James Sterrett

You cannot adjust the "atomic level" of the game -- the individual pieces of equipment, weapons teams, and squads. You can, however, build any force you want from those pieces provided. A company with a platoon each of light trucks, T-72s, and M-60A3 is entirely possible. The TacOps demo gives a very good look at the game, including both a training scenario and one reasonably large scenario.

Fair enough; the thing that seemed to be worring the SA types was that TacOps wouldn't "hand over" the CPU cycles - they got all a-twitter, and then calmed down when they figured out that other programs ran fine alongside it. Insert appropriate technical language, or explain it better?

This periodically gets out network/sysadmin people's knickers in a knot too. Note that in my/their experience, TacOps is a "good citizen" and hands over CPU cycles whenever other programs want them.

Delete or add off-map: No. Make new scenarios: Yes! Program the AI: No. But we keep begging Major H. for this. Not asked, but added to the reply: Make new maps: Yes!

Could you be a little more precise in explaining exactly what you're doing? It could be that you're using different maps, and it could be that you downloaded different versions of the map, but it isn't quite clear. Also, to have multiple colors on your teams, are you using a different computer for each color?

I'll see if I can find the WW2 symbology key I have. Also try these - the articles on the OMG by Bogdan Swita have some notes on Soviet map symbols and can be downloaded - Military Review is available online in PDF. Two sets of directions follow... The Big Link method, to the search results - this may not work! -- \]https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE[CGI]\ =/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Fri%20Jan%2024%20\ 08%3A38%3A31%20CST%202003&CQ_SAVE[GIFs]=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=xxx&CQ_PASSWORD\ =xxx&CQ_SAVE[CPU]=Intel&CQ_SAVE[browser]=W3C&CQ_SAVE[browserVersion]=ie5_5up&CQ_\ SAVE[base]=calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE[Home]=https%3A//calldbp.leavenwo\ rth.army.mil/call_pub.html The follow-the-breadcrumbs method: Use this link: http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/ Select "Past Editions" from the list near the top. Wait. Select "Filerooms" and tick the box for Military Review English Edition; then click "Query". Wait. Type in "Swita OMG", hit enter, and wait. The first two results should be Swita's OMG in the Defence and OMG in the Offence. You'll need something that reads a PDF file to view them.

Is that a WW2-era map or a modern map?

I'd guess the "gr" is an accidental direct transliteration of "gr".... "Gradusov/sek" in Russian = "Degrees/sec" in English.

That's odd - because I ran TacOps for years on a Win98 system with less memory. It's suspicious that TacOps fails to run after you've used other programs. Does your email program access the net? Are you always online, or do you have to enable the connection?

Keep in mind, though, that very careful use of the Change Units & Weapons feature may allow you to tweak the existing scenarios into WW2 variants. The AI will probably make somewhat odd use of some of the forces, but you can practice.

Keep in mind that the US is far from the only force to field UAVs - the could quite reasonably be a toy available to both sides.

The upshot answer: - You cannot make a scenario from scratch that has AI. HOWEVER.... - You *can* modify the factory scenarios that have AI, of which there are several dozen at least; and the modifications can be pretty extreme. As long as you alter the AI's forces so that units are replaced by similar units, it should work. Replace Red's T-80s with M-1s or T-55s, no problem. Replace them with mortars, though, and the AI still thinks they are tanks. This means you can completely turn a scenario on its head, playing Gallagher with Soviet equipment vs Red playing with M-1s (albeit in a Soviet organization). Umpire Tools -> Change Units and Weapons is your buddy in this, but be warned there is no undo feature.

I don't believe you get a quicker response (correct me if I'm wrong, Major H! ) What you get is a preference for firing on targets in that area. When set to "low priority" (yellow), the unit will choose to fire on any unit in the DFTRP before firing on any units outside of it. When set to "high priority" (red), the unit will ONLY fire on targets inside the DFTRP. The prefer/only distinction for low/high priority also works for the unit type and the target unit settings. If you want to hit only ATGM units, and preferably in a given area, and if possible a given specific BRDM-AT platoon, you'd use a High setting for ATGM and a Low priority on the specific area and a Low priority on the specific BRDM-AT. I'm not sure how TacOps would react if the BRDM-AT were outside the DFTRP and an ATGM unit was inside it, though.

Make sure you're comparing identical scenarios: Canadian Team Hague = US Army Team Hill = USMC Team Murray I just looked, and the OPFOR seems to be the same in all three. Perhaps you may have loaded US Army Team Hall, which does have a 20 minute limit, but the OPFOR is 4 T-80s?

Yes, I'm the same one - glad you enjoyed it. Never forget to keep track of a vehicle's Wombat Weight. Somewhere, I have files that puts TacOps Map 01 into Steel Beasts. Send me a PM with an email address and I'll send them along.

I've had TacOps since 1996 - and it's the best game investment I ever made.

That's ironic, because the scenario began life as a US armor/mech battalion team vs a dug-in Soviet BTR battalion; I changed it into heavily fictional forces for two reasons: 1) I didn't want to run any risk of getting involved in some political wrangle over nuclear release policies of the two sides; 2) To show off some of the newer equipment that's been added to TacOps, while avoiding problem #1. On the other hand, I think you missed on out the nuclear angle. 1kt neutron bombs are big enough to be rather scary, but small enough that they don't solve your tactical problems for you - which was part of the point of the scenario.... Nukes change the tactical environment, but you still have to develop an effective plan for exploiting the effects of their fires, or they aren't terribly effective in achieving wider goals.

Umpire’s AAR: CPX 4 Dec 2004 James Sterrett Files available for download at: http://www.tacopshq.com/cpx041204/ This is a scenario I’ve had waiting in the wings for a couple years - Matt Ohlmer and Panta nearly played a version of it as an umpired PBEM a couple of years ago. At first glance, it’s a standard deliberate assault/deliberate defence. However, the attacking force is far too small to manage a conventional attack: a reinforced battalion attacking a battalion. The balancing factor? Nuclear weapons. The defence gets a single 1kt neutron bomb airburst, and the offence gets a pair of them. However, there are a few wrinkles to introduce a sheen of realism to their employment. Both sides have to select a small number of potential target sites, before the game begins; and once they call in a nuclear strike, they have to wait 10 minutes before the bomb actually arrives. The bombs themselves are patterns of 9 “portable bombs” with a 1000 meter blast radius; one in the center and the other 8 in a box 500 meters from the central one. The forward planning for these weapons puts a large burden of foresight on the commanders for the two sides. In their initial plans, they have to figure out what the battlefield is going to look like - and how to ensure it *will* look like what they want, so that their planned nuclear strike sites will prove to be useful. Initial forces: Time Left: 10080 minutes Mission results: Blue - As determined by players. Red - As determined by players. Blue exit % - 0 Red exit % - 0 Point results: Blue Attrition Points - 0 Red Attrition Points - 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Status: UNIT START NOW ELIM EXITED Tank, T80UM1 + ATGM............. 42 42 0 0 APC, BTRT....................... 13 13 0 0 Inf, Team....................... 39 39 0 0 ATGM, Milan..................... 27 27 0 0 APC, M2A2 Bradley IFV........... 13 13 0 0 ATGMV, Wiesel TOW............... 6 6 0 0 SAM, LAV25 Air Defense SAM/AAA.. 4 4 0 0 Howitzer, SP 155mm M109......... 24 24 0 0 APC, Stryker ICV AGL............ 13 13 0 0 Truck, Cargo 13t M977 HEMTT..... 1 1 0 0 Logistics Package............... 1 1 0 0 Radar, AN/TPQ36 Firefinder Ops.. 1 1 0 0 Aircraft, UAV................... 1 1 0 0 MCV, Trailer MICLIC Mk155....... 4 4 0 0 VLB, M60 AVLB Bridging Vehicle.. 2 2 0 0 Attachment, Mine Plow........... 4 4 0 0 LUV, HMMWV + AGL MK19........... 8 8 0 0 LUV, HMMWV + HMG................ 8 8 0 0 MRL, 227mm MLRS ................ 15 15 0 0 FSCV, Fennek FO................. 1 1 0 0 Blue had 10 airstrikes waiting off-map and 30000 points in the logpack. Red Status: UNIT START NOW ELIM EXITED Aircraft, UAV................... 1 1 0 0 APC, SPz Marder 1A3............. 48 48 0 0 Inf, Squad...................... 25 25 0 0 Inf, MG 50cal Team.............. 9 9 0 0 ATGM, Javelin Team.............. 9 9 0 0 SAM, SA16 Gimlet................ 9 9 0 0 ATGM, AT5 Spandrel Team......... 7 7 0 0 Inf, AGL AGS17 Team............. 6 6 0 0 Inf, Team....................... 3 3 0 0 Gun, AT 100mm MT12/T12.......... 2 2 0 0 Truck, Cargo 10mt............... 1 1 0 0 Howitzer, SP 152mm 2S3.......... 12 12 0 0 Mortar, SP 120mm 2S23........... 6 6 0 0 MRL, 220mm 9P140................ 15 15 0 0 Radar, Artillery Locating ARK1M. 1 1 0 0 RECV, BRM3K CRV................. 1 1 0 0 SAM, 2S6 SP SAM/AAA............. 3 3 0 0 Tank, Challenger 1 Mk3.......... 10 10 0 0 Truck, Cargo 6mt................ 8 8 0 0 Gun, AT 125mm 2A45M............. 8 8 0 0 Truck, UMZ Mine Dispenser....... 1 1 0 0 Logistics Package............... 1 1 0 0 Inf, Team w RPG................. 6 6 0 0 Red had 5 airstrikes waiting offmap and 30000 points in the logpack. The map was 573: 6.5km wide, but 30 km long, and thus including enough depth for both sides to deploy their artillery and fight a counterbattery war with their radars. In addition to having a 10-15 km battlefield for Blue to attack through. The front line was roughly 13 easting. Red had to prevent Blue’s penetration of 21 easting. Blue had to seize and secure the airfield at 22/03. Both sides were told that the umpire would play out a recon battle on the early evening prior to the attack, after which they would have to designate nuke targets, and could make some adjustments prior to the attack itself. Red Planning: Red’s planning was conducted by Hub (Kevin Peltz): he set up a very thorough set of plans and had then done well ahead of time. Planned as a delay in sector with lines along 14 and 17 easting, and an AT gun line near 20 easting, the most interesting feature of the defence was the use of all of their 15 engineering markers as mines. A “V” of mines in 13/03 was intended to force Blue to move out into kill sacks in the open terrain to either side, while an intermittent minefield in 13/00 was to break up attempts by Blue to use the close terrain in the south. Red’s recon/counter-recon plan called for a line of LPs, and a three-squad push deeper into Blue’s territory. Blue Planning: Blue’s planning was much more haphazard - so much so that I very nearly postponed the CPX. The initial CO had to drop out due to technical problems, with only a week to go before the start of play. Ralf Pichocki became the CO. His attempts to get his teammates to help him with the planning met with limited success. Chaim Krause, as S2, produced his assessment of Red rapidly. Bernard Cousins, as S3, eventually produced a concept of operations, but too late for there to be any debate or cross checking of it. I’m not aware of other prep work by Blue, though I might have missed some - I’m sure, for example, that Matt Ohlmer put in some planning time to run the artillery. As a result, Blue’s plan was nowhere near as solid as Red’s. Blue’s recon plan called for 4 groups of 4 hummers to advance slowly towards Red and see what they could find. Recon: In general, Red won the recon battle on the ground. Blue’s recon effort was mostly stopped in its tracks. Red’s LPs got themselves into position, with one of them ambushed and destroyed by Blue’s recon forces. Red’s deep-roving squads eventually ran into much larger Blue forces and died. Red’s major loss in the recon, however, was its UAV. Sent on a deep recon mission, it met Blue’s LAV25 ADA. Scratch Red’s UAV. Red did not wind up learning much from the recon battle, since it failed to identify the jumping-off sites for Blue’s attacks, because Blue had, through bad planning, not really set them up. However, Red did emplace a forward line of Ops, which gave it excellent spotting information during the opening stages of the battle. Blue, in turn, learned the rough location of Red’s forward line by the expedient of being shot at from it. After the recon fight, both sides chose nuclear strike sites. Red’s tracked largely down the middle of the map, with one set to take advantage of the minefield. Blue’s were aimed deeper, into the final stages of its attack, the nearest one to the front being at 176019. The Battle: In rough outline: Blue attacked in the center and south starting at 0630. The southern attack met Red early and remained in contact for some time, steadily moving forward, but suffering from mines, artillery fire, and Red’s ambushes. However, this attack did steadily chew apart Red’s first line of defence. By 0711, Blue was uncertain where to aim its attack, and was headed towards trying the center, but fired off its 176019 nuke shot. Blue’s center attack moved much more slowly. By 0700, it had begun to edge around the minefield to the north, and was taking losses to Red’s AT fires and artillery. At 0711, Red decided to fire its nuke strike at 131026. Red also used its UMZ minelayer to build a wall of mines at 18/01 – probably the first use of the UMZ minelayer in a CPX! [i was very excited by this. This probably means I have no life. ] When the bombs arrived at 0721, Blue was mostly out of the blast zone, though it did suffer some losses. Blue’s bomb, however, tore a huge hole in Red’s second line of defence just north of Red’s newly placed minefield. However, Blue was by this point committed to trying to punch through the center of Red’s defence. Blue called for its second nuke on 201036, set to arrive at 0731. Red was reorganizing its defence, but was not sending significant forces to that site. Blue, in turn, was trying to push through the still-sound part of Red’s front line. At this point, Red’s artillery officer, John Osborne, had to leave, and we wound up calling the game. Both sides felt they had a good shot at winning. Both sides have a case; in large measure the outcome would have been decided by: - Blue’s skill in maneuvering around Red’s kill sack. Blue was set to maneuver into Red’s kill sacks. However, those kills sacks were rapidly running out of firepower. - Would Red wind up deploying into Blue’s next nuke strike? I’m guessing the answer is “no”; though if Red happened to do this in force, it would have radically tilted the game in favor of Blue. Thus the outcome would likely have depended on how relative loss rates between Red and Blue as Blue kept going forward. My best guess is that Blue might have made it to the airfield, but not in any great strength; and Red might have stopped Blue, but at such cost as to be largely gone by the end. Either way, a phyrric victory. Lessons learned: - While in theory enough time was provided for teams to get themselves sorted out and organized and to conduct proper planning, in reality the two weeks available were insufficient given the SNAFUs that inevitably seem to come up. This, in turn, bears on the other key lesson: that employment of any powerful asset is only as good as the planning for exploiting its effects. Blue’s nuke strike produced excellent results against Red’s defence, but in the fog of war, the extent of the damage was unknown and Blue had not planned to exploit the nuke blast to enable itself to move forward. I am not clear on the logic of the strike planning on either side. Red planned the effects of its minefields very well, and was ready to pound on Blue with AT and arty as it came around the mines: a very good practical example of a turning minefield. I do wonder, though, if Red might not have been better off planning to drop its nuke onto the probable backup of Blue troops on the western side of the mines, instead of about 1km off to the SW in the rear part of one of the kill sacks. - There should be more, but it’s my bedtime for tonight.

Yes, it allows for observers; though I'll kick observers first if we're overloading the network (which we will not know until the time it happens :-/ ). Though I think you'd be better off actually playing in order to really grasp what's going on. A great deal of the action in a CPX game doesn't take place on the screen; it takes place between the players on each side in the planning and execution of the plan. Also, while competitive play may sound daunting, competitive play *on a team* means that you've got a bunch of teammates, all of whom have a vested interest in making sure you are doing well. In my opinion, a CPX team is a very newbie-friendly place to be for that reason.

Ok - hope to see you there. Please email me when you get TacOps so we can get you linked into a team ASAP.

I'm looking for players and commanders for a CPX to be run on December 4. It's a force on force (Blue vs Red) scenario involving a deliberate attack. Significant pregame planning will be required from some players, especially the force commanders: planning must be sent to me by Dec 1, to include a recon plan. I will game out the recon battle by the end of December 2, giving players time to tweak their plans on December 3. The plans will get implemented on the map if they get the plans to me soon enough to get them into TacOps by the start of play on December 4. The current scenario plan will easily handle 5 players per side (one CO, 3 maneuver, one fire support). Map: 573 Scenario: US Army Custom IRC server: schlepper.hanse.de, port 7024, default channel #tacops Backup IRC: www.combatmission.com, port 7000, default channel #tacops Start time: 1500GMT (1000 US Eastern, 0900 US Central) [And yes, I just rechecked the offset. But feel free to recheck it and correct me. ] Please let me know soon if you intend to play (james.sterrett@gmail.com), so we can get the teams organized.

Umpire’s AAR: TacOps CPX 23 October 2004 Umpire: James Sterrett Players: Red: John Osborne, then Coyote Blue: Kevin “Hub” Peltz (Commander) Martin Cracauer Paul Csokay Ralf Pichocki Dennis Huff Tim “Delta99” John Monahan Henk Stoffers Chaim “Tinjaw” Krause Bernard Cousins Kenneth Chan Orders & Planning: The idea behind the scenario was to put small forces into player’s hands, run the scenario very fast, and then re-run it as long as possible. The speed of execution would put a premium on the ability of the Blue players to coordinate their actions, while also making it possible for Blue to try the mission multiple times. Therefore, I built 6 iterations of the scenario; each iteration made the scenario harder for Blue and more complex. In each, Blue’s core force consisted of (each line is to be one player’s force): 2 Leo2 Command Tanks 4 Leo2 tanks 4 Leo2 tanks 4 Warrior IFVs with 4 Infantry sections 4 Warrior IFVs with 4 Infantry sections 4 Striker ATGM vehicles w/ Swingfire 6 AGL Hummers with 6 infantry teams 1 FIST (Fennek) 2 Leopard AVLB and 1 engineer squad on a Fuchs Red’s core force: 1 manpack ATGM (initially AT-7) 3 T-72 3 BTR (initially BTR-80) 3 infantry squads The game played in the NE section of Map 544. Blue deployed north of 03 and east of 11, and was tasked with placing a bridge on either of the road bridges on the western river, north of 03, and crossing their force to the west side of the river. Red was tasked with preventing this, deploying north of 03 and west of the river. In the event, we played 3 rounds, though the third was a head-to-head two player game. Each time, Red based its defence on the town west of the river, hoping to try to ride out Blue’s support fires and kill the bridgelayers. For the first two runs, Blue’s plan called for a recon screen to mover forward with support from the ATGM platoon, while the main force moved along the northern edge of the map, deployed into the woods northeast of the town as a base of fire, and then cover the bridgelayers as they did their job. Based on what I’ve seen happen in all too many previous CPXes, I expected Blue to screw up its first run, badly. I gave them lots of fire support (two tube batteries and an MRLS on call) so they could “succeed” through fire support even after moving forward in a disordered gaggle got their teeth kicked in, and planned iteration 2 to be largely iteration 1 without the MRLS, so Blue would have a chance to get its act together before Red started growing real teeth. What Happened To my delight, my expectations for Blue’s performance were 100% wrong! I sat at my computer, cheering them on, as Hub kept quiet and competent control of his force; he gave Bernard Cousins time to do recon, and Berny did it well, with a mix of bounding and traveling overwatches and good use of dismounts where time permitted. Given the number of times I’ve had to write in an AAR, “The attacking force conducted no serious reconnaissance and blundered into defensive positions at…”, I was very happy to see a force take it seriously and do it right, yet without dawdling. So: My congratulations to the Blue team. You guys did very well; possibly the best performance I’ve ever seen in a CPX I’ve umpired. There was a bit of confusion over some of the rules of the scenario; I had not been clear enough that the only places Blue could place its bridges were on the road bridges (the riverbanks “needing too much improvement for fast bridging” elsewhere). Nonetheless, everything went very smoothly. Blue lost one bridging tank to an ATGM trap, one hummer to HE artillery fire, and destroyed Red. They were so intent on the mission it was hard to get them to *stop* their deployment across the river and into their planned defence, so we could restart! Blue did two things that might get their teeth kicked in the future: their ATGM vehicles came into close range to provide support, and they wound up bunched up in that small woods. The bunching wasn’t an issue under Red’s HE fire, but in the future Red would be using ICM. Since iteration #2 was meant to be a chance to Blue to get its act together, I skipped it: Blue already *had* its act together. Blue lost its MRLS support. Red gained ICM ammunition for its artillery, 3 entrenchments, ATGMs on its T-72s and BTR-90s, and the manpack ATGM became an AT-5. (Red had thermal sights and advanced warheads in all iterations.) Blue reconsidered parts of its plan and deployed again; Red did the same. Blue’s primary thrust still went in the north, as before, but the ATGM platoon went across the central highlands and deployed into the woods across from the southern bridge. Red deployed with more of a reserve, hoping to be able to react to Blue’s moves and reinforce areas where its forces had been destroyed. Unfortunately for Red, its attempts to move reserves into place generally simply got them spotted moving into place, and destroyed. However, Red’s better firepower enabled it to kick Blue about, its ICM artillery in particular destroying a number of vehicles that were bunched up in the northern woods. In the end, Blue demolished Red a second time. For the third iteration, only two players remained: Coyote, who took over Red halfway through the second game (when John Osborne had to go), and Tinjaw. We moved to Iteration 6 and started a head to head game. Both sides gained air defence vehicles and SAMs, 6 airstrikes, and an attack helicopter; Red’s tanks became advanced tanks w/ ATGM, and it gained an MRL battalion on call with ICM and HE. This was the toughest iteration for Blue I had ready to roll; the plan for iteration 7 was to add mines to Red’s defence while blue got a MICLIC and some plows. Coyote deployed with the intent of destroying bridging units with long-range missile fires in the south and closer-range tank fire in the north. Tinjaw wanted to use a series of feints, alternating north and center, to try to draw out Red’s teeth. Unfortunately, these feints cost Blue more than Red. Worse, they eventually called down ICM onto one of Blue’s AVLBs, which, although not a spotted target, was destroyed. Shortly thereafter, Blue decided to charge for the southern bridge with its second AVLB, which was duly destroyed by a BTR-90. Both sides lost their helicopters early on; Blue’s Apache drove into Red’s rear, ambushed Red’s Havoc, and then got nailed by an SA-16. Blue’s various feints and deception attempts didn’t accomplish much in unsettling Red, even though the pattern of Red’s artillery fires did at times suggest that the feints were working. Lesson: be careful about your indicators, since they may not have been created by the reasons you think they are indicative of. Lessons Learned: Tactically, kudos to Blue for doing its recon and coordination right. However, they always wound up bunched for Red’s fire in the first two runs, and effectively dithered about under arty fire in the third. They got away with it in the first two (though ICM narrowly missed killing its AVLBs in the second) and got nailed in the third. Blue’s coordination worked not only because Hub kept on top of the situation and issued quick, effective orders, but also because the players on Blue paid attention and followed his orders. Hub got a lot of well-deserved praise for his effective command; but the others on Blue also deserve praise for being effective members of the team, without which Hub’s command effort would have been wasted. I have to wonder if Red would not have been better served by putting its forces *outside* the town, which attracted speculative fires from Blue fairly continually. Using long-range flanking fires from southern 03/07 and northern 06/07 might have enabled Red to concentrate fires better (both positions can see the close approaches to both bridges) while not being quite where Blue expected. Back this up with entrenched infantry in position right near the two bridges (to pop RPGs into AVLBs) and infantry for spotting (or the AT-5 in later runs) on the elevated terrain in 03/07 would give Red eyes onto the central plateau, which Blue advanced across unobserved each time. This is not the textbook solution, obviously, and carries risks of its own, but the long-range fires would likely have kept Red’s shooters unspotted longer and let Red pick apart Blue more effectively. Technical issues: During the setup time, some connections would be dropped if they were idle too long. Going through the Network Status window and pinging every player once every minute or two seemed to prevent this. In addition, when a Ping fails, the result is not disaster. When a “Get Orders” fails, the umpire’s computer loses all of that player’s units, which is a pain. Lesson: Ping often in setup, and ping players before you Get Orders. Coyote noted in the third game that when he hit CTRL-H to hide all units, and then hit CTRL-H again to bring them back, Blue appeared along with his own units, until the end of the turn. Scenario design: Overall, I was happy with this; the underlying objective of training Blue in coordination under time pressure worked, and Blue responded beautifully. However, players complained that the Warrior IFVs and infantry had no role in the scenario except as targets. With no clear-and-secure actions of note on the western side of the river (because Red used a crust defence), this was true. An IFV with an ATGM would have let me delete the ATGM section and kept more players actively involved more of the time.

I'm still looking for a Blue CO. Looks like we'll be using parts of Map 544. I haven't settled on the exact mix of kit yet, but it's looking like this for now: Blue OOB: each line is one player CO: 2x Tanks Fire Support: 1x FIST, 2x 155mm offmap arty, 1x MRLS offmap 6 Light recce vehicles with infantry 2 platoons of tanks 2 platoons of mech infantry 2 Biber (Leopard) bridging tanks 4 ATGM vehicles Later iterations of the scenario will introduce a helicopter, air support, and air defence units. Deploy *north* of 03, and *east* of 06, on Map 544. Mission: Move your force across the western river (that runs from approx 07/07 to approx 10/02). All bridges are down. Initially, you must keep all forces north of 03 and cross at a site where a bridge previously existed. [The bridges are "destroyed" by obstacles that can only be breached with an AVLB - of which you've got two.] Red has older equipment initially, but will get better and more equipment as the scenario iterates and Blue proves adept at winning. Initially, 1 battery of offmap 122mm, 1 platoon of tanks, and 1 platoon of mechanized infantry. Improvements will include better vehicles, better artillery support, air defence, air support, and a helicopter.

In case it needs repeating: We will be using patch 405AU on Saturday. To get it: ------------- TacOps v405AU update patches for Windows and Macintosh are now available from the downloads page at Battlefront. http://www.battlefront.com/downloads.html The Windows patch file is titled "tacops_405AUu.zip". The Macintosh patch file is titled "tacops_405AUu.sit". If you do not see those file names then hit the "Refresh" button on your web browser. A. Download and then Unzip or Unstuff the patch file for your OS. B. Then read and carefully follow the instructions contained in the file "Instructions & Copyright.txt". This is not an auto installer. You must manually copy/move each file from the patch folder to a precise location in your TacOps 4 folder - so as to replace any files or folders of the same name. This patch is only for the retail editions of TacOps v403 through v405AT. Do not apply this patch package to TacOps v3.x or to any military version of TacOps - permanent damage will result. This patch is comprehensive for TacOps v403 through v405AT so there is no need to retain or install any previous patch. ---------

Celebrating the demise of working on weekends... I'll be running a TacOps CPX this Saturday. The plan is to try something a bit unusual: I'd like to run something small - quite possibly Team Hall - with everybody on Blue. The trick is that we'll run it fast, and run it multiple times, with an AAR/planning session between each run, and a possible upgrades to the Red forces between the runs. This way we can run through it 5 or 6 times in around 6 hours, with players getting progressively better at playing CPXes and defeating the force facing them. Start Time: 09.00 Central (15.00 GMT) Please email me if you are interested in taking part (james.sterrett@gmail.com); I'll build the specific scenario later this week with an eye to the number of participants. Primary IRC server: Description: Martin Cracauer's Server IRC Server: schlepper.hanse.de Port: 7024 Channels: #tacops (and #BlueFor, probably) Backup IRC: Description: Matt Faller's Combat Mission Server IRC Server: www.combatmission.com Port: 7000 Channels: #tacops, #TacOpsBlue