CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Closed)

[Big Insect]

Some inconsistencies/oddities in heavy mortar stats in PDFs for Bundeswehr and Soviets...and some weapons are listed twice... under support and under on-table arty:
Soviet
Support
120mm Mor AP 4/200 AT 3/100
On-table arty
120mm Mor AP 4/100 AT 4/100*
Bundeswehr
Support
12cm Mor AP 4/200 AT 1/200
On table arty
12cm Mor AP 4/100 AT 2/100
What are correct stats for both weapons?

Many thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

To be frank Ian - it is hard to answer queries written like this as it is so vague and full of generalisation, and with no context! I've just wasted an hour doing this.

But my comments are in-line above and to summarise below:
1) you feel that the changes to aircraft hitting on a 6 (from the CWC-I 4-5-6) is too harsh
2) the interplay between the new armour classifications and ATGW is in favour of the tanks rather than the ATGW
3) there are a few missing vehicle types in the Soviet list and the M113 stats are incorrect.

Mark

But I didnt write it, just uploaded. I note my correction for the evade roll has disappeared.

[sultanbev]

It does seem that some people are forgetting that it is a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 versus a platoon of 3 (or occasionally 4) x T-64B.
To expect a single salvo of 4x ATGW to knock out an entire platoon of tanks in one go is a bit much. Using the data I've used for 40 years, a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 would only KO a whole T-64B platoon 10% of the time, assuming both sat still in the open. Comparing CWC2 statsof 9D6 attacks for HOT1 versus 5 hits at 4s to save for the T-64B, that's probably about right. 9D6 at 4+  is on average 4 hits, of which 2 will be saved. So meh, yeah. But if you rolled 5-9x 4+ on your attack dice, and the opponent fluffed 5 of their saves, odds on you are going to kill the T-64B model, so it can be done. (Can't remember just now what the bonus for composite armour is in this example)

Anyway,
an idea for those that think the firing isn't quite right or effective enough. You can use the dice more.
For every pip on each D6 you get over what you need, have an extra hit. So if you are hitting on 4+, any 5+ rolled is an additional hit, every 6 rolled is 2 extra hits. And so on.

Similarly for saves, things like Chobham armour and APS systems could give you extra saved hits in certain circumstances if you roll over what you need.
Just a thought.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark B - first the Composite, Chobham, Spaced or ERA armour allows a save vs ATGM in the frontal arc, otherwise there are none. The extra hit idea won't work and adds complication. The time scale allows more than one volley of missiles to be fired. A table kill is not necessarily a kill in real life, 2 of your mates blowing up alongside will not engender confidence in the other platoon vehicles will it. In CWC you have to remember that Kill is not Dead, its out of action. 

[flamingpig0]

I wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

[Big Insect]

Many thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

NB: I also forgot to mention Chris - the use of 120mm mortars (in this specific instance) across Support, On-table Artillery and Off-Table Artillery is not unusual. It is an attempt to replicate the doctrine of a specific army. The US (for example) would use their 120mm mortars right upfront in support of an assault, but also use them as a longer-range divisional or battalion assets as well. Other armies held them back, using them only as longer-distance support.

With minimum ranges for large mortars, having them too close to the front is counter productive though.
There should also be Max unit restrictions on the larger mortars in some lists to avoid a player buying an unrealistic number of them. Some of these may have slipped through the editing 'net' but will be picked up as we correct the errata.

Thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

I wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

      
shame I wouldnt see it as I dont use Twitter or Facebook ... but I appreciate the sentiment

[Huey]

Good evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

Cheers  H

[Big Insect]

Good evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
> maybe - but they can only fire the ATGWs once per game-turn - so are not as costly as a full ATGW unit.
But I will double check that, usually it is a good call to look at the 'master' list for something like this - which would be the Soviet list online.

Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

> NB: a lot of BMPs fielded by 'client states' or foreign buyers were not supplied with ATGWs. But again, I'll check my reference material.

> all IFV's are Transport (1) - so this must be an omission - although as all IFVs are Transport (1) technically we shouldn't need to put Transport (1) in the notes - but we'll get that fixed.

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

> yes, thanks - this has been picked up previously and will get resolved when we do the big list errata 'sort out' - in a while.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)
> is this the book or the on-line list please? - I suspect that it is probably a typo. but will check.

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

> a pleasure - I try not to 'snap my jaws' too often ...     

Cheers  H

Hi H - comments above in-line - thanks for the contributions.
Mark

[Huey]

It's correct that the Finn BMP1s did NOT have Saggers.  The BMP2s were their tank killers not transport.

[sultanbev]

Arab-Israeli lists
Israel
1) The M3 H/T with 90mm - only 4 built, so maximum 1
2) Achzarit HAPC missing, the most common one! T-55 hull with 14 tons of Composite armour added, so about same as Challenger 1 armour, 1989+, armament 1 MG.
3) Why do the other HAPC have 4/50 A/I factor when they are unarmed or only have an MG or two?
4) The M10 Achilles, were actually Wolverines with worn out 3" guns - these were removed and 1 armed with 17pdr that promptly broke, then 20 rearmed with French 75 CN75-50, same as AMX-13/75 which is coincidentally the same A/T stat; they only had 20, were going to issue 1 platoon per infantry battalion, so limit would be 1 I guess?
2A) Puma HAPC has composite armour

Arabs
5) Hetzers in the Arab list? Oooops, should be Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L48, limit 1 I think
(The Hetzer could have been in the Israeli list, as they were planning to build them at first, but then opted for turreted tanks instead.)
6) M52 has an armoured roof
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/105mmsphm52/105mmsphm52.html#M52TOP11
7) Syrian T-34/85 pillbox thingy only applies after c1965.
Remove the T-10, it was never exported, not sure why this keeps coming up in Arab lists.
9) Jordanian Hunter missing from aircraft list fot what it's worth.
10) The Egyptian Valentine was the 2pdr armed variant, although by 1956 they were gunless OP/HQ tanks for the Archer batteries. A/I stat should be 1/50 surely with 2pdr HE and 1 coax MG?
11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
12) M113 should say Jordan only, not Egypt & Syria only
13) Is not 2P26 Schmel and AT-1 Snapper 4x4 the same vehicle? They have no MG so A/I = 1/40 is a bit generous for a couple of SMG/AK47 and pistol from the crew.
14) You could add the Hummel for the 1950s Syrian list, although limit = 1
15) curious about the "Restricted Ammo" rule for Archers and Charioteers, what is that meant to represent?
16) The T-34/100 and similar but missing T-34/122 were really artillery pieces, not tank destroyers or assault guns, so should be moved to the on-table artillery and off-table artillery sections.

Mark

[Big Insect]

Arab-Israeli lists
Israel
1) The M3 H/T with 90mm - only 4 built, so maximum 1
> thanks

2) Achzarit HAPC missing, the most common one! T-55 hull with 14 tons of Composite armour added, so about same as Challenger 1 armour, 1989+, armament 1 MG.

> It is down as an APC at the end of the Transport/Vehicle section - it's an interesting debate about whether these HAPCs are classified as APCs or IFVs - they tend to be used more by the IDF in an APC role - but that probably reflects their current operational needs. I'll also look at the armour classification

3) Why do the other HAPC have 4/50 A/I factor when they are unarmed or only have an MG or two?

> that looks like it might be a copying error - I'll pick that up

4) The M10 Achilles, were actually Wolverines with worn out 3" guns - these were removed and 1 armed with 17pdr that promptly broke, then 20 rearmed with French 75 CN75-50, same as AMX-13/75 which is coincidentally the same A/T stat; they only had 20, were going to issue 1 platoon per infantry battalion, so limit would be 1 I guess?
> thanks - getting the numbers available to 'feel' right can be tricky at this level, especially with so many variants to work with.

2A) Puma HAPC has composite armour
. OK thanks

Arabs
5) Hetzers in the Arab list? Oooops, should be Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L48, limit 1 I think
(The Hetzer could have been in the Israeli list, as they were planning to build them at first, but then opted for turreted tanks instead.)
> great - thanks

6) M52 has an armoured roof
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/105mmsphm52/105mmsphm52.html#M52TOP11
> no idea how that happened - good spot - thanks

7) Syrian T-34/85 pillbox thingy only applies after c1965.
> yes of course

Remove the T-10, it was never exported, not sure why this keeps coming up in Arab lists.
> 

9) Jordanian Hunter missing from aircraft list fot what it's worth.
> indeed ... but it is good to attempt to be thorough

10) The Egyptian Valentine was the 2pdr armed variant, although by 1956 they were gunless OP/HQ tanks for the Archer batteries. A/I stat should be 1/50 surely with 2pdr HE and 1 coax MG?
> that might explain why I could find limited info on them - thanks

11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
> can do - but did the Jordanians use them?

12) M113 should say Jordan only, not Egypt & Syria only
> yes ... that was my brain working the wrong way around!

13) Is not 2P26 Schmel and AT-1 Snapper 4x4 the same vehicle? They have no MG so A/I = 1/40 is a bit generous for a couple of SMG/AK47 and pistol from the crew.
> good spot - I think I was getting all worked up around the nomenclature debate at that point in time!
There is an interesting discussion to be had around the AP stats for MANPAD SAMs, INF:ATGS and 4x4 ATGWS - I had originally given most of them 1/30 to represent their small arms capabilities - a sort of last resort self defense option. I am also likely to adjust the AP stats for SAMs anyway - as the AP v AT is the same - that will allow me to add proper AP stats to all the INF:SAM, SP:SAM units - as applicable

14) You could add the Hummel for the 1950s Syrian list, although limit = 1
> good call

15) curious about the "Restricted Ammo" rule for Archers and Charioteers, what is that meant to represent?
> lack of HE ammo carried when compared to AT ammo - there appear to be records of crews widely not bothering with the HE rounds, when operating in the SPAT role - but I need to dig up the sources to corroborate that for you - the research was done a while ago, so not fresh in my brain.

16) The T-34/100 and similar but missing T-34/122 were really artillery pieces, not tank destroyers or assault guns, so should be moved to the on-table artillery and off-table artillery sections.
> good call

Mark

Thanks Mark - insightful as always - comments in-line above.

The debate about the IDF HAPCs is one for a separate thread maybe - should they be IFVs or APCs - or maybe they should appear in both sections, but with a restriction that they can only operate in one role in a battle-group?

Likewise - what stats to use for the small-arms for man-packed ATGW and SAMs. A lot of the 4x4 launchers do appear to have an MG, even if it is a light one.

Much appreciated
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The Jordainain Hunter is in my original copy, 3 enrty in the aircraft section underneath the two AH1 varients.

[sultanbev]

The debate about the IDF HAPCs is one for a separate thread maybe - should they be IFVs or APCs

I would treat them as APCs, seeing as they only have one MG generally and troops exit just like any other APC, out the back or over the sides, they don't have firing ports. You can't really do an armoured assault with them.

The whole issue of IFV is a challenging debate, professional wargamers that are ex-servicemen as well as me have found them completely useless if even one enemy tank is about. The Israelies are the only ones that came up with a solution with the HAPC. And note they deliberately left off any heavy armament. IFVs with heavy weapons tend to get used as light tanks with disastrous results, especially by wargamers!

They would however make great tank destroyers and not-bad recce vehicles - a BMP-1P or Bradley with the back stuffed full of ATGW reloads would have been far superior to the M901 or BRDM-2 Spandrel. Anyway, ours is not to reason why (government accountants have a lot to do with it....)

Oh, forgot, the American M901 ITOW vehicle, if it moves over 8kmh cross-country the sites misalign and have to be reset when it next halts, don't know if you have an unreliable or similar rating in CWC2. In my own games I make them do an activation to reset the sights before they can fire.

11) Remove the Syria only comment from the T-34/85 and T-54/55....
> can do - but did the Jordanians use them?

No, so should say Egypt and Syria only.

[Big Insect]

I would treat them as APCs, seeing as they only have one MG generally and troops exit just like any other APC, out the back or over the sides, they don't have firing ports. You can't really do an armoured assault with them.

The whole issue of IFV is a challenging debate, professional wargamers that are ex-servicemen as well as me have found them completely useless if even one enemy tank is about. The Israelies are the only ones that came up with a solution with the HAPC. And note they deliberately left off any heavy armament. IFVs with heavy weapons tend to get used as light tanks with disastrous results, especially by wargamers!

They would however make great tank destroyers and not-bad recce vehicles - a BMP-1P or Bradley with the back stuffed full of ATGW reloads would have been far superior to the M901 or BRDM-2 Spandrel. Anyway, ours is not to reason why (government accountants have a lot to do with it....)

Oh, forgot, the American M901 ITOW vehicle, if it moves over 8kmh cross-country the sites misalign and have to be reset when it next halts, don't know if you have an unreliable or similar rating in CWC2. In my own games I make them do an activation to reset the sights before they can fire.
No, so should say Egypt and Syria only.

Thanks - I wasnt aware of that. There is an 'Unreliable' Special Ability, but I am inclined to consider making the M901 ITOW a Slow Firing vehicle to replicate this. As it limits what it can do in a turn, but I'll check that out.
Cheers
Mark

[kustenjaeger]

Arab lists
1. BRDM-2.  Used in 1973 by Egypt and Syria
2. RL-83 Blindicide. In use by at least Egypt in 1956 as 10 launchers captured by British. Source: Hansard
3. RPG-7. In at least limited use in Six Day War by Egypt and en masse by Syria and Egypt in 1973 so dates need fixing
4. BMP-1 deliveries to both Egypt and Syria in 1973 prior to use in October War. Not used prior as far as I know.
5. T-34/85 extensively used in 1967 fighting by Egypt. 
6. T-54/55 used by Egypt and Syria as previously noted
7. M113 user should be Jordan

IDF comments later.

Hope this helps.

Edward

[kustenjaeger]

IDF lists

1. AMX-13. Never airportable by IDF. 
2. 3.5" M20 Superbazooka I assume covers a lot of other kit such as 82mm Marnat, 73mm LRAC Mle 50 and some RL-83 Blindicide (source https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/44554-blindicide-info/)
3. RPG-7 in Israeli inventory from 1967 but probably limited use?
4. ATGW Entac and SS-11 - all the comments I have seen say that this was out of use by 1973?
5. BMP-1 captured - must be 1973+ (and after October War so maybe 1974+)?

Edward

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Some comments on dates. Frankly these are very difficult to decide. In the basic lists I sent to Mark F the first note is Dates are speculative in many cases. Please bear that in mind as we only have limited information to go on. Also lots of kit is kept in storage, we ceratinly were making spares for Centurions in the early 90's which would indicate that stuff was in storage.

I certainly left out 3 items - Israli M3's with SS11  as there were very few - 4 to 10, same argument applies to the M3 with 90mm , the Sherman with AMX-13 turret, the Egyptians had 10 as experiments.

[Big Insect]

Arab lists
1. BRDM-2.  Used in 1973 by Egypt and Syria
2. RL-83 Blindicide. In use by at least Egypt in 1956 as 10 launchers captured by British. Source: Hansard
3. RPG-7. In at least limited use in Six Day War by Egypt and en masse by Syria and Egypt in 1973 so dates need fixing
4. BMP-1 deliveries to both Egypt and Syria in 1973 prior to use in October War. Not used prior as far as I know.
5. T-34/85 extensively used in 1967 fighting by Egypt. 
6. T-54/55 used by Egypt and Syria as previously noted
7. M113 user should be Jordan

IDF comments later.

Hope this helps.

Edward

All very helpful stuff Edward - thank you - backing up and adding to Mark B's observations.

If I remember correctly (need to check my notes) I think I did wrap the RL-83 Blindicide up with the Bazooka - for both lists

Thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

IDF lists

1. AMX-13. Never airportable by IDF. 
2. 3.5" M20 Superbazooka I assume covers a lot of other kit such as 82mm Marnat, 73mm LRAC Mle 50 and some RL-83 Blindicide (source https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/44554-blindicide-info/)
> yes - TBF at the scale we operate at the difference are negligable
3. RPG-7 in Israeli inventory from 1967 but probably limited use?
> agreed but we can include maybe on a -.-[1] basis
4. ATGW Entac and SS-11 - all the comments I have seen say that this was out of use by 1973?
5. BMP-1 captured - must be 1973+ (and after October War so maybe 1974+)?
> yes - good shout

Edward

Replies above - in-line & in-bold

Again appreciated Edward
Thanks
Mark