Canucks in TacOps4

[Kozure]

Enjoyed the game immensely over the weekend. Thanks to MajorH and anyone else who assisted in the development of the game.

I had a small scenario-balance question, however.

Being a Canadian, I took MajorH's advice and tried out some of the scenarios in the CA folder. As I'm new to the game, I decided to try out the smaller Combat Team level games, as opposed to the battlegroups.

I'm a veteran of a fair number of board and video games, so I thought I wouldn't do all too badly. Wrongo. I ran out of time without seeing the enemy (I had misread the mission order time limit) in one of the very first scenarios (Combat Team Carter? Hague? I can't remember - the one where you try to take a defended position with a mechanized company reinforced by a tank platoon and a FO). Obviously I was proceeding too cautiously. I tried again. Still ran out of time. I proceeded at what I thought was a reckless breakneck pace and bullied my way into the target area, only to be thrown back in disarray. Time up.

I was a little frustrated, so I decided to try the next scenario. A CA tank squadron vs. red T80 platoon reinforced by a BTR80 motorized infantry platoon and embarked AT-4 spigot teams.

Creamed. My poor Leopard C2s were decimated - I had lost the better part of three platoons without cracking their position. I tried to be a little more cautious. Took less casualties, but still ran out of time. Third time, I wiped out the entire T80 platoon and a few of the AT-4 teams, but ran out of time again.

Don't get me wrong - I'm enjoying playing. The game is teaching me a lot about modern tactics (especially the unexpected effectiveness of ICM artillery), but I was a little surprised at how often I was losing.

I decided that I had explored the Canadian aspect enough for the day (six scenarios and three hours later) and tried out a US scenario. Funnily enough, the Combat Team scenario I picked was almost identical to the CA tank squadron attack I just mentioned. Exact same map, exact same time limit of 20 minutes. Except this time, the only defenders were the T80 platoon (no BTRs, dismounts or AT-4 teams) and the attackers were a company of M1A1Ds.

I wiped out the T-80s in defence in short order, losing 2 M1s in the process, but I exited the entire company with a minute or two to spare.

Now, I know that American heavy equipment is (for the large part) vastly superior to Canadian. I don't dispute that for a moment. But in terms of scenario balance and design, why would inferior Canadian tanks be pitted against a larger number of defenders in the CA scenario but in the US version, you get fewer defenders and better equipment? The AT-4s accounted for a good portion of the casualties in my three attempts - the T-80s were tough, but not insurmountable.

I'm going to play a little more before I b*tch about anything else. I think it's better to suck it up and learn the lesson than whine about it. It did seem odd though, in this case, for a scenario to be really tough as Canucks and easy-peasy as Yanks, unless the underlying lesson was: "buy better equipment, you hosers."

Even then, wouldn't a better lesson be to pit the American M1s against an indentical number of defenders, and see how much better they fare?

[ March 22, 2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Kozure ]

[James Sterrett]

Make sure you're comparing identical scenarios:

Canadian Team Hague = US Army Team Hill = USMC Team Murray

I just looked, and the OPFOR seems to be the same in all three.

Perhaps you may have loaded US Army Team Hall, which does have a 20 minute limit, but the OPFOR is 4 T-80s?

[Kozure]

Hmm... I was pretty sure I was comparing the same scenario... the OPFOR was different but the map and time limit were the same.

I'll check again when I get home.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

The Blue OOB for the Canadian scenarios was specified by the Canadian Army when it funded the creation of these scenarios. The Red OOB was not changed from similar US scenarios. This tends to make them more difficult than they would be with US Army OOB or with USMC OOB. Not so much because of inferior weapons as because of fewer of them in the line.

Also, the Canadian Army did not have a medium range squad/platoon anti armor weapon when these scenarios were created. The small number of TOW ATGM carriers and the short range of the ERYX ATGM makes it very difficult to engage armor and fall back to a new position so it is hard to avoid being decisively committed and then overrun in the defense. I have not been following Canadian Forces weapon procurement lately, but if you gents went through with the at one time planned procurement of the US Javelin ATGM then you would benefit greatly from adding some of them to the CF scenarios at start up.

You should also feel free to add more time to the scenarios. The factory times are a bit short so as to represent desperate situations that justify less caution than would typically be shown in the real world.

In the real world one tries to avoid fighting a battle whose outcome is in doubt.

[ March 22, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[Kozure]

Thanks MajorH,

I suspected that the scenarios were similar - I guess I must have remembered the red OOB incorrectly or something, I guess.

I'll tackle being the Canucks again this upcoming weekend; you have to make do with the equipment you're given.

[tar]

Well, the Canadian scenarios certainly do require a bit more experience and finesse to win. My own ranking system would put the US Army scenarios as easiest, USMC next and Canadians last. Mostly this is because, as the Major says, the lack of a plentiful and good mid to long range ATGM. The USMC is a bit tougher to use than the US army because they tend to be a bit more thin-skinned and thus require a bit more skill to use properly -- but the large infantry platoons are nice when fighting in the woods!