Very well done indeed. I struggled with a lot of un-learning, and with many of the terms. One that threw me at first was "crossing the streams". In a game where you literally cross streams, it took me a while to grasp that this was a term for a type of mixing of logistics, rather than a penalty for your supplies having to cross at a point over a stream.
Excellent overview. Probably the best presentation of BCS I have seen. A great ressource to teach/explain the game to new players. I share it immediately. Thanks a lot.
Nicely done. I love the BCS system. I think you've done an excellent job of highlighting the systems uniqueness, strengths and its little weaknesses too. Will look forward to following this.
Just picked up Arracourt. I've been looking for a battalion-centric war game. There are lots of games where the primary active units are squads, platoons, companies, brigades, divisions and armies. I'm glad to see this scale captured in such a creative manner.
Nice to see NZ is as far away as England when it comes to Arracourt. I would also recommend Baptism by Fire as an excellent lighter weight BCS game too.
You are very welcome, Harro. I'm currently working on another 3/4 BCS videos, looking at the command, control, communications and intelligence related rules. Hopefully out next month.
Great work. Nice introduction to the series. Own and played all the series. You did drive the point that some "unlearning" is required, specially to some of us that have played the "usual" systems. Did learned some tips on how to teach the system to others. Your videos recommendations are top notch as I have watched them all. Looking forward to your videos and future games in the series. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Jose. It's been very enjoyable to pass on my experiences of getting into the game. I'm currently working on a script on how to think about all the different types of control: ZOC, AV ZOC, Engagement Zones and Screening. And a second on defensive tactics using the American position in Last Blitzkrieg as an example.
You can also play on the computer using the Vassal system (though it has no intelligence, it just marks your moves). And yes. So much innovation has happened since that first great era of wargaming. Plus the cadence of play is different on a map, slower, more thoughtful, less twitchy.
Wow, that is one of the best intro to the system I have seen in a long time. Thank you. Would you say that you need a certain inclination to micro-management to appreciate this game? It is precisely what I am not so fond of in certain wargames.
Well thank you so much, MrElliptific. Actually, I don't think so. May wargames do encourage micromanagement: the perfect placement for the perfect unit to deliver the optimal attack. But in BCS there are so many limiting factors that stop such perfect play, including: Orders (for formations) SNAFU activation Objectives (orders for battalions) Maintaining formation cohesion (MSR stuff, mixing, coordination, isolation, command radius) Taken together, it is impossible to perfect-play every single unit. Put simply, you not only don't know what the enemy is going to do, but you can't tell exactly what you'll be able to do. This, I believe, forces us to think about the bigger picture and not worry that an artillery point isn't used or a battalion 'wasted' a fire event. So long as your formations are doing what you want them to do that's enough.
@@RvTWargames thank you. I am looking forward to the next videos. I really enjoy the systematic cut down by phase approach you have taken. I have read the rules several times already and plan to dip my feet with Arracourt. But cost overseas with shipping is close to USD 100 so I'd rather be sure I understand the rules well first :) On another topic, I believe you might enjoy Dien Bien Phu, the final gamble. It seems as procedural as BCS. We played it today and the experience stunningly echoed everything one can read about this final battle in Indochina. It not easy but once you get it you get it, like BCS I guess.
I'll check it out. One of my friends has it. Luckily, in Britain, we can order from Second Chance Games, who bring it across in bulk, substantially lowering the shipping cost.
I hate to highlight criticisms of what is my favourite system, but I'm not sure if you would agree that the urban combat rules (currently relevant only in PLS) could do with being presented in a slightly less confusing manner as well? They work very well, it's just their section in the rules takes many many reads to understand. Sort of a version 2.0.1 rulebook perhaps?
I know how you feel, Ross. Feels a little mean to criticise something so good. My gaming group has so far avoided the fighting in Budapest for exactly that reason. So I haven't fully got to grips with it yet. I might do a specific urban warfare video when I do.
@@RvTWargames Well when you do have a go at Budapest, feel free to contact me if you’re having any problems (I’m also on the Facebook group). I dare say I’ve finally got to grips with them now! 🤞🏻 The rules will also be relevant for the upcoming game on the Battle of Radzymin which will include the urban warfare of the Warsaw Uprising.
You really nailed it, the positive and the negative. There are other things that bug me, but which I probably need to get over. The tendency of the rules (and supporting material) to feel like they have to always tell you how great BCS is is a little annoying. Also, Dean seems to have an obsession (not just him, other designers do this) with claiming that a rule is necessary to keep gamers from, we'll, gaming the system. On one hand every rule book ever written has some version of "take the rules as written; if it's not in the rules it's not a rule". Something like that. Then when gamers find a gap in the rules or do things in a way you don't intend or don't anticipate, you change the rules. That's fine. But what they then do in BCS and elsewhere is sort of blame the gamer for being a bad actor, essentially, instead of taking the blame on themselves for not having clarified the rule in th first place. This kind of gamer-shaming is all over the BCS rules. Don't blame grrs fr trying to win within the context of the rules as written, but if there are holes, plug them and carry on.
My hunch is that Dean feels like BCS is his Opus Magum and that it is a significantly better game system than anything else at this level and scope (including his own past work). Obviously, that can seem quite pleased with himself. As for the gamer-shaming, I get where you are coming from. Compared to OCS, BCS has been through far fewer changes. Version 2 was primarily a intelligibility rules rewrite, version 1 suffering from the game's long development history and rewrite after rewrite. Notwithstanding some of the odd terminology. My gaming group find the rules remarkablely free of unanswered rules questions, loopholes, or gamey plays that depart from the historical intent of the game. My only shame was finding the game so difficult to learn in the first place!
A good video, but I have to quibble with your example of an "abstraction" in the game. "Hard RED AV" is NOT an abstraction -- it is a *concrete* description of a counter. "Hard" means "has a yellow box behind it's Nato symbol", and "Red AV" means "has a red number in the lower-left corner of the counter". Not abstract AT ALL.
Interesting, Chris, I can see where you are going. I believe the counter is meant to represent something in real life - something that we both readily identify as a medium tank. If it didn't have that representational quality, it would just be a game, not a wargame. That aside, if you wish to see it as a concrete description, it is an inconsistent one. If it describes what is on the counter, it should be called a: Red Yellow AV or alternatively, if it wants to describe the qualities of the counter, it should be a: Hard TacMA AV But it picks one from the colour and one from what the colour represents.
@@RvTWargames Hard Red AV is a description, a description in game terms, since a real life description like medium tank would not work in the rules. As any description, this one do not say a great part of what a Hard Red AV also is, e.g. a tact mover tank. Every description in game terms is more abstract than a real life one. It is a necessary evil to convey a standardised meaning which makes sense in the rules. A name that do not refer to something real or familiar could be useful as the player will not infer anything from the name - due to its real life meaning - that is not in the rule. YMMV of course.
Mixed and coordination indeed. While I find the terrain chart hard to read because of the multiple levels of control: ZOC, AV ZOC, Engagement Zones, Stand-off, and Screening. (Which I hmmmm scripting a video about at the moment).
Tabletop (non-miniature) wargames is a flowering hobby these days. A lot of us prefer the "manual" games. I'm a software developer myself and I really like the "offline" atmosphere of ordinary board games in my spare time.
While the BCS core system is unique, fun, and phenomenally interactive, I found BCS to be far too abstract for my taste. Add the sad looking marker symbols, and some incredibly poor choices in terminology, and one cannot be blamed for thinking this series design was rushed and hastily screened.
I completely agree about the terminology, very unhelpful when Red AV could have just been called a tank. Something we all know. Actually I understand from Dean that BCS was a long time in preparation. My hunch is that they became so over familiar with the concepts that they became blind to how abstract it had become.
