"Cold/Future War Commander" Topic

Okay, if you wanted some capability to play both Cold War and "near-future," but could only afford one set of rules initially, which would it be?

Gracias,

Glenn

If, by near-future, you mean something within the next 20-ish years, then CWC. FWC has a lot of stuff that is pure SF, which is absolutely fine. But it really doesn't add anything to what CWC has, in terms of reasonable probabilities.

That said, I have both and like both. The only thing I don't like is that the two are not compatible. That is, an Abrams tanks will knock the socks off FWC tanks -- the combat factors are virtually identical.

The one gripe I have about CWC (and probably BKC too, if I had it) is that there isn't any convenient way to figure out how to do certain things. For example (I posted this on their forum and got an unsatisfactory answer), I want a company of M60A1s versus a company of T-62s circa late 70s, early 80s. If the stats represent platoons, then I should have 3 US platoons and 3 Soviet platoons.

But wait! That gives the Soviets much more firepower than they actually had! But if I set it up as 5 US platoons and 3 Soviet platoons, then the Americans have more maneuver flexibility than they actually had! But the rules don't give any clue as to how the combat stats were derived, so I don't know if the stat line is one tank or a "platoon" of tanks. If one, then I could bump the American stats, keep the platoons the same, and reflect (to some extent) a realistic force array with realistic combat power.

But CWC makes a great game -- easy, fun, reasonably fast once you get used to it. But hard to depict a real scenario unless you're playing at a very high level and the actual number of "counters" on the board doesn't matter. So it works well for Bongolesia or for SF, less satisfactorily for anything historical at company level.

Just play it as the Soviet platoons have to be killed three times to be eliminated, and five times for the Americans.

Then of course, their firepower ratings will need to be adjusted appropriately, for losses, as they occur.

Not sure if the rules will permit that.

That would be tough. If you wanted to do very near future, as jizbrand says CWC would be best, but if you wanted to do Terminator type stuff then you might be better off with FWC.

So what are you aiming for exactly?

It sounds like, if you want to do Cold War as well, you might as well go with CWC. You won't go wrong either way, they really are the bees knees.

To be fair jizbrand, CWC isnt really a company level game. Works best at battalion level

I am looking for something a next level up from rules like Dirtside II.

1950's thru today (2009) and on to "2025" games. Obviously that last date is more a frame of mind then actual date since we can only extrapolate (always dangerous) what we think will be the technology by then.

GEV (for logistical and tactical reasons) and GRAV (for technological assumptions) would be strictly "highly specialised" (i.e., rare) forces.

Gracias,

Glenn

What models do you have? Buy the ruleset based on that criteria. If it works for you then have a go at the other set.

In that case, Warbeads, I would probably opt for CWC. I have to agree that both are excellent rules, but if you're going to 2025, I can't imagine the technology being TOO exotic. By that point, there will still be armies using T-80s, Abrams, Leopards, etc, so just uparmor or upgun units to represent newer vehicles and weapon systems.

FWC has rules for vehicles with GEV/grav mobility, but if they are going to be rare in your games, I think you'd be better off just making a house rule for CWC. I think the ostensible starting point for FWC is supposed to be circa 2069, so there really are no stats for currently-used stuff.

Irregulars "MECHANISED WARFARE RULES – 1935 to present day" £3.oo if you don't like them then no real money lost.