TheJames

Well, the Russians don't seem to have had any problem putting ATGMs in ALL of their tanks, all the way back to the T-55. I find it interesting that the US has failed to do the same. Adding a 5000m-range guided projectile sure can't hurt, but the Russians and their client states have this capability NOW. And while the STAFF round sounds somewhat more capable than weapons like the AT-11, by the time the STAFF reaches widespread service, you can be guaranteed there'll be a top-attack millimeter-wavelength AT-11 (or something similar). Having a barrel-launched ATGM isn't the be-all and end-all of armoured warfare, but it sure does give you a lot more options (and makes life for APC crews a whole lot more interesting). As for using infantry ATGM and IFVs, just look at the sheer amount of artillery that a lot of countries have (ie North Korea's ridiculous amount of old tube artillery). A few regiments (or, god help you, DIVISIONS) of arty, no matter how old, can quickly spell the end of infantry/IFV combos, and even if they're dug in, they won't be doing a whole lot. But heavy tanks like the M-1s/T-90s/Leopards can handle the heat a lot better. It just goes back to the fact that single-system solutions don't work. The airplane didn't render ground forces obsolete, the tank won't render infantry and light vehicles obsolete, the missile won't make the gun obsolete, etc. etc. etc. You're always going to need heavy armour, but you also need a lot of other peices to make an army work. That's why combined-arms warfare is the cornerstone of every modern military doctrine.

Well, I've seen pictures of an Apache sitting on a flatbed trailer being paraded through a town somewhere (there's a link to the pictures on the general forum somewhere). So either there WERE two Apaches, and one of them DID get taken out by an airstrike, or there was only one, and it didn't get taken out. Either one seems likely enough. I heard CNN discounting the report of the second captured Apache because it had the same unit markings as the first, but seeing as how Apaches in the same general area would likely have been from the same unit anyways, I could go either way. I guess we'll have to wait a while to find out.

For the love of god, PLEASE have pity on us poor wretched souls, and give us a unit editor!!!!!! (sorry for the outburst;))

I would give you my FIRST-BORN (if it would help)!

Well, you change your forces, and do whatever you want as far your side goes. You can decide to pursue different objectives, or what have you, but you cannot change the enemy AI. You cannot change their objectives or tactics, although you can usually change their forces (or at least add and subtract from them). And most scenarios are offered in different variations, ie. with different enemy strength/equipment/timetables/numbers, so there is a lot of room for change. And the CPXs (if you like online play) are pretty much unlimited in what you can do. So, no, it doesn't really have a single-player mission editor, but there's still a lot of room to monkey around with the scenarios given.

If all you know about the enemy is they're "a few companies", and don't know where the FEBA is the best force structure would probably Recon, followed by some RECON, with some supporting RECON behind that. It depends (in TacOps) mainly on what kind of terrain you're in. Also what kind of anti-armour capability your inf/APCs have. For a force that size I'd use maybe 2 or 3 pltns of inf. as a Recon-in-force/diversion/feint. Big enough to conduct counter-recon, and if used well might look like a larger force. Small enough to get out from under arty without heavy casualties, or the enemy might think it to be your main recce effort, and just let you through, hoping to ambush the main force. By about the eighth recon vehicle, he'll probably get wise to you, but by then it's too late. If you don't expect much anti-armour fire you could try leading with tanks carrying infantry, while your APCs and anti-armour teams overwatch. But amroured units moving in the open tend to die very quickly in TacOps, so only do this VERY CAREFULLY. More often I just saturate as many likely enemy positions as possible with arty, and leave the tanks as overwatch and rush to the nearest possible (or known) enemy position with the infantry companies mounted. And move all of your platoons at once. Once you commit to an attack, its a good idea to go full bore (within reason, of course), because they can only kill units so fast, and moving everyone at once limits their exposure. Skirting close to terrain features (that you know are cleared of enemy) keeps at least one side clear of enemy troops. If you can't clear the terrain features first, use Arty as you go by. Also, if you take fire, you can (hopefull) get away by ducking into the trees/into the valley/onto the hill to break LOS. I like to break up tank companies into platoons and assign them one or two per inf. co. And keep your observers/spotters well clear (around 1-2km) of your attacking forces. That way if they get spotted and hit with arty your main force is okay, and if your main force gets hammered, your observers don't need to die with them. But it also means that your back-up is close when your recon sees something. And if your recon dies, the enemy won't have a lot of time to move before the main force gets there. Even if your spotter is dead, "the trail is still warm". You can't get much more specific without knowing the terrain/enemy/what exactly you want to do. How deep you can penetrate depends on your frontage and enemy disposition. And where your AD units are depends on whether he has helos or not. If he has helos, I like to keep the AD guys with the tail-end recon units (I love to pick off recon with choppers, so I try not to let it happen against me). Anyone else have suggestions? Criticisms? Ideas for a MechBn vs. Unknown?

Yeah, buddy-targeting would be nice. I seem to recall reading an AAR for a CPX where they used buddy-targeting with LAV w/Hellfires guiding Hellfires from Apaches. It had the Russians fighting the U.S. in the Middle-East. I can't remember where I read it though. I wonder what the umpire used to model that?

Again, I have to be another one to chip in with my criticisms. I've thought about them for a long time, and will suggest improvements where I can. I only post this because I have yet to see some of them adressed anywhere, so here goes (with the usual comments about additional terrain levels and instanteous C3 ommited): 1) There's no "overkill" in the game! 10 M-2s fire at 10 BTRs and not a single one of them hits the same target as someone else? If it were occasionally to happen (as it does in real life), that (for example) two tanks firing at two APC shoot the same one, leaving the other to return fire, etc. (with a higher chance with more units involved, due to less time to co-ordinate). This would cut down on what some think are excessive kill levels in the game to a more realistic amount. 2) There's no fratricide (ideally there should be none anyways, but we all know it happens, and this is supposed to be a SIMULATION). To be fair, though, I'm not sure how this could be gamed in a reasonable manner. 3) Units automatically recognize units they see. How can a tank crew pick out the one guy that has an SA-16, and the two RPG squads out of the dozens of guys crawling around in the smoke under an arty barrage? Maybe a generic infantry counter, and a generic armoured vehicle counter and squad-weapon counter would be a good idea, until a positive ID can be made. 4) Units don't shoot at targets they can't kill with one hit. When (as happens often in scenarios, and has been exploited for purpose designed CPXs) a dozen T-55s (or BMPs, or whatever) charge a single M-1 and are all wiped out without returning a single shot, I start to raise eyebrows. I'm quite sure that around 80 shots (assuming a similar ROF) would do in most M-1s, or at the very least get both mobilty and firepower kill. I realize that having everyone waste their ammo on T-90s and M-1s is pointless, but a Target Priority command (two extra mouseclicks) would allow you to select a BMP-3 and say "Fire on (select unit) whenever possible". Perhaps have it as a "higher than High Priority" setting. At least you could go for the mobility kill, or take out a weapon. 5) It doesn't seem that an infantry unit with 13 personnel is any more effective than one with 1 man. (but this could just be me). 6) I think the idea of different skill levels is a good one. Yes, as has been noted, it would universally decrease unit capabilities, because the fire tables are "best case" data. But in the real world there are going to units who are complete grapes, and having Somali teenagers fire with the same accuracy and effect as SAS troops is a bit much. 7) MG fire seems (to me) FAR TOO EFFECTIVE. Units firing machine guns from 2000m away are killing vehicles almost every time they hit. VERY RARELY are units ever damaged (in TacOps terms), or just hit (with "H" symbol). I would suggest that from extreme ranges, and firing platforms with marginal hitting power would damage units far more often than destroy them outright. 8) Battlefield and counter-battery Radar: they're there... Why don't they do anything? 9) Wounded. Maybe (and this would just be a playability thing, I guess) when a vehicle or unit is destroyed, a counter (I've been using medic or civs of a neutral colour in games) is left behind. Ambulances are provided in the game, but there's never an oppourtunity or incentive to use them. Maybe assigning points for wounded picked up would be a good idea, and add another very interesting aspect to the game. 10) Airdropped or Artillery delivered PGMs.... PLEEEEEEEEASE??? 11) Different visibilty on different parts of the battlefield would be a major plus (IMHO). Maybe using different types of smoke, or something similar to simulate weather? 12) And as wierd as some of the effects may be, I would LOVE a unit editor. How do I model weird Iranian hybrids? It would also enable players to do (here it comes) WWII scenarios (within certain limits). 13) ....No, that's about it, if there's anyone still reading this. The game really is a great one, and the only reason I managed to some up with so much stuff is because I play it so obsessively. I also realize that it's the most accurate game I've seen yet, and balk at anything that holds it back from perfection.