Johan217

Some more findings: You no longer need to include coordinates for the strategic nodes. This will save a lot of headaches. It used to be: [StrategicNode004] Area=DMZ South ConnectTo[001].Target=Quang Tri ConnectTo[001].BasePoint=574100,537600 Now it's just: [StrategicNode004] Area=DMZ South ConnectTo[001].Target=Quang Tri Also for strategic nodes, you can define a node as: LocalObjective=TRUE I think this sets the node as win/lose condition for the campaign, but I am not sure.

Thanks both of you for the info! @Wrench Whichever pack is the most convenient. So if I understand correctly the pack by Bunyap is best? You know I never looked at the Knowledge Base, my fault :) So if I get the pasko vehicle pack it should already have the MGs added to the tanks? @LloydNB Yes I've seen your EAF skins, and I'll definitely find a use for them ;) I'm mostly looking for repaints of RAF Canberra's and Hunters, French/Israeli Mystères (WOI model) for units that took part in the Suez campaign. I can send you colour profiles for all of them. I can do a bit of skinning myself, but I'd rather have it done professionally :)

That would explain why I am sometimes seeing wingmen that don't take off. Maybe a workaround is to designate aces as wingmen rather than element leaders (i.e. put them in the 14 position). By the way, armed recon missions now work in campaigns. First time I ever saw this :)

Another new thing: I just had my first ever Armed recon mission during a campaign! It happened in the Yom Kippur campaign. Cool addition :) I expect the allegiance of target areas changes according to the position of the front line. So far I have seen no problems with placing allied airunits in e.g. Jordan, even though these bases are set to ENEMY in targets.ini. The enemy will also task missions against these targets.

Me wants, pretty please :) If possible for the following aircraft: F-84F F-51D Canberra SeaHawk Hunter F6 Meteor F8 F-4U7 MD-450 DH Venom DH Vampire And if you have them, paratrooper loudout for C-47 Could you point me to this 'adding MGs to tanks' mod? That would cut my workload immensely so I can focus on just the Suez campaign... LloydNB, do you do skins on request? :)

A tactic that appears to be historically accurate :) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml According to the same article, the early MiG-21s did not have internal guns and the R-3S was very unreliable, especially at low altitudes. I don't know if this is actually modelled in the sim. In reality, the Egyptians began to use external gunpods after the Six Days War. Also, the AIM-9B was never used by Israel, and the first Sidewinders used were the AIM-9D when the Phantom entered service. This probably calls for some crafty ini editing...

Stay fast, i.e. 350 kts, more is even better. Use vertical turns rather than horizontal turns. In reality, Israeli Mirage pilots flew low to maximize the advantage of the smoother behaviour of the airframe and better armament than the MiG-21s, but in the sim this is probably not a good idea ;)

Cool! Here's an interesting article on the Attrition War: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml It may include a few pointers for things you could put into this campaign. For example, make the air units appear more gradually and with fewer aircraft/pilots to reflect the build up after the 6 Days War. Also maybe use the A-4E instead of the A-4H initially.

Almost always take off to land (with Alt+T time accel for long distances). During ingress like checking out the other flights and ground units in external view, especially if there are ground offensives going on :). In WOV I usually selected a squadron that was close to the action to cut down flight times. In WOI the fight times are much shorter anyway. Strange, I've always found the campaigns in Strike Fighters much more immersive than IL-2...

Carriers (at least the addon Ark Royal) works fine for me on the default WOI terrain. The only problems I have noticed so far is that a few airbases appear to be below ground level. One of them is Etzion (home base in campaign), but I have noticed a few Egyptian bases in the Sinai that look as if half the runway is under ground. Taking off from these bases results in wingmen crashing. The other problem is that if your flight consists of 8 aircraft or more, some of them sometimes don't want to take off.

With WOI we now have a few more parameters for campaign building :) SurpriseAttack=TRUE ----> I think this reduces enemy air activity in the first mission(s) AirOffensive[001].FocusArea=Cairo ----> gives more control over which targets are chosen AllowRandomAceCreation=FALSE ----> self explanatory UseFAC=FALSE ----> I think this prevents the use of random FAC aircraft (useful for heavily modded installations) And for groundunits: StartOffensiveDate=06/06/1967 ----> I assume this instructs groundunits not to go on the offensive before a specific date. Another new thing in WOI is that the frontline data are now included in the campaign_data.ini rather than in the terrain's movement ini. When the patch comes out we should be able to get these in WOV...

I'll upgrade the Suez campaign to WOI standards, but first I want others to test and update the addon aircraft/weapons

Another new thing about the campaigns: the frontline data are now included in the campaign_data.ini rather than in the terrain's movement ini. And discovered these new entries in the campaign data file: SurpriseAttack=TRUE ----> I think this reduces enemy air activity in the first mission(s) AirOffensive[001].FocusArea=Cairo ----> gives more control over which targets are chosen AllowRandomAceCreation=FALSE ----> self explanatory UseFAC=FALSE ----> I think this prevents the use of random FAC aircraft (useful for heavily modded installations) Also (for individual groundunits): StartOffensiveDate=06/06/1967 I assume this instructs groundunits not to go on the offensive before a specific date. Some welcome additions for campaign builders

Excellent :) This is actually already present in my MidEastWars campaign: I made a target area USS Liberty and a squadron of F-4B from the USS America I set it at a random chance to appear as I didn't mean the USN to be flyable. USN is on Israeli side here, though.

After some more tweaking and testing, I think I found settings that work well. I did the strategic nodes from scratch, and now you'll see NVA offensives towards the DMZ and Hue in the North, and VC offensives against targets in the South. US will also attempt counteroffensives towards the DMZ. The number of MiGs has been reduced and they should only fly intercepts (though still south of the DMZ, I haven't touched their bases/range). US will strike against targets in NVietnam as well as VC bases in the South. How the campaign plays out depends a lot on the player's success, so if you do very poorly the NVA will capture Hue/Khe Sanh and it's game over. Please try the attached file and say what you think. It's a test campaign based on the stock Linebacker I campaign, so it's fairly short and doesn't require any extra addons, except for the InfantryPack and the SteelTiger targets.ini (for the VC bases in SVietnam) I think you could copy the groundunits and strategic nodes from this campaign to the Rolling Thunder campaign, then just edit the units' start/end dates and things should play out OK. LinebackerI_test.zip

I never even thought of that!

This program gives you a side-by-side view of the 2 files, highlighting the differences. You can then select these and copy them to either file. You'll probably still need to check for duplicates. Maybe use a spreadsheet for this kind of work, so that you can sort alphabetically.

http://winmerge.org/ Now to work you lot!

The terrain and water textures look excellent. And the populated airfields are just screaming for a recreation of Operation Moked

Only WOV here, but I have edited the list to include the units for the addon campaigns I use. Maybe you could merge the squadronlists of SFP1/WOV/WOE and go from there, to ensure maximum compatibility. People who have modded the squadronlist themselves probably won't have problems figuring out how to do the rest.

They'll probably still fly intercepts aigainst US flights bound for targets south of the border, but it's worth a try :) I haven't had the time to try yet. Anyone? The mission capabilities in the aircraft ini file certainly have an influence. For example, if you delete the entry for FAC in all aircraft except the O-1, you'll make sure that only O-1s will appear as FAC aircraft. You could do the same for RECON (e.g. only for RF-4), etc... So if you edit the MiGs and make them only INTERCEPT, they should not be able to fly any other missions.

1. Dynamic campaign (less story-driven) 2. Detailed comms and ATC 3. High moddability (like SF series) 4. Detailed carrier ops 5. High resolution graphics, terrain and effects 6. Detailed cockpit procedures (switchology) 7. Seat-switching in multi-seat aircraft 8. Good performance on older systems 9. Story-driven campaign (less dynamic) If there was an option about AI, it would be number 2 on my list. Another would be a powerful mission editor, capable of scripting complex events (e.g. if wingman shot down > scramble resue flight) and enforce rules of engagement on the AI. For me, the campaign is the heart of any game I play, and it is the place I spend most time in. I voted dynamic campaign at #1, because I think it provides the best gameplay. But a scripted campaign, if done well (e.g. Janes F/A-18), works well too. Detailed comms & ATC at #2, because they help so much in creating the illusion of a realistic environment. Plus, it always helps the AI if the player can command them. Moddability is not normally a concern for me, but for a community sim it is essential, I think. Carrier ops, if applicable, would be nice to see something like in DI's Super Hornet with functional deck crew; actually the same goes for land-based sims, I'd love to see functional marshallers along the taxiways. Graphics, for me, are important as far as low-level flying is concerned.

Changing the role to only intercept/cap won't work. In fact the stock campaigns already have it set up this way. The reason is that the campaign engine will task flights to protect the static VC camps south of the border. Changing the combat range could work, but it may also have adverse effects on other parts of the game (flight model). I don't know much about the workings of flight models, though. I'm just a bit reluctant of removing the MiGs altogether. Even if it's not realistic, I think most players like a bit of opposition in the air.

The most important thing for me is that the modelled aircraft is useful for a variety of scenario's (mission type, theatre). If we're going to see 2 aircraft on opposing sides, they should be roughly comparable with regard to mission type and performance (especially where multiplayer is concerned). 1) F-4 Phantom 2) Tornado 3) MiG-23 F-4 is on top of my list, because it opens a wide variety of scenarios: A2A, A2G, carrier ops, Vietnam to present, used in many airforces

Also, I'm afraid that an accurate frontline, with a bulge through Laos and Cambodia is impossible. Because of the way the frontline movement is coded, the capture of a single node in those areas results in the evacuation of the inland US airbases. I suppose this is why it isn't included in the stock campaigns... So in summary, I think the best solution is this: 1) (strong) NVA groundunits start at strategic nodes in NVietnam that are linked to places in the north (e.g. Hue) 2) (weaker) VC groundunits start at different strategic nodes in NVietnam that are linked directly to places all over South Vietnam 3) all target nodes in SVietnam must be defended by US groundunits 4) VC camps with static infantry etc. in places in SVietnam; a few of these camps in Laos and Cambodia could represent the Ho Chi Minh trail 5) make the frontline invisible as in the stock campaigns, it doesn't represent reality anyway. Now we just need to get all this stuff together :)