Firing modifiers

Started by JJ252, 11 June 2022, 01:25:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

JJ252

Just trying these new rules out. My question is, is there no reduction in the number of attacks that maybe carried out by a stand/unit after it has received hits?

Example
T55A has an AT 4/70 factor

So 4 attacks can be made
It has Hit factor of 4. I assume this equates to there being 4 tanks in a platoon. I would argue this is incorrect. Just about every reference I've seen for Russian TOE's gives 3 tanks to a platoon. Then 3 platoons and 1 command tank for a company - i.e. 10 tanks to a company.

Returning to the hits
If a stand takes 1 hit should the number of attack dice be reduced by 1 as well, to represent the reduced number of rounds being fired by a platoon?
The Firing Modifier table doesn't reduce the number of firing dice after taking hits.
Only 4 factors are listed there
+1 dice if firing at less than 1/2 range
+1 if firing into a target flank or rear
+1 dice if firing at a Soft target at less than 20cm
-1 dice if firing at infantry and they have Gone to ground

Seems a bit odd to not somehow reduce a tanks firing effectiveness as hits are taken -
Effectively the rules are suggesting a platoon, say reduced, to 1 vehicle can still fire at the same effect as a platoon at full strength.

Ithoriel

Firstly, hi, welcome to the forum!

The Commander rules and their predecessors are all very much top down so how many tanks in a platoon isn't an issue so much as the performance in the field.

A unit taking hits may have vehicles destroyed, damaged or simply have their crews shaken. A stand removed may represent a heap of charred, blazing wreckage or intact but damaged vehicles bugging out or completely intact vehicles who's crews have decided  that discretion is the better part of valour.

So 4 is simply a measure of how much effective fire you have to pour into the target to ensure it takes no further part in the action for whatever reason. That number will be affected by many factors.

The number of tanks in a platoon may be a factor but each round of firing may involve more than one actual shot fired, not all vehicles in a real world platoon will have a target every time, etc, etc.

TL:DR - Working as intended. Don't sweat the detail look at the big picture.

I often say CWC and BKC get the right result for the wrong reason but I prefer it that way round!

Cheers and happy CWC-ing!
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

1st Welcome....

As Ithoriel says it's a top down system so there is no easy colleration between hits and damage.
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Big Insect

QuoteJust trying these new rules out. My question is, is there no reduction in the number of attacks that maybe carried out by a stand/unit after it has received hits?

Seems a bit odd to not somehow reduce a tanks firing effectiveness as hits are taken -
Effectively the rules are suggesting a platoon, say reduced, to 1 vehicle can still fire at the same effect as a platoon at full strength.

As the other forum member have stated - the 4 (in 4/70) has no correlation to the numbers of vehicles in a platoon. It is representative of the effectiveness of the primary weapon.

As Hits are removed at the end of each game turn, which is a mechanism to represent the fact that a single vehicle on the table-top represents a number of vehicles in real life (so typically 3 in a Soviet/Warpact/Chinese formation, or up to 12 in a NATO formation), the only instance where the effects of hits on a units performance would occur is in Opportunity fire (potentially).

The effect of hits is however reflected by the 'Suppression' rule - which has a significant impact on the formations combat effectiveness.

The challenge you'd have with the idea that you could reduce the effectiveness of an armoured units firing by proportionately reducing its firepower based on the hits it had taken, is that in a lot of instances the ration of Hits available is not in direct correlation with the units fire-power (AP/AT stats). So you'd end up with 1/4, 1/2, 1/3rd d:6 shooting. But fundamentally that is just not the way the rules work.

The way to look at Hits, as stated by others, is that they are not necessarily 'kills'.

Hope that helps.
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.

JJ252

I am very familiar with the command level / top down approach to modern period gaming - so I 'get' the concept

Previously I've played Operational Manoeuvre Group and Command Decision rules - which both rule sets have a mechanism for reducing fire power as a stand takes hits.

I'll persevere for now and play a few games as the rules are written - but I can see a local in house rule modifier being used for firing reduction after hits are taken.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Big Insect

Not a problem - happy to help
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

Historical analysis of tank combat shows that a platoon's effectiveness is not directly related to the number of tanks in the platoon, in fact 3-tank platoons tend to be more effective than 5-tank platoons. We see from WW2 many occasions where 1-2 tanks or guns will hit 3-10 enemy vehicles in rapid succession then able to dis-engage.
Historically most tank losses are from the flank*, so it is clear it's more about positioning, surprise (and thus spotting) and OODA-loop decision making, than armour-gun qualities. The BKC/CWC system reflects this very well if you cope with the level of abstraction in the hits system.
*Matilda IIs knocking out Panthers was a thing for example.

JJ252

I agree with your general response, such views are used in the Command Decision rules by using different Troop quality bands e.g. veteran, elite, regular, trained etc - better trained troops likely to be more effective.

Each troop quality can take a different number of hits before becoming ineffective.

It remains a little odd - when compared to just about every other set of tank wargame rules, has a mechanism for reducing fire effect as hits are taken.

As per my original post, effectively the these rules are saying a platoon reduced to 1 vehicle can still fight just as effectively as a full strength platoon of 4 or 5 tanks.

Rhys

Quote from: JJ252 on 11 June 2022, 11:49:15 AMIt remains a little odd - when compared to just about every other set of tank wargame rules, has a mechanism for reducing fire effect as hits are taken.

Sorry, I was just trying to think of other rule sets that do this.
The Spearhead series doesn't worry about it, and I don't think Fist full of Tows does either.
To me it seems like this would add a huge layer of accounting to the game. lets say you have a regiment with 3 battalions each of 9 platoons plus support weapons. thats somewhere in the region of 40 individual stands where you have to keep track of the strength of each stand. To me it just doesn't sound much fun.
Attack Attack Attack until;
A: They're all dead.
B: We're all dead
Delete where applicable.

fred.

In CWC a unit doesn't maintain hits across turns. So there is no concept of a unit having taken 1 or 2 hits on a prior turn. 

The mechanism that does carry across turns is suppression. 

Again it is about degree of granularity. A single unit (tank) is either OK, suppressed or dead (when you come to activate it) - but the formation's effectiveness is degraded by lost stands. 
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

JJ252

Quote from: Rhys on 11 June 2022, 12:43:07 PMSorry, I was just trying to think of other rule sets that do this.
The Spearhead series doesn't worry about it, and I don't think Fist full of Tows does either.
To me it seems like this would add a huge layer of accounting to the game. lets say you have a regiment with 3 battalions each of 9 platoons plus support weapons. thats somewhere in the region of 40 individual stands where you have to keep track of the strength of each stand. To me it just doesn't sound much fun.

Not really, if you are already using mini-dice to record hits - the number of attack dice are reduced by whatever the mini-dice shows.

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Quote from: JJ252 on 11 June 2022, 08:17:48 PMNot really, if you are already using mini-dice to record hits - the number of attack dice are reduced by whatever the mini-dice shows.

Don't think thats a good idea. Mark Bevis has hinted at this. In the real world it is unlikley that a 5 tank platoon will have all vehicles "online" - one or 2 vehicles will be unsited. Indeed the p\ltoon commander is not a leader as such and the organisation operates with 2 wings of two tanks. The 3 tank troop has a leader and more often has all it's vehicles "online". So it is unlikley that all vehicle will be potential targets or have targets in any given base. Add in Soviet doctrine which appears tom have been fire by company (normally 3 bases) there is no collelation between hits and damage to vehicles.
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

JJ252

Its equally unrealistic not to show any loss of fighting ability from combat losses

Ithoriel

Until the stand is actually removed they aren't "lost" in any meaningful sense. At the end of the turn they will be back at full strength.

To use examples from WW2, with which I am more familiar, Mariya Oktyabrskaya has leapt out of "Fighting Girlfriend" fixed the tracks and jumped back in or Michael Wittman's crew have replaced the damaged vision blocks, some unnamed gunner has cleared a gun jam, a shaken crew have recovered their composure, etc., etc.

As I keep saying, the rules don't work the way you seem to want them to. You are free to house rule them to your heart's content but what you play will not be CWC it will be a new game based on CWC. If your variant works better for you than the original more power to your elbow, but I fear that if you are trying to convince people that the rules are intrinsically wrong because they don't work as you are used to then you are doomed to failure.
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!

JJ252

I'm not trying to persuade anybody. Play what rules you want.
I'm just exploring the rules and to see if I want to take them further.

The 'Commander' bit of the title suggests to me the rules are trying to reflect warfare at a higher level of command - which at early review and learning, the CWC rules don't seem to do.

Fair enough.

But as your comments says - 'At the end of the turn they will be back at full strength' just seems an odd interpretation of the realities of fighting - unless there are spare vehicles more or less immediately available - which I doubt any army operates on that basis. Defence budgets don't allow such spare equipment

Its a case of thanks but no thanks for CWC. Luckily I haven't wasted too much money on them, at 1/2 price for the opening of the publication of this version of the rules.