I suspect you may need to check the Errata in BKC (I'd need to check that myself!) - as both should be the same and both 'Average' profile.
This may see illogical but it is a gaming mechanism to avoid the situation where Infantry (if depicted as Low profile) become impossible to hit in many circumstances, due to their other accumulated modifiers.
I admit it is a bit clumsy - but it seems to work ok.

Thanks
Mark

QuoteI admit it is a bit clumsy - but it seems to work ok.

The Commander series, getting the right result for all the wrong reasons. Which is better than the reverse!

Hi,

V1.1 says keep it low profile (v.1.0 said average, so it changed twice).

Quote from: BTM on 01 June 2023, 06:28:14 AMHi,

V1.1 says keep it low profile (v.1.0 said average, so it changed twice).

OK - let me check  It might be that the other factors have been adjusted in CWC. Or are you referring to BKC?
Thanks
Mark

Quote from: Big Insect on 01 June 2023, 09:38:26 AMOK - let me check  It might be that the other factors have been adjusted in CWC. Or are you referring to BKC?
Thanks
Mark

BKC IV v.1.1 errata (latest) low profile. CWC average then?

Quote from: BTM on 02 June 2023, 08:11:49 AMBKC IV v.1.1 errata (latest) low profile. CWC average then?

I'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Quote from: Big Insect on 02 June 2023, 10:12:58 AMI'll check that BKCIV v.1.1 errata - I expect there was some debate about all this - but Average is right for CWCII most certainly.
The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average.

Thanks
Mark 

Thanks Mark!
I'll play BKC IV as indicated in the latest errata available then. I'll play it as average profile in CWC II and wait to see if the coming errata changes something.

I have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

We used Starlight TI when I was in the HAC Corps Patrol Unit in the early 1980s...

Quote from: Andrew T on 19 September 2023, 09:57:15 PMI have a couple of rules questions please:

P.67, Engineering, mentions that units with dozer blades can dig in and count cover as one better. Aside from this, are there any other rules or uses for dozer blades in the game, such as clearing obstacles?
> Yes - You can use clear obstacles & create obstacles (5cm long) as an Initiative action for both Engineers and other units with dozer-blades. The Urban Warfare optional rules might also be of interest.

P.69, Night Fighting, states that SL, IR & TI only come into play when fighting at night. Are there any other rules for night fighting, such as reduced visibility or command radius?
> yes - there is more Night Fighting aspects in the Optional Rules - reduced visibility etc.

Finally (for now!) I'm not sure whether this should be a Rules or Army List question, but I always think that if an army has IR/TI capability then FAO/FACs should have too. These units would be equipped with the best visual aids that that particular faction had in their arsenal. Would you agree and is there a succinct and tidy way to incorporate that into the rules? Perhaps in the Notes/Special Rules for an Army like the US it could say something like: FAO & FAC: IR from 1957, TI from 1980 (for example).

> generally the way things work with Command units (FAOs/FACs) is that the better they are - in terms of both training and equipment etc. - the higher their CV will be (relative to other enemy units). In truth, the Command units are deliberately designed not to be that complex. Hence why we don't specify vehicle types etc. and only very rarely special characteristics.

Hi there
Might be worth you checking through the Optional Rules PDFs as some of your questions may be answered (in more detail) there. But I've made a few comments in-line above.
Cheers
Mark

Where are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

Quote from: tankette on 11 October 2023, 10:40:44 PMWhere are the actual errata & clarifications hidden? Thank you.

There is not currently a consolidated document for CWCII rules & list errata.
One will be produced, but not immediately, as the lists are still being worked on.

All errata & any answers/changes should appear in this particular thread.
Thanks
Mark

Thank you, Mitch

Hi Mark

I am looking at some of he older posts and see your comment in the discussion about infantry profiles and the inability of supporting IFVs being able to shoot overhead, because of their dismounted infantry's average profile:

"The only real challenge with them being Average is having supporting transports (IFVs or half-tracks etc) being able to provide support fire over the top of them. But we can adjust that in the next set of errata. For now I would play both as Average."

You have said "we can adjust that in the next set of errata" What exactly is it going to say about this? Will it say that IFVs can shoot overhead of their dismounted infantry? Or something else?

When are we likely to see the errata pages, as there are many quite significant tweaks coming as a result of all the discussions held to date?

Regards

Chris

Hi. In page 84 of CWC says in the first pharagraph that in pillboxes can bé placed  an antitank unit. And in the pillbox description don't say anitanything. Wich is correct?
The same with the bunkers. There is a diferent descripcions in the text and in the referències table. Wich is correct?
Is there diferent point cost for the diferent tipes of bunkers?

Thanks for all you work.
Jordi