MajorH
02-18-2000, 08:27 PM
> ...with regard to the French version ... I was wondering
> what moved you to make it available?
I didn't have a choice http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. The dual English/French interface and documentation were contractual requirements for the Canadian Army's custom version of TacOps (TacOpsCF). Since all that work was already done, it seemed smart to leave it in the retail version which was released a couple of months after I delivered the Canadian Army version.
> What's the best way to pull out of an exposed firing position
> in TacOps?
Hold down the Macintosh Option key or the PC Control key as you give a movement order (i.e. click on the map). When that movement order is executed, the unit will do so 'in reverse gear' thus presumably keeping its best armor toward the enemy.
> Why are there 2 mech platoons in Gallagher with 5
> Bradleys?
Those markers include the company commanders.
> Regarding the wish list, any chance of a British TOE
> appearing soon - so we can get some real soldiers in the
> game http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
Not soon - its pretty high up on the list but still behind other things. On the other hand ... I could add it in 90 days given an adequate bribe by your government http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
> The AH64 only appears in the US section of the Add One
> Unit/Unit Data Base dialog boxes. Do the Canadians really
> fly them? If not, should they be a part of the Canadian
> scenario OOBs?
The Canadians have no attack helos at all. For the most part, I have removed all Apaches from the Canadian scenarios. I did leave them in a couple because those scenarios just won't work without them. In the later cases the assumption is that the US is providing support.
>...the M113 TUA (whatever that is)
It is a Canadian M113 APC with a two round TOW launcher mounted on its roof. TUA stands for 'TOW Under Armour'.
>What's a Grizzly RBB?
It is a Canadian radio relay/rebroadcast vehicle. Most Canadian Army headquarters above company level seem to have one or more of them.
>What's an M113 MRT?
Canadian Army Mobile Repair Team. In real life it carries a couple of mechanics and bins of spare parts. It doesn't have any special game capabilities.
> Those [Canadian] infantry sections w/ the Eryx are quite deadly
> tank killers. I'm doing better than I expected to.
In my opinion ... The problem with the Eryx is its short range. By the time that the Eryx can be used there is not enough space left for the infantry unit to engage briefly and then fall back to a new position. Eryx equipped units are therefore limited to a rather static or 'last stand' style of anti-armor defense. If the infantry unit can not kill everything in front of it in a few volleys then the unit is quite likely to get overrun.
>What unit does the "small" landing craft represent,
Large is based on the LCU classes 1627 and 1646. Medium is based on the LCM8. Small is based on the LCM6. This would be the closest modern landing craft to the size that was used in WWII and Korea.
>... and where is it [LCM6] typically used?
I don't know for sure but I think that the LCM6 is being or has already been largely phased out. Prior to the fielding of the LCAC, the small LCM6 would have been the craft most likely used to land infantry. The LCM8 and LCU would have been used mainly to bring tanks, arty, vehicles, and supplies ashore. See following web sites for current info on landing craft and larger amphibious shipping...
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lcu.html
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/BUC/acu1/acu1home.htm
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/acu5/
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/EODC/acn.htm
> Air support mission cancelled itself and went back to "available"
> within 52 seconds of arrival.
Air strikes do not get cancelled prior to appearing on the map in TacOps. I assume that you mean that during the orders phase before a combat turn you noticed that you had an air strike due to hit within 52 seconds. Since a combat turn is 60 seconds long that means that the strike should have occurred when you ran the combat turn. If an air strikes arrives at the target and does not find anything there and does not find an alternate target within 500 meters then it does not drop its load. It then usually but not always returns to the ready que and may be targeted again. Perhaps you did not notice it appearing on the map during the combat turn.
> Is there any relatively easy way you could code an
> instruction so that you would simply click on an entrance
> point and an exit point on a road and the unit would
> faithfully follow the road between those two points?
I could do that but it would not be 'relatively easy'. Auto path finding could bubble to the top of the to do list someday but at present there are too many things ahead of it that would be easier and faster to do.
> Is there any method in TacOps to breach a mine field? When I
> was stationed at twenty-nine Palms the Marines were testing
> a line charge that shot out of the back of an AAV.
Clearing charges are not currently in the game. At present, mine fields in TacOps can only be cleared/marked by moving units through them. Movement may or may not result in a mine attack but each ten meters moved through will be 'cleared or marked' for subsequent units to pass through. The clearing efficiency of units varies by type with engineer units being the most likely to clear a path without being attacked by the mine field.
> ...your original version of TacOps didn't include separate
> FOOs which I thought was kind of odd. ... Was it a
> conscious decision to omit them from play?
Admin and support units often almost double the number of unit markers in a battalion sized unit. When the US scenarios were first created there were no separate forward observer units in the game's data base. Later when I added separate FO units as well as numerous other admin and support units, the decision was made to not add such units to the factory provided scenarios for fear of overwhelming the game's primary target audience which was thought to be hobbyist gamers. When TacOps 3.0 came out, combat service support units were added to the 'new' Canadian scenarios at the request of the Canadian Army.
> When I open a previously saved CPX overlay file, the dialog
> box shows the passwords already typed in. I.e. the dialog
> box tells me both passwords, negating the password
> security. Is this a bug or a feature I'm misusing?
Correct program behavior. You are being shown those passwords because you are using the machine that authored the overlay. The last two passwords used on your machine are stored as preferences in your TacOps program preferences file as a convenience so that you do not have to keep entering them. If you sent the overlay to someone else, they would not see those passwords until and unless they correctly entered both of them. If you had received this overlay file from someone else and if the file used different passwords then the suggested default passwords that you would be offered would not be the correct ones - except by coincidence.
> I tried loading the big air cushion craft with a dismounted
> company and it worked fine until a ATGM hit the @#$%
> thing!!
That is why current USMC amphibious strategy calls for landing at places where the enemy is not and then moving overland to contact - in concert with heliborne flanking operations. Assaulting a defended beach is the absolute last option that any amphibious planner would choose. That is the main reason why I put off adding landing craft to the game for so long. I have always been afraid that if I included an across the beach assault as a factory provided scenario that I would be laughed at by serving USMC personnel http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
>I have weapons range = 0 for AAVs, to model poor ability
>to fire from rolling surf.
I think you should dispense with that. The turret mounted .50 cal and auto grenade launcher are very important if there is resistance at the shoreline. You are way over penalizing them. USMC AAVs are very heavy and ride very low in the water. Their water propulsion system is very powerful. In my experience, there is nothing boat-like in their movement through water. They behave more like a submarine traveling on the surface. They don't 'bob' around. Waves and surf tend to flow over and past them rather than moving them around or up and down. I got to ride in the command seat once in an AAV as it drove out of an amphibious ship. The well deck was not fully flooded so we still had traction as we crossed the ramp and thus entered the water with a slight drop. It was an interesting experience to look through the vision blocks and to see several feet of water over us for a few seconds as the AAV recovered from the drop launch.
> I was wondering whether there was a way to keep tab of
> losses, and to estimate enemy losses a button that can be
> pressed to get a summary.
Select the 'Reports/Game Status' menu item to see a detailed text report. Select the 'Reports/Order of Battle' menu item to see a graphic report.
> When I add optional units under the options display, the
> units already on the map switch to the next largest size
> from the old one (15x15 I think). The same thing happens
> if I have the unit sizes set to the smallest size (the
> blank squares). Once the units are placed the units revert
> to the correct size.
That is correct/intended program behavior. It simplifies coding and greatly reduces bug risk if the program can depend on the unit markers being of a certain size when certain special windows/dialogs are displayed - such as the optional units preview window, order of battle window, etc. So, the program temporarily changes the symbols to a 'standard' size when special windows are displayed. When the special window is closed, the symbols change back to your chosen size for the battle map.
> The option for changing the Green force name has
> disappeared completely?
Yes. It made me angry one time too many and I killed it in a fit of pique <g>. Good example of something that seemed simple that ended up requiring several hundred lines of code in dozens of different places. It was producing a lot of context/semantic buglets with regards to the Canadian revision and looked to be a real nightmare for the French translation.
>It is very strange to command blue troops.
True, but it does make life a lot simpler for me - especially in the future. The military users have always had a problem with having a' green force' in the game instead of one that fit their customary gaming/exercise terms of 'blue force/red force'. Also once I start making real progress again with TacOps, it is going to get less and less 'US-centric'. A lot of little coding annoyances disappear now that I am free to change most user interface items (menu names, button titles, etc) to simply say 'blue' instead of having to differentiate 'US', "CA', 'AU', 'NZ' etc. It also removes some weird administrative difficulties with eventually enabling the blue force to consist of OPFOR units/equipment and vice versa.
>... cross platform play ...
As of version 3.0, the Mac and PC versions of TacOps can also load each others saved game files - if the appropriate PC extensions are added. In cross platform games, the Mac player needs to remember to set the 'Use PC filenames' check box in the prefs window before sending the first set of orders so that the pc extensions will be added to the orders file. Without the pc extension of 'bmo' for blue orders files or 'rmo' for red orders files the PC can not figure out what to load. If at some point in the game the Mac player should forget this you can easily salvage the situation by just manually adding '.bmo' or '.rmo' as appropriate to the orders file before sending it on to the PC player.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com
[This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 02-18-2000).]
> what moved you to make it available?
I didn't have a choice http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif. The dual English/French interface and documentation were contractual requirements for the Canadian Army's custom version of TacOps (TacOpsCF). Since all that work was already done, it seemed smart to leave it in the retail version which was released a couple of months after I delivered the Canadian Army version.
> What's the best way to pull out of an exposed firing position
> in TacOps?
Hold down the Macintosh Option key or the PC Control key as you give a movement order (i.e. click on the map). When that movement order is executed, the unit will do so 'in reverse gear' thus presumably keeping its best armor toward the enemy.
> Why are there 2 mech platoons in Gallagher with 5
> Bradleys?
Those markers include the company commanders.
> Regarding the wish list, any chance of a British TOE
> appearing soon - so we can get some real soldiers in the
> game http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
Not soon - its pretty high up on the list but still behind other things. On the other hand ... I could add it in 90 days given an adequate bribe by your government http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
> The AH64 only appears in the US section of the Add One
> Unit/Unit Data Base dialog boxes. Do the Canadians really
> fly them? If not, should they be a part of the Canadian
> scenario OOBs?
The Canadians have no attack helos at all. For the most part, I have removed all Apaches from the Canadian scenarios. I did leave them in a couple because those scenarios just won't work without them. In the later cases the assumption is that the US is providing support.
>...the M113 TUA (whatever that is)
It is a Canadian M113 APC with a two round TOW launcher mounted on its roof. TUA stands for 'TOW Under Armour'.
>What's a Grizzly RBB?
It is a Canadian radio relay/rebroadcast vehicle. Most Canadian Army headquarters above company level seem to have one or more of them.
>What's an M113 MRT?
Canadian Army Mobile Repair Team. In real life it carries a couple of mechanics and bins of spare parts. It doesn't have any special game capabilities.
> Those [Canadian] infantry sections w/ the Eryx are quite deadly
> tank killers. I'm doing better than I expected to.
In my opinion ... The problem with the Eryx is its short range. By the time that the Eryx can be used there is not enough space left for the infantry unit to engage briefly and then fall back to a new position. Eryx equipped units are therefore limited to a rather static or 'last stand' style of anti-armor defense. If the infantry unit can not kill everything in front of it in a few volleys then the unit is quite likely to get overrun.
>What unit does the "small" landing craft represent,
Large is based on the LCU classes 1627 and 1646. Medium is based on the LCM8. Small is based on the LCM6. This would be the closest modern landing craft to the size that was used in WWII and Korea.
>... and where is it [LCM6] typically used?
I don't know for sure but I think that the LCM6 is being or has already been largely phased out. Prior to the fielding of the LCAC, the small LCM6 would have been the craft most likely used to land infantry. The LCM8 and LCU would have been used mainly to bring tanks, arty, vehicles, and supplies ashore. See following web sites for current info on landing craft and larger amphibious shipping...
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lcu.html
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/BUC/acu1/acu1home.htm
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/acu5/
http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/EODC/acn.htm
> Air support mission cancelled itself and went back to "available"
> within 52 seconds of arrival.
Air strikes do not get cancelled prior to appearing on the map in TacOps. I assume that you mean that during the orders phase before a combat turn you noticed that you had an air strike due to hit within 52 seconds. Since a combat turn is 60 seconds long that means that the strike should have occurred when you ran the combat turn. If an air strikes arrives at the target and does not find anything there and does not find an alternate target within 500 meters then it does not drop its load. It then usually but not always returns to the ready que and may be targeted again. Perhaps you did not notice it appearing on the map during the combat turn.
> Is there any relatively easy way you could code an
> instruction so that you would simply click on an entrance
> point and an exit point on a road and the unit would
> faithfully follow the road between those two points?
I could do that but it would not be 'relatively easy'. Auto path finding could bubble to the top of the to do list someday but at present there are too many things ahead of it that would be easier and faster to do.
> Is there any method in TacOps to breach a mine field? When I
> was stationed at twenty-nine Palms the Marines were testing
> a line charge that shot out of the back of an AAV.
Clearing charges are not currently in the game. At present, mine fields in TacOps can only be cleared/marked by moving units through them. Movement may or may not result in a mine attack but each ten meters moved through will be 'cleared or marked' for subsequent units to pass through. The clearing efficiency of units varies by type with engineer units being the most likely to clear a path without being attacked by the mine field.
> ...your original version of TacOps didn't include separate
> FOOs which I thought was kind of odd. ... Was it a
> conscious decision to omit them from play?
Admin and support units often almost double the number of unit markers in a battalion sized unit. When the US scenarios were first created there were no separate forward observer units in the game's data base. Later when I added separate FO units as well as numerous other admin and support units, the decision was made to not add such units to the factory provided scenarios for fear of overwhelming the game's primary target audience which was thought to be hobbyist gamers. When TacOps 3.0 came out, combat service support units were added to the 'new' Canadian scenarios at the request of the Canadian Army.
> When I open a previously saved CPX overlay file, the dialog
> box shows the passwords already typed in. I.e. the dialog
> box tells me both passwords, negating the password
> security. Is this a bug or a feature I'm misusing?
Correct program behavior. You are being shown those passwords because you are using the machine that authored the overlay. The last two passwords used on your machine are stored as preferences in your TacOps program preferences file as a convenience so that you do not have to keep entering them. If you sent the overlay to someone else, they would not see those passwords until and unless they correctly entered both of them. If you had received this overlay file from someone else and if the file used different passwords then the suggested default passwords that you would be offered would not be the correct ones - except by coincidence.
> I tried loading the big air cushion craft with a dismounted
> company and it worked fine until a ATGM hit the @#$%
> thing!!
That is why current USMC amphibious strategy calls for landing at places where the enemy is not and then moving overland to contact - in concert with heliborne flanking operations. Assaulting a defended beach is the absolute last option that any amphibious planner would choose. That is the main reason why I put off adding landing craft to the game for so long. I have always been afraid that if I included an across the beach assault as a factory provided scenario that I would be laughed at by serving USMC personnel http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif.
>I have weapons range = 0 for AAVs, to model poor ability
>to fire from rolling surf.
I think you should dispense with that. The turret mounted .50 cal and auto grenade launcher are very important if there is resistance at the shoreline. You are way over penalizing them. USMC AAVs are very heavy and ride very low in the water. Their water propulsion system is very powerful. In my experience, there is nothing boat-like in their movement through water. They behave more like a submarine traveling on the surface. They don't 'bob' around. Waves and surf tend to flow over and past them rather than moving them around or up and down. I got to ride in the command seat once in an AAV as it drove out of an amphibious ship. The well deck was not fully flooded so we still had traction as we crossed the ramp and thus entered the water with a slight drop. It was an interesting experience to look through the vision blocks and to see several feet of water over us for a few seconds as the AAV recovered from the drop launch.
> I was wondering whether there was a way to keep tab of
> losses, and to estimate enemy losses a button that can be
> pressed to get a summary.
Select the 'Reports/Game Status' menu item to see a detailed text report. Select the 'Reports/Order of Battle' menu item to see a graphic report.
> When I add optional units under the options display, the
> units already on the map switch to the next largest size
> from the old one (15x15 I think). The same thing happens
> if I have the unit sizes set to the smallest size (the
> blank squares). Once the units are placed the units revert
> to the correct size.
That is correct/intended program behavior. It simplifies coding and greatly reduces bug risk if the program can depend on the unit markers being of a certain size when certain special windows/dialogs are displayed - such as the optional units preview window, order of battle window, etc. So, the program temporarily changes the symbols to a 'standard' size when special windows are displayed. When the special window is closed, the symbols change back to your chosen size for the battle map.
> The option for changing the Green force name has
> disappeared completely?
Yes. It made me angry one time too many and I killed it in a fit of pique <g>. Good example of something that seemed simple that ended up requiring several hundred lines of code in dozens of different places. It was producing a lot of context/semantic buglets with regards to the Canadian revision and looked to be a real nightmare for the French translation.
>It is very strange to command blue troops.
True, but it does make life a lot simpler for me - especially in the future. The military users have always had a problem with having a' green force' in the game instead of one that fit their customary gaming/exercise terms of 'blue force/red force'. Also once I start making real progress again with TacOps, it is going to get less and less 'US-centric'. A lot of little coding annoyances disappear now that I am free to change most user interface items (menu names, button titles, etc) to simply say 'blue' instead of having to differentiate 'US', "CA', 'AU', 'NZ' etc. It also removes some weird administrative difficulties with eventually enabling the blue force to consist of OPFOR units/equipment and vice versa.
>... cross platform play ...
As of version 3.0, the Mac and PC versions of TacOps can also load each others saved game files - if the appropriate PC extensions are added. In cross platform games, the Mac player needs to remember to set the 'Use PC filenames' check box in the prefs window before sending the first set of orders so that the pc extensions will be added to the orders file. Without the pc extension of 'bmo' for blue orders files or 'rmo' for red orders files the PC can not figure out what to load. If at some point in the game the Mac player should forget this you can easily salvage the situation by just manually adding '.bmo' or '.rmo' as appropriate to the orders file before sending it on to the PC player.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com
[This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 02-18-2000).]