6:53 Per 5.1g, a defending hex can only be attacked once, but defending units could be attacked more than once, if they retreated to a new hex. This actually hasn’t come up in any of my games yet, though, lol. Enjoying these very much!
This is absolutely invaluable. Thank you for the link as well! Fabulous job parsing all of the options; this adds a lot to my understanding of the system.
One thing about getting to +6 on an attack... even snakes at that point (bad for the attacker) ends up being a middle of the road 8 result. Getting to +4 means you can get to the middle result on the table instead of the really painful attacker takes a loss and nothing to the defender. With at least that advantage or using arty/air for suppression (half-way to +4) you will get an even exchange or better, and are that much closer to the 13+ result. Equal AR with an assist and suppression barrage gets you to +3, slightly risky to the attacker.
Yes, indeed. We all love a +6 when we can get it. While a +3 is probably a minimum unless you have one of those attritional armies that can sock up the loss.
Me too. Not to mention engagement zones. Understanding the whole command, control and supply systems are the subject of my next effort (in a little while - just started on free script).
I have a similar process. From OCS Jedi from the last game I played to OCS newbie after a year away from the game. I've been so focused on playing and doing videos for BCS that I feel I've forgotten most of OCS. Not true, of course. I've been playing it since Guderian's Blitzkrieg. Play and the confidence will flood back.
Robert, this is a great series. And I really love the BCS system: formations, coordination, supply and even abstractions that are used for distinguishing different units purposes (like Limited AV, or Breakthrough Hard-Red AV), although I played only PLS. But there are 2 rules that I find not very satisfying (I am familiar with only 2.0 version of the rules), which I would be happy to discuss with someone who is deeply familiar with the rules. The first dubious rule is a 3 point arty/air barrage as a part of a regular attack rule. I find it very gamy. You are just all in arty points, and trade it for better combat chances. This often produces very weird results like you destroy three enemy steps, or even more if units are stacked, and then loose combat with A2 result. I can’t find a good real-life analogy to these results. I would be able to understand it if 3 point barrages and combats were not tight together, but according to the rules they must be a part of a regular attack sequence. This is why I developed my own arty/air barrages house rules for this game: BCS Arty/Air Barrages House Rules: - Air Destruction Barrages: do not need a spotter for targets in the objective zone, no more than 1 air destruction barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed (this is to distinct air points from arty points and to depict better how air was used at least in the eastern front, it is not rare that targets were found by air recon). - Arty Destruction Barrages: need a spotter for targets in the objective zone, no more than 1 arty destruction barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed. - Arty/Air Suppression Barrages: are allowed in addition to destruction barrages, no more than 1 suppression barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed. - You may combine air, arty destruction and suppression barrages in one hex, so the maximum per hex is 1 air destruction barrage, 1 arty destruction barrage and 1 any suppression barrage (i.e. 3 points per hex). - You may barrage HQs and CTs. If a barrage against an HQ or a CT is successful, flip a CT to its ghost side. If a CT is already ghosted or off-map, then such a barrage has no effect. This rule allows to use air points to harass enemy supply lines in the objective zone. If an optional soft jump rule is active, then you need to make a preliminary roll to check if an HQ or a CT are really in the hex. If you roll 1-4, then they are not in the hex at the moment and you spent 1 barrage point without an effect. The second dubious rule is an optional soft-jump rule. Although the concept is not bad, but it also creates a weird situation when it’s may better not to overrun an enemy HQ or CT, but to stop in a hex adjacent to them to cut a complete MSR. Because if you overrun an HQ or CT, there will be a great chance that they are actually not in the hex, but if you cut a complete MSR, then in the next activation preparation phase the enemy will have to move the CT off-map. So I also introduced an add-on rule for soft-jumps. BCS Soft-Jump House Rules Add-on: - When you cut the enemy’s complete MSR, roll the dice, if it is 5-6, move the enemy’s CT off-map, otherwise the enemy has to move the CT and/or HQ to establish a new complete MSR (CT and HQ keep their modes). If the other complete MSR is not available, move the CT off-map.
Thanks for your thoughts Simple Wine. I think artillery is problematic for many wargames, it being either too powerful or too weak in a game. Firstly, artillery in warfare is so powerful that a lot of its time an energy is spent combating the enemy's artillery. Secondly, a lot of artillery's impact occurs over the longer term - longer than the length of our scenarios, with very carefully prepared artillery fire plans. These, of course, are rarely modelled, least they become a 'shell game' in their own right. I think what Dean has tried to do here is modelled artillery (and air power) for it's gross effects. - It ignores the artillery vs artillery duel, but it substracts a lot of available artilery power for other use. - It forcuses artillery defensively on improving defence through prepared fires, making it harder for the enemy to defend (prepared defence) - It encourages the use of artillery to support attacks (surppression fire) - It discourages the use of artillery to smash up enemy units unless you have a specific need to cause attrition, which, at the same time makes it difficult for the attack because of the weight and/or length of the artillery attack. It's an interesting solution to the problem and certainly better than many system's add artillery to the combat power of the attack. I think it is important to remember that BCS is specficially designed to model fluid situations. All the games are chosen so that both sides get to attack. So it does not try and model either static battlefields or giant offensives with a big artillery attack at the start. As for hard/soft jumps. It is Dean's intention to keep the actual position of the enemy's HQs largely unknown so that people do not go HQ hunting. In many battles HQs did get overrun or commanders got captured driving around between HQs, but this wasn't because of a deliberate attemtp to drive for the HQ. It was mainly just by accident. So Dean is trying to model that it 'might' help you to disrupt the command net, or it might be that the command net wasn't where you thought it was (we have way too much intelligence as to where things are on the map, and Dean has a whole set of rules to make that more fog of war, of which jumps are one).
First, this is a great video. I am looking forward to your additions to this series. I hope you don’t mind my previous pedantic correction comments. Please continue this series as it will definitely help introduce new players to the BCS system.
Pedantry = Getting it right, and it's very welcome. (Part of the reason for doing this was to consolidate my own understanding... You never know something as well until you try and explain it). Thanks for the thumbs up.
Lynn, would you mind taking a look at Part 2 before I publish it to everyone, so I have a chance to correct any errors (RUclips is un-editable after its published, short of deleting it and republishing it all over again, so better to fix it before its properly live). Thanks in advance. You can email any comments on rvt.analysis@gmail.com ruclips.net/video/a8PP_1HCB8I/видео.html
Hello Dickie, Quick comment while I am enjoying your guide. On the table laying out the effects of DR mods in a regular attack against infantry not in PD or Key Terrain. Modified DR’s 9 and 10 produce a Situational Retreat and Traffic. Situational Retreat is three hexes not a retreat to HQ Refuge.
"Mechanized Infantry" (20:44) (ie "Assault"-arrowed TAC MA units having no AV value) can conduct TWO Shock Attacks AND a Regular Attack. *** Edited ***
Double checking. I see the Design Note on p.8 says "While a Tac MA Attack-Capable unit (Mechanized Infantry) can make a Shock Attack, consider that a plain Leg Infantry Battalion has two Fire Events, but what can it use them for? The Leg Infantry cannot: ◊ Conduct an Engagement (as it is not an AV unit). ◊ Conduct an Attack by Fire (for the same reason). ◊ Conduct a Shock Attack (it does not have a Tac MA). ◊ Conduct a Recon (as it is not a Recon unit). Therefore while it has Fire Events, it cannot use them to do anything." So, from that I infer that if leg infantry has two Fire Events (but just can't use them) then so does a TavMA Attactk-Capable unit (and can use them). And of course, its TacMA (typically 12) can fulfil the movement criteria for a Shock Attack "5.1m Shock Attack Criteria. i) A Shock Attack defending hex must: ✔ Not contain any AV rating (real or Support). ✔ Cost 3 MPs or less for Tac MA (road MP rates can be used to reduce the hex’s terrain costs)." Of course, in practice it would be very unusual for an assault capable TacMA unit to conduct two shock attacks and a regular one (or assist) but I am not seeing it cannot. In a side note, "Mechanized" seems to be used in the rules as a synonym for units with TacMA (with AV and not).
Another comment. All unit types have two Fire Events. The Design Note in rule 1.6 points out that Fire Events for Leg Infantry is a non functional capability because Leg Infantry can not do the actions which require Fire Events.
I am aware of this. I was thought it was a bit of an existential question: can you have something that you cannot do. Rather than, a leg infantry has two fire events that is impossible to use, I feel it might have just been simpler to say a leg infantry has no fire events. My hunch is that a lot of players think of it as easier to think of latter, the end result being the same.
Amazing presentation. I was about to ask for a link of the slides to print out - much appreciated, thank you! Will that link be updated live/periodically with corrections (if any)?
You are welcome, Adam. There is only correction, as noted in the description and updated in the linked slide deck. I've had the next one pre checked by Lynn Brower (author of the support book) and he said it was OK, so hopefully it's all good now.
6:53 Per 5.1g, a defending hex can only be attacked once, but defending units could be attacked more than once, if they retreated to a new hex. This actually hasn’t come up in any of my games yet, though, lol. Enjoying these very much!
I salute your exacting grasp of the rules. I've added it to the corrections in the description. Thank you!
This is absolutely invaluable. Thank you for the link as well! Fabulous job parsing all of the options; this adds a lot to my understanding of the system.
And you, Thomas, are exactly the person I scripted this for (though mainly because to sound pretty much like me!). 😀
Glad it hit the spot.
One thing about getting to +6 on an attack... even snakes at that point (bad for the attacker) ends up being a middle of the road 8 result. Getting to +4 means you can get to the middle result on the table instead of the really painful attacker takes a loss and nothing to the defender. With at least that advantage or using arty/air for suppression (half-way to +4) you will get an even exchange or better, and are that much closer to the 13+ result. Equal AR with an assist and suppression barrage gets you to +3, slightly risky to the attacker.
Yes, indeed. We all love a +6 when we can get it. While a +3 is probably a minimum unless you have one of those attritional armies that can sock up the loss.
Great stuff - this and ZOC are my twin biggest hurdles in this system.
Me too. Not to mention engagement zones. Understanding the whole command, control and supply systems are the subject of my next effort (in a little while - just started on free script).
Great work! Keep'em coming!
Thanks, Brian. Part 2 in a couple of days.
Nice one. I keep forgetting attacks by fire need to be in an objective zone! Keep up the good work!! 🤘
Funny, I keep forgetting that engagements don't have to be in the objective zone.
Oh thank you! Im hitting this next its been over a year for me!
I have a similar process. From OCS Jedi from the last game I played to OCS newbie after a year away from the game. I've been so focused on playing and doing videos for BCS that I feel I've forgotten most of OCS. Not true, of course. I've been playing it since Guderian's Blitzkrieg. Play and the confidence will flood back.
Robert, this is a great series. And I really love the BCS system: formations, coordination, supply and even abstractions that are used for distinguishing different units purposes (like Limited AV, or Breakthrough Hard-Red AV), although I played only PLS.
But there are 2 rules that I find not very satisfying (I am familiar with only 2.0 version of the rules), which I would be happy to discuss with someone who is deeply familiar with the rules.
The first dubious rule is a 3 point arty/air barrage as a part of a regular attack rule. I find it very gamy. You are just all in arty points, and trade it for better combat chances. This often produces very weird results like you destroy three enemy steps, or even more if units are stacked, and then loose combat with A2 result. I can’t find a good real-life analogy to these results. I would be able to understand it if 3 point barrages and combats were not tight together, but according to the rules they must be a part of a regular attack sequence. This is why I developed my own arty/air barrages house rules for this game:
BCS Arty/Air Barrages House Rules:
- Air Destruction Barrages: do not need a spotter for targets in the objective zone, no more than 1 air destruction barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed (this is to distinct air points from arty points and to depict better how air was used at least in the eastern front, it is not rare that targets were found by air recon).
- Arty Destruction Barrages: need a spotter for targets in the objective zone, no more than 1 arty destruction barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed.
- Arty/Air Suppression Barrages: are allowed in addition to destruction barrages, no more than 1 suppression barrage per hex (1 point) is allowed.
- You may combine air, arty destruction and suppression barrages in one hex, so the maximum per hex is 1 air destruction barrage, 1 arty destruction barrage and 1 any suppression barrage (i.e. 3 points per hex).
- You may barrage HQs and CTs. If a barrage against an HQ or a CT is successful, flip a CT to its ghost side. If a CT is already ghosted or off-map, then such a barrage has no effect. This rule allows to use air points to harass enemy supply lines in the objective zone. If an optional soft jump rule is active, then you need to make a preliminary roll to check if an HQ or a CT are really in the hex. If you roll 1-4, then they are not in the hex at the moment and you spent 1 barrage point without an effect.
The second dubious rule is an optional soft-jump rule. Although the concept is not bad, but it also creates a weird situation when it’s may better not to overrun an enemy HQ or CT, but to stop in a hex adjacent to them to cut a complete MSR. Because if you overrun an HQ or CT, there will be a great chance that they are actually not in the hex, but if you cut a complete MSR, then in the next activation preparation phase the enemy will have to move the CT off-map. So I also introduced an add-on rule for soft-jumps.
BCS Soft-Jump House Rules Add-on:
- When you cut the enemy’s complete MSR, roll the dice, if it is 5-6, move the enemy’s CT off-map, otherwise the enemy has to move the CT and/or HQ to establish a new complete MSR (CT and HQ keep their modes). If the other complete MSR is not available, move the CT off-map.
Thanks for your thoughts Simple Wine.
I think artillery is problematic for many wargames, it being either too powerful or too weak in a game. Firstly, artillery in warfare is so powerful that a lot of its time an energy is spent combating the enemy's artillery. Secondly, a lot of artillery's impact occurs over the longer term - longer than the length of our scenarios, with very carefully prepared artillery fire plans. These, of course, are rarely modelled, least they become a 'shell game' in their own right.
I think what Dean has tried to do here is modelled artillery (and air power) for it's gross effects.
- It ignores the artillery vs artillery duel, but it substracts a lot of available artilery power for other use.
- It forcuses artillery defensively on improving defence through prepared fires, making it harder for the enemy to defend (prepared defence)
- It encourages the use of artillery to support attacks (surppression fire)
- It discourages the use of artillery to smash up enemy units unless you have a specific need to cause attrition, which, at the same time makes it difficult for the attack because of the weight and/or length of the artillery attack.
It's an interesting solution to the problem and certainly better than many system's add artillery to the combat power of the attack.
I think it is important to remember that BCS is specficially designed to model fluid situations. All the games are chosen so that both sides get to attack. So it does not try and model either static battlefields or giant offensives with a big artillery attack at the start.
As for hard/soft jumps. It is Dean's intention to keep the actual position of the enemy's HQs largely unknown so that people do not go HQ hunting. In many battles HQs did get overrun or commanders got captured driving around between HQs, but this wasn't because of a deliberate attemtp to drive for the HQ. It was mainly just by accident. So Dean is trying to model that it 'might' help you to disrupt the command net, or it might be that the command net wasn't where you thought it was (we have way too much intelligence as to where things are on the map, and Dean has a whole set of rules to make that more fog of war, of which jumps are one).
First, this is a great video. I am looking forward to your additions to this series. I hope you don’t mind my previous pedantic correction comments. Please continue this series as it will definitely help introduce new players to the BCS system.
Pedantry = Getting it right, and it's very welcome.
(Part of the reason for doing this was to consolidate my own understanding... You never know something as well until you try and explain it).
Thanks for the thumbs up.
Lynn, would you mind taking a look at Part 2 before I publish it to everyone, so I have a chance to correct any errors (RUclips is un-editable after its published, short of deleting it and republishing it all over again, so better to fix it before its properly live).
Thanks in advance. You can email any comments on rvt.analysis@gmail.com
ruclips.net/video/a8PP_1HCB8I/видео.html
Yes I would be happy to take a look.
Another great video thanks. Looking forward to the future ones.
Thanks Hopshed. BTW Arracourt has arrived in England. Should get mine on Monday. Can't be too much longer for you.
Hello Dickie, Quick comment while I am enjoying your guide. On the table laying out the effects of DR mods in a regular attack against infantry not in PD or Key Terrain. Modified DR’s 9 and 10 produce a Situational Retreat and Traffic. Situational Retreat is three hexes not a retreat to HQ Refuge.
Thanks Lynn, good spot, I'll make amendments.
Great video analisys of BCS system
Thank you, Fabio. Glad you got something from it.
Thanks; very helpful.
You're very welcome, Stewart. It is a lot to get your head around.
Thanks Rvt.. I’m waiting next video :)
Not pressure then!
Probably towards the end of June ish.
"Mechanized Infantry" (20:44) (ie "Assault"-arrowed TAC MA units having no AV value) can conduct TWO Shock Attacks AND a Regular Attack. *** Edited ***
Double checking.
I see the Design Note on p.8 says
"While a Tac MA Attack-Capable unit
(Mechanized Infantry) can make a Shock
Attack, consider that a plain Leg Infantry
Battalion has two Fire Events, but what can
it use them for?
The Leg Infantry cannot:
◊ Conduct an Engagement (as it is not an AV unit).
◊ Conduct an Attack by Fire (for the same reason).
◊ Conduct a Shock Attack (it does not have a Tac MA).
◊ Conduct a Recon (as it is not a Recon unit).
Therefore while it has Fire Events, it cannot
use them to do anything."
So, from that I infer that if leg infantry has two Fire Events (but just can't use them) then so does a TavMA Attactk-Capable unit (and can use them).
And of course, its TacMA (typically 12) can fulfil the movement criteria for a Shock Attack
"5.1m Shock Attack Criteria.
i) A Shock Attack defending hex must:
✔ Not contain any AV rating (real or
Support).
✔ Cost 3 MPs or less for Tac MA (road
MP rates can be used to reduce the hex’s
terrain costs)."
Of course, in practice it would be very unusual for an assault capable TacMA unit to conduct two shock attacks and a regular one (or assist) but I am not seeing it cannot.
In a side note, "Mechanized" seems to be used in the rules as a synonym for units with TacMA (with AV and not).
@@RvTWargames Yes, it does warrant some clarification.
Got yourself a new sub!
They are all very welcome, thank you.
Another comment. All unit types have two Fire Events. The Design Note in rule 1.6 points out that Fire Events for Leg Infantry is a non functional capability because Leg Infantry can not do the actions which require Fire Events.
I am aware of this. I was thought it was a bit of an existential question: can you have something that you cannot do.
Rather than, a leg infantry has two fire events that is impossible to use, I feel it might have just been simpler to say a leg infantry has no fire events. My hunch is that a lot of players think of it as easier to think of latter, the end result being the same.
Amazing presentation. I was about to ask for a link of the slides to print out - much appreciated, thank you! Will that link be updated live/periodically with corrections (if any)?
You are welcome, Adam. There is only correction, as noted in the description and updated in the linked slide deck.
I've had the next one pre checked by Lynn Brower (author of the support book) and he said it was OK, so hopefully it's all good now.
If I could just nit pick a little, are shock attacks not contingent on your unit having a Real or Light Armour Value and not on your movement type?
No, I believe it is that they are TacMP, as per 5.1m and the Unit capabilities chart. Can be either AV or assault capable or of course, dual.
@@RvTWargames Whaaaat. Sorry! So Panzergrenadiers in half tracks can shock attack? That’s a game changer for me. 🤯🤯🤯
Exactly that. Usually only happens with an already weakened enemy, like one who has been forced to retreat and go gone into move mode.