CWC-II Rules Errata (Open)

Started by Big Insect, 24 May 2022, 09:29:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Big Insect

Quote from: Huey on 19 June 2022, 11:56:28 PMHi,
A/T Weapons, p50.
2nd paragraph.
Third line

ATGW units are split into Dedicated ATGW units, marked with a D in the Army Lists...

Haven't seen any Ds yet...

That is a 'hang-over' from an earlier edit - (I'll remove it when we do the errata). What we did instead was group all the 'Dedicated' AT weapons into their own sections in the lists - you'll see (Dedicated) at the top of the appropriate section.
Same applies with Dedicated AA.

Some units can appear in both, but primarily it depends on how they were deployed or were planned to be deployed - and it is also linked to aspects such as how many reloads they had etc.

A good reminder that that sentence needs to be 'pulled-out' during the edit.
Thanks
Mark

'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Big Insect

QuoteHi Mark

I will look at remote controllers for Swingfire etc, as it sounds interesting.

Regarding direction of attack for Air Ground Attack, I suggest the player should decide this before throwing their command roll just in case they roll double 1.

> I agree Chris - that is the way it's generally played and that was my intention.

A further observation, I note in the PDFs that all aircraft for British, Bundeswehr and Soviet are all shown as Air:GA so no bombers (and therefore no 30cm template). Surely some of the aircraft drop bomb payloads rather than firing rockets forwards, that would warrant use of the circular template?

> Ah yes - I wondered when that would get spotted - the AIR:BM units never made it off my draft lists - I'll pick those up in the list errata - most lists will have some bombers and a lot will also have missing AIR:TRANS as well.

I have created new topic with some of the text from the post above and a photo (I needed Photoshop to greatly reduce the size of the image as the attachment size is quite limiting in the forum).

> Thanks - I will check it out

Regards

Chris

Comments/answers above in-line & in-bold
Thanks
mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Big Insect

Quote from: sultanbev on 21 June 2022, 02:43:23 PMI've found https://postimages.org/ works well, this is a video still on my pc of Egyptian AMX-13/75 in 1956, uploaded with postimages, then selecting 'hotlink for forums' and copying that and pasting it here



I am itching to get that Suez Crisis list on the drawing-board - but there are so many others in the queue ahead of it sadly.
Maybe I should do a poll to see what lists are the most popular to add to the list of lists ... although I know what will happen - we will release a list (say Chinese) and everybody will immediately want the associated lists (North Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao, Indonesia etc.)    :D
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Came up in yesterday's game, can a loades IFV close assault an AFV ? We allowed it.
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Big Insect

04 July 2022, 08:43:38 AM #109 Last Edit: 04 July 2022, 11:10:56 AM by Big Insect
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 04 July 2022, 07:51:23 AMCame up in yesterday's game, can a loades IFV close assault an AFV ? We allowed it.

So as I read this question you are asking - "can an IFV close assault an AFV (say a Main Battle Tank) with its passengers still inside?"

As the rules are written, it can.
However, that is not the intention of the rules.
As it gives the IFV a considerable advantage over the AFV (MBT) - see example below - and that is not intentional and is also highly unrealistic (& gamey).

Example A:
IFV in close assault (table at top of Page 45) - 6 attacks (attacking with mtd infantry) & +1 for infantry inside supporting
AFV (MBT) in close assault (Table at top of Page 45) - 3 attacks
So the IFV is considerably advantaged over the AFV when the reality would be the other way around as the mounted infantry are only supporting the assault from inside the IFV with their small arms.

Example B:
Infantry (dismounted from IFV to assault) - 2 attacks & +1 attack for supporting IFV
AFV (MBT) in close assault - 3 attacks
So the resulting melee (close assault is much more even, as is the intention)

The table needs to be adjusted to say: IFVs with mtd Infantry (against all, except AFVs).
There are circumstances where you would want to assault an AFV with an IFV (with mounted passengers) - maybe if the target was in a contaminated zone (Chemical) or if the enemy was a Vehicle Mounted Flamethrower (possibly).

That then leads onto a question around the AFV category as it is quite broad - including Armoured Cars (AC), Half-tracks (HTR), other armoured vehicles, and all manner of tanks - Light, Medium, Heavy (not that we differentiate) + also ENG:AFVs. However, in all these instances a vehicle on vehicle assault is not going to be that different.

Hope that helps Ian. Interesting that this has never come up before, as the assault table is an exact replica of the CWC-I one (Page 35 CWC-I).

Thanks
Mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

flamingpig0

It is an annoying carry-over from CWC 1 but for future reference  - Iranians are not Arabs.
(page 88)
"I like coffee exceedingly..."
 H.P. Lovecraft

"We don't want your stupid tanks!" 
Salah Askar,

My six degrees of separation includes Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and Wendy James

Big Insect

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 04 July 2022, 10:23:33 PMIt is an annoying carry-over from CWC 1 but for future reference  - Iranians are not Arabs.
(page 88)

Indeed - Persian are Persians, and likewise there are as many variation of 'arab' as there are western Europeans (probably more) but I get your point.
I think the 'western' intelligence services - soviets included - generally lumped the whole of the middle east other than the Israelis (& maybe the Kurds) into that all encompassing term ... including the Turks.

We can change 'Arab' in this instance to 'Middle East'.

Thanks
Mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Smartbomb

Not sure if this one has come up, but Veterans are listed as Suppressed at 4+ regardless of modifiers, while Raw/Green units are Suppressed on 6+ regardless. Is it possible those are reversed?

Big Insect

Quote from: Smartbomb on 17 July 2022, 03:53:35 AMNot sure if this one has come up, but Veterans are listed as Suppressed at 4+ regardless of modifiers, while Raw/Green units are Suppressed on 6+ regardless. Is it possible those are reversed?


No  :) 
Veterans are much more cautious. They 'know' just how dangerous a situation is and take moves to safeguard themselves.

Raw/green are unaware just how dangerous certain experiences are, so will take more risks.

Elite Veterans will take more risks based on their own experience, training and confidence.

Cheers
Mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

Superscribe

Hi Mark

The Bridgelayer special ability on P91 states that engineers can build 5cm of bridge each Initiative Phase. This applies to all Bridgelayers.  Wouldn't AFV Bridgelayers be able to lay their bridge at least twice as fast as engineers, who manually construct their bridges? 

Could there be a two special abilities for bridge laying (like there is for Mineclearers) with Bridgelayer A for manually constructed bridges (5cm per IP) and Bridgelayer B for vehicle-deployed bridgelayers such as Chieftain AVLB, MTU-55, TMM etc (10cm per IP)?

Chris

Big Insect

Hi Chris

Basic Engineers (INF:ENG) can only build bridges if you've bought the 'Bridge' ability for them, as that gives them the equipment/resources to allow them to build the bridge.
But, in most standard lists the Engineers don't have the bridge building capability, as in most games, time is too short for them to undertake such a complex activity.

The challenge with Bridging is that there are just so many variables and so many different types of bridging units. Some are transported in pods on trucks, some are towed on wheels and many are pontoon based, and some are wheeled and amphibious, all of these ones can bridge larger expanses of water/rivers/canals.
These are all probably your Bridgelayer B types - as they can span multiples of 5cm over water.
INF:ENG are similar, it takes time to deploy this type of bridging, but in game terms - 5cm per Initiative action is appropriate.

Some - like the ones that you mention below - e.g. automated ENG:AFVs - generally have a limited single span bridging capability, and so in real terms they can only really span one 5cm stretch of water - not multiple spans. So these might actually be your Bridgelayer A category.

But for simplicity in a one-off game, I've opted for just the single Bridgelayer category. But there's no reason you guys cannot trail a variable if you want?

NB: with the Mineclearer designation, the 'B' category usually represents automated (often rocket assisted) clearance devices.

Hope that helps Chris
Thanks
Mark
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

sultanbev

I would treat AVLB as being able to lay a bridge in a single successful activation. As long as they are touching the obstacle being crossed, which shouldn't be more than a model length wide. So in a good run of activations, the AVLB could drive up to the stream, then lay the bridge, then drive across it in 3 activations all in one turn.

A 5cm river is 100m, so a big no-no, but if the scenario/map involves streams, blown bridges or cratered roads, then an AVLB would be able to cross it quickly in relative terms.

Engineers on foot building bridges, would, as stated, be out of the remit of a normal battle. "Overnight" seems to be the normal historical build time of a 100m+ wide pontoon bridge.

The truck mobile ribbon bridges and floating ferry arrangements still took a while to build, they just get into the water a lot quicker. In longer games they might be set up in sufficient time that CWC would need rules for them. Although the set up times might be quicker than a company of sappers unloading pontoons from horse-drawn wagons, that speed might not be any use if the crossing point hasn't been checked out first by engineer recce units.

Just looking at my Janes Logistics 1989, there appears some consistency.
Light pontoon bridges that can only allow infantry and motorcycles take half an hour to set up, up to 100m length
As examples of others:
Romanian 40t 142m pontoon takes 1 hour
Romanian 60t 80m pontoon takes 1.5 hours
Swiss 50t 100m pontoon takes 3 hours with 132 men, ie a company's worth
Swiss 30t 14m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men, ie a platoon's worth
Swiss 16t 10m pontoon takes 1.5 hours with 33 men
Russian 4t 88m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 8t 64m pontoon takes 50 mins
Russian 40t 64m pontoon takes 60 mins with 105 men, ie a company's worth
Russan 24t 88m pontoon takes 55 mins with 105 men
Russian PMP 60t 227m pontoon takes 30 mins with 82 men
Russian PMP 20t 389m pontoon takes 50 mins with 82 men
{THe PMP is an exceptional piece of kit)
Russian and Egyptian 1973 TPP pontoon 16t 500m takes 2.5 hours with 384 men
TPP 50t 265m pontoon takes 2 hours with 384 men
TPP 70t 205m pontoon takes 3 hours with 384 men
US aluminium floating footbridge 15 mins + 1 min per 4.5m of length
US Ribbon bridge 6.7m per minute

Superscribe

Artillery Barrage p54 2nd para states 'Then reduce the number of unsaved hits by 50% rolling for saves on the remaining hits as normal."  If hits are reduced by 50% before saves are thrown then they cant be 'unsaved ' hits!

Should you reduce the number of hits by 50% before saves are thrown, or should saves be thrown first then reduce unsaved hits by 50%?

I suggest this rule needs come clarification

Superscribe

Special Munitions p66.  As far as I am aware these munitions are normally delivered by bombs rather than rocket or cannon attacks.  Shouldn't all these use the 30cm diameter template instead of the ground attack template?  It probably needs a comment added to the first paragraph on p65.