Tory the Magnus

I too would like to see the ability to make custom scenarios with AI. Not all of us have the time to play a multiplayer scenario, even with PBEM. Having AI in user created scenarios also allows players to test their own scenarios before releasing them to the fan base.

Just a note pzgndr, Medal of Honour: Pacific Assult is not an RTS, it is a First Person Shooter. I don't know what reporter thought it was an RTS but they are wrong.

I actually think that the Macro/Micro pattern is much harder to see than just the Macro one from your picture. I would also like to point out that the picture doesn't really do either of the camoflage types justice as the APC is sitting out in the open and not in cover where it's camoflage would be most effective.

Thanks for that Coyote.

Fair enough. Thanks for that Major H and Coyote.

Thunderhorse's question is an interesting one Major H. Why isn't there a campaign mode in TacOps? I would have thought that a campaign mode, or the ability to link scenarios into a campaign, would have been a prerequisite for TacOps when being ordered by the various militaries that employ TacOps as a training tool.

Good for you. Battlefront is pretty good with it's delivery. I live in Australia and my game of TacOps arrived a good two weeks before the time stated that it would arrive. I hope you enjoy the game.

Ahh ok. So what is the consensus?

I don't see why it matters how long it takes to dig an entrenchment. The entrenchments you can deploy at the start of some TacOp's maps are prepared positions that you probably had plenty of time to prepare in the firt place since all the scenarios that I have played involving entrenchments have appeared to be flanking moves by OPFOR against BLUEFOR secondary units in flank protection positions.

To pick up speed cameras and stuff. Isn't that what they are used for in private cars, a kind of speed camera detectin system?

But what does it matter if it doesn't burn anything? The original reason for flame throwers being created was to make it easier to clear out trenches in WW1 if I'm not mistaken. And this HFS-1 "Buratino" seems to do the job with the added benefit that you don't have to wait for the fires to burn out before you capture the position.

You said that the ARENA system as a covering arc of 300 degrees, which area of the tank is located in the 60 degrees that aren't covered or does the AREA array rotate so that no one part of the tank is constantly without coverage? Also, since urban areas seem to be an increasingly common place for tanks to go and the opponents that they are fighting are usually militia with only basic AT weapons, will this system be able to counter dumb fire AT weapons like RPG's, SMAW's or LAAW's, or even wire guided missiles that don't use laser targetting?

How does the tank detect when it is being targetted in the first place so that it can know to turn on it's anti-AT missile system? Also, wouldn't this system be quite large and mean that the other capabilities of the tank would have to be sacrificed to allow it?

Upon going to your site www.warfarehq.com I was unable to access the link http://www.wargames.warfarehq.com/forums/index.php and so could not access your forums or anything else for TacOps. Is this a temporary site thing or is it a problem at my end?

Air strikes are best used against rapidly advancing enemy units rather than implaced enemy positions. The reason this is so is that it is usually hard for a rapidly advancing enemy force to keep within range of AA cover, as you have to transport the SAM units and then unload them if you want them to fire/provide cover. This is not a problem for the enemy when they are defending or are in a static position as they can deploy their SAM units and then not have to worry about moving them unless over run. The only way I can see of being able to use airstirkes against an enemy defensive positon effectively is too try and locate his SAM units prior to having your airstrike come on the map and suppressing them with artillery fire. However this is difficult as AA units are usually behind the front line.

It worked fine for me, although I don't have a Mac. All I did was go to the folder, double click to bring the map up and then just went file print. No problems at all. It even did it on one page.

Thanks Major H.

As the title suggests I would like to know if anyone can tell me if and how you can print out the maps from TacOps. I would like to do this as I don't have a lot of time to sit in front of my computer and study the map I am playing and so I would like to print them out so that I can take my time analysing the terrain and working out appropriate strategys. It would also be helpful for marking on things like the location of artillery adjusting rounds so you can remember where they are and there by work out the area that they can quickly and accurately target.

Really. I have never seen them used in a scenario before. Which scenarios are they part of the OPFOR force or are they just units that you can put into a scenario if you want to?

Just getting back on topic for a second. I have discovered a couple of OPFOR vehicles that are not present in TacOps. The first is the T-90 which most of you probably know about already. But one I didn't know about was the BMP-3 which is supposedly superior to the BMP-2. Are these two new OPFOR vehicles going to be incorperated into the next version of TacOps Major H.?

Thanks Coyote, I will do that. However, has anyone here ever heard about a game called Ironstorm? The storyline goes pretty much like this, it is alternate history by the way. During WW1 the British and their allies, as well as the Germans and their allies, had spent so much money on the war that they where starting to go broke yet the war was still a stalemate. So in an effort to finance their war machines and win the war the nations involved listed their war efforts on the stock exchange and got people in countries not involved such as America and Japan to finance their war efforts by investing. As such, now none of the investors want the war to end as it is such big business and so WW1 never actually finished but has kept going to the present day. It is a very interesting idea and one that could happen. Anyone fancy the idea of the US fighting the EU while the asian and middle eastern countries look on, and then invest in opposite sides to make loads of money? It could happen. Also OPFOR might get a boost soon as I just heard that the Chinese economy has grown by 17% again this year. Once China gets rolling we could have another cold war on our hands. One sixth of the worlds population versus the country that spends more on military hardware than all the other countries in the world combined.

Now this may sound blashpemous but I don't know who Harold Coyle is or what his "The 10,000" was. But regardless a BLUEFOR and REDFOR battle with both sides using western weapons would be very interesting and provide a whole host of tactical problems to entertain players. I don't know why the opinion that Western countries will start fighting each other some time isn't more wide spread as it seems logical to me. With there only being one Super Power in the world and the diminishment of the number of OPFOR countries capable of taking on a western army in a conventional war it seems that the western countries will have to fight each other over the various resources still free in the world. Battlefield: Antarctica anyone?

No it is not possible. The only units that can be used in TacOps are those that are in the database. However, if you come from Australia (like me) or New Zealand then you can use the Umpiring tools to change units over to ANZAC units. However the list for ANZAC units isn't fully complete and some of the units are the same across all forces and so don't need to be changed, such as the Coyote or the M113.

When you say Korean scenarios I assume you mean US vs DPRK. If that is so then why would you replace a DPRK weapon with an OPFOR weapon when they both use Russian made weapons in the first place? Would the DPRK army already use SPG9's? An interesting idea also came to me when reading this post. In TacOps the OPFOR real world tehcnology is no match for BLUEFOR. So to actually get a fair game you need to check the options that improve OPFOR warheads and give all their vehicles thermal sights. So what will happen in future installments of TacOps as BLUEFOR military technology gets even further and further ahead of OPFOR? For me I think that Western countries will probably start fighting each other and so other alliances will become the new OPFOR.

I can add a couple of things to that list Rame. ASLAV3 IFV - (Not in TacOps. The LAV-25 is equivalent to the ASLAV1, however the ASLAV3 is far superior) ARH Tiger - (I don't think this is in TacOps. It is a gunship, but is not as heavy as the Apache. The US does have a similiar roled helicopter but I understand that it is outdated and the project to replace it has been scrapped.) You know, it's a shame that we don't have any people from any OPFOR countries who could actually suggest units that are missing from the TacOps OPFOR database. [ April 03, 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Tory the Magnus ]