Swordsman422

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.

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.

There should be several tracer.tgas in your objects folder (I think) that correspond to different color tracers. Have a look at those and then edit the guns you want to change the color of in the weapons editor. Not one for historical realism in this area, I changed the ND-37 and NR-23s to fire red and green tracers respectively. Now the MiG-17s shoot christmas at me, but I wanted to be able to differentiate. I have different flak guns firing different colors as kind of an easy guide to the caliber I'm realing with. Totally not historical, but at least good for diversity.

I live in Atlanta. We have a hyperdeveloped rapid transit system that can take you into five counties with partnering service in two more. Congestion is still awful. Then again, when planners began to lay out this city in the 1870's they envisioned a maximum population of around 200,000 since we were the terminus for only 1 railroad at the time. And as time passed, they must have let the street layouts be designed by residents of the sanatorium. I don't know of another city that has this many one way streets next to each other, or this many damned Peachtree streets. Your statement, FC, is dead on the money and that's no pun intended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Blackbird, it's the TW VietnamSEA terrain with Green Hell and AGXP, SARCASM clouds, Hollywood explosions. I'm flying the stock A-4C_65 with corrected stock decals in the AGXP Rolling Thunder campaign modified with post-NA code.

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.

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.

Scooter time! Having a blast with the Blasters Roadrunners raining on someone's parade A ruined Rampart Raider runs home

Do you have the Nato Fighters mod installed? I really recommend extracting insignia006 and 007 from the cats and dropping them in the decals folder to see if this will solve it.

Here's a quick test. Try them with another national insignia. If those are wonky too, then it may be the scale of the decal on the decal layout, which you can edit easily. If not, then there is a problem with the canvas size of the .tga. Easiest thing to do in the latter case is extract the original again and drop it into the decal folder in your mods directory. Hope this helps.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sweet! I'me already getting some use out of this sucker in NA, but it's nice to have a professional do the conversion. Thanks!

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.