CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Big Insect]

Absolutely Chris (NB: I am answering this without access to the lists or rules in front of me  )

So, if you look at the basic unit cost (say of a BMP - in the Armour section) the correct cost of the Recce version will be 20pts more expensive (whatever that is). In some lists BMPs do not have Saggers - and some Recce units even in Soviet or Warsaw Pact armies, did not mount Saggers. But that difference will be visible in the lists as well.

The cost of a BRDM (Recce version) is usually c.65pts - off the top of my head.

The issue with some of the list is/was that this 20pts for Recce was either not added previously or was accidentally added twice in some lists.

Hope that helps?
(NB there is no cost difference between a BRDM1 & a BRDM2 - as, as far as the rules are concerned there is no difference that effects their points).

Thanks
Mark

[Superscribe]

 

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark

This may have been covered previously but in case it hasn't ..... on p43 the 7th para talks about Close Assault by IFV without dismounting its passengers, and to use its own CA value and +1 for its passengers in support (3 + 1). However table on p45 shows IFV with mounted infantry has CA of 6. Which is correct?

Rgds

Chris

[Superscribe]

My previous post put in wrong channel! Now in the correct place:)

[Big Insect]

Now you are confusing me Chris - as this is a rules Errata question (potentially) - which I have just answered elsewhere - not a List Errata question 

[Superscribe]

Hi Mark

I note that the British FV432 81mm Mortar is listed in the Artillery (On-Table) section.  Shouldn't it be listed under Support section alongside the other 81mm mortars, and classed as type SP:Mor like the Bv 202/206?

Regards

Chris

[Big Insect]

TBF it makes no real difference Chris - they could be in both sections 
I've already picked up the fact that it needs the SP:MO designation - but thanks
Cheers
Mark

[Superscribe]

Ok

[Ironcow2103]

Just started playing CWC2 with games set in Germany 1958 (an excuse to use the heavy tanks!). In the last game the US player said he was surprised that the M103 AT stat is the same as the M48 (indeed the M47 too) and notably outranged (by 20cm) by the Soviet heavy, the T-10.

Is there a reason for this, or is it a typo?

[Big Insect]

Just started playing CWC2 with games set in Germany 1958 (an excuse to use the heavy tanks!). In the last game the US player said he was surprised that the M103 AT stat is the same as the M48 (indeed the M47 too) and notably outranged (by 20cm) by the Soviet heavy, the T-10.

Is there a reason for this, or is it a typo?

I'll do some double-checking regarding the M103 AT stats v the M47/M48.
Whilst the M103 has a 120mm gun, it had a lower rate of fire due to the double aspect ammunition, than the 90mm gun in the Pershing and Patton MBTs. That will effect its AT values specifically.

With regards to the Soviet T-10 the gun (whilst 120mm) would be equivalent to the IS-3 (122mm gun) in game terms.
So the stats in the book look incorrect. I suggest you use the IS-3 stats.

There were some 'issues' with the Soviet Tank stats - and I'll check but it looks like that was one that was not picked up.

With regards to the West Germans - unless specified as being of a different calibre - the M47 & M48 should be the same gun stats, if both are the 90mm gun version.

The West German list is also missing the M26 Pershing (a copying error) which of course made up a large % of the post WW2 German armour (even though it was withdrawn in 1951).
The Pershing stats can be found in the US list and they had the same 90mm gun as the M46/M47, but the same engine as the Sherman - which reduced their speed significantly (as it was a heavier tank). You could also apply an Unreliable special characteristic to it if you wanted to (at -5pts per unit). You could do similarly for the M103 - as both had a very high instance of mechanical failure.

The whole Pershing-Patton series of tanks is a difficult one to depict, as the range of variation across the Pershing-M46-M47-M48 range can be quite cosmetic, as far as the game mechanisms are concerned. Factors such as the fire effect, armour and movement speeds are the primary drivers for the differences, so unless there is a significant upgrade in gun calibre, or a major drop in rate-of-fire (for example) it will probably have no impact on the AP/AT stats.

So if you wanted to deploy Pershing tanks in your early Bundeswehr I'd suggest using the US list stats.
The Belgians also fielded Pershings in significant numbers from 1952 onwards.

We'll pick all of the above up in the Errata.
Many thanks
Mark

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mark have to agree that the M26-M48 are difficult to quantify, I suspect but have no proof that most 26's were converted to 46's, as its an engine swap.

Indian list, apart from no Vijanta is also missing the Sexton. Was looking through James Armour and artillery - my copy is 1980, and found an entry for Sexton, in service with India only. No idea if used but should be added.

[flamingpig0]

Indian list, apart from no Vijanta is also missing the Sexton. Was looking through James Armour and artillery - my copy is 1980, and found an entry for Sexton, in service with India only. No idea if used but should be added.

Perhaps we need a new catchphrase - "What, no Vijayanta!"

[paulr]

 

[Big Insect]

Perhaps we need a new catchphrase - "What, no Vijayanta!"

Now who's stirring up a fluff!

[flamingpig0]

Now who's stirring up a fluff!

I was outraged they don't feature in "The Rings of Power"