rich4421972

I certainly do, but I hesitate, because I have no connection to any of the armed forces modeled in the game. IMHO, this makes me a weaker opponent. TacOps really shines for those who are able to organize coordinated attacks between helos, jeeps and artillery with the absolute minimum loss of life. I have PBEM'ed games against players who were active-duty military and they became frustrated that so many of my soldiers were dying while the larger tank units performed most of the aggressive action against the opponent. I don't know that the alternate maps are the best place to start. Most of the solitaire battles are almost perfectly balanced(though the Canadian forces are a bit more challenging)

I just purchased this program and have been enjoying its versatility, but one of the advertised features were the inclusion of campaigns for the Eastern Font milieu. Now, the online resources do offer a basic campaign generator and the basisic ability to play with users around the entire world. Where are these Eastern campaigns and where do I get them? Anyway thanks for a great game. Richard

If a new verisimilitude is added by the engineering works, hopefully there will be a quick "engineering tutorial" for those players who have not experienced JANUS or who have never been engineers themselves. Otherwise, check out http://www.prosimco.com for a series of great tutorials on how to breach an obstacle using Army Engineering techniques. This site is provided by Capt. Patrick Proctor of the USA Army Field Artillery. It's pretty neat. It is the site of a competing product to TacOps, but I thought some folks may want to look. [ July 03, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

I must apologize for my lack of knowledge on this and other subjects. I know it must drive you guys crazy to hear my ingenuous questions. It takes alot of class to answer so copiously, as you all have done. I have learned so much since I first posted a message here long ago. I really appreciate your answers even if you feel like you are talking to a simpleton. I'll be glad to see the new dozer capabilities at work in the "new" M113 E/PNR! Thanks [ June 30, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

OK, I'll assume it is classified. I was playing Flight Commander 2 the other day (another abandoned battlefront game) and I noticed the presence of the f-18E and F-15E as options for multi-role fighters. Up here in Seattle, Boeing-McDonnell makes quite a big stir whenever one of these planes is sold to the Navy or Air Force because of their complex electronics. I asked the above question because I thought that the "E" in M113E was analogous to the "E" in EF-111, F-18E or F-15E (all electronic counter-measures platforms). Somehow it made sense to me that engineering units would be equipped with some electromnic stuff. Now I realize that a plane is not a tracked vehicle!

I have a question about the above-named unit. It is used in the Canadian scenario "Combat Team Dingman," an MTC where the BLUFOR attempts to track down a small belligerant nation and then exit 34% of the original force across the Eastern border. What does the "E" designate? For example, if it denotes "Engineer," then is this M113 just the same as any other? If the "E" denotes "electronic," doe this denote the presence of surveillance equipment or radar? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! Rich

I think it is still a good deal for the New Zealanders. In the U.S., we pay double for Canadian programs and services. I think that the economics of gaming are very complicated. Further, I think Battlefront.com knows what they are doing by doing by setting the price of intellectual property so low. It is low for TacOps, but that will be a hot item long after the current series of games are gone. I would like to say to you that this game will be better than TOAW which requires a very fast computer. TOAW is from a different wargaming paradigm than the stuff here. The mercantilist theory I mentioned above still applies to your situation b(i.e. $1 for the CD, $24 for the proprieter, $35 for tariffs, security and shipping). It's a wonderful world, isn't it? It's great to be alive, at least. Rich

Do any of you guys know what a common CD costs to produce? it is a mere 25 cents. On a high speed burner which Battlefront.com no doubt has, the price per game is 25 cents plus labor (which in this case is pressing a button that says "roast"). Any extra money belongs to the intellectual genius of the game itself. This one deserves your attention. If you think it is "lame" try reading an actual book and coding something yourself. You will soon see that intellectual property is always "underpriced." After all these put-downs, I hope you buy a copy! Rich

I was able to find the AU M113 with 76mm gun and thought that it was similar to this "Charles Gustav," but I wasn't sure what I was looking for. Now I know If the purpose of the unit is to draw fire an not necessarily to destroy hardened targets, I can see why Canada would use it. On the other hand, I think that neitherOttawa or Washington would ever send their bravest into battle with something that could get them hurt. I remember seeing a Canadian-built Easy-eight parked out B.C. Place and I remember thinking that I was glad they didn't use them currently, but rather have changed to Leopards and such. Perhaps the SRAAW will end up in a glass case someday as well. I think they are quite good (from a gaming perspective, that is). By the way, I never realized that some things in TacOps are touchy with the participating governments. I didn't mean to ask too many questions. [ June 26, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

That's fantastic! I was really hoping I could use that once I found out what it was. You have been more helpful to me than you could ever know. I am so glad that we have an option of using these units in lieu of the Royal Canadians. Thank you for all your input! Rich

the answer is quite sufficient and robust in all respects. By the way, I noticed another really neat thing about the engineering dynamics in TacOps. This makes it quite realistic: I watched as the first unit of a REDFOR column passed over a minefield. That unit (if not destroyed) was abled to reverse about 100 meters and create an alternate route to the eventualy objective. This more like what really happens, I thought, making this whole thread unecessary because the system IS robust and not in need of investigation. Sorry for the wasted space. [ June 26, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

[ June 25, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

How large is a pixel in relation to a single unit?

How can I tell which instrument is the Carl Gustav? Does it have unit designation? (I think that Carl Gustav is a "nickname") [ June 25, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

I think a Canadian ATGM might do the trick, but there is something that doesn't quite seem right about it (If it says "from Canada," I will never feel that I put the right unit in --it's like a Soviet M3 tank (sounds funny)). Thanks for the great tip!