Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Please confine your posts to this thread purely to Rules errata or suggestions (there is a separate thread for Army List Errata) - thank you.

I know I am tempting fate here, but I've opened this thread to allow players to specifically notify us/me of any errata they find in the rules (please use the separate thread for Army List errata - thank you).

There are already some "known knowns" ... such as a couple of rouge 'X' (Page 49  Machine Guns) or 'XXXX's (Page 83 - Scenario 16- generic helicopter stats*) where I had planned to put in a reference or a specific example or a short-table and then forgot!
Despite nearly 20 people then proof-reading the final draft before going to print, these 2 slipped through. And (no-doubt) there will be others. 

If you can kindly provide me with the specific page number of any issues, along with (ideally) a copy of the offending errata, I will compile these and we can correct them in the online down-load set and in any future reprint.

Many thanks (in anticipation) for your support with this matter.
Mark

* We will put up a 'sticky' thread with the missing generic helicopter stats - especially as in the playtesting this particular 'new' scenario was deemed to be a huge success - it is challenging for both players  :D 

Hi

The 'Target Unit is in' table on P39 doesn't seem to be mentioned in the 'Calculating Firing' section on P38.  Whilst I think I understand how it is to be used, there is no explanation until you read the para below the table 'For example, if an infantry unit........'

I think it needs some explanatory text in the preceding firing paragraphs on P38.

Regards

Chris

Thanks Chris - this is probably one of those things where I've been playing (& play-testing) the mechanism for so long that I instinctively know how it works. I get you point that for somebody new to CWC that it might not make sense. Cover generally makes things harder to hit and will also effect the ability to spot & target a unit.

Then it might also reduce the effectiveness of the attackers weaponry (by reducing the number of shooting dice). In some instances this may completely remove the attackers attack dice or significantly reduce those dice.
A more thorough example is probably the best way to resolve this:
e.g. an Infantry unit in a bunker is shot at by an APC mounted MG (AP:1/50) that is 20cm away from the bunker. The MG gets a +1 d6 as it is shooting under half range, but the Bunker causes the loss of 3 x d6 for protection - so the MG will have no effect on the Infantry inside it as it is (in effect) reduced to -1/50.

Does that help at all Chris?
Thanks
Marl

Hi Marl

I understand how the factors work and the extra example does help but I still think it needs something in the Firing Modifiers section as these dice are adjusted before the firer throws for hits.

I suggest something like this immediately after the modifiers table on P38:
"The terrain or position that the target is in will also affect the chance of a hit; modify dice throws in accordance with the table on P39"

Regards

Chris

Hi

On Page 50 it states that wire-guided ATGW may not be fired over water [or power lines].  I understand that this is what it says in CWC1 as well. However cwc1 house rules on the CWC Facebook site suggest no firing over water that is 30cm or wider.

Many games have rivers of around 2" wide with a few having much wider rivers.  With the ground scale in CWC2 a river 2" wide equates to 50 to 100m wide. I am sure that a river or canal of this width would have an insignificant effect on these missiles, unlike a river as wide the Rhine. Some gamers have streams narrower than this which would have even less of an effect.

I suggest the rule is amended to allow wire-guided missiles to be fired over narrow waterways (perhaps up to 4"/100mm wide) and not be permitted over waterways wider than this.

Thoughts?

Regards

Chris

Amongst the recce rules on P31 the table bottom right (Score Required to Hit) seems to be on the wrong page (it is also on P38).

Hi

On Page 50 it states that IATW attacks may only be used once in a turn.  House Rules on the CWC Facebook suggest IATW can fire twice, once as opportunity fire and once in player's own phase.

Infantry sections carry multiple LAW66 (British) and RPG (Soviet) and being able to fire only once seems to be very restrictive compared to the quantity of weapons they actually carried.

Being able to fire twice in a turn, as suggested in the house rules, seems more realistic

Thoughts?

Regards

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 24 May 2022, 11:34:09 PMOn Page 50 it states that IATW attacks may only be used once in a turn.  House Rules on the CWC Facebook suggest IATW can fire twice, once as opportunity fire and once in player's own phase.

Thanks Chris

This is a deliberate change - the challenge is that some IATW are 'throw-away' and some are reusable - and also that some formations carried many re-arms and some carried very few or had their IATW spread out.
The view I took was that the 2 shots per game turn was a bit too generous - especially for a lot of the heavier IATW or earlier ones. Some forces (the Dutch) have an option to buy two different types of IATW and they get an option to shoot twice per game turn.

As an aside a chap who came to the Pendraken stand at Partizan who was in Berlin in the 1980s stated that the British infantry squads were armed with 4 LAW each (!!!!) and that the 5 man teams were each allocated to a specific multi-storey car-park to use as a defensive point. So that's 20 IATW per squad. In training, you could fire the LAW from an upper storey and have thrown away the 'empty' tube and be almost on another floor by the time it hit the target. He also said that multi-storey car parks were selected as they were made from reinforced concrete, had great visibility, you had loads of exits and entrances, you could fire your LAW with no danger from the back-blast (in fact it often shot-out of the other side so acted to distract an enemy) and if you occupied the middle storeys you had great overhead protection from the air and from mortars. All theoretical of course ... but that was the thinking of how they'd have conducted street to street fighting, had it been necessary.

I just found a 1969 British Mech Battalion TOE, and it states each squad had 6x M72 LAW as well as the Carl Gustav, and, unusually, 2 LMG. So yes, not unusual to have lots of LAWs.
Even in WW2, the official allocation of Panzerfausts in the 1944 German army was 36 per company.

LAWs were generally considered as ammunition rather than weapons, so troops would take as many as they could blag and carry, depending on the mission.

Number of LAW was variable, 6 would be for mobile operations. 2nd GPMG is friom the track, not often dismounted, Normal tactics were to have a 3 man "Gun Group" and 5 man "Rifle Group" in a section attack the gun group would fire whilst the rifle group would assault.

Another couple from Vietnam; off table artillery for the US has no AP value, B52 referred to as 'high altitude strategic bomber' - I assume that restricts what AA/SAM can attack but nothing in the rules or special abilities to define it.

Quote from: sjb1001 on 26 May 2022, 12:22:32 PMAnother couple from Vietnam; off table artillery for the US has no AP value, B52 referred to as 'high altitude strategic bomber' - I assume that restricts what AA/SAM can attack but nothing in the rules or special abilities to define it.

That is taken into account by their Hits and Save values - but - again - let me check.
I'll also correct the off-table AP stats - generally they are usually the same as the AP stats with off-table units.

Many thanks

Quote from: Big Insect on 26 May 2022, 07:19:41 PMThat is taken into account by their Hits and Save values - but - again - let me check.
I'll also correct the off-table AP stats - generally they are usually the same as the AP stats with off-table units.

Many thanks

Possibly covered by the statement on P. 16 on visibility and being out of range of all but the largest SAMs?

Yes - but it easy enough to put a clarification statement into the appropriate list in the Special Rules section around which size SAMs that is.

The Special Rules tend to be for one-off impacts on specific lists.
So the mis-fire on the Sheridan's for example was 'fixed' after Vietnam - so there could be the argument that the 'Misfire' mechanism should only sit in the American Vietnam list - not for the later use of the Sheridan (for example).

The intention is to produce a PDF 'ready-reckoner' long-list of all these various mechanism for down-load - but that will happen after we have the vast majority of the army lists locked down.

Cheers
Mark

Hi, I just wanted to ask, what rules do letters A, R, and O stand for in unit notes/abilities?

The closest I can get is A for Amphibious and R for only fires in a 90 degree cone, which is weird for tanks.

I spent some time searching (case-sensitive, whole words) the rules PDF for it, but unlike S1, TI, H, I couldn't find anything that goes "marked by 'A'"

"A" is amphibious, "R" is restricted view, "O" is an open top, sides or rear.

First Hi. Tanks with an R - normally Soviet - reflect poor vision and doctrine to fight closed down. It normally also applies to assault guns.

Thanks! Would love it if it was explicitly stated in the rulebook (unless I just can't find it).

I'd also love some clarity on on unit entries/types. For example, most ACs have Wheeled, but Wheeled isn't explicitly stated in the army lists. So if I, say, look at 3M6 Shmel, 2P27 BRDM, it's just listed as an ATGW. Now, I know I can wiki a photo of it to see that it is, indeed, a wheeled vehicle, but I don't know if the dev intent is for it to act like one.

On a similar vein, all AFVs are stated to be tracked, but we all know that BTRs are all wheels, all the time.

Am I reading the rules right ( sadly never had the chance to play them)- MCLOS +2 to hit - so firing at a vehicle in the open would move for 4+ to needing to roll a 6. Oh, and hitting a vehicle in cover would be impossible?

I think I see two contradictory situations in close assault, if I'm reading things correctly.  There's a strong chance I'm not, so apologies in advance for any lack of comprehension on my part!

On page 43, paragraph 7, it states that an IFV can assault while loaded with passengers.  It would take its own CA value and add the passengers as a support unit.  So, an IFV has CA of 3 +1 for support = 4.

But on the chart on the top left of page 45 clearly states IFV with mounted infantry has a CA of 6?  Or is another +1 added for support as per page 43, for a total of 7?

Unless it gets a CA of 6 if the passengers are an infantry platoon (like panzergrenadiers) but only 4 if there was a Milan team onboard?

I also am a trifle confused on transporting units, and again apologies in advance if I missed a crucial phrase somewhere, but it seems that anything with a "transport" characteristic can therefore move a towed gun as per page 35?  So a BMP can haul a Sprut?

Despite my nitpicking, I'm really looking forward to putting CWC on the table again.  As you've said (if I recall correctly), it's an evolution not a revolution of the rules.  You've done a tremendous job and deserve a round of applause!  Thanks!

Quote from: JcDent on 28 May 2022, 06:59:15 AMHi, I just wanted to ask, what rules do letters A, R, and O stand for in unit notes/abilities?

The closest I can get is A for Amphibious and R for only fires in a 90 degree cone, which is weird for tanks.

I spent some time searching (case-sensitive, whole words) the rules PDF for it, but unlike S1, TI, H, I couldn't find anything that goes "marked by 'A'"

I think we'll need to do a bit of an Army List explanation sheet for some of these.  There's a few that are carried over from CWC-1 but need updating, so all of the O designations have been changed to the Exposed special ability instead.  We've found and edited most of them in the online lists but there may still be a few hiding somewhere.

The R is still Restricted Arc so has the 90 degree limitation you've mentioned.  This isn't always due to the traversing ability of the turret but also due to manpower I think?  Pete Jones explained it better years ago on the old BKC forums, I'll have to see if I can find his post.

The Danger Close rules on P44 are new to CWC and allows either player to use on-table or off-table artillery to attack or defend themselves as part of a close assault.  It says that a 10cm diameter template is used for this and of course with this you could hit your own troops too! Normally only off-table artillery use HE templates for standard indirect fire, as on-table fire use attack dice against one specified target and no template. So now I'm confused! 

I understand why off-table artillery might use a reduced size template for this but not on-table artillery, as they do not use templates under any other circumstances. Is there any reason why on-table artillery use a template for this and do not attack a single target as normal, when using the Danger-Close rule? 

Any thoughts regarding firing ATGW over narrow waterways (see my previous post of 24th May)?

Real world answer is maybe, it pepends on depth and current also guide wire insulation. Also some of the earliest Soviet missiles were radio guided so not affected by crossing water. But safest answer for any rules writer is that no 1st or second generation missiles can fire over water. Any water courses that
 are too small to to short out the control would not appear on table.

Quick question on Air Support... on p.58, the table states that full AFVs are hit on a 6 by aircraft. On p.59, the example shows a PT-76 being hit on 4+. Is the table or the example correct - or is this a different situation because in the example the aircraft is concentrating attacks?

No firing ATGW over water was in CWC1 rules, but several players must have felt strongly enough about this for the House rules, that can be found in  the files section in the CWC Facebook page, include a line that says ATGW can be fired over waterways up to 300mm wide.

Several of the other CWC1 house rules have found their way into the CWC2 rules, such as helicopter movement, and its a shame that the ATGW rule didnt! Although I believe 300mm is too wide for this, as far as I am concerned a canal or river that can be bridged by a MT-55 or Chieftain bridge layer (upto 100cm wide) should not affect ATGW firing across it. So I will continue to play the house rule, but amended to max 100mm.

Hopefully this rule will be oficially amended to allow a level of ATGW fire across narrow waterways 😊

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 28 May 2022, 01:22:46 PMAm I reading the rules right ( sadly never had the chance to play them)- MCLOS +2 to hit - so firing at a vehicle in the open would move for 4+ to needing to roll a 6. Oh, and hitting a vehicle in cover would be impossible?

I just had the same question about MCLOS as well.

Another suggestion: "The target unit is in gunpit/etc" modifiers would be better off in the Firing Modifiers table rather save value mods since they modify the shooting dice rather than save value.

E: w/r/t Command Unit AA fire, how does it work? Can they only fire against Air Strikes in opportunity fire/etc.? Does that mean that helos are immune to them?

The US sample list seems to have rolled the Bradley series of vehicles into/under the Recce heading
 
The Brits are the only one of the three lists where the units under the Recce heading are listed as having Recce capability

Recoilless Rifles (p49) appear to be able to engage in indirect AT fire at targets completely outside of their line of sight, by using (what reads as being essentially) the same mechanics as on-table mortars do for their firing

Can the artillery listed as "on Table" in the lists be bought (at the same price?) and used off-table too? 
 
(Reading the rules for off- and on-table artillery and looking at the lists it sort of reads as if the artillery types listed under "on table" in each list now function as on-table infantry support weapons, and it's unclear whether they can also be used/purchased as off table area fire batteries. All of the Off Table area fire weapons inthe lists now (broadly speaking) are of 155mm+ calibre.)

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 28 May 2022, 01:22:46 PMAm I reading the rules right ( sadly never had the chance to play them)- MCLOS +2 to hit - so firing at a vehicle in the open would move for 4+ to needing to roll a 6. Oh, and hitting a vehicle in cover would be impossible?

I believe that means you add +2 to your roll to hit - so against a vehicle in the open you would need 2+

QuoteI believe that means you add +2 to your roll to hit - so against a vehicle in the open you would need 2+

I read it the other way as MCLOS is not normally considered an effective system

Not my field but it depends what it is compared with surely?

MCLOS may not be as good as SACLOS but it's a huge step up from a panzerfaust!

Quote from: madaxeman on 30 May 2022, 10:19:05 AMThe US sample list seems to have rolled the Bradley series of vehicles into/under the Recce heading

> It is a typo Tim (a copying omission) - and was picked up after we'd gone to print - all the Bradleys are in the Armour section in the on-line American list.
 
The Brits are the only one of the three lists where the units under the Recce heading are listed as having Recce capability

> again - a pre-print error - all units in the Recce sections, across all lists, automatically have Recce capabilities as a given, and are points-costed accordingly

Recoilless Rifles (p49) appear to be able to engage in indirect AT fire at targets completely outside of their line of sight, by using (what reads as being essentially) the same mechanics as on-table mortars do for their firing

> Good spot - that is not the intention - but the wording implies that it is possible. Thanks - we will correct that

Can the artillery listed as "on Table" in the lists be bought (at the same price?) and used off-table too?

Yes ... but in most instances this is restricted but the Notes will specify that. Generally Light artillery is usally listed as being both on & off table capable. SP-Guns are often on & off table - some lists like the soviets have a specific rules that allows them to field all SP-Guns on table - but it is not normal NATO doctrine to have their heavier guns (SP or otherwise) close to the main battlefront. Rocket launchers and Naval gun are not allowed on-table - unless you have a very big table or a very specific scenario. It's a difficult one as some players like to have even their off-table artillery depicted on-table - that is fine as long as they are designated as off-table so that you opponent knows not to attack them with on-table weaponry - hope that helps a bit
 
(Reading the rules for off- and on-table artillery and looking at the lists it sort of reads as if the artillery types listed under "on table" in each list now function as on-table infantry support weapons, and it's unclear whether they can also be used/purchased as off table area fire batteries. All of the Off Table area fire weapons in the lists now (broadly speaking) are of 155mm+ calibre.)

Correct - but this was pretty much always the case (in CWCI) - on-table artillery - with very few specific and noted exceptions were grouped into 3 broad categories - (see Page 27 CWC-I) - Light/Medium/Heavy - with standard factors. They did not fire templated area fire but fired at individual specific targets either on an LoS or LoF basis. This was also then carried over into stats for the off-table Artillery support.
So no change from CWC-I.

Responses in line in bold (I'm not shouting - just making my replies clear - hopefully  :) )
Thanks

Quote from: Raider4 on 28 May 2022, 07:25:48 AM"A" is amphibious, "R" is restricted view, "O" is an open top, sides or rear.

As stated by Raider4 - these all appear in the Special Abilities section on Page 91.

The one change - that we are picking up in the errata is "O" or Open topped etc. This has been changed to 'Exposed' in most of the lists, and represents thin top armour as well as the vehicle either being open topped or sided etc.
NB: Exposed only applies to vehicles with a Save factor - Soft vehicles are already considered vulnerable enough!

The 'R' designation reflects a lot of issues faced by tank crews - not least of which is that when moving at speed across a battlefield with hatches-down the view from inside the turret is very restricted. That influences what the crew can see and target - not the 360 degree traverse that most tank turrets have. It can also reflect a smaller than average crew or even a situation where the commander is also the fire-control member of the crew.

Our intention is to produce a comprehensive Special Abilities QRS to cover all the Special Abilities and Special Rules, as only the most common appear in the main rules book - as lots are specific to just a single or very few army/list and appear a either Special Rules or Abilities at the bottom of each list.
But we will do that once we have a few more lists published.

Thanks
Mark

Cheers
Mark

QuoteAm I reading the rules right ( sadly never had the chance to play them)- MCLOS +2 to hit - so firing at a vehicle in the open would move for 4+ to needing to roll a 6. Oh, and hitting a vehicle in cover would be impossible?

You are reading it correctly FP.

MCLOS stands for Manual Command to Line of Sight.
The 'operator' must track the missile and the target simultaneously whilst guiding the missile in-flight.
Not an easy task on a dangerous battlefield, using a joy-stick and a periscope type sight.
The MCLOS system requires considerable training and practice to master, since even a minor disruption in the gunner's concentration will most likely cause a miss.
These guidance systems have marginal accuracy even on tank-sized targets, even with perfect, unobscured line-of-sight from the 'operator', due to erratic flight paths requiring timely manual corrections and the fact that even a tiny movement on the steering joy-stick is magnified over a long distance into a large divergence.

Also, as the missile has to emit a magnesium flare at its base (a bit like a tracer round) for the 'operator' to be able to track it, it makes the firing unit extremely easy to spot/target for retaliatory fire.

Typically the missile was also guided by a wire - or pair of wires (although later versions moved to a radio guidance systems) but that also meant that accuracy was further lowered where a target was in terrain or moving rapidly through terrain (such as through low scrub or open woodland).

In Vietnam - US troops are recorded as having a c.10% hit rate with their SS11 MCLOS ATGWs and against the Israelis the Syrian ATGW Sagger crews were down to as low as 2% by the end of the Yom Kippur war, having started at c.25%.
But 25% hit rate appears (from everything I've read) to have been a good hit rate, in ideal circumstances with a very experienced crew.

So yes - if the target AFV is normally 4+ to hit in the open, MCLOS takes that down to a 6 to hit, and if the target is in terrain it is impossible to hit it. Harsh, but I think that is a fair view of its effectiveness. With a d:6 mechanism it also means we don't have a lot of flexibility as we are having to accommodate other (more recent and more sophisticated) ATGW systems and create factors to accommodate their peculiarities as well.

Of course in the period most MCLOS missiles were deployed, there is little (or no) ERA types of armour, and so if your MCLOS missile hits the target it is usually going to inflict unsavable hits on it.

Hope that helps?
Mark

First MCLOS is normally written MACLOS. Certain supposedly MACLOS types are better, specifically Swingfire are much better as they have some semi-auto features built in.

Only the earliest Soviet ATGW are radio guided, 3rd gen are laser beam riders and so much faster at the expense of a massive min range. The radio guided ones were abandoned as they were easy to jam.

QuoteThanks! Would love it if it was explicitly stated in the rulebook (unless I just can't find it).

I'd also love some clarity on on unit entries/types. For example, most ACs have Wheeled, but Wheeled isn't explicitly stated in the army lists. So if I, say, look at 3M6 Shmel, 2P27 BRDM, it's just listed as an ATGW. Now, I know I can wiki a photo of it to see that it is, indeed, a wheeled vehicle, but I don't know if the dev intent is for it to act like one.

On a similar vein, all AFVs are stated to be tracked, but we all know that BTRs are all wheels, all the time.

Thanks for the observations JcDent.

All Armoured Cars are wheeled.
But all AFVs are not necessarily tracked.

The AFV category encompasses a whole range of vehicle types. A BRDM (which is wheeled) might be an APC (troop carrier) or an ATGW vehicle (SP:ATGW) or a Mortar carrier (SP:MO) or a Recce vehicle (AFV). They are relatively lightly armoured when compared to a main battle tank - but still offer better cover than your standard 'Soft' transport.
Likewise, a vehicle like a South African Ratel (for example) looks a lot like an armoured car - with wheels and a much more powerful anti-tank gun, but also deploys troops, so it is classified as in the IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle category) but will appear alongside tracked and more heavily armoured IFVs like a Marder or a BMP (for example) in the Armour section.

We also have one-off 'oddities' like the IDF Merkava main battle tank that can carry a squad of infantry as well.
It's debatable whether it should really be classified as an IFV or an AFV - I went for AFV as it's primarily a tank.

Typically if a unit is wheeled or tracked and also has an ATGW capability it is designed as TYPE: SP:ATGW*. But the fact that it has a movement distance (other than a - indicating that it is static) indicates that it is a vehicle.
*The Type designation of your ATGW BRDM sounds like an errata. I'll check that & correct if necessary.

Generally, the lists will only indicate a specific characteristic in the Notes section if that is an unusual characteristic - so the Ratel would be designated as: TYPE:IFV and in the Notes section: Wheeled, Transport (1), MPV (mine protected vehicle), and will have the ability to upgrade to Recce Support (@ 20pts per unit). 

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 30 May 2022, 02:29:36 PMFirst MCLOS is normally written MACLOS. Certain supposedly MACLOS types are better, specifically Swingfire are much better as they have some semi-auto features built in.

Only the earliest Soviet ATGW are radio guided, 3rd gen are laser beam riders and so much faster at the expense of a massive min range. The radio guided ones were abandoned as they were easy to jam.

We come back to the point I have made (on a number of occasions previously) Ian, that within the confines of a 1-6  shooting mechanism, and at the level of obstruction we are playing to, we cannot accommodate all minor variations to all weapons.
So as far as we are concerned MCLOS is MCLOS
Just the same as ERA is ERA, and Tandem warheads are Tandem warheads.
We will even lump certain weapons together - so that an 81mm mortar and an 83mm mortar will have the same stats.

Thanks
Mark

This is not a weapon specific - certain missiles are 1 1/2 Gen, more accurate that the 1st tranch but still manual. Fixed variuos horrors such as reversed control movements so much easier to fly.

I also note that Image Intensifiers are omited still. These are passive devices unlike IR so do not give away the users position. They do pick up IR using elements at night as these are active, so do elements equiped with IR who are not projecting, using their veiwers.

QuoteYou are reading it correctly FP.



So yes - if the target AFV is normally 4+ to hit in the open, MCLOS takes that down to a 6 to hit, and if the target is in terrain it is impossible to hit it. Harsh, but I think that is a fair view of its effectiveness. With a d:6 mechanism it also means we don't have a lot of flexibility as we are having to accommodate other (more recent and more sophisticated) ATGW systems and create factors to accommodate their peculiarities as well.

Of course in the period most MCLOS missiles were deployed, there is little (or no) ERA types of armour, and so if your MCLOS missile hits the target it is usually going to inflict unsavable hits on it.

Hope that helps?
Mark

Thanks- I just wanted to know if not being able to hit vehicles in cover was intended.

Can the artillery listed as "on Table" in the lists be bought (at the same price?) and used off-table too?

Yes ... but in most instances this is restricted but the Notes will specify that. Generally Light artillery is usally listed as being both on & off table capable. SP-Guns are often on & off table - some lists like the soviets have a specific rules that allows them to field all SP-Guns on table..

OK... so I think that you're saying that the default options for artillery listed in the "On Table" section of the lists is that they can be used Off Table, and also On Table in some scenarios or if the lists have a note that allows that ?

I'm comparing and contrasting here the Soviet on-table artillery which:
- just has a single-digit for "hits" in the lists, just like their off-table artillery
- has a note in the list saying up to 6 units can be on table (in any scenario)

vs the British on-table artillery, which
- all have both a range and a number of hits generated (both of which seem to be in line with the generic rules for on table artillery)
- have no notes in the lists about being on-table, so ... does that mean they only deploy on table in some scenarios?

Quote from: madaxeman on 30 May 2022, 04:25:38 PMCan the artillery listed as "on Table" in the lists be bought (at the same price?) and used off-table too?

Yes ... but in most instances this is restricted but the Notes will specify that. Generally Light artillery is usally listed as being both on & off table capable. SP-Guns are often on & off table - some lists like the soviets have a specific rules that allows them to field all SP-Guns on table..

OK... so I think that you're saying that the default options for artillery listed in the "On Table" section of the lists is that they can be used Off Table, and also On Table in some scenarios or if the lists have a note that allows that ?

I'm comparing and contrasting here the Soviet on-table artillery which:
- just has a single-digit for "hits" in the lists, just like their off-table artillery
- has a note in the list saying up to 6 units can be on table (in any scenario)

vs the British on-table artillery, which
- all have both a range and a number of hits generated (both of which seem to be in line with the generic rules for on table artillery)
- have no notes in the lists about being on-table, so ... does that mean they only deploy on table in some scenarios?

I'll double check Tim - but the 'standard' for both on-table and off-table Artillery is 'X/100H' on-table and just 'X' off-table. Unless, as with the Soviet off-table SP-Art it is specifically allowed on-table in Scenarios - therefore has the 'X/100H' stats.
But other than that exception - if a scenario says no off-table Artillery/Air/Assets that should be complied with. Obviously, as is always the case with any of the Commander rules, if you are playing a particular campaign or 'historic' battle and you have off-table artillery close to the battle-front then by all means do depict them on-table.
With regards to the other artillery question - you can most certainly use on-table artillery off-table - that is no problem. In fact, you could use a mix of on & off table for the same on-table list line - if you are allowed to buy enough artillery units to do that. Where it gets complex is using Off-table artillery on-table.
Generally most of the larger calibre towed guns (155mm or over) would not have been deployed near the battlefront (at least not near enough that they could be targeted with on-table weapons).
However, if you do want to deploy them on-table - they are best represented as Rear Line and Deploy (if they are Towed) and I'd recommend you buy their Tows as well, as they may need to redeploy if the fighting gets too close to them, but MRL or Naval guns are only for off-table deployment.

NB: The 3 'example' printed rules book lists 'suffered' slightly from a fast approaching print deadline - but I will pick up that point and we will ensure it is clarified in the on-line lists.

many thanks
Mark

QuoteYou are reading it correctly FP.

Thank you for the historical background on the mclos, it was a very interesting and illuminating read.

In the CWC2 game, its +2 modifier means it has a harder time hitting, does this mean that other positive hit modifiers work that way? Is shooting inside half range also meant to be more difficult?

No it's +1 Die, not +1 to die roll. Represents the MG's

Hi

Dunno if this is the right place but I spotted a couple of mistakes.
Firstly
Pathfinder example on pg 32 modifier for fixed wing is printed as -1 when in the text its a +1.

Secondly
 The mounting example on pg 37 is a bit of a mess.
It says that the infantry and artillery are removed from the orders group when it meant infantry and truck.

Also it confuses deployment in the text, it reads" infantry will dismount and guns deploy from a vehicle". However in the example the infantry and AT gun have dismounted and unhitched then the gun will have to spend another order to deploy. It needs to be clarified as that means a gun doesn't deploy from a vehicle at all but unhitches.

Sorry to bring this to your attention if I'm wrong at all please don't hesitate to call me a numbty.

Jim

QuoteHi

Dunno if this is the right place but I spotted a couple of mistakes.
Firstly
Pathfinder example on pg 32 modifier for fixed wing is printed as -1 when in the text its a +1.

> this is one of those cases where I'll need to work out an example as doing it in my head is not working for me.
I'll get back to you on that one .... :)

Secondly
 The mounting example on pg 37 is a bit of a mess.
It says that the infantry and artillery are removed from the orders group when it meant infantry and truck.

Also it confuses deployment in the text, it reads" infantry will dismount and guns deploy from a vehicle". However in the example the infantry and AT gun have dismounted and unhitched then the gun will have to spend another order to deploy. It needs to be clarified as that means a gun doesn't deploy from a vehicle at all but unhitches.

> you are correct Jim - the error is in the section in brackets at the bottom of the example (As they have been removed from the order group, the infantry and the artillery units can take no further actions this turn.) Artillery should read Truck of course. I'll pick that up as a correction

> with regards to the observation about unhitching/dismounting v deploying - I can see your point - I am sure we can make that clearer.

Sorry to bring this to your attention if I'm wrong at all please don't hesitate to call me a numbty.

> not at all Jim - this is exactly why we have an errata thread - I appreciate the input. No matter how many times I've read (& re-read) all the drafts & proofs things will always slip through.

Jim

Hi Jim
This is exactly the right place to bring these up, and well spotted.
My comments are in-line above.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 31 May 2022, 11:39:09 AMNo it's +1 Die, not +1 to die roll. Represents the MG's

Oh! In this case, it would be really helpful if the notation in the tables and such was always Xd6, even when it's a 1d6. It's easy to get lost in a system where both target number and dice mods exist.

Thats the way it's always been. If not blame Mark !

Quote from: JcDent on 01 June 2022, 09:45:29 AMOh! In this case, it would be really helpful if the notation in the tables and such was always Xd6, even when it's a 1d6. It's easy to get lost in a system where both target number and dice mods exist.

I've tried to stick to this type of system throughout so any missing ones are my fault there.  All dice adjustments should be xd6 so I'll keep an eye out for any others and get them changed.

Evening all. as posted on the FB Group we had our first trial run last night.

It generated a few questions, which upon reading the thread have been answered elsewhere, so please ignore those text below copied from that post as I'm too lazy to type it out again.

"If you are going to playtest a game, why "Nott" do it with 7 players and three full Regiments. Rob N brought out the Poles vs the 11th Cav with Canadian and German backup.

A few questions."

1. End phase it says all sides remove hits, in the latest BKC only the active player does so, we find it adds an interesting aspect as if you carry over hits into your own turn you have to think about activation of those units if they are likely to be hit by reaction fire. Why the change?

2. General view, why are some artillery are only listed as on board, for instance the M109. After the retirement of the M110, the 109 is the only option for artillery for the Americans, so you don't get the option of any off board assets?

2a. Additionally Onboard artillery like the 122mm 2S1 have a max range of 100cm in the lists, but a M1A1 is 175?  The 2S1 has a RL range of over 15km? In the US lists, an M106 120mm mortar has a range of 200cm, whilst a M109A6 Paladin has a max range of 100? Paladins have a 25km range, or 40km if using the Excalibur round.

3. It suggests that attack helicopters use the stabilisation rules, but no listing  of the S rating is in the lists, or do we assume S2?

4. Do vehicles in BUA get the advantage of reduced attack dice due to the building type ie -2 for brick, or does that only apply to deployed forces as the example specifically mentions infantry? Does this also mean that if you fire a bazooka (3 dice vs AP) at a fortification, with the -3d6 per unit firing, the infantry inside is immune?


When tanks have twice the range as artillery, time for the tipex  :D

Continuing the fight next week.

https://www.facebook.com/LeedsWargamesClub/photos/pcb.5087366254684049/5087364711350870

Andy D.

QuoteEvening all. as posted on the FB Group we had our first trial run last night.

It generated a few questions, which upon reading the thread have been answered elsewhere, so please ignore those text below copied from that post as I'm too lazy to type it out again.

"If you are going to playtest a game, why "Nott" do it with 7 players and three full Regiments. Rob N brought out the Poles vs the 11th Cav with Canadian and German backup.

A few questions."

1. End phase it says all sides remove hits, in the latest BKC only the active player does so, we find it adds an interesting aspect as if you carry over hits into your own turn you have to think about activation of those units if they are likely to be hit by reaction fire. Why the change?
> Actually - in BKCIV there is an errata update that states that all player remove Hits at the end of the game turn. That is the correct way - it was an error in BKCIV that was corrected and is the way things worked in CWC-I and now in CWC-II.

2. General view, why are some artillery are only listed as on board, for instance the M109. After the retirement of the M110, the 109 is the only option for artillery for the Americans, so you don't get the option of any off board assets?

> You can use all Off-table artillery on-table, if you desire - with the exception of Naval Guns and MLRs.
As you point out below the MLRs have such a long range that they are not usually found anywhere near the front line.

However, I'm not quite sure why you'd want to do so?
On-table they don't fire as an area template weapon and can only target a single unit. Using the standard factors and ranges, as shown in the table on Page 52 in the rules.

But that's fine to do so, if you want. However, what I'd do is make sure that all the off-table artillery deployed on-table have the 'Rear Line' attribute and (unless they are Self-propelled) they should also be classified as Deploy and all should Restricted.

2a. Additionally Onboard artillery like the 122mm 2S1 have a max range of 100cm in the lists, but a M1A1 is 175?  The 2S1 has a RL range of over 15km? In the US lists, an M106 120mm mortar has a range of 200cm, whilst a M109A6 Paladin has a max range of 100? Paladins have a 25km range, or 40km if using the Excalibur round.

> this is where we have a rules mechanism to prevent miss-use of artillery as very powerful long-range AT guns on-table. If you look at Page 52 in the rules, you'll see that there is a table with standard factors for on-table artillery - all have 100cm range and all have an 'H' classification (so can only damage armour at under half range).
The rules are primarily designed for Artillery over 100mm to be fielded off-table. That way you don't worry about the ranges, which as you state are often so large that you'd need a table a kilometre wide to get the ranges to be vaguely realistic. There are a few exceptions to this - such as 120mm+ mortars - which are often deployed much closer to the front line. The Soviet SP-Guns are often fielded in close support of their armoured formations and so they are specifically picked out for this capability. Generally, pre-1990 NATO artillery, unless it was specific infantry support guns was not deployed in the same way.
NB: on-table artillery is not commanded by an FAO either - they must be commanded by the CO or an HQ.

3. It suggests that attack helicopters use the stabilisation rules, but no listing  of the S rating is in the lists, or do we assume S2?
> Please use S1 - this is an Errata.

4. Do vehicles in BUA get the advantage of reduced attack dice due to the building type ie -2 for brick, or does that only apply to deployed forces as the example specifically mentions infantry? Does this also mean that if you fire a bazooka (3 dice vs AP) at a fortification, with the -3d6 per unit firing, the infantry inside is immune?

> Yes - but in the case of the Bazooka you need to get close (under half-range) as you get the +1 d:6 for shooting at the Building/Fortification under half-range. You can also use the AT factors against fortification/buildings but are not restricted to half-range (as the H only applies against armour).  Does that make sense.


When tanks have twice the range as artillery, time for the tipex  :D

I understand your point - however, the game is primarily played in a way that most Artillery is deployed off-table.
As such, it means that off-table artillery effectively has no Maximum range on-table - it is just subject to its FAO (or CO/HQ in some instances) being able to have LoS to the target and to be able to spot it and call it in.
The reason that on-table artillery can only target a single unit and don't have an area template (unlike off-table units) is that on-table artillery units can be ordered to shoot during multiple turns in a game turn. As they are deemed to be shooting over open-sights. Off-table artillery has templates as they can only fire once per game turn.

Hope that makes sense?

Continuing the fight next week.

https://www.facebook.com/LeedsWargamesClub/photos/pcb.5087366254684049/5087364711350870

Andy D.

Hi Andy D
Thanks for the thoughts and observations - I've answered the questions in line in-bold above.
FYI - I am deliberately not on Facebook - so if you need further guidance please do come to the Forum.
We are looking at holding a weekend CWC-II 'Book Camp' later in the year - if you & the Leeds 'crew' would be interested - message me directly please?
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 02 June 2022, 10:22:53 PMHi Andy D
Thanks for the thoughts and observations - I've answered the questions in line in-bold above.
FYI - I am deliberately not on Facebook - so if you need further guidance please do come to the Forum.
We are looking at holding a weekend CWC-II 'Book Camp' later in the year - if you & the Leeds 'crew' would be interested - message me directly please?
Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark.

I get the general idea, but we have several conflicting statements.

For example take a M109, according to page 52, they can be ordered against individual bases multiple times per turn depending on successful command rolls as per previous rules, which is fine. As large artillery, they get 5d6 per barrage.

On page 115 it says it has a AP of 4 & AT of 4 (no range mentioned). The PDF has been revised to say AP4/100 and AT4/100H, but this is irrelevant as the rule on page 52 says ignore the Army list values, but the rules or IG say use the AT value?

Therefore I read it that the page 52 rule is only to be used in direct fire situations, and indirect on board fire uses the AP and AT stats as directed by the IG rule, but with no range restriction and no AP round?

Also H was used in previous editions to indicate that attacks against armoured units could only be made at half range, as this are now separated, why have a H designation when you could just state the range, as in have AP 4/100 and AT4/50?

The M109 according to the list is not allowed offtable, but the equivalent 155 with the M198 has 4d6.

As all of the listed off table artillery with the exception of the MLRS was retired by 1992, not having the 109 available off board does seem a little strange.

So for the only conventional artillery system available to the US post Gulf War has 5d6/100 (direct) or 4d6 (4d6/100 &4d6/50 in the PDF)depending on how you read the rules, and no offboard capability at all.

As to the bootcamp, yes, we would be very interested, in fact we can host if required, as we own our own 3000sq/ft gaming centre, and Leon is more than welcome to repeat his trip down with the mobile store and sell his wares :)

Andy

Quote from: Leodis on 03 June 2022, 02:07:54 PMAlso H was used in previous editions to indicate that attacks against armoured units could only be made at half range, as this are now separated, why have a H designation when you could just state the range, as in have AP 4/100 and AT4/50?

I think this is discussed in another thread. The AT (H) is that way so that an AT 4/50 H weapon would be usable to 25cm against armor, while the weapon would be usable out to 50cm against other hard targets like buildings, bunkers, etc.

Having discussed it with Andy, I think I get it now (??) and my options for my Polish 2S1s would be,
1. Remain off table and be requested only once per turn by FAO - as 122m would be an area template with 3 dice per model(either barrage or concentrated). 
2. Used as on-table requested multiple times by HQ/CO as allowed by command rules as if infantry guns.  This is where the rules/stats started to confuse me -  but I think I would use 3 dice per model hitting an individual target model.  According to the army list pdf the factor is 3/100, according to the Soviet list in the book it's 3 dice, according to the chart on p52 it's 4/100 H.  Surely when used as on table indirect fire there should be no range restriction  as that's just nonsense (indirect fire is indirect fire whether it's coming from on or off table?)  So I intend to use as 3 dice (as 122mm always gave been) - hitting an AFV on a six etc as per usual.
3. If firing direct fire - which should be rare and only in an emergency I would use the 3/100 and 3/100 H (in effect 3/50 against armour) - perfectly happy with a range restriction as this represents the flat trajectory open sight /poor direct targeting that a 2S1 is not exactly designed to do.

So for most of the time it's 3 dice off table via FAO with a template, 3 dice on table via HQ/CO at a model, and 3/100 or 3/100 H in direct fire.  And I can ignore the p52 table and any contradictory bits in the rules or rulebook army lists.

That makes it simple enough and to me works absolutely fine.

I'm not really bothered about minor bits in the army lists as the amount of data is so big and we'll always argue over things like availability.  So for example the Polish Warsaw Pact Grade 1 doesn't include Su-25s but my list for 1989 shows the Poles had them, so I just use the stats from the Russian list - not a problem and can be corrected via the pdfs if needed at a later date.

Looking forward to my bold counterattack next week when my T55s will slice through those pesky M1s.....

Must remember my Hinds are S1 and armoured if he tries to hit them with a vulcan...

Rob N

QuoteHi Mark.

I get the general idea, but we have several conflicting statements.

For example take a M109, according to page 52, they can be ordered against individual bases multiple times per turn depending on successful command rolls as per previous rules, which is fine. As large artillery, they get 5d6 per barrage. > yes, but only for off-table fire - on-table artillery never gets a template. But I get that you understand that  :)

On page 115 it says it has a AP of 4 & AT of 4 (no range mentioned).
> the no range bit was an errata - corrected in the on-line list

The PDF has been revised to say AP4/100 and AT4/100H, but this is irrelevant as the rule on page 52 says ignore the Army list values, but the rules or IG say use the AT value?

> yes but in this example - the rules stats, Page 52 and the on-line army lists all have the same AP & AT stats (4d6). The range is governed by the fact that it is an on-table gun - all of which (should) have a range of x/100 for both AP and AT (but there may be specific exceptions).
NB: this is not an IG - unless it is specifically specified as such.

Therefore I read it that the page 52 rule is only to be used in direct fire situations, and indirect on board fire uses the AP and AT stats as directed by the IG rule, but with no range restriction and no AP round?

> No - the Rule on Page 52 applies to all on-table artillery (except IGs) and to both LoS and LOF shooting.

I see your point about LoF and AP rounds v LoS and AT rounds. As the logical approach is that AT rounds can only be fired over direct sights (not as dropping fire). However, with on-table artillery the AT stat actually represents heavier HE type rounds dropping on top of an armoured target. So there is no LoS/LoF comparison, unlike an IG. You use AT against armoured targets (that you want to cause Hits on) or can use AP against armoured target at the full AP range, that you want to attempt to Suppress (but not cause Hits against).

The M109 is not classified as an Infantry Gun (not in the same way as a 25pdr or Otto Melara might - for example) as it doesn't specifically carry direct LoS AT rounds*. But even if it was to be classified as an IG, most IGs have also had their on-table ranges restricted to x/100 | x/100H as well (but there are - as always - some exceptions).
This is specifically to stop larger calibre artillery being used as powerful AT guns - which is generally not how they were used (by NATO). Your on-table M106 (towed or SP) has factors of AP:4/100|AT:4/100H. It is therefore much more effective as an off-table asset.
*NB: I am aware that in Jan'16 there were tests firing of HVP ammo with an M109 Paladin - but that is - for now - outside the scope of the rules - although HVP ammo does exits in FWC

Also H was used in previous editions to indicate that attacks against armoured units could only be made at half range, as this are now separated, why have a H designation when you could just state the range, as in have AP 4/100 and AT4/50?

The M109 according to the list is not allowed offtable, but the equivalent 155 with the M198 has 4d6.

>You can use any on-table artillery over 100mm off-table - that needs a clarification note.
That is me making assumptions around understanding, apologies.

As all of the listed off table artillery with the exception of the MLRS was retired by 1992, not having the 109 available off board does seem a little strange.

> I agree - and I'll look at that - I suspect that some of the issues we had with the in-print lists have not been picked up in the on-line lists. I'll look into that. But, yes, it should be available off-table and on-table

So for the only conventional artillery system available to the US post Gulf War has 5d6/100 (direct) or 4d6 (4d6/100 &4d6/50 in the PDF)depending on how you read the rules, and no offboard capability at all.
> that is not the intention  :) I'll see what I can do to correct that. Although I suspect that as the US was very good at standardising equipment, it wont have the levels of diversity that we see on the Soviet or even Chinese lists.

As to the bootcamp, yes, we would be very interested, in fact we can host if required, as we own our own 3000sq/ft gaming centre, and Leon is more than welcome to repeat his trip down with the mobile store and sell his wares :)

Andy

Thanks Andy - comments in-line - in bold - above.

The fundamental principal around artillery (put Mortars to one side for now) is that the game is structured so that the vast majority of artillery should be bought as Off-table.
As such it fires once per game turn and uses templated area fire and is commanded by FAOs (& occasionally COs & HQs).

On-table artillery can fire multiple times per game-turn (as many times as it received a successful Command, or as an Initiative or Opportunity fire action) - but only fires at a single designated unit (it can potentially change its target with each order). No on-table artillery uses area templates.

NB: The 'H' on the on-table artillery is there (as it is with IATW & RR/RCLs) because you need to use the AT stats against fortifications and buildings and the 'H' doesn't apply against them, + you get the +1d6 under half-range if shooting AT at units in buildings and fortifications.
I suspect that I'll need to issue a clarification errata on this (as you are the 2nd person picking up on this).

Great idea on the offer of a boot camp venue - let me chat to Leon and others and see what we can arrange.

Cheers
Mark

QuoteHaving discussed it with Andy, I think I get it now (??) and my options for my Polish 2S1s would be,
1. Remain off table and be requested only once per turn by FAO - as 122m would be an area template with 3 dice per model(either barrage or concentrated). 

> sounds like a good plan. Many players create an off-table 'artillery park' - with their off-table assets in it (artillery, helicopters, aircraft etc) - I use a small rectangular wooded tray that I've stuck some green felt on - it helps me to remember what I've got!!!

2. Used as on-table requested multiple times by HQ/CO as allowed by command rules as if infantry guns.  This is where the rules/stats started to confuse me -  but I think I would use 3 dice per model hitting an individual target model.  According to the army list pdf the factor is 3/100, according to the Soviet list in the book it's 3 dice, according to the chart on p52 it's 4/100 H. 
Surely when used as on table indirect fire there should be no range restriction  as that's just nonsense (indirect fire is indirect fire whether it's coming from on or off table?) 

> this is a long-standing rules mechanism - it is designed to stop players using their on-table artillery to dominate the table-top battlefield, in a way that they just wouldn't have done.
Soviet tac.doc did however have certain SP-artillery that was trained to right up in the battlefront, supporting the MRRs in an assault. But the range restriction is deliberate. But you can of course play the rules as you wish, as long as your opponent is happy with that  :) Generally, I've seen a couple of Polish players ditch most of their long-tube artillery and buy the big mortars for on-table effectiveness.

So I intend to use as 3 dice (as 122mm always gave been) - hitting an AFV on a six etc as per usual.
3. If firing direct fire - which should be rare and only in an emergency I would use the 3/100 and 3/100 H (in effect 3/50 against armour) - perfectly happy with a range restriction as this represents the flat trajectory open sight /poor direct targeting that a 2S1 is not exactly designed to do.

So for most of the time it's 3 dice off table via FAO with a template, 3 dice on table via HQ/CO at a model, and 3/100 or 3/100 H in direct fire.  And I can ignore the p52 table and any contradictory bits in the rules or rulebook army lists. > your choice on ignoring the AP distance  :), but you are spot on this the rest of it

That makes it simple enough and to me works absolutely fine.

I'm not really bothered about minor bits in the army lists as the amount of data is so big and we'll always argue over things like availability.  So for example the Polish Warsaw Pact Grade 1 doesn't include Su-25s but my list for 1989 shows the Poles had them, so I just use the stats from the Russian list - not a problem and can be corrected via the pdfs if needed at a later date.
> easy enough to add in the Su-25s Rob - I'll add it to the list - I have also had some feedback about a couple of other specific Polish vehicles as well. Persionally, I wish I'd never bowed to pressure to put some 'example' lists in the rules book, as 'sods-law' there were going to be a few (!) errors in there - guaranteed.

Looking forward to my bold counterattack next week when my T55s will slice through those pesky M1s..... sounds like a good plan, plenty of off-table pre-planned Smoke is always a good idea in my experience.

Must remember my Hinds are S1 and armoured if he tries to hit them with a vulcan... - yes indeed. Enjoy the game

Rob N

Don't talk to me about smoke - I'm still ridiculed at the club for using smoke for my T55 attack about 10 years ago against M1s.  All I did was blind my own tanks whilst the M1s had thermal imaging.....it was very messy.....and I've still not lived it down.

Quote from: weredoomed2003 on 03 June 2022, 07:12:47 PMDon't talk to me about smoke - I'm still ridiculed at the club for using smoke for my T55 attack about 10 years ago against M1s.  All I did was blind my own tanks whilst the M1s had thermal imaging.....it was very messy.....and I've still not lived it down.

:D  :D  :D  :D

Andy
What we are missing in the on-table artillery in the US list is the M101 & M102 Howitzer.

The stats for these are:

Gun, 105mm M101 45 ART:IG - 3 3 3 - -/- [6] Backstop, R, Towed, Munitions: HE, SMOKE, Chemical <1970

Gun, 105mm M102 50 ART:IG - 3 3 3 - -/- [6] Backstop, Air portable, Towed, Munition: HE, Smoke, Chemical >1966

The M102s are being replaced by the M119-series 105 mm howitzer - which is the British L118 light gun (see British or British Falkland lists). It entered US service in 1989 - and is also an Infantry Gun.

Hope that helps your lack of on-table US artillery.
TBF - we've probably got all the other types for Cold War games in the list already.

Cheers
Mark 

Quote from: Superscribe on 28 May 2022, 07:21:35 PMThe Danger Close rules on P44 are new to CWC and allows either player to use on-table or off-table artillery to attack or defend themselves as part of a close assault.  It says that a 10cm diameter template is used for this and of course with this you could hit your own troops too! Normally only off-table artillery use HE templates for standard indirect fire, as on-table fire use attack dice against one specified target and no template. So now I'm confused! 

I understand why off-table artillery might use a reduced size template for this but not on-table artillery, as they do not use templates under any other circumstances. Is there any reason why on-table artillery use a template for this and do not attack a single target as normal, when using the Danger-Close rule? 

Lots of questions and good debates regarding CWC2 rules but my post above seems to have been missed. @Big Insect - your thoughts on this one?

Quote from: Superscribe on 30 May 2022, 01:39:58 AMNo firing ATGW over water was in CWC1 rules, but several players must have felt strongly enough about this for the House rules, that can be found in  the files section in the CWC Facebook page, include a line that says ATGW can be fired over waterways up to 300mm wide.

Several of the other CWC1 house rules have found their way into the CWC2 rules, such as helicopter movement, and its a shame that the ATGW rule didnt! Although I believe 300mm is too wide for this, as far as I am concerned a canal or river that can be bridged by a MT-55 or Chieftain bridge layer (upto 100cm wide) should not affect ATGW firing across it. So I will continue to play the house rule, but amended to max 100mm.

Hopefully this rule will be oficially amended to allow a level of ATGW fire across narrow waterways 😊

@Big Insect - another subject I would be interested in your views about (also see my original post of 24th May).

Quote from: Big Insect on 03 June 2022, 08:13:29 PMThe M102s are being replaced by the M119-series 105 mm howitzer - which is the British L118 light gun (see British or British Falkland lists). It entered US service in 1989 - and is also an Infantry Gun.

Not quite Mark - the M119 fires US ammunition so does not have the range of the L118. 10000m as opposed to 15000m. OK not relavent to this argument but.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 05 June 2022, 06:36:31 AMNot quite Mark - the M119 fires US ammunition so does not have the range of the L118. 10000m as opposed to 15000m. OK not relavent to this argument but.

 X_X  X_X  X_X

Erm, just a point to note, indirect fire (whether on or off table) for guns has a minimum range of 2000m, further if you want to fire over obstacles such as hills and woods, so using M109s or whatever for on-table indirect fire is a bit weird. Unless of course your table is 7.5m long. In which case they should just use off-table stats and be called in by OPs/HQs as normal.

Whilst all artillery units are trained in anti-tank and point-target shooting (eg bunkers) it is a short range affair for self defence. The Israelis used 175mm M107s to deadly effect in one occasion in 1973 as emergency anti-tank guns, but the fact that they had to meant something had gone horribly wrong somewhere.

Howitzers and field guns firing direct fire 'on table' have poor accuracy, effective range 400m (70% hit chance), maximum effective range 1200m (30% hit chance), so if 4/100 (H) actually means 4/50 against tanks, that is about right for range - would there be a need to note an A/T value of 4/100 (H) at all? and just call it 4/50?
(at 2000m your typical 155mm howitzer is on 05% chance of a hit a tank sized target with HE).

Sounds to me like you've tried to create three lots of stats for artillery units - off table indirect barrages, on-table indirect barrages, on-table direct fire. I would scrub the middle one and just replace with a rule allowing them to be on-table if really desired, using off-table barrage stats, but must be 100cm from the target and in pre-prepared static positions.

Until the advent of the post-cold war Ceasar and Archer and M109A6 Paladin et al, with GPS and super-dupa computers, SP artillery units couldn't just turn up and start firing to OP requests at whim, it took ~15-30 minutes to survey a position and get aligned to the artillery grid, so at least an activation.

And of course, the Soviets had proper anti-tank rounds for their artillery, as did random NATO guns, so each would have their own anti-tank factors.

As an additional thought, I don't think the WW2-era Infantry Gun rule is needed in CWC2, as there aren't any that I am aware of. Maybe the Indians used 3.7" PH into the 1950s, but virtually all IG had been replaced by mortars after WW2.

A question I suspect I know the intended answer to, but the rules as written are unclear... can a weapon with the Howitzer rule fire against Armoured Cars and Halftracks above half range? The rule states that howitzers can only target "AFVs" within half their range, and the Target Table on p.8 (plus the Movement Summary on p.13) have these unit types listed as Hard targets classified separately from AFVs.

Easy - as you guessed the answer is no. The H cariteristic represents a weapon with low muzzle veloicity  requiring a balistic line of flight, so less accurate.

Quote from: sultanbev on 05 June 2022, 09:27:14 AMon-table indirect barrages,

Quote from: sultanbev on 05 June 2022, 09:27:14 AMon-table indirect barrages,

Quote from: sultanbev on 05 June 2022, 09:27:14 AMSounds to me like you've tried to create three lots of stats for artillery units - off table indirect barrages, on-table indirect barrages, on-table direct fire. I would scrub the middle one and just replace with a rule allowing them to be on-table if really desired, using off-table barrage stats, but must be 100cm from the target and in pre-prepared static positions.

That is not the intention Mark - there should be no on-table fired barrage templates.

An on-table artillery unit has direct Line of Sight (LoS) fire at an individual enemy unit (as you say - that is at short range - hence the x/100 | x/100H stats) - which were standard with CWC-I anyway.
An on-table artillery unit can deliver Line of Fire (LoF) shooting - so in effect short range indirect fire  - when directed by a CO/HQ - but again this is still subject to the x/100 | x/100H ranges and effects.

I suspect that the I am not articulating what is intended vey well.
Fundamentally, other than guns under c.100mm (& infantry guns and mortars - and there are of course other odd exceptions) the game is written to be played with the majority of artillery as off-table assets.

Thanks
Mark

In the Saves table it lists various items (-1d6, -2d6, etc., for gun pit, wooden, brick, stone buildings) as "per unit shooting".

Are these not deductions in the number of "To hit" dice, rather than anything to do with Saving?

Would they not be better off in the "Firing modifiers" table?

Quote from: LozzieD on 06 June 2022, 05:17:54 PMIn the Saves table it lists various items (-1d6, -2d6, etc., for gun pit, wooden, brick, stone buildings) as "per unit shooting".

Are these not deductions in the number of "To hit" dice, rather than anything to do with Saving?

Would they not be better off in the "Firing modifiers" table?

An interesting idea - my thoughts had been originally to try and keep all the fortification 'stuff' in one place and one table. I'll certainly take a look at that though.

Many thanks
Mark

Quote from: Superscribe on 04 June 2022, 11:49:33 PMLots of questions and good debates regarding CWC2 rules but my post above seems to have been missed. @Big Insect - your thoughts on this one?

Quote from: Superscribe on 04 June 2022, 11:49:33 PMThe Danger Close rules on P44 are new to CWC and allows either player to use on-table or off-table artillery to attack or defend themselves as part of a close assault.  It says that a 10cm diameter template is used for this and of course with this you could hit your own troops too! Normally only off-table artillery use HE templates for standard indirect fire, as on-table fire use attack dice against one specified target and no template. So now I'm confused! 

I understand why off-table artillery might use a reduced size template for this but not on-table artillery, as they do not use templates under any other circumstances. Is there any reason why on-table artillery use a template for this and do not attack a single target as normal, when using the Danger-Close rule? 

Hi there Chris

Sorry - I had missed this in the early flurry of activity and questions.

This is a 'good spot' and is an errata - the On-table guns will fire as they normally do - so no templates - they fire at the individual target units (same way on-table mortars would do).

Hope that helps with your up & coming game?
Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark. Excellent as I thought and hoped.  With on-table artillery in support of an assault in this way there would be no danger of hitting your own troops (as no template)  :)

Hi,  just a further point. We noticed the new(?) rule about combining a SAM with a command unit.  Doesn't this mean that as command units can't be targeted by fire that this makes my SAM battery invulnerable?  Previously if my Hinds popped up they would be shot at by the Roland, if I survive I then waste the Roland with my Spirals.  But if the Roland (or Stinger or Vulcan) is part of a command stand I can't target it.  I could use the optional rule for allowing cmd stands to be targeted but if I don't how does the mechanism work??
Thanks in advance

Rob
(Sorry if I missed this qu earlier!)

Quote from: weredoomed2003 on 07 June 2022, 08:27:13 PMHi,  just a further point. We noticed the new(?) rule about combining a SAM with a command unit.  Doesn't this mean that as command units can't be targeted by fire that this makes my SAM battery invulnerable?  Previously if my Hinds popped up they would be shot at by the Roland, if I survive I then waste the Roland with my Spirals.  But if the Roland (or Stinger or Vulcan) is part of a command stand I can't target it.  I could use the optional rule for allowing cmd stands to be targeted but if I don't how does the mechanism work??
Thanks in advance

Rob
(Sorry if I missed this qu earlier!)

Hi Rob
Adding a SAM (or other AA unit) to a Command unit does in effect make that unit unable to be targeted directly, as it is no longer technically a unit but an upgrade.

However, the intention was not to allow larger vehicle (Gepards, Vulcans, Roland etc) based AA units to do this (I'll double check the rules wording) but only SAM:INF originally.
That was primarily to allow Soviet HQs to have their attached MANPAD SAMs or for Blowpipes, Stingers etc. to be attached to an HQ/CO.

I'll review and come back on that.
Cheers
Mark

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but is there rules/descriptions for ICM and PGM munitions for arty anywhere? Also is there a spot on the Arty table in the army lists where FASCAM should go?

Also, IR and Thermal Imager are missing form the Abilities section. I know they are in the night fighting section. Same with Stabilized.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 09 June 2022, 01:31:34 AMSorry if I missed this somewhere, but is there rules/descriptions for ICM and PGM munitions for arty anywhere? Also is there a spot on the Arty table in the army lists where FASCAM should go?

Also, IR and Thermal Imager are missing form the Abilities section. I know they are in the night fighting section. Same with Stabilized.

Artillery types are Page:65/66 - but PGM has been moved to the Optional Rules
IR/TI are covered under Nightfighting Page: 69
Stabilisation is on Page:40

Not all Abilities are listed in the Abilities list as we just end up with a lot of duplication (as has happened with Sniper Team).

The intention is to create a QRS of all the Abilities and Special Rules - including those that are specific to very few (or only one) list. It is on the to-do list.

Cheers
Mark

Mark you got the 1990+ US infantry walking - no M2 varients in the Armour or Transport sections just the CFV's armoured cav versions in rules (they do be in test lists though)

QuoteMark you got the 1990+ US infantry walking - no M2 varients in the Armour or Transport sections just the CFV's armoured cav versions in rules (they do be in test lists though)

"LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" etc. not listening Ian  :D .... this is the Rules errata thread, not the List errata thread.... and you of all people should appreciate that!!!

NB: you also need to be more specific please.
But this has been picked up in a previous comment (from me) early on in the LIST ERRATA thread - it was a copying error (& we had spotted it too late after the master had gone to the printers). It is on the top of the list errata correction list.
Thanks
Mark

I'll post where I want...... :d  :d  :d

Quote from: Big Insect on 09 June 2022, 09:54:15 AMArtillery types are Page:65/66 - but PGM has been moved to the Optional

Thanks, I see that about PGM now.

FASCAM doesn't show up on the army lists with other arty types. I'm assuming it's 50 points per unit per fire mission?

ICM isn't listed anywhere on 65/66 that I see, a PDF search only found it in the Army lists.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 09 June 2022, 12:35:21 PMThanks, I see that about PGM now.

FASCAM doesn't show up on the army lists with other arty types. I'm assuming it's 50 points per unit per fire mission?

ICM isn't listed anywhere on 65/66 that I see, a PDF search only found it in the Army lists.

After looking a little further are ICM and FASCAM being used interchangeably in the rules or are they meant to be separate munition types?

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 09 June 2022, 12:15:17 PMI'll post where I want...... :d  :d  :d

But I have the power to delete it Ian ...  :D

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?!

 

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...

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.

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

Quote from: Superscribe on 10 June 2022, 01:16:25 PMHi 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

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

Quote from: Smartbomb on 09 June 2022, 06:32:29 PMWhy 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.

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

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 11 June 2022, 03:46:47 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Superscribe on 10 June 2022, 05:01:42 PMThanks 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

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

Quote from: Salo71 on 13 June 2022, 11:22:39 AMHi 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

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"

Quote from: Salo71 on 13 June 2022, 06:12:27 PMOK! 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

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?

Quote from: Superscribe on 18 June 2022, 12:15:10 PMI 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

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

Quote from: Superscribe on 18 June 2022, 05:30:29 PMHi 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

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...

QuoteHi 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

QuoteHi 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).

> With the Swingfire - do check out the 'Remote Controllers' optional rules - which might be helpful.

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? 
> that is correct

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.

> TBF it is not the way I had intended it - but actually that makes a lot of sense.
This base way of using Recce is taken from FWC and there the Recce makes a single move up to the maximum of the dice multiple, only stopping if it is fired at, and only continuing if it is not suppressed.
However, I must admit I like the way that you've played it. It makes the recce a lot more 'dynamic' and realistic.

Let me look at that in more detail - to see if there are unforeseen knock-on implications to doing this. I will start a separate thread on that, to open the discussions. But it is a really interesting interpretation of the rule  :D
 
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.
> good call on this - the attack point and orientation of the template must be made before the deviation dice are rolled, I can clarify that.

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

> yes, that is one way to play them - but you can use the FAC to call helicopters in as an off-table strike.
Also on-table attack helicopters can be commanded by on-table HQs (or COs) as well.

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?

> I'm not the best person to talk about uploading photos to the forum - as others will know I am totally incompetent at it! But can you start a new post with photos of the game - that would be ideal Chris.

Rgds

Chris

Hi Chris - many thanks for the 'battle-field' feedback - all designers love this kind of stuff.
And so very clear - really helpful.
My comments - thoughts are in-bold, in-line above.

I look forward to the post 'Attack' follow-on game.
Much appreciated

Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 20 June 2022, 10:31:20 AMHi Chris - many thanks for the 'battle-field' feedback - all designers love this kind of stuff.
And so very clear - really helpful.
My comments - thoughts are in-bold, in-line above.

I look forward to the post 'Attack' follow-on game.
Much appreciated

Mark

Hi Mark

I will look at remote controllers for Swingfire etc, as it sounds interesting.

Regarding direction of attack for Air Ground Attack, I suggest the player should decide this before throwing their command roll just in case they roll double 1.

A further observation, I note in the PDFs that all aircraft for British, Bundeswehr and Soviet are all shown as Air:GA so no bombers (and therefore no 30cm template). Surely some of the aircraft drop bomb payloads rather than firing rockets forwards, that would warrant use of the circular template?

I have created new topic with some of the text from the post above and a photo (I needed Photoshop to greatly reduce the size of the image as the attachment size is quite limiting in the forum).

Regards

Chris

Chris, on the size of images, if you use an image link rather than attaching an image there is no size restriction and the site will resize the image, if necessary.

If the image is on the internet already then use the image insert option and just paste the url into the pop-up box. No need to specify sizes, unlike the old forum.

If it is something hosted on your own device you would need to use an image hosting site. I use ImageShack others here use Imgur, Flikr or Photobucket. There are plenty of other sites and most have a free option.

Hope this is useful .... if I am teaching my granny to suck eggs then apologies.

Hi Ithoriel - yep will look at photobucket for images..... :)

I've found https://postimages.org/ works well, this is a video still on my pc of Egyptian AMX-13/75 in 1956, uploaded with postimages, then selecting 'hotlink for forums' and copying that and pasting it here

(https://i.postimg.cc/jSvGyj2V/egyptian-amx1375-1956.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Quote from: Huey on 19 June 2022, 11:56:28 PMHi,
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...

That is a 'hang-over' from an earlier edit - (I'll remove it when we do the errata). What we did instead was group all the 'Dedicated' AT weapons into their own sections in the lists - you'll see (Dedicated) at the top of the appropriate section.
Same applies with Dedicated AA.

Some units can appear in both, but primarily it depends on how they were deployed or were planned to be deployed - and it is also linked to aspects such as how many reloads they had etc.

A good reminder that that sentence needs to be 'pulled-out' during the edit.
Thanks
Mark

QuoteHi Mark

I will look at remote controllers for Swingfire etc, as it sounds interesting.

Regarding direction of attack for Air Ground Attack, I suggest the player should decide this before throwing their command roll just in case they roll double 1.

> I agree Chris - that is the way it's generally played and that was my intention.

A further observation, I note in the PDFs that all aircraft for British, Bundeswehr and Soviet are all shown as Air:GA so no bombers (and therefore no 30cm template). Surely some of the aircraft drop bomb payloads rather than firing rockets forwards, that would warrant use of the circular template?

> Ah yes - I wondered when that would get spotted - the AIR:BM units never made it off my draft lists - I'll pick those up in the list errata - most lists will have some bombers and a lot will also have missing AIR:TRANS as well.

I have created new topic with some of the text from the post above and a photo (I needed Photoshop to greatly reduce the size of the image as the attachment size is quite limiting in the forum).

> Thanks - I will check it out

Regards

Chris

Comments/answers above in-line & in-bold
Thanks
mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 21 June 2022, 02:43:23 PMI've found https://postimages.org/ works well, this is a video still on my pc of Egyptian AMX-13/75 in 1956, uploaded with postimages, then selecting 'hotlink for forums' and copying that and pasting it here

(https://i.postimg.cc/jSvGyj2V/egyptian-amx1375-1956.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I am itching to get that Suez Crisis list on the drawing-board - but there are so many others in the queue ahead of it sadly.
Maybe I should do a poll to see what lists are the most popular to add to the list of lists ... although I know what will happen - we will release a list (say Chinese) and everybody will immediately want the associated lists (North Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao, Indonesia etc.)    :D

Came up in yesterday's game, can a loades IFV close assault an AFV ? We allowed it.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 04 July 2022, 07:51:23 AMCame up in yesterday's game, can a loades IFV close assault an AFV ? We allowed it.

So as I read this question you are asking - "can an IFV close assault an AFV (say a Main Battle Tank) with its passengers still inside?"

As the rules are written, it can.
However, that is not the intention of the rules.
As it gives the IFV a considerable advantage over the AFV (MBT) - see example below - and that is not intentional and is also highly unrealistic (& gamey).

Example A:
IFV in close assault (table at top of Page 45) - 6 attacks (attacking with mtd infantry) & +1 for infantry inside supporting
AFV (MBT) in close assault (Table at top of Page 45) - 3 attacks
So the IFV is considerably advantaged over the AFV when the reality would be the other way around as the mounted infantry are only supporting the assault from inside the IFV with their small arms.

Example B:
Infantry (dismounted from IFV to assault) - 2 attacks & +1 attack for supporting IFV
AFV (MBT) in close assault - 3 attacks
So the resulting melee (close assault is much more even, as is the intention)

The table needs to be adjusted to say: IFVs with mtd Infantry (against all, except AFVs).
There are circumstances where you would want to assault an AFV with an IFV (with mounted passengers) - maybe if the target was in a contaminated zone (Chemical) or if the enemy was a Vehicle Mounted Flamethrower (possibly).

That then leads onto a question around the AFV category as it is quite broad - including Armoured Cars (AC), Half-tracks (HTR), other armoured vehicles, and all manner of tanks - Light, Medium, Heavy (not that we differentiate) + also ENG:AFVs. However, in all these instances a vehicle on vehicle assault is not going to be that different.

Hope that helps Ian. Interesting that this has never come up before, as the assault table is an exact replica of the CWC-I one (Page 35 CWC-I).

Thanks
Mark

Thanks Mark.

It is an annoying carry-over from CWC 1 but for future reference  - Iranians are not Arabs.
(page 88)

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 04 July 2022, 10:23:33 PMIt is an annoying carry-over from CWC 1 but for future reference  - Iranians are not Arabs.
(page 88)

Indeed - Persian are Persians, and likewise there are as many variation of 'arab' as there are western Europeans (probably more) but I get your point.
I think the 'western' intelligence services - soviets included - generally lumped the whole of the middle east other than the Israelis (& maybe the Kurds) into that all encompassing term ... including the Turks.

We can change 'Arab' in this instance to 'Middle East'.

Thanks
Mark

Not sure if this one has come up, but Veterans are listed as Suppressed at 4+ regardless of modifiers, while Raw/Green units are Suppressed on 6+ regardless. Is it possible those are reversed?

Quote from: Smartbomb on 17 July 2022, 03:53:35 AMNot sure if this one has come up, but Veterans are listed as Suppressed at 4+ regardless of modifiers, while Raw/Green units are Suppressed on 6+ regardless. Is it possible those are reversed?

No  :) 
Veterans are much more cautious. They 'know' just how dangerous a situation is and take moves to safeguard themselves.

Raw/green are unaware just how dangerous certain experiences are, so will take more risks.

Elite Veterans will take more risks based on their own experience, training and confidence.

Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark

The Bridgelayer special ability on P91 states that engineers can build 5cm of bridge each Initiative Phase. This applies to all Bridgelayers.  Wouldn't AFV Bridgelayers be able to lay their bridge at least twice as fast as engineers, who manually construct their bridges? 

Could there be a two special abilities for bridge laying (like there is for Mineclearers) with Bridgelayer A for manually constructed bridges (5cm per IP) and Bridgelayer B for vehicle-deployed bridgelayers such as Chieftain AVLB, MTU-55, TMM etc (10cm per IP)?

Chris

Hi Chris

Basic Engineers (INF:ENG) can only build bridges if you've bought the 'Bridge' ability for them, as that gives them the equipment/resources to allow them to build the bridge.
But, in most standard lists the Engineers don't have the bridge building capability, as in most games, time is too short for them to undertake such a complex activity.

The challenge with Bridging is that there are just so many variables and so many different types of bridging units. Some are transported in pods on trucks, some are towed on wheels and many are pontoon based, and some are wheeled and amphibious, all of these ones can bridge larger expanses of water/rivers/canals.
These are all probably your Bridgelayer B types - as they can span multiples of 5cm over water.
INF:ENG are similar, it takes time to deploy this type of bridging, but in game terms - 5cm per Initiative action is appropriate.

Some - like the ones that you mention below - e.g. automated ENG:AFVs - generally have a limited single span bridging capability, and so in real terms they can only really span one 5cm stretch of water - not multiple spans. So these might actually be your Bridgelayer A category.

But for simplicity in a one-off game, I've opted for just the single Bridgelayer category. But there's no reason you guys cannot trail a variable if you want?

NB: with the Mineclearer designation, the 'B' category usually represents automated (often rocket assisted) clearance devices.

Hope that helps Chris
Thanks
Mark

I would treat AVLB as being able to lay a bridge in a single successful activation. As long as they are touching the obstacle being crossed, which shouldn't be more than a model length wide. So in a good run of activations, the AVLB could drive up to the stream, then lay the bridge, then drive across it in 3 activations all in one turn.

A 5cm river is 100m, so a big no-no, but if the scenario/map involves streams, blown bridges or cratered roads, then an AVLB would be able to cross it quickly in relative terms.

Engineers on foot building bridges, would, as stated, be out of the remit of a normal battle. "Overnight" seems to be the normal historical build time of a 100m+ wide pontoon bridge.

The truck mobile ribbon bridges and floating ferry arrangements still took a while to build, they just get into the water a lot quicker. In longer games they might be set up in sufficient time that CWC would need rules for them. Although the set up times might be quicker than a company of sappers unloading pontoons from horse-drawn wagons, that speed might not be any use if the crossing point hasn't been checked out first by engineer recce units.

Just looking at my Janes Logistics 1989, there appears some consistency.
Light pontoon bridges that can only allow infantry and motorcycles take half an hour to set up, up to 100m length
As examples of others:
Romanian 40t 142m pontoon takes 1 hour
Romanian 60t 80m pontoon takes 1.5 hours
Swiss 50t 100m pontoon takes 3 hours with 132 men, ie a company's worth
Swiss 30t 14m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men, ie a platoon's worth
Swiss 16t 10m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men
Russian 4t 88m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 8t 64m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 40t 64m pontoon takes 60 mins with 105 men, ie a company's worth
Russan 24t 88m pontoon takes 55 mins with 105 men
Russian PMP 60t 227m pontoon takes 30 mins with 82 men
Russian PMP 20t 389m pontoon takes 50 mins with 82 men
{THe PMP is an exceptional piece of kit)
Russian and Egyptian 1973 TPP pontoon 16t 500m takes 2.5 hours with 384 men
TPP 50t 265m pontoon takes 2 hours with 384 men
TPP 70t 205m pontoon takes 3 hours with 384 men
US aluminium floating footbridge 15 mins + 1 min per 4.5m of length
US Ribbon bridge 6.7m per minute

Artillery Barrage p54 2nd para states 'Then reduce the number of unsaved hits by 50% rolling for saves on the remaining hits as normal."  If hits are reduced by 50% before saves are thrown then they cant be 'unsaved ' hits!

Should you reduce the number of hits by 50% before saves are thrown, or should saves be thrown first then reduce unsaved hits by 50%?

I suggest this rule needs come clarification

Special Munitions p66.  As far as I am aware these munitions are normally delivered by bombs rather than rocket or cannon attacks.  Shouldn't all these use the 30cm diameter template instead of the ground attack template?  It probably needs a comment added to the first paragraph on p65.

Field defences p84.  AFV Pits and Vehicle Scrapes seem to give the same benefits to AFVs, so why spend the additional 5 points for a pit?  Or is there some explanatory text missing, which would make the difference between these types of defences much clearer?

Quote from: Superscribe on 30 July 2022, 07:59:30 PMArtillery Barrage p54 2nd para states 'Then reduce the number of unsaved hits by 50% rolling for saves on the remaining hits as normal."  If hits are reduced by 50% before saves are thrown then they cant be 'unsaved ' hits!

> I can see your point - the removal of the word 'unsaved' makes things clearer. The intention is that the number of hits are reduced by 50% ahead of any saves thrown being attempted.

Should you reduce the number of hits by 50% before saves are thrown, or should saves be thrown first then reduce unsaved hits by 50%?

I suggest this rule needs come clarification

Thoughts above (in-line) as usual Chris - thanks

Quote from: Superscribe on 30 July 2022, 08:02:51 PMField defences p84.  AFV Pits and Vehicle Scrapes seem to give the same benefits to AFVs, so why spend the additional 5 points for a pit?  Or is there some explanatory text missing, which would make the difference between these types of defences much clearer?

Let me double-check Chris & I'll get back to you on that one  :)

Quote from: sultanbev on 28 July 2022, 11:55:56 PMI would treat AVLB as being able to lay a bridge in a single successful activation. As long as they are touching the obstacle being crossed, which shouldn't be more than a model length wide. So in a good run of activations, the AVLB could drive up to the stream, then lay the bridge, then drive across it in 3 activations all in one turn.

A 5cm river is 100m, so a big no-no, but if the scenario/map involves streams, blown bridges or cratered roads, then an AVLB would be able to cross it quickly in relative terms.

Engineers on foot building bridges, would, as stated, be out of the remit of a normal battle. "Overnight" seems to be the normal historical build time of a 100m+ wide pontoon bridge.

The truck mobile ribbon bridges and floating ferry arrangements still took a while to build, they just get into the water a lot quicker. In longer games they might be set up in sufficient time that CWC would need rules for them. Although the set up times might be quicker than a company of sappers unloading pontoons from horse-drawn wagons, that speed might not be any use if the crossing point hasn't been checked out first by engineer recce units.

Just looking at my Janes Logistics 1989, there appears some consistency.
Light pontoon bridges that can only allow infantry and motorcycles take half an hour to set up, up to 100m length
As examples of others:
Romanian 40t 142m pontoon takes 1 hour
Romanian 60t 80m pontoon takes 1.5 hours
Swiss 50t 100m pontoon takes 3 hours with 132 men, ie a company's worth
Swiss 30t 14m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men, ie a platoon's worth
Swiss 16t 10m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men
Russian 4t 88m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 8t 64m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 40t 64m pontoon takes 60 mins with 105 men, ie a company's worth
Russan 24t 88m pontoon takes 55 mins with 105 men
Russian PMP 60t 227m pontoon takes 30 mins with 82 men
Russian PMP 20t 389m pontoon takes 50 mins with 82 men
{THe PMP is an exceptional piece of kit)
Russian and Egyptian 1973 TPP pontoon 16t 500m takes 2.5 hours with 384 men
TPP 50t 265m pontoon takes 2 hours with 384 men
TPP 70t 205m pontoon takes 3 hours with 384 men
US aluminium floating footbridge 15 mins + 1 min per 4.5m of length
US Ribbon bridge 6.7m per minute

Interesting stuff Mark - helpful - thank you.

Quote from: Superscribe on 30 July 2022, 08:02:51 PMField defences p84.  AFV Pits and Vehicle Scrapes seem to give the same benefits to AFVs, so why spend the additional 5 points for a pit?  Or is there some explanatory text missing, which would make the difference between these types of defences much clearer?

Bit of checking back at my 'thinking' on this - AFV Pits are permeant (so can be reoccupied) - Vehicle scrapes are not able to be reoccupied. I'll clarify that in the errata Chris.

Quote from: Big Insect on 01 August 2022, 08:22:53 AMBit of checking back at my 'thinking' on this - AFV Pits are permeant (so can be reoccupied) - Vehicle scrapes are not able to be reoccupied.

Hi Mark. That would make sense, which means you could have scrapes as forward positions, which are given up as the enemy advances, and move back to alternative positions which are AFV pits. rgds Chris

That was the idea Chris.
Cheers
Mark

Is there a limit to where an Ambush can be located as the rules seem not to indicate any restrictions.  For example in an Attack/Defence scenario can the Attacked plan an Ambush within the Defence deployment area? 
If this is not permitted then something needs to be added to the rules to indicate ambush location limitations

Quote from: Superscribe on 03 August 2022, 11:17:22 PMIs there a limit to where an Ambush can be located as the rules seem not to indicate any restrictions.  For example in an Attack/Defence scenario can the Attacked plan an Ambush within the Defence deployment area? 
If this is not permitted then something needs to be added to the rules to indicate ambush location limitations

There are no restriction other than those relating to proximity and cover (see page 75).

Hi Mark

I think the recce spotting example on p32 is misleading as spotting of concealed troops is a reconnoitre action, for which you need to score according to distance from target area and nothing else i.e. as described in Reconnoitre rule 2nd para on p32 and NOT the factors they have been used in the example.

Regards

Chris

If you have mine ploughs fitted to lead tanks in say a Soviet Tank Bn, what happens when they enter a marked or hidden minefield? Having stopped at the edge as per the rules on p68, can they on a successful command throw, just carry on through the minefield clearing a 5cm wide route for other tanks to follow? What speed should they move through the minefield for each successful command throw? Full move, half move or 5cm/successful command throw?

I think there needs to be some clarification in the rules about use of mine ploughs, because it would be a little unrealistic for them to do what unsuppressed combat engineers have to do, namely only clear mines during the initiative phase, which would mean waiting until the next game turn before they can start using their ploughs....

Comments?

Mine plows are Mine clearance A - so they clear 5cm x 5cm sections in an Initiative move. Once they have made that move they stop moving but can be ordered to fire or retreat with a commanded order. (NB: you can of course Order them to move forward into minefield as a Commanded order, but as they are moving faster than the mine plow can operate effectively, they will take potential casualties from the minefield).

They cost 5pts to add to an AFV
1/3rd of the MBTs in a Soviet/Warsaw Pact Tank battalion would usually have them added (typically)

Some of the later lists have them specified in the Engineering sections - other earlier lists will be updated to include them.

Thanks
Mark

Hi Mark. Many thanks for update regarding use of ploughs; also noted  numbers in Soviet Tank Bn.
Regards Chris

Hi Mark

I am thinking of planning an all day game river assault scenario next month, with a wide river (30cm wide) but have a few questions as I cant find the answers in the rules (if the info is missing then it may need to be added to the rules and to unit stats tables).

What speed do the following move across a river:

- vehicles with the amphibious special ability, such as BMPs/BRDMs?
- assault boats  (and assume they are Transport (1) - limited to infantry or engineer unit)?
- ferries carrying vehicles?
- snorkelling tanks?

It is understood that all targets in water are classed as being in the open, but does the water affect the enemy's chance to hit targets while crossing water?

If the Bridgelayer special ability is given to a Sapper unit (at cost of 5pts, as page 91) they then have the ability to lay 5cm of bridge per Initiative Phase.  If 3x bridgelaying sapper units are used to build one pontoon bridge can they combine their efforts and build the bridge at a revised rate of 3 x 5cm = 15cm/Initiative Phase?

Regards

Chris

I'll leave the adjudication on how bridgelaying sappers are handled in game to Big Insect but I suspect in the real world there would be a law of diminishing returns in doing that.

In my time as a project manager I have had to explain to a number of bosses that just because one woman can produce a baby in nine months it doesn't follow that nine women can produce one in a month. :)

QuoteI am thinking of planning an all day game river assault scenario next month, with a wide river (30cm wide)

30cm = 600m, so given the data I posted about, it would take around 5 hours to build a pontoon bridge across that, using a battalion's worth of men, so about 9 stands

Most amphbious AFV and ferries do about 10kmh in water, so whatever the slowest vehicle is in the data charts, use that as the speed in water. A quick view of a few lists show 15cm as the slowest AFV.
Assault boats that outboard motors can do around 30kmh, so perhaps 30cm, but they can only carry foot troops and heavy weapons like MMG, recoiless rifles, ATGW teams.

Snorkelling tanks -
"Naturally, there are qualifiers to using a tank snorkel. The river depth at the crossing site cannot exceed five meters. The river bottom has to be suitable (sand, pebbles) so the tank will not get stuck; the river cannot be more than a kilometer in width; and the current has to be two meters/second or less. The entry and exit banks cannot exceed 25 degrees and the river bottom slope cannot exceed 15 degrees.7"

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2019/Fall/4Grau19.pdf
How that fits into the game setting I'm not sure, but shows the route has to be thoroughly pre-checked out by engineer-recce units beforehand, so no snorkelling across a contested river battle.
More info here:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/engineer-river.htm

I suspect snorkelling speed to be even slower than amphibious vehicles.

Quote from: Superscribe on 05 August 2022, 11:52:41 PMIf 3x bridgelaying sapper units are used to build one pontoon bridge can they combine their efforts and build the bridge at a revised rate of 3 x 5cm = 15cm/Initiative Phase?

The answer should be no I would have thought, unless you are operating from both sides of the river at the same time.

Chris on snorkeling tanks it is now though that it was not a battlefeild tactic. Preparation would take about an hour, removal at least 20 mins on exit.

Ferries - order or initative move to load, order to move, not anticipating Mark but sugesst infantry pace and measure from near bank.

Amphips - order to entre, order to move, again I'd use infantry speed (experiance swimming 432 and Stalwart) and order to leave.

Assault boats, depends on powered or not - we used 30HP outboards so say 20cm per move, rowed would be infantry pace again. Also order to board, order to disembark.

AFV bridgelayer initaive order to lay and may be used on same turn.

The timings Mark B has given are not for tactical bridges, would only be built once you had secured both banks.

Final note all armies hate assault river crossings as costly and complex operations.

QuoteHi Mark

I am thinking of planning an all day game river assault scenario next month, with a wide river (30cm wide) but have a few questions as I cant find the answers in the rules (if the info is missing then it may need to be added to the rules and to unit stats tables).

What speed do the following move across a river:

- vehicles with the amphibious special ability, such as BMPs/BRDMs?
> 10cm (Amphibious) in water or wetlands
- assault boats  (and assume they are Transport (1) - limited to infantry or engineer unit)?
> 30cm (Aquatic capability) - can only carry 1 x INF: designated unit - there are some stats in the US Vietnam list, but the (about to be published) Iranian & Iraqi list have not only assault boats but also hover-crafts (as does the Soviet Naval Infantry list)
- ferries carrying vehicles?
> 10cms - most military ferry units will not move that quickly over a short distance like 30cm
- snorkelling tanks?
> 5cm but Sultanbey's comments are correct - it is highly unlikely you'd be using snorkelling in an active hostile battlefield situation. Snorkelling is a good way to get armoured units across a river in your rear area, where bridges might not be strong enough to take their weight, but they would be very vulnerable in a close combat situation. I have used snorkelling Leopard IIs in a game, but it was vanity really, as I had the models available  :D  ... in practice it would have taken far to long to prepare them to make the river crossing

It is understood that all targets in water are classed as being in the open, but does the water affect the enemy's chance to hit targets while crossing water?
> Yes, target are classified as being one profile less - so Average becomes Low. Most units cannot shoot when they are in Amphibious mode - unless they are specifically designed as amphibious assault vehicles.

If the Bridgelayer special ability is given to a Sapper unit (at cost of 5pts, as page 91) they then have the ability to lay 5cm of bridge per Initiative Phase.  If 3x bridgelaying sapper units are used to build one pontoon bridge can they combine their efforts and build the bridge at a revised rate of 3 x 5cm = 15cm/Initiative Phase?

> Itheriol's comments are a good example of the challenge here. I'd suggest you could have 2 Sapper units, one on each bank, working towards each other, but any more than that wouldn't work practically.

Regards

Chris

Answers in-line in bold above Chris.
Cheers
Mark

First off comments were by me, not Mark Bevis. Times on bridge building did it on an annual camp, both MGB and Bailey. could construct both in 3 hours, bailey taking much longer. We were using around 15 bodies for each and working from one side and it was a dry obsticle.

Snokeling tanks is much harder than it seems at first glance. Apart from the preparation time the river bed would often need prparation removing bolders etc. Then the entry and exit points need grading to ensure the slope isn't too steep. The tank has virtually no vision so keeping a straight line is very hard. Finally the vehicle will have limited traction as it has some bouyancy which means it's hard to steer.

Hi

Thanks for all the useful info and feedback about bridging etc. Noted about snorkelling tanks and building a pontoon bridge will be very difficult initially, until Soviets have created a bridgehead and engineers can then work from both banks.

Amphibious vehicles such as IFV with infantry on board will plainly be important.

The Soviets will have the Divisional Engineer Battalion with its pontoon bridging company, which besides being able to build a bridge, they can also build 3x 110 ton ferries, which enables them a simultaneous lift of nine medium tanks (three platoons). So, in CWC this would equate to a single 110 ton ferry able to carry a company of 3 tanks.  3x T-64 nose to tail need minimum length of 15cm of ferry to transport them. How many Initiative Phases would it take the engineer company to build this raft? Would it be 3 turns (3x 5cm)?

Once loaded with tanks the raft moving at 10cm would reach the opposite bank in 2 successful command throws and then tanks can exit the ferry on the 3rd successful command throw. Does that sound about right?

Quote from: Big Insect on 05 August 2022, 11:42:20 AMMine plows are Mine clearance A - so they clear 5cm x 5cm sections in an Initiative move

Hi Mark

Sorry to continue the debate.  The Minefield Clearance para on p68 says that 'mine clearing vehicles' can clear minefields at 5cm x 10cm rate. Doesnt a tank with plough fitted qualify as such a vehicle, rather than sappers on foot?  As I understand it tanks can plough at an average rate of 5kph and with a game turn in CWC2 of 30 mins that equates to 2.5kph in 30 mins, which suggests they should be able to clear more than 5cm in a turn.

If however this is incorrect can I suggest the para on p68 be amended to say '......engineers on foot and tanks with mine ploughs fitted'

Regards
Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 07 August 2022, 09:09:50 AMHi Mark

Sorry to continue the debate.  The Minefield Clearance para on p68 says that 'mine clearing vehicles' can clear minefields at 5cm x 10cm rate. Doesnt a tank with plough fitted qualify as such a vehicle, rather than sappers on foot?  As I understand it tanks can plough at an average rate of 5kph and with a game turn in CWC2 of 30 mins that equates to 2.5kph in 30 mins, which suggests they should be able to clear more than 5cm in a turn.

If however this is incorrect can I suggest the para on p68 be amended to say '......engineers on foot and tanks with mine ploughs fitted'

Regards
Chris

The rules are that mine-clearance vehicles (unless they are specialist units that use things like rocket assisted clearance) clear mines at 5cm x 5cm per initiative action Chris.

As stated earlier (above) some of the more recent list versions & newer lists have the option to buy MBTs with mine-plows/flails in the Engineering section, with the 5cm x 5cm Mineclearer A, designation.

I've deliberately kept the rules for Mineclearance as simple as possible - just 2 types.
The 5cm x 5cm designation for MBTs with mine-ploughs etc. is, in my view, adequate to reflect how they worked in practice and what works best in a game play context.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 07 August 2022, 10:22:53 PMThe rules are that mine-clearance vehicles (unless they are specialist units that use things like rocket assisted clearance) clear mines at 5cm x 5cm per initiative action Chris.

As stated earlier (above) some of the more recent list versions & newer lists have the option to buy MBTs with mine-plows/flails in the Engineering section, with the 5cm x 5cm Mineclearer A, designation.

I've deliberately kept the rules for Mineclearance as simple as possible - just 2 types.
The 5cm x 5cm designation for MBTs with mine-ploughs etc. is, in my view, adequate to reflect how they worked in practice and what works best in a game play context.

Hi Mark
No prob - many thanks
Rgds
Chris

Hi Mark

This may have been covered previously but in case it hasn't ..... on p43 the 7th para talks about Close Assault by IFV without dismounting its passengers, and to use its own CA value and +1 for its passengers in support (3 + 1). However table on p45 shows IFV with mounted infantry has CA of 6. Which is correct?

Rgds

Chris

Chris - we played as the 2nd. The other thing that is unclear is IFV with mounted infantry assaulting AFV's. According to current rules they can, but Mark intended they couldn't.

The basic principle of the rules is that armour (of any sort) CANNOT assault enemy armour - that includes half-tracks, APCs, Armoured Cars, IFVs and MBTs, even armoured lorries (of which there are a few about in the lists).
Any vehicle that has a Saving throw is (usually) classified as being a 'Hard/Armoured' target.

An IFV gets a higher factor in assault as it is usually armed with a better weapon - than say an APC, half-track etc. And it's weapons are specifically designed to fight in assault - unlike an MBT.

An IFV can fight in Assault in 4 ways:

1). using its own factors - (against enemy Infantry in the open for example) - without any Infantry supporting it (they might already have been KO'd for example) and when doing so it has a factor of +3

2). with its passenger infantry dismounted, but in support and the IFV making the assault (+3 for the IFV and +1 for the supporting passenger infantry) NB: it can receive support from other friendly units not otherwise engaged in assault as well

3). in support of its own infantry - that have dismounted to fight ahead of it in an assault (usually against enemy infantry in cover) - here it adds its support (+1) to the Infantry assault factor (+4)

4). with its infantry passengers mounted - when it fights with an assault factor of +6

The wording on Page 52 may be confused/confusing. But the above is how it should work.
Thanks
Mark

Hi Mark

Can you confirm if I have attack stats correct for British Abbot 105mm and Soviet 2S1 122mmm:

On table Direct Fire AP4/100 AT4/100H (as table on p52)
On table Indirect Fire AP3/100 AT3/100 (as listed in Brit & Soviet PDFs) No H
Off table Indirect Fire AP3 AT3 (based on stats of equivalent arty stats in PDFs)

Regards

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 11 September 2022, 06:15:06 PMHi Mark

Can you confirm if I have attack stats correct for British Abbot 105mm and Soviet 2S1 122mmm:

On table Direct Fire AP4/100 AT4/100H (as table on p52)
On table Indirect Fire AP3/100 AT3/100 (as listed in Brit & Soviet PDFs) No H
Off table Indirect Fire AP3 AT3 (based on stats of equivalent arty stats in PDFs)

Abbots are a Factor 3 across the board.

1). on-table = AP-3/100 AT-3/100H
2). off-table = AP-3 AT-3

Broadly the on-table and off-table numbers of dice should be the same and the 100cm range is standard for most (all) on-table equivalents.

The 122mm should all be:
1). on-table = AP-4/100 AT-4/100H
2). off-table = AP-4 AT-4

The gun calibres are 'lumped' into broad categories - as otherwise you start to get into the challenges around artillery ammunition, fire-doctrine, etc. etc. etc.

Cheers
Mark

Regards

Chris

Hi Mark
I did think this was the case but table on p52 seems to contradict what you said about Abbot. It lists 100-122mm as 4/100H. Abbot is 105mm so is it 3/100 as you posted above or 4/100 as table on p52?
Rgds Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 12 September 2022, 09:39:22 AMHi Mark
I did think this was the case but table on p52 seems to contradict what you said about Abbot. It lists 100-122mm as 4/100H. Abbot is 105mm so is it 3/100 as you posted above or 4/100 as table on p52?
Rgds Chris

Hi Chris - this is m,e answering without access to the rules - if the rules state 100-122mm is 4/100-4/100H then that is the correct figure and the Soviet 122m is also 4/100 - 4/100H  :D

Hi Mark

OK, so if Abbot is 4/100 and 4/100H on-table, should off-table still be a 3 or adjusted to a 4?
They cant really go to a 4 for off-table, as M109 155mm are 4s and other British 105s are 3s.

The table on p52 specifically says its for On-table Direct Fire i.e. firing over open sights at a target in its LOS. Could it be that this table is correct for direct fire and stats of 3/100 still apply to on-table indirect fire, then that would match the existing 3 for off-table Abbots?

Rgds

Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 14 September 2022, 04:31:44 PMHi Mark

OK, so if Abbot is 4/100 and 4/100H on-table, should off-table still be a 3 or adjusted to a 4?
They cant really go to a 4 for off-table, as M109 155mm are 4s and other British 105s are 3s.

The table on p52 specifically says its for On-table Direct Fire i.e. firing over open sights at a target in its LOS. Could it be that this table is correct for direct fire and stats of 3/100 still apply to on-table indirect fire, then that would match the existing 3 for off-table Abbots?

Rgds

Chris

It's entirely up to you Chris - but the principle is that if on-table is 3/100 - then the off-table is also 3.
That is the way the rules are designed, and those are the official bandings. It is about keeping things simple to remember.
Somebody will no-doubt be able to argue that not all 105mm guns are equal (for example)  :D
Cheers
 

Hi Mark

Excellent game last weekend and  many thanks for coming along. You are always welcome to join us for any of our future games.

For our next game later this month we plan to do the Extraction Scenario 1:1 Soviet MR Pl trying to extract, hunted down by a British Mech Combat Team, with 4x Hip available for extraction. A couple of thoughts when I was looking at force composition:

• FV432 has AP 1/50 and the FV432 with Peake turret has 2/50, similar to other APCs.  As these are transports for 2 Inf teams can they still fire if both teams have debussed? 
• Also the scenario defender major objective states 'extracting at least 50% of remaining defending units off-table" If for example they start with 16 units and by GT5 they are down to 10 units left, do they only need to extract 5 units to achieve their major objective?

Regards
Chris

QuoteHi Mark

Excellent game last weekend and  many thanks for coming along. You are always welcome to join us for any of our future games.

> many thanks Chris - great game and good to see a Soviet player doing so well in an attacking scenario. That flanking helicopter strike would have got John a 'Hero of the Soviet Union' medal for sure.

For our next game later this month we plan to do the Extraction Scenario 1:1 Soviet MR Pl trying to extract, hunted down by a British Mech Combat Team, with 4x Hip available for extraction. A couple of thoughts when I was looking at force composition:

• FV432 has AP 1/50 and the FV432 with Peake turret has 2/50, similar to other APCs.  As these are transports for 2 Inf teams can they still fire if both teams have debussed? 

> Yes, that is correct

• Also the scenario defender major objective states 'extracting at least 50% of remaining defending units off-table" If for example they start with 16 units and by GT5 they are down to 10 units left, do they only need to extract 5 units to achieve their major objective?

> I don't have my rules with me - let me check & confirm
[/list]

Regards
Chris

• Also the scenario defender major objective states 'extracting at least 50% of remaining defending units off-table" If for example they start with 16 units and by GT5 they are down to 10 units left, do they only need to extract 5 units to achieve their major objective?

[/quote]

> yes, that is correct Chris - I am assuming that your attackers in this scenario are the British (as the defender cannot use any vehicles, other than the helicopters)  :D

Hi Mark

Thank you for clarifying - scenario will be Soviet MR Pl trying to extract hunted down by a British Mech Combat Team

Regards

Chris

QuoteHi Mark

Thank you for clarifying - scenario will be Soviet MR Pl trying to extract hunted down by a British Mech Combat Team

Regards

Chris

>The scenario requires the British (the Defender) to only consist of:
Command units (which could include a Sniper), Recce units (on foot), Infantry units (on foot) & Infantry Support units (on foot) + the helicopters required. No other off-table assets for either side, and no Vehicles for the Defender.

This has been played many times in play-test and by others as a fun game. It is actually tough for both sides, even when you are down to 2 units left on the defenders side and you need to try & just get 1 off-table for a Major victory.
It is a fun game for small forces, although it would be interesting to play it with larger ones.

I shall await the game report & outcome with great interest.
Good luck

Hi Mark
The Soviets will be the defenders (MR Pl with only foot-based units) - the hunter force will be a British Mech CT with vehicles.

I have play tested at home - it is a fun game and it can be quite challenging for both sides

Will let you know how we get on
Chris

We have also played it where the Soviets are a team of Spetznats and that can be very interesting indeed.

Sounds good Chris.

Have decided to go with VDV and all teams will be elite, at extra 5pts cost per support team. Will let you know how it goes on 23rd. C

I still don´t see where are the rules for ICM and HE munitions.

Also, What´s infantry good for? We struggle to find them a role in our games, apart from wander in their transports.

Quote from: Phobos on 15 November 2022, 01:40:31 PMI still don´t see where are the rules for ICM and HE munitions.

Also, What´s infantry good for? We struggle to find them a role in our games, apart from wander in their transports.

HE Ammo is the standard default ammo for all artillery and mortars.
ICMs are grouped into the Special Munitions sections

Infantry - great for holding BUAs or fighting in rough ground - useful for assaulting. Cheap so they boost your army breakpoint.

Quote from: Big Insect on 15 November 2022, 03:21:56 PMHE Ammo is the standard default ammo for all artillery and mortars.
ICMs are grouped into the Special Munitions sections

Infantry - great for holding BUAs or fighting in rough ground - useful for assaulting. Cheap so they boost your army breakpoint.

If its the standard why it has an extra points cost in the army lists?
I repeat, ICM DONT appear in the Special Munitions section on pages 65-66. Also don´t appear PGM, even if it´s on the introduction of the section. Only thermo, napalm, chem/bio, FASCAM, cluster and Nuclear.

Why assaulting BUAs if they don´t have tactical value? just to being ignored by the other army? My republican Guard took a BUA in the middle of the table, just to spend all the battle doin nothin because nobody felt the urge to attack them at all.

  Also, I really want to like CWC, but this kind of amateurish redaction in the rules is a big turn off for new players.
 In which part for example, it points that HE is the default munition? if it don´t explicitly says that, it only leads to confusion.

Quote from: Phobos on 15 November 2022, 03:30:59 PMIf its the standard why it has an extra points cost in the army lists?
I repeat, ICM DONT appear in the Special Munitions section on pages 65-66. Also don´t appear PGM, even if it´s on the introduction of the section. Only thermo, napalm, chem/bio, FASCAM, cluster and Nuclear.

Why assaulting BUAs if they don´t have tactical value? just to being ignored by the other army? My republican Guard took a BUA in the middle of the table, just to spend all the battle doin nothin because nobody felt the urge to attack them at all.

Can I clarify what you mean by ICM please?
I understand ICMs to be cluster munitions which are covered.

The extra cost for HE in the lists is for off-table Assets.
You buy these to allow your off-table guns to fire as pre-registered HE assets.
All other Commanded firing of HE by off-table artillery is included in the cost of the artillery pieces. 
So if you want a battery (unit) of off-table guns to fire HE at a pre-plotted point on the table at a specific turn, you must spend 10pts to do so. This asset allows you to fire that gun once in the game at that target point, and it hits that point with no deviation.
Th same gun can fire - under Commanded fire (in a different turn) - when Commanded by an FAO. However it's shooting may be subject to deviation and the FAO must pass a Command roll. There is no extra cost for this.
However, if that gun is firing special munitions (cluster munitions, napalm etc.) it has to buy those munitions separately, regardless of whether they are fired as assets or using Commanded fire. Again, the cost (50pts) to fire Napalm (for example) only allows that gun to fire that munition once in a game.

You are taking me literally -  :) - infantry can assault other infantry in a BUA - Tanks can only assault infantry in the open. So to clear enemy infantry from a BUA, you will need your own Infantry.

Hope that helps?
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 15 November 2022, 04:43:23 PMCan I clarify what you mean by ICM please?
I understand ICMs to be cluster munitions which are covered.

The extra cost for HE in the lists is for off-table Assets.
You buy these to allow your off-table guns to fire as pre-registered HE assets.
All other Commanded firing of HE by off-table artillery is included in the cost of the artillery pieces. 
So if you want a battery (unit) of off-table guns to fire HE at a pre-plotted point on the table at a specific turn, you must spend 10pts to do so. This asset allows you to fire that gun once in the game at that target point, and it hits that point with no deviation.
Th same gun can fire - under Commanded fire (in a different turn) - when Commanded by an FAO. However it's shooting may be subject to deviation and the FAO must pass a Command roll. There is no extra cost for this.
However, if that gun is firing special munitions (cluster munitions, napalm etc.) it has to buy those munitions separately, regardless of whether they are fired as assets or using Commanded fire. Again, the cost (50pts) to fire Napalm (for example) only allows that gun to fire that munition once in a game.

You are taking me literally -  :) - infantry can assault other infantry in a BUA - Tanks can only assault infantry in the open. So to clear enemy infantry from a BUA, you will need your own Infantry.

Hope that helps?
Mark

Point me in which page it says "ICM aka CLUSTER MUNITIONS"? Because it dont appear, again, this is lazy writing. Im sorry, I really want to like this game, it has lots of good ideas, but the redaction of rules is a huge put off.

The issue with HE is the same. In which paragraph points that you need to buy NORMAL munition for off table assets? I can answer that: in NONE, because I re read the section for the 4th time and don´t mention that at all.


As a games developer, if you want players to do certain things in game (use infantry to occupy BUAs for example) you need to reward that move, the lack of reward to do that is what puzzles me.

Quote from: Phobos on 15 November 2022, 05:09:09 PMPoint me in which page it says "ICM aka CLUSTER MUNITIONS"? Because it dont appear, again, this is lazy writing. Im sorry, I really want to like this game, it has lots of good ideas, but the redaction of rules is a huge put off.

The issue with HE is the same. In which paragraph points that you need to buy NORMAL munition for off table assets? I can answer that: in NONE, because I re read the section for the 4th time and don´t mention that at all.

It is generally accepted practice that ICMs are in fact a member of the Cluster Munitions 'family' - I don't believe it need any clarification.

Funny that over c. 10-15 years and many hundreds/thousands (now) of players - we've never needed that clarification on HE or Assets before, as you describe.

The very fact that you are asking the question "what are infantry used for" does puzzle me as again, we've never had that question before and I think as you play the game more, the usefulness of each of the different troop/unit types becomes more and more apparent.

"As a games developer, if you want players to do certain things in game (use infantry to occupy BUAs for example) you need to reward that move, the lack of reward to do that is what puzzles me." Personally I am not fussed how an individual player uses infantry - it will become very obvious how Infantry can be used on the table-top - I've seen games won by all Infantry forces over a full mechanised forces even in relatively open terrain. The 'reward' with regard to Infantry in BUAs is obvious from a game play perspective as getting Infantry out of BUAs especially with armour is very difficult.

Enjoy the game.

Again and again you dont answer my questions. I ask where is explained certain thing, you only say "it´s known" or "it´s widely accepted"
I must not know or widely accept anything, because we are talking about a rulebook, and the rules in a rulebook must be explained in it, not more, not less.

The same with infantry, I don´t know which scenarios you use, but only in 2 out of 16 a BUA can be an objective, so no need for the opposing force in the other 14 to enter those same BUAs.

I can´t enjoy the game, because you did a lousy job.

I confess I'm getting confused reading this exchange.
HE assets - yes for off table arty - but only for use in scheduled fire right?
No need to buy assets for fire requested via FAO during game?
So no charge for HE if only requested fire?

That's what it used to be - have I missed a change?

Yes Gwydion, you're right.

Phobos, it doesn't say you NEED to buy "normal" ammunition for off-table assets because you don't need to buy ammunition for assets unless you want the special ammunition types detailed in the rules. You just need to buy the assets. The effects of which are given. In game terms it doesn't matter if you're firing rockets or rock buns. All you need to know is in the rules.

As in real life, infantry becomes more useful the denser the terrain you use. Not even the Russian steppe or the Karakorum Desert are as flat and featureless as the average wargames table that I see.

Finally, I'm with Douglas Bader - "Rules are for the advice of wise men and the adherence of fools"*

*WARNING - This may not be an exact quite

Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 November 2022, 07:00:29 PMYes Gwydion, you're right.

Phobos, it doesn't say you NEED to buy "normal" ammunition for off-table assets because you don't need to buy ammunition for assets unless you want the special ammunition types detailed in the rules. You just need to buy the assets. The effects of which are given. In game terms it doesn't matter if you're firing rockets or rock buns. All you need to know is in the rules.

As in real life, infantry becomes more useful the denser the terrain you use. Not even the Russian steppe or the Karakorum Desert are as flat and featureless as the average wargames table that I see.

Finally, I'm with Douglas Bader - "Rules are for the advice of wise men and the adherence of fools"*

*WARNING - This may not be an exact quite

Well, tell that to Big Insect "The extra cost for HE in the lists is for off-table Assets.
You buy these to allow your off-table guns to fire as pre-registered HE assets. "

Maybe you need to learn to read and stop being a ludicrous person?

Btw, we play with an average 12 woods and 6 hills plus 1 or 2 villages, so shut up about my gaming table.

Also, what a salad with "asset" used in like 4 different contexts. Don´t you work with a basic glossary?

QuoteMaybe you need to learn to read and stop being a ludicrous person?

Quote...so shut up about my gaming table.

The members are trying to help you and answer your questions, but people are not going to continue doing that if you respond like this.

I´m not asking the members, I´m asking the game designer.

QuoteI´m not asking the members, I´m asking the game designer.

Actually, you're taking part in a group discussion.


Also my comment on terrain density was a general observation rather than being aimed at any specific person or game.

QuoteWell, tell that to Big Insect "The extra cost for HE in the lists is for off-table Assets.
You buy these to allow your off-table guns to fire as pre-registered HE assets. "

Maybe you need to learn to read and stop being a ludicrous person?

Read the 'Pre-game checklist' p.17
'Scheduled strikes'
'Artillery [and air strikes] can be scheduled to take place on specific turns during the game using the appropriate Artillery [and Air] assets bought as part of your battlegroup, plus the necessary artillery, aircraft or helicopters to deliver these strikes. Artillery strikes can also be requested by dedicated Forward Artillery Observers...during the command phase, but do not require assets when doing so.'

Read in conjunction with 'Scheduled Phase' p.20 and 'Artillery Support' p52 and 'Resolving Artillery Support' p.54 - the latter explains the advantage of scheduled fire which is one reason you pay for your 'assets (ammunition) to allow scheduled fire but not for requested fire.

Now have a nice cup of tea and stop blaming other people for your lack of patience.

Hi

Where can I find out more about the definition of the letters in bold type in the notes/abilities of the army lists? For example what does S2 mean for a Centurion Mk3 or R/IR for a T64 (I assume that R=Rare) or S1/T1 for a Challenger?

Thanks

Stephen

IR is Infra Red (p.69 Nightfighting)
S1 is Stabilised (p.40 Stabilisation) and the 1 is the reduction in attacks when firing on the move.
TI (not T1) is Thermal Imaging (p.69 Nightfighting)

These used to be in the notes section of the Army List Data as well as in the relevant rules section - and it would be more helpful to new players if they remained there as well. Perhaps space was a constraint. (or maybe I just can't see them)

I think we'll have a look at putting out an abbreviations document with page references for the relevant rules to go with them. Pete did that in the original CWC if I recall correctly.

QuoteI can´t enjoy the game, because you did a lousy job.

It's odd that the many thousands of other players of BKC, CWC and FWC, over many many years, all seem to have a good grasp of how the rules work and how they are played. The fact that you appear to be unable to understand how the rules work might have more to do with your ability to understand things, than it has about me doing a "lousy job'.

Maybe if you were not so aggressive and rude in your email correspondence you might actually get some help.
But I wont be bothering to reply to you again, unless I get an appropriate apology.

Mark

Quote from: Gwydion on 16 November 2022, 02:31:42 PMI confess I'm getting confused reading this exchange.
HE assets - yes for off table arty - but only for use in scheduled fire right?
No need to buy assets for fire requested via FAO during game?
So no charge for HE if only requested fire?

That's what it used to be - have I missed a change?

No change ... that is correct Gwydion - you only buy pre-scheduled assets for fire. But you need to buy Special Munitions separately whether they are for Scheduled or FAO or FAC directed fire.

Hi Gwydion and Leon, thanks for your helpful replies.

Quote from: Big Insect on 17 November 2022, 10:46:03 AMI can´t enjoy the game, because you did a lousy job.


It's odd that the many thousands of other players of BKC, CWC and FWC, over many many years, all seem to have a good grasp of how the rules work and how they are played. The fact that you appear to be unable to understand how the rules work might have more to do with your ability to understand things, than it has about me doing a "lousy job'.

Maybe if you were not so aggressive and rude in your email correspondence you might actually get some help.
But I wont be bothering to reply to you again, unless I get an appropriate apology.

Mark

How nice calling me stupid when I just asked you in which section appeared a rule...

Had you think that A) people asking for doubts are not native english speakers and B) are not technomilitary geeks with the obligation of knowing every initials meaning? If you have answered  "oh, my bad, ICM are the same as cluster munitions" or "HE assets are only to scheduled attacks, maybe you missed that section, that is not in the artillery explanation" I will not have the feel of being undervaluated in my questions.

BTW, yes, I apologize if you feel that lousy was a too strong calification for your job in the rulebook, no problems, I think something was lost in the translation (in spanish "chapuza" is not an insult)

I apologise Phobos for suggesting you lacked patience.

I know playing a game and being unable to find a clarification for an acronym or TLA (three letter abbreviation :) ) or a rule can be a real pain. Modern military jargon is full of unhelpful instances of the abbreviation fetish.

I suspect Mark (Big Insect) hadn't realised there was a language difference, and I don't think he intended to belittle you.

CWC is a very good set of rules but I know that it can be difficult finding your way round them at times - I remember the long and generally good natured discussions on the old forum about various interpretations.

I'm sorry you are finding your enjoyment diminished. Perhaps if you continue to ask questions here and we make allowances for each other - the language interpretations etc, we can help you get a better game out of them? No one wants you to have a bad experience.

Don´t apologize with me, because in fact, I lacked patience in this issue and lost my manners.

I´m sure Big Insect didn´t have that intention, because we had other exchanges of opinion in army list errata for example without any problem.
I also want to apologize with ?Itoriel? (I can´t find his answer in the thread), I lost patience with him too and gave him a really rude answer that did not helped me at all.

I know CWC is great, we tried before Modern Spearhead, FFT3, Battle Group (not the one of PSC, another) and a couple more, without too much enjoyment. In fact, I have another CWC game this saturday, and I hope I can grasp some of the rules better.

My query for the infantry question was weird, It´s not a rules issue in fact, just of tactical employment and this was not the thread to ask about it neither.

QuoteHi, I just wanted to ask, what rules do letters A, R, and O stand for in unit notes/abilities?

The closest I can get is A for Amphibious and R for only fires in a 90 degree cone, which is weird for tanks.

I spent some time searching (case-sensitive, whole words) the rules PDF for it, but unlike S1, TI, H, I couldn't find anything that goes "marked by 'A'"

'A' = Amphibious (not to be mistaken for Aquatic - where the unit can only operate on water; or Air portable)

'R' = Restricted Arc - this not only represents fixed gun or turretless vehicles, but also tanks with poor visibility or smaller crews where the observer/commander is also loaders etc. It can also represent towed guns, that require manual or mechanical assistance to turn and redeploy.

But also remember - each model does not represent a single tank - it represents a formation - and how that formation performs effects the arc of fire. We (in the West) tend to have a perception of MBTs moving at speed, with traversing turrets. The reality, especially in Soviet bloc or developing world tank formations is that this was actually not tactical doctrine or something that crews were trained or even capable of achieving with any great success.

'O' = Open topped (this has been changed to 'Exposed') and not only represents Open topped vehicles, but those with partial armoured tops or very weak or thin top armour.

As Leon has stated above, the intention is to create a PDF that covers all the various Special Abilities and Special Characteristics, from all the army lists, into a single downloadable sheet. But as the lists are still being drafted we are actually creating more of these - such as Restricted Ammo (for example) - and so this is an on-going project (for now at least).

Thanks
Mark

QuoteBut also remember - each model does not represent a single tank - it represents a formation - and how that formation performs effects the arc of fire.

How big a formation?

They represent units vice formations in military terms:

Usually a single base or vehicle model represents a platoon of infantry or vehicles (see p.4 'Units, Formations and Battlegroups) when playing the game at the usual Div or Regimental level. One model equals one vehicle when playing at the optional Company or Battalion level.

No they represent platoons, unit is a battalion/rgt, independant companies would be minor units. Formation is several units. Correct term would be element, for a platoon.

No.
I refer you to the MOD British army website:

Corps, Regiments, Units (https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/)

QuoteCORPS, REGIMENTS AND UNITS
The command structure is hierarchical with divisions and brigades responsible for administering groupings of smaller units. Major Units are regiment or battalion-sized with minor units being smaller, either company sized sub-units or platoons.

A model represents a platoon as I said

Hi Mark

This question may have come up before but Special Munitions section in the rules explains about FASCAM, but the asset details in the army lists do not include FASCAM. I assume they would require use of assets. So am unsure firstly  points cost, secondly the limit per gun or aircraft and thirdly which nations can use them.

Can you advise please and maybe include in the updated PDFs if asset lists need amending.

Rgds
Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 18 February 2023, 10:41:11 AMHi Mark

This question may have come up before but Special Munitions section in the rules explains about FASCAM, but the asset details in the army lists do not include FASCAM. I assume they would require use of assets. So am unsure firstly  points cost, secondly the limit per gun or aircraft and thirdly which nations can use them.

Can you advise please and maybe include in the updated PDFs if asset lists need amending.

Rgds
Chris

Hi Chris
I think I may have answered this previously - but FASCAM P65/66 are indicated in the army lists where appropriate, in the Assets section (sometimes they may fall under the category ICM or DPICM - Dual-purpose improved conventional munition).
They were not as widely distributed as we might think. They were generally limited to Remote Anti-Armor Mine System (RAAMS) (delivered via 155mm howitzer shell); Area Denial Artillery Munition (ADAM) (again delivered via a 155mm howitzer shell) or GATOR mine system (which were air dropped).
You might find this article of interest: https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/fascam.htm

It is best to check the PDF versions of the lists rather than relying upon the example lists in the printed rules.
Only the UK, US, West Germany, and Soviet forces (not 1st or 2nd grade Warsaw Pact) can use them.

Their biggest issue was coordination and the US required Brigade authorization for their deployment. Primarily because of the complexity of mapping their deployment - especially as some munitions had the potential of a much longer 'live' time-range than others (or had the ability to shut off after a certain time) - plus they were totally indiscriminate making friendly fire from them a real issue.
The Soviets used a lot of them in Afghanistan - mostly small AP butterfly mines - dropped by air.

Hope that helps (a bit)
Mark

Hi,

Is there any reason for having infantry as low profile in BKCIV and average in CWCII?

Thanks

I suspect you may need to check the Errata in BKC (I'd need to check that myself!) - as both should be the same and both 'Average' profile.
This may see illogical but it is a gaming mechanism to avoid the situation where Infantry (if depicted as Low profile) become impossible to hit in many circumstances, due to their other accumulated modifiers.
I admit it is a bit clumsy - but it seems to work ok.

Thanks
Mark

QuoteI admit it is a bit clumsy - but it seems to work ok.

The Commander series, getting the right result for all the wrong reasons. Which is better than the reverse! :)

Hi,

V1.1 says keep it low profile (v.1.0 said average, so it changed twice).

Quote from: BTM on 01 June 2023, 06:28:14 AMHi,

V1.1 says keep it low profile (v.1.0 said average, so it changed twice).

OK - let me check  :) It might be that the other factors have been adjusted in CWC. Or are you referring to BKC?
Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 01 June 2023, 09:38:26 AMOK - let me check  :) It might be that the other factors have been adjusted in CWC. Or are you referring to BKC?
Thanks
Mark

BKC IV v.1.1 errata (latest) low profile. CWC average then?

Quote from: BTM on 02 June 2023, 08:11:49 AMBKC IV v.1.1 errata (latest) low profile. CWC average then?

I'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Quote from: Big Insect on 02 June 2023, 10:12:58 AMI'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Thanks Mark!
I'll play BKC IV as indicated in the latest errata available then. I'll play it as average profile in CWC II and wait to see if the coming errata changes something.

I have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

We used Starlight TI when I was in the HAC Corps Patrol Unit in the early 1980s...

Quote from: Andrew T on 19 September 2023, 09:57:15 PMI have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?
> Yes - You can use clear obstacles & create obstacles (5cm long) as an Initiative action for both Engineers and other units with dozer-blades. The Urban Warfare optional rules might also be of interest.

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?
> yes - there is more Night Fighting aspects in the Optional Rules - reduced visibility etc.

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

> generally the way things work with Command units (FAOs/FACs) is that the better they are - in terms of both training and equipment etc. - the higher their CV will be (relative to other enemy units). In truth, the Command units are deliberately designed not to be that complex. Hence why we don't specify vehicle types etc. and only very rarely special characteristics.

Hi there
Might be worth you checking through the Optional Rules PDFs as some of your questions may be answered (in more detail) there. But I've made a few comments in-line above.
Cheers
Mark

Where are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

Quote from: tankette on 11 October 2023, 10:40:44 PMWhere are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

There is not currently a consolidated document for CWCII rules & list errata.
One will be produced, but not immediately, as the lists are still being worked on.

All errata & any answers/changes should appear in this particular thread.
Thanks
Mark

Thank you, Mitch

Hi Mark

I am looking at some of he older posts and see your comment in the discussion about infantry profiles and the inability of supporting IFVs being able to shoot overhead, because of their dismounted infantry's average profile:

"The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average."

You have said "we can adjust that in the next set of errata" What exactly is it going to say about this? Will it say that IFVs can shoot overhead of their dismounted infantry? Or something else?

When are we likely to see the errata pages, as there are many quite significant tweaks coming as a result of all the discussions held to date?

Regards

Chris

Hi. In page 84 of CWC says in the first pharagraph that in pillboxes can bé placed  an antitank unit. And in the pillbox description don't say anitanything. Wich is correct?
The same with the bunkers. There is a diferent descripcions in the text and in the referències table. Wich is correct?
Is there diferent point cost for the diferent tipes of bunkers?

Thanks for all you work.
Jordi

Quote from: JcDent on 28 May 2022, 06:59:15 AMHi, I just wanted to ask, what rules do letters A, R, and O stand for in unit notes/abilities?

The closest I can get is A for Amphibious and R for only fires in a 90 degree cone, which is weird for tanks.

I spent some time searching (case-sensitive, whole words) the rules PDF for it, but unlike S1, TI, H, I couldn't find anything that goes "marked by 'A'"

A = Amphibious capability (most AFV's only move at 5cm per turn in amphibious mode & some need to prepare to go 'amphibious').

R = Restricted vision - this is not just to do with the optics or equipment in a single tank, but also the number of crew. So a lot of Soviet/Chinese tanks/AFVs will have an 'R' designation, because of the lower numbers of crew who are fully occupied in loading and firing rather than 'observing'. It is also driven by tactical doctrine - so formations using Rigid Tac.Doc. are much more likely to be classified as 'R'. Also remember the rules are written on the basis that 1 model on the table represents a number of actual vehicles in real life and the doctrinal approach to how the formations are controlled and fight will also dictate the use of an R designation. Self-Propelled Guns are also often classified with an 'R', but not always.

O = Open-topped or Exposed (the two terms are basically the same) - so they are AFVs with either have no overhead armour, or what they do have is very thin and insubstantial.

Hope that helps
Cheers
Mark

QuoteYou have said "we can adjust that in the next set of errata" What exactly is it going to say about this? Will it say that IFVs can shoot overhead of their dismounted infantry? Or something else?

When are we likely to see the errata pages, as there are many quite significant tweaks coming as a result of all the discussions held to date?

Regards

Chris

Hi Mark

When are the Errata pages due to be published please, as there are many significant tweaks coming, following all the discussions held to-date?

Rgds
Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 23 February 2024, 10:41:05 AMHi Mark

When are the Errata pages due to be published please, as there are many significant tweaks coming, following all the discussions held to-date?

Rgds
Chris

Hi Chris - the focus (to-date) has primarily been on the Army List 'continuity' project. As the majority of the lists are on-line now, it is simpler to update these as a mass batch. That work has been underway for many months now and will be the first thing to be released from an Errata perspective.
Following that will come the Rules Errata. But TBF this may not be as onerous or far-reaching as the army lists, as a lot of what appears to be Errata on the thread is actually clarifications. However, this process involves Leon & myself going through all the Rules Errata on the Forum - editing it down to its salient points and then inserting any changes/additions/corrections into the Rules PDF and then producing a separate down-loadable Errata sheet that can be printed off. That process has not started yet - as my focus has been on the lists. But will kick off once the revised Army Lists are published.
A long answer to a short question - apologies
Mark