AARs for James Sterrett's 23 October 2004 CPX

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
I haven't seen the replay files yet but I want to get this down while I'm thinking about it.

In all truth I did not plan to play today. My wife and I got home around 1600 EDST by which time the game had been going on for six hours. I just planned to drop in and see if anything interesting happened.

As it turned out, the red player had to leave just as I got onboard. So I accepted the game in progress with no prior planning or coordination and provided target practice for the bluefor. :shock: I'll have to try to duck better next time. At the end of that round most of the initial group of player had to go except Tinjaw and myself. So I took red and he took blue and we went at it again.

Given one platoon of tanks, one platoon of mech infantry, and a few supporting units I set up a fairly straight forward defense with interlocking fires to stop the planned river crossing. Most units had restrictive dirct-fire TRPs focused on the bridgeing sites. I placed two squads of infantry near the northern bridge within range of their RPGs. I set all weapons to zero range initially to prevent them from giving my positions away too soon. Since the single attack helicopter I had was 30% of my combat power, I kept it back as a reserve. James offered to reposition my entrenchments but in the interests of getting the game going, I elected to leave them where the previous player had put them. The only extra item I asked for was a two-tube section of 82mm mortars.

I spent the first several minutes registering artillery on both bridges, the nearest treelines, posible air-defense firing positions and then as far to the east as I could see. I aslo used the time to adjust the SOPs and target priorities of my units.

First contact was with blue's recon elements. I spotted them advancing along both the northern and southern routes and enaged them with 155mm artillery. I knocked out a HUMMWV recon vehicle along each route within a few minutes. Blue may have used this information to estimate the limits of my LOS as I only got glimpses of his units for the next few turns. Those were all to the north so I began firing harrassing artillery along his estimated route and got a couple of additional kills on soft skinned vehicles.

I first realized he had gotten his attack helicopter behind me when it took a shot at mine from the west! I lost mine in the next turn but didn't see where the shot came from. At the same time I moved my SA-18 100M north so it could fire to the west. It shot his AH down a few minutes later.

Then things got quiet. I used the wreck markers from previous kills to plot harrassing artillery fire but got only one(?) more kill that way. I only saw one tank platoon actually moving in the open until around the 35 minute mark. It appeared to me that his main effort was going to be on the north but I felt I had adequate long range fires from my existing positions so I decided to stick with the original plan and let the Artillery do most of the work. I spent the next ten minutes wasting artillery.

At this point blue started to risk exposing his units to get me to reveal my positions. He had discovered some of them but putting air strikes on likely positions and was starting to do some damage with artillery as well. I still kept most weapons set at zero range to try to get him to expose more units and to pound him some more with indirect fire. But he kept picking at me with only three sections of tanks and a couple scouts, all near the northern bridge. When this activity didn't develop into anything I got suspicious and started targetting the woods near the southern bridge. My third volley [not "salvo" ;) ] of ICM got me three secondary explosions near the southern bridge. So he was still holding his options open.

About the third time I got hit with a blue airstrike, I thought to check my own air support. :crosseye: doh!. :shock: . At almost the same time I got LOS on one of his air defense units [also a ZSU-23-4] and and tank-heavy team appeared to the south. I attacked the ZSU with the AT-14 ATGM I'd been saving for a high value target. It killed the ZSU and one other unit before it was destroyed. Finally one of his AVLB bridges appeared, approaching the southern bridge site. I made it a prioritiy target for three units with ATGMs. They got it but were all destroyed within about a minute. At the same time my airstrikes came in and hit with mixed results. James then called ENDEX realizing that I didn't know blue's other AVLB had already been destroyed by arillery.

All in all I had a good time. I thought my opponent, Tinjaw, made excellent use of the terraing to conceal his forces. He also reacted well when he lost several scouts to artillery by using small armored units to probe forward and find my positions. He kept me guessing up to the last second as to which site he would move against.

With thermal sights that penetrated his smoke I think it was my game to lose. As long as I preserved a few missile armed units until his bridges came forward, I was pretty sure I would win. I never had enough direct fire systems to take on his main force but with plenty of artillery and air support and only two critical points to cover, I really didn't have to.

One final thought occurred to me after the game - I don't recall a real river crossing being attempted under fire from tanks and ATGMs with thermal sights. Does anyone else know of one?

At any rate it was fun, my opponent gave me a good workout, and I hope he enjoyed the time as well. And thanks to James Sterrett for putting it all together and to MajorH for such a great value in wargamming.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Umpire's AAR

Umpire’s AAR: TacOps CPX 23 October 2004

Umpire: James Sterrett

Players:

Red:

John Osborne, then Coyote

Blue:

Kevin “Hub” Peltz (Commander)
Martin Cracauer
Paul Csokay
Ralf Pichocki
Dennis Huff
Tim “Delta99”
John Monahan
Henk Stoffers
Chaim “Tinjaw” Krause
Bernard Cousins
Kenneth Chan


Orders & Planning:

The idea behind the scenario was to put small forces into player’s hands, run the scenario very fast, and then re-run it as long as possible. The speed of execution would put a premium on the ability of the Blue players to coordinate their actions, while also making it possible for Blue to try the mission multiple times.

Therefore, I built 6 iterations of the scenario; each iteration made the scenario harder for Blue and more complex.

In each, Blue’s core force consisted of (each line is to be one player’s force):

2 Leo2 Command Tanks
4 Leo2 tanks
4 Leo2 tanks
4 Warrior IFVs with 4 Infantry sections
4 Warrior IFVs with 4 Infantry sections
4 Striker ATGM vehicles w/ Swingfire
6 AGL Hummers with 6 infantry teams
1 FIST (Fennek)
2 Leopard AVLB and 1 engineer squad on a Fuchs

Red’s core force:

1 manpack ATGM (initially AT-7)
3 T-72
3 BTR (initially BTR-80)
3 infantry squads

The game played in the NE section of Map 544. Blue deployed north of 03 and east of 11, and was tasked with placing a bridge on either of the road bridges on the western river, north of 03, and crossing their force to the west side of the river. Red was tasked with preventing this, deploying north of 03 and west of the river.

In the event, we played 3 rounds, though the third was a head-to-head two player game.

Each time, Red based its defence on the town west of the river, hoping to try to ride out Blue’s support fires and kill the bridgelayers.

For the first two runs, Blue’s plan called for a recon screen to mover forward with support from the ATGM platoon, while the main force moved along the northern edge of the map, deployed into the woods northeast of the town as a base of fire, and then cover the bridgelayers as they did their job.

Based on what I’ve seen happen in all too many previous CPXes, I expected Blue to screw up its first run, badly. I gave them lots of fire support (two tube batteries and an MRLS on call) so they could “succeed” through fire support even after moving forward in a disordered gaggle got their teeth kicked in, and planned iteration 2 to be largely iteration 1 without the MRLS, so Blue would have a chance to get its act together before Red started growing real teeth.

What Happened

To my delight, my expectations for Blue’s performance were 100% wrong! I sat at my computer, cheering them on, as Hub kept quiet and competent control of his force; he gave Bernard Cousins time to do recon, and Berny did it well, with a mix of bounding and traveling overwatches and good use of dismounts where time permitted. Given the number of times I’ve had to write in an AAR, “The attacking force conducted no serious reconnaissance and blundered into defensive positions at…”, I was very happy to see a force take it seriously and do it right, yet without dawdling.

So: My congratulations to the Blue team. You guys did very well; possibly the best performance I’ve ever seen in a CPX I’ve umpired.

There was a bit of confusion over some of the rules of the scenario; I had not been clear enough that the only places Blue could place its bridges were on the road bridges (the riverbanks “needing too much improvement for fast bridging” elsewhere). Nonetheless, everything went very smoothly.

Blue lost one bridging tank to an ATGM trap, one hummer to HE artillery fire, and destroyed Red. They were so intent on the mission it was hard to get them to *stop* their deployment across the river and into their planned defence, so we could restart!

Blue did two things that might get their teeth kicked in the future: their ATGM vehicles came into close range to provide support, and they wound up bunched up in that small woods. The bunching wasn’t an issue under Red’s HE fire, but in the future Red would be using ICM.

Since iteration #2 was meant to be a chance to Blue to get its act together, I skipped it: Blue already *had* its act together.

Blue lost its MRLS support. Red gained ICM ammunition for its artillery, 3 entrenchments, ATGMs on its T-72s and BTR-90s, and the manpack ATGM became an AT-5. (Red had thermal sights and advanced warheads in all iterations.)

Blue reconsidered parts of its plan and deployed again; Red did the same.

Blue’s primary thrust still went in the north, as before, but the ATGM platoon went across the central highlands and deployed into the woods across from the southern bridge. Red deployed with more of a reserve, hoping to be able to react to Blue’s moves and reinforce areas where its forces had been destroyed.

Unfortunately for Red, its attempts to move reserves into place generally simply got them spotted moving into place, and destroyed. However, Red’s better firepower enabled it to kick Blue about, its ICM artillery in particular destroying a number of vehicles that were bunched up in the northern woods. In the end, Blue demolished Red a second time.

For the third iteration, only two players remained: Coyote, who took over Red halfway through the second game (when John Osborne had to go), and Tinjaw. We moved to Iteration 6 and started a head to head game.

Both sides gained air defence vehicles and SAMs, 6 airstrikes, and an attack helicopter; Red’s tanks became advanced tanks w/ ATGM, and it gained an MRL battalion on call with ICM and HE. This was the toughest iteration for Blue I had ready to roll; the plan for iteration 7 was to add mines to Red’s defence while blue got a MICLIC and some plows.

Coyote deployed with the intent of destroying bridging units with long-range missile fires in the south and closer-range tank fire in the north. Tinjaw wanted to use a series of feints, alternating north and center, to try to draw out Red’s teeth. Unfortunately, these feints cost Blue more than Red. Worse, they eventually called down ICM onto one of Blue’s AVLBs, which, although not a spotted target, was destroyed. Shortly thereafter, Blue decided to charge for the southern bridge with its second AVLB, which was duly destroyed by a BTR-90. Both sides lost their helicopters early on; Blue’s Apache drove into Red’s rear, ambushed Red’s Havoc, and then got nailed by an SA-16.

Blue’s various feints and deception attempts didn’t accomplish much in unsettling Red, even though the pattern of Red’s artillery fires did at times suggest that the feints were working. Lesson: be careful about your indicators, since they may not have been created by the reasons you think they are indicative of.

Lessons Learned:

Tactically, kudos to Blue for doing its recon and coordination right. However, they always wound up bunched for Red’s fire in the first two runs, and effectively dithered about under arty fire in the third. They got away with it in the first two (though ICM narrowly missed killing its AVLBs in the second) and got nailed in the third.

Blue’s coordination worked not only because Hub kept on top of the situation and issued quick, effective orders, but also because the players on Blue paid attention and followed his orders. Hub got a lot of well-deserved praise for his effective command; but the others on Blue also deserve praise for being effective members of the team, without which Hub’s command effort would have been wasted.

I have to wonder if Red would not have been better served by putting its forces *outside* the town, which attracted speculative fires from Blue fairly continually. Using long-range flanking fires from southern 03/07 and northern 06/07 might have enabled Red to concentrate fires better (both positions can see the close approaches to both bridges) while not being quite where Blue expected. Back this up with entrenched infantry in position right near the two bridges (to pop RPGs into AVLBs) and infantry for spotting (or the AT-5 in later runs) on the elevated terrain in 03/07 would give Red eyes onto the central plateau, which Blue advanced across unobserved each time. This is not the textbook solution, obviously, and carries risks of its own, but the long-range fires would likely have kept Red’s shooters unspotted longer and let Red pick apart Blue more effectively.



Technical issues: During the setup time, some connections would be dropped if they were idle too long. Going through the Network Status window and pinging every player once every minute or two seemed to prevent this. In addition, when a Ping fails, the result is not disaster. When a “Get Orders” fails, the umpire’s computer loses all of that player’s units, which is a pain.
Lesson: Ping often in setup, and ping players before you Get Orders.

Coyote noted in the third game that when he hit CTRL-H to hide all units, and then hit CTRL-H again to bring them back, Blue appeared along with his own units, until the end of the turn.


Scenario design: Overall, I was happy with this; the underlying objective of training Blue in coordination under time pressure worked, and Blue responded beautifully.

However, players complained that the Warrior IFVs and infantry had no role in the scenario except as targets. With no clear-and-secure actions of note on the western side of the river (because Red used a crust defence), this was true. An IFV with an ATGM would have let me delete the ATGM section and kept more players actively involved more of the time.
 

Hub

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
I want to thank James Sterrett and John Osborne for setting up and running this CPX, especially at a busy time when they both just completed a move and started a new job- stressful under the best of circumstances.

I want to thank all the guys who came out to play- this was my first on line CPX, and they all helped to make it far more enjoyable and informative than I had thought it would be. I had been putting off joining a CPX for years because I was afraid I couldn't handle it- I won't be making that mistake again...

James pretty much covered off everything in his post-mortem- my only comment is in regards to the bunching up- it is unfortunate that people can't get together more often to play as a team. This would build skill and teamwork, and little bumps like this would iron themselves out over time. Damn "real life" anyway...

Again, thanks everyone- it was a blast.

Kevin Peltz

PS- attached is the frago I quickly wrote for BLUFOR, for general interest's sake...
 
Last edited:

tinjaw

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
My Kingdom for a Bridge Layer

I had a great time yesterday and once again enjoyed the camaraderie of a CPX game played by competent and well-intentioned players. For the first two games (iteration one and iteration three) I commanded the ATGM platoon (Stryker w/ Swingfire). In both games the unit was successful in destroying some of Red Force’s units. Overall my task was to sneak up and sit tight; only firing on exposed hard targets.

For me, the real fun came in the third game (iteration six). I knew that this game would be a challenge for Blue due to the complexity rising in each iteration. Since Coyote had already played one (partial) game as Red, I also knew that I had to rely on using the added elements of the new iteration and “out of the box” thinking to have any degree of surprise. In my personal (TacOps) experience it is extremely difficult to conduct offensive operations against an enemy in fixed defensive positions with advanced warheads and thermal sights. In most battles of this nature the defender just wears the attacker out as they advance. I decided to use three tactics in the hopes of gaining an edge.

1. Multiple feints
2. Rear area recon with the added helo
3. The inevitable feelings panic and uncertainty that a defender has during a long drawn out engagement.

I personally don’t like fast paced games and thus shy away from RTS click-fests. I asked for 90-second turns and my request was granted. This gave me two things I wanted. Time to think about each move in a chess manner instead of a Command & Conquer manner and also help promote my chosen tactic of a long slow engagement. Adding the tactic of multiple feints meant feinting once at the central bridge area, a second feint at the north bridge area, and then actually crossing at the central bridge. I was hoping I could deplete some of Red’s assets coving the central bridge during the first feint’s artillery attack and then further deplete that area’s defensive assets as he shifted for the northern crossing. I was hoping that by keeping most of my assets hidden and selectively showing some scatterings of armor in the north he would over commit to the north.

I started out by sending my helo around to his rear via NOE flight. The idea was to use the helo as a scout and FO to set some TRPs in the Red’s rear area. I succeeded in getting to the rear and got an opportunity to take a shot at Red’s helo. I knew he would correct himself as soon as he discovered his open rear area so I went stealth for a few turns and tried to slowly stick my helo’s head back out. At that point it was promptly chopped off. At that point I decided to try again by using my only amphibious capable unit to cross the river undetected and sneak around to the enemy’s rear. I was ultimately successful in doing so, but too late to have any affect on the outcome.

I suspected that Red would plaster some of the expected routes of advance and staging areas with arty so I just spent a few turns sitting back and watch him waste some shells shaking trees and upturning empty ground. As I suspected he threw some harassing/interdiction volleys my way and they fell harmlessly to the ground for the most part. I then moved my units up to their staging areas. I created a wide spread of scouts hoping to spot his front line “snipers” and hit them with airstrikes.

By now I had taken my time hoping he would be getting uncertain and more likely to fall for the northern feint. I put some smoke down on the center bridge area and laid some arty in the eastern front edge of Red’s city using TRPs I had set up using the scouts. I dropped a few turns of arty south and then decided to drop about two to three times as much to the north and expose a few armored units north hoping he would see that as my attempt to get the bridge layer out safely.

Around this time (if I remember correctly) one of his harassing arty volleys took out one of my bridge layers. AHHHHHHHHH I screamed over IRC to the peanut gallery. This meant that I would now have a very tough time crossing during the main assault. All I had was a crapshoot that the remaining bridge layer wouldn’t get sniped.

I decided to throw some airstrikes on the likely northern positions to further promote the idea of a northern crossing.

Next I crossed my fingers, threw a bunch of smoke down around the center bridge, shot off all my tubes of ICM around the area of the city within LOS of the center bridge and raced my bridge layer forward. Here we go, H-Hour. I was hoping my double feint had worked and his units would be enroute to the northern bridge sweeping clockwise around the center and west of the city and therefore out of LOS to the center bridge and not a threat to my crossing.

What turned out to be a fatal flaw was my overlooking of the patch of woods south of the city and south west of the center bridge. I had not targeted it with arty and an ATGM launched out from there and sniped my bridge layer. Game Over.

Today, after reading Coyote’s own AAR, it appears that my long slow double feint worked, but that I waited too long between the northern feint and the main attack. That delay gave him enough of a gut feeling that the second attack was again a feint and not the main force. If I hadn’t lost my first bridge layer to his blind indirect fire and hadn’t overlooked sending arty down on the woods, it probably would have been a nail-biter there at the end. As it ended up I just got destroyed.

Thank you to James Sterret for his hours of effort, Hub for his excellent commanding, MajorH for TacOps and the other players for a very enjoyable Saturday. I look forward to playing against Coyote again in the future.
 
Last edited:

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I was one of the Mech plt commanders during the second run. As a newbie I thought things went great. James did a great job running a smooth game. As commander Hub did a great job with his plan and cooridnating everyones actions. I was trying to follow orders and play within the context of the plan. There was the occasional moments of confusion but they worked themselves out.

One thing I did notice that was a problem was the bunching of units. For the future maybe a slightly greater detail in orders and/or better coordination between subunits could help with this. Of course when everyone is trying to hide in one patch of woods their is only so much room :cheeky: .

The best part for me was my charge to the river at the end to support the engineers. Great game and lots of fun.

Dennis
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
cpx's

I tend to enjoy TacOps' ability to model the small-unit (company-battalion)tactical problem. In cpx's, if the umpire's intent is to have a fast flow of orders - which brings out the strength of the program and it's multiplayer function, then smaller units per player is the way to go. Also, it is a good thing to give the respective CO's a general situation before hand so they can get an idea of what to anticipate, then give them the FragO the morning of the cpx. The "cold starts" of some previous cpx’s caused a certain level of confusion, whether intended or not. The ensuing player/team goat-rope coupled with the then-network teething/umpire-grooming could have caused newly interested players to shy away from future cpx opportunities. I believe James’ recent cpx will go a long way towards setting the standard for future cpx’s. Look at all of the interest, tactics talk recently resulting from the small unit-density cpx held this past weekend.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
dhuffjr said:
One thing I did notice that was a problem was the bunching of units. For the future maybe a slightly greater detail in orders and/or better coordination between subunits could help with this. Of course when everyone is trying to hide in one patch of woods their is only so much room.
Ideally, the on-scene commanders can work through it. However, despite the best of intentions, this unfortunately happens in RL too and falls on the higher headquarters to iron things like that out, preferably before it occurs. In this case, unit boundaries may have been in order, or perhaps all of the forces at SBF Position Z be placed under a single commander so that dispersion is met. Using Hub's map, if two independent forces are occupying SBF Position Z, that wooded area needs to be divided amongst those two on-scene commanders so that one lucky icm strike doesn't cripple the force.
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I must add that I also joined this game as a last minute thing so I had not read through the orders that Hub had sent out. This is/was not intended to be critical. Like the previous poster said I should have been a little more proactive in conversing with the other mech commander. Instead I just moved over a little on my own for my own sake.

Dennis
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Thoughts on speed and unit size and startup pre-plannings; your mileage may vary....

- I much prefer fast-moving games for a host of reasons; the most important being that it separates the sheep from the goats in terms of player's ability to orient quickly on new information and turn it into the basis for a good-enough plan now, instead of a slow chess game in which you've goit ages to ponder every step. IMO, the ability to think quickly and well is a critical skill - which *doesn't* mean I'm great at it. :) [This is very different, IMO, from generating an RTS-style clickfest. The point isn't to click rapidly all the time, but to understand when you need to click, despite time pressure.]

- Unit size: the problem with small units for players, even though it speeds the game, is that a platoon can be lost in 15 seconds. So you spend all day playing and get nailed in an ambush -BAM-! and that's it... Not so much fun. So I prefer for players to have at least a company (in the pre-v4 CPXes, a battalion!) to make it likely that the player's force, and thus the player, will have time to react to bad news. A tricky balance.

- I've set up some CPXes to be quickstart surprises, usually intended to require little preplanning. However, the usual cause of this trouble is player disorganization. :( IMO, it's best if you have the teams in hand 2 weeks early, all of them with the initial orders from the umpire. They can discuss for a week, get an opord out a few days early, and everybody *should*, by that point, understand the plan and their place in it. However, it often does not happen that way; players don't read the plan, key people have to drop out, new players join....

Of those three, the last is usually the least irritating to me, since I'm all for having more people play. It does create disruption and delay, though. Players not being prepared (didn't read the plan) is just plain lazy. Players not showing up usually turns out to be a real life crisis; while annoying, real life does take precedence over a game.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
James Sterrett said:
- Unit size: the problem with small units for players, even though it speeds the game, is that a platoon can be lost in 15 seconds. So you spend all day playing and get nailed in an ambush -BAM-! and that's it... Not so much fun. So I prefer for players to have at least a company (in the pre-v4 CPXes, a battalion!) to make it likely that the player's force, and thus the player, will have time to react to bad news. A tricky balance.
Agreed. Company per player is probably the right balance, to avoid what you have noted ...BAM - now what...

The trickier balance is getting the players to avoid issuing orders every opportunity, as opposed to setting SOP's and plotting a general direction of movement - only making changes as the situation requires or when you reach a particular phase line/decision point. I believe that comes with time. I believe Hub mentioned that "it is unfortunate that people can't get together more often to play as a team". It is that familiarity with the unit commander on your left and right - knowing what he will do in a particular situation - that provides for outstanding team performance - no matter what the "sport".

Either way, it seemed to be a very well-planned and executed cpx.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
OK, I was joyriding in the "WAAAY-Back" machine and stumbled across this interesting quote from Chaim:
I had a great time yesterday and once again enjoyed the camaraderie of a CPX game played by competent and well-intentioned players.... I personally don’t like fast paced games and thus shy away from RTS click-fests. I asked for 90-second turns and my request was granted...
I am familiar with the TacOps interface, but do not recall the ability to alter the time in a combat turn. I could not find any reference to it in the Users Guide. I strive for longer turns in my solitaire efforts by plotting orders then running 5 consecutive 1min turns, constantly fighting the desire to stop mid-turn to alter something. Was this an administrative effort? How did you accomplish a non-complete minute interval like 90 seconds?

Thanks guys
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Chaim's referring to the real-time I permitted for players to enter orders each turn, not to the sim-time elapsed during each turn. :)
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Chaim's referring to the real-time I permitted for players to enter orders each turn, not to the sim-time elapsed during each turn. :)
Thanks James, wanted to be certain. Although it would be nice to have that ability to exchange the time a turn would last, from 1min to 3, 5 or even 10.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Ah - further clarification.... :)

The Host in a multiplayer teams game can choose to run 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 simulation minutes every time TacOps executes a turn.
 

pmaidhof

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Country
llUnited States
Ah - further clarification.... :)

The Host in a multiplayer teams game can choose to run 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 simulation minutes every time TacOps executes a turn.
Well then it should be do-able in regular games as well...MajorH? (ducking for cover as it is not me who codes) :laugh:
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
It would be good for infantry heavy games.
 

Jeff Gilbert

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Location
Palm Harbor, FL, USA
Country
llUnited States
It would be good for infantry heavy games.
Good point. Also very good for mech heavy CPX where you don't want the players to be able to react every minute (like during an approach march on a larger map).

The beauty is that the Host (umpire) can change this at the scenario developes.
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Good point. Also very good for mech heavy CPX where you don't want the players to be able to react every minute (like during an approach march on a larger map).

The beauty is that the Host (umpire) can change this at the scenario developes.
You know that is an excellent point. Makes meeting engagements a lot more feasible for CPXs on larger maps.
 
Top