CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Superscribe]

My post is about helicopters not tanks 😅

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

You don't expect me to actually read em do you ?   

[Big Insect]

My question is specifically related to 152mm Soviet 2S3 and 2S5 SP guns and British M109 155mm SP guns, none of which appear in the off-table lists.  They are only shown in the on-table lists, which cant be right.

> you can use the heavier Soviet SP-Guns on-table (up to 6 units of them) - and the reason for that is that Soviet Doctrine encourages close support of advancing armour. Generally, pre 1990, that was not NATO practice. That will change in the post-1990 'Modern Supplement' when I get around to writing that  .

We should have the option to use HE templates with these heavier guns, hence the need for them to be in the off-table lists as well, like those for Bundeswehr.

> There is a general principle in the Commander series that no on-table units (with a few exception*) can use Templates weapons. It is a gaming mechanism. That is primarily because on-table artillery can fire in any number of turns (as long as they receive a successful Command order). Whereas, off-table artillery can only fire once per game turn and so the template represents multiple rounds fired off to a single order. If that makes sense

*Soviet river craft in BKCIV (optional rules) - can use short range MLRs with a template but once per game-turn only and with some very large number of deviation dice, and in Future War Commander, any manner of strange & futuristic on-table weapons get a template - but that is a whole other story for another thread!!! 

Answers in-line in Bold
many thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

Lured back into this by the new CWC2 (thanks Pendraken and Big Insect!!!)

A few initial thoughts on the Soviet/WarPac lists.
1. Air Support - MiG29 Fulcrum-A didn't have PGM capability.
2. Artillery (off table) - as others have pointed out, the absence of 2S19, 2S1, 2S3 and 2S5 is an oversight.
3. Air Defence (dedicated) - ZSU-23-4 versus 2K22 Tunguska.  Is it really credible to give the Shilka a longer effective range (100cm) compared to the Tunguska (80cm)?  The former has a 23mm gun, the latter a 30mm cannon.
4. Armour.  I'm intrigued that the T-64 and T-64A are not given Composite Armour.  They were the first tanks in the world in widespread service to feature composite armour.  That was the whole point of the USSR introducing them.  They also were stabilised, but this doesn't appear in their ratings.
5. Armour.  The T-64B without Kobra should be labelled T-64B1.   
6. Armour.  The T-64BV without Kobra should be labelled T-64BV1.
7. Armour.  The gun ratings of the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series make no sense compared with what we know about them.  The T-64 and then the T-80 were the Soviet "premium" tanks.  They had the best fire control and optics.  The T-72 was the "mass produced" model with initially more basic stuff.  At minimum, there should be consistency between what is labelled as the "T-64A" and the "T-72".  They both had coincidence rangefinders and similar 125mm guns.  Either lower the T-72 range ratings or raise the T-64A ratings.
8. Armour.  It is odd to miss out the T-72A (1979) which was a variant that was significant.  It introduced the laser rangefinder to the T-72 series.  It had the Dolly Parton composite armour on the turret.  In 1983 it got 16mm HHS added to the glacis because of performance of Israeli M111 Hetz rounds against existing glacis.  The T-72M1 introduced similar to the export/WarPac line.
9. WarPac Grade 1.  WarPac definitely got 9K111M Faktoria ATGM.  It was manufactured outside the USSR.
10. WarPac Grade 1.  I'd love to see the source you're using for the rating of the T-72M "ubergangsversion".  Because, as far as I'm aware, it only had the 16mm extra HHS glacis from the T-72A M1983. And it should be T-72M1 anyway.

Welcome (back) and thank you for all the observations/corrections and comments.
I will digest and reply in-line when I can grab some time.
But on the Soviet gun stats - this has long been an issue - as we come up against the challenge of doctrine v official stats. If you put a lot of the 'official' stats for Soviet tank gun-ranges etc into the army lists as they were 'officially' supposed to be you'd end up with many of them far outdistancing their contemporary NATO opposite numbers. Generally, I don't believe that in practice that is how they'd have been used.

I have a whole set of 'alternative' Soviet tank gun stats - I'll start up a separate thread on the subject and we can debate them in detail there. I am not opposed to changing them at all (even in the near future) but I would like to ensure we 'honour' game-play balance and also that we should attempt a degree of continuity across all lists where they are used.

Many thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

It's a typo,
MT-LBV not MT-LPV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB#Variants

It is indeed - well spotted - as Ian states - a wide tracked, APC, usually with only a pintle mounted machine gun by way of armourment. There were ATGW version, Mortar carriers, AA varients - even one with a light artillery piece mounted on it.
Which list have you spotted the typo in please?
Thanks
mark

[Big Insect]

Hi. Helicopter rules on page 60 state hels are treated as stabilised but the stabilised factors are missing from US and Soviet army lists in the rulebook, and from Bundeswehr, Soviet & Soviet VDV PDF lists. British factors seem to be the only ones present. Are all the other Nations' helicopters S2, like the Brits?

All Attack helicopters are classified as Stabilised - and all are S1 (I'll double check the Brits - that is probably an error as I had removed all other references to it in the list notes).
Certain ATGW can only be fired when stationary - and then helicopters are considered to be hovering statically. But that is a specific example highlighted in the appropriate list.

Thanks
Mark

[sultanbev]

Which list have you spotted the typo in please?
Thanks
mark

It was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

[dylan]

Welcome (back) and thank you for all the observations/corrections and comments.
I will digest and reply in-line when I can grab some time.
But on the Soviet gun stats - this has long been an issue - as we come up against the challenge of doctrine v official stats. If you put a lot of the 'official' stats for Soviet tank gun-ranges etc into the army lists as they were 'officially' supposed to be you'd end up with many of them far outdistancing their contemporary NATO opposite numbers. Generally, I don't believe that in practice that is how they'd have been used.

I have a whole set of 'alternative' Soviet tank gun stats - I'll start up a separate thread on the subject and we can debate them in detail there. I am not opposed to changing them at all (even in the near future) but I would like to ensure we 'honour' game-play balance and also that we should attempt a degree of continuity across all lists where they are used.

Many thanks
Mark

Sounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Dylan I would agree. In essance apart from the engine early T64A and T72 are identical. It could be that it's been carried over from the T64 - a rare beast with the 115 rather than the 125.

[Big Insect]

It was the Soviet Cold War list in the recce section.

Thanks Mark

[Big Insect]

Sounds good.

Just to clarify - my main point about the Soviet tank gun ratings is not to seek they be improved relative to other (i.e. Western) nations.  Instead I'm trying to get internal consistency within the Soviet lists.  As an example, I was trying to point out that both the T-64A and the original T-72 had a 125mm gun and coincidence rangefinders.  Yet in your lists you give the original T-72 a rating of 6/100 and 6/80, while you give the T-64A ratings of 6/90 and 6/60.  This makes no sense.  I'd suggest they should be the same.  You can decide which you prefer, but my suggestion would be giving both the ratings you currently have assigned to the T-64A.

Great - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

[dylan]

Great - we are 100% aligned on all of that - thank you - I'll double check them and make an appropriate correction.

Cool - remember to correct the base model T-72 on all the lists (incl. WarPac Grade 1, WarPac Grade 2, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, etc).

Now, the next problem you have is the "composite armour" special characteristic.  As noted in my earlier post, you don't give this to the T-64 or the T-64A, and yet both of them had it, and in fact this was the defining feature of that tank in Soviet eyes.  You also don't give them S2 when in fact they were stabilised.
By contrast, the original T-72 only had composite armour on the glacis.  The T-72 base model turret was solid steel with no composite armour at all.  Now, CWC isn't granular enough to feature different turret and hull ratings (although, especially for NATO tanks that were intended to fight mainly from hulldown there were often huge differences in the protection of turret and hull, take Challenger for instance).  So you'll have to decide whether only having composite armour on the hull front is enough for the T-72 to be rated as "composite armour".

The T-72A should be added to the Soviet lists.  It was introduced from 1979.  It had composite armour in both hull and turret front ("Dolly Parton").  It added a laser rangegfinder to replace the coincidence rangefinder.  So it should be rated "composite armour" and it should have better range stats than the base T-72 and the T-64A.  *BUT* its optics and fire control still weren't as good as those of the T-64B and the T-80B (which were premium tanks in the Soviet conception).  So whatever firepower range ratings you give the T-72A have to sit in between the original T-72/T-64A on the onehand and the T-64B/T-80B on the other. Simples!  The T-72M1 is the export equivalent of the T-72A and should be rated the same but was produced from 1983.

You include the base model T-80.  Be aware that this was produced only in miniscule numbers.  Also be aware that it had a gas turbine engine in a new hull but that it essentially had a T-64A turret.  I'm not sure your ratings currently reflect that.  The first mass production model of the T-80 series was the T-80B.  There is a case to be made for simply ignoring the "T-80" and leaving it off CWC lists and just starting with the T-80B (even more confusingly, the "T-80A" actually came after the T-80B and was never mass produced, but lets ignore that one!)

[Big Insect]

Thanks Dylan

The plan is to review all the suggested army list errata/changes - compile a 'master' list and then we will publish it for wider debate, ahead of correcting things.

We usually leave that for a couple of months, as experience has told us that things come out of the woodwork as gamers play with the rules more often. Also, I'm very aware that I will never have he specialist knowledge that many individual players have on specific armies. So, this is very much a 'community effort'.

It is also why I'm being 'hard-nosed' about trying to keep the Rules errata and List errata separate and in the two 'sticky' threads that have been set up.

Obviously, things like typos & I spotted a unit stat that had a factor or 300/100 somewhere (now corrected to 3/100) - for example, will get corrected automatically.

Any help and assistance especially with the Soviet tanks stats, assorted vehicle varients and armour effects are much appreciated.

Thanks
Mark

[JcDent]

A small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

[Big Insect]

A small gripe, idk, but Transport (2) on many APCs just feels wrong when playing 1 stand:1 squad/1 vehicle.

E: Esp. on the Hungarian D-944 PSZH which, as far as I can Google, was only ever a recon vehicle that can transport 6 dudes.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong in reading the list (Warpac Grade 2), but T-72 with Composite armor would come as superior to T-72M and T-72M1 when faced with Tandem Warhead ATMGs, right? Because Tandem ignores ERA, no Composite.

When playing 1:1 games Jim I totally agree - by all means reduce the number of INF: transported in certain APCs.
Mostly the game is designed for a higher level of abstraction and there is a need to carry an INF: and a Support weapon in an APC to allow certain formations to be created.

The T-72 factors have already been picked up in another posting on this thread and are in the errata file.
Thanks for picking the up though 

Cheers
Mark