Been thinking about this for about a few months now, but never got round to actually putting anything down. I did wonder about putting it on the BKC board, but it's generic/rules independent.
Instead of having a strict OOB, or points, you take a third way - inspired by Heroes of Normandie, but without the points.
I'll take BKC as an example where a specific is needed
I'll call each Command a 'Template'
Each template has a basic force plus a number of 'Slots', what can occupy it being defined on the template
QuoteBorogravian Tank Battalion (75mm Sherman) - (Value - 1 Slot)
Template
HQ - CO 8
HQ - Sherman 75mm platoon
Recce Company - 4 platoons of Stuarts
Engineering Company - 3 platoons of engineers in Truck
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
Slots
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
Tank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm
AA Company - 2 platoons 40mm - tow by trucks
+1 Command value
FO
So lets say you have 4 'slots' to spend.
You spend 1 to buy the template
You get EVERYTHING in bold - you can't swap any of it.
you have 3 slots left to buy, which can be any mix of ANYTHING in the slots - but you can only buy each slot once - that's why the tank companies appear 3 times, and you can't buy the AA twice. The FO could have a battery off table, but the way I have it here is he would be calling in a separate templates tubes. You can forgo actual combat stuff to take the +1 to the CO Command Value
For a Tiger Battalion you might say that 1 slot is 2 platoons of Tigers. Or you might have a Battalion where it costs 2 slots to buy the template. You could make some slots either/or
QuoteTank Company - 4 platoons of Sherman 75mm OR 2 Platoons Sherman 76 + 1 Platoon Firefly
Its still sort of points - 1 point per pick effectively but easier to calculate, AND you also have a formal structure which you can still customise.
Obviously you would agree with your opponent as to number of slots beforehand. You might stipulate a min/max number of Templates.
So the scenario briefing might say
ATTACKER
18 Slots 2-5 Templates
DEFENDER
9 Slots 1-2 Templates
Thoughts?
If this was done it could be done for a set of rules BUT have a command conversion thing for others
Similar but different: may be you could adopt/adapt the approach used in the SkirmishCampaigns books, and have players roll dice to see what 'Variable Attachment(s)' they get to add to a standard base force?
And they needn't necessarily always be good. E.g. in your Tiger Battalion example, you might get:
"Nothing - the Tigers have broken down / run out of fuel / collapsed a bridge".
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
Sounds a bit like the Flames of War system - where you have the 'core' company structure, and various attachments. I do say it makes themed lists more interesting.
Hullo,
This is more or less the method I used in our club BKC games. I usually started with the core being a (realistcally) understrength version of the e.g. regiment and the number of assets (or the lack of) each side depended on the overall level of pain I wanted to enforce on the gamers. They could then choose whether they wanted more maneuver elements or e.g. off-board support.
Cheers,
Aksu
So long as you can account for actual battle field structure instead of theoretical TOE and do that for every variation within an army, you're good to go :D Most units will be down a bit on the stated strength, some might be up. In any given theatre there'll inevitably be changes whether it be 75mm to 76mm or Fireflys or Challengers to Cromwells to Fireflys etc.
There's then the balancing that structure to the opponents - a Panzer Abteilung with clapped out French retreads and PzrIII's is a very different beast to one with Panthers (although tbh given how useful and reliable even late model Panthers were in practise, I might prefer the French tanks :D). You then need to account for skill, morale and crew quality (however it's done or not done), and command structure/flexibility.
It's mountains of work for the rules writer, but does take the burden off of the player.
I do like the Spearhead approach in the Scenario Generation system - it's similar, in many ways, and combines the best of both to gently encourage a bit of historical knowledge with ease of use. Basically you select the type of Division you want to run, then pick "teeth arm" battalions from it. You buy the components of same at anything from (IIRC) half strength up to full, but need to complete them before you get any more units or go outside of Division - so no picking just the Panzer and Gepanzert battalions, then the same from a second Division etc. Or in a cheesy Allied fashion, no picking an army groups worth of Achillies or the entire production run of IS-2's before you get the work-a-day units :D
You can add parts of support units by company - e.g. a company of AA from the Flak battalion, or a squadron of Daimler's from the armoured car recce regiment, but no cherry picking again - if you want a second set you have to start buying up the whole recce regt. or heavy tank unit etc etc along with their HQ and any support bits before you filch someone elses stuff from elsewhere.
That's probably more complex to describe than to actually use - the PDF is downloadable at https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/ (https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/) - it also generates a battlefield and vaguely in period, realistic goals and victory conditions that make it feel like a WW2 battle. It's also a bit asymmetrical which is nice, without being a "always 2:1 odds with minor defences, 3:1 with prepared" sort of thing, and takes account of national doctrine and command flexibility.
With relation to the BKC discussion, it would be excellent to implement something similar but then it might require an extra book of TOEs to give guidance for players. I suspect for those of us who carry the orbat for an "X pattern Field Heavy Kitchen Flak Division" in our heads, there's three people who just want a good, vaguely historical game with tanks where they don't have to swallow a 200 page TOE and know what colour Colonel Dave Blokestein painted his unit logo on the 12th of March at Umplesteen Village ;)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 October 2015, 09:49:52 AM
With relation to the BKC discussion, it would be excellent to implement something similar but then it might require an extra book of TOEs to give guidance for players. I suspect for those of us who carry the orbat for an "X pattern Field Heavy Kitchen Flak Division" in our heads, there's three people who just want a good, vaguely historical game with tanks where they don't have to swallow a 200 page TOE and know what colour Colonel Dave Blokestein painted his unit logo on the 12th of March at Umplesteen Village ;)
I suspect you seriously underestimate the number of the latter type of player!!
I dunno, maybe :D
But then, if it was the most common no game ever would have had any kind of scenario set up or army lists and would just be a book of rules without any info in :D
I think we may not be the most numerous, but we might be quite vocal ;)
A good "points system" should not just be taken in isolation, is my point. It needs to be flexible to reflect the huge and massive variety in real world TOEs (to an acceptable level), whilst producing a "balanced" game. That balance isn't in "we both line up 1000pts of cheese-tanks across the table and see whose fromage is strongest" but rather in both sides/players having an acceptable fun game which replicates in miniature the real world conditions of the period, with a chance of winning for both - and that win isn't necessarily "break the opponent" but involves key terrain (objectives), bypassing enemy forces (getting combat effective units off board), retaining a defensive position, having a viable force at game end etc etc.
It needs to cater acceptably for the player who wants to model Formation X on date Y when it had whatever attached or not running etc, whilst being simple enough for someone who doesn't want to spend hours pouring over TOEs and unit interactions to "pick up and go". Otherwise you lose a big slice of player base either way...
I like the basis of LH's idea, for the same reasons I like the SH SGS - you're selecting actual units at a realistic strength and with appropriate support, not just to the whims of game (un)balance or model sales or cheese. It's just hard to implement properly :D
Perhaps I've just known an atypical bunch of gamers but the majority were far more interested in the GAME part of wargames than the WAR part preferring equal points value armies fighting encounter battles rather than "fancy scenarios" (their description not mine).
I've run a number of what I think were simple successful campaigns but all eventually foundered as players decided they wanted to play some "proper" equal points games.
I think you're actually probably seeing the majority of games, there Ithoriel - certainly it's the majority of people I've seen play, as opposed to those I play with the most :D
The scenario system/army builders should support that, but give them a gentle nudge to behave like a general of the time in an easy fashion - BKC works quite well for that, I find, unless you deliberately choose an encounter game every time on exactly equal points and then just bash heads - which inevitably turns into a bad attack-defence as whoever is fastest/gets best activations seizes useful terrain/position and the other player grinds into them at a disadvantage on equal points...
That's the "bad" example of points systems taken in isolation. The system should allow the players to generate the "equal" army they want (within easy lines of something historical), and then allow you to fight something vaguely in keeping with the period without feeling you have to do odd things or anything massively complex. The changes with Peter Pigs' PBI over the years show an odd example of that going a bit skewif - you can generate a "minor nation" force of rubbish and you're opponent can wipe you out and "win" on table, only for your bonuses for being rubbish completely overturn the end result!
Basically, it's my view that the army generation and scenario and terrain and objective and victory aims should be taken as a whole package. You can't divorce any single bit without duffing it all up. It needs to be simple enough to cater for a "pick up and play" "equal game" whilst also giving enough depth that the grognard doesn't feel out of place because "Unit X didn't have the Tiger with the odd numbered muzzle break until Jan 44" etc etc. It's a tall order, but a good example lets you put as much depth in as you AS A PLAYER.
Sorry to bang on about the Spearhead system, but with a copy of the TOE booklet in the rules and the scenario system you can knock a pick up list really easily - two half strength Sherman units with a Firefly troop each, a motor battalion with support, three FAO with 2*25pdr batteries each, done. Or you can spend your hours getting involved with the Unit X at Battle/Campaign Y, work out exactly what they had and then tailor a list to match that. The depth is there if you want it, and the ease of something generic is there if you don't. It then generates a quick set up with understandable goals for each side in about the time it takes to, err, set up the table :D
I've often thought about grafting the ideas onto BKC, but the current set up is actually more than flexible enough to do the same; I just have to think about what I'm representing and then structure my choices from the appropriate list to reflect that!
Speaking of scenarios, one of the best system I've seen was in Epic Armageddon using playing cards. Each player would pick a card, and keep it hidden from the opponent(s). He/they would then consult the chart and see which objectives were attributed, and what percent of his forces were in reserve and already deployed. This hidden system meant that your mission might be to pierce the enemy with your tiny vanguard force before your follow-on forces could show up, while his could be to secure a specific crossroad. It would be made interesting as you'd have to probe the opposition to see what objectives they had, and if they had more forces in reserve or possibly in ambush (!!!!).
Actually, that worked quite well so long as the missions/objectives were sensible and clashed enough to produce a game (as opposed to say both sides sprinting one unit across the baseline at double speed and doing nowt else...). I do like "hidden aims" - it works nicely to create a fog of war effect.
Wow, that Spearhead stuff is pretty cool, never seen that before. Thanks TP!!!
V/R,
Jack
Interesting idea, Hussar.
How would you differentiate between quality of troops? For example, between a raw bttn and a seasoned one? You'd want to allow the same number of slots per template, but perhaps it would cost more for the template?
Quote from: bigjackmac on 06 October 2015, 06:34:28 PM
Wow, that Spearhead stuff is pretty cool, never seen that before. Thanks TP!!!
V/R,
Jack
Pleasure, Jack!
It's not perfect but then nothing ever is :D And it works very well!
Quote from: toxicpixie on 06 October 2015, 09:49:52 AM
It's mountains of work for the rules writer, but does take the burden off of the player.
I do like the Spearhead approach in the Scenario Generation system - it's similar, in many ways, and combines the best of both to gently encourage a bit of historical knowledge with ease of use. Basically you select the type of Division you want to run, then pick "teeth arm" battalions from it. You buy the components of same at anything from (IIRC) half strength up to full, but need to complete them before you get any more units or go outside of Division - so no picking just the Panzer and Gepanzert battalions, then the same from a second Division etc. Or in a cheesy Allied fashion, no picking an army groups worth of Achillies or the entire production run of IS-2's before you get the work-a-day units :D
You can add parts of support units by company - e.g. a company of AA from the Flak battalion, or a squadron of Daimler's from the armoured car recce regiment, but no cherry picking again - if you want a second set you have to start buying up the whole recce regt. or heavy tank unit etc etc along with their HQ and any support bits before you filch someone elses stuff from elsewhere.
That's probably more complex to describe than to actually use - the PDF is downloadable at https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/ (https://ww2spearhead.wordpress.com/scenario-generation-system/) - it also generates a battlefield and vaguely in period, realistic goals and victory conditions that make it feel like a WW2 battle. It's also a bit asymmetrical which is nice, without being a "always 2:1 odds with minor defences, 3:1 with prepared" sort of thing, and takes account of national doctrine and command flexibility.
I know Keith well and helped him out with some proof reading and suggestions on the Scenario system. A number of us then played a lot of games and managed to break the earlier versions a few times. It has been used at two of our Nationals, one WWII and the other Moderns
It really was a mountain of work for him but has paid off really well with an amazinlg flexible and robust system that gives great games.
For those unfamiliar with Heroes of Normandie I thought it might be useful to show how their system works in case it sparks some ideas. I'm not suggesting it be imported wholesale into BKC!
Templates vary in the number, size and layout of the slots for additional units/ abilities. The one below is fairly simple.
You get a Sergeant, a Willy's jeep and a Scout unit - as shown in the centre of the template.
You can add the other items providing they are the right size, share at least one edge colour and you have a free slot for it.
HoN is skirmish level so it's the principles I'm interested in rather than the actual execution.
(http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/14/aug/CC2014HeroesofNoptions.jpg)
Thanks Ithoriel. Wasn't sure whether to go to much into a system that some might not have seen, but that photo should help with the concept of templates and slots.
You'll note that it is still points based, as is the Spearhead system. I'm looking to do away with points - you literally tick the 'x' number of units you want.
One refinement I alluded to was 'tough' units could be smaller - ie Tigers came in slots of half companies (=2 platoons)
A further evolution of this would be : -
Instead of a standard paper template say of 4 companies of 4 platoons, some companies companies could be understrength (like the Tigers), with Option to complete
A Company - 4 Platoons Tank
B Company - 3 Platoons Tank
- Option - 1 Platoon Tank
C Company - 3 Platoons Tank
- Option - 1 Platoon Tank
D Company - 2 Platoons Tank
- Option - 2 Platoons Tank
Here all 4 Companies at Paper strength cost 7 Slots. But for 4 slots you get 4+3+2+2 platoons. 1 more slot, to bring D company up to strength, gets you 2 more, then you have to pay 1 slot per platoon. Thus the SAME item gets progressive more expensive. This could balance the lots of crap vs hardly any good stuff.
Someone asked about Veterans etc. Not sure how this woks in BKC, but the Template could cost 1 or 2 more slots, and/or some slots are not available to vets - they can't be at paper strength.
Personally, I do want points values, even though I won't always use them. I play enough pick-up games with people who can't tell a Tiger from a toast-rack that a quick way to get roughly balanced forces is a must.
It is a points system. Most things cost 1 point!
Hopefully this link will work to my Dropbox
CAVEAT - DEMO PURPOSES ONLY. Not yet had a chance to check for balance.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ijwdq0rwwua2qxr/OOB%20Templates.docx?dl=0
I've found some photocopies of the stats from a BKC (not sure which one), I'm going to be doing some analysis.
The idea is a Box means it costs a 'pick'. A diamond you get it free. You can buy different cells, but with in a cell you have to buy from the top down.
You start with the Brigade Template. Each
The Comet Regt has a Box, so it costs a pick to buy the template ON TOP of buying a Armoured Regt at Brigade level.
DO NOT ASSUME I MEAN THESE AS THE FINAL PRODUCT. Also can anyone point me towards TOEs for Battalions and Regiments. I know the Comet and Cromwell may be wrong, as Sherman regiments flood my search results, even using COMET REGIMENT OOB 1945 as a search term.
I did some analysis on a fictionalised PzIV regement at lunch yesterday (so a little hurried)
Pick (for Regt) - A Coy - 4 plts
Pick - B coy 3 plt
Pick - B coy Option 1 Plt
Pick - C Coy 2 Plt
Pick - C Coy Option 2 Plt
Calculating on BKC points PzIV = 140pts
1st Pick - 4 Plts (A Coy) - 560 pts - Pts Per Pick 560
2nd Pick - 7 Plts (Add B Coy)- 980 pts -Pts per Pick 490
3rd Pick - 9 Plts (Add C Coy)- 1260 pts -Pts per Pick 420
4th Pick - 11 Plts (C Coy Option)- 1540 pts -Pts per Pick 385
5th Pick - 12 Plts (B Coy Option)- 1680pts -Pts per Pick 336
Took longer to type that than calculate it!
So the more picks you take from a Regt/Bn, the less you get on average per Pick.
Idea while I'm typing. Some stuff (say the recce) is Automatic on 1st Regt, but option on 2nd and subsequent of that type (Type = Armoured, not tank type)
So (I dont have the wingdings here)
*(0)
where (O) means it is a pick on the 2nd and subsequent.
A Tiger Regt might be
* - 2 Tigers
O - 1 Tiger
O - 1 Tiger
O - 2 Tigers
O - 1 Tiger
O - 1 Tiger
O - 2 Tigers
O - 1 Tiger
O - 1 Tiger
Can't access dropbox but it all seems more complicated than the existing lists!
In suspect it's much more complex to put into practice than the existing lists, but once done there's less player side input needed - LH will already have done the "historical set up" to guide people into taking something approaching a "proper" or at least theoretically proper set up, with the crunchy points bits hidden behind the scenes.
Bit like the Flames of War company selectors in their lists/box sets but with the points filed off/down to "picks" of sub units of roughly equal game value.
What the Pixie said. The list writer sets up the list - doesn't actually take too long, believe it or not, once you have a Historical Orbat to work from. You just split it down, so subsequent picks get you less and less.
It is effectively a simplified points system for the player - except instead of having to add up lots of points, each 'packet' is 1 point (pick). The templates restrict/guide you to historical options, but the mix is down to you, so no battalions of 6 Fireflies, 5 Churchills and a Grant ("A grant?", "yeah, I had some points left over.")
In the tiger example the * is your 'Free' units that come with the regiment. To get ore you have to pay 1 per 'O', but in each company you can't have the next one, until you bought the ones above it.
I'll fiddle with the DropBox, see if I can get it. It is simple, and elegant to look at.
Sorry, "can't access dropbox" in the sense of it won't let me access anything without signing up which I've no intention of doing. Nothing wrong with the operation dropbox nor your files I'm sure.
As to the army lists - it's currently looking too restrictive for my taste. There again I am probably not the target audience for them!
Plus taking more items from a formation ought to make subsequent ones cheaper, not more expensive IMHO. Encourage people to take complete formations and not cherry-pick the best bits.
This isn't for the straight out the barracks armies, this is for those that have been in the field a few weeks and so are missing bits due to enemy action/breakdowns/illness/leave etc.
I see this a semi-independent system; while I mention CV for BKC, its usable for, say SH. 12 picks should give an army ROUGHLY comparable points wise no matter what force you are using. Each force should be a reasonable balanced one of what was in the field - not like the BA (I know- different level) one I saw in their magazine which was all over the place, somewhat 40K-ish. (Note I have BA, and on a quick read there are some interesting similarities with CoC; I'm highlighting the randomness of forces allowed, rather than attacking the rules!).
Its also to eliminate the problems with points
1) HAVING TO ADD THE BLOODY THINGS UP
2) Getting away from the idea that the Anti-pointists complain about. 4 x Tank A <> 3 x Tank B, even though they are the same point total. In the 80's I read an article by Steve Jackson about points. A High point unit was equal the square root of the number of low point units that had the same total points.
eg a 100 point unit isn't worth four 25pt units, it is worth TWO (square root of 4). This is because the cheap but plentiful still need to be destroyed individually, so some of them will be getting unanswered shots in, and can manoeuvre round flanks.
This doesn't get rid of that, but it masks the idea of 4 x 35pts = 1 x 140 pt. Hmm - that doen't make sense does it. Know what I mean, having trouble explaining it! BKC - the army list that tells you not to pick more than 1500 points worth (12 models) of 75mm Shermans per 1000pts ;D :P :-\ ;)
According to Dropbox
You can share files with anyone, even non-Dropbox users, by getting a link to any file or folder. Once you get the link, you can send it by email, Facebook, Twitter, instant message, social networks, wherever you want. You can share these links with anyone, even if they don't have a Dropbox account.
so you shouldn't have to sign up
Wonder if your computer didn't like the Word format - do you have Word 2013?
Try this
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1n0n2vyyw16uq3w/OOB%20Templates%20example.pdf?dl=0
I'd mostly agree with Ithoriel about making players take at least the majority of their first units (ie take the whole/bulk of one tank regiment before you go off and get as many Fireflys/Challies/whatever's from the next!), but you also need to account for those units that operated together. You should be able to "swap out"/cross attach mech infantry cots & tanks squadrons depending on army and year for instance to reflect both actual usage and theoretical practise.
Last Hussar, have you looked at the Spearhead Scenario system? It does basically what you're trying to do here but is a bit more granular in that you're adding up individual platoons within a company but have to buy whole battalions before moving on, unless they're a "support choice" from divisional assets or the at the time could cross attach effectively.
It might save you reinventing the wheel somewhat, and you can then just look at how many Sherman companies with X ratio of 75's to 76's/17pdr's are worth a company of PzrIV Specials etc :)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 October 2015, 06:17:15 PM
BKC - the army list that tells you not to pick more than 1500 points worth (12 models) of 75mm Shermans per 1000pts ;D :P :-\ ;)
LH the maximums in BKC are for every complete 1000 points. 1500 points is perfectly possible in a 1800 point battlegroup which would be restricted to 1000 point limits. Though it might be a somewhat unbalanced force!
I've looked the the linked file - Open Office is quite happy with Microsoft's nasty non-standards-compliant software :D
Problem I see first off is who's going to take 'B' Squadron, let alone 'C' when for the same picks they can get two other Regimental HQs, add-ons and 'A' troops. Is an upgrade from CV7 to 8 really worth the same as another battalion HQ, etc.?
It just gives the same problem in a different form.
Army lists as is, with some standard formations pre-pointed on the BKC forum, or whatever replaces it, would be preferable IMHO.
As to the problem of adding up points - that's what spreadsheets are for :)
Using the same formation as Last Hussar as an example, I'd envisaged something more like this:
Armoured Brigade (max 1)
CO CV9 @ 120pts (Mandatory 1)
Armoured Regiment (max 3)
HQ CV7 @ 30pts (max 1)
Upgrade HQ to CV8 @ +30pts
Recce Unit (Honey Recce) @ 60 pts (max 1)
Upgrade Honey Recce to Honey @ +30 pts
HQ Escort (Sherman 75mm) @ 125pts
Tank Squadron (max 4)
3 x Sherman 75mm @ 375pts
Upgrade to 3 x Cromwell @ +15pts
Upgrade to 3 x Sherman 76mm @ +45pts
Add 4th Sherman 75mm (max 1) @ 125pts
Upgrade 4th Sherman to Cromwell @ +5pts
Upgrade 4th Sherman to Sherman 76mm @ +15pts
Upgrade 4th Sherman to Sherman Firefly @ +25pts
NB One tank may be Firefly otherwise all tanks must be of same type.
Motor Battalion (max 1)
etc. etc.
I've rejigged the idea to each pick is 500pts +/- 10%(ish)
You don't see the points- again you just get a so many "picks"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vu3h33y1dtzlkgx/OOB%20Templates%20ver%202.pdf?dl=0
The repeated boxes are to make it easy - you'd print off a page and indicate which units are in the Command.
Yes I know you can get 'too many' fireflies- since when has combat strength matched actual!
I think my version gives you a more historical result.
Also, the Crusader AA is effectively already represented by the AA ability of the command stand.