Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

[madaxeman]

Whilst this thread has been a bit quiet, with the benefit of some reflection I thought it might be worth revisiting, as whilst we all clearly have a lot of love for BKC there are probably also some areas that perhaps warrant a more fundamental questioning than this thread have generated so far.

Thinking more specifically about what I DON'T entirely like in the BKC games I've played, I came up with the following list, which maybe steers towards some more radical changes:

1. Quality of troops is only (really/largely) represented by differing command values... which is actually both a fairly blunt instrument, and also a very, very variable one when you are playing the game.  OK, Germans get to do lots of moves and take lots of shots, Russians get to do not so many moves and take less shots - however, if a mechanism existed so that quality affected range, ability to hit, number of hits that can be taken, likelihood of suffering suppression etc that might in turn allow the command roll mechanism to be flattened out a bit too, or have more "free" moves each turn etc - making the game more fun to play for both sides (as you always get to move more stuff).

This would also then go some way to fixing the weird force-multiplier effect of a good command value increasing the points effectiveness of every single model in your force, irrespective of the number of points you are playing a game at, and might also allow artillery to be nerfed a bit, as at the moment massed artillery is often the way to go for low CV armies to compensate for their lack of maneuverability, and that can be a bit dull.

2. Ranges and move distances for the 10mm game quickly get you to stand-up slogging distances and face-offs - especially late war. If there was an option or different mechanics for reduced ranges it might make the larger-scale battles more, well, large scale? (as well as again reducing artillery effectiveness).

3. Again, at a higher, more abstract game scale level, what should infantry and infantry combat rules represent? If the game at that scale is really about strategic tank movement, could infantry become some sort of area denial effect thingy that has an abstract influence on tank movement rather than the highly literal way they are represented now (which is really mostly suited to a platoon level engagement and scale)?

just a few thoughts

[toxicpixie]

1/ - I quite like the idea of "troop quality" affecting suppression application, as per the optional rule - Vets get suppressed on 5-6, Average 4-6, Green on 3-6 (or one higher, can't remember without looking at the rules in the loft!); easy way to cost might be 5pts down for green, normal for trained, 5pts up for vets?

2/ - Something like Spearhead's alternate ground scale? Halve ranges perhaps, and use a smaller blast template etc. Speed of infantry might be an issue - getting them anywhere useful on foot at 10cm per activation is a an exercise in annoyance as it is... Can't say this is a biggy for me, for "larger" games I'd go with Spearhead anyway

3/ Especially late war with "good" tanks, large amounts of responsive arty and generally good CV's infantry tend to become speed humps that cower in trenches or buildings, so I can see the point... but that's a pretty radical change. Possibly go to "company strength" for infantry stands? I dunno, not something I'd be overly inclined to tweak with for a "tidy up and smooth the edges" re-issue...

[Wurger54]

Greetings all!

New to this forum, but not to BKCII.  It is my preferred set of WWII rules.  I think the terrain and visability rules are too simplistic, and need some modification.  But they work.  A few other things could be fleshed out a tad.  Typically we use a (very) few house rules to make the game more realistic.  We've added 'high ground' bell towers for example.  We've also modified the scenario force ratio as we think the printed ones are not balanced.  We've also been working on a random scenario generator as BKC is not the only thing we play so campaigns don't really work for us.

One aspect of BKCII that is fine is the army lists.  I was alarmed with the discussion on modifying the army lists to suit Pendraken product lines.  That instantly killed the new rules in the minds of 3/4 of our group.  Personally I'll watch for reviews on this forum and other sites before I make a purchase.  Hope Pendraken does right by an excellent set of rules.

[Techno]

As that was your first post.....
A very warm welcome to the forum, Wurger.

Cheers - Phil

[fsn]

Wotcha Wurger!

Welcome to the forum.

[Orcs]

Hi Wurger

Welcome to the forum.

I am afraid that I have to disagree with your comment about the lists.  They need some tweaking as the availability of the kit is way off what is historically available.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Hi. My only comment is that they should include the Korean war, only need to add a couple of aircraft, and a tank whose name I dare not mention.

IanS

[Orcs]

Hi. My only comment is that they should include the Korean war, only need to add a couple of aircraft, and a tank whose name I dare not mention.

IanS

Yes that would make sense.  Perhaps they can laminate the list with the said "Tank that's shall not be named"

[Ithoriel]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with your comment about the lists.  They need some tweaking as the availability of the kit is way off what is historically available.

Not my experience of the lists - any list in particular in mind?

Also, Hello Wurger!

[Womble67]

1/ - I quite like the idea of "troop quality" affecting suppression application, as per the optional rule - Vets get suppressed on 5-6, Average 4-6, Green on 3-6 (or one higher, can't remember without looking at the rules in the loft!); easy way to cost might be 5pts down for green, normal for trained, 5pts up for vets?

Hi I don't seem to be able to find this optional rule, could you give a page number

Take care

Andy

[Ithoriel]

I'm aware of it as an optional rule from the BKC forum. Don't think it's in the printed rules.

Lots of our group's house rules came from forum.

[Womble67]

I'm aware of it as an optional rule from the BKC forum. Don't think it's in the printed rules.

Lots of our group's house rules came from forum.

I do like that as an optional rule  looking forward to the new set.

Can we pre-order it Leon

Take care

Andy

[Leon]

Can we pre-order it Leon

Not quite yet, if we decide to go with pre-orders I'd want to have it in hand and a definite timescale from the printers.  Until I start on the formatting I won't know how long that's going to take.

[Womble67]

Not quite yet, if we decide to go with pre-orders I'd want to have it in hand and a definite timescale from the printers.  Until I start on the formatting I won't know how long that's going to take.

OK really looking forward to this release

Take care

Andy

[Orcs]

Not my experience of the lists - any list in particular in mind?

The most obvious Example I can think of is the Early war Belgian list where the proportions of tanks you can field is obviously an arbitrary amount and has no bsis on what was actually available.

Historically Belgium had the following

Belgium had the following
150 T15 Tanks.
248 T13's
10 ACG tanks (only 9 saw action)

BKC will allow you to field 3 of each per 1000 points. so with a 3000 point force you can field all the ACG's that the Belgians ever had.

The Early war Russian list allows far to many T34's - They were relatively rare compared to BT'5's 7's and T26's

Some of the late war lists you can actually field more of one tank than the points available. ie you can field 12 x 120 point tanks per 1000 points available.

I am sure others will be able to point to similar issues in other lists.

None of this is a problem if you are playing friendly games or scenarios, you just ignore the listed  amounts.