Please can all CWC players - with an interest - start to deposit any and all suggestions, changes and errata into this thread.
I'd like it to act as a reservoir of thoughts at this stage.
Also ... to be clear ... with BKCIV only just available at Salute'19 and immediate action on CWC would be premature.
Plus Leon's typing finger needs a rest ... as does my brain cell!
But fire away ... no suggestion is too barmy for this forum :'(
Mark (F)
Quote from: Big Insect on 26 March 2019, 06:43:38 PM
But fire away ... no suggestion is too barmy for this forum Mark (F)
:-\
I thought that was a prerequisite. :D
Cheers - Phil
Squeak for yourself Phil.
Mark - as a basis tidy up the recce, same as BKC I suspect - add CA and firing values, again as BKC, tidy up Close Assault.
Missiles - some of the house rules work OK, but need formalising
Attack Choppers - again formalise the house rules.
Transport Choppers - Use them as an asset only, time and place nominated. Much reduce the landing scatter as well, probably only 1 die, or none at all !
Cheers
IanS
Can I raise the issue of Korean War supplement rules ? :o
Probably closer in terms of kit/weapons to BKC WW2 era than CWC.
I feel it would help sales of this excellent range no end if we had a dedicated supplement - Leon and I once discussed a downloadable version. :)
Korea should be in BKC - only need to add F-86, M46 and Cent 3/5 + maybe M75? Tactics and weapons all WWII - well tactics in the later stages do resemble WWI
IanS
ATGM, overpriced for such vulnerable units that aren't outright tank killers.
Cheers, Andy
ATGM - They often ARE outright tank killers, but only prior to the mid 80's where 90% of CWC games are set ;)
Now I've played Devil's Advocaat (mmm egg nog), I agree, Andy - they're either under effective or overpriced. One shot per turn and ERA/Composite armour in the 80's plus makes them woefully costly and virtually useless (never mind mounting them on very vulnerable platforms as almost all armies do).
Thought we'd had these discussions before. The main ones for me were:
increase the command radii minus to -1 per 200cm or similar, not -1 per 20cm, effective radios are a thing you know. 20cm is 400m in CWC, at -2 you are effectively out of radio range with most command values (rolling 5 or 6 on 2D6 isn't easy) and 800m effective radio range is very unrealistic. Bear in mind the end vehicles in a tank platoon are often 800m apart on an open battlefield, thus CWC is saying that the two end tanks in a 4 tank platoon on doctrinal deployment are effectively out of radio range of each other. Things like weather and intervening hills are probably more of a restriction on effective radio range.
Remove thermobaric from artillery, because, they never could fire any. Only aircraft and one or two MRL systems have thermobaric.
Add bomblet or ICM to artillery. And aircraft if it wasn't already in, can't remember.
Can't remember what else there was.
Mark
A while back I did some revisions to the hit and save ratings for a number of vehicles based on more recent information since CWC was originally printed. What I found was that M1 tanks were over-rated along with a few others and that some were under-rated. Many were fine the way they were though. Since then I have been building a data base of hit and save values that now includes vehicles that have been introduced since the rules were published. I can make this available to the playtest group.
Thanks for the offer, look forward to seeing the data.
ATGM does it fire once per PLAYER turn or once per GAME turn?
Night vision needs to be expanded. Only vehicles have it. Utter nonsense since the 80s when infantry have had it as well.
Dave - some ATGW fire only in op fire, some fire once per pair of turns - ie op fire or normal fire, and some (house rule) can fire twice....
Night vision - Infantry had II in the mid 70's and II is not covered. Neither is GSR nor laser rangers and GPS.
No rules for nuclear - well there are somewhere in the SMP forum cause I wrote them
II and IR is the same thing. TI is actually IR as well - just in a longer wavelength band.
What's needed in IR (II) is a distinction between active / passive and then infantry and vehicle (small and large) within that. Even the thermal rules need to be small (infantry) and large (gas cooled on a large support wpn or AFV)
On the Golan in 73 the Syrians used active ir with ir lamps - "black light". Israeli tank commanders had hand held ir monoculars so they could see the ir lamps. Alas the Israeli tanks hand no ir sights, so the commanders had to guide their gunners shooting at night.
AI and Falklands lists have irritating errors as well. But I guess all the lists do to some extent.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 01 April 2019, 07:33:18 AM
No rules for nuclear - well there are somewhere in the SMP forum cause I wrote them
Douse the whole battlefield in petrol and throw a lighted match on it?
Quote from: Raider4 on 01 April 2019, 01:29:59 PM
Douse the whole battlefield in petrol and throw a lighted match on it?
There was an SPI WW3 board game that included that option. It noted that the scenario could only be played once. Pretty realistic then :)
The issue of dummy unmarked minefields was never addressed either. :P
Quote from: Dr Dave on 01 April 2019, 02:16:45 PM
The issue of dummy unmarked minefields was never addressed either. :P
I thought the rule was that a player is not allowed to ask "Sorry, what was the rule about spotting an unmarked minefield again?" more than once every 10 minutes. :)
Many thanks all - some useful thoughts and suggestions
There is a whole question around 'new tech' and night-fighting etc.
What's the issue about 'dummy minefields' ... or am I opening up a can of worms again?
Quote from: Big Insect on 02 April 2019, 03:58:32 PM
What's the issue about 'dummy minefields' ... or am I opening up a can of worms again?
Among my group, at least, "unmarked dummy minefields" exist only in the mind of the opponent when you ask the question I mentioned just as they are about to move something.
Psywar 101 :)
The unmarked dummy minefield area should be modelled with craters and destroyed vehicles
I think there's an unmarked dummy in all of us.
Add the COPPERHEAD laser guided projectile to the US M109 self-propelled 155mm artillery unit.
Thanks,
Mitch
The US army never issued Copperhead. There are rules for tac nucs on the CWC forum, they aren't as devastating as people think, it's the long term effects that cause problems.
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 28 August 2019, 07:08:30 AM
The US army never issued Copperhead. There are rules for tac nucs on the CWC forum, they aren't as devastating as people think, it's the long term effects that cause problems.
IanS
Pull up a sandbag . One of my jobs in the distant past was as a trooper of a stay behind party whose job was to call in tactical artillery strikes up to nuclear on Soviet follow through troop concentrations in 1 BR Corps, NORTHAG. Quite pleased it never came to anything....
Quote from: ianrs54 on 28 August 2019, 07:08:30 AM
The US army never issued Copperhead.
Eh? From Wikipedia:
"Copperhead was used in Operation Desert Storm, with 90 rounds fired against hardened Iraqi fortifications and radar stations. One of these strikes caused an Iraqi unit to surrender. It was also used in the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Also, the USMC call in a Copperhead strike at the end of Battle: Los Angeles . . .
Somebody does the Battle: Los Angelese aliens I gather. But in 28mm sadly.
Quote from: williamb on 30 March 2019, 09:43:44 PM
A while back I did some revisions to the hit and save ratings for a number of vehicles based on more recent information since CWC was originally printed. What I found was that M1 tanks were over-rated along with a few others and that some were under-rated. Many were fine the way they were though. Since then I have been building a data base of hit and save values that now includes vehicles that have been introduced since the rules were published. I can make this available to the playtest group.
If you are happy to share this info now - to me directly in the personal messages - we can start to review and incorporate into the draft of CWCII
Many thanks
Mark