snapper 21 762 Posted June 9, 2012 Hi All Sorry I feel the need to rant. I bought SF2 NA even though I only have windows xp, luckily I can get all the bits in a merged install and there is Gerwins lovely Iceland map to use if I want. But I just can't bring myself to play it. Its the story line, its just so crap, it puts me off playing the game. In TKs world its possible for the Russians to land on half of Iceland while there is a fully functional USAF base at Keflavick with no landing ships (in game), and with enough stores and equipment to run a couple of airfields and a full army. Both sides fly from pristine airfields, never touched by war, somebody was not doing there job! What were the Yanks doing while the Russians landed? Watching the Superbowl? I love the new ships, naval formations, cruise missiles and the rest. But I can only hope there will be somewhere else to use them soon, because I don't want to fly over Iceland I feel better now. Thanks Snapper 21 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+JonathanRL 973 Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Then let me rant at you. Your title sucks. How about a better one. Or how about posting this in a thread dedicated to the game? Now when that is over with... If you want a great story, you are not going to get it. TK is not Bioware and ALL of his scenarios have terrible storylines, ones that are seldom mentioned more then three lines. Futhermore, you may want to study "Arctic Victory" scenario from Red Storm Rising where Iceland was captured with alot less resources that are put into TKs scenario. One of the strategic master-strokes of the Soviet Union's opening moves in the war is its seizure of Iceland, capturing the NATO air station at Keflavík. This disrupts the GIUK SOSUS line (American seabed hydrophones), expected to prevent the Soviet Navy from operating effectively in the Atlantic by making it impossible for their ships and submarines to enter the Atlantic undetected. In addition, the Soviet Navy isolate and protect their ballistic missile submarine fleet, freeing their attack submarine force to engage and destroy NATO shipping. The Soviet Navy is able to act as an offensive weapon, and the Warsaw Pact seriously damages NATO's war effort by interdicting resupply convoys coming from North America with both aircraft and submarines. This advantage is put to immediate use, as a NATO carrier battle group, led by USS Nimitz, USS Saratoga and the French carrier Foch, is successfully attacked by Soviet Badger and Backfire bombers, the latter firing long-range anti-ship missiles. A noteworthy tactic was the shooting of drones by the Badgers far out off the group. The carriers' F-14 squadrons erroneously fire on the drones, leaving no missiles for the real bombers. Foch is sunk, the amphibious assault carrier Saipan explodes, taking 2,500 Marines with her, and the two American carriers are forced to spend several weeks in drydock at Southampton, England. Lastly, if you want a good story, Try TSF. Then you will at least get angry retorts from the storys author Edited June 9, 2012 by JonathanRL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norman 0 Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) I have played it some and I think it is fun. I have to agree about the airbases. The same is true of WOE. It's WW3 for crying out load and every airbase, every town, every city is completely untouched. I have often hoped some modder would give us some bombed out city blocks or damaged buildings for WOE - ITS WW3 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD Edited June 9, 2012 by norman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+whiteknight06604 931 Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) maybe the "peoples workers socialist party" pbroke from iceland and declared independence and opened ties with the Russians. they built the bases for the Soviets in peace time in order to get recognition and support in the UN. Once the Soviets were entrenched in Iceland they abbondoned their promises to the misguilded Icelanders and struck in Europe.......... not good but can explain how nice bases were built and were not damaged until the general war started. ;) Edited June 9, 2012 by whiteknight06604 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snapper 21 762 Posted June 9, 2012 Jonathan, I accept your rant about the tilte, to many SF2 NA around, and also the unashamed plug for your own campaign! Yes I have read RSR, and Arctic Victory is quite believable. If TKs game had started with either NATO defending or trying to re-take Iceland, that would have been better. I just don't see how his scenario could ever of happened. As for WOE, while I never live long enough to see what happens to airbases, I like it because you seem to be there from day one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,318 Posted June 9, 2012 I just don't see how his scenario could ever of happened. Well its was one that was actually trained for. Its a very realistic scenario.With RSR they took the entire island. So if I understand you snapper, they would have to either take the whole island or nothing? I think its very plausible that the Russians did screw up and was only able to take part of the island. Enter TK's scenario.... its extremely realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snapper 21 762 Posted June 9, 2012 Well its was one that was actually trained for. Its a very realistic scenario.With RSR they took the entire island. So if I understand you snapper, they would have to either take the whole island or nothing? I think its very plausible that the Russians did screw up and was only able to take part of the island. Enter TK's scenario.... its extremely realistic. True, the whole island or nothing is probably wrong. But I don't see both sides having the use of prepared airfields. For Russians to have them and have operational squadrons flying from them I think Keflavik would have to be seriously out of action, meaning NATO would have to rely on Harriers and Carrier aircraft Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+JonathanRL 973 Posted June 9, 2012 also the unashamed plug for your own campaign! *bows* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Stary 2,426 Posted June 9, 2012 I think its very plausible that the Russians did screw up and was only able to take part of the island. Enter TK's scenario.... its extremely realistic. what the man said Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wrench 9,419 Posted June 9, 2012 it's a game engine/terrain engine issue .... you cannot have a full naval-only map withOUT land bases for both sides, anymore than (without heavy editing and other cheats) a terrain withOUT at least one enemy base (best example is the Afghanistan terrain -completly landlocked, with one 'cheater' bad guy base) you CAN build destroyed cites -as has been done by yours truely- but that are a PERMANENT fixture (terrain engine). Also, in each and every item in _types ini you'll see this little tidbit: [TargetType001] Name=barrack1 FullName=Barrack ModelName=barrack1.LOD TargetType=ARMY_BASE ActiveYear=0 TargetValue=20 UseGroundObject=FALSE DamagePoint=10.0 ArmorValue=0.0 ArmorType=0 RepairRate=0.150 StartDetectChance=0 StartIdentifiedChance=0 IncreaseDetectChanceKey=0 MaxVisibleDist=8000.0 DamagedModel= DestroyedEffect=MediumShortStructureCollapse DestroyedModel=barrack1_destroyed.LOD SecondaryChance=100 SecondaryEffect=SmallExplosionEffect that assumes (oh! that word!) "things get fixed" As with all 3W terrains, there are serious flaws in the types and amounts of targets ... in INA, for example (and every other stock terrain), where are the supply depots? where are the garrison stations? vehicle parks?? The Red Army ain't just gonna park it's tanks/trucks/whatevers in people's garages! the scenario here, in NA is the invasion has already happened -as all have 'assumed'- and yes, the Russians ARE on the wrong side of the island -anybody with an AutoClub map could see that. You don't land your forces in places without major ports -- which are all on the south and east sides of Iceland. And TAKING and HOLDING those ports are a major tactical and strategic advantage for Red Side. Which also means occupying and/or rendering useless the 2 main airfields -Keflavik and Reykjavík IAP The airfields in the Occupied Zone are barely suffiecent for small airliners (737 sized at largest). They're not gonna be terribly efficent for tactical aviation -even if the aircraft managed to get there from Europe. So, yes, many points are valid. But remember: it's still only a game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SupGen 78 Posted June 9, 2012 snapper21, in August of 1942 the U.S. Navy landed the Old Breed, First Marine Division at Gualalcanal. Within days, the Marines and SeaBees had upgraded the Japanese airfield under construction there to a fully functioning airfield, Henderson Field. There were plenty of functioning Japanese airfields in the area, the element of surprise was crucial because the Navy did not have the availble combat power to do anything about them and land the Marines. So those airfields were "pristine". Not only that, but after the battle of Iron Bottom Sound, there were not only no U.S. Navy landing ships in the area, but no U.S. Navy. After the extremely heavy losses, the Navy pulled out of the area completly, leaving the Marines on their own. Incredibly, the Marines managed to kick enough Japanese ass, enough times, that eventually they withdrew. Now, I'm not saying that the Russians are as good as U.S. Marines, what I am saying is, in war, anything is possible. As far as those pristine airfields, untouched by war are concerned, what do you think we're there for? Go f*** em' up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
