Tuesday, 5 February 2013


RULES & NATO LISTS Back up - WARPAC LIST to go live today

I'm getting alot of useful feedback from the community and I need this to refine the lists and Orbats/ TO&E to be more realistic or closer to the real forces.

If you have a suggestion please fire it over to my e-mail

I cannot guarantee it will be incorporated, because there are many different elements I am juggling but about 70% of suggestions do make it in there. Things to be aware of :-

1. I won't do anything other than 100pts or multiples thereof, the reason is that it makes lists restrictive if I have 50pts here and there and this means a massive overhaul of all points. Keep it Stupidly Simple (KISS) principle is inforce so sometimes points aren't perfect and a degree of compromise is needed. 
2. Significant mechanics changes are a no-go for now. Things like Overwatch are a good idea, but it will take me far too long to sort it out, write it, test it and Balance it and it diverges from the FOW Ruleset too far (How would Overwatch affect Eyes & Ears, Recce units etc). I may decide to change this in the future. 
3. Sometimes I have to say no, not because I don't like it, I might love the idea but the implicit workload might be far too large or not be suitable for Cold War Mechanised Battle in 15mm. If I was ever to write my own Ruleset from Scratch many of these ideas maybe relevant. 
4. First hand experience from those who were there is my gold dust - So if you want to share how you did things back in the day, let me know, better to hear from the horses mouth than from Crusty Historian Arm Chair Generals who usually get the big picture right, but never get down in the weeds. 


  1. Firstly, congratulations on what you've done so far. Having had a go at something similar for my Russian Civil War project I appreciate the time and effort you've put in.

    Well done on producing such a comprehensive set of lists for both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I love the graphics - they make all the difference in the presentation of the information.

    I'm sure you'll have plenty of armchair critics offering 'helpful advice' for 'improvements' - whatever they say you've done first class job.

    My one observation would be that I think you're a little harsh on the Soviet and some of the Warsaw Pact troops you've rated as 'reluctant conscript'. I think most of GSFG would be 'confident trained', not just the Guards formations, and that some of the Polish and East Germans may have been better motivated - (remember Polish troops fought well alongside the Red Army in 1944-45)although I accept this would be variable and unpredicatable. Perhaps use the mechanism that FoW had for WWII Rumainians? I think their motivation was determined by a die roll?

    As I've said in a prevoious comment I'm not a fan of FoW in general although I like the motivation/skill mechanism.

    Well done again.

  2. John I think it is interesting with NATO as Trained, WP is *ok* as Conscript. If NATO were Veteran then the Conscript rated troops would really need to be sub standard hordes to counter them. Veterans can be for Special Forces or specific units.

    There will be a lot of hits handed out by both sides, which gives emphasis on superior equipment and getting the most out of your hit.

    I feel the Reluctant ratings will put more hurt on the poor non-Russian forces, as their terrible equipment will disintegrate and then their units vanish.

  3. It is a really struggle, Reluctant Trained is a possibility. The advent of technology has changed from the WWII dynamic the Soviet Red Army of 1980's is very different.

    Potentially Reluctant - Trained, or Confident - Conscript. But if I go too far with this then Line-Infantry Units in NATO would become Conf - Veteran, which considering the Bundeswehr never had a battle and some Officers had experience 40 years before is a bit of stretch. Plus it leaves me with no room for manoeuvre with Assault Infantry, like UK / NL Marines / Para's / Airborne and then Special Forces.

    I cannot please everyone, and people will take issue with my decisions in isolation. Plus it will take considerable re-balancing. As things progress in the next few months I will review this with the potential of re-doing certain lists. It's all to play for so keep those comments coming.

  4. Thanks so much for posting the WSP lists. While I wish I had seen these 2 months ago when dropping 500 bucks on QRF stuff, at least now I have an idea of what to build towards!! RKelly and I will have to get a few games and post some pics for you guys, perhaps have a concurrent version of your campaign or something, his Cdns v my WSP forces.


  5. No problem wuould love to post up some pictures of your Battles and even your own Campaign I could integrate it into the whole. Maybe 4th CMBG fights through to the front or stops a critical break out through NORTHAG etc, hopefully the whole community can help me out with suggestions and refinements, and also content I would love to put other peoples games. I may yet map the Campaign Map digital and you will all be able to see it?