Messing Around with Rolling Thunder

[+Swordsman422 61]

Never totally satisfied with the SF2:V Rolling THunder campaign, even with the ground war expansion, I went completely off my rocker and replaced all of the carrie runits with naval task forces per NA and modified the Navy squadron entries appropriately. (Lot of work, ain't gonna fib). I gave each carrier a single destroyer or cruiser to shadow it. Sumner FRAM2s or a Gearings went to the SCB-125s, Midway-class boats got the Charles F. Adams-class (awesome work, Skunkworks guys!), Forrestals and Kitty Hawks got the CG-16s and Enterprise got CGN-25. In order to keep the sea landes from being ridicuously crowded when the campaign is in full swing(and thereby risking being the responsible party for my carrier losing all its icecream and first run movies) I spread the ships out over a wider area in the southern GoT. I next added A group including the USS Long Beach, an Adams-class, and a Gearing at PIRAZ station. A Sumner and a Forrest Sherman at the usual SAR point, and the shore bombardment group including an Iowa, a Leahy, and a Sumner where it usually was.

 

The effects on the campaign are pretty notable. The PIRAZ group's patrol area will occasionally take it close enough into shore that Long Beach will actually engage enemy aircraft and shoot them down. While the SAR group is just for aesthetics until we are provided with helicopters and SAR-related missions, the Iowa in the bombardment group will actually hammer away at enemy units such as AAA, army forces, and even ground transport units within range, and the Leahy included will engage enemy aircraft with its missiles.

 

 

As expected, this is having an affect in missions. Depending on the location of the PIRAZ group, my flight may not encounter any or any sicnifigant enemy aircraft, as those initially intended to oppose us or the strike we are escorting have an even-money chance of being shot down by the Long Beach before they come south, reflecting the real-life occassions when no enemy planes showed up. And thanks to the bombardment group, something is always exploding somewhere, making me feel like a smaller cog in a larger process. Every little bit helps.

 

Now if I could just get friendly and enemy infantry units to move around in South Vietnam and engage one another, that'd definately improve things. SO would getting the FAC planes back again for CAS and Armed Recon.

 

Still working. More later as progress happens. I'd love to hear what others have done to this campaign for your own amusement.

[+WhiteBoySamurai 1,094]

Sounds very cool; I was thinking of doing the very same thing. Would you mind sharing the modified campaign ini files when you have things tweaked to satisfaction?

[exhausted 55]

I'm happy to hear of this progress. Good job on this, I hope it makes it into an official SF2V GWE patch.

 

I was never happy with ANY of the Vietnam campaigns due to these missing things....

[+HomeFries 29]

Sounds great. Looking forward to its release.

[+ST0RM 145]

Talk about a makeover. Yeah, this sounds great.

 

Thanks in advance for the hard ini/testing work.

 

-Jeff

[+Swordsman422 61]

One thing about releasing. All of my Navy F-4 squadrons and some of my A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 and Marine F-4 squadrons all call out to custom skins. For the F-4s it's Mytai's stuff because for the most part few have been as quality-driven and none have been so profuse. So anyone taking my campaign_data.ini will have all sorts of mess ups with modex numbers and such.

 

The rebase input does not work with carrier-based aircraft (or at least I have not figured out how to get it to). I have been trying to get air wings match up with their historically accurate carriers. CVW-9, for example, was on the Ranger through May 6, 1965 and returned in October that same year on Enterprise. Meanwhile, Ranger was redeployed in December with CVW-14, but in April of 1967 this same air wing deployed on Constellation and remained there through the end of Rolling Thunder. When CVW-14 left it, Ranger redeployed in 1967 with CVW-2, which had previously been attached to USS Midway.

 

Anyway, this jumble of carriers and air wings is something I've been trying to replicate for a very, very long time and have been unable to do so successfully. I can post a data entry for one of the squadrons when I get home to see if you guys have any ideas.

 

I'm also not having a whole lotta luck with upgrades. I have VF-96 upgrading from the F-4B to the F-4B_65 in June of 1965 after their 1st tour ends. They will neither upgrade aircraft nor change carriers, but like I said, I will upload a data entry for them when I get home so that it can get picked over. There are people who know a LOT more about this than I do who can probably figure it out.

 

More as it happens. I'll only upload these campaign files if I get permission from the GWE team to do so or if it is requested as part of a GWE upgrade. I won't do so in any case until I have finished the overhaul to an acceptable point where it would make a real difference in the experience for anyone who plays it.

 

But still, seeing 10 carriers and their escorting destroyers plying the waters of the GoT during the height of the Rolling Thunder ops is an impressive if maybe a bit excessive sight to behold.

[+Swordsman422 61]

Okay, here's the data set from Rolling Thunder for VF96. Edit away.

 

[AirUnit091]

AircraftType=F-4B

Squadron=VF96

ForceID=1

Nation=USN

DefaultTexture=PACUSNVF96 64

StartDate=03/02/1965

StartNumber=4

CarrierBased=TRUE

NavalUnitID=11

ShipID=1

BaseMoveChance=0

Rebase[01].Date=6/1965

Rebase[01].CarrierBased=TRUE

Rebase[01].NavalUnitID=15

Rebase[01].ShipID=1

Rebase[01].Type=F-4B_65

Rebase[01].Texture=PACUSNVF96

RandomChance=100

MaxAircraft=12

StartAircraft=12

MaxPilots=19

StartPilots=19

Experience=100

Morale=100

Supply=100

MissionChance[sWEEP]=90

MissionChance[CAP]=0

MissionChance[iNTERCEPT]=0

MissionChance[ESCORT]=90

MissionChance=40

MissionChance[CAS]=10

MissionChance[sEAD]=10

MissionChance[ARMED_RECON]=25

MissionChance[ANTI_SHIP]=0

MissionChance[RECON]=0

UpgradeType=FIXED

Upgrade[01].Date=6/1965

Upgrade[01].Type=F-4B_65

Upgrade[01].Texture=PACUSNVF96

Upgrade[02].Date=6/1967

Upgrade[02].Type=F-4B_67

Upgrade[02].Texture=PACUSNVF96

[exhausted 55]

Are there armed recon routes on the Vietnam map?

[+Swordsman422 61]

With the GWE at least yes, there are. Most of them are between the cities in NV or across the border in Laos and Cambodia. Usually I'm running across canvas covered trucks or Viet Cong bicycle convoys. I wish there was a way to set up the rivers and near shores as anti-ship routes. A lot of early A-1 Skyraider operations were focused on night interdiction of sampans, including one infamous mission in which VA-115 lost 4 aircraft in one night sampan hunting.

[+ST0RM 145]

This might be stretching, but can you simply add the red waterway to the map where the rivers are. They will be very narrow and you'd have to figure out how to only allow sampans.

 

EDIT--actually by limting the VC to only having sampans, the problem should be nada.

Edited April 20, 2012 by ST0RM

[+Swordsman422 61]

Good idea St0rm. I need to go ahead and convert the sampans over for use ans transport objects.

 

Now, I'm not totally secure on how A/S missions work post-NA. If I just color the waterways on the water.bmp, will the sampans show up as A/S targets without me having to add them as groups into the campaign? I've never added shipping lanes before, and while I can easily figure out how to, I definately don't want the 'pans straying too far from shore and into the fierce naval firepower I have in the GoT.

 

Thought of something else, too. The NVA had groups of torpedo boats that frequently patrolled the shore. I'll see what I can do about adding those as well.

[+PureBlue 71]

I think Anti-Ship missions are setup as they were before NA. Barring the 'Pr'mary target' bug mentioned in another thread.

The shipping routes are defined in the Terrain Movement file, you list a start/end area and the coordinates of waypoints.

 

Now with the NavalMap=TRUE, the colors in a watermap only are in effect in Single missions, which will place carriers/transport groups randomly for a Naval Strike mission. This is my understanding.

Because in campaigns you already define your naval groups in the campaign_data file, their start and final objective points. As TK mentioned in a thread today, the naval group will sail at their set speed and the game will calculate their movement even when you are not flying. So he says the naval group will move as much as the whole map distance in 1 or 2 days! They take a straight course from start to finish..

That's why he kept the NA campaign so short, a few days...

 

I hope I'm not leading you the wrong path, Jonathan might give more insight here, since he's released a few campaigns using these parameters.

Edited April 20, 2012 by PureBlue

[Wrench 9,847]

easisest way to to plot the movements, would be to use the 'targets test.msn', fly an Red bird, have it start at the mouth of the river, then just 'fly upriver (or down, depending which way you want the boats to float), and write down the x/y coordinates.

 

i'll post an example later, as I'll have to build one!

[+malibu43 142]

I think Anti-Ship missions are setup as they were before NA. Barring the 'Pr'mary target' bug mentioned in another thread.

The shipping routes are defined in the Terrain Movement file, you list a start/end area and the coordinates of waypoints.

 

Now with the NavalMap=TRUE, the colors in a watermap only are in effect in Single missions, which will place carriers/transport groups randomly for a Naval Strike mission. This is my understanding.

Because in campaigns you already define your naval groups in the campaign_data file, their start and final objective points. As TK mentioned in a thread today, the naval group will sail at their set speed and the game will calculate their movement even when you are not flying. So he says the naval group will move as much as the whole map distance in 1 or 2 days! They take a straight course from start to finish..

That's why he kept the NA campaign so short, a few days...

 

I hope I'm not leading you the wrong path, Jonathan might give more insight here, since he's released a few campaigns using these parameters.

 

As of the November 11 patch (haven't checked with the latest patches), anit-ship missions were working in campaigns. The SF2V AGXP has shipping routes defined near the coast (via movement.ini), and units with anit_Ship > 0 in the campaign_data.ini file will get assigned anit-ship missions to attack Sampans using the shipping routes. One could simply add more routes that follow rivers (as per Wrench's instructions), and you should get missions to attack sampans in the rivers.

 

Also, you mentioned getting ground units to move in the campaigns - that is already implemented in the Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive campaigns in the SF2V AGXP.

 

For the rest of the additions (carrier battle groups, etc...), PM eburger68 and myself and we could see what it would take to incorporate it into the mod, and if someone has time to do it.

[Wrench 9,847]

edit:

I actually HAVE the 3 sampans converted to cargoships -- they're from the KAW mod. Expect a PM with them

 

here's a sample route...

 

[Route00x]

RouteType=SHIPPING

StartArea=Phu Ly

EndArea=Gai Lam

RoutePosition[001]=511064,777259

RoutePosition[002]=510957,788625

RoutePosition[003]=510596,789033

RoutePosition[004]=508942,789835

RoutePosition[005]=509005,792299

 

if you know the coordinate systems, you see where the boats would take a 'jog' as the river turns. The really hard part will be limiting WHICH ships show up -- as the game dosen't discriminate between the 'usual suspect' cargoship, tanker (the SuperTanker, really) and sampan-class little boats.

 

the 2 existing patrol boats (patrolboat, P-4) aren't even listed in the veitnamsea_types.ini (but DO exist in my SF2:V /GroundObject folder -possilbly to to the Merge), but that's an easy add. Mind you, the 'patrolboat' is more a speedboad with a gun (read: Boghammer), while the P-4 is more military, with 2 torp tubes. There is a WW2 MTB floating around; I'll have to look and see if I converted it to a real boat (that runs around)

 

Also, don't forget that only those classed as "Cargo_Ship" will appear on shipping routes.

[Wrench 9,847]

well, that DO work ... in my SF2V install. It may be necessary to 'do something' with the stock ships, however.

 

as you can see, the 'no primary target' bug is alive and well. If one wants to fly ONLY form land bases (ie: no water.bmp with carrier zones, and NavalMap=FALSE), they'll return to being the PrimaryTarget.

 

wish to hell that would get fixxed!!

Edited April 20, 2012 by Wrench

[+Swordsman422 61]

First, Wrench let me issue you a public thank you very much for the boats.

 

Meanwhile, that is awesome that you already got some of the river paths worked out. That looks great!

 

2 things. I am not experiencing the no primary target bug with A/S missions, not that this helps anyone who does. What I am experiencing is that in my merged install is that A/S missions fail at 40% load on maps where navalmap=true. 80% is the load point for ground objects. 40% load fail usually occurred for me when there is an AI aircraft being assigned a role that it does not have a load-out for. I discovered this when trying to create intercept missions dated before aircraft that had the cruise_missile mission type and loadout. I cannot explain why it is happening now except that maybe on navalmap=true the aircraft performing the anti-ship mission must also have the cruise_missile mission role and loadout even if there are no cruise missiles loaded. I'm going to test this theory momentarily to see if it works for me.

 

Edit: No luck. Still getting crashes at 40%

 

Double edit: D'oh. the terrain must have cruise_missile as a possible mission type. It works now.

 

 

Here's another nutty idea I had. During the war, Vietnamese peasants would randomly fire any weapons, be it modern assault rifles to elderly bolt-action pieces, into the sky at night if they ever heard aircraft noise. It supposedly gave them the feeling that they had a stake in the war and were contributing to it. I know there are dozens of small hamlets and villages, but placing a man with a rifle as a non-targetable AAA piece in some of these villages could replicate that. Aircraft won't take much damage from 7.62 or 30-06 but it would add to the atmosphere. I know, nuts.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Swordsman422

[Wrench 9,847]

Vietnamese peasants would randomly fire any weapons, be it modern assault rifles to elderly bolt-action pieces, into the sky at night if they ever heard aircraft noise

Shoot, (pun intended!) That's easy! .... (after all, I AM The Targets Guy ™ )

 

use the infantry squad (modded -you all have to call it something else, and make sure it dosen't show up in CAS missions), but give it have a TargetValue=0 in the types ini; place it in a village/hamelt/hut cluster, make sure the weapons can piviot and yaw like a ZSU, and see what happens

 

I'm getting the same 'lockup' now all of a sudden in SF2V (which I actually hardly ever fly). Both at 40 & 80%. In my case, it's a Red Air issue (on Fresco-C and Fishbed-F)

 

OTH, when I plotted that route, I used the targetste.msn, with CAP as the mission type. And moved the start piont to the x/y of the river, at 1000m alt

 

try this one: YOu'll need to look on the planning map, locate a city, find it in the _targets.ini, and change the start coordinate for the Fresco. See if this works, copy it into a blank notepad, "save as" Fresco_targets.msn", and put it inot the /Missions folder.

 

[MissionHeader]

AircraftType=MiG-17F

MissionMap=VIETNAMSEA

MissionType=CAP

StartTime=10:55:34

StartDate=07/08/1971

NavalMission=FALSE

 

[MissionData]

FriendlyAirActivity=2

EnemyAirActivity=3

FriendlyAirDefenseActivity=2

EnemyAirDefenseActivity=3

PlayerMissionID=1

PlayerPositionID=1

MissionNumber=4379

GeneratedMission=FALSE

AdjustStartPosition=TRUE

AdjustBaseWaypoint=TRUE

CreateStaticAircraft=TRUE

CreateHelpFlight=FALSE

 

[Weather]

WeatherType=SCATTERED

WeatherAlt=3048.000000

WeatherThickness=45.720001

HasHighLayer=TRUE

HighLayerAlt=6253.906250

FogAmount=0.750000

ContrailAlt=7772.399902

StartWindDirection=200.000000

StartWindSpeed=1.543332

WindGustingAmount=4.115552

 

[AircraftMission001]

Name=GUNSLINGER

AircraftType=MiG-17F

Size=1Alignment=ENEMY

RandomChance=100

MissionType=CAP

TargetArea=Gia Lam Airfield

ObjectiveID=2

RatingForSuccess=50

StartOnGround=TRUE

CarrierBased=FALSE

Position=552000.000000,786000.000000,1.000000

Heading=224.780289

Speed=186.909393

StartTime=0.000000

BaseArea=Cat Bi Airfield

Nation=NVietnam

FormationType=SovietFighter

PilotTrainingStandard=NORMAL

Loadout=AirToAir

AmmoPercent=100

FuelPercent=100

TracerMixRatio=6

Texture=VPAFSilver1

Squadron=

Aircraft[01].AircraftNumber=62

 

GroundCallsignID=6

FACCallsignID=1

TACCCallsignID=1

 

 

 

just more s**t he needs to fix!

 

*****Don't forget to add ANTI_SHIP to the allowed mission statements for the Friendly missions********

 

[AllowedMissionTypes]

FriendlyMissionTypes=SWEEP,CAP,ESCORT,STRIKE,CAS,SEAD,ARMED_RECON,RECON,ANTI_SHIP

EnemyMissionTypes=SWEEP,CAP,ESCORT,INTERCEPT,STRIKE,CAS,SEAD,RECON

Edited April 21, 2012 by Wrench

[+Swordsman422 61]

Thanks, Wrench.

 

Guess that means I need to grab a terrain editor and figure out how to use it. I actually have the old Viet Cong soldier from series 1 that I'll convert for use. I'll mark him as a transport item so that he will also show up in armed recon missions.

 

Here's what I have for him in the types.ini

 

[TargetType469]

Name=Peasant

FullName=Armed Peasant

TargetType=Misc

ActiveYear=0

TargetValue=0

UseGroundObject=TRUE

GroundObjectType=VietCong

RepairRate=0.0

StartDetectChance=50

StartIdentifiedChance=25

IncreaseDetectChanceKey=10

MaxVisibleDist=1000.0

DamagedModel=vcx.LOD

DestroyedEffect=

SecondaryEffect=

SecondaryChance=0

 

 

I've been plotting river courses in the same (or similar) way in the mission editor by having an aircraft with waypoints following the river, saving the mission, and then scrutinizing those. It works very well and the rivers are wide enough that you won't have to worry much about ships running aground.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Swordsman422

[+malibu43 142]

edit:

I actually HAVE the 3 sampans converted to cargoships -- they're from the KAW mod. Expect a PM with them

 

...

 

The SF2V AGXP already has Sampans set as cargo ships that appear in anit-ship missions.

 

 

...

 

Here's another nutty idea I had. During the war, Vietnamese peasants would randomly fire any weapons, be it modern assault rifles to elderly bolt-action pieces, into the sky at night if they ever heard aircraft noise. It supposedly gave them the feeling that they had a stake in the war and were contributing to it. I know there are dozens of small hamlets and villages, but placing a man with a rifle as a non-targetable AAA piece in some of these villages could replicate that. Aircraft won't take much damage from 7.62 or 30-06 but it would add to the atmosphere. I know, nuts.

 

 

Shoot, (pun intended!) That's easy! .... (after all, I AM The Targets Guy ™ )

 

use the infantry squad (modded -you all have to call it something else, and make sure it dosen't show up in CAS missions), but give it have a TargetValue=0 in the types ini; place it in a village/hamelt/hut cluster, make sure the weapons can piviot and yaw like a ZSU, and see what happens

 

...

 

*****Don't forget to add ANTI_SHIP to the allowed mission statements for the Friendly missions********

 

[AllowedMissionTypes]

FriendlyMissionTypes=SWEEP,CAP,ESCORT,STRIKE,CAS,SEAD,ARMED_RECON,RECON,ANTI_SHIP

EnemyMissionTypes=SWEEP,CAP,ESCORT,INTERCEPT,STRIKE,CAS,SEAD,RECON

 

The NVA Squad and VC Squad ground objects in the SF2V AGXP are already set up to target both air and ground targets. That way, you have one ground object that works in both CAS and as a static AAA. If you look at the targets.ini's for the AGXP, lots of AAA has been added around towns and villages. More could easily be added using the infantry as the type. The infantry is also already set up in the types.ini in the AGXP.

 

Also, the AGXP already has anti ship added to the allowed mission types.

 

I'm not trying to be pushy with the existing AGXP. I just don't want people to uneccessarily duplicate work that's already done and available.

 

More importantly, it would be nice if we had one "all inclusive" mod for vietnam, instead of forcing users to download and install 2 separate mods that have overlapping content and purpose. Most of what you're trying to do would work very well with the AGXP and shouldn't be too difficult to integrate. The only big thing to remember is that the AGXP has separate terrains set up for North and South Vietnam as well as separate campaigns for the North and South. We would just have to make sure changes to targets and campaigns are made in the appropriate (North or South) version.

 

eburger and I are busy with a lot of stuff, but I think between the 2 of us, we could find time to help integrate the changes.

 

Or you can make it a separate mod. Your call!

 

[+Swordsman422 61]

Hey, if we're doing a lot of the same stuff, any way I can help you, I'll be glad to. I wasn't gonna upload tweaks without your team's permission anyway.

 

I have the AGXP, and it's great, I just don't ever see enemy troop movements in any campaign yet. I have also not drawn a single anti-ship mission even with the mission chance at 100. Plus, what's the harm in adding new routes, especially along the rivers where a lot of the traffic historically moved? I'd also like to increase frequency of shipping traffic and ground transport traffic, perhaps drawing more of the armed_recon missions as well.

 

Didn't mean to step on toes, just trying to have fun and build a better Rolling Thunder. I'll be more than happy to work with you guys.

[+malibu43 142]

Hey, if we're doing a lot of the same stuff, any way I can help you, I'll be glad to. I wasn't gonna upload tweaks without your team's permission anyway.

 

I have the AGXP, and it's great, I just don't ever see enemy troop movements in any campaign yet. I have also not drawn a single anti-ship mission even with the mission chance at 100. Plus, what's the harm in adding new routes, especially along the rivers where a lot of the traffic historically moved? I'd also like to increase frequency of shipping traffic and ground transport traffic, perhaps drawing more of the armed_recon missions as well.

 

Didn't mean to step on toes, just trying to have fun and build a better Rolling Thunder. I'll be more than happy to work with you guys.

 

No worries! I didn't mean to sound like my toes were be stepped on!

 

As far as enemy troop movements - are you flying in the Steel Tiger or Easter Offensive Campaigns? Those are the only ones that have ground troops added. You may not see much actual movement on the map, but if you fly as a unit with !00% CAS, you should end up with lots of CAS missions. Actually, I had to restrict the actual ability of the ground units to move too quickly due to the way the campaign engine works. Otherwise, it's hard to keep one side from covering too much ground and end the war in an unrealistic fashion (limitation of the game engine unfortunately).

 

Anti-ship missions still seem to be rare, but certainly adding more routes to the S. Vietnam map would help with that. As it is right now, I've only see a couple when flying A-1's in the Steel Tiger campaign. Again, these would probably be suited better to the two S Vietnam campaigns (Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive). There are a lot of armed recon routes already, but if there are areas that are missing routes, they could be added.

 

One thing to keep in mind, is that the campaign engine assigns armed recon mission when there are armed recon routes near a ground or air offensive objective. It may be the same with anti ship missions. So, the best way to increase the frequency of those mission types in S Vietnam, would be to place the routes near large target areas and strategic nodes.

 

PS - to give a little background, the initial version of the SF2V AGXP simply added the ground war to the Rolling Thunder and Line Backer campaigns instead of creating separate campaigns and terrains for the ground wars. However for numerous reasons (that I don't have time to get into right now) having both the ground war in S Vietnam and the large scale bombing campaign in N Vietnam with their associated aircraft in the same campaign and terrain doesn't work well due to the way the SF1/2 game/campaign engine works. Separate campaigns and terrains is the only way to get it to work.

Edited April 21, 2012 by malibu43

[+Swordsman422 61]

Okay, I have drastically increased the number of strategic nodes in the RT campaign, adding as a point of contention almost every village, hamlet, and farm in the northern parts of South Vietnam. Often, these positions are little more than a mile from eachother and boy, does this get interesting. I see many more CAS, Armed Recon, and A/S missions than I used to. The red front line marker on the map sometimes ties itself in knots depending on who has control over where.

 

I might as well put my mission statement into writing so that I can lay out for myself and others what I am truely trying to accomplish with these tweaks.

 

 

What I seek to do for Operation Rolling Thunder is to increase the historical accuracy and believability of the campaign within the limits of the engine, increase player stress within the combat environment and player frustration in the historical events while adding to the enjoyment and variety of the campaign. To accomplish this goal, using AGXP as a starting point I will take the following steps:

 

1) Have the Rolling Thunder campaign make use of all the new features provided in North Atlantic, including carrier and surface task forces, EW provided by E-2 Hawkeves and E-1 Tracers, and electronic jaming escort provided by EC-121, EB-66, EA-6A, and EKA-3B aircraft where available.

 

2) Generate varied batteries of AAA, divided into groups of low, medium, and high-altitude AAA and divided into batteries of types instead of scattered about the map, creating an umbrella of air defense that has the potential to cause heavy damage and psychologial terror as well as be destroyed more easily and efficiently. Careful placement can accomodate both of these goals. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

3) Increase the number of close support and interdiction missions of all types in the Rolling Thunder campaign, including the hunting and distruction of moving troops, convoys, and ship traffic, and the elimination of insurgents in contact. Increasing the number of areas where transport traffic can occur and strategic nodes to be fought over is of paramount importance to this step.

 

4) Decrease the target value of airbases and airbase-specific targets, considering that air bases were off limits unil late in Rolling Thunder. This can be accomplished by reversing target values so that trivial targets get the most effort early on, leaving the more sicnifigant targets to come later as per historical reality. This may require the creation of a clone terrain in which the target values in the types.ini are reversed from logical, specifically to be used for the Rolling Thunder campaign.

 

5) Generally increase the accuracy of the atmosphere of the Rolling Thunder campaign by applying 1-4, as well as adding features such as civil resistance to the air campaign (peasants with rifles shooting into the sky), elimination of air threats to strike packages before they have the ability to show in the player area so that while CAPs may be generated, encounters with enemy aircraft are consequently and historically rare (if there is a better way to do this, someone please speak up), and other atmosphere-enhancing techniques.

 

Malibu if you are up for it, I'd appreciate any pointers and assistance, or at least permission to continue to a release if I can accomplish these goals. Wrench and anyone else who has knowlege to contribute, I'd also appreciate that.

[+eburger68 201]

Swordsman422:

 

A few thoughts on your proposals:

 

1) Carrier battle groups & escort jammers

 

Escort jammers are easily done and, in fact, it is already on my list of things to add.

 

Carrier battle groups, on the other hand, I'm skeptical of. For starters, Rolling Thunder needs carriers going on and off station multiple times over the course of the campaign, which you can't do with SF2NA CBGs. The alternative is to have 10-12 CBBGs all sailing around the gulf, which might be interesting the first time you see it but would quickly get old and generate complaints about historical inaccuracy from users. Moreover, using CBGs effectively doubles the number of campaign variants that need to be maintained and updated over time -- patch after patch from TK. Believe me, it gets really old really quick.

 

2) AAA batteries

 

If you want to do all the target placement, go for it.

 

3) CAS & Interdiction missions

 

There are no CAS missions in Rolling Thunder because there is no ground campaign. As for interdiction, if you have specific suggestions I'm all ears.

 

4) Targeting of air bases

 

Better accomplished by splitting Rolling Thunder campaign into multiple campaigns that cover different stages of the time period 1965-1968. The mod is already enormous, and we should avoid adding yet another terrain variant where possible. The downside, of course, is more stuff to maintain -- and more opportunity for errors/bugs to creep in.

 

5) Atmosphere

 

Not much reaction to this as this is a rather vague proposal, aside from the rifle-armed peasants.

 

Those, at any rate, are what immediately strike me when looking over these proposals.

 

Eric Howes

Edited April 23, 2012 by eburger68

[+malibu43 142]

Okay, I have drastically increased the number of strategic nodes in the RT campaign, adding as a point of contention almost every village, hamlet, and farm in the northern parts of South Vietnam. Often, these positions are little more than a mile from eachother and boy, does this get interesting. I see many more CAS, Armed Recon, and A/S missions than I used to. The red front line marker on the map sometimes ties itself in knots depending on who has control over where.

 

...

 

3) Increase the number of close support and interdiction missions of all types in the Rolling Thunder campaign, including the hunting and distruction of moving troops, convoys, and ship traffic, and the elimination of insurgents in contact. Increasing the number of areas where transport traffic can occur and strategic nodes to be fought over is of paramount importance to this step.

 

...

 

Malibu if you are up for it, I'd appreciate any pointers and assistance, or at least permission to continue to a release if I can accomplish these goals. Wrench and anyone else who has knowlege to contribute, I'd also appreciate that.

 

Eburger already touched on this, but you missed a key point from my last post above. You can't combine the Rolling Thunder campaign in N. Vietnam with a ground war in S. Vietnam. Trust me, I've tried. The TW campaign engine doesn't work well with it. That is why the SF2V AGXP has separate campaigns for N. and S. Vietnam. I would advise that you use the Steel Tiger campaign as a base to start with.

 

Regarding the strategic nodes in the campaigns - the nodes for Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive were carefully chosen and placed to allow the ground war to work. As you pointed out yourself, adding in other locations as campaign nodes without careful forethought and testing will hose the ground war and turn the front line into a mess. The result is that you'll see friendly airbases and locations being captured and held as enemy postions, which is not accurate. Additionally, flights will start being tasked with striking these locations as well. Imagine the confusion when the briefing reads "Strike and destroy the runway at Da Nang Airbase."

 

I'll reiterate that you should take a look at the Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive campaigns, since they already have a lot of what you're looking for. This would be a much more effective and efficient approach than starting from scratch with Rolling Thunder, which problably won't work anyway.

 

You are, of course, free to try whatever you want to see what works and what doesn't. But if we want your changes to be compatible with the SF2V AGXP, we need to try to keep them consistent with what we have already.

 

Edited April 23, 2012 by malibu43