Quote from: Superscribe on 29 May 2022, 12:12:41 PMHi. Helicopter rules on page 60 state hels are treated as stabilised but the stabilised factors are missing from US and Soviet army lists in the rulebook, and from Bundeswehr, Soviet & Soviet VDV PDF lists. British factors seem to be the only ones present. Are all the other Nations' helicopters S2, like the Brits?

All Attack helicopters are classified as Stabilised - and all are S1 (I'll double check the Brits - that is probably an error as I had removed all other references to it in the list notes).
Certain ATGW can only be fired when stationary - and then helicopters are considered to be hovering statically. But that is a specific example highlighted in the appropriate list.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 May 2022, 06:11:12 PMWhich list have you spotted the typo in please?
Thanks
mark

It was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 May 2022, 06:07:22 PMWelcome (back) and thank you for all the observations/corrections and comments.
I will digest and reply in-line when I can grab some time.
But on the Soviet gun stats - this has long been an issue - as we come up against the challenge of doctrine v official stats. If you put a lot of the 'official' stats for Soviet tank gun-ranges etc into the army lists as they were 'officially' supposed to be you'd end up with many of them far outdistancing their contemporary NATO opposite numbers. Generally, I don't believe that in practice that is how they'd have been used.

I have a whole set of 'alternative' Soviet tank gun stats - I'll start up a separate thread on the subject and we can debate them in detail there. I am not opposed to changing them at all (even in the near future) but I would like to ensure we 'honour' game-play balance and also that we should attempt a degree of continuity across all lists where they are used.

Many thanks
Mark

Sounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

Dylan I would agree. In essance apart from the engine early T64A and T72 are identical. It could be that it's been carried over from the T64 - a rare beast with the 115 rather than the 125.

Quote from: sultanbev on 30 May 2022, 10:23:52 PMIt was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

Thanks Mark

Quote from: dylan on 31 May 2022, 07:46:22 AMSounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

Great - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

Quote from: Big Insect on 31 May 2022, 08:58:00 AMGreat - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

Cool - remember to correct the base model T-72 on all the lists (incl. WarPac Grade 1, WarPac Grade 2, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, etc).

Now, the next problem you have is the "composite armour" special characteristic.  As noted in my earlier post, you don't give this to the T-64 or the T-64A, and yet both of them had it, and in fact this was the defining feature of that tank in Soviet eyes.  You also don't give them S2 when in fact they were stabilised.
By contrast, the original T-72 only had composite armour on the glacis.  The T-72 base model turret was solid steel with no composite armour at all.  Now, CWC isn't granular enough to feature different turret and hull ratings (although, especially for NATO tanks that were intended to fight mainly from hulldown there were often huge differences in the protection of turret and hull, take Challenger for instance).  So you'll have to decide whether only having composite armour on the hull front is enough for the T-72 to be rated as "composite armour".

The T-72A should be added to the Soviet lists.  It was introduced from 1979.  It had composite armour in both hull and turret front ("Dolly Parton").  It added a laser rangegfinder to replace the coincidence rangefinder.  So it should be rated "composite armour" and it should have better range stats than the base T-72 and the T-64A.  *BUT* its optics and fire control still weren't as good as those of the T-64B and the T-80B (which were premium tanks in the Soviet conception).  So whatever firepower range ratings you give the T-72A have to sit in between the original T-72/T-64A on the onehand and the T-64B/T-80B on the other. Simples!  The T-72M1 is the export equivalent of the T-72A and should be rated the same but was produced from 1983.

You include the base model T-80.  Be aware that this was produced only in miniscule numbers.  Also be aware that it had a gas turbine engine in a new hull but that it essentially had a T-64A turret.  I'm not sure your ratings currently reflect that.  The first mass production model of the T-80 series was the T-80B.  There is a case to be made for simply ignoring the "T-80" and leaving it off CWC lists and just starting with the T-80B (even more confusingly, the "T-80A" actually came after the T-80B and was never mass produced, but lets ignore that one!)

Thanks Dylan

The plan is to review all the suggested army list errata/changes - compile a 'master' list and then we will publish it for wider debate, ahead of correcting things.

We usually leave that for a couple of months, as experience has told us that things come out of the woodwork as gamers play with the rules more often. Also, I'm very aware that I will never have he specialist knowledge that many individual players have on specific armies. So, this is very much a 'community effort'.

It is also why I'm being 'hard-nosed' about trying to keep the Rules errata and List errata separate and in the two 'sticky' threads that have been set up.

Obviously, things like typos & I spotted a unit stat that had a factor or 300/100 somewhere (now corrected to 3/100) - for example, will get corrected automatically.

Any help and assistance especially with the Soviet tanks stats, assorted vehicle varients and armour effects are much appreciated.

Thanks
Mark

A small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

Quote from: JcDent on 01 June 2022, 03:41:01 PMA small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

When playing 1:1 games Jim I totally agree - by all means reduce the number of INF: transported in certain APCs.
Mostly the game is designed for a higher level of abstraction and there is a need to carry an INF: and a Support weapon in an APC to allow certain formations to be created.

The T-72 factors have already been picked up in another posting on this thread and are in the errata file.
Thanks for picking the up though 

Cheers
Mark

Hi

Noticed in the rule book, the british list  Charlie G is 5/25 but in the online list it's 5/40 as in other lists. Which one is correct .

We will pick this up in the Errata Jim

The correct stats (for a standard Carl Gustav) is:
AP: 5/40   AT: 5/40H

Thanks
Mark

Presumably that's the S.550 Carl Gustav of the late 1970s+ which has 700m anti-tank range - the original M2 Carl Gustav in NATO service had a maximum anti-tank range of 450m.(1963 in UK service). The Swedish original dates back to 1948 with 300m range.

A minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

Hi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

More of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

Quote from: JcDent on 03 June 2022, 12:47:31 PMMore of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

I think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 03 June 2022, 01:36:38 AMA minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

I can check that, but usually additional benefits have a 5pts cost - or a multiple of 5pts.
However, it might be that the 4x4 SP:ATGW version, has fewer hits than the INF:ATGW version, and that is off-set by the increased move distance for the 4x4 version. So they broadly end up the same points cost.

Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Smartbomb on 03 June 2022, 01:28:07 PMI think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

Absolutely Smartbomb - there are also instances - such as Soviet forces in Afghanistan (for example) - where having the standard Infantry squad armed with an RPG-7 is a waste of points, and historically the Soviets left a lot of their IATWs back at base - same as with the ATGWs - as the Mujahedeen had no armour and even very few soft vehicles to target.
Similarly, you might want to field a force that represents an army that is low on supplies, so limit your IATWs to 1:3 Infantry units (for example).
I am just trying to make things as flexible for players as possible.

Hope that helps JC?

QuoteHi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

All of this is helpful Smartbomb - thank you
As you can imagine there are many thousands of stats going into the proposed c.70 army list - the intention is that there should be a standardised set of stats and costs for a specific vehicle type (& there is a master-list) - however, sometimes in transcription I get what I call 'list-blindness' (Leon will laugh at this  ) and no matter how many times I double check a list or a stat (like that Austrian Carl Gustav) I cannot see the issue.

Also - there are - as you can imagine - so many variants of a specific vehicle and unfortunately only a certain number of stats available to represent it.
In addition, sometimes my sources are a bit vague as to which variant a certain army used - and on other occasions (the IDF list is a really 'bad'example of this) the number of variants produced and then used, in such small numbers, really doesn't warrant a separate stats line for each variant. If that makes sense.

We have a number of new lists about to be released - once those are out I'm intending to spend a bit of time on the errata and also the continuity across lists. For example - we have a points issue with some of the Chinese tank stats, across the Pakistani, Warsaw Pact and NVA lists, that will be picked up when the Chinese list (my current 'project') is finalised.

But on the AMX 13 - I suspect that that might be a copying error from the CWC-I lists. I'll add it to my to-do list.

Thanks
Mark