Johan217

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.

WOI brings us a few new parameters in the campaign ini files... These are the ones I found, maybe there are more? [CampaignData] SurpriseAttack=TRUE ----> I think this reduces enemy air activity in the first mission(s) [Force00x] AirOffensive[001].FocusArea=Cairo ----> gives more control over which targets are chosen AllowRandomAceCreation=FALSE ----> self explanatory UseFAC=FALSE ----> prevents the use of random FAC aircraft (useful for heavily modded installations) [GroundUnit00x]: StartOffensiveDate=06/06/1967 ----> 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.

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 :)

I noticed that with this setup you'll see ground offensives in South Vietnam. If you link a strategic node from Hanoi directly to Saigon, the ground unit will go straight to Saigon and bypass everything in between. When this happens, the briefing map will show the ground unit's icon in Hanoi, but in the 3D world it's actually near Saigon. So this may be a way to simulate "VC uprisings" in different parts of the south. Combined with the static camps this should provide enough activity south of the frontline. The only danger of course is that these offensives succeed, because then you'll get overrun :) I haven't tried it yet, but I think that if you make the attacking units smaller, and make sure that all strategic nodes are defended by an allied unit that is sufficiently stronger, it shouldn't be a problem. I'm still looking for a way to eliminate NVietnamese flights appearing deep into South Vietnam. So far the only thing I can think of is to give them a very low number (2) of starting aircraft/pilots and make the squadrons appear gradually at different points in time. They'll still fly south, but only in small numbers... Any ideas?

That would be so great! But it doesn't even have to be as complex as Falcon's real-time campaign. The campaign system in TK's sims already has the basics of supplies infrastructure and ground offensives. What is needed (from a campaign builder's point of view) is a way to script events more accurately, and more mission types. If you could augment the current campaign system with things like working FAC/CAS (please!), an ability to see other flights' waypoints on the briefing map, and mission types like airborne assaults, air refuelling and AEW/electronic warfare... you'd get a fairly realistic environment that's complex enough, but not overwhelming to the player.

That's more or less how I feel about it, too. After Flanker 2/2.5 I expected LockOn to address the weakest area of the sim, i.e. the campaign. I was very disappointed. It's not so much the lack of a dynamic campaign, but rather a lack of depth in the missions themselves. Janes F-18 didn't have a dynamic campaign either, but there were so many things going on with FAC's marking targets, random events and alternative missions based on your succes. In LockOn, if you don't get the mission objective, you have to repeat the mission until you do. The AI in LockOn also has a nasty tendency to fight until they die, which doesn't make a realistic experience (a problem in many other sims too). Now if the LockOn mission builder had been capable of scripting event triggers and enforcing rules of engagement on the AI, this could have been remedied. But unfortunately the mission builder is not very advanced. I gave away my copy of LockOn the day I bought WOV, and haven't regretted it :) I have to say that without mods, I don't find WOV that great either: no ground war, rather repetitive missions. It's only after installing user made missions (like YAP or the VMFA-531 package) and modding the campaigns to include ground offensives that WOV starts to shine. It may be a 'light' sim where flight models and avionics are concerned, but the mission environment appears to me more realistic than anything I ever saw in LockOn. If I have to say anything good about LockOn, it was fun to take a scenic tour of the Crimea and buzz the parasols at the beach :)

After flying my Linebacker test campaign a bit more, I think I have found settings that work OK. 10 missions into the campaign and the ground war is still going around Hue. The battle could go either way. The trick that did it was: ForceWithInitiative=0 (i.e. both sides can take the initiative) StartGroundOffensive=2 for the US (they will fly 2 air offensive missions before they start a ground offensive) StartGroundOffensive=0 for NVietnam No need to reduce the US supply levels, but the NVietnam supplies have been increased. With this setup, NVietnam starts their offensive first, towards Hue and Da Nang. Depending on the player's success, once the first wave of NVietnamese offensives is stopped, the US will go on the offensive for one or two turns, then NVietnam counterattacks and so on. At least that is how it has played out for me so far. For this test campaign I used the stock Linebacker I campaign and added the groundunits and strategic nodes from Scrapper's Tet Offensive '68 campaign. I first tried the SteelTiger settings, but these didn't work (I think because some red ground units start south of the frontline). It definitely needs some fine tuning, especially for the strategic nodes. You'll also see some Migs on ground attack during your first missions, so this might need some toning down. The cool thing is that if you combine this with the SteelTiger terrain, you'll also get the occasional static targets in South Vietnam. Just drop the attached file in your LinebackerI folder. Only addon needed is the InfantryPack. WOVCAMPL1_DATA.zip