TacOps wish list

[Dr Zaius]

Use this thread to place your "wish list" items for TacOps. MajorH probably has heard most of them before, however, this thread might actually yield some interesting feedback that he might find useful.

 

[switch_back]

I quite like the idea of being able to separate fire responsabilities for each unit, like that found in POAII so you could commit a single unit to spread its fire over several other targets rather than pounding away at one for the most part.

 

[MajorH]

I quite like the idea of being able to separate fire responsabilities for each unit, like that found in POAII so you could commit a single unit to spread its fire over several other targets rather than pounding away at one for the most part.

Most players let the program do that for them automatically. There is a routine in the targeting and firing abstraction which attempts to prevent unreasonable over engagement by a single unit marker. A unit marker in TacOps can represent one to fifteen teams/squads of dismounted infantry or one to fifteen vehicles. The program will automatically spread fire so that a large unit marker does not unreasonably over engage (over kill) a particular enemy unit marker. For example, if a unit marker containing ten tanks engages a marker containing only one or two tanks, the larger marker will usually shift its fire to another enemy marker - within the same or the next fifteen second fire pulse - once the initial target maker has been destroyed or once enough rounds have been fired so that the small target statistically should have been destroyed.

If a player prefers to micro manage this, he is free to split unit markers so that they hold as little as one team/squad of dismounted infantry or one vehicle. He can then use targeting controls in the unit orders window to tell each of his markers exactly what he wants them to shoot at. Most experienced TacOps players do not bother to do that except for an occasional, very critical engagement.

 

[MajorH]

Use this thread to place your "wish list" items for TacOps. MajorH probably has heard most of them before, however, this thread might actually yield some interesting feedback that he might find useful.

I am always glad to repeat things plus questions on the wish list helps me set work priorities.

The TacOps wish list is actually a folder of unfullfilled email requests, suggestions, and criticisms that goes back ten years. It currently contains 1,685 items, many of which conflict with each other - i.e. customer A wants something that is totally opposite to and incompatible with what customer B wants.

 

[Intruder13]

Here are a few of the things that I would most like to see implemented. Keep in mind that I love Tacops and am not bashing it; as far as I’m concerned Tacops is peerless in it’s category of modern warfare simulation. I have read the forums and archives of the Tacops website, and I realize that most, if not all of the request have been sent in before. Nevertheless, I would like to know the progress, if any, on the following items:

I know it has been suggested before BUT it would be more realistic if units would fire upon tanks, even if they can’t destroy them. As we have observed recently, the Iraqis have used 105mm HEAT to seriously damage the Abrams. Even though they were slaughtered, they managed to damage the tracks, TIS, LRF, CITV and other subsystems of the tank. Obviously, this would reduce the effectiveness of the tank; therefore, could be crucial in deciding further engagement.

The laser designator on the Longbow is an immensely powerful force multiplier that has not been implemented. Perhaps it is for balance reasons, but I would rather the Force Lethality rise then resort to the outdated tactic of popping up and firing. How silly is it that I have to close within 4000m and achieve direct LOS - thereby endangering my helicopter - when Apaches during the Gulf War were able to fire at tanks without taking off the ground?

Different speeds for the vehicles are immensely important but are not implemented. It would be nice if the Stryker IAV went upwards of 60mph like it’s supposed to, and it would be sensible if the BFV went 4mph while crossing a body of water instead of taking off like a jet ski as it does now. Of course implementing different speeds would necessitate a global “marching” speed. Implementing variable speeds is not icing on the cake, it’s a determinant for some vehicles being as lightly armored as they are. Oh sure the M1A2 SEP is tough as a brick sh*t house, but it can’t run down a speedy and 20 tons lighter Type 98 Chinese MBT.

The AC-130 Spectre gunship – the probably most requested item and every newbie ask for on his first post. So be it, I am a noob and I want to tear up tank convoys with tenacity. Yes I know the scope of the game is tactical land battle, but the Spooky couldn’t be more harmful and advantageous than the MLRS ICM?

 

[Redwolf]

A modeling of different vehicle speed is high on my wishlist as well. I would like to have a "sprint" command which would allow the unit to exceed normal combat speed, and different speed for different kinds of vehicles during sprint, under severe spotting and hitting penalities of course. I guess you could just treat them as supressed, that sounds right.

Other combat items I miss:

Direct area fire from non-artillery units. Maybe the existing target reference point user interface can be used at least for MG fire, that the circle is sprayed by MG fire, distrbuted over the full circle (plot a large circle and get ineffective).

Dismounts magic-moved into cover when SOP "unload" is tiggered and cover is right next to that location.

I also have a number of "hackability" items which are of course very far off, the most remote one that I want an interface to write my own computer player.

 

[Intruder13]

The AC-130 Spectre gunship – the probably most requested item and every newbie ask for on his first post. So be it, I am a noob and I want to tear up tank convoys with tenacity. Yes I know the scope of the game is tactical land battle, but the Spooky couldn’t be more harmful and advantageous than the MLRS ICM?

:ar15: If only it were real...

 

[CPangracs]

My main gripe with TacOps is the icons and the inability to create new/different sets of icons.

 

[MajorH]

My main gripe with TacOps is the icons and the inability to create new/different sets of icons.

Please elaborate on both items.

 

[CPangracs]

Please elaborate on both items.

Well, the icons are in the exe code, and don't allow for any new icon creation or adjustment. Don't get me wrong, the icons that come with the program are great, but I see a need for more specific icons and even larger icons. I work in the same office as TJ, and I have created operational icon sets for other simulations. Your icons are better than the FBCB2 icons, and they are, for the most part, quickly recognizable.

However, I think that it would extend the playability and flexibility of the program. It is just a personal desire and not a knock against your icons. In fact, if you look at the Command Post of the Future, the icon symbols are all silouhette-based (SP?).

I also feel that the icon-edit would appeal to the non-professional gamer, and may, in fact, add to the consumer appeal of the game (if that is one of your goals).