You have guest access to browse, login, or register.

 Tac Air (AH)
Read Today's News | Watch Today's Videos | CSW Brief #7
566 News Items for March [updated 28 Mar.]
I want to: [Join | Subscribe to Forum] | [Receive News | Submit News] | Buy/Sell | Donate | Report Problem Post]
XML RSS feed

Go to:

 [F] CSW Forum  / Boardgaming  / *INDIVIDUAL GAMES AND GAME SERIES Discussion  / Era: Contemporary  / Potential Conflicts  / Tac Air (AH)

Tac Air is Avalon Hill's game of modern Air-Land battles in Germany. Game scales are 3 hours per turn; one nautical mile per hex; and units are battalions, batteries, and aircraft flights.

Boardgamegeek Page: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3712/tac-air

Moderator: Jeff Schulte

Attachments:

TAC AIR Scenarios Word Pad.rtf

Tac Air Hannover Map.zip

Tac Air Variant Units - Hannover.zip

Tac Air article.pdf

Tac Air Rules Summary.pdf



Older Items Oldest Items Outline (older msg: 771)

Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:31 am (#772 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
The second Tac Air game against Kev was the first advanced scenario, Covering Action. This has what amounts to a Soviet tank regiment crossing the West German border, intent on threatening Bamberg. (Victory points are scored by passing through T22, a key bridge hex north of Bamberg, or killing US units.) The 2nd Cavalry Brigade (I assume that's what "2C" stands for) is deployed across the Soviets' path to try and stop them.

Based on the experience with the intro scenario, I had a good impression of what to do to block the Russians from getting to Bamberg too quickly, a decent front had been built up around Dreisechseckigdorf. HQ, supply columns and their AA defense were centered around Bamberg itself. My main artillery asset, a M-109 battery, was placed halfway in between so as to be in range.





Turn 1: Unfortunately, the Soviets immediately did something that I had not prepared for, they spread out to where I was not, threatening to outflank my defence to the east.

I moved the C/2C recon battalion further to the east so that it could cover that road.


Attachments:

P1070302.JPG (2472 KB) (509 Downloads)

P1070303.JPG (2555 KB) (513 Downloads)

P1070306.JPG (2444 KB) (511 Downloads)


Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:33 am (#773 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Turn 2: That didn't deter the Soviets who launched a mechanised assault against it supported by the 51 Mi-24 helicopter battalion.





The C/2C retreated to Dreisechseckigdorf, but all Soviet units suffered a disruption as well. Most of both sides' artillery had been fired now.

I decided to try and counterattack the Mi-24s with one of my Apache units, which disrupted both.


Attachments:

P1070309.JPG (2503 KB) (514 Downloads)

P1070310.JPG (2344 KB) (504 Downloads)

P1070311.JPG (2477 KB) (501 Downloads)


Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:35 am (#774 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
The air phase saw both sides bringing in aircraft. I didn't record the outcome but they did not have significant effect on the ground units.



Even though it was only a week since the first game, in that game I had hardly needed to move a unit, and throughout the first half of the game I made a constant slip in that I misread the center unbracketed (i.e., "right") value on the AA units as their movement value (when instead that's constant and the mode of movement is determined by the symbol to its left). As a result I assumed that my Hawk batteries were extremely slow and could barely creep backwards towards Bamberg. (I had the same problem on the first impulse of playing GDW's Third World War which also doesn't have the movement value where movement values normally are, but caught myself on time.)

Turn 3: The Pact brought the 51st regiment's T80's forward as the 22nd's BMPs were disrupted. The US units abandoned Dreisechseckigdorf and fell back, now mainly blocking the eastern road. The engineers were brought forward to destroy the bridge into T22. The retro moves were largely restricted by my incorrect interpretation of the AA unit movement factors though.



Turn 7: The T-80s of 51 Guards Tank swarm the defenses of B/2C and 2C.


Attachments:

P1070313.JPG (2352 KB) (485 Downloads)

P1070316.JPG (2421 KB) (474 Downloads)

P1070317.JPG (2491 KB) (472 Downloads)


Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:40 am (#775 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
The Soviet attack is pretty devastating. B/2C suffers a D1 and ends up retreating to the west side of the Dreisechseckigdorf-Bamberg road. 2C gets the words of it and remains in position with a D2. A counterattack attempt by 11/94 disrupts both the Apaches and their target T-80s. The most annoying part was the ludicrously slow retreat of the Hawk missiles on the left wing, who barely made it into cover of the woods because of my misreading of their movement. Their slow falling back necessitates forming a line by the 2C maneuver elements west of the Ebinger See, but 2C has basically been hung out to dry.



Turn 8: The Soviets swarm forward on a broad front. 2C is engulfed. The 61 Guards Tank HQ remains on the left wing where virtually no US ground threat remains. Bizarrely, the first unit to cross the Main is the ZSU-23 unit that is intended to protect the HQ against marauding helicopters. A detachment of 22 Guards Mech catches up with the Hawk missiles on the US left flank.



The Hawks are disrupted and pushed back. A Mi-24 attack adds another disruption level to B/2C In the center, the Soviet tanks roll over the M-1s of 2C, and the 11/94 Apaches are disrupted. A helicopter attack on B/2C disrupts the Mi-24s but brings B/2C to D3 level. 11/94 also reaches D3.

There is no way but to thin out the US front further. C/2C must hold the center alone, the Bradleys of A/2C are sent to deal with the threat east of the Ebinger See. But they roll badly and the unit survives, though at D2 level.

At this point, the US had held out a long time, but the front line was getting very ragged.


Attachments:

P1070320.JPG (2381 KB) (464 Downloads)

P1070321.JPG (2460 KB) (461 Downloads)

P1070325.JPG (2458 KB) (451 Downloads)


Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:43 am (#776 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Turn 9: The Soviets now swarm B/2C on the right wing, and the Apaches which are immobile in the center. C/2C is in the open but at least will soak off some of the attack aimed at the other two. The Mi-24s are now on the left flank being sentagainst A/2C. (Note that the Soviet artillery is flipped back, ready to fire.)



The outcome on the US left flank is lucky; B/2C still survives at D3 and the attackers are disrupted, but in the center the Apaches are eliminated and C/2C is at D1 level like its attackers. Worst is that A/2C has ended up at D2 level on the right flank, though the Mi-24s were hurt as well and a subsequent Apache counterattack by the 2C squadron has brought the Mi-24s to D3. But the line is close to breaking. A/2C will be protected as long as the ZSU-23 and Mi-24 cannot recover to get out of the way.



Turn 10: Unfortunately the ZSUs recover and can move out of the way. (The Mi-24s were eliminated somehow.) As a result the T-80s can cross the Main and attack the A/2C Bradleys in the open. The T-80s are disrupted, but A/2C is now at D3. The 2C Apaches have ended up at D3 as well, and 223 has been brought in as a desperate last backstop. On the left, B/2C has been eliminated and the 237 engineer battalion is at D1, retreating towards Bamberg. In the Center, C/2C has been pushed back across the Main though its attackers are all disrupted.

In victory terms, the US situation is dire with losses moving the outcome into clear Soviet victory territory even if T22 is not overrun. All that can be done is to hang on.


Attachments:

P1070326.JPG (2482 KB) (458 Downloads)

P1070327.JPG (2492 KB) (454 Downloads)

P1070328.JPG (2424 KB) (446 Downloads)


Markus_St - Jul 15, 2018 10:45 am (#777 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Turn 11: In another lucky development, the attack on the 237 Engineers is a bust, some Soviets get disrupted and the engineers finally scuttle back across the Main into Bamberg, still at D1. In the center, C/2C has taken up a fortified position in T22, the key victory hex, but its back is now merely covered by the 82 Engineers. On the US right flank, the A/2C is at D3, unable to fal back, and the flank merely held by the 9 Engineers in the woods, as the Soviets bring on the BRDM recon unit in the flank.



Turn 12: The expected attack against C/2C in the center fails, with 2/51 and 3/51 Guards Tank ending up at D2 level. The 82 Engineers in its rear also hold on to the Main. However, A/2C has been eliminated by 1/51 Guards Tak, and the BRDMs have disrupted 9 Engineers in the woods, the right flank is open again though time has run out.



The C/2C recon held the key victory hex, but the regiment has been gutted, and the scenario was a major Soviet Victory. Can't blame the scenario, my weak setup (duly exploited by Kev) and rule memory dobbed me in I think.

Attachments:

P1070329.JPG (2450 KB) (468 Downloads)

P1070331.JPG (2438 KB) (462 Downloads)


Dana Mongoven - Jul 15, 2018 9:39 pm (#778 Total: 913)  

 
[Mongoven, Dana]
It's easy to get tripped up confusing the B factor with a movement factor. :smile:

I set this one up thinking it was the Basic scenario but took it down and did the actual scenario from the Basic rules book for my AAR.

A good heads-up for me to watch the NATO right flank.

RobertOrf - Jul 15, 2018 10:58 pm (#779 Total: 913)  

 
[RobertOrf]
Thanks for the AAR Markus. I haven’t played this game in 30(?!) years but I remember liking it. I loved Charlie Kibler’s map art. I bought Tac Air sight unseen because it was designed by the same gentlemen who designed Flight Leader (and I liked FL a lot!). Fwiw. Cheers.

Markus_St - Jul 16, 2018 3:27 am (#780 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Yes, it is one of the nicest maps that Avalon Hill did IMO. For me the path went the other way, I bought Tac Air and then Flight Leader. :-)

One thing that is cool about this system is that it actually tries to show how the management of the "tail" is important beyond just the frontline ground combat units. s a result you can have a formation that has a lot of units left on the on the map, but its actual combat capacity is paper thin. That's the situation of 2nd Cav at the end of this scenario. Bamberg and surrounds are packed with US units but they are all rear area or AA assets that basically now would need to run for their lives

Jim Eliason - Jul 16, 2018 9:23 am (#781 Total: 913)  

[Eliason, Jim]
I wanted to like the map, but the contrast in elevations, while clear enough with a blank map, is very difficult to pick out when cluttered with counters. Having only two factors makes some units behave very bizarrely, like the vulnerability of bombers to AA fire, which is too high just because their own anti-air is justifiably very low. I also generally don't like games where the stacking limit is only one. I put this one regrettably on the shelf and haven't gone back to it.

Markus_St - Jul 16, 2018 10:48 am (#782 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
I wanted to like the map, but the contrast in elevations, while clear enough with a blank map, is very difficult to pick out when cluttered with counters.


I agree in principle, not in clear terrain, but forest hills and forest base terrain can be difficult. In practice I haven't found it much of a pain, certainly not enough to stop me playing.

Having only two factors makes some units behave very bizarrely, like the vulnerability of bombers to AA fire, which is too high just because their own anti-air is justifiably very low.


Well, this can be houseruled in a minute, which I did originally, so I've never considered it a big drawback. Again, these are secondary effects in a game that covers a huge scope in unique fashion, so some corners have to be cut. Funny enough though, in coming back to it now, I've generally come to the conclusion that many of the double usages are actually surprisingly sensible. For example I would assume that a missile launcher AA system will deplete more quickly and have to reload when firing, and in fact I would argue that bombers are more vulnerable since they are much less maneuverable when loaded, so the same factor applies - not so much jinking or zooming going on when fired upon. (Which is a factor which I've just noticed as I was playing Flight Leader.)

I put this one regrettably on the shelf and haven't gone back to it.


So what are you doing in here? ;-)

Stefano Cascarini - Jul 16, 2018 11:34 am (#783 Total: 913)  

 
[Cascarini, Stefano]
So Markus, I think I've seen comments from you on SPI's Nato Division Commander, this sounds similar any compare and contrast style thoughts ?

Markus_St - Jul 17, 2018 7:42 am (#784 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Interesting question! They do have comparable unit and time scales. NDC goes much more into the behaviour of an individual battalion by its use of many different modes, although TA has also the distinction between a unit being on the moving and non-moving side.

TA obviously has more detail and emphasis on the air game and AA component, although that's not been so evident in my AARs. I have a tendency to not take so many photographs of the air stages because they move very quickly despite the maneuvering.

NDC is true to its title in that it focuses on the "command picture" to the degree that it incorporates fatigue of the commander as a factor. TA doesn't look at this level, in exchange it has more focus on the supply tail, especially as it pertains to artillery and AA. NDC also has more detail on things like artillery ammunition.

NDC goes into great detail on the intelligence picture, and of course actually emphasizes the notion of the "Controller game" which is one player against a referee. Some of these rules do not work well but there was a guy who just posted an extensive AAR in the NDC topic in the last year or so, and it seems he found some fixes. Ironically, TA has this as well, but sort of as the last section, obviously for saleability reasons. I've seen it pointed out that the air game changes completely in TA if you play with a referee since suddenly recon missions (and their protection) take on enormous relevance.

For me this area really consists of three games, the third being Air & Armor which is arguably the smoothest of the three, but because it is such an elegant shape suffers most when not played as designed, i.e., it doesn't really work solo. This is reinforced by the fact that many of the scenarios focus on deception and maneuver, from the start. Also, while A&A is comparable to TA in the advanced air rules, the basic rules don't have air, which leads to a notable difference in style between basic and davanced game that I think is not that pronounced in TA. With regard to scenarios, at least the initial scenarios that I have seen in TA can also be played straightforward attack scenarios, so the absence of feinting and ambush is not felt so much.

Overall, TA has the most detail on the ground/air interaction and logistics, AA has the best handling on the differences in command and doctrine and the most tactical play due to its breakdown of battalions theoretically to companies (which together with the different "missions" replicate the effect of NDCs complex table-driven "modes"), NDC is the one that shows everything in more detail (except supply and air where TA comes first, and tactical maneuvering/doctrine where AA comes first), but the price is that it is the most complex and slowest, and many of the subsystems are the rather kludgy ones not untypical of late SPI. (I like to describe it as if you have two players, A&A gives you 80% of what NDC has with 20% of the effort and the doctrinal issues much more clear.) If you play solo, I would say TA is the one where, as presented in the rulebook and given how the scenarios work, you feel the least that you are missing out on something.

Stefano Cascarini - Jul 17, 2018 9:12 am (#785 Total: 913)  

 
[Cascarini, Stefano]
Thanks for that Markus, it sounds like I should keep an eye out for a second hand Air and Armor - considering the wave of reprinting that's going on in the hobby maybe it and Tac Air will get new editions. NDC was a big favourite of mine back in the day I loved the integrated move/combat system and used to think that it was obviously the future of operational games (which it equally obviously wasn't!)

Markus_St - Jul 17, 2018 10:37 am (#786 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
NDC clearly was a game where Dunnigan was trying to expand the envelope and succeeded, even if the means available at the time were a bit clumsy.

It would be great to have an edition of the Hanover game with the Tac Air system as a companion. and Charlie Kibler is still around. :-)

Jeff Schulte - Jul 17, 2018 1:07 pm (#787 Total: 913)  

[Schulte, Jeff]
I have Tac Air on my table now and getting reacquainted with it. I was thinking that maybe it might be worthwhile to play this using the maps from SPI's Central Front series. I have only North German Plain, but it might be an interesting mish-mash.

August Daesener - Jul 17, 2018 1:54 pm (#788 Total: 913)  

[Daesener, August]
2c

2/C stands for 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Headquarters were in Nurnberg. 1st Squadron was in Bindlach. 2nd Squadron was in Bamberg. 3rd Squadron was in Amberg. Each squadron had 3 Cavalry troops each consisting of 12 Bradleys and 10 M1 tanks. Each squadron had a tank company of 14 M1 tanks. Plus attached arty and engineer vehicles. Nice AAR.

Markus_St - Jul 17, 2018 4:46 pm (#789 Total: 913)  

 
[Markus_St]
Thanks for the info! I guess the HQ would have been Merrell Barracks? Drove past that one many times.

August Daesener - Jul 18, 2018 10:07 am (#790 Total: 913)  

[Daesener, August]
2C

YES, The 2nd Squadron was responsible for the area from the Czech -W German ,East German border (tri-zonal point) all the way to just west of Kronach. Note of interest, There is a grave of an unknown German Soldier buried at the Tri-zonal point. Supposedly he was killed a couple of hours after the 2nd World War ended. 3rd Squadron was Responsible for the area fron the Tri-zonal-point to Passau, I believe. It has been awhile since I was stationed there. 85-89 with the 2nd Squadron.

Delnore - Jul 23, 2018 12:40 pm (#791 Total: 913)  

 
[Delnore]
2C

"2C" clearly has to do with the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, but note that its subunits--A/2C, B/2C, and C/2C--are lettered as though cavalry troops (companies) rather than numbered as though cavalry squadrons (battalions). (For historical reasons, the US Army used unique terminology for cavalry subunits that matches neither the same army's basic "infantry" terminology nor the cavalry terminology used by the British Army.)

So it's always been a bit unclear to me whether the game is supposed to present:

1. The entire 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, in which case the squadrons are oddly designated and should instead be 1/2C, 2/2C, and 3/2C. This scheme respects the basic unit scale of the game in which each counter represents a battalion.

-or-

2. Just the one squadron of the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, in which case the troops are way too powerful, only part of which can be explained by parceling out the tank company among the troops. But perhaps the designer wanted to treat the armored cavalry as elite screening forces or something, which was something of a trend in game design at the time. This scheme violates the basic unit scale of the game, but we might imagine that the other two squadrons are screening gaps off map.


Newer Items Newest Items Outline (newer msg: 122)


Check Messages   SearchPost Message     Email to Sysop  New User Registration  Login

 [F] CSW Forum  / Boardgaming  / *INDIVIDUAL GAMES AND GAME SERIES Discussion  / Era: Contemporary  / Potential Conflicts  / Tac Air (AH)


Go to:

Who's Here?   [ Mark Ay ] [ Thomas Harrison ] [ Victor L. Harpley ] [ Yannick Le Teigner ] [ Patrick McGovern ] [ Herman W ] [ Mike Esposito ] [ Joseph Miranda ] [ ekwock ] [ Gary Phillips ] [ Dav Vandenbroucke ] [ Kevin Schnetter ] [ McKinley Hamby ] [ Todd Jahnke ] [ kerry schnetter ] [ Bruce Hanson ] [ 9 Guests ]

Terms of Use | Forum Guidelines