What historical battle would you like to see?

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
Assuming the units and maps were available, what action would you like to recreate in a TacOps scenario [keeping in mind that neither side should have more than about 3 brigades/regiments for playability].
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Guadalcanal.....I'm working on the map (how long have I been saying that :OHNO:)

Some Bastogne area scenerios would be good.

I like the idea of some modern Iraq conflict scenerios, invasion especially.

Korean pensula scenerios.

Taiwan.

Maybe something involving the Spratelys.
 

TacCovert4

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
699
Reaction score
3
Location
Watching Girls Go By..............
Country
llUnited States
Now that the Ospreys have landed. In Iraq that is, I'd like to see some scenarios for possible use in the combat role. Cordon and searches, air assaults, evacuations, and things of that nature.
 

fbscheuer

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
9
Location
Gisborne
I am exploring the 1973 arab/israeli war, but so far it has generated zero interest among players. I have made a Valley of Tears scenario, great action with obstacles and stuff.

I think that particular war could be used to generate many historical scenarios.

Btw, if anybody is interested in playtesting the above-mentioned scenario, drop me a line ; )
 

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
Interested, yes.

But I'm so far behind right now it will be spring at least before I can take on any new projects.

I'd love to see the map though. I'd collected all of the base maps and data to code a valley of tears map myself but you beat me to it [by quite a long ways actually].
 

fbscheuer

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
9
Location
Gisborne
It is map307c in the map room at tacopshq.com. I am actually in the process of redesigning the map and the scenario, but the terrain would look the same.

Did you have any ideas for your own VoT scenario? It seems ineffective if we should be working on separate scenarios.
 

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
Not in detail

It is map307c in the map room at tacopshq.com. I am actually in the process of redesigning the map and the scenario, but the terrain would look the same.

Did you have any ideas for your own VoT scenario? It seems ineffective if we should be working on separate scenarios.
I wanted to do the map first and then come up with OOBs, both historically accurate ones and best case with units at full strength. There is quite a bit on the Yahoo modern TOE group to look at and I'd planned to pick up some more books on the battle as well. I lost the ones I had in a move years ago. I'm still not clear on how much artillery each side should have.

I did a couple of dry runs using factory scenarios with substituted units just to see how short-range night fighting would look without thermals and few ATGMs. The dug in defenders actually did pretty well, fewer losses than the real IDF had to face. Unfortuneatly, the AI doesn't know how to breach a tank ditch so I had to settle for a low but crossable tracked vehicle setting for the obstacles.
 

kertser

Recruit
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
Israel
Country
llIsrael
This is a great idea indeed... If you're interested I can try to provide any hystorical information on this battle.
 

fbscheuer

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
9
Location
Gisborne
I wanted to do the map first and then come up with OOBs, both historically accurate ones and best case with units at full strength. There is quite a bit on the Yahoo modern TOE group to look at and I'd planned to pick up some more books on the battle as well. I lost the ones I had in a move years ago. I'm still not clear on how much artillery each side should have.

I did a couple of dry runs using factory scenarios with substituted units just to see how short-range night fighting would look without thermals and few ATGMs. The dug in defenders actually did pretty well, fewer losses than the real IDF had to face. Unfortuneatly, the AI doesn't know how to breach a tank ditch so I had to settle for a low but crossable tracked vehicle setting for the obstacles.
I found quite a lot of information in Rabonovich' book. There is a small book by Simon Dunstan which has good maps and some more hard facts on OOBs.

Regarding artillery, I think you should not give the Syrians too much. Their artillery was quite ineffective during the battle, and I don't think they should have any smoke (even though they may have had it in RL).

The anti-tank ditch has been a major challenge for the Syrians in the test games, but they have managed to cross it. The nigh fighting is hard for the israelis. I have set Normal Visibilty to 500 meters and Thermal to 1200, and then given all Syrian tanks thermal sights. The Israeli player cannot make many mistakes during the night scenario, but it is not impossible to defend.

I may be in the process of redesigning the night rules, because as the scenario is now in order to play the night action, both players nedd to jump out of PBEM mode and use umpire tools, and then restart the game. When the night fighting is over they have to repeat it.

Any ideas how to solve this are welcome.

Btw, thanks for the link to the TO&E group. I signed up.
 

fbscheuer

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
9
Location
Gisborne
This is a great idea indeed... If you're interested I can try to provide any hystorical information on this battle.
Yes please, except for the aforementioned sources. Do you also have ideas for a scenario and a map?
 

MajorH

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
866
Reaction score
1
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
The night fighting is hard for the israelis. I have set Normal Visibilty to 500 meters and Thermal to 1200, and then given all Syrian tanks thermal sights. The Israeli player cannot make many mistakes during the night scenario, but it is not impossible to defend. I may be in the process of redesigning the night rules, because as the scenario is now in order to play the night action, both players nedd to jump out of PBEM mode and use umpire tools, and then restart the game. When the night fighting is over they have to repeat it. Any ideas how to solve this are welcome.
I just started a thread topic in the "TacOps User Guided Development" area soliciting suggestions on new code in TacOps for night fighting.

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=71476
 

GCoyote

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Country
llUnited States
. . . The nigh fighting is hard for the israelis. I have set Normal Visibilty to 500 meters and Thermal to 1200, and then given all Syrian tanks thermal sights. The Israeli player cannot make many mistakes during the night scenario, but it is not impossible to defend.

I may be in the process of redesigning the night rules, because as the scenario is now in order to play the night action, both players nedd to jump out of PBEM mode and use umpire tools, and then restart the game. When the night fighting is over they have to repeat it.

Any ideas how to solve this are welcome. . .
Those ranges actually sound pretty reasonable. IIRC the std Soviet tank-mounted light was rated for 1000 - 1200 m. I might have a book on that somewhere. The last US searchlight I used was rated at 1,500 m [but see my comments on search lights in the User Guided Development section.]

The 500 meter level for normal vision depends on what moon level you are simulating. There is probably some astronomy site we could look up Oct 1973 on to see what it was historically.
 

fbscheuer

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
9
Location
Gisborne
The 500 meter level for normal vision depends on what moon level you are simulating. There is probably some astronomy site we could look up Oct 1973 on to see what it was historically.
Actually, you can not have less than 500 meters I think, regardless of what the LOS was in real life.

The reason is that a stationary tank is visible at 400 meters. Just think about the effects of the moving tanks (with night vision equipment) being visible at less than that. It would be dreadful from a scenario enjoyment perspective. One will just have to assume that the Israelis are firing at the sound of tank engines or briefly using their searchlights or something.
 

kertser

Recruit
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
Israel
Country
llIsrael
In this specific night battle (between 6th and 7th of October) all the IDF artillery was mostly supporting the forces at the center of the fronline. (Hushniya, Katzabiya, Nafach)
The IDF artillery has lost 2 of it's 4 batteries during the day time of 6th of October.
In the following night, 2 artillery divisions of 36th amd.div have arrived and provided the "illumination" of the battlefield for the armored foces, so that the visual distance was actually more then 500m. From my experience it could be up to 1.5 - 2km if the area is illuminated properly.
In addition to that, when there were no night vision sights, there was a common drill, when the tank of company vice-commander (I don't know how to translate it properly) was turning on his xenon to illuminate the targets (naturally becoming the primary target by himself).
 
Top