CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Closed)

[Big Insect]

There is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

[sultanbev]

Having grew up in the Cold War I still use the NATO names a lot, and they generally make more sense. BMP-R is a recce version of the BMP, whereas BRM could well be anything. BRDM-3 I know as a BRDM-2 with AT-5 Spandrel on it, but 9P148 with 9M113 Konkurs is completely alien, and a mouthfull that doesn't even mention the carrier vehicle*.
Neither does the M150, M730 and M163, but at least it is a pattern of 3 numbers that follow M113, so has a sort of intuitive feel to it making it easier to remember.
We have to admit that the Russian naming system is really crap, and they could have done themselves a lot of favours by naming vehicles and planes like the British do. So NATO had to do it for them. Meh.

*Turns out the BRDM-3 is a recce version of the BTR-80, so now I call it BRDM-2 Spandrel.

Type 69 is no excuse. The US has M1 everything in WW2 and we all manage. I am sure there is enough room in the text box in the army list to write Type 69 tank or Type 69 rocket launcher or whatever.

If you're going to use the new-fangled Russian names from 50 years ago then the NATO reporting name should be alongside.
How do you even pronounce Malyutka? 

[Smartbomb]

There is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

I think the question is how far to take it. I personally do the above NATO and Russian. But for example:

9K31 Strela-1?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin (BRDM-2)?

I'd go for #1 if anything. At some point, you are going to have to do some book keeping, and Id rather effort go into stat revisions,, new lists,, etc. Personally, I just look units up on Wikipedia and made notes that made sense to me.

And the various "types" are generally self-explanatory to people interested in those lists. Type 63 in Recon? The PT-76ish light tank. Type 63 in Off Table Arty? MLRS. Transport? APC.

[Rhys]

being another who started playing Moderns in the early 80's I also have a hard time following the Russian designations. From your list I'd pump for option 2 as to me an SA-9 is the AA version of the BRDM-2. Likewise the BRDM 3 was the BRDM-2 with Spandrel.
The other thing about back in the day was we had no access to any information about over the fence (or this side of the fence for that matter).

[Gwydion]

How do you pronounce malyutka? Easy
Малютка
 
Still seems weird calling a Sagger: 'Baby'

[TheRowan]

I'd also vote for using the NATO terminology - it's what I'm familiar with, I suspect it what most people are familiar with, it matches the way model manufacturers typically name their units, and it means you can guess at many unit's roles without knowing he specific unit (e.g. a SA-13 Gopher is a SAM, because it has the prefix SA and a name starting with G. What's a 9K35 Strela-10? No idea!)

With regard to the point about it being too western-centric... this is a wargame published in English, aimed primarily at western gamers. That said, you could easily have two versions of the same army list - one with Soviet designations and one with NATO - if you really wanted to be even handed!

[Alien242]

Great work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

[Big Insect]

Great work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

Many thanks - we can get that sorted.
Appreciate the input
Mark

[Genom]

There is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

As a relative newbie my preference follows through a chain of trying to match things up, OOB > Army List > Miniature Manufacturer. I'd love if the reference used in all of those 3 were the same, not likely to ever happen mind you, but the less googling I have to do to get the match ups the better.

[Sandancer76]

I know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

[pbeccas]

I was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

[Big Insect]

I know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

No - IFVs are only ever Transport (1) - it is a long-standing game mechanism (even some of the bigger US LVTP type vehicles are classified as APCs rather than IFV's deliberately). 
Also, there are only 8 infantry in a BMP. I am aware that a number of NATO APCs also only have space for c.10 infantry and are classified as Transport (2) but that is primarily to allow them to carry their support weapons. And they behave differently in the rules - whilst Bradley's, Warriors and Marders behave like BMPs (all all are IFVs).
BTR's generally carry c.14 passengers (& are APCs) and so they have Transport (2).
Some smaller APCs are only Transport (1) - as are all 4x4s/Jeeps etc and they are usually restricted to INF: only designated units.

The challenge is that there is no real design standard across vehicles, let alone armies - but generally, anything under 10 is Transport (1), 10+ is Transport (2). etc.

Hope that helps?
Mark

[Big Insect]

I was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

It is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

[Smartbomb]

It is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

The Indonesian list would be "interesting" to create. Lots of varying equipment there - PT-76s, AMX-10Ps, AAVP7-A1s, Leopards, some Casspirs, etc. A mix of French, US, Chinese, German, UK, indigenous gear with some South Korean, Czech, Brazilian, Swedish, etc. gear mixed in.

[Big Insect]

A lot of the 'smaller' armies are like that - the Portuguese has almost as many armoured car variants as they had armoured cars (I exaggerate to make a point). But being one of the poorer NATO members they were grateful for what they could get, at the time.

The mix of the different suppliers can make for very interesting armies - that was always the fun of an Iraqi army from the Iran-Iraq war or the matched-pair from the Indo-Pakistani wars.

These armies are also all a lot more Infantry and 'soft' vehicle orientated - so you'd be fielding Motorised rather than Mechanised formations more often than not.

I'm planning on doing a few of these in 10mm and play them in smaller points games. But you have to be careful where you end up ... as the East Timor 'incident' between Portugal and Indonesia was a very one-sided affair, very much as the Indo-Portuguese was. But in both cases, the Portuguese (mainly infantry forces) put up a brave show against overwhelming odds - even if they lost in the end.

[JcDent]

So I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

[Big Insect]

So I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

Firstly - you cannot have a "concentrated barrage' - you can either have a concentration or a barrage - there is a difference (Page 54).

In the case of a concentration, even with Chemical weapons, the process work exactly the same way as HE works - number of guns/air craft x number of hits, per unit under the template.

Likewise, if you want to use a Barrage of Chemical ammo - you follow exactly the same process as outlined on Page 54.
If you have bought enough Chemical assets (see the availability in the Assets section of each Army List) you could even attempt to deliver a rolling barrage of Chemical weapons (see page 55).


However, remember that any guns or aircraft that are allocated to use Chemical weapons cannot fire any other type of ammo (throughout the game) - see Page 65.

Thanks
Mark

[Superscribe]

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?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy.  Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were.  No BRDM-3 in lists.  Some weird stats for sov tanks.  Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use.  No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around.  ATGMs still very vulnerable, Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan.  Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in.  M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc.  Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

[Big Insect]

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy. 
> As stated elsewhere previously - this is a deliberate change from CWC-I - air had become far too dominant, it distorts game-play and shifts the focus of the game away from the main table-top infantry and vehicle action.
NB: I believe Andy is more than capable of voicing his own question BTW rather than you doing so for him

Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were. 

> as stated previously elsewhere - if you attack with a line of unsupported tanks, in the open, against vastly superior numbers of dug-in Sagger teams - you will still get the same effect as the Egyptians and Syrians did against the IDF tanks. Wargamers play games with the superior knowledge of hindsight.

> Hinds were much feared in CWC-I - but where they much feared in reality for their ATGWs - I think not. It was their rocket-pods and cannon and their armour that made them feared. The changes to ATGW in CWC-II are designed to replicate this and also reflect the interaction between armour development and ATGWs.

No BRDM-3 in lists.

> a great spot Ian - shame you didn't pick it up in the list proof reading!

Some weird stats for sov tanks. 

> Yes? Not exactly detailed feedback Ian - what is weird and do you have any suggestions about correcting whatever is 'weird'?

Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use. 

> More repetitive feedback Ian, that has been answered previously on this thread. This kind of thing is not helpful, wastes my valuable time, that could be used to sort errata and convert the new lists etc.


No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around. 

> a good spot - but again - you were a list proof-reader and you failed to bring it to my attention ahead of publication. The good news is that we can pick it up easily on the on-line lists - when we make the changes.

ATGMs still very vulnerable,
> and you point is???

Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night
> why was that Ian - did he fail command rolls? Was it suppressed? Was it knocked out by Soviet artillery? Did the crew get lost down the local brothel?!!! - please be more specific

and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan. 

> well that is no surprise - as the rules have been adjusted (as a result of feedback from CWC-I) that we were not adequately taking into account the levels of sophistication in soviet tank armour development. This is one of those Abraham Lincoln things ... players want granularity around armour but also want to be able to kill tanks just as easily!

Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  > No sh*t Sherlock! That is more realistic than it was in CWC-I, but again it reflects a request from players to more accurately reflect the nuances of armore development, such as ERA, Composite armour etc.

T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in. 
> this is a combined arms game Ian and as stated above there has been too much reliance on air in the game, which is (as stated repeatedly previously on this and other threads) unrealistic - as we have seen in Ukraine.
In the Gulf, not only was allied airpower overwhelming the majority of enemy targets were aged, vulnerable and with little or no AA cover.
There might be an argument for 'tank-buster' planes (such as Warthogs) to be actually classified as on-table units and to allow them multiple attack-runs in a game turn, but that is a highly complex rules change.
I can certainly look at adjusting air attack - but going back to hitting armour on a 4-5-6 in the open is unlikely. But you can always play it as a house-rule if you like

M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc. 
> again this has been raised repeatedly (by you and others) and it is a known error and known errata.

Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.
> yes ... you have stated this previously and it has been noted.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

> You make the point very well Ian - YOU were a playtester and an official proof reader!!!
[/quote]


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[/quote]