How do you feel POA2 stacks up against other modern wargames?

[Kammak]

"It also has some glaring weaknesses, which is why it remains a niche product with a very small fan base."

:angry: This is the quote that makes me bristle. The implication is that it is weak, and therefore has a small fan base and is a "niche" product, not a mainstream wargame product. I find this statement inaccurate and unsupported. I think it is clear from the quote that niche is indeed meant in a derogatory fashion.

I don't think the fan base is any smaller than other wargame in its class - POA2, DA, and ATF. I KNOW it has a larger fan base than DA - and I strongly suspect it is larger than ATF, but don't honestly know. From what I can see in message boards and websites, Tacops has the most active user community of the four titles mentioned. And I'll reiterate that the primary customer for Tacops is military forces of various nations. Not a one time buy, but continual contracts for updates, enhancements, and equipment adds. If its good enough for the USMC, I think it can handle my wargaming needs too.

To say you don't like a game is one thing, but to then claim NO ONE else likes it, and it is an obscure little niche game because of its "faults", is quite another issue.

 

[amrcg]

Hi!

I have to agree with Kammak. I am also a TacOps fan since the beginning and although I do not participate very much is the mailing list, I have been always subscribed to it. I saw version 0, then version 3 and finally version 4 and I still play TacOps in two-player with a colleague of mine who also knows TacOps since the beginning. I can assure you that the mailing list is very very active and I have never seen any signs of stagnation on the part of the Major. The user community is very numerous too and is always ready to help with scenario making, sugestions for future implementation and introduction of new units, etc.
I hoped that POA-2 would replace TacOps, but I am now very skeptic. It easier to believe that TacOps will evolve and incorporate many of the features that make POA-2 attractive right now (as I am now sceptic as to whether POA-2 will work correctly even after the patches).

Concerning ATF, I also think it is a very interesting game and I have bought it because of the detailed terrain model, artillery model, unit hierarchy, formations and missions, etc. Nevertheless it starts to be boring when you realise that formations and missions do not work well due to AI limitations. Besides, in some aspects TacOps is even more detailed (e.g. TacOps models the lower speed of some russian ATGMs, it allows reverse movement, etc.).

I've never tried DA, so right now my preferred games are TacOps and ATF.

 

[andrew]

Ooops

Looks like a touched a nerve with my comments re morale. Well in for a penny in for a pound....................

How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.

Rgds
Andrew
(Ducking for cover with helmet strapped firmly on)

 

[amrcg]

Hi Andrew

The Morale factor is very random and depends on many aspects that do not belong to the specific scenarion that you are simulating (e.g. fatigue and victory/defeat from past actions, etc.). So it is not easy to simulate and one should always doubt if the simulators that claim to simulate it are really doing it right. TacOps and ATF prefer to abstract this randomness in order to allow you to evaluate a tactical plan for itself. They are thus "planning tools" rather than "sims". Their objective is to evaluate whether a plan maximises your chances of mission achievement. Will the plan work in the real world? One can never know for certain due to those damn random factors, but it is quite probable it will if your plan is good.

Cheers,
Antonio

Looks like a touched a nerve with my comments re morale. Well in for a penny in for a pound....................

How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.

Rgds
Andrew
(Ducking for cover with helmet strapped firmly on)

 

[Crimguy]

How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously.

Because TacOps, as I mentioned earlier, was specifically designed on the assumption that both your troops and the enemy will carry out their orders as you drew them up. A commander can't make a plan with the assumption that troops will turn tail, but will stay and fight.

It is a simulation of battlefield simulations, if you will. To simulate the training at NTC. That's why the game stresses that you are fighting OPFOR. OPFOR doesn't run for the hills at NTC in Ft. Irwin - and they don't run here.

 

[andrew]

Aaaaah

In that case they can't really be compared (PoA2 and TacOps that is) because they aim to do quite different things.

PoA2 for me I think - assuming its improved as I expect it to be.

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Dr Zaius]

"It also has some glaring weaknesses, which is why it remains a niche product with a very small fan base."

:angry: This is the quote that makes me bristle. The implication is that it is weak, and therefore has a small fan base and is a "niche" product, not a mainstream wargame product. I find this statement inaccurate and unsupported. I think it is clear from the quote that niche is indeed meant in a derogatory fashion.

First, wargames themselves are a niche product. The PC gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, but our particular segment of it is so small that "companies" often consist of only one or two guys! A joke compared to the development teams for even small companies in other types of PC games. The term "niche" is not in and of itself derogatory. It's entirely appropriate here.

Did I say TacOps was not a mainstream wargame product? Yes I did, and dealing with wargames is my business. Again, that's not the same as saying it's a bad product or a bad game. Wargames themselves are a niche. Modern wargames are a niche within a niche.

I don't think the fan base is any smaller than other wargame in its class - POA2, DA, and ATF. I KNOW it has a larger fan base than DA - and I strongly suspect it is larger than ATF, but don't honestly know. From what I can see in message boards and websites, Tacops has the most active user community of the four titles mentioned. And I'll reiterate that the primary customer for Tacops is military forces of various nations. Not a one time buy, but continual contracts for updates, enhancements, and equipment adds. If its good enough for the USMC, I think it can handle my wargaming needs too.

TacOps has a fan base that is roughly equivilent to the other wargames you mentioned. ATF, DA, and POA2 are all niche products as well and they will remain so because they simply lack a full fledged development team that could turn them into a shiny, top-of-the-line product. Graphics stink. Sound stinks. Can't even buy most of them at a real store, etc. I know our hobby doesn't receive the kind of attention that other PC games get, and no I'm not talking about the "twitch" crowd. There are a lot of PC games out there who's fan base is dominated by older, well educated players. Flight simming is a good example. If you have ever hung around with hardcore flight sim enthusiasts, then you know just how high tech and incredible the support for that community is (not to metion how large that comminity is). That's one example and I could offer more, but the point is that almost all of our hobby products are low-tech, enthusiast efforts.

To say you don't like a game is one thing, but to then claim NO ONE else likes it, and it is an obscure little niche game because of its "faults", is quite another issue.

Quite true, but that, in fact, is not what I said. I said TacOps had "an impressive level of detail, in some areas" and that is was a "good system." I also said it has some glaring shortcomings, which in my mind is true. I also said it is a niche product, which it is.

Are there mainstream wargames on the market? Sure. The Campaign Series sold more copies than every title HPS has offered to date combined, and then some. TOAW, which is by any standard a hardcore wargame, has sold enough copies almost to be considered a non-niche product. It has an incredible fanbase from all over the world. The Steel Panthers games and Close Combat (which is used by the US Marine Corps) have each sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Most of the modern wargames we're talking about here are considered a success if they sell 5,000 copies. I don't have direct access to the data, but I suspect civilian sales figures for TacOps are a few thousand (5,000-10,000) copies at best. ATF, POA2, and DA may have even sold less. All these are niche products due to their very real limitations, poor graphics, and small potential fan base.

But I think you're missing my point. What I was trying to say is that I really think TacOps (and some of the others we mentioned) could go "bigtime" if they had larger development teams that could afford to really spruce them up. How would a version of TacOps sell that had great 2D maps and graphics, a fabulous and user-freinly interface, support for multiple time periods and nations, a full featured scenario and map editor, an accessible OOB editor, the full range of multiplayer options, and was available for sale in game stores everywhere? I bet it would sell fairly well. Not Doom III mind you, but it would have a pretty good fan base. That's all I'm saying and you could say the same about ATF, BCT, POA2, DA or any number of other wargames.

Unfortunately, the reality is that we're saddled with a situation in which development teams consist on one guy, no professional graphics programmer, no professional multiplayer programmer, hardly any investment capital, slim to none marketing efforts, etc. That's the current state of wargames. POA2, ATF, TacOps, and DA are not mainstream wargames like SPWaW, the Campaign Series, etc. Those games have sold big time, but modern "niche" products are unlikely to ever break 5,000-10,000 copies because they are targeted at a very small audience. The fact the various military forces use them as a quick and dirty training tool is irrelevant. The military uses all kinds of wargame simulations that you have never heard of, but they all remain "niche products" with all too real limitations of what they can do.

No one is aying TacOps is a bad system (at least I'm not). But I do think it's fair to say that it has limitations, and these limitations keep it from being more widely accepted by wargamers. Again, you could say the same of other titles. Look around at the plethora of dedicated webpages, discussion forums, and such that exist for "mainstream" wargames. There are a lot of them and they are active. How many pages exist for the games we're talking about? Hardly any. Visit the official TacOps forum at Battlefront lately? It gets a few posts per week!

 

[Redwolf]

Interesting discussion, I didn't try POA2 so far, although I have it.

I feel the need to contribute some points of clarification on TacOps. It is actually a lot better than people make it here.

First of all, a scenario editor will full AI playable is what the Major is currently working on. More elevations are very high on the list and might go into 5.x as well.

BUT, "no scenario editor" is extremely misleading. What TacOps misses is the ability to make scenarios that the computed opponent (AI) can play. You can, and people do that all the time, make your own maps and it has a nice OOB editor. So people who go PBEM or TCP or multiplayer can always have as much new scenario as they want. In fact, practically all multiplayer games are done in scenarios that are designed on the fly by the umpire (it is more useful to think of the umpire as a scenario designer or as a "game-master" in tabletop role-playing here).

Now, if somebody could kick the Major into providing an interface for an external AI, I'd be all set

I was actually sorry that WarfareHQ had to close the military simulations section. But the TacOps mailing list is just too strong, it absorbs all traffic there is. And MajorH is using the forums at battlefront, which I don't find surprising since unlike other developers BFC is giving him a forum in nice shape. That WFHQ is in even nicer shape doesn't override that.

How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.

That's a little over the top, too.

In TacOps, infantry under fire does stop.

If they are under so heavy fire than other games model them running back TacOps models them as "out of the game". I don't know whether you played Combat Mission, but I can assure you the behavior of breaking troops annoys the hell out of most players. Unfortunately they also extended it to overwrite your orders on pretty light suppression, creating the mess far too often, but that's another story.

TacOps in general is an extremely lethal wargame, so abstracting broken troops as out of game fits it very well.

What else is missing? Lower hit probabilities for low morale, slower movement? TacOps does have that to a limited degree, if troops are suppressed they have lower hit probabilities and they move at half speed.

What TacOps does not have is a model of troops starting out with different levels of resistance against suppression. But, again, as the Combat Mission example shows, that is extremely hard to model and can lead to gameplay aspects that are more of a joke - for example the command delay in CM, which is a good feature in itself, but certainly not if you have to wait 3 of your 30 turns just for having green pre-1944 T-34s start moving along a road with a few bents.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Redwolf, thanks for the update on what's going on with TacOps. It looks like the sim is moving in the right direction.

Again, I would just like to point out that the purpose of this thread is to discuss some good wargames, not to flame any wargame. In the course of discussing the relative merits and shortcomings of POA2, it's entirely reasonable that players will compare the system to other products on the market. That's always a little bit like apples and oranges, but it's still the most useful benchmark we have. The POA2 vs. TacOps comparison is a useful one in my opinion. As grognards, we all want to play good wargames and that's why these debates are constructive in many ways.

On the Issue of TacOps. I am pleased to see that the system may be evolving even further. As most of you are aware, Warfare HQ only "officially" supports a small number of wargames. TacOps was at one time one of the chosen few, so what does that tell you? It is a good system, we just couldn't find a way to generate enough interest in it to justify the section. We posted a bunch of new maps, opened a TacOps forum, posted numerous AARs, etc. We also did our best to make the section responsive to what gamers wanted and get the word out about it. The general club membership voted overwhelmingly to nix the TacOps section in favor of a more popular system. I am open to the possibility of bringing it back at some point if someone could demonstrate that there is sufficient demand. We had a poll a while back and again, members voted that they had no interest in this system. You can draw your own conclusions on why that might be.

It's also fair to mention that we had a DA section and it too died due to lack of interest. Would I like to see TacOps come back? Yes, but only if there is going to be some genuine interest in the game. I'm not going to waste the server space and bandwidth if there are only going to be four or five people interested. We don't have a POA2 section yet either, for precisely the same reason. I'm still waiting to see if the system is going to be accepted by gamers or not.

 

[Kammak]

Visit the official TacOps forum at Battlefront lately? It gets a few posts per week!

You are just not getting it. You can't NOT participate in a community and then slam it for not having an active community - you're just not looking in the right places.

The Tacops mailing list is extremely active, and per the Major the current subscription is 272 folks. And, the number of different posters is quite high compared to many web boards where 3-4 members basically talk to themselves.

I've played Tacops for over a year, yet I only found out about Warfare HQ a few weeks ago when you posted the link on the other POA2 board...so what? If you didn't get a lot of traffic for Tacops on your website, that has no reflection on whether Tacops has a good following. The mailing list is Tacops central, the Major posts new maps from the USMC pretty regularly and users frequently post new maps as well. There is simply no need for another website - everything is already setup and working and everyone knows where to go for stuff.

Would you tolerate someone talking about ATF or POA2 on your boards like this without them having played its current version? If someone has played it and wants to discuss what doesn't work right, great...but pontificating about it without any recent direct knowledge is kind of...uh...odd.

 

[Redwolf]

Hi, Don,

it wasn't my intention to go defensive on TacOps. What I wanted to correct is something else. From my point of view people were arguing that POA2 has all these bugs (hopefully soon fixable) and compared that to TacOps which is about as rock-stable as any software I have ever seen, including Unix, Open-Source, whatever. People then implied that this is because TacOps is so much simpler. This is true, TacOps is simpler, but it is by far not as simple as people assume.

Reminds me to add another point on scenarios:
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_1_details.html
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_2_details.html
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_3_details.html

This what we play in the Tourney, and you can see that they are fairly complex, very real-world-dish and only one of them the classical TacOps red horde storms poor Blue defenders game. They require some house rules to applied on player's honor (not enforced by the engine) but nothing major.

As most of you are aware, Warfare HQ only "officially" supports a small number of wargames. TacOps was at one time one of the chosen few, so what does that tell you? It is a good system, we just couldn't find a way to generate enough interest in it to justify the section. We posted a bunch of new maps, opened a TacOps forum, posted numerous AARs, etc. We also did our best to make the section responsive to what gamers wanted and get the word out about it. The general club membership voted overwhelmingly to nix the TacOps section in favor of a more popular system. I am open to the possibility of bringing it back at some point if someone could demonstate that there is sufficient demand. We had a poll a while back and again, members voted that they had no interest in this system. You can draw your own conclusions on why that might be.

I think you missed my point. The situation right now is that the TacOps crowd is a very tightly integrated group, as opposed to for example the Combat Mission players who diversify. Most of TacOps activity centers around their multiplayer sessions, the tourney or talking directly with the Major. That is handled better by the mailing list.

So the WarfareHQ section was welcome but with the current situation is was clear it wouldn't see much traffic. Several of the current TacOps regulars are also well-equipped with web-servers where they post their material, along with the Battlefront-sponsored map-room.

So the lack of interest in the TacOps section at WarfareHQ had nothing to do with either lack of interest in TacOps nor with the (high, IMHO) quality of the resources offered by WarfareHQ.

That situation is different from DA where the awful yahoo group made things painful to be a member of but there is just so few activity that a WarfareHQ community couldn't be populated.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Kammak: I think you're judging Don a bit too harshly. I've been here since the beginning (1999 was it?) when Don was still known as Panzertruppen and he's forever supported any wargame. TacOps was supported at one point, but as has been mentioned, there was no interest. To be fair the modern wargame boards only got really active when the developers started posting (CPTs Lunsford and Proctor respectively). I'm sure MajorH would like to post, but he has no time with the List and the BF boards.

but be sure Don has the right intentions. He's yet to dismiss any wargame he hasn't himself played

 

[Old&Slow]

Historical Perspective

I don`t want to get into a pissing contest on Tac Ops, and I appreciate that it has it`s hardcore fans, but I do want to support Don`s position since I think his points are valid

The reality is that the VAST number of people buy and play wargames ( and other PC Games ) to play against the AI. This is the basis for any problems that folks have with TO.

I believe that when Bob Mayer of the late CGOL Boards and the Mag. ( which he edited ) did a survey the numbers were around 75-80% buy & play against the AI. Those are huge numbers in a small Market. While those who play online in any form tend to be very vocal and high profile on the various boards, they are a small group compared to the AI players.

I like TO, I bought the first version some 5-6+ years ago, bought Version 2.0, and 4.0 as well is on my harddrive. The Major is a genius at getting great traction out of a now very old Game engine, and he sold me 3 copies. :nuts:

The issues Don brought up are IMO fair, we are still playing the same old Scenarios on the same Maps. For a Tactical Platoon/Squad level game, the lack of C&C and morale is a serious issue, as is the 2 map levels.

This is not to say TO is bad, it`s fun, rewards intelligent tactics,and has IMO a good interface. The issue is it`s getting old in too many ways.

 

[Old&Slow]

Point of Attack 2 is somewhat more complicated than most other wargame offerings, but that doesn't mean it's better or worse in and of itself. The engine seems to incorporate design elements from a number of different simulations, yet remains different than all the rest.

How do you feel POA2 stacks up against other modern wargames such as Decisive Action, BCT Commander, TacOps, Fulda Gap '85, and Divided Ground? Do you like the feel of the interface and the way data is presented? What's the game missing that it should include?

I think, no I know that POA2 will live or die on the level of envolvement that Scott puts into public support on this or the unoffical HPS forums that Rich H. runs. By that I don`t mean using Don here as a pipeline for questions and fixes. Scott`s public support on the old Prodigy Boards in Game Support is what gave TOP/PITS any success it had.

Clearly the Game has big issues, not the least of which seems to be a very complex interface that almost no one understands. I guess I will have to buy the Game if I keep posting on it, but I`m waiting untill it becomes stable.

The Pnz. and Modern Campaigns prosper because a large number of public guys like Rich. H. Glenn, Lee, etc. have a deep understanding of the system, as well as it`s limitations and Tillers mind on what`s do-able and possible. They provide excellent support to newbies and vets alike.

BCT is supported by Procter, and othe guys here in depth.

DA died when Lunsford disappered from the public Boards.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I think, no I know that POA2 will live or die on the level of envolvement that Scott puts into public support on this or the unoffical HPS forums that Rich H. runs. By that I don`t mean using Don here as a pipeline for questions and fixes. Scott`s public support on the old Prodigy Boards in Game Support is what gave TOP/PITS any success it had.

BCT is supported by Procter, and othe guys here in depth.

DA died when Lunsford disappered from the public Boards.

I agree we need as much support from HSP staff as possible right now. I also understand their official position is that support for the game will come in the form of email, not the various forums. Why? I don't know. HPS has never had a forum for their products for some reason. At any rate, I don't mind using Warfare HQ to fulfil the need the community has. In fact, that's exactly why this webpage was created: to improve the flow of information and help support the wargame community.

It would be nice to see the HPS staff use this as a "home away from home," but I guess we will have to make do with as much support as we can get. If I find scraps of information in other places, I will not hesitate to use this forum to share the wealth.

I'm not sure why J. Lunsford disappered for so long from the public eye. I know he was still working with DA and it is still be used as an "unofficial" training toll in the Army, however, his absense didn't help the system to get much traction in the civilian market. That's too bad because the system does have some strong points.

 

[Old&Slow]

I agree we need as much support from HSP staff as possible right now. I also understand their official position is that support for the game will come in the form of email, not the various forums. Why? I don't know.
I`m not sure why J. Lunsford disappered for so long from the public eye. I know he was still working with DA and it is still be used as an "unofficial" training toll in the Army, however, his absense didn't help the system to get much traction in the civilian market. That's too bad because the system does have some strong points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the EMail support route is good if you like answering the same Game Play questions 2733 times.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am disappointed by DA non surpport for Game enhancements, whatever the cause, be it Jim`s non interest, a lack of sales, or a lack of interest in a non Tiller product at HPS.

I had a few EMail conversations with Jim long ago and did a bit of work on DA scenarios and Maps, I think the Game has huge potential, and even in it`s current state it is very sophisticated in the Data Base, as well as C&C, Morale and Supply, and just " feels " right as a Modern Combat sim. It is also Fun, and after the steep learning curve easy to play against an excellent AI.

It garnered excellent Fan support from Vince , and others, out of the box.

It has the best in game scenario editor I have ever seen, allowing very complex AI programing keying off the human players moves. Unfortunately this was compromised by a very klugey map making system I could never master.

Also, unless something odd is at work in the code we don`t know about, I see no reason that a WW II version could not be easily modded into the current DB, or at worst produced as another Game using the system. Someone was working on this awhile ago but that seems to have died.

Jim states in the game notes that it is a Corps/Division Sim and would not model smaller unit combat well.

My experience was that you could create scenarios using Companies & even Platoons and it would work fine and deliver reasonable and accurate results, as long as you were prepared to understand that the Game abstracts ( really well IMO ) combat power and movement in all unit sizes.

what is Lunsford working on in regard to DA ?

P:S: I really do like my Pic, it`s Old Me

 

[Rocky]

My personal ranking of modern games would have TacOps at the top, then I'd probably put DA a wee bit ahead of BCT simply because I still play DA, while BCT is currently in the "I'll get back to it" pile. ATF is next because I only played the demo, and while it didn't really grab me it was - at least as far as I can tell - bug free. I suppose I could squeeze Steel Beast in here as well, although it really is a different genre.

Currently POA2 is at the bottom if for no other reason than stability. Most of my games end in crashes or lock-ups. Then there's the bug factor: many of the scenarios I have played to completion had silly bugs like helos being unable to move.

I'd have to add my vote to those who say the game was not ready to ship when it did. Either QA was a low priority, or things that had worked in earlier betas hadn't been re-tested later.

Whether the game ever lives up to its potential is an unknown at this point. Certainly HPS are putting a great deal of effort into addressing user concerns. I've sent a few bugs and suggestions through, and Scott has replied to each email, and will incorporate a couple of my ideas. Whether the game should have shipped or not (and I've given my opinion on that) it has shipped, and all HPS can do at this point is fix it.

Actually they can do something else - temporarily withdraw the game from sale until the issues are fixed. I can't see that happening for a range of business reasons which I won't address here.

Now once I have a version that doesn't fold on my 2/3s of the time and that works as advertised I'll be able to evaluate it properly. Certainly there is a lot in the design that appeals to me - sophisticated command and control, fog-of-war, user created scenarios against the AI, variable levels of terrain, and more - but it isn't delivering yet.

Also a direct comparison between POA2 and TacOps isn't quite appropriate. Both games have fundamentally different design concepts, as does BCT for that matter. I won't go into a detailed discussion here other than to note that complexity isn't necessarily better than simplicity, and every game designer eventually needs to determine how much precision you need in a game.

For example with terrain: MajorH developed a model for dealing with more than two levels of terrain, but he hasn't implemented it yet because he argues that two levels is sufficient for the level of command TacOps is considering. BCT goes to the other extreme, and Pat Proctor have very cleverly created an engine that can resolve to 1m variations - clever, but do we need that much resolution in a brigade level sim? For the record POA2 is closest to my personal preference, but that doesn't mean it's right. It just means I agree with Scott's take on this particular issue.

I also believe there are so few modern wargames everybody should hope that every designer can bring enough new ideas to make it worthwhile to pick up all of the games. I really hope HPS gets POA2 over the line, and I think there is a 95% chance it will be a keeper on my hard drive.

End of pontification.

:cheeky:

 

[Dr Zaius]

For example with terrain: MajorH developed a model for dealing with more than two levels of terrain, but he hasn't implemented it yet because he argues that two levels is sufficient for the level of command TacOps is considering. BCT goes to the other extreme, and Pat Proctor have very cleverly created an engine that can resolve to 1m variations - clever, but do we need that much resolution in a brigade level sim? For the record POA2 is closest to my personal preference, but that doesn't mean it's right. It just means I agree with Scott's take on this particular issue.

:cheeky:

The simplistic terrain model used in Decisive Action is directly based on the generalized categories the US Army uses at the war college for simulating combat at this level. Bear in mind that DA is a product that was born of Jim Lunsford's desire to have a quick and dirty training tool to help students at the school to better understand the basic concepts of modern warfare at this level. It wasn't developed as a true combat simulator. Having said that, the sim sports enough detail that it does a reasonable job of abstracting a given situation as long a the scenario author sets it up properly. Combat in DA is very abstract and is handled useing percentages for everything rather than individual equipment types like in TOAW. The simplistic terrain model goes and in hand with this philosophy.

TacOps, on the other, hand, is being used to model combat at the tactical level. While military forces may be using it as a training tool for company commanders, wargamers are using it in essentially the same way we would use Combat Mission -- to simulate small, tactical engagements. At this level, a detailed analysis of terrain is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary! Terrain has a huge impact on combat operations from the perspective of the company or battalion commander. As I understand it, Major H. is working on adding a much more detailed terrain elevation system to the sim, and in my opionion he is wise to do so. I don't see how a tactical combat simulation can not have a detailed terrain model.

Does ATF perhaps have more detail than is necessary? Perhaps, but I don't see how one can argue that the increased detail actually harms the simulation's realism in any way. Yes, it does drive up the system requirements and makes map creation a tough chore, but that's a whole different subject.

 

[Mace]

I suppose I could squeeze Steel Beast in here as well, although it really is a different genre.

While reading through this topic, Steel Beasts did cross my mind as well.

While a modern tank sim, the 'playing from the map' option with the ability to call for artillery and set fall zones, assign units to different 'player/commanders' etc, gave it a bit of a 'wargame' feel at this level.

I think the lack of airpower and a limited unit database however were issues.

Mace

 

[Rocky]

The simplistic terrain model used in Decisive Action is directly based on the generalized categories the US Army uses at the war college for simulating combat at this level... The simplistic terrain model goes and in hand with this philosophy.

TacOps, on the other, hand, is being used to model combat at the tactical level... At this level, a detailed analysis of terrain is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary! Terrain has a huge impact on combat operations from the perspective of the company or battalion commander...

Does ATF perhaps have more detail than is necessary? Perhaps, but I don't see how one can argue that the increased detail actually harms the simulation's realism in any way. Yes, it does drive up the system requirements and makes map creation a tough chore, but that's a whole different subject.

Agree fully with DA.

As for TacOps, although I personally agree that more detail would be helpful, MajorH argues that the two level terrain is largely sufficient for most purposes at the level of the sim: military crests, chanelling and screening forces, LOS and others (I'm sure I'm not doing the argument justice as it's been some time since I've read it).

Now you may well say more detail is absolutely necessary, but there are military organisations in at least three countries (US Marines and Canadian and Australian Army, although TacOps is still in deveopment for that client) that find it sufficient.

As I say I'm partial to more detail myself, but even so it seems odd to say more detail is necessary when the professional users don't find it necessary.

As for BCT I must respectfully disagree, increased realism does harm the simulation. A brigade commander should not have to ask a tank to move 10m to the north to maintain line-of-sight on an objective, nor should he have to micromanage a recon unit up the side of steep hill. In a vehicle or platoon level sim, sure, but that is not a brigade CO's job.