eburger68

allenjb42: I was working on the Fearless and Intrepid just this morning. I did most of the rest over the weekend. Some of the civilian ships, I've discovered, have problems with the models -- meaning, that they move sideways in the water. Keep in mind that those ships were originally built for a mod that envisioned a terrain populated by static ships. In other words, those ships were built to be terrain objects. And at this point I'm still not sure whether for the purposes of the campaign it makes sense (or is even practical) to do something different. Eric Howes

Toro: There are some static ships in the terrain. Your carrier group probably started near one of them. That's probably what you're seeing. Eric Howes

WhiteBoySamurai: My vote is for a one-of-its-kind ship: CGN-9 USS Long Beach. Her Talos missiles were rightly feared by the VPAF during the Vietnam war, and she managed to score several MiG kills. There is currently a CGN-9 model for SFP1 ,but: 1) It's an A-Team model, which means it's unusable in any mod package here at CA; 2) The model is horrible -- almost no detail at all,and only one working missile launcher. It would make for a nice complement to your Bainbridge model. Eric Howes

Slartibartfast: Do you mean the BM-14 Katyusha MRLs? Eric Howes Toro: That problem is addressed in the latest hotfix. Eric Howes

Dedalus: No such model is included in the Expansion Pack, and I am not aware of an SUU-42 model included in any of the weapons packs available in the Downloads section. Eric Howes

Ianh: Look in the \Menu directory of your Mods dir. You'll probably find these two files: MISSIONSUMMARY.STR MISSIONTYPE.STR Simply remove them and the game will revert to the stock files. Eric Howes

Folks: The fourth hotfix has been posted. See the first post in this thread. And please see the ReadMe for important notes regarding this hotfix package. Eric Howes

Ice Man: I'm sorry, but it's simply not practical to ship the entire Anatolian terrain, which would presumably need a whole separate campaign written for it, just to have one recon unit based in Turkey. As for the subs, we already have plenty of surface ships equipped with Tomahawks. I just don't see the value of adding subs to do the same job, which 99 percent of users would never even see. Eric Howes

Intruder7011: You can re-size or otherwise edit the tracer.tga files to your heart's content. Eric Howes

Intruder7011: There's no need to install the AAA Pack -- it comes with the mod. In fact, the AAA Pack was created from the Expansion Pack. Eric Howes

Ice Man: To respond to your points: 1. There are no Turkish bases in the terrain, thus the Saudi basing. 2. The AH-64 assignment is easily addressed. 3. Interesting suggestions, but what role would submarines play in this mod? Eric Howes

Intruder7011: It looks like you haven't applied the latest update for the expansion pack, which takes care of that problem. The latest cumulative update is from January 2012 and can be found in the same downloads section as you got the original four expansion pack files. The same update will add the helicopters that you reported in your other thread as missing. Ignore the advice about using the CAT extractor -- there's no need to do that. Plus, if you did do that you'd end replacing modded files with default files and, thus, a non-flying A-6A. Moreover, you won't find any A-6B in any of the CAT files. Eric Howes

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

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

Inruder7011: If you're not seeing anything differnet -- no new aircraft, etc. -- then you're probably installing the files incorrectly. The most common error is that people grab the To_Mod_Folder folder and simply drop that in their Mods folder. The game will never see the files if you do that. Instead, grab the CONTENTS out of To_Mod_Folder and move those to your Mods folder. the same holds true for the other major folders within the archives you downloaded. Eric Howes

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

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

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

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: A few thoughts on your proposals: 1) Carrier battle groups & escort jammers Escort jammers are easily done and, in fact, it is already on my list of things to add. Carrier battle groups, on the other hand, I'm skeptical of. For starters, Rolling Thunder needs carriers going on and off station multiple times over the course of the campaign, which you can't do with SF2NA CBGs. The alternative is to have 10-12 CBBGs all sailing around the gulf, which might be interesting the first time you see it but would quickly get old and generate complaints about historical inaccuracy from users. Moreover, using CBGs effectively doubles the number of campaign variants that need to be maintained and updated over time -- patch after patch from TK. Believe me, it gets really old really quick. 2) AAA batteries If you want to do all the target placement, go for it. 3) CAS & Interdiction missions There are no CAS missions in Rolling Thunder because there is no ground campaign. As for interdiction, if you have specific suggestions I'm all ears. 4) Targeting of air bases Better accomplished by splitting Rolling Thunder campaign into multiple campaigns that cover different stages of the time period 1965-1968. The mod is already enormous, and we should avoid adding yet another terrain variant where possible. The downside, of course, is more stuff to maintain -- and more opportunity for errors/bugs to creep in. 5) Atmosphere Not much reaction to this as this is a rather vague proposal, aside from the rifle-armed peasants. Those, at any rate, are what immediately strike me when looking over these proposals. Eric Howes

Talez: Actually, it's in the right position. It's just using the wrong lights. The attached ZIP file contains a quick fix for the AV-8B RWR. It's not TEWS anymore, but it does work correctly. Eric Howes AV-8B-da_RWR_Fix.zip

Ice Man: As stated in the ReadMe, SF2E patched to Mar2012 is the minimum requirement for this mod. Although SF2NA is supported, it is not sufficient. You must have SF2E. Eric Howes

hrc: Glad to hear that solved the problem. Attached is the complete set of ODS carriers with SF2NA lines stripped from them. Eric Howes Old_Carriers.zip

hrc: OK, I'm assuming this is carrier-related since you report that most/all naval aircraft are similarly affected. Attached is a ZIP with replacements INIs for the two main carriers (CVN68 & CVN71). These replace the files in your \Objects\GroundObject folder (might want to back up currently installed versions first). These INIs effectively strip out all SF2NA-related lines in the INIs. Let me know if these do the trick. Btw, what patch level are you on? Eric Howes

hrc: What platform are you running on (WinXp or Vista/Win7)? Also, is SF2NA part of of your install base? Finally, does this problem happen with any other naval aircraft? Eric Howes