Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

[toxicpixie]

On the Firefly question - it's the same with any mix of kit at the lowest level you model. With a platoon level game where someone has mixed vehicles you have to fudge somewhere. 

Either you separate out the variants into separate stands, or you fudge factors to make a hybrid. Either works, neither is perfect. If you don't want to do that then you need to go to a lower level of rules where one model is one vehicle (or maybe two, but at any rate is where a single model represents a single type of vehicle).

Numbers are similar - if one force has a three tank platoon With three platoons and a command tank per company, but another has three, four tank platoons plus a two tank command section do you go with three platoons each? Are you strict on numbers and say "five real vehicles = one stand, no more, no less", do you fudge a little according to book doctrine, actual usage, perceived effectiveness? What about systems that were deployed in awkward numbers? Lots of infantry guns or support tanks/armoured cars deployed in twos, so do you combine them and use one stand at a higher level, depriving the platoon/company of their support at real world levels, or do you potentially massively overstate their effectiveness by making them equivalent to a full size unit?

Ground scale is always awkwar with that as well - mortars should have a blast area! Well, no. One quick fire mission (successful order in *Commander) probably isn't enough to warrant that - if you get to hit a single stand that's a 100m by 100m ish area already. Pretty good for a few quickly lobbed rounds. Now, you get three orders in a row and you're well away - that's a *real* stoked on the money shot of a barrage. And if you're off table you're firing like that all the time.

Others have answered the hits question, I think, in excellent detail for the level the rules are pitched at, but I do these days quite like playing hits stay on for vehicles, or at least the last hit does. Makes infantry much more resilient in comparison, as otherwise they get a raw deal by mid war! It's not too complex and doesn't require much extra book keeping (we use tiny dice, and are quite good at not sneezing/rolling them these days ). I especially like that at what *I* perceive as one to one scale. Using 6mm as written at one platoon to one model (ish) looks and feels fine with the ground scale; in 10mm it has a better feel to my mind at one to one. I'd suggest using the "fighting commanders" optional rule with that as well. The FWC skirmish level vehicle damage chart might also give the deeper detail you want but will slow things up - all you really want to know as the commander is "are they running, firing or hunkered down" after all!

Al this said with the provision that for the level of game *Commander is pitched at I actually prefer Spearhead and use 6mm, but I do like the *Commander series' higher granularity and smaller focus at sort of one to one 1cm =20m for larger scale 10mm models which is nicely pitched AS IS for speed versus realism versus overall result for period feel.

[Last Hussar]

Peter - I assume those photos are shot up tanks that continued fighting - definitely a Not Kill.  Likewise a frightened crew who abandoned a tank that was undamaged = Kill!
The thing I don't like about 'IABSM' is the wounds that rack up on an individual tank: I wonder if a generic 'Damaged -1 to each dice' would be better to represent a tank that isn't quite bad enough for the crew to run with, but is having problems (it could be the COMMANDER is staying, but the crew are scared, so not doing their job.  I also think any tank that loses its main gun should be forced to run - tank crews rarely decide to trolley around acting as a mobile pill box when they can't hurt the thing that can hurt them!

I remember Last Hussar's attitude to the rules from another forum, LH, if you don't like the fundamental concepts of the rules, and calling them bog-paper is a fairly definitive 'don't like the rules' position, then you can hardly contribute anything constructive to a thread discussing how to amend them. You bang on about scale, but then start from the (incorrect) assumption that a model tank = 1 tank.

It's not a troll rule. There is in fact only 1 'Troll Rule' I know about and that is 'Obvious Troll is Obvious'

Thanks for your contribution.

I've listed the reasons I don't like it, and why- what I see that could fix them; as far as I can see minor tweaks.  I haven't assumed 1:1 - I quoted other people, including the rules.  I actually think they have a core of a decent set of rules, but are let down in being too vague in what they are modelling.  I truly believe with the correct tweaks they could be a really good set of stand=company rules, a gap in an overstuffed market.  I can see that this would have to be a 'new' set, and probably not what BKC players are looking for.

The problem is people who play are pretty happy with what they have, and asking those people what they want is going to only result in a few tweaks eventually after all the attempts to get their favourite house rule in.  In that case, Leon, Get them on the market as soon as possible: waiting possibly isn't going to add anything significant, and every day is a day's lost sales, and I don't see you picking up extra sales because of any tweaks.

As regard the 'other forum': Those moaning people have a demographic among them who refuse to play TFL rules for no other reason than 'They have a silly name'. When they are called out on this, I am effectively told to stay away, that is their right.  And yes it is, if they want to judge rules based PURELY on the name, then that is their prerogative, but questioning that apparently isn't mine.

On the other hand I have read and played BKC and CWC, and found a number of mechanics I do not feel work.  That is my feedback.  My suggestion is 'Define what the game is modelling- what does one stand represent'  Once you have done that, tighten the rules up around that.

Some input:
Someone pointed out different nations used different platoon strengths.    Publish the army lists to reflect that, so a country that uses a 3 Sherman platoon has different stats to one that uses a 5 Sherman platoon. Likewise a 1 Firefly-3 76mm sherman platoon would have SLIGHTLY higher stats, but not "Firefly" stats (were whole firefly troops ever fielded? That would be a frightening Shoot value!)

[sunjester]

It's not a troll rule. There is in fact only 1 'Troll Rule' I know about and that is 'Obvious Troll is Obvious'

You obvious haven't met many trolls!

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. If the hits come off every turn then the unit has "regenerated", hence it's a troll!

[toxicpixie]

The way BKC models mixed units is that it doesn't even attempt to (barring infantry with integral AT weapons as upgrades), really. Pete went for the same approach most rules do, which is simplicity and modelling them as separate in game stands to move their differing capabilities out. So you can actually use your Fireflies to over watch your normal Shermans, or your flame tanks to conduct the really dangerous close range bunker busting whilst your gun tanks shoot them in instead of kludging them all together as a mess of multiple different stat lines all representing marginally different numbers of actual vehicles with potentially wildly different stats in one model tank.

If you go the latter route then people inevitably get annoyed at being able to use the two Fireflies in a troop of five at 1000 metres effectively or that the stand is just too effective with HE when they should be reserved for hard targets, and you end up with five stat lines reflecting no "specials", one special, two specials, three/four/all in a five tank platoon.

Whilst making them a separate stand might not quite sit right from a micro view point, it actually works BETTER from the macro view point of getting the simulation right from the commanders POV - I do not regret moving past the days of micro, ground up, every subsystem modelled "correctly" games where the end result was always long winded and usually wildly out of step with history or practise It's not always ideal, but it does work and it does produce something that's simple and playable as well as approaching "reality" more often than not.

I meant to mention the Troll Rule was likely a D&D regenerating monster side swipe, as opposed to an Internet trolling for arguments sake - perils of phone typing! But it's not unreasonable in practise - the turns fire represents that cluster of time where Stuff Happens, and something actual people from actual fire situations tells us is that you either get categorically knocked out (surprisingly rare as a one shot), suffer enough to make you keep your heads down or scuttle back a bit, or the fire is simply shrugged off no matter the damage as the crews keep their nerves and then keep fighting.

I prefer Spearheads "fine/suppressed/dead" approach myself, but as BKC is a lower level game (tending to a ate down from Division-ish to Regiment/Brigade, though i'd argue both work better a step further - Spearhead at a Brigade/Regiment per player, BKC at about a reinforced battalion), it's not a bad abstraction, trading ease of use and speed for a bit more depth.

Edit: balls, perils of phone posting II - meant also to say even if you don't play, the input as to WHY you don't play is valuable. I wouldn't suggest a major rewrite, as I feel the rules work fine for about where they're pitched but that might not be what Leon & co want or need so the views of people who have played but now don't could spur something useful.

[Last Hussar]

TP- Sorry if I sound over negative.  It's frustration.  I know a lot of people who play them, and SunJester and I have had a difference of opinion over more than one pint about them.  I'd like to thank him for not taking the piss up there.

Hopefully my posts are helpful.  I realise that a full rewrite is probably not going to happen, I wasn't going to comment, but I couldn't see people saying anything about what I saw as the major weakness, which is it doesn't seem sure what level it is, and because of that it is too 'flappy'.  I just got annoyed with the fact that 3-4 tanks were required to inflict enough damage to kill it, and frustrated that you would get to 3 out of 4 needed, but there it would be next turn like nothing happened.

Think of me as the court jester in the crowd of Yes Men!

I like the other Warmaster derivatives, (not done HC yet, read the rules for P&S, need to get my head around the way the two different arms work together; think it could be a bit loose, rather see them as a unit, but we'll see how it goes).  What BKC suffers from is the the problem I never played ACWMaster - it hasn't divorced itself enough from the original to make its period work.  When BP came out I read it, and how it handled hits and went 'That's brilliant'.  It was still, at heart, WM, but had a simple and elegant mechanism for resolving combat: you don't track casualties any more, but the morale of the unit.  Possibly BKC needs that sort of revolutionary thinking, though I think a well applied 'wound' equivalent would work well.  I was also a little annoyed when over-running with a tank turned out that bog-standard infantry in the open are more deadly to the tank than the tank is to the infantry.

I have accidently misled us all, I've just realised, including myself.  While I am unlikely to buy BKC, if I was convinced that the mechanisms worked and was applied to sister games, I would consider CWC:  I have a load of 80's 6mm in the garage, and while I have MSH, it can be a little involved.  And I do think that BKC is really more suited to Company units, though I realise that won't happen.

[Luddite]

Sections act differently to platoons, which act differently to companies, which act differently to battalions, which act differently to brigades.  To say the same rules cover them all is wrong.

I feel the basis to a set of rules has to be ground scale.  You don't have to define it precisely, but there has to be some sort of relationship between move distance and weapon range and unit footprint.  

I think this is an important issue to resolve.

BkCII and CWC both take this approach.  However FWC comes down firmly on the 'unit is a squad/single vehicle/single gun' representation.

What do people think about formalising the three rule sets around the FWC representative scale?

[Fenton]

I am still in the 1 stand or tank is a platoon. It makes playing larger actions playable on a 6x4. I think FWC went for the stand equals squad or one tank was to drag in the Epic40k players

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Played BKC at both levels. It works best at 1 base = Platoon level. Also I'm reasonably certain that FKC is the same approach. If I want to do 1-1 I'd chose several other sets before BKC etc. where there is more vehicle detail and type differentiation.

DO NOT CHANGE THE REPRESENTATION.

Other people can use it for 1-1 if they wish, and I probably will again, but it was NOT designed for that.

IanS

[petercooman]

Peter - I assume those photos are shot up tanks that continued fighting - definitely a Not Kill.  Likewise a frightened crew who abandoned a tank that was undamaged = Kill!

YEs, but like the second picture, a hit on that spot (turret ring) can reduce the capability of the tank. Is it destroyed? no, but if that turret doesn't turn untill it's solved, Your crew will be hampered in combat, turning the vehicle instead of the turret.

Last picture has several hits on the gun mantle, again, not destroyed, but i can imagine if you take a hit there, I think Your aim will be off. (don't know if this is correct, anybody care to explain)

We can argue all day, but i don't think we'll find a middle ground we both accept 

[Last Hussar]

[Walks into middle ground with two folding chairs, unfolds them, puts them down, sits in one]

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.

[Invites Peter to sit in the other]

It happens but not worth modelling in a battalion game.

[Offers Peter a beer]

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.

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.

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.

[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.