First impression of the book

[petercooman]

So, i have received the book yesterday, and have been flicking through it a lot since then.

I thought it would be good to note my first impressions of the new edition, and tell what i like and what i don't like so much. (just to note,these are my impressions, i'm not saying if something is wrong or right, just my personal unbiased opinion)

First off,i want to start by noting that BKC II is the most played ruleset in my gaming group. Still there are things we like and things we dislike. That's just normal. You don't always like everything that is in a ruleset. The question is, do the pros outweigh the cons?

For me bkc had : -easy command system
                       -everything in one book
                       -enough command friction for a solo game
                       -good scalability (meaning small games are just as enjoyable as bigger ones)

What i disliked : - the recce action could not be used in the same turn as normal commands. This often left your recce in harms way
                     - it was sometimes hard to find something in the book in the heat of battle.
                     - assault sequence was a bit clunky

So lets start off by looking at the new book and maybe something of the above changed.


let's start with the pros

- very nicely published book! looks really great and nicely illustrated too!  Nice big print too, and headers over everything will make it easy to read and flick through during battle. (maybe negating one of my con's of the last book)

- recce actions no longer stop you from getting a command in the command phase (at least that's how i understand it)

- the new pathfinding action looks great, and allows for more 'combined arms' use. previously recce units were ,more often than not, just a way of upping your command value.

- i think the close assault sequence is a bit better laid-out this time.

- handy free quick reference sheet! (there was one for bkc II on the site, but getting it with the book is a big plus!)


So all in all looks like some (if not all) of my cons are treated in this edition!


Now on to the cons:

- first thing i did was check if i could still use all my models without houseruling (i always do this when i buy new rules) Some things were actually missing, like mg armed jeeps in the british airborne list, carriers with mounted vickers mg's and the crusader AA in the british NWE list, and the quad AA halftrack i had for my soviets was not in that list either. Also had high hopes forthe armoured bulldozer, but he will have to be houseruled again  

still, the crusader AA was not in bkcII either, and added later via the errata. i think it's not too hard to find the stuff i want from other lists in the book, but was a little bit of a bummer that the lists contained less units than they used too. ( also seems that a lot of lists use fewer hq's, so for example,  instead of two option in the british NWE list with hq (cv7) and hq (cv , we only get one hq (cv8) and two values for CO's)


-secondly: the special rules. now before i start on these i want to mention that i HATE special rule sections in a book. This is nothing exclusively with BKC III, but something in general. I now they are essential to differentiate the units/types, but they should only be used for special things.  I just don't like having to flick through the book a lot during play to read up on the different abilities. (and you know, those abilities are always in the middle of the book, cover more than one page, and no matter how hard you press that book on the spine and leave it open, when you go back to it for another check, it fell closed again    )

Now that we have that out of the way, let me adress why i have put it with the cons: they are a little bit overused.

if you know that in bkc II the statline of a pak 40 was:

pak 40   INF    5   4/80   3/80   2    4    -   105

and now it is:

pak 40    25   ART:AT   10   2/80   3/80   2   3        -      defensive,deploy,lumbering,restricted arc

Do we really need 4 special rules for a single anti tank gun? a special ability saying it can't assault. Now who assaults with an anti tank gun anyway.

Now maybe this will move to the pro side when i have gotten some games in. but untill then, i find them a bit too much. After all, they worked without them in the last edition as well.

-thirdly : the infantry upgrades. was a bit of a shock to me that  paratroopers had the same stats as regular infaatry. While having the option to kit out your troops with upgrades looks great, i can also see it being a bighassle to remember who has what on the table if you do not give everyone the same upgrade.



now for the things that got mentioned, but do not really bother me:

FAO/FAC:  they are one and the same now, the FO. Just state wich of the two you are buying when you buy an FO. done!

cost for field defenses: never paid for them in the past, always agreed upon with my opponent. No problem whatsoever! if a 5 point sandbag makes all the difference, then your battles are pretty damn close affairs!

unit limits in the army lists: always ignore those anyway, and go for what feels right!





So there you have it, an honest initial impression upon my first experience with the new book. really looking forward to giving these a spin solo, to get the hang of them. Just need to re-read the rules again to be sure i spotted all the changes and give them a go.

We will be keeping the 2nd edition at first in my group, so i hope idon't start mixing the two up and make a mess  

really curious if the special rules will move to my pro list after a few games, or stay where they are!



PS: as said a few times by now, these are my personal opinions. I know some people will call heresy on some things, but please don't do that here. Really open for good discussion, but be sensible!


PS PS: really fun to see my name on the hints page, thanks!

[d_Guy]

Peter, thanks for this overview. I may be in a minority but don't play modern or BKC and this was helpful in trying to understand what the issues seem to be. In discussions of rules in the wargaming world there is often vast amount of smokes  produced by very little fire. Just trying to figure out what all the apparent smoke is about.

Army lists and unit capabilities are the first essential thing I look at in rules comparisons. If you are inclined could explain a little bit more about the PAK 40 comparison lines? Maybe add the column headers?

They seem to line up rather well but these changes are apparent
BKC3 has a 25 in first column with no matching column in BKC2
BKC3 types as ART:AT and BKC2 as INF - does this effect how they can be grouped or controlled?
The next five columns line up fine but the values are slightly changed - is this reflecting just a correction in capabilities or some major changes in game mechanics.
BKC3 lists the four special characteristics and BKC has a cryptic "105"  As the "specials" are additions you are not fond of did the original "105" handle the same thing with less granularity?

As one of the forum eccentrics,  think of me as a tourist dropped in the middle of an utterly different culture trying to understand the things he is taking picture of.

[Ithoriel]

The 25 and 105 are the points cost ... have 75mm anti-tank guns really become less than 25% as effective? Or were the BKCII guns over-pointed by a factor of around four? You pays your money and you takes your choice

My objection is more down to the gaping holes (no SU76/85/122/152 in the '41-44' Russian armylist despite large numbers being deployed IRL), the proportions (one T-60 per 1000 points limit for a tank that made up around a third of the most common armoured formations mid-war), availability limits moving from month and year to year only and vanishing from some items (Russian use of M1 Bazookas in Dec '41), or things like FO's who can simultaneously control the fire of battleships, field artillery and aircraft. To give only some of the problems with a single list!

[petercooman]

                    move     AT     AP    CA   hits   save    points       
pak 40   INF    5        4/80   3/80    2     4        -      105

and now it is:
            points                move     AP      AT    CA   hits
pak 40    25      ART:AT     10      2/80   3/80    2     3        -      defensive,deploy,lumbering,restricted arc

amended above for Guy


It is indeed a very different profile. Don't know if they are 75% less effective, i hope not  

I will reserve that judgement for when i have used them.

Like i said, the list restrictions is something i can overlook (personally). Missing units,not so much

[petercooman]

Should note what the abbreviations stand for.

The INF stands for infantry; the ART:AT stands for artillery: anti tank

AT: anti tank
AP : anti personnel
CA : close assault


One thing i forgot to mention in my initial impressions, is not a real flaw, but a personal 'inconvenience'.  The stats in the new book for AP and AT are the other way round compared to the  old one. AT-AP in the 2nd edition, AP-AT in the 3rd. This makes comparing the two a bit annoying. Especially if you want to do it fast!

Sorry to respond in two separate posts, but the first one was cut short due to 'baby' issues. When she wants dad, she really wants dad 

[d_Guy]

 
Thanks - was in the process of posting about the apparent column reversal.
Yikes! That would definitely play with my head!


So there is no significance to the typology change INF to ART:AT?


The single advantage of solo play is I can add and subtract units and change their characteristics on a whim.
We individuals are our own rules committee. 

[ronan]

(...)

- recce actions no longer stop you from getting a command in the command phase (at least that's how i understand it)
(...)

Page 52 : "the unit is automatically suppressed after the recce action..."

[petercooman]

Page 52 : "the unit is automatically suppressed after the recce action..."
:-

Bummer, missed that one! 

[petercooman]

So there is no significance to the typology change INF to ART:AT?

Yes, these are the unit types. Most importantly it is used to determine the profile of the unit. infantry (inf) have a low profile so can be concealed in lowprofile terrain. artillery (ART) have an average profile so cannot be concealed in low profile terrain but can be concealed in average/high profile terrain. (so they used to be able to be concealed more easily)

Some nation have a clunky chain of command, and also get a -1 command penalty when issueing orders to units of different types at the same time.

[sediment]

Page 52 : "the unit is automatically suppressed after the recce action..."
:-

Does that mean if fired upon and hits taken, it is forced to fall back, although won't be eliminated because of the special rule, just because it performed a recce action at the start of the turn?

[ronan]

Does that mean if fired upon and hits taken, it is forced to fall back, although won't be eliminated because of the special rule, just because it performed a recce action at the start of the turn?

That's how I understood this. ( The recce flying away from the fight )

[toxicpixie]

Makes sense to me - recce should be recce'ing and if under sustained effective fire, get out instead of fighting to the death! "Heavy recce" that's actually a fighting element deployed to support "real recce" is a bit different and wouldn't have the recce "specials" (except perhaps the easy command despite the distance, depending on flavour of rules).

[petercooman]

That's where recce support units came in in the bkcII lists.

You could also buy recce troops as non-recce units for an altered point cost

[toxicpixie]

Yes indeed. That's exactly what I was thinking of