Messing Around with Rolling Thunder

[+Swordsman422 61]

Yeah, I kinda figured that out about the carriers, which is unfortunate. But carrier groups and naval units can exist on the same map. Until we get a patch that allows tours to work for them, that might have to wait. I went ahead and did it, but I can easily revert.

 

The PIRAZ group serves not just a cosmetic role, but also serves to eliminate enemy aircraft taking off from the Hanoi and Haiphong area, destroying them before they come south and interfere with strikes. This group moves around in the GoT, and so is not always positioned to perform this task and so the player can encounter enemy aircraft but this is dependant on their ability to move downand do so. Shortening operational ranges had a similar effect but would be negative in a merged install.

 

As to the ground war, I made one and it's fairly convincing. The strategic nodes (about 50) that I crated are seperated from the others. There is no path to Hanoi or Saigon, bit there are paths to the other areas, and military units will move and engage between them without risking the wholesale invasion of either North or South. Military uits will have to be based within these nodes in order for them to work. Still tweaking this.

 

Like Wrench said, interdiction occurs near target nodes and is dependant on the number and availablity of paths. I've increased both he number of nodes and number of paths. The difference is an increase by an order of magnitude in the number of these missions. Most are along the border, near the VC camps, and on the rivers. One village might have several transport paths leading to other villages nearby like spokes in a wheel. It was a ham-and-avocado PITA, but I did it and it actually works pretty good. You get a decent taste of working in the South (at least the northern end), and the eastern edges Laos and Cambodia as well

 

AAA, I'm already working on organizing in the types.ini. I'm grouping the big guns together as large_aaa and placing them in groups of 3 clustered together around the cities while local target air defenses will be the smaller stuff, and I've mainly left that alone. I don't see KS-12s and KS-19s defending airbases or individual targets anymore where I expect to see ZPUs, KPVs, and the little crap. This is just a matter of modifying the target.ini, which is easy if only tedious. I won't mind doing the work if you guys would want it. May I add, getting shot at haphazardly by one heavy gun is just annoying, but having a whole battery focus its efforts on you is quite terrifying.

 

I'm still experimenting, trying to thik outside the box a little and push some of the new boundries. Plus I'm also trying to solve some of the issues that have always irritated me but that I've been too lazy to solve just yet.

[+malibu43 142]

Interesting... So you're getting a good balance of hairy missions up north and "easy" ones down south? If indeed it does work, that would be a nice addition to the RT and LBI campaigns.

 

I think we'll still need the separate Steel Tiger and Easter Offensive campaigns, though, for aircraft like A-1's, F-100's, etc... to keep them from getting slaughtered up North. Unless you find a way to limit an air unit to only operate within a certain area (which I don't believe you can). That was one of the issues with it all in one campaign - you'd end up getting tasked with hitting a target in Hanoi in 1971 with a flight of A-1's. Yikes! Never eneded well. Or, your flight of A-1's will be working CAS in S. Vietnam and get jumped by Migs! Also never ended well. I did experiement with shortening ranges, but, as you pointed out, it leads to other issues and still doesn't 100% fix the problem.

 

Although, along that line of thought, while the PIRAZ group might help to mitigate MiG's down south (but probably won't eliminate it all together), an unintended consequence of having the PIRAZ group shooting down MiG's is that RT, LBI, and LBII will be even shorter on MiG's. The campaigns can be boring enough with MiG's being so scarce, but now if we have ships blasting them out of the sky as well, there will be nothing for Crusaders and F-4's to do on escort missions. I think that is one area where gameplay should win in the "gameplay vs accuracy" battle.

 

Keep us posted.

Edited April 23, 2012 by malibu43

[+Swordsman422 61]

The only thing I can think of that would satisfy the need to shorten op ranges for the dedicated CAS aircraft is to make clones with shorter operational ranges. But that comes with its own issues. I'd be okay simply with limiting their mission roles in later campaigns. A lot of Navy A-1 squadrons updated to A-4s or A-6s by the time Rolling Thunder ended. Those that did not were only performing CAS, armed recon, and SAR missions, and even those were few and far between. Shortening operational ranges should be an option for SF2:V-only installs. Otherwise, there isn't much else of an answer other than leaning on the PIRAZ group to thin out enemy flights down south and over Loas. SOlutions to THOSE issues below.

 

For campaign purposes, the majority of Skyraider squadrons need to be rotated out or upgraded to later types by 1970.

 

Because of the issues with target approval CAS, interdiction, and armed recon were making up something like 75 percent of the missions during ROlling Thunder. I don't wanna get that extreme, but more of these missions is a plus. I like CAS and armed recon. It's where I feel I'm making the biggest personal impact. I'm getting a pretty good balance, with about 35% of my missions being these. This is dependant upon the ground war attributes in teh campaign.ini; how much supply is required to start an offensive and how quickly supplies are depleted. Strike the right balance and the ground war at the border could last almost the whole campaign. I like the offensives to deplete supplies rapidly so that they peter out quickly without either side capturing too many nodes, but supplies being built up quickly as well, so that the VC might be on the offensive for a week and then the US forces attack for several days before grounding to a halt.

 

The ability of the PIRAZ group to affect their position in the GoT during the mission time. I'd say they affect 1/2 of the mig flights generated in the northern areas of the country. If the PIRAZ group and enemy flight pass witin range of one another, the PIRAZ ships will engage and eliminate or attrite. This only happens about half the time. I balanced this by decreasing the replacement time for enemy airframes, so while MIG flights are being affected negatively, the over-all supply of enemy aircraft are not drastically decreased and the campaign doesn't run out of MiGs, though the North Vietnamese went through periods where they had less than 20 servicable aircraft in country.

 

What I was aiming for were CAPs and CAE missions that may not have much to do. I got real tired of being an ace after a half-dozen of these missions. Often enough when part of a flight of four, I'd let the 2nd flight to the counter-air while I and my wingman performed some variety of flak supression with CBUs. while I swear there patch version in which the mission counted as a win if the enemy flight went into Go Home mode reguardless of losses, effectively surrendering the airspace, that's not the case now and I felt something had to be done. There just aren't enough moral-based effects in the game and a lot of the time, Migs would just dive for the deck and run if fighters showed up.

 

Alt-N completely bypasses the effect the PIRAZ ships have, also.

Players who definately want to see enemy aircraft every mission can either move PIRAZ east or warp to the target area.

 

Was eating lunch in the commissary when I came up with an idea for an air raid siren that workes based on proxiity of enemy aircraft. Have an object set as a misc item that has the siren as an anti-air weapon. The siren has large amounts of ammo with zero range that does no damage and generates no visual effect when fired, and the firing sound will be a looped siren sound. The siren will "fire" the "weapon" at any enemy aircraft within, say, 10 miles, generating lots of noise but no damage triggered by the proximity of enemy planes. The object could be placed in cities or at bases and a target value of zero. The only time it would be targetable is if the plaer was alerted to the siren being fired, and it would be player choice to engage. Just a thought, though someone probably already did it better.

[+malibu43 142]

Well, don't forget the airforce operated Skyraiders up through pretty much the end of the war. While their main focus was SAR, they did fly CAS, armed recon, and strikes in Laos, Cambodia, and S Vietnam (maybe even some of the lower packs in N Vietnam also). There are other aircraft in the AGXP that utilize the low threat environment of S. Vietnam as well. I think that is really one of the core features of the AGXP, and for that reason, it needs to maintain that capability. Also, even if A-1's have only CAS, anti-ship, and armed recon allowed in the campaign file, the campaign engine might assign them a strike or recon mission over Hanoi if there aren't any of the other missions available at the time.

 

Another thing to consider is that having the two terrains broken out by N and S Vietnam allows the player to better control what kind of mission they get from the single mission screen. The idea is that if I feel like white-knuckle, scared out of my mind, flak happy strike missions, I select N Vietnam. If I want something more low key, I can select S. Vietnam. This is another thing that I think is important for the AGXP and needs to be maintained. So we just need to make sure we don’t add any/many S. Vietnamese strike or SEAD targets to the N. Vietnam map. Otherwise we could screw things up. Armed Recon, anti-ship, and CAS I’m not as worried about, since the player knows what kind of mission he’s going to get if he selects one of those.

 

Here is one possible approach that might bring both your ideas and the AGXP together:

 

S. Vietnam, Steel Tiger, and Easter Offensive

1. Keep the separate campaigns and terrains for S. Vietnam. These are needed for aircraft like the B-57G, A-1, and F-100. There really isn’t any way around this.

2. Add some of the new armed recon and anit-ship routes to S. Vietnam. That way they can be utilized in the campaigns and from the single mission screen.

3. We can also try your new campaign nodes in the South Vietnam campaigns. If it works and brings more variation to the ground war, it’s a big plus. I think the caveat here is that we need to make sure the front line doesn’t get all out of whack and that things like airbases don’t fall into NVA hands (unless the player grossly fails to provide CAS, which should never happen in such a low threat environment).

 

N. Vietnam, Rolling Thunder, and LBI

4. Add the armed-recon and anti ship routes to the N. Vietnam map as well, so that they can be utilized in the campaigns.

5. Add the ground war to the campaigns, assuming it works correctly as I stated in #3 above and assuming we can get a good 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of tough missions up North to easy missions down South (it sounds like you may have this figured out already). This also assumes we can keep MiG’s out of S. Vietnam.

 

Anything I missed? Thoughts?

Edited April 23, 2012 by malibu43

[+eburger68 195]

Guys:

 

I'm all for adding more armed recon and shipping routes to both the North and South Vietnam terrains. We added a bunch several years ago, but there's room for more, esp. along rivers.

 

I do think the North/South division -- in terrains as well as campaigns -- should stay. That means no ground war for Rolling Thunder, Linebacker I, or Linebacker II. If players want to fly a preponderance of CAS/armed recon missions, then they should choose one of the southern campaigns. If they want strike missions, MiGs, SAMs,and heavy AAA (with some armed recon/anti-ship missions) then they should choose one of the northern campaigns.

 

As for MiGs, I would prefer not rely on a PIRAZ group to thin them out. Although there do tend to be more MiGs at the outset of campaigns, they get whittled down rather quickly. In other words, this is a self-correcting problem. Any further management/control of MiGs can be done through the campaign INIs.

 

Put very simply, I would prefer not to turn every single Vietnam campaign into a mud-moving fest. And I'd bet there are plenty of players who would agree.

 

Eric Howes

[+Swordsman422 61]

Malibu, that sounds about right. None of the strategic nodes I've added are further south than maybe a few miles from the DMZ and they reach back into the highlands and Laos and Cambodia. None of them would interfere with the operation of airfields on either side. I need to cut out about half of them. I crowded on too many and should cut that number in half.

 

Burger, we're talking about options here. I'm sure a lot of players would like a great deal more variety that what is existing now. Just because we add a ground war into Rolling Thunder (I would not put one in Linebacker I or II) doesn't mean that it's all there would be to fly, but there would be a sense of a much larger conflict going on, as well as a better (though not perfect) sense of the historical realities. I enjoy shooting down enemy fighters as much as I enjoy wrecking a bridge, smashing a AAA site, or aiding troops in contact. But the focus of Rolling Thunder as on the latter 3, and Mig kills just kinda happened when the opportunity presented. But no, I'm not seeking to make the campaign into a mud-mover's dream. Just catch a glimmer of what was. There will be plenty for the fighter guys to do.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Swordsman422

[+eburger68 195]

Swordsman442:

 

Sorry, but I'm really not interested in adding a ground war to the Rolling Thunder campaign in the Expansion Pack. I do not want CAS missions -- which I find boring and uninspiring -- in Rolling Thunder. Expanded armed recon and anti-ship missions, yes, by all means. But not CAS.

 

Even setting that personal preference aside, there is the problem of MiGs -- as Malibu43 pointed out -- as well as the size of the TARGETS.INI, which is already large. I know from experience with the OpDarius terrain that the game starts doing weird things once it gets too large. And I've seen indications that we may be approaching that point with the North Vietnam terrain. Boostjunky has already encountered problems when he produced his TARGETS.INI for the GH3-based terrains that he released, which combine northern and southern targets. His solution was to cut down target areas in North Vietnam, which defeats one of the main reasons we produced the Expansion Pack -- to expand the offering of target areas in North Vietnam.

 

At present the North Vietnam terrain excludes a number of target areas in the South. Likewise, the South drops target areas in the North. That gives both terrains some room to expand. If anything, I would like to expand the number of target areas in the North. Adding a ground war, which would inevitably require supporting target areas in the South, would severely constrain if not entirely rule out that growth.

 

The same holds true for the South Vietnam terrain, which could really use some work -- adding hamlets, U.S. Army/USMC bases, supply caches, etc., etc. You need room in the TARGETS.INI for that expansion, and separate terrains & campaigns allows you to do it.

 

The other consideration is the orientation of the air campaign itself. The Vietnam air war was really three different air wars, each prosecuted semi-independently: the air campaigns against North Vietnam; the campaign in the South to provide support to friendly troops; the interdiction campaigns along the Trail in Laos and Cambodia.

 

Again, based on my experience with OpDarius, adding a functioning ground war noticeably shifts the game's orientation towards the ground war, even with pauses in the ground war added through campaign configuation (supply & offensive schedules, etc.). That's why I produced two versions of the Blue side campaign in OpDarius -- one for those interested in CAS missions; another for those interested in a sustained, focused strike campaign against strategic targets in Iran. I would prefer to keep the same separation in the Expansion Pack.

 

Malibu43's first four points usefully summarize a way to proceed. As for producing an engaging mix of missions, the South Vietnam terrain already extends into Route Pack II, so there's plenty of room in the southern-oriented campaigns to do a ground campaign coupled with other types of missions across the DMZ.

 

Eric Howes

Edited April 24, 2012 by eburger68

[+Swordsman422 61]

Given what I've done, I haven't seen a major shift in focus towards the ground war. I have gotten an increase in CAS, but also an interdiction in A/S and armed recon. The number of strategic nodes and preparations to attack them are directly related to the ground war and its activities, but the campaign hasn't been given over to it. About 60% of the missions are into North Vietnam against military and industrial targets, and there is a lot more interdiction, which can be especially harrowing along the rivers with AAA on either shore. Plus, the likelyhood of what missions a squadron will fly are also based on mission chance. Adding a limited ground conflict close to the border that affects the frequency of these others, adds to the feeling that a larger war is going on elsewhere without bogging the player into it so much. My experience working on this project has told me this is so. Adding the strategic nodes and the ground conflict have generated a wider variety of missions in a wider variety of locations, but none of them are further south than parallel with Hue. But without a limited ground war in place, interdiction and a/s mission frequency drops considerably. That's why I built a ground war close to the border that ultimately would go nowhere. The benefits are worth the trade off.

[+eburger68 195]

Swordsman442:

 

And that all sounds fine for the southern campaigns that use the terrain that extends into Route Pack II.

 

My answer still stands: no ground war in Rolling Thunder -- for all the reasons I have stated.

 

Eric Howes

[+Swordsman422 61]

Then I'll continue what I'm doing and this will be something I keep for me. I'm just a little bored with flying just strikes and iron hand in my A-4 and needed something else. I'll send you the interdiction routes I've made for you guys to use when I get satisfied with them if you want.

[+eburger68 195]

Swordsman442:

 

We'd be happy to use the interdiction routes you develop. Also, let Malibu43 take a look at your ground war.

 

There's no need to keep your modified Rolling Thunder campaign to yourself. You're more than welcome to release it with whatever modified terrain files are required and even offer it as an optional add-on campaign for the Expansion Pack.

 

I'm primarily concerned with what's included in the Expansion Pack. I simply prefer that the Rolling Thunder campaign included there not be replaced by the version you're developing and that I not have the responsibility for maintaining it.

 

Eric Howes

[+Swordsman422 61]

Oh, okay. I wasn't gonna release anything without your permission, and I thought that was a no. I didn't want to build on what you did and release it without you telling me I could. Sorry for the misinterpret, dude. There are reasons why I don't dance. Lol.

 

Anyway, when I think I've got it all figured out, I'll be happy to let you guys have a look.

[+Swordsman422 61]

Well, crap.

 

So in order to try to solve the crowded GoT, I changed all the carrier units back to pre-NA entries so that they could be rotated in and out on tours and the squadrons with them... the other surface groups, still navalunits, don't show up anymore, the early warning aircraft won't appear, nor do the jammers, and player carrier based aircraft start off the map as if they were strategic bombers. The campaign is still labeled as NavalCampaign=true.

 

Either we can have it one way or the other. We can't have both. I can ether have all the cool features that NA brings to the table and deal with no tour rotations for naval units or I can give all those up and just go back to the way it was. I was hoping that at least some level of hybridization was possible but apparently it isn't and I feel all the stupider for hoping so.

 

I'm gonna keep screwing around with this thing until I figure something out. It's just a shame I can't integrate all of the features that could really make this campaign shine. Color me bummed.

 

Edit: and of course, tours for naval aircraft don't work anyway. Just tried it. The carrier unit will go away, but the squadron will still be there if the player is flying with it.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Swordsman422

[+eburger68 195]

Swordsman442:

 

I had a sneaking suspicion that would happen, which means AEW and Escort Jammer missions are tied to naval aircraft flying off of carriers. And that means we wouldn't have seen EB-66s or other non-naval aircraft flying those missions -- which is consistent with what I've seen in other modded campaigns. I have yet to see the AEW-modded E-3A fly any such missions in Desert Storm, for example.

 

Perhaps TK will expand the range of functionality for those mission types down the road.

 

Eric Howes

[+Dave 2,318]

I have E-3A's flying in my RSR mod campaign. They launch right out of Keflavik.

[+Swordsman422 61]

Y'know, Dave, that could solve the issue, having the E-2s based at Da Nang or something like that. We never see them take off and land.

 

What will solve the problem is the ability to meld the NA and non-NA features more seamlessly. Carriers and carrier-based units need to be able to have tour cycles. If I'm flying with a squadron where the tour dates end before my max mission point, I should see an end to the campaign or, if the unit comes back, a large gap in time to account for the changes in deployment. It won't bother me at all if nothing changes on the map except the units deployed during the time my squadron is absent.

 

I was getting escort jammers (changed the A-3 Skywarrior to be able to do it) for strike missions with navalcampaign=true. My only complaint about the campaign that way is that the damn GoT is so crowded with ships.

 

Polishing this piece of brass is gonna have to wait until naval units can use the rebase and tour functions.

[+eburger68 195]

Dave:

 

They might be flying Transport missions. Have you saved a mission file and looked at the Mission type for the aircraft?

 

Eric Howes

[+Dave 2,318]

Dave:

 

They might be flying Transport missions. Have you saved a mission file and looked at the Mission type for the aircraft?

 

Eric Howes

 

I have them set up in the data.ini like the E-2C. They show up on station doing the AWAC thing. Transport isn't even an option for them.

[usafphantom2 19]

Please when your done with all of it post it as a mod so we can download it.Pleeeeeeeeeeze!

Edited April 29, 2012 by usafphantom2

[+Swordsman422 61]

Sure. If I can get it to work the way I want it to, which until naval units and squadrons can used the tours and rebasing commands it won't.