The Commander Series Forum

Hi, we played a brek trought game this night, soviet vs USA 1985, soviet attacking, well, some question arose:

- as soviet I bought a couple of thermobaric assets, that I have scheduled for turn 2 but there are not question about this, the question are:
* AFV are really hitten on 4+? Or on 6 as per arty barrage? If it hits on 4+ thermobaric are crazy strong.
*after expending these 2 assets, I can call with FAOs others thermobaric barrage? If I don't take thermobaric assets, could I call them with FAOs?

- This scenario dictates that the attacker have twice as much point of the defender, as attacker I practically wipe out my friend in 3 turn...we thought that having double points is too much... anyone have the same feeling?

- we cannot understand the meaning of ATGMs, they cost a lot and they aren't decisive... Especially with composite armour tanks.

Many thanks... Maybe I would have other question :]

In my experience using thermobaric assets is one step short of using nuclear weapons

We don't use them anymore as they ruined the one game that we did use them

ATGMs are expensive. We've changed how they are used - they can be used once in a player's turn and also once in opportunity fire (I think)

We reached the same conclusion regarding the thermobarics, also for the chems, they are too deadly. Probably we will limitate them for a single use per game and with a 6+ to hit fully enclosed AFV.

Adopting your solution for the ATGMs would be already a good step foward for ATGM equiped units, but I saw also some point re-shape around...

What about the scenarios? Anyone ever feel disconfortable with the twice/50% more point for one side?

Again... We can't really understand the relationship between the assets and the Fao, and how much special munition use are allowed, could you please explain it?

I ear that, after the release of BKC IV, maybe a new version of CWC will follow...I hope that someone would advise the developers about the actual version faults, well before the printing stage

I don't have my CWC book with me, but usually you cannot buy any special assets in the scenarios (I will check).

Also my understanding is that if you buy a special asset it is used only once. It is therefore very (very) expensive - but again - let me check this.

Thermobarics are very effective, but also very difficult to deliver and keep supplied - in reality they'd be used sparingly and only for critical missions.

Usually a 2:1 advantage to the attacker is death the the attacker in all the CWC games I've played in (assuming you don't use special assets), as the defender gets the deployment advantage. Most attacking commanders would like at least 3:1 minimum.

On the ATGW thing - Shedman is right - dedicated ATGM units (those designated as such) in the lists fire once in opportunity fire and once in commanded fire. This is being picked up in BKCIV and will also go into CWCII (when that gets a rewrite).

Try playing the scenario again without the special ammo -- I'd be interested to see how you get on

We ditched thermobarics as they made the game so dull and one sided.

Thanks for the answer.

We will adopt your solution for ATGM units for sure, otherwise they would be useless.

We don't understand the assets because you pay points for the scheduled barrage and for the preregistered target ( that come togheter), and this is ok; but ( as we intended) what you paied doesn't limit your ability to use special ammunitions barrage.
So, practically, we understand that, if I have thermobarics listed in my army list, I can call thermobarics every turn with my FAO with no relations with what assets I had payed.
Is it in this way, right?

I know those things about force ratio, but my concern is more related to game situation. Speaking frankly, we played breaktrought scenario, I had 5000 points of soviets against 2500 of USA. Well, he deployed in the middle of the table as dictated and I entered the table with moving deployment...at turn 3 I nearly obliterated him ( also considering that I did a mess with a thermobaric barrage).

The matter is: why the scenario give to me twice the point when my opponent had no advantages in defending ( no field defence, no dig in, nothing) Maybe we miss something of the game.

I now have my rules book with me.
Scenarios
Page 42 - "Players may only purchase assets when indicated by the scenario. The limits for assets for assets in the scenario take precedence over those in the army lists."

Page 43 - Scenario 5, Breakthrough Attack
the attacker may purchase assets for scheduled artillery and air support.
So you can use assets as the attacker.

With regard to the use of Special Munitions in a barrage. The rules do not state you cannot use special munitions in a barrage. However, my reading of Page 29, is that these are deliberately limited in numbers. So use in a scheduled barrage seem counter to the spirit of the rules.However, we know that these types of munitions were used to clear terrain - for example.
These are bought on a 1 off basis - so your Soviet list allows you to buy Artillery Thermobaric (max 3 per unit, 30 point each) so in theory you could fire up to 3 scheduled barrages using Thermobarics in the game - but you are spending a lot of points to do so.

Personally, I'd probably not allow them in a barrage as they appear to be used in specific situations - called in by the FAO or FAC on the ground.

Another question as regards your Breakthrough Scenario game. How much terrain did you have on the table? As CWC has unlimited Line of Sight - you need a fair amount of terrain to stop the game turning into a very short blood-bath!

Also, usually the defender (if they are NATO) has a range advantage over the Soviet attacker. Well dug-in and concealed ATGW - such as TOW - have huge range advantage - especially over most Soviet armour. These and American/NATO MBTs are best deployed back towards the defenders base line, Infantry and IATW such as Dragon and Milan are then deployed in the middle ground and man-pac atw (such as LAW or Carl Gustavs) are deployed up front with dug in infantry. If the defender doesn't spread their forces out they will be very susceptible to soviet massed artillery.

The Defender in the Breakthrough scenario can also buy artillery assets as well as fixed defenses such as mine fields - so I'd suggest that leaving aside the thermobaric barrages - your opponant probably needed to spread-out, deploy at optimal ranges and also use his own artillery assets to counter yours.
NB he can deploy up to the middle of the table - if he wants to.
He can dig in - nothing to stop him doing that and can buy field defenses - minefields to block and channel your advances, and defenses such as trenches - to protect his infantry.

But IMHO I think Thermobaric are far too cheap and you get too many of them in the lists. Something to change for CWCII I'd suggest.

Hope that is helpful

One thing I learnt in a campaign we played a good few years ago, is that the NATO forces were allowed a free hand to alter the terrain (ie clear woods or plant new ones), place minefields were they wanted etc, so at to create their own killing zones as they funneled the Warsaw Pact forces. So with that knowledge, we allowed the NATO defender to set the terrain, given that historically they would be fighting on terrain of their own choosing.

Uhm... Sorry, I misspelled, we play break out. The scenario where the defender is on the middle pushed by either side. In the scenario description there's no mention about defence or dig in for the defender... And even if the NATO could claim some range advantage, it didn't exploit it because there are 2 of mine soviet battlegroup on every side..

Maybe we used too few scenario pieces, or at least to few that cut lines of sight.

I will discuss with my mate but I think that we will cut the availability of special Ammunitions, use the ATGM s as you said, and allow the defences to be taken if there are too much points differences

@stevej

Nice, but we usually stick too the rules and to an open flow game. But maybe fizing some things would help the enjoyment.

Break Out is a really hard scenario in our experience.

The trick is how you design your forces as the defender (to fight your way out of the trap) - you need to get as much of your force off-table as fast as you can, but also leave enough behind to cause the attacker serious damage. So it is almost worth having a lot of cheap fast moving transports to shift you infantry (& buy a lot of infantry to build up your numbers).

But again - both players can purchase assets and airstrikes - so your American opponent can also use Cluster Bombs, Thermobaric munitions. Smoke is also a huge help for the escaping defender. Helicopters are also useful assets as helicopter airstrike that neutralizes the Soviet AA will help the Americans bring in their airpower.

Some of the scenarios work better than others, with games of smaller points - I think this is one of them.

Sorry, I'm confused now...

In my book "break out" scenario stated who is the defender (in our case the US) that must block the attempt of the attacker battlegroup to break out

It is worded in a confused way.
The defender becomes the attacker in the scenario, as they have to break-out of being surrounded by the attacker (who becomes the defender) ... most complex

Fork Handles/Four Candles

Having been responsible for the BKC4 scenarios this is the blurb for Breakout

Following on from an encirclement scenario, the encircled troops must now attempt to break-out of an encirclement, whilst a relief force attempts to break-in. These are the attackers. The defenders in this scenario are the encircling troops.

The objective for the attacker is to exit as many units of his encircled battlegroup across his baseline as possible. The objective for the defender is to destroy the encircled battlegroup.

The attacker has twice as many points as the defenders.
The attacker should be split into two equal points sized battlegroups, the relief force and the break-out force

I will cut the defender point to 50% more also...maybe adding a map for better understand the deployment would be great
My 2 cents

Ans rener the assets more understandable also...

Keep at it PAnz3r - you'll get there in the end. We started playing with huge armies (lots of points) but soon realised it was a lot more fun with smaller armies.

I've also started to go for 'lite' options - such as all infantry forces such as Dutch Marines or German parachutists - in the right terrain these can be deadly

Yep, small games early on with not too many troops, tanks etc really help getting to grips with the rules etc. Then you can add in artillery, air support etc as you progress.

Sorry, maybe I'm not so able to explain myself, I mean, I suggest to cut the attacker point by half, because I think that twice of the points of the defender is too unbalanced ( also if I know that it would be a standard behavior to attack with a numeric superiority)

Tomorrow we will try another time... But we are deciding which mission to play.
Weust understand how a defender guy, with half if the points of his mate could defend in a... Viable... Manner.

I found also an oddity, again in the scenario area: in 'pursuit' there is no explicit 'defender deplyment area'...

Thermobarics should be removed,the Pact didn't have any in service !

We played "deliberate attack" tonight, but we faced the same situation, the defender was totally overwhelmed.
Did you guys use the scenarios of cold war commander where the attacker has twice the points of the defender? Or, maybe, you used the scenarios from BKCII where the attacker has mostly only 50% more of the points?

More over, how can a defender keep the enemy at bay?
I defended with 9 bmp2 ( 3 with spandrel), 9 embarked infantrys (3 rpg), 2 spiggot team, 4 T62e... Some fixed defences, a frogfoot and 3 122mm arty...
I didn't have chances to win :(

It's a while since I played CWC, but broadly speaking;

- you need a good amount of terrain to help break up lines of sight, so hills, woods etc. This allows the Defender to force the attacker into killing zones of their choosing.

- Defences. Minefields really help to protect areas or force the attacker into killing zones as above. these do not have to be placed in your deployment zone, but can be further forward as Pete, the author, confirmed some years ago.

- Have some scheduled off board artillery, if allowed, to help break up or suppress the Attackers. If not, at least one FAO to call in strikes if they get lucky.

- Helicopters. Can be useful but can't remember how useful to be honest.

I hope these suggestions help a bit? Also, it would be good to have some 'photos of your games to how much terrain etc you've had on the table.

Uhm I used 3 marked minefield and 1 dummy, plus trenches.

I got 3 scheduled arty and one hit in the middle of 9 strong bradley platoon, repeted 2 times also ( using the preregistered targrt to avoid scattering), but I didn't a thing (hiting on sixes and suppressing on sixes).

After my mate flank deployed 5 M60, I tried to stop them with my T62e s, but an Intruder air strike hit them hard. Without them I practically lost the game, considering that I was facing 9 abrams 4 M60s and 9 bradleys... With only 9 bmp2 and 2 spiggot :/

Well, I will try to find some pictures because I remember that my mates takes some.

To be honest, what we miss, is how to concentrate( or not) the firings to get the kills, and also which is the way to deplet the enemy.

The worst feeling was the strong sensation of a pre-determined outcome, with no challenge in-between

Hi PAnz3r

Are you using the random points modifier? With the Soviet "Stockpiles" rule you should be able to even up the points difference a bit.

Did you use the Hidden rules? NATO units have a range advantage over Soviet units, but they cannot shoot at units they cannot see. By staying hidden you can negate their range advantage, forcing them to close the distance until you can fire first.

Abrams are damned hard to kill. Bradleys, less so. Remember that each Bradley with an embarked infantry unit is 2 kills, so ignore the Abrams and concentrate all fire on the infantry & IFVs. Whereas tanks are good at shooting other tanks, they will struggle to shift dug in infantry.

Think about the deployment of your ATGMs. Not got the rules with me, but I'm pretty sure ERA and other ATGM counter measures on tanks are only effective against attacks from the front. So try to get some flank shots on them with your ATGM. Put them on the flanks of your deployment area and use cover and minefields to funnel his tanks into kill zones (as Steve J mentions above) where you can get a flank shot on them. And an ATGM attack on the flank from a Mil 24 Hind is going to unnerve any tank commander.

Hope this helps.

No, we never used the random points modifier because we fear that it will increase the points difference if the dice roll goes bad.

We used the hidden deployment as stated in the book for the defender ( not the one with the dummy things and etc)

Your hints are appreciated, but I feel that 9 abrams 5 M60 and 9 bradleys still too much aganst my 4 T62e, 2 spiggot and 9 bmps

Maybe nore airpower and arty would change the outcomes but points are the limit..

It probably doesn't help that the Russian defenders have a lower CV than the attackers'

It might be worth using the optional rule for artillery suppression which is automatically suppressed on 2 or more hits