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