(https://pendraken.co.uk/ProductImages/MicroMarkBKCSmall.jpg)
We're pleased to announce the release of BKC-IV specific army lists for historical units! Produced by Mark Bevis, author of the MicroMark organisation charts collection, Mark is willing to offer his experience and considerable database as a professional army list writer to write BKC-IV specific lists for named and numbered units at set dates.
These lists are fully endorsed by Pendraken and will be a great asset for the BKC players. They will be available as pdf downloads through Wargames Vault here: https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/3426/MicroMark-Army-Lists/subcategory/5776_33007/BLITZKRIEG-COMMANDER-IV-ARMY-LISTS
The main advantage of using the Wargames Vault is that customers can access their downloads anywhere on their electronic devices, and receive free updates if a list is amended or corrected. That is free updates for ever. So if any points values are refined, or stats altered, customers will get the updates as they are written.
We've added an extracted sample list to give you an idea of what Mark will be producing, which can be found here: https://pendraken.co.uk/ProductImages/BKCMicroMarkSample.pdf This sample has no corps and army support units and is missing some divisional flak units, so the numbered notes have been changed accordingly. Where possible full lists will contain known or typical corps support units that might be available to support that division, such as heavy artillery, heavy anti-tank and AA, flamethrower units, independent heavy tank battalions, and so on.
We'd like the focus of these lists to be customer driven so if there's a particular division, regiment or brigade you wish to see a BKC-IV list for, at a particular time frame or battle, then please us know in the new requests thread here: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,18788.0.html or contact Mark direct on sultanbev@googlemail.com
And as will happen, if you see an error in a list, or have additional information, then citing references, feel free to contact Mark directly. We all have to accept that there will be errors, as we are dealing with events 75 years ago with only written records and photos to go off, and no one person can read every single regimental war diary, memoirs, foreign language text book, view every photo, buy every TOE book out there. But we are pretty sure that with each list written you are better informed than before you bought it! The beauty of the pdf format at the Wargames Vault is that any errors corrected or new data added will reach customers very soon, and much sooner than any hard copy book format could manage.
As always, if there's any queries let us know!
What a great idea =D> =D>
Greetings
Definitely welcome and looks good.
By the way, for future reference the StuG skirts are Schurzen (there's an umlaut but I can't do it on this device) not Schutzen.
Regards
Edward
Thanks Edward, have updated the files (no idea how long it will take to appear on the forum though)
Mark
Thanks Edward - I'll add that to the errata list for the rules and the army lists - we might even be able to find an umlaut somewhere :D
Cheers
Mark
Special charaters in word !
schürzen
here you go, copy/paste it in
Quote from: kustenjaeger on 27 June 2019, 07:19:46 AM
By the way, for future reference the StuG skirts are Schurzen (there's an umlaut but I can't do it on this device) not Schutzen.
Quote from: sultanbev on 27 June 2019, 07:52:48 AM
Thanks Edward, have updated the files (no idea how long it will take to appear on the forum though)
Done!
Interesting.
Just a quick note to thank Mark for his amazing support for this ruleset, especially while he is also trying to work on CWC - impressive. Thank You.
Thanks Norm (assuming you meant Mark F) but also good to have Mark B's support in all this as well :D
The Spanish Civil War Supplement is also slowly coming together and we are starting the Korean War Supplement as well.
And ... as the Post Launch Errata Phase seems to be dying down ( :'( ) we can now start to get the Errata List into a tidy state.
Thank you all for your support. It is great to see such involvement and also to see new players enjoying the game as well.
Mark (F)
Mark - Work Faster !!!! ;)
Unlike you Ian ... I don't sleep :D
A brilliant idea and having bought a number of Mark's army lists in the past, these new lists will be just what many BKC players could use. For me, lists for 11th/13th Pz Div and Soviet 8th/19th Mech Corps as at late June 1941 (Battle of Dubno) would be good,; alternatively one generic list for the Pz Divs at Battle of Dubno and another one for the Soviet Mech Corps at Dubno, but each with notes to identify the main differences in the orbats of all the Pz Divs/Mech Corps involved at Dubno. Thoughts?
First requested list up on the Wargames Vault:
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281276/BKCG2-German-15th-Panzer-Division-North-Africa-NovemberDecember-1941
Mark
Just downloaded the 15th Pz list. Cracking job Mark it's outstanding and a full 5 pages 😁
OK firstly big thanks to Mark B for doing these, I think its a great idea and will prove to be very popular. I do have a couple of queries on the way the army lists have been constructed and would welcome input into how other players feel about certain aspects of the lists.
1. The huge amount of HQ's in the lists. Do players use an HQ at Company level in their games or do they play with an HQ at Battalion level. Wouldn't this slow the game up considerably with sometimes 3 or 4 times more activation rolls being needed.
2. Some of the units represented at Platoon level are, according to the original Micromark lists, included at that level even when they are listed as having 2 or 3 weapons/vehicles etc. Surely these should be added together and then become a Battalion level asset rather than add a Platoon at Company level.
E.g. In the German 29th Panzer Grenadier Division (BKCG1) the Divisional 129th Recce Battalions 3rd and 4th Heavy Armoured Companies are listed as having a Sdkfz 251/2 in each Company. According to the Micromark list each Company should have a Section of 2 x Sdkfz 251/2. Would this be better combining the 2 Sections into a platoon of 4 x Sdkfz 251/2 and have it at Battalion level.
I would be interested in other players thoughts on this as I personally have always considered the game to be at a scale of 4-6 vehicles = a Platoon in game terms.
Cheers
Richard P
Another point regarding the Company HQ's, it's late and I'm probably going to waffle but I hope this makes some sort of sense.
I have a Battalion with three Companies (A, B and C) each with an HQ (CV8)
A Co. rolls a 6
B Co. rolls a 10
C Co. rolls a 9
Therefore at Company level only A Co. can activate. So can the Battalion HQ (CV9) then try and activate both B Co. and C Co. or just one? In theory a Battalion HQ should be able to order all Company HQ's.
So if the Battalion HQ then rolls and fails to activate can the Regimental HQ then activate the Battalion HQ or just one of the Company HQ's. If it activates the Battalion HQ can it then order both Companies?
I hope this makes sense and would welcome peoples thoughts.
Cheers
Richard P
Some valid questions Richard P, I just typed a massive reply, pressed the wrong key and it all disappeared >:(
Mark B
try again, in bits
"1. The huge amount of HQ's in the lists."
Umm, yes. In the first drafts I did, I merely listed the total number of stands within a battalion, the grenadier battalions in BKCG1 looked like:
Battalion HQ CV9 90 CMD 40 - - 3 4 6 1 AA: 2/30
Company HQ CV8 60 CMD 40 - - 3 4 6 4
Infantry Platoon 80 INF 10 5/30 1/20 5 6 - 12 Integral PzB39, 2 MG per squad
Truck 15 VEH 20 - - - 3 - 20 Kfz 70, SPA38, Transport(2), Wheeled
MMG Platoon 40 INF 10 3/60 - 2 5 - 4
8.1cm Gr34 mortar 75 INF 10 3/120 3/120* 2 3 4 2-tube battery
Panzerfaust-30 upgrade 65 INF - - 8/5 - - 12 2/44+
But when I forwarded both layouts to Mark F, he preferred the version with the CHQs, which I do too.
The notes do say CHQs are purely optional. I've included them for historical reference purposes, and because I know some people model combat HQs in their own version of the rules, hence the bracketed suggestion of what model to field for every HQ. And because it looks better showing the individual companies within a battalion.
In reality I do not expect gamers to field every CHQ. More, I expect they might choose 1 CHQ within a battalion, representing the 2ic of the Bttn HQ, or the cumulative effects of 2-3 CHQs. Especially if you have a large battalion with a lot of stands in it. It might add that extra pinch of flexibility to get a mission done.
Mark B
"2. Some of the units represented at Platoon level are, according to the original Micromark lists, included at that level even when they are listed as having 2 or 3 weapons/vehicles etc. Surely these should be added together and then become a Battalion level asset rather than add a Platoon at Company level."
Yes, that is what Spearhead/Modern Spearhead does, at a similar level of play. It's not necessarily wrong. I had got the impression in my head that BKC/CWC is different from SH/MSH/RF in that it was the platoons that counted, rather than the weapons. For a real world Panzer grenadier company commander, the 2 tubes of SP 81mm mortars must have been important, so I had instinctively included them in each company. They were never massed at Bttn HQ, so didn't want to create that effect.
My thought was to be consistent, and try and retain some historical replication of the TOE, whilst representing the abilities of the company. Thus, in the 15th Panzer Division list just done, several 2.8cm sPzB41 are missing, as some companies had 1 platoon with only 1 of them, alongside 2-3 other PAKs. So overall, it's an anti-tank platoon failing or not failing at knocking out an enemy tank platoon in the game, and having or not having one real world 28mm isn't going to make that much difference in effect. And, because there aren't any more in the company, I couldn't amalgamate them across the company. However, in a situation where say 3 platoons have a net 3-4 weapons of one type, I'll write in one model for that company.
So in a roundabout way, I'm saying I'll amalgamate across a company where appropriate, but not across a battalion. Inevitably, the British Sherman/Firefly combination is going to come up. I'll be presenting a British Armoured Squadron as 3 Shermans and 1 Firefly (some squadrons did actaully operate their troops that way), and later 1944-45 as 2 of each. It's an abstraction we'll have to put up with.
As we've already got an abstracted system of hits and saves for a platoon of tanks, not an individual tank, I do not think this is unreasonable. And who is to say, that that very abstraction does include a representation of understrength platoons? Is it 3 actual vehicles, or 4, or even 5? But we know it's a platoon.
Either way, if a playing group thinks modelling a distinct platoon of 2 weapons is unreasonable, there is nothing to stop them fielding less models. For your panzergrenadiers, just buy 1x Sdkfz 251/2 for every 6 stands of infantry, or whatever.
If you like, think of it as I'm presenting the maximum information, anyone is free to use less of that information.
Mark B
Thanks Mark B, great to get your responses.
Cheers
Richard P
Quote from: Superscribe on 28 June 2019, 01:26:50 PM
A brilliant idea and having bought a number of Mark's army lists in the past, these new lists will be just what many BKC players could use. For me, lists for 11th/13th Pz Div and Soviet 8th/19th Mech Corps as at late June 1941 (Battle of Dubno) would be good,;
First list of your requests up,
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281370/BKCG3-German-11th-Panzer-Division-Russia-JuneJuly-1941
This is the generic list for the division at the time, I haven't read up on details of the battle where there may have been slight differences. (A book on the battle is en route!)
Mark B
And 13th Panzer in June-July 1941:
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281376/BKCG4-German-13th-Panzer-Division-Russia-JuneJuly-1941
Mark B
Have downloaded both. Excellent detail. Many thanks Mark
Thanks!
The first three Russian lists are also up, for 12th, 34th Tank Divisions and 7th Mechanised Division.
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281536/BKCR5-Russian-12th-Tank-Division-8th-Mechanised-Corps-Russia-June-1941
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281613/BKCR6-Russian-34th-Tank-Division-8th-Mechanised-Corps-Russia-June-1941
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/281677/BKCR7-Russian-7th-Mechanised-Division-Russia-June-1941
Mark
Brilliant Mark - have downloaded the latest 4 Russian ones. Excellent detail - just what I was hoping for.
Can I add some more to the list please for June 1941: German - 14 PD, 16 PD, 57 ID, 75 ID; Soviet - Divs in 9 MC and 228 RD. All at Dubno.
Best regards
Chris
Ah, the 228th will be interesting, you get to play with a full regiment of 203mm B31 howitzers :)
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, I've got more details on the 12th and 34th TDs, so they will be getting updated at some point when I've done 19th Mech Corps lists.
Mark B
Some more Russian lists are now available, 19th Mechanised Corps and corps Motorcycle Regiment, along with British lists for Arnhem commenced:
https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/3426/MicroMark-Army-Lists/subcategory/5776_33007/BLITZKRIEG-COMMANDER-IV-ARMY-LISTS
BKCR8: Russian 40th Tank Division, 19th Mechanised Corps, Russia, June 1941
BKCR9: Russian 43rd Tank Division, 19th Mechanised Corps, Russia, June 1941
BKCR10: Russian 213th Mechanised Division, 19th Mechanised Corps, Russia, June 1941
BKCR11: Russian Corps Motorcycle Regiment, Mechanised Corps, June 1941
BKCB21: British 1st Airborne Division, NW Europe, September 1944
BKCB22: British 30th Corps Support Units, 2nd Household Cavalry Regiment, Sept 1944
Mark B
Next lists are up:
BKCG13: German 14th Panzer Division, Russia, June-July 1941
BKCB23: British Grenadier Guards Battlegroup, 5th Guards Armoured Brigade, Guards Armoured Division, NW Europe, September 1944
BKCB24: British Irish Guards Battlegroup, 5th Guards Armoured Brigade, Guards Armoured Division, NW Europe, September 1944
Mark B
Howdy,
Any chance of a 101st US Airborne list for D-Day and Market Garden?
Cheers
Added to my list of lists to do.
Just to reiterate, I posted elsewhere,
Due to my father being ill most of the year then passing away in September, I've got completely behind with all my work. I was completey oblivious to how much time and energy the situation was taking out of me, until after the funeral.
Consequently it is highly unlikely that I'll be able to add any new BKC-IV lists until the very end of the year, if not into January 2020. I am writing lists again at least, but there was a prior contract I have to finish before going full on into BKC lists. Sorry about that, real life 'n all that.
Full service will be resumed as soon as possible,
Mark
I know this was a long time ago, but my father passed in November of 2019, so I can relate.
How are you doing?
Back in the BKC writing mode, let's pretend the last 6 months didn't happen as far as writing is concerned and it's still March 2020....
101st Airborne for Normandy
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/327653/BKCA50-American-101st-Airborne-Division-Normandy-June-1944
Includes known Corps attachments for the ground fighting during June 1944, an alternative layout for an artillery battalion with no guns, and the enigmatic "Provisional Airborne Naval Shore Fire Control Parties"....
Quote from: Itinerant Hobbyist on 29 August 2020, 02:01:23 AM
I know this was a long time ago, but my father passed in November of 2019, so I can relate.
How are you doing?
Am good thanks, my dad's end of life care was excellent, and he wasn't alone when he passed, and he just missed his 82nd birthday, so had had a good innings.
Mark
Good to see your making progress again :-bd
Quote from: sultanbev on 08 September 2020, 05:55:47 PM
... let's pretend the last 6 months didn't happen ...
There are a lot that would love to do that, in fact can we skip all of 2020 :-\
or even just a major part of today, as now we have NO working toilets in the house.
Quote from: paulr on 08 September 2020, 07:30:25 PM
Good to see your making progress again :-bd
There are a lot that would love to do that, in fact can we skip all of 2020 :-
NO!!!!! I've painted four armies and two fleets!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 08 September 2020, 08:15:34 PM
or even just a major part of today, as now we have NO working toilets in the house.
X_X :-&
Quote from: mad lemmey on 08 September 2020, 08:15:34 PM
or even just a major part of today, as now we have NO working toilets in the house.
Oh, what fun ! X_X
Hope it's/something's sorted asap, Will.
Cheers - Phil.
Well we all know abart sufners :d
If you are still taking requests can you consider the Canadian 3rd Inf Division and 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade at Normandy?
Thanks
Paul
Quote from: pbeccas on 27 March 2021, 12:28:01 PM
If you are still taking requests can you consider the Canadian 3rd Inf Division and 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade at Normandy?
Thanks
Paul
Noted, someone has already requested the entire forces for D-Day, so these will become part of those releases somewhere in 2022......
Am just about to start the May 1940 requested lists.
Quote from: sultanbev on 27 March 2021, 12:34:38 PM
Am just about to start the May 1940 requested lists.
:) :)
Have updated the catalogue with a Belgian teaser....
file attached hopefully
Quote from: sultanbev on 27 March 2021, 10:07:21 PM
Have updated the catalogue with a Belgian teaser....
file attached hopefully
Fantastic. The first BKC II army I built was the Belgians. So I'm ready to go for the new version and these lists.
First two are now available:
BKCBL107: Belgian 11th Infantry Division, Belgium, May 1940
BKCBL108: Belgian 16th Infantry Division, Belgium, May 1940
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/352080/BKCBL108-Belgian-16th-Infantry-Division-Belgium-May-1940
https://www.wargamevault.com/product/352029/BKCBL107-Belgian-11th-Infantry-Division-Belgium-May-1940
Further notifications will be in the other thread:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,18788.90.html
Great news
Hello,
I'm not a huge history buff, so I may be off the mark with this request, but was there an American Mechanized Infantry unit in WWII? If so, could you do a list for them? I wanted to make an army that had a mix of infantry and armor.
Thank you, sir!
First hi and welcome. The US equivalent to Mechanised infantry in modern terminology is Armoured Infantry, of which there were 3 btn in a standard WWII Armoured Divisions after 42,
Welcome fwav8or. :-h
Cheers - Phil. :)
Thanks for the info Lord Kermit. So would 3rd Infantry Division have been considered an Armored Infantry Division in WWII, as I believe they are currently classified as Mechanized Infantry?
Thanks for the welcome aboard Phil!
Take care, fellas!
Probably yes. The current structure is such that an Armored Division and Mechanised Division are virtually the same, so in WWII terms it would be an armoured division. Beware though it's not interchangeable between WWII and current practice.
Quote from: fwav8or on 01 November 2021, 01:29:51 AMThanks for the info Lord Kermit. So would 3rd Infantry Division have been considered an Armored Infantry Division in WWII, as I believe they are currently classified as Mechanized Infantry?
Thanks for the welcome aboard Phil!
Take care, fellas!
Sorry but the modern designations don't port from WW2.
The US army unit that you are after is the US light armoured division with 3 armoured battalions and 3 armoured infantry battalions. The WW2 US infantry divisions were just that. There was no equivalent of the German Panzergrenadier divisions.
Going from the above, and the catalogue, it looks like US Armoured Division (along with the requisite Armoured Infantry Battalions) are not yet done? Not sure if they've been requested as yet?
Ok - just a rough guide - From the top down :-
1942/3 except 2nd Armourd Div
Divisional HQ be CO and 2 HQ's if used
3 Combat Command HQ's (A, B and Reserve) CO or HQ plus HQ and a secrity platoon
3 Armoured Btn CO/HQ and HQ 3 M4 Tank Companies, 1 M5 Tank Coy, 1 Support coy 1 Plt M4/105, 1 Plt M4/M21 MMC, Recce platoon in Jeeps.
3 Armoured Inf Btn CO/HQ and HQ, 2 Armd Inf Coys 3 Platoons in M3 1/2 tracks, 1 A/TK plt 57mmn ATG
1 SP Coy 1 Plt M4/M21, MG plt im M3 1/2Tracks 1 Plt M7 Preiest, Recce Plt in Jeeps
3 Armoured Field Artillery Rgts of 3 batteries M7 Preists, upto 2 FAO per battery.
1 Armoured Cavalry Troop CO/HQ 4 Plts M8 A/Car, 4 Platoons Jeep Recce (Note the jeeps and M8's are in the same platoon but for game play separate them out) 1 M5 Platoon Recce Support
In Late 44, early 45 may substitute M24 for M25, also can add up to 3 platoons M26 to the Medium Tank Coy.
Divisions would have medium and heavy artillery added from the pool.
Quote from: Atilla on 17 April 2022, 03:51:43 AMGoing from the above, and the catalogue, it looks like US Armoured Division (along with the requisite Armoured Infantry Battalions) are not yet done? Not sure if they've been requested as yet?
Sorry, production has ground to a halt unfortunately. Am hoping to resume later this year.Interestingly, I get very few requests for American lists in all the rules I write lists for.
Mark
Where the American forces fairly standard from an organisation perspective? As that might explain why there isn't as high a demand for lists for their units.
Pretty much Forbes although the Infantry divisons did get variable attachments from the Pool, which had artillery, engineers, tanks and tank destroyers as independant attatchable battalions. Generally, but not always, an infantry divison would have a TD and or Tank Btn added, Armoured Divisons the TD's. The extra artillery was added for specific operations much as the British used their AGRA's.
Last post on this has two sillies in it - the Armoured Inf Btn has 3 not 2 companies
The M24 is substitued for M5 not M25.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 17 April 2022, 07:11:45 AMOk - just a rough guide - From the top down :-
1942/3 except 2nd Armourd Div
Divisional HQ be CO and 2 HQ's if used
3 Combat Command HQ's (A, B and Reserve) CO or HQ plus HQ and a secrity platoon
3 Armoured Btn CO/HQ and HQ 3 M4 Tank Companies, 1 M5 Tank Coy, 1 Support coy 1 Plt M4/105, 1 Plt M4/M21 MMC, Recce platoon in Jeeps.
3 Armoured Inf Btn CO/HQ and HQ, 2 Armd Inf Coys 3 Platoons in M3 1/2 tracks, 1 A/TK plt 57mmn ATG
1 SP Coy 1 Plt M4/M21, MG plt im M3 1/2Tracks 1 Plt M7 Preiest, Recce Plt in Jeeps
3 Armoured Field Artillery Rgts of 3 batteries M7 Preists, upto 2 FAO per battery.
1 Armoured Cavalry Troop CO/HQ 4 Plts M8 A/Car, 4 Platoons Jeep Recce (Note the jeeps and M8's are in the same platoon but for game play separate them out) 1 M5 Platoon Recce Support
In Late 44, early 45 may substitute M24 for M25, also can add up to 3 platoons M26 to the Medium Tank Coy.
Divisions would have medium and heavy artillery added from the pool.
Missed this entirely. Thanks for posting. Decided to go with British in the end. Went with US in 15mm as it kept the number of units needed down given it's basically Shermans, Stuarts and M10s. Found games tended to get somewhat repetitive though. The cost of doing British though is not so prohibitive in 10mm :)
Theres a bit more variety in Th US forces tha you think.
The M4 also has the M4(76) and a couple of Jumbos (M4E3A2 assault tank) are also handy to have. TD units also have M18 or M36 as options.
And missing from the list is the AA battalion with M15/M16 which are quite handy for chopping up German infantry.
Im assuming you went with a British infantry division?
I know exactly what's in the US army for WW2 thanks, I've been gaming WW2 for 30 years or more, you are merely assuming I don't know whereas in fact you have zero awareness of my knowledge insofar as it relates to the armies I am interested in. The question with regard to the US Armoured division with regard to a Micromark list was specifically from the BKC perspective. The comment I made above was not a literal 'that's all there is', any gaming is a matter of personal preference and I find the US comparatively bland to play, others may feel different, up to them. I don't know why you assume I'm going for a British Infantry division TBH, there's a fair bit of assumption in your reply.
Anyway, I've made my decision. I come here to discuss my thoughts on BKC and as an aside what I plan to do, not to bicker with people who seem to want nothing other than to find things to 'point out' based solely on their own flawed assumptions. It may be that you are trying to be helpful, if you are, apologies, but it REALLY doesn't come across that way at all, comes across that your'e looking to find 'faults' to argue about. Probably better if you concern yourself with what you want to do and let me decide about what I want to do. Over and out!
Quote from: Atilla on 25 April 2022, 04:28:40 AMI know exactly what's in the US army for WW2 thanks, I've been gaming WW2 for 30 years or more, you are merely assuming I don't know whereas in fact you have zero awareness of my knowledge insofar as it relates to the armies I am interested in. The question with regard to the US Armoured division with regard to a Micromark list was specifically from the BKC perspective. The comment I made above was not a literal 'that's all there is', any gaming is a matter of personal preference and I find the US comparatively bland to play, others may feel different, up to them. I don't know why you assume I'm going for a British Infantry division TBH, there's a fair bit of assumption in your reply.
Anyway, I've made my decision. I come here to discuss my thoughts on BKC and as an aside what I plan to do, not to bicker with people who seem to want nothing other than to find things to 'point out' based solely on their own flawed assumptions. It may be that you are trying to be helpful, if you are, apologies, but it REALLY doesn't come across that way at all, comes across that your'e looking to find 'faults' to argue about. Probably better if you concern yourself with what you want to do and let me decide about what I want to do. Over and out!
Wow!
Indeed. :-\
I've been gaming WW2 (and moderns) for 40 years so though I might have been able to add something to the conversation.
I just thought that your comments that it was all just 3 different AFV's and that the games were repetative were not my experience. I've had good fun running my Combat Command from the 4th armored division using WW2 Spearhead rules and found the variety of AFV's quite interesting in terms of what get used for what job and how to juggle all this to beat Germans. Conversely I've never been able to come up with a list for a British 1944 armoured division that I think will work on the table. Now a British infantry brigade with Churchills, 17pdr AT and support from all the divisional artilley is far more fun and a lot nastier to face than it sounds (all those 25 pdrs fuiring at once start to stack up). 15mm vs 10mm is more expensive but armoured units tend to be more expensive than infantry units base for base (and I missinterpreted your last 2 sentences. I've spent the day processing fruit into jams and wine).
Quote from: Rhys on 25 April 2022, 05:32:00 AMIndeed. :-\
I've been gaming WW2 (and moderns) for 40 years so though I might have been able to add something to the conversation.
I just thought that your comments that it was all just 3 different AFV's and that the games were repetative were not my experience. I've had good fun running my Combat Command from the 4th armored division using WW2 Spearhead rules and found the variety of AFV's quite interesting in terms of what get used for what job and how to juggle all this to beat Germans. Conversely I've never been able to come up with a list for a British 1944 armoured division that I think will work on the table. Now a British infantry brigade with Churchills, 17pdr AT and support from all the divisional artilley is far more fun and a lot nastier to face than it sounds (all those 25 pdrs fuiring at once start to stack up). 15mm vs 10mm is more expensive but armoured units tend to be more expensive than infantry units base for base (and I missinterpreted your last 2 sentences. I've spent the day processing fruit into jams and wine).
Fair enough. We will all form our own opinions about all things gaming. There's no right / wrong at the end of the day, it's just toy soldiers. What we shouldn't do though, IMO, is assume the levels of knowledge of people that we don't don't or assume what choices they are making. We all have reasons for doing the forces we do as well and they are not all related to toys and rules, some of it also just comes down to plain preference, burn out and boredom with what we've done before. I also find the level of enjoyment I get from any given force can significantly depend on the rules and in terms of posting here, I'm considering only BKC (albeit I plan to base so that units are usable in O-Group).
15mm (and I have a lot but still not enough for BKC) for me is way more expensive than 10mm. A metal tank from Peter Pig is in the region of £9-10, a box of 5 from Battlefront / FOW is $50 US (I am forced to use the US store simply because I don't live in the UK at the moment) so, £8 each vs £2-3 in 10mm. So 24 (for the sake of argument) 15mm, even at £8 each (best case scenario) is £192 vs £72 (worst case scenario) in 10mm. I know there are other options like PSC (often out of stock and terrible delivery times), Forged in Battle (not keen on resin) and even 3D printing (in which I haven't the slightest interest) but they mostly come in packs of 3-5 when often I might need 1-2 at most. That's without looking at the infantry, buildings and terrain etc. plus of course the footprint. Hence I've bailed on 15mm and will keep them, maybe, for lower level games like Battlgroup (too crunchy for my tastes) or even the TFL games.
Indeed wow.
You have a right to interpret comments as you wish, but how you respond to them is the key. In my 12 years on here, I've never seen such a barbed response. If you have beef with someone's response, message them directly. This is one of the friendliest forums going. Lets keep it civil.
Quote from: Sean Clark on 26 April 2022, 11:40:53 AMIndeed wow.
You have a right to interpret comments as you wish, but how you respond to them is the key. In my 12 years on here, I've never seen such a barbed response. If you have beef with someone's response, message them directly. This is one of the friendliest forums going. Lets keep it civil.
Indeed wow, talk about an overly sensitive over reaction! I pointed out that I
1) considered the comments to be more fault finding, not helpful.
2) do not come onto forums to bicker with people.
3) Apologise if I interpreted the post wrong but, if not, we may be better concerning ourselves with our own plans.
Nothing barbed about ANY of that unless of course someone is going out of their way to take offence (as is all too common these days). Maybe you should consider your interpretation of other peoples posts before popping up as the (self-appointed I assume?) forum police dictating what others may or may not do. Funny, but you are quite happy to dictate what OTHERS can do but it seems are more than happy to ignore your own advice of "If you have beef with someone's response, message them directly." I guess it didn't suit and your own 'rules' about who should do what, how and where only apply to others right? Maybe making a condescending self-righteous post was the priority here?
The best thing to avoid ones messages being misinterpreted is to think more before posting, communication is a two way thing and what one posts may not be interpreted in the way one intends. If however I consider posts to be unhelpful, even condescending, particularly when they are clearly formed on the basis of others having absolutely no idea about me or my degree of knowledge, I will respond accordingly and will respond wherever the original points were made. So maybe dial back a bit on the OTT 'Lets keep it civil' until I am indeed being uncivil.
I will be as civil as people are to me, what I will not do though is just sit back and accept comments that people choose to make about me or my posts IF I consider them to be condescending, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate / unfair or anything else that people may feel they have a God given right to deal out (as in your case) just because they feel like it. Not making such comments in the first place, or being more careful with the wording, is by far the best way not to get a proportionate response to correct them, and that's not just in relation to forums about toy soldiers.
Needless to say, I don't intend to discuss the matter with you any further, particularly given that both Rhys and I clarified our positions already and yet you STILL felt the need to ignore your own advice and pipe up here with a post I find just as objectionable as you seem to have gone out of your way to find mine!
Error Quote
Wow! I'm not sure which is more breathtaking, the original vituperative response to Rhys's post, obviously intended to be helpful, even if it wasn't, or the equally belligerent response to Sean.
It's what I've come to expect from "the other place" not the Pendraken Forum! Not at all the "I disagree with everything you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" I've come to expect here.
YES, BE CIVIL PLEASE!
Will stop shouting. I took no offence what so ever, but then I have a very long nose, and two enormouse upper incisors and can't run.
QuoteIndeed wow, talk about an overly sensitive over reaction! I pointed out that I
1) considered the comments to be more fault finding, not helpful.
2) do not come onto forums to bicker with people.
3) Apologise if I interpreted the post wrong but, if not, we may be better concerning ourselves with our own plans.
Nothing barbed about ANY of that unless of course someone is going out of their way to take offence (as is all too common these days). Maybe you should consider your interpretation of other peoples posts before popping up as the (self-appointed I assume?) forum police dictating what others may or may not do. Funny, but you are quite happy to dictate what OTHERS can do but it seems are more than happy to ignore your own advice of "If you have beef with someone's response, message them directly." I guess it didn't suit and your own 'rules' about who should do what, how and where only apply to others right? Maybe making a condescending self-righteous post was the priority here?
The best thing to avoid ones messages being misinterpreted is to think more before posting, communication is a two way thing and what one posts may not be interpreted in the way one intends. If however I consider posts to be unhelpful, even condescending, particularly when they are clearly formed on the basis of others having absolutely no idea about me or my degree of knowledge, I will respond accordingly and will respond wherever the original points were made. So maybe dial back a bit on the OTT 'Lets keep it civil' until I am indeed being uncivil.
I will be as civil as people are to me, what I will not do though is just sit back and accept comments that people choose to make about me or my posts IF I consider them to be condescending, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate / unfair or anything else that people may feel they have a God given right to deal out (as in your case) just because they feel like it. Not making such comments in the first place, or being more careful with the wording, is by far the best way not to get a proportionate response to correct them, and that's not just in relation to forums about toy soldiers.
Needless to say, I don't intend to discuss the matter with you any further, particularly given that both Rhys and I clarified our positions already and yet you STILL felt the need to ignore your own advice and pipe up here with a post I find just as objectionable as you seem to have gone out of your way to find mine!
Hopefully you see the irony in what you've written ;D ;D
Gents
Please can we all calm down (& move on) or I will shut this post down.
The danger with all forums is that the written word can so easily escalate whether intentionally or unintentially, as it is almost impossible to indicate "tone of voice".
We do generally keep a very calm, friendly and moderate tone on all forum posts here, and also in all our reactions to other posts and replies. Please let us keep it that way.
Many thanks
Mark (moderator)
Quote from: Big Insect on 28 April 2022, 05:56:01 AMGents
Please can we all calm down (& move on) or I will shut this post down.
The danger with all forums is that the written word can so easily escalate whether intentionally or unintentially, as it is almost impossible to indicate "tone of voice".
We do generally keep a very calm, friendly and moderate tone on all forum posts here, and also in all our reactions to other posts and replies. Please let us keep it that way.
Many thanks
Mark (moderator)
More than happy to move on. It shouldn't have escalated as it did, but I do take exception to people dictating to me how and where I should post, especially when they seem more than happy to ignore their own advice!
Quote from: Atilla on 25 April 2022, 04:28:40 AMI know exactly what's in the US army for WW2 thanks, I've been gaming WW2 for 30 years or more, you are merely assuming I don't know whereas in fact you have zero awareness of my knowledge insofar as it relates to the armies I am interested in. The question with regard to the US Armoured division with regard to a Micromark list was specifically from the BKC perspective. The comment I made above was not a literal 'that's all there is', any gaming is a matter of personal preference and I find the US comparatively bland to play, others may feel different, up to them. I don't know why you assume I'm going for a British Infantry division TBH, there's a fair bit of assumption in your reply.
Anyway, I've made my decision. I come here to discuss my thoughts on BKC and as an aside what I plan to do, not to bicker with people who seem to want nothing other than to find things to 'point out' based solely on their own flawed assumptions. It may be that you are trying to be helpful, if you are, apologies, but it REALLY doesn't come across that way at all, comes across that your'e looking to find 'faults' to argue about. Probably better if you concern yourself with what you want to do and let me decide about what I want to do. Over and out!
I think that was a bit of an overreaction to a well meant comment.
My humble and most sincere apologies to all forum members, including Attila.
Case closed.
Quote from: Sean Clark on 30 April 2022, 08:06:29 AMMy humble and most sincere apologies to all forum members, including Attila.
Absolutely no need whatsoever.
Quote from: Sean Clark on 30 April 2022, 08:06:29 AMMy humble and most sincere apologies to all forum members, including Attila.
Case closed.
I don't think its you that needs to be giving an apology.
Quote from: Orcs on 30 April 2022, 11:34:35 AMI don't think its you that needs to be giving an apology.
Hear Him!
Gents - let's move on - and stop commenting please - all parties are happy :)
Thankyou
Mark