CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[JcDent]

So I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

[Big Insect]

So I brought in a 3 unit concentrated barrage of chemical weapons. How does that work with regards to how many hits I roll? Chemical rolls 6 per target unit... so is it 18 cos I have 3 platforms concentrating fire, or still 6 per unit, and I have wasted two artillery pieces?

Firstly - you cannot have a "concentrated barrage' - you can either have a concentration or a barrage - there is a difference (Page 54).

In the case of a concentration, even with Chemical weapons, the process work exactly the same way as HE works - number of guns/air craft x number of hits, per unit under the template.

Likewise, if you want to use a Barrage of Chemical ammo - you follow exactly the same process as outlined on Page 54.
If you have bought enough Chemical assets (see the availability in the Assets section of each Army List) you could even attempt to deliver a rolling barrage of Chemical weapons (see page 55).


However, remember that any guns or aircraft that are allocated to use Chemical weapons cannot fire any other type of ammo (throughout the game) - see Page 65.

Thanks
Mark

[Superscribe]

Some inconsistencies/oddities in heavy mortar stats in PDFs for Bundeswehr and Soviets...and some weapons are listed twice... under support and under on-table arty:
Soviet
Support
120mm Mor AP 4/200 AT 3/100
On-table arty
120mm Mor AP 4/100 AT 4/100*
Bundeswehr
Support
12cm Mor AP 4/200 AT 1/200
On table arty
12cm Mor AP 4/100 AT 2/100
What are correct stats for both weapons?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy.  Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were.  No BRDM-3 in lists.  Some weird stats for sov tanks.  Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use.  No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around.  ATGMs still very vulnerable, Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan.  Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in.  M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc.  Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

[Big Insect]

[6:41 am, 18/06/2022] Ian Shaw: See below for comments about on-table templates.
[7:00 am, 18/06/2022] Andy: Stats would seem an issue then.  Aircraft hitting on 6 makes one of NATOs big assets pretty crappy. 
> As stated elsewhere previously - this is a deliberate change from CWC-I - air had become far too dominant, it distorts game-play and shifts the focus of the game away from the main table-top infantry and vehicle action.
NB: I believe Andy is more than capable of voicing his own question BTW rather than you doing so for him

Giving the Hind D 1st gen ATGM hitting on 6 means they are really crappy and nothing to be feared.  Sagger et al hitting on 6s means they aren't the killer of Israeli tanks as they were. 

> as stated previously elsewhere - if you attack with a line of unsupported tanks, in the open, against vastly superior numbers of dug-in Sagger teams - you will still get the same effect as the Egyptians and Syrians did against the IDF tanks. Wargamers play games with the superior knowledge of hindsight.

> Hinds were much feared in CWC-I - but where they much feared in reality for their ATGWs - I think not. It was their rocket-pods and cannon and their armour that made them feared. The changes to ATGW in CWC-II are designed to replicate this and also reflect the interaction between armour development and ATGWs.

No BRDM-3 in lists.

> a great spot Ian - shame you didn't pick it up in the list proof reading!

Some weird stats for sov tanks. 

> Yes? Not exactly detailed feedback Ian - what is weird and do you have any suggestions about correcting whatever is 'weird'?

Mixed NATO and Soviet names for things makes the lists difficult to use. 

> More repetitive feedback Ian, that has been answered previously on this thread. This kind of thing is not helpful, wastes my valuable time, that could be used to sort errata and convert the new lists etc.


No BMP-1s for Sov recce, despite them using 2 in every 3 as recce as there weren't enough BTRs to go around. 

> a good spot - but again - you were a list proof-reader and you failed to bring it to my attention ahead of publication. The good news is that we can pick it up easily on the on-line lists - when we make the changes.

ATGMs still very vulnerable,
> and you point is???

Andy managed to shoot his Jaguar HOT once last night
> why was that Ian - did he fail command rolls? Was it suppressed? Was it knocked out by Soviet artillery? Did the crew get lost down the local brothel?!!! - please be more specific

and thanks to T64B company armour it didn't kill, nor did the Milan. 

> well that is no surprise - as the rules have been adjusted (as a result of feedback from CWC-I) that we were not adequately taking into account the levels of sophistication in soviet tank armour development. This is one of those Abraham Lincoln things ... players want granularity around armour but also want to be able to kill tanks just as easily!

Leo 2s virtually unkillable!  > No sh*t Sherlock! That is more realistic than it was in CWC-I, but again it reflects a request from players to more accurately reflect the nuances of armore development, such as ERA, Composite armour etc.

T-64Bs pretty tough nuts.  Strikes by 2 Phantoms, twice, and 2 Sukhois resulted in a only a couple of 6s.  Not worth the bother of calling in. 
> this is a combined arms game Ian and as stated above there has been too much reliance on air in the game, which is (as stated repeatedly previously on this and other threads) unrealistic - as we have seen in Ukraine.
In the Gulf, not only was allied airpower overwhelming the majority of enemy targets were aged, vulnerable and with little or no AA cover.
There might be an argument for 'tank-buster' planes (such as Warthogs) to be actually classified as on-table units and to allow them multiple attack-runs in a game turn, but that is a highly complex rules change.
I can certainly look at adjusting air attack - but going back to hitting armour on a 4-5-6 in the open is unlikely. But you can always play it as a house-rule if you like

M113s with 4 hits compared with 3 on FV432, BRDM2, BMP, BTR etc. 
> again this has been raised repeatedly (by you and others) and it is a known error and known errata.

Just what came up on Thursday.

I am aware that the 432/M113 is an old debate, most games we use 3 hits for the 113.
> yes ... you have stated this previously and it has been noted.

Look forward to YOUR ANSWERS MARK

These are points that came up in a recent game. Note that it has been posted previously and I do not appricate not getting answers. Be aware that all 3 people involved in this are official playtesters, and one has considerable experiance in rules writing.

> You make the point very well Ian - YOU were a playtester and an official proof reader!!!
[/quote]


To be frank Ian - it is hard to answer queries written like this as it is so vague and full of generalisation, and with no context! I've just wasted an hour doing this.

But my comments are in-line above and to summarise below:
1) you feel that the changes to aircraft hitting on a 6 (from the CWC-I 4-5-6) is too harsh
2) the interplay between the new armour classifications and ATGW is in favour of the tanks rather than the ATGW
3) there are a few missing vehicle types in the Soviet list and the M113 stats are incorrect.

Mark[/quote]

[Big Insect]

Some inconsistencies/oddities in heavy mortar stats in PDFs for Bundeswehr and Soviets...and some weapons are listed twice... under support and under on-table arty:
Soviet
Support
120mm Mor AP 4/200 AT 3/100
On-table arty
120mm Mor AP 4/100 AT 4/100*
Bundeswehr
Support
12cm Mor AP 4/200 AT 1/200
On table arty
12cm Mor AP 4/100 AT 2/100
What are correct stats for both weapons?

Many thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

To be frank Ian - it is hard to answer queries written like this as it is so vague and full of generalisation, and with no context! I've just wasted an hour doing this.

But my comments are in-line above and to summarise below:
1) you feel that the changes to aircraft hitting on a 6 (from the CWC-I 4-5-6) is too harsh
2) the interplay between the new armour classifications and ATGW is in favour of the tanks rather than the ATGW
3) there are a few missing vehicle types in the Soviet list and the M113 stats are incorrect.

Mark

But I didnt write it, just uploaded. I note my correction for the evade roll has disappeared.

[sultanbev]

It does seem that some people are forgetting that it is a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 versus a platoon of 3 (or occasionally 4) x T-64B.
To expect a single salvo of 4x ATGW to knock out an entire platoon of tanks in one go is a bit much. Using the data I've used for 40 years, a platoon of 4x Jaguar-1 would only KO a whole T-64B platoon 10% of the time, assuming both sat still in the open. Comparing CWC2 statsof 9D6 attacks for HOT1 versus 5 hits at 4s to save for the T-64B, that's probably about right. 9D6 at 4+  is on average 4 hits, of which 2 will be saved. So meh, yeah. But if you rolled 5-9x 4+ on your attack dice, and the opponent fluffed 5 of their saves, odds on you are going to kill the T-64B model, so it can be done. (Can't remember just now what the bonus for composite armour is in this example)

Anyway,
an idea for those that think the firing isn't quite right or effective enough. You can use the dice more.
For every pip on each D6 you get over what you need, have an extra hit. So if you are hitting on 4+, any 5+ rolled is an additional hit, every 6 rolled is 2 extra hits. And so on.

Similarly for saves, things like Chobham armour and APS systems could give you extra saved hits in certain circumstances if you roll over what you need.
Just a thought.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark B - first the Composite, Chobham, Spaced or ERA armour allows a save vs ATGM in the frontal arc, otherwise there are none. The extra hit idea won't work and adds complication. The time scale allows more than one volley of missiles to be fired. A table kill is not necessarily a kill in real life, 2 of your mates blowing up alongside will not engender confidence in the other platoon vehicles will it. In CWC you have to remember that Kill is not Dead, its out of action. 

[flamingpig0]

I wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

[Big Insect]

Many thanks Chris - it is good to have the examples.
The correct stats for 120mm/12cm mortars are AP:4/100 | AT:2/100 - this is on the list for the bif 'sweep' up errata activity.

NB: whilst we are at it all Naval Support should be costed at 200pts (not 100pts as in some lists) - that is to take into account the 8 hits and save on a 3. But I'll put that info out in a separate thread later today.

Thanks
Mark

NB: I also forgot to mention Chris - the use of 120mm mortars (in this specific instance) across Support, On-table Artillery and Off-Table Artillery is not unusual. It is an attempt to replicate the doctrine of a specific army. The US (for example) would use their 120mm mortars right upfront in support of an assault, but also use them as a longer-range divisional or battalion assets as well. Other armies held them back, using them only as longer-distance support.

With minimum ranges for large mortars, having them too close to the front is counter productive though.
There should also be Max unit restrictions on the larger mortars in some lists to avoid a player buying an unrealistic number of them. Some of these may have slipped through the editing 'net' but will be picked up as we correct the errata.

Thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

I wonder if we need a Twitter campaign - "I stand with Big Insect"

      
shame I wouldnt see it as I dont use Twitter or Facebook ... but I appreciate the sentiment

[Huey]

Good evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

Cheers  H

[Big Insect]

Good evening.
A few observations...

Finns:
  Armour
  BMP2 with ATGW at 110 points, bargain!
> maybe - but they can only fire the ATGWs once per game-turn - so are not as costly as a full ATGW unit.
But I will double check that, usually it is a good call to look at the 'master' list for something like this - which would be the Soviet list online.

Note, this was their primary ATGW carrier and as such would not have had any (meaningful) dismounts.  I don't know if the IFVs in the armour section are supposed to have a transport capacity but a BMP1 with no infantry or ATGW!

> NB: a lot of BMPs fielded by 'client states' or foreign buyers were not supplied with ATGWs. But again, I'll check my reference material.

> all IFV's are Transport (1) - so this must be an omission - although as all IFVs are Transport (1) technically we shouldn't need to put Transport (1) in the notes - but we'll get that fixed.

  T72M1S  No S2.  It's more poorly equipped than the T55!
Note, The T55s were use to bolster the infantry and the T72s held in their Tank formations.

> yes, thanks - this has been picked up previously and will get resolved when we do the big list errata 'sort out' - in a while.

United States:

Abrams.The M1A1 costs 240. The M1A1 (HA) costs 260, a 20 point cost for TWICE the armor save! (Fail on a 1 or 2 vs fail on a 1)
> is this the book or the on-line list please? - I suspect that it is probably a typo. but will check.

And thank you for your efforts on this forum.  We ALL appreciate it in our own way!

> a pleasure - I try not to 'snap my jaws' too often ...     

Cheers  H

Hi H - comments above in-line - thanks for the contributions.
Mark

[Huey]

It's correct that the Finn BMP1s did NOT have Saggers.  The BMP2s were their tank killers not transport.