TacOps 4.0 Feature Requests

[Rocket7]

Just a few to get started.

TacOps 4.0 Feature Request

Toolbar. This simply a convenience feature. How about one of those new fangled dockable, customizable, deals. Just like the ones you find in MS Office where you can configure the bar with whatever menu items you want.

Variable Turns. You have a game run out feature why not a variable turns. For example turn increments of 1, 2, 5 , and 10? Something along those lines. Or better yet let us enter a turn range from 1-X.

Groups. Give us the ability to group units. Not just 0-9 but letters as well maybe 0-J giving us a possible 20 groupings. Not that we’d need that many. Then allow us to assign range and SOP settings to specific groups.

Multiple Paths. Right now TacOps uses a single path copy method. Basically a multiple path would be where units move parallel to each other but along the same path . Essentially they maintain the same spacing. For those of you who’ve played BCT or TOP/PITS you know what I mean.

Artillery Methods Of Fire. This it essential in depicting more realistic command and control over fire support assets. I’d like to see two methods. AMC or At My Command, this is where a mission is sent and the requesting unit determines when it will be shot. The second method would be the TOT or Time On Target. Basically fire is requested to be shot at a specific time. Both methods are critical when trying synchronize maneuver and fire support.

Pre-Plotted Orders. Don’t know what else to call this. Basically it’s a way to assign individual or groups of orders to a hotkey to be executed whenever the player decides. You have two company’s you want to fallback at different time. You could pre-plot orders for each company assign them to two different hotkeys then execute them whenever you decide. The first company executes its orders, then a few turns later you can have the second company execute theirs. Pre-Plot orders makes it easier to manage individual or groups of units.

Triggers. Units execute a specific action or orders based on a trigger. A trigger could be caused by enemy or friendly actions or time and location. For example the trigger to fallback to a battle position might be after a unit takes three or four shots at an enemy unit. Or the trigger to move to an attack position could be based on time , at such and such a time move to x position. Another example using time as a trigger would be for all M2s to set an engagement range of 2500 at x time. You could use triggers as Named Areas of Interests or NAIs . For example set a friendly unit to observe a certain area much like the DF TRP function. When an enemy unit enters the observed area a trigger is set off to change engagement ranges, requests for fire, change SOP settings, etc.

More Later.

[SeaRich]

More units (if possible) for New Zealand's Armed forces.

A dialog window that lists a continuous spot report/ damage report. This would be like BCT has where there is an actual little window that registers information every time a friendly unit takes fire or takes a casualty. The same thing is available under Reports-game status or Reports-OOB, but I would rather have the little window.

[Rocket7]

Graphics Overlays. I'd like to be able to draw lines and different shapes on the maps just like an acetate overlay on an actual map. Let us draw up to five different overlays then let us display them individually or in groups. For example I might create a maneuver overlay that depicts company boundaries, engegement areas, phase lines, etc. The next overlay would be a fire support overlay depicting some planned targets, or fire support coordination measures. I could then toggel them on individually or group them together.

[Oswald]

I agree with Rocket7. I have printed out all of the maps and mark them up on paper a lot, but I think being able to mark them on-screen would be a big help.

Also, maybe if there were a way to modify/add new units or weapons to the database. I'm an AF Civil Engineer, and wanted to add a few pieces of earthmoving equipment to a scenario.

Rob

[Carter]

I'd love to see some new units.

Specifically:

Black Eagle

T-90

T-95? (no offical designation yet, but it

does have a giant 152mm cannon!)

Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW)

Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW)

Also I'd like to see some new scenarios with an "Air Mech Strike" flavor. A description of this maneuver warfare concept is at:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/marapr97/jarnot.htm

[Oliver]

I was thinking the same as Rocket. Since you can't make a Combined Arms Team (Company size element), it would be great to assign platoon level elements (2 platoons of Mech Infantry and 1 Platoon of Tanks as an example) to a higher hqs. Then, the hqs could be given missions/tasks.

[Zizka]

How 'bout morale rules? I'd love to see Blue and Red units hesitate, rout, surrender, etc. Gives the player more to worry about and will stimulate pursuits, etc.

Also, HQ units could rally.

[Coyote]

More request items from my fevered brain:

0. Handgrenades; increase in close combat firepower under ~30 meters range. This will also speed up close assaults.

1. Engineer/breaching equipment; mineplows, line charges, AVLBs.

2. Obstacles; wire, tank ditches, road craters?

3. Non-combatants; Friendly Civilians, Neutral Civilians, Hostile Civilians.

4. New units; Downed Pilots with sidearms, Friendly Wounded, Enemy POWs, bunkers, Patriot missile units (good high value unit to defend).

5. Off map 105mm and 8 inch Arty for historical play.

5. Chemical Agents; Variable unit protection levels, lethal agents (artillery rounds), non-lethal agents (riot control).

[Thermopylae]

Contour Lines?

[Guest MajorH]

Suggestions noted.

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Guest Robert Ingoglia]

Originally posted by Zizka:

How 'bout morale rules? I'd love to see Blue and Red units hesitate, rout, surrender, etc. Gives the player more to worry about and will stimulate pursuits, etc.

Also, HQ units could rally.

I would also love to see morale rules (I know that I make the troops do things that in real life are not at all possible).

[Spook]

I'd like to weigh in favor of "morale" rules too. Granted, "suppression" exists in the game, but variance in relative force proficiencies allows the adding of a major dimension in scenario design.

And also noted earlier was contouring and greater range of terrain elevations. I hope to see something for this too. (OK, I admit I'm a little spoiled by what BCT provided in that regard...)

[Allan Wotherspoon]

1. More equipment for OPFOR.

2. Counter battery radar

3. Enforced emplacement/displacement times for on map artillery & mortars (goes with #3)

4. Until more elevations are possible, a few more terrain types, especially impassable to vehicles woods, impassable to vehicles rough and impassable to all units rough.

5. More countries in the database. All of NATO would be nice, but I'd settle for the UK, Germans and French.

Allan

[Chimera]

> Toolbar. This simply a convenience

> feature. How about one of those new

> fangled dockable, customizable, deals.

> Just like the ones you find in MS Office

> where you can configure the bar with

> whatever menu items you want.

*LAUGH*

Sorry, but I got the image of a pop-up 'helper' that looks just like MajorH!:

Hi there! I notice you are attempting to engage some tanks at long range. Would you also like to:

o Engage with Artillery?

o Engage with Airstrikes?

o Maneuver your APCs to flank?

[ Show me more ] [ Not now, I'm fighting! ]

Heehee... I couldn't stop laughing. Most people hate that silly 'helper' paperclip thingie.

Also, to Carter:

> T-90

I believe this is the FOT (Future Opfor Tank) which used to be called the TFO (Tank, Future Opfor). Check your User Guide.

To Zizka:

On morale, I would have to say (even as a non-coder on TacOps) that this would be a -major- revision of the code (no pun intended there). Morale effects simply impact at such a base level that entire sections of code would have to be completely rewritten. Then, people will want to do unit training levels which will affect their morale levels (special forces vs. green troops vs. veterans).

Just my two cents.

Chimera

[Chimera]

> 5. More countries in the database. All of

> NATO would be nice, but I'd settle for the

> UK, Germans and French.

Yes, this would definately be a plus. Being able to play German units vs US/Can/UK Equipment could open up a whole new section of maps, scenarios. Hell, it could be sold as an add-on. I'd buy it.

[Carter]

In response to Chimera:

>Also, to Carter:

>

>> T-90

>

> I believe this is the FOT (Future Opfor

> Tank) which used to be called the TFO

>(Tank, Future Opfor). Check your User Guide.

The T-90 and TFO/FOT are different.

MajorH has said that the TFO is basically a Abrams painted red. The difference seems to be that the TFO gun is a little better.

The T-90 is a very advanced T-72. It has a 125 mm gun, unlike the 135 mm on the TFO.

The T-90 has advanced reactive armor, Shotora-1 countermeasures, and a gun launched ATGM.

The TFO looks closer to a Black Eagle. A real Black Eagle would have countermeasures and/or an active protection system. I would also expect the Black Eagle to have a gun launched ATGM.

Question for MajorH . . .

Which is the correct current name?

TFO or FOT?

TacOps 3.05 list the tank as TFO, but my user guide says FOT? Not that it really matters. Its all the same in battle

[Guest MajorH]

>TFO or FOT...

>Which is the correct current name?

I don't think either is used anywhere outside of TacOps.

I used TFO in the game engine so that this tank's name would appear near the other OPFOR "T" models in various dialog lists of names.

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Carter]

> I don't think either is used anywhere

> outside of TacOps.

I was just thinking you changed the name between TFO and FOT sometime in the last few years.

> I used TFO in the game engine so that this

> tank's name would appear near the other

> OPFOR "T" models in various dialog lists of

> names.

I very much appreciate this feature. I'd be upset if you changed it.

So I guess the proper TacOps name is FOT, but it also goes by TFO for convenience.

[Chimera]

> The T-90 and TFO/FOT are different.

Ahh. Learn something new every day. I did not know that. Thanks!

[Carter]

Personally I like the way TacOps is, so I have to weigh in against adding morale rules.

New Line-Of-Sight Tool:

I like the current line-of-sight tool, but I wouldn't mind seeing a second line-of-sight tool similar to the one in BCT. It would display a given unit's entire line-of-sight at once, maybe using a "fan" of sight lines.

This tool might make it easier to plan a defense. You could easily see where your unit's don't have observation. (I think Dead space is the term).

[Coyote]

1. This might be too hard to do but I hate watching my tanks waste main gun rounds on dismounted infantry. Especially when they have plenty of machinegun ammo left. :mad: I'd like to be able to stop that as an option during play. I might still want to use HEAT-MP against entrenchments or buildings but at my option.

2. I'd like to be able to put direct fire on a TRP even if I can't see an enemy unit but suspect one is there. This would promote more effective suppressive fire from supporting units and allow recon-by-fire against likely enemy positions. :eek:

Enough for tonight!

Coyote

[Bob I]

Here is a another request for TacOps. I have trouble "inching" my troops forward (when in woods or town) JUST to the point of their being able to see out. I often find that I advance them either too far or too "in". How about a SOP that tells them to just advance to the point of seeing out. Of course, if they get fired upon...that's war , but at least I will have the consolation of not having them move out further than necessary.