WW2 Radios

[holdfast]

The fact that vehicles have radios appears to presume an all-informed radio net. Once one tank observes something it is axiomatic that the whole battlegroup in aware of it. This seems generous to me. WW2 radios were prone to drifting off net and there was often a lot of chatter which prevented new information from being shared. Even in the 1970s  the radios could not be relied on to remain in contact 100% of the time.
In a Recce game some years ago I recall every unit having a random number ending in 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 and each move a dice was rolled. the comms of units with their random number corresponding with the dice roll were disabled for the next move.
I know that 'each unit on the board represents a network of communications assets', but it seems not to represent reality as I recall it from the 1970s and 1980s.

[Ithoriel]

Feel free to assume a proportion of failed command rolls are due to comms failures - I do.

[holdfast]

Hmm. In that case you could argue that the gunners, who were notoriously good at keeping their communications going, ought to have less chance of failing their command roll, ie a very high number.

[Ithoriel]

BKC is a game of "top down" rather than "bottom up." Right result for the wrong reasons, which I prefer to the reverse. That said, one of the nice things about BKC is that it is easy to give gunners a +1 to command dice rolls if you want.

Don't get hung up on the minutiae, does it get the big picture right?

[holdfast]

Yes the feel is 'about right' as you say. But I am the victim of too many dark nights in dripping woods so comparing stuff with personal experience keeps intruding!

[fred.]

Command rolls factor in a bunch of stuff, certainly including radio issues.

With gunners, there are other demands on their time (or guns) that may factor against the +1. But the BKC system is flexible enough to support this.

If you want to add some further randomness for poor radios, then what you suggest would work within BKC.

But as Ithoriel says its a very top down system, you are either happy with the abstraction or not. Most of the time it works well, but now and again you feel the dice are ruling the day. But you can probably say that about most wargames. It is also worth keeping in mind that a stand is a platoon - so that abstracts stuff out to another level too.

[T13A]

Hi Holdfast

Even in the 1970s  the radios could not be relied on to remain in contact 100% of the time.

Ah. the vagaries of the C42 and B47........

Cheers Paul

[holdfast]

The radios, plus the landrovers without heaters when the exercise directors decreed that we should take the windows off in order to stay alert, are not among the things from the 1970s that I am nostalgic about.

[Raider4]

It is also worth keeping in mind that a stand is a platoon - so that abstracts stuff out to another level too.

That official now, is it? Never liked that - the points made a nonsense of the armoured units IMHO.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Once had an A40 fall apart on me - terrible kit.

[sean66]

I think bad radios in WWII were always a problem. but the only real time you ever heard of it
being a major problem is Operation Market Garden. In the books and the film this is one of the key reasons the landing failed.
mostly glossing over the other main deficiencies with the plan itself.
even in Afghanistan working as a watchkeeper we still had problems with radio comms.
Regards
Sean

[holdfast]

As the kit gets better the higher HQ wants ever more information, quicker, direct to it. You would have been reporting up more detail than was ever imagined in WW2.
I recall being in a (lively) discussion with a gate sentry in Kosovo when a phone went in my group. it was handed to me and SACEUR was on the other end asking if we needed help. (We didn't).
The idea of the guy on the ground being left to cope until things rose to a certain  level remains, but the height of that level has shrunk.

[holdfast]

Returning to the original theme of this Topic. The scale of radios in an Armoured Regiment/Battalion was probably 10 times that in an Infantry Battalion in 1944, so is there not a case for the Command Roll in an Armoured unit being significantly different to that for an Infantry Battalion? I know that there are differences for different nationalities but not for different arms of service.

[Big Insect]

The way to handle that is to buy a lower CV HQ for the infantry than the armour.

The Command CVs cover a multitude of possible situations - ranging from a failed order (radio not operating) through a blunder (the wrong channel being used and a formation being directed to advance into enemy fire or retreat) through to a roll of a double 1 and additional actions being available. You can also boost the CV of your Armour by attaching a recce unit to it and that can much more easily spot enemy activity and then boost the CV of the armour HQ.

[sultanbev]

I tend to base the CV on the training levels of the force involved. An armoured regiment with 10 times more radios than an infantry battalion doesn't do ten times as many actions in real life, you just need more radios to function at your equivalent tactical level (in this case, move each tank around in a vaguely coordinated fashion so they don't bump into each other and attempt to shoot enemies in a combined manner).

The simpler way to factor in the difference if that is your wish in BKC rules, is to ignore the -1/20cm modifier for units fully equipped with radios, or perhaps, alter it to -1/100cm.

Mark B