CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

Started by Big Insect, 24 May 2022, 09:54:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

John Cook

Quote from: Big Insect on 30 July 2022, 09:55:32 AMI suppose it comes down to a fundamental principle John, as to whether you try and create a historically accurate list for a specific historical campaign or you don't.

I empathise.  If you are going to provide army lists, then they ought to be as accurate as possible.  I just wonder why they are necessary at all.  However, as the Cold War is not my period, I suppose I should keep my nose out really.

paulr

Points based Army lists are useful if you are:
  • new to the period
  • short of time for research (or not interested in research)
  • if you are playing against different people and are not sure of their and your research skills
  • playing in competitions
  • looking for an overview of the troop types in the period
  • looking to understand how troop types are represented in the rules
  • trying to get an initial idea of the relative strength of forces

If you play with the same group of people who are all familiar with the period and rules then you can choose not to use the lists/points
I just wonder why some people consider having them is a negative
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Paul army lists for CWC and CWC II are not so much lists as data charts for the equipment as in the table below :-

AMX-13   50   AFV   30   3/80   3/50   3   3   6      IRNF
M4A4 Sherman   60   AFV   20   4/80   3/50   3   4   5      1960-67
Centurion Mk 7   130   AFV   20   4/100   5/100   3   6   4      1960-78 IRNF, S2
T-55   110   AFV   25   6/100   6/100   3   6   4      1960-1980
Vijayanta   145   AFV   25   6/100   6   3   5   4      1975-1995 IRNF
T-72M1   205   AFV   30   6/80   -   3   5   4      1980+ S2, IRNF
Arjun   235   AFV   30   4/120   6/120   1   6   3      1990+ Composite armour, TI, S1


Some things we dont know so can either be left blank or guessed at I do both. Copy above is a tad messy due to conflicts between formats but should give the idea. One can almost generalise the unit structure - a battalion sized unit will have 3 combat sub units with most infantry having a support sub-unit. The sub-unit will have mostlty 3 elements - some Tank ones have 4. For CWC you dont often have to go below that level. Studies have shown that platoon size in tank elements is not a factor in combat which is very counter intuative.

The other point is that using unit specific lists is very difficult even when not in combat, See my post on 2 LI a couple of months ago. In the mid 70's they were a mechanised Btn but the brigade was a test unit. It's air squadron had Gazelle and Lynx, whilst the unit had 4 438, 6 432/Wombat and at least 4 Milan firing posts. This was well before most of this kit entred service of course. This points to my contention that unit specific lists do'nt work too well and you need to follow the offical outline. It may well be wrong but unless you were there you can't know what was the actual astuff present. It's an approach which has worked reasonably well for the last 40 or so years. 

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

John Cook

Quote from: paulr on 31 July 2022, 02:43:18 AMIf you play with the same group of people who are all familiar with the period and rules then you can choose not to use the lists/points
I just wonder why some people consider having them is a negative

Not negative, just unnecessary.  But, in the context of this conversation they do almost seem more trouble than they are worth. 

paulr

John, I understand you see them as unnecessary, I have seen some other people consider them a negative
Apologies for any confusion

In the context of this conversation I'm not sure its the lists that are the trouble ;)
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Quote from: sultanbev on 30 July 2022, 09:31:51 PMThere was a comment somewhere about Israeli Centurions being all Mk.5


Misread Mark what I said was all Isralie Cents WERE called Mk 5, regardless of what they actually were, and the same applied to 1/2 Tracks called M3 but more? were M5 from UK sources.
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Ithoriel

As one who deploys fictional forces, with plausible but not necessarily historical compositions, with "one-offs" being fictional battles set on the  fringes of actual actions I find army lists useful to give a reasonable balance to a scenario. That said, I can't say I've ever had problems slotting in a "what if" unit to an army list - the Maus tanks in my "Last Stand at Kummersdorf" scenario for example.

So, I'd like things that could have been used, but weren't, listed in an army list but will happily add them if they are not.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." ― Douglas Bader 
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Smartbomb

Seems like it you don't like the original rules, just alter them to your liking?

Vets being suppressed on 4+ and raw troops on 6+ didn't make sense to me so I just changed it. Same with the organization of the rulebook - I reorganized, removed, shuffled, and consolidated things that made better sense to me.

The company has their money, you have the product. If you want to deploy M1 Abrams in 1971 Congo, how are they going to stop you? ;D

I'm not taking a side here, just seems like a lot of heat for something that's easy to fix.

Big Insect

Quote from: Smartbomb on 31 July 2022, 06:29:29 PMVets being suppressed on 4+ and raw troops on 6+ didn't make sense to me so I just changed it. Same with the organization of the rulebook - I reorganized, removed, shuffled, and consolidated things that made better sense to me.

The challenge with the Vets suppressed on a +4 and Conscripts on a +6 is an interesting debate.

Generally Vets are more cautious - they know just how dangerous a situation is and will (generally) keep their heads down in a fire-fight - using their experience to improve their chances of survival as well as their ability to get the job done. Conscripts will keep going, regardless of their ability to succeed. Both of which are actually quite hard to replicate.
The rules are generally constructed to use a mechanism to attempt to achieve the correct/historical outcome, rather than what necessarily looks to be right.

One alternative is to use optional Experience rule Chris, which also allows the equivalent of Vets to re-roll scores to hit that might otherwise have been misses. So it increases they combat effectiveness.
Just a thought

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

Sir, thanks you did explain that before.

My thought process is more that Raw troops will sometimes freeze in contact, they forget to communicate,  they're confused. If they don't freeze, raw troops are likely going to find cover and hunker. Thus no more actions due to suppression. This is doubly true when they take casualties.

Vets will certainly get low, but training, experience, muscle memory, experienced NCOs, etc. will mean they are returning fire, getting out of the killing zone, suppressing and flanking. They're cautious, but not immobilized. Casualties are a concern, but not a pause button.

I'm not lobbying for a rules change and the rules laid out for vets make sense given your thought process im more just making the point that this was something that did not make sense to me, so I changed it. Just like if someone wants rules for a unit, they can make them and add them to their lists.


dylan

Thanks for the Chinese Cold War army list.  It is a fine attempt at a difficult subject.  As the Chinese PLA is one of my specialist subjects, I hope a few comments and suggestions aren't out of place....
1) Sniper Team.   I wonder if the 1989+ and Para/Marine only restriction in the Notes is a little tough?  Chinese had the SVD sniper rifle and their own versions of it for many years prior to that.  Chinese snipers were renowned in the 1980-88 "continuation war" against Vietnam that eventually ended in a winning draw for China.
2) Type 63A/M (WZ213).  This has a 105mm high pressure gun in a new turret.  The current 3/80 and 3/80 attack stats don't reflect that.
3) Under Support, the most common late Cold War mortar in PLA infantry service was the 100mm.  It is not currently listed.  But normally there is a battery at battalion level.  Light Infantry and the like might use the 82mm instead.  The PLA didn't purchase the SP mortar you have listed - it was for export.  The first PLA SP mortar only appears after the period of these lists.
4) Type-86-I (WZ505) APC should not have Red Arrow ATGW.  It had a Marder/AMX10P-style turret with a French 25mm autocannon only.
5) No Chinese IFV or APC had TI night vision in this period (in fact, it has recently been revealed that only the most recent version of the Type-04 IFV has TI).
6) Type-90/WZ551A IFV.  The autocannon is not/not stabilised.  Remove the S1 or S2 ratings from these two entries.
7) I'm not sure why there are two different Type 63 tanks listed with the earlier one better than the later one.
8) I would have added the Type-59-II MBT with a 105mm main gun, stabilisation, night vision and better fire control for the 1980s onwards period.
9) I don't believe the Type-69-II ever served with the PLA (it was an export tank) but there you go.  As it was only a few hundred Type-69s of any version served with the PLA as it was an unsuccessful design.
10) The Type-69-III/Type-79 MBT entered production in 1984 not 1986.
11) I'm very confused by the Type-88A and Type-88B MBT listings.  Essentially these are wrong.  They never had ATGWs, for instance.  Nor did they have composite armour.  They were both upgraded versions of the Type-79 but using Chinese 105mm main guns.  The Type-88A had the long-barrel ZPL-94, while the Type-88B had the normal barrel ZPL-83 (same as NATO L7 105mm and should have same CWC stats as Type-79).  The Type-88A had a supercharged engine for use at high altitudes (think Tibet).
12) Type 96 MBT did not have a laser disruption device (you have maybe confused it with the later ZTZ-99).  If it fires an ATGW through the barrel it would be a Chinese version of the AT-11 Sniper not/not the currently listed Red Arrow.  But there is little/no evidence of this ever being fitted.
13) The Type 89 (Tank Destroyer) had a German 120mm main gun (the current listing is completely inadequate).  It was, however, unstabilised.
14)  I think your rating of the HJ-9 (WZ550) is very generous.  But I'll take it!
15) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar was the main weapons.  It should be available in the Artillery [on table] listings.
16) The main AA gun of army formations 1990+ was a copy of the German twin 35mm towed.  It doesn't appear in the lists currently.
17) The Type-89 (ZSD-89) IFV and APC appear to have been omitted from the lists entirely.  This vehicle is in very widespread service, so this is a serious omission.
18) The Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listing.
19) The Harbin H-5 Beagle appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listings.
20) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar should appear in the Artillery [off table] lisitngs.

Big Insect

Quote from: dylan on 04 August 2022, 11:59:39 PMThanks for the Chinese Cold War army list.  It is a fine attempt at a difficult subject.  As the Chinese PLA is one of my specialist subjects, I hope a few comments and suggestions aren't out of place....
1) Sniper Team.   I wonder if the 1989+ and Para/Marine only restriction in the Notes is a little tough?  Chinese had the SVD sniper rifle and their own versions of it for many years prior to that.  Chinese snipers were renowned in the 1980-88 "continuation war" against Vietnam that eventually ended in a winning draw for China.
2) Type 63A/M (WZ213).  This has a 105mm high pressure gun in a new turret.  The current 3/80 and 3/80 attack stats don't reflect that.
3) Under Support, the most common late Cold War mortar in PLA infantry service was the 100mm.  It is not currently listed.  But normally there is a battery at battalion level.  Light Infantry and the like might use the 82mm instead.  The PLA didn't purchase the SP mortar you have listed - it was for export.  The first PLA SP mortar only appears after the period of these lists.
4) Type-86-I (WZ505) APC should not have Red Arrow ATGW.  It had a Marder/AMX10P-style turret with a French 25mm autocannon only.
5) No Chinese IFV or APC had TI night vision in this period (in fact, it has recently been revealed that only the most recent version of the Type-04 IFV has TI).
6) Type-90/WZ551A IFV.  The autocannon is not/not stabilised.  Remove the S1 or S2 ratings from these two entries.
7) I'm not sure why there are two different Type 63 tanks listed with the earlier one better than the later one.
8) I would have added the Type-59-II MBT with a 105mm main gun, stabilisation, night vision and better fire control for the 1980s onwards period.
9) I don't believe the Type-69-II ever served with the PLA (it was an export tank) but there you go.  As it was only a few hundred Type-69s of any version served with the PLA as it was an unsuccessful design.
10) The Type-69-III/Type-79 MBT entered production in 1984 not 1986.
11) I'm very confused by the Type-88A and Type-88B MBT listings.  Essentially these are wrong.  They never had ATGWs, for instance.  Nor did they have composite armour.  They were both upgraded versions of the Type-79 but using Chinese 105mm main guns.  The Type-88A had the long-barrel ZPL-94, while the Type-88B had the normal barrel ZPL-83 (same as NATO L7 105mm and should have same CWC stats as Type-79).  The Type-88A had a supercharged engine for use at high altitudes (think Tibet).
12) Type 96 MBT did not have a laser disruption device (you have maybe confused it with the later ZTZ-99).  If it fires an ATGW through the barrel it would be a Chinese version of the AT-11 Sniper not/not the currently listed Red Arrow.  But there is little/no evidence of this ever being fitted.
13) The Type 89 (Tank Destroyer) had a German 120mm main gun (the current listing is completely inadequate).  It was, however, unstabilised.
14)  I think your rating of the HJ-9 (WZ550) is very generous.  But I'll take it!
15) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar was the main weapons.  It should be available in the Artillery [on table] listings.
16) The main AA gun of army formations 1990+ was a copy of the German twin 35mm towed.  It doesn't appear in the lists currently.
17) The Type-89 (ZSD-89) IFV and APC appear to have been omitted from the lists entirely.  This vehicle is in very widespread service, so this is a serious omission.
18) The Xian JH-7 fighter-bomber appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listing.
19) The Harbin H-5 Beagle appears to have been omitted from the aircraft listings.
20) As noted previously, the 100mm mortar should appear in the Artillery [off table] lisitngs.

Many thanks - I will review and respond (if necessary) or correct as appropriate
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

If there are differences in point values between the army list in the PDF and rules, which should we take as correct?  Example on p102 Soviet recce BRM-1 is 75 pts and BRDM-2s are 45/50 pts, but in PDF they are 95 pts for the BRM-1 and 65/70 pts for the BRDM-2s.

Big Insect

Quote from: Superscribe on 07 August 2022, 08:44:08 AMIf there are differences in point values between the army list in the PDF and rules, which should we take as correct?  Example on p102 Soviet recce BRM-1 is 75 pts and BRDM-2s are 45/50 pts, but in PDF they are 95 pts for the BRM-1 and 65/70 pts for the BRDM-2s.

You can usually do a quick 'sanity check' Chris.
If the basic unit is XXpts in the lists, the Recce unit version should be 20pts more expensive.
'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

Quote from: Big Insect on 07 August 2022, 10:15:26 PMYou can usually do a quick 'sanity check' Chris.
If the basic unit is XXpts in the lists, the Recce unit version should be 20pts more expensive.

Hi Mark

Understood, but the points above were taken from Recce section in both rules and PDF, which suggests that one of the lists is incorrect.
Rgds
CHRIS