New TacOps

[Bob I]

The board has been very lively -- with a good discussion on the military history class -- but fairly dead with respect to information on the new version of TacOps. Without bothering (too much) Major H., how about a brief progress report? Thanks!

[Stoffel]

Patience my friend,patience

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

TacOpsCav v4 was delivered to the 16th Cavalry Regiment (Armor School) at Fort Knox on 23 January. That version is now available to members of the U.S. Army via request to an Army point of contact.

It will probably be at least four months before I release that as a retail version under the title "TacOps v4". The main holdup on retail release is the perceived need to add new scenarios and maps, a better scenario editor, and perhaps some eye-candy. Unless I add these things, the "media reviewers" will likely give negative reviews of v4 as just being the same old thing. Of course they will probably say that anyway .

Otherwise I could have TacOps v4 CDs on the street in two or three weeks and you could be merrily playing multiplayer team games via the Internet.

[ February 17, 2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[Bob I]

Major H.,

Thanks for the update - I am sure that everyone understands and will patiently await for the new game. I will not say -- in a cavalier fashion -- to heck with the reviewers re: the "eye candy." Everyone will benefit (especially you) if the game reaches more people. Unfortunately, your game does require the purchaser to approach it with a certain degree of intelligence (to fully understand just how much thought and work went into its production). I would willingly sacrifice the "eye candy" for more depth and realism. However, you know what is best and you can be sure that your loyal fans will not go away.

I was not displaying impatience, I just wanted a very small update which you graciously provided. Thank you.

[Mike Robel]

Of course, this reviewer would say something like, "In one of the true success stories of the wargaming genre, MAJ Holdridge continues to raise the bar of perfection that larger, better supported, with huge development and advertising budgets can only wish they could do. The TACOPS is better than ever, while allowing the role player to build on his knowledge and application, rather than mastering yet another new interface, replete withe useless eye-candy."

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

Gosh ... I blush .

[CMplayer]

I agree this game is excellent. It's clearly better than I can understand. Still, could I just squeeze in a request for some ear-candy? This has probably been asked before but I'd enjoy it if the 'boom-boom-boom' sound file for artillery was different for say, 155s as opposed to 60mm mortars. I've never been under mortar fire, and I'm sure even the small stuff is loud when it's coming down on top of you, but I still would like to hear different sound effects for the various calibres. Three would do it, or maybe even just a 'lighter' and a 'heavier'. Just a thought.

[Saber 12]

MAJ, could you post the Army POC? My commander said he got a copy while attending CGSC (I believe). I will be going to FKX next month, should I check in with someone at 16th Cav?

Thanks,

LP

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

The point of contact below is only for use by U.S. Army personnel. TacOpsCav v4 can only be distributed to members of the U.S. Army.

3rd Squadron, 16th Cavalry Regiment

Attn: Linda Whitfield

Marshall Hall, Bldg 1726

Phantom Division Road

Fort Knox, KY 40121

DSN 464-2983

Commercial (502)624-2983

Email: whitfieldl@ftknox16cav-emh12.army.mil

[nvdoyle]

New to the boards, and new to TacOps (saw it demoed by a friend), but I ran across mention of it again in my daily check of The Strategy Page, and I felt I should weigh in on v4.

I've been playing the 'Steel Panthers' series since it came out in retail, long ago, and the thing that I kept coming back to (even though it was buggy, and terribly frustrating) was the scenario design. While the standard scenarios can be fun, it's the ability to set up the odd ones that -do- crop up in war that made it shine. It wasn't as versatile as I'd like, but it was better than most other things out there.

The tidbits I gleaned about TOCv4 from the Strategy Page article really caught my interest. Many, many sides, ROE for the various combinations possible of forces, and the addition of many different 'non-combatant' units, all I think add to the versimilitude and fun of the game. I'm glad that our military has something this good to learn with.

But - I want it, and I can't get it. Eyecandy or no, earcandy or no. I don't really care. I want features of play, more than anything else. I have to ask, are the people who will be buying a complex, realistic wargame really be that worried about the prettier elements? I know these are arguements that have been made before, for all sorts of products, and I know they'll go on, and on.

But I -still- want a copy of v4. It's frustrating that it's out there, and I can't get a hold of it. I'd pay for it, just like I would for v3. But...I'm waiting for v4.

Okay, enough of my complaints. I'm looking forward to a good game.

Noah

[CMplayer]

I'd just like to add that the sound effect I ask for above isn't really just 'earcandy' but would convey information. You could know more quickly and easily which artillery was striking without having to look at the text line under the map every time.

[Jeff Gilbert]

I've been playing TacOps for quite a while now and I will gladly wait for v4 to make it's debut.

Too bad the Army won't sell or send a copy to it's retirees. But I know that's asking too much.

Basically, I will be happy with just about anything the Major ends up including. I have found this an endlessly enjoyable simmulation with tremendous re-play value.

Keep it up Major, my checkbook stands at the ready!

[Saber 12]

thanks Major!

have contacted POC at 16th Cav.

LP

[Robert Mayer]

Hmm, is it that horrible for people to expect a new version of TacOps--which is only available as a new purchase, mind you--to include (gasp!) new scenarios and other things? Granted, enhanced multiplayer capabilities are nice (for those who use them--I've had a copy of TacOps since its debut on the Mac back in 1994 or whenever and have played precisely two multiplayer games <g>), but that's the sort of thing most gamers expect in a patch, not a new product.

The one thing that has hurt TacOps most in the "mainstream" wargaming world is the inability to play OPFOR in solo games. You can complain about graphics whore reviewers all you want, but until TacOps allows you to play both sides against a decent AI (rather than just one side against a decent AI as now) you will never see the game go beyond cult status. I mean, I still love the damn thing but not having the time for multiplayer matchups the lack of a blue force AI has always been the game's bete noir in my book.

Still, any new version of TacOps is a cause for joy.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

I don't disagree except for the mainstream comment. If TacOps isn't a mainstream wargame then I don't think I want to be mainstream.

How many "mainstream" games are still earning for their developers after eight years? TacOps v0.0 was released in March 1994. It has outlived two publishers, survived attempted assimilation by the Hasborg, and still brings in enough each month to keep me from having to get a real job.

[Robert Mayer]

Point taken, Major; by "mainstream," though I mean beyond just hard core wargamers. The sales figures in that realm are so low they don't even register with mainstream game companies. Of course that begs the question--if you're doing ok in a niche why compromise for a mainstream that probably won't do much for you anyway?

I do think though, from my conversations with wargamers over the years, that adding in the featuers I mentioned would expand even the number of wargamers who would buy TacOps. I know of many who like the subject matter but won't buy a game where they can't play both sides.