New revision of the rule book uploaded

On the “Data Sheets and Rules” page you will notice that TAC II Rules Book version 2.06 is now online.  This latest version includes many corrections to Parts 1-3 due to a lot of proofreading on flights to and from GenCon last week  (still more to do, I’m sure).  The major change to this version is the addition of Part 4 to the rules, which before now was “Book 2”, a separate volume.  Now all the basic rules are in parts 1-3 and the advanced/optional rules are in part 4.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “New revision of the rule book uploaded

  1. Hmmm…. looking deeper at the game, I think the big issue with doing the cards would be the lower red/blue/grey bars that indicate how easy a vehicle is to hit at a certain range band. Not sure I care for this, as not all missiles/guns/ammo have the same accuracy (which the table system doesn’t quite work right with) but am I right in saying that those are basically just hand-made? Or is there some table I don’t know about that has tanks/apcs/etc?

    I think I’d personally rather just see units have a +/-% chance based on size at various angles, a base percentage given for hitting, and then the pen table would be used for accuracy lost over range. This way you start with #1 base, subtract #2 for range, and add/subtract #3 for target size. Seems like it’d be easier, as you would only need 1 number off the enemies card. Plus, it would be more accurate as a TOW and Javelin have completely different accuracy capabilities, and only one of which would be modified if the attacker was fired at while the missile is in the air. The M1A1 and BMP1 a 5% or less chance different hit percentages on the side, when the M1A1 is a considerably larger target. With rockets, it is just as easy to hit both on the side. Anyway, back to programatically making cards.

    If those numbers are hand-made, perhaps some nifty formula where a hull is given a size 1-10 for front/side, and a turret given a size 1-10 for front/side (or even just 1 for the whole vehicle). I could take those 2 numbers and dynamically create these values pretty quickly.

    Also, unrelated, costs are missing on the cost chart for:
    M142 HIMARS
    M1083 Truck
    M1074 PLS Truck
    SA-15
    TOS-1 Buratino
    Tunguska (2S6)
    FV510 Imprvd Warrior

    Lastly, I have around 420 vehicles entered from the Challenger 2000 ruleset into excel (along with all your stuff now). At first glances, I could pretty easily convert these stats to your system if desired. I don’t think it’d take me more than an hour to write the excel formulas to convert between the two data types. I also have firefly data (WW2 challenger) if you wanted to have ww2 games with tacforce.

    Like

    • I’ll try to answer most of your questions …

      The Red/Blue/Grey stripe on the bottom of the card only tells you which columns on the defenders cards to use … it says nothing about how easy or how hard it is to hit that target. That is determined by the weapon’s accuracy at the particular range as well as the TSSC class of the target (Target Size & Shape Class) as well as the aspect of the target (front, side, oblique, etc).

      It’s hard to know all that just looking at the cards, but a lot goes into creating the numbers on the cards, especially on the target size. You can compare the cards of two differently sized vehicles and see that none of the numbers on the cards are the same.

      TSSC is determined by measuring an actual 1/285th scale miniature (in mm). The formula is (length + Width + Height) / 2. For example a T-90m measures 25:, 13W and 8H, add those together and you get 46, 46/2 = 23 … a T-90 has a TSSC 23 and therefore the target numbers come for TSSC target table #23. Using this system I only had to make a few dozen target tables … almost all vehicles fit into one of a dozen or so tables based on size and shape. For example a T-72, a T-80 and a Magach 7D all are about the same size and therefore they are as easy/hard to hit at various ranges as each other.

      Regarding the vehicles missing from the vehicle cost table are not added to my “things to do” list.

      Like

  2. When I said “bottom of the card”, I meant the back. Basically I was just saying that it seems like to-hit percentages were always the same based on certain situations, though looking closer it appears the weapon range tables are used for “accuracy”, and the TSSC used to determine the base percentages to hit based on the size of the target, compared to the range band.

    I didn’t know what TSSC was, no definition in the rules. Do you measure overall size or just base hull/turret sizes? Do you measure turrets separately as some turrets are much larger based on the hull and would present a smaller defilade target than the overall vehicle?

    I went through and inputted all the size tables, though 7/11/12/16/17/28 have no card to copy the data from at this point. However, there doesn’t seem to be a direct correlation on size. Sizes 21-27 for example are 50/52/52/53/54/56/54 % to hit by ATW from a defilade, respectively. I would think this would be more like 51/52/53/54/55/56/57 or something, where it is a linear increase (or perhaps). Plus, some are missing percentages, so are those not able to be hit and thus be 0 (it seems so)?

    I can *very* quickly create a a series of extrapolated values that more closely match the sizes of the units if you want, and can make size 1 to 100 in just a few minutes. Just say the word.

    What exactly does the maximum range for moving/stationary targets on the vehicle sheets represent? It appears you set maximum engagement ranges for weapons, but aside from missiles (which have wires/fuel that run out) very few weapons could be considered to have a “maximum range”. Maybe there was some logic behind it I didn’t know.

    Still tinkering around. I have another project I’m working on but I’ll see about doing some challenger data conversion to tac II to give you a few hundred vehicles tonight just for kicks.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s