MajorH
02-11-2000, 02:09 PM
> Do your Canadian ORBATs reflect our current structure?
The order of battle in the Canadian scenarios is a notional representation of the current 'best case' organization for a general war situation preceded by adequate warning and prep time. It is largely a tracked force built around the Leopard C1(+) and the M113 ISC. This notional ORBAT was specified by the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College. However, optional units are provided if you want to substitute a possible future, largely wheeled force, built around the LAV III family of vehicles.
> Canada does not use the M992 FAASV
The fictitious 20th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group does. The 20th CMBG scenarios were designed per instructions from the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College.
> On the CA Coyote Recce units, what is that diamond with legs
> next to the unit profile? It looks like a stick figure
It shows the unit is the model of Coyote that carries a remote placement, tripod mounted, sensor array. Another model of Coyote has a sensor array permanently mounted on a telescoping mast. In both cases the sensor array is not actually modeled yet in TacOps. It is a mainly cosmetic detail that the Canadian Army wanted.
> Boy, them Canadians got some weird units. What can you *do*
> with all the medic tracks? And all those other vaguely M113
> looking tracks whose purpose is quite the mystery to this
> Southern boy?
Park them in the rear or simply delete them without prejudice. The support units were required for the Canadian Army version and I didn't have the energy to redo and recompile all those scenarios for the public version.
>What are AAAVC, AAAVP, & AAVC7.
These are Assault Amphibian Vehicles of the US Marine Corps.
AA are vehicles that the USMC has now. Huge beasts that swim very well even in heavy surf. Fast in water but not fast enough.
AAVP7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel
AAVC7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Command and Control
AAVR7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Recovery
AAA are developmental versions that are not anywhere near being in service. Picture a short cigarette boat with tracks, armor plate, and a 25mm auto cannon. Capable of over the horizon, high speed movement from ship to shore.
AAAVP - Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel
AAAVC - Advanced Amphibian Vehicle Command and Control
AAAVR - Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle Recovery
>[ATGM units] should halt and remain halted until the round
>impacts.
That is already in the code. If an ATGM platform is moving, and if it fires an ATGM, it will automatically pause for the time of flight of the ATGM.
> I this a mistake? All improved warheads except the AT-10i
> and the AT-11i still kill an M-1; the AT-10i and AT-11i can
> only get rear kills.
After much back channel lobbying http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I was convinced that it was too much of a stretch to allow even an improved version of the small AT-11 to kill an M1 from the front. Also contributing to the change was the popular analysis that OPFOR tanks were given this 'through the barrel' ATGM mainly as a long range countermeasure to APC mounted ATGM launchers such as the Bradley.
> What is the exact definition of an improved ATGM, both real
> world and in TacOps?
OPFOR ATGMs that include the small case letter 'i' are optional TacOps inventions. They were added to the game primarily as an optional means of mitigating the practical invulnerability of the M1 tank. Their performance was loosely based on the higher penetration ratios (diameter of warhead compared to penetration ability) that Western technology can produce through use of exotic shaped charge liners, tandem warheads, top attack mechanisms, etc. Technology that OPFOR could also employ if it were willing and able to pay for its development and fielding. A gentle reminder ... it is impossible for me to know and to perfectly replicate how today's equipment and weapons actually perform. Our various governments put a fair amount of effort into withholding such info for as long as possible. If I were able to provide perfect information I would expect to receive some inconvenient visitors in fairly short order http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
>One limitation to the present system is that the level of armor
>protection is considered monolithic across the front of the vehicle
>whereas in real life the level of armor protection changes depending
>on where the round hits. For example, in the Golan the only Merkava 2
>knocked out was by a frontal hit from an AT-4, a missile which
>theoretically should not be able to penetrate. The missile was fired
>from a slightly higher level than the tank and hit the driver's hatch
>and penetrated. All tanks have similar areas of vulnerability.
I did not overlook that - it was a studied decision on my part. I think that most players would complain if TacOps units were coded so that they routinely attempted 'miracle shots' - they would also run out of ammo very quickly. It would really mess up the plausibility of the automatic target selection routines. Replication of '1%' events should be done for flavoring whenever possible but I would not want them to drive the planning and conduct of battalion/brigade level fights.
> Nothing like a board edge to destroy the
> illusion of reality. I need more maneuver room!
In the real world, tactical maneuver to one's far flanks is usually constrained by the presence of adjacent enemy or friendly units. If you had unlimited lateral movement in a game and if you tried to exercise the capability you should just move into a new tactical problem vs a new enemy.
> I'm basing my uninformed opinions on Close Combat, obviously!
> There they have 3-man medium mortar teams with 40-50 rounds.
Simulating the ammo supply for crew served weapons is a tough design problem. The easiest way around it is simply to give them more ammo than they could possibly carry in real life and move on to more important realism issues. The problem is that in real life the crew of a crew served weapon are not the only people in a squad or platoon who are carrying ammo for the weapon. Additional machine gun ammo , mortar rounds, grenade launcher rounds, etc, are usually spread out among the combat loads of everyone in a squad or platoon. The distributed ammo later moves toward the gun or launcher as it becomes needed. Thus overloading the crew of a crew served weapon only becomes significantly unrealistic at such times in a game where the crew has become isolated from the rest of its squad or platoon.
> Also, will the use of MRLS degrade a minefield?
No - neither does regular arty.
> ...as long as a single Blue unit spots a Red unit, that Red
> unit is deemed spotted by all Blue units with an LOS to it.
> In other words, each Blue unit with an LOS to the Red unit
> does not have to make its own LOS check.
That is not the way the game works. It is correct that simple spotting by one unit translates into simple spotting by all units, but each Blue unit will still have to pass its own subsequent LOS check and an acquisition check before it can fire at a spotted Red unit. In TacOps, being spotted means mainly that a given unit marker will be revealed on the screen of the enemy human player (i.e. plotted on the map), it does not necessarily mean that every enemy unit with a clear LOS will be able to or choose to engage that spotted unit.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com
The order of battle in the Canadian scenarios is a notional representation of the current 'best case' organization for a general war situation preceded by adequate warning and prep time. It is largely a tracked force built around the Leopard C1(+) and the M113 ISC. This notional ORBAT was specified by the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College. However, optional units are provided if you want to substitute a possible future, largely wheeled force, built around the LAV III family of vehicles.
> Canada does not use the M992 FAASV
The fictitious 20th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group does. The 20th CMBG scenarios were designed per instructions from the Canadian Forces Command and Staff College.
> On the CA Coyote Recce units, what is that diamond with legs
> next to the unit profile? It looks like a stick figure
It shows the unit is the model of Coyote that carries a remote placement, tripod mounted, sensor array. Another model of Coyote has a sensor array permanently mounted on a telescoping mast. In both cases the sensor array is not actually modeled yet in TacOps. It is a mainly cosmetic detail that the Canadian Army wanted.
> Boy, them Canadians got some weird units. What can you *do*
> with all the medic tracks? And all those other vaguely M113
> looking tracks whose purpose is quite the mystery to this
> Southern boy?
Park them in the rear or simply delete them without prejudice. The support units were required for the Canadian Army version and I didn't have the energy to redo and recompile all those scenarios for the public version.
>What are AAAVC, AAAVP, & AAVC7.
These are Assault Amphibian Vehicles of the US Marine Corps.
AA are vehicles that the USMC has now. Huge beasts that swim very well even in heavy surf. Fast in water but not fast enough.
AAVP7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel
AAVC7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Command and Control
AAVR7 - Assault Amphibian Vehicle Recovery
AAA are developmental versions that are not anywhere near being in service. Picture a short cigarette boat with tracks, armor plate, and a 25mm auto cannon. Capable of over the horizon, high speed movement from ship to shore.
AAAVP - Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel
AAAVC - Advanced Amphibian Vehicle Command and Control
AAAVR - Advanced Assault Amphibian Vehicle Recovery
>[ATGM units] should halt and remain halted until the round
>impacts.
That is already in the code. If an ATGM platform is moving, and if it fires an ATGM, it will automatically pause for the time of flight of the ATGM.
> I this a mistake? All improved warheads except the AT-10i
> and the AT-11i still kill an M-1; the AT-10i and AT-11i can
> only get rear kills.
After much back channel lobbying http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I was convinced that it was too much of a stretch to allow even an improved version of the small AT-11 to kill an M1 from the front. Also contributing to the change was the popular analysis that OPFOR tanks were given this 'through the barrel' ATGM mainly as a long range countermeasure to APC mounted ATGM launchers such as the Bradley.
> What is the exact definition of an improved ATGM, both real
> world and in TacOps?
OPFOR ATGMs that include the small case letter 'i' are optional TacOps inventions. They were added to the game primarily as an optional means of mitigating the practical invulnerability of the M1 tank. Their performance was loosely based on the higher penetration ratios (diameter of warhead compared to penetration ability) that Western technology can produce through use of exotic shaped charge liners, tandem warheads, top attack mechanisms, etc. Technology that OPFOR could also employ if it were willing and able to pay for its development and fielding. A gentle reminder ... it is impossible for me to know and to perfectly replicate how today's equipment and weapons actually perform. Our various governments put a fair amount of effort into withholding such info for as long as possible. If I were able to provide perfect information I would expect to receive some inconvenient visitors in fairly short order http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
>One limitation to the present system is that the level of armor
>protection is considered monolithic across the front of the vehicle
>whereas in real life the level of armor protection changes depending
>on where the round hits. For example, in the Golan the only Merkava 2
>knocked out was by a frontal hit from an AT-4, a missile which
>theoretically should not be able to penetrate. The missile was fired
>from a slightly higher level than the tank and hit the driver's hatch
>and penetrated. All tanks have similar areas of vulnerability.
I did not overlook that - it was a studied decision on my part. I think that most players would complain if TacOps units were coded so that they routinely attempted 'miracle shots' - they would also run out of ammo very quickly. It would really mess up the plausibility of the automatic target selection routines. Replication of '1%' events should be done for flavoring whenever possible but I would not want them to drive the planning and conduct of battalion/brigade level fights.
> Nothing like a board edge to destroy the
> illusion of reality. I need more maneuver room!
In the real world, tactical maneuver to one's far flanks is usually constrained by the presence of adjacent enemy or friendly units. If you had unlimited lateral movement in a game and if you tried to exercise the capability you should just move into a new tactical problem vs a new enemy.
> I'm basing my uninformed opinions on Close Combat, obviously!
> There they have 3-man medium mortar teams with 40-50 rounds.
Simulating the ammo supply for crew served weapons is a tough design problem. The easiest way around it is simply to give them more ammo than they could possibly carry in real life and move on to more important realism issues. The problem is that in real life the crew of a crew served weapon are not the only people in a squad or platoon who are carrying ammo for the weapon. Additional machine gun ammo , mortar rounds, grenade launcher rounds, etc, are usually spread out among the combat loads of everyone in a squad or platoon. The distributed ammo later moves toward the gun or launcher as it becomes needed. Thus overloading the crew of a crew served weapon only becomes significantly unrealistic at such times in a game where the crew has become isolated from the rest of its squad or platoon.
> Also, will the use of MRLS degrade a minefield?
No - neither does regular arty.
> ...as long as a single Blue unit spots a Red unit, that Red
> unit is deemed spotted by all Blue units with an LOS to it.
> In other words, each Blue unit with an LOS to the Red unit
> does not have to make its own LOS check.
That is not the way the game works. It is correct that simple spotting by one unit translates into simple spotting by all units, but each Blue unit will still have to pass its own subsequent LOS check and an acquisition check before it can fire at a spotted Red unit. In TacOps, being spotted means mainly that a given unit marker will be revealed on the screen of the enemy human player (i.e. plotted on the map), it does not necessarily mean that every enemy unit with a clear LOS will be able to or choose to engage that spotted unit.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com