Since we first bought the Commander Series of rules at the start of the year we've been asked by dozens of people by email and at the shows about what we're going to do with them. Comments have ranged from "Don't touch them, they're perfect!" right through to, "You'll need to change everything...!" and all sorts in between. Now obviously we're never going to be able to completely satisfy 100% of people, but we want to build on the fantastic work of Pete Jones and release a new version of the rules that improves the game whilst keeping them the Blitzkrieg Commander that so many people have enjoyed playing!
So, with the re-writing process underway, we'd like to hear all of your feedback and suggestions on what (if any!) changes you'd like to see made.
We're also going through all of the queries that have been made over on the BKC forum over the past 6 years as well.
8)
The SCW Lists in BKCII need tweaking. I put these together for Pete and there were some glaring 'issues' such as anti-tank rifles that slipped through the proof read. I'd love the opportunity to out this right ;)
I suppose suggesting you start with CWC, rather than BKCII is too late. Personally, CWC is more desperately in need of updating to bring it in line with BKCII, which I have been happy with up to now.
Cheers, Andy
Ah Leon!
Case a. The rules are perfect as they are. Don't change them.
Case b. The rules need to be dramatically updated.
You're just a glutton for punishment aren't you?
BTW Hello Sediment. Welcome to the bestest most inteligentist knowingest forum on the interweb.
Good to see this started
Firstly are we allowed to ask who will be doing the re write?
Personally I would like to see some changes to recon and maybe the introduction of spotting etc, but I suppose this would change a lot of other rules and then it just snowballs from there
I would also vote for an update to CWC first, BKC has already been done. Pete was working on CWC-II before he sold the series.
Cheers
Richard P :)
Best news I've heard all day!
BKC [1st ed.] I happily played as a solo gamer, using the CSG programmed scenarios book. If the rules are still 'solo-gamer friendly' then make sure to feature the fact on the products information - More and more people are solo gaming nowadays and one of the big questions solo gamers always ask is "are these rules solo-play compatible?"
If you do have play testers, then I would recommend a solo gamer or two as part of the mix. [not a plug for myself - though always happy to help where I can]
I'll third what Andy and Richard said
CWC is in desperate need of updating as it is the oldest of the 3 sets
Another vote for CWC.
BKCII might not quite be what every single person wants in exact detail, but it's framework and set up is good.
CWC is languishing in original BKC1 territory, and as Pete was in process of rewriting it I'd suggest getting that rolling and finished instead. Again the basic framework is fine, but the lists/stats need tweaking to the newer BKCII format with AP/AT factors.
Things I'd suggest looking at after the unit stats -
1/ special munitions availability
2/ ATGW - just let them fire like normal or massively reduce their cost
3/ Perhaps update recce to the FWC style which I think most people use?
Errr... can't think anymore off the top of my head!
until you [pendraken miniatures] make a large range of moderns, i'd just be interested in the bkc rules.
if you do expand the moderns, to help sales of cwc, then Operation Desert Storm 1991 would get my vote.
Actually, that's a fair point - without a comprehensive range of moderns CWC is not likely to generate sales in the same way BKC would.
Aside from tweaking the army lists (a lot of which is done on the old forum or battleforce generator already), there's not much it needs aside from a bit of "Pendraken branding".
Maybe add an explicit mechanism for FAO/FAC to flank march. Clarify what starting "dug in" does versus buying trenches or field defences like pill boxes etc. Any more?!
Quote from: fsn on 01 October 2015, 07:17:09 AM
BTW Hello Sediment. Welcome to the bestest most inteligentist knowingest forum on the interweb.
Well said, Nobby....
Welcome from me too, Sediment !
Cheers - Phil
OK.. here goes: BKCII/CWC/FWC
1. Harmonise common rules to BKCII standard - so for example, close assault, recce and separation of 'soft and hard' attack makes sense regardless of period.
2. Update the CWC rules with more recent equipment.
3. Update FWC lists so that the 'ranges' are more complete, so for example, it includes the more recent additions to the Brigade Games SAC range, and new ranges from Dark Realm etc.. and more of the 'copyright' stuff like the Hammers Slammers range.
4. Update FWC so that 'sci-fi' options are actually 'sci-fi' - many of the things like auto-linked weapons and rail guns already exist, but drones, nano-warfare and so on offer some interesting options. (The 'Tomorrow's War' rules are interesting in this respect).
5. Either change the terminology so that the hits are pins/suppression (and still non-cumulative) or are cumulative from turn to turn (I know this is optional).
6. Provide threshold values for weapons (one of the biggest complaints about the xKC series was always that enough 25mm AT guns would knock out a King Tiger, when the big wimp fans would claim they wouldn't even make the commander 'button up')
Overall, they are great rules.
I think the running order you have decided upon for books is good. Why improve CWC to BKCII if you are then going to bring out BKCIII?
So for BKC:
Just personal preference but I would prefer some more structured historical orbats and command structure. I appreciate this is driven some what by the max/mins but think it could be better.
I definitely think the scenarios/set up needs a complete revamp.
I also think retention of some damage at turn end is worthy of consideration.
Finally, I would prefer a slightly more granular approach to morale - by which I mean a move away from entire army break point to a lower level (dependant on the scale you a playing e.g. Battalion for the higher level games or Platoon for the lower.
These are just my personal preferences :)
Looking forward to the relaunch - for me this set had the potential to fill the gap in rules for 1 stand = 1 platoon scale game but was a bit lacking in force structure (again just my opinion!).
Cheers
Nick
I like BKC II pretty much as is.
I'd like to see an official optional "hits stay on" rule.
Not used FWC so no idea what the FWC recce rules are but I've seen them held up as better than the original BKC rules. Does BKC II incorporate them or is that something that might need thinking about?
By and large BKC II falls into the "not broke" category for me.
For some reason, Cold War stuff leaves me cold so happy to see BKC up first!
Also, welcome sediment!
Why thank you for all the welcomes. I've been a member of the forum for two years, but not had anything worthwhile to say before now. I have been an active participant on the BKC/CWC forums for years, and as the rules discussions are migrating here, thought it time to start getting into the dialogue.
Thanks again,
Andy
Quote from: sediment on 01 October 2015, 11:25:06 AM
not had anything worthwhile to say before now.
Can't say that seems to stop most regular posters ... self included :)
.....And now.....Also welcome to DougM, as well ! :-h
Cheers - Phil
Indeed, as friend Techno says, welcome Mr M.
You know, I think these people might actually played ... what is it? CWC and BKC.
Means nothing to me .... Oooooh Vienna!
Quote from: sediment on 01 October 2015, 11:25:06 AM
Why thank you for all the welcomes. I've been a member of the forum for two years, but not had anything worthwhile to say before now. I have been an active participant on the BKC/CWC forums for years, and as the rules discussions are migrating here, thought it time to start getting into the dialogue.
Thanks again,
Andy
Welcome
Don't worry about not posting as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Fsn has been here over 2 years and managed to rack up over 4000 posts
Quote from: Nick B on 01 October 2015, 10:36:53 AM
So for BKC:
Just personal preference but I would prefer some more structured historical orbats and command structure. I appreciate this is driven some what by the max/mins but think it could be better.
I definitely think the scenarios/set up needs a complete revamp.
I also think retention of some damage at turn end is worthy of consideration.
Finally, I would prefer a slightly more granular approach to morale - by which I mean a move away from entire army break point to a lower level (dependant on the scale you a playing e.g. Battalion for the higher level games or Platoon for the lower.
Agree with Nick that the max/min thing just makes for some weird force constructions. It is probably way too late to have structured army lists but its worth considering.
I have never tried hits stay on, but one of the things that put me off CWC (and I played loads of games) was that Western Tanks were practically impossible to KO even with Warsaw Pact weight of numbers.
One final question - will there still be an online force generator??
Hey Nosher,
Try fielding AMX-30s against T-72s and -80s. You finish up with an awful lot of French scrap metal ... quite a bit of Soviet scrap as well. Leopard Is suffer similarly.
Cheers, Andy
Indeedy - Chieftain or later M60's are a really tough kill, and we don't even talk about M1's (esp. up-armoured HA late versions), but most of the NATO tank fleet is about on a par with the Soviets :D
And I find thermobarics & napalm a great equalizer. Auto-suppress, then a second suppression to auto-kill. Takes a little finesse but better than ramming flaming hulks of T-64's into them until they drown...
Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 12:06:13 PM
Welcome
Don't worry about not posting as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Fsn has been here over 2 years and managed to rack up over 4000 posts
And we are still waiting for something useful :D
(actually this is a case of pots and kettles I know )
I have only played CWC a couple of times, but it does need the addition of AP and AT values.
BKC works well. I have played both the normal and the "Hits stay on " option and both work well if slightly differently. So could be put in as an option
I would like to see the the ability of MG's being able to supress tanks come back, for three reasons
Early war tanks were vunerable to MG as they were rather flimsy
I have just read "T 34 in action" by Artem Drabkin. This is a list of memoirs of Russian Tankies. All of them talk about the driver always going into action with his hatch at least partially open so he can see and breat. Virtually every photo in the book shows the T34 with the Drivers hatch open even whe they are obviously engaging the enemy
When you are recieving a lot of ineffectual MG fire in a tank you do not know what else is out there if you are closed up and if your not you are vulnerale to the Mg fire
However these optional rules can be added at the players whim
I agree the BKC lists have definite need of modification, particuarly the numbers of tanks allowed and when stuff is really avaliable. Again this is down to the player to correct the mistakes or play scenarios where the points don't count.
In summary I don't see the urgent need to do anything to BKC, although CWC needs the changes I have mentioned, does Pendraken have enough of a Modern range to justify the time spent on updating them? Thats for Leon and Dave to decide.
Quote from: Techno on 01 October 2015, 11:38:28 AM
.....And now.....Also welcome to DougM, as well ! :-h
Cheers - Phil
Thanks Phil, I'm a long time player of BKC, CWC and FWC. Indeed, I even own one of the forces (Eurofed in blue) photographed in FWC. Great games all, except they seem to have created a monster in the form of excessive lead mountains.
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 02:07:50 PM
except they seem to have created a monster in the form of excessive lead mountains.
That seems to be a
very common cry here, Doug ! ;) ;D
Cheers - Phil
Quote from: toxicpixie on 01 October 2015, 09:04:41 AM
Another vote for CWC.
BKCII might not quite be what every single person wants in exact detail, but it's framework and set up is good.
CWC is languishing in original BKC1 territory, and as Pete was in process of rewriting it I'd suggest getting that rolling and finished instead. Again the basic framework is fine, but the lists/stats need tweaking to the newer BKCII format with AP/AT factors.
Things I'd suggest looking at after the unit stats -
1/ special munitions availability
2/ ATGW - just let them fire like normal or massively reduce their cost
3/ Perhaps update recce to the FWC style which I think most people use?
Errr... can't think anymore off the top of my head!
I am not sure if I am in the minority or not but I have never used the points system in CWC or BKC. So reducing the cost of ATGWS would have no effect on the games we play .
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 02:07:50 PM
excessive lead mountains.
Welcome Doug, although I do not understand the above comment :)
Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 12:06:13 PM
Don't worry about not posting as you have nothing worthwhile to say. Fsn has been here over 2 years and managed to rack up over 4000 posts
I think you'll find I posted something really useful a while ago. About something. Tanks probably.
I have cats. :D :D :D
Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 02:38:47 PM
I am not sure if I am in the minority or not but I have never used the points system in CWC or BKC. So reducing the cost of ATGWS would have no effect on the games we play .
If you don't use the points system then it's probably no biggy on points costs, but to get a "historical effect" you probably need to overstate their numbers, I suspect?
I'd suggest knocking the fire activation limit off, or maybe leaving it on for non-specialist units (e.g. IFVs, Soviet/M60 Starship type tanks with dual gun/launchers) but allow dedicated ATGW units to fire multiple times per turn.
Righty then, first off thanks for all the replies so far, we'll be looking at all of the feedback there.
In answer to some of the questions/posts:
Quote from: Nosher on 01 October 2015, 06:33:14 AM
The SCW Lists in BKCII need tweaking. I put these together for Pete and there were some glaring 'issues' such as anti-tank rifles that slipped through the proof read. I'd love the opportunity to out this right ;)
I think a SCW supplement may be where we go with that, we'll have to have a look and see. We would like to do a series of supplements covering a lot of the other 20th C. conflicts. And no we won't be charging a fortune for them, they'd likely be pdf downloads for a few quid. When it comes to it, I'll certainly be knocking on your door for some input, along with a couple of other people.
Quote from: sediment on 01 October 2015, 07:04:10 AM
I suppose suggesting you start with CWC, rather than BKCII is too late. Personally, CWC is more desperately in need of updating to bring it in line with BKCII, which I have been happy with up to now.
Quote from: cardophillipo on 01 October 2015, 07:21:40 AM
I would also vote for an update to CWC first, BKC has already been done. Pete was working on CWC-II before he sold the series.
Quote from: Shedman on 01 October 2015, 08:45:53 AM
CWC is in desperate need of updating as it is the oldest of the 3 sets
Quote from: toxicpixie on 01 October 2015, 09:04:41 AM
Another vote for CWC.
I understand the theory behind this, but we have to arrange things from a business standpoint at this end. We already have extensive WWII ranges in place, so it makes sense to do BKC first and get both the rules/figures sales from that. CWC is going to require a lot more codes in the catalogue, so it's better to leave that until mid-2016 when we should have more vehicles and a chunk of infantry sculpted at the least.
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:35:46 AM
3. Update FWC lists so that the 'ranges' are more complete, so for example, it includes the more recent additions to the Brigade Games SAC range, and new ranges from Dark Realm etc.. and more of the 'copyright' stuff like the Hammers Slammers range.
As with the above, we'll need to check on that when the time comes. We'd obviously want to have our own Sci-Fi ranges expanded and in place before the revamped FWC rules are released and then we'd need to have a look at which other companies to include as well.
Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 07:20:41 AM
Firstly are we allowed to ask who will be doing the re write?
I'll check with the chap who's doing it and see if he wants to be named / put in the firing line!
8)
It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look. But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.
I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!
Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.' And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation. That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation. For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls. Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end ;)
And hi Andy!
V/R,
Jack
Greetings
I think there are a number of areas of clarification that the original forum probably identifies pretty well from the recurring questions - one of these is spotting which was revised for BKC II but was still not clear.
Regards
Edward
Reintroduce suppressive fire as it was in BKC I ?
Quote from: bigjackmac on 01 October 2015, 04:40:06 PM
It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look. But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.
I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!
Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.' And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation. That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation. For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls. Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end ;)
And hi Andy!
V/R,
Jack
Hi Jack, this seems to be a pretty common 'complaint' about the Commander series.
I think it very much depends on the idea you have in your own head of scale and time. My personal view is that warfare is inherently unpredictable, and that there seem to have been many occasions when something simply went wrong - lead tank misreads map and grinds to a halt, radio net breaks down, unexpected obstacle, dud ammunition, or the wrong load-out means no effective fire, spooked by a discarded milk churn.. the incidents are endless. For me, an automatic activation wouldn't be a game-breaker, but it would seem like a bit of 'dumbing down' as you could always plan with (IMHO) too much certainty.
As for points values, we sometimes use them as a general guideline for force totals, but always model forces based on real TOE. Some of these imbalanced games have given us the best gaming experience.
Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:01:18 PM
Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.
As Leon said, 'Once BKC has been done and re-released, we'll carry out the same process on
Cold War Commander, which will be sometime mid-2016 we expect. Then finally Future War Commander will be the last to get the treatment, end of 2016 hopefully.'
:)
Quote from: bigjackmac on 01 October 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.' And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation. That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation. For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls. Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
Jack
:o >:( NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO .......... NO "FREE ACTIVATIONS" EVER ....
NEVER EVER ...
BURN THE HERETIC! ... oh, OK, if it's optional ... and on a page I can cut out from my copy and burn! :)
First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.
Personally, I have no issues with either ruleset as they stand - I think they are ideal in the context for which they are designed - large scale micro armour games with battalions if not brigades to a side. That said, at my club they are a victim of their own success in that some players use them as the rules for much smaller games, even down to just one or two platoons/units. Inevitably, this leads to frustration when one or more platoons fails to activate! I have asked my mates at the club to contribute to this forum, and hopefully they will pass on some of their good ideas personally. Some of the ideas include allowing COs a certain number of rerolls to allocate during a game - this has the added bonus of giving the CO player more of a role in a multiplayer game.
I would also comment that I once also felt odd about the ability to shrug off hits at the end of a turn, but have since come to live with this by looking at the issue holistically - the unit pulls itself together so to speak, but this perhaps ought to be at the expense of missing a go or penalising activation next turn...
Anyway, hoping the rest of the crew will pitch in...
Cheers and good luck with the revamp, looking forward to the release!
Hi Sparker, welcome to the forum.
The more input the better I think.
If you are not already familiar with the forum you will find it friendly, helpful, supportive, amusing and bewilderingly lunatic by turns, if my experience is anything to go by. I suspect I contribute to all of those aspects :)
Quote from: Sparker on 01 October 2015, 10:23:21 PM
First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.
Personally, I have no issues with either ruleset as they stand - I think they are ideal in the context for which they are designed - large scale micro armour games with battalions if not brigades to a side. That said, at my club they are a victim of their own success in that some players use them as the rules for much smaller games, even down to just one or two platoons/units. Inevitably, this leads to frustration when one or more platoons fails to activate!... <snip>
I think the key to using the Commander series is to pitch the activation rolls at the right level. If people are using two platoons, then make the rolls at section level. One of my personal favourite games using CWC was a 'Nam firefight with essentially a company of USMC trying to reach an evac point across a table that was virtually all jungle. Very small scale for CWC, but it worked as well as a divisional scale Fulda Gap massed armour battle.
On a cautionary note, I wouldn't underestimate the amount of work required to update FWC or CWC.. FWC because current technology change rate means the set could look badly outmoded within two years, and CWC because there has been a lot of new kit and new technology brought to the market in the last 5 years and determining capability even in broad terms can be challenging. How would you rate the SWORDS remote armed robot for example?
There's actually a good argument to be made that you could simply 'stop the clock' on CWC at something like 2000, and have an entirely new set called 'Modern War Commander' - for 2000 - 2020. Which then means you could potentially merge 'MWC' into FWC with current armies at a base tech level representing drones, ecm, auto linked weapons, smart munitions and so on. Rail-guns, sonic and laser weapons are no longer the stuff of sci-fi, and Autonomous Vehicles already operate in the battlespace.
But that is a lot of work, so I would be interested to hear if this is 'out there' thinking, or something Pendraken would consider.
Hi Sparker! :-h
Get rid of points, put in proper lists. I believe there are certain units you can't field the max per 1000 points without going over 1000 points.
Stop with the pretence you can play at one casting=1 vehicle. A tank is either out of the battle or it isn't. The idea you need to hit a tank 3 or 4 times to get accumulated hits to kill it is silly
Bring in some sort of weakened rule. A unit that takes a certain amount of hits compared to its 'wound value' or whatever BKC calls it should be permanently weakened. Units degrade
Here's the biggie.
Look at additional rules to step up a level. 1 stand=1 company. It's a gap in the market.
When playing we have always go e with one tank/stand= platoon. I thought most people did
Quote from: Sparker on 01 October 2015, 10:23:21 PM
First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.
Hi Sparker, welcome to the Forum!
8)
Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 11:39:59 PM
When playing we have always go e with one tank/stand= platoon. I thought most people did
Depends on period and location. Makes no sense for Aussies in Vietnam in CWC for example, and for many of the 'Bush Wars' you would end up with one tank model and 12 infantry stands.
The rules scale well including abstractions from 'company' to divisional and even corp sized games, but getting players to understand that a single model represents up to a squadron or even a regiment is challenging.
We certainly play bases as platoon size units but then we're mainly doing Eastern Front with the odd foray into Northern France.
Points limits are in bands of complete thousands so units you can't field in full at 1000 points are available at 1250, 1500 or 1999 or whatever.
Points values have worked well for our group and I'd be loathe to lose them. As a group we've not been interested in refighting real actions but in fighting campaign battles or fictional one-offs. Believable formations in fictional situations is normally our aim.
Points values are useful as a rough analogue of strength, particularly for less experienced players.
If they are in the rules and you don't want to use them, don't.
If they aren't in the rules it is a bugger to come up with them.
Note I think I saw a FWC game being played once, that is as close as I have got to this family of rules ;)
Welcome to all the new posters :-h
We are mostly harmless :)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 01 October 2015, 11:38:05 PM
Get rid of points, put in proper lists. I believe there are certain units you can't field the max per 1000 points without going over 1000 points.
Whatever you do, don't get rid of points.
Quote from: paulr on 02 October 2015, 04:22:48 AM
Points values are useful as a rough analogue of strength, particularly for less experienced players.
If they are in the rules and you don't want to use them, don't.
If they aren't in the rules it is a bugger to come up with them.
tHIS
Quote from: paulr on 02 October 2015, 04:22:48 AM
Points values are useful as a rough analogue of strength, particularly for less experienced players.
If they are in the rules and you don't want to use them, don't.
If they aren't in the rules it is a bugger to come up with them.
Note I think I saw a FWC game being played once, that is as close as I have got to this family of rules ;)
Welcome to all the new posters :-h
We are mostly harmless :)
Points values are great if you haven't had time to plan, and it's 30 minutes before you have to leave for the club, and there hasn't been the opportunity to work out a historical scenario or OOB, or it's FWC and there isn't one!
Some people also seem to really enjoy the 'game-in-a-game' of working out alternate lists and options. The FWC stuff is really interesting for that, because of the immense variety of tactical doctrines you can employ, not just directly from the rules set like cybernetic organisms or swarms, but also the trade-offs between decisions like - 'giant stompy walkers' or light infantry loaded up with missiles.. heavy armour or shields? Auto linked orbital bombardment or laser weapons? And innumerable permutations thereof. So I have 'light and agile' eurofed, heavy and shooty low-tech South African Federation, tunnelling worms, high tech infantry with dropships and lots of missiles, conventional high tech Pax Arcadians and so on.
http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com.au/search/label/FWC (http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com.au/search/label/FWC)
and the BKC stuff
http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com.au/search/label/BKCII (http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com.au/search/label/BKCII)
Welcome from me, too, Sparker. :-h
Cheers - Phil
Welcome to the forum Sparker.
May you quickly rise up the ranks.
Hi Leon,
Thanks for your feedback. Quite understand the commercial decision, you have a business to run. Personally, I don't have any significant gripes with BKCII, the games I have played with it work really well. So, when do the next batch of moderns hit the streets - anything planned for the Vietnam range?
Hi Jack!
Thanks again,
Andy
Hi, Sparkles. Its surely bad enough for your sanity that you are a friend of His vonship* without joining us reprobates! Love your blog, btw. A warm welcome from me, too!
* For those not in the know, Von Peter Himself - another good blog (if you like 28mm - and Napoleonic Prussians)
As others have said, keep the points. If you want to do historical formations and set up games based on historical actions you can. And you can disregard the force structures and min/maxes quite happily. But as others have said they provide a simple, easy way to get a couple of forces on table for a game both players can enjoy with some vaguely even chance of getting stuck in without requiring masses of set up time. They do give a decent approximation of real world formations anyway (not perfect, but then even real world TOE and strength returns aren't either!), and if you actively try to follow a TOE they work even better.
Scale - I'd love a "proper" one stand = one company variant but that's significantly out of the realms of "slight tarting up to reduce ambiguity and plastering the Pendraken logo everywhere" ;) Depending on model scale and game size I can visualise *KC as either one to one in figure scale or up to platoon scale quite happily.
Stands being reduced in combat capacity as they take fire - you could do that, and Warmaster proper does it with massive units like Dragons or Giants. Problem is, where to draw the line? The accumulated hits don't necessarily represent just actual damage, or at least not "permanent" damage, but rather are a measure of how shock and awe'd the guys are, and how close to melting away, driving at high speed out of battle to "resupply" somewhere safe, abandoning their vehicles or blowing them in place as irreparable they are.
As hits come off at end of turn (but suppressions don't) you still get the effect you see IRL - either units keep fighting, or they hunker down (suppressed) or they skeddale (hits value reached). When that's applied over the whole formation/force etc you see it replicate what happens at the higher level as some are fine, some under fire but shrug it off, some hunkered etc etc.
I wouldn't make major changes to how things work - maybe make an "official" optional rule for hits stay on (my preference is just for AFVs, as we've found infantry get too brittle otherwise), or possibly say any unit with (for instance) six hits that suffers four or more in a turn but doesn't get KO'd is reduced to four hits to kill for the rest of the game, and possibly rolls one less die in firing. But despite some odd subsystems the overall effect works ok, and it's simple and unambiguous and doesn't require book keeping during play!
For myself, BKCII works fine as it is. Yes, it needs a few things clarifying or some better explanations, plus a better layout. Other than that I wouldn't tamper with it. The core selling point for me (and this applied to the original BKC) was that I got everything in one book, with no need for supplements etc. Will I buy BKCIII? Most likely not as the current book, despite its minor flaws, provides me with a perfectly good game as it is.
When I get some time I will actually list the points I feel that need addressing, some of which have already been touched upon.
Hi all, joined so I can add to the debate on this.
Played BKC since it first came out. In fact, The very first game I ran was at a Club Special night, where I ran it as Quizkrieg Commander - questions in increasing order of difficulty - get one right, you get a move and another question. It went down so well two weeks later we had 11 people with copies of the rules. The basic reason we all loved it was that they were simple, intuitive and a good mechanism for moving toy soldiers about on a table, which is all we really wanted. Bear in mind I was able to read the rules twice and immediately understand them well enough to turn them into a Military History Quiz with shooting that worked perfectly on my first go* There are not many rule-sets out there that can make that boast.
I actually thought BKCII was a bit of a retrograde step. with the first edition You were able to look at a player's tank and go 'hmm, medium tank, mid war - it's gonna be move 20, x attacks, 4 hits and probably a 5+ armour save'. with II you had to look it up. But I got used to it and really think a major re-write would be a mistake.
So, change nothing....... but if you are GONNNA...... :)
I would LIKE to see - and bear in mind this is all from the perspective of a man whose focus is on a GAME, not necessarily REALISM. I believe the game should always come first.
- Anti Tank guns get an armour save back - or some other mech that makes them slightly less fragile. also, as it stands if you kill the horse you lose the gun, and horses die really easily. They are a tad too fragile now.
- a fix for spotting. For example as it stands two groups of infantry can end up hunkered down opposite each other, with no way of knowing the other unit are there until someone's nerve breaks and they open fire. It may be realistic but it's not fun in the game - and i LIKE games more than realism.
- the upgrade for infantry with Anti -Tank weapons is good, until someone chooses to ignore the base with rifles to shoot the base with the bazooka. Gamey, but that's what a wise man will do.
- clear and precise rules for cover and indirect fire
- the assault rules in i were a mess, ii were better but still a bit of a faf.
- we play pick-up games mostly. Many of our gamers were raised on systems like DBM where the rules are the rules, and if the rules allow it, and it's to your advantage, you do it. Behold - massed artillery. I would like much stricter max/mins to take this into account. Scenario and orbat gamers can of course ignore these!
-Better lay-out. The rules themselves are only a few pages, it's daft that we find ourselves leafing backward and forward trying to find things we should know, but we do.
- Blunders - the first edition Blunder effects were so mild as to be almost harmless. The second edition ones have some real stingers in them. A middle ground would be better.
Things I would very much NOT want to see;
- a return to the general availability of suppressing fire against armour. It can slow the game down a lot when a desperate man tries to suppress tanks with every rifle, mortar, machine-gun and pea-shooter as he has nothing else left to hit them with.
- a major change to the order mechanism. It's simple, it's clean and it works. Yes, sometimes you may roll terribly and not get a command off. Yes, sometimes your foe rolls 9,8,7,6,5,4,...... and slaughters a unit - but they are rare and it's a game. and frankly, it can be quite hilarious. If you MUST change them, perhaps consider allowing players to purchase a couple of re-rolls as part of their force selection?
- in fact, i want to se no MAJOR CHANGES at all, the rules work. I cannot think of one set of rules that was markedly improved by a subsequent version. I can think of quite a few that were killed stone dead by a major re-write.
- Supplements. No, please - it's wonderful to have one book, one set of rules, all the army lists in one place.
May I finish these suggestions with a re-iteration of my general point – I approach the game as a game. Many people will look at what I say and think 'Hmmmm but no SENSIBLE player with a knowledge of the game would choose to reverse their tank , then move it forwards at an arc to ensure the opposing player always has to Opportunity fire at the front of the tank – that's not realistic' and I agree with that argument – but I also agree with the counter argument that when playing chess you don't go 'Hmmm – Knights didn't actually charge in an L-Shape, that's not realistic – we shall make up a house rule to fix that'. Wargame rules are wargame RULES, and are a structure around which you hang your game. Two strangers should be able to meet, arrange a game, and play using the rules without having to explain that when 'WE play it's not kosher to target the lad with the Panzerfaust if he is not the closest infantry target', or 'WE always say you cannot have more Hummels than were actually manufactured by Rheinmettal-Borsig' and so on.
Pat
* almost perfectly - I misread the rules for artillery and allowed the FAO to use them again and again just like other shooting if he got the rolls off.... ouch.
Welcome to the forum, Pat ! :-h
'Sane' Max ?......Not sure that's appropriate with this bunch. ;) ;D
Cheers - Phil
oh, and stick to the soft-back format, 'Perfect Bound' means all your pages fall out, and cheaply bound hardbacks with saddle stitch can never stand up to the rigours of use. Oh, and the lamination on your covers always peels. :)
I know a good Printer if you are looking...... ;) No I can't get you a discount. :(.
Pat
The points and limitations are the worst part of the rules. I see this game a scenario driven system, which works best at a brigade/Rgt level. The limitations are therefore fairly silly. That said some restrictions on artillery should be made.
Sillies in the rules are based around mortars, which should have an area effect, and cant fire smoke, which is one of their main rolls. Futher the tank commander at Admin Box in Burma 45 was most scared of the Japanese mortars - yet the rules don't allow them to engage AFV. The but here is that if the mortar is off table it becomes artillery, and can.
IanS
"yet the rules don't allow them to engage AFV. The but here is that if the mortar is off table it becomes artillery, and can. "
can't they? we are playing it wrong then ! Doncha just hate it when you find that out? all those tanks I have lost to on-table mortars dammit (they are deadly, I agree, especially if you play it wrong) :D
Quote from: ianrs54 on 02 October 2015, 10:50:30 AM
The points and limitations are the worst part of the rules. I see this game a scenario driven system, which works best at a brigade/Rgt level. The limitations are therefore fairly silly. That said some restrictions on artillery should be made.
Sillies in the rules are based around mortars, which should have an area effect, and cant fire smoke, which is one of their main rolls. Futher the tank commander at Admin Box in Burma 45 was most scared of the Japanese mortars - yet the rules don't allow them to engage AFV. The but here is that if the mortar is off table it becomes artillery, and can.
IanS
Um.
1 / In BKC mortars can engage AFVs - they just hit Open ones on 5+ and fully enclosed on 6's. They don't in CWC, but that's a different kettle of fish!
2/ We've always allowed them to fire smoke. Maybe not officially written in, but it's what they were often used for so... probably needs to be mentioned specifically though, and make sure there's a penalty - smoke rounds were carried but in a minority (barring the UK 2") so worth reiterating the -1 CV for firing smoke? That should cover it without needing to track how many smoke bombs you've got left on table...
3/ Area effect - at platoon scale, that's a no - 20m to 1cm means a stand occupies @100m frontage. If you want to hit more than that, use more mortars... or have them bigger and back off table acting as "proper" arty and not the local commanders immediate response limited fire support...
4/ Points and style of game - if the point system and the min/max's and scenario system is all still there, it caters for everyone who wnats or needs it, and provides good structure to start from. You (or any others) who don't want to use it, don't have to. If it's not there you'll instantly lose the interest of (what I suspect is actually MOST) gamers who want to be easily able to play a consistent game that's at least making a stab at historical flavour.
Quote from: sane max on 02 October 2015, 11:21:51 AM
"yet the rules don't allow them to engage AFV. The but here is that if the mortar is off table it becomes artillery, and can. "
can't they? we are playing it wrong then ! Doncha just hate it when you find that out? all those tanks I have lost to on-table mortars dammit (they are deadly, I agree, especially if you play it wrong) :D
Pat - CWC (and BKC1) on table mortars are soft target only (they have the * by the fire dice); BKC II mortars all have an AT capacity as above. Assuming you're talking about BKC, you were doing it right :D
Hoorah! that makes the score so far; Pat doing it right - 1, Pat doing it wrong, a zillion
On the topic of smoke, I think the rules for it are wrong really - the impression i get is that smoke didn't hide you that well - it made you blurry so the chances of getting hit were much smaller. Even the tiny smoke round from the 2 inch mortar was useful, as all it took was a haze to substantially improve your chances of not being shot
Pat
Quote from: sane max on 02 October 2015, 12:03:04 PM
Hoorah! that makes the score so far; Pat doing it right - 1, Pat doing it wrong, a zillion
On the topic of smoke, I think the rules for it are wrong really - the impression i get is that smoke didn't hide you that well - it made you blurry so the chances of getting hit were much smaller. Even the tiny smoke round from the 2 inch mortar was useful, as all it took was a haze to substantially improve your chances of not being shot
Pat
How did you score - 1 for doing it right?😀
Dat was meant to be a dash, rather than a minus. Sigh
Pat doing it right 1, pat doing it wrong a zillion and ONE
Quote from: sane max on 02 October 2015, 12:03:04 PM
Hoorah! that makes the score so far; Pat doing it right - 1, Pat doing it wrong, a zillion
On the topic of smoke, I think the rules for it are wrong really - the impression i get is that smoke didn't hide you that well - it made you blurry so the chances of getting hit were much smaller. Even the tiny smoke round from the 2 inch mortar was useful, as all it took was a haze to substantially improve your chances of not being shot
Pat
There's also the evidence that moving out of smoke gets you killed - troops and vehicles can't see out either, then emerge in "dribbles" and can be easily picked off whilst finding their bearings...
But - for "game effect" at a relatively high level I'd stick with smoke as written, I think.
Quote from: sane max on 02 October 2015, 12:16:30 PM
Dat was meant to be a dash, rather than a minus. Sigh
Pat doing it right 1, pat doing it wrong a zillion and ONE
A zillion and one things you've done wrong and you have only made 5 posts. Even for here that's impressive
I was referring to life in general, rather than just on here.... anyway, let's not get distracted - the re-write.
I think the consensus here already is that wounds staying on from turn to turn should stay as optrional only, but can I just say I agree very strongly with that. I play other 'Distant cousins of Warmaster' like Black Powder, Hail Caesar etc, and my main bugbear with them is the way you end up with chits and markers all over the place; it distracts very much from the aesthetic, you use a dice as you run out of markers, then you pick up the dice and roll it absentmindedly - keep markers and or record keeping to a minimum is what I am saying. Leaving it as an option is the best course.
Quote from: sane max on 02 October 2015, 12:44:27 PM
you use a dice as you run out of markers, then you pick up the dice and roll it absentmindedly - keep markers and or record keeping to a minimum is what I am saying. Leaving it as an option is the best course.
On the markers thing - we use 5mm dice a lot. Too small to pick up and roll without thinking. Small enough to sit on a base. Available in lots of colours so you can colour code markers where necessary.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 02 October 2015, 01:01:12 PM
On the markers thing - we use 5mm dice a lot. Too small to pick up and roll without thinking. Small enough to sit on a base. Available in lots of colours so you can colour code markers where necessary.
and small enough that if Fat Martin* puts his mug down hard suddenly half my units are supressed. There are plenty of ways to mark stuff on a table I agree, but all of them have some sort of drawback - keeping it simple is the best answer!
*I don't actually know anyone called Martin that is also Fat. The Martin I know is a svelte figure of a man.
Hi Pat
Welcome to the Forum - nothing is sane here
The comments on artillery in BKC hve just reminded me how hate how fragile they are. tey do need some form of saving Throw.
When targeting an artillery piece you used HE mainly to taret the crew. Most guns were knowked out by putting the crew out of action - either dead or run away. Therefore the bigger the crew the harder it should be to destroy the gun. In BKC 2 an ** get only 3 hits a 2pdr has 5 hits. but the crew for the 88 is much larger. Obviously the 88 is phisically a bigger target. I would give all anti tank guns the same value as the size of gun and the size of crew cancels each other out.
Selp propelled guns, particuarly sef propelled anti tank guns need the abilitty to shoot and scoot. I think they get the abiloity in the initiative phase to fire and move with no penalty for movement or move and fire at -1 dice or move fire move at -2 dice , This would allow them to be used more historically accurately.
Mortars need to be an area effect weapon. this could be done by giving them an appropriate beaten zone. All targets in the zone are thrown agianst using the requisite number of dice. but only 6 are kills the rest are possible suppressions. all can be saved against. if the player opes for a less concentrted barrage it covers a bigger area but supression only.
For Smoke they dice for where the shells fall and create a smoke filed area the size of a beaten zone - i like the idea of -1 to the CV to fire smoke to simulate the lack of smoke shells. It would also give a reason for equiping your infantry inits with 2" or 50/60mm mortars. More sales to Pendraken.
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 02 October 2015, 01:59:39 PM
Therefore the bigger the crew the harder it should be to destroy the gun.
I know where you are coming from, but I always started from the assumption the 'more hits for smaller guns' was to factor in the fact they are harder to see and hit. In the desert at least, The '88 was famously easy to knock out 'cos it was a stonking great thing on the horizon that even a British Tank gunner firing a 2-pounder solid shot on the move while drinking tea and eying up Sylvia Simms can hit.
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 02 October 2015, 01:59:39 PM
More sales to Pendraken.
that should be my signature line! 'More Sales to Pendraken!' it has a ring to it, like 'One Land, One King!' or 'Cower Mortals! My Mother is visiting!'
Quote from: bigjackmac on 01 October 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.' And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation. That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation. For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls. Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end ;)
The command activation system is the glaring elephant in the room, to my mind. It is both a strength and weakness in BKC. Let's not kid ourselves - the game engine is good but not perfect. There are some very abstract effects which cop frequent criticism from our (Sparker's) group most times we play.
I like Jack's free activation suggestion (above). This would resolve the most common reproach from frustrated players, who watch their units sit and do nothing all battle. Even if it was tweaked to be some sort of "initiative move" a la Black Powder, where units close to the enemy could do something automatically, it might do the trick and prevent unreasonable command paralysis.
Alternatively, with possibly less ripple on effect, you could cap activations for each unit to three. This will avoid the runaway effect of super troops and reduce the frustration of missing activations for the other side.
Initiative phase, page 10 of rulebook, if you're not playing that then no wonder you are unhappy with the activation system.
Also, hello cae5er, welcome aboard :)
Welcome from me too, Cae5ar.
Shame on us for not doing that before ! :-[
Cheers - Phil
Quoteanyway, let's not get distracted -
You are obviously new here! If you want a serious discussion round here you need to use reverse psychology: start a thread about who would win a race between Ivor the engine and Thomas the tank engine and wait for it to derail (ha!) Into a discussion about facing colours of the Jacobite rebellions.
My toddler is currently shouting about Thomas :D
I now have images of the 1st Sodor Special Engine Detachment with Thomas and Percy decked up as armoured trains...
A whole new meaning for "tank engine?" ;)
I'm pretty sure that they won't be in the lists.
Actually an "official" set of stats/rules for armoured trains would be a good addition now I think about it...
What's the CV of the Fat Contoller?
Thomas was always "too impatient", as I remember it.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 03 October 2015, 10:01:55 AM
Actually an "official" set of stats/rules for armoured trains would be a good addition now I think about it...
What's the CV of the Fat Contoller?
I'm guessing 4, as those trains never listen.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 03 October 2015, 10:05:53 AM
Thomas was always "too impatient", as I remember it.
I try not to remember ;D
the Battlegroups Online should be free to use if you have bought the rules, I don't see why you should have to pay a subscription every year to use it
Make sure every copy has a hole drilled top left corner, so they are easy to hang in the privy. :d
Not a fan...
Seriously, I've tried to stay out of the conversation, apart from my one (serious) post, because I am unlikely to buy them, and even will not really want to play them because of the 'Troll unit' issue, as the "remove all hits at end of turn" has been termed. Given that please don't yell at me for making a second post (I am excluding my Pendraken forum style Trains joke!)
I have two issues with the rules, and I see them as connected. The Troll unit one, and the any scale claim made above.
I know this is just playing with toy soldiers, and civilian games will never be a simulation, but if your rules don't at least ground in reality, you might as well paint up your favourite vehicles and play chess on a landscaped board.
Sections act differently to platoons, which act differently to companies, which act differently to battalions, which act differently to brigades. To say the same rules cover them all is wrong.
I feel the basis to a set of rules has to be ground scale. You don't have to define it precisely, but there has to be some sort of relationship between move distance and weapon range and unit footprint.
Say you have a few (Pendraken, obviously) infantry on a 30mm square base. That could feasibly be a platoon at 1mm =Yard. At that scale it cant be a battalion. Scaling up to battalion means the weapon ranges need shortening or they become ridiculous - I don't buy that its just the centre of operations and people are actually in front of it - you'd have to define a zone around the unit to check for co-locating with other units because attacks would actually hit 2 or more units, and artillery LOVES a clustered target.
As you increase the game scale you increase the time scale. You also lose all the individuality - brigades are a mixture of weapons, an amorphous blob almost, and you are in SPI/Avalon hill terriory. You don't even SEE the pill box, let alone deal with it - As brigadier that is all happening at company/platoon level.
Which leads onto Trolls.
Yes - suppress is the short term "Bugger! keep your heads down", and units do keep fighting after taking casualties, but a Tank company reduced to 7 tanks is going to have reduced fire-power compared to a fresh one at 16. (There is also the 'Firefly Problem' specific to the British Sherman troops. If an individual 76mm Sherman has, for example, Fire-power 5 in a set of rule- I can't check BKC, as my son has his copy in Cardiff- and Fireflies have, say, 8, the relation ship between a standard and a Firefly troop is not the same, because the Firefly is only 1 out of 4. If your troop is fighting 2 panthers, and only the Firefly can hurt them, you are outnumbered 2:1!)
Individual sections may disappear, but companies don't with that level of frequency - larger units can be thought of as having more 'Hit Points' and although their opponent will do incrementally more damage, it is over a time period where the company can pull back or react in another way. Hit the flank of a section and you will possibly get them all. Hit the flank of a company and you hit one platoon, allowing the other 2 to turn and face, which will be helped by the fact they will initially be out of combat.
I realise as I'm not a potential customer, and lots of people like BKC, my comments may be irrelevant "Don't care, Hussar's game isn't what I want to play". However if there is a good set of Stand=Company rules, those I would buy (and NO, NOT "But just call the stands companies")
Quote from: Last Hussar on 03 October 2015, 12:00:52 PM
.....
I have two issues with the rules, and I see them as connected. The Troll unit one, and the any scale claim made above.
.......
I agree with your post about the scale, And i must add we always play at 1 stand=1 section. I have never tried to use them as companies, and don't feel the need to.
But about the troll units, i think that for infantry it works fine, and it acts as schock, but for vehicles it acts more as a 'warning'. I see a hit on a vehicle as a near miss or a non penetrating hit (a big CLING heard on the inside). I see it as level of danger awareness, crew status and the like. Crew get dazed by non penetrating hits, receive minor injuries and are kept of their duty to make small in the field repairs, plug an oil/fuel leak. Alse near miss shells kick up dust, throw debris in front of viewports, and all that stuff.
All that slows a crew down, slows the vehicle, and enlarges the time to response to threats. So when they reach their total hitpoints and are KO'd, i see it as the crew bailing because there is damage they can't repair, they ar stuck or they are taken out.
This is not an ideal way to look at it, but for me it makes sense. Theres a lot of stories around about vehicles taking hit after hit and surviving, or who just need a new crew and can go on working.
Its the vehicles that really annoy me. A hit on a tank is either kill or non kill. With BKC the 'x' numbered hit kills it. If you are playing 1:4 what happens to the platoon that is under constant fire, but the enemy can't quite get that last hit over the course of 4 or 5 turns. I find it hard to believe all 4 tanks are fine.
The default scale for BKC is one stand = 1 platoon.
There is an option to play at 1 stand = 1 section, where vehicles are 1:1.
I don't think it has ever been officially suggested that the rules work for 1 stand = a company, or even higher.
Therefore saying the rules don't work for 1 stand is a company is rather irrelevant.
I think Peter has explained the rationale of the multiple hits fairly well. I think it is also to represent that units can shrug off multiple low level of attacks, but a sustain attack will break them. It may simply be a terminology thing, by calling them hits it immediately makes them look like wounds or something similar directly related to physical damage. But most modern combat is a lot more about perception of damage taken then actual damage taken.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 03 October 2015, 01:09:07 PM
A hit on a tank is either kill or non kill.
So not true I'm not sure where to start!
Even a non-penetrating hit may stun, wound or shock the crew temporarily taking the vehicle out of action. Machine-gun and rifle fire may rattle the crew to the point they bug-out before something heavier can hit them. A vehicle may suffer anything from an engine stall to complete obliteration.
I do feel that gradual removal of hits is a better fit for my view of how combat in the period worked than instant recovery but I have no real problem with the mechanism as written, if people prefer that.
As to the Firefly problem, pretty much all of our games require a certain amount of fudging to make them playable. Most of the games I've played have been Eastern Front but the couple of post D-Day games I've played in we just gave troops with a Firefly one extra dice when firing AT and boosted the points value a little. Realistic? Possibly not but it seemed to work for the games we played. The exceptions to the rules will always need a little ingenuity to model.
For me BKC gives believable results, even though it's sometimes for what seems the wrong reasons, which is why it's my favourite WW2 non-skirmish system. I'd sooner the right result for the wrong reason than vice-versa :)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 03 October 2015, 01:09:07 PM
A hit on a tank is either kill or non kill.
These guys don't agree:
(http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii552/Uriah54/TFH%20AAR/1943/July%2043/July%2014%20-%2019/1%20-%201%20Tiger_zpszqc5kcku.jpg)
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpa1/t51.2885-15/s150x150/e15/928904_338672332998311_996501492_n.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x1/camoSS88/tiger.jpg)
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1_FrontHit.jpg)
I can understand your point of view, but there's so much that could happen, it's unpossible to represent every effect in a game, so hitpoints are the best option.
Don't forget that a lot of tanks were left behind instead of destroyed too, So you could see constant hits as a sign of being in combat and spending ammunition and fuel, and running out of it too.
I remember Last Hussar's attitude to the rules from another forum, LH, if you don't like the fundamental concepts of the rules, and calling them bog-paper is a fairly definitive 'don't like the rules' position, then you can hardly contribute anything constructive to a thread discussing how to amend them. You bang on about scale, but then start from the (incorrect) assumption that a model tank = 1 tank.
It's not a troll rule. There is in fact only 1 'Troll Rule' I know about and that is 'Obvious Troll is Obvious'
Thanks for your contribution.
On the Firefly question - it's the same with any mix of kit at the lowest level you model. With a platoon level game where someone has mixed vehicles you have to fudge somewhere.
Either you separate out the variants into separate stands, or you fudge factors to make a hybrid. Either works, neither is perfect. If you don't want to do that then you need to go to a lower level of rules where one model is one vehicle (or maybe two, but at any rate is where a single model represents a single type of vehicle).
Numbers are similar - if one force has a three tank platoon With three platoons and a command tank per company, but another has three, four tank platoons plus a two tank command section do you go with three platoons each? Are you strict on numbers and say "five real vehicles = one stand, no more, no less", do you fudge a little according to book doctrine, actual usage, perceived effectiveness? What about systems that were deployed in awkward numbers? Lots of infantry guns or support tanks/armoured cars deployed in twos, so do you combine them and use one stand at a higher level, depriving the platoon/company of their support at real world levels, or do you potentially massively overstate their effectiveness by making them equivalent to a full size unit?
Ground scale is always awkwar with that as well - mortars should have a blast area! Well, no. One quick fire mission (successful order in *Commander) probably isn't enough to warrant that - if you get to hit a single stand that's a 100m by 100m ish area already. Pretty good for a few quickly lobbed rounds. Now, you get three orders in a row and you're well away - that's a *real* stoked on the money shot of a barrage. And if you're off table you're firing like that all the time.
Others have answered the hits question, I think, in excellent detail for the level the rules are pitched at, but I do these days quite like playing hits stay on for vehicles, or at least the last hit does. Makes infantry much more resilient in comparison, as otherwise they get a raw deal by mid war! It's not too complex and doesn't require much extra book keeping (we use tiny dice, and are quite good at not sneezing/rolling them these days ;)). I especially like that at what *I* perceive as one to one scale. Using 6mm as written at one platoon to one model (ish) looks and feels fine with the ground scale; in 10mm it has a better feel to my mind at one to one. I'd suggest using the "fighting commanders" optional rule with that as well. The FWC skirmish level vehicle damage chart might also give the deeper detail you want but will slow things up - all you really want to know as the commander is "are they running, firing or hunkered down" after all!
Al this said with the provision that for the level of game *Commander is pitched at I actually prefer Spearhead and use 6mm, but I do like the *Commander series' higher granularity and smaller focus at sort of one to one 1cm =20m for larger scale 10mm models which is nicely pitched AS IS for speed versus realism versus overall result for period feel.
Peter - I assume those photos are shot up tanks that continued fighting - definitely a
Not Kill. Likewise a frightened crew who abandoned a tank that was undamaged =
Kill!The thing I don't like about 'IABSM' is the wounds that rack up on an individual tank: I wonder if a generic 'Damaged -1 to each dice' would be better to represent a tank that isn't quite bad enough for the crew to run with, but is having problems (it could be the COMMANDER is staying, but the crew are scared, so not doing their job. I also think any tank that loses its main gun should be forced to run - tank crews rarely decide to trolley around acting as a mobile pill box when they can't hurt the thing that can hurt them!
Quote from: sane max on 03 October 2015, 07:51:22 PM
I remember Last Hussar's attitude to the rules from another forum, LH, if you don't like the fundamental concepts of the rules, and calling them bog-paper is a fairly definitive 'don't like the rules' position, then you can hardly contribute anything constructive to a thread discussing how to amend them. You bang on about scale, but then start from the (incorrect) assumption that a model tank = 1 tank.
It's not a troll rule. There is in fact only 1 'Troll Rule' I know about and that is 'Obvious Troll is Obvious'
Thanks for your contribution.
I've listed the reasons I don't like it, and why- what I see that could fix them; as far as I can see minor tweaks. I haven't assumed 1:1 - I quoted other people, including the rules. I actually think they have a core of a decent set of rules, but are let down in being too vague in what they are modelling. I truly believe with the correct tweaks they could be a really good set of stand=company rules, a gap in an overstuffed market. I can see that this would have to be a 'new' set, and probably not what BKC players are looking for.
The problem is people who play are pretty happy with what they have, and asking those people what they want is going to only result in a few tweaks eventually after all the attempts to get their favourite house rule in. In that case, Leon, Get them on the market as soon as possible: waiting possibly isn't going to add anything significant, and every day is a day's lost sales, and I don't see you picking up extra sales because of any tweaks.
As regard the 'other forum': Those moaning people have a demographic among them who refuse to play TFL rules for no other reason than 'They have a silly name'. When they are called out on this, I am effectively told to stay away, that is their right. And yes it is, if they want to judge rules based PURELY on the name, then that is their prerogative, but questioning that apparently isn't mine.
On the other hand I have read and played BKC and CWC, and found a number of mechanics I do not feel work. That is my feedback. My suggestion is 'Define what the game is modelling- what does one stand represent' Once you have done that, tighten the rules up around that.
Some input:
Someone pointed out different nations used different platoon strengths. Publish the army lists to reflect that, so a country that uses a 3 Sherman platoon has different stats to one that uses a 5 Sherman platoon. Likewise a 1 Firefly-3 76mm sherman platoon would have SLIGHTLY higher stats, but not "Firefly" stats (were whole firefly troops ever fielded? That would be a frightening Shoot value!)
Quote from: sane max on 03 October 2015, 07:51:22 PM
It's not a troll rule. There is in fact only 1 'Troll Rule' I know about and that is 'Obvious Troll is Obvious'
You obvious haven't met many trolls!
It is in fact The Troll Rule. It refers to the fact that many BKC players are old grown ups like me who remember AD&D in our youth, when the troll regenerated hit points every turn. If the hits come off every turn then the unit has "regenerated", hence it's a troll!
The way BKC models mixed units is that it doesn't even attempt to (barring infantry with integral AT weapons as upgrades), really. Pete went for the same approach most rules do, which is simplicity and modelling them as separate in game stands to move their differing capabilities out. So you can actually use your Fireflies to over watch your normal Shermans, or your flame tanks to conduct the really dangerous close range bunker busting whilst your gun tanks shoot them in instead of kludging them all together as a mess of multiple different stat lines all representing marginally different numbers of actual vehicles with potentially wildly different stats in one model tank.
If you go the latter route then people inevitably get annoyed at being able to use the two Fireflies in a troop of five at 1000 metres effectively or that the stand is just too effective with HE when they should be reserved for hard targets, and you end up with five stat lines reflecting no "specials", one special, two specials, three/four/all in a five tank platoon.
Whilst making them a separate stand might not quite sit right from a micro view point, it actually works BETTER from the macro view point of getting the simulation right from the commanders POV - I do not regret moving past the days of micro, ground up, every subsystem modelled "correctly" games where the end result was always long winded and usually wildly out of step with history or practise :D It's not always ideal, but it does work and it does produce something that's simple and playable as well as approaching "reality" more often than not.
I meant to mention the Troll Rule was likely a D&D regenerating monster side swipe, as opposed to an Internet trolling for arguments sake - perils of phone typing! But it's not unreasonable in practise - the turns fire represents that cluster of time where Stuff Happens, and something actual people from actual fire situations tells us is that you either get categorically knocked out (surprisingly rare as a one shot), suffer enough to make you keep your heads down or scuttle back a bit, or the fire is simply shrugged off no matter the damage as the crews keep their nerves and then keep fighting.
I prefer Spearheads "fine/suppressed/dead" approach myself, but as BKC is a lower level game (tending to a ate down from Division-ish to Regiment/Brigade, though i'd argue both work better a step further - Spearhead at a Brigade/Regiment per player, BKC at about a reinforced battalion), it's not a bad abstraction, trading ease of use and speed for a bit more depth.
Edit: balls, perils of phone posting II - meant also to say even if you don't play, the input as to WHY you don't play is valuable. I wouldn't suggest a major rewrite, as I feel the rules work fine for about where they're pitched but that might not be what Leon & co want or need so the views of people who have played but now don't could spur something useful.
TP- Sorry if I sound over negative. It's frustration. I know a lot of people who play them, and SunJester and I have had a difference of opinion over more than one pint about them. I'd like to thank him for not taking the piss up there.
Hopefully my posts are helpful. I realise that a full rewrite is probably not going to happen, I wasn't going to comment, but I couldn't see people saying anything about what I saw as the major weakness, which is it doesn't seem sure what level it is, and because of that it is too 'flappy'. I just got annoyed with the fact that 3-4 tanks were required to inflict enough damage to kill it, and frustrated that you would get to 3 out of 4 needed, but there it would be next turn like nothing happened.
Think of me as the court jester in the crowd of Yes Men!
I like the other Warmaster derivatives, (not done HC yet, read the rules for P&S, need to get my head around the way the two different arms work together; think it could be a bit loose, rather see them as a unit, but we'll see how it goes). What BKC suffers from is the the problem I never played ACWMaster - it hasn't divorced itself enough from the original to make its period work. When BP came out I read it, and how it handled hits and went 'That's brilliant'. It was still, at heart, WM, but had a simple and elegant mechanism for resolving combat: you don't track casualties any more, but the morale of the unit. Possibly BKC needs that sort of revolutionary thinking, though I think a well applied 'wound' equivalent would work well. I was also a little annoyed when over-running with a tank turned out that bog-standard infantry in the open are more deadly to the tank than the tank is to the infantry.
I have accidently misled us all, I've just realised, including myself. While I am unlikely to buy BKC, if I was convinced that the mechanisms worked and was applied to sister games, I would consider CWC: I have a load of 80's 6mm in the garage, and while I have MSH, it can be a little involved. And I do think that BKC is really more suited to Company units, though I realise that won't happen.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 03 October 2015, 12:00:52 PM
Sections act differently to platoons, which act differently to companies, which act differently to battalions, which act differently to brigades. To say the same rules cover them all is wrong.
I feel the basis to a set of rules has to be ground scale. You don't have to define it precisely, but there has to be some sort of relationship between move distance and weapon range and unit footprint.
I think this is an important issue to resolve.
BkCII and CWC both take this approach. However FWC comes down firmly on the 'unit is a squad/single vehicle/single gun' representation.
What do people think about formalising the three rule sets around the FWC representative scale?
I am still in the 1 stand or tank is a platoon. It makes playing larger actions playable on a 6x4. I think FWC went for the stand equals squad or one tank was to drag in the Epic40k players
Played BKC at both levels. It works best at 1 base = Platoon level. Also I'm reasonably certain that FKC is the same approach. If I want to do 1-1 I'd chose several other sets before BKC etc. where there is more vehicle detail and type differentiation.
DO NOT CHANGE THE REPRESENTATION.
Other people can use it for 1-1 if they wish, and I probably will again, but it was NOT designed for that.
IanS
Quote from: Last Hussar on 03 October 2015, 09:51:03 PM
Peter - I assume those photos are shot up tanks that continued fighting - definitely a Not Kill. Likewise a frightened crew who abandoned a tank that was undamaged = Kill!
YEs, but like the second picture, a hit on that spot (turret ring) can reduce the capability of the tank. Is it destroyed? no, but if that turret doesn't turn untill it's solved, Your crew will be hampered in combat, turning the vehicle instead of the turret.
Last picture has several hits on the gun mantle, again, not destroyed, but i can imagine if you take a hit there, I think Your aim will be off. (don't know if this is correct, anybody care to explain)
We can argue all day, but i don't think we'll find a middle ground we both accept ;D
[Walks into middle ground with two folding chairs, unfolds them, puts them down, sits in one]
While I accept that these tanks can go on fighting in a reduced capacity, in my mind that is probably the sort of stuff you don't want in a table top wargame where you are the Battalion Commander or above. Colonels can't worry about where the Section LMG is. I also posit these are the exception rather than the rule.
[Invites Peter to sit in the other]
It happens but not worth modelling in a battalion game.
[Offers Peter a beer]
Fair? Just out of interest do we know that those damaged tanks continued to fight rather than the crew go 'Fook' and run?
I believe the rules SPECIFICALLY SAY 1:Platoon OR 1:1, which is my argument re 'Troll Tanks' (and, I suppose, "Zombie Infantry")
I want the rules to work - it means I'll be able to get higher level games. It's no good finding the perfect rule set if I can't get an opponent. But at the moment I just don't enjoy them.
I agree with Luddite (Take a screen shot, folks) who is agreeing with me(!) Decide on a representation/scale and tighten the rules up around that.
This would allow two things
- a casualties/damaged rule that degrades performance once a certain amount of damage has been received
- Stats based not JUST on vehicle type, but platoon (as I believe we are heading to) nationality. For instance, the UK used 4 Sherman troops, the US 5 Sherman platoons, so the US platoons have more firepower (more guns), and more resilience (more tanks), though the same defence (same vehicle). You can also do mixed (gun) platoons by adjusting firepower, but to resilience or defence.
I don't know if this is a step too far, too much of a change.
[sits into the chair]
[kindly refuses the beer]
[breaks out the vodka]
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 12:47:29 PM
While I accept that these tanks can go on fighting in a reduced capacity, in my mind that is probably the sort of stuff you don't want in a table top wargame where you are the Battalion Commander or above. Colonels can't worry about where the Section LMG is. I also posit these are the exception rather than the rule.
Every infantry stand in my army has a bren, true, we don't care where the LMG is.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 12:47:29 PM
Fair? Just out of interest do we know that those damaged tanks continued to fight rather than the crew go 'Fook' and run?
I believe the rules SPECIFICALLY SAY 1:Platoon OR 1:1, which is my argument re 'Troll Tanks' (and, I suppose, "Zombie Infantry")
I want the rules to work - it means I'll be able to get higher level games. It's no good finding the perfect rule set if I can't get an opponent. But at the moment I just don't enjoy them.
We don't really care about higher level, lower level. We just like the game and it works for us, So we keep playing. I really can see what you don't like about it, and i understand, but for us it just works. We rarely get to finish a game anyway, because we keep on 'yapping and bugging each other , but that's why we have the games in the first place , for fun :D
It's a pity you don't enjoy them, as it is a widely used set, and that always helps with getting games in!
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 12:47:29 PM
I agree with Luddite (Take a screen shot, folks) who is agreeing with me(!) Decide on a representation/scale and tighten the rules up around that.
Quickly, print screen and put it in the blackmail folder, might come in handy later!
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 12:47:29 PM
This would allow two things
- a casualties/damaged rule that degrades performance once a certain amount of damage has been received
- Stats based not JUST on vehicle type, but platoon (as I believe we are heading to) nationality. For instance, the UK used 4 Sherman troops, the US 5 Sherman platoons, so the US platoons have more firepower (more guns), and more resilience (more tanks), though the same defence (same vehicle). You can also do mixed (gun) platoons by adjusting firepower, but to resilience or defence.
I don't know if this is a step too far, too much of a change.
The first one, i like, and i use a houserule in my sologames to show this. Once a stand has received damage, it can never get back to starting strength, always 1 lower. It doesn't decrease performance, but it makes it easier to kill next time.
The second one, Completely agree !
That was actually quite easy, bet it's the booze who fixed it
LH - well argued but -
Platoon size appears to be almost irrelevant. Sounds odd I know, but the US 5 tank platoon was designed to fight in two 2 tank sections, with a "Manager"
British 3 tank troop was lead by it's very junior officer
4 tank troops were introduced to allow for the fireflies, which operated to the rear of the troop. Later when there were 2 Fireflies per troop the operated in two sections, may be 2 Firefly and 2 75's
It appears that the Guards never used 4 tank troops, using 2 and 1 in 44 and 1 and 2 in 45 (roughly).
Point is - losses of vehicles doesn't reduce firepower, since you can never get 5 tanks on, it's hard enough to get 2 engaging the same target. I have written rules (in another system) to allow for strength of platoons - just added un-needed complications. You also have the oddity of Soviet heavies - a KV or IS company has 5 vehicles, so do we use I base or 2 ? In this case I'd use 1, but you could argue 2. On the other extreme a Stuart trop in the 44 Rgt has 11 vehicles - this I suspect would be 3-4 bases of Recce.
The point is that you use the term platoon to reflect tactical usage, strength can vary. Generally I separate out specialist vehicles like Fireflies and ry this one for size, by May 45 in Italy British armour had 3 tank troops with 1 75mm, 1 76mm and 1 Firefly. It's no just a nightmare for the Logistics train.......
IanS
For me the beauty of Warmaster and it's offspring is that they start at the top and work down.
Starting with groundscale and TOE's feels way too much like the bottom up approach of the rules of my youth which regularly got the detail right but the outcomes wrong.
Quote from: petercooman on 04 October 2015, 01:18:06 PM
Every infantry stand in my army has a bren.
Which is a bit of a cheat when you're playing ancients.
Quote from: sunjester on 03 October 2015, 10:24:20 PM
It is in fact The Troll Rule. It refers to the fact that many BKC players are old grown ups like me who remember AD&D in our youth, when the troll regenerated hit points every turn.
Hey, some of us young grown-ups still play AD&D. And BKC units are
better than trolls - they even regenerate Fire Damage.
Obsessing over that rule when there is a perfectly good optional alternative already in the rule-book still seems like picking faults for the sake of it to me.
Ian - The 5 tank may have broken down from the platoon commander or company commander's point of view, but it was, from Battalion level, fighting as a platoon. Its like a British infantry platoon on the assault. Often the Brens would be grouped under the Sgt to 'shoot the platoon in', while the Lieutenant would lead the rifles in, but we don't model that, we just, as O/C, say "that platoon will close assault that platoon". Of course, if it was the case that 5 US Shermans had the same results as 4 UK ones then the distinction doesn't have to be made.
When we do H&M the normal unit size is the Battalion or Regiment, even though it is made up of companies and platoons, because of the linear nature, we don't worry about those, and you manoeuvre the battalions - Until you play F&F, where those 8 stands represent an entire Brigade, and you don't worry about the location of the 4 constituent regiments, even though in BP, RF&F or TCHAE you are moving them separately
Ithoriel - agreed: Wargames should be top down - FOR THE PLAYERS. This is the purpose of a games designer. He should understand what he is modelling, and, in my view, "Black Box" it. ie once he is clear what result he wants design the simplest but plausible method to represent that.
This seems to be a AT combat blind spot: We will happily roll d10 to represent 100's of muskets firing, but when it comes to a Sherman we want to know each stage of the shot- a too hit number, penetration, effect. the extreme is Yaquinto's Panzer, an Eastern Front Tank to tank game, where every shot is plotted- as its simultaneous movement- then the To Hit number is calculated using the data card which defines each gun on a 20 (TWENTY) range band table (2 hexes per band). This is cross referenced with the base chance, which starts at 20 and is what the mods are applied to. Cross ref the Hit number with the Base chance on a table, to get the % chance to hit.
If you hit, Roll hit location, which will depend on if the shot is rising, falling or flat, as well as angle of attack. Once you've found the location- on a % table (where Turret Front and Mantle are 2 separate locations) you find the armour thickness. Oh this depends on the angle of shot - 0', 30, 45' or 60. (90 is 0' from the side if you think about it) and compare it with the penetration value for that range band. If the penetration is higher you roll for damage - KO, compartment hit (lose tracks or turret basically) or no effect.
I prefer it if when you do the calculations you find tank type A kills Type B 40% of the time, design a system in which the dice roll(s) kill if you roll the equivalent of 40%. BUT THE DESIGNER NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
Peter - can you tell Sunjester that? (One word - Irishkernsinthewarsoftheroses. Yes I'm still bitter.)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 04:00:19 PM
Ian - The 5 tank may have broken down from the platoon commander or company commander's point of view, but it was, from Battalion level, fighting as a platoon. Its like a British infantry platoon on the assault. Often the Brens would be grouped under the Sgt to 'shoot the platoon in', while the Lieutenant would lead the rifles in, but we don't model that, we just, as O/C, say "that platoon will close assault that platoon". Of course, if it was the case that 5 US Shermans had the same results as 4 UK ones then the distinction doesn't have to be made.
Point I was try to make is that the platoon strengths are irrelevant - a troop of 3-5 vehicles would be given the same job. The tactical usage would be the same. In a platoon level game you manoeuvre by Btn/Rgt. Platoon size is NOT an issue. Neither is mixed weaponry, detach it out. Remember by July 44 most US medium tank Btn had a proportion of 76's, which gradually increased. It was roughly 1/3rd, so a Btn would have 3 of those and 6 of the standard Shermans. I suspect the best way to differentiate between unit sizes give it an extra hit, BUT NOT EXTRA SHOOTING DICE. I refer you to the article in S&T "Combined Arms" by DAve Isbby about platoon sizes.
IanS
Fairy Nuff
Quote from: Last Hussar on 04 October 2015, 04:00:19 PM
Ithoriel - agreed: Wargames should be top down - FOR THE PLAYERS. This is the purpose of a games designer. He should understand what he is modelling, and, in my view, "Black Box" it. ie once he is clear what result he wants design the simplest but plausible method to represent that.
I think it needs to be top down for the designer too. Start with the end result and work down to the highest level that models that.
It doesn't matter if an infantry platoon is 24 men or 36 because if even half-a-dozen are actively firing at the enemy you are doing well. similarly, if a tank troop is 3 or 5 strong the chances of more than one having a chance at an effective shot is pretty small.
I have tinkered with charts cross referencing chance to hit with saving throw in BKC to reduce it to one roll. I was voted down by the other 3 I was playing against at the time and we kept to hit and saving die rolls.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 04 October 2015, 07:16:00 PM
I have tinkered with charts cross referencing chance to hit with saving throw in BKC to reduce it to one roll. I was voted down by the other 3 I was playing against at the time and we kept to hit and saving die rolls.
I suspect this is about keeping both players involved in the game and having a hand in the fate of your troops ;)
I'd imagine to get the fire/save down to one roll you'd have to use D10 or D12s, wouldn't you?
I've got another suggestion, though admittedly it's kind of silly and just a personal preference: I hate wanting to roll little numbers. I mean, more is better right? And rolling boxcars beats the hell out of rolling snakeyes. So we actually reversed the roll process. That is, our CO/HQs have a CV that we try to beat, and it goes up each roll, not down. Of course double 6s is two moves, and double 1s is a blunder.
Just me.
V/R,
Jack
Keeps it consistent with the to hit mechanisms, I guess :D
The buckets of dice approach does have a major advantage - it reduces single, swingy dice rolls unduly effecting the game at crucial points. Rolling one six is no more likely than rolling a one; rolling consistently above or below average is harder work thus meaning you get a more normalised result curve over even a single set of firing, let alone a turn or game.
I think I'm done until the CWC rewrite tbh - BKC II (IMO) doesn't actually require much just a rebrand and tidy up.
1/ explicit rules for flank marching FAO/FAC - after a discussion on this on the old forum Pete came down on "I didn't explicitly write this into the rules so yeah, sorry, there's no mechanism for it so you can't". I suspect that was shortly before the rules went elsewhere ;) We just allow a FAC/FAO to accompany a HQ which is flank marching. Easy, reflects reality, simple.
2/ Infantry anti-tank - I'd like to see the upgrades as "free" or at least much cheaper. Currently they end up making a late war infantry stand very expensive but are not much use (if you don't play points, that's not an issue I know).
3/ Tidy up the wording and effects on "dug in" (which is buried a bit)/trenches/pill boxes. ATM trenches are awesome (and very much needed for a defender) but heavier defences are very lack lustre and "dug in" just disappears from sight (ho-ho) and memory.
4/ An OPTIONAL side bar bit re:hit staying on. I see three options but favour the last two two here. Infantry recovering hits is driven by experience of them being very fragile even with six hits, it's easy to rack that up with no save and they just become arty and tank practise targets by mid war -
4a/ All hits stay on everyone. It's simple, but doesn't offer an advantage to infantry and keeps the "monsters" with big hits & saves in the same relative position.
4b/ AFVs keep hits on, Infantry & support weapons don't. Makes tanks have some of LH's desire for detailed damage tracking. You don't need the specifics, but it does give you an idea that Troop X is not going to keep in the fight much longer, or that that Tiger platoon is badly hammered and needs one more push...
4c/ AFV stands never lose the last hit suffered in a turn, thus slowly accumulating hits to represent the damage you can't fix wiby cracking track/with a lump hammer/getting the combat shocked crew back in the armoured death box and pointing the right way.
Other than that, I'm done. Peace, out yo. 8)
Hi all, Beccas here. Long time BKCII fanboy signing in. BKCII is in my top two favourite and most played miniatures games ever.
I just want to say, please don't mess with the Command and Control system. Please don't give formations one free movement. Please don't get rid of blunders. I love the randomness of play. Please don't ruin this game I love.
The little parts I would like to see cleaned up are:
1, Recce. Currently an optional rule that is a wee bit confusing. Every time we play we have to refresh our memories re-reading the rules on page 10.
2, Army list unit limits. Get rid of them. I understand they are there to stop FOW players bringing 100 Tigers to North Africa but let players sort that out with their mates. No-ones playing tournaments with this rule set that I know of.
3, Army lists. Lets make them better. There are some super smart people on the forum. Most would be willing to help out. I get sad when my Aussies invading Borneo cant take Maltida II's and Matilda Frogs in 1945.
4, Hits staying on units. Yeah, I am open to try that. I have never killed a King Tiger in this game.
Finally with all this talk of CWC and FWC. Bring on "Great War Commander" That's what I am talking about. That's what I need. Pendraken have the minis ready to rock and roll. Give it to me.
Cheers
Paul
If I haven't said it before, welcome Mr Beccas.
All this BKC and COC and BLT sounds very complicated and detailed, but I'm sure it makes sense to those who indulge.
I'm sure you'll find a number of equally ... ... enthused people here.
Quote from: fsn on 05 October 2015, 10:17:10 AM
All this BKC and COC and BLT sounds very complicated and detailed, but I'm sure it makes sense to those who indulge.
Firstly, hello and welcome to the
madhouse ... forum from me too!
As to the quote .... this from a man who's forum handle is a "fsn"? :)
I'm pleased to see the passion in the debate about the *KC rules but also pleased with the politeness with which it is being delivered.
I agree that the recce needs an overhaul.
My 2p: have the recce assigned/attached to HQs or COs prior to the game (and exclude FAOs/FACs from receiving recce benefits), and the recce can only report to the command element they are assigned to, rather then "the closest" as this always seems a but daft to me.
I'm in favour of the FWC approach to moving them about as well, as I find that unless recce units start a game quite a way ahead of the main force, they end up milling about next to (or even behind!) the forces they are supposed to be recce'ing for.
Command: a limit on the number of successful command rolls might be OK, but this has rarely come up in games that I have played.
Quote from: pbeccas on 05 October 2015, 09:38:37 AM
I just want to say, please don't mess with the Command and Control system. Please don't give formations one free movement. Please don't get rid of blunders. I love the randomness of play. Please don't ruin this game I love.
The little parts I would like to see cleaned up are:
1, Recce. Currently an optional rule that is a wee bit confusing. Every time we play we have to refresh our memories re-reading the rules on page 10.
2, Army list unit limits. Get rid of them. I understand they are there to stop FOW players bringing 100 Tigers to North Africa but let players sort that out with their mates. No-ones playing tournaments with this rule set that I know of.
3, Army lists. Lets make them better. There are some super smart people on the forum. Most would be willing to help out. I get sad when my Aussies invading Borneo cant take Maltida II's and Matilda Frogs in 1945.
4, Hits staying on units. Yeah, I am open to try that. I have never killed a King Tiger in this game.
Cheers
Paul
1- we seem to have the same problem with a
lot of the rules - there is a game of BKC at our club almost every week, and almost every week someone is going 'what happens when?' to the room in general. I think the rules themselves are just fine, but they need a better lay-out and clearer wording.
2 - oh my no! We play what are in effect tournament games a lot - by that I mean we choose a period and turn up the following week with forces to play it. I have a few army lists for each army and period I have and just drag one out, but some people spend time after each game tinkering with thier forces to make them 'better' . let people have the option.
3 - yes, there are things missing I agree.
4 - I was blessed to be at the table when a pair of Stuarts hit, supressed and then hit and drove back a Jagdtiger with succesive rolls knocking it out - an event which led to howls of horror and outrage from the treadheads. and anything that makes a Tread-Head howl is fine by me!
Quote from: sane max on 05 October 2015, 11:53:08 AM
4 - I was blessed to be at the table when a pair of Stuarts hit, supressed and then hit and drove back a Jagdtiger with succesive rolls knocking it out - an event which led to howls of horror and outrage from the treadheads. and anything that makes a Tread-Head howl is fine by me!
Depends what the tread-heads see as having happened, I think. Are the Jagdtigers piles of burning wreckage? Very, very unlikely. Or, on the other hand, did a pair of Jagdtigers (probably what a stand represents at one stand to a platoon level) come under sustained fire from 8 to 10 Stuarts and decide that, with an optic or two damaged by lucky hits and a couple of crew injured by spalling, that discretion was the better part of valour and proceeded to "advance on Berlin" - they're out of action for the duration of the game either way.
I'm as guilty as any of assuming stands removed equals landscape littered with bodies or with shattered vehicles but "It Ain't Necessarily So" :)
oh I agree of course (although I think the only way a Stuart could inflict spalling on a Jagtiger would be if it fell on one from the top of a cliff)
Jade panther, side armour is fair game, jadgtigger is time to tactically redeploy and call in heavy artillery or air power!
All,
"Please don't give formations one free movement."
Just so we're all on the same page, I only mentioned that as an optional rule.
And Toxicpixie, I like you're breakdown for 'stay-on hits,' pretty cool. I like the 'armor on, infantry off,' in particular.
I'd never really given any thought regarding the FO on flank marches, just put him with his supported unit. Guess I was playing it wrong technical, but, as you pointed out, that's what happens in real life.
Regarding recon: I only have BKCII, not CWC (I was about to purchase the PDF when Pete put up the message about it no longer being available; now it looks like I've got to wait unti 2016). I've always heard CWC has some cool recon rules. Maybe those are worth taking a look at?
Regarding the Stuarts vs Jagdtigers: "...with an optic or two damaged by lucky hits and a couple of crew injured by spalling, that discretion was the better part of valour..."
I could also see it as two German tank commanders seeing a battalion of Stuarts and realizing what must be right behind them, as well as over them (in the form of air/arty), and deciding to mix it up for a second so they could say they did their duty, then get the heck out of dodge. But I get that that's too abstract for some folks.
I also agree with Sane Max about having unit min/maxes in the Army lists. I mean, I get what Pbeccas is saying about working it out with your buddies, but if you can do that you don't need Army lists to begin with.
Regarding Army lists, has anyone looked at it from an order of battle standpoint? I mean, instead of points values, why not use those pages to say 'x' country can field an infantry regiment, a tank regiment, an armored brigade, or a mechanized brigade. Here's how many stands of each kind of unit each of those has, to include arty support. Then you dice for division/corps and air support. And if you're really cool, you could even dice for campaign wear and tear, i.e., roll a D6 for each battalion: 5-6= full strength, 3-4= -1 stand per battalion, 1-2= -2 stands per battalion and that battalion's HQ is -1 CV for the game.
Or something like that. The T/O part is basically what Pendraken has already done with its BKC armies, right?
V/R,
Jack
Jack - CWC has the same roughly Recce rules as BKCII. I'll post the amended rules we used for the small game the other week. That is when I get round to it.
IanS
Ian,
Ahh, okay. Sorry, not sure where I came up with the idea that CWC had different recon rules than BKC :-\ I am prone to just making stuff up every now and again :D :o
"I'll post the amended rules we used for the small game the other week."
That would be much appreciated, Sir.
V/R,
Jack
First Tiger lost to enemy action was taken out by a pair of British 6pdr A/T guns.
Even Jagdtigers aren't immortal and late war German armour plate is far more susceptible to cracking and flaking than early/ mid-war stuff.
No personal experience but from my reading and from talking to one or two who had, pour enough fire into armour and crews become reluctant to wait and see if something bigger is incoming.
Jagdtiger crews were frequently undertrained and the vehicles were massively unreliable.
In order to fire accurately after traversing more than a short distance across rough terrain the gun/ optics needed recalibrated. Plus a crewman had to exit the vehicle and set up the gun for firing or the recoil was in danger of dismounting the gun.
At least one Jagdtiger was lost because the commander panicked and turned the vehicle to present it's weaker side and rear armour to the enemy. Turned round to run away and got the entire crew killed.
Several broke down and were abandoned while manoeuvring to attack.
Several refused to fire on American/ British armour for fear of attracting artillery or air attack.
One of the seventy odd built was lost because a Volksturm unit knocked it out with a panzerfaust because they'd never seen one before!! That's like a 1.5% chance of your tank spontaneously combusting! :)
So many reasons that Stuarts vs Jagdtigers isn't a foregone conclusion. :)
I don't want a slew of special rules to cover all this, BKC II does a fine job with the mechanisms it already has. As said before, right result for the wrong reasons trumps wrong result for the right reasons in my book!
"Several refused to fire on American/ British armour for fear of attracting artillery or air attack."
YES! That is exactly the thought process I was getting at when the Jagdtigers saw a battalion of Stuarts on the way.
"Hey, those sure are little tanks, with even littler guns, but I bet they have radios and a whole lot of friends about." ;)
V/R,
Jack
OK - this is what we used. The ECM is probably a bit higher level than here, and could be ignored. However Recce support is fine, use it for the soviet T-34 platoons, and US cav Troop M3/5/24/8 Lt tanks and HMC's
Recce rules are as follows, just adds a bit more to Ians summary. They are presented below for players to familiarise themselves.
Move : roll a d6. You can make this number of normal movement 'hops' anytime during the command phase. So you can move first or last, or anything in between. Normally you move either to provoke Opp fire [and hence reveal units] or wait until it has been used and then move safely. Unless you roll crap, you can go almost anywhere. 6 x 30 cm is a long way.
Communicate - roll a d6. 1 is auto failure. Otherwise : succeed up to 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 cm distance to the nearest enemy unit. LOS is NOT required. If you succeed you can choose to bolster the CV of the nearest commander by +1, or allow an FAO to direct fire against that unit, or allow an FAC to direct a strike against that unit, or reveal a concealed unit to the rest of your army - which can then shoot at it if given a successful order and units have LOS.
Recce ignore other recce - you can't use them to target each other.
Recce never receive orders, so command distance is irrelevant.
Recce always count one cover class better vs direct fire. No benefit vs indirect fire.
Recce cannot initiate close assault
Recce fight vs close assault like all other troops
Recce can support other troops in close assault and may use response fire like other troops.
You can never boost any commander's CV by more than +1
Recce obey the movement rules for their normal movement -foot or wheels or tracks or whatever
Electronic Warfare Unit
The electronic warfare unit may be attached to any one command (i.e. to any battlegroup led by a CO unit). The unit is treated like a specialised Recce unit. It may act in one of two modes:
ECCM Mode - using a recce action in the Initiative Phase it may roll 1d6. On a score of 6 all command units in the battlegroup add +1 to their CV for the remainder of the turn.
ECM Mode - using a recce action in the Initiative Phase it may roll 1d6. On a score of 6 all enemy command units within 50cm of the EW unit deduct +1 to their CV for the whole of the following player turn.
The unit is treated as the appropriate type of vehicle for the base model (e.g. if the model is a modified Ural 375 truck, use the hits and save value of a truck unit).
Note that this is a Recce Action. The Recce rules on page 10 apply.
As well as these rules there are also rules for units that are classed as Recce Support. The rules for these are as follows:-
Recce Support units are allowed to communicate as an initiative action but should have line of sight to the target unit as they are a solid unit not a representation as a recce stand is. They are not allowed to spot and do not receive the multiple moves. They move as per a regular CWC unit. Recce support does not suffer from command distance penalties.
Comments welcome - but will be ignored, particularly if from foreigners, or Runcorn. Seriously they do work, but need some refining I think.
IanS
Quote from: bigjackmac on 05 October 2015, 04:15:23 PM
Regarding Army lists, has anyone looked at it from an order of battle standpoint? I mean, instead of points values, why not use those pages to say 'x' country can field an infantry regiment, a tank regiment, an armored brigade, or a mechanized brigade. Here's how many stands of each kind of unit each of those has, to include arty support. Then you dice for division/corps and air support. And if you're really cool, you could even dice for campaign wear and tear, i.e., roll a D6 for each battalion: 5-6= full strength, 3-4= -1 stand per battalion, 1-2= -2 stands per battalion and that battalion's HQ is -1 CV for the game.
The first part of this was more in BKC1 which had nice little tables giving the Order of Battles of various formations - it wasn't comphrensive, but certainly gave you a good idea. I think these were dropped due to space constraints in BKC2, as the army lists got a lot longer.
True proble. With including g comprehensive real world or ate is they varied so much. Both officially and unofficially, and from unit to unit - the peculiarities of British (not even commonwealth!) low level tank organisation is In the discussion above. And that's just one small part of o e army in a very general sense...
You need a whole other book for them... The notes in BKC 2 cover them effectively enough with the army lists/theatre selectors providing some more structure. That's enough to give you a generic organisation AND it's enough to give you the flexibility to model a specific unit at a specific time even if you do t just say "hang it" and play a strictly historical game with the strength return of the formations on that specific moment!
Again I'd suggest a rebrand and a touch up, not a major change. The rules work, they produce a mostly reasonable result from the over view and are very flexible. Friction is built in without being restrictive or complex. Average results occur usually with the odd extreme but nothing too swingy. Ok, so I might not like everything but the overall result is decent.
CWC on the other hand is in need of more serious tweaking to bring it into line with the above :)
I agree that the rules are essentially fine. There is always going to be some compromise.
Just follow the wargamers adage "If you don't like the rule - adapt it yourself". That is essentially what most of the above comments are saying.
We have a rule at our club - The one putting on the scenario states what tweaks are in this game - ie - HMG can surpress tanks, hits stay on etc. We then just play them.
I think thet the rules need a few clarifications and rebranding. People who play with BKC2 like the rules otherwise like LH they would not play them. If you change them too much you get another set of rules. This means running the risk that people will not bother to upgrade if they do not like the new changes.
Martin at Peter Pig did this with his last "tweak of AK47" he tweaked it so much it became another set. Lots of peoplke did not like them and stuck with the old set.
Quote from: bigjackmac on 05 October 2015, 04:15:23 PM
Regarding Army lists, has anyone looked at it from an order of battle standpoint?
Very much so. We play most of our games using order of battle rather than the BKC point system. We use the free lists, scenarios and campaigns on the Fire and Fury Battlefront WWII wargame rules website. Battlefront WWII has a similar scale where a stand = a platoon, and a tank represent 3 or 4 tanks. The lists work really well with BKCII. Sometimes you may need to tweak a scenario by adding a HQ but generally the cross over is good.
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 05 October 2015, 07:59:52 PM
Martin at Peter Pig did this with his last "tweak of AK47" he tweaked it so much it became another set. Lots of peoplke did not like them and stuck with the old set.
That's a great example of the over tweak. AK47 went from a brilliant set of rules to a crazy cat set of rules. So we stuck with the old version.
What i would like to see, is a small note on the composition of a bataillion for the army list you are using.
For example, if you look at the online battlegroup builder and you choose a british airborne army in 44, the following shows up on your army sheet under special rules:
-A Para Battalion is composed of an HQ, an MG Platoon, Mortar Platoon and three Companies of 3 Platoons.
-An Air Landing Battalion is composed of an HQ (including a Recce Platoon and Pioneer Platoon), three Companies of 4 Platoons plus a Mortar Section, and a Support Company.
Putting this in the army list gives you a quick idea about the composition of your force, without doing any research!
While this would be great, its a lot of work to compile the data.
And as can be seen from your two examples its actually quite hard to present this data in a consistent format.
And the airborne example is perhaps the most straight forward as there are only 2 battalions.
For British NWE, you would have 5 different battalion structures within an armoured division (excluding the artillery) and I think the independent tank brigades used a slightly different structure again.
While this would be cool - I just think it would be really hard to do. To a degree the force limits try to suggest these kind of structures, but struggle to do so due to the huge variety of kit and formations.
Quote from: petercooman on 05 October 2015, 09:19:10 PM
What i would like to see, is a small note on the composition of a bataillion for the army list you are using.
For example, if you look at the online battlegroup builder and you choose a british airborne army in 44, the following shows up on your army sheet under special rules:
-A Para Battalion is composed of an HQ, an MG Platoon, Mortar Platoon and three Companies of 3 Platoons.
-An Air Landing Battalion is composed of an HQ (including a Recce Platoon and Pioneer Platoon), three Companies of 4 Platoons plus a Mortar Section, and a Support Company.
Putting this in the army list gives you a quick idea about the composition of your force, without doing any research!
My notes for the two para battalions have the following listed
Para = HQ, 9 x Inf, 1 x MMG, 1 x Mortar, 1 x 6pdr and 1 x Eng
Air Landing = HQ, 12* x Inf, 2 x MMG, 3 x Mortar, 2 x 6pdr and 1 x Eng
AL was 4 coy of 4 pltns - but the pltns were quite low strength, so I have gone with 12 stands to represent them. Some of the MGs could be 20mm AA guns, but these were little used.
Quote from: fred 12df on 05 October 2015, 09:52:26 PM
While this would be great, its a lot of work to compile the data.
And as can be seen from your two examples its actually quite hard to present this data in a consistent format.
And the airborne example is perhaps the most straight forward as there are only 2 battalions.
For British NWE, you would have 5 different battalion structures within an armoured division (excluding the artillery) and I think the independent tank brigades used a slightly different structure again.
While this would be cool - I just think it would be really hard to do. To a degree the force limits try to suggest these kind of structures, but struggle to do so due to the huge variety of kit and formations.
Well, they don't have to be completely perfect,and able to cover all structures, but i was thinking more as an example to have a rough guideline of what was commonly used, and change it up yourself to represent 'wear and tear' on the battaillion (or reinforcments)
Re army lists
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12870.0.html
Comments THERE on this, as it can be generic to any system (or period even!)
Quote from: petercooman on 05 October 2015, 10:23:18 PM
Well, they don't have to be completely perfect,and able to cover all structures, but i was thinking more as an example to have a rough guideline of what was commonly used, and change it up yourself to represent 'wear and tear' on the battaillion (or reinforcments)
The more generic you make them, then you rapidly end up back to HQ, 9-12 Inf, MG, Mortar, AT Gun, Eng
Which is pretty close to most battalion structures. Especially if you factor in Regimental or Divisonal assets parcelled out.
True, and that can act as a guideline, and can be put in the list purely as 'optional'
One - and Mr Jones had agreed - BKC should go up to Korea. Apart form the Jets, and even some of them were, the kit and organisation is effectively WWII. You ought to make the cut-off around 1956.
IanS - who knows almost everything.
All,
I like the Last Hussar's idea, pretty cool. And I agree with Fred that his basic load-out (HQ, 9-12 inf, etc...) is a good place to start. And I also agree with Ian regarding BKC going up through BKC. And that he knows almost everything ;)
V/R,
Jack
Whilst I'd agree with covering Korea using BKC, there's already a lot of lists and it's been indicated some might be dropped - what would have to go to squeeze in Korean lists?
As far as the lists go, the revamped BKC will only contain armies for WWII at this stage. We'll be looking at supplements for things like the SCW and Korea, to make better use of our extensive ranges for the former, and to allow us to expand our ranges before covering the latter.
Korea is in CWC
It is, but it's a bad choice of start point in many ways. Too much WW2 kit that then means the stats for later stuff get weirdly compressed... Pete had said before he wanted to roll it into BKC instead and would likely drop it come the CWC rewrite.
If suggest the same for French Indo-China tbh!
Big Issue: Trucks. Currently once the troops jump of out their transports the trucks teleport off the battlefield to the starship Enterprise never to return. I really want to see trucks stay on the battlefield as a cheap & nasty transport formation. Being targeted as normal in shooting. But maybe not counting towards breakpoint when wiped out.
In big desert games you need transport get your infantry around. It's a massive tactical option.
Currently why bother buying and painting trucks. Currently a broken part of the game.
I agree with Korea and French Indochina in BKC vice CWC.
Pbeccas - Regarding trucks, I thought the idea of removing transports was to keep knuckleheads from using trucks to rush up, drop infantry off, then use the trucks to lead the assault, or have empty trucks dash for objectives, or using empty trucks as ersatz recon elements?
V/R,
Jack
A couple of rules would fix that. Equally as bad as the current beam me up Scotty rule.
I suppose man.
I mean, tactically speaking, I don't have a problem with the transports being 'beamed up.' The only other way to do it is to make it mandatory for the player to roll activation rolls until the vehicles exit your own table edge or drop back several hundred yards into a defilade (i.e., shelter out of LOS behind a forest or hill), since that's what they do in real life.
Not a lot of 'rush the enemy lines in trucks, kick the infantry out 50 yards from the enemy trench line, close assault, then hop back in the trucks.'
I suppose I'm not following you in terms of what you want to see happen.
V/R,
Jack
Unless they're being ambushed, driving hell for leather in a break-out or you're playing on a really, really big surface, trucks carrying infantry shouldn't be on the table as far as I'm concerned.
There's a reason infantry are called footsloggers :)
10mm figures on an 1800mm x 1200mm table? Trucks are too valuable to get so close to the action intentionally.
I have trucks because the Real World formation had them but they rarely make it to the table.
"Teleportation" at least clears them off the table and stops some of the potential cheese.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 07 October 2015, 02:09:08 AM
Unless they're being ambushed, driving hell for leather in a break-out or you're playing on a really, really big surface, trucks carrying infantry shouldn't be on the table as far as I'm concerned.
"Teleportation" at least clears them off the table and stops some of the potential cheese.
It comes down to the type of games you play as well. For some reason the guys I game with tend to focus on infantry forces. Try moving a lot of infantry at 10cm a pop. The games go for a long, long boring time.
The main incident where I really noticed truck teleportation as an issue was playing a full day club game of Arnham. Once XXX Corp infantry got out of their trucks at the first ambush, they were knackered for the rest of the game. After a break a house rule was deployed. BKC at the scale its being played at should have the ability to re-use transport.
Cheese can't happen if the rules are written well. A rule can be something as simple as trucks cannot purposely advance within Xcm of an enemy unit. And make that distance at least 50cm away. Which is pretty much realistic.
A house rule allowing them to "beam back down" when the infantry want to remount would solve that. If they do it in an unfeasible place within range of the enemy, then they pay the price with losses from op fire. At least let 30 Corps keep moving!
Cheers, Andy
You know we've never removed trucks! Not been an issue - unarmed soft skins don't count re:breakpoint anyway so unless they get arty'd no one has bothered "cherry picking" them unless they're the only target available :)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 October 2015, 01:17:17 PM
You know we've never removed trucks! Not been an issue - unarmed soft skins don't count re:breakpoint anyway so unless they get arty'd no one has bothered "cherry picking" them unless they're the only target available :)
we leave them on too, for the same reason, and so you can use them again. you are not actually obliged to take them off are you? are we playing that wrong too?
I do recall a game where the 'cunning' player advanced his trucks in front of his infantry to prevent the other guy shooting the footsloggers first. :o.
Pat
I actually have played where we kept the trucks on table; as Pbeccas mentioned, there are certain scenarios where there's plenty of room to maneuver/ground to cover. So when troops dismounted, the trucks automatically backed up about 8 or 12 inches and sat there, and they could be summoned later by infantry wishing to re-mount.
The only orders they were allowed to receive were to move to the infantry they had previously dismounted, then mount them up again. Once the infantry were loaded they could act as normal. But that wasn't really a big deal for us, as neither of us had any ideas of using our trucks as recon/assault forces ;) Our discussion of 'rules' was only in terms of not having to do command rolls to fall back or summon the trucks, it happened automatically. Though this surely took some of the fun out of the game, as, no doubt, one of us most certainly would have rolled a blunder when trying to get our trucks forward to pick the infantry up! And it made for 'too-good' coordination, i.e., as soon as the infantry wanted the trucks they appeared. Not the most realistic, but we didn't want a game that lasted eight hours while simply waiting for trucks. The defender was foot mobile in two widely dispersed areas of the table, so they weren't about to counterattack while the attacker was waiting for trucks, as we were playing in 3mm on a 6' x 8' table.
So, I have no problem with trucks being 're-used,' but I think there should be some mechanism to make sure nothing ridiculous is occurring.
V/R,
Jack
Is there an "unimpressed face" smiley? Tsk. That sort of play rankles with me but no ones ever seriously used that in any of the groups I've played in. As opposed to over running some ones transport which is awesomely good fun!
Perhaps solved by a simple "empty soft skins do not block line of sight/fire" line. Certainly they should never be a priority target! Spearhead (sorry, sound like a broken record I know) prevents this with excellent "fire priority" rules to force people to shoot the most legitimate targets first. Works really well as you can "protect" your armour from infantry AT By having nearby infantry of your own & vice versa, use 75mm Shermans to screen the Fireflys etc etc and it encourages good combined arms and rewards cross attaching units and mixed all arms formations. Not suitable at BKC's level of play though, I think.
Quote from: bigjackmac on 07 October 2015, 02:42:26 PM
So, I have no problem with trucks being 're-used,' but I think there should be some mechanism to make sure nothing ridiculous is occurring.
I believe the 'Commander' rules already have this in the form of the 'pointy stick' rule?
Perhaps trucks teleport off when they deliver their contents but a successful order allows your wizard to successfully cast the "Summon Trucks" spell? ;)
Oh dear, perhaps I'm getting my rule systems muddled here :D :D :D
Sounds like the opposite of buses, teleport away when needed and magically appear in droves when not...
Edinburgh bus service is not only very good but, since I have my "old-fogeys" bus pass, free too. Lothian Buses' Bustracker app even lets you see how long your "Summon Omnibus" spell will take to cast!
"That sort of play rankles with me but no ones ever seriously used that in any of the groups I've played in."
Hey, I'm with you, I've never seen it either, but I can still see the need to have some language in the rules to prevent it, whether it's trucks being beamed up, target priority rules, whatever.
I play almost exclusively solo, so my opponent never does gamey stuff or cheats, though I'm not proud to admit I have cheated him a couple times... ;D ;D
V/R,
Jack
BKC Areas to be looked at (these are the ones we find tricky/unsatisfactory in our games) :
- How "cover" works, in trenches, in buildings etc etc, and especially for infantry. It seems either to make them unkillable obstacles that can't be seen, can't be shifted, or otherwise easy victims to direct fire from AFV's. Not sure on the answer, but maybe an area for clarification or even blue-sky thinking ?
- LOS rules, visibility and terrain effects, especially when it comes to hedges and low area terrain, or when infantry can be seen (and targeted by tanks - see above). Negotiated between players is fine, but probably could be worked through and tightened up to be more workable in the rules
- Costs of command stands. A PITA I know, but CV is a force multiplier that improves all of the models in the army, whether you are playing 1000 or 10,000 points. Likewise the +1 for fixed command structures is a blunt instrument that can end up being far too overly effective as a 'freebie'
- Engineering & scenarios - getting your teams of engineers to the right spot unscathed to remove obstacles, and protecting them whilst they do their job often seems to end up being an integral part of a lot of the scenarios. Engineering should probably be part of the "chrome" around the edges of the rules if you are talking 'toys on table', or maybe even an abstracted capability of some sort to factor in if you are looking at scenario design ... not something vital (and quite so time consuming, but brittle)
- Costs and mechanics of adding AT weapons to infantry stands. We all want to have tooled up units with bazookas, but right now its both a rebasing challenge and a prohibitive cost
- More provision for aircraft, maybe in a less effective role, but with an excuse to loiter on table more often ... even if this means bending the historical precedent to make them more prevalent. This is because seeing model aircraft in 1/144th scale on table is really, really cool, but right now they are very rare. they are also so much more devastating as a one-shot anti-tank unit than as a area bomber that they often effectively become just a Tiger-removal game mechanic.
- Look again at the scenarios generally. They would benefit from some testing about game length, and some guidelines about width of table/CV values of the forces involves etc, as you currently would struggle to achieve some of them even with no opposition!
- Break points. Very blunt and simple, but possibly a more granular approach differentiating tanks and infantry would be good - maybe even list-specific?
tim
Welcome Tim
I see that's your first post. I could have sworn you were a member already,ir maybe I am thinking of another site
Always enjoy your site and goad to see you here
Welcome from me, too, Tim. :-h
Cheers - Phil
Welcome Mr Xeman, or may I call you Mada?
Join for the BKC, stay for the combined cameraderie and insanity.
Quote from: sane max on 07 October 2015, 02:08:48 PM
I do recall a game where the 'cunning' player advanced his trucks in front of his infantry to prevent the other guy shooting the footsloggers first. :o.
Pat
thats rather gamey, not sure he would get many games at our club after that.
Trucks
We leave the trucks on. The only time they get targeted are when the opposition thinks they are full.
Cover.
If I remember rightly big stone buiding like Churches are nearly as tough as purposemade bunkers. We down grade them as while the walls are very thick the roofs are vulnerable to mortar and artillery fire.
We also have a house rule that we sometimes use that states that infantry in houses only get soft cover to "proper artillery" firing indirect. This represents the relatively low cover effect of a house roof and the additional shrapnel caused by the bricks etc when hit with a large shell. It also allows for the concentrated effect of a shell actually landing inside the ruined buiding your infantry are sheltering in.
Welcome Tim. :-h
Personally i don't want to see anything radical, but there are some things I'd like to see some attention given to:
Clarifying unit types
It could do with a bit of tightening up. What's a 'light vehicle' for example?!? Also, shouldn't 'tracks or wheels' interact with terrain and movement? I'd also like to see commanders as proper units rather than the halfway house they are at the moment. I don't see them as a 'centre of command', but rather an actual battlefield presence. Would something around radios and their effects on issuing commands be worth exploring?
To go with that, my group uses basing for almost everything we do and we'll continue with what we use in any case. Would 'formal' figures basing conventions in the rules be useful?
Suppressions and how they are achieved
A bit clunky. Is there an opportunity to remove this layer of dice rolling? Perhaps a fixed suppression threshold?
The turn sequence
The order in which things happen is a bit confusing sometimes. I'd like to see a more formal sequence.
Recce troops
Um...room to improve and simplify?
Transports
Needs some work i think. e.g. trucks and IFVs should operate differently.
Off table support
Every game i've played has had us scratching our heads on this. And off-table artillery is either ineffective or hits home with utter devastation. That might be historical but its not much fun as a game. Simplify and balance. Also, could FAOs and FACs just be 'spotters', with their specific role defined by the off table asset they're assigned too? Since its basically 'calling in off-table dice, why make the distinction?
Decluttering the army lists
They need some work i think. Make things clearer and simpler. I like the suggestions around buying units in 'formations'. I'd like to see just WWII lists in.
Close assault
I think this needs a big overhaul - perhaps the only fundamental change i'd like to see in the rules. I'm not sure why it resolves differently from shooting? And it confuses me every time over extra dice and modifiers. I'm not sure why there are fighting units and support units either. It should also be more decisive. A key WWII friction as i understand is 'fire to suppress then assault to destroy'. I think close assault needs a new approach.
Blue sky thinking - Could there be an argument for removing 'close assault' as a stat? Why not just use AP/AT (with special ability modifiers for close assault units like cavalry, SMGs,flamethrowers, etc.? Particulalry if 1 unit = a platoon, CQB is really close ranged engagements rather than 'toe to toe with a bayonet' isn't it? So why not use the firing stat - after all units can only support if they have a shooting stat...
Flamethrowers
Should be close assault weapons only (certainly man portable ones)
Aircraft and AA fire
Seems a bit lacking.
Terrain set up and effects
Needs a bit of work. If a unit = a platoon (50 men?) it seems weird that individual linear obstacles are represented, or indeed individual buildings. Doesn't the terrain need 'scaling up' a bit? I also find it a bit odd that units stop at the edges of terrain. Wouldn't 1cm moved in terrain = 2cm of movement be cleaner? To use an extreme example, moving an infantry unit into, through and out of a 10x10cm wood currently take 3 orders!!! Wading through treacle doesn't cover it...
Special abilities
The unit special abilities need a complete overhaul. There's four or five abilities that relate to how units assault that all do the same thing slightly differently for example.
On that matter, i think moving things like the rules for 'transport' and 'recce' into a special unit ability makes sense to me.
Cover and protection
Sometimes it makes you harder to hit, sometimes it gives you a save. Pick one and stay with it i reckon.
Destructible environments
To borrow a video game term...there's already some in this with tanks flattening walls etc. But it might be fun to see rules for flattening buildings (reduce them to rubble), and making craters (certain artillery attacks perhaps?
Total rewrite
What I mean by this is not changing the rules, but changing the layout so things are simple, clear, logical, and you don't have to go hunting for the various bits of the rules scattered all over the book.
Um...yeah. Just a bit of a brain dump really. :-[
Quote
Flamethrowers
Should be close assault weapons only (certainly man portable ones)
The man-portable ones are: units with them get a Close Assault rating of 8; the armour mounted ones have a range of 10cm (from memory)
The more we are talking about the rules, the more i just want to keep using this version actually :-\
It has been the mainstay of my gaming group for a couple of years, so they do work!
I'm with Luddite on close assault, that stuff still confuses me.
I don't have a problem with using close assault values (rather than AP/AT firepower values) as I believe that a unit being that close is likely to be able to put more of its weapons into play, and those weapons be more effective, but CA is pretty baffling to me. I suppose I forgot about it because I'd house-ruled it so long ago.
Other than that, despite discussions I've been involved here, I'm with Peter. Overall there's nothing wrong with BKC. I was actually kind of surprised to hear that it was going to be revamped.
V/R,
Jack
Quote from: Fenton on 07 October 2015, 04:40:15 PM
Welcome Tim
I see that's your first post. I could have sworn you were a member already,ir maybe I am thinking of another site
Always enjoy your site and goad to see you here
It does seem as if I've been a member of this site for ages, but never gotten round to posting... ! Anyways, good to start with something meaty :-)
Orcs - Sunjester and I treat houses as Soft cover in IABSM, unless they are stone.
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:35:46 AM
6. Provide threshold values for weapons (one of the biggest complaints about the xKC series was always that enough 25mm AT guns would knock out a King Tiger, when the big wimp fans would claim they wouldn't even make the commander 'button up')
I do see where you are comming from here, but i would argue that these are not skirmish rules and we are talking an overall effect. The knock out simply means it has lost its combat effectiveness for the duration of the game.
A 25mm AT gun would not penetrate the armour of a King tiger. However it is quite capable of breaking a track, knocking off road wheels, damaging optics or taking the commanders head off as the round ricochets off the armour. All of which would effectively take the tank out of action.
If your unlucky to be hit enough times by lots of "ineffective" weaponry to knock you out, you are under heavy fire that alone would reduce your effectiveness and if you are unlucky enough to loose all your saving throws so you are "knocked out " i would suggest one of the above has just happened.
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 07 October 2015, 07:18:32 PM
thats rather gamey, not sure he would get many games at our club after that.
Oh, he was pointy-sticked and then mercilessly teased. It is one of the 'remember that guy' moments all clubs have, like the lad who was desperate to play Warhammer Fantasy but did not have the cash, so would turn up with Dryads (sticks in bluetak) and set out little lumps of red plastic foam carefully and announced 'those are Skaven Jezzailachis'.
Neither is a member now, I assure you. We are all lovely people now. There is one guy who always always takes the biggest cats, or the biggest US tanks the list will allow, but he is mostly harmless.
The man-portable flamethrower rule is a good example of the layout issues. I am assured the rule is in there, and that's how we play it too, but I am damned if i could find it last time I played.
Pat
Quote from: Last Hussar on 08 October 2015, 12:26:27 AM
Orcs - Sunjester and I treat houses as Soft cover in IABSM, unless they are stone.
I'm struggling to remember our "house" rules for, erm, houses (and trenches!) however the current rules mechanics mean you can either
- make things more difficult to hit in the first place,
- make it easier for them to save any hits that they do incur,
- make them easier to suppress.
I guess you can also vary this mix by firer (infantry, direct fire, indirect fire) as well.
It would be nice to see the various types of cover have a coherent and logical / literal way of playing with these various factors to achieve the desired end result - for example, should infantry in trenches be easy to hit with indirect fire, hard to kill, but easier to suppress (keeping heads down when bombarded by area fire) but when shot at with direct fire they become hard to hit, but each hit is harder to save and has a relatively lower chance of suppression (aimed direct fire taking out specific spotted positions) ?
another member of our club is firmly of the opinion that artillery is a) too random and b) too deadly. He feels it should hit the target a lot more reliably, and do a lot less killing when it hits, more supressive than killy.
Now, I disagree as IIRC were not something like 70% of wwii casualties caused by indirect type weapons? But I am just putting his opinion out there, certainly a game in which the artillery does all your fighting can be a bit dull.
(Was it not the a captured German who indignantly claimed the British Infantry 'Didn't do any fighting, they just occupied ground previously cleared by the artillery' to which I would have replied 'yes, and if you had the opportunity to do so, wouldn't you? Now shut up and start walking west, Fritz')
Quote from: Luddite on 07 October 2015, 07:33:15 PM
Cover and protection
Sometimes it makes you harder to hit, sometimes it gives you a save. Pick one and stay with it i reckon.
In real life a hedge makes you harder to target, a wall makes you harder to hit so I understand the BKC rationale but at the scale of the game I'd just give a boost to a unit's save personally.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 08 October 2015, 10:09:00 AM
In real life a hedge makes you harder to target, a wall makes you harder to hit so I understand the BKC rationale but at the scale of the game I'd just give a boost to a unit's save personally.
Yes, but harder to hit also changes your chance of supression doesn't it? A boost to saves doesn't.
Now what i like as a rule mechanic (it's from the deadzone rules), is that if you are in cover, it becomes easier to suppress you. The rationale behind it, is that you will be more eager to duck if there is something to duck behind.
Both reduce the chance of suppression by reducing the average number of hits, no?
Just found the "man pack " flamethrower rule on page 34. The flamethrower is built into the engineer stand close assault stats.
To hit a unit in cover
Soft cover - Hedges, wood Hills??? scree or water 5 or 6
Hard cover, wall building houses and bunkers 6
Saving throw
Gun Pit 6
Brick building, trenches, pill box 5
Stone /concrete building , dug out or Bunker 4
This makes a stone building (could be a cottage) but we will accept its substantial stone building just as good cover as a purpose built bunker with 8 feet thick walls and 18 feet thick roofs of reinforced concrete.
hence the house rule
Wooden buildings 6
All other buldings 5 or 6
Bunkers 4
Quote from: Ithoriel on 08 October 2015, 10:35:50 AM
Both reduce the chance of suppression by reducing the average number of hits, no?
True, but not in the same way. 1 hit less is 1 less chance of supression. Supressing on 5+ instead of 4+ has an effect on all hits!
So pursuant to one of my points about what i'd like to see made clearer in BkCIII, I spent some time last night going through CLOSE ASSAULTS in detail, trying to put it into some sort of ordered sequence.
In my games I've DEFINITELY been doing close assault wrong. :-[
Anyway, here's what I extracted from the rules (I don't know how to format lists here so... :-[ ):
1. Move into base contact with enemy
a. Initiative
b. Command
c. CMD, REC, INF support, towed guns??, soft skins?? Cannot assault
d. AFVs only assault in open, unless transporting INF
e. AFVs cannot assault other AFVs
f. Directly towards target unit
g. Cannot interpenetrate suppressed units
h. Cannot assault across linear obstacle unless beginning assault move in contact with it??!!
I. Cannot pass through a gap narrower than 5cm
j. CMD units are overrun
k. Passengers immediately dismount on contact; contact is made with the passenger unit not the transport
l. Contact =
I. Bases line up centre-to-centre on nearest visible edge contacted (what if you cant?)
ii. Only one base in contact with each edge
2. Response fire during assault move
a. Assaulted unit and friends within 10cm can fire at assaulting unit
I. Not if suppressed
ii. Cannot use opportunity fire??
b. Must have LOS to assaulting unit and can fire at any point
c. Each fires individually, resolving hits before moving on to next unit (suppressions and fall backs?)
d. Hits/suppressions on transports during assault move apply to and remain with passengers??
e. Assaulting units suppressed, may stay where they are, or continue assault and fight at disadvantage (what about fall backs? If the unit stops, does additional response fire continue?)
3. Each enemy in contact fights
a. If contact two enemy fight both as separate assaults (in turn?)
b. Soft skinned vehicles?? and soft-skins towing guns?? are knocked out immediately on contact; assault move may then continue to another unit
4. Determine support
a. Any unit with AP/AT can support (even if it it can't hurt opponent)
b. CMD, REC cannot support
c. Must be within 10cm and LOS of friendly unit in assault
d. Unit supports only one other unit per combat
e. Units in support are affected by combat
5. Close assault resolution
a. Initiative phase = resolved before start of command phase
b. Command phase = resolve once all units have completed actions in the current Order
c. Active player determines order of resolution (so each 1-on-1 assault resolves in sequence before moving on to the next?)
d. Use CA ability for the units in assault, apply modifiers (see below)
e. Roll 1 die for each attack?? (roll all dice together)
f. Unit that made assault move is always hit as if in the open on that round
g. Unit under assault is hit according to cover
h. All units are in the open on successive assault rounds
I. Allocating hits; hits are applied to a single unit as follows
I. Enemy in contact with front of base, then
ii. Enemy in contact with flank of base (if two, randomise), then
iii. Enemy in contact with rear of base
j. Roll saves.
k. Remove knocked out units ('Do not roll for suppression or fall-back.')???
6. Close assault outcome
a. If opposing units survive, compare all hits taken by all units on each side of the close assault
I. All units = units in assault and supporting units
ii. All hits = all hits taken this turn in close assault and otherwise
b. Total its equal and assault units still in contact?
I. Fight another close assault immediately
ii. Neither side counts as making an assault move
iii. Both sides are hit as if in the open
c. Total its equal and assault units not in contact?
I. Attacker consolidates
ii. Defender consolidates
d. One side greater but not double (include 0-1 split, and 1-2 split)
I. Losers in contact suppressed and retreat
ii. Losing support units remain where they are
iii. All winning units consolidate
e. One side double or more
I. Losers in contact are knocked out
ii. Loser support units suppressed and retreat
iii. All winning units consolidate
7. Consolidate
a. Each unit moves up to 5cm in any direction and change facing
b. Cannot move to within 5cm of visible enemy unit
c. Troops on foot?? may board transport within 5cm, if that transport does not move.
d. Towed guns?? may limber up onto transport in contact, if that transport does not move.
8. Retreat
a. Move half unit move value
I. If in contact - directly away from enemy in contact
ii. If in support - directly away from nearest visible enemy involved in the close assault
b. Do not change facing
c. May move to within 5cm of any enemy unit
d. Contact?
I. Friendly unsuppressed unit – halt, that friendly unit is suppressed
ii. Friendly suppressed unit – both units knocked out
iii. Enemy non-CMD unit – knocked out
iv. Enemy CMD unit – both units knocked out (good way to kill enemy CMD!)
v. Impassable terrain – knocked out
vi. Non-dummy minefield – knocked out
vii. Off table – knocked out
viii. Unlimbered guns – knocked out
ix. Troops in fortifications – knocked out
x. Dug-in AFVs – knocked out
Condition Modifier
Each unit assaulting the enemy +1
Each unit in support of the assault +1
Per infantry or engineer unit vs open AFV +1
Each unit that is suppressed -1
Fighting to the flank or rear (each) -1
Do these modifiers add dice or modify the die roll??
Target Hit
Units in the open 4, 5 or 6
Units in soft or partial cover 5 or 6
Units in hard or full cover 6
Is there an opportunity to do something about clarifying how that works, or perhaps making it a bit simpler? :-\
Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:35:46 AM
OK.. here goes: BKCII/CWC/FWC
1. Harmonise common rules to BKCII standard - so for example, close assault, recce and separation of 'soft and hard' attack makes sense regardless of period.
2. Update the CWC rules with more recent equipment.
3. Update FWC lists so that the 'ranges' are more complete, so for example, it includes the more recent additions to the Brigade Games SAC range, and new ranges from Dark Realm etc.. and more of the 'copyright' stuff like the Hammers Slammers range.
4. Update FWC so that 'sci-fi' options are actually 'sci-fi' - many of the things like auto-linked weapons and rail guns already exist, but drones, nano-warfare and so on offer some interesting options. (The 'Tomorrow's War' rules are interesting in this respect).
5. Either change the terminology so that the hits are pins/suppression (and still non-cumulative) or are cumulative from turn to turn (I know this is optional).
6. Provide threshold values for weapons (one of the biggest complaints about the xKC series was always that enough 25mm AT guns would knock out a King Tiger, when the big wimp fans would claim they wouldn't even make the commander 'button up')
Overall, they are great rules.
I agree with all of the above. One other item to be added to the above. Different tactical doctrine alters the break point for formations. The normal break point is 50%. As written the rules currently have this done by reducing/adding to the break point by one unit per 1000 points. This can be rather drastic for very expensive units. Instead change it to 40$ and 60%.
Also the current method of activating formations is fine as is and should not be changed.
Bill
Welcome Bill! :D :-h
Coupke of thoughts but nothing massive as in on the phone not a proper machine!
Close assault - could do with simplifying? It's easy enough when you get into it but it is log winded. You get the "here they come fire" instead of op fire as otherwise close assault would be very easy - no ops fire I you do it as an initiative over for instance, or if the attacked unit has already op's fired.
That said I'd remove it for simplicities sake and just let people op's fire if they're otherwise allowed - given how difficult close assault is ATM it might make winkling people out of trenches a less daunting propositions.
Morale/suppression a - good idea on changing from the 1/1000pts based bonus/penalties. It tends to make Rigid armies very hard to dent whilst Flexible ones go very very quickly. Cheaper troops means more of them means larger breakpoint to begin with, this is then pumped up with the doctrine bonus to nigh impossible levels to reach & vice versa. Not sure a percentage based system helps there. Perhaps a fixed penalty or bigger swing to 1:2000pts?
HQs as fighting units - there's good optional rules for that already, try them! I'd suggest you can do lower level HQs as "fighting command" and the CinC or regiment (or battalion depending on viewpoint) as "normal". Also, HQ/Fac/Fao in close combat - with the rules as written they're hard to kill because they just get "overrun" and bounce back. You can herd them around but can't kill them! Treat them as normal units again maybe?
Right, my two penneth is:
- Basically the rules work fine as they are IMHO. Please do not change the core mechanics.
- The layout and descriptions could be streamlined to make them easier to follow.
- Recce definitely needs clarification and some examples if it is to become a core mechanic.
- The Random Points Modifier on page 43 is fine, but the Army lists do not have them included! Pete had to put them on the BKC Forum, so they could do with going back into the book.
- Re-introduce the Campaign system from BKC. Not perfect but it works pretty well for us.
- Re-introduce some of the rules from BKC, such as MGs being able to suppress AFVs and Infantry units being able to dig-in when more than a certain distance from the enemy.
- Take a hard look at the Battlegroup Selection Limits, as in many cases you simply cannot field a 'historical' force within the 1,000pts 'limit', as they are either too cheap or too expensive.
I think they are the main things from my point of view. As expressed before, I doubt very much whether I would buy a new version of the rules as I'm quite happy with them as they are, despite the points outlined above. I know what needs addressing and have played for long enough for them not to be an issue.
For new players an improved version of the rules with many of the suggestions from other members taken on board would be a good thing
How does the 'damaged' rule work? I know there was a discussion about porting them in from WarMaster, I've only played V 1 (I think), and didn't own the rules, and opponents didnt use it
We play the rules a lot and it's taken about a week to get through this thread on and off. So my own thoughts don't really change much as the optional rules in BKC 2 cover most of the circumstances already. (Keeping hits, changing HQ types to having full stats etc)
Update/clarify recce rules. (I believe from the SMP forum that the CWC ones were better written)
Add back in HMG's being able to suppress armour with weight of fire.
We play to vaguely historical Orbats anyway and have found so far that most of the stuff exists in the Pendraken range already, so there's an awful lot of army list entries that I never bother checking.
Transport trucks. We use them and have always left them on table, the rules state they don't count towards breakpoint, but it can be a bugger when they get caught in an artillery barrage and you're troops have to walk to the next objective or the troops suddenly disembark miles from the objective. It happens, it doesn't affect the way we play the game.
Tightening up of the wording used in the book would be helpful, I'm lucky I guess that me and my opponent tend to have the same interpretations of the rules so it's not a big issue for us but could be useful for others.
Damaging big stuff. The monster rules in Warmaster work along the lines that something with a large number of hits will reduce effectiveness if it takes half of it's hits in one turn. It's attack stat and hits are halved (I haven't checked them all properly so that might be slightly wrong) for the remainder of the game. I think usually it's for stuff that starts with about 8 hits.
I don't know what the recce rules are - I remember them seeming weird when I played a couple of games, but the regular players didn't seem phased at all. However why not make recce units work properly and put in some sort of blinds/spotting rules?
Give the recce units a reason.
That's one of the things recce units already do :)
They also allow FAO/FAC to use their LoS or can add to the CV of a HQ stand :)
There's blinds?
There's actually a suggestion for them, and rules in CWC in more detail, but I was actually talking about what recce can do :)
I'm not convinced about blinds tbh - they mainly serve just to slow things down. Between terrain and spotting and the vagaries & friction of the command system they're not a lot of use in the Commander series. Especially if they run into preplanned Fire, then it's very complex unless you just say they get auto revealed then!
It's a potential bit of chrome but it's definitely something extra and not a core mechanic. Those who like such systems are probably better serve using their own existing ideas tbh, at least without a fundamental change to the whole system.
We've used 'Blinds' in our games and for certain scenarios, they work a treat, and add another dimension to the game IMHO.
No blinds!
I've painted these figures, they're going on the table. Grr...
From memory I use some small counters that represent the HQ unit and/or blind, which is changed to the troops etc when spotted. They don't last long on the table, but give a nice game as mentioned before.
We have used blinds (sort of). Infantry that can't be seen at the start of the game because they are in terrain/dug in etc, were represented by a counter, once the could be seen by someone we revealed them. It worked fine for us, but that's our own rules for certain scenarios, no need to write it into the rules.
Not played those games
Quote from: Last Hussar on 14 October 2015, 06:14:38 PM
Not played those games
Probably because you hate BKC rules.
Well you like them. Sort of canary in the mine.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 14 October 2015, 08:47:01 PM
Well you like them. Sort of canary in the mine.
With my reputation, more like Cuckoo in the nest!
Don't tell me - you're waiting for the set 2 versions down?
Please clarify the Recce rules and expand the scenario write-ups to make them a bit clearer. Please don't mess with the activation rules but perhaps consider adding a rule that gives an HQ an automatic activation the turn after failing an activation on the first roll.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 15 October 2015, 08:19:58 PM
Don't tell me - you're waiting for the set 2 versions down?
Precisely If the next one down is an improved version the set 2 versions down is going to be better still. :d
A couple more. The cost of panzerfausts need to be reduced and the line of sight/line of fire rules could use some clarification.
Quote from: T Madvid on 09 November 2015, 05:00:42 PM
(...) The cost of panzerfausts need to be reduced (...)
Hello
Could you explain why ? ( I never needed this, but may be I'm wrong. I really don't want to see uber-germans as seen in other rules .. ;) )
It's more the limitations of all IATW that's an issue, at least within points games.
ATRs are fine, only ten points and have a usable range (but rubbish dice). But they're cheap. So at 50+10pts an infantry stand isn't a massive points sink.
Late war however -
50pts for infantry. OK. Then 50pts for Panzershrek with good dice and probably usable but short range (6/10). You're now as expensive as a light AFV or off table arty battery, but much less useful. THEN you add in the Panzerfaust, with BIG dice but woeful and virtually unusable range (8/5). You're now 150pts (approx), the cost of a useful Medium tank. Only you're slow, squishy, die from arty just looking at you AND have no range, so 100pts of AT capacity is completely wasted. Just get a tank.
Now, playing "historical only" without points that's fine - you just give all the Germans whatever AT capacity you feel they should have (or Allies bazookas, or the Russians Panzerfausts etc etc); in a pick up game it's unworkable. Leads back to the only "sensible" decision ending up with Luftwaffe ear nose & throat platoons for infantry with no AT capacity and spend the rest on something useful. Much like the infamous "I brought an entire Russian Rifle Regiment to the game, and still had room for Battalion of T-34's! approach".
I'd suggest reducing the cost massively, and would be half tempted to just add them anyway except that might make it awkward on historical "breakpoints" - if every German infantry stand from '43 inwards has Fausts & Shreks out the wazoo it's likely not very realistic, at least apart from those that should :D
You could just massively discount them, or perhaps something like saying on any given turn one in three stands can fire as IATW etc. I'd go for as simple an option as possible though - a massive discount for the short range seems easiest.
I'd lean towards making Panzerfausts an improvement to the close assault value (vs armour/fortifications only), rather than a ranged weapon. Only the very latest versions had a range of 100m (5cm in the default ground scale), and to my understanding they were primarily used as ambush weapons, so quite a short range in practise.
Granted they are quite expensive currently....
That's another, good option - I think at the scale BKC is aimed at I can envision the "platoon position" being the stand, but that the "extra" range represents the couple of teams with 'Fausts sneaking about in useful ambush/flank positions that we can't see on the wargames table (much like Spearheads rationale for infantry AT weapons having a 300m range :D).
As the lists are dated, allow a ratio of free panzerfausts and Panzershrecks to the numbetr of infantry stands , depending on the date.
To make the Pzfaust more useful give the force percentace change of stanmds having panzerfausts.
ie 50% chance then when decalring fire opn a go they wish to use one, throw a D6 and 1-3 they don't have any. 4-6 they have one. That also stops the stands allocated them being picked off because your opponent know where they are
Quote from: T Madvid on 09 November 2015, 05:00:42 PM
A couple more. The cost of panzerfausts need to be reduced and the line of sight/line of fire rules could use some clarification.
Absolutely not. Panzerfausts and similar IATW are very powerful if used as historically, from ambush, under cover, and in built up areas. If you want to use infantry vs armour, it's up close and personal. The advantage is the big dice numbers that make it very likely a hit is a kill...
And if infantry is dead meat to artillery in your games, I would suggest that with a decent sized stonk, infantry in the open should be dead meat. Infantry should be in cover, darting about from cover to cover or dug in.
Check out the visibility rules - they are the infantryman's friend. I do think there could be a slightly extended range for IATW to reflect a potentially hidden team or teams in front of the main positions. It should be possible for armour to be hit by IATW before spotting. (Recce, recce, and more Recce).
That's fine, if you play a historical scenario. However, it's not great otherwise. Any infantry with a meaty set of dice and a short range is hit but Germans get hit twice over as they have both 'Faust and 'Shrek added & costed separately. This makes them as expensive as a decent medium tank for far less utility. It's not a question of tactics, it's one of balance. The points system massively over values the amount of dice (you're paying for 13 dice of attack power) and ignores the range.
Yes, you may be able to use them from ambush but more likely you won't. What you'd be better with is ignoring the IATW and just getting a few more mid range tanks. Not exactly historical. I'd be tempted by saying "one upgrade per X stands" and allow the player to choose which stand is firing with it that turn (so it can't be "cherry picked", unless you're really unlucky on Ops Fire ;)), or as suggested roll 'Fausts in as a close combat upgrade and then make Bazooka/PIAT/Shreks cheaper.
Infantry *should* have them, and *should* have them along side their rifles as appropriate but atm they're massively overpriced - drop them from a couple of stands, get a proper tank. Not historical but very much the better option.
We do do know the visibility rules - they don't help. Recce can spot, field defences & buildings aren't invisible, and on the attack (even with masses of cover) you WILL have to move in the open which means even a minor stonk will cripple infantry - an AFV will drive right through that and have better fire and better protection. If you're a defender infantry will scuttle into cover and then hope not to get spotted; if they are it's just a case of getting picked off. Even if you get the anti-armour ambush off you need a company sized ambush to reliably knock out a platoon at mid to late war. You're not revealed, and dead - or at least pinned, then dead after a while.
Whilst no part of the system works in isolation this is a pretty easy case for a bit of balancing on cost - the overvalued attack power versus the under appreciated tiny range. Perhaps a huge discount on the points system for soft targets with an attack range of 10cm's or less. Would be easy as opposed to my half formed ideas about X to Y ratio on numbers of stands/points/whatever (others might have something better worked out ;)), as no tweaking on lists or deciding on ratios - that's up to the player.
We realised some months back that all of us had stands of infantry with a figure armed with an IATW but none of us ever bought IATW, for the points value reasons given.
We've been trying various flavours of what has become known here as "Schrödingers 'Shrek." IATW are not allocated to a stand but rather players pay for a single shot with a panzerfaust/ rpg-1 or panzershrek.
Each shot paid for is represented by an mdf chit, discarded when used.
Any eligible infantry unit can use the chit instead of firing it's intrinsic weapons.
We're still playing about with costs (currently 4pts for 'fausts and 5pts for 'shreks) and how many you can have (currently no more than the number of infantry stands you have).
We are finding that armour is much more cautious around infantry.
We tend to play with quite a bit of terrain which makes these things more valuable.
If anyone else fancies trying it and reporting back, it would be interesting to get other perspective on it.
Edited: chits are mdf not cardboard - doh! Mind like a .... what was I saying?
Brilliant name for it :D
"Schrödingers 'Shrek" is exactly what I'd be looking for/been trying to make up in my mind, so long as it can be done simply and easily; shouldn't be any more work than tracking suppression/hits?
yes, I like that method, it would also prevent people deliberately targeting the infantry stands with IATW on first, which does make me snarl.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 10 November 2015, 01:36:36 PM
Brilliant name for it :D
"Schrödingers 'Shrek" is exactly what I'd be looking for/been trying to make up in my mind, so long as it can be done simply and easily; shouldn't be any more work than tracking suppression/hits?
You have a pile of chits. When you fire an IATW you hand your opponent a chit and they keep them until game end. Every one expended is points lost. We use 20mm mdf discs with weapon type, dice used, range and pts value scribbled on in pencil, at the moment. We ever settle on exactly what we want I might ask Leon of he could do me a bag or two of counters.
At present, a stand can only use one chit per action but can burn through as many chits as the player can roll successes.
We have tried limiting it to one chit per stand per turn but watching Tom roll 6 actions for a unit in one turn and fail 6 to-hit rolls in succession is just too much fun to miss :)
Suggestion for revised points for infantry anti-tank weapons (point values in parentheses are per rules)
Anti-tank rifle 1/20 (attack/range) = 10 points (as per rules)
Panzerefaust 8/5 = 20 points (65 points)
Panzerschreck 6/10 = 30 points (50 points)
PIAT 4/10 =20 points (30 points)
Bazooka M1 3/10 =15 points (20 points)
Bazooka M1A1 4/10 = 20 points (30 points)
Bazooka M9 5/10 =- 25 points (40 points)
values determined by multiplying attack times range divided by two. Thus a Panzerfaust which has eight times the attack value but only a quarter of the range of an anti-tank rifle would be double the cost of the anti-tank rifle. Possibly still a bit expensive, though if the point value for anti-tank rifles were reduced to 5 then all the others would also be halved (5 or 10 points for Bazooka M1?)
Of the cuff that looks much more reasonable. Would it be bad to say if equipped with two can only fire one per turn, and just pay for the more expensive? Otherwise Faust plus Schrek is still the cost of another infantry stand...
Quote from: sane max on 10 November 2015, 01:52:10 PM
yes, I like that method, it would also prevent people deliberately targeting the infantry stands with IATW on first, which does make me snarl.
Isn't the counterpoint to that though that if you use the 'chits' method, it means your 'fausts are always miraculously where you need them to be?
Quote from: Luddite on 11 November 2015, 05:43:20 PM
(...) your 'fausts are always miraculously where you need them to be? (...)
Yes. I really don't want another "rules for the germans" as I wrote. I'm fed up with too many rules where the germans were invicible. >:( We should be very careful when changing rules...
( I know
bazookas were written above, but ... you know what I mean )
We felt that there were enough Russian A/T rifles, panzerfausts, panzershreks, rpg-1s etc on battlefields that having them where you want them wasn't too much of a problem.
Limited testing done to date does suggest that, for our group at least, they are often either expended too quickly chasing that last hit that will kill a target or saved for a future the force doesn't have.
Stats are decidedly skewed by Tom's rolling 36 dice in batches of six and failing to get one result higher than a three :D
TBH once they're available in the the real world, everyone should probably have them free except under exceptional circumstances anyway.
I tend to add them to one stand per Company, eg 1 base in 3 for the Brits. I find this works well enough and follows examples I've read of in Normandy, where they were kept back and then distributed to units as required. Obviously this didn't happen all of the time but it works for me. As for points, I often don't bother with them as my 'system' obviates the need for it in this case.
The chits idea would model that nicely at an appropriate level of command for the game (ie CO looks at plan, ground and enemy and says "anti- armour weapons HERE and NOW", and prevents them getting sniped off - although you could knock a chit off per lost infantry stand, perhaps, if you're saying each gives the battlegroup more than one?
If an infantry base represents a platoon (about 50 men), would it not be better simply to factor in a 5cm AT attack to the basic infantry profile in the relevant time periods?
Keep it simple?
As to the points costs, they certainly need looking at.
I guess late war, Volksturm infantry will have only those attacks! :)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 12 November 2015, 08:56:53 AM
... although you could knock a chit off per lost infantry stand, perhaps, if you're saying each gives the battlegroup more than one?
Ooh! I like that idea. I'll try that next time we play. Might modify it slightly to be that you can't have more chits than infantry stands. We'll see.
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
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...
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.
As that was your first post.....
A very warm welcome to the forum, Wurger. :-h
Cheers - Phil
Wotcha Wurger!
Welcome to the forum.
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.
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
Quote from: ianrs54 on 10 March 2016, 07:44:33 AM
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"
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 10 March 2016, 07:32:24 AM
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!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 27 January 2016, 12:04:16 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 11 March 2016, 05:21:22 PM
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
Quote from: Womble67 on 11 March 2016, 05:44:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Leon on 11 March 2016, 06:33:17 PM
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
Quote from: Ithoriel on 10 March 2016, 10:52:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Womble67 on 11 March 2016, 04:13:10 PM
Hi I don't seem to be able to find this optional rule, could you give a page number
Take care
Andy
It's in a barely noticeable side bar - it might even be in CWC! If someone's got a copy of the rules handy they'll be quicker than me finding it as my books are in the loft somewhere :D
For me and a constant question that gets raised are base sizes :) I know it doesn't matter so much, but would love to finally address that once and for all...even if I have to rebase :)
Quote from: Just a few Orcs on 11 March 2016, 06:46:42 PM
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.
Not sure how I missed this Orcs.
You can field 12 x 120 pt tanks in armies from 1000 to 1999 points. That's not a mistake, surely. Taking that many tanks on anything but a table as devoid of terrain as a billiard table might be :)
Quote from: far4ngn on 11 June 2016, 10:15:54 PM
For me and a constant question that gets raised are base sizes :) I know it doesn't matter so much, but would love to finally address that once and for all...even if I have to rebase :)
That's something we've addressed, there'll be recommended basing sizes in the new rules. We'll also be able to package up armies complete with bases, like we're doing with Warband. I'll check the current draft and dig out the new base sizings.
Good man :)
Quote from: Leon on 12 June 2016, 07:15:08 PM
That's something we've addressed, there'll be recommended basing sizes in the new rules. We'll also be able to package up armies complete with bases, like we're doing with Warband. I'll check the current draft and dig out the new base sizings.
Please do, I have a pile of infantry waiting to be based and no idea on base sizes or number to put on each base. Itching to get them based and painted ready for when the rules are released.
First off - Hi
Basing is of no effect in BKC/CWC/FWC. I use 30 x 30 for all but infantry, and 30x20 for infantry, because I already had stuff based on those sizes. Others base their tans on 20x40, and infantry on 40 x20. All play equally well.
IanS
This is the 'recommended' sizings, people can of course use whatever they prefer as well:
Vehicles 50x25mm (1 vehicle)
Infantry 50x25mm (5 infantry)
Artillery 50x50mm (1 gun+crew)
Cavalry 50x25mm (5 cavalry)
Command 50x50mm
Ahaaa but those are for 10mm, most of us use 6mm.......
IanS
I suspect more people than you think might play in 10mm, Ian - we'd given up in 6mm, but all play 10mm for AVBCW, French Indo-China etc.
If we do 6mm it's on 30mm square for everything (barring late added HQs etc) solely as a hangover from other sets. Anything new-ish (last four or five years) is 10mm and on "standard" BKC wide bases.
what about HQ's
40mmx40mm
Quote from: Leon on 13 June 2016, 03:15:26 PM
This is the 'recommended' sizings, people can of course use whatever they prefer as well:
Vehicles 50x25mm (1 vehicle)
Infantry 50x25mm (5 infantry)
Artillery 50x50mm (1 gun+crew)
Cavalry 50x25mm (5 cavalry)
Command 50x50mm
thanks
So Leon....where are we then please?
Is it all over .....or are we likely to get new BKC rules this year?
Quote from: AJ at the Bank on 21 June 2016, 07:32:14 PM
So Leon....where are we then please?
Is it all over .....or are we likely to get new BKC rules this year?
I'm waiting on some of the final feedback from our playtesters, then I can work up the final draft for the printers. We want to make sure we've ironed out any potential kinks before we go to print. I know this is taking longer than planned, but we want to make sure we get it right.
Quote from: Leon on 21 June 2016, 09:35:41 PM
I'm waiting on some of the final feedback from our playtesters, then I can work up the final draft for the printers. We want to make sure we've ironed out any potential kinks before we go to print. I know this is taking longer than planned, but we want to make sure we get it right.
And one of those is me - mea culpa - but work & real life (vastly over-rated IMNSHO) has got in the way... I will be adding my thoughts into the mix in the next 48 hours or so...
Wot Nik said. Just spent a hellish 2 weeks at work so now catching up on a shed load of real life stuff.
One thing that came up just before Pete passed the rules on, can't remember if it was mentioned here or not - did you establish how to flank march with an FAO/FAC?
Technically there's no provision in the rules for it.
I'd suggest either roll their CV as a HQ, or one may be assigned to arrive per flank marching HQ stand.
Also, when Cold War Commander gets looked at can we restrict Soviet thermobaric artillery rounds to the TOS-1 (from '88) and the BM-30 Smerch MLRS (in '89), with stats for both (and the TOS-1 on the table not remote, until very late upgrades it only had a 3.5km range!).
Better still - remove the things.
IanS
Why?
They saw extensive use in Afghanistan for field testing, and then extensive use in every conflict the Russians have been involved in since. If you're going to remove thermobarics you might as well remove the Abrams or any other common weapon system!
For that matter Soviet FASCAM should probably be restricted to mid-late 80's, I think - so far as (admittedly limited) research can tell, they didn't reach service till about '87 (although ICM appears to be present from the '70s).
Those are 89+ and MLR only for first issue, although they did exist for 152's.
IanS
Sorry Ian, what particular "those" do you mean?
The TOS-1 was explicitly designed to use thermobaric rockets, was in combat usage from '88 plus (with rumours of prior use but definitely by then!) - it's the massive MLRS system on top of T-72 body. The BM-30 vehicle was in service a year later with thermobaric rockets.
So far as I know there's no tube delivered thermobarics for the Soviets, and I'm not suggesting adding them. Just the TOS-1 as an actual game unit and then restricting off board use to BM-30 and '89 onwards. Do you have a link for them having a 152mm thermobaric round - if it's very recent I might well have missed it :D Unlike their air delivered, RPG delivered or ATGM delivered variants. Which should probably be included if anyone can find definitive in service dates for them, but are mostly post Soviet anyway.
Or do you mean the Russian FASCAM or ICM equivalents? Again, if you've a good (vaguely) definitive link to give in service dates and platforms that'd be really handy; Western sources generally either panic hugely or woefully miss things, whilst Russian ones are either silent or claim everything was already in service and working by about 1943 - so much the same, really ;)
Meant FASCAM/ICM. Phill Yates has it in 85 for Team Yankee, but I know it's later than that.
IanS
Think it's worth restarting the questions/answers so far -
Thermobarics - definitely need inclusion, TOS-1 on table from '88, MLRS from '89, aircraft from earlier - 1984 at least (S-8 rocket and the RBK series bombs). Also delivered for infantry via RPG (covered by the Engineers with RPO entry, as far as I know correctly) and for post Soviet Collapse by ATGW in late 90's - I'm not fussed about that period especially but probably worth mentioning in case of "actual modern" games!
FASCAM - Given that there's a FASCAM round for the humble BM-21 introduced in 1963, I'd say at least that date onwards for MLRS delivered Soviet FASCAM. I don't know about tube delivered, but it's available for their older howitzers of '50s vintage as well as newer weapons like the 2S series; but I've seen stuff that says '70s including example load outs from their field manuals. Definitely available now, but if you're interested in '80s cold war, the answer is a guarded yes...
ICM - Not sure, but again their own direct evidence suggests mid-70's for MLRS and tube delivered. Not got any direct info on that to hand though, and a quick web search doesn't turn up any good in service dates barring general "by the eighties they used it in Afghanistan" or similar rather broad statements!
My gut feeling says I'd tend to limit both FASCAM and ICM to MLRS until the '80s and then allow it for 152mm+ tube arty. I don't think the 122mm 2S1 carried any...
We now return you to clamouring for the BKC rerelease :D
Ok - probably far too late for this thread but just a couple of thoughts for CWC etc. I know some have been covered before.
1 Brilliant rule set
2 Let ATGW fire every turn like other rule sets. If they get a failed command roll they are displacing or getting more rounds from the jeep etc. Otherwise why on earth did NATO buy the things to face T64/72/80 and that's before ERA. I wouldn't adjust the points costs but at the moment a Chinese APC with ATGW bolted on is only 5 points less than a Longbow Apache. Which would you rather have. If they could fire each turn then you may see more players fielding BMPs with ATGW.
3 Let IATW fire every turn. I'm not sure how long it takes to reload a Charlie G but can't take that long to place another round in the tube or for someone to pick up another of the sections' LAWs and fire it.
4 Have a different factor for AA guns against air and ground targets. Just separate the factors with a "/" or something. I get the impression that currently the number of dice are configured to shoot at aircraft. So for example a ZSU 23/4 rolls 4. Fair enough. However if playing platoon sized forces for example (as we normally do) that gives a platoon of 4 ZSU 23/4's with a total of 16 rapid fire 23mms the same firepower as a standard US rifle platoon with their small arms. I also sure that a ZSU 57/2 with 2 dice would make much more of a mess of light armour / infantry with those twin 57mm auto cannon. I'm sure an M163 should be rolling more dice against infantry / light armour as well.
5 Make close combat simpler. Spearhead does it on a single D6 roll - beautiful.
Anyway no worries at all just a few thoughts that may or may not be of any assistance.
Keep up the great work!!
And.....As that was your first post.....A warm welcome to the forum RS.
Cheers - Phil.
Welcome Red Squirrel a thoughtful first post :-h
Given the current rate of progress on BKC you are probably very early making suggestions for CWC ;)
Sorry Leon :-[
Warning - they let anyone in here, but you can NEVER leave.
Agree ATGW are vastly overpriced in CWC, there loads on the CWC Forum about it.
IanS
Yeah, it's a perennial complaint. Deffo needs altering, either knock the points right down or make them fire as normal.
Also, flank marches with FAO/FAC - within the rules as was, there's actually no provision to flank march them.
Thanks for the kind welcome and comments! :)
I'd noted the ongoing ATGW debate from a while back. I've actually favoured Recoilless Rifles over ATGW in the past and thought that can't be right. Didn't seem to make sense historically to replace them with ATGW otherwise - especially Wombat with 120mm canister rounds - ouch!
I'd noted as well the heavy use that Iraq made of AA guns in the ground support role as rapid fire weapons in the Iran / Iraq war, so it seems right to maybe have more dice against ground targets given their immense rate of fire. After all that M16 AA halftrack with the quad 50s was known as the "meatchopper" in WWII for a reason. I dread to think of the damage that M163 would do to dismounted infantry with 20mm gatling. 2 dice for ZSU 57/2 against aircraft seems fine as they have no radar to provide targeting data against fast jets and so are actually worse at that than S60s linked in a battery with a radar. Direct fire against ground targets and light armour surely more dice though - if M42 was so effective against infantry in Vietnam - brought back for convoy escort etc. - with 40mm autocannon then surely 57mm would have even more hitting power.
The other thing I meant to say above is that maybe some tweaking of the restrictions in the lists. Technically at present one can field only 9 T64s total yet that was the standard tank in GSFG from early / mid 80s for 2nd Guards Tank, 3rd Shock and 20th Armies (and apparently lots with Soviet South Western Front in Hungary) if one sticks to the rules.
Great game just a few suggestions for hopefully helpful tweaks.
Best wishes to all.
The limits are usually ignored, go with the TOE.
IanS
That's a bit sweeping, Ian - you mean you and your group usually ignore said restrictions and follow real world TOE according to the info you have for them :D
TBH mind i'd agree - in terms of "soft factors" that involve changing crunchy bits (e.g. Using 120mm uparmoured M1's in '81 etc), I do the same.
BUT this is an opportunity to point out things that should or need to be amended, so it's valid. You could weigh it down with "if modelling a force from GSFG or its immediate reinforcements yadda yadda" but tbh I don't think that's worth it. That's the sort of details players can find out and model if they want. If not, then perhaps Stavka decided to field test the tank/aircraft/weapon system under different conditions ;)
What about a 'Great War commander' in a few years, Pendraken has already a very large range of miniatures for it!
Pete always reckoned no, as a/ he didn't have any interest in it, and b/ felt the rules system just wouldn't work.
Might be worth a revisit with fresh eyes, mind.
I remember we talked about it on the BKC forum,
the main "problem" was to simulate planning for the WW1 ( ie. not that much communications ...)
If I can suggest something. In BCK second edition there are notable omissions in case of some units. For example:
Italian lists don't include 150mm guns (149mm) which is mistake.
Tiger I is missing from German Early Eastern Front list, which covers period from 6/1941 to 3/1943. This omission prevents
from using Tiger I from taking part in Kharkov 1943 battle (January-March 1943). IMO Tiger I should be included in that list with a
restriction of [12/42+]?
I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.
We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue
Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6) To use in the Command Phase.
So I would suggest that you make the FAC/FAO self commanding
Quote from: Red Squirrel on 12 December 2016, 08:11:37 PM
4 Have a different factor for AA guns against air and ground targets. Just separate the factors with a "/" or something. I get the impression that currently the number of dice are configured to shoot at aircraft. So for example a ZSU 23/4 rolls 4. Fair enough. However if playing platoon sized forces for example (as we normally do) that gives a platoon of 4 ZSU 23/4's with a total of 16 rapid fire 23mms the same firepower as a standard US rifle platoon with their small arms. I also sure that a ZSU 57/2 with 2 dice would make much more of a mess of light armour / infantry with those twin 57mm auto cannon. I'm sure an M163 should be rolling more dice against infantry / light armour as well.
I think the issue here is about ammunition supply. the ZSU23/4 carried approx. 2000 rounds in total. Around 500 rounds a barrel. Its combined rate of fire is 850+ rounds a minute - 45 seconds of firing at best
So while it could lay down a huge amount of fire on a ground target it only had about 45 seconds of fire. Then it would have to re-supply. While CWC does not deal with resupply restricting the dice is a way of emulating the fact that the crew would not normally fire continuously, just in short bursts.
Yes perhaps it should have 8 dice or more but if that's the case you fire once and remove it from the table or only fore every four moves
Quote from: Orcs on 09 February 2017, 08:26:13 PM
I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.
We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue
Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6) To use in the Command Phase.
So I would suggest that you make the FAC/FAO self commanding
We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...
Btw there's a guerilla doctrine somewhere which fits perfectly for partisans - blowed iirc where, now!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 09 February 2017, 10:06:40 PM
We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...
Yes, we always did this. Never really thought otherwise.
The problem there is that some one else spotted there was no rule for it, and argued Pete into accepting that FAO's etc are therefore not allowed to flank march ever at all. It was shortly. Score he sold the rules on so I suspect he gave up :D
We had FAO's and FAC's flank march on their own CV. Don't think we ever realised that wasn't how it was supposed to work! To be fair, flank marches in our games were only slightly more common than hen's teeth.
That would be the other way to do it!
I realize that I am jumping into this conversation way late.... but our little gaming group has been searching for a good set of WWII rules and stumbled upon BKC I a few weeks ago and like them... we were on the hunt for a copy of BKC II when we learned that BKC III will be out shortly so we'll likely skip II...
As far as suggestions, there are many weapons systems missing from the army lists. As a fan of early war Italians, light mortars (Brixia 45mm), Solothurn 20mm AT guns, and the 65/17 regimental mountain gun are noticeably absent... so I am hoping somebody actually went down the Wikipedia post on "List of Italian Army equipment in World War II" (and German, and British, and American, etc) and at least nodded to the most widely fielded weapons. If not, I'll just add them to my copy of the rules :-)
Also, tactical organization played a huge role in both small unit tactics and firepower. The fact that an Italian platoon only had two squads was tactically significant, as was the squad organization into an infantry fire team (10 riflemen) and a light machine gun fire team (2 Breda 30s and 8 men) with the squad leader normally commanding the LMG fire team and the assistant squad leader (a corporal) leading the rifle team. Compare this to a US infantry squad with 12 men organized into a 3 man security team (squad leader plus two "scout riflemen"), a Browning Automatic Rifle team (3 men) and a "maneuver" fire team (5 riflemen and the assistant squad leader). An American platoon with 3 squads was tactically more flexible than an Italian platoon with 2 squads.
Of course, if you stick with 1 stand = 1 platoon as is the standard in BKC I lists, all of this is subsumed into that one stand... but even then, an Italian platoon of 42 men (4 LMG, 32 riflemen, 5 pistols) was not quite equal to a US platoon of 41 men (3 rifle squads of 11 riflemen and 1 BAR, the platoon HQ of platoon leader (usually with a rifle or carbine), platoon sergeant, platoon "guide" and two "runners" = 38 riflemen and 3 BARs). And then you throw in the Greeks with those pesky VB rifle grenades... This is of course abstracted in the combat power of a US infantry unit of 4 attacks versus Italian of only 3, but still...
As far as some of the other posts, you guys at Pendraken bought the rules, you can do whatever you want to with them, even change the name. If they are well crafted folks will buy them; if not folks will stick with BKC II or other rule sets. Not sure what your going-in philosophy was.
I like the points in the lists – people can use them or not. I also like the "any scale" concept but as others have pointed out if you are simulating a platoon of tanks with a single model, you really shouldn't remove hit markers at the end of the turn – if 3 out of 5 tanks have been damaged/destroyed that model should carry over the reduction into subsequent turns. If you are simulating 1 model = 1 tank the issue is less of an issue. I have been playing 1 tank = 1 model and 1 infantry stand = 1 fire team (½ of a squad or about 5 guys so if basing 5 figures to a stand that works out to 1 figure = 1 soldier). Seems to work okay.