BKC-III Decision Reached - Please Read!

[toxicpixie]

Cheers Leon, I might look out for them at WMMS in March then

[smallchild139]

Add one to previous sentiment, what I feel is really needed is BKC 2 updated rather than BKC 3 fixed up.  I think that will give a better set of rules.  There was not too much wrong with BKC2.

Mark

[Ithoriel]

I'd have to admit to a preference for a revised BKC2 rather than a fixed BKC3 but if Pendraken have an electronic version of BKC3 and not of BKC2 then I'd be OK with a fixed BKC3 in light of the likely extra time and expense required to generate a clean copy of BKC2 to edit.

If that all makes sense!

[Leon]

We've got both versions in electronic formats, but putting the BKC-II text into the BKC-III document will mean a lot of time in formatting and layout changes.  Likewise, editing the BKC-II document will be just as time consuming to make it look like BKC-III.

Hence my worry that by using BKC-III as a starting point rather than BKC-II we will still end up with a set of rules that I for one will be reluctant to use.

Add one to previous sentiment, what I feel is really needed is BKC 2 updated rather than BKC 3 fixed up.  I think that will give a better set of rules.  There was not too much wrong with BKC2.

One of the main problems we've got at this stage is that we're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the revision.  If we don't change enough back to BKC-II, then folks like yourselves won't be getting the set of rules you were wanting.  But if we move most of it back to BKC-II then that'll be great for you guys but those who liked some of the BKC-III changes won't be happy.  And making a BKC-II+ version will result in people asking why they should buy a set of rules that's not that different to BKC-II. 

At this point, no matter what we do with the revision work, people aren't going to be happy with the result.  I do think it's worth mentioning again though, despite all of the vocal feedback we saw online, there are still a large number of people out there who liked some of the changes.  It's too easy to just write the whole thing off as a bad job based on the initial response we saw, but we've got to look at it objectively and decide whether each change was good or bad on its own merit.

It's not going to be easy, but we're going to do the best we can to give as many people as possible what they want.

[BeeKiller]

Can you consider releasing the electronic PDF version of the (now finished) lists for those who already bought them (or for those wanting to buy them as an electronic format) ?

It will act as a stop-gap for those who liked (most of the new additions) of BKC-3

Thx

[Leon]

Can you consider releasing the electronic PDF version of the (now finished) lists for those who already bought them (or for those wanting to buy them as an electronic format) ?

It will act as a stop-gap for those who liked (most of the new additions) of BKC-3

It's certainly something we can look at, although we've not ironed out the special abilities yet so there might be some clashes with the rules.  I'll see what we can work out on that for you.

You mention liking some of the new additions, have you got any more info on that and have you played any games with BKC-III?

[walburgrif]

I'm also plugging for BKC2 as the base.   Please don't choose an option just because its easy for editing and a consistent look & feel.   We don't play games for those reasons.  Listen to those who have been playing BKC a lot. Their experience about playability and historical accuracy is not to be underestimated. 

[BeeKiller]

You mention liking some of the new additions, have you got any more info on that and have you played any games with BKC-III?

Hello,

I have played some BKC-3 games but using BKC-2 lists because of the inaccuracy of the newest. However it is a bit puzzling because you need some adjustments like new off board arty being cheap because you don't need to buy ammunition assets for the prescheluded fire. So in this case we also use the bkc2 need to purchase ammunition assets.

We liked from Bkc3 the Recce simplification calculations, the terrain chart, the simplification in visibility in cities (but we need to break big settlements in small areas), and above all the unit perks except the limbering (which make some vehicles useless in an attack role), and (good armour which doesn't allow to take profit of flanking). We also like form BKC-3 lists the need to include core units per 1000points and the re-arrangemnt of unit types. But we don't like the loss of historicity that BKC2 did have about the specific number of units you may deploy,even less the loss of the entry month a unit was available from/to. Now it is simplified in just 3 categories. In fact we loved the game because of the accuracy of the army lists and we even played other game rules using that lists.

We like from BKC-3 being able to initially deploy hidden units and fire templates from Arty and Air look less generic than in BKC-2

We don't like the oversimplification of battle scenarios and the fact that you don't need to buy Defensive terrain. We use BKC-2 rules for seting up scenarios. Also the way the minerollers remove mines was more accurate in BKC2 (cleaning the width of the vehicle rather than cleaning the whole mine field)

To sum up I personally don't like simplification in the "preparation of the game" (lists, scenarios) because you usually have enough time at home to prepare whatever, but I welcome any aid / automation during the game play (LOS, less recce measurements)

I agree with many that tweaking a game with some complexity like BKC is time consuming and must be really play tested. These are bad ingredients for hard copy books and I think you should consider releasing several beta versions of BKC-3 in electronic format to betatesters until the final version.  

I also think the army lists + perks explanations should have an entity on their own (although it may also be included  if the future book) because they can appeal to both BKC-2 die hard fans as well as BKC-3 or even gamers from other rules.

Finally, I also agree with Pendraken that rules "needs news, updates". Not because the earlier were bad, but because human mind like new things (ok maybe it depends on the age of the subject...). And new means curiosity and appeal, and that in turn, means need to buy, and that means new money for the owner, and finalla that means invest and support to the subject that allows to earn money:  the game (in any of its forms), thus closing the circle of the product life.

Game aids are always welcome. Electronic army builders are very appealing (be them Excel or (web) applications). Our world is trending to a service model based business. Miniatures are physic but the gaming experience with them could benefit from some sort of electronic aid. Be it in the game preparation or in the way rules are updated or available for local service printing.

Count with us if you're considering beta testing. We usually play one game per week / 2 weeks at 15mm (we multiply x1.5 all measurements on the rules if we are lucky to be able to play on two "standard tables") and 1000 or 2000 points per side (BKC-2 costs). We even can promote the game in public events just for the sake of gaming (we had already done that in a local hobby shop, but the BKC-2 / BKC-3 impasse is really hindering our efforts). People in Barcelona have a lot of 15mm miniatures because of FOW, and they like to diversify and test "something new" to play with. Overall everyone enjoys the game, but we need an starting point (the hobby shop needs to know what to sell about BKC) to promote the game, to go further and even make tournaments (they are willing to hold so, but with an stable, soldable and brand new version)

(Sorry for beating about the bush, and the not so good English)

[petercooman]

 It's too easy to just write the whole thing off as a bad job based on the initial response we saw, but we've got to look at it objectively and decide whether each change was good or bad on its own merit.

One thing to note, if you only keep some changes and revert others, be wary of the consistency of the rules.

No matter how good a new rule is/works, if it doesn't fit the overall 'feel' of the rules it will stand out.

also a little care will be needed when reverting some rules, as in the bkc III book there seems to be a lot of cross-referencing. when reverting rules it should be reverted everywhere to further enhance the consistency.

Good luck on the revision! Been a while since i have used the bkc III rules, but i must admit a few changes have found their place in our bkc II games so there are some things that could be used!

[Leon]

Count with us if you're considering beta testing. We usually play one game per week / 2 weeks at 15mm (we multiply x1.5 all measurements on the rules if we are lucky to be able to play on two "standard tables") and 1000 or 2000 points per side (BKC-2 costs). We even can promote the game in public events just for the sake of gaming (we had already done that in a local hobby shop, but the BKC-2 / BKC-3 impasse is really hindering our efforts). People in Barcelona have a lot of 15mm miniatures because of FOW, and they like to diversify and test "something new" to play with. Overall everyone enjoys the game, but we need an starting point (the hobby shop needs to know what to sell about BKC) to promote the game, to go further and even make tournaments (they are willing to hold so, but with an stable, soldable and brand new version)

Thanks for all of the info, that is very helpful.  We will take all of this onboard as we work through the revisions.

Good luck on the revision! Been a while since i have used the bkc III rules, but i must admit a few changes have found their place in our bkc II games so there are some things that could be used!

Thanks Peter, which of the changes did you guys find useful?

[petercooman]

One of the major things we like is the ,remote' special rule/keyword.

Allowing things like mg platoons to provide suppressing fire while the rest advances just feels more accurate than having them tag along in an assault because they would get out of command range.

The new recce is a good concept. (except for the range)

And personally i like the area terrain approach.

The rule allowingsmall arms fire against armoured transports at close range was also something we have tried a few times.

[Dr Dave]

The vulnerable rule was at best very odd: Rifles and LMGs easily KO'ing PzIs at long (30cm) range was the result. Any light armour became a death trap. Suppression sure, but a full KO was a tad extreme.

The reversion to BKC1 suppressive fire was good to have back in. But from memory it didn't cover guns with no HE firing against soft targets, only those with no AP firing at armour?

[petercooman]

That's. Why I explicitly said "armored transports" and not armour as a whole. Don't know about you, but I woul not like to be in a been carrier when an mg42 starts spraying lead at it!

[Sunray]

That's. Why I explicitly said "armored transports" and not armour as a whole. Don't know about you, but I woul not like to be in a been carrier when an mg42 starts spraying lead at it!

Indeed not ! The Bren was never an APC as we know it.  The frontal armour plate was however 12mm.  So a lot depends on (1) the type of 7.92x57 that the MG42 is feeding on and (2) the range.

If the GPMG is sustained fire mode, using the s.m.K.H tungsten core, yes, it will penetrate the Bren  at 100 meters. The Bren armour has no slope to deflect the round.  I  say SF because I believe the early 34/42s had a higher RoF and wandered on the bipod.  It would still however be worth a dice.

The 7.62mm black tip will cause similar contemporary problems for a lot of first generation WP APCs

In other circumstances there is  perhaps a +1 chance that suppressive fire within battle range (300 meters) will cause casualties.   A lot depends on the reaction of the crew, and the terrain.  Is the GPMG firing from elevation?   I have had a ride in a Bren at Vintage Show.  You are in a cramped seat. Not a lot of room for a grown man to "hunker down"

How does this translate into BKC rules ? 
Do we allow elite and veteran units the savvy to change belt to the hot s.m.K.H ?

MG42 aside, we also have to factor the most effective WW2 German tool in the Killing Ground. The humble mortar. Lethal to any open top "armoured transports" , not withstanding how thick their frontal armour.   

[toxicpixie]

I agree with all that, Sunray - but that's all great detail in a skirmish game, but not a lot of use at BKC's level/abstraction.

It just boils down to - The possibility of rendering the BGC unit combat ineffective is there, so they get a dice - if they roll a success, they get the hit. Evidently the MG crews had a belt of AP & switched to it. Or the BGC crews didn't have space or time to hunker down. Or the crews panicked and some one drove into a ditch and bailed and the other drivers reversed out "recovering the casualties" back past the start line.

Mortars... mmmm lovely mortars... far more dangerous than direct fire for everyone on the receiving end

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The standard rules writer fudge, mortars cant hurt tanks. If so why did the squadron commander at Admin box say that the greatest threat to his Lee's were the Japanese 81mm mortars. I also think that on table mortars should be treated exactly the same as off board arty, with maybe less scatter dice, except the British 3".

IanS

[toxicpixie]

Doesn't BKC allow them to score hits on sixes on enclosed AFVs? It's actually been so long I can't remember, but I thought BKC2 allowed that, with 5's for open topped AFVs, just like any indirect fire arty... that may have slipped in as a house rule if it's not in the actual rule book

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

May well be, I'm too lazy to walk the 20 ft and look it up !

[toxicpixie]

Heck, mines not just 20ft away horizontally, but about forty feet up as it's in the loft so buggered if me checking is likely

[Dr Dave]

Luckily mine was only 19.8 ft away!

p. 68 "vulnerable - count as a soft target as well as a hard target when attacked from within 30cm. .... These armoured vehicles have very thin plating, or are open topped."

So they have 3 hits and still save on a 6 (?) Infantry have 6 hits and no save. So it means that carriers, ACs (even fully closed), some SP AT guns (even Archer on the Valentine hull), 1/2 tracks etc can be KO'd by rifle / MG fire at 600m? In BKCIII it's better for infantry to be in the open than in the vehicle. I know people THINK the MG42 was deadly - that's a different topic - but this covers rifle fire as well. Armoured transport is a death trap against small arms fire at MAXIMUM range, so 2 German infantry platoons should be able to destroy a carrier platoon without recourse to any AT weapons?   

And as I've said before "lumbering" needs to go as well. Matildas (at 12 mph) can't keep up with the infantry!