Quote from: BTM on 02 June 2023, 07:11:49 AMBKC IV v.1.1 errata (latest) low profile. CWC average then?

I'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Quote from: Big Insect on 02 June 2023, 09:12:58 AMI'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Thanks Mark!
I'll play BKC IV as indicated in the latest errata available then. I'll play it as average profile in CWC II and wait to see if the coming errata changes something.

I have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

We used Starlight TI when I was in the HAC Corps Patrol Unit in the early 1980s...

Quote from: Andrew T on 19 September 2023, 08:57:15 PMI have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?
> Yes - You can use clear obstacles & create obstacles (5cm long) as an Initiative action for both Engineers and other units with dozer-blades. The Urban Warfare optional rules might also be of interest.

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?
> yes - there is more Night Fighting aspects in the Optional Rules - reduced visibility etc.

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

> generally the way things work with Command units (FAOs/FACs) is that the better they are - in terms of both training and equipment etc. - the higher their CV will be (relative to other enemy units). In truth, the Command units are deliberately designed not to be that complex. Hence why we don't specify vehicle types etc. and only very rarely special characteristics.

Hi there
Might be worth you checking through the Optional Rules PDFs as some of your questions may be answered (in more detail) there. But I've made a few comments in-line above.
Cheers
Mark

Where are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

Quote from: tankette on 11 October 2023, 09:40:44 PMWhere are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

There is not currently a consolidated document for CWCII rules & list errata.
One will be produced, but not immediately, as the lists are still being worked on.

All errata & any answers/changes should appear in this particular thread.
Thanks
Mark

Thank you, Mitch

Hi Mark

I am looking at some of he older posts and see your comment in the discussion about infantry profiles and the inability of supporting IFVs being able to shoot overhead, because of their dismounted infantry's average profile:

"The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average."

You have said "we can adjust that in the next set of errata" What exactly is it going to say about this? Will it say that IFVs can shoot overhead of their dismounted infantry? Or something else?

When are we likely to see the errata pages, as there are many quite significant tweaks coming as a result of all the discussions held to date?

Regards

Chris

Hi. In page 84 of CWC says in the first pharagraph that in pillboxes can bé placed  an antitank unit. And in the pillbox description don't say anitanything. Wich is correct?
The same with the bunkers. There is a diferent descripcions in the text and in the referències table. Wich is correct?
Is there diferent point cost for the diferent tipes of bunkers?

Thanks for all you work.
Jordi

Quote from: JcDent on 28 May 2022, 05:59:15 AMHi, I just wanted to ask, what rules do letters A, R, and O stand for in unit notes/abilities?

The closest I can get is A for Amphibious and R for only fires in a 90 degree cone, which is weird for tanks.

I spent some time searching (case-sensitive, whole words) the rules PDF for it, but unlike S1, TI, H, I couldn't find anything that goes "marked by 'A'"

A = Amphibious capability (most AFV's only move at 5cm per turn in amphibious mode & some need to prepare to go 'amphibious').

R = Restricted vision - this is not just to do with the optics or equipment in a single tank, but also the number of crew. So a lot of Soviet/Chinese tanks/AFVs will have an 'R' designation, because of the lower numbers of crew who are fully occupied in loading and firing rather than 'observing'. It is also driven by tactical doctrine - so formations using Rigid Tac.Doc. are much more likely to be classified as 'R'. Also remember the rules are written on the basis that 1 model on the table represents a number of actual vehicles in real life and the doctrinal approach to how the formations are controlled and fight will also dictate the use of an R designation. Self-Propelled Guns are also often classified with an 'R', but not always.

O = Open-topped or Exposed (the two terms are basically the same) - so they are AFVs with either have no overhead armour, or what they do have is very thin and insubstantial.

Hope that helps
Cheers
Mark

QuoteYou have said "we can adjust that in the next set of errata" What exactly is it going to say about this? Will it say that IFVs can shoot overhead of their dismounted infantry? Or something else?

When are we likely to see the errata pages, as there are many quite significant tweaks coming as a result of all the discussions held to date?

Regards

Chris

Hi Mark

When are the Errata pages due to be published please, as there are many significant tweaks coming, following all the discussions held to-date?

Rgds
Chris

Quote from: Superscribe on 23 February 2024, 10:41:05 AMHi Mark

When are the Errata pages due to be published please, as there are many significant tweaks coming, following all the discussions held to-date?

Rgds
Chris

Hi Chris - the focus (to-date) has primarily been on the Army List 'continuity' project. As the majority of the lists are on-line now, it is simpler to update these as a mass batch. That work has been underway for many months now and will be the first thing to be released from an Errata perspective.
Following that will come the Rules Errata. But TBF this may not be as onerous or far-reaching as the army lists, as a lot of what appears to be Errata on the thread is actually clarifications. However, this process involves Leon & myself going through all the Rules Errata on the Forum - editing it down to its salient points and then inserting any changes/additions/corrections into the Rules PDF and then producing a separate down-loadable Errata sheet that can be printed off. That process has not started yet - as my focus has been on the lists. But will kick off once the revised Army Lists are published.
A long answer to a short question - apologies
Mark

Hi a question.
Can a CO issue orders to off -table support if there' is no fac or faoon table (artillery and air).

Sorry, perhaps my question about CO and their capacity of requesting  off-table support (artillery and planes) don't go here.

QuoteSorry, perhaps my question about CO and their capacity of requesting  off-table support (artillery and planes) don't go here.

Probably best as just a standard post as I believe (perhaps wrongly!) that the errata is trawled every so often when an update is planned.


Of course the fact that it is school holiday season in the UK, that there has been some very good weather here lately and that the Olympics are on may also be resulting in a rather slower response.

Alas, I don't play CWC so can't help with your actual question, sorry.

Ok. Thanks.

Quote from: Jordi on 02 August 2024, 09:37:57 PMHi a question.
Can a CO issue orders to off -table support if there' is no fac or faoon table (artillery and air).

No - if there is no FAC or FAO in a lists you can only use the off-table Air or Artillery in Scheduled Strikes (unless your list specifically states that a CO or HQs can order off-table assets).
Apologies - I missed this as I was away.
Cheers
Mark