Does CWC have the same 'minimum must be fielded' (in regard infantry per 1000 pts - can't remember it being other troop types in addition) as BKC?
If anyone could provide an answer, I'd be grateful. :)
Reason I ask, I've started messing around with 15mm UAR and Israelis, mainly using Herkybird's What a Tanker homebrew rules and Solo AI mechanics, but would love to get back into playing some form of the Commander rules (which I first started playing solo with, using BKC). I'm going to add some infantry, but was hoping to limit the amount of bases to as few as possible.
Using a pdf belonging Battlefront's Flames of War - Fate of a Nation (1967), I've drafted up a small UAR force along these lines (I've not gone for the full paper strength of the OOB, just used 'elements of')
UAR Kuteybh Debahh (Tank Battalion) - Debabh (Tank) Company:
Naqayeeb HQ tank - 1x T-55
Muleghzim Combat Platoon - 2x T-55 1x T-54
Divisional Support Platoons -
Meshah Meykaneykeyh (Mechanised) Company -
Muleghzim Infantry Platoon - 3x 4-man AK-47 Assualt Rifle teams (inc. x1 RPG-2 anti-tank grenade launcher) 1x BTR-152 transporter
Self-propelled Anti-tank Company - 2x SU-100M
I was hoping to be able to cobble together a CWC force out of the above - which I'm planning on collecting for, and home-modifying the, What a Tanker rules set / Herkybird's Arab Israeli Wars add-on.
It will, but doubt you will be shouted at if you follow an OOB.
As far as my group is concerned, for any game, you can field any force you want providing your opponent agrees.
If you are playing solo and can't get your opponent to agree you have bigger problems than what the rules say. :) :) :)
You may wind up with a somewhat unbalanced game but that will show you what to tweak for the next game.
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.' - Douglas Bader
Thank you. Will just be me playing solo, but the OCD sometimes takes hold and I can get obsessive about complying with rules books :-[ :'(
Originally the purpose of the minimums (if I understand correctly) was to allow players to compete against opponents in a way that meant they couldn't create 'super' formations (whatever they might have consisted of) and as such it was felt that having a minimum number of infantry bases per 1000 points was a way to do that.
My own view (which will be reflected in CWCII) is that this just didn't work in reality - so we will be dropping it.
The restrictions on the numbers of a particular troop/unit type per 1000 points will remain - as that is a really helpful way to moderate the balance in a list - especially what I'd call a "club-night" list were players are using a lower number of points and are very often playing Scenario games or straight 'Encounter' type games.
To be honest I mostly play OOBs anyway, and scenarios and where the points minimums in a scenario or in a "club night" game mean you cannot deploy the full formation, then I opt for an approach that reduces all units on a proportionate basis across the formation, with a bias that the more expensive units are removed 1st.
Hope that helps. But OOBs are by and far the best way to obtain a balanced all-arms force and at the same time keep the game playable.
In FWC however I am likely to retain and even increase (in some cases) the numbers of compulsory units in a list ... as FWC allows for some very weird distortions in formations that can seriously bias a particular list. E.G. an army of all flyers when your opponent cannot have any AA ... a one-sided game-over game (not much fun)
Hope that makes sense?
Mark
QuoteIn FWC however I am likely to retain and even increase (in some cases) the numbers of compulsory units in a list ... as FWC allows for some very weird distortions in formations that can seriously bias a particular list. E.G. an army of all flyers when your opponent cannot have any AA ... a one-sided game-over game (not much fun)
I remember Nik Harwood mentioning to me that he felt Pete Jones was the least happy with these rules, for the reason mentioned above. On the old forum there was an AAR where, IIRC, the defenders were on an island surrounded by water with the attacker having no amphibious ability! Certainly no fun to be had there :(.
The "x per thousand" limits were very useful for those of us whose games are never historical refights, whose units are entirely fictional and whose opponents are more at home with Eldar and Space Marines than anything WW2.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 04 October 2020, 09:16:51 PM
The "x per thousand" limits were very useful for those of us whose games are never historical refights, whose units are entirely fictional and whose opponents are more at home with Eldar and Space Marines than anything WW2.
Good point, and also helpful when you are doing stuff outside of your main knowledge areas, it gives you guidance on the common stuff, and the rare stuff. The BKC lists are just stats (which is good, as it allows lots of info) but you have to have some idea what stuff is, and how common it was to know what is a sensible list. The limits help with this. When you know the detail, or want to do a particular battle you can easily ignore the limits.
All the BKCIV list do generally have an x-per 1000pts factor to them. Just as you say Fred it is helpful for players who are new to the period of the force they are looking to play with.
There is an argument that it can however mitigate against certain formations - such as the ANZAC armoured car 'heavy' formations in WW2 (so much beloved by Flames of Wars players) but these are generally a rarity. One day (no-doubt) some programing wizard will produce a list calculator that will hold all the various known OOBs of all Cold War formations and so you can just punch a key and up pops a 3,000 point Soviet Rifle Regiment list (heavily depleted of course as I struggle to get most of mine down much below 6,000 pts at best).
FWC is another matter and probably one for another thread but I agree that the scenarios need to be adjusted - and the lists upgraded as there are most certainly a few 'killer' lists in the current batch (including at least one that I wrote ???
Mark
Mark you thinking about the spread sheet I wrote for Crisis Point 1 or 2 - you can pick an army and several points levels.
Yes Ian ... very much that sort of idea
Well you have my permission to publish it.
Mainly just trying to find a second use out of what I've already bought in 15mm for What a Tanker. Since I posted the original post in this thread, I have learned that there are rules for limited use of troops and anti-tank guns in those rules, but I still fancy giving CWC a go and using Charles Stewart Grant's Programmed Wargames Scenarios.
Thank you :)
Quote from: Steve J on 04 October 2020, 09:07:45 PM
I remember Nik Harwood mentioning to me that he felt Pete Jones was the least happy with these rules, for the reason mentioned above. On the old forum there was an AAR where, IIRC, the defenders were on an island surrounded by water with the attacker having no amphibious ability! Certainly no fun to be had there :(.
IIRC the most infamous may have been composed of invisible, invulnerable grav powered recce calling in impossible amounts of support fire whilst teleporting around the table :D
That might well be representative of future war (or a possible version of it) but it was certainly Not Much Fun ;)
Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 October 2020, 03:59:33 PM
IIRC the most infamous may have been composed of invisible, invulnerable grav powered recce calling in impossible amounts of support fire whilst teleporting around the table :D
You are of course referring to the Kraytonians aka the Kray Twins or intelligent Terrapin lifeforms
In their "historical setting" against the Pax Arcadian (Human) forces they are easily defeated by swarms of smart missiles
Mmmmm smart missile.... *dribble*
Of course in the FWC 'arms race' Smart Missiles are countered by the predacious use of Reactive Armour - and the slow, cold advance of the Cyber-Undead.
Anybody for a 40 foot pylon death ray ... going "Zapppppp!" ... or a Cryo-tunnel?
But we digress and I will get into trouble lowering the tone of a serious CWC thread by bring up FWC (again) :'(
If you're going to play FWC you need to be doing it properly.
Planet killer weapons, à la Star Wars*
Set up all your forces on the table top. Get everything fully prepared. Both sides roll a D6 for the planet killer strike. Highest score wins, their first strike impacted first. If the roll is a draw, then both sides weapon of planetary destruction struck at exactly the same time and both lose. Though, obviously, in the case of one player rolling higher than the other, the planet would be destroyed all the same and their armies, as well as their opponents would be atomised. But still a victory of sorts! Both dice now rolled, pack up all toys and find something else to do.
* as in the movie franchise and not the the Strategic Defense Initiative of the Cold War. But then the current trend is to be rewriting the Cold War and making it Go Hot.
See what I did there? Looped the FWC discussion back to CWC ;)
Back to CWC, a mild tidy up is all that's needed ruleswise (e.g. split factors for AI/AT) and as the original post suggested, sort the army lists (both in terms of creating reasonably accurate historical TOEs, war time exigencies, and when stuff was introduced and what's capable of using special ammo - thermobarics, I'm looing at you!)...
Anyway, back to FWC...
Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 October 2020, 10:41:12 AM
. . . I'm looing at you!)...
Is this some variant of turning a noun into a verb* that I've not heard before?
;)
* Like some athletes who talk about "medalling"
Quote from: toxicpixie on 07 October 2020, 10:41:12 AM
when stuff was introduced and what's capable of using special ammo - thermobarics, I'm looing at you!)...
Research I did for both Leopard and BGMR seemed to indicated that thermobarics were never issued.....so nothing can use it. Rules for tac nukes are on the SMP forum - I know cause I wrote em.
Fuel air explosive bombs, air dropped, have been used since the Vietnam War.
"Thermobarics" as in CWC1, don't exist for artillery used other than the Russian TOS-1 and possibly BM-30, both in post Cold War usage. Hopefully they have been deleted from CWC2.
Mark
I'd like to see the Russian TOS-1 system in place - it was used in Afghanistan in the late 80's IIRC?
It's far less speculative than a lot of other bits and bobs, and I'd hope CWCII will cover the 90's... or at least get a supplement for Gulf War 1 onwards!
If I recall correctly, a battalion of 12 was deployed into the Caucasus in the late 1980s for vehicle trials. So yes, they could be in CWC2, a maximum of 3 models for the entire Soviet army!
My notes say first use was 1994 in Chechnya, where 2 battalions were deployed.
In CWC terms, the system has a minumum range of 20cm and maximum of 175cm. It is a direct fire weapon with an area effect that randomly lands like rockets. A bit like WW2 infantry guns, that are on table but their arc of fire is indirect, and the target can be observed by the firer, called in by an observer, or a pre-planned barrage.
Each launcher has a 10cm x 20cm area of effect, in which 50% of all soft targets are destroyed, even if in bunkers or open topped AFV. The aim point 1cm x 2cm area destroys everything. How you extrapolate that upwards to a full platoon/battery firing is the challenge.
Mark
Panjshir Valley in '88 for live combat tests, apparently - although sources say "early 80's" which seems... unlikely...
Chechnya appears to the first time Western sources came aware of it (I suspect the Afghans weren't really differentiating between which artillery systems were actually hitting them... assuming any of them were actually being hit and they hadn't already bogged off somewhere to leave the Russians flattening empty countryside...).
The early versions are very definitely on table weapons, like a tracked battalion mortar but the later get a useful enough set of upgrades to be off table support if you want...
Damage? 2+ for everything under the template and it's dead. Suppressed on any other result ;)
I will consider all requests and input .... very (very) carefully ... but these types of weapons may end up in an Optional Rules section as they distort the game play so very dramatically (a bit like Death Stars or Planet Killers)
We have had some notorious incidents of on-table use of things like Gas and Thermobarics in the Cold War Commander games ... no names mentioned (Dr Evil).
I might instigate a 'moral judgement' points penalty for their use - such as the loss of 50% of the remaining units on table for the player that 1st uses them. So that they do really become weapons of last resort.
Thing is many of them are NOT weapons of last resort, but are standard and expected kit.
The only issue with using Thermobarics in CWC is the rather iffy delivery systems available via tube artillery for loads of armies, and not restricting it to the TOS-1 (as Mark says, limited numbers, *and* 88+ at the earliest!) and air delivered munitions.
Air dropped weapons at least have to run the gauntlet of the oppositions air defence environment which adds it own level of gameplay and unreliability ;)
Putting in a "moral judgement" which has any kind of in game penalty would be an odd manoeuvre, especially in a "Cold War Gone Hot" scenario where NATO is very likely to have glassed Eastern Europe at the start of hostilities whilst the WarPac blankets Western Europe with chemical weapons and biological agents :D If you're playing other theatres or restraining the use to conventional, then... just do that ;) And if anyone breaks that then lose gracefully and end the campaign early as it escalates to "What a strange game, the only way to win is not to play" ;)
Mark - as the victim of the gas attack it worked great for me, Russian Paras can't attack through their own gas !
Excellent Ian, that sounds like a winning recipe :D
I'm guessing that by the original rules they'd all forgotten their rubber suits!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 03 October 2020, 12:04:55 PM
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.' - Douglas Bader
He would know!