CWC-II Rules Errata (Open)

[Superscribe]

The smoke/obscurants rule on p55 states that artillery may fire smoke  using scheduled or requested support, "provided that smoke ammo has been purchased"

This is worded differently to CWC1 p27. In CWC1 you only needed to buy smoke assets if you wanted to use them as scheduled artillery strikes; smoke requested by a FAO or HQ cost no points, except for the usual -1 on the comnand throw.

Why does requested smoke ammo now also cost 20pts?!

[Smartbomb]

 

Why does requested smoke ammo now also cost 20pts?!

[/quote]

Cost overruns?

A great gag modifier would be things like cost overruns, bribery scandals, random devotions in CV levels due to someone being forced out for a gaffe caught on tape...

[flamingpig0]

I wonder if the M48 in the Warsaw Pact grade 1 list might be better classed as a recon element. At the moment the temptation would be to use it as long range support for the T55s rather than as an advanced element.

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark. Any reason why cost of barbed wire on p84 has quadrupled from 20cm for 10 pts in CWC1, to 5cm for 10pts in CWC2! ? Or is this an error?

Also vehicle scrapes (which are new in CWC2) seem to give exact same benefit as AFV Pits of +1, but cost 10pts compared to AFV Pit @ 15pts. Is this an error or is there some other benefit in having an AFV pit, which is missing from the descriptive text below the table?

Ta

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark. Any reason why cost of barbed wire on p84 has quadrupled from 20cm for 10 pts in CWC1, to 5cm for 10pts in CWC2! ? Or is this an error?

Also vehicle scrapes (which are new in CWC2) seem to give exact same benefit as AFV Pits of +1, but cost 10pts compared to AFV Pit @ 15pts. Is this an error or is there some other benefit in having an AFV pit, which is missing from the descriptive text below the table?

Ta

Wire cost has increased deliberately - there was an overwhelming view from play-testers (& old CWC-1 hands) that it was just too cheap previously.

I'll check the AFV Pts and Vehicle scrapes issue - I suspect I had a reason for the difference (probably one being pre-prepared and one being improvised) that has failed to make it out of my head and onto the page ... I'll scratch the brain-cells and see what I can recall.

Cheers
Mark

[Superscribe]

Thanks Mark, for the update. Can also look at my earlier post about cost of requested smoke. Ta

[Big Insect]

Why does requested smoke ammo now also cost 20pts?!



Cost overruns?

A great gag modifier would be things like cost overruns, bribery scandals, random devotions in CV levels due to someone being forced out for a gaffe caught on tape...

I like all the above, but the real answer is that the view was that Smoke was being used far too much in the game (unrealistically) - you'll also notice that a lot of the more 'exotic' weapons are also more expensive.
It also give an army with TI equipped MBTs a huge (probably disproportionate) advantage.

All a deliberate decision to focus more on the standard and more prolific HE side of things.

[flamingpig0]

The 66mm M72 LAW in the Australian list has been turned into a wunderwaffe due to a typo.

[Leon]

The 66mm M72 LAW in the Australian list has been turned into a wunderwaffe due to a typo.

Oops, errant extra '2' in there!  All fixed.

[Big Insect]

Thanks Mark, for the update. Can also look at my earlier post about cost of requested smoke. Ta

All ammo types other than HE have had their costs altered/increased from CWC-I
This is deliberate - it is about focusing the game back on the core area of 'play'.  The impact of TI v no TI was a major consideration as well.

Smoke needs to be bought as it is not standard across all units - in fact many artillery units do not use smoke ammo at all as standard.

Thanks
Mark

[Salo71]

Hi Mark.
This means that also requested HE artillery strike costs 10pts each? The limits in the assets list count both for requested and scheduled?
Thanks in advance

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark.
This means that also requested HE artillery strike costs 10pts each? The limits in the assets list count both for requested and scheduled?
Thanks in advance

Not 100% sure I understand the question Salo71 - but the limits only applies to scheduled actions.

Ordinary direct HE is not limited and does not cost extra - if you buy Smoke (or other special ammo) for your artillery, they are limited by the scheduled limitations, if they are being used in a scheduled action.
However, only artillery with the special ammo (including Smoke) can contribute to the scheduled action.
Other fire is directed (commanded) by the appropriate command unit and is subject to deviation etc.

So ... artillery comes with HE as standard. Smoke is bought an an extra at a cost per gun.
If you want a scheduled HE attack you pay 10pts per gun for it and it is limited by the number in the table.

Hope that helps

[Salo71]

OK! Now it's clear, thank you Mark.
A typo: in QRS, in "requesting air support" the "artillery deviation" and "resolving artillery fire" should be corrected in "air support deviation" and "resolving air support fire"

[Big Insect]

OK! Now it's clear, thank you Mark.
A typo: in QRS, in "requesting air support" the "artillery deviation" and "resolving artillery fire" should be corrected in "air support deviation" and "resolving air support fire"

Thank you - that is an easy one to correct - much appreciated
Mark

[Superscribe]

I saw a post here, which now seems to have disappeared (!) which included comment about air strikes now hit full AFV on 6s (and open topped on 5s) instead of what is in CWC1, with hits based on terrain, i.e. Hit on 4s if target in the open, 5s if in soft cover and 6s if in hard cover. You still have reduced saves if under air atrack, but this change from CWC1 greatly reduces the effectiveness of air strikes. It looks like same change was made from BKC2 to BKC4. Any reasons for this change?

[Big Insect]

I saw a post here, which now seems to have disappeared (!) which included comment about air strikes now hit full AFV on 6s (and open topped on 5s) instead of what is in CWC1, with hits based on terrain, i.e. Hit on 4s if target in the open, 5s if in soft cover and 6s if in hard cover. You still have reduced saves if under air atrack, but this change from CWC1 greatly reduces the effectiveness of air strikes. It looks like same change was made from BKC2 to BKC4. Any reasons for this change?

Yes - as previously stated - this has been raised previously (& answered) 

I have taken a deliberate view that the CWC-I (& BKC) game was shifting more towards the dominance of air support and away from table-top play.
IMHO - hitting armour in the open from the air on a 4 is far too good, especially as most modern ground attack aircraft (with a few very noted exceptions) spend less than 3 seconds crossing a battlefield the size of most of our playing tables.
So the 'hit on a 6' change is a deliberate rebalancing of the game back towards more 'ground' orientated play.

With the prevalence of so called 'friendly fire' incidents (from the Gulf War) I had considered an alternative option, that retained the hit on a 4 for armour in the open principle, but significantly increased the risk of friendly fire - by way of causing it to happen on an any doubles (other than double 1) on a FACs Command roll. But I suspect that would have been a bit too radicle.

Also, as we are seeing in Ukraine, the dominance of the battlefield sky by MANPAD SAMs and the fear (of both opposing pilots) of flying into a veritable blizzard of SAMs is making accuracy of hitting anything but very obvious targets on the ground, a secondary priority over survival.

It is an 'adjustment' for CWC-I players, I am aware of that, but I'd ask you to bear with this, give it a few games and see how you get on.

Likewise, there have been a number of comments about ATGWs and the changes to the way they operate.
I've made comments on this thread (& others) laying out my views and reasons for the changes.
The fact that a Soviet Hind attack helicopter, with an ATGW was a 'killer weapon' in CWC-I doesn't mean that it should be in CWC-II, as the historical record (limited as it is) does not back this up. That fact that the Hind was a 'much feared' weapon, relied a lot more on its armour (& protection against ground fired small arms), its ability to hug the terrain, and the rocket-pods and cannons it used, rather than the ATGWs it carried.

Similarly, there has been a comment that M1 Abrahams and Leopard 2's etc are almost impossible to kill - as if that is a massive surprise 
It's a bit like a set of 'Ancient' rules being extended to allow in plate armoured medieval knights and everybody being surprised that Roman Legionaries with pila don't do very well against them.
If you look at the nine M1's destroyed in the Gulf War, c.7 appear to be the result of either friendly fire (with Hell-fire missiles) or they were deliberately destroyed to stop them being captured. With the Leopard 2 losses - the majority of those lost to ISIS by Turkey appear to be to very short range hits from TOW-IIs or other very modern ATGWs (from hits in the rear or flank) that succeeded in igniting ammunition - a couple of others were deliberate destroyed by friendly air-strikes to stop an abandoned vehicle falling into enemy hands.
The Cold War Commanders rules set covers the 40+ years from 1946 to c.1990 and so will generally tend to play 'best' in the middle period of the  late 1960's, the 1970's and early 1980's - what you'll get at either end of the time-frames will be - to a degree - a compromise. It is why it is not possible to just run the BKCIV (WW2) stats - for tanks such as Shermans etc through into CWC. Equally it is why it is going to be a challenge to start to run lists and mechanism from CWC-II up into more 'modern' conflicts - hence why I will produce a supplement (eventually) to allow this to be covered.

Long answer(s) to a short question Chris ... but I hope it is helpful
Mark

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark.

Many thanks for the detailed reply. I don't recall seeing a previous post about air strike changes that you replied to, but have seen all the other posts you refer to. Hopefully your reply will also answer questions raised by others too.

I understand your reasoning and will be playing 1st game tomorrow.  I will let you know how we get on.

Rgds

Chris

[Big Insect]

Hi Mark.

Many thanks for the detailed reply. I don't recall seeing a previous post about air strike changes that you replied to, but have seen all the other posts you refer to. Hopefully your reply will also answer questions raised by others too.

I understand your reasoning and will be playing 1st game tomorrow.  I will let you know how we get on.

Rgds

Chris

Hi Chris - I hope the 1st game goes well.

I am always interested in feedback, the more specific the better.

Cheers
Mark
PS: pictures would always be well appreciated on the forum

[Huey]

Hi,
A/T Weapons, p50.
2nd paragraph.
Third line

ATGW units are split into Dedicated ATGW units, marked with a D in the Army Lists...

Haven't seen any Ds yet...

[Superscribe]

Hi Chris - I hope the 1st game goes well.

I am always interested in feedback, the more specific the better.

Cheers
Mark
PS: pictures would always be well appreciated on the forum

Hi Mark

Thank you for all your sterling work in and around these rules.

We had our first game last night 5000pts Encounter Scenario with good mix of unit types on both sides so we could checkout many of the rules. Table 180cm x 120cm. We didn't get through many game turns as we were finding our way through the rules. It was quite close terrain with very little opportunity for any long-range fire (except for my Swingfire).

A few observations:

Recce
We opted to deploy these in the nearest 1/3 of the table (rather than as P75, in our own half of the table) but will use full half table next time!  This increased the distance to enemy units and therefore affected their ability to get successful recce comms.  We had several recce failures, as many were having to throw 6s, but we did have one successful recce-spotted off table arty strike, but it was hitting on 6s so was not very effective.

Recce movement – 1D6 is thrown in initiative phase to determine how far they can move in the command phase.  We understand they can move at any time in the command phase before the CO throws a command order?  We played BRDM-2 (move 20cm) which threw a 5.  Player opted to initially move 40cm at beginning of command phase (2 x 20cm) so dice was adjusted to 3.  Later in command phase after nearby units had moved, the recce moved another 20cm and a suppression marker was then placed as he had no plans to move any further.  The rules say to use a dice 'to keep track of the movement available' which suggests that recce can split movement like this, or must they do all movement in one go? The rules may need a tweak to clarify this.

Ground Attack
We had commanded air strikes and one ground attack came in (after saving the one AA hit it received) against armour in the open, but as expected with the rule change to hit on 6s it was quite ineffective against full AFVs.  However, the rules state after throwing for deviation, to place the rectangular template centred on the hit point, with the long side along the direction of attack.  What was unclear is, when does the attacker choose their direction of attack?  Must they decide when they pick the initial aiming point and before throwing deviation dice, or can they decide once they know the revised hit point and then orientate the template to their best advantage? Again the rules may need a tweak to clarify this.

Attack Helicopters
We played this incorrectly and as we were out of time we did not replay it to correct the method of attack. We had dedicated FACs but missed the fact that in General Attack Mode they should be deployed on the table along with other commands, and then move up to 50cm per command throw, to manoeuvre into a position or use pop-up to attack enemy visible to the FAC (or visible to recce if using recce comms to the FAC). We will play it correctly next time

All enjoyed the game and will be organizing another one quite soon (post Attack) and hopefully will get in more game turns 

I do have a few photos but how/where do you want them posted?

Rgds

Chris