest but plausible method to represent that.

I think it needs to be top down for the designer too. Start with the end result and work down to the highest level that models that.

It doesn't matter if an infantry platoon is 24 men or 36 because if even half-a-dozen are actively firing at the enemy you are doing well. similarly, if a tank troop is 3 or 5 strong the chances of more than one having a chance at an effective shot is pretty small.

I have tinkered with charts cross referencing chance to hit with saving throw in BKC to reduce it to one roll. I was voted down by the other 3 I was playing against at the time and we kept to hit and saving die rolls.

[paulr]

I have tinkered with charts cross referencing chance to hit with saving throw in BKC to reduce it to one roll. I was voted down by the other 3 I was playing against at the time and we kept to hit and saving die rolls.

I suspect this is about keeping both players involved in the game and having a hand in the fate of your troops

[bigjackmac]

I'd imagine to get the fire/save down to one roll you'd have to use D10 or D12s, wouldn't you?

I've got another suggestion, though admittedly it's kind of silly and just a personal preference: I hate wanting to roll little numbers.  I mean, more is better right?  And rolling boxcars beats the hell out of rolling snakeyes.  So we actually reversed the roll process.  That is, our CO/HQs have a CV that we try to beat, and it goes up each roll, not down.  Of course double 6s is two moves, and double 1s is a blunder.

Just me.

V/R,
Jack

[toxicpixie]

Keeps it consistent with the to hit mechanisms, I guess

The buckets of dice approach does have a major advantage - it reduces single, swingy dice rolls unduly effecting the game at crucial points. Rolling one six is no more likely than rolling a one; rolling consistently above or below average is harder work thus meaning you get a more normalised result curve over even a single set of firing, let alone a turn or game.

I think I'm done until the CWC rewrite tbh - BKC II (IMO) doesn't actually require much just a rebrand and tidy up.

1/ explicit rules for flank marching FAO/FAC - after a discussion on this on the old forum Pete came down on "I didn't explicitly write this into the rules so yeah, sorry, there's no mechanism for it so you can't". I suspect that was shortly before the rules went elsewhere We just allow a FAC/FAO to accompany a HQ which is flank marching. Easy, reflects reality, simple.

2/ Infantry anti-tank - I'd like to see the upgrades as "free" or at least much cheaper. Currently they end up making a late war infantry stand very expensive but are not much use (if you don't play points, that's not an issue I know).

3/ Tidy up the wording and effects on "dug in" (which is buried a bit)/trenches/pill boxes. ATM trenches are awesome (and very much needed for a defender) but heavier defences are very lack lustre and "dug in" just disappears from sight (ho-ho) and memory.

4/ An OPTIONAL side bar bit re:hit staying on. I see three options but favour the last two two here. Infantry recovering hits is driven by experience of them being very fragile even with six hits, it's easy to rack that up with no save and they just become arty and tank practise targets by mid war -
        4a/ All hits stay on everyone. It's simple, but doesn't offer an advantage to infantry and keeps the "monsters" with big hits & saves in the same relative position.
        4b/ AFVs keep hits on, Infantry & support weapons don't. Makes tanks have some of LH's desire for detailed damage tracking. You don't need the specifics, but it does give you an idea that Troop X is not going to keep in the fight much longer, or that that Tiger platoon is badly hammered and needs one more push...
        4c/ AFV stands never lose the last hit suffered in a turn, thus slowly accumulating hits to represent the damage you can't fix wiby cracking track/with a lump hammer/getting the combat shocked crew back in the armoured death box and pointing the right way.

Other than that, I'm done. Peace, out yo. 

[pbeccas]

Hi all, Beccas here.  Long time BKCII fanboy signing in.  BKCII is in my top two favourite and most played miniatures games ever.

I just want to say, please don't mess with the Command and Control system.  Please don't give formations one free movement.  Please don't get rid of blunders.  I love the randomness of play.  Please don't ruin this game I love.

The little parts I would like to see cleaned up are:
1, Recce.  Currently an optional rule that is a wee bit confusing.  Every time we play we have to refresh our memories re-reading the rules on page 10.
2, Army list unit limits. Get rid of them.  I understand they are there to stop FOW players bringing 100 Tigers to North Africa but let players sort that out with their mates.  No-ones playing tournaments with this rule set that I know of.
3, Army lists.  Lets make them better.  There are some super smart people on the forum.  Most would be willing to help out.  I get sad when my Aussies invading Borneo cant take Maltida II's and Matilda Frogs in 1945.
4, Hits staying on units.  Yeah, I am open to try that.  I have never killed a King Tiger in this game.

Finally with all this talk of CWC and FWC.  Bring on "Great War Commander"  That's what I am talking about. That's what I need.  Pendraken have the minis ready to rock and roll.  Give it to me.

Cheers
Paul 






   

[fsn]

If I haven't said it before, welcome Mr Beccas.

All this BKC and COC and BLT sounds very complicated and detailed, but I'm sure it makes sense to those who indulge.

I'm sure you'll find a number of equally ... ... enthused people here.

[Ithoriel]

All this BKC and COC and BLT sounds very complicated and detailed, but I'm sure it makes sense to those who indulge.

Firstly, hello and welcome to the madhouse ... forum from me too!

As to the quote .... this from a man who's forum handle is a "fsn"?

I'm pleased to see the passion in the debate about the *KC rules but also pleased with the politeness with which it is being delivered.

[Kiwidave]

I agree that the recce needs an overhaul.

My 2p: have the recce assigned/attached to HQs or COs prior to the game (and exclude FAOs/FACs from receiving recce benefits), and the recce can only report to the command element they are assigned to, rather then "the closest" as this always seems a but daft to me.
I'm in favour of the FWC approach to moving them about as well, as I find that unless recce units start a game quite a way ahead of the main force, they end up milling about next to (or even behind!) the forces they are supposed to be recce'ing for.

Command: a limit on the number of successful command rolls might be OK, but this has rarely come up in games that I have played.

[sane max]

I just want to say, please don't mess with the Command and Control system.  Please don't give formations one free movement.  Please don't get rid of blunders.  I love the randomness of play.  Please don't ruin this game I love.

The little parts I would like to see cleaned up are:
1, Recce.  Currently an optional rule that is a wee bit confusing.  Every time we play we have to refresh our memories re-reading the rules on page 10.
2, Army list unit limits. Get rid of them.  I understand they are there to stop FOW players bringing 100 Tigers to North Africa but let players sort that out with their mates.  No-ones playing tournaments with this rule set that I know of.
3, Army lists.  Lets make them better.  There are some super smart people on the forum.  Most would be willing to help out.  I get sad when my Aussies invading Borneo cant take Maltida II's and Matilda Frogs in 1945.
4, Hits staying on units.  Yeah, I am open to try that.  I have never killed a King Tiger in this game.
Cheers
Paul

1- we seem to have the same problem with a lot of the rules - there is a game of BKC at our club almost every week, and almost every week someone is going 'what happens when?' to the room in general. I think the rules themselves are just fine, but they need a better lay-out and clearer wording.

2 - oh my no! We play what are in effect tournament games a lot - by that I mean we choose a period and turn up the following week with forces to play it. I have a few army lists for each army and period I have and just drag one out, but some people spend time after each game tinkering with thier forces to make them 'better' . let people have the option.

3 -  yes, there are things missing I agree.

4 - I was blessed to be at the table when a pair of Stuarts hit, supressed and then hit and drove back a Jagdtiger with succesive rolls knocking it out - an event which led to howls of horror and outrage from the treadheads. and anything that makes a Tread-Head howl is fine by me!

[Ithoriel]

4 - I was blessed to be at the table when a pair of Stuarts hit, supressed and then hit and drove back a Jagdtiger with succesive rolls knocking it out - an event which led to howls of horror and outrage from the treadheads. and anything that makes a Tread-Head howl is fine by me!

Depends what the tread-heads see as having happened, I think. Are the Jagdtigers piles of burning wreckage? Very, very unlikely. Or, on the other hand, did a pair of Jagdtigers (probably what a stand represents at one stand to a platoon level) come under sustained fire from 8 to 10 Stuarts and decide that, with an optic or two damaged by lucky hits and a couple of crew injured by spalling, that discretion was the better part of valour and proceeded to "advance on Berlin" - they're out of action for the duration of the game either way.

I'm as guilty as any of assuming stands removed equals landscape littered with bodies or with shattered vehicles but "It Ain't Necessarily So"

[sane max]

oh I agree of course (although I think the only way a Stuart could inflict spalling on a Jagtiger would be if it fell on one from the top of a cliff)

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Jade panther, side armour is fair game, jadgtigger is time to tactically redeploy and call in heavy artillery or air power!