Carter

About halfway down the page is your detailed explaination: http://www.hyperstealth.com/fracture/ I think you're being close minded on this considering the Marines, US Army, and now other countries are adopting digital camo.

Reading from another website, the Candians digital camo (CADPAT) had test results as follows: "The Canadian studies show there is a 40 percent less chance of being detected from 200 meters away with CADPAT Versus Olive Drab." http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm "Canadian CADPAT is 30% more effective than Olive Drab in field testing. The CADPAT soldiers could get 30% closer than the minimum ID range for a user wearing OD." ...This digital effect generates a dithering effect between colors (no solid lines) and works well within 100 yards of an adversary. However, this advance in camouflage is minimal as the colors tend to blend into each at farther distances... http://www.hyperstealth.com/fracture/ [ August 30, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Carter ]

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM "THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Why Digital Camouflage Patterns Matter August 26, 2004: Back in 2001, the U.S. Marines introduced a radical new camouflage pattern that used “pixels” (little square or round spots of color, like you will find on your computer monitor if you look very closely), instead of just splotches of different colors. Naturally, this was called “digital camouflage.” This new pattern proved considerably more effective at hiding troops than older methods. For example, in tests, it was found that soldiers wearing digital pattern uniforms were 50 percent more likely to escape detection by other troops, than if they were wearing standard green uniforms. What made the digital pattern work was the way the human brain processed information. The small "pixels" of color on the cloth makes the human brain see vegetation and terrain, not people. One could provide a more technical explanation, but the “brain processing” one pretty much says it all. However, the Canadian army quickly chimed in that they had been developing digital camouflage since 1996. Shortly thereafter, some old timers in the U.S. Army noted that they had seen digital camouflage in the 1970s. And they had. It turns out that Lieutenant Colonel Timothy R. O’Neill, a West Point professor of engineering psychology, had first noted the “digital camouflage effect.” It was never adopted for use in uniforms, but was used for a camouflage pattern on armored vehicles of the U.S. Army 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Europe from 1978 to the early 1980s. Why hadn’t the army adopted it for uniforms back in the 1970s? It seems that the key army people (uniformed and civilian) deciding such things in the 1970s could not grasp the concept of how digital camouflage worked on the human brain, and were not swayed by field tests. Strange, but true, and it’s happened before. In 2003, the U.S. Army decided to use digital camouflage patterns for their new field uniforms. China and Finland have also decided to use digital camouflage for new field uniforms. New ideas are often slow to catch on in the military, and digital camouflage was one of them."

I was recently reading over on strategeypage.com that the new Digital Camouflage reduced 'detection by 50%'... whatever that means. I hadn't read of any changes in TACOPS with regards to a digital Camouflage advantage. MajorH, will there be any updates to TACOPS detection range for digital camo troops? Just Curious... Thanks in Advance.

I would say that I only consider point value a rough estimate of strength. As you say game options/prefs can affect strength without altering point value. The thermal/smoke equation can be a dramatic alteration of strength. Think how many T-72s(no thermals) it would take to beat a single M1A1(with thermals) during a night attack? You might be able to fight that one M1A1 tank till it runs out of ammo. Other stuff like off-map artillery, air support, their delay time, and terrain can affect the strategic balance too. To me its more of a trial-and-error process to see if you've got a real balance of force... and even then game balance depends on the capability of the opposing player. If you're going for a 'fair' game, I'd give OPFOR thermals and improved ATGM's... and give the attacker at least 2 or 3 times as many points as the defender... depending on the relative skill level of the players.

Well I've won TF Peterjohn with "zero" casualties. I did lose a few individual personnel to artillery, but no unit losses. I've played the scenario a bunch. Generally I would lose 2 Tanks to artillery, but If I keep my tanks moving and get lucky I finish with no unit losses. I normally played the scenario with the default preferences. (Although I do turn off the 'see enemy OOB, and I make it so that firing units are NOT always spotted). Most of the time I throw in ALL the 'Red force' optional extras. Their artillery is the only thing that can touch me (unless I get sloppy). I don't use a time limit or replay bad turns. Saddam never stood a chance! I think Peterjohn was a tremendously cool scenario. Its easy but I felt like I learned a lot about the gulf war playing it. Thanks MajorH! I think I also had similar results on Team Sposito one time. (A few individual personnel losses only) The Army version is easy after you play a couple times. Generally my casualties run around 30% in TACOPS. If I use "real world settings" like NO OPFOR thermals, and regular OPFOR ATGMs, then I can get down to the 15-20% range. Sometimes better depending on the scenario. [ December 13, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Carter ]

I like modern units because they give me a good understanding what state-of-the-art combat is like. Historical stuff is cool, but state-of-the-art equipment is 'current' and feels 'real' to me. With TACOPS you can set up a simulation for a modern day "what if?". One time I even set up a scenario trying to replicate a battle from a Sci-fi novel. The battle was from a STARGATE novel where a huge army of Cat-like creatures wearing power armor takes on an isolated Marine battalion. I used BTRs to simulate the Alien Power armor. (BTR's have similar armor, firepower, and speed to the power armor described in the novel) It was interesting. After I played the TACOPS scenario, I had a better idea of what the battle would look like than the author of the novel! The author would have really benefited from simulating his battle in TACOPS. (The author didn't even know about DPICM. He also didn't realize the effectiveness of several other weapon systems, but he did accurately describe a strategy of concentrating the large enemy force for destruction) I don't mind powerful units. Playing with them can be very challenging, because it seems to me that there is less margin for error. If you make a bad mistake you can get all your troops killed very quickly. Worrying about all my guys getting killed at any instant keeps me on-edge. Those WWII players probably just have to adjust to the realities of 21st century warfare. It's a big jump from the 1940's to present day.

I just pre-ordered my copy of Tacops 4 and noticed that the new user's guide already on-line. Very cool. The new mine vehicles should be fun. I'm really looking forward to them. And the new tanks too! I also couldn't help but notice the names in the credits... John Antal! Impressive. I saw a number of names from the forum too. But who is that Justin Carter guy? Seriously, I'm honored. Thank you again MajorH for producing a quality wargame. The internet-play feature is sure to keep me busy and drive my wife crazy.

That was my strategy. I had too much trouble retreating my armor, so I just put the necessary number on on the edge of the map. They get at least one salvo then retreat across the edge. I felt I needed more air defense to use a mobile defense.

I remember when I learned that lesson. It's hard to forget it. One of the first battles I played involved a the meeting of two battalions. My lead company burst out of the woods toward the objective. Unfortunately OPFOR's lead company also burst out of some woods 2km away. An intense fight broke out. I was winning. I called in artillery and thought everything was going my way. Now that I had a minute, I thought to myself... I really need to spread out my company. They're too bunched up. I gave the orders to spread out and right after that OPFOR rockets carpeted my position. My entire company was wiped out. Every vehicle was destroyed. The few infantry survivors were later killed by follow-on artillery. The good news was that that whole skirmish bought time for my other companies to secure the objective. I won the battle, but the casualties were steep. [ May 16, 2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Carter ]

Nice battle. 100% OPFOR casualties are always my favorite! I do have one minor comment. You probably already figured out that you want to spread out your initial artillery TRPs more. I like to make a grid, so that the TRPs get good coverage and don't overlap. v4 looks nice! I like the new graphics. Is OPFOR pink?! I always thought that they were a bunch of commie pink-o's!!!!

Not sure what you mean by this? My experience is that fixed wing aircraft cannot target units in smoke.

Thanks for your insight MajorH! I didn't know about how that worked. But I'm not sure this is a factor in this case. My SAM's already shot down 1 MIG, then Hit and Aborted a second MIG. If I recall correctly, two more MIGS dropped cluster bombs. (one missed with the clusterbomb) Then the fifth one used its cannon against my Cobras. That aborted MIG might have come back, but I wouldn't expect the others to. Do jets attacking with cannon come back for another attack? BTW, will we be able to pre-order TacOps 4?

If they were just infantry, I might have left them. But there are enough T-80s and trucks there to give me a hard time if OPFOR played it smart. If nothing else, the troops give OPFOR eyeballs to watch my backside and call in air/artillery. They have thermals, so they can still see through regular smoke. General Question: What does everybody else do? Has anyone had experience with the troops in the small town counterattacking? I'm not sure the AI would counterattack, but a human could. I'm playing the mission again. I still feel like I'm getting the short end of the stick on airpower. I did 6 simultaneous airstrikes on the small town. 2 jets were shot down, 2 achieved only suppression of their targets, and 2 killed some infantry. US airpower in this scenario = worthless Meanwhile, one OPFOR jet managed to survive 5 stinger attacks and shot down 2 of my Cobra's. That was the 5th OPFOR jet attack in 45 minutes. They should have had only 2 or 3. My SAM's are already running dry. I'm going to change the OPFOR air settings next time.

Jingo, I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with the whole screen capture thing. I've never done anything like that with TACOPS. It's pretty cool.