Hello all. On pl.50 of the CWC2 rulebooks it talks about units evading ATGW fire and says "....the evasion will be unsuccessful if any of the dice score equal to or greater than the cover of the unit." What does this mean?

I'm assuming it relates to the to hit number when firing but it's not very clear.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry the example clarified the answer.

Looking at the film footage coming from the Ukraine, evading incoming ATGW doesn't appear to happen very often.

Is this rule too optimistic?

I appreciate the Ukrainian's only release film footage that suits there needs.

Dunno about CWC, but in my gaming rules it's only really effective against 1st Gen ATGW and slow early 2nd Gen ATGW, and doesn't happen very often. Below 1km launcher->target range it's virtually impossible.

Closed down tanks have no chance of spotting the incoming missiles and attempting to evade, dodge to cover or popping smoke. 

Quote from: JJ252 on 11 June 2022, 07:15:21 PMLooking at the film footage coming from the Ukraine, evading incoming ATGW doesn't appear to happen very often.

Is this rule too optimistic?

I appreciate the Ukrainian's only release film footage that suits there needs.

Play a few games and you'll see that in the reality of a table-top game it is hard to really make it work that often.
Also, these rules are not designed around 'ultra-modern' post 1990 ATGW systems, but where they appear in the lists they are very much more effective.

Cheers
Mark

Mark the way it's written ATM a MACLOS missile can be evaded on 5 or below, so there is a 1 in 6 chance of hitting and 5/6ths chance of evading. Seems a tad excecessive

QuoteMark the way it's written ATM a MACLOS missile can be evaded on 5 or below, so there is a 1 in 6 chance of hitting and 5/6ths chance of evading. Seems a tad excecessive

If I am reading the rules right the MACLOs missile it hits would only suppress on a further 6 - id does seem a little useless.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 June 2022, 07:46:19 AMIf I am reading the rules right the MACLOs missile it hits would only suppress on a further 6 - id does seem a little useless.

You suppress on an under to hit factor - so you suppress on a 1-5 roll

Interesting that we are all getting 'animated' about this in CWC-II - as it has been like this since the dawn of CWC-I - with no complaints.

Okay,  -  I'm not sure how the MCLOS ATGW thing works

My reading was that you can evade ATGW if :
+30cm away
You throw lower than the cover (in the open; 3 or lower)

MCLOS adds +2 to hit so does that mean the requirement to evade moves to 5 or lower or does the 'cover' level determine the evade requirement and remain 3 or lower?

A successful evade (whichever variant above) would mean that you moved the cover level from 'open' to 'partial cover' and this raises the requirement to hit to 5 or 6.
BUT – as the MCLOS adds +2 to the requirement to hit – it is 7.

Is that an automatic miss? Or do you always hit if a natural 6 is thrown?

QuoteYou suppress on an under to hit factor - so you suppress on a 1-5 roll

Not for the first time in my life I am confused! - from the rulebook page 42- " If any of the dice in the suppression roll score equal to or greater than the original score required to hit the target then the unit will become suppressed"

Quote from: Big Insect on 13 June 2022, 10:29:34 AMYou suppress on an under to hit factor - so you suppress on a 1-5 roll

ER no - on OVER the to hit roll in any game I ever played !

Quote from: Gwydion on 13 June 2022, 11:11:54 AMIs that an automatic miss?

Yes, I think so. And I think the original cover is the evade stat you use.

That said regarding the MCLOS discussion: there is a whole section  in errata or the army list threads about how useless MCLOS weapons were. They have something like a 10% hit ratio.

Given how they are only on lists as very early ATGMs in a time when most AT weapons are still guns, I don't think the stats are overly harsh from a realism standpoint. From a fun standpoint? That depends on the individual.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 13 June 2022, 02:04:02 PMYes, I think so. And I think the original cover is the evade stat you use.

That said regarding the MCLOS discussion: there is a whole section  in errata or the army list threads about how useless MCLOS weapons were. They have something like a 10% hit ratio.

I would suggest that it might be any idea to reduce the cost of MCLOS systems in the army lists? they seem overpriced at the moment.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 13 June 2022, 02:04:02 PMGiven how they are only on lists as very early ATGMs in a time when most AT weapons are still guns, I don't think the stats are overly harsh from a realism standpoint.

Oh, I agree. They appear to have been almost useless in the Yom Kippur war. No quibbles with them being 'sub optimal'. I was just wondering because an earlier poster had suggested there remained a 1 in 6 chance of a hit if the target evaded and I didn't read it like that.

Quote from: Gwydion on 13 June 2022, 03:22:47 PMOh, I agree. They appear to have been almost useless in the Yom Kippur war. No quibbles with them being 'sub optimal'. I was just wondering because an earlier poster had suggested there remained a 1 in 6 chance of a hit if the target evaded and I didn't read it like that.

It may fall into the "no modifiers can make a target unhittable" caveat in the early pages of the rules. Evade might only make them unhi/table if they duck out of LOS. The writers would have to say for certain.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 June 2022, 02:18:23 PMI would suggest that it might be any idea to reduce the cost of MCLOS systems in the army lists? they seem overpriced at the moment.

No arguments from me. I've messed with stats and costs to reflect better training, overcosting issues etc. You paid the same amount I did for the game presumably, so there's nothing to say you can't change anything you want.

Quote from: Smartbomb on 13 June 2022, 04:06:00 PMNo arguments from me. I've messed with stats and costs to reflect better training, overcosting issues etc. You paid the same amount I did for the game presumably, so there's nothing to say you can't change anything you want.

True, but  I would rather have the Papal blessing than cause a schism

The thing is ...

a). Something is useless if it doesn't hit (& MCLOS operators ATGW were not great at hitting targets - that is agreed). However ...
 
b). Something is very useful if it does substantial damage when it does hit, and at the time MCLOS ATGW came into their 'heyday' very few MBTs had Composite or ERA or similar armours and so they have no saves. So a hit with an MCLOS ATGW is usually devastating (an auto KO) for most in-period AFVs.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Arab Sagger (9M14 Malyutka) anti-tank missile teams destroyed over 800 IDF MBTs and other armoured vehicles - in just under 6 days of fighting - so not that ineffective. This was despite an on-target hit rate in single digit percentages, towards the end of the war. The Syrians only had a 25% hit rate at the beginning of the conflict with experienced crews, most of whom did not survive long once targeted by enemy artillery and mortar fire.

As Composite & ERA etc type armour becomes more prevalent we start to see SACLOS ATGW appearing - (NB: SACLOS is the 'default' level for ATGWs in the rules). The evolution of SACLOS ATGW had little to do with the introduction of Composite or ERA armour, it was a development based upon learnings from the live-fire experience from both the Arab-Israeli wars and Vietnam.
The benefits of SACLOS and other similar upgrades was also eventually negated by armour development and so we start to see other types of warheads and firing technologies moving forwards.

But all of this is partly why we continue to retain tank guns - rate of fire, ability to 'fire & forget', the 'cost effectiveness' of a tank shell v any type of ATGW, the need to protect trained/skilled crews on the battle field etc. are all good reasons why we still have MBTs. If you look back on developments both in the USA (such as the M60A2 'Starship' and Sheridan, both firing Shillelagh missiles and similar developments in the USSR) these were deemed not to be successful enough to warrant a whole-sale move to ATGWs over MBT guns, and for very good reasons.
We are seeing guided weaponry now being fired by the 'modern' generation of MBTS, with much higher on-target hit rates, but these are outside the scope of the rules (at present).

However, ATGWs do have significantly long ranges (when compared to MBT guns) - which means that their deployment at the rear of the battle line - hopefully out of harms way from enemy action (other than artillery/mortars & other ATGWs) makes they particularly important, in a combined arms perspective. Making a lot of the vehicle mounted ATGWs 'Dedicated' (in CWC-II) also significantly improves their battlefield effectiveness (& the 'realism' of how they should be played on-table). Also, the minimum 'arming' distance for ATGWs (20cm) - which is new to CWC-II - see page 50 - is actually quite generous (in the ATGWs favour) but that should also influence the use of ATGWs to a more 'historic' way of being used on the table-top.

This is an arms race folks - ATGWs are not super weapons. It is also one of the challenge of trying to cover a period as long as this, with such rapid weapons technology development. With a Piat at one end and Hellfire 'fire & forget' ATGW with Tandem warhead at the other 

I will review the costs of MCLOS ATGWs, but that is not going to be an immediate Errata action - just to manage expectations.

Hopefully the above is helpful ... but as stated elsewhere ... please play the game a few times, and then look at suggesting changing rules mechanism - as there is often a complex domino effect around any changes that need to be taken into consideration 

Thanks
Mark

I have serious doubts about the '800 MBT and other armoured vehicles' claim. It comes from Soviet reports immediately following the war and probably involves as much propaganda as any realistic appreciation of performance.

Some versions claim 1,000 tanks!

I think it was the Egyptians in their initial defence against charging IDF tanks, eager to sort out the infantry, before the Egyptian heavy weapons crossed the Suez, that had c 25% hits. One in 3 Egyptian infantry had man portable anti-tank weapons in that first crossing, a significant proportion being AT-3 Sagger. Once the Israelis appreciated the danger they changed to a more all arms approach. The Syrians attacked more and didn't deploy the AT-3 as well.

So it is an arms race and you're unlikely to find someone with hindsight charging unsupported tanks against an ATGW line in open desert. But the Israelis weren't stupid they just hadn't realised the AT-3 was there in such numbers or what it could do. Once they did things changed.

The points cost of MCLOS doesn't really affect me as I don't bother with points values in making scenarios. So I'm pretty happy with how the thing works as it is.

What NLAW and Javelin may do is not relevant to a set of rules covering 1945 to early 90s.

I totally agree
Thanks