Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

[Nosher]

So for BKC:

Just personal preference but I would prefer some more structured historical orbats and command structure. I appreciate this is driven some what by the max/mins but think it could be better.

I definitely think the scenarios/set up needs a complete revamp.

I also think retention of some damage at turn end is worthy of consideration.

Finally, I would prefer a slightly more granular approach to morale - by which I mean a move away from entire army break point to a lower level (dependant on the scale you a playing e.g. Battalion for the higher level games or Platoon for the lower.

Agree with Nick that the max/min thing just makes for some weird force constructions. It is probably way too late to have structured army lists but its worth considering.

I have never tried hits stay on, but one of the things that put me off CWC (and I played loads of games) was that Western Tanks were practically impossible to KO even with Warsaw Pact weight of numbers.

One final question - will there still be an online force generator??

[sediment]

Hey Nosher,

Try fielding AMX-30s against T-72s and -80s.  You finish up with an awful lot of French scrap metal ... quite a bit of Soviet scrap as well.  Leopard Is suffer similarly.

Cheers, Andy

[toxicpixie]

Indeedy - Chieftain or later M60's are a really tough kill, and we don't even talk about M1's (esp. up-armoured HA late versions), but most of the NATO tank fleet is about on a par with the Soviets

And I find thermobarics & napalm a great equalizer. Auto-suppress, then a second suppression to auto-kill. Takes a little finesse but better than ramming flaming hulks of T-64's into them until they drown...

[Orcs]

Welcome

Don't worry about not posting as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Fsn has been here over  2 years and managed to rack up over 4000 posts

And we are still waiting for something useful 

(actually this is a case of pots and kettles I know )

[Orcs]

I have only played CWC a couple of times, but it does need the addition of AP and AT values.

BKC works well. I have played both the normal and the "Hits stay on " option and both work well if slightly differently. So could be put in as an option

I would like to see the the ability of MG's being able to supress tanks come back, for three reasons

Early war tanks were vunerable to MG as they were rather flimsy

I have just read "T 34 in action" by Artem Drabkin. This is a list of memoirs of Russian Tankies.  All of them talk about the driver always going into action with his hatch at least partially open so he can see and breat.  Virtually every photo in the book shows the T34 with the Drivers hatch open even whe they are obviously engaging the enemy

When you are recieving a lot of ineffectual MG fire in a tank you do not know what else is out there if you are closed up and if your not you are vulnerale to the Mg fire

However these optional rules can be added at the players whim

I agree the BKC lists have definite need of modification, particuarly the numbers of tanks allowed and when stuff is really avaliable. Again this is down to the player to correct the mistakes or play scenarios where the points don't count.

In summary  I don't see the urgent need to do anything to BKC, although CWC needs the changes I have mentioned, does Pendraken have enough of a Modern range to justify the time spent on updating them?  Thats for Leon and Dave to decide.

[DougM]

.....And now.....Also welcome to DougM, as well ! 
Cheers - Phil

Thanks Phil, I'm a long time player of BKC, CWC and FWC. Indeed, I even own one of the forces (Eurofed in blue) photographed in FWC. Great games all, except they seem to have created a monster in the form of excessive lead mountains.

[Techno]

except they seem to have created a monster in the form of excessive lead mountains.

That seems to be a very common cry here, Doug !   

Cheers - Phil

[Fenton]

Another vote for CWC.

BKCII might not quite be what every single person wants in exact detail, but it's framework and set up is good.

CWC is languishing in original BKC1 territory, and as Pete was in process of rewriting it I'd suggest getting that rolling and finished instead. Again the basic framework is fine, but the lists/stats need tweaking to the newer BKCII format with AP/AT factors.

Things I'd suggest looking at after the unit stats  -

1/ special munitions availability
2/ ATGW - just let them fire like normal or massively reduce their cost
3/ Perhaps update recce to the FWC style which I think most people use?

Errr... can't think anymore off the top of my head!

I am not sure if I am in the minority or not but I have never used the points system in CWC or BKC. So reducing the cost of ATGWS would have no effect on the games we play .

[Orcs]

excessive lead mountains.

Welcome Doug, although I do not understand the above comment 

[fsn]

Don't worry about not posting as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Fsn has been here over  2 years and managed to rack up over 4000 posts

I think you'll find I posted something really useful a while ago. About something. Tanks probably.

I have cats.

[toxicpixie]

I am not sure if I am in the minority or not but I have never used the points system in CWC or BKC. So reducing the cost of ATGWS would have no effect on the games we play .

If you don't use the points system then it's probably no biggy on points costs, but to get a "historical effect" you probably need to overstate their numbers, I suspect?

I'd suggest knocking the fire activation limit off, or maybe leaving it on for non-specialist units (e.g. IFVs, Soviet/M60 Starship type tanks with dual gun/launchers) but allow dedicated ATGW units to fire multiple times per turn.

[Leon]

Righty then, first off thanks for all the replies so far, we'll be looking at all of the feedback there.

In answer to some of the questions/posts:

The SCW Lists in BKCII need tweaking. I put these together for Pete and there were some glaring 'issues' such as anti-tank rifles that slipped through the proof read. I'd love the opportunity to out this right

I think a SCW supplement may be where we go with that, we'll have to have a look and see.  We would like to do a series of supplements covering a lot of the other 20th C. conflicts.  And no we won't be charging a fortune for them, they'd likely be pdf downloads for a few quid.  When it comes to it, I'll certainly be knocking on your door for some input, along with a couple of other people.

I suppose suggesting you start with CWC, rather than BKCII is too late.  Personally, CWC is more desperately in need of updating to bring it in line with BKCII, which I have been happy with up to now.

I would also vote for an update to CWC first, BKC has already been done. Pete was working on CWC-II before he sold the series.

CWC is in desperate need of updating as it is the oldest of the 3 sets

Another vote for CWC.

I understand the theory behind this, but we have to arrange things from a business standpoint at this end.  We already have extensive WWII ranges in place, so it makes sense to do BKC first and get both the rules/figures sales from that.  CWC is going to require a lot more codes in the catalogue, so it's better to leave that until mid-2016 when we should have more vehicles and a chunk of infantry sculpted at the least.

3.   Update FWC lists so that the 'ranges' are more complete, so for example, it includes the more recent additions to the Brigade Games SAC range, and new ranges from Dark Realm etc..  and more of the 'copyright' stuff like the Hammers Slammers range.

As with the above, we'll need to check on that when the time comes.  We'd obviously want to have our own Sci-Fi ranges expanded and in place before the revamped FWC rules are released and then we'd need to have a look at which other companies to include as well.

Firstly are we allowed to ask who will be doing the re write?

I'll check with the chap who's doing it and see if he wants to be named / put in the firing line!

[bigjackmac]

It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look.  But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.

I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!

Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).

This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end

And hi Andy!

V/R,
Jack

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I think there are a number of areas of clarification that the original forum probably identifies pretty well from the recurring questions - one of these is spotting which was revised for BKC II but was still not clear.

Regards

Edward

[Dr Dave]

Reintroduce suppressive fire as it was in BKC I ?

[DougM]

It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look.  But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.

I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!

Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).

This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end

And hi Andy!

V/R,
Jack

Hi Jack, this seems to be a pretty common 'complaint' about the Commander series.

I think it very much depends on the idea you have in your own head of scale and time. My personal view is that warfare is inherently unpredictable, and that there seem to have been many occasions when something simply went wrong - lead tank misreads map and grinds to a halt, radio net breaks down, unexpected obstacle, dud ammunition, or the wrong load-out means no effective fire, spooked by a discarded milk churn.. the incidents are endless. For me, an automatic activation wouldn't be a game-breaker, but it would seem like a bit of 'dumbing down' as you could always plan with (IMHO) too much certainty.

As for points values, we sometimes use them as a general guideline for force totals, but always model forces based on real TOE. Some of these imbalanced games have given us the best gaming experience.

Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.

[Luddite]

Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.

As Leon said, 'Once BKC has been done and re-released, we'll carry out the same process on Cold War Commander, which will be sometime mid-2016 we expect.   Then finally Future War Commander will be the last to get the treatment, end of 2016 hopefully.'

[Ithoriel]

Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
Jack

  NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO .......... NO "FREE ACTIVATIONS" EVER .... NEVER EVER ... BURN THE HERETIC! ... oh, OK, if it's optional ... and on a page I can cut out from my copy and burn! 

[Sparker]

First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.

Personally, I have no issues with either ruleset as they stand - I think they are ideal in the context for which they are designed - large scale micro armour games with battalions if not brigades to a side. That said, at my club they are a victim of their own success in that some players use them as the rules for much smaller games, even down to just one or two platoons/units. Inevitably, this leads to frustration when one or more platoons fails to activate! I have asked my mates at the club to contribute to this forum, and hopefully they will pass on some of their good ideas personally. Some of the ideas include allowing COs a certain number of rerolls to allocate during a game - this has the added bonus of giving the CO player more of a role in a multiplayer game.

I would also comment that I once also felt odd about the ability to shrug off hits at the end of a turn, but have since come to live with this by looking at the issue holistically - the unit pulls itself together so to speak, but this perhaps ought to be at the expense of missing a go or penalising activation next turn...

Anyway, hoping the rest of the crew will pitch in...

Cheers and good luck with the revamp, looking forward to the release!

[Ithoriel]

Hi Sparker, welcome to the forum.

The more input the better I think.

If you are not already familiar with the forum you will find it friendly, helpful, supportive, amusing and bewilderingly lunatic by turns, if my experience is anything to go by. I suspect I contribute to all of those aspects