What is happening with BKC?

[sane max]

Modifying BKCII to reflect Pendraken's WW2 ranges by, for example, removing army lists that are not reflected in is, to be blunt, barking mad.

That would be putting it mildly. The Wargaming world would react to that with gales of incredulous laughter. But nobody at Pendraken has suggested that have they, in all seriousness?


Pat

[NTM]

I'm not overly concerned about the possibility of individual vehicles not appearing in the lists. BKC has never been that all encompassing and the stats are generic enough to proxy or work out for yourself. If Pendraken decide to drop entire armies as they don't produce the models is an entirely different matter.

[petercooman]

What i would like to see, is just ADDING the units that pendraken makes to the army lists if they aren't already in it! The more options you have, the better!

[John Cook]

That would be putting it mildly. The Wargaming world would react to that with gales of incredulous laughter. But nobody at Pendraken has suggested that have they, in all seriousness?


Pat

That is the inference I, and others, have drawn from the post at the top of the thread.  However, I don't really have a dog in this fight as I modified BKCII to suit my preconceptions a long time ago and would be very unlikely to invest in a 'BKCIII'.

[Leon]

I've edited the original post to try and clarify things.  We've got absolutely no intention of just throwing away any army list that doesn't feature in the Pendraken catalogue and we've never said anything like that.

[petercooman]

Sounds a lot better 

[Dave]

As I see it with the army lists taking armoured cars as an example, under recce support there is a SDKFZ234/4 which is a mobile AT designed to support infantry in a defended postion against tanks, further on in the lists under SPAT is a SDKFZ251/22 different vehicle same gun in correct role.  The factors for recce armoured cars as I see it should be the same as their role is to go forward gather information and have some defensive protection, the purpose is not to engage in combat, I see it as tatically wrong to risk a hard to replace AT gun in a recon role.

Likewise can you group vehicles together like the M10, hellcat and jackson mobile AT designed to follow up the tanks and hold the ground with the infantry against counter attacks, having a variable code for the weapon performance, maximum speed only comes into it when you are going in the opposite direction to the enemy???  These vehicles are lightly armoured and use preplanned defensive positions to stop the enemy tanks.

Dave

[petercooman]

As I see it with the army lists taking armoured cars as an example, under recce support there is a SDKFZ234/4 which is a mobile AT designed to support infantry in a defended postion against tanks, further on in the lists under SPAT is a SDKFZ251/22 different vehicle same gun in correct role.  The factors for recce armoured cars as I see it should be the same as their role is to go forward gather information and have some defensive protection, the purpose is not to engage in combat, I see it as tatically wrong to risk a hard to replace AT gun in a recon role.

Likewise can you group vehicles together like the M10, hellcat and jackson mobile AT designed to follow up the tanks and hold the ground with the infantry against counter attacks, having a variable code for the weapon performance, maximum speed only comes into it when you are going in the opposite direction to the enemy???  These vehicles are lightly armoured and use preplanned defensive positions to stop the enemy tanks.

Dave

Regarding the SDKFZ234/4, there is an optional rule that lets you take recce units as normal units in the book. page 45:

I quote:

"Reconnaissance units include scouts,armoured cars and light tanks. If you want to use recce units as regular combat units, deduct 20 points from the unit cost and increase the limit to 3 per 1000 points. Recce support units are slightly different to ordinary recce units in that they may not communicate with command units, but they may fire at the enemy during the initiative and command phases like any other unit. However, they are like recce units in that they do not incur the command penalty for distance"

So you can take them as normal units to be put in the role you metion OR as the recce suport variant, wich works entirely the same, but can pe put out of harms way in an ambush position without giving a negative penalty to the command roll for being too far away!

PS: that's why i have so many recce units in my armies

[toxicpixie]

Recce support covers the role the 234/4 should be in - it's not for the infantry, it's heavy AT support for the armoured car squadrons which were supposed to be recce'ing but in German practise were by now a fighting unit due to lack of enough proper kit and troops to use it, so consistently got up gunned (from MG to 20mm A/C to 50mm ATG onwards etc).  There's a decent argument that given the German lack of tactical recce in favour of them being a fire brigade you could just strip the recce ability off the lot of them and use them as fighting troops!

[Dave]

Regarding the SDKFZ234/4, there is an optional rule that lets you take recce units as normal units in the book. page 45:

I quote:

"Reconnaissance units include scouts,armoured cars and light tanks. If you want to use recce units as regular combat units, deduct 20 points from the unit cost and increase the limit to 3 per 1000 points. Recce support units are slightly different to ordinary recce units in that they may not communicate with command units, but they may fire at the enemy during the initiative and command phases like any other unit. However, they are like recce units in that they do not incur the command penalty for distance"

So you can take them as normal units to be put in the role you metion OR as the recce suport variant, wich works entirely the same, but can pe put out of harms way in an ambush position without giving a negative penalty to the command roll for being too far away!

PS: that's why i have so many recce units in my armies

Thanks for that, I've been in too many games were they have been miss used as part of the attack!!!!!

Dave

[Dave]

Recce support covers the role the 234/4 should be in - it's not for the infantry, it's heavy AT support for the armoured car squadrons which were supposed to be recce'ing but in German practise were by now a fighting unit due to lack of enough proper kit and troops to use it, so consistently got up gunned (from MG to 20mm A/C to 50mm ATG onwards etc).  There's a decent argument that given the German lack of tactical recce in favour of them being a fire brigade you could just strip the recce ability off the lot of them and use them as fighting troops!

Discussed this with Ian after posting, thanks for the extra info

Dave

[petercooman]

Thanks for that, I've been in too many games were they have been miss used as part of the attack!!!!!

Dave

Yes, it's one of those things that can get overlooked, as it's at the back of the rulebook!

[toxicpixie]

It's awkward - there's the "theoretical role" that the users wanted them for and the actual role they played, and then there's the fitting them into a game framework and the role the player wants them to be in

Rules writing is not simple, especially as there's the theory, the historical practice an even worse the PERCEIVED historical practice which can make things very odd when people insist on case X which is not true but ingrained in our popular consciousness

[Luddite]

Rules writing is not simple, especially as there's the theory, the historical practice an even worse the PERCEIVED historical practice which can make things very odd when people insist on case X which is not true but ingrained in our popular consciousness

Which would you say was more important to get right?

[toxicpixie]

Something that gives the right overall effect without bogging down in "accurate" subsystems that produce a tedious and long winded and ultimately spurious overall effect I'd go for aim for accuracy on the historical front but with enough wriggle room that people can tweak if they feel a need to. But simplicity and ease of play are right up there too...

There's always going to be those who don't accept tank X could beat tank Y no matter the on the ground stats, and others who have the opposite viewpoint or that unit A would never do B - it's the happy medium that lets it feel plausible that's hard. Thick skins needed for rules writers...

To me, BKC pretty much works and doesn't need any fiddling with lists or units, any massive rewriting. Just a tidy up on the margins, really. I'm much more interested in seeing a revamped CWC with a proper set of BKC 2 style lists and stats.

[DougM]

To me, BKC pretty much works and doesn't need any fiddling with lists or units, any massive rewriting. Just a tidy up on the margins, really. I'm much more interested in seeing a revamped CWC with a proper set of BKC 2 style lists and stats.

This ^ seconded. BKCII doesn't need a major rewrite.

[Lord Raffles]

This ^ seconded. BKCII doesn't need a major rewrite.

What BKCII needs is a more accessible, "modern" presentation to attract a new following: emulate the FOW/GW approach to presentation, but maintain and advance upon what is otherwise a fantastic set of rules.

Currently BKCII looks like something that appeals to dedicated, old-fashioned wargamers and already has it's established number of "fans" - the trick is to present these rules in vibrant way to a younger audience - I think the most appealing thing about BKCII is how cheap it is to set up a game, and that's the strong point.

I don't know if anyone here is familiar with 4chan, but www.4chan.org/tg/ is the place to go: so many gamers from around the world go here, and there is already a strong FOW presence in the past two years, so there is an interest in WW2 gaming.

[cmnash]

Any update? in post 1 it was said "reprint in January hopefully" ...

I guess now it's March at the earliest?

[Fenton]

Hi Leon/Dave

Any update on what's happening with BKC?

Cheers

[Nosher]

Must dig out BKC again. Haven't played it in years. Still nostalgic for the 1st edition which IMO was better.

Oddly enough CWC worked for me for infantry engagements with a few bits of armour.

FWC never really worked for me and Ive got loads of sci-fi armies that never see the light of day.