Search the Community

I'm a retired professor of anthropology and most of my gaming has been strategy & tactics type historical war games. First bought a flying sim maybe 10 years ago, realized the stick & throttle were not optional, got the Saitek X52, used a plexiglass sheet on my lapboard to get it the suction cups to stick. Played the heck out of a few games to learn the basic 'instincts' of flying (MS Flight Sim X; IL-2 1946; Falcon 4.0 Allied Force [which I never managed to play much as it just seemed overwhelming]; Battle of Britain Wings of Victory). Within a year or so of 'trying' out these games, I felt like I was getting nowhere but frustrated and let my interest lapse. Put the controllers away and went back to other things. Recently got a hot new Xidax gaming rig and I've been reinstalling all of my old games (including the ones above). IL-2, as fun as it is, doesn't seem to like my controllers these days. Getting the trim settings so I don't wobble around in the sky was driving me crazy. Falcon 4.0 has graphical glitches, which I hear I can get around by installing a free-to-play version of it somewhere out there on the interwebs. I may get around to that eventually. BAB, I seem to be missing one CD, and Matrix Games doesn't show me a digital download. I reckon either they or A2A will get me set up though; Scott at A2A said "buy it and I'll reimburse you" but I'll first see if Matrix has me listed as a digital download order. I honestly do not remember but the box says it on it. Thankfully MS FSX works like a charm and it was quite edifying when I was able to zip through the first 6 or 7 Learning missions without a single hitch. Hmmm! Maybe I DID 'learn' a bit about flying from that previous attempt some years back! Kinda felt like riding a bike; I was wobbly but I knew what to do :) So then a buddy recommended the Strike Fighter 2 series and I took the plunge and bought Vietnam. Have to say, this is the most fun I've ever had with a flight game and I think I might well become a regular of the SF2 series and I'd like to eventually own and master all of them, and get a nice selection of mods. But for now, I'm just getting started and have a few basic questions about the stock game--JUST SF2 Vietnam, nothing else installed as yet. So far my experience with the game is playing a few single missions to get the hang of it, and then starting (and failing) at the Rolling Thunder Campaign repeatedly. I've probably created about 13 pilots, none of whom made it past 7 missions, and many of whom got random boomed by AA or SAM (or stupidity on my part, though still haven't been shot down by a MiG) within 2 missions. So all that "who am I" stuff laid out, my questions: 1. Is it realistic that there are SAMs shooting down US flights in 1965? It was my understanding that those did not get deployed for a while and did not cause any losses until the campaign was a year or so old? 2. I don't imagine it is possible without mods but worth asking: if I fail at a mission, it is not possible to fly back and reequip and take a second sortie, right? 3. If I bail out in the gulf, or closer to the coast or closer to the border, does it have any influence on probability of being rescued versus captured? Is it even possible to get shot down, get rescued and continue the campaign without reflying? 4. Has anyone ever actually flown through the whole 3 years of this campaign and survived without reflying (on Normal or harder)? 5. If I go to the effort of strafing and destroying as many additional targets as I can take out on each mission, will the losses actually impact the overall success of the campaign in game? Do P-35 or AAA vehicles just magically 'respawn? Do the loss of these assets actually "do" anything? Reason I ask this is, while the sim clearly strikes an ideal balance between playability and realism/accuracy/detail, for which I'm hugely thankful, it is also rather unrealistic when it comes to the execution of the campaign at the operational level. As you may know, one of the main problems with Rolling Thunder was that LBJ was afraid to go all out, and in effect 'sustained but gradually escalated' was a code word for 'militarily stupid operation organized[and micro-managed] by a civilian politician.' As the operation progressed, it evolved into more and more of a free-for-all 'strike targets of opportunity,' but for the first year or more, there was a quite restricted list of targets and certain 'provocative' targets were just simply forbidden (mining harbors, e.g., as well as a number of strategically important target types). I'm not complaining, as the game is plenty fun without the added layer of restricted target authorization. But what I'm wondering is, given the stock scenario effectively depicts an 'alternate history' in which all targets were fair game (I can attack anything I want in addition to my mission primary target, and I seem to be in no risk of a court-martial! ), are the background replacement algorithms setup so that the player weeding out radar and/or AAA vehicles will in fact advance the campaign toward 'victory' (meaning reduction of northern logistical sufficiency, air superiority, reduction of their air defense effectiveness and eventually, force them to the table in Paris?). So for example: if I on each of the first 10 or so missions I fly in the campaign focus on taking out any and all P-35 sites I encounter, will it actually reduce northern ability to coordinate A/A defenses or fighter interdiction? If I were to focus on destroying buildings that are clearly storage or distribution facilities, else target ships in port, or other logistic elements (bridges, rail yards, ports, etc.) will THAT actually have any effects, apart from upping my pilots tally sheet and 'score?'