News As History - May 17, 2008
News As History - May 17, 2008 |
|||
|
Wargame Reviews Return to Wargame Main Page Return to Wargame Reviews Index TACOPS and BRIGADE COMBAT
TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION TACOPS and BCT: Brigade Combat Team are modern tactical combat simulators that portray the battalion and brigade commander's fight at the platoon and section level from the late 1970’s to c. 2010. Other games (e.g., most recently, STEEL PANTHERS II {1996} and III {1997}) have attempted to simulate this before, but these two releases stand apart. They both deliver performances that rank with Department of the Army tactical simulations such as Brigade Battalion Battle Simulation (BBS) and JANUS. TACOPS 3.0 is the continuation of a classic game that was initially published by Arsenal (1994). Avalon Hill was due to release an upgraded version which was cancelled (1998) and the designer reworked the program and has now released it through www.Battlefront.com. The game has been well maintained and delivers a superior performance. BCT is newer, gaining support and is constantly being refined. Both games should benefit from the Internet distribution and this method of distribution may indeed be critical to the survival of detailed wargames as a genre. These two games have approached their objectives from two very different paths, but both deliver an exceptionally enjoyable, playable, and bug-free gaming experience. The documentation is excellent. Detailed documentation in pdf format is provided on the TACOPS CD, together with a library of twenty US Army field manuals. BCT has less documentation included because it is a downloaded game, but there is additional and extensive documentation at the company website. Both Major Holdridge and Captain Proctor have active mailing lists and respond quickly to observations, questions, and suggestions. Both their distribution companies host forums as well. TACOPS is also available in French as a result of its sale to the Canadian Army on the same disk as the basic game. The two games differ considerably in appearance. TACOPS has a rather stylized map that uses only three elevation levels while BCT uses a contour map with detailed terrain resolution. The horizontal scale of both games deliver the look and feel of a 1:50,000 scale tactical map in general use in the Army. TACOPS' multi-color map is somewhat easier on the eyes than the basically black BCT map (N.B.: a color patch is available for BCT). TACOPS uses two kinds of maps: isomorphic like maps that represent various kinds of terrain and “overprinted” maps that overlay TACOPS terrain over paper maps from the NTC, Germany, Canada, Australia, and Jamaica. BCT uses its detailed terrain system to provide maps of the JRTC (FT Polk, LA), the National Training Center, FT Irwin, California, Eastern Kansas, Cuba, Bosnia, the Ukraine, and others. TACOPS has appropriate vegetation in each scenario, while BCT is only beginning to implement vegetation in some scenarios; yet, the detailed terrain in BCT offsets this shortcoming. A critical element for both games is the Line of Sight Tool that enables the player to choose a point or unit and see where the dead space is (dead space is a term for terrain where units can neither see nor direct fire into; a civilian co-worker termed this "live space" when I explained it to her). TACOPS uses a line that the user can drag around to examine the LOS while BCT uses a fan. Both are effective and critical to battlefield success. Unit appearances are handled differently -- TACOPS uses wargame-like counters with either NATO symbols or vehicle icons on a blue or red base while BCT uses blue or red icons (each icon represents anywhere from one to as many as 15 vehicles). For TACOPS, the standard icon contains four vehicles, representing a platoon, while BCT contains two, or a section. BCT displays a movement vector that shows how fast and what direction the unit is moving and if it is entrenched. It also will display a series of status codes next to the icons showing what special orders the unit may have. TACOPS has a series of icon symbols that show unit facing, defilade or entrenched status, issuance of orders, etc. The graphics in both games are defiantly low-key and not up to current “standards”: no 3D, animated, rendered eye-candy here. Instead, the effort is made to ensure that the game has a solid AI, good speed, and is bug-free. These games do not need the luxury of "good graphics" when they have "good game" instead. Selected sound effects enhance the gaming experience although the user can turn them off to speed game play. GAME MECHANICS AND/OR GAMEPLAY Each game models much the same equipment: the M1, M2, and M3 are prominent in both games for the US side, as is the T-72, T-80, T-90, and various BMP versions for the Opposing Force (OPFOR). Many other pieces of equipment are represented; the edge goes to TACOPS because it provides a wider range of vehicles that equip the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and United States Armies as well as the USMC. BCT concentrates on the US Army and to a lesser extent, the Marine Corps. Both games are primarily solitaire games, but have excellent multi-player capabilities. TACOPS allows play via E-mail or as a Command Post Exercise in which the players send their orders to an umpire who reports engagement results, spot reports, and so forth. Printable maps and an overlay tool that allow the umpire to tailor the map for the players' use support this feature. BCT allows two players to connect and engage in simultaneous combat via the Internet. In solitaire mode, the AI for each game does not always deliver the same fight and can change the results radically. TACOPS in solitaire scenarios only allows you to play BLUFOR against the OPFOR, while BCT has scenarios for both sides. The two games run in different modes. TACOPS has an order phase during which the two players enter their orders. After both sides are finished, the game executes these orders for one minute, in four 15-second pulses. The player is limited to watching the map and biting his fingernails during the combat phase when he has no power to correct mistakes or take advantage of opportunities until the next orders phase. BCT plays in real-time, but can be paused to enter new orders; it also can be accelerated up to eight times normal speed. A given scenario for either game can usually be played to completion in about an hour. Both games allow the player to order units through a combination of menu items, keyboard entries, and mouse clicks. As might be expected, their order’s menus are very similar, allowing for tactical movement, call for artillery fire, airlift, mounting and dismounting infantry, setting SOP behaviors (like dismount on contact, hold fire, and so on.). Movement orders are both issued via a series of waypoints, much like HARPOON. Several reports that can be used to assist the player in determining his courses of action are available, although neither game saves engagement results to a printable text file. Table 1 shows the reports available to the player:
Table 1 Tactical Reports Perhaps the most important report is vehicle specifications. Here the player can learn the strengths and weaknesses of his force. It also provides a glimpse into the algorithms used by the two designers to adjudicate combat. The games both determine probability of hit on a number of factors (weapon effectiveness at different ranges, suppression, number of rounds fired at the same target, armor penetration effectiveness, projectile velocity, armor protection, terrain, visibility, exposure and size, sight magnification, surprise, unit strength, moving or stationary, and other values). The two games have very different methods in determining kills given a hit. BCT relies on a percentage value based on published Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) values that vary by aspect (front, flank, or rear) while TACOPS compares the penetrating power of a given round at each range with the armor presented (again, front, flank, rear). This is a simplification of what are very complicated procedures. In the end, these two systems deliver comparable results, although the results do not always seem consistent with this reviewer's military experience. They sometimes deliver questionable kills, shorten visibility limits, and tweak engagement ranges so that the player cannot take full advantage of weapon systems characteristics. These are generally minimal distractions to the average player, but may be of more important to the military gamer or grognard. Detailed examination of the BCT database reveals that some of the weapon systems attributes vary from scenario to scenario. This is due to BCT's modeling of a separate small database for every scenario reflect various “soft” factors like morale and training for various opponents. However, it is somewhat distressing to see very different performances delivered by the same system in two different scenarios. Another interesting characteristic of the games is that the basic branch affiliation of the designers comes through. TACOPS provides a plethora of methods to fight the direct fire battle by using Target Reference Points and engagement priorities and abstracts the indirect fire fight a little bit (by only using three types of rounds) while BCT provides fewer controls for the direct fire fight, but offers many methods to control indirect fires. Sadly, neither game allows the user to set up an artillery program to be fired on order. In both games, indirect fires are delayed a realistic amount of time and inflict realistic casualties on the enemy. Neither game specifically models the intangibles of war, e.g., morale, training, etc. BCT attempts to provide for this by adjusting weapon rates of fire and accuracy to reflect different force levels as well as having three levels of force quality: green, veteran, and elite. Victory conditions for both games are similar, usually based on inflicting a certain percentage of casualties on the enemy, exiting a number of troops off the game board or onto an objective, and/or denying exit or entry onto an objective to a certain number of troops. Both games accurately portray contemporary military doctrine. The correct application of the principles of war will reward the player with greater combat success. Assisting the user in learning and applying doctrine is the reason TACOPS has a library of manuals included and why BCT has extensive help files available on the website. TACOPS includes a scenario editor that allows the user to choose any available map and force structure. Unfortunately, the game does not allow you to access the AI for the OPFOR side in order to do create solitaire scenarios. On the other hand, the player can perform some modifications to the included scenarios that do use the AI to provide some variety. Weapons values and such are not adjustable by the user. BCT does not yet offer a scenario editor, but one is in development, and it will allow adjustment of some weapon attributes in order to deliver a more standard performance and tweak the values. It will also allow access to the AI. PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION Both games have been adopted by various military organizations for use as a training vehicle. Conversations on both mailing lists reveal a high proportion of active duty and reserve armed forces members playing the game and undoubtedly using them for training. BCT is remarkably like JANUS in its presentation and menus; a fact that probably influenced the JRTC to buy it. However, the current lack of a scenario editor makes BCT slightly less useful for training, but when it is issued, BCT may very well be able to be used for aspects of mission planning and rehearsal. The following UNIFORM JOINT TASK LIST items are supported:
Table 2 Uniform Joint Task List Supported Items CONCLUSIONBoth games sell for roughly >$20.00, so there is no reason not to buy them both, particularly if you are used to buying games in the retail channel. If you are new to wargaming, TACOPS is easier to learn and master. If you are a military officer or experienced with other wargames, particular HARPOON II, then BCT is a good choice.
Table 3 Feature Comparisons
Figures (click on hyperlinks below for screenshots): Figure 1 and Figure 2: TACOPS and BCT at the National Training Center. Notice the difference in icons (TACOPS has layered its terrain over a scanned map of the NTC, while BCT has digitized the terrain). Figure 3and Figure 4: TACOPS, and BCT in more wooded terrain. It is here that the difference in elevation shows up with TACOPS' stylized terrain. Figure 5 and Figure 6: TACOPS and BCT database screens. It is apparent how casualties and battle damage are calculated by the two games -- TACOPS uses armor thickness and penetration while BCT uses percentages. Figure 7: The TACOPS unit orders dialog box. Most game features can be accessed from this box while BCT has more buttons to push in the basic game interface (See Figure 2). Figure 8 and Figure 9: Calling for Fire. BCT has more munitions available, but TACOPS produces a more noticeable splash. Figure 10: Up close and personal, the BCT Zoom function, which TACOPS lacks.
TACOPS **** BCT **** TARGET AUDIENCE: While both products share the same target audience (i.e., those personnel interested in contemporary tactical combat operations), TACOPS is the best entry point for the novice but is also sophisticated enough to appeal to grognards. BCT, because of its detailed terrain resolution, is recommended for the intermediate-level gamer and up. TACOPS is like the Chinese game of GO -- a few minutes to learn a lifetime to master. BCT is more difficult to learn; after playing it for almost a year, this reviewer is still learning its nuances, and of course, it also takes a lifetime to master. Overall, BCT is to TACOPS as HARPOON II is to HARPOON CLASSIC. In terms of learning difficulty, on a scale of 1 (Novice) to 10 (Wargaming Troglodyte), TACOPS rates a 5 and BCT rates a 9. COMPUTER: BOARD: Armor Attacks: The Tank
Platoon: An Interactive Exercise in
Small Unit Tactics and Leadership, John F. Anatal,
Presidio Press, 1992. www.army.mil
The Army web site. Mike Robel is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, with 16 years of active duty as an Armor Officer. He served in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment as a tank and cavalry platoon leader and a cavalry troop executive officer patrolling the very edge of the Free World along the border between East and West Germany. His other service was in the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) {The Big Red One} in Fort Riley, Stuttgart, Germany, and the Persian Gulf, where he commanded companies in all three brigades of the division and served as a battalion maintenance officer, battalion supply officer, battalion assistant operations officer, division armor training officer, division assistant operations officer, and as a brigade supply officer. After leaving active duty, he worked for Logicon Advanced Technology as a database manager for the 87th Exercise Division in Birmingham, AL, managed the 2nd ACR’s simulation center in Fort Polk, LA, where he used the Army’s Corps Battle Simulation, Battalion-Brigade Battle Simulation, and JANUS. He is now a Knowledge Acquisition and System Test Engineer working on WARSIM 2000, which is the Army’s next generation battle simulation. He has played board wargames since he was 8 years old (Avalon Hill’s U-Boat), and computer wargames since Avalon Hill’s MIDWAY for the TRS-80 Computer. He worked for Intracorp/360 for a year as the 360 Product Manager and was involved in the final production of HARPOON 2 (ADMIRAL'S EDITION). He has play-tested and developed scenarios for a plethora of wargames including HARPOON CLASSIC, HARPOON II, V FOR VICTORY, STEEL PANTHERS, GREAT NAVAL BATTLES, ULTIMATE MILITARY SIMULATOR II, PATRIOT, TANKS, and HIGH COMMAND as well as Army simulations. He has been published in a variety of publications including STRATEGY PLUS, www.cdmag.com, COMMAND Magazine, Armor, Infantry, Military Review, and Army Times on a variety of computer games and various historical and contemporary military and historical topics as well as a strategy guide for TANKS! He now lives on Merritt Island, Florida where he has a front row seat for space shuttle launches and the beach. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © 1998 - 2008 StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. |
