Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 02:38:47 PM
I am not sure if I am in the minority or not but I have never used the points system in CWC or BKC. So reducing the cost of ATGWS would have no effect on the games we play .

If you don't use the points system then it's probably no biggy on points costs, but to get a "historical effect" you probably need to overstate their numbers, I suspect?

I'd suggest knocking the fire activation limit off, or maybe leaving it on for non-specialist units (e.g. IFVs, Soviet/M60 Starship type tanks with dual gun/launchers) but allow dedicated ATGW units to fire multiple times per turn.

Righty then, first off thanks for all the replies so far, we'll be looking at all of the feedback there.

In answer to some of the questions/posts:

Quote from: Nosher on 01 October 2015, 06:33:14 AM
The SCW Lists in BKCII need tweaking. I put these together for Pete and there were some glaring 'issues' such as anti-tank rifles that slipped through the proof read. I'd love the opportunity to out this right

I think a SCW supplement may be where we go with that, we'll have to have a look and see.  We would like to do a series of supplements covering a lot of the other 20th C. conflicts.  And no we won't be charging a fortune for them, they'd likely be pdf downloads for a few quid.  When it comes to it, I'll certainly be knocking on your door for some input, along with a couple of other people.

Quote from: sediment on 01 October 2015, 07:04:10 AM
I suppose suggesting you start with CWC, rather than BKCII is too late.  Personally, CWC is more desperately in need of updating to bring it in line with BKCII, which I have been happy with up to now.

Quote from: cardophillipo on 01 October 2015, 07:21:40 AM
I would also vote for an update to CWC first, BKC has already been done. Pete was working on CWC-II before he sold the series.

Quote from: Shedman on 01 October 2015, 08:45:53 AM
CWC is in desperate need of updating as it is the oldest of the 3 sets

Quote from: toxicpixie on 01 October 2015, 09:04:41 AM
Another vote for CWC.

I understand the theory behind this, but we have to arrange things from a business standpoint at this end.  We already have extensive WWII ranges in place, so it makes sense to do BKC first and get both the rules/figures sales from that.  CWC is going to require a lot more codes in the catalogue, so it's better to leave that until mid-2016 when we should have more vehicles and a chunk of infantry sculpted at the least.

Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:35:46 AM
3.   Update FWC lists so that the 'ranges' are more complete, so for example, it includes the more recent additions to the Brigade Games SAC range, and new ranges from Dark Realm etc..  and more of the 'copyright' stuff like the Hammers Slammers range.

As with the above, we'll need to check on that when the time comes.  We'd obviously want to have our own Sci-Fi ranges expanded and in place before the revamped FWC rules are released and then we'd need to have a look at which other companies to include as well.

Quote from: Fenton on 01 October 2015, 07:20:41 AM
Firstly are we allowed to ask who will be doing the re write?

I'll check with the chap who's doing it and see if he wants to be named / put in the firing line!

It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look.  But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.

I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!

Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).

This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end

And hi Andy!

V/R,
Jack

Greetings

I think there are a number of areas of clarification that the original forum probably identifies pretty well from the recurring questions - one of these is spotting which was revised for BKC II but was still not clear.

Regards

Edward

Reintroduce suppressive fire as it was in BKC I ?

Quote from: bigjackmac on 01 October 2015, 04:40:06 PM
It's pretty cool that the Commander series is getting a fresh look.  But, like a lot of folks, I can see potentially the need for some updating, but don't really see anything broken.

I do very much look forward to CWC being updated, with Pendraken codes coming out to support it!

Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).

This helped us overcome all the whining (by me) regarding bad activation rolls, resulting in whole battalions not operating for several turns on end

And hi Andy!

V/R,
Jack

Hi Jack, this seems to be a pretty common 'complaint' about the Commander series.

I think it very much depends on the idea you have in your own head of scale and time. My personal view is that warfare is inherently unpredictable, and that there seem to have been many occasions when something simply went wrong - lead tank misreads map and grinds to a halt, radio net breaks down, unexpected obstacle, dud ammunition, or the wrong load-out means no effective fire, spooked by a discarded milk churn.. the incidents are endless. For me, an automatic activation wouldn't be a game-breaker, but it would seem like a bit of 'dumbing down' as you could always plan with (IMHO) too much certainty.

As for points values, we sometimes use them as a general guideline for force totals, but always model forces based on real TOE. Some of these imbalanced games have given us the best gaming experience.

Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.

Quote from: DougM on 01 October 2015, 10:01:18 PM
Given the economic realities - I can see why BKC would be a priority, but with the current 'flavour of the month' being Cold War rebooted, I would really love to see CWC brought up to at least the standard of the existing BKCII.

As Leon said, 'Once BKC has been done and re-released, we'll carry out the same process on Cold War Commander, which will be sometime mid-2016 we expect.   Then finally Future War Commander will be the last to get the treatment, end of 2016 hopefully.'

Quote from: bigjackmac on 01 October 2015, 04:40:06 PM
Regarding the rules, I always used the BKC II optional rule of 'hits staying on.'  And the only other thing I can think of, probably also as an optional rule, is this:
1) Lower all CVs by 1
2) Each unit gets a 'free' activation.  That is, when it's your turn and you move to your first command, you do not conduct a command roll, you simply carry out one activation.  For the second activation (assuming you wish to try to get them to do something else), then you begin conducting activation rolls.  Having lowered CVs by 1, you are making sure each command gets to act at least once per turn, but their second action (first command roll) is basically at the 'normal' -1.
3) Commands that carried out their 'free' activation, but did not carry out another activation (failed their command roll), do not count as having activated and thus the CO may attempt to activate them (no free activation, he's doing command rolls from the start).
Jack

  NO, NO, NO, NO, NO , NO .......... NO "FREE ACTIVATIONS" EVER .... NEVER EVER ... BURN THE HERETIC! ... oh, OK, if it's optional ... and on a page I can cut out from my copy and burn! 

First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.

Personally, I have no issues with either ruleset as they stand - I think they are ideal in the context for which they are designed - large scale micro armour games with battalions if not brigades to a side. That said, at my club they are a victim of their own success in that some players use them as the rules for much smaller games, even down to just one or two platoons/units. Inevitably, this leads to frustration when one or more platoons fails to activate! I have asked my mates at the club to contribute to this forum, and hopefully they will pass on some of their good ideas personally. Some of the ideas include allowing COs a certain number of rerolls to allocate during a game - this has the added bonus of giving the CO player more of a role in a multiplayer game.

I would also comment that I once also felt odd about the ability to shrug off hits at the end of a turn, but have since come to live with this by looking at the issue holistically - the unit pulls itself together so to speak, but this perhaps ought to be at the expense of missing a go or penalising activation next turn...

Anyway, hoping the rest of the crew will pitch in...

Cheers and good luck with the revamp, looking forward to the release!

Hi Sparker, welcome to the forum.

The more input the better I think.

If you are not already familiar with the forum you will find it friendly, helpful, supportive, amusing and bewilderingly lunatic by turns, if my experience is anything to go by. I suspect I contribute to all of those aspects

Quote from: Sparker on 01 October 2015, 10:23:21 PM
First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.

Personally, I have no issues with either ruleset as they stand - I think they are ideal in the context for which they are designed - large scale micro armour games with battalions if not brigades to a side. That said, at my club they are a victim of their own success in that some players use them as the rules for much smaller games, even down to just one or two platoons/units. Inevitably, this leads to frustration when one or more platoons fails to activate!... <snip>

I think the key to using the Commander series is to pitch the activation rolls at the right level. If people are using two platoons, then make the rolls at section level. One of my personal favourite games using CWC was a 'Nam firefight with essentially a company of USMC trying to reach an evac point across a table that was virtually all jungle. Very small scale for CWC, but it worked as well as a divisional scale Fulda Gap massed armour battle.

On a cautionary note, I wouldn't underestimate the amount of work required to update FWC or CWC..   FWC because current technology change rate means the set could look badly outmoded within two years, and CWC because there has been a lot of new kit and new technology brought to the market in the last 5 years and determining capability even in broad terms can be challenging. How would you rate the SWORDS remote armed robot for example? 

There's actually a good argument to be made that you could simply 'stop the clock' on CWC at something like 2000, and have an entirely new set called 'Modern War Commander' - for 2000 - 2020. Which then means you could potentially merge 'MWC' into FWC with current armies at a base tech level representing drones, ecm, auto linked weapons, smart munitions and so on. Rail-guns, sonic and laser weapons are no longer the stuff of sci-fi, and Autonomous Vehicles already operate in the battlespace.

But that is a lot of work, so I would be interested to hear if this is 'out there' thinking, or something Pendraken would consider.

Hi Sparker!   

Get rid of points, put in proper lists.  I believe there are certain units you can't field the max per 1000 points without going over 1000 points.

Stop with the pretence you can play at one casting=1 vehicle. A tank is either out of the battle or it isn't.  The idea you need to hit a tank 3 or 4 times to get accumulated hits to kill it is silly

Bring in some sort of weakened rule. A unit that takes a certain amount of hits compared to its 'wound value' or whatever BKC calls it should be permanently weakened. Units degrade

Here's the biggie.

Look at additional rules to step up a level.  1 stand=1 company.  It's a gap in the market.

When playing we have always go e with one tank/stand= platoon. I thought most people did

Quote from: Sparker on 01 October 2015, 10:23:21 PM
First up, thanks Leon and crew for this opportunity to contribute ideas and feedback about BKC/CWC - a great start to this new lease of life for these great rules.

Hi Sparker, welcome to the Forum!