From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) Subject: REVIEW: I hate TAC AIR! Date: 27 Sep 1994 04:45:16 GMT And here's why. The movement system in TAC AIR gives every unit the same number of movement points, dealing with differing mobility (infantry vs. mech) by imposing different MP costs. The exception to this is helicopters. Each helicopter unit has 10, rather than 6 movement points, and always pays one point per hex. In all other respects helicopters are treated as ground units, and not very powerful ones at that. A helicopter must move adjacent to an enemy unit to attack it, and remains there after the attack. Furthermore, a helicopter may be attacked by a ground unit just as if it were another ground unit. This would be pretty bad on its own, but remember that a unit which takes two or more disrupt is flipped to its static side and is unable to move. Helicopters have, unfortunately, a static side with no attack strength and a defense strength of only '1'. It is thus fairly easy for a Soviet tank battalion to roll up to an American attack helicopter unit, attack it, pin it, and then automatically finish it off on the next turn. What relationship this has to reality is a mystery to me. Why didn't the TAC AIR system just treat helicopters as artillery if it didn't want to include special rules for them? It worked for SPI's old Central Front series. The combat system in TAC AIR leaves much to be desired. A simple differential based system, units never retreat. Not only do they not take retreat results from combat, they have a hard time retreating voluntarily because any unit that takes 2 or more disruptions (not an unusual result of combat) is incapable of movement. This leads to rather curious "pin" effects which would be more appropriate to a platoon level game than one at battalion level. So, units that take an initial shock are stuck in place until they either die or recover. Another aspect of the D6 based system is that results tend to be fairly homogenous -- only one side will take losses in a give combat, and often the CRT will only allow the weaker side to take losses! As an example, suppose that a US mech battalion is defending, on its static side (higher defense strength), in clear terrain against an attack by two Soviet tank battalion. It is impossible for the Soviets to take any losses, despite the fact that there are actually more anti-tank missile launchers in the defending formation than there are attacking armored vehicles. This result is patently rediculous. It also points out two further problems: unit strengths and terrain effects. Unit strengths in TAC AIR do not do NATO justice, to say the least. NATO forces have noticably superior equipment and training, and field larger formations than do Warsaw Pact forces. All of this should add up to makedly higher combat strengths for NATO forces of the same "size" (ie., battalion). The difference in TAC AIR is not dramatic, and this problem is greatly exacerbated by the differential-based CRT. Terrain effects in TAC AIR are quite primitive. Whatever its flaws, West End's Air & Armor took into account the terrain in both the attacker's and defender's hexes, and pointed out that forces relying on guided missiles were actually hampered by trying to defend in woods, although those woods also made short-ranged rockets, like the M72 LAW, more effective. There is, for some reason. an ITV battalion in TAC AIR. I have never seen such a unit on any table of organization, and I would be very interested to know what the reason for the unit's inclusion is. In any case, it is the only unit in the game allowed to engage in standard combat a a two-hex range, which keeps it safe from taking casualties. This is OK as a simulation of long-range missile fire. However, the rules specifically exempt the ITV from terrain penalties on the CRT due to an intervening stream. Unfortunately, in real life TOWs have trouble operating across bodies of water becuase the guidance wire tends to fall into them and short-circuit, causing the missile to miss. So much for reality. This was obviously a game designed by Air Force guys. Air units, especially USAF air units, have some special qualities. Let us take, for example the case of a flight of A-10s (that's two real aircraft) attacked by 2 flights of Russian MiG-29s (that's eight real aircraft). In the ensuing 8 on 2 combat, it is impossible, due to the nature of the CRT, for more than one of the A-10s to be shot down. Worse, if a single flight of MiG-29s were so foolish as to attack the Warthogs, there would be a good chance that two of them would be lost, at no cost to the Americans. Now Soviet planes may not be the best, and their missiles may leave something to be desired, and their pilots may not stack up against the USAF, but these kinds of results strain credulity. There are two basic problems with the air combat system. First, bombers use their 'B' rating, that is, their bombing strength, when they defend in air-to-air combat. This makes fully loaded F-111s virtually undefeatable. Second, all aircraft use their 'B' ratings to defend against SAMs and AAA. Unfortunately, the mighty F-15 Eagle only has a 'B' rating of 1, which makes it dogmeat for even the oldest Soviet SAMs. Once again, the F-111 is the most difficult target of all. Huh?!? A related problem with SAMs and AAA is that their chance of running out of ammunition is directly related to how effective they are. So a Patriot battery with 32 ready rounds has a 5/6 chance of running out of ammo after engaging a single flight of Su-17s (4 real aircraft), while a Vulcan ADG can blaze away all day, despite its notoriously high ammunition consumption. The result of this is that is enough aircraft come within range, there is statistically no difference between a '1' rated system and a '5' rated system. (It takes about 6 aircraft to produce a difference of less than .001.) Assuming that the aircraft get through the AA unharmed, they can then wreak havoc on the ground. It is entirely possible for four attacks by flights of A-10s to destroy a Soviet armored battalion. That is a total of eight sorties to wipe out a force with, at full strength, over thirty armored vehicles. If each A-10 caries four Mavericks, that means only 2 misses in all these shots. This isn't Iraq, guys. These tanks aren't dug into the sand, immobile, and inadequately defended against air attack. These tanks are in the middle of Central Europe, where finding anything on the ground is a challenge, with air defenses everywhere, and with a fluid ground situation. Think there would have been more friendly fire air-to-ground kills in the Gulf if the Iraqis hadn't been sitting still well away from our forces? Anyhow, when you realize that a Soviet armored battalion could be wiped out by only two raid (four sorties) this really becomes doubtful. My then-roommate and I once spent an amusing afternoon simply listing the fatal flaws in the game -- the minor ones would have taken up too much time. This piece resulted from that. Too bad -- the maps are beautiful and the counters are just so nice. I'd really like to play the game, if only it were any good either as a game or as a simulation. Ethan McKinney TAC AIR: Almost, but not quite, totally unrelated to modern warfare.