Seems to be a lot of questions focused on the lists.
I saw a response in one of the threads from Leon stating that he's getting back to the author regarding that particular list question. I wonder if his findings may clear up a lot of these issues.
I do hope so. This evening I compared the BEF lists, and to my mind, there are quite a few errors in the BKCIII version. For example:
- The 25mm and 2 pdr ATGs having an AP rating.
- The Vickers MkVI having an AT rating.
- The already mentioned issue with the Matilda II and Crusader Hits & Saves.
On another note, I don't understand why Platoons with AT Rifles get 2/60 AP. Surely it should be 2/30?
For the moment I will stick with the BKCII lists and try the BKCIII rules and 'Notes/Abilities' where I feel they are correct.
OK - the 2pdr for certain, and the 25mm both had HE, it's just that the British didn't issue it to TANKS.
The 15mm HMG has roughly the same armour penetration as a 20mm auto cannon, so it should have an AT rating. If it's a Vickers 0.5" then possibly not, although the US one should.
Ian - 2pdr HE round was never produced so it should not have an AP rating. Agree on the 15mm MG - tended to whipsaw the barrel but hard hitting
Too many inconsistencies for me so far - all the data is there but a lot of it is misplaced so annoying to use the lists and there are errors in the ratings like Panzer IV armour getting worse past 1940.
Would give Panther 4+ armour as it was as well protected frontally as a Tiger or KV but not good armour, gun stats are obviously a bit odd.
Barrel droop is awful and strikes at all ages....
Quote from: sjb1001 on 29 April 2017, 10:19:26 AM
Ian - 2pdr HE round was never produced so it should not have an AP rating. Agree on the 15mm MG - tended to whipsaw the barrel but hard hitting
WRONG - 2pdr HE was ISSUED to towed guns but NOT TANKS. I suspect it would be less than 10% and it was not British policy to use A/T guns as general support. But the round existed and was used.
2 pdr HE ammunition was issued, but not until around 1942 as I understand it, so certainly not applicable to the BEF list.
Would 2 pdr HE be worth the cost of dragging it around? I ask in all seriousness, knowing very little on the subject.
I stand corrected, APHE was never produced. HE was manufactured and issued - question should be was it ever used to the extent it would be useful? From information from Bovington the HE and APHE used a Hotchkiss base fuse that had a tendency to fall out on firing and crews only kept HE for close defence work as they tended to prefer full racks of AP from what I can see. The HE shell is described as a 'blunt-nosed serrated cylinder made of cast iron designed to strike the ground and pitch back into the air then explode, scattering fragments into enemy infantry and animals such as horses', can't find a picture of it though - may have one in older artillery books.
So - about twice the size of a hand grenade and is given the same HE as a 3" mortar??
Ironically the APHE had better AT performance if the fuse did fall out as they would detonate on impact as opposed to getting through the armour first......
2pdr HE was not issued to tanks as it was thought (probably correctly) that the on board MG's would be more effective. APHE was never considered as far as I know, since there would be little or no effect within the target. The PaK 36 had 1/2 oz of desensitised explosive in it so again that looks to be a reasonable decision.
IanS
APHE was trialled 1936-7 but the fuse issue prevented it being produced, it failed the 70% chance to penetrate 15mm of RHA at 500m quite spectacularly.
Fuzes? Base plates? production?
The exam question is simply: Should the 2 pdr ALWAYS have HE?
Yes / No
[1 mark]
;D
No for me - at any time all to be honest.
No from me. Did I pass? ;) :D
Just noticed there is something wrong with the 120mm Mortar stat line in the German 44-45 list p115. Is the AP 4 with no range stat incorrect (I sincerely hope so) and all the other stats need to be shifted one column to the left?
Cheers, Andy
SteveJ has passed, but he might have copied. ;D
Answer is YES for RA, NO for Tanks - FOR THE THIRD TIME.
Should the British Army, North Africa list have an option for including the M4 Sherman? Couldn't see it, but there is a note about giving the Sherman the 'Stabilised' ability.
Question was should the AP value be in the list given the lack of historical use data - also, stop shouting in capitals.
I guess the question could be rephrased to 'can anyone show a historical use of 2lb HE that stands up to scrutiny?', this has to be the first ever rule set I've seen in 40 years of this hobby that allows a 2lb to have anti personnel capability.
Waaay too much "bottom up" and not nearly enough "top down" in the new army lists for my taste. I expect to keep using BKC2 and adding a few tweaks from BKC3.
As a random example, why is the KV1, which did to be fair have a problem with bogs, bridges and the occasional need to use a hammer to change gear, "lumbering" while the early Panther, which added a whole new dimension to the term "firefight" by spontaneously combusting in action, is not?
Did the Russians really have the M1 Bazooka in December '41?
Exactly how many BT-2s or T-26's did the Russians have in action in Jun '44?
For much of the mid-war period T-60's and T-70's were just under a third of the standard tank force, were a third of the Russian armoured forces really doing recce?
Perhaps that explains why the large numbers of BA-64s, SU-85s, SU-122's and SU-152 (to name but a few) apparently didn't need to turn up?
Still no 203mm tracked howitzer, despite it's being used in a direct fire role as super anti-tank guns at Kursk, for bunker busting duties in the field and to demolish strong-points in urban warfare.
Why do German units (SS, Fallschirmjager, Luftwaffe and Hitler Jugend) get special rules? Is this WW2 or a Boy's Own Adventure comic?
Why does .... Oh Bleh!!!
As the main German player in my BKC group, I am bewildered at the German army lists - too many mistakes and omissions.
My main Russian opponent is gonna have fits going through the Russian lists!
I'm glad I only bought the cheap PDF version of the rules and not the printed book.
How about offering corrected army lists as a PDF ? to those that bought the rules
Support for that. It's not just a few entries that people have different opinions on (us wargamers are an opinionated lot) and we all have our own house rules and tweaks but when the data lists are so poorly put together and error ridden it means he rule set just isn't fit for purpose. Even more disappointing guven the comprehensive lists in BKC2- what went wrong to mangle them so much. Also not sufficient to say 'just use from another list' -the rule set and lists should go together (especially if you don't have access to BKC2). Looking forward to a mid war battle using my 1 T34 against a host of PzIVs with worse armour than they had in 1940.
Trying not to be too negative as until now I've been a real fan of Pendraken but this if anyone asks I'll tell them to hunt out a copy of BKC2 and not to bother with 3. Sorry.
Quote from: AndyT on 29 April 2017, 04:26:38 PM
Should the British Army, North Africa list have an option for including the M4 Sherman? Couldn't see it, but there is a note about giving the Sherman the 'Stabilised' ability.
I've already raised that one - the 75 version is also missing from Italy. Sherman stabilisation is always a contentious one - I suspect the British didn't use it, and not all US crews did. It wasn't very good, being single plain only.
Is this a new Napoleonic Ruleset ;D
Don't think I've ever witnessed so much wittering about a WW2 ruleset before :) Pendraken are nice guys and I'm sure given time and a bit of patience they'll iron things out.
Still waiting for my copy to arrive, before I pass judgement.
Must admit the discussion is getting a bit 'heated'.
Quote from: Nosher on 30 April 2017, 07:49:11 AM
Don't think I've ever witnessed so much wittering about a WW2 ruleset before :) Pendraken are nice guys and I'm sure given time and a bit of patience they'll iron things out.
Totally agree
Take care
Andy
Quote from: Nosher on 30 April 2017, 07:49:11 AM
Is this a new Napoleonic Ruleset ;D
Don't think I've ever witnessed so much wittering about a WW2 ruleset before :) Pendraken are nice guys and I'm sure given time and a bit of patience they'll iron things out.
You know, you might be right...
BUT, I'm still amazed that most of the lists have errors.
If it ain't broke...
Please see new post: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15931.0.html
Please see new post: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15931.0.html (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,15931.0.html)
What I find a little worrying (and have done for a few months now on the forum) is that a fair bit of the friendliness the forum used to be noted for has been on a bit of a decline. I'm visiting less and less these days, primarily because I'm fed up of all the negative vibes man....
I've been a member since 2010 and have watched Pendraken become bigger and better. Rules development is a relatively new venture for them and if their customer service track record is anything to go by they'll sort this issue out.
I'm pretty certain that behind the scenes Leon et al are working feverishly to identify the problem - can we cut them a bit of slack and try not to get too agitated when we don't receive an immediate answer to questions posted 30 seconds ago.
It's also not that helpful when members metaphorically stamp their feet by diverting threads to new threads and start demanding action. :(
You know, about 15 minutes before you posted this, I sent Leon a pm to keep his chin up, that it's not the end of the world. I also said that I've been happy with everything I got from pendraken so far, and don't mind if something goes wrong with this.
Glad I'm not the only one seeing it like that.
We are all human, we can't be perfect all the time. We should learn from it, not get dragged down.
I really like the Pendraken crew and their miniatures - nice people, nice toys to filch an idea from another outfit! :)
That said, I have played more games of BKC over the past 8 years than I have of all of the other tabletop games put together so I have a lot invested in the system. I awaited BKCIII with high hopes and baited breath.
Now I have it I am NOT HAPPY.
As a paying customer I think I am entitled to say I am not happy providing I restrict my expressions of unhappiness to the problems I have with the product and do not indulge in muck-slinging and ad hominem attacks. I hope I have achieved that.
My unhappiness is in large part around the impact this version might have on a product I like and also the possible knock-on effect that might have on Pendraken's ability to continue it's intended expansion of ranges. After all, I can continue to use BKCII so BKCIII's perceived flaws won't necessarily affect me at least in the short term.
I'm also puzzled as to how it got to this state given Pendraken's excellent record on customer service and customer involvement.
Maybe it will sell like hot cakes and Pendraken will go from strength to strength. In which case,"Urrah!" and more fool me.
Sorry if it came over that way, but I don't want you to keep your problems with bkc III to yourself
As I Said, we should learn from it, so the troubles NEED to be told! If they are not visible they can't be addressed!
Like you, most of my game time goes to BKC II, so I can understand how you feel.
What I meant to say in my last post was that we have to remember that we have always had the best device from Leon and Dave, and can probably expect the same in dealing we these issues.
Have always been really happy with Pendraken stuff - many hundreds of models and I also have loads of the Epsilon buildings that are great as well, always had great aftercare as well.
The issue here is the rules are simply not fit to purpose as released, I am amazed that the BCK-II data could not just have the special rules added to the notes section where they previously had numbered special rules. To have mixed it up like it has been is a bit confusing as the data were in the right periods and I assume in an editable format.
QuoteHave always been really happy with Pendraken stuff - many hundreds of models and I also have loads of the Epsilon buildings that are great as well, always had great aftercare as well.
totally agree with sjb1001's comments, :x the Pendraken stuff :) :)
people need to calm down, its a set of rules
ffs I am quite sure if every one chips in we can sort this to everyone's advantage. Those more knowledgeable could help also.
Leon and Dave need to be given a chance to fix the problems people are complaining about.
Yep - give the guys time, alternatively mail us all the Word files to do edits and re-up them and then watch the fur fly :d.
So I bought a pdf and the physical copy... I'm not so bothered that things have issues as its more important as to how there fixed.
For lists with multiple errors/omissions rather than release an Errata that I need to keep cross checking can you just redo the army list and release as a pdf? or make a v2 rule book available free to people who bought the original.
All this fuss about army lists. Everyone knows that sticky bombs and the nazis driving around with their turret hatch open lost them the war.