The fact that vehicles have radios appears to presume an all-informed radio net. Once one tank observes something it is axiomatic that the whole battlegroup in aware of it. This seems generous to me. WW2 radios were prone to drifting off net and there was often a lot of chatter which prevented new information from being shared. Even in the 1970s the radios could not be relied on to remain in contact 100% of the time.
In a Recce game some years ago I recall every unit having a random number ending in 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 and each move a dice was rolled. the comms of units with their random number corresponding with the dice roll were disabled for the next move.
I know that 'each unit on the board represents a network of communications assets', but it seems not to represent reality as I recall it from the 1970s and 1980s.
Feel free to assume a proportion of failed command rolls are due to comms failures - I do.
Hmm. In that case you could argue that the gunners, who were notoriously good at keeping their communications going, ought to have less chance of failing their command roll, ie a very high number.
BKC is a game of "top down" rather than "bottom up." Right result for the wrong reasons, which I prefer to the reverse. That said, one of the nice things about BKC is that it is easy to give gunners a +1 to command dice rolls if you want.
Don't get hung up on the minutiae, does it get the big picture right?
Yes the feel is 'about right' as you say. But I am the victim of too many dark nights in dripping woods so comparing stuff with personal experience keeps intruding!
Command rolls factor in a bunch of stuff, certainly including radio issues.
With gunners, there are other demands on their time (or guns) that may factor against the +1. But the BKC system is flexible enough to support this.
If you want to add some further randomness for poor radios, then what you suggest would work within BKC.
But as Ithoriel says its a very top down system, you are either happy with the abstraction or not. Most of the time it works well, but now and again you feel the dice are ruling the day. But you can probably say that about most wargames. It is also worth keeping in mind that a stand is a platoon - so that abstracts stuff out to another level too.
Hi Holdfast
QuoteEven in the 1970s the radios could not be relied on to remain in contact 100% of the time.
Ah. the vagaries of the C42 and B47........
Cheers Paul
The radios, plus the landrovers without heaters when the exercise directors decreed that we should take the windows off in order to stay alert, are not among the things from the 1970s that I am nostalgic about.
Quote from: fred. on 17 February 2021, 05:54:30 PM
It is also worth keeping in mind that a stand is a platoon - so that abstracts stuff out to another level too.
That official now, is it? Never liked that - the points made a nonsense of the armoured units IMHO.
Once had an A40 fall apart on me - terrible kit.
I think bad radios in WWII were always a problem. but the only real time you ever heard of it
being a major problem is Operation Market Garden. In the books and the film this is one of the key reasons the landing failed.
mostly glossing over the other main deficiencies with the plan itself.
even in Afghanistan working as a watchkeeper we still had problems with radio comms.
Regards
Sean
As the kit gets better the higher HQ wants ever more information, quicker, direct to it. You would have been reporting up more detail than was ever imagined in WW2.
I recall being in a (lively) discussion with a gate sentry in Kosovo when a phone went in my group. it was handed to me and SACEUR was on the other end asking if we needed help. (We didn't).
The idea of the guy on the ground being left to cope until things rose to a certain level remains, but the height of that level has shrunk.
Returning to the original theme of this Topic. The scale of radios in an Armoured Regiment/Battalion was probably 10 times that in an Infantry Battalion in 1944, so is there not a case for the Command Roll in an Armoured unit being significantly different to that for an Infantry Battalion? I know that there are differences for different nationalities but not for different arms of service.
The way to handle that is to buy a lower CV HQ for the infantry than the armour.
The Command CVs cover a multitude of possible situations - ranging from a failed order (radio not operating) through a blunder (the wrong channel being used and a formation being directed to advance into enemy fire or retreat) through to a roll of a double 1 and additional actions being available. You can also boost the CV of your Armour by attaching a recce unit to it and that can much more easily spot enemy activity and then boost the CV of the armour HQ.
I tend to base the CV on the training levels of the force involved. An armoured regiment with 10 times more radios than an infantry battalion doesn't do ten times as many actions in real life, you just need more radios to function at your equivalent tactical level (in this case, move each tank around in a vaguely coordinated fashion so they don't bump into each other and attempt to shoot enemies in a combined manner).
The simpler way to factor in the difference if that is your wish in BKC rules, is to ignore the -1/20cm modifier for units fully equipped with radios, or perhaps, alter it to -1/100cm.
Mark B
It doesn't matter if everyone in the whole feckin' formation has a radio! BKC is top down!
What matters is, are the formations achieving too much/ too little/ just the right amount? If the latter then all's well. If the first two, is that a problem with the rules or the players. If the latter, the rules don't need tweaking. If to much or too little then I'd suggest tweaking things very, very gently to avoid producing a different set of problems.
For me the Great Patriotic War games we play work as expected. Russians are an axe, Germans are a scalpel.
Of course, people's view on achieving too much/ too little/ just the right amount is likely to be very subjective. Once upon a time there were three bears ..... :D :D :D
These are genuine queries, asked by folk with a certain amount of a. knowledge and b. experience.
If the only response is 'its top down' then there isn't much point to the Rules Queries section.
If it doesn't matter how many radios there are in a unit then why were radios provided I wonder.
Bear in mind there simplification in the system - recce can only see 60 cm, and with difficulty at that distance. However they do give advantages. Likewise HQ's - don't do what one person did in a big game and start with the CO and work down, rolled a 12 on his first attempt, and then got shot at. It can be very frustrating to do things like that - give it a chance. Everyone on here will help, and there is a considerable knowledge base. Play a few games with the current slick version of the rules, discover what you think is wrong and use local ammendments to suit your taste. Then share them here.
On radio equipment in WWII, yes tanks use theirs for command control and could talk up and down the COC, but in action your troop/platoon commander would be concentraing on his job, Foley's Death of A regiment is a good read to show how it was done. British infantry landed in Normandy with 38 sets in the platoons but these were withdrawn because the op's were an easy target for snipers, and as it was so heavy they couldn't keep with the rest of the platoon. German Infantry certainly did not have a radio per platoon, in many cases they didn't have one at company. US troops had the Walkie Talkie but it has an appaling range and eats batteries the way a gready Labradour grabs unattended food. In 1940 it was even worse, both US and German Tank platoons had 1 transmitter, rest of the vehicles had recivers only. The British had radios in almost all of their tanks (not certain about Matilda I)
Hope that helps.
Hi
I suspect that someone using the callsign 'Holdfast' is fairly familiar with the British Army in particular. :)
I for one would like to know where it says in the rules that they are "top down" and what that is meant to mean anyway.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: holdfast on 18 February 2021, 03:41:02 PM
These are genuine queries, asked by folk with a certain amount of a. knowledge and b. experience.
If the only response is 'its top down' then there isn't much point to the Rules Queries section.
If it doesn't matter how many radios there are in a unit then why were radios provided I wonder.
Don't be put off :D these are all natural queries
When I started playing Commander rules (all those many years ago) I found the concept of removing hits and suppressions very odd. But it is now 2nd nature to me. But other players have adapted the base rules and play a faster (more bloody) game with the hits remaining on between game-turns.
Command and Recce seem to make up the majority of new player queries ... that is very understandable ... but I assure you to does all make sense (in the end ) ;)
Disclaimer: I'm not a WW2 gamer .... but giving tank (and artillery) units an edge when testing command because they're better equipped and/or organised for radio coms, seems reasonable to me. However, determining what that 'edge' should be might not be straightforward given the varied equipment used by the various combatants. As ever, a case of balancing desired levels of complexity and playability, I suppose. For example, here's a link about the different types of radio fitted to only one type of tank, the Sherman, that may be of interest.
http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/the-m4-sherman-tanks-radio-setup/ (http://www.theshermantank.com/sherman/the-m4-sherman-tanks-radio-setup/)
Here's a real example of wartime command and control. A neighbour that grew up on land that I now own was a tank platoon commander in France. He was standing in his turret yelling at one of his tanks on the right to go check some movement further to their right when he was shot from the left by a sniper. Bullet came down through his mouth and out into his right arm that he was pointing with. Lost most of his teeth and had a crippled arm afterwards. All this talk of the effectiveness of radios and still sometimes the best option is to stand and yell to get the point across. Just didn't work out well for him. He was an experienced tanker with a couple months hard fighting behind him when it happened.
My point is that for this scale of game I'd expect things like better radios, better training, etc to boost effectiveness but not allow one side to totally dominate the other. So many factors rolled into one stat/roll.
You are so very right Zinkala - the game is an abstraction - it has to be and it needs to be fun, and equitable and attempt to give a realistic outcome the majority of the time, but also allow for exceptional variables. You know the sort of thing ...
That 'really bad day' - we've all had them - the radio doesn't work, somebody forgot to pack the tea/coffee/sugar, there's water in the diesel, one of the crew has a dose of the shits and you are lock-down close combat and some idiot only loaded you with smoke rounds!
Then there are good days - you escaped being hit by that Tiger in ambush & brew it with a single return shot, the air support turned up in time, you found a case of champagne in a hay stack (along with a very pretty and obliging young french collaborator to keep you company) and you ended up warm & dry in an empty chateau with the main fighting 5 miles away.
All can be achieved on the single roll of 2 x d:6 Command dice ;D
Quote from: T13A on 18 February 2021, 04:34:21 PM
Hi
I suspect that someone using the callsign 'Holdfast' is fairly familiar with the British Army in particular. :)
I for one would like to know where it says in the rules that they are "top down" and what that is meant to mean anyway.
Cheers Paul
Paul it means that less attention is paid to nuts and bolts - the technical stuff and rather focuses on the comanders actions. Bottom up stuff would be the Challenger series, Flames of war, Battlegroup etc. inculding most of the stuff I wrote.
Hi Ian
Thanks for the clarification, makes sense now.
Cheers Paul
Your welcome