Norm – Clean Slate has always bothered my usual wargaming buddy DG, so I was curious to see what differences there were, if any. For me, what I have to understand in the rules is the “narrative” you mentioned. What do they simulate by allowing a unit to lose all moves/deletions at the end of the turn? Does a tea lady come with a tea urn and a cake tray? :o)) I like the other idea of partial recovery, I also like the idea of non-recovery. I don`t think I`ve ever seen a set of rules where it didn`t just encourage players to use weapons and support combined. but if they didn`t. Things went wrong. Mutual support, etc. was very important and finally the Panzer IV with short gun is more than just a tank! (In fact, I can see that British CS tanks will also be crucial in battles.) A wonderful game! These are by far my favorite rules of World War II. As for artillery, it`s always hard to solve, but if your options work for you, that`s all that matters. This last chip is my main problem with menstruation.
I would have much preferred to have a “it`s dead or not” role/check rather than the slow accumulation of shots from multiple shots/opponents. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this reading. I will play this game again, but the search for the best WW2 rules will continue for me. I set up the table, and in the summer of 1943 I created two 1500-point forces – German and Soviet – with my models and land at home. It was a simple commitment to a meeting – the purpose of which was only to destroy the adversary. We used a few optional rules – one for commanders (the tank) that allows a combination of a commando unit and a vehicle. We also used the optional rule of not removing moves at the end of a round. This scale was therefore more at the level of several trains than at the standard level for several companies for this set of rules. Nevertheless, it would give a test to the rules.
Finally, I would like to make a few remarks. The basic rules are very simple and clear, but in special cases there is a lack of clarity. In particular, the definitions of some basic concepts are not as clear as necessary. Artillery observers are commando units. Can they command troops? No, but it is not in the rules, but in the introduction to the army lists. And the “typical” line in the army`s lists is not very clear. Sometimes he refers to the type of troops in the rules, sometimes he describes the function of a unit in history. The Sherman Crab, for example, is an “engineering unit.” Does this mean that, like other engineers, he has six melee attacks? Obviously not – but what “combat engineers” are is not defined anywhere. Very complicated is the “transport unit” type. Germans in Poland and France have motorcycles as “transport”. Can these anti-tank guns tow like other “carriers”? Can an Sdkfz 251 shoot a 3.7 cm PAH? Or 7.5 cm PAH? This has not been clarified. If you use transportation, it`s best to look at the real organizations in the military to see what the right vehicle is for a unit.
All these small problems can be solved with some human understanding and a little historical knowledge. Pete answers all questions on his website (www.blitzkrieg-commander.com). There you can also get BKC-Lite for free to test the rules. The second part of the rulebook gives 15 different scenarios to play with. A really new idea is that the total value of an army`s points is not fixed, but is changed by a roll of the dice depending on the army. Thus, the British of El Alamein will have a positive modifier, the late Germans in France a negative modifier. If a battle group has fewer points, then these are awarded as victory points. So we have a system of rules that doesn`t give you a fair fight, but the challenge of struggling with what`s available.
This rule and the importance of leadership and control should lead to a realistic outcome, for example: B. : The Germans at the beginning of the war will be superior, even if the French have the best tanks; and at the end of the war, the Germans will not dominate because of their large tanks and guns. This is very different from many other rules for World War II, which have the “tiger syndrome” that makes late Germans unbeatable. Thomo notes that the rules include lists of armies for the following nations: The rules themselves only take about 20 pages from the rulebook. The rest is full of data so the units can be used almost year after year. These lists cover all the actual campaigns of the Second World War and include data for the units involved in them and not generic data for the entire war. It also helps by showing what you can and can`t use. Additional information helps to identify the differences between the different types of units or to give you poor, standard or high-quality units. Agree that the artillery in World War II land games is a Bugaboo – similar to the torpedo rules of World War I/Second Navy.
For me, the first big question is the time scale. If you play a skirmish where a turn lasts much less than a minute, you will have to deal with ranged shots/corrections. You mount, say, The command decision (or BKC, if you play a stand is a movement) where a turn lasts 15-30 minutes, and as you say, it only matters whether the fire is effective or not. Honestly, for me, the most difficult scale is where a booth is a team and a turnaround is a few minutes. Then you`re in no man`s land in terms of artillery, for example. if you need to track fire calls over multiple rounds. For those of you who have played it, how do you like the rules of BKC 4? How are they better/worse than FoW or even BKC 2? Problems? I`m thinking about getting into these, but I can`t find a lot of criticism. Thank you very much. These are the only rules I used on a table where I had the feeling of a “blitzkrieg”.
They attacked a Polish cavalry regiment that had occupied a farm I ran on the WWW for the Wargames Mongrel group during the Polish PBEM campaign in 1939. Everyone captured the system through two or three moves and from that moment on, everyone called the system and scored points to get results. I felt like at the end of the game, everyone knew the rules and could have handled a game. It was damn awesome!!! As an old Redleg, I share your opinion with most of the rules for indirect fire. You can simply ride in the first round for “Did I get the mission or not”, and then in the next round a “fire for the effect”. The Germans did not order the units to fire together above battery level for direct support. The typical fire in a game. British and American artillery battalions considered every request to leave a battery or the entire battalion. The whole concept of drifting in the rules is a clumsy and ill-conceived way of showing shots from distance.
