CWC-II Army List Errata/Suggestions (Open)

[Jim Ando]

Hi

Noticed in the rule book, the british list  Charlie G is 5/25 but in the online list it's 5/40 as in other lists. Which one is correct .

[Big Insect]

We will pick this up in the Errata Jim

The correct stats (for a standard Carl Gustav) is:
AP: 5/40   AT: 5/40H

Thanks
Mark

[sultanbev]

Presumably that's the S.550 Carl Gustav of the late 1970s+ which has 700m anti-tank range - the original M2 Carl Gustav in NATO service had a maximum anti-tank range of 450m.(1963 in UK service). The Swedish original dates back to 1948 with 300m range.

[Smartbomb]

A minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

[Smartbomb]

Hi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

[JcDent]

More of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

[Smartbomb]

More of a design question rather than a suggestion, but why is infantry - meant to represent platoon-size units - bereft of any AT capability by default? Seems like it would have been more and more prevalent with every passing decade of Cold War.

I think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

[Big Insect]

A minor, possible error. On the French list the Milan-2 for Infantry support is 190 points, while the dedicated AT Milan-2 in 4x4s is 185.should that possibly be 200 (190 for the Milan-2 and 10 for the 4x4s)?

I can check that, but usually additional benefits have a 5pts cost - or a multiple of 5pts.
However, it might be that the 4x4 SP:ATGW version, has fewer hits than the INF:ATGW version, and that is off-set by the increased move distance for the 4x4 version. So they broadly end up the same points cost.

Thanks
Mark

[Big Insect]

I think that's so you can build units by time period without a bunch of infantry lines. I.E. 1 line for Regular US Army and 1 line for the bazooka in upgrades, vs. 1 line with rifle grenades, 1 line for the infantry with bazooka, 1 line with super bazooka, etc. Then repeating it with National Guard, US Army Reserve, and so on for each AT weapon.

Absolutely Smartbomb - there are also instances - such as Soviet forces in Afghanistan (for example) - where having the standard Infantry squad armed with an RPG-7 is a waste of points, and historically the Soviets left a lot of their IATWs back at base - same as with the ATGWs - as the Mujahedeen had no armour and even very few soft vehicles to target.
Similarly, you might want to field a force that represents an army that is low on supplies, so limit your IATWs to 1:3 Infantry units (for example).
I am just trying to make things as flexible for players as possible.

Hope that helps JC?

[Big Insect]

Hi all, one more I discovered. USMC Infantry upgrades seem "off" other than the Rifle Grenades

M9 Bazooka is AP 1/10 and AT 2/5
M72 LAW is AP 2/20 and AT 2/10 H. The M72A2 is similar.
M136 is 3/30 and 5/15H

US Army List has
M9 AP 2/20, AT 2/20 H. Same in the Swedish list for example
M72 is AP 4/40 and AT 4/40H; M72A2 is 3/40 and 5/40H
M136 5/60 and 5/60H; Swedish list agrees with the USMC
Danish list has it as 6/30 and 6/30H

Points vary on the, AT-4 for example from 30-40 points. Danish M72 is 10 points and the US one is 10 (M72A2 is 20 points.) Maybe this is deliberate to model availability? That doesn't seem quite correct though, because a French AML-90 is 115 points and an Argentine one is 65. I'm sure there's a logic to it - I'm just in an unusual position of trying to build 2 imagi-nation armies and I'm noticing this stuff as I go.

All of this is helpful Smartbomb - thank you
As you can imagine there are many thousands of stats going into the proposed c.70 army list - the intention is that there should be a standardised set of stats and costs for a specific vehicle type (& there is a master-list) - however, sometimes in transcription I get what I call 'list-blindness' (Leon will laugh at this  ) and no matter how many times I double check a list or a stat (like that Austrian Carl Gustav) I cannot see the issue.

Also - there are - as you can imagine - so many variants of a specific vehicle and unfortunately only a certain number of stats available to represent it.
In addition, sometimes my sources are a bit vague as to which variant a certain army used - and on other occasions (the IDF list is a really 'bad'example of this) the number of variants produced and then used, in such small numbers, really doesn't warrant a separate stats line for each variant. If that makes sense.

We have a number of new lists about to be released - once those are out I'm intending to spend a bit of time on the errata and also the continuity across lists. For example - we have a points issue with some of the Chinese tank stats, across the Pakistani, Warsaw Pact and NVA lists, that will be picked up when the Chinese list (my current 'project') is finalised.

But on the AMX 13 - I suspect that that might be a copying error from the CWC-I lists. I'll add it to my to-do list.

Thanks
Mark

[Smartbomb]

But on the AMX 13 - I suspect that that might be a copying error from the CWC-I lists. I'll add it to my to-do list.

Thanks
Mark

FYI, it's the AML-90 (don't want to looking at the AMX and asking yourself WTF I'm talking about)

I completely get the issue of list standardization, I brought up primarily because if there was some kind design theory behind the varying points cost by Army, I'd want to properly tailor my lists to that.

[Smartbomb]

I can check that, but usually additional benefits have a 5pts cost - or a multiple of 5pts.
However, it might be that the 4x4 SP:ATGW version, has fewer hits than the INF:ATGW version, and that is off-set by the increased move distance for the 4x4 version. So they broadly end up the same points cost.

Thanks
Mark

Thanks, its easy enough to house rule, but 5 points different seems very generous for the 4x4. It's got less hits, but a full 360 firing arc  can fire multiple times a turn, twice the move rate and is cheaper. From a man/material standpoint it would be a high cost to lose in real life than "just" the men.

I understand that unit limits affect this some - I'm more looking at it from the perspective of potential power gamer abuse.

[dylan]

Let's talk about NATO tanks.

*NOTE* I am comparing NATO tanks with other NATO tanks - I'm not comparing them with Soviet tanks here.

Let's start with the tanks that all shared the ubiquitous 105mm L7 gun.
The British 105 Centurions and the German Leopard 1s are all rated with lower range and dice than the American M60s.  It isn't clear why a 1962 M60A1 is rated 5/150 and 4/125, but a 1966 Centurion Mk6/2 is only 4/120 and 4/100, as are 1970s Leopard 1s.

Then looking at 120mm gun armed tanks.  It isn't clear why the M1A1 is given 3/175 and 7/175 whereas the Leopard 2 with the very same 120mm gun is given 3/175 and 6/120.  The AT range difference in particular is extraordinary!

I think the Chieftain is over-rated for armour protection at 6/3.  I know some seem to imagine the Chieftain was some sort of supertank but it simply wasn't the case.  It was marginally better protected than an M60A1 (275mmRHAe as opposed to 250mmRHAe).  There is no way it can be rated better than a Leopard 2 - but it is!

[Gwydion]

I suspect there are a lot of things tied up in the whole platform performance as well as the actual gun on its own.

The Americans made several 'upgrades' to the the basic 105mm L7 gun.

Ammunition is another probable factor, the US M829 series ammunition may account for the difference in the various 120mm platform performances (as well as all the other associated variables - stabilisation, ranging, elevation damping etc etc.)

As for the Chieftain - probably is overrated if Iraqi views on its performance in the Iran Iraq war are believable (are they?), but it probably depends on which Chieftain and which Leopard 2 we are talking about.

Generally I'd go with the lists ratings as they are but I wouldn't quibble if someone wanted to tweak say the Chieftain Mk9 and earlier.

[flamingpig0]

Let's talk about NATO tanks.
I think the Chieftain is over-rated for armour protection at 6/3.  I know some seem to imagine the Chieftain was some sort of supertank but it simply wasn't the case.  It was marginally better protected than an M60A1 (275mmRHAe as opposed to 250mmRHAe).  There is no way it can be rated better than a Leopard 2 - but it is!

"We don't want your stupid tanks!"

 Iraqi director of Armor, Salah Askar, in response to the UK Gov' trying to sell him Chieftains