26/02/2022 at 23:57 #169184
I am looking at these rules again but before I delve too deep I have a few questions.
Are any of Ivan’s “newer” titles working at the scale of these rules? If so which?27/02/2022 at 15:53 #169221
Next question, before the first is answered, what is an inactive squad? I cannot find an answer anywhere in the text but it is referred to a lot.27/02/2022 at 16:04 #169222
I’m not sure about your first question; I’m not completely up to speed on what else Ivan has put out there in terms of new rules. He’s certainly prolific. Maybe you could use Squad Hammer for company-level fights.
Regarding inactive squads/units, my understanding is that it’s referring to stands on the inactive side, or that were on the previously active side and did not act, and so are eligible to reactive fire during the active player’s phase.
Here’s what I mean:
The turn starts and Player A is active, Player B is inactive. Player A rolls his command dice and carries out actions, typically with one out of every three units. As Player A is acting with his ‘one out of every three units,’ Player B is eligible to react with any of his units (since he’s inactive), but units that react won’t be able to act during his own phase. And since Player A is only acting with one out of every three units, he’s leaving two out of every three units that have not done anything and thus are eligible to react during Player B’s active phase.
I hope that helps.
Jack27/02/2022 at 17:05 #169224
Seems reasonable BUT no definition. There is a section in “the turn sequence” (totally incorrect description of the section and again no where I can find an actual turn sequence or sequence of play) in the squad by squad game method where some units will be inactive after activation. Then in the reaction section there appears to be two ways to handle inactive units so more half done rules which argue with itself.
Which brings me to the next “question”, is there anything about determining who has/gets the initiative for the game turn? Or is it the same for the entire game?27/02/2022 at 22:22 #169233
Interesting… Sorry man, I’ve literally played hundreds of games with these rules and haven’t had any issues with feeling like the rules aren’t complete.
I can tell you, in it’s simplest terms, the turn sequence is Player A rolls command dice and activates his units while Player B May react, and then Player B rolls command dice and activates his units while Player A may react.
Which side starts off as the active player is going to be driven by your scenario, or a simple roll-off, and while I’ve never played with changing up the active player order turn by turn, I suppose you could if you want to.
I hope that helps. Certainly the rules have some concepts that are very much different to other wargames, and, like any other wargame, aren’t for everyone. Hell, when I first played them I absolutely hated them, but Ivan read my batreps and came on to explain/argue with me about what he was trying to do and why, which was very lucky for me because I ended up falling in love with the rules.
Jack27/02/2022 at 22:33 #169235
Yes, that helps and you can just use what works for you based on previous experience with other games. BUT there is no sequence of play or method of determining initiative. It isn’t there (or buried out of sight). What you are doing is your own work arounds. That makes me think what else is missing or a half an idea written as a rule.
I have been in this hobby since the early ’70s and can very easily come up with solutions. What I am looking for is where is that in the rules? Also the table of contents is totally out of whack, wrong titles and pages.
Oh well, steal some ideas and write my own I guess.27/02/2022 at 23:28 #169236Mike HeaddenParticipant
Back in the times BC (Before Covid) the small group I played with regularly played games where the rules were as much a structure to hang your games on as a complete set of rules.
If anyone complained that something wasn’t in the rules there would be a chorus of the following quote:
“Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools” – Douglas Bader
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data28/02/2022 at 02:25 #169237LogainParticipant
It’s a fantastic game, don’t let the errors, editing and omissions stop you from trying!28/02/2022 at 02:45 #169238
Please forgive me, and trust me, I know what it’s like to be frustrated with rules, but I’m just not following here. I’m not just ‘going with what works for me; I pulled my copy out and it’s right there on page 5, which is titled “Turn Sequence.”
“THE ACTION ROLL:
When it is your turn to play, roll a D6. If the roll is a 1 or a 6 a special turn takes place and is carried out as described below. On any other score, the turn is played out as normal.
When your side takes a normal turn, you may select squads to activate and carry out activities.
You may activate 1 squad for every 3 in your force, with a minimum number of 2.
Hence, forces from 1-5 squads have 2 activations, 6-8 squads has 3 activations, 9-11 squads has 4 activations and so forth.
Each turn, you may select which squads to activate, completely independently of which were selected in the previous turn. For example, you may activate the same squad several turns in a row.
When active, a squad may move a standard move and may fire their weapons at a visible target. Fire may take place before or after they move.
Figures that are hiding in cover may peek over the cover to fire, instead of moving.
Players may declare and resolve each action in turn. They are not required to declare all activated figures ahead of time.”
It then goes on to explain what a 1 (Scurry) and a 6 (Firefight) are. Regarding your question about ‘who goes first’:
“Unless the scenario presents a clear attacker, simply determine who goes first with a coin flip or a random dice roll. In a solo game, the player always takes the first turn unless the scenario is a defensive action. Once determined, the turns then alternate between the two forces for the remainder of the game.”
HAVING SAID THAT, it does not expressly say “Player A rolls command dice and activates his units while Player B May react, and then Player B rolls command dice and activates his units while Player A may react,” it simply moves into explaining the different types of activations, reaction, fire combat, melee combat, weapons types, etc…
So the rules certainly aren’t perfect, but my issue with Ivan has never been that he doesn’t put enough into the rules, it’s that he hangs too much superfluous stuff (recognizing that that is simply my taste in rules, whereas that ‘flavor’ or ‘chrome’ actually makes the game enjoyable for some folks) in the rules.
In any case, I’m happy to help out as much as I can if you have any other questions.
Jack28/02/2022 at 08:11 #169239MartinRParticipant
I can’t say I’ve found an issue understanding the turn sequence in either 5Core Company or Brigade Commander. As Jack notes, it is spelled out very clearly. I do understand that different people process information in different ways though.
"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke28/02/2022 at 11:40 #169251
That is very interesting and totally missing in my rule book. I have 2nd edition and THE TURN SEQUENCE is on page 7 and none of that. I have no copyright date either. Maybe you have the 1st edition which is obviously complete.28/02/2022 at 12:57 #169262JozisTinManParticipant
Late to the game as usual…
You could use Squad Hammer or a variant for company sized actions. Personally, I would keep Squad Hammer at roughly platoon level. The main difference in my opinion is the Hammer’s have an attritional model, ie units take accumulating damage over time, while Company Command uses a state model, ie what state is the unit in, pinned, running away etc.
@madman, do you have the one with ‘People’s Edition’ on the cover?
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/28/02/2022 at 12:59 #169263
<a class=”bbp-user-mention bbp-user-id-7343″ title=”
@madman” href=”https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/users/madman/”>@madman, do you have the one with ‘People’s Edition’ on the cover?
Yes. It also calls itself 2nd edition on page 2.28/02/2022 at 13:52 #169264JozisTinManParticipant
Ahhh ok, pretty sure you have the latest then. I am getting ready to start up playing again and getting reacquainted with the rules. I am going to force myself to play at least 3 games out of the box before I start fiddling with them.
I am going to use them for the Korean War, what period are you looking at?
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/28/02/2022 at 14:07 #169265
I am going to use them for the Korean War, what period are you looking at?
Various from RCW to ultra modern with my own mods. Test the game out with WWII. Sounds like the latest edition is missing lots. Lets see what Jack says.28/02/2022 at 14:45 #169266
So the “new and improved” version is missing important parts. Go figure. Anyone got a copy of the original they can send me? Thank you.28/02/2022 at 18:14 #169282
Hey Ivan. I bought “people’s edition” on Wargamevault where you are supposed to get free updates so how about a previous edition?28/02/2022 at 23:48 #169300
Madman – Sorry man, I don’t really have anything to add. I don’t have “The People’s Edition,” never even heard of it, I guess I’ve just got the ‘regular’ old 5Core Company Command. I suppose I could email it to you, but I’d rather wait a bit for Ivan to turn up and have him square it away.
Tin Man – You need to get over to the thread you called me out in, I answered your questions several days ago! 😉
Jack28/02/2022 at 23:51 #169301
Thank you Jack. That is what I am hoping for as well.02/03/2022 at 14:58 #169404
Not sure where Ivan’s at. I’d try shooting him an email; I think it’s runequester at gmail or something like that (he used to put it in all the rulebooks). If he doesn’t answer I’ll email you the original version.
If I can find some time I might go download the ‘People’s Edition,’ just to see what’s in there.
Jack03/03/2022 at 01:41 #169421
Got a copy of version 1.09 from Ivan and it has the missing turn sequence. At least the steps described by Jack. Have to give it a go this weekend and a look over first. Thank you for the ideas.03/03/2022 at 02:42 #169423
Version 1.09??? How very interesting 😉 Glad to see the process worked, and hope the rules do you right.
Jack03/03/2022 at 03:07 #169424Shaun TraversParticipant
My last copy of version 1 that are minor changes from 1.00 is 1.10. From the design notes this is what was added to 1.09 to make it 1.10 (only two changes):
1.10 notes (March 7, 2016)
Tanks using the road movement bonus can’t fire that turn.
Infantry anti-tank attachments limited to 12” range now.
I also have a look at the next version I have (1.16 from August 1.16) and the turn sequence in now to roll 1 action die per platoon (compared to version 110 and lower that was 1 die for the entire side) and how it is described is different to previous versions. There are also quite a few minor changes listed in the design notes.
The version I have after 1.16 is the People’s Edition, also labelled the 2nd edition and from December 2016. It seems similar to 1.16.
Ruleset archaeology. Love it 🙂
-shaun03/03/2022 at 19:57 #169451DaveH303Participant
I have the People’s Edition of Fivecore Company Command and section 7 is the Turn Sequence with 3 options: Standard, Fog of War or Squad by Squad.
Before we go into the 3 options it says: “Under all methods the game is played in a series of turns, alternating between the two sides. ”
To be fair it has no mention of how to decide which side acts first in a turn for any of the 3 methods, but using a coin toss or die roll to determine seems an obvious option.
Looking at the Squad by Squad method it says: “Under this system, the players will instead alternate activating two squads at a time. When it is your turn to play, roll 2D6 and assign each die to a squad of your choice.
When squads are marked as “inactive“, they cannot be assigned an action die again this turn. You determine action die results before assigning the dice to a squad.”
A die roll of 2-5 is an Engage result where the squad may move and fire and is then marked as inactive. An inactive squad may not react.
Turn ends when both players have finished their actions in Squad by Squad.
So though not explicitly spelt out at turn end all the inactive markers will be removed and you start again.
Blogging about wargames at https://comment-deleted.blogspot.co.uk23/03/2022 at 20:35 #170408Chris HelmParticipant
Hi Madman, sorry, I’m very late to this game but what the heck, its a forum, so here are a couple of quick follow ups to the thread so far ..
First, in response to your comment back to Jack, timestamped 28/02/2022 at 11:40. I have the same edition as you, DaveH303 and Shaun Travers. The turn sequence which JustJack was referring to is the second of the three options described in THE TURN SEQUENCE section, on p8, vis the “Fog of War” method. The three different systems are just alternative activation mechanisms. One of the great virtues (I’m trying to be as positive as possible here) of Ivan’s approach to rule writing is that they’re very modular and flexible, so Ivan will often provide alternative approaches to the same question and leave the choice of which to use up to the player. I happen to really like that but I can see how it might irritate. For what it’s worth, the “Fog of War” method is the one most closely derived from the precursor of all the FiveCore series, which was Five Men in Normandy. I think that ruleset was eventually more or less superseded by both Five Men at Kursk and Five Core Skirmish Evolved. Five Core Company Command and Five Core Brigade Commander then evolved from the latter, encouraged particularly by Jack and the Tin Man, I believe. (If I’ve got my ruleset archaeology right, Shaun 😀 )
There’s no doubt about the fact that proofing and layout are not the strongest aspects of Ivan’s earlier rules but I think those are minor quibbles when set against that facts that: (a) Ivan’s rulesets cost only a few dollars, in the main, but they’re innovative and very rich in the kind of bolt-on additional features that GW et al would want me to pay another $50+ for; (b) Ivan is a one man band and pretty busy but despite that I’ve always found him very supportive and helpful – he’s certainly turned around my questions pretty promptly in the past.
Logain hit the nail on the head when he said it’s a fantastic game. I’ve had more fun playing this game (and the rest of the FiveCore series) than I’ll ever have playing something like Battlegroup, which is broadly equivalent and no bad game in its own right but which delivers nothing like such a great balance between quick, easy play and credible results.
Give the game a go, capture the questions as they come up and send them to Ivan. Or post them here. As you can see there are plenty of people who’ll be happy to help. Or just interfere 😉
Best regards, Chris23/03/2022 at 21:05 #170409
That is what I thought I did in the end. In the end Ivan sent me the previous edition which did have a complete sequence of play. I have been dealing with life this month so no more done but I hope to bring it to the table next month or later this one.
It is just very irritating to get a game all set up and then find there is not written down rule for step 1. How to determine who goes first. Things grind to a halt right away and disappointment jumps right in. Ivan was thinking about re-writing the rules and making them available. I am all for that and willing to help once I am past my present distractions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.