"BKC II -- the second game" Topic

Meeting engagement. 4000 points each.

N. Africa, February 1942.

For the purists out there (for the Germans): That was 1 CO; 4 HQ; 2 Panzer Kampfgruppe's (one with 10 elements and the other with 9 elements); 1 largish infantry unit augmented with AT guns (15 elements); and 1 heavy assault infantry unit unit (12 elements).

The Brits had a couple big infantry units, a really big armor unit, a recon unit, and four six gun batteries of off board artillery.

We played the game straight up -- that's without our usual alteration of the value of Command units to make a 'competitive game'.

Game start around 12 p.m. Game finish 3:30 p.m. In that time we played 5 turns. Probably spent 30 to 60 minutes with our nose in the rule book. So turns were taking roughly 30 minutes each.

The game saw both the Brits and Germans make a strong infantry push for some high ground in the central part of the table. This was closer to the Germans than the Brits but the Brits used artillery barrages to pin down the German Troops and in so doing managed to occupy the 'choicest bits' of the high ground.

The German left flank saw the German Assault troops take a group of buildings just before a rather largish British recon force arrived (BKC II allows for a lot more recon units and the Brit player maxes these out -- they are pretty good and they don't count against the total number of units destroyed for the break point calculation). The supporting British infantry never got untracked and were miles away when the German Veteran Infantry and Combat Engineers close assaulted the Recon elements, destroying half and sent the rest packing.

[The recon was trying to use flank deployment and rolled "12" as a result they deployed right in front of the German infantry and stood there like a deer in the headlights while the Germans gave them a drubbing by using close assaults in the initiative phase].

On the German right, the Brits deployed a large number of tanks. The Terrain was pretty open with virtually nothing to impede line of sight. The Germans also had some tanks in the area but nothing so grand as the British armada (both in terms of numbers and quality). The British advanced confidently against the German Armor only to see a second column of German Armor dance around their flank! This second column also had a bunch of Marder IIs which out ranged anything the Brits had. The ensuing tank fight took about three turns -- mostly because the German line of sight was often blocked by burning British tanks -- this required the Germans to do more maneuvering and less shooting than they would have liked. In the end the Germans utterly destroyed all the Brit tanks (about 16 units IIRC) while suffering not a single loss. [I attribute these results to the difference in HQ values between the opposing armies -- the Germans were able to move almost twice as fast and shoot almost twice as much as the Brits].

With his flank completely unhinged and virtually nothing to stop the German armor, the Brit player resigned on turn 5.

Well yet another win for the Germans. That makes me about 20-0 when playing Germans in the early war [BKC I and BKC II combined]. The higher rated German CO and HQ units act as force multipliers that may provide 'historical' results but from a gaming stand point, often make the results of a game a foregone conclusion.

If you are trying to play 'even' or 'compeditive' games, there is an easy fix for this. Just dump the CO, HQ, FAO and FAC ratings in the book and create a Generic CO, HQ, FAO and FAC list that costs the same for everybody.

SUMMARY:

Two games does not a completely fair analysis make.

However I'm seeing a bit of a trend. First, the command unit issues in BKC I are still present in BKC II. I know some like these 'historical ratings' but I want my games to be a tussle not a walkover -- so this is an issue for me.

Second, BKC II does take longer to play. I really don't think we will improve on 30 minutes a turn and will do much worse from time to time (assuming an army size of about 4000 points a player). This is 50% to 100% increase in the time needed to play each turn when playing BKC I -- using comparable numbers of units. I think the longer play time has as much or more to do with the changes in the initiative rules as anything else [Initiative phase in BKC I didn't amount to much most of time -- in BKC II you have much more flexibility and can resolve close assaults before the command phase -- it's almost like a turn within the turn]. The artillery rules are also more time consuming (I do like the artillery rules in BKC II better than the earlier version – they just take longer to implement).

mjc

You sure seem to beat up on this game a lot. What would you recommend should be done with historical ratings to someone who is contemplating trying these rules? Not use them? That would seem to contradict some of the other concepts you've seemed to be in favour of on other topics. Or can they be softened somewhat?
--
Tim

I do agree that the rules favour the side with higher command values,but I haven't found it to be a game breaker.
I sometimes think HQ's with higher Command Values should have a higher cost than they do in the book, but I'm willing to give the rules writer the benefit of his experience.

I found a great game balancer is to place the side with higher command values on attack and the side with lower command values on defence. This means that Germans in the early war will be on the attack more often than not, assuming a more defensive role as the war progresses.

As the attacker the side with higher command values has to spend more actions to move into position. With the new rules for opportunity fire a defender with low command actions can still get a shot as the attacker moves in. Another balancer is to add lots of terrain which breaks up the attack and gives the defender cover. The defender will be defending an area for a reason and it is often because the terrain favours them. Finally, the defender should use defensive emplacements and mine fields where possible. They don't require command roles to effect the enemy and can really stuff up an attacker that does not have enough engineers.

I see the points system as a tool to help design an interesting scenario that presents a fair challenge for both sides. Ideally I find it best if scenarios and armies are designed by mutual agreement and have a little story attached. The worst games I've played are virtually always the ones where players point up armies in secret and then fight an "encounter battle" with little to no terrain. In these cases you can often pick the winner before the game has started and command value advantages are exacerbated.

Like quidveritas I find BKC II to have a longer playtime, mainly because of opportunity fire, but overall I think it is a better game.

Ditto Bird,

I don't beat up BKC, I just tell it like it is. There are folks out there that would love to win every game. I'm just not one of them. That's one reason I avoid FOW (another set of rules that really likes the Germans -- late war in that one).

[Just for the record, almost no one in Spokane has very many Germans -- except for myself. That is why I end up playing Germans in 90% of the games. There is an anti-Nazi thing that just won't quit in this town. Personally I find it hard to game WWII without the Germans. Yeah, you can fight the Italians but . . . there are some issues with that too IMO.]

I will say this. Don't bother playing the Russians during the early war in BKC II, its worse than BKC I -- not in anything that approaches parity. Actually if the Russians grossly outnumbered the Germans they would only be providing more targets for the Germans to shoot at as the Russian command could not use the large numbers to any advantage. (I also play Russians from time to time -- probably 1-8 playing Russians -- my only win came against a first time player -- I used a bunch of fake mine fields -- which my opponent avoided like the plague -- He refused to use his recon to check them out).

There are things the defender can do to improve his chances:

1. Use a lot of fortifications. They are really tough -- maybe too tough in this new version. Of course static defenses are made to be broken at the weakest point . . .

2. Use a lot of artillery to pulverize the attacker -- just like Al did in the game described above. My infantry wasn't going anywhere fast. The artillery didn't kill any units but it certainly kept their heads down. But Artillery generally isn't going to stop tanks.

3. Play the scenarios and play to the victory conditions regardless of your inclinations. All the scenarios have a turn limit. Sometimes all you have to do to win is outlast the other guy (of course this isn't a lot of fun sometimes).

As for the Command issue: This is what we have done in the past:

HQ = 9 and costs 60 points
CO = 8 and costs 40 points
FAO/FAC = 6 and costs 40 points

These values and points are applied to all armies and replace the ones listed in the book.

In BKC II, I'm thinking the 'generic' FAO/FAC value should be increased to 7 -- maybe 8. The jury is still out on this one.

In the above game I didn't use any off board artillery but I guess the use of the Marders got me a comparable effect -- naw, lot better effect. The Marders suppressed those Valentines and my Pz.IIIs mopped up.

mjc

Quidveritas generally has issues with games that nobody else does.

I simply don't understand the concept that sides should be equal, and perform the same. It's completely ahistorical and quite frankly rubbish.

As for people that continually get their panties in a twist over the points cost, I think the points are the worst thing about BKC. It's led to discussion over discussion on the BKC forums, usually because someone thinks it's more important than overall performance.

I dont know, I found it a fair review.

I for one like the disparity that unequal sides bring to the table. It forces one to adopt many times tactics that the original commanders were forced into. It explains some of the seemingly "wrong headed" tactics we see.

I believe the key is in the victory conditions, especially for historical engagements. One side may indeed be outclassed but putting pressure on the other side evens things out. For example early Soviets are mentioned. One can set up an historical scenario and make the historical outcome a draw. Here the Germans must do better then their historical counterparts and maximize all advantages, not merely roll over the Russians. On the other hand the Russians stand a chance not by defeating the Germans by the standard definition but having them pay dearly to achieve their objectives or at the very least not sell themselves cheap.

1940 France is another example You can adopt equal command and control and have a "fair" fight but you arent fighting the battle of France. German commmand and control was THE deciding factor.

My French are going to pay a minus 1 for commanding armour and infantry at the same time, but I wouldnt have it any other way.

But I understand some of QV's issues.

I actually think BKCI was better, was not broke and did not need fixing. sadly, the other 9 players at my club all think otherwise.

Pat

Red Fox,

Your issue is well taken if we are talking about a single game.

But if you are playing a club campaign -- one of the campaign objects has to be keeping the campaign going. Guys that play in our campaign play a about game a month. This year is 1942 and we advance the game time frame to match the month of the current year -- so my next game will be a March of 1942 game.

Think about it for a minute. If you are the Russians or Italians in this campaign that means you get to play 12 hopeless games in 1941. 12 games where your chances of winning are extremely poor. 12 games where the Germans get to run circles around you. How many of those 12 games are you going to make? How many of those 12 games are you going to enjoy? Are you going to support the campaign and try to get others to sign up for 12 months of abuse?

I like having the guys with Russians and Italians participating in the campaign.

Well regardless of your own tolerance for this kind of confrontation, it has been our experience that no one will continue to play in a campaign if faced with that kind of adversity game after game after game.

So we deal with the problem in a fashion that most find 'fair' if not universally popular. Points impart a certain degree of 'fairness' changes to the Command ratings at least give the appearance of leveling the playing field. That way you win or lose on your own merits and not because of command values imposed by the rules.

mjc

I too am a BKCII player. I welcomed the changes made from I to II and although I liked some of the things in I, II is overall better.

The army lists are historical, but you do not have to use them. Have standard values for CO/HQ/FAO/FAC units if that is how you want to play. You also do not need to have historical opponents if you want to field your favourite army, just go with an opponent from about the same time.

It is only a game (which I enjoy thoroughly enjoy), but avoid encountr games and play a scenario.

I'm playing BKC2 have previously played BKC1 and CWC. I haven't found any of these problems in my games.

We regularly play at my club and get an evening game in about 3 hours, admittedly slightly smaller forces. My last game, defending with 1941 Italians, had 1CO, 4HQs and 28 units plus artillery. The game lasted just under the 3 hours and we got 8 full turns in.

Do the rules favour the higher value CVs? Yes of course, just as the side with the superior commamnd structure usually fared better in reality. However I have now won twice in succession with my poor CV Italians.

I've used them for very sucessful games with 1940/41 Western Desert, 1942 Far East and 1944 Western Europe.

I think they are a great set of rules…for me and the group I usually play with. We really like them. However the will not be everyone's cup of tea.

I've played BKC1 for three years average 2 games per month and now BKC2 about 1 game per month, between 4 to 7kpoints per side. No issues except to say other game systems replicating this scale of battle pale into insignificance along side BKC. Op Fire is very simple and fast to play: has to be as my opponents are addicted to it!

Quidveritas, I can understand your problem, keeping players interested in a campaign when they're either recieving the short end of the stick, or have been beaten and their forces are diminished is a problem. If your tweaks to the CV values change that, then it's all good. I just feel that with a little scenario design, you can even up the odds.

Last night I played a game down at the club with 1 brand new player, myself and another experienced BKC player although it's only our 3rd game of BKC2. We played 10 turns, with the British attacking with an infantry battalion (CO, HQ,12 inf, 2mg, 2 mortars, 6pdr) and a squadron of shermans (HQ,3+firefly). They also had 3 assets for 2 25pdr batteries and an FAO. Opposing them was a German conscript infantry battalion dug in (CO, HQ,9 inf, 2 MG, 1 mortar, 1 Pak40, 1 infantry gun, 2 STuGs.) We rattled through the turns, and didn't find the opportunity fire rules slowed us down at all. The problems we've found are that dug in troops are far too well protected, and it becomes impossible to shift them.