Taskforce Harper - Mission Results

[Jingo]

Well, after my first TacOps victory (Task Force DeGoey which came at a high cost casualty wise), I decided to try a different but similar scenerio a few days ago: Task Force Harper.

On this one, I'm supposed to make sure that the enemy forces don't exit through to the west side.

I mainly wanted to see the advantage of only me having thermal sights. This time I also accepted the reinforcements in the setup options and the option to place mines. What a difference those options (and the additional supply points) made in this battle.

I was able to setup my defences in 14 turns before the OPFOR column started on the eastern edge. FOs for my artillery were able to cause serious damage with the powerful ICM rounds initially and as the column continued its arduous approach down what I affectionally called "The Road of Doom".

Anyway, they never even broke through my line of defences (although they had some mean arty drops and lucky SAM shots that kocked out some of my units). This was because of these critical differences:

* FOs close up were better able to pinpoint arty on the enemy when they were in tight compact columns.

* Supplies were high. I was able to restock all my COBRA gunships a few times which made a big difference.

* Thermal sights. I know without these my tanks would have taken an even greater beating. All in all I thought it was a good mission. You can check out the results here: Taskforce Harper Results

One question. In militarily realistic scenerios do OPFOR units usually have thermal sights? I know for game balance it's probably good to keep them on for OPFOR, but for real-life scenerio re-enactment, what's the general rule?

[Michael**]

I have only seen the T72. Its thermal sight is not

as good as one on our "LEOs", but still very eff.

So i guess: thermalsight for red-units is realistic.

bye

Michael

[rich4421972]

Here's my idea:

Research the country that you are taking to be OPFOR. If it is honestly and truthfully going to be Russia, China or North Korea, I would say yes (and use those bad-daddy T90's), but for countries like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, and etc., I would say no because these guys are most likely still using the T60's or even T55's. Remember how our Air Force "liquidated" an aging force of broken down MiG-21's during the recent unpleasantness. Study economics, too. Poor countries are less likely to be able to maintain their equipment. I may be totally wrong on this. Please correct me. I hope this is interesting info. I just read about this stuff in books and watch the history channel alot.

Happy hunting!

[ April 24, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]

[Coyote]

As far as realism goes, your choices in the "Preferences" menu make at least as much difference as the balance of forces. The main things I'd consider are:

Thermal Sights - These are the rule for major western style armies (i.e. NATO) and the exception in the rest of the world. The reason is fairly simple, +20% of the cost of an M1 series tank is the electronics which is mainly the fire control system. In the M1A2 I expect the cost to go higher. If your presumed enemy can't realistically afford T-80s or better, you can take away their thermals.

Advanced ATGMs - These are quite a bit more common as they are cheaper and require less training. The TacOps database also knows which of these have integral thermal sights.

Smoke vs Thermal Sights - Most artillery smoke can be penetrated although both NATO and the former Warsaw Pact developed smoke rounds that could degrade thermal effectiveness. US Vehicle smoke grenades are specifically designed to interfere with known Russian thermal optics. I'd assume that something as cheap as a smoke grenade would be pretty widely distributed.

Change Air Support - Aircraft are very, very expense and the US is very, very fussy about always having total Air Supreamacy.

If you have a particular OPFOR in mind, check out FAS.org. They have a number of references to various world armies and extensive material on US forces. That should help you decide how bad to make a particular "bad guy".

TacOps: It's not just a game, it's a simulation!

Enjoy

[rich4421972]

Dear Sir:

I just wanted to say that I think your results for DeGoey and Harper are great! I also think it is really neat that you can link to the results from this page. :eek: