MajorH
03-30-2000, 05:54 AM
TacOps Gazette 00.05
[TacOps is a computer game for the Macintosh computer and for the PC (Windows only).]
> That scenario [Task Force Fenwick] with the hastily mounted
> heliborne raid on the terrorist training camp scenario has
> got to be about the most gotched-up mess since the charge
> of the Light Brigade... I've been banging my head against
> that one for days .
The key to that scenario is proper use of the seemingly least powerful units in the Blue force - the snipers.
>I'm a new player and would like to learn the
>game in the most efficient manner.
First do the tutorial. A twenty minute investment in following every step in the tutorial will make everything that follows easier and more fun. Next play U.S. scenarios that have 'Team' in the title or Canadian scenarios that have 'Combat Team' in the title. They have smaller forces in play and smaller maps. U.S. Army scenarios are usually significantly easier than similar USMC scenarios because the Marines have fewer long range anti armor weapons. U.S. Army and USMC scenarios are usually easier than similar Canadian scenarios because of the limited range of the Canadian ERYX ATGM. USMC scenarios where the Marines are using LAVs tend to be very difficult and tend to require very different and very daring tactics. The hardest scenario set of all is the Team Kelley series. A single U.S. Company vs an OPFOR Regiment .
>Can you place two mine counters together, creating a double
>density minefield?
No. If they are both placed in the same turn they will just blend into the equivalent of one field. If they are placed in the same place over different turns, the newer one will just replace/replenish the older one.
>Is the chance-to-hit reduced when firing at moving vehicles and at
>vehicles in cover? If so by how much.
Usually. It varies by the weapon system firing. The factor is usually significant but it is not usually overwhelming.
>The other question was about the H combat result. Does the program
>calculate whether the target was hit and decide, if not, that the round
>landed close enough to generate the H result or does it convert some
>percentage of hits into H results?
The game engine converts a low percentage of 'hits' into a combat result of 'no significant effect' and displays an 'H' when that happens. The idea is to represent things like blowing a fender off, or an ATGM warhead being a dud, ricochets, etc.
>This brings to mind a point I've meant to inquire on. I'm often tempted
>to leave behind "sacrificial" observation or ambush teams, with no
>realistic chance for their survival or extraction. Is that practice at
>all consistent with Western (or, for that matter, OPFOR) doctrine?
Inserting observation posts into enemy held areas has been a standard tactic - especially in counter insurgency ops. However I think intentionally leaving a team behind to be bypassed by advancing enemy units would be an unusual tactic for a modern US commander. On the other hand, I remember knowing as a Marine infantry Lt that 'observe and report' was a standing order for cut off or bypassed units. Also, several times in field training I was told to leave a fireteam behind as a hidden observation post to adjust arty and air support while the rest of the company displaced to a new position - the team was expected to later escape and evade to a pickup point. Things like this don't seem particularly unreasonable to me for light infantry ops (i.e. everybody is on foot). I suspect the pucker factor would go way up if somebody told me to try it with a Bradley or a HMMWV. A brief search of my Military Reference Library CD produced one US doctrinal note on this. FM 7-93 Long-Range Surveillance Unit Operations, page 3-15 says ... 'Stay-Behind Technique. The [recon] team purposely allows itself to be passed by the enemy to perform a specific mission.' In the 80s I attended several NATO defense plan briefings which included predesignated 'stay behind' teams in the friendly order of battle. These teams were not comprised of US troops.
>In playing Battlegroup Dennis I noticed sometimes the AI decides to order a
>retreat of a group of units, say a company or so, after I have hammered
>it with ATGMs or tanks for a couple of turns. If it was a real
>bloodbath I can see this but sometimes it seems like the AI is giving up
>a little too easily
Since the AI does not cheat, it does not know that you are getting weak in an area. All it knows is that it is receiving effective fire. The units may be retreating or they may be pulling back to reorganize into a line - it is a largely random response as to which happens.
>Is this [the AI] the same as it was before...
It [AI] is working the same as before. I have not changed anything in the AI - I am too afraid of breaking something that most folks have found to be acceptable.
>You can only add one LCAC at a time (OPFOR or US). No matter what
>number you put in the Unit Quantity window, only 1 at a time is added.
Correct program behavior. LCAC and landing craft markers can never be larger than one item. This was forced on me by the surprising complexity of coding the game engine to insure correct landing craft loading.
> Is there a way to instruct a unit to ignore certain types of
> targets?
Yes and no. You can tell a unit to concentrate on one specific type of enemy unit such as BMPs, T80s, etc but you can't do something like 'engage or ignore all APCs of all types' or 'engage or ignore all infantry units of all types'. You can also tell a unit to concentrate only on targets within a circle within X meters of a certain point on the map. You can also tell a unit to concentrate on a particular enemy unit marker.
> it's also particularly annoying when a concealed, dug-
> in ATGM unit exposes its position to fire on some piddling
> BRDM scout
> section - instead of waiting for the BMPs and T-80s.
In a different situation, the user might prefer that unit to fire on such a target. The default target selection for a unit is generally the closest, most threatening enemy unit. If the default is not what the player wants, then the targeting priority orders and the engagement range slider should be used.
> Is there no adverse combat result short of destruction?
There is transient suppression. In TacOps, suppression wears off in a few minutes if a unit does not continue to receive accurate and effective incoming fire.
> Case in point; a big chunk of one of my infantry companies
> gets hit with a ton of OPFOR artillery - including a rocket
> battalion strike. A couple of APCs get toasted, but the
> rest of them charge forward willingly the moment the last
> rocket explodes. Wouldn't we expect some of them to at
> least mill around in confusion for a moment?
In the example above, the effective survivors would usually experience several minutes of transient suppression during which they don't move well, don't spot well, and don't fire well. The conceptually unwounded troopers who might choose to remove themselves from harm's way for the rest of the one or two hour long scenario are reflected by the arty casualty tables being a bit liberal.
> Does TacOps model unit quality in any way?
TacOps models the best case for a given unit type and or weapon system.
> Or is every Motor-Rifle Battalion exactly the same as every other?
They are the same.
> I'm a little surprised that the concept of formation and
> cohesion hasn't woven its way into a game as excellent as
> TacOps. A player's units are treated as one big
> conglomeration of markers, and you can mix 'n' match them
> any way you like.
The game engine does not enforce a concept of unit command relationships. If it did, users would then expect a game mechanism to exist to allow them to change those relationships (cross attachment) during the game. In my opinion that would just add to the player's work load while producing the same result as the current abstraction. Detailing this concept would be a lot more important to me if I was doing an operational level game.
> Relating to the above, I'm a little surprise that a player
> cannot (yet) move units by formation.
That is a user convenience item that is on the wish list but I just have not gotten around to working on it.
> On small battles like "Team Cahoon" I can't get the game to
> fill the entire screen even at 640x480.
If you want a different screen resolution for a particular map, use the monitors/screen properties control panel in the Windows operating system before running TacOps. TacOps does not take over the user's operating system. Thus TacOps does not automatically expand or contract its map art to fit the user's screen size. I prefer to have the game accept what the user has previously chosen for his system screen resolution via the Windows monitors/screen properties control panel. I want TacOps to peacefully coexist with Windows background operations and I want the user to be able to easily switch TacOps into the background so that he can do other tasks on his computer without having to quit a game in progress. This system cooperative approach is very important for PBEM and CPX game play and for military training use.
> How do you know where your units center point is ...
Visualize the center pixel of the unit marker. That is the map point that the game engine uses for almost all game abstractions dealing with unit position.
> and what terrain it is occupying?
There are several ways to determine the exact terrain under a unit. Select the Line-of-sight tool and move it around the map while looking at the text info line at the bottom of the TacOps map. As the cursor moves, the type of terrain under the cursor is shown in the text info line. Select a unit marker or open its orders window. The type of terrain under the unit marker is shown in the text info line. Press the F9 key and move the cursor around the map. The type of terrain under the cursor is shown in the text info line. Press the F9 key again to return to getting the regular transient game play hints in the text info line.
> I have never been in the military ...
> Is there some acceptable level of attrition and beyond that
> you simply call off the operation?
It depends on the importance of the objective.
>It is not uncommon for me to have 50% or
>greater attrition.
This is mainly due to TacOps needing to provide a satisfying recreational gaming experience. In order to be a 'game', the typical scenario needs to provide a tactical situation where both sides have a reasonable chance of winning. In real life a commander would usually try to avoid situations where there was only a 50/50 chance of prevailing or where huge casualties would likely result. Another thing to consider is that in real life a lot of the casualties shown in a one or two hour TacOps battle would not be permanently lost. Much damaged equipment would be recovered and repaired. Many slightly wounded, or dazed, or demoralized troops, etc., would recover and be returned to duty fairly rapidly.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com
[TacOps is a computer game for the Macintosh computer and for the PC (Windows only).]
> That scenario [Task Force Fenwick] with the hastily mounted
> heliborne raid on the terrorist training camp scenario has
> got to be about the most gotched-up mess since the charge
> of the Light Brigade... I've been banging my head against
> that one for days .
The key to that scenario is proper use of the seemingly least powerful units in the Blue force - the snipers.
>I'm a new player and would like to learn the
>game in the most efficient manner.
First do the tutorial. A twenty minute investment in following every step in the tutorial will make everything that follows easier and more fun. Next play U.S. scenarios that have 'Team' in the title or Canadian scenarios that have 'Combat Team' in the title. They have smaller forces in play and smaller maps. U.S. Army scenarios are usually significantly easier than similar USMC scenarios because the Marines have fewer long range anti armor weapons. U.S. Army and USMC scenarios are usually easier than similar Canadian scenarios because of the limited range of the Canadian ERYX ATGM. USMC scenarios where the Marines are using LAVs tend to be very difficult and tend to require very different and very daring tactics. The hardest scenario set of all is the Team Kelley series. A single U.S. Company vs an OPFOR Regiment .
>Can you place two mine counters together, creating a double
>density minefield?
No. If they are both placed in the same turn they will just blend into the equivalent of one field. If they are placed in the same place over different turns, the newer one will just replace/replenish the older one.
>Is the chance-to-hit reduced when firing at moving vehicles and at
>vehicles in cover? If so by how much.
Usually. It varies by the weapon system firing. The factor is usually significant but it is not usually overwhelming.
>The other question was about the H combat result. Does the program
>calculate whether the target was hit and decide, if not, that the round
>landed close enough to generate the H result or does it convert some
>percentage of hits into H results?
The game engine converts a low percentage of 'hits' into a combat result of 'no significant effect' and displays an 'H' when that happens. The idea is to represent things like blowing a fender off, or an ATGM warhead being a dud, ricochets, etc.
>This brings to mind a point I've meant to inquire on. I'm often tempted
>to leave behind "sacrificial" observation or ambush teams, with no
>realistic chance for their survival or extraction. Is that practice at
>all consistent with Western (or, for that matter, OPFOR) doctrine?
Inserting observation posts into enemy held areas has been a standard tactic - especially in counter insurgency ops. However I think intentionally leaving a team behind to be bypassed by advancing enemy units would be an unusual tactic for a modern US commander. On the other hand, I remember knowing as a Marine infantry Lt that 'observe and report' was a standing order for cut off or bypassed units. Also, several times in field training I was told to leave a fireteam behind as a hidden observation post to adjust arty and air support while the rest of the company displaced to a new position - the team was expected to later escape and evade to a pickup point. Things like this don't seem particularly unreasonable to me for light infantry ops (i.e. everybody is on foot). I suspect the pucker factor would go way up if somebody told me to try it with a Bradley or a HMMWV. A brief search of my Military Reference Library CD produced one US doctrinal note on this. FM 7-93 Long-Range Surveillance Unit Operations, page 3-15 says ... 'Stay-Behind Technique. The [recon] team purposely allows itself to be passed by the enemy to perform a specific mission.' In the 80s I attended several NATO defense plan briefings which included predesignated 'stay behind' teams in the friendly order of battle. These teams were not comprised of US troops.
>In playing Battlegroup Dennis I noticed sometimes the AI decides to order a
>retreat of a group of units, say a company or so, after I have hammered
>it with ATGMs or tanks for a couple of turns. If it was a real
>bloodbath I can see this but sometimes it seems like the AI is giving up
>a little too easily
Since the AI does not cheat, it does not know that you are getting weak in an area. All it knows is that it is receiving effective fire. The units may be retreating or they may be pulling back to reorganize into a line - it is a largely random response as to which happens.
>Is this [the AI] the same as it was before...
It [AI] is working the same as before. I have not changed anything in the AI - I am too afraid of breaking something that most folks have found to be acceptable.
>You can only add one LCAC at a time (OPFOR or US). No matter what
>number you put in the Unit Quantity window, only 1 at a time is added.
Correct program behavior. LCAC and landing craft markers can never be larger than one item. This was forced on me by the surprising complexity of coding the game engine to insure correct landing craft loading.
> Is there a way to instruct a unit to ignore certain types of
> targets?
Yes and no. You can tell a unit to concentrate on one specific type of enemy unit such as BMPs, T80s, etc but you can't do something like 'engage or ignore all APCs of all types' or 'engage or ignore all infantry units of all types'. You can also tell a unit to concentrate only on targets within a circle within X meters of a certain point on the map. You can also tell a unit to concentrate on a particular enemy unit marker.
> it's also particularly annoying when a concealed, dug-
> in ATGM unit exposes its position to fire on some piddling
> BRDM scout
> section - instead of waiting for the BMPs and T-80s.
In a different situation, the user might prefer that unit to fire on such a target. The default target selection for a unit is generally the closest, most threatening enemy unit. If the default is not what the player wants, then the targeting priority orders and the engagement range slider should be used.
> Is there no adverse combat result short of destruction?
There is transient suppression. In TacOps, suppression wears off in a few minutes if a unit does not continue to receive accurate and effective incoming fire.
> Case in point; a big chunk of one of my infantry companies
> gets hit with a ton of OPFOR artillery - including a rocket
> battalion strike. A couple of APCs get toasted, but the
> rest of them charge forward willingly the moment the last
> rocket explodes. Wouldn't we expect some of them to at
> least mill around in confusion for a moment?
In the example above, the effective survivors would usually experience several minutes of transient suppression during which they don't move well, don't spot well, and don't fire well. The conceptually unwounded troopers who might choose to remove themselves from harm's way for the rest of the one or two hour long scenario are reflected by the arty casualty tables being a bit liberal.
> Does TacOps model unit quality in any way?
TacOps models the best case for a given unit type and or weapon system.
> Or is every Motor-Rifle Battalion exactly the same as every other?
They are the same.
> I'm a little surprised that the concept of formation and
> cohesion hasn't woven its way into a game as excellent as
> TacOps. A player's units are treated as one big
> conglomeration of markers, and you can mix 'n' match them
> any way you like.
The game engine does not enforce a concept of unit command relationships. If it did, users would then expect a game mechanism to exist to allow them to change those relationships (cross attachment) during the game. In my opinion that would just add to the player's work load while producing the same result as the current abstraction. Detailing this concept would be a lot more important to me if I was doing an operational level game.
> Relating to the above, I'm a little surprise that a player
> cannot (yet) move units by formation.
That is a user convenience item that is on the wish list but I just have not gotten around to working on it.
> On small battles like "Team Cahoon" I can't get the game to
> fill the entire screen even at 640x480.
If you want a different screen resolution for a particular map, use the monitors/screen properties control panel in the Windows operating system before running TacOps. TacOps does not take over the user's operating system. Thus TacOps does not automatically expand or contract its map art to fit the user's screen size. I prefer to have the game accept what the user has previously chosen for his system screen resolution via the Windows monitors/screen properties control panel. I want TacOps to peacefully coexist with Windows background operations and I want the user to be able to easily switch TacOps into the background so that he can do other tasks on his computer without having to quit a game in progress. This system cooperative approach is very important for PBEM and CPX game play and for military training use.
> How do you know where your units center point is ...
Visualize the center pixel of the unit marker. That is the map point that the game engine uses for almost all game abstractions dealing with unit position.
> and what terrain it is occupying?
There are several ways to determine the exact terrain under a unit. Select the Line-of-sight tool and move it around the map while looking at the text info line at the bottom of the TacOps map. As the cursor moves, the type of terrain under the cursor is shown in the text info line. Select a unit marker or open its orders window. The type of terrain under the unit marker is shown in the text info line. Press the F9 key and move the cursor around the map. The type of terrain under the cursor is shown in the text info line. Press the F9 key again to return to getting the regular transient game play hints in the text info line.
> I have never been in the military ...
> Is there some acceptable level of attrition and beyond that
> you simply call off the operation?
It depends on the importance of the objective.
>It is not uncommon for me to have 50% or
>greater attrition.
This is mainly due to TacOps needing to provide a satisfying recreational gaming experience. In order to be a 'game', the typical scenario needs to provide a tactical situation where both sides have a reasonable chance of winning. In real life a commander would usually try to avoid situations where there was only a 50/50 chance of prevailing or where huge casualties would likely result. Another thing to consider is that in real life a lot of the casualties shown in a one or two hour TacOps battle would not be permanently lost. Much damaged equipment would be recovered and repaired. Many slightly wounded, or dazed, or demoralized troops, etc., would recover and be returned to duty fairly rapidly.
------------------
Best regards, Major H
majorh@mac.com