TacOps [Demo]
Gregory Deych
even better then I expected. Team Galagher kicked my butt on the first
time, hard. I gotta figure out the air and artillery support better,
that's a must. Another tip for myself would be to set BMP as primary
target..I don't think I lost a single armored unit to the T80 fire.
Phew. Where's that number for Arsenal ordering line? :)
--
Gregory Deych
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, The 7 Deadly Words
Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Support the CDA!
Tits U.S Goverment-The slow slide to communism.
gde...@netcom.com
Steve Weatherwax
wrote:
The land line for Arsenal Publishing is 1-800-247-1877, 24 hours.
I have to agree, TacOps is an outstanding tactical combat simulator.
A few suggestions for your next run through would be to make sure you
get your scouts out in front to identify the main thrust, place your
TOW equipped vehicles behind your M1's (they have a greater effective
range so you'll be able to mass fires while keeping them a little
safer), defend in depth, and use the recon provided by your air assets
to call in MLRS fire on any massed formations.
Even with this, it'll be a close run thing. My first run through had
me losing 62% of my units while attriting the OPFOR by 66%. They
managed to break through, but were only able to exit 3% of their force
before the time limit expired.
So far I'm very impressed with the AI. Can't wait till my full version
arrives.
Good Hunting!
Sir Myk
In a variety of places.<g>
ftp.arsenalpub.com (for those without web browsers)
America Online - Keyword: ARSENAL/software libraries/PC library
CompuServe - GAMEBPUB/Arsenal Library
It's also in a number of other, less distinct, libraries and sites
throughout CompuServe, AOL, and the Web. Additionally, it is being
uploaded to a number of BBS's nation wide.
Regards,
Mike Nankervis
Customer Service Manager
Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
Sir Myk
one.<g> Unforunately, AOL also ate a much longer post of mine.<sigh>
-Myk
MajorH1
instructions.>>
The help file that comes with the demo also includes a large chunk of the
printed user's guide. Folks might want to scan thru the help file - doing
so will expose a lot of options/depth in the game.
Jan Mattsson
>I have to agree, TacOps is an outstanding tactical combat simulator.
The demo is nice, but one thing bothers me: there seems to be
no concept of morale. No matter how heavy their losses are,
your soldiers will stay put, obeying their orders until the
bitter end. Sure, that happens in war, but not in every single
action.
Jan Mattsson
JamesD6201
In the TacOps User's Guide, Major Holdridge writes "Morale must be
approached very cautiously - big potential here for making a lot of gamers
very unhappy. Many people have an absolute hatred for morale rules in any
form...Morale fans are free to set personal goals and victory conditions
that call for breaking contact after certain casualty percentages, but I
don't think I should force it on everyone with game code."
Having said that, I want you to know that a number of us "persuaded" Major
to add morale and other "soft factors" as an optional feature in his
future games. You'll be pleased to learn that Major's next game, Panzers
East (WWII Eastern Front tactical combat), will include these features as
a player-modifiable option.
Beyond this, how well have you done with Task Force Gallagher?
Regards,
Jim DeGoey
TacOps Project Manager
Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
Sir Myk
Gregory Deych
: << The demo is nice, but one thing bothers me: there seems to be
: no concept of morale... >>
Well, I seem to be fighting battles of annhilation...Last time I finished
with both sides taking approximately 75% casualties, with OPFOR exiting
anywhere from 3-15%, depending how long I wait before letting the time
run out.
By the way (and this is to Major), are you planning to take out M8 now
that is looks to go the way of the dodo?
: Beyond this, how well have you done with Task Force Gallagher?
: Regards,
: Jim DeGoey
: TacOps Project Manager
: Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
--
Gregory Deych
According to the Communications Decency Act, these are the words you may
no longer use in your Internet correspondence: Shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits. The use of shit, piss, fuck, cunt,
cock-sucker, mother-fucker and tits, may now earn you a substantial fine
as well as possible jail time, since President Clinton has signed this
Bill into law. Please refrain from using shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cock-
sucker, mother-fucker and tits, to protect your children as well as
others, from their evil influence, thus keeping America "ideologically
pure".
Iceburg
of information:
>Damn, this is one fine piece of work. I thought it'd be good, but it's
>even better then I expected. Team Galagher kicked my butt on the first
>time, hard. I gotta figure out the air and artillery support better,
>that's a must. Another tip for myself would be to set BMP as primary
>target..I don't think I lost a single armored unit to the T80 fire.
>Phew. Where's that number for Arsenal ordering line? :)
Where is the demo!?!?!?!?!
-Greg
Mr Chi Sang Cheng
Sorry, I forget the URL. The demo for Windows is about 1.3MB and it
contains the tutorial instructions.
Griffin Cheng.
Iceburg (bu...@eznet.net) wrote:
: gde...@netcom.com (Gregory Deych) bestowed upon the world this tidbit
Sir Myk
rules either? That's really a pity, since I'd heard so many good
things about it.>>
Scott,
We suggest you take the time to download the demo. It is available at
http://www.arsenalpub.com or ftp.arsenalpub.com
Play TF Gallagher 6 and let the demo stand on its own merits.
In regards to morale.
I've been a wargamer for 20 years, just as have many others. Although I
like morale in Napoleonic and American Civil War games, I do not like them
in WWII, Vietnam, or Modern games. Morale in post-1900 (and perhaps even
post-1800) naval games does not belong, period. The goes for modern air
combat games.
In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect than it
did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will attempt to
complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses to severe to
sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term combat potential
may not be of immediate concern.
In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more familiar
with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only a small
portion of it's members took to their heels. This is due to the cascading
effect that failing morale had when the members of the unit were standing
shoulder to shoulder in line on the battlefield. When your buddy on each
shoulder suddenly turns and runs, it's kinda hard not to follow....heck
they might even know something you don't.
In the modern era, we don't have this same intimate familiarity with the
other members of our unit while on the actual battlefield. Your squad
could be several hundred meters from the next friendly squad. When the
morale of a single squad or an individual fails, this does not generally
have a significant effect upon the morale of the remainder of the unit.
In Napoleonic times, units with failed morale generally ran away from the
battle..or as far away as they could get before overrun by pursuing
cavalry.
In modern times, units or individuals with failed morale will generally
refuse to advance. The point here is, on a modern battlefield turning your
back to the enemy will kill you. So, instead of advancing into that enemy
kill zone, you'll tell your commander that you don't see anyway you can
advance.
True, TacOps does not model morale specifically. However, it does consider
that a battlefield "kill" is not necessarily a "hard kill." Hard kill
meaning that a guy is shot dead. [I'm speaking of infantry here as
vehicles tend to not care about morale.<g>] A "kill" in TacOps can also be
a "soft kill." As in a few of the grunts taking fire decide that it's best
to take a coffee break a few klicks away from the enemy.
Personally, as a wargamer, I agree with Major that morale should not be
hard coded in a game. I don't want to live with the value judgement of the
designers. However, as a wargamer, I would like to see it as a
customizable option. I'll gladly settle for a compromise that works.
TacOps is a great game. Panzers East, which *will* have a morale option,
will also be a great game. But the lack of morale in TacOps does not
reduce my opinion of it nor will the inclusion of morale in Panzers East
make it a better game than TacOps. The games will stand for themselves
upon their ability to provide me with an accurate, but fun simulation of
modern and WWII tactical combat.
To sum up, I suggest downloading the demo. Try to complete the mission in
TF Gallagher 6. Then, if you're not hooked, you can be satisfied that you
aren't missing out on a game you'd otherwise love.
As for me, TacOps is the only game residing on my hard-drive. It's been
there since late summer '94 and will continue to be there until TacOps II
replaces it.
Since I'm speaking as an individual wargamer in this message and not as an
employee of Arsenal Publishing, Inc., I'll sign-off accordingly.
Happy Gaming!
-Myk
Steve Bowen
You wrote:
>What do you think would be the best way to have a program quantifiy and
>then act on morale effects? If you have the time and inclination, please
>list for me the specific morale influences or stimulae that you would like
>to see the program track for each unit in play and the specific reponses
>that you think units should exhibit based on their morale level. The word
>morale is usually assumed to include the concept of "willingness to do" as
>well as the concept of "efficiency in doing". What decreases unit morale?
>What should a unit do better in the game at a given level of morale - what
>should a unit do worse?
I am a long time player of Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the
Shadows by HPS simulations. Both of those games include rather
elaborate "morale" and "command and control" rules and concepts.
I downloaded and spent a bit of time with the TacOps demo and I have
mixed feelings about it due to the lack of such factors.
Personally I don't much like the term "morale" in this context. I'd
prefer to call it "effectiveness". I believe that their are three
primary reasons why a unit would suffer a drop in "morale" or
"effectiveness", all of which can easily be tracked and accounted for
in a computer game.
1.) Taking Losses.
2.) Becoming isolated
3.) Failing in a task.
Even elite modern units, with the possible exception of scouts or
ranger type units, will suffer a loss of combat efficiency when they
see their buddies dying around them, miss with a number of shots and
find themselves cut off from friendly support.
If you make no allowance for such effects you are left with a
structure that allows units to wander off in isolation taking any
degree of losses and still retain it's basic combat effectiveness. I
find this to be too simplistic for my taste.
I suppose for me the ideal tactical wargame would combine the Windows
interface, pulsed combat and basic functionality of your product with
the combat programming routines of HPS's products.
By all measures Arsenal is an excellent company that is dedicated to
producing excellent wargames and supporting their customers with true
dedication. I wish you the best. But I fear that I may have to wait
until the next batch of your games before I find the complexity that I
believe is required for a tactical simulation.
-Steve Bowen
Los
><< The demo is nice, but one thing bothers me: there seems to be
>no concept of morale... >>
>
>approached very cautiously - big potential here for making a lot of gamers
>very unhappy. Many people have an absolute hatred for morale rules in any
>form...Morale fans are free to set personal goals and victory conditions
>that call for breaking contact after certain casualty percentages, but I
>don't think I should force it on everyone with game code."
This reminds me of discussion I've seen with some flight sims where people
complain because their plane is to hard to fly because it spins, or their race
car is too hard to drive because it develps understeer in turn. Morale is an
_operational reality_ in combat. Anyone who's spent any time at all in or
studying the military should know this. This seems like purely a sales
consession than any attempt to create a fairly accurate an realsitic game on
the subject.
That being said, I'm still enjoying the demo <g>.
Scott D. Orr
writes:
><< The demo is nice, but one thing bothers me: there seems to be
>no concept of morale... >>
>
>In the TacOps User's Guide, Major Holdridge writes "Morale must be
>approached very cautiously - big potential here for making a lot of
>gamers very unhappy. Many people have an absolute hatred for morale
>rules in any form...
WHAT??? Who? I've never met any of these people. I know some folks
don't like command and control rules, but morale rules? As far as I'm
concerned, if you're going to make a serious simulation, make a serious
simluation -- if you're going to leave out morale rules, you might as
well leave out ballistics rules or line-of-sight rules or armor rules.
And you might as well play C&C.
As a matter of fact, I don't think a tactical boardgame without morale
rules has been produced in at least 15 or 20 years (with the possible
exception of Ogre/GEV and its ilk). We're not talking about an
"experimental" concept here: we're talking about what a wargamer
expects as a minimum in any game.
>Morale fans are free to set personal goals and victory conditions
>that call for breaking contact after certain casualty percentages, but
>I don't think I should force it on everyone with game code."
But the whole point of have a computer is that these things can be
handled automatically. At the very least, you could put the rules in
and then offer those who don't want to play an actual simulation the
option of turning it off.
>Having said that, I want you to know that a number of us "persuaded"
>Major to add morale and other "soft factors" as an optional feature in
>his future games.
That's good -- but I object to calling these things "soft" -- they're
only "soft" in the sense that they can't be measured as accurately as
can gun calibers and armor thicknesses; their _effects_ are every bit
as "hard".
>You'll be pleased to learn that Major's next game, Panzers East (WWII
>Eastern Front tactical combat), will include these features as
>a player-modifiable option.
>
That's promising, but I don't see the point of using the computer if
you're not allowing to really shine by automatically handling things
like this.
MajorH1
make a serious simluation -- if you're going to leave out morale rules,
you might as well leave out ballistics rules or line-of-sight rules or
armor rules. And you might as well play C&C.>>
<<WHAT??? Who? I've never met any of these people.>>
I believe that hard coding morale into the game would make everyone
unhappy. The casual/semi serious gamers would be displeased when units
did not perform as ordered and serious gamers - a cantankerous group at
the best of times - would quibble endlessly with whatever I implemented.
Right now, I am leaning toward adding one or more morale factors as user
selectable options and allowing the user to specify the numbers associated
with triggering those factors. However, whatever I do will be based
primarily on customer input. I remain open to well stated recommendations
from TacOps owners on exactly how they would like to see morale
implemented. Morale has to be optional though, I'm not open to forcing it
on everyone. I have sent personal messages to a number of people who have
publicly complained about this, asking what would suit them - I have yet
to receive more than a couple of replies that contained much more than:
"Gee I don't know, but its gotta be in there - let me get back to you on
that". <grin>
OPFOR as portrayed in TacOps is well equipped, well trained, and well
motivated. Even so, human players (US or OPFOR) are free to break contact
whenever they like. If suicide attacks offend their sensibilities they
may currently choose to not make them - the game engine does not force
them to. When under the control of the computer opponent (AI), OPFOR
units will continue fighting against hopeless odds. That is the nature of
the TacOps AI opponent. That opposing forces might do this in the real
world is a worst case possibility that US field commanders must consider.
Some of our past adversaries have not followed a set morale norm, perhaps
some future enemy also won't cooperate with our analysts and quit fighting
after 30 or 50 or 90 percent casualties. Beyond the OPFOR considerations,
I am very uncomfortable with hard coding breaking points for modern US
military units. As a retired Marine, I am philosophically unable to
specify a definable point in combat beyond which today's average US
soldier or Marine will not do his duty.
What do you think would be the best way to have a program quantifiy and
then act on morale effects? If you have the time and inclination, please
list for me the specific morale influences or stimulae that you would like
to see the program track for each unit in play and the specific reponses
that you think units should exhibit based on their morale level. The word
morale is usually assumed to include the concept of "willingness to do" as
well as the concept of "efficiency in doing". What decreases unit morale?
What should a unit do better in the game at a given level of morale - what
should a unit do worse?
Best regards, Major H.
Jonathan Badger
>This reminds me of discussion I've seen with some flight sims where people
>complain because their plane is to hard to fly because it spins, or their
>race car is too hard to drive because it develps understeer in turn. Morale
>is an _operational reality_ in combat. Anyone who's spent any time at all
>in or studying the military should know this. This seems like purely a sales
>consession than any attempt to create a fairly accurate an realsitic game on
>the subject.
The difference is that airplanes and race cars obey the laws of
physics, which are objective, while soldiers obey the laws of
psychology which are subjective. Different soldiers in different situations
will act differently to morale. Most morale rules in games are so simplistic
that they actually makes games _less_ realistic than having none at all.
hElIcAl gEaRs
>In regards to morale.
>
>I've been a wargamer for 20 years, just as have many others. Although I
>like morale in Napoleonic and American Civil War games, I do not like them
>in WWII, Vietnam, or Modern games.
Most commanders don't like losing control of their units either. I'll make
an argument that moral plays a part in any combat situation, regardless
of erra.
>Morale in post-1900 (and perhaps even
>post-1800) naval games does not belong, period. The goes for modern air
>combat games.
In naval and air combat games, agreed.
>In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect than it
>did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will attempt to
>complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses to severe to
>sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term combat potential
>may not be of immediate concern.
Although it plays a lesser role in later erra sims, it still plays
an important part. Look at what happened in Iraq. Half the army
surrendered.
>In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more familiar
>with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only a small
>portion of it's members took to their heels. This is due to the cascading
>effect that failing morale had when the members of the unit were standing
>shoulder to shoulder in line on the battlefield. When your buddy on each
>shoulder suddenly turns and runs, it's kinda hard not to follow....heck
>they might even know something you don't.
Agreed, but this still happens to dismounted troops. AFV's have
experianced NCO's and officers commanding them, so are much less
suseptible. I can assure you that they will occasionally refuse
to follow directions when in the heat of battle, let alone take
initiative when under intense fire. I personally think that the
Pack forces would have had problems in areas where they had
no numerical advantage, or when a large force is getting chewed
up.
>In the modern era, we don't have this same intimate familiarity with the
>other members of our unit while on the actual battlefield. Your squad
>could be several hundred meters from the next friendly squad. When the
>morale of a single squad or an individual fails, this does not generally
>have a significant effect upon the morale of the remainder of the unit.
Here I have to dissagree. When I was in the service (armored cav),
I knew exactly what was going on in my platoon. That's how you stay
alive - although I usually couldn't see my partners, I knew where
they were and what they were seeing. Effective communications is how
you stay alive. Even in training, losing vehicles in my platoon
made me feel less secure, and I was less likely to take risks.
>In modern times, units or individuals with failed morale will generally
>refuse to advance.
Agreed.
>The point here is, on a modern battlefield turning your
>back to the enemy will kill you.
This I don't agree with. Getting hit in a modern battlefield will
generally get you killed. Sometimes a frightened TC will think that
exposing his rear to a few AFVs is safer than taking on several
platoons that he sees moving into position.
>So, instead of advancing into that enemy
>kill zone, you'll tell your commander that you don't see anyway you can
>advance.
Agreed. This is the kind of morale effect I wish was in the game.
Maybe a unit will stop movement, or move slower in certain situations.
Maybe they'll dismount troops without direct orders. Maybe they'll
move out of a position when they are alone against 10s and 100's of
enemy vehicles. I'm not saying every unit - just units with poor
morale. Some experiane level should be assigned. Historically, high
morale, gung ho units are much more leathal then even average units.
I think I read somewhere that 80% of Vietnam war casualties
were inflicted my 20% of the troops (non air/arty kills). I know
things are different now, but not THAT different.
>True, TacOps does not model morale specifically. However, it does consider
>that a battlefield "kill" is not necessarily a "hard kill." Hard kill
>meaning that a guy is shot dead. [I'm speaking of infantry here as
>vehicles tend to not care about morale.<g>] A "kill" in TacOps can also be
>a "soft kill." As in a few of the grunts taking fire decide that it's best
>to take a coffee break a few klicks away from the enemy.
They also model supression and disruption, which is a form of morale
hit.
>>Personally, as a wargamer, I agree with Major that morale should not be
>hard coded in a game. I don't want to live with the value judgement of the
>designers. However, as a wargamer, I would like to see it as a
>customizable option. I'll gladly settle for a compromise that works.
You are living with the 'value judgments' of the coders with the majority
of the game. Movement rates, fire priority, artillary effectiveness, ect.
They did a fantastic job with those. In my opion the omission of morale is
one of the game's few weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, now. I LOVE this game.
>nor will the inclusion of morale in Panzers East
>make it a better game than TacOps.
How can you say this? Have you played Panzers East?
>The games will stand for themselves
>upon their ability to provide me with an accurate, but fun simulation of
>modern and WWII tactical combat.
Agreed. The games have to be fun. If Arsenal had included morale effects
in a poor way, I'd rather not see them included. Considering how well
they've done with the game as is, I just have to believe that they would
have done a good job modeling it (all speculation on my part, of course).
>To sum up, I suggest downloading the demo. Try to complete the mission in
>TF Gallagher 6. Then, if you're not hooked, you can be satisfied that you
>aren't missing out on a game you'd otherwise love.
I don't think I've ever enjoyed a demo as much as I've enjoyed this one.
My copy is on order. Does it really take 4-6 weeks to arive?
>As for me, TacOps is the only game residing on my hard-drive. It's been
>there since late summer '94 and will continue to be there until TacOps II
>replaces it.
Oh - a Macintosh person. That explains a lot ;). Funny thing is, most of
the best wargames come out on the Mac first (VforV, Reach for the Stars,
Spaceward Ho - ya I used to be a Mac person too - until I realised how
slow they were).
Jan Mattsson
>One thing that most games don't seem to address is that "one size does
>not fit all" in regard to morale. Soldiers who are fighting for some
>cause important to them such as a political or religious movement are
>often willing to (indeed are glad to) die to the last man for the
>glory of their cause. On the other hand, draftee soldiers who have no
>particular desire to be on the battlefield at all may lose morale
>quite easily.
Yes of course, that's one of the main reasons for having a morale
system in the first place! How would you model a battle between
fanatics and draftees if you don't have any morale system at all?
>I have yet to see rules that take this sort of thing into account.
Well...look harder.
Regards,
Jan Mattsson
Scott D. Orr
simulation,
>make a serious simluation -- if you're going to leave out morale
rules,
>you might as well leave out ballistics rules or line-of-sight rules or
>armor rules. And you might as well play C&C.>>
>
><<WHAT??? Who? I've never met any of these people.>>
>
>I believe that hard coding morale into the game would make everyone
>unhappy. The casual/semi serious gamers would be displeased when
units
>did not perform as ordered and serious gamers - a cantankerous group
at
>the best of times - would quibble endlessly with whatever I
implemented.
I understand where you might think this, but other games have
implemented morale rules with little or no complaint: I haven't even
heard the subject raised with respect to Battlefront, The Decivisive
Battles of the Ameri
can Civil War, or Tigers on the Prowl/Panzers in the Shadows; I've
heard a _few_ comments on the way V for Victory/World at War handled
the problem (and those mostly becauxe I was a play-tester), but most of
_those_ comme
nts criticized that the "morale" rules in question weren't really
morale rules, but rather, for the most part, unit quality rules.
But more to the point, what element of warfare _could_ you model
without having someone quibble over it? After sitting through weeks of
argument over the way the bombardment of ferries is handled in
Stalingrad, or the wa
y World at War treats armor, I don't think controversay in unquie to
morale. :)
But again, in all my years ofplaying wargmes, I've almost never heard
someone complain about morale rules, and in fact I've very rarely even
SEEN a tactical game without morale rules. Indeed, the very fact that
morale is
noteasily quantified makes it difficult to attack any particular
rules. So while I sympathize your concerns, I must say they just don't
jibe with my experience in wargaming.
>Right now, I am leaning toward adding one or more morale factors as
user
>selectable options and allowing the user to specify the numbers
associated
>with triggering those factors. However, whatever I do will be based
>primarily on customer input. I remain open to well stated
recommendations
>from TacOps owners on exactly how they would like to see morale
>implemented. Morale has to be optional though, I'm not open to
forcing it
>on everyone.
So why force realistic armor pentration or differenced in elevation on
everyone? The answer is the same for why morale should be forced on
everyone: it's forced on real commanders. Handling morale is as large
a part of
"leadership" as is tactics and strategy. Again, I do not know of a
serious or semi-serious tactical board game produced in the last 15
years without morale rules of at least some sort.
>I have sent personal messages to a number of people who have
>publicly complained about this, asking what would suit them - I have
yet
>to receive more than a couple of replies that contained much more
than:
>"Gee I don't know, but its gotta be in there - let me get back to you
on
>that". <grin>
>
Well the basic morale rule is to providefor the possibility that
soldiers will break and run. In some games, this is based attacks on
the unit, either as an explicit combat result (particularly in
operational or strategi
c games or for infantry), or it may be a by-product of coming under
fire, even if the fire does not actual damage (GDW's Assault, for
example, allows machine-gun fire to rattle tank crewmen, and uses an
example from one o
f the Arab-Israeli wars to prove the point). Typically, a "broken"
unit won't be able to move (especially if it's in cover already), or
will move directly away from the nearest enemy unit (though in Squad
Leader and Adv
anced Squad Leader, sometimes Russian units will go "Berserk" and
charge _toward_ the nearst enemy unit); the broken unit usually won't
be able to fire, or will fire only at reduced effectiveness (and may
not be able to d
o things such as conduct opportunity fire). Avoiding morale effects
may be dependent on passing a "morale check" (a die roll against the
unit's original, or sometimes modified, morale -- common in many
games). There may
by multiple levels or different types of morale effects (such as
"Shaken" and "Broken", again using Assault as an example), and a broken
unit that breaks again is often rendered combat-ineffective and
eliminated from the
board (indeed, there are a few games, particularly those dealing with
the 19th century, in which routing is the primary or only form of unit
elimination), or a broken unit which comes in contact with an enemy
force may s
urrender. In some games, a unit has to make a morale check to attempt
a risky action, such as charging the enemy or attacking an AFV with
infantry weapons (SL and ASL provide the latter example), and a failed
check of th
is sort may or may not entail further consequences. Finally a unit's
morale level (for purposes of morale checks) may by reduced, or morale
checks triggered, by the damage or destruction of other unit in a
unit's superor
dinate unit -- if the rest of the company dissolves around you, your
spirits likely won't be high. In some games, a unit once broken stays
broken (at least within the time horizon of the game), while in others
(particula
rly those where leaders are respresented), broken units may be
"rallied" and returned to full combat effectiveness.
>OPFOR as portrayed in TacOps is well equipped, well trained, and well
>motivated.
But even well equipped, well trained, and well motivated forces have on
occasion broken; and it certainly would broaden the scope of the
simulation (for example, allowing Third World conflicts to be modeled)
if forces wit
h low morale could be included.
>Even so, human players (US or OPFOR) are free to break contact
>whenever they like. If suicide attacks offend their sensibilities
they
>may currently choose to not make them - the game engine does not force
>them to.
But that's not the problem -- in essence, doing so simulates the
"morale" of the commander, which has of course always been well
simulated in wargames. :) The basic idea of morale rules is that once
his men have broken, a
commander loses control over them -- the decision to break off is no
longer his, but is governed by his men's willingness to fight. This
may be particularly disturbing if his forces break while still largely
intact.
>When under the control of the computer opponent (AI), OPFOR
>units will continue fighting against hopeless odds. That is the
nature of
>the TacOps AI opponent. That opposing forces might do this in the
real
>world is a worst case possibility that US field commanders must
consider.
Or it might be the best case: an opponent willing to cotinue throwing
himself against an invincible parapet will quickly be attrited to
nothing, whereas one that masters hit-and-run tactics can tie down a
large force wit
h a small force of his own; and of course, pursuing a retreating enemy
is itself a classic tactical problem (if one that's admittedly been
poorly represented in wargames).
>Some of our past adversaries have not followed a set morale norm,
perhaps
>some future enemy also won't cooperate with our analysts and quit
fighting
>after 30 or 50 or 90 percent casualties
Well then, all you have to do is provide different scenario with
different levels of morale for the OPFOR. In fact, in order to
simulate situations in which enemy morale is unknown (such as U.S.
attack against Iraqi forc
es), you can even add a random element.
>Beyond the OPFOR considerations,
>I am very uncomfortable with hard coding breaking points for modern US
>military units. As a retired Marine, I am philosophically unable to
>specify a definable point in combat beyond which today's average US
>soldier or Marine will not do his duty.
>
The best way around that is to make the "breaking point" a
probabilitistic one: a Marine infantry unit might have a very high
morale, in which case it would rarely break and would quickly rally if
it did. By assigning a
"morale number", you avoid having to assign a breaking point; rather,
an elite unit _could_ break under any stress (as could a low-morale
unit), but it probably won't.
In fact, the best thing about morale rules is that they make the
advantages of well-trained, professional forces patently obvious:
Marines are valuable not merely because they shoot straight (though of
course they do :),
but because they're willing to hold positions and to move forward
under fire.
>What do you think would be the best way to have a program quantifiy
and
>then act on morale effects? If you have the time and inclination,
please
>list for me the specific morale influences or stimulae that you would
like
>to see the program track for each unit in play and the specific
reponses
>that you think units should exhibit based on their morale level. The
word
>morale is usually assumed to include the concept of "willingness to
do" as
>well as the concept of "efficiency in doing". What decreases unit
morale?
>What should a unit do better in the game at a given level of morale -
what
>should a unit do worse?
>
Some of the above should help. I would add to that that I think unit
quality and unit morale are two different, though closely related,
qualities. Unit quality is usually fairly static (though it may vary
with fatigue,
disorganization, etc.). Morale, as you note, is the willingness to
fight: to hold ground while under fire or close assault, or to move
forward under fire. I think it should be based on some underlying
level, but modifie
d by losses (to the unit and to other units in the same company or
battalion, depending on the scale involved -- in general, the more
closely related or physcially closer the unit taking losses, the
greater the morale eff
ects; this is one place where computer modeling can really shine, and I
believe that Tigers on the Prowl/Panthers in the Shadows has a pretty
complex model for this, though I don't have my manual with me at the
moment and
therefore can't relate the details of it), by events on the board --
including damage to _enemy_ units ro the capture or loss of objectives
(ToP/PitS includes effects for planes being shot down overhead) -- and
by leader
ship effects (proximity to a good leader, or at least to an HQ unit).
I personally prefer systems with morale checks, where any unit can
potentially be broken even by ineffective fire; in such systems, these
checks are s
ometimes modified by situation, such as the intensity of the attack or
the number of unbroken friendly or enemy units in the immediate
vicinity, or the position that the unit hold (a unit in a
well-fortified position with
overhead cover, no matter how hard-pressed, is unlikely to flee).
As for morale effects, the usual way is to specify certain effects when
a unit is broken -- a binary state; however, with computer modeling I'm
sure that finer gradations would be possible. Possible effects include
reduc
ed effectiveness in fire combat, particularly for infantry (because the
soldiers are spending most of their time behind cover rather than
firing -- this is an excellent candidate for modeling by a graduated
system), an un
willingess to move (particularly for units already under cover), and at
the extreme an unwillingness to hold a position (that is, the unit
conducts it own unauthorized retreat -- or worse, rout). On the other
side of the
coin, I really like to see (but rarely do) the requirement for units
to pass morale checks in order to do really risky things like charge an
AFV or an emplaced positions across open ground (as this makes obvious,
morale
rules are typically somewhat different for infantry and vehicle crews,
but I think that's realistic). And of course, you may decided that at
some point a broken unit broken again is completely combat ineffective
(though
a unit that flees off the board has the same effect). Finally, some
way for HQ's to affect morale, and to rally troops, is desirable -- and
in fact, you could even simulate the fact that an officer's tactical
ability isn
't always tied to hi ability to keep his men in the fight.
Anyway, that's just a few thoughts.
Thanks for listening,
Scott Orr
MajorH1
those M1s and TOW equipped Bradleys really makes a difference>>
I don't know. For me the harshest shock in playing the game using
Canadian equipment was the very short range of the ERYX ATGMs - even less
than the Dragon for gosh sakes.
Best regards, Major H.
hElIcAl gEaRs
>A few suggestions for your next run through would be to make sure you
>get your scouts out in front to identify the main thrust,
I break my scout teams into individual units, and run them out front
a few clicks, dismount in an inconspicous spot, set engagement
range to zero, and sit back and call in indirect fire. Interestingly,
the AI is inteligent enough to send units to search out my heroic
scouts (good job 19D's).
>place your
>TOW equipped vehicles behind your M1's (they have a greater effective
>range so you'll be able to mass fires while keeping them a little
>safer),
Not only do they have a greater effective range, they are VERY effective.
Most of my Bradleys stay online with my tankers because I usually hold
fire to draw the opponent into a kill zone. Cross fires are WICKED.
I had one Bradley company, and one platoon of M1's eat six BMP companys
for lunch. My indirect took care of the leftover dismounts.
I usually break my ITV's down to smaller sized units, and spread them thin.
They are vulnerable to indirect fire.
>defend in depth, and use the recon provided by your air assets
>to call in MLRS fire on any massed formations.
During the begining phase of the scenario, I dimount about 90%
of my troops, and make few kill zones with my javalin units.
I break a portion of my Infantry down into small teams to act as
scouts.
>Even with this, it'll be a close run thing. My first run through had
>me losing 62% of my units while attriting the OPFOR by 66%. They
>managed to break through, but were only able to exit 3% of their force
>before the time limit expired.
I usually set up across the expanse of the board, then when I detect
the main thrust, I shift forces to meet it. A very important concept
to pick up is that you MUST pull a unit out as soon as it begins
taking indirect fire. Movement is essential. I usually won't
open fire until range is at about 2 clicks. If you hold fire, the
OPFOR can't see you (even when hull down in the open), and thus can't
call in indirect.
>So far I'm very impressed with the AI. Can't wait till my full version
>arrives.
Well, considering what I've seen from other companies, I'll have to agree.
I'm not sure how good its going to be when commanding the NATO forces,
tho.
>
Scott D. Orr
>
><<I take it that this game doesn't include any command and control
>rules either? That's really a pity, since I'd heard so many good
>things about it.>>
>
>
>I've been a wargamer for 20 years, just as have many others. Although
>I like morale in Napoleonic and American Civil War games, I do not
>like them in WWII, Vietnam, or Modern games.
Then I'm willing to bet you haven't played a tactical wargame published
in the last 15 years, because thre simply aren't any without morale
rules.
>Morale in post-1900 (and perhaps even post-1800) naval games does not
>belong, period. The goes for modern air combat games.
>
Although mostly true, that's not entirely true -- morale can in fact
effect performanace of naval units, esp. in areas like damage control.
My personal favorite example is occasion on which the engineers on
USS Barb, responding to a very effective captain (Gene Fluckey) coaxed
a few extra knots from their submarine in their escape from a group of
pursuing destroyers.
>In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect
>than it did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will
>attempt to complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses
>to severe to sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term
>combat potential may not be of immediate concern.
It's not worth arguing detail, but that's UTTER rubbish, a fact which
should be patently obvious to anyone who's ever picked up a military
history book. Units break, surrender, and commit heroic acts today
as they have throughout history.
>
>In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more
>familiar with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only
>a small portionFrom: sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Subject: Re: TacOps [Demo]
References: <4inl4b$q...@reader2.ix.netcom.com> <4ipb5r$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
In <4ipb5r$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> sir...@aol.com (Sir Myk) writes:
>
><<I take it that this game doesn't include any command and control
>rules either? That's really a pity, since I'd heard so many good
>things about it.>>
>
>In regards to morale.
>
>I've been a wargamer for 20 years, just as have many others. Although
>I like morale in Napoleonic and American Civil War games, I do not
>like them in WWII, Vietnam, or Modern games.
Then I'm willing to bet you haven't played a tactical wargame published
in the last 15 years, because thre simply aren't any without morale
rules.
>Morale in post-1900 (and perhaps even post-1800) naval games does not
>belong, period. The goes for modern air combat games.
>
Although mostly true, that's not entirely true -- morale can in fact
effect performanace of naval units, esp. in areas like damage control.
My personal favorite example is occasion on which the engineers on
USS Barb, responding to a very effective captain (Gene Fluckey) coaxed
a few extra knots from their submarine in their escape from a group of
pursuing destroyers.
>In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect
>than it did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will
>attempt to complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses
>to severe to sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term
>combat potential may not be of immediate concern.
It's not worth arguing detail, but that's UTTER rubbish, a fact which
should be patently obvious to anyone who's ever picked up a military
history book. Units break, surrender, and commit heroic acts today
as they have throughout history.
>
>In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more
>familiar with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only
>a small portionhings with his own eyes. And in any case, there's
no guarantee you actually _will_ advance.
>
>True, TacOps does not model morale specifically. However, it does
>consider that a battlefield "kill" is not necessarily a "hard kill."
I'm willing to bet that, at least with AFV's, it is. Infantry is a
different matter -- it's more abstracted -- but there's no way to
hide morale rules in AFV combat.
>Hard kill meaning that a guy is shot dead. [I'm speaking of infantry
>here as vehicles tend to not care about morale.<g>]
Sorry, but bull again. Frank Chadwick, in the designer's notes to
GDW's Assault, notes an occasion on which an Israeli tank platoon,
on colliding with a Syrian jeep-mounted patrol, retreated after being
fired on with (completely ineffective) machinge-gun fire.
>A "kill" in TacOps can also be a "soft kill." As in a few of the
>grunts taking fire decide that it's best to take a coffee break a few
>klicks away from the enemy.
Well that doesn't consdier the fact that a broken infantryman is a
lot different (from the standpoint of objectives) from a dead one.
And it doesn't consider teh possiblity of rallying him, or the
effect that his flight (or death) has on the other troops in his
unit. Sorry, no, that doesn't qualify as "morale".
>
>Personally, as a wargamer, I agree with Major that morale should not
>be hard coded in a game. I don't want to live with the value judgement
>of the designers.
It's not a "value judgement". It's an estimation of something that's
difficult to measure, but no less important for that difficulty of
measurement. A "value judgement" is when you say "I like red
flowers better than yellow ones". Estimating when men will break is,
rather, a (understandbly difficult -- but then, the entire science
of psychology is devoted to such questions) empirical question.
>However, as a wargamer, I would like to see it as a
>customizable option. I'll gladly settle for a compromise that works.
Okay. And let's make death and explosions customizable options too. :)
>
>TacOps is a great game. Panzers East, which *will* have a morale
>option, will also be a great game. But the lack of morale in TacOps
>does not reduce my opinion of it nor will the inclusion of morale in
>Panzers East make it a better game than TacOps.
It most certainly will make it a better game, if the games are equal
in all other respects, because it will come closer to simulating
reality.
>The games will stand for themselves upon their ability to provide me
>with an accurate, but fun simulation of modern and WWII tactical
>combat.
Without morale and command rules, they aren't "accurate". Period.
Adding piles of detail in one area while completely ignoring another
doesn't improve accuracy, anymore than refining one number in a
formula to the 12th significant digit will improve accuracy if one of
the other numbers is measured only to only 1 digit.
And of course, you haven't even addresses the command/control issue,
which is just as vital; even the most motivated troops don't always
do what you tell them to do (or want them to do, since your information
about the situation and communication with them may both be limited).
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
(Jonathan Badger) writes:
>
>L...@cris.com (Los) writes:
>
>
>
>>This reminds me of discussion I've seen with some flight sims where
>>people complain because their plane is to hard to fly because it
>>spins, or their race car is too hard to drive because it develps
>>understeer in turn. Morale is an _operational reality_ in combat.
>>Anyone who's spent any time at all in or studying the military should
>>know this. This seems like purely a sales consession than any attempt
>>to create a fairly accurate an realsitic game on the subject.
>
>The difference is that airplanes and race cars obey the laws of
>physics, which are objective, while soldiers obey the laws of
>psychology which are subjective. Different soldiers in different
>situations will act differently to morale.
As someone who's studied both aerospace engineering and psychology, I
can assure that it's not that simple. The "laws" of physics are not
"objective" -- they're the best models we've been able to make based
on reasoning informed by empirical observations; they, are, to use the
terms you use, as "subjective" as the "laws" of psychology, whic are
also the best models available based on reasoning informed by empirical
observations.
In general, the latter are a lot harder to measure than the former, and
much, MUCH more complex, leaving a lot more room for argument, but
they're no less real. And in fact you'd probably be surprised by how
"subjective" even aerodynamics is. As a matter of fact the aero-
dymanics modeled by flight sims are _not_ based on the deductive
application of "objective" laws, but rather on the results of
empirical testing: you never know what a particular shape is going
to do in the air until you actually test it, which is why aircraft
designers use wind tunnels.
>Most morale rules in games are so simplistic that they actually makes
>games _less_ realistic than having none at all.
That statement overlooks the patently obvious fact that using no morale
rules is the _most_ simplistic morale rule possible.
Scott Orr
Los
>did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will attempt to
>complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses to severe to
>sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term combat potential
>may not be of immediate concern.
This is a patently absurb statement. Units will suffer a degredation in this
capability as morale level decreases just as in the old day, whether the
commander deems it necessary or not. I know it should be obvious so I won't
mention the plethora of examples of morale playing a key effect in battle when
force ratios and weapon superirity would seem to deem otherwise. Just study any
modern conflict.
>In the modern era, we don't have this same intimate familiarity with the
>other members of our unit while on the actual battlefield. Your squad
>could be several hundred meters from the next friendly squad. When the
>morale of a single squad or an individual fails, this does not generally
>have a significant effect upon the morale of the remainder of the unit.
Once again, this is incorret, squads don't fight battles seperated by "hundreds
of meters. The intensity and violence of modern weapons can lead to a complete
breakdown of units within minutes. You sound like someone who's never had a CVC
on his head or put a rucksack on his back. (or read anything about modern war).
>To sum up, I suggest downloading the demo. Try to complete the mission in
>TF Gallagher 6. Then, if you're not hooked, you can be satisfied that you
>aren't missing out on a game you'd otherwise love.
I do agree with you here. Tacops is still fun, and I ordered it myself after a
day with the demo.
In article <4ipq4j$8...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, warb...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>Hello Major H.,
>
>You wrote:
>
>>What do you think would be the best way to have a program quantifiy and
>>then act on morale effects? If you have the time and inclination, please
>>list for me the specific morale influences or stimulae that you would like
>>to see the program track for each unit in play and the specific reponses
>>that you think units should exhibit based on their morale level. The word
>>morale is usually assumed to include the concept of "willingness to do" as
>>well as the concept of "efficiency in doing". What decreases unit morale?
>>What should a unit do better in the game at a given level of morale - what
>>should a unit do worse?
Just because it's difficult or subjective, how does it make the game more real
to ignore the effects of morale totally?
>
>I am a long time player of Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the
>Shadows by HPS simulations.
These are excellent games that could use a slick and fast paced interface like
Tacops. The two systems stand to learn an awful lot from eachother.
Los
Jonathan Badger
That doesn't really address my point, however. Obviously having no
morale rules is simpler than having bad morale rules -- but I still
argue that bad morale rules make games less realistic than having no
morale rules at all. A complex game can still be an unrealistic one.
One thing that most games don't seem to address is that "one size does
not fit all" in regard to morale. Soldiers who are fighting for some
cause important to them such as a political or religious movement are
often willing to (indeed are glad to) die to the last man for the
glory of their cause. On the other hand, draftee soldiers who have no
particular desire to be on the battlefield at all may lose morale
quite easily. I have yet to see rules that take this sort of thing
into account.
Los
>I believe that hard coding morale into the game would make everyone
>unhappy. The casual/semi serious gamers would be displeased when units
>did not perform as ordered and serious gamers - a cantankerous group at
>the best of times - would quibble endlessly with whatever I implemented.
I don't buy this argument since your bound to hear much more of an uproar with
morale than with. Being a PC gamer I'm only now becoming exposed to your
system, however I've been following discussions over at your web page and
you've apparently taken a fair ration of **** over the issue in the past.
>Right now, I am leaning toward adding one or more morale factors as user
>selectable options and allowing the user to specify the numbers associated
>with triggering those factors. However, whatever I do will be based
>primarily on customer input. I remain open to well stated recommendations
>from TacOps owners on exactly how they would like to see morale
>implemented. Morale has to be optional though, I'm not open to forcing it
>on everyone. I have sent personal messages to a number of people who have
>publicly complained about this, asking what would suit them - I have yet
>to receive more than a couple of replies that contained much more than:
>"Gee I don't know, but its gotta be in there - let me get back to you on
>that". <grin>
I agree with your argument about pleasing the customer, but including morale is
something that should have been implemented long ago. The only arguments I've
been hearing here for not including morale (except your business decision), are
based on foolish notions of morale not having a significant effect on modern
combat operations (at the level your modelling at (individual vehicles-squads,
platoons etc).
>
>OPFOR as portrayed in TacOps is well equipped, well trained, and well
>motivated. Even so, human players (US or OPFOR) are free to break contact
>whenever they like. If suicide attacks offend their sensibilities they
>may currently choose to not make them - the game engine does not force
>them to. When under the control of the computer opponent (AI), OPFOR
>units will continue fighting against hopeless odds. That is the nature of
>the TacOps AI opponent. That opposing forces might do this in the real
>world is a worst case possibility that US field commanders must consider.
>Some of our past adversaries have not followed a set morale norm, perhaps
>some future enemy also won't cooperate with our analysts and quit fighting
>after 30 or 50 or 90 percent casualties. Beyond the OPFOR considerations,
>I am very uncomfortable with hard coding breaking points for modern US
>military units. As a retired Marine, I am philosophically unable to
>specify a definable point in combat beyond which today's average US
>soldier or Marine will not do his duty.
Morale has been implemented so successfully (and often unobtrusively in so many
board or computer systems (ASL, HPS games, etc), that you'd be better off
trying than not doing anything at all. That almost seems plain lazy.
>
>What do you think would be the best way to have a program quantifiy and
>then act on morale effects? If you have the time and inclination, please
>list for me the specific morale influences or stimulae that you would like
>to see the program track for each unit in play and the specific reponses
>that you think units should exhibit based on their morale level. The word
>morale is usually assumed to include the concept of "willingness to do" as
>well as the concept of "efficiency in doing". What decreases unit morale?
>What should a unit do better in the game at a given level of morale - what
>should a unit do worse?
I don't know whether you are asking this to be funny or you want serious input,
but you really should do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of something like
Panthers in the Shadows by HPS and take a look at how Scott Hamilton Implements
morale, unit effectiveness, etc. (The extensive manual goes into all this in
great detail.) You have an excellent interface, work flow management and game
play feel to TACOPS, but a little S2 on your competitors would give you some
ideas.
That being said, in the context of the time frame and scale that you portray in
TACOPS, morale is basically going to effect how long units "stick with it"
before they either stop advancing or bug out to the rear. This calculation
would probably be based on how many vehicles are eliminated in a given unit
within X period of time. Factored into this needs to also be the units
effectiveness (training, morale, etc, etc). You don't need to even go overboard
with stuff like whether the given unit has witnessed the destruction of
friendly forces in it's LOS, etc like otehr games.
Of course this then means you need to model some C&C here, such as company and
bn commnaders, and the breakdown that occurs (even temporarily, when these are
elimintated). US ARMY (and MARINE I hope) doctrine is to specifically target
these vehicles as quickly as possible.
Anyway, I'd be more than willing to discuss these things in more detail
"offline" via email so as not to kill bandwith. Still I can't believe that
previos TACOPS players over in the MAc World have not already given you tons of
ideas.
Take a stab at it. Without it, you may be successful of investigating
ballistics equations, the durability of armor, and the lethality radius of
munitions, but not fear, morale, indecision, deception, and exhaustion,
althoughhistory teaches us that these factors are the crucial determinants of a
conflict. In short we end of with our computer battalions and regiments lacking
critical vulnerabilities. This makes it difficult to to simulate manuever
warfare even on this small scale because manuever warfare targets
vulnerabilities rather than mass. In TACOPS you can manuever around in an
enemies rear all day long it doesn't do a damn thing unless you kill every last
guy. Heck what cracks me up is how even the dismounts after being unhorsed by
some devestating MLRS attack that's just wiped out a whole comapny, will just
start dutifully trudging along on foot up to the front on practically the very
next turn.
I hope I'm not offending in any of this. As a long term computer and board
wargamer as well as real soldier, I know that we're real close to someday
putting out a commercial wargame, that will have some real training
value to our subordinates, ignoring the true factor of combat and victory (you
know that old Napolean syaing, "morale is to the material as three is to one"),
just sends our young leaders that wrong messages.
That being said.. Keep up the good work!
Los
Los
francois lafortune
>james...@aol.com (JamesD6201) writes:
>
>I've only played it once and it went quite well, the OPFOR
>lost more than 80% of their strength, but I also took heavy
>losses. The next time I'll try to use the Javelin teams better,
>keep moving more and there is also a lot to learn about the
>artillery.
>
For a real challenge try playing as a Canadian :)
Replace the M1 with Leopard 1C1 (38 total), the Bradleys should be changed
into LAV 25s (or m113s if your suicidal :)), the Stingers become Javelin SAMs
(should have 6 total), The Javelin ATGMs are replaced by M113 mounted MILAN
(should have 18 total), give 8 TOW 2, replace the infantry squads with
Infantry sections and ensure all platoons have at least three ERYX ATGM and
one dismounted MILAN. This gives you a good approximation of a Canadian Square
Battle Group. (The real game has the ORBAT built in for two Human player
games).Also for more realism give the OPFOR player one Battalion of BM21
(MRL),two extra Bn of 122mm and three flights of Hinds. I find this closer to
the doctrinal OPFOR
The loss of those M1s and TOW equipped Bradleys really makes a
difference. I usually win the game between 0830 and 0845 but I take massive
losses i.e. between 65% and 75% and I have had alot of practice :)
For MajH
Thanks for the port to windows, now i'm happy again :)
Francois
Sir Myk
<<This reminds me of discussion I've seen with some flight sims where
people
complain because their plane is to hard to fly because it spins, or their
race
car is too hard to drive because it develps understeer in turn. Morale is
an
_operational reality_ in combat. Anyone who's spent any time at all in or
studying the military should know this.>>
At the individual or squad level, yes. As you increase the scope of the
game, morale soon becomes a non-issue. Just as morale should be a
significant factor in a man-to-man combat game, a division or corps level
game should not be burdened with it. Between the two scales, there is and
should be a compromise.
<<This seems like purely a sales consession than any attempt to create a
fairly accurate an realsitic game on the subject.>>
Actually, it was an original design decision by MajorH. Since the Major
has already addressed this issue, I'll let his statement stand for itself.
<<That being said, I'm still enjoying the demo <g>. >>
We're glad to hear it.<bg> Morale and C3 aside, TacOps is still an
enjoyable game.
Sir Myk
I spent about 90 minutes last night working up a response to your post.
Unfortunately, as soon as I hit "send" I immediately got the little "you
are no longer connected to this feature" message. Imagine my frustration:(
After I clear my desk today, I'll see if I can get back to rewriting my
response.
-Myk
Sir Myk
>In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect than
it
>did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will attempt to
>complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses to severe to
>sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term combat >potential
may not be of immediate concern.
<<This is a patently absurb statement. Units will suffer a degredation in
this capability as morale level decreases just as in the old day, whether
the commander deems it necessary or not.>>
Over a period of time, units will degrade in combat effectiveness, even
without suffering casualties. However, TacOps models only 4 hours (at
most) of combat in the commercially available scenarios. We can argue
until doomsday about how soon the point of degredation becomes a
significant factor in a grand tactical simulation/game.
<<I know it should be obvious so I won't mention the plethora of
examples of morale playing a key effect in battle when force ratios and
weapon superirity would seem to deem otherwise. Just study any modern
conflict.>>
From past conflicts we have the statistical data that would allow us to
accurately model those conflicts. When speaking of strictly "modern"
conflicts I do not mean WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. I am specifically
referring to the last 10 or so years plus a period of about 10 years in
the future. Since OPFOR in TacOps is a generic opponent, we cannot state,
with any true accuracy, the morale level of its army. A future opponent
can be very much like most of the Iraqi Army and simply give up when they
realize they can't win. Another opponent, quite possibly a much more
militant Iran, can fight a war and not care about casualties. An army of
men who's sole purpose is to die gloriously in battle is not unlikely.
>In the modern era, we don't have this same intimate familiarity with the
>other members of our unit while on the actual battlefield. Your squad
>could be several hundred meters from the next friendly squad. When the
>morale of a single squad or an individual fails, this does not generally
>have a significant effect upon the morale of the remainder of the unit.
<<Once again, this is incorret, squads don't fight battles seperated by
"hundreds of meters. The intensity and violence of modern weapons can lead
to a complete breakdown of units within minutes. You sound like someone
who's never had a CVC on his head or put a rucksack on his back. (or read
anything about modern war).>>
I was a field radio operator (i.e. a target) during the entire time I was
in the US Marine Corps. Very rarely were we deployed in a position where
we could speak to the other squads in anything but a shout, let alone even
see them due to the terrain.
On a modern battlefield, faced by a well equipped, well led opponent, we
would have little choice but to disperse in order to cover the ground we'd
need to defend. So, in effect, squads *could* be separated by distances of
a few hundred meters. Notice I didn't say "always" or "never." Had we
fought a ground war in Western Europe, we'd have been spread very thinly
indeed. Your point about the breakdown of units due to "The intensity and
violence of modern weapons" would only increase the distance between units
or even individual squads. As casualties are taken in a narrow portion of
the front, the surviving units on the flanks will be that much further
from each other.
>To sum up, I suggest downloading the demo. Try to complete the mission in
>TF Gallagher 6. Then, if you're not hooked, you can be satisfied that you
>aren't missing out on a game you'd otherwise love.
<<I do agree with you here. Tacops is still fun, and I ordered it myself
after a day with the demo.>>
Would you agree then that TacOps, although it doesn't model morale and C3,
can stand on its own merits as a game?
Of course, all this discussion is moot as MajorH will include morale, as
an option, in his future games. Thus, people on both sides of the issue
will be winners.
Jan Mattsson
>You'll be pleased to learn that Major's next game, Panzers
>East (WWII Eastern Front tactical combat), will include these features as
>a player-modifiable option.
Sounds very interesting, any release schedule yet?
>Beyond this, how well have you done with Task Force Gallagher?
I've only played it once and it went quite well, the OPFOR
lost more than 80% of their strength, but I also took heavy
losses. The next time I'll try to use the Javelin teams better,
keep moving more and there is also a lot to learn about the
artillery.
Btw, will TacOps be distributed in Sweden?
Regards,
Jan Mattsson
Sir Myk
portions we agree on. [portions further edited as this was previously sent
privately]
>I've been a wargamer for 20 years, just as have many others. Although I
>like morale in Napoleonic and American Civil War games, I do not like
them
>in WWII, Vietnam, or Modern games.
<<Most commanders don't like losing control of their units either. I'll
make an argument that moral plays a part in any combat situation,
regardless
of erra.>>
Actually, the lack of control in a morale crisis doesn't bother me in a
game that I feel morale should be a part. I'm an avid miniature gamer and
have played several dozen games of "Johnny Reb", "Stars and Bars" as well
as a number of ancients games using various rules systems, not to mention
the numerable other historical eras and the rules created to cover them.
I've also had a past in the Avalon Hill type of wargames and up until a
few years ago, I owned more than 30 different titles. ( I sold them to
free up some housing space - they took up 8 boxes in my apartment ).
I'd have to disagree with any statement that morale is *always* a
requirement in a wargame. Morale at certain levels should have an impact,
but at other levels, it should not.
>In modern times, morale at the unit level has a much lesser effect than
it
>did in 1815 (for example). Generally, modern units will attempt to
>complete their mission, until their commanders deem losses to severe to
>sustain combat capability. However, even then long-term combat potential
>may not be of immediate concern.
<<Although it plays a lesser role in later erra sims, it still plays an
important part. Look at what happened in Iraq. Half the army
surrendered.>>
The Iraq War was a fluke when it comes to comparing it to any other modern
conflict both past and future. If our armed services derive all of their
tactical doctrine from it, then we are ill served.
I'll agree that the Iraqis were demoralized early on, even before the air
campaign started. However, when it comes to a modern (post 1990) grand
tactical game like TacOps, against a motivated opponent (the Iraqi army,
for the most part was not motivated to do anything but give up), morale
should have a lesser impact, if any.
>In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more familiar
>with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only a small
>portion of it's members took to their heels. This is due to the cascading
>effect that failing morale had when the members of the unit were standing
>shoulder to shoulder in line on the battlefield. When your buddy on each
>shoulder suddenly turns and runs, it's kinda hard not to follow....heck
>they might even know something you don't.
<<Agreed, but this still happens to dismounted troops. AFV's have
experianced NCO's and officers commanding them, so are much less
suseptible. I can assure you that they will occasionally refuse
to follow directions when in the heat of battle, let alone take
initiative when under intense fire. I personally think that the
Pack forces would have had problems in areas where they had
no numerical advantage, or when a large force is getting chewed
up.>>
Big picture, I agree. Yet, in a smaller portion of the battlefield, morale
probably wouldn't have had much of an effect until the combatants had an
opportunity to reflect on recent events. TacOps only models up to 4 hours
of combat in the current commerically available scenarios.
>In the modern era, we don't have this same intimate familiarity with the
>other members of our unit while on the actual battlefield. Your squad
>could be several hundred meters from the next friendly squad. When the
>morale of a single squad or an individual fails, this does not generally
>have a significant effect upon the morale of the remainder of the unit.
<<Here I have to dissagree. When I was in the service (armored cav), I
knew exactly what was going on in my platoon. That's how you stay alive -
although I usually couldn't see my partners, I knew where they were and
what they were seeing. Effective communications is how you stay alive.
Even in training, losing vehicles in my platoon made me feel less secure,
and I was less likely to take risks.>>
I would humbly submit that you were not under attack from one or more
Soviet MRR's at the time. When you are under the gun, and must spread out
in order to cover the AOA's, then you'll have much less familiarity with
your sister squads. This holds true especially when the guy with the radio
is killed or becomes missing. (I was a radio grunt when in the USMC).
>The point here is, on a modern battlefield turning your
>back to the enemy will kill you.
<<This I don't agree with. Getting hit in a modern battlefield will
generally get you killed. Sometimes a frightened TC will think that
exposing his rear to a few AFVs is safer than taking on several platoons
that he sees moving into position.>>
Your ability to see the enemy before he sees you is severly reduced while
facing away from him. Historically, more units were lost running away,
than attacking/moving forward.
>So, instead of advancing into that enemy
>kill zone, you'll tell your commander that you don't see anyway you can
>advance.
<<Agreed. This is the kind of morale effect I wish was in the game. Maybe
a unit will stop movement, or move slower in certain situations. Maybe
they'll dismount troops without direct orders. Maybe they'll move out of a
position when they are alone against 10s and 100's of enemy vehicles. I'm
not saying every unit - just units with poor morale. Some experiane level
should be assigned. Historically, high
morale, gung ho units are much more leathal then even average units.>>
I suggest you take up MajorH's proposal and submit your ideas on morale.
While morale should not be hard-coded into a game, it should be included
as an option as some people just refuse to play without it.....just as
some people refuse to play with it.
<<I think I read somewhere that 80% of Vietnam war casualties were
inflicted my 20% of the troops (non air/arty kills). I know things are
different now, but not THAT different.>>
That is due to the fact that only a fragment of the total manpower
deployed by the US in Vietnam were actually combat troops. Most of the men
and women sent over there were support pogues. I think Stanley Karnow's
book, "A History of Vietnam" addresses this point.
>>Personally, as a wargamer, I agree with Major that morale should not be
>hard coded in a game. I don't want to live with the value judgement of
the
>designers. However, as a wargamer, I would like to see it as a
>customizable option. I'll gladly settle for a compromise that works.
<<You are living with the 'value judgments' of the coders with the
majority of the game. Movement rates, fire priority, artillary
effectiveness, ect. They did a fantastic job with those. In my opion the
omission of morale is one of the game's few weaknesses. Don't get me
wrong, now. I LOVE this game.>>
I'm living with the hard data publicly available and included in the
TacOps weapons database. Some of the stuff was SWAGed to make it a
workable game, but for the most part is darn accurate as far as
capabilities are concerned.
>nor will the inclusion of morale in Panzers East
>make it a better game than TacOps.
<<How can you say this? Have you played Panzers East?>>
Yes, I work for Arsenal Publishing and happen to be friends with MajorH. I
ran the first CPX game using TacOps as a moderator (with a highly modified
TacOps engine) for my wargaming club over a year ago.
<<I don't think I've ever enjoyed a demo as much as I've enjoyed this
one.>>
Thank you. I think it works rather nicely.
<<My copy is on order. Does it really take 4-6 weeks to arive?>>
No. The 2-3 week issue was for the mailing that was sent out two weeks
prior to the release. Didn't want people to think the game was immediately
available and then be disappointed when they tried to order it...before
it was even released. We ship via UPS. So, you'll generally receive an
order from us within a week of order placement depending on your regional
location.
Regards,
-Myk
P.S. Due to a significany project being assigned to me, I'll not be able
to respond to any great length here for a number of days. I'll, of course,
answer technical questions, as soon as I read them.
MajorH1
It better not <g>.
Best regards, Major H.
hElIcAl gEaRs
I think Tac Ops is a great game.
>I'd have to disagree with any statement that morale is *always* a requirement
>in a wargame. Morale at certain levels should have an impact, but at other
>levels, it should not.
Agreed. Morale has no place in strategic level games. I think that
tactical level games should incorporate some form of morale effects
(with the exception of sims that model elite units such as air opps,
or situations where elites are in complete control such as naval
enagements). It plays too important a role. I'll explain more fully
later in this post.
><<Although it plays a lesser role in later erra sims, it still plays an
>important part. Look at what happened in Iraq. Half the army surrendered.>>
>The Iraq War was a fluke when it comes to comparing it to any other modern
>conflict both past and future. If our armed services derive all of their
>tactical doctrine from it, then we are ill served.
We're not talking tactical doctrine here, and it really wasn't a fluke
(although it is a poor representation of modern Pac vs NATO engagements).
What happened to thier army is what happens when a poorly trained and
motivated unit's morale goes to hell. I'm not suggesting that anything
like this would happen in Europe, but a significant portion of the Pac army
consists of uneducated, under-trained soldiers that are not THAT much
different than the Iraqis.
>>In Napoleonic times (and I use this comparison as I'm much more familiar
>>with it) a unit could cease to function as a whole when only a small
>>portion of it's members took to their heels.
>>I personally think that the
>>Pack forces would have had problems in areas where they had
>>no numerical advantage, or when a large force is getting chewed
>>up.
>
>Big picture, I agree. Yet, in a smaller portion of the battlefield, morale
>probably wouldn't have had much of an effect until the combatants had an
>opportunity to reflect on recent events. TacOps only models up to 4 hours of
>combat in the current commerically available scenarios.
>>Here I have to dissagree. When I was in the service (armored cav), I knew
>>generally what was going on in my platoon. That's how you stay alive -
>>although I usually couldn't see my partners, I knew where they were and what
>>they were seeing. Effective communications is how you stay alive. Even in
>>training, losing vehicles in my platoon made me feel less secure, and I was
>>less likely to take risks.
>
>I would humbly submit that you were not under attack from one or more Soviet
>MRR's at the time.
I much braver, and not afraid to lose my life either.
>When you are under the gun, and must spread out in order
>to cover the AOA's, then you'll have much less familiarity with your sister
>squads.
I was stationed in Germany, and visted my actual battle positions on several
occasions (within sight of the border - about a click away :). We trained
in the same way as you are describing, all spread out. I will consede
that in the heat of battle you have less time to talk on the radio
because you have to shoot and move to stay alive. I will also consede
that its natural tendency to fight rather than run when you have the
power of a tank - but this is beside the point - not everyone is going
to ALWAYS fight when the shit hits the fan.
>This holds true especially when the guy with the radio is killed or
>becomes missing. (I was a radio grunt when in the USMC).
As far as I'm concerned, the infantry game in Tac Ops is fine. Those
dismouted boys have little effect anymore.
>>>The point here is, on a modern battlefield turning your
>>>back to the enemy will kill you.
>
>>This I don't agree with. Getting hit in a modern battlefield will
>>generally get you killed. Sometimes a frightened TC will think that exposing
>>his rear to a few AFVs is safer than taking on several platoons that he sees
>>moving into position.
>
>Your ability to see the enemy before he sees you is severly reduced while
>facing away from him. Historically, more units were lost running away, than
>attacking/moving forward.
When your getting shot at, and the 'fight or flight' response says run,
you don't think of this. Besides, poorly trained peasants from Afganistan
generally don't know this.
>>I think I read somewhere that 80% of Vietnam war casualties were inflicted
>>my 20% of the troops (non air/arty kills). I know things are different now,
>>but not THAT different.>>
>That is due to the fact that only a fragment of the total manpower deployed
>by the US in Vietnam were actually combat troops. Most of the men and women
>sent over there were support pogues. I think Stanley Karnow's book, "A
>History of Vietnam" addresses this point.
This is true in most modern engagements, and is not what I was addressing.
Most combat casualties are caused by 20% of the >combat arms<. If you
havn't read Hackworth's About Face, it comes highly recommended
>>You are living with the 'value judgments' of the coders with the majority
>>of the game. Movement rates, fire priority, artillary effectiveness, ect.
>>They did a fantastic job with those. In my oppion the omission of morale is
>>one of the game's few weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, now. I LOVE this
>>game.
>
>I'm living with the hard data publicly available and included in the TacOps
>weapons database. Some of this stuff was SWAGed to make it a workable game,
>but for the most part is darn accurate as far as capabilities are concerned.
Yes, I really like this about the game. Reminds me of the old minitures game
Tractics, which had pentration tables, specific armor thickness listings,
angle of impact effects, ect. What I'm trying to say is that in ANY game
design, you are living with a hoast of judgements. I'll bet those hit
percentage tables TacOps uses aren't based on actual engagements. Somewhere
someone had to come up with the numbers. Tank gunnery table hit percentages are
acomplised in a pretty steral, noncombat environment. After reviewing the
numbers for the NATO 105, I'm sure our gunners were hitting more accurately
at long ranges (especally the M60A3 which has the same optics/laser as the
M1 - what gives?). Somewhere some one made the (correct) judgment to degrade
tank gunnery accuracies.
If you remember the old game Squad Leader, one of it's expansions (Cresendo of
Doom, I think) had a rule called Battlefield Integrity (if my memory serves me
corect). It basically had the players keeping track of casualties, and
as they mounted, the morale of your units would decline. The rule was largly
unworkable because of the paperwork involved. Its general concept was sound,
tho. I don't want to see my Tac Ops units driving across the battlefield all
on their own in the wrong direction (anyone play Steel Panthers?), but I think
that the green troops should become less effective as thier unit is getting
chewed up.
>>nor will the inclusion of morale in Panzers East
>>make it a better game than TacOps.
>
><<How can you say this? Have you played Panzers East?>>
>
>Yes, up until last week, I had the latest demo version on my harddrive. I
>work for Arsenal Publishing and happen to be friends with MajorH.
Lucky dog. Need any beta testers for the PC version? I have experiance
testing for Atomic's W@W series. I have 20+ years experiance in tabletop
wargaming. I'm also good at isolating problems; I'm a design
engineer, so I've had lots of practive.
>>Oh - a Macintosh person. That explains a lot ;).
>I wish the
>Mac/PC thing wasn't such a big issue and that all gaming companies would
>support both platforms.
Just kidding, its not the platform that's important - its the software.
Los
>
>Over a period of time, units will degrade in combat effectiveness, even
>without suffering casualties. However, TacOps models only 4 hours (at
>most) of combat in the commercially available scenarios. We can argue
>until doomsday about how soon the point of degredation becomes a
>significant factor in a grand tactical simulation/game.
I'd really love to know on what experience or refrence you base your rationale
on. in combat morale begins to degrade instantly. Take a company TF advance. It
moves out along it's axeis of advance and into an enemy kill zone. Suddenly a
LR anti armor ambush is sprung resulting in 5 otr 6 vehicles being destroyed
within the space of a minute, including the commanders. It is right at that
time that vehicles or people go to ground, take cover, pop smoke and reverse
etc. The company, in most cases does not advance forward into a no win
situation until it is anihlated like it does in TACOPS. I've seen these
situation occeur time and again at the NTC with real tanks and APC, whole
comapny rendered comabt ineffective in the space of 2 or 3 minutes. And in that
istuation there is no fear since it's all with MILES gear. How many example do
we need to point to of numerically superior forces being rendered comabt
ineffective very quickly, with even very little losses (like the COs and XOs
vehicle). Study any account of the '67, '73, Iran--Iraq, or Gulf war for some
decent mech accounts of this happening, or Falklands, (Goose Green), Vietnam,
etc for leg infantry accounts.
Heck the longer the time period that a game simulates, the less morale should
matter because this is where training, esprit, etc etc allow the unit to
recover quicker.
>
>From past conflicts we have the statistical data that would allow us to
>accurately model those conflicts. When speaking of strictly "modern"
>conflicts I do not mean WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. I am specifically
>referring to the last 10 or so years plus a period of about 10 years in
>the future. Since OPFOR in TacOps is a generic opponent, we cannot state,
>with any true accuracy, the morale level of its army. A future opponent
>can be very much like most of the Iraqi Army and simply give up when they
>realize they can't win. Another opponent, quite possibly a much more
>militant Iran, can fight a war and not care about casualties. An army of
>men who's sole purpose is to die gloriously in battle is not unlikely.
It's one thing to fight a war on the strategic level and have the leaders not
care about casualties but it is a whole other thing on the tactical level when
you are doing the fighting and dying. Yes of course there are specific
instances of units being able to press the assault to the death, but guess
what makes them do that? MORALE. Fanaticism, Command and Control, Cohesion,
Esprit and training. All the factyors that are basically ignored in TACOPS.
><<Once again, this is incorret, squads don't fight battles seperated by
>"hundreds of meters. The intensity and violence of modern weapons can lead
>to a complete breakdown of units within minutes. You sound like someone
>who's never had a CVC on his head or put a rucksack on his back. (or read
>anything about modern war).>>
>
>I was a field radio operator (i.e. a target) during the entire time I was
>in the US Marine Corps. Very rarely were we deployed in a position where
>we could speak to the other squads in anything but a shout, let alone even
>see them due to the terrain.
I've spent about 17 (going on 18 -yeesh I'm getting old), in the Army all of it
in the Infantry and currently SF (Ops and Intel NCO), so I'm very much familiar
with modern combat operations as both a ground pounder, ((did a stint at NTC w/
OPFOR) combat leader and operational planner, and have worked with numerous
foreign militaries and been in combat, so I too am well aware of conditionds
that terrain play on visibility etc. However, how do most mechanized forces
conduct there assaults, through restrictive terrain? squads and platoons, if
they're to be effective in combat at all must operate within effective small
arms range of eachother to be mutually supportive, so were taking 150-200
meters tops if your going to hit the enemy on the otehr side of your boys. This
is ofcourse you're all stumbling around in elephant grass or something, in
which case your going to fight a disjointed uncoordinated actions since you
can't see or control effectively nor provide mutual supporting fire, (Radios
not withstanding).
>
>On a modern battlefield, faced by a well equipped, well led opponent, we
>would have little choice but to disperse in order to cover the ground we'd
>need to defend. So, in effect, squads *could* be separated by distances of
>a few hundred meters. Notice I didn't say "always" or "never." Had we
>fought a ground war in Western Europe, we'd have been spread very thinly
>indeed. Your point about the breakdown of units due to "The intensity and
>violence of modern weapons" would only increase the distance between units
>or even individual squads. As casualties are taken in a narrow portion of
>the front, the surviving units on the flanks will be that much further
>from each other.
A unit in modern combat must travel dispersed but needs to fight concentrated
to be effective, it needs to be in visual contact with each other to provide
mutual support, and distance not withstanding, if your squad sees the rest of
your platoon wiped out several hundred meters away, or ten feet away, your
platoon has become combat ineffective and is going to be pressing any assaults,
John Wayne, Audie Murphy, or your experience a joe snuffy the radioman not
withstanding.
>
>>To sum up, I suggest downloading the demo. Try to complete the mission in
>>TF Gallagher 6. Then, if you're not hooked, you can be satisfied that you
>>aren't missing out on a game you'd otherwise love.
><<I do agree with you here. Tacops is still fun, and I ordered it myself
>after a day with the demo.>>
>
>Would you agree then that TacOps, although it doesn't model morale and C3,
>can stand on its own merits as a game?
Yes, TACOPS is a fun game, but I'm not kidding myself as to what kind of model
it is for modern operations. The Major himself admits over and over that Morale
isn't modeled because he feels he'd have a hard to modelling it accurately and
that too many people would complain (b.s), rather than any nonsence about
morale having littel effect on modern combat. I would hope that anyone who is a
major in the Marine Corps knows better than that.
>Of course, all this discussion is moot as MajorH will include morale, as
>an option, in his future games. Thus, people on both sides of the issue
>will be winners.
True!
Take care...
Los
P.S No offense if I become heated on this subject at times.
P.P.S. Do yourself an immense favor and read THE ART OF MANUEVER: Manuever
Theory and the AirLand Battle by Robert Leonard Presido Press 1994 (ISBN
0-89141-532-7)
P.P.S. TACOPS sort of reminds me of SPI's old Mechwar 2. ANyone remember that?
Scot Mc3
While I also would like to see more detail on morale and effectiveness in
a future version of the game, IMO the current morale/effectiveness model
does work.
Units do respond to having been fired upon. If they are suppressed, they
are less likely to be able to shoot back, and if they shoot back, the
return fire may not be as effective. Leg infantry that are suppressed have
their orders cancelled; they stop and go into defilade. A unit whose
maximum engagement range has been set below its highest value will, upon
being attacked, accept the fact that it has been spotted and increase that
engagement range. All units may be given orders which allow them to
respond in several different ways, if they end up being fired upon or
using their weapons themselves.
It is also possible, in a limited manner, to improve the effectiveness of
a unit. Units which are ordered to focus their attention on a particular
target or a particular area of the map are more likely to get the drop on
their opponents when they engage, but not always.
The assumption of the game appears to that both sides are tough and will,
within the time frame of a scenario, not lose combat efficiency. While I
would like to see more variation in unit morale and efficiency, both
statically and dynamically, I find the current limited model to be
adequate, especially in light of the overall interactions of the game.
Command and Control:
While the game does not have a detailed model of command and control, one
also does not have absolute control over units either.
In TacOps, one issues orders by telling a unit where to go, setting its
target priorities, and setting its Standard Operating Procedures. Between
turns it is possible to issue orders to any or all of one's units in the
game. This is, of course, unrealistic inasmuch as real orders would take
time to prepare and to go down a chain of command, they might be subject
to misinterpretation, and certain units would exercise command and control
functions.
However, these facts are ameliorated somewhat by other elements of the
design.
For one thing, the game is resolved simultaneously after orders have been
issued. While one can set priorities for a unit to fire, the decision to
fire is made by the unit itself. If the unit has been supressed, its
effectiveness will go down. In many circumstances one cannot completely
predict when or how a unit will engage the enemy.
In addition, the game has a built-in timer which can be set to limit
issuing orders. While this doesn't fully simulate a chain of command, it
does, rather elegantly I think, give one some of the problems of command
and control. Under these circumstances, I have experienced command and
control failures. I vividly remember failing to order a Marine platoon to
go weapons silent while it was infiltrating forward. Some joker on an AAV7
opened up on some tempting BTRs with a machine gun....the resulting
counterfire (from units in addition to the BTRs) pinned and later
destroyed said platoon.
Frankly, I like to tinker with the games that I play. If there were
rigidly set morale, effectiveness, and command and control features, there
would be times that I would want to turn off one or more of them to
emphasize the more positional aspects of play. Some players want time
pressure to be function of how they play the game because time pressure
has a real bearing on command and control; others, especially old
boardgamers such as myself, are willing to sacrifice this element of
realism for the sake of studying the possible permutations of actions. I
regard both to be valid desires for what one wants from a game; I want to
have both options.
More detailed models of morale, effeciveness, and command and control will
be required for historical scenarios; it looks as if we are going to see
some of them in Panzers East.
Scott D. Orr
(Jonathan Badger) writes:
>
>sd...@ix.netcom.com(Scott D. Orr ) writes:
>
>>In <badger.8...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu> bad...@phylo.life.uiuc.edu
>>(Jonathan Badger) writes:
>
>>>Most morale rules in games are so simplistic that they actually
>>>makes games _less_ realistic than having none at all.
>
>>That statement overlooks the patently obvious fact that using no
>>morale rules is the _most_ simplistic morale rule possible.
>
>That doesn't really address my point, however.
Yes, it does. The problem is that you want to consider the unrealistic
consequences of a "bad" morale rule compared to some abstract standard
of perfection, rather than considering those consequences compared to
the even more unrealistic consequences of having no morale rule
whatsoever.
>Obviously having no morale rules is simpler than having bad morale
>rules...
It's also more simplistic. When you adopt no explicit morale
rules, you are _implicitly_ assuming that all soldiers have _perfect_
morale. No matter WHAT you do, you are making an assumption about
morale, and it's difficult to believe that an assumption made by
default, by completley ignoring the problem, is going to be worse
than an assumption based on an educated guess.
>...but I still argue that bad morale rules make games less realistic
>than having no morale rules at all.
Even the most simplistic morale rule will, at the very least, force
the player (as the commander) to consider the fact that his forces
have limits; if those limits are nor represented perfectly, they are at
least represented. By contrast, when morale rules are neglected, and
these limits do _not_ have to be considered, absurd results become
commonplace: for example, if TacOps had any morale rules whatsoever,
we wouldn't be hearing all these stories about firefights in which each
side takes 60%-80% casualties -- _real_ forces would fall apart _long_
before then (or more probably, they would be withdrawn by their
commanders before reaching the point of falling apart).
Let apply your reasoning to another area: all wargamers now agree
that the original style of Avalon Hill Combat Resolution Table (used in
the late '60's and early '70's) was incredibly unrealistic. By your
logic, since the combat resolution was "bad", the game could have been
made more realistic by deleting the combat rules entirely. Right?
But of course, you're arguing against a straw man: game designers have
spent the last 20 years developing morale rules. _All_ (and I mean
ALL) tactical simulations now include morale rules of some sort, and
therefore there are literally _dozens_ of examples of _good_ morale
rules available; and these rules could certainly be improved upon with
the processing power of a computer.
>A complex game can still be an unrealistic one.
Very ture. TacOps is an excellent example of this point.
>
>One thing that most games don't seem to address is that "one size does
>not fit all" in regard to morale. Soldiers who are fighting for some
>cause important to them such as a political or religious movement are
>often willing to (indeed are glad to) die to the last man for the
>glory of their cause. On the other hand, draftee soldiers who have no
>particular desire to be on the battlefield at all may lose morale
>quite easily. I have yet to see rules that take this sort of thing
>into account.
That's simply false. Virtually all games with morale rules asign
different levels of morale to different units (indeed, Atomic's new
Close Combat pyschologically models each individual _soldier_); I think
I've seen one or two games that use a "standard" level of morale that
applies to all forces. Some game even include bonsues to morale for
troops defending particularly important positions. You really ought to
take a look at some of these games.
Scott Orr
JamesD6201
Where did you read this? During the last week of February and again the
first week of March, 2-3 weeks before the actual release of TacOps for
Windows, we mailed out a pre-release notification flyer that stated
"Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery." We did this to comply with Federal
Trade Commission regulations on mail order offers, and to alert our
customers that the game had not yet been released.
As of today, March 22, we have shipped all orders received. In fact, if
we receive an order by 1:00 p.m. eastern time, we process and ship it by
the close of business the same day. For our U.S. customers, UPS ground
service takes from 1-6 business days to reach you. For our international
customers, DHL International service takes from 5-8 business days to reach
you - anywhere in the world. So, at the most, your order should take no
more than a week to reach you in the U.S., and no more than two weeks
internationally.
Regards,
Jim DeGoey
President, Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
MajorH1
It was a serious request for input.
<<...but you really should do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of
something like
Panthers in the Shadows by HPS and take a look at how Scott Hamilton
Implements
morale, unit effectiveness, etc. ... a little S2 on your competitors would
give you some
ideas>>
Analyzing other people's games is not the way I do research.
<<Still I can't believe that previos TACOPS players over in the MAc World
have not already given you tons of ideas. >>
They haven't. Morale and command and control comments have always pretty
much originated from folks playing their first few games and usually just
based on one or two playings of the demo scenario. Either they did not
like the absence so much that they did not buy the game or else they
decided it was no big deal after all. I can't recall ever having a box
returned based on disatisfaction with morale or command and control items.
<<I hope I'm not offending in any of this.>>
Your tone so far seems to me to be patronizing, tactless, and offensive
but fortunately I don't take offense easily <g> and it is easy to
misinterpret the tone of a forum message - so fire away.
<< ... As a long term computer and board wargamer as well as real
soldier..>>
Everyone currently involved with TacOps development has also been all
three.
Best regards, Major H.
Los
>That's simply false. Virtually all games with morale rules asign
>different levels of morale to different units (indeed, Atomic's new
>Close Combat pyschologically models each individual _soldier_); I think
>I've seen one or two games that use a "standard" level of morale that
>applies to all forces. Some game even include bonsues to morale for
>troops defending particularly important positions. You really ought to
>take a look at some of these games.
>
>Scott Orr
It does seem that these guys have been in some sort of a vacuum re: what's been
going on in the industry. A real shame. TACOPS is a fun game and should be a
profitable success for Arsenal, but I hope noone gets to delusional as to it
being an accurate protrayal of modern combat. In a way, thses guys real sell
their design caabilities short. Anyone capable of turning out a class product
like this would certainly be able to develop adequate morale rules. And the
excuse that players won't like thier forces being subjected to the adverse
effects of morale as interpreted by them really pisses me off because it
portrays us as some sort of control freaks, unable to deal with adversity or
not caring about realism.
Los
ArsenalPub
rules has been produced in at least 15-20 years... >>
I looked at my collection of tactical board wargames and surveyed them to
see how they modeled morale. Interestingly, several designers did not
include morale rules at all. And each of the designers that included
morale rules in their games had different ideas on how it should be
implemented. All of the games surveyed modelled suppression of infantry
and vehicles in much the same way that TacOps does.
FIREFIGHT by Jim Dunnigan (SPI, 1976): Modern tactical ground combat. No
morale rules.
MECHWAR 2 by Mark Herman (SPI, 1979): Modern tactical ground combat.
Morale expressed in "morale states" that get progressively worse as a unit
takes more casualties, but can be reduced by "rallying."
ASSAULT by Frank Chadwick (GDW, 1983-1984): Modern tactical ground combat.
Morale rules similar to MECHWAR 2, but a bit more restrictive.
MAIN BATTLE AREA by Bill Gibbs (Omega Games, 1985): Modern tactical ground
combat. No morale rules.
TEAM YANKEE by Frank Chadwick & Marc Miller (GDW, 1987): Modern tactical
ground combat. Morale expressed as a "hesitation point" and "break point."
FORCE EAGLE'S WAR by Dean Essig (The Gamers, 1990): Modern tactical ground
combat. Morale expressed as suppression, paralysis,
save-yourself-retreats, and surrender.
Just as there are differing opinions about the need to see morale modeled
in tactical wargames, there is also a difference of opinion among game
designers on how morale should be modeled. Is the presence or absence of
morale a "make or break" issue with many gamers or game designers? For
some, yes. For others, no. So be it.
Regards,
Jim DeGoey
TacOps Project Manager
Charles Davis
good.
chuck
ami a silberman cis fac/staff
hElIcAl gEaRs <dsc...@luminet.net> wrote:
>Hope I didn't open a can of worms with this morale thing, cause
>I think Tac Ops is a great game.
>
>>I'd have to disagree with any statement that morale is *always* a requirement
>>in a wargame. Morale at certain levels should have an impact, but at other
>>levels, it should not.
>
>Agreed. Morale has no place in strategic level games. I think that
>tactical level games should incorporate some form of morale effects
>(with the exception of sims that model elite units such as air opps,
>or situations where elites are in complete control such as naval
>enagements). It plays too important a role. I'll explain more fully
>later in this post.
>
The original WWI by SPI had "combat resource points", which represented
material, manpower, and morale. (You used them to buy armies, and most
combat results resulted in losing CRPs.) Morale would be pretty important in
a game simulating a large portion of WWI, since at least the French and German
armies actually got to the point of mutiny through war-weariness. Some political
type rules are also related to morale. In at least one game on the 7 years
war, international opinion is modeled, as is the attitude of a leaders support.
Los
>
><<I don't know whether you are asking this to be funny or you want serious
>
>It was a serious request for input.
>
>something like
>Panthers in the Shadows by HPS and take a look at how Scott Hamilton
>Implements
>give you some
>
>Analyzing other people's games is not the way I do research.
Bingo, this is obvious. Looking at what your contemporaries are doing might
save you from needlessly reinventing the wheel. Or at least give you an idea of
where to pfocus some of your ideas. You probably do this unconcsiously already
since there's nothing that's so incredibly original about TACOPS outside of the
way you've packaged everything together to make such a smooth interface.
>
><<Still I can't believe that previos TACOPS players over in the MAc World
>have not already given you tons of ideas. >>
>
>They haven't. Morale and command and control comments have always pretty
>much originated from folks playing their first few games and usually just
>based on one or two playings of the demo scenario. Either they did not
>like the absence so much that they did not buy the game or else they
>decided it was no big deal after all. I can't recall ever having a box
>returned based on disatisfaction with morale or command and control items.
I enjoy playing TACOPS. It's a great game! Lack of c3 or morale doesn't detract
from it's fun in the slightest, it just detracts a bit in it's training value.
Though I heard the Marines are buying it (of course they're playing Doom too
<g>). It is heartening to see. It always perplexed me why more military
officers were not more interested in wargaming, and it has always showed in the
tactical employment of troops.
I know this is all a dead end anyway since the product is out on the
market, so I'll return to my regulary-scheduled lurking.
Los
James Reedy
so what are the system requirements to run TacOps ?
Jim R
===========================================================================
Jim Reedy jamesr @psd.com.au
"Noooo body expects the Spanish Inquisition, Our chief weapon is surprise,
surprise and fear. Our 2 chief weapons are suprise and fear and a fanatical
devotion to the Pope. Amongst our weapons are such diverse elements as -
Surprise, Fear And a Fanatical devotion to the Pope. Cardinal Fang ...."
Monty Python 'The Spanish Inquisition Sketch'
===========================================================================
MajorH1
At present that is bum scoop -i.e. that the Marines are buying TacOps -
same with the Army. Interest has been shown and inquiries have been made
but so far there has been no order. I think the military offices involved
are looking at a number of commercial wargames. I don't believe that the
intention is to use commercial wargames in "official" training even if an
order is placed. I think the initial concept is more like providing a
"recreational training opportunity".
Sir Myk
IBM or 100% compatible 386/33 DX or better
4 MB RAM ( 8 recommended)
8MB HD space
Windows compatible sound card
VGA graphics card ( SuperVGA recommended)
Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
A mouse or other pointing device
3.5" high-density disk drive
Scott D. Orr
>
>It does seem that these guys have been in some sort of a vacuum re:
>what's been going on in the industry. A real shame. TACOPS is a fun
>game and should be a profitable success for Arsenal, but I hope noone
>gets to delusional as to it being an accurate protrayal of modern
>combat. In a way, thses guys real sell their design caabilities short.
>Anyone capable of turning out a class product like this would
>certainly be able to develop adequate morale rules. And the excuse
>that players won't like thier forces being subjected to the adverse
>effects of morale as interpreted by them really pisses me off because
>it portrays us as some sort of control freaks, unable to deal with
>adversity or not caring about realism.
And I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean to run TacOps down: I've
heard a lot of good things for a long time, about both the game and the
level of customer support (which is evident in this forum). But I have
to confess I was really surprised to learn about the lack of morale
rules -- that just not something you expect nowadays in a tactical
wargame (lack of command and control rules, yes, but even that really
isn't excusable).
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
writes:
><< As a matter of fact, I don't think a tactical boardgame without
morale
>rules has been produced in at least 15-20 years... >>
>
>I looked at my collection of tactical board wargames and surveyed them
>to see how they modeled morale. Interestingly, several designers did
>not include morale rules at all. And each of the designers that
>included morale rules in their games had different ideas on how it
>should be implemented.
As is true of virtually of most types of rules....
>All of the games surveyed modelled suppression of infantry
>and vehicles in much the same way that TacOps does.
>
>FIREFIGHT by Jim Dunnigan (SPI, 1976): Modern tactical ground combat.
>No morale rules.
>
>MECHWAR 2 by Mark Herman (SPI, 1979): Modern tactical ground combat.
>Morale expressed in "morale states" that get progressively worse as a
>unit takes more casualties, but can be reduced by "rallying."
>
>ASSAULT by Frank Chadwick (GDW, 1983-1984): Modern tactical ground
>combat. Morale rules similar to MECHWAR 2, but a bit more restrictive.
The morale rules are quite detailed but unfortunately don't assume a
"standard" level of morale for all forces. However, the minor failing
if forgiveable in that Assault has the probably the best set of command
and control rules ever produced in a board game (as well as good hidden
movement rules).
>
>MAIN BATTLE AREA by Bill Gibbs (Omega Games, 1985): Modern tactical
>ground combat. No morale rules.
>
I'm not sure I've heard of this one.
>TEAM YANKEE by Frank Chadwick & Marc Miller (GDW, 1987): Modern
>tactical ground combat. Morale expressed as a "hesitation point" and
>"break point."
Basically a simplified version of Assault -- also includes limited
command and control rules.
>
>FORCE EAGLE'S WAR by Dean Essig (The Gamers, 1990): Modern tactical
>ground combat. Morale expressed as suppression, paralysis,
>save-yourself-retreats, and surrender.
>
>Just as there are differing opinions about the need to see morale
>modeled in tactical wargames...
Actually, you only mentiond a couple of games without morale rules, and
of those is 11 years old; to them I could add Panzer Leader and Panzer
Blitz, two very old games. However, they're very much the exception.
>...there is also a difference of opinion among game designers on how
>morale should be modeled.
Well, yes. How does this make it different from the other factors of
warfare. Differences of opinion are why different game designers are
all still in business.
>Is the presence or absence of morale a
>"make or break" issue with many gamers or game designers? For
>some, yes. For others, no. So be it.
It's a standard feature that almost all serious wargamers will expect
in a tactical game.
Scott Orr
hElIcAl gEaRs
>
>Where did you read this?
Opps - sorry. I'm just used to 2-3 days, not weeks. Your right,
I looked again, and it says 2-3 weeks. I'm champing at the bit
right now (getting pretty good at that galliger6 tho) :)
hElIcAl gEaRs
>>A complex game can still be an unrealistic one.
>
>Very ture. TacOps is an excellent example of this point.
;)
Oh -Scott-. You're shreadin' this game. I know they think its
better than what it is, but its got a good base. If we stay
with 'em they might make a good game out of it. It's not like we
have that many choices. I think we are in danger of alienateing
this Major dude. The game is already half there, and IMHO works
better now than Steel Panthers. It took a LONG while for
the VforV folks to get thier shit together. Remember, these Mac
folks are peculier people.
hElIcAl gEaRs
>give you some
>ideas>>
>
>Analyzing other people's games is not the way I do research.
>
A horrible mistake. I'm an engineer - when approached with a
design problem, the FIRST thing I do is ask around to see
how people have tackled similar problems. I take what they've
done, and improve on it. Ever wonder how we got to the moon?
It wasn't by ignoring what others have learned in the past.
><<Still I can't believe that previos TACOPS players over in the MAc World
>have not already given you tons of ideas. >>
>
>They haven't.
>Morale and command and control comments have always pretty
>much originated from folks playing their first few games and usually just
>based on one or two playings of the demo scenario.
I've played it extensivly, and still feel that it needs moral rules to
make it realistic. Its a very fun game, but I think it lacks realism
due to the previously mentioned. Real world units DO NOT behave the way
they do in Tac Ops.
>Either they did not
>like the absence so much that they did not buy the game or else they
>decided it was no big deal after all. I can't recall ever having a box
>returned based on disatisfaction with morale or command and control items.
After that statement, I'll bet you will now.
><<I hope I'm not offending in any of this.>>
>
>Your tone so far seems to me to be patronizing, tactless, and offensive
^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd say some of your posts have the same tone, which is a bit
surpriseing considering your trying to sell a product.
><< ... As a long term computer and board wargamer as well as real
>soldier..>>
>
>Everyone currently involved with TacOps development has also been all
>three.
Well, it seems as if you are the leader, and its only natural to
mirror our leaders sentiments (expecially when your livlihood is
based on this). Are YOU really open minded enough to consider
the possibility that you may be wrong, that your design may have a
flaw? Why do you gloss over the NUMEROUS points that people have
made? Do you have a defense?
And most of all - what do you base your assumtions on?
Jonathan Kong
most of the post is snipped
>P.S. The pre-release price for TacOps for Windows of $39.95 expires on
>March 31st. On April 1st, the price returns to our normal direct price of
>$44.95. Don't delay, order your copy today.
>
Actually, I am still pondering whether to get the game or not. The only
trouble with me is that $15 for international shipping does seem to me
rather unreasonable. If the $5 domestic shipping also applies to Canada,
then I will definitely get it without any delay.
For now, I will just stick to the demo and enjoy :-)
Jonathan KONG
mk...@interlog.com
Robert Mcclure
BY: Steve Weatherwax to All on Wed Mar 20 1996 06:33 pm
> I just want to put my two cents in about the morale issue. Sure, I
> would like to see it incorporated in the AI, but it seems to me it
> would only lead to other arguements about 'realism'. How would you
> program the AI? In reality, one unit might take 80% casualties and
> still remain cohesive; another might break with 50% casualties. Then
> you need to take into account leadership, how to assess casualties in
> a unit that withdraws under pressure, etc., etc., etc. As long as the
> OPFOR has the same morale as the U.S. side I'll be happy. It seems to
>
> Steve Weatherwax
Hi Steve,
My cosysop and I are about the download the demo and I have read a few
posts including yours regarding morale. I think morale SHOULD be a part of the
game for those that want it, and for those that would rather have a more "beer
& pretzels" game can leave it out. No doubt this would be a fairly large
programming task, but if I actually BUY the game, it would at least have to
have morale "toggleable" in the game, since soldiers, at least the ones I know
(my father, friends, relatives and my two brothers) would NEVER stay in place
if they watched their comrades being bombed out of existence by arty or shot to
pieces by heavy machine guns or flechette rounds, they would at least find
another place to take cover. So if I am going to be asked to pay a fair sum
for a game, I want it to be as realistic as possible, and one of the things it
would need is the morale issue.
I have heard rumors that Panzers East, a game by the same company, will
have morale "toggleable" in the game for those that want it. Hats off to these
folks, and I hope they have a morale patch soon for TacOps.
Take care Steve, I enjoyed your post.
Robert McClure, sysop, Eat Flaming Death BBS
rmcc...@chron.com
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: Eat Flaming Death Houston Texas 713-447-1927 (1:106/564)
Robert Mcclure
BY: Sir Myk to All on Thu Mar 21 1996 08:30 am
> <<This seems like purely a sales consession than any attempt to create a
> fairly accurate an realsitic game on the subject.>>
>
> Actually, it was an original design decision by MajorH. Since the Major
> has already addressed this issue, I'll let his statement stand for itself.
>
> Mike Nankervis
> Customer Service Manager
> Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
Hello Mike, could you ask the major if there is a chance that morale in any
form could be added as a toggleable feature in a future patch for TacOps?
Sincerely,
Robert McClure, SysOp
Eat Flaming Death BBS
713-447-1927 / 1:106/564
Scott D. Orr
writes:
Scott Orr
Saul H. Jacobs
To the Major:
From one old military man to another. Don't let these people annoy you
and I would advise you not to get into a discussion with them. These are
the same people who did nothing but flame Harpoon when it first came
out. It got so bad that all of us serious Harpooners would not discuss
anything in this forum. We formed our own mail list and those of us who
are serious about your game are trying to form a mail list on Tacops.
These people live for situations such as this, they are not intrested in
helping anybody else or giving any constructive critism, just starting a
flame war.
Scott, you can answer this if you want but this is it for me.
Saul
><<I don't know whether you are asking this to be funny or you want
serious
>input ...>>
>
>It was a serious request for input.
>
><<...but you really should do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of
>something like
>Panthers in the Shadows by HPS and take a look at how Scott Hamilton
>Implements
>morale, unit effectiveness, etc. ... a little S2 on your competitors
would
>give you some
>ideas>>
>
>Analyzing other people's games is not the way I do research.
>
><<Still I can't believe that previos TACOPS players over in the MAc
World
>have not already given you tons of ideas. >>
>
>They haven't. Morale and command and control comments have always
pretty
>much originated from folks playing their first few games and usually
just
>based on one or two playings of the demo scenario. Either they did not
>like the absence so much that they did not buy the game or else they
>decided it was no big deal after all. I can't recall ever having a box
>returned based on disatisfaction with morale or command and control
items.
>
><<I hope I'm not offending in any of this.>>
>
>Your tone so far seems to me to be patronizing, tactless, and offensive
>but fortunately I don't take offense easily <g> and it is easy to
>misinterpret the tone of a forum message - so fire away.
>
><< ... As a long term computer and board wargamer as well as real
>soldier..>>
>
>Everyone currently involved with TacOps development has also been all
>three.
>
>Best regards, Major H.
>
>
>
Charles A Smith
that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal boxes.
If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
really surprising to me.
Chuck Smith
cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
JamesD6201
order,
or they don't have a sale...In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal can be
succussful with this poor service... >>
The pre-release flyer we sent out THREE WEEKS prior to the release of
TacOps for Windows stated (in order to comply with Federal Trade
Commission regulations on mail order sales) to "allow 2-3 weeks for
delivery." I'd like to repeat this again - the 2-3 week delivery time was
for the benefit of those individuals on our pre-release notification list
mailing which was mailed out THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE GAME WAS RELEASED.
Once TacOps for Windows was released, we've been getting orders to our
customers domestically in 1-6 business days for $5 (via UPS). The actual
number of days any customer has to wait for delivery depends solely on
where in the county he/she lives. The 6-day zone is in northern
California; the rest of the country is 5 days or less. Furthermore, our
in-house order processing staff routinely processes and ships orders
within 24 hours of receiving them.
In addition, Arsenal offers a no-questions-asked money back guarantee on
every product we sell. If you're not satisfied with it for any reason,
just return it to us and we'll refund your full purchase price. No
questions asked. Period.
If our current level of customer support (including order processing and
money-back guarantee) constitutes "poor service," please advise on how we
can make it better.
Regards,
Jim DeGoey
President, Arsenal Publishing, Inc.
P.S. The pre-release price for TacOps for Windows of $39.95 expires on
sc
Smith) wrote:
> 2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail order,
For me, TacOps arrived about three days after my brother ordered it (he
has the credit card). I'd say that's speedy service.
Sherwin
--
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
JamesD6201
trouble with me is that $15 for international shipping does seem to me
rather unreasonable. If the $5 domestic shipping also applies to Canada,
then I will definitely get it without any delay. >>
If you're willing to wait two to three weeks for the game to reach you by
regular international surface mail, we'll be happy to ship a copy to you
in Canada for $5. On the other hand, if you want it in 5-8 business days,
it will cost more to get it to you faster <g>. We're flexible. Send me a
private message when you're ready to order and I'll alert our in-house
order processors that you want international surface mail.
Scott D. Orr
Jacobs) writes:
>
>In article <4itjkb$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, maj...@aol.com says...
>>
>
>To the Major:
>
>From one old military man to another. Don't let these people annoy you
>and I would advise you not to get into a discussion with them. These
>are the same people who did nothing but flame Harpoon when it first
>came out.
Harpoon 2 was a bad game that should never have been released to the
public. After being improved (and note that the lastest patch -- the
CD version, has to be paid for), it's still a bad game, though not as
bad as before.
But TacOps is a pretty good game (unlike Harpoon 2, I wouldn't tell
people to buy it), and if nothing else it's very playabe (something
you can't say about Harpoon 2).
>It got so bad that all of us serious Harpooners would not discuss
>anything in this forum. We formed our own mail list and those of us
>who are serious about your game are trying to form a mail list on
>Tacops.
That's a rather shaded version of the truth. Even those of us who
don't like the game have happy to answer specific questions on it
("How do I do this?"; "Why does that happen?"), without launching into
discussions about the games general quality, and I've seen quite a few
H2 discussions around here, none of which I've tried to disrupt. :)
>These people live for situations such as this, they are not intrested
>in helping anybody else or giving any constructive critism, just
>starting a flame war.
Bullsh*t.
The only time I've _ever_ given my opinion on Harpoon 2 is when someone
has asked for an opinion on the game. It may be just me, but I believe
that, when people on Usenet ask for an opinion on a game, so that
they'll know whether or not to buy it, the neighborly thing to do is to
give them an opinion, backed up by as much factual information as
possible, so that they can make their own decisions. Frankly, I think
it's immoral to let a person buy a bad game (like Harpoon 2) when you
could have given them information that led them to make another
decision, just as I think its immoral to let someone not buy a good
game (like Battlefront, Carriers at War, V for Victory, World at War,
or others) when you could have given them information that would have
changed their decision.
As a matter of fact, I don't "live for" this. I hate doing it; I
_do_not_like_ writing, and posting messages to Usenet burns up
valuable I could be using doing things I need to do or would enjoy
doing. I do this either because I want people to buy good games and
not bad bad games, and I do it (as I originally did with Harpoon 2,
and now with TacOps), because the only way to improve something is
to point out the flaws in it.
When I (and many other people, _including_ yourself) pointed out the
many flaws in Harpoon 2, we were told we were mistaken, or, at best,
we were ignored. Eventually a few of these problems were fixed in a
patch, but that patch wasn't released free to the general public. In
time a few more things were fixed, and this patch was released. And
finally, a few more things were fixed, but you had to buy the CD
version (at no discount for owning the original version) in order to
get this final "patch", and the game remained, even with all the
improvements, an unrealistic and unplayable game.
Through all this, 360 Pacific, and later Intercorp, refused to discuss
any of the problems, and quickly retreated from the few attempts to
provide customer support in this forum. I'm also given to understand
that both companies ignored the comments of their own playtesters. As
a result of releasing a buggy game (or actually, a series of buggy
games), and then failing to fix it, 360 Pacific went bankrupt (I don't
know how Intercorp has fared with Harpoon 2).
Fortunately, Major H. doesn't behave like 360 Pacific, and as a result
I expect him to remain in business for a long time to come.
>
>Scott, you can answer this if you want but this is it for me.
>
That's really immaterial to me. I do what I do because I want to help
people, not for the purpose of pleasing or irritating you or anyone
else.
Scott Orr
Allan Wotherspoon
><< For a real challenge try playing as a Canadian :) ... The loss of
>those M1s and TOW equipped Bradleys really makes a difference>>
>I don't know. For me the harshest shock in playing the game using
>Canadian equipment was the very short range of the ERYX ATGMs - even less
>than the Dragon for gosh sakes.
>Best regards, Major H.
Don't forget though that Eryx was procured as a replacement for the Carl
Gustav 84mm RRL. As I understand it, the weapon has the ability to be fired from enclosed spaces (inside bltds etc.) which gives it an advantage over some other weapons. I don't think that Canada has ever fielded a medium range ATGM.
Allan
d
--
Allan Wotherspoon (e-mail: awot...@sfu.ca)
Burnaby, B.C. Canada
galen_oresick
>
>2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail order,
>that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal boxes.
>If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
>they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
>students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
>than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
>can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
>the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
>quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
>can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
>wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
>hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
>I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
>really surprising to me.
>
>Chuck Smith
>cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
I believe they started shipping Friday, March 15. I preordered and received
my copy Thursday, March 21, less than a week. I think companies usually
are conservative on shipping times since it is better to say 2-3 weeks
and get it in one week than the reverse.
Galen Oresick
Scot Mc3
conversation before it continues.
1) First of all, morale and effectiveness ARE modelled in the game and not
just by default. Yes, I know the Major himself has said that they aren't
but, with all due respects, I don't think that is exactly what he meant.
To quote from the TacOps help file:
"If a symbol or a secondary explosion is not displayed over a visible
target then there probably was no effect on the target. Effects include
vehicle destruction, vehicle damage, weapon damage, personnel loss, and
suppression. Suppression represents a momentary loss of maximum straight
line speed and or combat efficiency resulting from such things as
surprise, fear, confusion, reduced visibility, looking for more cover,
looking for the firing enemy, looking for a better firing position,
tending to wounded, fighting fires, paralysis of analysis, etc. The
effects of suppression may last for several scale minutes.
.....
11.2 Effects On Infantry Units
Infantry units may sustain permanent casualties and or be suppressed.
Permanent casualties are indicated by the display of a skull symbol.
Suppression is indicated by an S symbol. Suppression may also be assumed
when the skull symbol is seen. Suppressed infantry units immediately go to
ground, lose all orders, have difficulty spotting, have a greatly reduced
chance of firing, and fire with reduced accuracy. Exposed infantry
antitank weapons are especially effected by suppression. Permanent
casualties to an infantry unit cause suppression, reduce the number of
personnel in the unit, and at some point will cause the unit to drop one
organizational level and or be eliminated.
11.3 Effects On Vehicles
A secondary explosion will be shown if a vehicle in a unit is destroyed or
severely damaged. If a vehicle is destroyed, a wreck marker will be
drawn. Surviving members of the unit are automatically suppressed. Other
units that are extremely close to the destroyed vehicle may also be
suppressed. A secondary explosion and a "D" will be displayed if a
vehicle sustains weapon or mobility damage but is not destroyed. Other
members of the unit are automatically suppressed. Other units that are
extremely close to the damaged vehicle may also be suppressed. A hit that
does not destroy or damage will display an "H," and the unit is
suppressed. If the unit is suppressed by a super-near miss, an artillery
impact, or an air strike, a "S" will be displayed. Suppressed vehicle
units appear to move slower, have difficulty spotting, have a reduced
chance of firing protected weapons, have a greatly reduced chance of
firing exposed weapons, and fire with reduced accuracy."
If suppression is not a pyschological response to combat conditions, then
I don't know what is.
In general, I infer from the Major's comments that what he means by not
having morale hard coded in the game is that armored units will not
refuse to carry out orders (note that infantry units do cancel their
orders), break or go berzerk.
2) Let's end right now this nonsense that either the Major, Arsenal
Publishing, or the Macintosh wargame community at large are unaware of the
general state of the art of wargame design.
With regard to the Major, I know for a fact that he has played many
tactical wargames which have morale and command control modelled in them.
From press accounts, the Major appears to be particularly a fan of the
designs of Frank Chadwick, whose games often include morale and
effectiveness factors.
In wargame design, there has been a long tradition of plagarism. While
such a tradition is required to further the state of the art, it is not
without its inherent risks. One of those risks is that wargamers, and
therefore wargame designers, develop inbred expectations of what a design
should have. We often end up with games which have feel good design
features which really do nothing to add to the overall integrity of the
game. With the scaling decisions of TacOps, one minute per turn, a more
detailed morale/effectiveness model is not entirely appropriate because it
can be overridden by new commands in the game. More detailed command and
control features, which will have a cost in casual gameplay, are really
what we are talking about here. Very few, if any, games do a good job of
modeling these effects. Because of the growth in accessible computing
power, we are indeed entering a new era for wargames. If the Major wishes
to take a fresh look at wargame design to take advantage of this medium
then I applaud him for it. Engineers, out of necessity, have to rely on
what others do; try getting a PhD in history by relying secondary sources.
With regard to Arsenal, I think that they have amply demonstrated their
commitment to producing quality wargames. Before the complaints on morale
started coming in, it was Arsenal which first stated that they would like
to see the design evolve to include more morale features. If you followed
their board on AOL, you would see that they have been attracting design
teams who have not wanted to see their designs compromised solely for the
sake of appealing to a broader market.
With regard to the Macintosh wargame community, understand that the
Macintosh players of TacOps have already paid for their first installment
in the TacOps experience. If it weren't for the financial necessity of
producing a Windows version of the game, Macintosh players probably would
already be enjoying the next generation of the TacOps engine. It is
probably correct that Macintosh players place a relatively higher value on
a good interface. It is also true that Macintosh players have seen fewer
computer wargames come across their screens over the years. With fewer
wargames to choose from, Macintosh players have been more positive and
supportive to those companies which have produced products for the
platform. Macintosh players have long communicated their desires to see
more morale, combat effectiveness, and command control in the TacOps
engine (along with a host of other ideas). They have also been more polite
in saying so.
When the Major says that he is willing to listen to ideas, he is not
joking. Nor does he does deserve the sarcastic responses that he has been
getting in the last few days.
MajorH1
like. Unless you are at the very edge, the elevation blocks line-of-sight
to units at the base level, even when they are quite close. I really miss
the feel of having crests to hide behind and slopes that could give me a
line of sight to units below me some distance away. Do any of you find
this table- top design frustrating?>>
The two level compromise frustrated me also <g>. The high ground in
TacOps if strictly interpreted would be most like a pancake with a beveled
edge for the outermost 100 meters. Certainly not reflective of very many
real world places. This approach works ok in that it allows the concepts
of military crest, reverse slope defense, etc to be exploited but you are
absolutely right that it doesn't feel right if you really think about it.
This model was not aestheticlly pleasing to me, and it prevented me from
modeling real world maps that are well known to people - for example the
Ft Hood training areas, training areas in Germany, the Delta Corridor at
29Palms (USMC training area), and the NTC.
The simplified two level approach (i.e. low ground and higher ground with
a 100 meter magic zone along the contour line) was originally used because
it was the only approach that I could find that would provide a fast
enough line of sight calculation and that did not require a prohibitive
amount of memory to keep track of the terrain data base. Line of sight
calculation speed was and remains critical to large maps and large
scenarios running at acceptable speed on Macs older than Quadras and on PC
386s (and some early 486s).
TacOps will be the last game in which I will use the two level model. By
this summer, "Last year's" computer" will be a Mac Quadra or a late model
PC 486 - both with 8 or more megs of memory - so I can do more now. A
"trig accurate" line of sight routine combined with unlimited terrain
elevation differentation (basically a digitized, real world map, with
plenty of detailed variabliltiy in up and down) is now working well in the
lab model of TacOps WWII: Panzers East.
<<Second question. Is there a way to slow down the messages at the bottom
of the screen when the action becomes fast and furious? I'd like to
visualize better the weapons being fired, etc...>>
Try the Options/Change Combat Speed menu item. It allows you to force a
delay of a length of your choice to occur after each combat event. We
found in testing that folks tend to use this feature for the first few
games that they play but as they became more familiar with the game they
return to "speeding" through the combat turn. Their interest seems to
move from wanting to follow the firing of each round to wanting to just
monitor the overall drift of multi unit fire fights.
<<Third, is there any way to know the terrain a unit occupies? I want to
put a unit at the edge of the forest. How do I know it's there and its
pixel is not just outside cover?>>
Several ways come to mind. (1) Open the orders window for a unit and then
look in the text info line at the bottom of the screen. (2) Open the
orders window for a unit and then click on the button in the orders window
labeled "Info". Terrain type is included in the text info on the left
side of the unit info window. (3) Summon the Line of Sight tool by
selecting the Map/Line of Sight menu item and drag its sighting cursor
around the map. The terrain type under the LOS tool's sighting cursor
will be shown in the text info line at the bottom of the screen.
Best regards, Major H
maj...@aol.com
Robear
Charles A Smith <cas...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail order,
>that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal boxes.
>If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
>they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
>students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
>than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
>can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
>the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
>quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
>can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
>wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
>hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
>I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
>really surprising to me.
>
>Chuck Smith
>cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
Chuck, most mail order companies require 4-6 weeks to ship items. Heck,
even the game mail order companies will tell you this if they go low on
stock. 2-3 weeks is covering themselves. I got mine in 3 business days.
They are doing a good job and shipping quickly.
David Pipes
Steve Weatherwax
wrote:
>2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail order,
>that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal boxes.
>If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
>they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
>students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
>than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
>can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
>the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
>quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
>can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
>wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
>hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
>I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
>really surprising to me.
>
>Chuck Smith
>cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
Time for a little reality. I received my copy in 6 days. Where are you
getting your information? Be positive in how you approach things.
Check your facts. And don't waste bandwidth with a lot of adolescent
whining.
I can't wait for a mailing list to start.
Steve Weatherwax
ste...@cris.com
Charles A Smith
than what I was led to believe). Question for those playing the game:
The second elevation level appears to me to be entirely flat, table-top like.
Unless you are at the very edge, the elevation blocks line-of-sight to units
at the base level, even when they are quite close. I really miss the feel
of having crests to hide behind and slopes that could give me a line of
sight to units below me some distance away. Do any of you find this table-
top design frustrating? It's not a major deal to me, Major. With so much
great realism designed into the game, this seems odd to me.
Second question. Is there a way to slow down the messages at the bottom of
the screen when the action becomes fast and furious? I'd like to visualize
better the weapons being fired, etc...
Third, is there any way to know the terrain a unit occupies? I want to put
a unit at the edge of the forest. How do I know it's there and its pixel
is not just outside cover?
Tanks one and all.
Chuck Smith
cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
JStrick
2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail
order,
that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal
boxes.
If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
really surprising to me.
<<<
Goodness, you people will complain about anything. I'll bet your one of
those types that sues someone at the drop of a hat. Why don't you leave
the public 'airwaves' free of your whining and just be quiet. If you don't
like the game, or the service, DON'T BUY IT.
The problem with freedom of speech is having to give it to the animals
that look human too.
Jim S.
Kevin Murnane
the game in late Feb - early March, called, was told the game would ship
on March 15 and I ordered. March 15 was a Friday. The following Wednesday
the game hadn't arrived, so I called Aresnal expecting the usual game
company bullshit. What I got was an extremely helpful and friendly person
who (a) explained that they sent the game to UPS on Friday the 15th, (b)
UPS probably wouldn't get it out until Monday, (c) I should get it on
Wednesday (the day this conversation took place), (d) and he would check their
shipping lists just to make sure my version hadn't fallen through the
cracks. He first suggested he call me back ( a long-distance call) if he
discovered a problem but then he suggested calling me no matter what he
discovered just to set my mind at ease. I said just call if there's a
problem. TacOps arrived that afternoon. I've rarely had as satisfactory
an experience when dealing directly with a game company. They should pay the
guy who answers the phone more money :-). BTW, I had high hopes for TacOps
when I first read about it 18 months? 2 years? ago. It's even better than
I expected.
* KEVIN MURNANE COGNITIVE SCIENCE *
* DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY KX...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU *
* PENN STATE UNIVERSITY (814)863-3921 *
* UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802 *
Robert Ruth
: As a matter of fact, I don't "live for" this. I hate doing it; I
: _do_not_like_ writing, and posting messages to Usenet burns up
: valuable I could be using doing things I need to do or would enjoy
: doing. I do this either because I want people to buy good games and
: not bad bad games, and I do it (as I originally did with Harpoon 2,
: and now with TacOps), because the only way to improve something is
: to point out the flaws in it.
Then climb down off your cross and stop wasting your time, oh great
wanna be god of strategy games. The hypocrisy of this statment is
perfectly clear, you get your rocks off playing little tin god around
here and then claim sacrifice to protect us poor ignorant game players
as the excuse. I can say with some confidence that the majority of
us will get along just fine without your over egotistical posts,
so why don't you go do those more important things and stop "forcing"
yourself to preach to the masses.
Bob Ruth
Scot Mc3
>>In wargame design, there has been a long tradition of plagarism. While
>>such a tradition is required to further the state of the art, it is not
>>without its inherent risks.
In private EMail I received the following comment...
>Plagarism is a harsh word, and is not really what we're talking about.
Learning
from what others have done is not plagarism.
This statement is absolutely correct and it was wrong of me to use the
word "plagiarism." I checked the dictionary. Please substitute "borrowing
from other designs" for that word. It was not my intent to argue that
wargame designers misappropriate others' ideas.
There was of course more to this Email than a complaint about
"plagiarism", but since it was a private EMail, I shall respond to the
rest privately.
hElIcAl gEaRs
>In wargame design, there has been a long tradition of plagarism. While
>such a tradition is required to further the state of the art, it is not
>without its inherent risks.
Plagarism is a harsh word, and is not really what we're talking about. Learning
from what others have done is not plagarism.
>One of those risks is that wargamers, and
>therefore wargame designers, develop inbred expectations of what a design
>should have.
These are called 'paridigms', and will occur even if one stays in a shell.
The only way to combat paridgms is to keep an open mind, or get new blood
into the picture (kind of like getting opinions from the IBM crowd after
existing in the MAC community for so long :)
>We often end up with games which have feel good design
>features which really do nothing to add to the overall integrity of the
>game.
Absolutely, and you never REALLY know how the rules will feel until the
code is running. I'd think the best way would be to -develope- the game
in a table top version (in house).
>With the scaling decisions of TacOps, one minute per turn, a more
>detailed morale/effectiveness model is not entirely appropriate because it
>can be overridden by new commands in the game. More detailed command and
>control features, which will have a cost in casual gameplay, are really
>what we are talking about here. Very few, if any, games do a good job of
>modeling these effects. Because of the growth in accessible computing
>power, we are indeed entering a new era for wargames.
Now you're getting into opinion. I think they could be modeled with
making the game more complicated. Of course, you could just
include the feature to turn them off (which, from what I understand
is what will happen). If yoy did this, I'd BET that virtually everyone
would turn them on.
As far as modeling command and control, look at W@W. Its command and
control rules are virtually transparent. You get a slight attack
bonus if you keep your units together, and you get better supply.
This might be to complicated for the casual gamer but I'd say the
addage 'You can't please everyone...' applies. The people who will
buy this game and support it WANT these rules (in general).
>If the Major wishes
>to take a fresh look at wargame design to take advantage of this medium
>then I applaud him for it. Engineers, out of necessity, have to rely on
>what others do; try getting a PhD in history by relying secondary sources.
I think he did a great job, but I think the primary strength of the game
is its interface, and its detail in modeling TOE. I'm not sure what
train of thought led him to believe leaving out major moral effects
would be a wise trade off in favor of game play. I think it can be done
better, but then again, I'm coming off the cuff.
>With regard to the Macintosh wargame community, understand that the
>Macintosh players of TacOps have already paid for their first installment
>in the TacOps experience. If it weren't for the financial necessity of
>producing a Windows version of the game, Macintosh players probably would
>already be enjoying the next generation of the TacOps engine.
We owe you a debt of gratitude.
>It is
>probably correct that Macintosh players place a relatively higher value on
>a good interface.
This is not correct, it just that we place having many programs to choose
from in front of interface issues.
>When the Major says that he is willing to listen to ideas, he is not
>joking. Nor does he does deserve the sarcastic responses that he has been
>getting in the last few days.
Yes, its a breath of fresh air seeing a developer address criticism. I'm sure
he doesn't deserve sarcasm, but he's intelligent, and uses sarcasm
himself. In a email to me he stated...
>>I listen to everything. I also assume that most people intend to be
>>helpful when they criticise.
This is a good assumption.
Regards.
John Beltran
[*snip*]
> The second elevation level appears to me to be entirely flat, table-top like.
> Unless you are at the very edge, the elevation blocks line-of-sight to units
> at the base level, even when they are quite close. I really miss the feel
> of having crests to hide behind and slopes that could give me a line of
> sight to units below me some distance away. Do any of you find this table-
> top design frustrating?
Yes, it is a little frustrating -- reminds me of PanzerBlitz and other
older generation games. Like you, I was surprised to see this representation
in what appears to be a detail-rich game. In fact, the maps and terrain
modelling are a little disappointing.
>
> Second question. Is there a way to slow down the messages at the bottom of
> the screen when the action becomes fast and furious? I'd like to visualize
> better the weapons being fired, etc...
Yup. Try the "Options/Change Combat Speed" menu item.
>
> Third, is there any way to know the terrain a unit occupies? I want to put
> a unit at the edge of the forest. How do I know it's there and its pixel
> is not just outside cover?
Yes. When you select a unit, the terrain it is in (along with lots of other
useful information, like the range it is visible at) is displayed in the
message line at the bottom of the window (nice touch!).
It would be nice (and probably not difficult to code) if the message line
updated to show the terrain under the cursor. This would come in very handy
when placing units and waypoints. As it is now, I believe you can only check
this information when a unit actually occupies that location.
>
> Tanks one and all. ^^^^^
Ouch!
>
> Chuck Smith
> cas...@ksu.ksu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Beltran e-mail: jbel...@autodesk.com
Autodesk
San Rafael, CA "fly, fish, soccer, fly, fish, soccer.."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Los
turn around time. BTW, its good to see a game company that puts out an nice
thick juicy manual with just about everything you need to know in it without
having to buy some sort of follow on book.
Los
hElIcAl gEaRs
>
>I'm enjoying the demo (glad to hear that the product ships more quickly
>than what I was led to believe). Question for those playing the game:
>
>Unless you are at the very edge, the elevation blocks line-of-sight to units
>at the base level, even when they are quite close. I really miss the feel
>of having crests to hide behind and slopes that could give me a line of
>sight to units below me some distance away. Do any of you find this table-
>top design frustrating?
No, its very similar to the system used in Squad Leader, and ASL. Its not
really all that unrealistic either. Just use the 100m zone around the edge
as your crest.
>Second question. Is there a way to slow down the messages at the bottom of
>the screen when the action becomes fast and furious? I'd like to visualize
>better the weapons being fired, etc...
If you grab the window bar at top (ie like you'd move the window), it will freeze the
program. The window cannot be maximised in order for this to work.
>Third, is there any way to know the terrain a unit occupies? I want to put
>a unit at the edge of the forest. How do I know it's there and its pixel
>is not just outside cover?
Select the unit and read the line at the bottom of your screen. If you've
played the demo a few times, you owe it to yourself to read the help
file page by page. It's the best I've seen with any demo. There's much
info there. Also, check out
http://PersonalWebs.myriad.net/backlash/TacOps.html for a bunch of good
info.
Also, don't forget that you can add units via one of the menu selections.
Helicopters are a blast. I even created a whole new scenario by replaceing
all the M1's with M60s, M3s with M113s, T80s with T72s ect.
Great demo - can't wait till my copy arrives. I was hopen today, but
no. Maybe tommorrow.
Scot Mc3
shall endeavor to respond in detail to your remarks. Everything that
follows are my personal opinions only.
Let me add that I should have apologized for using the word "plagiarism".
The use of such a word besmirches all wargame designers. I apologize to
them now.
I said
>>One of those risks is that wargamers, and
>>therefore wargame designers, develop inbred expectations of what a
design
>>should have.
and you replied
>These are called 'paridigms', and will occur even if one stays in a
shell.
>The only way to combat paridgms is to keep an open mind, or get new blood
>into the picture (kind of like getting opinions from the IBM crowd after
>existing in the MAC community for so long :)
I agree. I also point out that paradigms are not in themselves bad.
However, I suspect that many of the paradigms found in boardgames are not
appropriate to computer wargames. I agree that fresh opinions from other
gaming communities (even fantasy role-players) are often good things.
I said
>>We often end up with games which have feel good design
>>features which really do nothing to add to the overall integrity of the
>>game.
and you replied
>Absolutely, and you never REALLY know how the rules will feel until the
>code is running. I'd think the best way would be to -develope- the game
>in a table top version (in house).
Testing computer wargames on a table top version is not very feasible in
many cases.There are too many differences between the media. I believe
that those differences will increase over time, not decrease. I know of
one game covering the Russian front that is testing 250 regimental actions
per second.
I said
>>With the scaling decisions of TacOps, one minute per turn, a more
>>detailed morale/effectiveness model is not entirely appropriate because
it
>>can be overridden by new commands in the game. More detailed command and
>>control features, which will have a cost in casual gameplay, are really
>>what we are talking about here. Very few, if any, games do a good job of
>>modeling these effects. Because of the growth in accessible computing
>>power, we are indeed entering a new era for wargames.
and you replied
>Now you're getting into opinion. I think they could be modeled with
>making the game more complicated. Of course, you could just
>include the feature to turn them off (which, from what I understand
>is what will happen). If yoy did this, I'd BET that virtually everyone
>would turn them on.
>
>As far as modeling command and control, look at W@W. Its command and
>control rules are virtually transparent. You get a slight attack
>bonus if you keep your units together, and you get better supply.
>This might be to complicated for the casual gamer but I'd say the
>addage 'You can't please everyone...' applies. The people who will
>buy this game and support it WANT these rules (in general).
All wargames, computer or otherwise, compromise realism for the sake of
playability. None of us really wants to be out there in a command vehicle
with artillery dropping around us (maybe I should only speak for myself on
this matter). I agree that such compromises will guarantee that not
everyone will be happy.
However, I respectfully disagree that a more realistic command and control
system in TacOps, one which takes advantage of the computer, will not
amount to a significant change in the way the game plays. Creating a die
modifier for being within a specified radius of a headquarters, or similar
mechanics, are very unrealistic methods of depicting command and control.
Indeed, in a computer wargame, these would strike me as some of the "feel
good" mechanics which I criticized in my post. In a boardgame, such
mechanics are more acceptable, because boardgames require more
computational efforts from their players and it is more important to
lessen that load. Boardgame mechanics also are often designed to produce
specific psychological effects to depict aspects of reality; computers can
do a lot of this stuff without relying so much on metaphor.
To me, command and control means that it takes time to issue orders, more
time to pass them down the chain of command, and even more time to for the
subordinate commanders to brief their men. Even then there is a
considerable variation in these delays. Some orders can be implemented
down the chain of command in a matter of seconds. Of course some orders
may never reach their destination or will be subject misinterpretation.
(Let's not even talk about how information comes up the chain of command;
after all, all plot maps are based on out of date information). In
practical terms, such a system in TacOps would see units carrying out
orders their commander no longer wants them to be performing. I submit
that while many players would endorse this, it would take them some time
to get used to. Casual players might never appreciate that kind of
realism. I also do not doubt that the game's interface would be more
complex. There would also be a considerable increase in the requirements
for a subordinate AI. Of course, all of this would translate into more
development time. I do want to see this eventually in TacOps, especially
since it will add more vulnerabilities to each side.
In the meantime, I will use the timer.
With regard to not having more morale effects in the game, I agree that
having more of them would give the game a more flexible application, but I
don't find the current system to be invalid. In a one minute period of
time, far and away the most common response to being under fire is
suppression, a condition that can be very difficult for infantry to get
out of (and which is difficult in TacOps). I disagree with the Major in
that I think that suppressed vehicle units might stop and go into local
defilade, but they also might do what they already do in TacOps, namely
slow down and lose combat effectiveness. As to a unit breaking or
retreating, I think that it is perfectly valid for this effect not be to
be present in TacOps, given the fact that a player may issue orders to a
unit on a minute by minute basis. Retreat from fire can be assigned as an
order via an SOP. Many of the games that have more detailed effects
utilize a longer time scale for play; one of my favorites, Command
Decision, uses 15 minutes per turn. Mechanics which work at that scale do
not work as well at other scales. As I stated before, at the TacOps scale
I think that we require more command and control mechanics to justify
having many more dynamic changes in morale.
Having said this, I am not very happy with most of the morale rules that
I have seen in wargames (including TacOps). Many of them have a gamey feel
to me. Most systems miss modeling the expectations of the troops when they
are exposed to combat, however I believe that modeling of expectations can
be very difficult to do. Troops with poor morale may suppress at just
seeing the enemy, let alone being fired upon. Units about to launch an
attack will be more likely to suppress if they are attacked in their
assembly areas. Units taking fire from the flank probably are more
vulnerable to a morale effect. Other morale effects, such as surrender,
can happen with a sudden shattering of expectations in a close assault or
after being a long time in isolation and low on supplies. It gets trickier
when the mission is considered. The only place more dangerous than
participating in an attack is participating in a feint attack. How does
morale work there or under other missions? How much more complicated is
the interface when mission intent is communicated? However, even a game
which had all of these effects would also require a good system for
communicating incomplete pictures of the state of morale of either side's
units. Otherwise, how else would one be able to attack or defend against
each other moral vulnerabilities? These are not easy tasks to model. I
would like to see a fresh approach.
Again, the design assumptions of this game appears to be that both sides
are tough, well trained, and have sufficient communication redundancies.
Both sides' units will lose effectiveness when they are under fire but
will recover it when they are no longer suppressed. Neither side's units
will break nor will their basic proficiency change in the time of a
scenario. At times, the United States has fought opponents who have met
these criteria. The Japanese in World War II come to mind. In Normandy,
many German units had to be largely ground out. Come to think of it, in
Advanced Squad Leader, the Japanese never break. Given its assumptions, I
believe that TacOps works pretty well. It's a lot of fun to play and it
has a great deal of realism. In the future, I would like to see it
accommodate a broader set of assumptions.
I said
>>If the Major wishes
>>to take a fresh look at wargame design to take advantage of this medium
>>then I applaud him for it. Engineers, out of necessity, have to rely on
>>what others do; try getting a PhD in history by relying secondary
sources.
and you replied
>I think he did a great job, but I think the primary strength of the game
>is its interface, and its detail in modeling TOE. I'm not sure what
>train of thought led him to believe leaving out major moral effects
>would be a wise trade off in favor of game play. I think it can be done
>better, but then again, I'm coming off the cuff.
The Major has stated his reasons. There may be more reasons, but I don't
really know. Perhaps he may have been thinking along the lines that I have
argued above, but that's a pretty conceited idea on my part.
I said
>>It is
>>probably correct that Macintosh players place a relatively higher value
on
>>a good interface.
and you replied
>This is not correct, it just that we place having many programs to choose
>from in front of interface issues.
The converse of your statement is that Macintosh players value interface
more than having programs to choose from. We are saying the same thing.
Incidentally, I am typing this response on my personal Pentium 120 machine
running Windows 95. I also own a Macintosh Powerbook 520C. Apple really
blew it, but I hope that they can recover. Having a choice of operating
systems is good.
Regards
Rodney Harper
wrote:
>2-3 weeks to receive the game!!! For a company that is relying on mail order,
>that's ridiculous. Why don' they just put adds on the back of cereal boxes.
>If I order it, I would expect to receive the merchandise in one week, or
>they don't have a sale. . Why don't they just hire some minimum wage
>students to help them ship this puppy out the door? I could do better
>than this out of my basement. In my opinion, there is no way Arsenal
>can be succussful with this poor service. A pity, since I really wish them
>the best and would have them make a million so they can produce more
>quality wargames. In the age of mail order, S-P-E-E-D counts. When you
>can get something from Chips and Bits the day after you order it, who
>wants to wait three weeks for a mail-ordered game, other than the die-
>hard wargamer. Maybe Arsenal doesn't care about reaching anyone else.
>I am really surprised that they would not gear up to compete. This is
>really surprising to me.
I don't know what you are talking about. I got my order 4 days after
I ordered it.
Rod
Rodney W. Harper
Grand Bay, Alabama USA
rwha...@dibbs.net
http://www.dibbs.net/~rwharper
http://www.digiweb.com/DOW
Scott D. Orr
>However, I respectfully disagree that a more realistic command and
>control system in TacOps, one which takes advantage of the computer,
>will not amount to a significant change in the way the game plays.
>Creating a die modifier for being within a specified radius of a
>headquarters, or similar mechanics, are very unrealistic methods of
>depicting command and control.
Absolutely. That's the sort of kludge you use in a boardgame,
reflecting the fact that in a boardgame computational ability is
limited and there's no locus of decision outsdies the heads of the
two players.
With a _computer_ on the other hand, the game can simply take control
of subordinate units and have them do things neither player told them
to do, things which may or may not be intelligent. Indeed, command
and control modelling, along with modelling hidden movement and other
forms of limited intelligence, are where computers have the greatest
potential.
Scott Orr
Chris Davis
>
>>To me, command and control means that it takes time to issue orders, more
>>time to pass them down the chain of command, and even more time to for the
>>subordinate commanders to brief their men. Even then there is a
>>considerable variation in these delays. Some orders can be implemented
>>down the chain of command in a matter of seconds. Of course some orders
>>may never reach their destination or will be subject misinterpretation.
>
>
.
[C3 stuff deleted]
.
>IMHO, TACOPS is already modelling a perfect (pristine C3) situation at the
>start of the game. Everyone is alive, all tehradios are working, noone's
>jamming anyone etc. So basically you just have to model the effects of C3
>losses due to key leader loss. This really boils down to:
>
>1. Delay in the transmission of orders.
>2. Reluctance to carry out orders.
>
>Anyway, this may have major ramifications in coding and system speed, but then
>again, it could be an option. The point is to model some real world effects of
>C3 loss, and reward proper tactics.
>
What you describe is very similar to the way Panthers in the Shadows (and I assume,
Tigers on the Prowl) models command and control.
You have to always be aware of your distance from your Co, Bn and TF units. Too
much distance affects the delays with which movement orders are carried out. You
still micro manage fire control, i.e., choosing targets, ammo types, etc., but you
have to really CYA with regard to spacing and possible loss of your superiors.
A near perfect wargame IMHO would be to blend the ease of use and general gameplay
of TacOps with the realistic command and control of Panthers in the Shadows.
chris davis
ccd...@ingr.com
PaulAcete
button in the unit orders screen. It will tell you what terrain you're in. I must
admit that I like to play with the large-sized counters, which makes maneuvering to
the very edge of woods or town VERY difficult!
These comments are based on the full game version; I assume the demo has the same
features.
Hong Ooi
>From past conflicts we have the statistical data that would allow us to
>accurately model those conflicts. When speaking of strictly "modern"
>conflicts I do not mean WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.
Well, considering that the only specific date you mentioned was 1815,
it seemed a reasonable assumption that you were including these wars
in your discussion of "modern" conflicts.
>I am specifically
>referring to the last 10 or so years plus a period of about 10 years in
>the future. Since OPFOR in TacOps is a generic opponent, we cannot state,
>with any true accuracy, the morale level of its army.
In which case, the logical thing to do would be to include morale but
make it a player-selectable (or scenario-specific?) setting. So you
could have walkovers against green opponents, or intense to-the-death
struggles against fanatical Iranians, or whatever. Turning everyone
into a robot doesn't sound particularly realistic.
>A future opponent
>can be very much like most of the Iraqi Army and simply give up when they
>realize they can't win. Another opponent, quite possibly a much more
>militant Iran, can fight a war and not care about casualties. An army of
>men who's sole purpose is to die gloriously in battle is not unlikely.
Nor is it particularly likely.
>On a modern battlefield, faced by a well equipped, well led opponent, we
>would have little choice but to disperse in order to cover the ground we'd
>need to defend. So, in effect, squads *could* be separated by distances of
>a few hundred meters. Notice I didn't say "always" or "never." Had we
>fought a ground war in Western Europe, we'd have been spread very thinly
>indeed. Your point about the breakdown of units due to "The intensity and
>violence of modern weapons" would only increase the distance between units
>or even individual squads. As casualties are taken in a narrow portion of
>the front, the surviving units on the flanks will be that much further
>from each other.
Sounds to me like this isolation would tend to worsen the effect of
suppression, if anything. If you're a grunt in a foxhole, and you
can't see any of your buddies, and there's a dozen T-80s charging down
the road towards your position, you might well be sorely tempted to do
a "strategic withdrawal"...
>Of course, all this discussion is moot as MajorH will include morale, as
>an option, in his future games. Thus, people on both sides of the issue
>will be winners.
That sounds good. Will it be included in a future patch for TacOps?
______________________________________________________________________
Hong Ooi ho...@magna.com.au Sydney, Australia
"I think the fall of Berlin was somehow tied with the decline of 80's
pop music." -- Nikolai Kingsley
Scott D. Orr
(Robert Ruth) writes:
>
>Then climb down off your cross and stop wasting your time, oh great
>wanna be god of strategy games. The hypocrisy of this statment is
>perfectly clear, you get your rocks off playing little tin god around
>here and then claim sacrifice to protect us poor ignorant game players
>as the excuse. I can say with some confidence that the majority of
>us will get along just fine without your over egotistical posts,
>so why don't you go do those more important things and stop "forcing"
>yourself to preach to the masses.
>
concept, I realize, but it's hard for information to be disseminated
otherwise.
Again, I repeat, if someone ASKS ME for my opinion on a game I know
something about, I'm going to give it.
If YOU were looking at a game, and not sure of whether or not you
wanted to buy it, and asked for opinions in this group, would you count
yourself lucky if everyone who knew something about the game had agreed
that only those who liked it had a right to post answers? Please
answer this question directly, rather than with an ad hominem attack.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
writes:
>>With the scaling decisions of TacOps, one minute per turn, a more
>>detailed morale/effectiveness model is not entirely appropriate
>>because it can be overridden by new commands in the game. More
>>detailed command and control features, which will have a cost in
>>casual gameplay, are really what we are talking about here. Very few,
>>if any, games do a good job of modeling these effects. Because of the
>>growth in accessible computing power, we are indeed entering a new
>>era for wargames.
>
>making the game more complicated. Of course, you could just
>include the feature to turn them off (which, from what I understand
>is what will happen). If yoy did this, I'd BET that virtually
>everyone would turn them on.
Actually, Strategic Studies Group's Battlefront, which was originally
created 10 years or so ago for the Apple II, use command and control
modelling to make the game _much_ easier to play. Once you think about
it, this should be obvious: a real commander is limited in the number
of things he can do -- not only is he not _able_ to micromanage his
forces, but he doesn't _have_ to, because they can manage themselves.
Hence, in Battlefront, though the untis are battalions, the player
gives (very general) orders to regiments, and the regimental commander
(i.e., the computer) moves the individual battalions around. It makes
the game fast (two hours or less to play most corps-level battles) and
it makes the interface easy. THAT is what the computer is supposed to
do, IMHO.
Scott Orr
MajorH1
could be added as a toggleable feature in a future patch for TacOps?>>
It isn't likely for the current version of TacOps - too much code to
rewrite and I would have to change many of the direct fire combat results
tables. I assume that the morale and C&C that gets into the Panzers East
game engine this summer will be later included and expanded in the TacOps
II engine (mid to late 97 for T II).
Robert Ruth
: _do_not_like_ writing, and posting messages to Usenet burns up
: valuable I could be using doing things I need to do or would enjoy
: doing. I do this either because I want people to buy good games and
: not bad bad games, and I do it (as I originally did with Harpoon 2,
: and now with TacOps), because the only way to improve something is
: to point out the flaws in it.
There, lets put back in the hacked out statment I was replying to.
My comments were and are directed at the BS about sacrificing
your personel life for the ignorant masses in this newsgroup.
Your comments here are more often than not God almighty ORR pounding
his chest showing how much more brilliant than the pions who post here.
Many people seem to express their opinions without being an arrogant
ass, and most certainly don't whine about the great sacrifices they
make by wasting valuable time posting. Once again Orr your wisdom would
not be missed and none of us want to see you waste you valuable time
posting to this group. Everyone else here seems to post because they
want to and do not have a need to act like their being J.C. and giving
their life away in the process. I am certain you would be much happier
dealing with your so called equals (if such a thing exists for the
god of strategy) than walking amongst the unwashed masses.
Your opinions would be better accepted when you climb down off the
cross since it is your own inflated ego that put you up there not
the members of this group.
Bob Ruth
Scott D. Orr (sd...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4j6kms$q...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bob...@holly.ColoState.EDU
Los
>To me, command and control means that it takes time to issue orders, more
>time to pass them down the chain of command, and even more time to for the
>subordinate commanders to brief their men. Even then there is a
>considerable variation in these delays. Some orders can be implemented
>down the chain of command in a matter of seconds. Of course some orders
>may never reach their destination or will be subject misinterpretation.
>(Let's not even talk about how information comes up the chain of command;
>after all, all plot maps are based on out of date information). In
>practical terms, such a system in TacOps would see units carrying out
>orders their commander no longer wants them to be performing. I submit
>that while many players would endorse this, it would take them some time
>to get used to. Casual players might never appreciate that kind of
>realism. I also do not doubt that the game's interface would be more
>complex. There would also be a considerable increase in the requirements
>for a subordinate AI. Of course, all of this would translate into more
>development time. I do want to see this eventually in TacOps, especially
>since it will add more vulnerabilities to each side.
I'd just like to bounce some thoughts off you guys...
On the subject of C3, one thing that should be modelled in a game at this level
is the effect of loosing your command and control elements. Things such as :
1. What happens when you loose CO/XO vehicle?
2. The destruction of the Bn TOC or Combat Trains.
3. Loss of FDC/Bn Cmdr/Bn XO, etc.
These things have real and immediate effects upon the battlefield, (regardless
of any SOPs units have about being prepared for immdeiate switchover in the
chain of command). Anyone, who's been fortunate enough to spend some time out
at the NTC or JRTC could probably back me up here.
These effects become even more apparent on the OPFOR side of the equation given
their more heavily reliance on centralized control. It's been stressed in US,
(and OPFOR), doctrine to eliminate HQ units _first_ if possible. It's not very
difficult to id and target these units during an OPFOR attack (if you are US),
given OPFOR doctrine in attack formations etc.
The challenge becomes moving these over to the game. Given the time period/map
and unit scale, I think TACOPS would benifit (in the realism category), by
modelling company, Bn, and Regt HQs. This, of course, means setting up a
heirarchy of units to know who reports to who. But the key thing is what would
be the effects of modelling this?
IMHO, TACOPS is already modelling a perfect (pristine C3) situation at the
start of the game. Everyone is alive, all tehradios are working, noone's
jamming anyone etc. So basically you just have to model the effects of C3
losses due to key leader loss. This really boils down to:
1. Delay in the transmission of orders.
2. Reluctance to carry out orders.
Lets say:
An Opfor MRB is attacking Obj A. During the initial assault, the Bn Cmdr and
several COs are eliminated. (A competently trained US units is striving to do
this.) What are the effects? First off, the Battalion will probably continue to
fulfill it's mission. (Though Morale rules would come into play here to effect
individual units continuing through loss, we're not really talking about morale
here). However, once OBJ A is attained, it becomes much more difficult for the
MRB to reorganize and perform follow-on operations. So perhaps, upon the loss
of a certain leader, the sub unit, suffers a delay in orders xmission for a
certain number of minutes until it can get new leaders and reorganize.
How well you set up the unit's SOP and plotted out moves ahead of time would
dertermine if the unit is capable of carrying out it's existing task. How long
of a delay and what effects are there? Well that's the magic number to work out
but it would probably vary betwwen OPFOR and US forces given difernt doctrine
on leadership, etc.
Anyway, this may have major ramifications in coding and system speed, but then
again, it could be an option. The point is to model some real world effects of
C3 loss, and reward proper tactics.
Los
hElIcAl gEaRs
>>As far as modeling command and control, look at W@W. Its command and
>>control rules are virtually transparent. You get a slight attack
>>bonus if you keep your units together, and you get better supply.
>>This might be to complicated for the casual gamer but I'd say the
>>addage 'You can't please everyone...' applies. The people who will
>>buy this game and support it WANT these rules (in general).
>
>system in TacOps, one which takes advantage of the computer, will not
>amount to a significant change in the way the game plays. Creating a die
>modifier for being within a specified radius of a headquarters, or similar
>mechanics, are very unrealistic methods of depicting command and control.
At each level of command it is much easier to coordinate movements if
your troops are a)concentrated, and b) not intermingled with other
units. One major problem is that each platoon is on a different
radio net, and thus it is difficult to talk to anyone who is not in
your platoon. When vehicles intermingle, it is tough to tell
WHO your unknown neighbor is, let alone which platoon he's in.
Casual gammers probably wouldn't like having to deal with this
extra detail. For me its rewarding to keep my units integrity,
and to have to suffer the conciquences when things get mixed
up (as they often do in real life). The game would feel more realistic.
>Indeed, in a computer wargame, these would strike me as some of the "feel
>good" mechanics which I criticized in my post.
I'm not sure I understand 'feel good' mechanics. I advocate rules
to increase realism. I think in many cases, an increase in realism
can be acomplished without sacrificing game play.
>Boardgame mechanics also are often designed to produce
>specific psychological effects to depict aspects of reality; computers can
>do a lot of this stuff without relying so much on metaphor.
Both systems ultimatly obey some sort of rules. I think what you
are saying is that computers can deal with a higher volumn of
rules, and that should ultimatly lead to less error in the end
result. When applied correctly, this is correct.
>To me, command and control means that it takes time to issue orders, more
>time to pass them down the chain of command, and even more time to for the
>subordinate commanders to brief their men.Even then there is a
>considerable variation in these delays. Some orders can be implemented
>down the chain of command in a matter of seconds. Of course some orders
>may never reach their destination or will be subject misinterpretation.
By the very nature, MOST orders will be misinterpreted, so in reality
orders that flow down through the chain of command have to be VERY
unambigous. This is why so much authority is given to the CO at the
company level and platoon. He is THERE so can give orders to individual
units directly. As a player of TacOps, you are really playing the role
of a company commander, and I like it just fine the way it is.
Battalion commanders usually give direction such as... 'I want that woodline -
NOW!', or 'Change to plan B' and other vague direction. Company commanders
do the manuevering. In TacOps, we do both, so a delay isn't needed.
>As to a unit breaking or
>retreating, I think that it is perfectly valid for this effect not be to
>be present in TacOps, given the fact that a player may issue orders to a
>unit on a minute by minute basis. Retreat from fire can be assigned as an
>order via an SOP.
I play TacOps as a game. If I wanted to partake in a simulation of modern
warfare I could do what you suggest. I'd rather whoop the pants off of my
friend, who HAS to deal with his units routing (or whatever), and I want
it forced on me when I don't feel like using it (usually when he's
whoopin' the pants off of me). Morale effects happen at the individual
level - the entire game engine is set up to command units, not individuals.
Anyway - when a unit breaks, by its very nature it won't listen to
commands. When a commander calls a retreat, this is not a rout.
>Again, the design assumptions of this game appears to be that both sides
>are tough, well trained, and have sufficient communication redundancies.
>Both sides' units will lose effectiveness when they are under fire but
>will recover it when they are no longer suppressed. Neither side's units
>will break nor will their basic proficiency change in the time of a
>scenario. At times, the United States has fought opponents who have met
>these criteria. The Japanese in World War II come to mind. In Normandy,
>many German units had to be largely ground out. Come to think of it, in
>Advanced Squad Leader, the Japanese never break.
If you are a long time reader of Usenet game groups you will doubtless
have heard many a developer justify weakness by presenting
scenarios which might fit. During playtesting it is COMMON of
a developer to not fix a bug because it just happens to fit
somehow. For example, perhaps the opertunity fire rules
don't quite work - he might say - 'Well, your troops don't always
listen to you in real life, either' This is crap.
I personaly think that even well trained units will suffer more
under intense pressure than the game engine provides, but this
isn't that big of a deal. I'd like the added flexibility of
creating scenarios with on side or the other (or both) having
less than perfect morale. Iran vs. Iraq engaements would be
interesting. Or maybe a little action in Afganistan -
who knows? The game is SO flexible as it is, I think
this one fairly minor addition could improve it tremdously.
I'm already looking forward to TacOpsII, and Panzers EAst.
I'm not saying that the lack of morale rules is a bug, I just think
its a weakness in a very strong game. I'm not hung up
on it by any means.
>Given its assumptions, I
>believe that TacOps works pretty well.
It does work well. In fact, it doesn't surprise me the least that
MajorH was prior service, and was exposed to much of the training
offered in our military. It has the same feel to what I was
exposed to, strengths AND weaknesses. MajorH, what moral rules
are used in the big military sims?
Speaking of which, I heard we just lost in a hypothetical
engagement with China :(
Scot Mc3
>At each level of command it is much easier to coordinate movements if
>your troops are a)concentrated, and b) not intermingled with other
>units. One major problem is that each platoon is on a different
>radio net, and thus it is difficult to talk to anyone who is not in
>your platoon. When vehicles intermingle, it is tough to tell
>WHO your unknown neighbor is, let alone which platoon he's in.
>Casual gammers probably wouldn't like having to deal with this
>extra detail. For me its rewarding to keep my units integrity,
>and to have to suffer the conciquences when things get mixed
>up (as they often do in real life). The game would feel more realistic.
I agree with your idea of rewarding unit integrity, for the reasons that
you have stated.
>I'm not sure I understand 'feel good' mechanics. I advocate rules
>to increase realism. I think in many cases, an increase in realism
>can be acomplished without sacrificing game play.
I don't like rules that have been added to a game just because players
have seen similar rules in other games, especially when those rules don't
jibe with the game's scale, or when they fail to take advantage of their
medium. For example, I think that hex grids have stayed far too long as a
main paradigm for computer wargames. I know that they are convenient for
solving computational problems, but I don't accept the loss of resolution
which they entail. The fact that TacOps doesn't use hexes pleases me to no
end.
>>Boardgame mechanics also are often designed to produce
>>specific psychological effects to depict aspects of reality; computers
can
>>do a lot of this stuff without relying so much on metaphor.
>Both systems ultimatly obey some sort of rules. I think what you
>are saying is that computers can deal with a higher volumn of
>rules, and that should ultimatly lead to less error in the end
>result. When applied correctly, this is correct.
Actually, I was arguing that boardgame rules tend to rely on metaphor to
simulate an aspect of reality while computers can brute force their way
without such elegant approaches. These metaphors are often used to produce
a psychological effect which is unnecessary for a computer wargame. The
metaphors used in a boardgame design may cause designers to overlook more
realistic approaches appropriate to the computer medium.
To illustrate what I mean, consider how many tactical boardgames and
miniatures rules use some form of alternating movement. The purpose of
such a metaphor is to create the impression primarily of simultaneity yet
subtlely allowing for some initiative during the turn. TacOps processes
movement simultaneously and requires that the players find other means of
establishing the initiative. Which is better? I don't think that it is
appropriate to say unless one says that one prefers one medium over the
other. Simultaneous movement is not very feasible in a board or miniatures
wargame; alternating movement on a computer looks silly.
>>To me, command and control means that it takes time to issue orders,
more
>>time to pass them down the chain of command, and even more time to for
the
>>subordinate commanders to brief their men.Even then there is a
>>considerable variation in these delays. Some orders can be implemented
>>down the chain of command in a matter of seconds. Of course some orders
>>may never reach their destination or will be subject misinterpretation.
>By the very nature, MOST orders will be misinterpreted, so in reality
>orders that flow down through the chain of command have to be VERY
>unambigous. This is why so much authority is given to the CO at the
>company level and platoon. He is THERE so can give orders to individual
>units directly. As a player of TacOps, you are really playing the role
>of a company commander, and I like it just fine the way it is.
>
>Battalion commanders usually give direction such as... 'I want that
woodline
>
>NOW!', or 'Change to plan B' and other vague direction. Company
commanders
>do the manuevering. In TacOps, we do both, so a delay isn't needed.
Aside from unit integrity issues, on which I agree with you, if you want
command and control as a vulnerability to play against, there will be some
price to play in complexity. I would prefer that this complexity abstract
a chain of command and communication nets, rather than take an even more
abstract approach, and that means that time is a factor. I think that it
is possible that this could be done at a fairly minimal cost in
complexity, but not everyone will want it. I would always want it to be a
feature that could be toggled on or off. The potential here intrigues me.
>I play TacOps as a game. If I wanted to partake in a simulation of
modern
>warfare I could do what you suggest. I'd rather whoop the pants off of my
>friend, who HAS to deal with his units routing (or whatever), and I want
>it forced on me when I don't feel like using it (usually when he's
>whoopin' the pants off of me). Morale effects happen at the individual
>level - the entire game engine is set up to command units, not
individuals.
>Anyway - when a unit breaks, by its very nature it won't listen to
>commands. When a commander calls a retreat, this is not a rout.
When I said that I think that some of my ideas would add complexity, I did
not necessarily mean that they would add what either of us would regard to
be excessive complexity, or more importantly, excessive workload. I also
want to relax and enjoy the game without feeling as if I am running
against a clock. I very much enjoy the game as it is.
I would like to see a really good morale procedure; one which adds to the
act of "reading the battlefield." Most of the suggestions I am hearing
from people strike me as quick fixes. In the short term that is okay. In
the long term, I want to see more, even if what was once "okay" is tossed
out.
Scot Mc3
as far forward as I can get them, so that I can detemine OPFOR's route of
advance and bring in artillery.
Has anyone had tried to infiltrate a larger force, say a platoon of M1s
supported by a platoon of infantry, with the goal of going for OPFORs SP
artillery?
Scot Mc3
<created 10 years or so ago for the Apple II, use command and control
<modelling to make the game _much_ easier to play. Once you think about
<it, this should be obvious: a real commander is limited in the number
<of things he can do -- not only is he not _able_ to micromanage his
<forces, but he doesn't _have_ to, because they can manage themselves.
<Hence, in Battlefront, though the untis are battalions, the player
<gives (very general) orders to regiments, and the regimental commander
<(i.e., the computer) moves the individual battalions around. It makes
<the game fast (two hours or less to play most corps-level battles) and
<it makes the interface easy. THAT is what the computer is supposed to
<do, IMHO.
I would also add more of a "directed telescope" approach to command and
control; one which
would allow the commander an ability to focus as well, at a price. A
player should be able to create
a very detailed operational order if he wishes.
All of the comments above, yours and mine, assume that there exists a
comprehensive AI to handle the actions of subordinates. I have yet to see
an
AI in any wargame that I would trust to even approximate my skills on such
matters, especially with the combined arms and spotting permutations found
in
TacOps. I don't regard myself to be a particularly able commander either.
Until I see a VERY GOOD AI that can do a good job of handling combined
arms unit dispositions in the face of changing circumstances, I would find
the prospect
of a dumb AI doing stupid movements to be virtually intolerable.
Aztec 01
is that it is designed primarily to demonstrate tactical principles, not
combat psychology. The game rewards proper tactics. And that is
something I have a hard enough time executing as it is, without my tankers
running around wetting their BDU's everytime an MRL salvo lands on them.
This game is about weapons-and their proper deployment; tactics-and their
proper employment. The "suppression" effect suits me just fine. That in
itself has disrupted my plans more than once.
I further understand, from the Major's posts, and other literature, that
this game comes to it's full fruition in PBEM/modem play. There, each
player can decide for himself/themselves how they want to handle "morale".
Granted, their are things that I would like to see changed ("counter"
size, a zoom feature, and I like the suggestion about a tool bar) but
overall it is a smooth intuitive interface that plays quickly on less than
a Super PentaMega 1000DX with 128 MB of RAM.
For that matter, what morale model would you suggest using...the OPFOR
super Russian Bear or the Paper Siberian Tiger models (exuse me
PARADIGMS). How about the BLUE TEAM Captain America model, or perhaps the
1970's *expletive* Army model.
For those who are so hung up on morale, don't buy the game! There are
plenty of games out their 'chock full of morale'. Play Steel Panther's
again. It's good, but it ain't modern era! And until something better
comes along, I'll be greasing my treads with OPFOR infantry. It may not
break their morale, but it sure will improve mine. :)
Steve Prince
>>
>> And the excuse that players won't like thier forces being subjected to the adverse
>>effects of morale as interpreted by them really pisses me off because
>>it portrays us as some sort of control freaks, unable to deal with
>>adversity or not caring about realism.
I think all designers bring certain design decisions and styles with them
when they create a game and about all of these decisions are debatable, just
as the style or story development points chosen by an author in a novel are
debatable. In this case, however, I have to agree with the Major's decision in
Tacops.
Morale rules, particulary in tactical games, have always struck me as very
arbitrary and nebulous. So much that influences morale happens before the
timescale of a Tacops firefight, such as previous levels of supply, quality of
leadership, previous bombing or artillery actions, that it would be difficult
to reach an agreement among players as to certain "preset" morale effects.
In addition, I think it is very debatable as to at what point, and to what
effect, the immediate effects of morale should have during a Tacops firefight
between modernized, disciplined forces. First, how aware will units be of
actions that occur to other units in their forces in a different part of the
battlefield? Will there be enough time in the relatively brief times of the
Tacops battle for a unit to make a determination that would affect morale and
then unit organization? Second, considering the deadliness of the weaponary
used by U.S. and OPFOR, I think many of the organization breakdowns would
result in destruction, not retreat. By the time a unit might feel the effects
of a moral breakdown, it would be in a position where withdrawal would not
result in retreat, but destruction.
While I think morale might be a factor on a Tacops battlefield, I think
arbitrary morale rules set in the game would only overstate the effect. Morale
would more likely start having a greater effect on a scale larger than Tacops,
somewhere between tactical and strategic. I think Tacops draws a good picture
of how violent and quick the action will be on a modern battlefield. And I
think it would be more realistic and better for gameplay between human
opponents to assume that some of the loses on a Tacops battlefield could be
attibutable to morale, or maybe for human opponents to establish certain
"morale" rules between them before play. I just don't think that morale
impacts on a Tacops timescale are as universally accepted or as strictly
defined to be universally set in the game structure. While there are some
limits to all simulations when compared to reality, I can't think of tactical
computer game that, when considering the whole package, is as satisfying to me
as Tacops.
Steve Prince
>
>Yes, it is a little frustrating -- reminds me of PanzerBlitz and other
>older generation games. Like you, I was surprised to see this representation
>in what appears to be a detail-rich game. In fact, the maps and terrain
>modelling are a little disappointing.
representation in some of the Tacops gazettes but explains them as a design
decision. Both in Mac and Win, he's written to be inclusive as opposed to
exclusive. He wants the old tabletop wargamer with a 386 to be able to play as
well as me with my P100. While that sort of design decision means that there
will be some limitations, I think it is a good choice. A more inclusive design
means more PBEM and network players, which is good. There are never enough of
those. Also I've gotten frustrated with games that barely slog through on my
P100. I've almost stopped buying flight simulators because I'm tired of
flying through pretty SVGA terrain at 8 frames a second.
I've read on some other forums that the terrain representation will be
different for Tacops II. By the time that product is released, the bottom line
machine will be a faster 486 with more memory so the terrain can be
represented in a more photo-realistic manner with much more variation.
John Perry
>The response below was originally provided privately. Now that I discover
>that the original was a public post, I am making my response public.
>Best regards, Major H.
>==================
>>><<I hope I'm not offending in any of this.>>
>>>Your tone so far seems to me to be patronizing, tactless, and offensive
>>I'd say some of your posts have the same tone,
Helloooooooo its a game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
play it have fun,lighten up.
Steve Weatherwax
Talking about a potential morale problem! I'd like to see the face of
the poor platoon commander when he receives that order.
Give it a try and let us know what happens. That's the great thing
about a simulation. My guts tell me they'll get their butts waxed.
Good hunting!
Steve Weatherwax
ste...@cris.com
James Reedy
: Re your third question about knowing what terrain you're in, click on the info
: admit that I like to play with the large-sized counters, which makes maneuvering to
: These comments are based on the full game version; I assume the demo has the same
: features.
I've only just got the demo up and running ( Very Impressive IMHO) and have
not checked out all the features but can you enter the unit (i.e to give
orders) then use the option that lets you see the terrain i.e. it removes all
unit icons from the map.
If this is possible that would solve the above problem nicely!
cheers
Jim R
===========================================================================
Jim Reedy jamesr @psd.com.au
"Noooo body expects the Spanish Inquisition, Our chief weapon is surprise,
surprise and fear. Our 2 chief weapons are suprise and fear and a fanatical
devotion to the Pope. Amongst our weapons are such diverse elements as -
Surprise, Fear And a Fanatical devotion to the Pope. Cardinal Fang ...."
Monty Python 'The Spanish Inquisition Sketch'
===========================================================================
hElIcAl gEaRs
>Actually, Strategic Studies Group's Battlefront, which was originally
>created 10 years or so ago for the Apple II, use command and control
>modelling to make the game _much_ easier to play. Once you think about
>it, this should be obvious: a real commander is limited in the number
>of things he can do -- not only is he not _able_ to micromanage his
>forces, but he doesn't _have_ to, because they can manage themselves.
>Hence, in Battlefront, though the untis are battalions, the player
>gives (very general) orders to regiments, and the regimental commander
>(i.e., the computer) moves the individual battalions around. It makes
>the game fast (two hours or less to play most corps-level battles) and
>it makes the interface easy. THAT is what the computer is supposed to
>do, IMHO.
Yes, but the AI routines that manage these sub units had BETTER be
realistic, or it'll just piss the player off. This is what
was wrong with SSG's Battlefront series. I enjoyed them, but
until programmers get the routines correct, I'd rather do the
micro management.