"Future/Cold War Commander: Your Thoughts?" Topic

Played my first big game of Future War Commander yesterday. I'm curious as to what other people think of FWC and CWC.

I found it very fast and easy to learn. Didn't see much difference between troop types. Tactics seemed to consist of massing as many dice as possible on single enemy stands while ignoring the others.

Given typical unit values and probabilities you needed big odds (4:1 or better) just to score a kill against infantry in the open.

What's your opinion of the "XWC" rules system?

Haven't tried CWC, but my take on FWC parallels yours. The game is easy to learn, plays quickly and handles large numbers of models pretty well. OTOH it is a little abstract for some tastes, and the differentation between units is a less distinct than it might be. I didn't find shooting required quite as high odds as you did to generate kills, but you certainly want to concentrate fire most times to limit return shots – suppression isn't reliable enough to make spreading fire around a winning tactic.

That said, I do like the way the game handles aircraft, artillery, and recon units, all of which add a lot of wrinkles to gameplay. Without them, it's a bit vanilla, but the intent seems to be that they should all be used regularly, rather than just relying on direct fire and assaults by tanks and infantry. FWC also has some interesting scifi stuff, including shield domes, oddball weapons, and superheavy "titan" stuff.

All in all, I like it, but it's not the only rules set I'd ever want to play. A worthy stablemate to (say) Dirtside 2, with a very different, more abstract approach.

I mostly play BKC, which I think works quite well. Have FWC, but have not tried it. It does seem a tad flavorless for SF, but that's not a genre I play much anyway.

My group's primary objection to the FWC system is that it's fairly easy to mass fire on a single unit with no fear of retaliation from reactive fire, thus encouraging Napoleon-esque formations. It does handle infantry/vehicle interaction and super-heavies well.

I might well play it at some point if I ever buy an OPFOR for my existing 6mm forces (I'm solo now due to issues with that same group).

My group's primary objection to the FWC system is that it's fairly easy to mass fire on a single unit with no fear of retaliation from reactive fire, thus encouraging Napoleon-esque formations.

How are you managing that? If you mass fire against a single target, everything that can see any of your firing units can use opportunity fire to respond. It's not just the target that can use opfire, and by concentrating you've given up any chance of suppressing or destroying the other units that are going to be firing back at you.

I can see how careful positioning and LoS blocking terrain gives the active player an advantage, but I haven't seen it being all that easy to shoot without taking return fire.

It's a situation that occurs when your weapons have identical range (which may not happen in most games, we were just trying it out). Any organic formation of units where one of the units sticks out a little ahead of the others can be concentrated by a larger formation. While moving to setup this formation will trigger reactive fire from the target, reactive fire from a single model is unlikely to kill any of the units in the active formation. The active formation can then proceed to cut the passive formation to pieces. Admittedly it's been a while, but that one session with identical models on each side left our group's defacto leader with the impression that the system was prone to gamey excesses using the pre-measuring/focus fire technique.

I can see how that would work, but I wouldn't have thought you could kill targets fast enough that way. Most of the games have been limited number of turns for one reason or another, so using a whole formation to snuff one enemy unit isn't a lot of constructive activity. Then again, maybe it's just the scenarios we were playing – not all of which were "by the book" ones IIRC.

Read FWC. Wasnt into it. Sold it.

We played it a few times, including four games as part of a mini campaign. There were some nice aspects, but it was frustrating because we were never sure we were playing it correctly. It didnt seem to be drafted coherently. I thought it was a bit lacking in sci-fi flavour and i found the army lists a little strange in places.

Any organic formation of units where one of the units sticks out a little ahead of the others can be concentrated by a larger formation. While moving to setup this formation will trigger reactive fire from the target, reactive fire from a single model is unlikely to kill any of the units in the active formation. The active formation can then proceed to cut the passive formation to pieces.

That's precisely what happened in our game in Saturday.

My group's primary objection to the FWC system is that it's fairly easy to mass fire on a single unit with no fear of retaliation from reactive fire, thus encouraging Napoleon-esque formations

I also noticed the Napoleonic formations. My friend based his troops on 40mm-wide bases. Looked a bit like a DBA game! :-)

OTOH it is a little abstract for some tastes, and the differentation between units is a less distinct than it might be.

That was my primary concern with the system. As far as we could tell the only advantage vehicles had was the ability to move and then fire (-1) when commanded.

My biggest problem with the combat model is that everything felt like "automatic weapons fire" with the game's focus on needing large number of hits to kill stands. In modern/sci-fi IMO weapons such as tank guns and ATGMs are low ROF but high impact. So if I have some infantry stalking AFVs with missiles or ATRLs they'll roll a limited number of dice (1?!) but the result could be very significant.

With FWC the only thing that seems to matter is quantity given the combat model (must score X hits in a single turn or the hits go away and the stand survives with no long term effect).

There also seemed to be little correlation between unit type and stats. My leader on foot moved faster than gunships! And both tanks and infantry could have the same or very similar save numbers, hit value, etc.

Ok, to take some of your specific examples: Yes, command units move relatively fast – they are assumed to move rapidly because they don't need to hang around waiting for orders, or assemble platoons to move off, or hold orders sessions.

The differences between items like infantry weapons are in the rules, for example, infantry with smart missiles ignore armour saves, some weapons affect only 'soft' targets, others, only armoured. Different tech levels also allow things like target designators, shields, hyper-velocity penetrators, jump packs etc. (Smart missiles for example, represent the 'low RoF – high impact' modelling your sci-fi weapons.)

Massed dice don't necessarily represent the number of shots or volume of fire. For example an AFV with 5/80 uses five dice – in some cases due to volume, but may also represent the relative lethality of the load (a 20mm cannon vs a 120mm or a laser vs x-ray laser etc.)

The interactions with targetting, number of dice, armour saves and hits values actually create quite a complex interaction, but of course, having 15 Grav tanks firing at a target is likely to be 3 times more effective than 5.

Anyway, if it's not your cup of tea, then that's a valid opinion. I would urge you to give it a chance, as it is actually a lot more subtle than it first appears. It's also very well supported by Pete via the forums etc on the Specialist Publishing website.

I think the review at Dropship Horizon was dead on… it's a modern ruleset that was ported into sci-fi, and it shows. And BWS is also correct… if you don't use the recon and aerospace elements, the game is a bit vanilla. The army lists actually aren't as abstract as they seem… differences between units are subtle when comparing a single unit to a single unit, but do come into effect when used as part of larger formations.

That said, I'm glad I picked up the Lulu version for $20. USD It is good if you want to have a very large battle with multi-based 15mm troops, since Alien Squad Leader isn't very playable over 200 points. I haven't tried it with 6mm yet, since all I have is GW 6mm and I love the Epic 40,000 rules.

I love the Warmaster system, but I have never seen the sense in using it for Modern and beyond type games. There are far better rules sets for that out there (for me, that is).

I played a few more games of FWC over the weekend. My friends and I are still learning the mechanics of the rules, as well as the nuances of specialized units. So far I think it's a good system. It's not as detailed as SG2, but I was looking for something to play that was more like a near-future/FoW combination. It works for us.

The interactions with targetting, number of dice, armour saves and hits values actually create quite a complex interaction, but of course, having 15 Grav tanks firing at a target is likely to be 3 times more effective than 5.

I guess that's the part I don't get since, at the end of the day, it's all about number of dice rolled.

For example, we had a sort of "Titan"-style big mech thing on the table. Save 3+, 6 Hits to kill, armor.

At one point we realized my massed infantry could kill it with a huge wave of dice (3d6 per stand).

So while there's certainly quantitative differences between units there seemed to be few qualitative differences.

As another example there were some light infantry and light AFV stands that were not allowed to shoot armored targets. Fair enough. Supposedly they're armed purely with small arms and lack ANY AT weapons.

But my infantry that could effect armored targets rolled the same number of dice with very similar probabilities of hitting and saving regardless of target type. There were infantry with stats just about indentical to AFVs.

The oddest thing for me was the hit probabilities. A giant mech had a 3+ save while infantry had a 5+ or 6+ save depending on type. So it was easier to score hit against tiny dispersed targets compared to large, lumbering targets.

Maybe this save represents armor but then AT weapons need to roll MORE dice to be more effective to overcome the saves while inflicting sufficient hits to kill.

In other words, the best AT weapons need to roll lots of dice! Intuitively more dice = higher ROF which usually means MGs and autocannons.

So instead of hunting the mech titan thing with AT weapons our infantry was just using the same weapons against it as they did against other infantry and sheer mass of fire could destroy the mech titan thing.

The overall result felt very abstract and lacking in flavor.

So what other rules do folks use?

Thanks,

John

At one point we realized my massed infantry could kill it with a huge wave of dice (3d6 per stand).

…and…

As another example there were some light infantry and light AFV stands that were not allowed to shoot armored targets. Fair enough. Supposedly they're armed purely with small arms and lack ANY AT weapons.

I don't understand your complaint. In the first example, you're saying it's a problem that massed sci-fi infantry can take down a "Titan" (whatever) that means in a given setting). Then in the next paragraph you seem to object to some infantry *not* having AT weapons. Perhaps you can clarify how that's broken in FWC.

I don't understand your complaint. In the first example, you're saying it's a problem that massed sci-fi infantry can take down a "Titan" (whatever) that means in a given setting). Then in the next paragraph you seem to object to some infantry *not* having AT weapons. Perhaps you can clarify how that's broken in FWC.

I never complained about infantry not having AT weapons. I mentioned that they didn't seem to have differentiated AT weapons.

In other words, the game played like a bunch of infantry firing rifles to kill enemy infantry and…firing the same rifles with precisely the same characteristics to kill a giant-armored-mech-titan-thing. We did have some "AT" troops but they simply fired an extra 10cm with an extra dice…in other words no different from any other small arms making them just as good against infantry as tanks.

The classic 2nd edition Space Marine at least differentiated between small arms and AT weapons. So Space Marine Tactical Stands and Devastator Stands had different battlefield roles.

Even Flames of War differentiates between rifles, MGs, and AT weapons such as Bazookas while remaining pretty simple. In FoW MGs are best against infantry hordes while bazookas kill AFVs.

Seems like FWC boils everything down into a mass of (largely) undifferentiated dice pools. Mass your dice, concentrate said dice on individual enemy stands, done.

I think FWC abstacts away the details so you can concentrate on commanding large forces in a battle instead of getting bogged down in details.

It's cool if it's not for you but I don't think you are on the same page as the designer as far as what's important at the scale he's representing.

So what other rules do folks use?

As I implied above, I like Dirtside 2 for both 6mm and 15mm quite a bit, and I like the fact that FWC and DS2 play very differently from one another. I've also got a weakness (but thankfully, no dedicated minis) for Epic Armageddon, which is a system that deseves to be cribbed wholesale and adapted to a generic setting rather than the restrictive silliness of the 41st millenium that it's trapped in right now. If it had a DIY army/unit builder it would be competitive with any mass combat scifi rules set on the market IMO.

IMHO Epic:Armageddon is heads & shoulders above the rest. FWC is OK, but allowing multiple shootings of a unit that passes its roll can unbalance things quickly. Artillery & Command are way underpriced and the larger the vehicle, the less its good value for points. Still, nothing some house rules couldn't cure. I never cared much for DS2. Too clunky & complex-fiddly to play IMHO.
A good DIY army/unit builder for Epic:Armageddon & I'd have my "perfect rules".

I think FWC abstacts away the details so you can concentrate on commanding large forces in a battle instead of getting bogged down in details.

It's cool if it's not for you but I don't think you are on the same page as the designer as far as what's important at the scale he's representing.

That makes perfect sense. I suppose that at some level a design can become so abstract that it stops "representing anything" by "representing everything" within the context of a given mechanic. One rapidly approaches a model so abstract the figures simply become "reservoirs" of dice.

I guess I prefer more flavor with greater distinction between troops. However large scale actions certainly have their own flavor and if that's FWC's objective it certainly achieves that very well!

I certainly don't enjoy detailed, rivet-counting "simulations". But I do enjoy playing with missile-armed AT teams stalking AFVs and placing MGs to cover likely routes of advance by enemy infantry. I guess I'm not willing to water down the distinction between those two weapon systems in order to play at a much higher level.

If I fire an ATGM it's just one die with a decent hit probability, an ATRL will be shorter range and less accurate, and an MG rolling several dice will be useless against a heavy tank but devastating against unarmored infantry in the open.

IMHO Epic:Armageddon is heads & shoulders above the rest.

Bill…have you played NetEpic? It's a community's further development of the old Space Marine. A little more detailed than Armageddon, but not nearly as detailed as the first Space Marine or DirtSide. It's very well supported with an active online community.

My recent purchase of a friend's 6mm SF collection has renewed my interest in "epic scale" sci-fi gaming! (Sans the GW prices! His collection is from other companies…beautiful stuff!)

I do get your "more dice for big, single weapon is counterintuitive" issue.

Having just received a copy in the mail today, the designer is going for a means to aggregate fire effects across weapons platforms, allowing for a "weight of fire" to suppress/destroy units rather than the "magic bullet" that gets the kill.

For my part, I think I may like a system that doesn't require me to roll well with my bug guns in order to win. I need that bell curve. :)

I like the rules, quite like the abstract nature.

Tried them first with (6mm)Daleks, using 2 of the different modus operandi for Imperial and Faction. Worked very well, with the differences minor, but telling.

Most unusal battle so far was Daleks against my (GZG)Ixx mounted on (Khurasan)scorpions – tunnelers. The Ixx (against my expectations) despite being much faster moving and with longer range weapons drowned under the remorsless advance of the Daleks and the shattering fire from heavy weapons Daleks. I blamed the God of Dice, for she was the great teaser that day.

Also copes with (GZG) Japanese and Japanese police against just about everything.

We've found that a 2,000 odd point game using "underpowered"
leaders gives a good, fun game that is easily completed in a normal club evening. We don't distinguish too much between the standard and a skirmish game.

I had intended to "do" all 10 scenarios in sequence as a "lazy" way of gaming thru the summer. Perhaps next year!

IMHO Epic:Armageddon is heads & shoulders above the rest.

If it had a DIY army/unit builder system and wasn't tied to the 40K universe so tightly, I'd agree with you. As it is, I'd say it's a great game engine being used to drive a rusted-out junker of a setting.

A DIY would be really cool! I own loads of Epic stuff from the 90's. So, I still enjoy an Epic game. But I'd play regular scifi a LOT more.

Thanks,

John

I do get your "more dice for big, single weapon is counterintuitive" issue. Having just received a copy in the mail today, the designer is going for a means to aggregate fire effects across weapons platforms, allowing for a "weight of fire" to suppress/destroy units rather than the "magic bullet" that gets the kill.

I think it's a case of abstraction making things unnecessarily difficult.

Most gamers intuitively equate number of dice rolled with a weapon's "firepower" or "rate of fire". High ROF = more dice, low ROF = less dice. And the vast, vast majority of games conform to this helpfully intuitive model (eg FoW, 40K, AT-43, Infinity, boardgames such as Storm of Steel, etc.)

Accuracy/penetration/damage get factored into the number required for a successful roll.

So firing a high accuracy, low ROF weapon (eg sniper rifle or ATGM) means rolling 1 die but with a high probability of hitting. But in this example the subsequent chance to kill/damage is based on weapon penetration/damage vs target protection. That sniper rifle might easily hit a tank, but good luck hurting it. That ATGM will easily destroy a light AFV in a single hit but would difficulty against infantry in the open.

Since FWC already requires multiple die rolls to resolve combat (roll to hit, save roll, suppression roll, etc.) I don't think its level of abstraction does much to speed up play compared to other games.

In other words, systems such as FoW, 40K, and the old Space Marine rules have the same number of die rolls as FWC but do a better job of intuitively representing weapon ROF, accuracy, and penetration/damage through number of dice rolled and various numbers required for success. FWC's abstraction simply doesn't increase play speed relative to other systems while it also munges together variables that probably are best left intuitively distinct.