Add your suggestions / feedback / input!

[toxicpixie]

Sorry Ian, what particular "those" do you mean?

The TOS-1 was explicitly designed to use thermobaric rockets, was in combat usage from '88 plus (with rumours of prior use but definitely by then!) - it's the massive MLRS system on top of T-72 body. The BM-30 vehicle was in service a year later with thermobaric rockets.

So far as I know there's no tube delivered thermobarics for the Soviets, and I'm not suggesting adding them. Just the TOS-1 as an actual game unit and then restricting off board use to BM-30 and '89 onwards. Do you have a link for them having a 152mm thermobaric round - if it's very recent I might well have missed it Unlike their air delivered, RPG delivered or ATGM delivered variants. Which should probably be included if anyone can find definitive in service dates for them, but are mostly post Soviet anyway.

Or do you mean the Russian FASCAM or ICM equivalents? Again, if you've a good (vaguely) definitive link to give in service dates and platforms that'd be really handy; Western sources generally either panic hugely or woefully miss things, whilst Russian ones are either silent or claim everything was already in service and working by about 1943 - so much the same, really

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Meant FASCAM/ICM. Phill Yates has it in 85 for Team Yankee, but I know it's later than that.

IanS

[toxicpixie]

Think it's worth restarting the questions/answers so far -

Thermobarics - definitely need inclusion, TOS-1 on table from '88, MLRS from '89, aircraft from earlier - 1984 at least (S-8 rocket and the RBK series bombs). Also delivered for infantry via RPG (covered by the Engineers with RPO entry, as far as I know correctly) and for post Soviet Collapse by ATGW in late 90's - I'm not fussed about that period especially but probably worth mentioning in case of "actual modern" games!

FASCAM - Given that there's a FASCAM round for the humble BM-21 introduced in 1963, I'd say at least that date onwards for MLRS delivered Soviet FASCAM. I don't know about tube delivered, but it's available for their older howitzers of '50s vintage as well as newer weapons like the 2S series; but I've seen stuff that says '70s including example load outs from their field manuals. Definitely available now, but if you're interested in '80s cold war, the answer is a guarded yes...

ICM - Not sure, but again their own direct evidence suggests mid-70's for MLRS and tube delivered. Not got any direct info on that to hand though, and a quick web search doesn't turn up any good in service dates barring general "by the eighties they used it in Afghanistan" or similar rather broad statements!

My gut feeling says I'd tend to limit both FASCAM and ICM to MLRS until the '80s and then allow it for 152mm+ tube arty. I don't think the 122mm 2S1 carried any...

We now return you to clamouring for the BKC rerelease

[Red Squirrel]

Ok - probably far too late for this thread but just a couple of thoughts for CWC etc.  I know some have been covered before.

1  Brilliant rule set

2  Let ATGW fire every turn like other rule sets.  If they get a failed command roll they are displacing or getting more rounds from the jeep etc.  Otherwise why on earth did NATO buy the things to face T64/72/80 and that's before ERA.  I wouldn't adjust the points costs but at the moment a Chinese APC with ATGW bolted on is only 5 points less than a Longbow Apache.  Which would you rather have.  If they could fire each turn then you may see more players fielding BMPs with ATGW.

3  Let IATW fire every turn.  I'm not sure how long it takes to reload a Charlie G but can't take that long to place another round in the tube or for someone to pick up another of the sections' LAWs and fire it.

4  Have a different factor for AA guns against air and ground targets.  Just separate the factors with a "/" or something.  I get the impression that currently the number of dice are configured to shoot at aircraft.  So for example a ZSU 23/4 rolls 4.  Fair enough.  However if playing platoon sized forces for example (as we normally do) that gives a platoon of 4 ZSU 23/4's with a total of 16 rapid fire 23mms the same firepower as a standard US rifle platoon with their small arms.  I also sure that a ZSU 57/2 with 2 dice would make much more of a mess of light armour / infantry with those twin 57mm auto cannon.  I'm sure an M163 should be rolling more dice against infantry / light armour as well.


5  Make close combat simpler.  Spearhead does it on a single D6 roll - beautiful.

Anyway no worries at all just a few thoughts that may or may not be of any assistance.

Keep up the great work!!

[Techno]

And.....As that was your first post.....A warm welcome to the forum RS.

Cheers - Phil.

[paulr]

Welcome Red Squirrel a thoughtful first post

Given the current rate of progress on BKC you are probably very early making suggestions for CWC

Sorry Leon

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Warning - they let anyone in here, but you can NEVER leave.

Agree ATGW are vastly overpriced in CWC, there loads on the CWC Forum about it.

IanS

[toxicpixie]

Yeah, it's a perennial complaint. Deffo needs altering, either knock the points right down or make them fire as normal.

Also, flank marches with FAO/FAC - within the rules as was, there's actually no provision to flank march them.

[Red Squirrel]

Thanks for the kind welcome and comments!   

I'd noted the ongoing ATGW debate from a while back.  I've actually favoured Recoilless Rifles over ATGW in the past and thought that can't be right.  Didn't seem to make sense historically to replace them with ATGW otherwise - especially Wombat with 120mm canister rounds - ouch! 

I'd noted as well the heavy use that Iraq made of AA guns in the ground support role as rapid fire weapons in the Iran / Iraq war, so it seems right to maybe have more dice against ground targets given their immense rate of fire.  After all that M16 AA halftrack with the quad 50s was known as the "meatchopper" in WWII for a reason.  I dread to think of the damage that M163 would do to dismounted infantry with 20mm gatling.  2 dice for ZSU 57/2 against aircraft seems fine as they have no radar to provide targeting data against fast jets and so are actually worse at that than S60s linked in a battery with a radar.  Direct fire against ground targets and light armour surely more dice though - if M42 was so effective against infantry in Vietnam - brought back for convoy escort etc. - with 40mm autocannon then surely 57mm would have even more hitting power.

The other thing I meant to say above is that maybe some tweaking of the restrictions in the lists.  Technically at present one can field only 9 T64s total yet that was the standard tank in GSFG from early / mid 80s for 2nd Guards Tank, 3rd Shock and 20th Armies (and apparently lots with Soviet South Western Front in Hungary) if one sticks to the rules. 

Great game just a few suggestions for hopefully helpful tweaks.

Best wishes to all.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The limits are usually ignored, go with the TOE.

IanS

[toxicpixie]

That's a bit sweeping, Ian - you mean you and your group usually ignore said restrictions and follow real world TOE according to the info you have for them

TBH mind i'd agree - in terms of "soft factors" that involve changing crunchy bits (e.g. Using 120mm uparmoured M1's in '81 etc), I do the same.

BUT this is an opportunity to point out things that should or need to be amended, so it's valid. You could weigh it down with "if modelling a force from GSFG or its immediate reinforcements yadda yadda" but tbh I don't think that's worth it. That's the sort of details players can find out and model if they want. If not, then perhaps Stavka decided to field test the tank/aircraft/weapon system under different conditions

[Le Manchou]

What about a 'Great War commander' in a few years, Pendraken has already a very large range of miniatures for it!

[toxicpixie]

Pete always reckoned no, as a/ he didn't have any interest in it, and b/ felt the rules system just wouldn't work.

Might be worth a revisit with fresh eyes, mind.

[ronan]

I remember we talked about it on the BKC forum,
the main "problem" was to simulate planning for the WW1 ( ie. not that much communications ...)

[Zbigniew]

If I can suggest something. In BCK second edition there are notable omissions in case of some units. For example:

Italian lists don't include 150mm guns (149mm) which is mistake.

Tiger I is missing from German Early Eastern Front list, which covers period from 6/1941 to 3/1943. This omission prevents
from using Tiger I from taking part in Kharkov 1943 battle (January-March 1943). IMO Tiger I should be included in that list with a
restriction of [12/42+]?

[Orcs]

I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.

We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue

Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6)  To use in the Command Phase.


So I would suggest that you make the  FAC/FAO self commanding

[Orcs]

4  Have a different factor for AA guns against air and ground targets.  Just separate the factors with a "/" or something.  I get the impression that currently the number of dice are configured to shoot at aircraft.  So for example a ZSU 23/4 rolls 4.  Fair enough.  However if playing platoon sized forces for example (as we normally do) that gives a platoon of 4 ZSU 23/4's with a total of 16 rapid fire 23mms the same firepower as a standard US rifle platoon with their small arms.  I also sure that a ZSU 57/2 with 2 dice would make much more of a mess of light armour / infantry with those twin 57mm auto cannon.  I'm sure an M163 should be rolling more dice against infantry / light armour as well.

I think the issue here is about ammunition supply. the ZSU23/4 carried approx. 2000 rounds in total. Around 500 rounds a barrel. Its combined rate of fire is 850+ rounds a minute - 45 seconds of firing at best

So while it could lay down a huge amount of fire on a ground target it only had about 45 seconds of fire. Then it would have to re-supply. While CWC does not deal with resupply restricting the dice is a way of emulating the fact that the crew would not normally fire continuously, just in short bursts. 

Yes perhaps it should have 8 dice or more but if that's the case you fire once and remove it from the table or only fore every four moves

[toxicpixie]

I assume the Flank march with FAO or FAC is because they do not have a proper HQ.

We faced this when using partisans in NW Europe, and this may work for the FAC FAO issue

Maquis could both move and fire in initiative phase.
To represent their local knowledge their initiative range is 30cm.
No terrain movement restrictions.
Not allowed to Close assault
Were not destroyed by pushbacks as they would "disappear into the countryside
Partisans were "self commanding" Each stand (or group if within 20cm radius) was given a nominal command value if more than 20cm from leader. ( I think we used 6)  To use in the Command Phase.


So I would suggest that you make the  FAC/FAO self commanding

We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...

Btw there's a guerilla doctrine somewhere which fits perfectly for partisans -  blowed iirc where, now!

[fred.]

We just let them arrive with a flank march, appearing when the rest of the troops do on the HQ's command roll. It just seemed simplest...

Yes, we always did this. Never really thought otherwise.

[toxicpixie]

The problem there is that some one else spotted there was no rule for it, and argued Pete into accepting that FAO's etc are therefore not allowed to flank march ever at all. It was shortly. Score he sold the rules on so I suspect he gave up