Love your passion Kevin, keep em coming. I get your point on someone picking up a game and going wow this is fun. I retired 15 years ago now and never played a boardgame other than Monoply. Bought an OCS title about 10 years ago now and well, I own them all now. : } Thanks for all the vids you do...
I have a bit of a quibble with your assertion BCS is not a complete system. The v2.0 series rules have been stable for the last 3 games in the series. Three games that featured such varied topics as a large, VERY late war Ostfront operation, a tiny late war western front game, and the Yom Kippur War. Most of the effort that went into the versions subsequent to v1.0 (v1.1, v1.2, and v2.0) was in the presentation of the rules, rather than changes to the rules. The core systems have been pretty much untouched since the initial release. However, BCS contains some very innovative and unique mechanics and concepts, which were tricky for a lot of people to grasp and Dean and his team went back to see how they could present the concepts and rules in as clear a manner as possible. They succeeded. I'd put the BCS v2.0 rule book up against any other rule book. The additional materials MMP includes in the BCS games to help new players acclimate to it are well done and a nice bonus. One issue that systems (not just BCS) have is that customers discover a system, love it, and then want to use that system for all kinds of topics that the system wasn't designed to handle, and really can't do well. For instance, there's a reason we've not seen an OCS Italy '44 game. I like OCS a lot, I've got all the games in the series. I've played it since 1992. Could OCS do the Italian campaign? Sure. But it wouldn't be a very fun experience, because at the core of OCS is maneuver warfare. And the Italian campaign was the antithesis of maneuver warfare. Same thing goes for an OCS Normandy game. I know there's one in development, and I've seen a playtest of it, but it is running into some issues in the development process (and I'm not convinced those issues can be resolved). Battering your way through the bocage for a month and a half isn't the best subject matter for OCS. Likewise, I'll pick up all of Tony Birkett's 1943-44 Ostfront OCS games, but am not much interested in his current follow on project to cover the Ostfront all the way to Berlin in spring '45. BCS is subject to the same kind of problem. It's a fantastic system (maybe even my favorite system), but it's not designed to handle topics that are no bigger than the Bulge and last no more than about 2 weeks. The logistical model in BCS just wasn't designed to do that. Any issues with PLS are due to the topic rather than BCS itself. I'm not a huge fan of late war Ostfront topics to begin with, but the PLS BCS experience is serviceable. Just started a game of the big January scenario with a buddy who has played BCS but not PLS. I'm curious to see his reaction. Playtesting is the biggest bugaboo in the hobby. It's incredibly time and manpower intensive (especially for larger games). Even the biggest of publishers are incredibly small and under resourced when compared to major companies in other industries (or even gaming genres). I've had the opportunity to see firsthand playtesting under way at an established publisher. But even with their hard work and patient progress, the sample size of playtesters is far too small to catch everything in development. Best case scenario sees maybe a couple dozen people involved in playtesting a game. Compared to a couple of thousand players who will dive into the game upon its release, that is an incredibly tiny group to insure all the ways to break a game have been discovered and fixed before it goes out the door. For smaller, less experienced publishers playtesting has to be even more of a challenge. Still, that's no excuse for just being lazy or sloppy. A designer and publisher need to be held to at least a modicum of standards, whether they are new or not. Sorry for rambling on, but I do enjoy your videos where you discuss some of the more philosophical aspects of the hobby (like your recent expectations video). Not enough channels on RU-vid are doing it.
I sort of agree with the idea that "it takes a village" to nurture a wargame or a game system ... but, the onus is always on the designer/developer/playtest team to work out the level of bugs that it appears the consumers are finding with this specific system. The one example you cited of the lack of any rules on "reaction fire", although it is mentioned in many gameplay descriptions is gobsmacking. How could something like THAT be overlooked? I'm fine with (or perhaps resigned to) the need for *some* errata for any game above the most basic game's complexity. It's just going to happen with a project as complex as a wargame. But, that applies TO A POINT. When you've got several, single-spaced pages of errata, you begin to question the thoroughness of the design. Ditto for when there is the need for a 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 edition of the rules, with perhaps the need for a 1.5, and all before the game is even out of shrink for some of the people who preordered it: you gotta wonder at "how the sausage was made" at that point. Also, regarding you (as the player) having to develop "house rules" and workarounds for system/rules shortcomings: I'm one of those people who think that one should not "house rule" lightly, in most cases. But, we all know there are games that have big holes in them that require addressing to "save" the game. It would be best if the designer jumped in and did that out of a sense of professional pride in his/her/their work; but, of course, if the game is long out of print, then that expectation isn't so realistic to assume. I am especially loathe to houserule a game on a subject I know little about. I prefer to assume the original designer should know the subject intimately, and the rules they crafted reflected that knowledge. But then, I might be "assuming" in the classic Benny Hill sense ("When you assume, you make an ass of u and me ...")
I don't mind there being some errata on games. What genuinely ticks me off are games that come to market missing vital information for setting up the battles and that makes the game not playable. I am going to be trying Banish All Their Fears but there are problems with the playbook.
Good stuff there, Kev. My impression of the hobby is we, as players, vote with our wallet and we vote for nearly everything it seems. Imagine what would happen if we only bought what we played or got at least some value out of. I don't have a huge collection but I know most of it is unplayed. And you're right to call out some designers. Yet their games keep selling enough for them to make others. *shrugs* (Would love to see some Sacred Oil, BTW. I gotta get that out)
Big Kev, you always make me think about wargaming in ways I never considered. For example, it does make a lot of sense to hold experienced / new designers, established / new game companies, to different standards. I hope you enjoyed that cocktail mate!
The game is downright splendid in terms of components and art and has many things that I like every time I read it. But I'm not going to put it on the table until I see a set of rules that is already stable and firm. I think it has its originalities and its less logical things that everyone talks about and it should be given a chance for the potential it has. But I don't have much time and I don't want to keep relearning rules. By the way. I also have a lot of hope in "Wagram" by Vuca.
Kevin, I encountered many questions regarding various aspects with the rules. Most of the issues were things that were not addressed. I do like the fact that the rules are NOT 60+ pages and overly complicated. I have over 40 videos on my channel of play through on this game. I hope that the rules stay light, but clarify and cover r the important points.
