"Combat Action Command Rules!" Topic

HE was often a tactic of desperation when crews felt they couldn't penetrate the other guys armor. And Allied crews had that feeling a lot. Also, most Sherman's carried way more HE than AP and were often more likely to have HE loaded, since the majority of targets encountered were "soft" and not armored. HE against armor may not have been actual SOP, but it was often used nontheless.

But if your rules encourage its use, by allowing it to KO Panthers at distance in the example given above, will it not encourage players to use ahistorical tactics and dispense with AP utterly?

If in the rules I can KO a Panther at long range with an HE round, or point blank with AP, I guess Im gonna load up on HE and sit at long range in order to make it harder for them to hit me too.

That would seem at odds with the Soviet desire to close the gap as quickly as possible.

My worry would be that by over emphasising an anecdotal event, that may or may not have been used to a degree that is unknown, you encourage players to use tactics that are not historical.

Dont mean to be critical, I dont have your rules so cant really comment, but thats just how it comes across from the posts.

If you could get a copy of the Encyclopedia of German Tanks by Chamberlain and Doyle, and find the Russian battlefield website it might help your research.

Unfortunately Bundesarchive probably has plan data and not measured data. Chamberlain, Doyle and Jentz seem to have actually gone about and measured the armor of the tanks.

As for using HE on tanks. This changes the equation. Now the front hull of a T-34 resists as 45mm armor, not the 90mm if the angle is taken into account vs AP. The 80mm vertical plate of the Pz IV still resists as 80mm vs HE.

"The other factor that always needs to be taken into consideration is the "range" of armor as well as the expected "average" armor value. At 2d6+10 the average is 16-18 for the PzIV, but the RANGE is 12-22. At 3d6+5 it is 8-28, which IMO is both too low at the low end and too high at the high end to mproperly reflect the PzIVH's Armor."

And this would be the MAIN question I would ask the designer…when having a mechanism that gave variability on an armour value that is deterministic…Why use such a crude mechanism of representing the varience with a number of D6?

and did you consider the impact of linear distribution, normal distribution and tight distribution for the 1,2 and 3 D6?

When weapon values are close, this would actually exaggerate the effectiveness of some weapons against some armour and vice versa when the factors are the other way.

this is why the M10 would be the better weapon than the T34

OK here we go. Kevin G first (in reverse order)

In putting together the rules "system" I put a lot of stock into what various "hard core" gamers I know said. They all favored a "d6" system. I held out for d20 for casualties and damage because d6 would just not work. I will admit the d6 system is not perfect. However, the "proof is in the playing" and over the 7 years of development we did countless hours of playtesting. While no system is perfect, the resulting CAC system seemed to provide an "historical" outcome more often than other wodely used systems. No rules system is perfect and none can be all things to all people. HOWEVER, in addition to a high level of historical accuracy, one of the factors we wanted to reflect was that "stuff" happens. The histories of WWII are rife with examples of the implausible if not the impossible. CAC's d6 system maintains that element of "stuff" happens. Could there be a more accurate way of relecting armor values? Absolutely. The question how much would that additional accuracy impact the "historical" outcome of battles and what would the impact be on playability. No perfect rules.

Mobius. I have used a number of the sources you cite, Perhaps the best is Jentz's book on North Africa, while he doesn't cover late war armor, I still found his analysis of armor and armor penetration very enlightening. And if you have that book note the picture of the M13/40 with the barrel pierced by a 2 Pdr AP Shot. Hm, Didn't "penetarte" the aromor, but sufre scored an F-Kill. HE does change the equation. From all of the reading I have done (and I have been reading on WWII for 50+ years) I believe that HE was much morew widely used than many people believe. And for precisely the reason you suggest. It changes the equatron.

PiersBrand. Did I get that right? Not being critical, but it would help if you had the rules. It can give a wrong impression to people reading the posts when the comments are not based on the rules, simply other posts. Let me try to clarify and explain the HE issue. First the T34 firing at Long Range at a Panther has less tah 50% chance of hitting it with HE. If it does score a Hit with HE, it has a -5 d20 Modifier, which means the only Damage it can cause is a M-Kill (5%) (Movement Kill, not repairable during a battle) or Track Damage (15%) which is repairable in a turn. And even with an M-Kill, the Panther can continue to shoot. So you are going to have to maneuver to get in close and finish it off with AP Shot from the flank. Historical. Dueling Panthers at long range with HE is a very low percentage plan. But yes "stuff" happens.

What I suggest to everyone is that you try the rules. There are some gamers that will never like any set of rules and other that have a favorite set of rules. What I can say is that most gamers who have played CAC SEVERAL TIMES have been impressed with the way they accurately relfect historical battles, NOT with EACH dice roll, but overall.

Eat. drink, be merry, and enjoy! Cheers! Lee

"In putting together the rules "system" I put a lot of stock into what various "hard core" gamers I know said. They all favored a "d6" system."

As a designer, you decide the mechanism.or you end up with a square peg in a round hole

"I held out for d20 for casualties and damage because d6 would just not work."

So the D20 was in your mix….

"I will admit the d6 system is not perfect. However, the "proof is in the playing" and over the 7 years of development we did countless hours of playtesting."

playtesting is one thing….did you ask for a critical review?

"While no system is perfect, the resulting CAC system seemed to provide an "historical" outcome more often than other wodely used systems."

I would agree that the interaction gives that feeling…. Not so sure about the firing mechanisms though.

"No rules system is perfect and none can be all things to all people. HOWEVER, in addition to a high level of historical accuracy, one of the factors we wanted to reflect was that "stuff" happens."

Well a Panther cannot fail to penetrate a T34..no stuff happens there.

"The histories of WWII are rife with examples of the implausible if not the impossible. CAC's d6 system maintains that element of "stuff" happens."

unless you are in a t34 facing a panther

"Could there be a more accurate way of relecting armor values? Absolutely. The question how much would that additional accuracy impact the "historical" outcome of battles and what would the impact be on playability. No perfect rules."

Forget accurately…., could you do the firing mechanism simpler without losing anything and having the 'stuff happens' element still there? Absolutely, but it would appear that who you had playtesting cared more about using D6's than simplification.

I will certainly try to play the rules again if given the chance

I don't quite understand all of the harsh criticism of the game. I'd at least try the rules if it was demo'd to me but would have to play a few games before committing to them. At the very least I would give them a fair shake before getting harsh with the author.

To me this all seems to be a good example of why o e should never
A) make a long adverpost on joining.
B) then get a sock puppet to join and pretend to back you up.
C) claim the rules are the best simulation of WWII tactics out there
D) try and make a rule for the few times something happens in a 6 year long conflict.
E) take on piers et al over anything to do with WWII.

:)

'Adverpost'? That's an icky word for an icky thing!

Pat

PiersBrand. Did I get that right?

You did, well done. You can have a cookie for spelling my real name right.

Whats the issue with my name?

Not being critical, but it would help if you had the rules.

Yes it would.

Hence why I ended my post with the caveat that I do not own the rules so that people would see that and realise my comments were based purely on a perception of what is written here.

If you dont want people to make assumptions from your posts regarding the rules, then I wouldnt post if I was you. I was merely trying to draw forth more data from you so I could make a valued decision with regards the rules.

Your explanation makes it look more sensible now. Still with a higher degree of inflicting damage than I would have thought, but reasonably hard to achieve.

Thank you, that was all I was after. Now anyone reading thsi will actually have an idea of how it works and not make the wrong assumption on the mechanic.

What I suggest to everyone is that you try the rules.

Well thats why I asked the question… To see if I want to buy them. Alot of my 'feel' for rule sis based on comments, reviews and interaction with those involved.

There are some gamers that will never like any set of rules…

Not really gamers then are they…

…and other that have a favorite set of rules.

Dont we all, but what I like about this hobby is the constant development of new products and games. Without it things would be very dull.

Good luck with the rules and dont get too defensive over things. People are just looking for a clearer understanding of what you are trying to do.

I would suggest that an independant review with full play through and AAR may be worth soliciting from a club or player. This will give people both an idea of the mechanisms in play and an unbiased viewpoint.

Otherwise you run the risk of confusion and misinterpretation on forums. You also have to take criticism head on too.

Rich,

E) take on piers et al over anything to do with WWII.

I aint that bad!!!! I know nothing!

You going to Bovvy this year?

You guys aren't rough. The guys that playtested it were rough lol.

They averaged 25-30 years of ganming and were experienced with many systems, board and table top, including Flames of War, Spearhead, Command Decision, Squad Leader and even PanzerBlitz.

Most also played GW games such as 40K and Warhammer, (perhaps explainigng the affinity for d6 lol – if you think there are a lot of dice in CAC try GW games!) They also included active duty and retired military veterans. I appreciate all of their work and input, as I appreciate the feedback from all of you.

None of the comments, or people commenting here, are from that playtesting group. Just because someone likes and enjoys the game doesn't make them a Sock Puppet (nice puppet picture) lol.

CAC has picked up hundreds of new players, and yes I would encourage them to submit comments and suggestions and especially AAR's. I am very interested in the levels some gamers have taken CAC to. While originally designed for Company Level games (several Platoons of Troops and AFVs per side) many have played Mega Battles with dozens of tanks and and many platoons. Anyone who would like to playtest the new supplements coming out please let me know (email me on the CAC website).

As for trying before buying, we are putting on Demo Games and Mega Battles at NJCON (US – June in New Jersey) and Historicon (US) in July. We also run Demos Weekly in various hobby shops and store in New Jersey – check the CAC website for times and places. As for the UK, mnay copies have been sold, so I am sure some local stores would be willing to run CAC demo games.

It is interesting that most of the posts have focused on armor values. People who play demo games usually come away with more comments on the Asymmetric Turn Sequence and CAC "Interrupt" which is what make CAC unique. You could probably use Flames of War's Armor and Penetration systems (adding the Pen-Armor difference to the d20 Damage rolls) and CAC would still be completely different because of the Turn Sequence and CAC Interrupts. Try it a couple of times, it usually takes a game or two to get a good grasp of the system.

Cheers!

Lee

PS – One more comment on 'Armor" – YES the M10 is better than the T34 if you want to destroy enemy tanks. If you want a general purpose AFV, it is not, the open top being a liability. And if you want CQB in Towns and Villages the M10 is much worse.

Sadly USA and UK aint an option for me and demo games!

What stores in the UK sell it? May have a look next time Im back in the Motherland.

If you have hundreds of new players then Im surprised that I aint seen more of the game. Do you have your own forum where they discuss the game? Usually something that makes that many sales in such a short time generates its own 'hype' from those playing it. Though to be fair I would miss a barn parked in front of me these days…

Rather than getting an existing owner to review it, give it to a new player to try. There is Anatoli here on TMP;

TMP link

He has reviewed a number of WW2 games. I'd suggest giving it to someone new to the system so they can feedback a newbs response. Part of the problem with reviews from established players is that, apart from bias, they already know how the system works and can over look simple things that may outwit a new player.

Anyway, good luck with it all, though if you have hundreds of players already it dont sound like you need luck!

Good Comments PiersBrand! Where are you from?

The people playing are from all over and many comment directly to me from the CAC website via email. I have emails from the Ukraine, UK, US, Italy, Australia and NZ.

For those who want to try it "Free" Minaiture Wargames magazine from the UK just publsihed an article on LtC Frost at Arnhem Bridge. Free in that article was a simplified version of the rules (we call it CAC Light) and Data Cards.

So all you need to try playing is to get that Magazine Article, it's in the current (on sale) edition which I believe is available worldwide. MW did that so more people could try it prior to buying the full rules. And NO I do not own an interest in MW magazine lol. 86 the Sock Puppet.

Your comments about needing "new" play testers are also right on, once you know how to play, your feedback changes perspective. So I encourage comments from all new players.

And you can email me on the CAC website to be a playtester.

Cheers!

Lee

I live in Ireland Lee, the land of rain (though its lovely and sunny at present).

Im not Irish though… Just a displaced Limey.

As for the UK, mnay copies have been sold, so I am sure some local stores would be willing to run CAC demo games.

The UK sct up is very different to the US. Hardly any local gaming stores that would demo historical games. The only games you would get on the high street are GW in their stores. If you want to spread the word in the UK you need demo games at UK shows. Which means having a display team of willing volunteers. If you can find a group or club that likes the game and plays it you may be able to make that happen if you sweeten the deal with some freebies.

I will look into getting some Demo games at UK Shows. Thanks for the idea.

I love the Irish. Actually my grandfather was Welsh. He always used to say "I'm not a Limey I'm a Welshman!"

Cheers!

The reading indicated to me the firing of HE at longer ranges appeared to be some kind of standard procedure or something M4 crews were encouraged to do.

This is not a bad tactic, we used it in the early years of Panzer War. We considered a long range hit by HE on the horizontal armor of a tank. Even Panthers. But findings from the WO reports compiled by John Salt show that this had to done with bracketing by HE firing 75mm guns and analyzing the ballistics of the 75mm it was very unlikely for this to occur. The minimum chance we were looking for was 5%. The rules still support it but I think the range has to be beyond 3000yds. The chance to hit a PZIV with a second shot is less than 1% at that range.

Be careful with the Armor Stats for the PzIV. To the Front Turret you need to figure in the Mantlet and…

Oh, yeah that 50mm FH sloped mantlet might get to 57mm of protection.

Mobius – unless I read it incorrectly the Mantlet is not 57mm but 80mm at 0 degrees, according to Senger und Etterlin, which is one of the more reputable sources.

And if you hit the Mantlet, you still need to go through the 50mm Turret Front Armor. The Hull Armor is also 80mm with miminal slope, but still enough to make about 85-86mm of Armor Basis. Average out all of that using my formula and I came up with a Front Armor of 85mm = '17' which you can't get exactly, but 2d6+10 = 16-18 is the closet "value".

The "weak" spot if you should hit just the Turret Front at 50mm, or even the Turret Ring under the Mantlet, is allowed for if you roll lower than the "average", for example if you rolled two '1's on your d6 you'd have 2+10 = 12 (60mm) which is very close to the actual turret of 50mm. Conversely if you rolled two '6's you'd have 22 or 110mm representing the fact that your shot struck at a high "angle off" perpendicular. Hope that helps to explain!

Ditto Snowman – Yes, there were many types of shells and AP rounds used. For simplicy we limited it to HE, AP and Smoke. HVAP was very limited, I once worked the math to about 2 rounds per tank per month, so these will be available in Scenario Special Rules. For example in LtC Frost at Arnhem the 6 Pdrs have special rules for the Sabot Rounds that could, and apparently did, penetrate Tigers.

Also, yes the data for the Pz IV J and H differs and as mentioned yesterday the PzIV J has 2d6+8 Armor to reflect those differences as well as a decline in armor quality. As near as I can tell Flames of War uses roughly 10-12mm of Armor Basis for each "1" armor value, in CAC we opted for 5mm so that we could reflect differences in different models of the same tank. Same is true for Gun Penetration.

Cheers!

Lee

PS – to be honest the Armor and Pen data are what they are and there are many great sources – no rules system that just comes up with another way to resolve Armor V AP offers much that is unique, what makes CAC special are the Turn Sequence and Interrupt Commands – and proper use of these will win battles!

Mobius – unless I read it incorrectly the Mantlet is not 57mm but 80mm at 0 degrees, according to Senger und Etterlin, which is one of the more reputable sources.

You better check again. It is either a typo or the book is wrong and you shouldn't use that book any more.
The mantlet is 50mm of armor and a little bit round. Behind the mantlet armor there is no turret front (except for a small overlap around the edges) as the turret front opens for the gun, sights, MG and recoil mechanism. But these are inclosed in a box which may help contain spalling. The inside turret side of the box is 10-20mm of mild steel.
Here is a blueprint from Spielberger's Panther book.

Note-this is plan data. Actual physical measurement of armor may be slightly more as manufacturers had to meet or exceed plan armor thickness.

For example in LtC Frost at Arnhem the 6 Pdrs have special rules for the Sabot Rounds that could, and apparently did, penetrate Tigers.

Just leave it at could.

No-one can state categorically what knocked-out stuff at Arnhem. C Troop had 27 APDS rounds 15 APCBC with each gun.

Firing these rounds they knocked-out between 12-14 vehicles. One of which was a Tiger I. However it cant be stated with any accuracy what took out the Tiger I.

Mobius. Senger und Etterlin are generally considered to be a good source, and other sources agree about the armor values. However, given all of your research, what do you think the PzIVH Front Armor should be? nd6+C = ? As I mentioned yesterday, please feel free to use your value.

Here is a direct quote from Page 40 of the Rules Book – Designer's Notes "Instead of hours of debate or grumbling about the Armor or Penetration of a given AFV or weapon, if you think I've gotten it wrong, then by all means, adjust the stats. Experiment. Have some fun. Learn something".

So please let me know how your adjusted PzIVH armor stats work in your next CAC game!

PiersBrand. True true. We will never know exactly who did what to who when at Arnhem. However, going with "the percentages" if we could find out what killed The Tiger my money would still be on the 6 Pdr Sabot ammunition. But you are correct, for all we know it could have been a PIAT.

Cheers!

Lee

Mobius. Senger und Etterlin are generally considered to be a good source, and other sources agree about the armor values. However, given all of your research, what do you think the PzIVH Front Armor should be? nd6+C = ? As I mentioned yesterday, please feel free to use your value.

I don't know how your rules use the nd6+C. But if vs. AP the T-34c has ~90mm armor on the hull and 70mm on the turret is the standard. Then how would you represent ~85mm on the hull and 53mm-65mm on the turret of the Pz IV H?

To use my formula I need to know your values for:

Lower Front Hull Armor
Upper Front Hull or Glacis Armor
Turret Fromt Armor
Mantlet Armor

for both the T34 and PzIV – then I can give you the nd6+C

Lee

To use my formula I need to know your values for:

I was looking up this old letter designations and found that the T-34c is not the model 1943 I was talking about but the T-34 model 1942.

So for T-34 model 1942(This is the Aberdeen T-34 sample):
Lower hull:8cm
Upper hull:9cm
turret front:6.5cm cast rounded
mantlet: Two distinct parts: 4.5cm sloped and 5.2-6.5cm rounded

PZ IV H
Lower hull:8cm (rounds to 9cm if higher quality armor is factored in.)
Upper hull:8cm
There is a highly sloped glacis between these that works out to something like 6cm.

turret front:5cm
mantlet: ~6.5cm (including the internal mild steel protection.)

Mobius – thanks for the information. Using your data for the T34 my formula for Front Armor (which weights the various sections of armor based on where a shot is most likely to strike – again that avoids yet another die roll to determine "where" on the Front Armor the shot hit) I come up with 83mm … divided by 5 rounds up to 17 which is 2d6+10 – exactly the same as in the CAC rules.

For the PzIVH, yes you must use the German "Armor Quality" numbers in which cass our data only differs in the Mantlet, 65mm vs. 80mm. Assuming Senger und Etterlin are WRONG and your source is correct, my formula makes that 15mm difference (80mm – 65mm) spread over the Average Front Armor formula just 3mm.

Since each "1" point of Armor equals 5mm here you have a choice, "round up" and take away a full 5mm of Average Armor in which case you would have to reduce the 2d6+C by '1' to become 2d6+9. OR "round down" the 3mm in which case you have the same 2d6+10 as in CAC rules. For German AFVs, based on Armor Quality until the last year of the War, I always rounded in their favor. As I said, even with "formulas" there are subjective decisions that have to be made which never please all.

Per my prior posts (see the Designer's Note quote from rules), if you would prefer to use your data and have the PzIVH Front Armor be 2d6+9, feel free to do so. I do believe we should strive for accuracy and so I would be interested how much that change of '1' varied the outcome in any given game. In my experience with CAC, the superior Penetration of the German 75mm/L48 and the superior Speed of the T34 are the deciding factors depending on how well players use these advantages.

Cheers!

Lee

I don't have Senger und Etterlin "German Tanks of World War II", but from some excerpts I've found they seem to be using US Aberdeen measurement data. This is surprising because Hoffschmidt and Tantum IV "German Tank and Antitank" also provides the same data and it shows the front turret as 50mm @ 10°. Also, interesting that book shows the front superstructure of the PZIV H as 85mm @ 10°. Maybe the Germans were compensating for falling metal quality by increasing the armor thickness?

Maybe someone with Senger und Etterlin can check if later editions have the front turret of the Pz IV H as 80mm as well.

I don't care. I think this post has caused me to lose the will to live or possibly take up stamp collecting…. which is the same thing.

Mobius – as I mentioned different sources show different armor values, that's one of the reasons for adding d6 to the equation instead of just having one "Constant" number like '17'. Also, Senger shows the MANTLET at 80mm, not the Turret Front, that's about 3 inches and could well be the case from the PzIVH photos I have seen. No "exact" answers, either way it's a minimal change in the Armor Value as my prior calculations showed.

StanleySteve – as the author I will respond to all serious posts and answer all questions to the best of my ability. Obviously this thread had merit to Mobiuus, HOWEVER, if you would like to comment on or question another aspect of the rules you are more than welcome to "liven" up the exchange.

Cheers!

Lee

that's one of the reasons for adding d6 to the equation instead of just having one "Constant".

The dice + constant combo thing might be confusing to people and slow down play.

Here is an interesting site that has data on tanks.
link

Mobius – excellent link – thank you!

For everyone in the USA – Happy Memorial Day Weekend!

Lee

For those of you seeking additional reviews of the CAC rules, check out Miniature Wargames magazine issue 350 (page 57-58) for a staff review by Steve Eardley, who is a pro reviewer and as "impartial" as you are going to find.

Those of you in the USA are welcome to visit NJCON June 8th/9th and try a Demo Game. Also, the same issue of MW (350) has a sample of the basic CAC rules rules system and a Frost at Arnhem Scenario so you can "try before you buy."

Good gaming! Cheers! Lee

For those of you who would like to "try before you buy" I have added a FREE download of the Demo Version of CAC called CAC LIGHT to the website. This includes the "Light" Rules, a Stalingrad Scenario, Data Cards and Markers. You must provide the miniatures, dice and rulers! Enjoy!

The link is on the Home Page at TMP link

combatactioncommand.com�

I wanted to thank everyone, actually more than 500 people, who downloaded and tried the CAC Light Rules and the Stalingrad Scenario. If you enjoyed them, the Eastern Front 1942-43 Supplement with data cards for over 100 German and Russian tanks, planes and troop teams is now available for PRE-ORDER from On Military Matters from their website. Lee

I've had some questions about where to find all of the CAC Rules and Supplements on the On Military Matters website. To make it easier, now you can just click the Click Here To Order link fron the CAC WEBSITE and it will take you to a list of everything for CAC on the OMM Website, including the new Eatern Front 1942-43 Supplement. Hope that makes it easier for everyone to find! Lee

Has anyone played the game? Can you share your thoughts on it? Whether from the demo or otherwise.

Hey first time poster here.(actually no, I made some comments on tmp over a decade ago)
Will be going to historicon will try to get a game in and post aar.

FYI. There will be a Pacific Supplement released for CAC in August. For those of you with Battle of The Bulge minis there is a Free Bulge Scenario download on the CAC website. This scenario is about the 4th Armored Division's relief of Bastogne and features a data card for Sherman Jumbo Tanks.

The author.

Could you kindly explain why you were a "No Show" for Historicon? Kind of frustrating to pre-register for your game demos and not have either you or On Military Matters show up?

TBH, I was looking very forward to the Pacific War Supplement as I HATE how almost all WWII Miniatures games focus on the European Theatre.

Im still waiting for a review of these rules from someone that has actually played them. Soon enough i suppose.

To RJ:

My sincerest apologies for being a No Show at Historicon. I had to cancel and had even arranged a backup GM, but they also had to cancel at the last minute. My bad. Where are you located? We do "traveling demos" at local hobby shops and may be in your area soon.

To Mooseheadd:

Some CAC players tried posting reviews here. Those that were favorable got slammed as "Sock Puppets" and those that were critical got criticised for being critical. Life is too short, so most now email me directly with their comments; using the feedback links on the CAC website.

There is however a solution! The website has a FREE download of the "CAC LIGHT" rules which let you "test drive" the Infantry and Rifle Platoon rules for yourself. The best way to understand these rules is to try them!

Lee – The Author

While I answer all posts on TMP here, I prefer to use the CAC website BLOG to talk about Tips, Tactics and answer questions about rules and upcoming releases. You do not need to be a "member" or join anything to read my BLOG (unlike some other websites which want to capture your email address for marketing purposes) so please feel free to check it out! Lee – The Author

For those of you in the Philly- Baltimore area of the US, we will be running a Combat Action Command demo game (Kursk 1943 at 1pm) at Barrage Con which is being held at the Community Hall in Havre de Grace, Maryland on September 15th. Link to Con events, info and directions below. Hope some of you can make it! Lee

link

I always like to listen and respond to Combat Action Command comments on The Miniatures Page. Since the free CAC Light Rules were intentionally "Infantry Centric" to demo the rules, some gamers have requested a sample AFV Data Card to download.

Therefore, I have added a link to download both Tiger I & II Data Cards (pdf format)under the small picture of the Tiger II (King or Royal Tiger) Data Card on the website Home Page.

combatactioncommand.com

Enjoy! Lee

PS. If you do not have the full rules set, some of the terms (such as PAV and FAV) might be unfamiliar. Feel free to ask here or via email from the website. For example: FAV = Fully Armored Vehicle (i.e. a tank) while PAV = Partially Armored Vehicle such as a halftrack.

The newest Combat Action Command supplement, The Pacific 1942 – 43, will be released in late October in time for HMGS' Fall-In 2012 Con in Lancaster, PA USA. This supplement has 10 pages of new Pacific Theater special rules covering items such as Banzai Attacks and Amphibious Landings, plus dozens of new team Data Cards covering everything from the US Marines and Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces, through P-400 Fighters, Zeros and Betty Bombers, to US M2A4 tanks and Japanese M-3 Stuarts captured in 1941. The M2A4 saw its only combat use in WWII with the Marines on Guadalcanal. Also play "what if" battles with famous units such as the First Special Service Force and US Para Marines.

We chose the 1942-43 time period for our first Pacific supplement because there were many interesting battles besides those on Guadalcanal during these years. And also because this period of the Pacific War is perhaps the most balanced portion of the entire conflict. Earlier battles in 1941 with MacArthur's forces in the Philippines and with the UK forces in Malaysia and Hong Kong were all pretty much one-sided affairs. By early 1944 and for the rest of the Pacific War, the Japanese stood little chance against the ever increasing American and Allied Juggernaut of ships, planes, and troops arrayed against them.

But in 1942-43 things were very evenly matched, which is why the Guadalcanal campaign took months to conclude. We've also added in an interesting array of special units that actually fought, or that could have fought, in these battles. Units such as the First Special Service Force and British M3 Tanks captured by the Japanese. They were available, could have been used and make the rules much more interesting.

Visit the Order Now link on the combatactioncommand.com Home Page to place your Pre-Order!

Lee – The Author

Piers,

You mentioned C Troop at arnhem knocking out 12-14 vehicles, are you on about at the bridge only or for the whole fo the Troop? There was only one C Troop gun at the bridge the other four were B Troop.

This is not a dig i am interested in which sources you have used as i have not come across the figures for ammo load out apart from the supply drops on 18th.

I am not aware of any Tiger I losses to 1st A/B Div guns.
the only Tiger loss was the Tiger II in Oosterbeek which was killed by a 75mm pack howitzer causing a fire.

Andy,

On the 19th September, two Tiger Is belonging to KG Brinkmann (commanded by Leutnant Knaack and Feldwebel Barneki), attacked up the Nijmeegseweg and onto the ramp, systematically shelling the British positions.

They then moved along Eusebius Buitensingel causing a number of casualties. Leutant Knaack's Tiger I was engaged by one of the remaining 6-Pounder A/T guns at teh British HQ and it is remarked to have scored a direct hit on the gun barrel and mantlet, wounding two crewmen seriously and rendering the gun out of action. Knaack withdrew at this point and took the Tiger I to the workshop at Doetinchem.

While perhaps not 'brewed' the Tiger was certainly rendered combat ineffective by the alleged hit from the 6-pounder… So for me, Im chalking that one up as a 'Kill'.

The ammo load is what was carried by each guns jeep and trailer.

In reference to the 12-14 vehicles knocked out, I was refering to the two guns on the ramp, one of which was the rogue gun from C troop that got mixed up with B Troop. Sorry, should have made it clearer.

Here is an excerpt from my Combat Action Command BLOG which shares some insights into the CAC rules, which is why I have posted it here today. I have written other BLOGS on this topic, but as more and more gamers get into CAC it is worth repeating. The name of the rules Combat Action Command comes from one of the key features of the rules, that being the ability to issue a Combat Action Command (i.e. a CAC) to a team. We call that CACing a team which then gets marked with a blue and white CAC Marker. CACing a team allows it to fire during either move phase, or move at the beginning of the fire phase. Players pick this up quickly.
.
What is a bit trickier to master is that CACing must be done one team at a time, and ALL actions involved in playing that CAC must be resolved prior to CACing another team. The most common mistake new players make is to point to several teams and say "I want to CAC them all to fire at your Tiger tank". That is incorrect. You must specify a single team, CAC that team and resolve its fire against the Tiger before CACing the next team to fire. If the Tiger tank CACs to fire back (causing a CAC Duel) then those results must also be resolved before any other team CACs. Likewise in the fire phase, teams are CAC'd to move one at a time and if they fire, or are fired upon, that must be resolved before the next team CACs!
.
This sequence produces the most realistic results and was developed during over 7 years of playtesting.
.
Another common mistake is assuming that playing a CAC allows you to move or fire twice in the same phase. That is also incorrect. A CAC let's a team fire in a move phase or move in the fire phase, but it can NEVER move twice or shoot twice during the SAME phase. A team may be able to move or fire twice during the same TURN, depending on which phase a team uses its CAC. Essentially to maximize your rate of fire, a team will CAC during one of the move phases to fire; while to maximize its movement, it will CAC at the beginning of the fire phase to move. A side benefit of CAC use is that it eliminates a lot of additional rules about rate of fire and double time movement. You as the commander decide when to "CAC" which also controls how many times a team gets to move or fire during a turn.
.
You can declare a CAC to fire the instant the first move phase (Side A Move) begins. Experienced players use the initial setup, or Phase 5 during a game, to carefully plan their most cirtical "first shot" of the coming turn's Side A move phase. Regardless of whether the moving side (Side A) or the non-moving side (Side B) declares the first CAC shot, it is never a "cheap shot" because the target always has the option to CAC to fire back causing a CAC Duel (d6 roll off modified for the firing team's Combat Quality). I have seen major fire fights break out at the beginning of the Side A move phase with actual moves only coming after several enemy teams or tanks had been KIA or reduced to burning wrecks. As in real life the action is fast and furious and players need to be "engaged" for the whole of each phase every turn. I can remember walking around a hobby shop shopping while my opponent moved in traditional I GO – U GO games. Not in CAC! The Author

Using your Flames of War minis to play Combat Action Command.
.
This is probably the number one question I get asked. The answer is a resounding YES. I have to admit I love Flames of War's (a.k.a. Battlefront) miniatures. And shhhh … don't tell anyone, but I love to play FoW and have won my fair share of tournaments and escalation leagues at local hobby shops. OK, why then you ask did I design and do I play Combat Action Command? Because it is a completely different gaming experience.
.
When I play CAC I feel like Major Winters from Band of Brothers when he was leading Easy Company or Tom Hanks when he was trying to Save Private Ryan. I love the real feel, the constant action and chaos of combat, the gunpowder smell and mud on your boots experience of CAC.
.
When I play FoW, I use the time during my opponents move to wander around looking for the newest FoW minis to buy. When I play CAC, I stay "engaged" for the entire game. Just like real Combat, there is always Action and you must always stay in Command of your troops!
.
But back to the original question. YES, you can use your FoW Minis and even your favorite FoW List to play CAC. Essentially you can pick up the CAC rules and play with your FoW Minis right "out of the box". You can also do the same with your Spearhead or Command Decision armies.
.
On average, speaking from having run hundreds of Demos, it takes new players about TWO turns to learn the rules. Midway through an average game, they can play on their own. The secret is the Data Card for each Team. Everything is on the Data Card, once you understand the basic turn sequence and firing mechanics, you can play right off the Data Cards. So you can grab you FoW Minis and your favorite FoW List, a copy of CAC and get right into a game.
.
Cheers! And have fun! Lee

"Some CAC players tried posting reviews here. Those that were favorable got slammed as "Sock Puppets" and those that were critical got criticised for being critical. Life is too short, so most now email me directly with their comments; using the feedback links on the CAC website."

Lee, do you have any links showing these reviews and/or battle reports? I searched the name of the game and your posts are the ONLY threads involving any discussion of your system. Perhaps they are under other thread titles?

I don't know the author or any play tester. I've been war gaming for about 30 years. Most of my WWII gaming has been Battlefield, ASL, FOW, and a few others I don't even recall. I own all the current CAC products but have not had much gaming experience with it yet. My simple and quick review is that CAC is fun, plays well, and is a worthy addition to any WWII interested gamer. That you can easily swap your FOW armies over is a great bonus for most. I'm looking forward to more gaming time with CAC. I have no sock puppet and my account was not created today.

I will mirror what DoubleNot7 has said I have played CAC a few more times than he has. I like being able to enjoy that game and flames of war and get double use of my miniatures as well. You can also check my account it was not created today either, so i have no sock puppet.

Maybe some of you people should go to On Military Matters this weekend as there will be a large tournement on CAC. You will be able to view and see as things are happening to get a better understanding of the rules and play.