SWs on the Holding Box: any drawback ?

Stefano G.

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
160
Points
28
Age
56
Location
Italy
Hello,
differently from old rules, it seems that keeping SWs off-map does not have any drawback with new WaW85 rules .
With the old rules, if an Infantry unit was eliminated, off-map SWs had to check for removal too.

With new WaW85 SWs rules there is no risk to leave them on the Holding Box ... correct?...but, if it's true, which is the reason (advantage) to deploy SWs with units, at the beginnig of the game, instead of keeping them on the Holding Box?

In addition,
from :
10.5 Support Weapons, Modifiers & Restrictions
The Support Weapon can engage either the same target, or a different target than the unit to which it is deployed.
I can well see that it works for Infantry units: a little group of inf. fire ATGM SW, for example, while the rest of platoon engage the same or other target with its inherent FP; but i can not undestand this rule when SW is deployed to <Arm>: e.g. AT-8 Songster is a Soviet ATGM, used by T-80 (and other 125mm smoothbore barrel soviet tanks).
When T-80 use AT-8, firing from its barrel, it can not fire other ordnance (from the same barrel).
T-80 can use AT-8 SW or its inherent FP but it can not engage same or different target by firing AT-8 and its AP rounds at the same time.
Am i misunderstanding rules? o_O


Thank you :)
 
Last edited:

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
We are talking platoons here and I doubt if more than 1 or 2 would be firing ATGMs , probably one hull down with the others ready to charge or volley fire on the other targets .
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
I agree that we probably should roll for Inf/Arm SW losses when in holding box , a roll with a modifiers for already eliminated units and SW in box.
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
We are talking platoons here and I doubt if more than 1 or 2 would be firing ATGMs , probably one hull down with the others ready to charge or volley fire on the other targets .

Stefano, thanks for touching base. Starman is correct. Even with a 30 second flight time, in a 5 to 15 minute turn, and with a platoon firing, the few ATGM rounds they have could easily be fired off. So yes you get the same SW capability for the Alternative SWs as for INF SWs. :)
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Stefano and Starman, the intent of the old rule (from what I recall, please correct me if I am wrong) was so that you did not have to expose the location of your SWs by deploying them to the map initially. I agree with that and simply formalized it into the Deployment box. So yes there is no drawback, in fact that is still the intent. I opted not to track the support weapons in the box simply because I do not totally agree with the assumption that the undeployed SWs are necessarily already in the same hex with a unit on the map (for example, INF SW ATGM teams, which have a truck for their missiles). OK, for ARM SW that is less so, some tank has them, but they are so rare in scenarios that I did not feel it merited the rules overhead for the one or two counters. They have a limited ammo re-use capability in any case: if they are Reloading (fail their Ammo check after they fire) and then they fail their subsequent Reload check, they are out of that ammo and the ARM SW gets a NO MISSILE AMMO marker for the duration of the scenario.

What happens to me in practice is worse: I forget about my SWs in the box, or I forget long enough that I run out of units to which they could deploy! :)
 

Stefano G.

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
160
Points
28
Age
56
Location
Italy
Stefano, thanks for touching base. Starman is correct. Even with a 30 second flight time, in a 5 to 15 minute turn, and with a platoon firing, the few ATGM rounds they have could easily be fired off. So yes you get the same SW capability for the Alternative SWs as for INF SWs. :)

Thank you for your reply :)...

From TUS rulebook:
1.3.5.1 TANK SUPPORT WEAPONS
In The Untold Stories the T-80 and T-64 have the ability to fire a gun-tube launched Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) represented by the
Songster Support Weapon.
• Use the rules for Support Weapons (1.3.5) when playing with gun-fired ATGM markers. This means placing the marker when first used and rolling for loss of markers if a unit is lost before the Support Weapons are placed.
• In order to fire the Songster ATGM, a unit must not be moving (or using Moving Fire) in the impulse. The unit must be in Good Order (not disrupted) and not marked as Op Complete.
Unlike Support Weapons, the units shooting the ATGM cannot fire with their inherent firepower in the impulse; the act of firing and guiding the weapon occupy the crew.


Maybe it's just an habit matter :rolleyes:, but, having played old WaW (and i very liked it) i feel more "realistic" the use of only one attack type at a time (ATGM or inherent AP). If unit ATGM FP represents the ONLY Fire Power generated in turn time frame (let's think AT vehicles as BRDM-AT or M-901 ITV), i do suppose that when a Tank unit uses ATGM, in place of its AP FP, that unit consumes all its activation fire action.

I can even image that not all the tanks in a platoon can fire ATGMs, and, as you wrote, the 30 second flight time, in a 5 to 15 minute turn, can let other fire actions (such as AP main gun shells), but it's then true for any AP shell flight time too, and, inspite of that, a tank unit can do only one AP attack per activation, not 2 or more...correct?...IMHO, in case of simultaneous ATGM and AP attack, counter ATGM FP and Tank inherent AP FP should be mitigate: i really fear that letting both AP and ATGM use in the same activation/impulse would make a T-80 (for example) attack devastating beyond all measure. :sorry:

Didn't you find so devastating in your playtest?...didn't you find excessive this 2 simultaneous,combined attacks (ATGM + AP)?

If ever, i think i'll keep old rule (1.3.5.1 TANK SUPPORT WEAPONS) and allow only one of the 2 type attack at a time per activation.

Regards :)
 
Last edited:

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Thank you for your reply :)...

From TUS rulebook:
1.3.5.1 TANK SUPPORT WEAPONS
In The Untold Stories the T-80 and T-64 have the ability to fire a gun-tube launched Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) represented by the
Songster Support Weapon.
• Use the rules for Support Weapons (1.3.5) when playing with gun-fired ATGM markers. This means placing the marker when first used and rolling for loss of markers if a unit is lost before the Support Weapons are placed.
• In order to fire the Songster ATGM, a unit must not be moving (or using Moving Fire) in the impulse. The unit must be in Good Order (not disrupted) and not marked as Op Complete.
Unlike Support Weapons, the units shooting the ATGM cannot fire with their inherent firepower in the impulse; the act of firing and guiding the weapon occupy the crew.


Maybe it's just an habit matter :rolleyes:, but, having played old WaW (and i very liked it) i feel more "realistic" the use of only one attack type at a time (ATGM or inherent AP). If unit ATGM FP represents the ONLY Fire Power generated in turn time frame (let's think AT vehicles as BRDM-AT or M-901 ITV), i do suppose that when a Tank unit uses ATGM, in place of its AP FP, that unit consumes all its activation fire action.

I can even image that not all the tanks in a platoon can fire ATGMs, and, as you wrote, the 30 second flight time, in a 5 to 15 minute turn, can let other fire actions (such as AP main gun shells), but it's then true for any AP shell flight time too, and, inspite of that, a tank unit can do only one AP attack per activation, not 2 or more...correct?...IMHO, in case of simultaneous ATGM and AP attack, counter ATGM FP and Tank inherent AP FP should be mitigate: i really fear that letting both AP and ATGM use in the same activation/impulse would make a T-80 (for example) attack devastating beyond all measure. :sorry:

Didn't you find so devastating in your playtest?...didn't you find excessive this 2 simultaneous,combined attacks (ATGM + AP)?

If ever, i think i'll keep old rule (1.3.5.1 TANK SUPPORT WEAPONS) and allow only one of the 2 type attack at a time per activation.

Regards :)

Hi Stefano, to answer your last question first: honestly, we did not find it any more excessively devastating, for multiple reasons. Firstly, there were only one or two such SWs in the scenario at a time. That is intentional, and a part of scenario design and balancing. Second, with the new Ammo Rules, if they need to reload, one missed Reloading Check and they are are out (and can be removed). So they do not stay around long. Finally, with the many new factors affecting defense against and use of ATGMs now - NATO Composite armor, +1 DB when fired at by an ATGM when in a Woods or City, possible moving fire penalties - its effectiveness is much more balanced now. At least that is what we found in playtesting. :)

"i do suppose that when a Tank unit uses ATGM, in place of its AP FP, that unit consumes all its activation fire action."

From a designer perspective, and my final point: we already have a SW mechanism for Infantry that gives them a bonus shot for having a SW. I simply streamlined the ARM SWs info you quoted above to match. Play balancing of scenarios and the ATGM ammo and modifiers I mentioned seemed to do the rest. Well, so far so good... ;-)

I hear that about habit from the old game! But I hope you try the new one and see how it feels: the choice is, of course, all yours whether to go back, but whichever works for you and lets you have fun! ;-)
 

Stefano G.

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
160
Points
28
Age
56
Location
Italy
Thank you again, Keith for you support and your observations.:)
Surely i 'll have fun with your WaW85...i hope to have it on my table during next summer :happy:

I have seen only Alpha Jet as German Airstrike...but, if i well remeber, a German F4-F Phantom airstrike should be present too, do you confirm it?:rolleyes:
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Thank you again, Keith for you support and your observations.:)
Surely i 'll have fun with your WaW85...i hope to have it on my table during next summer :happy:

I have seen only Alpha Jet as German Airstrike...but, if i well remeber, a German F4-F Phantom airstrike should be present too, do you confirm it?:rolleyes:

My pleasure! ;)


Yes, there is an F-4 CAS in the Storm and Steel Second Wave expansion.;)
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
Keith thanks for replies. Note: The missile ammo reload table for ARM SW(songster) has place a
NO MISSILE AMMO
marker on the unit
If itt fails an ammo reload check.

Surely that will just produce unnecessary counter clutter, wouldn't it be more sensible to just remove the ARM SW ATGM counter as unless I missed something it is expended
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Keith thanks for replies. Note: The missile ammo reload table for ARM SW(songster) has place a
NO MISSILE AMMO
marker on the unit
If itt fails an ammo reload check.

Surely that will just produce unnecessary counter clutter, wouldn't it be more sensible to just remove the ARM SW ATGM counter as unless I missed something it is expended


Let memclarify: the missing part is if it succeeds in it's reload roll, the Reloading marker is removed, the SW remains, and it may fire again when appropriate. ;)
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
Let memclarify: the missing part is if it succeeds in it's reload roll, the Reloading marker is removed, the SW remains, and it may fire again when appropriate. ;)
I get that but if it fails it has no missile market but it doesn't get to check again.

Are you saying a unit with No Missiles gets to check reloads as though it was a reloading missile counter, what is the point of No Missile. This is a major change from previously.

Even if a replenish event it would make sense to hold them in the HQ/SW Holding Box. As any eligible unit could replenish.
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Oh now I understand what you mean, yes you are right, you could simply remove it if it fails.:)

But no if it replenshes it does not go back to the deployment holding box. It is still a SW, but unlike INF SWs, once it is deployed, it stays with that unit. It may not be transferred in the duration if a scenario.
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
Initially it goes in the holding box and must be deployed to one of the designated units, so why cant a replenished unit follow the same rules

"All Support Weapons may begin the game in your HQ/SW Holding Box. During any Action, you may deploy a SW from the Holding Box to an eligible unit for its type (INF or ARM). "


It ust seems a pain and unwieldy for a Tank to be loaded with a SW+No Missile counter on the off chance of an event etc.

Do the scenarios state a specific unit or a type e.g. Songster assigned to T80s in Formation xxx
 
Last edited:

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
The rule came about because people were concerned that if you have to have a support weapon on the map at scenarios start, the enemy always knows where it is and will target it. So the rule is to allow for some level of limited intelligence. Once it is committed, it cannot be transferred (unlike INF SWs). If they could then we would have tank to tank ammo transfer rules. .. ;)
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
I wasn't commenting on the rules about arm vs inf SW assignment but on a replenish event or similar:-

Initially it goes in the holding box and must be deployed to one of the designated units, so why cant a replenished unit follow the same rules

The context was clearly following a NO Missile result and the need to add two counters to a unit.

A formation or its parent would be resupplied or visit a replenish site.
Nato had reforger sites for fed deployment and also fall back resupply. Warsaw Pact had resupply built into its strategic plans with battalions and regiments leap froging each other for rapid breakthroughs.

No issue with arm SW assignment being fixed once assigned unlike inf SW, what I was saying was if a Tank with arm sw atgm failed its ammo roll it would lose its arm counter. If in the unlikely event it was later resupplied it shouldn't be an issue for that to be assigned as per original scenario rules to a formation , then it is commited in a similar way to the scenarios allocated ones.

The alternative is to have a tank with a no missile counter be singled out as a target to game the system in the event of a resupply.

To be clear I wasnt attacking your rules but making a constructive suggestion to reduce counter clutter etc.
 

Keith Tracton

Member
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
240
Points
28
Age
58
Location
Pennsylvania
No worries, completely taken as constructive! I hope i did not come across as defensive! :) Confused? Maybe , I get that way sometimes... ;-)

I did check back on my notes because something about removing the counter instead of placing a Missile Ammo Out marker rang a bell. I realized you guys are at a slight disadvantage in some small things: though you have the rules you do not have all the player aids. In the Battlefield Event / Battlefield Friction Tables is a result which is ATGM replenishment for one formation. Strictly speaking you would want the Missile Ammo Low marker in that case.

Though I do see what you mean about targeting the empty counter, yet, to my mind, the initial advantage of Fog of war has already been lost by the initial deployment of the ARM SW. To my mind it is a valid choice to follow up on eliminating the unit that exhibited ATGM firepower minutes before. The question in my mind will be whether the enemy will have the firepower to spare to do that follow up, or whether the enemy will switch to other targets (for whatever reason). :)

And thank you again for your observations and suggestions!
 

Starman

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
125
Points
18
Location
England
Resupply event doesn't change the logic , no reason why a HQ doesn't distribute resupply to a different Arm eligible unit, functionally they would have same equipment/training they were just special Shells.
 

About LnLP

Welcome to the official Lock 'n Load Publishing Community page. Here you will find the latest information on our released and upcoming games.



We enjoy designing, developing, and publishing some of the best strategy games in the world. Lock 'n Load Publishing has published over eighty products, including our fan favorites Nations at War Series, World at War 85 Series, and Lock 'n Load Tactical series. We have expanded the publishing line now to include novels to go along with our game series in Paperback, EPUB, and Audiobook lines.

As Lock 'n Load Publishing moves forward, it intends to continue to broaden its product lines. We thank God for blessing us and allow us to follow our passions and thank you for support in our endeavors.


Like us on Facebook

Donate Cadence International

Cadence serves all branches of the U.S. military in American and overseas locations. Comprised of nearly 4 million people, the U.S. military community has proven to be one of the largest, most responsive sub-cultures today. Cadence ministers not only to military personnel but to their spouses and dependents as well.

Thank you for your interest in supporting our us. Please specify an amount below to begin the secure, tax-deductable donation process.

Donate to Cadence International
Top