Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Cold War, Hot Armor» Forums » Reviews

Subject: General comments and observations of CW/HA rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tom Pratuch
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As a former tanker, I enjoy tactical/operational games where armor can to maneuver and shoot from a distance at a target. I did not think I would see an enjoyable game on Armor in Vietnam. Then CW/HA came along. (If you have a different one, good -- I am not saying there aren't other games to be enjoyed -- just that I like this one.)

One of the major positive points for me is the (relatively) large number of scenarios (11) provided for a game of this size. To get the three additional scenarios, plus optional rules; one has to download the latest (free) rules version from DG.

The downloaded rules set adds Leaders, Entrenchments, Minefields, Bridge Destruction, Visibility, Overwatch Fires (an essential part of Armor maneuver), Counterbattery Fire, Vehicle Wrecks, Minimum Range, Fortunes of War, and Fog of War. The ones in bold are the rules I most enjoy adding to the game.

The game is intended as part of a (future) game group using the same or related rules for games set in modern era Africa, Middle East, and Europe. So I look forward to such additions.

The rules are well laid-out and clear. Yet there are three minor points where my "lived experience" causes my curiosity to peak. And these are minor items in my mind. Given the 20 pages of rules and scenarios, I rate the rules excellent.

They are as follows:
1 - Rule 8.20 Amphibious Vehicles: It lists the PT-76 and the LVT but not the M113 & ACAV series. I will grant that they were not AS maneuverable in water as the PT76 and LVT - but they were amphibious. I am reasonably certain the non-US Armored Cars were also amphibious - but I could be wrong.

2 - Rule 31.0 Minimum Range: Granted it is optional so the following is a very minor technical point. The M109 in indirect fire mode is limited to targets beyond a certain distance. Yet they had a direct fire capacity. So 31.0 should not have an M109 listed IMHO.

3 - Heavy Weapons: See discussion on CONSIMWORLD for this game.

The counters use vehicle silhouettes or NATO unit symbols which makes for clearly understandable counters. It was seeing all of those easily readable counters in one glance that leads to my last observation. The US heavy mortar was, in fact, a 4.2" mortar. It was the same mortar mounted on the M106 mortar carrier. Yet the counters have different attack and range values. Firing a 4.2" on full charge (max range) from just the base plate could be entertaining and accounts for the range difference. The attack value is different because the an infantry 4.2" unit could have fewer tubes than a mechanized infantry with vehicle mounted mortars.

So consider this a "first look" and I trust it helps in decisions about the game. Although I enjoyed wargaming from the earliest version of Tactics II, it was PanzerBlitz that was my favorite early on. I have played many enjoyable games, but my preference is games like CW/HA.
7 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Miranda
msg tools
You can also find the extra scenarios on ConsimWorld's CWHA topic. I have a couple more in mind.

I included typical unit organizations for the various forces involved. For ex:
US Army Armored Cavalry Squadron (Divisional): 1 x CP armored, 3 x M-48, 6 x ACAV, 3 x M113, 4 x infantry (A), 2 x M106, 1 x M113 (surv), 1 x CEV, 1 x ARV, 2 x AH, 2 x OH, 1 x UH. (1969 and later, M551s replace M48s.)

DG will be publishing riverine units in a future issue. There will be scenarios for French naval assault divisions and US mobile riverine forces.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Miranda
msg tools
Rule 8.20 Amphibious Vehicles: It lists the PT-76 and the LVT but not the M113 & ACAV series.

I didn't include the M113 etc because of the prep time issue, though you could make them amphib by house rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Millard
United States
Brainerd
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hwtrtgp wrote:
...One of the major positive points for me is the (relatively) large number of scenarios (11) provided for a game of this size. To get the three additional scenarios, plus optional rules; one has to download the latest (free) rules version from DG.


I did not see it there; is there a link? Or would someone put them here in the files section, if DG will allow?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Neukom
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mb

Try this:

http://strategyandtacticsmagazine.com/site/wp-content/upload...



Mark

1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.