The rules are specific here folks

If the evade is into cover or out of LoS/LOF the target is unhittable & the shot is aborted - realistic IMHO as cover in this instance is High Area cover - so woods, orchards, BAUs - all the sort of things that not only block LOS but tangle guidewires, block beams etc. But this is no different from CWC-I.

In the open targets are always hittable - even if the score to hit ends up as 7+ - which does come under the "cannot make a target unhittable" statement, so in that instance they are hit on a 6.

NB: for targets that are a 'hit on a 6' anyway, and cannot make an evade move to somewhere where the ATGWs LoS/LoF is blocked, it is not worth evading - as you'll incur a command penalty to order those tanks the following turn.

TBF: this evasion mechanism has been around in CWC-I for c.20 years and generally seems to have worked quite well.
The introduction of Composite and ERA into the rules just effects the ability for ATGW to score hits, when they hit, it doesn't effect the tanks ability to evade.

Hope that makes sense?

Thanks
Mark

Of course you can only evade from frontal ATGW attacks -   

It does Mark, so thanks for that. When we played CWCI way back when, we used historical OOB's and frankly found the ATGW's pretty useless to be honest, compared to a tank. The latter was cheaper and could fire much more often (subject to die rolls of course). I should point out the we used the hits come off at the end of the Turn then, so it was damned hard to KO anything then, as the Russians found out to their cost against my Chieftain's. Now I use the hits stay on so things may be different games wise with ATGW.

Also on Germany, where the campaign was fought, there was enough cover for most units to be able to evade into safety, something that might not happen in say the Sinai. Worth considering this too.

IIRC there was a similar discussion on the old forum re: points cost vs effectiveness. Still we stuck with them due to the aforementioned use of historical OOB, despite them doing very little, if anything, during the campaign.

QuoteIt does Mark, so thanks for that. When we played CWCI way back when, we used historical OOB's and frankly found the ATGW's pretty useless to be honest, compared to a tank. The latter was cheaper and could fire much more often (subject to die rolls of course). I should point out the we used the hits come off at the end of the Turn then, so it was damned hard to KO anything then, as the Russians found out to their cost against my Chieftain's. Now I use the hits stay on so things may be different games wise with ATGW.

Also on Germany, where the campaign was fought, there was enough cover for most units to be able to evade into safety, something that might not happen in say the Sinai. Worth considering this too.

IIRC there was a similar discussion on the old forum re: points cost vs effectiveness. Still we stuck with them due to the aforementioned use of historical OOB, despite them doing very little, if anything, during the campaign.

Many thanks Steve - good insights.

I suspect that one of the challenges with most table top CWC games is table size. The larger ATGWs have a significant range, and generally we tend to play them way to close to the front line. If you read the very good (all be it fictional) account of how things might have played out at a more granular level in a "Cold War turned Hot" situation - First Clash by Kenneth Macksay - you get the idea that the TOWs are generally deployed in such a way that they can hit the Soviet armour early (at long range) and then fall back, to maintain that tactical range advantage.

Most of us tend to play on c. 6ft b 4ft tables (or smaller) and even if we play on larger tables (& I have had the joy & privilege of playing on some of Richard Phillips -Cold War Commanders - c.20ft+ long tables. I am playing on another one this Saturday 25th June'22) the distance across the table cannot really get deeper than 6 feet - as you can only just about reach to the middle to move units at that depth.

The most effective game I played using ATGW was using a modern German Fallschirmjäger formation, defending an airport in Denmark against a combined East German and Polish naval assault. I had no armour (other than a few Wiesel's) and just a line of dug-in (elite) infantry with IATW, a few Dragon ATGW in the next line back and all the TOW deployed way back on the table edge.
The WarPact artillery turned out to be very ineffective (partly as my Snipers did a good job of suppressing the WarPact FAOs) and the terrain - being an airfield - gave me a wonderful open field of fire.
All my units were well dug-in and only visible once they fired. There my combined AT weapons worked very well.

I enjoy playing with a mass of MBTs like the next player - but I really enjoy using these 'lighter' formations to test out the 'edges' of the rules. My Dutch Marines have appeared on a number of tables, as have my US High Tech Light Infantry and US airborne. 6 x Sheridan light tanks, dug-in, on the edge of a wooded hill, with a clear field of fire in front of them, are an almost perfect killing machine (IMHO). 

Cheers
Mark

Good points about the table size there Mark. Ideally you would play down the length of a longer table, with the 6' being the width, to really allow for a proper defence in depth as mentioned. Sadly that is rarely and opportunity for any of us.

Another point I remembered from one great campaign we played, organised by a chap whose main area of interest was the Cold War in Germany, was that NATO was allowed to cut down woods, move farms etc to give them the fields of fire they wanted as well as channelling the Soviet attacks into killing grounds of their own chosing. I imagine then that the ATGW would come into their own much more.

But like most gamers, I love to see lots of tanks on the table, but it is always nice to have a different challenge like the one you mentioned.

I've just back from a days CWC-II play, on one of Richard Phillip's marvellous 6mm terrain tables, where my Dutch 103 Armoured Recce got an absolute pasting from my Soviet opponents     

At one point 3 x BRDM-2's with accompanying HQ, were firing Spandrel ATGW missiles at a Dutch armoured recon platoon (consisting of a Leopard-II NL MBT, 2 x M113C&V, 1 x M113 and 1 x M106A1) that was about to 'swim' a canal. The BRDM-2s were on a high hill, with a range just over half-range to the targets below.

Despite some successful attempts at evading, the range of the Spandrels was such that all 3 of the M113 type vehicles where each hit with 7 unsavable dice (at long range) and just disintegrated (along with the M113's passengers). The remaining A106A1 did manage to evade into the canal and subsequently swam to safety, but the Soviet ATGW were very effective, primarily because they were on  the crest of the hill, with a clear LoS to the targets.

My opponent took out the Leopard-II NL (in the platoon) using combined fire from his T72s regiment as the Leopard was facing the BRDM-2s and it was behind a hedge. So it was more vulnerable to the massed tank guns than the ATGWs.

The Dutch FAO did managed to bring in a couple of off-table artillery strikes doing some serious damage to a Soviet Tank  regiment - but when you are hitting all units, under a well targeted template, with 24 dice (2 x batteries of 3 x 155mm FH-70 Howitzers on 4 dice each) - getting enough 6's to take out the T72's was not that hard.

My 2 Dutch Starfighters (air support) fared less well - either failing to make it on-table, due to Soviet AA activity, or delivering a 'friendly fire' incident their own FAC! Hey ho ... that was not a great test.

Looking forward to seeing Richards Photos.

Cheers
Mark

But generally the multi-firing of the dedicated ATGW units seemed to work very well.

Cheers
Mark

I hope to see the photos too as it does osund like a great game .

It was a good day - despite having one tank do anything on one turn - 4 HQ's rolled 11 on first activation.