BCS vs GTS: Which is the Better Game System?

[@RvTWargames]

CORRECTIONS: 1. BCS Kalch is about the advance on Stalingrad, not its relief - Duh!. 2. The CCS games are published by Compass Games - Duh! And 3. BCS is the Battalion Combat SYSTEM - Duh! Duh! Duh!

[@calvinboy24]

Forgivable... The Kalach campaign game takes place in July 1942 as the Germans were pushing towards Stalingrad. But there may be an inclusion of something that takes place following Operation Uranus.

[@RvTWargames]

Pavlovian response to the word Stalingrad 😁 Interesting cough you've got there, Mr Fung. Very very interesting.

[@CptEggman]

Brilliant indepth analysis of two of my favorite systems, thanks so much Dickie.

[@RvTWargames]

You're very welcome CptEggman, glad it resonated with you.

[@rbarrososj]

I'm new to your channel and I'm loving it. I came be here because the Rule the Waves and I'm staying because of the high quality of your analysis on wargames. Well done video.

[@RvTWargames]

Excellent! You exactly are my target audience!

[@merlevigil4705]

Excellent analysis… thank you from Colorado

[@RvTWargames]

You're very welcome. I'm about to have a week playing The Greatest Day Utah from Friday. So I'll be collecting notes for a possible follow up.

[@RobertMakowsky]

Great job comparing these two great systems. BCS has taken over my table, activations allow me to pick up and put down the game without getting lost.

[@RvTWargames]

Thanks Robert. Oh yes, that is an added benefit of formation picking systems.

[@IronHamR]

Thank you thank you thank you. I’ve been trying to decide between these two systems and this was absolutely the best analysis/comparison I have seen. Really well done and helpful.

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you very much. Of course, you could always spoil yourself and have both! Enjoy yourself!

[@alsal8071]

Excellent video. Completely agree with you about BCS being such an outstanding game system.

[@RvTWargames]

Looking forward to the next GTS release but still working hard to create new videos for my OCS refresher playlist.

[@iwanhughes2965]

Great analysis of both game systems. BCS is a touch of genius in my opinion. Nice one.

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you, Iwan. Glad it hit the spot.

[@davedangelo533]

Excellent work. I really like your videos. GTS is a difficult scale that does not quite work yet - needs more revisions. You have a professorial way of explaining games that I wish I could mimic.

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you, Dave. I'm flattered. I hope GTS Briefings small game and magazine will help get some more playtime. I fear that BCS and OCS over shadow it. My gaming group are playing a nostalgic OCS DAK next, and then we're all excited about BCS Valley of Tears. So it's hard to find some GTS time.

[@lionelmartinez3412]

I think the Kalach BCS game is not about the relief operation towards Stalingrad but the battles fought before the Germans arrived at Stalingrad. Anyway, a very interesting video as always. Thanks!

[@RvTWargames]

Bugger! Yes, of course, I knew that. Slip off the brain. The Pavlovian response to any game that casually mentions Stalingrad!

[@johannbach1246]

Greetings from Greece! Excellent video as were the previous ones on BCS! Congratulations! Recognising the commitment time and technical skills needed for such a production I can only thank you. I wish we, as a community, had more of such quality and high standards reviews and comparisons. Wise guy history is rather close to you regarding his perspective and well founded arguments Of course someone may agree or disagree here and there but the general concept is outstanding. It would be rather interesting to put into the equation the two end points of mmp’s spectrum, TCS and OCS. TCS, although in a declined status, has to offer the order system, a variation of which is met in the Line of Battle series. OCS has to offer its merciless supply cantered gameplay. That would enrich the discussion on the challenges of war game design and put on the table the question what would anyone of us consider indispensable factors of a good game. Keep offering selflessly to the community and sharing your passion!

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you, Johann, I'm flattered to be put in the same bracket as Nathan (wise guy history) and his great work. It's been suggested that I do a similar one with BCS and the C3 system from the Thin Red Line (which Fabrizio from TRL supports, so I've put in an order for the next reprint). I hadn't considered BCS vs OCS because the disparity in scale, but I'll give it some thought. I don't own or know TCS - I'm more of an operational / strategic scale wargamer than a tactical one. So I'm not the person to make that comparative video. And thanks for noticing that thinking about this and loosely scripting it (I don't follow an actual script) took quite a bit of (fun) work.

[@swankiestnerd8277]

I can’t answer for ASL, but Squad Leader, the precursor, distinguished between combat vs support units through combat factors etc. I’m rereading Carrell’s “Hitler Moves East,” and the Germans regularly used rear area troops like police, supply, etc during the winter battles of ‘41-42.

[@RvTWargames]

So, SL and ASL both have support weapons, but not support units that can appear as concentrated or dispersed. Neither has a support concept, just weapons you can use. While Germans did use security divisions as gap fillers as a desperate stop gap, they didn't fair well, and they certainly didn't advance ahead of the panzer divisions during offensives. Finally, Carell is a very very old book. I read it in the 70s. And is based on German sources excusing themselves (the best available at the time). But very much not thought of as a reputable source today. Try works by David Stahel, Robert Citino, or David Glantz. They all combine German and Soviet sources. Or, watch them and other modern historians on the excellent WW2TV KZbin channel.

[@pizzaspy]

Great video, instant subscribe!

[@RvTWargames]

That's what I love to hear! Thank you, Pizzaspy.

[@liberty0]

Eventually BCS intends to tackle Market Garden. (Hopefully before I expire.) We'll see how well airborne landings turn out. As for Bazooka Charlie; Dean likes to toss in some comic relief it seems. In Karelia '44 he has counters with ghosts on them to represent hexes populated with Finns, but for which there is no physical counter. In It Never Snows, there is a rubber duck symbol on units that have DUKWs. So Bazooka Charlie struck me as along those lines.

[@RvTWargames]

BCS Market Garden would be fascinating. I haven't noticed it on Carl Fung's status updates. I don't mind the odd symbol, but I find Bazooka Charlie or the Rudel rule in OCS's The Third Winter just grating at this scale. I find it semi-mythological. But, that's just me and my presentions at being a 'serious' amateur historian.]

[@calvinboy24]

@@RvTWargames Admittedly, Bazooka Charlie was purposely Schtick... as was the Greif rules in Last Blitzkrieg. In Valley of Tears there will be a Zvika Force. Sometimes mythical chrome adds some kitsch factor.

[@RvTWargames]

If I have a fault... If... I can be too serious 😁 Kitch, rococo, bling, ornamental rules. Less is more for me and always optional. Though as I said, I enjoyed the Race for Bastogne's random event chit, perhaps because it was balanced and helped the narrative.

[@MrElliptific]

Most excellent video that I watched twice in a row... A few points you did not mention but that are worth in my opinion to include in the equation are costs and space. I find GTS a lot more demanding on both accounts and again a slight advantage to BCS. In any case, I am glad that both systems exist.

[@RvTWargames]

Indeed, how to any people with a tidy mind - have inconsistent box sizes for the same game series! Looking forward to BCS Valley of Tears arriving in the UK sooooooon!

[@joeokabayashi8669]

Is there a link to download the fantastic "Chronology of games" chart? Excellent video; thank you!

[@RvTWargames]

Oh yes, I meant to include the script (added to the video notes now). Anyhow, here it is: docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PSdofM05MfeUEdihZJqQZN97RnzLWYheJ40Wp922TJY/edit?usp=sharing

[@ffnam1299]

New subscriber. I enjoy the style in which you deliver your content. Clear, concise, academic. I own a title from each of the "combat series" levels of command. TCS, BCS and OCS. I feel the systems are innovative and wonderfully rendered. By no means perfect but a splendid new wave of game design to enjoy. Now, I'm an admitted ASL fanboy, so I'll defensive first fire you for bringing in ASL to the conversation. Comparing a squad / crew / single gun or tank system against a battalion level system is suspect. Your "Ants" abuse bullet point is a legitimate concern, though a phenomena with any game, even with new titles like in the BCS family. We'll always be in god mode and able to move our ants about in perfect unison outside of game mechanic constraints attempted in BCS. TCS has a unique mini OPORD mechanic, in that your units are constrained by orders written down, Task-Purpose, kind of style. I actually commented to myself when I was running through a solitaire game that would be a nice feature for ASL. So I'm not entirely single minded and fanatical about the sacrosanct nature of ASL. Great channel! I can't wait to view a campaign series when RtW3 drops within the next 24-hours. Who's counting!

[@RvTWargames]

That's FFNAM. ASL and ASLSK weigh heavily on my shelves too. But it is a product of the 80s. Great as a game. Vast amount of technical research. Almost limitless number of scenarios. But if they were designing More Advanced Squad Leader today, I suspect they would contain a better at of rules for command and control.

[@RvTWargames]

PS The ants was more directed at Europa style games, though I'm nostalgicly fond of them. And OCS's only real duffer of a game, Beyond the Rhine. I've strangely never given TCS a go. Other gaming delights always got in the way.

[@robertverry]

Very eloquent.

[@RvTWargames]

Thanks, Robert. I'm just gearing up for a week long game of TGD Utah with friends in early November. So I might do something afterwards.

[@robertverry]

@@RvTWargames Please do. I just received GTS "Race For Bastogne" in the mail today to get my feet wet.

[@SHAMUS991]

A great video and I like the breakdown of how you rate each game, I had a suggestion for another category see below. I agree ASL a very different game but you can't do everything you would like to as this courts disaster, there is no in scenario command system unless you play solitaire rules which has a rudimentary method. Command system is abstracted out through all the the other (and there are so many) rules but many a time playing it, my options have been severely curtailed. See the effects of a 9-2 leader KIA 😞 Regarding an additional category, I think rules presentation, clarity and simplicity are important as they are key to access the system. Chess for example is an extremely complex game in its application but its rules are clear and simple; it is an extreme case. BCS and GTS aim toward this I think. OCS has one of the best set of written rules I have come across, they are not long, each rule straight forward, mechanisms are simple, the complexity is in putting those system opportunities together and why it is such a replayable system, the interrelationship between each rule mechanism produce complex options and friction. ASL rulebook is a masterpiece in covering all eventualities but is a turgid read, it has an index system that puts most other wargames to shame though, its a treasured book on my shelf. So I wonder in terms of the rules themselves which are better is it GTS or BCS? Both are at a similar state of development, both like OCS has an intelligent and dedicated following interested in history. GTS is conversational in style and BCS, as it is so different, takes a while to adjust to the language but like its brother games the mechanisms don't get in the way of the game when you have a degree of comfort around the language. By the way, I appreciate the effort you put into all of your video's I have seen, they are thoughtful, planned and prepared for, presentation is really good. Be great to see some more worked examples to see the rules in action.

[@RvTWargames]

Thanks Sean for your thoughtful comments. I think rules presentation, simplicity and understandability is a great idea. How quick to learn. How quick to master. How easy to resolve a question during play.

[@walt4205]

EXCELLENT REVIEW

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you very much, Walt. Glad you found it interesting.

[@OfficialXTRG]

I remember doing the research on these as well, have you tried C3 Games Less than 60 Miles or Under an Iron Sky?

[@RvTWargames]

I haven't but several in my regular gaming group have them and are excited by them. I probably should pay more attention, not least because I might have made a personal guest appearance in 1985, called up as a reservist after a spell in the British Territorial Army 🫡 My friend John (and sometime rules proofreader) said "combat has a gazillion modifiers and unit posture matters a lot". Which is my keep of game!

[@lionelmartinez3412]

A comparison between BCS and C3 would indeed be interesting.

[@RvTWargames]

Well. once Valley of Tears enters into the modern space I think that would be a very topical comparison. (Just adding myself to the Thin Red Line's reprint list).

[@WARdROBEPlaysWWII]

I struggle a bit with both understanding what various things model and how the words relate to real world - ie Red Av are av good on the attack. Ok, why are they called Red? Limited support etc .

[@RvTWargames]

Yes, I have a go at some of the language in my first BCS video kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmfTYZmPi5eCnMU If they had used more common terms: tanks, assault guns, etc. it would be easier to learn and understand.

[@HistoricalConflict]

Swap GTS with OCS and you got yourself a video

[@RvTWargames]

Always with the great content ideas. Actually, that is a good idea. I'm already part through an OCS video script anyhow.

[@FlyingNutcase]

Your videos are outstanding; subbed. Unfortunately (for me) it seems that you haven't delved into MMP's Tactical Combat Series (TCS). I've just discovered it and am getting into the rules but you drive a compelling case for BCS. I wonder if you (okay, not you - I've just read below that you haven't played it) or anyone reading this can give an idea where TCS fits in with regard to the key factors that you mention in this vid, at least in the _general_ sense of realistic gameplay like command limitations etc etc. I really like the idea of Orders in TCS (and a whole lot of other parts of the system, the platoon unit scale and that damned gorgoeous GD '42 map) but the SNAFU step in BCS and other friction/realism things you've mentioned really make it seem pretty cool. Cheers, and greeting from NZ.

[@RvTWargames]

Thank you, Flying Nutcase. Keep driving towards BCS and checkout my video on Command in BCS, which explores orders and command problems in BCS in greater detail. For some hard to pin down reason I've never been drawn to TCS, but I hope someone can tip in here. Or ask the questions on the BCS Facebook group.

[@FlyingNutcase]

@@RvTWargames When I first saw the GD '42 map, I just totally wanted to engage. It's stunningly evocative and makes most other game maps look bland and uninspiring, sadly including BCS. But I'm continuing to look into BCS due to all the goodness it brings. Thx again for your vids on it - it sure does seem like a good system.

[@RvTWargames]

Who hasn't been suduced by a fine looking map!

[@scottrowland2989]

Have been playing BCS for six, seven years now and absolutely love the system. Have been buying into GTS for the last couple years, but only halfheartedly tried to learn so far. BCS has almost ruined me in that regard, I enjoy it so much, do I really want or need to put in the work to learn another system? My only issue with BCS is that, it appears to be somewhat limited as to what/different battles, it can model, no PTO for instance. It works best for fast, free flowing actions.

[@RvTWargames]

Attack & Counterattack battles, over the course of a week or two, is what BCS is for, according to Carl and Dean. So not often found in the Pacific. New Guinea? Burma? But yes, I'd focus more on GTS if BCS wasn't around.

[@thegreatgame6790]

excellent video.

[@RvTWargames]

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.

[@calvinboy24]

Regarding Engineers and them being "slightly degraded infantry", there is much truth to this. Not all engineers were Assault Pioneers, and each army used and armed them differently. The US, British, and Soviet divisional engineers were basic combat engineers - not combat as in assault, but rather in supporting the infantry in things like mine clearance, obstacle removal, building basic bridging, etc. They were not even equipped with flamethrowers! Hence their Action Rating is typically one less than their infantry compatriots. I have actually looked to NOT include engineer battalions in depiction of US, British, and Soviet divisions as they were often broken up and siphoned off to support individual regiments/brigades (similar to support AV). The Germans is a slightly different case. They did perform basic engineering duties as listed above, but the Germans did use theirs more in a traditional combat role... and they did have some flamethrowers. Yet they weren't combat units all the time, splitting their duties between building bridges and then being used to hold part of the line then attacking the enemy. They were more often than Western or Soviet armies kept as a whole battalion. Their Action Rating is the same as line infantry battalions, different than how the other armies' engineer units are handled. Their limitation, at least for the Panzer Pioneer Battalions, is that they don't have an assault arrow on their move side. Mind you, there were dedicated assault pioneer units. These were often independent Army-level units that were assigned on a as-needed basis. The Taifun Pioneer Company in Panzers Last Stand and the two portions of the Italian 31st Assault Pioneer Battalion in Brazen Chariots are two such examples.

[@RvTWargames]

Thanks for that expansion on the role of engineers. I'm sure you've mused on how to have an engineer-support cability as you have an (anti-tank) support one. As you said in your article about Ants, the options of subsuming into the manoeuvre units, creating mini (company) units, using a support mechanism or having them as a full combat unit is a tricky choice.

[@curial6689]

I really like the BCS system but in my opinion the combat engineer action is not well represented. It must be distinguished by modifiers, especially in urban combat or river crossing.

[@IRLBemused]

I just can't get over the ease with which op fire can be denied in GTS. One barrage from Light mortars and your Panther platoon can't fire beyond one hex.

[@RvTWargames]

It can be tricky to get your tanks to the front and get them fully effective. Though I suspect the game designers would suggest that many things degrade the effectiveness of armour, op fire especially.

[@peterperla1831]

I find alternating formation activations, chit pull or otherwise, simply an unrealistic ludic device to keep players interested when an opponent’s activities seem to drag on. I agree with Phil Sabin that traditional Igo-Hugo sequencing is more realistic, although some tweaks are often needed to account for the sliding nature of time. Just my opinion, of course, but whatever works for you. It also strikes me based on frankly limited experience, that these interleaved systems take longer to play.

[@RvTWargames]

For my gaming group it is about the game. In BCS Brazen Chariots picking three to determine who has the initiative chimes with the utter shambles of Operation Crusader (and Rommel's off performance responding to it). While in BCS Last Blitzkrieg there has to be igo ugo order or else the Germans would never stand a chance making a bulge if the chit pulls went against them. Igo ugo implies both sides operated at about the same operational tempo. Chit pulls replicate chaotic changes of tempo. Other mechanisms, such as activation mods, replicate persistent advantages, or waning ones over time. All are good in their ways.

[@peterperla1831]

@@RvTWargames Chacun à son goût! The problem I find with chit pull mechanics is they have no analog in the real world. Yes, there is chaos on the battlefield at most times but not that kind of chaos. What that approach does is create multiple time warps in a turn. Real combat tends to be more action-reaction. Sabin’s analysis is the most cogent. Of course, boardgames face a practical problem of how to represent the real dynamics within a turn-based system. I’ve been experimenting with different approaches but still have not solved the problem we have wrestled with for seventy years. Big surprise! I should try to play Brazen for real; my negative reaction stems from a replay I’ve watched on KZbin. One of my problems is that I really want a more streamline d version of Chadwick’s Operation Crusader monster-at least for Battleaxe. Obsession is a terrible thing.

[@curial6689]

I really like the BCS system but in my opinion the combat engineer action is not well represented. It must be distinguished by modifiers, especially in urban combat or river crossing.

[@RvTWargames]

I agree, Curial. Also minefields are very weak and there is no real levels of prepared defences.

[@war_gamer]

@@RvTWargames few games have levels of prepared defenses, especially that can be built in this scale/timeframe of a turn

[@RvTWargames]

Very true. And many games over use engineers in combat because their vital engineering skills aren't well presented in the game. This leaves the defence very weak in BCS, by design. With nothing between the modest defence bonus of prepared defence and the very difficult inching forward of urban hexes. But then you probably just can't have everything in a game design. It's always a compromise around what the designer is interested to show. And Dean is a manoeuvre warfare kind of a guy!

[@clarkcommando1983]

The css games are from compass games. Not clash of arms. Nice video though I play all three systems and enjoy them

[@RvTWargames]

Duh! You'd think I'd remember as they are right behind me on the selves! And thanks.

[@Joey---]

While it's true BCS is a battalion scale series, it is important to note that GTS is a COMPANY scale game series, and as such the comparison isn't very comparable. A comparison between two battalion scale game series like GOSS and BCS, both battalion scale games, would be far more informative IMHO.

[@RvTWargames]

It's a fair point J S, but the individual units are different, the formations they belong to are the same, and it's that really drew me towards a comparison.

[@Joey---]

@@RvTWargames a game's scale is often something not really understood well in the hobby. Scale is measured by the base unit in the game, despite what else may be available in support or available for breakdown. In BCS, despite the namesake giveaway, it is the battalion unit that is the focus with occasional lesser units in support. In GTS almost all the units in the game are companies in size, with the occasional remnant in support, and thus a company scale game. Comparing a battalion scale game with a company scale one is a lot like comparing a Bentley to a Semi-Truck, you could do it I suppose but would it not be more beneficial to compare a Bentley to an Aston Martin?

[@RvTWargames]

For me, it is the higher level that is more important: both are Division / Brigade / Kampfgruppe level games. Yes, the 500m hex company scale allows for more granularity in some of the rules (e.g. Engineering). But in practice it mainly means you've got more 'bits' in your formation to move and fight.

[@Joey---]

@@RvTWargames ...so by your logic, a game that has only corps sized units, and a corps sized group of companies is the same scale? Btw, enjoying your videos in case I forgot to mention it.

[@RvTWargames]

Oh no, J S. A game of divisions with (largely) no subordinates is completely different, like OCS. What binds GTS and BCS (and others) is the twin structure of higher formations and subordinate units, creating three levels in the game: - You as overall commander - The brigade / division formations - The base units, companies and battalions Most games only have two levels, you and the counters. This third layer, which isn't directly a bit of cardboard on the map, but is in many ways more important, is the thing making GTS and BCS different and excellent!

[@chrisdodd9141]

These systems are really different in scale and focus, so you're really comparing apples to oranges. GTS is tactical (as the name says), while BCS is much more operational in the level. GTS is more like TCS and would be better compared to TCS

[@RvTWargames]

Chris, they both operate at the same at the formation level: divisions, bridges, kampfgruppen. Divisions do get a slightly different treatment in GTS as primarily manoeuvre formations. But focus of both games is at this formation level. Obviously at the unit level BCS deals with battalions and GTS with companies, which allows GTS some more granular interactions. Both model large invasions and offensives. And both do it in an a similar way, with a formation perspective. It's not an exact match, but it seems to me to be close enough to bear comparison.

[@chrisdodd9141]

@@RvTWargames The formations in BCS are generally divisions, while those in GTS are regiments and kampfgruppes. BCS is just much "higher level" as a result. This also show up in the time scale -- BCS turns are days, while GTS turns are 2 hours. Quite large GTS scenarios are often only 1 day long. I think the TCS system is a closer match in "level" to GTS, though a totally different system mechanically.

[@RvTWargames]

Good point about the time frame. I would just frame it as the next level up. Not that far removed. But I'd certainly be interested in watching a GTS vs TCS review.

[@john-lenin]

Clickbait title since they have different perspectives.

[@RvTWargames]

You seem to assume that different perspectives cannot be compared? I'd suggest that is their difference that makes the comparison interesting. Or at least make wargamers make such comparisons over the gaming table.

[@bamaretiredgruntscottb.6533]

I have both systems. I like both. This was not very informative for me. I know you greatly prefer BCS over GTS. I have to disagree with some of the points on BCS. The combined arms is almost too streamlined. I'll grant you that there was a moderate degree of combined arms units in WW2, but the allies in particular, did not fully embrace it as well as the Germans. The Germans had a grasp of it, but many times simply did not have the resources to fully motorize many of its combined arms units. You have accomplished the same by saying GTS has many good qualities about it, but BCS is by far my favorite in nearly all facets. Turned this off at 15:09 not because of the content, but because the conclusion was already drawn.

[@RvTWargames]

Both the Western Allies and the USSR achieved significant combined arms expertise by late 1942-early 43, which continued to improve, though always struggled to match the best of what the Germans deployed. They developed different styles from the Germans, particularly obviously the Russians. I think BCS models that well. Sometimes with Game Specific Rules, like the Americans not being allowed to put there tank destroyers into support for doctrinal reasons. Sadly you missed most of the areas were GTS scores well. For me it was a BCS win, but certainly no walk over.