"How to fix problems in BKC, KGII and Battlefront WWII?" Topic

I have read the criticisms – positive and negative of these rule sets. I'm still trying to choose between one of them for my 15mm WWII forces.

Would any in the group care to offer house rules they use to fix the problems they see in these rule sets? Please set forth the problem you see and the fix you use to take care of it.
Thanks,
Mike

I would suggest you at least try IABSM. This is a company level ruleset and great fun.

You can purchase it online as a PDF and should receive it within hours.

toofatlardies.co.uk

BKC: enforce a limit of three successful orders per group.

I don't know the other rules. As for IABSM – good as it is, it's a different scale (1:1 company level game), at least as far as BKC is concerned (1 stand = 1 section or one platoon).

If you don't have actual experience with them, I'd suggest playing a few (well, a BUNCH of) games before "fixing" anything. While no set of rules is perfect, there's a good chance they've been fairly well tested. Then perhaps do some tweaking after you understand them.

- Bob

Mike, our club tried to marry elements of two of these games with some success. Have a look under the files section of our group for something we call Battlefront Commander.

link

Or if you don't want to join the EWG yahoo I would be happy to email you the briefs and notes.

Cheers,

Dave in Edmonton dcoltman(at)ualberta(dot)ca

Beer helps all rules….

KGCII suffers most from poor editing between the 1st and 2nd edition. The 2nd edition changes weren't properly edited for continuity throughout the rules, so sometimes they contradict themselves – the quick reference chart often reflects the older edition and directly contradicts what's in the book.

One of these days we're going to identify all these and resolve them, but we're too busy playing. It really is a good game system.

Argh. Sorry to hear about KGCII! I have the older version, and was considering buying the new set. I think I'll wait for a revised print run!

- Bob

BKC works just fine if you standardize the availability and point values for all command units. In our campaign you must buy a CO unit (Rated 9) that costs 60 points. HQ (rated 8), FAC (rated 7), FAO units (rated 7) all cost 40 points.

This produces competitive games. Of course if you fail to purchase sufficient HQ units, you can get turns where you do nothing. I see that as a problem with force selection rather than the game.

If you insist each battle group always gets one move in the Command Phase each turn, that kind of defeats the purpose/value of the CO unit. Remember if a HQ fails to activate, the CO can activate units that have not yet moved. Also, you always get to act in the Initiative Phase so your troops aren't necessarily deprived of an opportunity to act.

mjc

<threadjack>
quidveritas
I quite like the feel of different command values, though I'm not sure the points difference reflects the effectiveness of higher command values – hence my suggestion above.
</threadjack>

As the threadjack suggests, different people will perceive different problems – and different fixes. What Bob said is definitely true – play the games first then see.

I'd strongly suggest a read thru the BKC forums where you will find very good discussions of various points people have raised about the game – and their house rules for them.
The BKC/CWC/FWC forums are nice places to ask questions without getting flamed….

Advocate above has mentioned a common one, although its mainly a problem where opposing armies have different level hq's – ie early russian v german.

Oh, and BKC2 is due out in august as well so wait for that.

at least as far as BKC is concerned (1 stand = 1 section or one platoon).

I've heard people say that. I've also seen where the author has written that the stats for a "unit" are for one item (i.e., one tank, one gun, one squad). Calling a tank a tank platoon may be somewhat okay, but calling a rifle squad a rifle platoon misses the mark in terms of capabilities.

That being said, I do enjoy BKC/CWC.

I understand the frustration of repeated command failures in BKC. This is the first time I have heard of someone proposing a patch to too many actions.

I have found the best palliative is to play the game repeatedly, and accept by times the fortunes of war. It will bite your opponent next time.

I suppose it all depends on what you expect to get out of a game.

In our WWII campaign if we cannot get a competitive game (not occasionally competitive but reliably competitive) the rules don't get played.

Setting the CO at 9 and the HQ's at 8 was not an arbitrary decision. These values do not guarantee a move every turn but it is rare when you cannot do something in a turn. Using the opportunity fire rules, it makes it hard for the Germans to run circles around everyone -- or the converse.

We brought BKC in at a time when the campaign turned over -- starting in 1940. Playing 1940 scenarios repeatedly will not eventually produce a leavening of the fortunes of war.

Ya'll can modify the rules anyway you see fit -- makes no never mind to me. I will only say the points assigned to the command units in BKC-I bear no relationship to the impact of those units on the game. The rich (Germans in 1940) always get richer. I play Germans and never lost a game until we went to the uniform command unit ratings and values. Indeed those German victories weren't even close. With the standard command values /points costs, every game has been a nail biter.

Given our stated GOAL of having competitive games, this system has worked well.

Is this historical?? Maybe not. Is it fun? Yes.

Do folks keep coming back to get stomped in a historically accurate game? Not in my neck of the woods.

Do they come back because they had a good time when last they played the rules? Yep, that's often one of the reasons they keep playing.

That's my experience. Sorry if some have issues with this experience.

mjc

bobstro,

I very much doubt there is going to be another (corrected) printing of the rules. The author doesn't seem interested. If they do re-print them, expect the same errors.

We are working on fixing this by putting the whole thing into a Word document that we can edit. I can send you a copy of it, if you'd like. Then you can re-write them to your heart's desire.

"the points assigned to the command units in BKC-I bear no relationship to the impact of those units on the game"

I am inclined to agree. I have been looking at a points mod to multiply the points value of a combat unit by the mean expected number of actions as a ratio of that expected of a CV 8 in order to represent the command unit as (literally) a force multiplier rather than as a thing of value of itself.

Lord knows if it will see the light of day. I do more scenarios anyway, but I did just get some early war German tanks, so I may get some early Sovs to oppose them.

Mserafin, I'd love a copy. Thanks!

In my limited experience with BKC, I was lucky (smart?) enough to take an HQ per battalion for my Soviets, so didn't have much of the "can't do anything for a full turn" experience. True, not everything moved, but I was never stuck. My opponents playing Germans and such who took fewer HQ seemed to get stuck more. Then again, I also took some T-34s, which are apparently more like Tigers in BKC. Maybe I just got my Soviets "right"?

My biggest complaint with BKC is that the different nationalities and equipment don't "feel" much different. The difference in command effectiveness is one of the better features of the game, IMO. I'd definitely suggest adjusting the HQ numbers before making a fundamental change, then see if you still feel anything needs a fix.

Our biggest problems with BKC/FWC were those stated above. HQ costs certainly don't reflect their effectivness. Buying more instead was not effective, as once you've tried to activate a unit & fail, thats it for them (yes, I know the exceptions in FWC). One unit firing 3 or more times totally unbalances things horribly. Cure? Up the cost of HQ's mightily & make the price jump between them far more I suppose. Multiple irings? Limit to 3, though even thats generous. None of this makes any difference if a fun 'snakes-n-ladders' game is all you want, & its funny to see 3 light tanks blow away 6 heavies, but the lack of fairness killed FWC here, and we had a large following (for us). Pity. I really loved the game.

I've only come across a handful of very minor issues with Battlefront: WWII and those are dealt with on the errata page of the website at fireandfury.com (which is mercifully small). Most issues come from incorrect or debatable values on the unit cards and those have been quickly and easily dealt with by publishing downloadable replacement cards on the website for free.

Funnilly enough, BKC is one of the very few rulesets that I will happily play "as is". I normally tinker with rules until they are beyond all recognition.

The only variation I would usually make with BKC is to adjust the command values for particular scenarios. Like most rules, BKC benefits from well thought out scenarios rather than simply relying on the points values in the book to play pick-up games

Then again, I play Germans a lot :-)

My pet peeve with BKC is that if you don't score enough hits on a unit in the turn to eliminate it, all the hits get removed. Kind of tough to explain that concept rationally to my gaming buddies.

The 'hits' thing is OK. Hits just represent fire in the area. It may suppress, it may kill. It may do nothing at all.

It would be hard to swallow if the fig ration was 1:1 but that isn't the case here. Each base represents multiple vehicles and lots of infantry.

mjc

I think the different command values are the earth of the game. Use them in combination with real unit organization and you will feel the different armies.

Not every army is played in the same way.

To be quite honest I have had no problems in both BKC and Battlefront WW2. So no need to fix them, IMHO they aren't broken.

/evil mode on
It always suprise me when people blames rules for their own failures… wanting the French playing in the same way of the germans in 1940 is childish…
/evil mode off

bobstro,

Give me an email account so I can send you the document. Send it to my account, which is my-user-name- here@whidbey.com.

My pet peeve with BKC is that if you don't score enough hits on a unit in the turn to eliminate it, all the hits get removed. Kind of tough to explain that concept rationally to my gaming buddies.

Explain it this way: if you hit a platoon and kill a single vehicle the platoon is still functional.

"Kind of tough to explain that concept rationally to my gaming buddies."

There is an optional rule for this (sticky hits) in FWC, which I believe is planned for inclusion in BKC II.

My own explanation is that you are primarily affecting unit cohesion and the will to fight. Actual vehicle destruction is a factor, but not the only one.

I prefer different rules for 1:1 combat rather than platoon level.

I have to second bobstro's first post above

I'd suggest playing a few (well, a BUNCH of) games before "fixing" anything. While no set of rules is perfect, there's a good chance they've been fairly well tested.

After playing a lot of games, what at first seemed like "stupid" rules may not seem so stupid. Many of us bring our preconceptions to a ruleset and overlook how the whole of the new ruleset works together.

Our group has been playing BKC for sometime, and in that time we havnt changed any of the rule. We always use historic commands rather than the points system with one HQ with each Battalion

We have been thinking about some sort of spotting rules, we like the CD ones and maybe try and include that so that all the figs arent on the table in Attack/Defence games

My group also use BKC and surprisingly have also not tinkered with them, other than to increase all things by 50% for 15mm. (The rules were written for 10mm).
I find them a lot of fun and although the failure of command die rolls can be really frustrating, it does add to the fun.

I particularly like being able to kind of just get on with the games instead of worrying about rules that require you to look lots of things up.

BKC- Use a different set of rules, ones not based on a medeival set.

The only similarity that BKC has with Warmaster is that both use the same basic engine. Maneuver, orders, units, etc… are all quite different. (BKC, for example, uses only one stand per unit – WM uses three.)

I do enjoy BKC, but have had to tinker with it many times over the years.

In my opinion, BKC falls down the most when the points system is used. It simply does not produce a very "competitive" game. It's really a system that needs a scenario to play properly.

In addition, the armies are not all made equal. Some of the armies reflect their historical capabilities well, but not all; non-traditional opponents are also a problem. We tried to do a historical refight of an action involving the Italians against the Germans in 1943, and it was a disaster. The two armies just didn't operate properly against each other. On the other hand, certain armies do work well against each other (the Early War stuff, the North Africa stuff, Hungarians vs. Russians) with a few minor range and movement modifications. It's really hit or miss, frankly.

I think it's a matter of "design focus"; first edition BKC doesn't seem to address all forces equally, so some tanks seem ridiculously fast (for example), while others have very short effective ranges.

That said, Cold War Commander is an -excellent- set of rules, that seems to have learned many of the lessons of BKC and put them into practice. Different doctrine is reflected more effectively in the ruleset, and the armies seem more appropriate for the level of abstraction represented. Again, I have problems here with the points system and some of the requirements – Soviet and WARPAC forces are always forced, under the rules, to take conscripts (but this shouldn't be true of, say, a Guards formation); but this is a minor quibble – simply ignore the points, or at the very least, ignore the minimum requirements for certain unit types, and it works fine.

You'll always have the "My Abrams is totally invulnerable to anything, save a tactical nuke" players, but if you stick to the Cold War era, the system really shines. We've even had some good First Gulf War scenarios, but those of course involved things like M60s and T-55s, not Abrams tanks and Challengers.

I have FWC, like the way it reads, but have not played it yet.

In summation – BKC is very playable, but it does need some tweaking in its current form, and the points systems in these games (at least the ones I've played) don't seem to work as well as they could. I'm told the new edition of BKC is essentially CWC for WW2, which would solve most of my issues with it, personally.

-A.