"Cold War Commander - Opinions now?" Topic

Just wondering what the opinion is of these for modern warfare given they have been out some time now? Would they compare favourably to the current crop of rules (thinking mostly of Force on Force or Fist Full of Tows III).

Moderns not really my era but thinking of giving it a whirl in 10mm or 6mm (in the latter case using what to me is the outstanding GHQ kit). Not interested in skirmish or really even company level.

I like CWC commander alot. You can play it at either 1 stand = squad or 1 stand = platoon. I use the latter. It works great for battalion level games

I like them too. So long as you don't get upset when your troops don't always respond to your orders then they are great! The author is very active and helpful on his website forum too.

I wasn't aware that Fistfull of Tows 3 was out.

Thanks,

John

Force on Force is a whole different kettle of fish. It is a skirmish game, while CWC and FFT III are designed for large engagements.

Mike

FTF II might not be out yet. Just mentioned it as a potential option. Can't think of too many more.

You can play it at either 1 stand = squad or 1 stand = platoon. I use the latter.

You could also play 1 stand = a division. But just saying that it is doesn't make it so.

As I understand it, the unit stats are based on single weapon systems; i.e., the stat line for a T-62 represents one T-62. That's fine for 1-to-1 play. But when you start raising the level of play, you start to lose a lot.

For example, if I count the platoons in a US H-series TO&E, I end up with 9 tank platoons -- the same as in a Soviet battalion. So, the maneuverability aspect is captured correctly. However, a US tank platoon under that TO&E would be five tanks versus only three in the Soviet platoon. So firepower ratios are out of whack.

If I take the number of US tanks and just divide by three (54 / 3), I get 18 platoons . . . which gives the US much more maneuver flexibility than it should have.

What I ended up having to do, in order to make things work out right both for maneuverability and for firepower was to change the stats, multiplying the stat line by the number of weapons systems. That ended up with way too many dice, so I divided the adjusted stat lines by 3. That seems to work -- makes the heavier platoons more survivable and more firepower-heavy while preserving the discrete maneuver elements.

Another factor that comes into play at platoon level are weapons mixes. A US infantry platoon of the era would have three rifle squads and a weapons squad with a couple of M60 machineguns and a couple of Dragons. If you just use the infantry stat line from the book, you lose the latter two weapons. If you aggregate them (i.e., 6 Dragons in the company, or two stands), they end up being used in ways that don't match the doctrine.

So, in my opinion, the game (and Blitzkrieg Commander, too) is not playable at the platoon level without doing some heavy mods to at least stat lines.

Now, all that being said, the game plays nicely and I like it a lot . . . but only after making those adjustments to play at the platoon level.

Jizbrand – that is one take on working through the difference in platoon size. And as has been discussed rather a lot on the BKC/CWC forums, then the more usual way to adjust for different platoon sizes is to give a battalion the appropriate number of stands – rather than trying to juggle every platoon.

I know you feel this gives too many manoeuvre elements – but platoons would tend to be at different strength levels any way. And if you are counting every tank, then you need to adjust for any casualties – and the fact that all tanks may not be able to fire at any one time.

reduce the soviet platoons instead of increasing the western one or messing with stat. The probloem is with integral AT, but again careful considerations can save the day. One of the kay is ammunition, consider the dragon stand a capability insted of real troops otherwise you will have an unrealistic rain of ATGM…

I know you feel this gives too many manoeuvre elements – but platoons would tend to be at different strength levels any way. And if you are counting every tank, then you need to adjust for any casualties – and the fact that all tanks may not be able to fire at any one time.

From a purely game perspective, you're entirely correct, and I certainly respect that approach. But, as I mentioned over on the BKC/CWC forums, I'm aiming at something different. So, for me, manipulating the unit stats to be proportional to the number of systems works quite well. And I'm happy that it doesn't take a math genius to make it work. That is certainly a tribute to the robustness of the game.

But, if I assume losses, mechanical breakdowns, lack of individual LOS, etc., then I have to do it for all units -- US and Soviet. Which means that, proportionally, they're still out of whack for what I'm trying to achieve.

I find no fault with the way the game is set up; as I said, I quite like it. And from a purely game perspective, straight ratios work just fine. But to recreate the actual employment, doctrine, and effects, it's not quite so good straight out of the box.

We've done a couple of CWC games using my 15mm AK-47 figures at the 1-to-1 representation and it works perfectly. We've tried BKC with my 3mm forces where each platoon represents the same number of systems, and it just doesn't feel right. But proportionally adjusting stats makes it work exactly like I would have expected the actual combat to feel like.

So, I'm quite pleased with the game as-is, and with it's ability to be manipulated to reflect variable strengths. And I'm just imparting that information to anyone else who might have the same considerations.

One of the kay is ammunition, consider the dragon stand a capability insted of real troops otherwise you will have an unrealistic rain of ATGM…

Absolutely a workable idea. It applies to that specific example but not to all situations (e.g., the fact that a WWII fallschirmjaeger anti-tank platoon had 4 x 37mm guns versus a panzergrenadier anti-tank platoon with only 3 x 37mm guns).

By the way, fred12df, your thoughts, both here and on the BKC/CWC forums, have always been helpful. Even if I disagree, I'm always prompted to re-think things.

So, since the Internet is so impersonal, I just wanted to be sure that you knew that I wasn't being snarky or trying to start a flame war -- I'm just providing my opinions, my assessment of problems, and my solutions -- which may not be to anyone else's tastes.

Another opinion: I'd rather be playing BKC than any of the other WWII non-skirmish games out there.

This has been one of the thoughts that bothered me with BKC. An example is the WWII British Firefly. Originally parcelled out at 1 per platoon/troop. I often pondered in terms of rule design whether using a base with 1 model Firefly was meant to be representative of the stats of 2-3 regular Shermans + 1 Firefly or are they based on the whole base being Fireflies (and thus at certain times wrong). Couple of friends made similar comments. "So what DOES that Firefly represent exactly"? If one assumes the stats are based on individual systems one way round it is to model 1 Firefly base with 2-3 bases of Shermans at the company level. But you then end up with Fireflies concentrated in one place and, again, a bit odd.

Not something to get too hung up about I suppose but I often have difficulty in rationalising how games that are capable of being up-scaled reflect the various stat lines when the up-scaled base may represent a mixture of troops/vehicles. Fine when they are all the same but when mixed – not so sure.

I'll have to have a look at some posts over at BKC/CWC to look at the thoughts of others on the subject.

Thanks for the comments.

jizbrand – thanks for adding that extra explanation, of where you are coming from.

I had never taken your views to be a "snarky" comment. Part of the reason for my response, was more as a response to the wider readers, about how BKC is more commonly perceived/played.

I was wondering if any errata has ever been offered for the vehicle stats?