There is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

Having grew up in the Cold War I still use the NATO names a lot, and they generally make more sense. BMP-R is a recce version of the BMP, whereas BRM could well be anything. BRDM-3 I know as a BRDM-2 with AT-5 Spandrel on it, but 9P148 with 9M113 Konkurs is completely alien, and a mouthfull that doesn't even mention the carrier vehicle*.
Neither does the M150, M730 and M163, but at least it is a pattern of 3 numbers that follow M113, so has a sort of intuitive feel to it making it easier to remember.
We have to admit that the Russian naming system is really crap, and they could have done themselves a lot of favours by naming vehicles and planes like the British do. So NATO had to do it for them. Meh.

*Turns out the BRDM-3 is a recce version of the BTR-80, so now I call it BRDM-2 Spandrel.

Type 69 is no excuse. The US has M1 everything in WW2 and we all manage. I am sure there is enough room in the text box in the army list to write Type 69 tank or Type 69 rocket launcher or whatever.

If you're going to use the new-fangled Russian names from 50 years ago then the NATO reporting name should be alongside.
How do you even pronounce Malyutka? 

Quote from: Big Insect on 08 June 2022, 04:56:36 PMThere is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

I think the question is how far to take it. I personally do the above NATO and Russian. But for example:

9K31 Strela-1?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin?
9K31 Strela-1/SA-9 Gaskin (BRDM-2)?

I'd go for #1 if anything. At some point, you are going to have to do some book keeping, and Id rather effort go into stat revisions,, new lists,, etc. Personally, I just look units up on Wikipedia and made notes that made sense to me.

And the various "types" are generally self-explanatory to people interested in those lists. Type 63 in Recon? The PT-76ish light tank. Type 63 in Off Table Arty? MLRS. Transport? APC.

being another who started playing Moderns in the early 80's I also have a hard time following the Russian designations. From your list I'd pump for option 2 as to me an SA-9 is the AA version of the BRDM-2. Likewise the BRDM 3 was the BRDM-2 with Spandrel.
The other thing about back in the day was we had no access to any information about over the fence (or this side of the fence for that matter).

How do you pronounce malyutka? Easy
Малютка
 
Still seems weird calling a Sagger: 'Baby'

I'd also vote for using the NATO terminology - it's what I'm familiar with, I suspect it what most people are familiar with, it matches the way model manufacturers typically name their units, and it means you can guess at many unit's roles without knowing he specific unit (e.g. a SA-13 Gopher is a SAM, because it has the prefix SA and a name starting with G. What's a 9K35 Strela-10? No idea!)

With regard to the point about it being too western-centric... this is a wargame published in English, aimed primarily at western gamers. That said, you could easily have two versions of the same army list - one with Soviet designations and one with NATO - if you really wanted to be even handed!

Great work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

Quote from: Alien242 on 09 June 2022, 04:17:00 PMGreat work. 😎
Just find a minor error on the Swedish list. According to the list Jas 39 Gripen is avaible +1972. First test flight 1988, but it was first 6 june 1996 Gripen it was introduced officially to the Swedish Air Force for activ duty.

Many thanks - we can get that sorted.
Appreciate the input
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 08 June 2022, 04:56:36 PMThere is (of course) always the AT-3A Sagger A 9M14 Malyutka or all things to all men approach - but that might just be a lot of work for no less confusion.

As a relative newbie my preference follows through a chain of trying to match things up, OOB > Army List > Miniature Manufacturer. I'd love if the reference used in all of those 3 were the same, not likely to ever happen mind you, but the less googling I have to do to get the match ups the better.

I know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

I was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

Quote from: Sandancer76 on 10 June 2022, 03:41:39 AMI know there is some concern with transport(2) in the game but in the Soviet lists the BMP has only Infantry(1) should this not be (2) as they carried the same number of dismounts as BTR60/70.

Please ignore this just read the post on infantry basing that for IFV Infantry (1) is intended.

No - IFVs are only ever Transport (1) - it is a long-standing game mechanism (even some of the bigger US LVTP type vehicles are classified as APCs rather than IFV's deliberately). 
Also, there are only 8 infantry in a BMP. I am aware that a number of NATO APCs also only have space for c.10 infantry and are classified as Transport (2) but that is primarily to allow them to carry their support weapons. And they behave differently in the rules - whilst Bradley's, Warriors and Marders behave like BMPs (all all are IFVs).
BTR's generally carry c.14 passengers (& are APCs) and so they have Transport (2).
Some smaller APCs are only Transport (1) - as are all 4x4s/Jeeps etc and they are usually restricted to INF: only designated units.

The challenge is that there is no real design standard across vehicles, let alone armies - but generally, anything under 10 is Transport (1), 10+ is Transport (2). etc.

Hope that helps?
Mark

QuoteI was wondering if an Indonesian army list could be added one day covering the Malayan emergency era through to East Timor in the 90's.  Request from left field but would give me an excuse to paint an Aussie army for East Timor.  I would use the Vietnam era 10mm figs for the Indonesians so actual army options are a reality in the Pendraken store.

It is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 16 June 2022, 09:59:29 AMIt is in the back of my mind - I had planned a early Malayan Emergency list as one of my 'small wars' lists anyway (as my Grandfather fought in it  ) but there is logic for an Indonesian List - especially as I will be producing a Portuguese Colonial list as well. I'll add it to that 'batch' that covers China, Taiwan, Vietnam and will also add a Thai and Burmese list as well.

Any thoughts/research from yourself would always be much appreciated (but please can you start a new thread to do so - so that I don't lose it in future - thank you). There is a long and honourable tradition of players suppling their own researched lists to be posted up on the forum (the old one anyway) and I'd hope we'd be no different with CWC-II.
In fact, the bulk of the Spanish NATO and Yugoslavian lists I am working on currently have come from a player supplied set of lists off the old CWC forum.

Keep reminding me though - as I have a lot of 'core' lists to get through at present.
Cheers
Mark

The Indonesian list would be "interesting" to create. Lots of varying equipment there - PT-76s, AMX-10Ps, AAVP7-A1s, Leopards, some Casspirs, etc. A mix of French, US, Chinese, German, UK, indigenous gear with some South Korean, Czech, Brazilian, Swedish, etc. gear mixed in.

A lot of the 'smaller' armies are like that - the Portuguese has almost as many armoured car variants as they had armoured cars (I exaggerate to make a point). But being one of the poorer NATO members they were grateful for what they could get, at the time.

The mix of the different suppliers can make for very interesting armies - that was always the fun of an Iraqi army from the Iran-Iraq war or the matched-pair from the Indo-Pakistani wars.

These armies are also all a lot more Infantry and 'soft' vehicle orientated - so you'd be fielding Motorised rather than Mechanised formations more often than not.

I'm planning on doing a few of these in 10mm and play them in smaller points games. But you have to be careful where you end up ... as the East Timor 'incident' between Portugal and Indonesia was a very one-sided affair, very much as the Indo-Portuguese was. But in both cases, the Portuguese (mainly infantry forces) put up a brave show against overwhelming odds - even if they lost in the end.