Switch_Back

Well as a slight correction, I would rather bypass enemy positions, but if my goal is to take and hold an objective I need to smash those positions, plus any positions behind need clearing out to avoid a counterattack from the rear, so that I may concentrate on expecting a counterattack from the front or flanks.

Well I did'nt think of doing that, good point! Yes CM is WWII, ah the joy of WWII wargaming. I do use the tactic of overwhelming Axis positions with large numbers of infantry and armoured vehicles covered by mortars and Maxim guns, but I really didnt think it would be overly effective in TacOps 4. Because my train of thought belived that a mad rush at an enemy position guns blazing would just be sliced apart by superior modern weaponry, Which is basically the Russian WWII tactic "CHHAAAAAAAAARRGGEEE!!!!!"

Yes I agree, I have begun seting up TRP's Well in advance of any assualt I make, thats something I make a point of doing in the first turn onwards, its very important to have a 4 or 5 accuracy rating the moment an enemy position is discovered so that support is quick and instantley effective. TRP's are also great on the defensive!! creating a semi circle of TRP's around 2 to 3 thousand metres out from defensive positions artillery can be quickly brought to bear where ever it is best needed and cause maximum effect on approaching enemy units. Actually on the point of TRP's, in a two player game can the opponent see my adjusting rounds?

I think I need to be thinking about making my attack run harmoniously with infantry and APCS moving into attack under cover and smoke, while the thermal sighted tanks and Artillery bombard the target keeping everyones heads down. Also your point Redwolf about taking down helicopters with assualt rifles, It has to be said that has happened quite often, mainly to my own AH64's Some fantastic Ideas there from Redwolf and the Major!! your help is fantastic.

Now I can see the error of my ways, I was trying to defeat entrenchments with overwhelming firepower, but it cost me many lost units. I was not being patient enough and not setting up a HE bombardment for long enough and laying smoke to cover a flanking assualt. Your points have been taken thanks for the help. The scenario that prompted me to write this post was the Canadian battle "Battle Group Dingman" where I have no choice but to hit entrenchments.

Im am having difficulty with entrenchments, it doesnt seem to matter how much I throw at them, armor, APCS even a large number of infantry when I can. And of the large volleys of fire from all my weaponry, ill feel lucky if I cause one casulty, my infantry can be virtually on top of the entrenchment and still I get more casulties than the enemy recieves. A point that is annoying me somewhat, is that an OPFOR unit of infantry in entrenchments with only three men left can obliterate 3 full sqauds of infantry and maim several APC's in 3 turns?!?! without taking a casulty for all the return fire. It took 5 turns to turf the buggers out. If anyone can help ill be much appreciated. I realise I am posting alot of threads asking for help, but by nature im a CM player, and im new to TacOps and im just trying to pick up on some good tactics so I can produce better results in my game and get as much into TacOps as I am CM. Thanks

Thats really helpful, before I was completely stumped as to their use, but you have given me some great ideas there, ill be sure to put them into practice during my next game. I take it however that I need to keep my APC's and tanks back when my infantry go after the other infantry, because the OPFOR infantry seem to be deadly against vehicles when I get them too close.

Ive tried and tried, but the only infantry I can actually make any use of is my ATGM and SAM units.... All the rest I cant find a use for, or if I do find a use, they always get mauled the moment they dismount, plus getting a vehicle close enough to dis-embark the infantry and do some damage is a rarity, because the vehicle usually get eliminated before it gets close enough. Basically meaning my tanks and APC's seem to be doing everything?!?! Can anybody give me some pointers on making my infantry more effective? :confused:

Thats right Blighty is just a term for England really. Well Major sorry to hear your having problems with the scenario editor. I look forward to the release of version 5 with the scenario editor, ill be sure to reserve a copy. Ive just tried re-arranging the orders of battle for the solitare scenarios its makes a huge difference to the battles and the tactics required, a real different challenge. Although it did make me laugh how I could load an M60 tank into an M3A3 Bradley that was quite amusing.

Well at least I know now, thanks Agent Smith. Any idea when the next version is due to be published?? To make do I suppose I could just play against myself?!?! strange but still it'll do haha Also to anyone reading this thread, if ever a seperate solitare scenario editor becomes available please post it straight away in this forum. as I am very keen to get my hands on one!! Thanks

Im new to TacOps and I have to say I am enjoying every minute I spend with this superb wargame. I have a small question which is bothering me though... Is it possible at all for me to make solitare scenarios? If so could someone please let me know, id be really grateful! Thanks

Ahhh if only the member number could be a mass number, how outweighing us n00bs would be, no need to run through the cess doors, just crush you in there lol

Plus the better respect that us n00bs are given, the more likely we are to GIVE constructive comments on strategy and findings, also we would be more likely to WANT to carry out beta testing and modding for the benefit of others on this forum. If us new people to the forum are given negative comments, then there just will be nothing to gain, but plenty to lose!!! AND HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYY WHY DONT THE UNITS HAVE THOSE LIKE FUNNY VOICES THAT GO "YES SIR" WHEN YOU CLICK ON THEM <HILLYBILLY GULP> Switch_back

hmmm I dunno

No I have a parsnip, sorry wrong colour, you keep that carrot thing quiet now wont ye, it could do alot of harm!! I am beginning to understand the point of the peng challenge now, thanks for helping

I first understood the peng challenge to be some kind of flame war from reading a couple, but when I tried myself it appears I have it all wrong, and I kinda embarressed myself.... Could someone who knows about these please explain to someone new to this challenge, as I didnt quite understand the explaination that dalem gave :confused: Any response greatly appreciated...

Myself being a big enthusiast of WW2 aircraft and their weaponry I can safely say that despite the fact that it was VERY rare for any kind of penetration to occur, the blast from the warhead in close proximity to the tank, or a direct hit was enouugh to- 1. rip the tracks apart. 2. immobolize the engine. ( direct hit only ) 3. render the gun useless.( direct hit only ) 4. Cause internal flaking. ( direct hit only ) 5. Kill unbuttoned crew members. Also in some circumstances it was possible for the rocket following its trajectory to acquire a good top penetration hit, due to the obvious lighter armor there. But as the aircraft where mainly to just provide some kind of SUPPORT to the infantry and armor on the ground, any kind of immobolization or killing of crew members was surely welcomed by the ground forces. It is also true that rockets did arc like this due to the propellant as mentioned before, but pilots who had used the rockets in sorties beforehand learnt quite quickly how to place a good shot onto the top of a tank using the curvature of the rocket arc. :cool: Anyone have anything to add?

This is true, I do agree there should be some more difficulty even in the opening stages of an operation

I may just stick around and learn your art of taunting, it should be interesting, maybe I can use these techniques. its 60watt actually, I know its only a 20watt difference but it counts these days lol

Just as a friendly note, I just want to mention that this particular scenario gets increasingly more difficult as you advance over enemy lines, because of an increse in the density of troops as you push into enemy territory to which they are sending troops to try to halt your advance, it is decieving and I can understand your frustration with this, but keep plugging at that operation you will see what I mean

I am afraid YK2 that your sarcastic welcome is about as effective as using a rubber chicken to dry a towel, this indicates to me that your wit runs dry as fast as a droplet of water in the Sahara desert at midday, plzzzz spare me the lack of wit that depresses people on prozac [ October 21, 2002, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Switch_Back ]

ummm just a little problem here, its just well..... NO I refuse to say none of you are worth the effort put into typing what is wrong, truth is there is nothing wrong and im actually rambling about nothing but still I would just like to say.... NO

I dont not have much problem with the infantry going to "sneak" when under fire, I have more of a problem when they are next to some viable cover so sometimes go in the opposite direction. An example of a recent problem I had was approaching a house in "advance" almost as soon as the platoon was about to reach the stone wall outside the house, a bloody MG42 opens fire and lets rip on them, so what do they do, NO they dont crawl behind the wall where its safe, insted they decide to crawl back into OPEN country can someone plzz sympathize lol [ October 21, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Switch_Back ]

That is true, I am playing a PBEM game at the moment and I am keeping the engineers back whilst the flanks crumble, and then forcing forwards with engineers and firefly tanks, supported by 81mm mortar units. Engineers perhaps shouldnt be so expensive, if they arnt greatly effective??

Then I have had a mis-lead belief about the engineers, thanks for pointing that out, maybe my STUG advances in a village situation will be more effective, I had not thought to check the firepower, I merely assumed that they would be more powerful.