Hi
When playing at the one 'unit' (stand) = one platoon, do you have one 'commander' per battalion?
Its just that I like to use historical orders of battle and (for example) a standard British late war infantry battalion ends up with some 16/17+ 'units' which seems a lot of units for one commander to command (to me at least).
I was just wondering how others organise their forces for BKC? Grateful for you thoughts.
I do realise that it could be just me who worries about this kind of thing! :(
Cheers Paul
Generally I use 2 HQs per Battalion. This works well for bigger Battalions with their additional assets and IMHO helps the game flow better.
Typically in a 1000pt force you will have 1 Commander (CinC), and maybe a couple of "HQs" as sub-commanders depending on how you choose to constitute your force. Forward observers may also be "commanders" but only for off-table support assets.
Depends on real world force structure and TOE I happily chop about to fit the game.
For that late war British battalion I might I might go with at least two - one as the actual Battalion commander with half the units, one representing a leading company commander or XO/2IC with the other half (or whatever proportion might be needed) tasked with doing whatever part of the "plan" isn't directly under the commander.
I "real world" it would be "1st & 2nd coy.s under direct control of Major Bloke with support from X & Y will advance to village X and do $stuff, whilst 3rd coy under Captain Person as senior company commander moves up to Wherever-ville to do $other_stuff supported by Captain Other-Person leading 4th coy." etc.
What TP says.
For an infantry battalion, one commander is too few. But 1 commander per company is too many.
For armour I have been known to field a commander per company/squadron.
BKC is definitely representing commanders as the chaps on the ground making things happen, today, for this Battlegroup. Rather than the strict official organisation.
It also depends on the command /control of the force. Soviets should have less, Germans more. However there are some exceptions - I'd give a British 44 motor btn 4 HQ's, as each company has in effect 6 platoons, so 1 btn HQ + 1 per company looks right. For CWC I give NATO Btns 2 HQ's, plus an FAO, whilst Soviet Tank btn have 1, and mounted Motor Rifle Btn have 1 when mounted, and 2 when dismounted, one with a lower command value.
I would not have less than 1 HQ per 10/12 bases.
In practice, the higher Command values and flexible tactical doctrine mean that German forces need fewer HQs than the Soviets.
To me, this adequately reflects the German ability to keep going under the direction of fairly junior NCOs while Soviet armies ground to a halt in the absence of officers.
The Warmaster inspired rule systems are top down, not bottom up so I'd be wary of fixating on TOEs.
Indeed, model the effect and not the detail.
Won't always suit rivet counters, but it ends up with the right outcomes more often than not.
I'm on the record, in multiple places, as preferring rules that give the right result for the wrong reasons over rules that give the wrong result for the right ones! :)
Am trying my first playtest with a German defender with a single CV-9 CO and Russians with a CO and 2 Bttn commanders (1 inf, 1 armour) to represent a breakthrough, Germans have static defences so landlines on 1 side of a canal so all units that side are 'remote'). Makes for an interesting game as the Germans are having to use initiative a lot to pull back or get isolated. Will post a batrep at some point soon, need to sort out photo hosting someplace first - any suggestions on good host sites welcome to this old Luddite.