TacOps FAQ

This document is licensed under the BSD license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BSD/

Revision History
Revision 2.3.5.7.11.13.172007-12-23gea

added a question about possible installation problems

Revision 2.3.5.7.11.132007-12-02gea

addedd excellent faq about using tanks

Revision 2.3.5.7.112007-11-25gea

Info added about this FAQ and updated information on the TacOps mailing list

Revision 2.3.5.72007-11-25 

Marjor reorganzation done by Bernard Cousin.

Revision 2.3.52007-11-21 

Ok. Initial FAQ Done. Lots of minor clean up and waiting for comments at this point will be the next step

Revision 2.32007-11-20 

Keeping track of changes. Currently, it is good enough form to help some people so I'm putting a version number

Revision 22007-11-17 

Gazette PDF converted into txt files.

Abstract

This is a Faq for TacOps.

Please keep this faq update by sending any and all comments to Please let me if you are interested in mainting this FAQ.

The most updated version of this FAQ will be at http://mung.net/howto/TacOps.html.

The XML source file will be sent as requested to allow anyone intersted in editing this FAQ


Table of Contents

BEFORE YOU READ THIS FAQ
General Chapter
FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT TACOPS
THE MAJOR WANTS YOU TO HAVE FUN
Program Installation
What is the motives to design TacOps
CODE SECTION
TACOPS BATTLE BOOK
MISC SECTION
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
CHEAPSHOT SECTION
MAJOR H SECTION
EMAIL MAJOR H
RESOURCES SECTION
DO I NEED TO BUY ANOTHER COPY SECTION
:)
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SECTION
Tacops usage chapter
NEWBIE SECTION
Automatically select next unit?
SHORTCUTS
LOS SECTION
THERMAL SECTION
UNIT FACING SECTION
SOP SECTION
UNITS SPLITTING DOESN WORK RIGHT
ELEVATION SECTION
WHY DIDNT MY UNIT FIRE SECTION
WHY DID MY UNIT FIRE AT SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD OF WHAT I WANTED?!?
SOUNDS
GAMEPLAY SECTION
AI Section
SUPRESSION SECTION
ELEVATION SECTION
HOW FAST DO MY UNITS MOVE?
HOW DO I GO IN REVERSE SECTION
HOW DO I PUT MY UNITS ON THE EDGE SO THEY CAN SEE OUT
SUPPRESION SECTION
MULTIPLAYER SECTION
CPX SECTION
MAPS SECTION
WADI
AI SECTION
Scenario Chapter
TEAM CAHOON
TEAM CRAIG
DEGOEY
TEAM FORCE FENWICK
TEAM GALLAGHER
TEAMFORCE HENSON
TASK FORCE KINCAID
TEAM KREMPP
TEAM MIZOKAMI
TEAM O'HARA SECTION
TEAMFORCE PETERJOHN
TEAM SPOSITO
EXIT SCENATION SECTION
Units and Unit Tactics Chapter
DIRECT FIRE TRP (DFTRP)
DIRECT FIRE SECTION
AIRCRAFT SECTION
SAM SECTION
STINGERS and SAMS SECTIONS
UAV SECTION
WHERE ARE THE A10s?
STINGER SECTION
STINGER SECTION
INFANTRY SECTION
SCOUT SECTION
SNIPER SECTION
TANKS SECTION
ATGM SECTION
DIRECT FIRE TRP SECTION
ARTILLERY SECTION
ATGM FIRE BUT DONT IMMEDIATELY IMPACT
PORTABLE and TRANSPORTABLE BOMBS SECTION
ENGINEER SECTION
ENTRENCHEHMENT SECTION
MINEFIELD SECTION
SMOKE SECTION
BMP SECTION
Misc. UNIT SECTION
TacOps Tactics
TacOps Tactics - Defense Strategy
TacOps Tactics - Offensive Strategy
STRATEGY SECTION
OPFOR SECTION
TIPS
A. How this faq was made

BEFORE YOU READ THIS FAQ

READ THE USER's GUIDE that MAJOR H has provided with the game. Read the whole thing, twice. I can not stress this enough.

General Chapter

FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT TACOPS

1. Does TacOps have a Mailing list? If so what is the name? If not how do I find out the latest about Tacops?
1.

Does TacOps have a Mailing list? If so what is the name? If not how do I find out the latest about Tacops?

The TacOps mailing is http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/. It is the best place to get your answers that this faq doesn't contain.

The other site is for up to date infomration is the Battlefront webpage where you can buy TacOps.

THE MAJOR WANTS YOU TO HAVE FUN

1. The manual says that you should give OPFOR some additional units to compensate for the AI. I was wondering just how many units is "some"? I know each scenario is different, but is it all, some, or none?
1.

The manual says that you should give OPFOR some additional units to compensate for the AI. I was wondering just how many units is "some"? I know each scenario is different, but is it all, some, or none?

Could be any of the above :). I think the key is how well are you doing against the AI and what kind of gaming experience do you want on a given night. If you have reached the point where you are consistently pummeling OPFOR or you feel like a tough game then add as many optional units as you dare. You should have a pretty good feel by now on what the significance will be of adding a tank platoon here, a mech company there. Add whatever you think will be fun - as you define fun.

Something that you can do to make most scenarios instantly harder is to not use instant resupply.

Program Installation

1. A customer just reported getting a "Error -5009" alert while trying to install the download purchase version of TacOps4. He also reported having this error while trying to reinstall the TacOps4 demo.
1.

A customer just reported getting a "Error -5009" alert while trying to install the download purchase version of TacOps4. He also reported having this error while trying to reinstall the TacOps4 demo.

An Internet search on "Error -5009" suggested the following three step fix.

  • Step 1: Locate the InstallShield folder on your hard drive. It can usually be found at the following location.

    C:\Program Files\Common Files\InstallShield.

    Then change the name of that folder to "InstallShieldOld". This will cause a new InstallShield folder to be created the next time that the TacOps installer is run.

  • Step 2: Then shut down and restart your computer.

  • Step 3: Then run the TacOps4 installer, which should be the file that you downloaded from Battlefront.com.

Please note that "InstallShield" is a standard Windows installation assistance program that has been produced by the InstallShield Company for many years. This program is just an installation support program, it has nothing to do with copy protection or eLicensing. The InstallShield Company has apparently inadvertently introduced incompatibilities between some older versions of its installer engine and some newer versions of its installer engine. It is likely that some software that the customer installed recently introduced a flawed version of the InstallShield program.

Best regards, Major H

MajorH at satx.rr.com

What is the motives to design TacOps

1. What is the motives to design TacOps?
1.

What is the motives to design TacOps?

A strong desire to not have an ordinary job *g*.

CODE SECTION

1. What language did you write TacOps in?
2. I cut my game designing teeth studying RED STAR/WHITE STAR...
3. I just wonder how you have time to do any new development when you make so many improvements to the old product.
1.

What language did you write TacOps in?

Mac version was done in C using Symantek Think C development System. Windows version was done for the Windows 3.1x environment in C using Microsoft Visual C/C++ v1.x development system. I am transitioning to Codewarrior C++ for Mac coding and Windows 95 and Microsoft Visual C++ v4.x for my future games.

2.

I cut my game designing teeth studying RED STAR/WHITE STAR...

Check the instructions for RED STAR/WHITE STAR - you will find a Lt Holdridge listed as a play tester *g* - my only game credit *g*.

3.

I just wonder how you have time to do any new development when you make so many improvements to the old product.

I don't consider TacOps to be an "old product" *g*. I don't subscribe to the practice of dumping a game on the market, selling it for six months, and then forgetting about it. I think games in the wargaming market have the potential for selling for a very long time if they are maintained. The real problem with keeping game titles available may be the current chain store practice of refusing to stock games the instant that they stop flying off the shelf. Perhaps game companies just need to adjust their distribution scheme so that an affordable way can be established to keep the games available longer for those with the interest to look for them - like with direct mail *g*.

TACOPS BATTLE BOOK

1. could you give a small list of each weapon? For instance, "LAV 25: A light armored recon vehicle, used to outflank the enemy on the sides....."
1.

could you give a small list of each weapon? For instance, "LAV 25: A light armored recon vehicle, used to outflank the enemy on the sides....."

Will be in the TacOps Battle Book [1] when it is published this summer. Production costs and falling street price for wargames kept us from including detailed material like this in the printed user guide that comes with the game. Lots of people ask for such detailed info but most are unwilling to pay for it *g*.

MISC SECTION

1. When was the ORIGINAL release of TacOps?
2. Will we ever see more than the 20 player limit on the retail version?
3. Can you tell me what TacOpsCav stands for?
4. I don't have a concept of 'Battalion' or 'company'. How many companies make up a battalion etc..
5. Speaking of acceptable losses, that is the one thing about TacOps that doesn't seem very credible. Would any commander, US or any other, actually consider exiting a battlefield with only 20% of their original force a victory? Wouldn't most commanders simply abort any mission that is obviously leading to such a great toll? ... these scenarios all seem like suicide missions for both sides.
6. Wouldn't most commanders simply abort any mission that is obviously leading to such a great toll?
1.

When was the ORIGINAL release of TacOps?

TacOps v0.0 for Macintosh was released by Arsenal Publishing in early 1994 (January, I think).

TacOps v1.x for Windows was released by Arsenal Publishing in early 1996 (March, I think). So we are now past the tenth anniversary of TacOps.

2.

Will we ever see more than the 20 player limit on the retail version?

Not unless I abandon the sale of military versions. So long as I am doing military work there needs to be some significant difference between the retail version and the military versions. Without a significant difference I could easily find myself forbidden to sell the retail version. The 20 player limit was the least obtrusive thing that I could come up with that I thought would stand up as a significant difference.

3.

Can you tell me what TacOpsCav stands for?

Officially "TacOpsCav" is just a product name and has no expanded meaning. However, most English speakers would interpret it as being an abbreviation for "Tactical Operations - Cavalry". The Armor School at Fort Knox (actually the 16th Cavalry Regiment) purchased an internal TacOps duplication and distribution license on behalf of the U.S. Army for a military version of "TacOps". The tankers wanted to add "Cav" to the product name for their edition of TacOps and I did not object, although I did point out to them that doing so would likely irritate the other branches of the U.S. Army. :)

4.

I don't have a concept of 'Battalion' or 'company'. How many companies make up a battalion etc..

The following is a rough approximation that is useful for most modern armies, but it is not absolute.

Team. As a crew served weapon team, can be 2 to 5 men working together to employ a crew served weapon. As part of a squad, can be 3 to 5 men armed with rifles and machine guns and light anti tank weapons.

Squad. Two or three teams make a squad. 9 to 15 men armed with rifles, machine guns, and light anti tank weapons. Commanded by a corporal or a sergeant.

Platoon. 3 or 4 infantry squads make a platoon. 3 to 5 vehicles make a platoon. Commanded by a sergeant or a lieutenant.

Company. 3 or 4 platoons make a company. 10 to 15 vehicles make a company. Companies often have additional heavy weapons like mortars, machine guns, and larger anti tank weapons. Commanded by a lieutenant, captain, or major.

Battalion. 3 to 5 companies make a battalion. Some companies may be infantry, some may be tanks. Battalions often have additional vehicles, more heavy weapons, headquarters troops, more communications, artillery maybe, etc. Commanded by a major or a lieutenant colonel. Can function for days or weeks as a largely independent unit.

Regiment (often called a Brigade). 2 to 5 battalions make a regiment. Some battalions may be infantry, some may be tanks, some may be artillery. Can function for weeks or months as a largely independent unit.

Division (sometimes small divisions are also called Brigades). 2 or more Regiments/Brigades make a division. Usually includes some of everything available to a given nationality. Can function indefinitely as a largely independent unit.

Corps. Several divisions. Only the largest of modern countries have more than a couple of Corps.

Army. Several Corps.

5.

Speaking of acceptable losses, that is the one thing about TacOps that doesn't seem very credible. Would any commander, US or any other, actually consider exiting a battlefield with only 20% of their original force a victory? Wouldn't most commanders simply abort any mission that is obviously leading to such a great toll? ... these scenarios all seem like suicide missions for both sides.

Depends on the situation. There are plenty of examples in WWII in the Pacific amphibious landings in which some US company sized units were down to 20% within 24 to 48 hours of getting off the boat. Japanese units in the Pacific often fought to a 100% casualty level without surrendering or backing off. The former Soviet Union did not sustain 25 million casualties in WWII by quitting every time they were attrited by 20 or 30 %.

As a game, TacOps needs to offer a "gaming experience" in order to be commercially successful. In order for a scenario to be a "game" both sides need to have a reasonable chance of winning. Still, in a situation (game wise or in the real world) in which either force can win, and the mission is paramount for both sides then casualties are likely to be heavy.

6.

Wouldn't most commanders simply abort any mission that is obviously leading to such a great toll?

In the real world, quitting an assigned combat mission is not generally a "simple" decision. Lets say you are the Bravo Company commander and your company is in the center of a battalion advance. Would you appreciate the Alpha or Charley Company commanders "simply" deciding to pull out of a fight due to heavy casualties thus leaving your flanks open and inviting the annihilation of your company? The same concept applies to battalion, brigades, divisions, etc.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

1. I insist you add 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' as an option.
1.

I insist you add 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' as an option.

I doubt that I will ever add 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'' as I still see no gaming point in them being present in a tactical game of engagements lasting only a few hours.

CHEAPSHOT SECTION

1. The units look like very thin paper counters in a board wargame. It's sort of hard to believe that these graphics would be offered in a game released in 1998.
1.

The units look like very thin paper counters in a board wargame. It's sort of hard to believe that these graphics would be offered in a game released in 1998.

I don't remember getting a memo from the game gestapo indicating that traditional square unit markers could not be used in computer games anymore after a certain date *g*. I think that traditional square or oval unit markers are more useful for communicating game relevant information in a crowded environment than photo realistic markers. I intend to continue using the traditional marker format in my stuff.

MAJOR H SECTION

1. what did you do in the Marines?
1.

what did you do in the Marines?

I was enlisted for four years. After commissioning I was an infantry officer for five years then I switched to intelligence where I stayed for eleven years.

EMAIL MAJOR H

1. I realize you can't answer all your mail personally.
1.

I realize you can't answer all your mail personally.

Sure I can - besides there isn't anyone else to do it *g*.

RESOURCES SECTION

1. What resources are out there for TacOps enthusiasts? I google'd but mostly got MODs for FPS and such.
1.

What resources are out there for TacOps enthusiasts? I google'd but mostly got MODs for FPS and such.

99% of the hits that you will get by searching on "TacOps" are for Infogrames' "Tactical Operations - Assault on Terror". That game was originally going to be released as "TacOps Assault on Terror" but in the end Infogrames reasonably agreed to change to "Tactical Operations" and to refrain from using "TacOps" in any materials that they had control over. Unfortunately the TO-AOT fans/users went ahead and shortened the title to "TacOps" anyway. Realistically there isn't much that I can do about the wrongful usage by the AOT fans. I do check the net periodically in hopes of finding someone out there who is identifiable and who has enough money to make it worthwhile to sue them. Same with the warez/piracy sites.

The most useful links for "the real" TacOps are below.

The TacOps forum at Battlefront.com ...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi

DO I NEED TO BUY ANOTHER COPY SECTION

1. I have a question about the TacOps license: My family has a "family" computer; I also have my own. Does the "family" computer qualify as the "second computer" mentioned in the license?
1.

I have a question about the TacOps license: My family has a "family" computer; I also have my own. Does the "family" computer qualify as the "second computer" mentioned in the license?

Yes - or third or fourth or however many you have. You may install TacOp4 on all computers in your home and even put a copy on your laptop and take it to work- without guilt. :) It doesn't seem right to me to try to force ordinary users into buying more than one copy for their own personal use in a multi computer household. I trust that most folks will not abuse the lack of copy protection in TacOps. I only ask that if your friends want a copy then they should buy their own.

:)

1. Have you ever considered consolidating questions by topic (e.g., it seems like there's a "when is PZE/Windoze/etc. due out?" questions in each issue.)
1.

Have you ever considered consolidating questions by topic (e.g., it seems like there's a "when is PZE/Windoze/etc. due out?" questions in each issue.)

Too much work. I just barely get the Gazette out once in a while with the current shotgun approach *grin*. Think of as more of a weekly digest of my better email than as a magazine/newsletter.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SECTION

1. But what if ...
1.

But what if ...

Damn the "what ifs", full speed ahead! :)

Have Abstraction. Will travel.

Wire MajorH in San Antonio.

Tacops usage chapter

NEWBIE SECTION

1. what scenarios would people recommend I start with and then progress?
2. How does one use combined arms to mount an effective force?
3. I'm a new player and would like to learn the game in the most efficient manner.
4. I was wondering if there are some less difficult scenarios than TF Gallagher? I am not a grognard, but I really love the TacOps game system. I just want to work up to a scenario with so many units to worry about. Can you suggest which scenarios I should tackle first?
1.

what scenarios would people recommend I start with and then progress?

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

  • I find that defensive situations are a bit easier to start with. So are the smaller Team scenarios.

  • For selection.

    • The US Army is the easiest

    • The Marines need a bit more skill.

    • The Canadians are more challenging, (more limited anti-armor weapons.

You will find that there are parallel situations for all three forces. The Major tried to get similar sorts of names, but not always.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS.

My suggestion for a good starting scenario is

Team Sposito. It's a rear-guard action and short.

Team Meyers. A straight-forward defensive action.

Team O'Hara. A more challenging defensive action.

Team Hall. Armored attack. Can be a bit tricky to win, but helps train in overwatch techniques.

Team Hill. Combined arms, small. Be careful.

Team Cahoon. Combined arms. Larger, but with time pressure.

Avoid:

Team Krempp and its MC equivalent (Can't This pair is nearly impossible to win, because it was designed and balanced before improved positions were made stronger.

2.

How does one use combined arms to mount an effective force?

On the defensive, you want to arrange your weapons to cover approaches, but without making them visible from too many places. That way you don't get overwhelmed by return fire. Use missiles to strike at long range and tank guns in closer. Infantry needs to be in dense covering terrain (such as woods or towns).

On the attack, don't move too quickly. Make sure that you have long- ranged weapons in covering positions before crossing open areas. Also, make sure that when you appear, you do it in some force, instead of piecemeal (except perhaps for recon), since you want to have enough guys around to shoot back when your lead vehicle gets blown up.

Artillery is another item that needs to be used. Here it helps to have the accuracy built up.

3.

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 .

4.

I was wondering if there are some less difficult scenarios than TF Gallagher? I am not a grognard, but I really love the TacOps game system. I just want to work up to a scenario with so many units to worry about. Can you suggest which scenarios I should tackle first?

Any scenario whose name starts with "Team". Team scenarios usually involve engagements where at least the US side is below battalion size. "Task Force" scenarios usually feature a US side of battalion size and above.

The following info might be helpful...

Map001 Basic Training Task Force Craig Task Force DeGoey Task Force Frolik Task Force Gallagher Task Force Gebhard Task Force Harper Task Force Henson Task Force Kincaid Task Force Low Task Force Stubblefield Team Savage Capture the Flag Army Capture the Flag Tanks Capture the Flag USMC Map002 Team McMains Team Meyers Map003 Team Slocomb Team Sposito Map004 Team Hill Team Murray Map005 Team Hall Map006 Team Krempp Map007 Team Cahoon Team Minamora Map008 Task Force Pucci Task Force Waring Map009 Team Ostle Team O'Hara Map 100

Freebie map for use with custom scenario templates. Not currently used by any regular scenario.

The following scenarios allow the user to choose any map.

Custom Scenario Canada Custom Scenario US Army Custom Scenario USMC

Automatically select next unit?

1. I recall there was a way to sequentially select units in TacOps (by pushing a key). Do I remember right and if I do, which one is it?
1.

I recall there was a way to sequentially select units in TacOps (by pushing a key). Do I remember right and if I do, which one is it?

There is no such feature in TacOps.[1]

SHORTCUTS

1. Is there anyway to paste to a lot of units at once, like when you have multiple units at the same place, entering the board?
1.

Is there anyway to paste to a lot of units at once, like when you have multiple units at the same place, entering the board?

Yes. Say you have already given orders to a leading unit and you have its orders window open. Do Copy and then close that unit's orders window. Drag a selection rectangle around (lasso) the units that you want to paste to - they will be highligted. Do Paste. The orders in memory will be pasted into every "selected" unit. You can also select multiple units for pasting by holding down the shift key and clicking on the units you want to select.

Copy, paste, and group selection now work in TacOps pretty much the same way as they do in most "paint" programs and on the Mac destop.

LOS SECTION

1. If a unit is spotted by a helicopter or UAV, or I guess any friendly unit, does that raise the chance that it will be spotted by all other friendly units as well?
1.

If a unit is spotted by a helicopter or UAV, or I guess any friendly unit, does that raise the chance that it will be spotted by all other friendly units as well?

Yes. An enemy unit that is spotted by one friendly unit is spotted by all friendly units of the same color. However, that does not mean that every friendly unit that is capable of shooting at that enemy unit will choose to do so. Spotting is very transient and is linked as much to target activity as it is to visibility and line of sight (assuming a clear line of sight). In other words spotting can often be lost if a target unit stops moving and shooting. That is why firefights sometimes seem to fade away even though all the participating units are in the same stationary positions and then ramp up again when somebody moves.

1. If I have a counter with 4 tanks, that counter makes one spotting check for all four tanks, correct?
2. And if one tank fires at a target, that counts towards raising the chance of a hit for the remaining 3 tanks in the counter, correct?
3. ... regarding spotting ... are vehicles more/less visible when on different terrain types, or are only terrain features taken into account here?
4. In the limited number of scenarios I've played, I've noticed that troops at level one tend to treat ground at level zero as 'out of view'. Is this the sim, or just my inexperience? If not it tends to give the lie to 'Take the High Ground'!
5. One problem (bug perhaps Major?) is that if an OPFOR unit doesn't actually have smoke ON it, it will shoot at the helo's even if they don't really have an LOS. For example, I dropped smoke all across the "southern" side of the base and left the northern end open. Although the ZU's and SA-16 units had no LOS to the south, they still managed to take out my entire landing force. Be warned!
6. I don't understand how to pin the LOS check to a unit. When you click on a unit to select it, the Unit Orders Window is displayed and the Map Menu containing the LOS check is "grayed out" making it inaccessible. What am I doing wrong?
7. About LOS, how far can units see out of woods? I've had units that are right on the edge of a wood and yet they could still not see out of it and when I used the LOS tool, it showed a blocked LOS from the unit to the area outside of the woods.
8. LOS and Aircraft?
9. I placed a ZSU-23 on a terrain object {building} and I later fired at it from a NOE position behind a group of trees. The LOS checker found it to be out of LOS as did the Thermal LOS check.
10. On a related note, it would be nice if a single click on a unit concurrent with a depressed "L" key would initiate a LOS check for a particular unit. I have gotten burned by missing a unit's center pixel, and then wrongly believing that that unit could cover a part of my operation. I know that I should be more careful, but when dealing with so many unit markers over a period of 120 scale minutes such a feature would be neat.
11. Highlight all places on the map that are visible from that unit.
1.

If I have a counter with 4 tanks, that counter makes one spotting check for all four tanks, correct?

Yes and no. There is a gross spotting check that only happens once per friendly marker per 15 second pulse. This check has no random factors so there is no reason to repeat it for each strength point in the marker. If the gross spotting check reveals an enemy unit then there is a targeting or acquisition check that is done by each strength point in the marker.

2.

And if one tank fires at a target, that counts towards raising the chance of a hit for the remaining 3 tanks in the counter, correct?

Yes but not until the next 15 second pulse.

3.

... regarding spotting ... are vehicles more/less visible when on different terrain types, or are only terrain features taken into account here?

The rougher the terrain the less visible are all units (more relevant before they start moving or firing, less relevant after) - also harder to spot, and harder to hit by direct fire. Woods or town adds an additional reduction to that provided by any present roughness level.

4.

In the limited number of scenarios I've played, I've noticed that troops at level one tend to treat ground at level zero as 'out of view'. Is this the sim, or just my inexperience? If not it tends to give the lie to 'Take the High Ground'!

The outermost 100 meters of high ground, woods, and town terrain (ten pixels plus or minus a pixel or two) provide a dual spotting zone. In the case of high ground it relates to the ability to see from the high ground down to low ground. In the case of woods and town terrain it relates to seeing out. From the first or outermost 100 meters above the contour line a unit can see both all otherwise unblocked high ground and all otherwise unblocked low ground. If the unit backs away from this 100 meter buffer, then it will only be able to see units that are on high ground. If it crosses the contour - headed downhill - then it will only be able to see units that are either on low ground or that are themselves right next to a high ground contour. In the outermost 100 meters of woods and town terrain you can see and shoot out of the woods and town but your visibility to the enemy is greatly reduced (until you fire). For visualizing LOS, you need to key on the center point of the unit marker. If you are "in the zone" and if you are using one of the larger marker sets, a lot of the unit marker will appear to actually be out of the woods. Again, it is where the center point of the marker is that is important for LOS.

5.

One problem (bug perhaps Major?) is that if an OPFOR unit doesn't actually have smoke ON it, it will shoot at the helo's even if they don't really have an LOS. For example, I dropped smoke all across the "southern" side of the base and left the northern end open. Although the ZU's and SA-16 units had no LOS to the south, they still managed to take out my entire landing force. Be warned!

Not a bug. (1) From point A to point B, LOS between a ground unit and a helicopter can be different from what it would be from a ground unit to a ground unit - depends on the altitude of the helicopter. The LOS tool only shows ground to ground LOS unless you pin it as originating from a helo unit. (2) Some weapons have thermal sights (ie. the SA-16 SAM) which see through smoke.

6.

I don't understand how to pin the LOS check to a unit. When you click on a unit to select it, the Unit Orders Window is displayed and the Map Menu containing the LOS check is "grayed out" making it inaccessible. What am I doing wrong?

To "pin" the line of sight tool to a specific unit you must select the unit in a way that does not trigger the opening of its unit orders window. You can do this two ways.

Hold down the shift key as you click on a unit marker - this will "highlight" the unit marker without opening its orders window. Now select the LOS tool menu item.

Or ...

Click on empty map some distance away from the marker, hold down the left mouse button, and "drag out" a selection rectangle that includes the unit - this will "highlight" the unit marker rather than open its orders window. Now select the LOS tool menu item.

7.

About LOS, how far can units see out of woods? I've had units that are right on the edge of a wood and yet they could still not see out of it and when I used the LOS tool, it showed a blocked LOS from the unit to the area outside of the woods.

The outermost 100 meters of woods and town terrain (ten pixels plus or minus a pixel or two) provide the dual spotting zone - i.e. you can see and shoot out of the woods and town but your visibility to the enemy is greatly reduced (until you fire). For visualizing LOS, you need to key on the center point of the unit marker. If you are "in the zone" and if you are using one of the larger marker sets, a lot of the unit marker will appear to actually be out of the woods.

A similar effect occurs in the outermost 100 meters of high ground terrain. In the first 100 meters above the contour line a unit can see both all otherwise unblocked high ground and all otherwise unblocked low ground. If the unit backs away from this 100 meter buffer, then it will only be able to see units that are on high ground. If it crosses the contour - headed downhill then it will only be able to see units that are either on low ground or that are themselves right next to a high ground contour.

Again, it is where the center point of the marker is that is important for LOS. After a few games you will get used to the dual zones and you will find that you don't need to use the LOS tool so much to confirm things.

8.

LOS and Aircraft?

Rule: A clear LOS from any anti air weapon is assumed to exist to a fixed wing airstrike or to a helicopter at medium altitude unless there is woods or town terrain or a smoke cloud within 125 meters of the SAM and that terrain or smoke cloud is directly between the SAM and the fixed wing or helo target.

9.

I placed a ZSU-23 on a terrain object {building} and I later fired at it from a NOE position behind a group of trees. The LOS checker found it to be out of LOS as did the Thermal LOS check.

Not a bug. The helo that was doing the shooting was positioned over a cell of town terrain with the town terrain being at elevation 0. The helo was at NOE but NOE when over woods and town is one elevation level higher than that terrain. For LOS purposes the helo was actually at elevation 1. When you use the LOS tool in the normal fashion it doesn't know that you are clicking on a helo. It assumes that you are checking ground level to ground level. Therefore you got a result of blocked line of sight. Try selecting the helo unit before triggering the LOS check. This will pin the LOS check to the helo and you will get a true reading.

10.

On a related note, it would be nice if a single click on a unit concurrent with a depressed "L" key would initiate a LOS check for a particular unit. I have gotten burned by missing a unit's center pixel, and then wrongly believing that that unit could cover a part of my operation. I know that I should be more careful, but when dealing with so many unit markers over a period of 120 scale minutes such a feature would be neat.

Hold down the shift key with your left hand, click on a unit with your right hand - the unit will be selected/highlighted - release the shift key, release the mouse button and do a Command L you will get a LOS cross hair that is pinned as originating from the exact center point of the selected unit.

11.

Highlight all places on the map that are visible from that unit.

The last time I tried to code this, the number crunching involved slowed the function so much on most Macs that I didn't feel anyone would use the feature more than once *grin*.[2]

THERMAL SECTION

1. I tried the set thermals to 0000, but it gives me the message saying that thermal range can't be less than normal range.
1.

I tried the set thermals to 0000, but it gives me the message saying that thermal range can't be less than normal range.

You can not set thermals to be lower than whatever the current 'eyesight' setting is. Try first reducing the eyesight setting and then change the thermal setting.

UNIT FACING SECTION

1. I think that entrenched or defiladed units should automatically face a unit which is attacking them, or at least this should be an option in SOP orders or preferences.
1.

I think that entrenched or defiladed units should automatically face a unit which is attacking them, or at least this should be an option in SOP orders or preferences.

Automatic facing would be a little beyond the scale of TacOps - a TacOps turn only represents 60 seconds of real time. Allowing the computer to decide facing would also probably bother a lot of players who might not appreciate an armored unit repositioning its front against fire from a dismounted rifle team that occurred early in a combat phase and thereby exposing its flank to the fire of a larger antiarmor weapon that occurred later in a combat phase.

SOP SECTION

1. By the same token I took your advice and set the SOP for most of my units to back up 200m when they receive enemy fire. The problem is every time they get attacked they don't back up. When I check the SOP the button to back up is not highlighted anymore.
1.

By the same token I took your advice and set the SOP for most of my units to back up 200m when they receive enemy fire. The problem is every time they get attacked they don't back up. When I check the SOP the button to back up is not highlighted anymore.

They should begin to move back right after they are fired on but they may not cover very much ground before the 60 second turn is over. Also, whenever a unit executes an SOP order, that SOP setting is cleared so it would be proper for the buttons to be unchecked the next time you look at them if the unit did start to execute an SOP order.

UNITS SPLITTING DOESN WORK RIGHT

1. This still bothers me and it has never been reported. When splitting APCs with infantry loaded, all the infantry is off-loaded. I feel this is incorrect. If the intent is to split two or three APCs down to individual vehicles, the result should not be to unload infantry contained within the APCs. Does this happen in the Mac version? If it does, it should be corrected there also.
1.

This still bothers me and it has never been reported. When splitting APCs with infantry loaded, all the infantry is off-loaded. I feel this is incorrect. If the intent is to split two or three APCs down to individual vehicles, the result should not be to unload infantry contained within the APCs. Does this happen in the Mac version? If it does, it should be corrected there also.

This is correct program behavior. The program does not really know what is loaded in each APC. It only knows the totals of the cargo units being carried by the marker. I won't bore you with all the difficulties involved with doing automatic splitting, but I'll give you a couple of typical examples of major problems.

Say you have an AAV marker that represents 11 vehicles. Embarked in the AAV marker are 9hrifle squads, 6 machine gun teams, 8 Javelin teams, 4 60mm mortars, and 2 stingers. You split off one unit. How can the computer automatically figure out what part of the total load you want to be in the split off AAV?

Now, assume that the computer did do some sort of automatic distribution of troops when you split a marker. In the above situation you would likely be very interested in which of the new markers had the javelins or some other weapon. You would probably feel compelled to open every marker to reassure yourself about what was in what.

Now assume that you don't like the computer's division. Now you are in a situation of having to unload all the markers, do dozens and dozens of splits, joins and reloads to get exactly the mix and loading that you want.

The current approach provides the least number of mouse clicks to get back to where you want to be.

ELEVATION SECTION

1. .. as bad as having the current pancake elevation model for terrain. Major H, PLEASE fix this.
2. LOS/elevation - right now the way TacOps handles elevation makes it pretty useless for taking advantage of high ground, etc.
3. Is there a way to get elevation data of different points on the map? It would be helpful to be able to point the mouse and get elevation data.
1.

.. as bad as having the current pancake elevation model for terrain. Major H, PLEASE fix this.

And the arrows just keep falling .... The pancake terrain with a100 meter dual visibility zone at the contour was a gaming generalization that was critically required in order for TacOps to work at a reasonable speed on older Macs. With the demise of the MacPlus and the Mac Classic, I can now move to a more sophisticated terrain model for Panzers East and TacOps II. However and harumph, I will not be "fixing" it, because I don't consider the pancake terrain representation to be broken :). It was an elegant solution to a problem that fortunately does not exist anymore and it works the way I intended it to work.

2.

LOS/elevation - right now the way TacOps handles elevation makes it pretty useless for taking advantage of high ground, etc.

Not entirely - the basic tactical concepts are supported. The current TacOps approach demonstrates the primary concepts of high ground - i.e. if you are on the edge or forward slope of high ground then you can see and shoot at targets that are on both low ground and high ground. If you back up too far "upslope" then you can't see the low ground anymore. Etc.

3.

Is there a way to get elevation data of different points on the map? It would be helpful to be able to point the mouse and get elevation data.

The line of sight tool is multipurpose. Select the Map/Line of Sight Check menu item and then drag the cursor around the map. If you look at the text line at the bottom of the screen you will see displayed the range from the point of origination to the cursor, the elevation of the terrain under the cursor, the type of terrain under the cursor, and the UTM coordinates of the point under the cursor.

WHY DIDNT MY UNIT FIRE SECTION

1. Why don't less capable weapons open up on what's normally too tough a target?
2. I believe I've read several messages from you saying that all things considered, when a moving vehicle meets a stationary vehicle that is hidden, the stationary vehicle will more often get the first shots in, and maybe even a 'surprise' pulse of shots. I've found this to be very untrue. In city or forest fighting, I've often had my units, armor and infantry, set to 500 meters/ 200 meters, and the OPFOR units that move into them almost always, I would say at least 80% of the time, get first shots. I almost never get surprise.
3. Also, there are times when my units will just sit there and get ruined without firing back...Any special reasons...
4. I have attached 3 saved game files. The LAV units at 030015 refuse to fire on the T80U at 024007.
5. Even when the T62 has clear LOS to the front of a M1A1 it won't fire (The OPFOR unit was not suppressed at the time and was not moving). I can see from the statistics that the 115mm+ DU gun on the T62M+ cannot penetrate at point blank range with a shot at the front or flank of the M1A1. It only has a chance if the M1A1 exposes its rear. But why won't it even attempt to fire? It seems that it could still knock of a track or damage the sights.
6. Is there a reason why SAM16's won't engage UAV's with missiles? I fly them right over, and they shoot at them with their machine guns! Does the UAV not emit enough heat to be detected? What is the best way to get rid of the pesky things as the OPFOR player?
1.

Why don't less capable weapons open up on what's normally too tough a target?

Because when I coded TacOps, I felt that doing so would produce a bad simulation and a bad game full of opportunities for players to use unrealistic tricks. I did not feel at the time that I could come up with automatic target selection routines that would generally make the best decision about what targets a unit should choose to engage. Consider the programming challenges involved in arbitrating what is the best target for a unit at any given moment. If units just fired at whatever was in front of them, regardless of their ability to hurt the target then you would see problems and tricks like the ones that follow. All one would have to do to protect a valuable unit would be to always put a less valuable unit in front of it. In a similar fashion one could protect a weakly armored unit by always putting a super heavy unit in front of it.

2.

I believe I've read several messages from you saying that all things considered, when a moving vehicle meets a stationary vehicle that is hidden, the stationary vehicle will more often get the first shots in, and maybe even a 'surprise' pulse of shots. I've found this to be very untrue. In city or forest fighting, I've often had my units, armor and infantry, set to 500 meters/ 200 meters, and the OPFOR units that move into them almost always, I would say at least 80% of the time, get first shots. I almost never get surprise.

It should work as I described for hidden, unspotted units. I just did several experiments with hidden M1 tanks in the edge of a wood (visible at 400m prior to firing) set to fire at 500 meters vs approaching T80s and I got first shots and "pulse of fire" surprise awards every time. I got a second pulse of surprise fire a couple of times. I think the problem is that you are setting your engagement limit too low. You especially might try not setting your vehicle engagement ranges so low. Vehicles are going to usually be spotted at 400 meters no matter what. An unsuppressed enemy vehicle can cover about 127 meters in 15 seconds (one movement pulse) in clear terrain and about 165 meters if on a road. If unsuppressed enemy vehicles are approaching your position in clear or road terrain, it is very possible that they might cover your 100 meter buffer between 500 and 400 meters in less than one 15 second pulse. In other words they might pass completely through such a small buffer and be close enough to where they can spot you before some or all of your guys get a chance to fire. Once one of your units is spotted, it is a toss up who gets to fire first and a unit that is spotted before it fires will seldom be awarded surprise fire.

3.

Also, there are times when my units will just sit there and get ruined without firing back...Any special reasons...

Maybe a unit has no weapons capable of killing the targets it can see at the instant. Maybe the targets are out of range. Maybe a unit is suppressed. Spotting and firing are not guaranteed to always happen even when units seem to be in plain sight of one another. Maybe those of your guys with a technical line of sight to targets momentarily stopped looking for some reason - like being hosed by enemy weapons or from the effects of a recent arty impact. Conceptually, the targets may have momentarily rolled through some irregularity in the terrain that caused them to disappear. Real terrain is not as regular as what a computer game map must be limited to - TacOps simulates the transient effects of minor, localized, irregular terrain by introducing random "holes" into the spotting probabilities. In TacOps there is always some chance that units will fail to spot or will fail to be spotted. It is entirely possible that a unit that was spotted and even fired on fifteen seconds ago, might not be spotted for firing purposes in the very next fifteen seconds, and even if it were respotted for firing purposes it is possible that no one would choose to shoot at it. Spotting that leads to a direct fire resolution by your units is not guaranteed in TacOps, regardless of what you as the player can see on the screen. What you see on thex screen at any given instant is generally the sum of all the views of all your units - a kind of slow frame rate movie. It does not indicate that all your units can see what you see. As a general rule, the more of your units that are present in a given isolated area, the less likely you are to see units blinking in and out of what seems to be plain sight. If you only have one or two squads in an area, you are likely to see a lot of enemy unit markers winking in and out of sight.

4.

I have attached 3 saved game files. The LAV units at 030015 refuse to fire on the T80U at 024007.

The LAVs in questions are LAV25s. Their strongest weapon is a 25mm chain gun. The chain gun is a kinetic energy weapon and has a maximum armor penetration capability of 70mm. The T80U tank has the following armor protection against kinetic energy weapons: front 500mm, side 185mm, rear 100mm. The chain gun can not penetrate/hurt the T80U so the LAVs do not fire.

5.

Even when the T62 has clear LOS to the front of a M1A1 it won't fire (The OPFOR unit was not suppressed at the time and was not moving). I can see from the statistics that the 115mm+ DU gun on the T62M+ cannot penetrate at point blank range with a shot at the front or flank of the M1A1. It only has a chance if the M1A1 exposes its rear. But why won't it even attempt to fire? It seems that it could still knock of a track or damage the sights.

In the current TacOps game engine, anti tank weapons do not fire at armored targets unless they have some chance of killing the target's vs it front, side, or rear armor - they do not attempt "track shots". I am dubious that very many tankers would expose themselves to almost certain death just to try to immobilize an enemy tank that is otherwise immune to their weapons.

6.

Is there a reason why SAM16's won't engage UAV's with missiles? I fly them right over, and they shoot at them with their machine guns! Does the UAV not emit enough heat to be detected? What is the best way to get rid of the pesky things as the OPFOR player?

In TacOps, SAMs will not engage UAVs. That is my current info - source was a reservist Stinger gunner.

WHY DID MY UNIT FIRE AT SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD OF WHAT I WANTED?!?

1. How do I tell units what to shoot and what not to shoot?
2. Further, is there anyway that you can keep the units from resetting their ranges? It seems that once I set the Abrams units to 2-2.5K initial ranges, the units reset it once the battle gets rolling, i.e. return to the unit and the range is reset to max.
3. I'm playing a little skirmish right now (Team Hill against Chris Scott) and my ATGM team went after some Bradleys when I chose them to go after the M1's.
4. Even if I didn't choose to prioritize the Abrams, shouldn't they be a bigger priority than the M3's?
1.

How do I tell units what to shoot and what not to shoot?

You might find that you could accomplish a lot of your specific targeting desires if study the subtleties of the hard and soft targeting priorities already allowed in the game. Setting a hard order, direct fire target reference point with a very tight radius is often extremely useful. See the User's Guide, pages 37 to 41

2.

Further, is there anyway that you can keep the units from resetting their ranges? It seems that once I set the Abrams units to 2-2.5K initial ranges, the units reset it once the battle gets rolling, i.e. return to the unit and the range is reset to max.

You can use the option key and the "Set DF TRP" button to set a hard priority target reference point that is centered on a unit. Hold down the option key as you click on the "Set DF TRP" button, when you get the crosshair cursor click on the center of a unit, then when the range limit window comes up enter 2500. Obviously this tends to work only for stationary units as a moving unit will rapidly move away from the DF TRP.

3.

I'm playing a little skirmish right now (Team Hill against Chris Scott) and my ATGM team went after some Bradleys when I chose them to go after the M1's.

Sounds like you gave them a "soft priority" order (yellow light). Hold down the option key as you give a priority order to give a "hard priority" order (red light).

4.

Even if I didn't choose to prioritize the Abrams, shouldn't they be a bigger priority than the M3's?

In TacOps, a unit will generally choose to shoot at the target that presents the biggest threat to it at the instant. Natural self defense/survival priorities do not always agree with what the player (who is out of harm's way *g*) would prefer. In order to override this, you must give "hard priority orders".

SOUNDS

1. Some of the sounds [in TacOps] do not seem like the sounds that would actually be heard in a real battle.
1.

Some of the sounds [in TacOps] do not seem like the sounds that would actually be heard in a real battle.

I think I know what you mean but I suspect that what you are really asking for is not more realistic sounds but rather sounds that are more like those heard on TV and in movies. I suspect you would not like the sounds that are heard in a real battle. Weapons and explosions in real life do not sound anything like they sound in movies and on TV. In general, real life weapon sounds are very short "pops", "thumps", and "cracks" and volume wise they are very uninspiring unless you are personally firing a weapon or you are within a few meters of an explosion - in the later two cases you fairly quickly go temporarily deaf and you don't really hear anything again for hours except a high pitched whistle or a sort of a tinny echo of what is going on around you *g*. Early in development, all the sounds in TacOps were perfectly realistic. The first playtesters all reported them to be "extremely boring" so I went in with some sound tools and I jazzed them up a bit - altered, amplified, echoed, etc. - until most of the playtesters were satisfied but not so far that I would be embarrassed with military professionals.

GAMEPLAY SECTION

1. I would like to be able to mass set firing ranges for all units or all units of a particular type (e.g. the ability to set all my M1A1's to 2000 meters in one button click). Copying and pasting ranges would be nice too.
2. In this last run through my M-60's [machine guns] refused to fire at specifically targeted units from their overwatch position around the 023008 grid position. They were targeted on a BTR in a improved position at 024018. This situation has occurred more than once, and it is bloody frustrating.
3. I have noticed during battle, I know I kill the enemy (or he kills me) but we keep shooting at each other until the end of the round before the unit exits. does the game check to see if after being shot, killed or not killed, before returning fire?
4. One way I have noticed this is my sniper group only has 1 person in it but shows more than one skull face while getting shot.
5. I've heard that the game is being used as a training aid in various armed forces. This would appear to indicate to me that it has a high degree of realism. Opinions?
6. ... TacOps is turn based ...
7. Can you change the map scale now (i.e., zoom in and out)?
8. It is kinda frustrating to those of us who know the real capabilities of the weapons being used in the game are not being accurately portrayed, If the were this game would provide an extremely valuable training tool for us small unit leaders trying to improve our tactical skills to stay alive on the modern battle field.
9. It is the opinion of myself as well as a small group of players that the kill ratio is unrealistic.
10. How do I unload one unit from an APC without unloading all of the units? I want to drop off a mortar crew, but if I unload it drops off everyone.
11. For that matter, how do I load all but the mortar back into the APC?
12. TacOps _is_ a squad level game, isn't it?
13. I noticed in Team Hall, during the setup phase, the OPFOR has many entrenchment icons. The program won't let me end the setup phase unless I place all the entrenchments. Is there a way for me to place only a portion, and discard the rest?
14. I thought (as per the rulebook) that the "Team" scenarios were all Army and that the "Task Force" scenarios were USMC.
15. I have taken part in several Warfighter exercises and have always wondered how the software was developed. How would you rate your game on realism?
16. IT WOULD BE COOL, IF I COULD HAVE ALIAS FOR EACH ID
17. I had two Abrams with vastly different amounts of ammo left. By simply joining them on one turn and unjoining them on the next, the ammo was equally distributed. ... I don't know how realistic this is. ...Is there any way to keep track of individual units after they have become joined so that this sort of redistribution doesn't take place?
18. Is a large unit more visible that a small one, all things being equal?
19. I find a bit disturbing to see units considerably larger on the map than the one pixel that serves a reference for visibility, protection, etc. This becomes even more surprising when a unit can hold a single Bradley or 15 M1A1.
20. ... how can you tell which way an enemy unit is facing ?
21. ...I've seen BMPs & M2s firing infantry weapons (5.56 mm) at targets. I assume that this is the on board infantry using the firing ports, but this is happening when there is no infantry on board.
22. is there any penalty to changing facing while under fire? ... I notice that the AI often doesn't do this, especially with units in emplacements
23. when multiple units are 'joined' and then one is completely killed off, how is the 'postmortum' ammunition distributed? If two Javelin teams with two missiles each 'join', then one team is completely eliminated, does the surviving team have two or four missiles?
24. Is there going to be a way to replay (or set a speed option) for the combat phase.
25. Game mechanics are astonishingly realistic. One rare exception is the two player, face-to-face game in which spotted units are displayed when neither player is giving orders. In my experience, players who see that they have been spotted are given an unrealistic cue about the presence of enemy forces. Obviously spotted units must be displayed during combat, but leaving them up between moves invites players to deduce enemy positions unrealistically.
26. I can set maximum firing range for a unit just fine. However, once it fires, this range is always increased to the maximum limit ...Why was it changed from the 0.0 version, which left the setting fixed unless the unit was fired on?
27. It appears that engagement range for units goes to max automatically when a unit is fired upon? If so, does that imply that any unit fired upon will return fire?
28. This last game, I gave orders to a SAM unit to make a long trek through the mountains, along a narrow shoreline along a river (being careful not to order it to touch the river itself) and out into open territory where it would have a better field of fire. I had forgotten all about it but 15 turns later I was expecting to see it in the clearing. Instead it was still by the river with zero orders. It was never seen or attacked at any time. What could have caused it to stop?
1.

I would like to be able to mass set firing ranges for all units or all units of a particular type (e.g. the ability to set all my M1A1's to 2000 meters in one button click). Copying and pasting ranges would be nice too.

Select a group of unit markers by dragging out a selection rectangle and or by "shift + click" on each desired marker. Then select the "Orders/Set Engagement Range" menu item. Enter the desired range and close the window. The range setting will be applied to only the selected markers.

2.

In this last run through my M-60's [machine guns] refused to fire at specifically targeted units from their overwatch position around the 023008 grid position. They were targeted on a BTR in a improved position at 024018. This situation has occurred more than once, and it is bloody frustrating.

This results from an abstraction currently used in TacOps to prevent units from firing on and wasting ammo on targets that can not be harmed. M60 machine guns probably can't hurt an entrenched BTR from the front due to the combat results tables, so in TacOps they don't fire at all. A game mechanism for allowing units to be able to optionally lay down suppressive fire or demonstration fire or searching fire is something that I continue to work on. Everyone should consider though that once I am able to implement this, you are just as likely to be on the receiving end of such fire as you are to be inflicting it *g* - after the change is made it may well turn out that in many if not most small arms firefights the end result will effectively be much like what the game engine portrays now. There will likely be at least one area of increased realism after the change - more firefights will be decided by one side simply running out of ammo. Obviously the side that is most likely to run out of ammo first will the side that chooses to frequently fire at area targets and or poorly spotted units.

3.

I have noticed during battle, I know I kill the enemy (or he kills me) but we keep shooting at each other until the end of the round before the unit exits. does the game check to see if after being shot, killed or not killed, before returning fire?

A one minute turn is divided into four direct fire pulses. Each pulse represents fifteen seconds of combat action. Although the game displays the fire pulse as if the markers are shooting consecutively (mainly so that the player can get a better idea of what is happening), the concept of the game logic is that the fire is actually taking place more or less simultaneously. Thus 'dead' units sometimes appear to continue firing briefly and it sometimes happens that two units kill each other in the same fire pulse. All 'dead' units are cleared at the end of each fifteen second pulse - a 'dead' unit will never be carried forward into the next fifteen second pulse.

4.

One way I have noticed this is my sniper group only has 1 person in it but shows more than one skull face while getting shot.

A unit can receive multiple 'killing hits' in a given fifteen second fire pulse.

5.

I've heard that the game is being used as a training aid in various armed forces. This would appear to indicate to me that it has a high degree of realism. Opinions?

TacOps has gotten good marks for realism except from some folks who are big fans of morale and restrictive command and control gaming concepts. As for the military users ... TacOps has had quite a few military buyers and continues to be of some interest in the military market due to its ability to work well on older computers. The New Zealand Army contracted in December 97 for an internal distribution license that will permit them to copy and issue TacOps Classic Edition v2.0.0 to every regular and reserve member of their Army. The US Marine Corps is supposedly in the process of contracting for a similar license (I'll believe it when I see the check *g*). Other militaries are currently evaluating the utility of such a license. Some schools and units in the Canadian Army, Australian Army, US Army, and US Marine Corps have used various earlier versions of TacOps in training courses for NCOs and junior officers to illustrate tactical principles and situations and to stimulate classroom discussion in tactical seminars. A US Army intelligence training course for junior officers used an earlier version to illustrate the build up of forces that would occur in a typical Soviet style, Motorized Rifle Regiment march to contact versus a mobile defense. A US Marine Corps infantry regiment has used TacOps to administer map exercises. The commander of a US Army armored battalion in Korea used an earlier version of TacOps in monthly training sessions for his NCOs and junior officers to illustrate tactical situations and to promote discussions on tactical principles and tactical problem solving. One or two Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) units have used TacOps to introduce high school students to tactical principles. A Canadian training mission to Jamaica recently used a version of TacOps to umpire a two or three day map exercise for junior officers/cadets. A US Army National Guard training unit has used a version to administer staff exercises for Reserve mech infantry battalions.

6.

... TacOps is turn based ...

That needs a bit of qualification *g*. When I hear 'turn based', I think of the traditional 'I go you go' system of board games. TacOps does not work that way. TacOps used (and TacOps98 will use) a modified turn based system. The game advances in one minute turns but movement and combat occur simultaneously for both players as does the giving of orders to the unit markers. The game pauses each minute to allow both players to enter unit movement orders and to fiddle with things like engagement ranges, priority of fires, call for air or arty support, etc. Once both players have finished their orders, the game runs one combat turn representing one minute. The units of both sides then move and fight simultaneously under computer control for one minute.

7.

Can you change the map scale now (i.e., zoom in and out)?

No.

8.

It is kinda frustrating to those of us who know the real capabilities of the weapons being used in the game are not being accurately portrayed, If the were this game would provide an extremely valuable training tool for us small unit leaders trying to improve our tactical skills to stay alive on the modern battle field.

I think the weapons that you have mentioned are quite accurately portrayed. You may be missing the real lesson *g* which is that under combat conditions, shooting doesn't always mean hitting and hitting doesn't always mean killing. A lot of good troops have died over the years because they wrongly assumed that an impressive explosion on a target meant that the target was dead.

9.

It is the opinion of myself as well as a small group of players that the kill ratio is unrealistic.

The kill ratio in TacOps may be unrealistic for the calm conditions of a garrison training range. I think it is reasonably realistic for combat conditions where gunners are tired and scared, where ammo and equipment has been bounced around for hours or days with little opportunity for care, cleaning, or boresighting, and where targets are not cooperative.

10.

How do I unload one unit from an APC without unloading all of the units? I want to drop off a mortar crew, but if I unload it drops off everyone.

You can not unload just one unit.

11.

For that matter, how do I load all but the mortar back into the APC?

During an orders phase, use the instant load button (rather than the delayed load button) in the Unit Orders Window.

12.

TacOps _is_ a squad level game, isn't it?

Not from my design perspective. In order for me to truthfully claim that the game was a squad level game, the combat results and game flow would need to be accurate down to each firing of one weapon and down to one scale second of time. In order for this to be true I would need to address (i.e. reduce averaging) many more combat and situational variables. For example, the facing and individual situation of every man in an infantry marker would need to be considered, the hull and turret facing of each individual vehicle in a multi vehicle marker would need to be addressed, artillery support in the game would need to be procedure oriented instead of effect oriented. These things would potentially force hundreds more mouse clicks on the user per orders phase. My design goal for TacOps was for the combat and movement results to be reasonably realistic at the Company/Platoon marker level when such results are averaged over a few turns (i.e. several scale minutes).

13.

I noticed in Team Hall, during the setup phase, the OPFOR has many entrenchment icons. The program won't let me end the setup phase unless I place all the entrenchments. Is there a way for me to place only a portion, and discard the rest?

Yes. Select the Options/Delete Units menu item or do Cntrl + X ... you will get a cross hair cursor ... click the cursor over the unit or object to be deleted - poof its goone.

14.

I thought (as per the rulebook) that the "Team" scenarios were all Army and that the "Task Force" scenarios were USMC.

Team and Task Force refer to the size of the US force in the scenario, not whether it is USMC or Army. "Team" scenarios are those in which the US force is less than battalion in size. "Task Force" scenarios have a US force equal to or larger than a battalion.

15.

I have taken part in several Warfighter exercises and have always wondered how the software was developed. How would you rate your game on realism?

I think the combat results at company and battalion level are reasonably realistic when averaged out over a period of several turns/several minutes. While in the Marine Corps I participated in a lot of CPXs that were not as realistic as a TacOps administered "recreational" CPX would be *g*.

16.

IT WOULD BE COOL, IF I COULD HAVE ALIAS FOR EACH ID

I have something like this in the command post exercise version of TacOps (a private hobby and research activity). In that version a player can optionally assign a text name of up to 15 characters to each unit marker - for example "1st Plt B Co". This may eventually get into the public game engine but I can not say for sure at present because it makes the unit records so much larger and thus greatly increases the amount of memory needed to play the larger scenarios.

17.

I had two Abrams with vastly different amounts of ammo left. By simply joining them on one turn and unjoining them on the next, the ammo was equally distributed. ... I don't know how realistic this is. ...Is there any way to keep track of individual units after they have become joined so that this sort of redistribution doesn't take place?

It is completely unrealistic - unfortunately there is no reasonable coding solution. Since the game is on a computer, obviously a way could be coded to keep track of individual units once they joined but the resultant cost in memory usage would in my opinion be prohibitive. The solution would be worse than the problem.

18.

Is a large unit more visible that a small one, all things being equal?

It should be but I can't implement this without creating a pressure on the player to break his units down to individual squads/vehicles. In order to maintain playability I have to try to keep the game engine from providing significant incentives to a player to break units down below platoon.

19.

I find a bit disturbing to see units considerably larger on the map than the one pixel that serves a reference for visibility, protection, etc. This becomes even more surprising when a unit can hold a single Bradley or 15 M1A1.

An unfortunate compromise that is required to keep the game playable.

20.

... how can you tell which way an enemy unit is facing ?

Use the Map/Change Unit Symbol Info menu item or its keyboard shortcut. Each time you select that menu item, the face of the markers will change. During the orders phase, the first time it is selected the marker faces will change to show which units have orders and which do not and which units have been opened during this orders phase. The second time it is selected the marker faces will change to show the direction that each unit is facing. The third time it is selected the markers will return to showing the normal unit type icon.

21.

...I've seen BMPs & M2s firing infantry weapons (5.56 mm) at targets. I assume that this is the on board infantry using the firing ports, but this is happening when there is no infantry on board.

Those are the small arms of the vehicle's crew. Usually you won't see crew firing small arms unless the vehicle is fighting at point blank range. If the vehicle was suppressed, the crewmen would not be so brave and efficient *g*. I usually add a rifle or two and a disposable rocket launcher to the data base entry for vehicles just to keep folks honest. Has surprised more than one player who lost an APC or a Tank to an RPG from what he thought was a harmless truck hiding in the woods *g*.

22.

is there any penalty to changing facing while under fire? ... I notice that the AI often doesn't do this, especially with units in emplacements

There is no penalty to changing facing while under fire.

23.

when multiple units are 'joined' and then one is completely killed off, how is the 'postmortum' ammunition distributed? If two Javelin teams with two missiles each 'join', then one team is completely eliminated, does the surviving team have two or four missiles?

The surviving team would have two missiles.

At the instant that one strength point of a given type of unit is completely eliminated (i.e. one squad, one team, or one vehicle) then all the ammo for that one strength point disappears. Example, say you have a marker representing three Javelin ATGM teams and that the three teams total 6men and 12 missiles. The team gets hits by arty and 2 men are killed - in this case since two men equal one Javelin team so a strength point is lost - in this case one strength point comprises one third of the unit marker. Therefore one third of the marker's ammo would be eliminated also. The marker would then show 2 teams with a total of 4 men and 8 missiles.

24.

Is there going to be a way to replay (or set a speed option) for the combat phase.

You can slow down the combat phase by using the File/Options/Change Combat Speed menu item. You can pause the combat phase at any time by touching the space bar. I continue to periodically work on a turn and or game replay option, but I have not yet been able to come up with a solution that does not create prohibitively huge "record" files for large scenarios.

25.

Game mechanics are astonishingly realistic. One rare exception is the two player, face-to-face game in which spotted units are displayed when neither player is giving orders. In my experience, players who see that they have been spotted are given an unrealistic cue about the presence of enemy forces. Obviously spotted units must be displayed during combat, but leaving them up between moves invites players to deduce enemy positions unrealistically.

I agree but I can think of no other way to handle two players on one computer. The main problem is that if units were only displayed when they were still spotted during the orders phase, then players would often miss the short sightings of units moving for a few seconds between cover. By the way, you don't see this effect (i.e. knowing when you have been spotted by hidden enemy units) in any other mode of TacOps play - it is only present in the two on one computer mode. In my opinion play in this mode is highly inferior to any other way of playing TacOps. The optimum game is two players on two networked computers.

26.

I can set maximum firing range for a unit just fine. However, once it fires, this range is always increased to the maximum limit ...Why was it changed from the 0.0 version, which left the setting fixed unless the unit was fired on?

Is not a bug ... is intentional. I am pretty sure that it has always been this way.

My reasoning on this item was that when a unit fires it is generally then usually spotted by all enemy units within 4000 meters that have good line of sight. Accordingly it is generally in the unit's best interest to go to its full range capability. To do otherwise would most often result in the unit getting return fire and not responding. I think the latter approach would cause much greater complaints *g*.

27.

It appears that engagement range for units goes to max automatically when a unit is fired upon? If so, does that imply that any unit fired upon will return fire?

Generally, yes - assuming the unit survives the volley and the usual spotting and readiness conditions are met.

28.

This last game, I gave orders to a SAM unit to make a long trek through the mountains, along a narrow shoreline along a river (being careful not to order it to touch the river itself) and out into open territory where it would have a better field of fire. I had forgotten all about it but 15 turns later I was expecting to see it in the clearing. Instead it was still by the river with zero orders. It was never seen or attacked at any time. What could have caused it to stop?

When non amphibious units move next to water and they find that they have a pending move order that will cause them to enter the water, they stop at the water's edge. They do not attempt to go around. Your situation was probably caused by a disconnect between what the map looks like and what is actually in the terrain data cell. Terrain is averaged into 100 meter cells (ten pixels) that underlay the map art. For artistic effect, the map drawing does not always show the exact trace of the terrain data cell - otherwise the map would be too blocky looking. Rivers are in fact always 100 meters wide to the game engine even if the map art makes them look narrower than that. So, while you could see ground in the map art along the water, it might be that a sliver of the ground is actually registering in the game as water. This is a limitation of the current game engine but it is not a bug. You can use the line of sight tool to find the exact trace of terrain art. Move the line of sight tool cursor around on the map and you will see text at the bottom of the screen that tells you how the game engine will interpret the terrain underneath the cursor.

AI Section

1. For the time being I stopped playing TACOPS. I feel I have been conned by someone's legerdemain with the AI.
2. Why isn't it possible to ply OPFOR against US-Computer ?
3. Question about AI for ya, Major H... at the start of a game, does the AI have a list of differnt tactics to use? Or does it just 'go with the flow', so to speak, and just react to the US' actions?
4. If OPFOR is supposed to be attacking and exit a percentage, will it go into the defensive if it is attacked first?
1.

For the time being I stopped playing TACOPS. I feel I have been conned by someone's legerdemain with the AI.

Misc notes on the AI/Computer opponent follow. Some are related to the gent's comments, some are just provided as additional info on how the AI works so that he could make a better decision about whether he had been "conned" or not *g*.

The AI has only two advantages not allowed to a human player and I think both of these are documented in either the manual or in the FAQ file. The AI gets a one level advantage in first salvo accuracy of observed artillery fire (but not air) and its APCs can pick up dismounted troops at a slightly greater distance than the human is allowed to. Both of these items were compromises that eliminated huge blocks of AI code and they do not significantly affect game outcome.

There are no secret tricks, frictions, or penalties assessed against the human player's force when playing against the AI (some games use such techniques to make the computer opponent seem more capable). I dislike such "AI cheats" in a computer game. I feel very strongly that things like spotting, observation, movement rates, unit capabilities, combat result tables, weapons probabilities and the like should work exactly the same in a solitaire game vs the computer opponent as they do when two humans are playing each other. If the game had different "logic rules" for the solitaire mode then the serious gamer could not confidently use that mode as a means to learn tactical lessons and hone tactical technique for his future games against humans.

In scenarios where the AI is mainly in the attack and the US is mainly on the defense. Before contact with US forces, the AI chooses a target list, a battle plan and routes that will accomplish its mission (if there is no US interference) from a roster of multiple different target lists, plans, and routes. As the OPFOR units make contact with US units, the AI task organizes its battalions and or companies and switches to reacting tactically to those contacts. As it successfully deals with contacts, it switches back to the primary battle plan or it may jump to a different battle plan. Usually the AI will try to aggressively clear obstacles to its battle plan with a combination of direct fire, indirect fire, and or direct assault. Sometimes it will move toward a US position and then quickly pull back in what looks like a series of probes or faltering attacks - in this case the AI is usually trying to draw fire to expose targets for air or arty attack. Sometimes it will assume a temporary defensive posture. Sometimes it will halt or mill around a bit to see what happens if it does little or nothing. Sometimes the AI will put single unit markers or small groups of markers in a "stay behind", "watch", or "reserve" mode - such units may or may not ever move again.

Typically when the AI is in the attack, it may react to incoming arty, even adjusting fire, by dispersing its march and or attack formation. When in the defense the AI typically just "hunkers down" under arty fire.

A big reason why the AI often gets very good use out of its air and arty assets is that it maintains a running target list just as a good human player would. The target list contains recent US unit positions that were legally acquired by spotting and it contains points on the map that would be good places for the US player to use in a given scenario. If the AI is in the attack, the target list also includes terrain points that would make good US defensive positions . At the end of each combat phase, the AI plans its orders for the next turn just as the human player does. The AI looks at its target list and it usually selects arty and air targets based on the most recent spottings of valuable US units. If it doesn't have any solid unit spottings to work with, then it will randomly target nearby terrain that would make good US attack or defensive positions. The AI also notices when it gets secondary explosions and may decide to "stick" to an area for several turns.

Here is how the AI does its thing with calling in air strikes (arty is handled similarly). During each combat phase the AI makes mental notes about points on the map where it legally spotted your units - same as a good human player does. In the case of moving units, it also projects and records where the unit could be in a minute or so based on its speed and its last legally observed direction of movement. I call this maintaining a target list. During the next orders phase the AI plans its orders based on its target list, again based on what it legally saw during previous combat phases - same as the human player does. The first time it spots valuable units it will probably target some or all of them with air and arty up to the limits of its legally available assets. AI OPFOR air gets no time advantage over a human player. During the four to eight combat turns that must pass before the AI's air arrives on the map, the AI continues maintaining and considering its target list of legally spotted units. The AI is allowed to shift ongoing air and arty missions the same distance per turn as the human player is allowed to. Thus as time passes and the AI gains and