MajorH TacOps Developer

Look in your TacOps folder for a file titled "TacOps Gazette 9498.pdf". It contains several year's worth of tips. A newer version named "TacOps_Gazettes_041021.pdf" can be downloaded from www.tacop.us/support/

To while away election night, I will be standing by to host a multiplayer, arena style game as of 2300 GMT (1700 US Central Standard Time). The play will be a simple Blue vs Red, capture the flag situation. Both sides will use US equipment. The game engine will be TacOps v405AU. This would be a good opportunity for newbies (and returning oldies) to get familiar with IRC chat and to practice joining a TacOps network game. Players are free to drop in and drop out as their time permits. In general you will receive a US mech infantry company or tank company (or smaller unit) upon arrival. First you need to download Map203 from the following URL. If are not using TacOps v405AU you can download the update from the same location. www.tacops.us/support/ Then fire up your IRC program and go to the following server and channel for joining instructions. Description: Martin Cracauer's Server IRC Server: schlepper.hanse.de Port: 7024 Channel: #tacops

I have updated the TacOps Gazette collection PDF file to include all issues since 1998. It can be downloaded from the following URL. http://www.tacops.us/support/TacOps_Gazettes_041021.zip

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. Below are the recent changes that have been made to the TacOps4 program. - - - - v405AU User request. Increased the bridge load capacity of the AU VLB Leopard AVLB from 50 metric tons to 60 metric tons. Bug fix. "GM SAMV Marder Roland" was misspelled as "Rowland" in the photo data base. - - - - v405AT Developer initiative changed name of "US OCV, M1 Obstacle Breaching Vehicle" to "US ABV, X-Armored Breacher Grizzly". Developer initiative. Added a dozer blade to US ABV, XArmored Breaching Vehicle MICLIC. Developer initiative. Changed name of "US MCV, Armored Breaching Vehicle" to "US ABV, XArmored Breacher MICLIC". Developer initiative. Added a bulldozer blade to US APC M2A2 Bradley ENG, US APC M2A3 Bradley ENG, and to US APC M2A3 Bradley ENG+. Developer initiative. Gave engineering bonus to M2A2 Bradley ENG, US APC M2A3 Bradley ENG, and to US APC M2A3 Bradley ENG+. Developer initiative. Enabled the following unit types to have map markers that can represent more than one strength point. US MCV Trailer MICLIC M58A3 US MCV, US Trailer MICLIC Mk155. US MCV M60 AVLM US MCV AAVP7 LMC US MLV, M548 Mine Dispenser US Helo, UH60 Mine Dispenser US MLV, Truck Mine Dispenser OP Truck, UMZ Mine Dispenser OP MLV MTLB UMZ Mine Dispenser OP Helo, Mi8/17 HIP Mine Dispenser OP MCV MTK2 Mine Clearing Vehicle User request. The information line for Logistics Packages in the Situation Report and Logistics Report now includes the number of remaining supply points for each. Developer initiative. Changed the display of unit strength points in each unit information line in the Artillery Support Report, Spot Report, Situation Report, and Logistics Report so that the number of items in a unit marker follows the unit type name instead of preceding it. Developer initiative. Increased the height of the Add Optional Units window. User request. Added the AU VLB Leopard AVLB to the unit data base. Bug Fix. The program would sometimes fail to divide ammunition correctly when splitting a unit that had less than one round per strength point. Bug Fix. The program would sometimes fail to duplicate ammunition correctly when duplicating a unit that had less than one round per strength point. - - - -

There have been some recent attempts to get some scenario design discussion going on the TacOps forum at the Warfare HQ site. http://www.war-forums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 There are some saved game style scenarios at ... http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/forumdisplay.php?s=0fe278680c4b04ff7f15feec4ee6f017&f=40

Did you just now get around to buying v4? If so, what version did you buy last?

> I have no information line. > ... > The information line on my system used to be postioned > correctly when I started a game. Now I must resize my > TacOps window once or twice to get the information line to > move to the correct position above the task bar. As best that I recall, TacOps for Windows has always used the entire screen (including the task bar area) when a map was larger than the screen. Two ways to change this are below. I prefer the second solution. Solution One. With each running of TacOps, resize the map window so that the offending edge does not cover the Windows task bar. Reminder, I can not assume that the Windows task bar will always be at the bottom of a user's screen. Some folks like to have it on the side of the screen. Solution Two. Change the properties of the Windows task bar. Left click on an empty spot on the task bar and select "Properties? Uncheck the box titled "Lock the taskbar". Check the box titled "Auto-hide the taskbar". Check the box titled "Keep the taskbar on top of other windows. Click the OK button. The task bar will now remain hidden until you actually want to use it. To reveal the task bar during TacOps game play (or at any other time) you just move the cursor over where it should be and it will appear and it will be floating over the TacOps map window or over whatever other application that you are using.

You can only get data base info for one unit type at a time. There is a short cut that speeds that up. Select a unit marker by right clicking on it and then selecting "Info" from the pop up menu that will appear.

None done by me. Military users have created some for training exercises (human vs human play only) but I don't know if they have been uploaded to any public site. There are extra maps on the current TacOps4 CD that can be used to create your own OIF or Afghanistan. scenarios for human vs human play. Particularly the following maps. Map 202 - Map with a slight resemblance to Great Falls, Montana. 29 km by 28 km. Grid 6476 to 9348. This map also has a slight resemblance to Baghdad. Map241 - 29 Palms West. Map242 - 29 Palms East. Map244 - Camp Pendleton Map250 - Afghanistan. Map251 - Afghanistan. And others. [ September 29, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

For what its worth ... I just did a line by line comparison of the Mac routines that do the Game Status Report and the routines that do the other text reports and the only significant difference that I could find was that the Game Status Report uses Monaco font (every character and space is supposed to be the same wdith) while the others use Geneva font (characters have variable widths).

I could not replicate what you saw. Which version of OSX are you using? Are you running any non Apple system enhancements that might have anything to do with how text appears in windows and dialogs? Have you customized the appearance of text or windows in any way? I downloaded the Mac version of the demo. I started up my Mac G4 tower in OSX (v10.2.8) and double clicked on the TacOps application icon. The Mac went into the tedious startup cycle for Mac Classic mode and after half a cup of coffee, the TacOps start up screen appeared. I loaded Basic Training, set up the units, and selected the Reports/Game Status Report menu item. It displayed the correct spacing. I then rebooted in OS9 (9.2.2) and repeated the experiment. The report again displayed correctly. If you can not resolve this on your Mac then you should not buy the full version.

> I have just d/l the demo for TacOps (Mac version) and all > seems fine except a minor problem with the Unit status > screen. The text seems split up and some text shows on the > scroll bar strangely, but if I copy to the clipboard all is > fine. > Any ideas please and would this problem arise in the full > version? > I'm using an iMac 700mhz/512mb with OSX & OS 9.2.2 if it's > of any help. Anything that happens on your Mac while using the demo is almost certainly also going to happen with the full version. Yours is the first report of this. It looks like something on your Mac is converting the single space between words into a one or two inch gap. Since your clipboard screen shot showed the OSX type window, I presume that you are running the demo in Mac Classic mode. I will setup my Mac for Classic mode and take a look at this today. To help me out please try the following things and let me know what you see. A. While in OSX Mac Classic mode, load up the Basic Training scenario. Confirm that the Game Status Report still behaves as you mentioned. Then select the Reports/Logistics Report menu item and let me know if that text window is also screwed up. B. Reboot in OS9 and repeat the experiment. I think that most of my current Mac users choose to boot in OS9 when playing "legacy" games, just to be on the safe side.

You can post a challenge in this forum or try the Battlefront opponent finder forum. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?category=9 There are several guys looking for opponents right now at the TacOps WarfareHQ forum. http://www.war-forums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 Then click on the link labeled "TacOps Opponents Wanted ".

Redwolf; Send that to me as a private email and I'll stick it in the bulging suggestions folder.

The current patch at Battlefront is always all inclusive for TacOps4. Those who release non inclusive patches should be punished.

TacOps Gazette 04.04 The TacOps Gazette is an irregularly published compilation of user email and my replies. > My wife thinks I'm nuts when I come home with military > books. Or talk to her about a game or researching an > OOB. Women...... All you have to do is remind her that your hobby takes place in your home where she can easily see exactly what you are up to and with whom. > I've been critical of those elements of the defense sim > community that look down on commercial games as mere > entertainment, because they haven't been validated. Serious commercial wargames are validated in excruciating, usually tactless, detail by their beta testers and then by their customers. Many of these guys have been wargaming and studying military affairs for twenty to thirty years. There is no protective contract, no cushioning chain of command, and no obsequious word smiths between the hobby users and us. I doubt that the average DoD sim project is ever subjected to the frankness, quantity, or quality of the criticism that we get in the final surge just before and in the first months after a new game release or a maintenance update. Heck, some of our customers begin bitching before they even have our product in hand, based only on rumors about what we might be doing. A recent TacOps military contract included a V&V step before final acceptance. I worried about that for nine months. Needlessly as it turned out because it consisted of nothing more than objectively checking that every contract detail had been addressed. I think it took me longer to write the V&V procedures than it took for the client to actually do them. The client's testers (reservists) did a decent job and noticed a few cosmetic bugs and a few minor contract details that I had overlooked or interpreted differently - all easily fixed. At the same time I was doing my own private testing with a cadre of hobbyists and the few military users that I could find who were not in or on their way to Iraq. The V&V procedures were just a warm up for these unofficial testers as they had been playing TacOps for one to nine years. They went beyond the V&V procedures and found many bugs and oddities, they challenged my abstractions, they argued about weapons and unit characteristics, they demanded changes and additional features without regard to their impact on the contract specs or deadline, and in general gave me hell about providing way too little new stuff for nine months of work. They did what hobbyists always do. > [Multiplayer network mode CPX]. So I went to the Network > Tools and check marked the "Allow players to instantly > reposition their unit markers" What was happening by me was > that the program kept saying that I had to send a Situation > Update before the orders phase begin. My questions is this, > after they did a magic move, what was I suppose to do next > after they were all done? Step 1: Use menu item, Network/More Network Tools/Button labeled "Get Orders From All Players". Step 2: Use menu item, Network/Send Situation Update to All. > What can I use for bunkers in a TacOps scenario? > Would it be entrenchment? If it is would it give the > same type of protection as a bunker would? An entrenchment marker in TacOps represents an area of field fortifications that measure about 100 meters by 100 meters. If you absolutely must represent a single bunker then I suggest that you pick an armored vehicle that has the weapons, protection level, and troop capacity that you want for the bunker and then use the "Options/Damage Unit Mobility" menu item to immobilize it. > The question is this, if I use a radius of fifty (50) (which > is the minimum radius) and the bridge MLC is 100+ (which is > the maximum) why is the bridge destroyed so easily? I would > figure that the radius for the demo charge is the blast > affect for it. If someone can safely place one demo charge onto a bridge then it isn't much of a stretch to presume that they could place 100 of them. I didn't see a need to make things more complicated. > Sometimes my units seems to disappear in multiplayer. Later > on, they reappear. This may have something to do with > interaction with the AIM message system … I originally started writing a vicious diatribe against all instant messaging programs but then my second cup of coffee kicked in to produce the following. Next time that happens try using the "Map/Redraw Map" menu item. That will force TacOps to reload and redraw the map, markers, everything - even if the normal Windows/Mac system variables say that it is not necessary. > What is the visibility you assume in smoke for non thermal sight > weapons? Around 100 meters, measured from the center point of one unit map marker to the center point of the other marker. There is an accuracy deduction for such engagements. In TacOps, line of sight always exists at ranges less than or equal to approximately 100 meters. i consider 100 meters to be "point blank fire". Part of this abstraction is an expectation that units at such ranges would maneuver on their own initiative so as to be able to acquire a target and or that they would be able to sense a target sufficiently to engage it. Another consideration is that using the center point of a map marker as being a unit's position is not a high fidelity approach and thus some looseness in interpreting position vs range is appropriate. > I assume driving a tank by a squad with a LAAW would still > get it shot it, does it? Usually. There is also an abstraction in the code that awards a side or rear shot to infantry who are engaging vehicles at point blank range - even when the visual positions of the map markers clearly do not support that construct. >> Bug Fix. Linked the thermal sight on GM RECV Fennek >> Recce to its AGL. Marked its AGL as not an exposed weapon. >Could you explain to me, please, what this means? It means that the auto grenade launcher or the heavy machine gun on a Fennek can engage targets at thermal sight distances. A thermal sight on a vehicle is not always useful to all of the weapons that might be in or on that vehicle. Many units (most ?) in TacOps have a thermal sight that does not allow all of the weapons in that unit to engage targets at thermal sight distances. The most common examples of weapons that do not get the benefit of a vehicle thermal sight would be the rifles and LAAWs that are carried by most minor vehicles and roof mounted heavy machine guns whose gunner is not under armor. I made the change for the Fennek because I noticed this week that the roof mounted weapon is aimed and fired by a gunner who is fully inside the vehicle. Thus I thought it reasonable to give that weapon a thermal observation advantage. > I think [artillery and mortar] range does not play a role > on current TacOps maps, does it? Maximum and minimum range limits are enforced for artillery and mortar units that are on the map. "Off map" artillery and mortar have no range limits. > 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. >What's the difference between the US Recon Team > and those new Sharpshooters? US Recon Team has a 5.56mm "sniper" rifle, gets a sniper concealment bonus, and gets a sniper observation/spotting bonus. It is a "Rambo" unit that is probably way too capable for routine game use. I have always slightly regretted coding it that way. > Did you have some sort of method that you used to > generate/calculate the purchase costs of units and > organizations? Yes but I lost the formula chart years ago. When I add a new unit now I just estimate a value based on what older similar units were given. > When we resumed last Saturday, my units would *not* > cross that bridge, although their orders still were there, ... > I even deleted several units' orders entirely and ordered > them anew to cross the bridge, but they wouldn't. I checked the saved game file that you sent me and the units could not cross the MLC 50 bridge because a 44,500 KG MTU72 bridging vehicle was parked on it. In my test, I gave the MTU72 orders to get off of the bridge marker. As soon as it did so then the other vehicles began moving across - in turn - in single file. Moral of the story - don't park vehicles on bridge markers. >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. > A comment about editing a TacOps map for a CPX. This is just a reminder to folks to be careful with editing maps. When TacOps checks to see if players in a two player or multiplayer game are using the same map, it checks the filename, the internal map number, and the internal version number. All must match but the detail that those items match obviously can not guarantee that the data inside the maps are the same. If the data in the maps are even slightly different then the networked game using them will go out of sync as soon as the game engine adjudicates some battle or movement activity differently on one or more computers because of the differing terrain. As a general rule, if you make a change to a TacOps map that is not yours (i.e. you did not create that map in the first place) then you should give that changed map a completely different map number via the appropriate menu item in the map utility. It isn't enough to just change its file name - you have to also change its internal map name/number. This is partly about avoiding out of sync situations and partly about courtesy to whoever it was that originally made that map as well as giving consideration to users (particularly training users) who have made scenarios for the map as it originally existed. If you make a change to a TacOps map that you originally created then you should at least be very careful to increment its internal version number via the appropriate menu item in the map utility. Even if the map was yours to begin with there may still be a need to consider users of the earlier version if it has been out for a while. For example, suppose that someone changes a map just for a single CPX but doesn't bother to change the version number or use a new map name. A dozen or more users download that map and the CPX is played to completion. Months later one or ore of those players may find themselves in a PBEM game, the game goes out of sync, and nobody remembers about the changed map. I am the guy who is going to be fielding the bug report. > I think even for the GM MILAN team P3, 6 rounds are > slightly overweight. I think they shouldn't have more > than 4 rounds. Many dismounted infantry unit types in TacOps have more ammunition than they could actually walk around with in real life. It is an abstraction that solves many problems without requiring additional and tedious work from the player. >But those [suggested new details] could be modeled > quite easily … Of course you want all this new detail while expecting to still be able to quickly attend to the orders needs of hundreds of unit markers. I don't think you guys consider how easy it would be to "detail" TacOps into unplayability and thus code myself right out of business. >But what if … Damn the "what ifs", full speed ahead! Have Abstraction. Will travel. Wire MajorH in San Antonio.

Perhaps you are selecting the wrong saved game file in the Auto Saves folder to start the replay or perhaps you have conflicting files present in the Auto Saves folder. Folks often forget to delete the auto save files from previous games. The replay feature is not adequately explained in the user guide so a detailed review follows. The game replay feature automatically links and displays a series of saved game files. The feature is controlled with an on-screen control panel containing play, pause, and skip buttons similar to a CD player. This feature is intended mainly for viewing a completed game. It is not intended for replaying turns merely to refresh the player's memory of recent game events. The latter usage is possible but it is intentionally inconvenient. If any force color is protected by a password, the replay feature will not work unless the viewer knows the password for that force color. In order for the automatic linking to work correctly, the saved game files must follow the following naming rules. (1) Each filename must begin with a twelve character sequence that consists of "AutoSave" followed by four numeric characters (0 through 9) with padding zeros if needed to produce a four digit number. Examples: "AutoSave0000", "AutoSave0001", "AutoSave0100", "AutoSave9999", etc. (2) Each filename must end with an extension of ".tac". (3) It does not matter what if any characters appear in the filename between the first twelve characters and the ".tac" extension. (4) There can not be a numerical gap between consecutive files that is larger than five. If a gap greater than five is encountered then the replay will stop at the gap. Examples: OK -> AutoSave0002.tac, AutoSave0007.tac, AutoSave0010.tac, etc. NOT OK -> AutoSave0002.tac, AutoSave0008.tac Note that it is possible for a folder to contain several auto save files that begin with the same twelve characters. The replay feature will display the first file that it finds that begins with the twelve characters that the program is looking for. Example: A folder contains the following files. AutoSave0005 021115_1835.tac AutoSave0005 021115_1840.tac AutoSave0005 021115_1843.tac The program will display the file named AutoSave0005 021115_1835.tac and skip the other two.

That was fixed also.

If you installed the v405_AR patch then all you actually need from this new patch is the TacOps application file - Windows "TacOps4.exe" or Mac "TacOps4" - and the change log PDF. The TacOps v405_AS update patch has been uploaded to the Battlefront downloads page. http://www.battlefront.com/downloads.html The Windows patch is titled "TacOps_405ASu.zip". The Macintosh patch is titled "TacOps_405ASu.sit". If you do not see the files 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 v405AR. 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 v405AR so there is no need to retain or install any previous patch. Below are the recent changes that have been made to the TacOps4 program . - - - - v405AS User request. Added a SAW 5.56mm machine gun to THE "US Inf Team P4" unit type. Reduced its 5.56mm rifle ammo from 1200 to 900. Reduced its AT-4 LAAW ammo from 8 to 4. User request. Added the following unit types. GM FSCV Fennek FO, NL RECV Fennek Rece, NL ATGMV Fennek XMRAT. Bug fix. The "Select Options/Change Units & Weapons" menu item routine would crash if an attempt was made to change any unit into a XIMV 81mm Mortar Carrier or into a XIMV 120mm Mortar Carrier. Bug Fix. Linked the thermal sight on GM RECV Fennek Recce to its AGL. Marked its AGL as not an exposed weapon.

>MajorH, will there be any updates to TACOPS >detection range for digital camo troops? No. In my experience, after three or four days in the field most infantrymen automatically and completely unintentionally assume the color of whatever the local dirt is. [ August 30, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

TacOps v405_AR update patches for Windows and Macintosh are now availabale from the downloads page at www.battlefront.com. http://www.battlefront.com/downloads.html The Windows patch is titled "TacOps_405ARu.zip". The Macintosh patch is titled "TacOps_405ARu.sit". If the links do not show those filenames 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 v405AQ. 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 v405AQ so there is no need to retain or install any previous patch. Below are the changes made in this update program. - - - - v405AR User requests and developer initiative. Added the following unit types to the database: (NL == Royal Netherlands Army) AU ALV, XM113AS4-ALV Logistics AU APC, XM113AS3-AM Ambulance AU APC, XM113AS4 ISC AU APC, XM113AS4-AF Fitters AU APC, XM577AS3-ACV Cmd AU APCW, IMV ISC AGL AU APCW, IMV ISC MG AU APCW, X-IMV Ambulance AU APCW, X-IMV Command AU APCW, X-IMV DFSW HMG AU ARVL, XM806AS3 Recovery AU ATGMV, X-ASLAV-AT AU Mortar, 120mm XASLAV-M AU Mortar, Carrier 120mm X-IMV AU Mortar, Carrier 81mm X-IMV AU Mortar, Carrier 81mm XM125AS3 NL APC, Ambulance YPR765 NL APC, Cargo YPR765 NL APC, Cmd YPR765 PROC-B NL APC, ISC YPR765 PRI NL APC, ISC YPR765 PRI/I NL ATGM, Dragon2 Team NL ATGM, Gill-MR Team NL ATGMV, YPR765 PRAT NL Helo, Cougar Mk2 NL Inf, HQ Command NL Inf, HQ Command [-] NL Inf, Section (-) NL Inf, Section + Dragon NL Inf, Section + Gill NL Mortar, 120mm RT61 OP Inf, Sharpshooter (less capable than units with "sniper" in their name) US Inf, Sharpshooter (less capable than units with "sniper" in their name) Developer initiative. Added an "Other" nationality filter to the Unit Data Base Window, Weapon Data Base Window, Add One Unit Window, and Change Units Window. Check marking the "Other" box will display Royal Netherlands Army unit types. Bug fix. Units wrongfully fired on infantry casualty markers. Bug fix. Deleted Javelin ATGM from US AAAVP. Changed the automatic cannon on the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle from 25mm to 30mm. Bug fix. The Chinese/North Korean Type 83 self-propelled howitzer was wrongly classed as a 122mm howitzer instead of as a 152mm howitzer. Bug fix. Reduced lethality points value of AAAVP from 70 to 50. Bug fix. Added M16 rifle and AT4 LAAW to weapons carried by LAV25 AD (Air Defense). User request. Changed name of "OP Inf RPG Team" to "OP Inf Team w RPG". User request. Changed name of "OP Inf MG 5.45mm RPK Team" to "OP Inf Team w RPK MG".

You used the phrase "obtained TacOps" rather than "bought TacOps". Does that indicate that you have TacOps ANZAC? If so, which version and how is it being received by your peers?

It is abstractions like this that allow a TacOps player to have hundreds of unit markers in play without burning out his mouse or his patience. If I made the changes that you suggest, most players would simply work harder so as to achieve the same result as the current simplified abstraction. I have taken a number of user polls on this over the years and the majority of users have always preferred to keep the arty abstraction smple. It is intentional that the artillery abstraction appears to allow arty rounds to be moved in flight. In the real world there are a lot of people working very hard in the background to get arty on target and they usually succeed. Also, in the real world arty fire for effect doesn't usually arrive every thirty seconds in a three boom animation. Unless the batteries are only firing one round per tube for the fire for effect, the beaten zone is going to be active with more or less continuous explosions for several minutes. If the target is moving then at some point in the fire mission the real world spotters and batteries are going to change firing data to keep pace with the target. As long as the TacOps combat results are plausible over the span of several minutes of fire then it doesn't matter that TacOps abstracts the continous nature of real world arty fire into discrete pulses of destructive effect and it doesn't matter if rounds can be magically retargeted in mid air. The current TacOps arty concept was never intended to replicate the detailed, real world procedures involved in getting arty rounds on target. The TacOps arty constructs are meant to replicate effect on target - not call for fire procedures that would in effect become a game in themselves and that would bore anyone but an arty officer to tears. I know that arty rounds travel through the air for many dozens of seconds. I know that one can't magically change a round in a tube, let alone one in flight, from HE to ICM in 15 or 60 seconds. I know that arty salvos can not be instantly shifted 1000 meters while in flight. I consider such details to be largely irrelevant to the arty paradigm presently used in TacOps. What I want TacOps to convey is that modern arty is flexible, is timely, and that it kills a lot of things. TacOps arty fire missions are meant to be an easy to use quantifier of the levels of destruction that are reasonably achievable by arty support over several turns. I don't think it is relevant to the current paradigm for technical procedures and physics realities to be calculated every single time the animation seems to indicate that a "salvo" is landing.

> It doesn't need any functionality other than the ability to > carry the correct weight and volume of troops/equipment, > load/unload, fly at medium altitude and land. That is a lot of functionality. I always get a chuckle out of the things that you gents think are simple.

>My Military Sciences goons What kind of MS class are you teaching?