Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Javigato

BRBM, SRBM, MRBM, IRBM and heck why not ICBMs

Recommended Posts

Reading a book on Reagan that deals quite a bit with the US negotiations and treaties with the Soviets regarding nuclear weapons made me think of something. The campaign scenarios that SF2E has (and NATO Fighters 4+), I would imagine that one of the first priorities of a first phase of any campaign on both sides would be to neutralized the sites for these missiles deployed in Europe. Would it be possible to include that? I am no modder, but with the awesome work I see done here, I think it can be done, right? What do you think? Maybe this has already been done, or talked about, but I have not seen anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading a book on Reagan that deals quite a bit with the US negotiations and treaties with the Soviets regarding nuclear weapons made me think of something. The campaign scenarios that SF2E has (and NATO Fighters 4+), I would imagine that one of the first priorities of a first phase of any campaign on both sides would be to neutralized the sites for these missiles deployed in Europe. Would it be possible to include that? I am no modder, but with the awesome work I see done here, I think it can be done, right? What do you think? Maybe this has already been done, or talked about, but I have not seen anything.

 

Someone would have to create a "missile launch site" target area. Maybe it could just be some bunkers/silos with a few buildings arranged in some sort of layout. Probably some SAM's and AAA too. 0Those target areas would have to be placed in the targets.ini and the types added to the types.ini.

 

I would make the "type" for the silos something that isn't used in the GermanyCE terrain, like "chemical_wep_plant" or something (I don't remember exactly what the choices are and what they're called at the moment).

 

Then, you'd go into the campaign_data.ini file for each campaign and make whatever type you selected for the silos the primary objective for the first offensive.

 

If all that's done correctly, the first strike missions for the blue side (once blue goes on the offensive, most SF2E campaigns start with red on the offensive) would be directed at those facilities.

 

And, of course, all this just results in targets for strike missions. These would not be functional launch facilities.

Edited by malibu43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get them to fire, what if.. they were built as SAMs but only able to fire at a huge RCS target, more than anything could trigger by flying over it.. but make an invisible aircraft with just such a mahoosive RCS and have it stationed at the airfields you want these things to attack, and make the "SAMs" guidance radar capable of detecting it from that far as well.. hmm i'm thinking aloud here and probably only making sense to myself.. but the hills and stuff in the way between these "SAM" sites and the target "aircraft" might require the invisible guidance radar being sat on top of a very high invisible structure so it can "see" out that far. I'm guessing that SAMs won't fire at a parked aircraft like a static, that would be cool because the fake aircraft could then just randomly appear as a static aircraft in the early phase of the campaign as the Enemy still have these things and they would be fired accordingly. Well if they won't fire on statics, the invisible "aircraft" would have to take off from the base, but stay really close to base.. that could mean a really, really slow flight model (is that what you call it?) obviously this thing wouldn't need to be realistic just abuse the possibilities of the data ini to make this thing virtually drift across the airfield like an asthmatic baloon, or just hover vertically even.. I don't know if that's possible.. e.g. if an AI plane had a flight model that meant it can only fly straight up to a certain altitude really slowly but yet it's tasked to go and do something, will it just do the best it can and fly hopelessly upwards, or will it not bother to get off the ground? All this might seem like a lot of bother but the results.. if it worked... and I can't see it being that much work either.. might all be ini work in which case even an idiot like me might actually figure out how to make it work.

 

Problem(s) though... getting the radar on top of an invisible, huge long pole.. does the game even account for the height of the radar dish, or does it just count the radar dish as being at or slightly above ground level for that particular object, in which case making the object 200m high isn't going to work? So the other thing would be to put the radar object on top of another object, don't know if that's possible, kind of like SAM sites can be built around fortifications but this invisible fortification would place the object up high.. I don't think it works like that though, something tells me object on top of object is a no go. In which case it would have to be a terrain edit.. placing a really thin, untiled, invisible shaft of "ground" for these invisible radars.. trouble with that is it's a hazard to flying.. also would the radar still be able to communicate to the SAM if it isn't at the same altitude because all the SAM sites currently in game have all the component parts roughly at the same altitude? .... Then again.. don't networked radars work in this game now? If so... could the invisible ground shafts, if they are even possible, be set right at the Eastern edge of the map, just before "The Wall" and the radars looking out West with their mahoosive range and strength looking for one invisible target type wherever it appears (hovering over a Blue airfield) and netowork this data over to the "SAM" site silos??

 

Hmmm more questions than answers really..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look at Crusaders Kytushu mod to get some idea as to how it works. Suffice it to say, the "viewport" position MUST be quite elevated. Study the data inis ... all will become clear (as mud! :rofl: )

 

However, you'd need NEW working objects -- Scuds that actually LEAVE the launch rail, fer instance (iirc, TKs are part of the transport's LOD, and only 'seperate' when destroyed. However, iirc, somebeody did another version -look in the 1stGen downloads section under Object Mods, the SCUD may be working.

 

Someone would have to create a "missile launch site" target area.

 

Been there, done that. I'd suggest looking into the ODS targets ini, and DBS too. Also, look in Cuba in OTC.

 

Ain't nothing new; just having working missiles is lacking. But they really serve no purpose. Just sitting there, waiting to be bombed. But they explode and burn soooooooo nicely!

 

wrench

kevin stein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone could get subs to surface, fire SSMs like Tomahawks, then submerge again, that would ROCK.

However, I know it won't happen, so I'm just spitballing into the wind up the flagpole to see who salutes to the wall when it sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone could get subs to surface, fire SSMs like Tomahawks, then submerge again, that would ROCK.

However, I know it won't happen, so I'm just spitballing into the wind up the flagpole to see who salutes to the wall when it sticks.

 

http://combatace.com/topic/26197-what-cold-war-dont-have-intercontinental-missiles/page__view__findpost__p__139774

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that's done correctly, the first strike missions for the blue side (once blue goes on the offensive, most SF2E campaigns start with red on the offensive) would be directed at those facilities.

 

 

You could also have the red side start the offensive with strikes to the blue side facilities... blue side missions would consist of defending the sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference, to "submerged" objects .... one thing you're all forgetting, for all intents and purposes, the water in EVERY terrain is solid ground. It's only a surface effect ...

 

Test this ... place an "object" -- like a tank or truck or commbuilding off shore. See what happens.

 

---

blue side missions would consist of defending the sites.

 

with what against what? Weapons are not targetable.

 

wrench

kevin stein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. And BTW, the Strategic Rocket Forces aren't deployed in Central Europe, they're in the expanse of Russia. Even the Topol-M (my guess anyways) wouldn't be deployed where anybody could snatch it up. Would more more like a Roving Sands scenario where nuke capable Scuds were roaming around. So for your scenario to work, you'd have to have a Russia map, and when the updated B-1s are ready, then it'd be pretty interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known about it, just a real, finished one :)

Yea, I'm making mine specific to SAC vs PVO, LeMay vs Savitsky. And I can't tile.

 

Try out the 3DEM. If ya'll fellas are interested, I can upload the working HFD I have with blank colour coded tiles. But we need to discuss the issues of gaps, tile size, possible terrain scalings, and redo the HFD accordingly.

 

With large enough tile sizes, I can just get Taiwan and Florida Keys on the same north polar map. About 15,000 kilometers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain the method I described above using fake objects to manipulate ICBMs to work as SAMs and aim for an invisible target only it can see hovering above an airfield or similar would yield a convincing enough airburst effect. With a strong enough warhead it could be devastating. Not too sure about line of flight though, if there would be a way to alter the way this "SAM" flies so that it goes relatively straight up for the first part of its flight? Lexx, you're the man with a mind for these things, you've been stretching the Thirdwire universe to its epistemological limits for years! Do you think I've spotted a red herring?

 

.. while my head's gone a bit fried again.. to make missiles targetable, which would be essential really because otherwise it just wouldn't be fair, not much fun having ICBMs if its just going to be a turn based Turkey shoot. How about making it so it take the launcher with it? Would it be possible I wonder.. to have an invisible element again.. like I don't know, make it a radar or something but invisible, and it's actually attached to and follows with the missile in flight, then you just use your magic E key to cycle through until you get it, and you could name it whatever you want like, but it gives you something to fire your missiles at which still have the desired effect of knocking the ICBM out. Or cruise missile or whatever. Actually cruise missile is another concept to... oh hell... one thing at a time...

 

 

If.. and it's a big if, but if the method I described above could work, and the models made to animate properly emerging from submerged silos, with some means of making them targetable through attached fake ground object or whatever.. if all that worked, then we could make the Blue side Anti Missile Missiles target them as well using that rcs trick (if it works) so that they only launch at specific types of incoming objects (our "SAM" missiles), that would give the Blue Airfileds a fighting chance.. depending on the ini parameters, maybe all the incoming strikes would be knocked out.. or maybe not, maybe one gets through... it would make for a hell of an atmospheric start to an all out hot NF5 scenario... sat there on the runway, it's your first mission... you've been briefed that the buttons have been pressed... will your base be one of the unlucky ones? Will you get to your objective and complete your mission, will you have a base to return to? By jiggling the supply paramaters, service dates and what not, maybe the nukes could be triggered only at a specific time in the campaign? There could be some awesome scripted single missions, like the one in Ace Combat 3 where you're in a YF-12A or M-21 and chasing an ICBM..

Edited by GwynO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lexx, you're the man with a mind for these things, you've been stretching the Thirdwire universe to its epistemological limits for years! Do you think I've spotted a red herring?

Don't know much about this. I will have to deal with this eventually for my campaign. When? :dntknw:

 

 

One quick abstract idea: You need a "fake SAM" ICBM launcher high enough to see beyond all map terrain. Okay. Divide your ICBM launchers into two classes: (1) functioning missile launchers in very high artificial terrain placed well outside of played area, and (2) properly placed targets for Player and possibly AI aircraft. Why? The player dropping a bomb on an ICBM silo in Kodlosk USSR won't see warheads landing in Mississippie USA. You generally won't see the ICBM launch during your attack run.

 

You can paint terrain.bmp to make very high artificial terrain bumps. I mark my north pole for now with the thing below. Its about 8km wide -- NO MAYBE 40KM WIDE, forgot measurement, its the ring seen at north pole in the Merry Christmas thread -- and about 12km tall. That's the maximum bump height I can make with my selected terrain elevation differential (45m). But 12km is higher than Mt. Everest, and given the flat world terrain in THE SF, a launcher at 12km will see any aircraft also flying at 12km any where on the map no matter how far, given enough detection range.

 

View from about 34km altitude...

med_gallery_6973_124_14989.jpg

 

View from near sea level...

med_gallery_6973_124_23769.jpg

 

 

Now, an ICBM complex on top of this thing won't be targetable in a believable way. So you place the Player/AI silo targets in another location, far away. These terrain bumps holding the "real" working missile launchers should be placed in a non-played area on the map. They should be inside the invisible map "border" wall (long topic about that).

 

--------

PS:: I landed an F-104A on top of that thing, then took off. Its very interesting landing and taking off at 12km altitude, with the high true air speed. I also taxied along the top of that thing, with contrail, until I tipped over the inside cliff and fell down inside, totally stalled at first but gaining airspeed as I fell. I landed on the sea (water=0) at the bottom of the inside -- high walls all around. Strange thing to see. Very fun stuff can be had with painting terrain.bmp.

-------

Edited by Lexx_Luthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That's a lovely Northern Lights effect!! I can't wait to see how your project develops! In the meantime, maybe I can give a shot at figuring out the little things like the ICBMs. It's a relief to know the terrain can be manipulated that way beyond the area usual allowed for the player. If it's beyond the "wall" and can still have effects on the game the other side of the "wall" then that's exactly what I wanted to hear! Fingers crossedgood.gif

 

Having the real launchers and all that placed outside the map on the fake elevations is fine to simulate what would be something occurring a way off anyway, and solves the need for a steeper trajectory for the missile as it comes down inside the game map ontro the invisible fake helicopter hovering helplessly over a target at whatever height you like, now that missile is going to be doing mach snot as it comes down.. I wonder if the anti missile defences will be able to lead far enough ahead to actually hit it? I have no idea how effective any such real systems would have been for the era either. So as far as intercepting the missile with a player aircraft is concerned, that would be even more problematic given the much more limited field of view realistic for an aircraft radar, and attacking the missile as it's going up from the launch site is unrealistic anyway I guess unless they just happened to know exactly where and when one was going to be launched, and timed and M-21 with some experimental weapon on it's back to be just in exactly the right place at the right time.. not saying such things wouldn't have been thought about at least.. but standard procedure, I doubt..

 

So if both sides have their Nukes at the edge of space just outside their own side of the map, and they could detect their prey, and be guided towards it.. all that's left is something to stop them. Anti missile missiles being one, the other would be to just set the launch sites up to have target fakes hovering above them as well! Simples! that way, then with the availability and service dates set up correctly, it could "realistically" depict the first wave of attacks being both sides desperately trying to take each others silos out.. then depending on what's left, a second wave to take out important cities, industrial areas, military bases and so on.

 

When your Mega Map is ready, we could finally have a role for SAC pilots in all this who would fly into the heart of Siberia to get close and personal with the silos that missiles strikes didn't.. the fake elevations at the end of the map would no longer do.. then we'd have to have a way of getting the missiles to take off from the ground, go straight up, up, and up before turning towards the targets so back to square two and a half... but with a little cunning, and lots of string...

 

If there was a way to make "fake" less than functioning sites in Siberia as pretty targets, but make it so that if SAC take them out, this has consequences for the "real" sites still positioned comfortably numb somewhere behind the "Wall", some kind of supply route dependency of some kind... I'm grasping in the dark here as I've never really took that much notice of how campaigns "work" (to my shame) There might just be a way of making them inter dependant or co dependant somehow... X happens to Y in Siberia, meaning that A is unable to fire at B... because??? Hmmm

 

Now what would be reaaaally cool is if TK made some way for actions in one campaign (or part of the same campaign) in one theatre, have an effect in another theatre! That way, a Cold War gone very Hot type scenario could have the user choose to play "the" campaign for SAC... over Siberia, if they get past the VVO and SAMs, which would have effects in the player's concurrent campaigns over Central Europe! That would be "easier" in the sense that we wouldn't need to have half a Mapa Mundi of terrain to target and tyle.. we could just have the different bits needed for the "Global" action to take place in, the only place that it is happening in all at once is the campaign ini side of things, no need for 30 gigs of RAM to populate an entire working half planet.

 

But there has to be a reason for TK to do something like that.. I don't know what time frame Iceland's going to be in... if there was some reason to have it link up with the SF2E theatre, or to link the Middle East to Central Europe.... I don't know how much work would it be for TK to make concurrent campaigns work across different maps, but surely it's a hell of a let loss work to make what's there work very differently, than figuring out a whole new plane set, cockpits, art, graphics, a whole new theatre.

 

With the news of a Mission Editor, it does seem as though we are going to see a lot more possibilities of what, and how, to "do" stuff in the Thirdwire Multiverse... so who knows what news extra bits and pieces might be in that negate most of this day dreaming... ah well, it's free to dream! drinks.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ICBMs:: You generally can't put stuff beyond the map edge, and it may cause game crash problems putting them beyond the invisible map Border. The Border -- found in FlightEngine.ini under [WorldSettings] -- stops you from flying within visual range of the map edge as TK doesn't want you to see that.

 

You can have alot of fun with terrain painting. Making high walls for air racing, like the trenches in the Death Star scene, but with sharp turns. However, basic terrain 16x16 hfd bmp files do the same, and much easier, on a much smaller scale, but you can't see effects very far unlike the method I use. Combining both methods together may be possible.

Edited by Lexx_Luthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..