UPDATE - v1.0 Ready! - Upgrade WOV Ground War Enhancement to SF2:V...

[+PureBlue 71]

Got a seperate SF2V Mod installation folder ready for this

Hope to find the time to enjoy it, thanks Malibu!

[JRP1973 5]

Awesome addition to the game!

Edited July 24, 2009 by porterjr

[+malibu43 142]

v1.0 is uploaded and awaiting approval.

 

eburger68 got in touch with me, and he has some great ideas and some more stuff already done to add even more (custom aircraft, effects, more ground objects, etc...). Plans for a v2.0 are in the works.

 

Also for v1.0: Not in the readme (but thanks to eburger) included with the file is that there are tons more CAS routes and Anti-shipping routes defined in the movement.ini. Sampans and such have been added so you should be able to get true vietnam style anti-shipping missions now.

Edited July 24, 2009 by malibu43

[topcat II 6]

All sounds Great Thank You!!

[verde13 0]

Greatly looking forward to this, however i have a request: Is it possible to add more ships around the carriers in a task force fashion in the Navy campaings ? Would make a hell of difference. Anyway great work.

[+malibu43 142]

Greatly looking forward to this, however i have a request: Is it possible to add more ships around the carriers in a task force fashion in the Navy campaings ? Would make a hell of difference. Anyway great work.

 

 

Unfortunately, that is only possible in scripted single missions, not campaigns.

[+comrpnt 16]

Unfortunately, that is only possible in scripted single missions, not campaigns.

Erm, well, it might be possible. I'm not a campaign author but if you can make use of _targets.ini definitions then you could use something like this...

 

// Yankee station(S)
[TargetAreaXXX]
Name=Yankee Station (South)
Position=740000,500000
Radius=1000
ActiveDate=03/22/1972
InactiveDate=03/24/1972
Location=1
Alignment=FRIENDLY
CarrierStation=TRUE
//
// 1st row (lead) (Centre)
Target[001].Type=Cardiff
Target[001].Offset=0,3000
Target[001].Heading=0
// 2nd row (West)
Target[002].Type=Cardiff
Target[002].Offset=-1000,1500
Target[002].Heading=0
// 2nd row (East)
Target[003].Type=Cardiff
Target[003].Offset=1000,1550
Target[003].Heading=0
// 3rd row (West)
Target[004].Type=Cardiff
Target[004].Offset=-1950,100
Target[004].Heading=0
// 3rd row *** Carrier *** (Centre)
// *** Must also be defined in Mission file
// *** to be able to land on carrier
//PLACE HOLDER FOR CARRIER
// ***
// 3rd row (East)
Target[005].Type=Cardiff
Target[005].Offset=1900,-20
Target[005].Heading=0
// 4th row (West)
Target[006].Type=Cardiff
Target[006].Offset=-1100,-1500
Target[006].Heading=0
// 4th row (Centre)
Target[007].Type=CargoShip
Target[007].Offset=-550,-1000
Target[007].Heading=0
// 4th row (East)
Target[008].Type=Cardiff
Target[008].Offset=1050,-1550
Target[008].Heading=0
// 5th row (Center)
Target[009].Type=Cardiff
Target[009].Offset=20,-3000
Target[009].Heading=0

 

Any campaign authors care to comment?

 

When I define naval fleets in my single missions I use the _targets.ini fleet definition above (or similar) and then only add the carrier as a groundmission object in the single mission script - otherwise it doesn't get treated as a valid landing zone for my aircraft or any other AI aircraft. That's all. The rest of the fleet though are defined in _targets.ini, and then it's only the active/inactive dates that govern the fleet's availability during my scripted missions, same as it would for a campaign.

 

This is probably worth another look.

 

Cheers, regards, comrpnt.

[+ojcar 157]

About the name, how about "Good morning Vietnam", "Apocalypse now" or something like that? We have a lot of good films to inspire us.

I'm waiting for the mod, because I have the 1 series game (not 2 yet) modded to death and looking this mod maybe I could better my install!

By the way, I use Brain 32 retile, without Green Hell 1 or 2, because my poor computer is about 5 FPS over Hanoi.....

I have a Pentium 4 2.8GHZ, with 2 GB RAM and an NVidia 7600 (500 MB RAM) (XP, of course). A little old computer....

[+malibu43 142]

Erm, well, it might be possible. I'm not a campaign author but if you can make use of _targets.ini definitions then you could use something like this...

 

// Yankee station(S)
[TargetAreaXXX]
Name=Yankee Station (South)
Position=740000,500000
Radius=1000
ActiveDate=03/22/1972
InactiveDate=03/24/1972
Location=1
Alignment=FRIENDLY
CarrierStation=TRUE
//
// 1st row (lead) (Centre)
Target[001].Type=Cardiff
Target[001].Offset=0,3000
Target[001].Heading=0
// 2nd row (West)
Target[002].Type=Cardiff
Target[002].Offset=-1000,1500
Target[002].Heading=0
// 2nd row (East)
Target[003].Type=Cardiff
Target[003].Offset=1000,1550
Target[003].Heading=0
// 3rd row (West)
Target[004].Type=Cardiff
Target[004].Offset=-1950,100
Target[004].Heading=0
// 3rd row *** Carrier *** (Centre)
// *** Must also be defined in Mission file
// *** to be able to land on carrier
//PLACE HOLDER FOR CARRIER
// ***
// 3rd row (East)
Target[005].Type=Cardiff
Target[005].Offset=1900,-20
Target[005].Heading=0
// 4th row (West)
Target[006].Type=Cardiff
Target[006].Offset=-1100,-1500
Target[006].Heading=0
// 4th row (Centre)
Target[007].Type=CargoShip
Target[007].Offset=-550,-1000
Target[007].Heading=0
// 4th row (East)
Target[008].Type=Cardiff
Target[008].Offset=1050,-1550
Target[008].Heading=0
// 5th row (Center)
Target[009].Type=Cardiff
Target[009].Offset=20,-3000
Target[009].Heading=0

 

Any campaign authors care to comment?

 

When I define naval fleets in my single missions I use the _targets.ini fleet definition above (or similar) and then only add the carrier as a groundmission object in the single mission script - otherwise it doesn't get treated as a valid landing zone for my aircraft or any other AI aircraft. That's all. The rest of the fleet though are defined in _targets.ini, and then it's only the active/inactive dates that govern the fleet's availability during my scripted missions, same as it would for a campaign.

 

This is probably worth another look.

 

Cheers, regards, comrpnt.

 

I tried this once in WOE, and at the start of the campaign mission, it worked OK. But when you go to land, the carrier has zig-zagged away from the other ships again (not anywhere near them). Given the amount of ground the carrier covers within the carrier station, you would have to place a lot of escorts to ensure that one or two are visible for any given carrier location.

 

Plus the escort ships will be static, and there's always a random chance that the carrier will sail through one of the escorts during take off or landing, which could cause... problems.

 

But, I didn't spend a ton of time on it the first time around, so it may be worth another look.

Edited July 27, 2009 by malibu43

[+snapper 21 799]

Hi malibu43

 

Just tried downloading the file, keep getting archive corruption.

 

 

Cheers

 

Snapper 21

[+malibu43 142]

Hi malibu43

 

Just tried downloading the file, keep getting archive corruption.

 

 

Cheers

 

Snapper 21

 

I'm looking into it right now.

[+comrpnt 16]

I tried this once in WOE, and at the start of the campaign mission, it worked OK. But when you go to land, the carrier has zig-zagged away from the other ships again (not anywhere near them). Given the amount of ground the carrier covers within the carrier station, you would have to place a lot of escorts to ensure that one or two are visible for any given carrier location.

 

Plus the escort ships will be static, and there's always a random chance that the carrier will sail through one of the escorts during take off or landing, which could cause... problems.

 

But, I didn't spend a ton of time on it the first time around, so it may be worth another look.

Ah, well, I solve this problem with a static version of the carrier - by simply nullifying the movement values in the _data.ini. It's a bit of a hack of course but has the desired effect and maintains the eye candy factor of the fleet. I guess you can' have it all ways but for myself I like the fleet to stay put. Not much use during a campaign though as time moves on and so does the action.

 

Anyway, cheers. Regards, comrpnt.

[+malibu43 142]

OK, it should be fixed now. It's uploaded and waiting for admin approval. Once it's available, please let me know if it works correctly.

 

Thanks.

[DWCAce 19]

approved

[+eburger68 201]

Malibu43:

 

This latest upload works fine -- no corruption issues on unpacking.

 

Eric L. Howes

[+Jug 99]

approved

Be still my heart................

 

Does this mean its ready for release???

 

Congrats ahead for the sturdy work and a magnificent effort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+malibu43 142]

Malibu43:

 

This latest upload works fine -- no corruption issues on unpacking.

 

Eric L. Howes

 

Thanks. Good to hear

 

 

Be still my heart................

 

Does this mean its ready for release???

 

Congrats ahead for the sturdy work and a magnificent effort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ready it is... Please let me know if any issues come up!

[+malibu43 142]

One thing I've noticed about SF2V vs WOV, is that the campaign engine chooses targets differently, and as a result, sometimes targets in south Vietnam that are intended only for the Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive campaigns get fragged in Rolling Thunder and Linebacker missions. This is probably realistic, but it wasn't intended. As you play through campaigns, if possible, maybe keep track of how often you get S. Vietnam targets fragged during RT, LBI, and LBII missions. Let me know how often it happens, and if you guys think it works well or if it's too much.

 

Thanks!

[verde13 0]

Regarding the issue with more ships i found this old thread at the official Thirdwire forums; don't know if it's going to help though: Support Ships

Edited July 28, 2009 by verde13

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

This may be a stupid question? But in SF2V Air and Ground War Expansion Pack v1.0 that is in the downloads section, does it have the F-105G with corresponding missions?

[+malibu43 142]

This may be a stupid question? But in SF2V Air and Ground War Expansion Pack v1.0 that is in the downloads section, does it have the F-105G with corresponding missions?

 

See post #23 of this thread...

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

See post #23 of this thread...

 

 

Oh okay because I downloaded it before you posted that so I was wondering if there was anything new. Unlike the other people who said they had errors with the download I didn't get any. That led to my confusion if this was entirely new or the same thing. I thought you were planning on renaming the newest version.

[+snapper 21 799]

Hi malibu43

 

Download works fine, and the mod is great.

 

Cheers

 

Snapper 21

[+malibu43 142]

The loadout files for the F-4's with years in the name were named wrong. Drop these into the corresponding aircraft folders, and delete the incorrectly named ones if you want.

 

Sorry about that!

 

SF2V_F_4_Loadout_Hot_Fix.rar

[+331Killerbee 840]

malibu43,

Excellent work Man! Keep it up. It's starting to feel more and more like Vietnam.

 

331KillerBee