Embar

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I wrote: Going through the notes again, it seems that the US recon teams have a higher rate of fire than the US snipers (the recon teams fire around 3 shots per minute, the snipers about 2 shots per minute) ...<hr></blockquote> Correction: recon teams fire 4 shots per minute until they run out of targets, sniper teams only fire 2 shots per turn. Later, Embar

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by medlinke: How many times have you attempted that scenario? <hr></blockquote> I ran the first ten minutes of the three scenarios (Marks, Fenwick, Fullerton) 20 times each to see if it was just bad luck or if it was a persistant feature. That's why I said "on average" in the above post - having bad luck in a couple or three re-runs is one thing, but twenty times in a row...? Hm. Come to think of it, the Canucks use 4 sniper teams while the US forces get 2 sniper and 2 recon teams. Going through the notes again, it seems that the US recon teams have a higher rate of fire than the US snipers (the recon teams fire around 3 shots per minute, the snipers about 2 shots per minute) which allows them to clear their respective perimeter sections faster than the snipers clear theirs (in spite of the recon teams having lower hit probabilities and a shorter range than the snipers). This would explain why it takes so much longer clearing the perimeter in Fullerton. I still don't know why Canadian 155mm arty regularly deviates 200+ meters on accuracy "3" though Kind regards, Embar

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dhuffjr: This scenerio demonstrates the difficulty of using helicopters in a shoulder fired sam environment. At least for my first go at it. I learned the hard way.<hr></blockquote> Yes... at least if you don't have snipers to nail the SAM crews before the helos go in On a somewhat bragging note: I've managed to complete Marks and Fenwick in 33 minutes with 2% friendly losses against a maxed-out OPFOR Fullerton is harder if you give OPFOR all their attack helos (in Marks and Fenwick the Cobras/ Apaches have Stingers to fend them off), so I usually end up with 10-15% Canadian losses BTW, Major - it seems as if the Canadian snipers are rather less accurate than the US ones (they take on average about two minutes longer to clear the perimeter of the camp). Similarly the Canadian artillery seems to be less accurate (deviates further in spite of having the same "accuracy level" according to the game). Is this a bug or a feature? Kind regards, Embar

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by medlinke: Hi all, I don't know if this has already been brought up, but if it hasn't. Task Force Marks<hr></blockquote> ...and its siblings TF Fenwick (US Army, ie. Javelins instead of Dragons and Apaches instead of Cobras) and Battle Group Fullerton (Canadian forces, ie. no attack helos and Eryx ATGMs). Good hunting, Embar

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cavguy: A diesel version has been available for years, we fielded a version to the Koreans called the K1, but it also did not have the special armor. I don't believe there has been a design mounted on an M60 chassis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hm. I know that the K1 was designed by General Dynamics (though AFAIK it is built by Hyundai), but is it really a version of the M1...? It is much smaller: Korean K1 MBT Length: (gun forward) 9.672 m (hull) 7.477 m Width: (over skirts) 3.594 m Height: (to turret top) 2.248 m US M1 MBT [numbers in brackets are for M1A1]: Length: (gun forward) 9.766 [9.828] m (gun rear) 8.971 [9.033] m (hull) 7.918 m Width: 3.653 [3.657] m (reduced) 3.479 m Height: (to turret roof) 2.375 [2.438] m So, well... the K1 both has a hull half a meter shorter than the M1, and is five inches lower to the top of the turret. If the only difference between them is the armour, the K1 must be even lighter armoured than the Leo 1! Regards, Embar [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Embar ]

Hello, I tried to subscribe to the mailing list according to the Major's instructions above, but all I got was the reply "tacops: unknown mailing list" Is the list server down, or something? Kind regards, /Embar

Hello, I know that this has been discussed before, but I can't find that particular thread at the moment... In that other thread discussing (IIRC) the Gallagher scenarios, someone said roughly that he considered "anything over 25% losses as a failure". I've only recently recieved my full (paid-for) copy of TacOps so the only Gallagher variant I have any real experience with is number 6 (which comes with the demo), but I have played around a fair bit with the OPFOR arrival times, extra units etc. So far, the best I've done in that scenario *without using any optional units* and using the factory game settings (all OPFOR tanks have IR sights and smoke doesn't block IR) is a US attrition of about 35% by the time the OPFOR has lost enough vehicles to lose the game. However, if I allow smoke to block IR (or remove the IR sights from the OPFOR) my US attrition drops to around 25%; if I use all the various optional units my losses drop by a similar amount as well. Using both IR-blocking smoke (or no OPFOR IR sights) *and* all US optional units makes the battle pretty much a walk-over... not that I'm surprised by this result, considering how much the force point ratios change when you add the optional units! My question (mainly directed to whoever it was posted the 25% attrition value - could've been MinMax?) is: what game settings and optional units do you use, and what game settings? Similarly in Team Cahoon - what loss rates are "normal" with the various game settings? If I don't give the OPFOR IR sights I can clear the objective without losing more than a couple of Bradleys at most (by using more smoke than any other arty ammo type); giving OPFOR IR sights but using IR-blocking smoke makes it a little harder since my units can't see through the smoke either, and using the factory settings (OPFOR has IR sights and smoke *doesn't* block it) makes it quite bloody indeed. What are your experiences with this scenario, and what settings do you use? Kind regards, Embar

Yes, but... To take an example discussed in another thread, the glacis plate of the M1Awhatever is sloped at 80 degrees. According to what I've seen and heard - not very reliable sources, admittedly! - it is about 50mm thick... but the slope means that a head-on hit will "percieve" it as being closer to 300mm thick (and then the fuel tank immediately behind the glacis is designed to provide further protection by breaking up long-rods and shaped-charge jets. Unfortunately the driver isn't protected by the fuel tank.) So why not use a vertical plate some 300mm thick instead of a heavily sloped plate 50mm thick? Because the vertical plate would leave the entire area above the driver and fuel tank completely unprotected (unless you put another lots of lbs of armour plate to cover the gap)! The heavily sloped plate can be penetrated by specialized top-attack munitions, but it stops any small-arms rounds or shell fragments from above as well as from the front; a vertical plate wouldn't. (Oh, BTW - hello, everyone. Rude of me to intrude without an introduction :-/ I'm a newbie to TacOps... well, that's about it really Great game, but you already knew *that*!) Kind regards, Embar

Originally posted by Stoffel: >I have another question regarding artillery. >In the game you can only fire HE rounds >with the 120mm mortar. >But I believe very capable icm munitions >exist for heavy mortars,i.e. Stryx and >others.Why are they not in use with TacOps? If you mean the Swedish "Strix" 120mm mortar round, it is a) not an ICM round (which scatters numberous small sub-munitions over a large area) but a PGM (think "indirect-fire mortar-launched ATGM" or "mortar-launched Copperhead which doesn't need laser pointers to hit the target"), and not in service with either the US/CA/NZ armed forces nor any of the former WarPac countries. I suspect that is the main reason why Strix is not included in the game Kind regards, Embar