1969 vietnam version 2.0 is here!

[John C Flett 0]

Playing further into it and starting to feel there is a real problem with the armour balance. I don't know if it lies in the campaign or the nampack but it seems soviet armour just tears the US to shreds while infantry hasn't more than a snowballs chance in a conflict with armour.

After playing 'keep on killing' several times those T54(55?)s just decimate the friendly armour and all the US troops in record time.

I can't remeber how spanky had things set up originally but something has changed bigtime that really causes problems for me at least.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nagual @ Jan. 25 2003,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, Spanky G is not exactly out of line, but some of you are. It only takes a tiny bit of unbiased thought to get a idea of where he may be coming from.<span id='postcolor'>

I have no problems with people expressing their complaints to me. Unfortunately, his email to me ended up filtered into the trash bin because of the explitives he chose to insert.

Let's go back in time a week or two ago. I saw that someone was going bananas trying to get this thing to work with old SEB Nam Pack 1. So I decided to fiddle around with it to work with Pack 2.

When I saw how almost simple it was, I decided to share the changes with the rest of you. I did not remove Spanky's name from anything. In all of my announcements here and elsewhere, I stated that it's Spanky-G's campaign. Spanky-G is listed as the author on The FAQ's MOM section. I even refuse to make major modifications to the mission files in order to adhere to the campaigns original story line and intentions. I just corrected it to work with SEB Nam Pack 2's addons and fixed some mission bugs that were inherent in the original version.

Yes, I did add my name to the Campaign's overview page, but as second fiddle to Spanky-G's and not as an author.

In the README, I intentionally removed Spanky-G's email address so that he wouldn't have to be bothered with technical mails about the conversions made to get the campaign working.

Is that stealing his work? Please don't make me laugh. I would be willing to go to court to prove him wrong.

In fact, had he not been vulgar in his email to me, I would have had no problems removing my name from the overview and readme and hand over the campiagn for his continued support and attention. I need this like a hole in the head!

However, under the circumstances, since this guy can't communicate like a decent human being, I'm not about to do him any favors.

A public apology by him might convince me otherwise.

Now that I let off a little steam ...............................

I'll take a look at the techincal problems brought up later or tomorrow.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (John C Flett @ Jan. 25 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Playing further into it and starting to feel there is a real problem with the armour balance. I don't know if it lies in the campaign or the nampack but it seems soviet armour just tears the US to shreds while infantry hasn't more than a snowballs chance in a conflict with armour.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree. There is one change that this may have arrised from.

I substituted Ash's East T55 for the SEB Nam Pack's T54.

I'll look into this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After playing 'keep on killing' several times those T54(55?)s just decimate the friendly armour and all the US troops in record time.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I found that mission to be a pushover.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I can't remeber how spanky had things set up originally but something has changed bigtime that really causes problems for me at least.<span id='postcolor'>

The only changes made to that mission are:

1. Removal of a trigger that caused mission failure immediately on startup. I documented this here.

2. Now uses SEB's T54s instead of Ash's T55s.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nagual @ Jan. 25 2003,15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Eg. How do any of you know that the original author wasn't doing the update himself? How do you think things would go now if he released a new improved, nampack 2 capable campaign, considering people are looking down on him due this?, any one here would be pissed off if put in the same situation.

How do you think an addon maker would feel if someone updated their addon before they could, making it difficult / impossible for them to continue work on that addon?, It looks like the author simply wants to maintain control of the direction of his hard work, a very reasonable thing.

Im not saying it wrong the campaign was updated, people are obviously enjoying it, but i do think the orginal author has the right to be a pissed of if he wants to be, and at least informed of the work in progress before its released.<span id='postcolor'>

I forgot to answer this.

If he puts out hsi own newer version of the campaign, I will remove my version for downloading, plain and simple. I don't care whether it's based on the corrections I made or not.

Again, this still is his campaign - not mine.

And so far, from the campaign itself, he's gotten nothing but good publicity.

[joltan 0]

Mhhh... got a problem with the mission "Preemptive" (the one where you take the boat and patrol the beaches... I think I killed all enemies, and everything is green but the 3rd objective (patrol beach) and the last two (they obviously need objective 1 to be completed). I've driven any squaremeter in front of the beach, even left the boat and ran up and down the beach, destroyed all vehicles, etc... but that damn objective won't green up. Can't finish the mission because of that. Anyone else having this problem? I guess I keep missing the trigger... maybe increase it's size a bit?

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. Now uses SEB's T54s instead of Ash's T55s.<span id='postcolor'>

Guess that'll be the problem then, Seb must build em a lot tougher than Ash.

Of course, depending on the ETA for Nam pack 3, any changes you make now may have to be redone in the future.

No rest for the wicked Avon.

[theavonlady 2]

Anyone got a few minutes to test Ash's tank versus SEB's?

Just put one against another on the desert island and see who wins (best out of 5? ).

Ash T55 link: http://ofp.gamezone.cz/unofaddons/T55-East.zip

If this is the solution, I'll reinstate it in the code.

[FSPilot 0]

Took 8 RPG-2s to destroy both the SEB T-54 and Ash's T-55G.

I used RPG-2s so the results would be more accurate. It took 2 laws to destroy them both.

my conclusion: they're both equally tough

[Cviceny simpanz 0]

Ok boys, I have just started this campaign. But even on the start, I have following suggestions:

0) Why music stops during first cutscene? Total silence everywhere, and I only read some dialogue text on the monitor. Horribly boring! If I can´t hear voices, at least some music! That silence is horrible.

1) in the first mission I had been going close to the leader and he was killed. However, the leadership was assigned to me. Now the big problem came, because I wasn´t able to follow designated waypoints and to complete mission!!! I could run across that forest like some i.diot and nothing happened. I had to restart mission. PLEASE fix this bug!

2) as I said, the leader (captain Randy) was killed. But he was our leader in the second mission again    although I understand, that for the campaign his name must "stay alive"... however, what about realism?

3) that cutscene after 1st mission. Hey, that mission was the real piece of cake! No one of our soldiers was killed (on my second try, descripted above)! So why so depressive dialogues??? And that letter on the beginning of the 2nd mission "...they were everywhere" or what... 2+2+3 VC´s that is a lot of soldiers for you?

3.5) About that VC´s. Why are they staying in the forest like some targets? Do you call this trap? I could see them earlier than they saw me, even although I was RUNNING! They should lie silently between trees, why not to change their status on "Danger" for lying position? I hate them and I promise on the American flag I will kill every of them, but I know that they are/were clever and experienced opponents, so I respect them and I want to respect them in the OFP world! So please make them as tough warriors, not a couple of greenhorns, which I can kill with one long burst, because THEY WERE STAYING IN THE LINE??? (really happened to me and I wasn´t lucky believe me). In addiction they should lie with bigger distances, this way one grenade is enough to kill two of them. Even if we know that hand-grenade is not so strong explosive... mission designer, PLEASE think about this!

next suggestions will follow  

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 25 2003,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Took 8 RPG-2s to destroy both the SEB T-54 and Ash's T-55G.

I used RPG-2s so the results would be more accurate. It took 2 laws to destroy them both.

my conclusion: they're both equally tough<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, I did a 4-on-4 with the SEB tanks - the T54 won 10 of 10 (all highest skill flat terrain on desert island). The Us tanks always fired first - and missed. They are extremely bad shots! Thats why they get killed so easily - the fight and may be armoured as their opponents, but they miss too often. I'd rather call that a bug in the SEB 2.0 pack than a problem with the SEB T-54.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cviceny simpanz @ Jan. 26 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have just started this campaign. But even on the start, I have following suggestions:[...]<span id='postcolor'>

I recommend addressing these issues to the author of the map - avon only did the conversion to SEB Nam pack 2.0...

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Jan. 26 2003,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 25 2003,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Took 8 RPG-2s to destroy both the SEB T-54 and Ash's T-55G.

I used RPG-2s so the results would be more accurate.  It took 2 laws to destroy them both.

my conclusion: they're both equally tough<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, I did a 4-on-4 with the SEB tanks - the T54 won 10 of 10 (all highest skill flat terrain on desert island). The Us tanks always fired first - and missed. They are extremely bad shots! Thats why they get killed so easily - the fight and may be armoured as their opponents, but they miss too often. I'd rather call that a bug in the SEB 2.0 pack than a problem with the SEB T-54.<span id='postcolor'>

i did the same a few days ago and got:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> just did a quick test on flat land with the M48A3's vs T-54's, the outcome was 3 T-54's destroyed, one badly damaged, 2 M48A3's destroyed, one badly damaged<span id='postcolor'>

and:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">just tried 4 BIS M60's versus 4 T-54's and all M60's were destroyed for one T-54 loss

<span id='postcolor'>

[ExtracTioN 0]

Spanky-G was not working on a update of the 1969 campaign I had e-mailed him 1 month ago and asked he said no I am not working on a update.

Thank you Avon for the updated campaign thank you MOM

[theavonlady 2]

I see I have my work cut out for me today. Besides what's posted here, my inbox has additional reports. Patience, please!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Jan. 25 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mhhh... got a problem with the mission "Preemptive" (the one where you take the boat and patrol the beaches... I think I killed all enemies, and everything is green but the 3rd objective (patrol beach) and the last two (they obviously need objective 1 to be completed). I've driven any squaremeter in front of the beach, even left the boat and ran up and down the beach, destroyed all vehicles, etc... but that damn objective won't green up. Can't finish the mission because of that. Anyone else having this problem? I guess I keep missing the trigger... maybe increase it's size a bit?<span id='postcolor'>

I had no problem triggering the 3rd objective. Looking at the trigger, it seems OK. Nothing special.

Of course, as Elmer Fudd once said: "Wook. No more buwwets!". I didn't get past the enemy ship in the north of the harbor with no ammo left.

EDIT: Replayed the whole mission through. Very easy. All objectives checked off OK. SPOLIER: You don't even have to kill the Charlies on land.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cviceny simpanz @ Jan. 26 2003,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok boys<span id='postcolor'>

/avon *coughs*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I have just started this campaign. But even on the start, I have following suggestions<span id='postcolor'>

Overall, good suggestions. However, right now, We're still at the stage of eliminating bugs in the mission code.

Also, at least for now, it is my intention to retain the mission's gameplay to the author's original intentions. The biggest exception made to this rule was in mission 3, Hell's Fury, since the T54/5 models seem to whip the pants off of US M48's - even worse for the original M60s. I notched up the SKILL levels of the US armor and downed the SKILL and ARMOR levels for the T54s just enough to make the mission somewhat fair (and folks are still whining ).

So, keep those suggestions coming but I really do have to put them at the bottom of the todo pile for the moment until the campaign code is absolutely stable.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kroky @ Jan. 24 2003,22:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh I forgot something: It's a small issue but maybe not unimportant: I noticed a difference when playing the original campaign and the adapted campaign, that the fog is way less tense than in the original version. Maybe it's because it's for Resistance and the weather engine works differently. But I liked the very tense foggy and rainy atmosphere in the original version. It just gives you more realistic feeling like beeing in Vietnam. Now the weather is not humid and the atmosphere not that tense. Especially when fighting again the VC in the woods it's really terrific when you can't see more than 50m ahead when it's rainy and foggy but you hear the footsteps of the VC!!

Maybe you're able to tweak it a little bit.

<span id='postcolor'>

I did not alter the weather conditions, dates or times in any of the missions.

OFP 1.75 allows you to set VISIBILITY under VIDEO OPTIONS. Did you change your setting to above the standard 900 meters? That would explain this.

[Nagual 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 26 2003,02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In fact, had he not been vulgar in his email to me, I would have had no problems removing my name from the overview and readme and hand over the campiagn for his continued support and attention. I need this like a hole in the head!<span id='postcolor'>

I agree on that, you shouldn't have to put up with abusive emails over something you've done for the community.

[theavonlady 2]

Version 2.25 is available for download from the M.O.M. section of The FAQ.

I've added a Technical Support section to the README file. Please read it before posting new questions.

Summary of Changes:

2.25. All enemy boats in mission 9, Preemptive, now contain Vietnamese drivers and gunners, instead of the default Soviet soldier units.

2.25. Overview picture files for missions 16 and 22 were in the wrong mission folders. Corrected.

2.25. Addon sebnam_vc added to all missions' addons declarations.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 26 2003,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see I have my work cut out for me today. Besides what's posted here, my inbox has additional reports. Patience, please! <span id='postcolor'>

You're doing a great job - the campaign is great, but it has some glitches: like returning to first-person view for a moment after playing the outro instead of terminating the mission right away, and the bugged briefings - obviously created with a briefing generator. But these are cosmetical (lipstick anyone?) 'bugs' that don't really influence gameplay.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: Replayed the whole mission through. Very easy. All objectives checked off OK. SPOLIER: You don't even have to kill the Charlies on land. <span id='postcolor'>

Damn, and I even went back to get a new boat 3 times... not that I had any problems, but you know, I prefer do do a job right and thorougly. The boats I destroyed from far away when they were barely visible... a few salvos and they went down, then I went for the enemy soldiers... .

Anyways, the objective doesn't toggle for me... Maybe I'll just start the mission again.

Oh, and you can force the ViewDistance in Singleplayer missions, too - just use the setviedistance command in the mission's init.sqs.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Jan. 26 2003,13:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW: you can force the Viewdistance in Singleplayer missions, too - just use the setviedistance command in the mission's init.sqs.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I know that. I'll consider, since it forcing 900 meters, since it will be the same for everyone.

There are a few missions where setviewdistance is already in. I won't touch those.

[John C Flett 0]

Cviceny simpanz, I'm afraid a lot of your observations are as much to do with the limits of the OFP engine as the campaign itself. A number of the things you describe are common, even in official campaigns.

The one practical suggestion I can make is when you find you have a command and don't know where to go is order your men all>move>next waypoint and then just follow them. Its a trick I've had to use a lot.

And Avon, sorry if your feeling put upon. Its just that we love you and we know you've always been there in the past.

Big thanks and hugs for all your work.

[theavonlady 2]

Version 2.26 is available for download from the M.O.M. section of The FAQ.

I've added a Technical Support section to the README file. Please read it before posting new questions.

Summary of Changes:

2.26. Mission 14, Return to Eden", would not end, even though end trigger was tripped. Corrected.

2.26. Formatting of overview.html files for all missions unified.

[kroky 1]

OFP 1.75 allows you to set VISIBILITY under VIDEO OPTIONS. Did you change your setting to above the standard 900 meters? That would explain this.

Yes I changed my visibility to 1100m but this was even before playing the original Vietnam Campaign for Nam Pack 1. So this cannot be the reason. But as i wrote it's a small issue. Don't bother about it.

Besides this, I'm happy to see so much bugs being cut off.

Thanks for your work Avon.

PS. Concerning the comments of Spanky-G: I even don't care about them!

[kroky 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Jan. 24 2003,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kroky @ Jan. 24 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way: Are there any other good Missions/Campaigns for the Nam Pack 2?<span id='postcolor'>

check around a few forums, there are quite a few here and at:

OFPEC Mission Beta Testing Forum

Mission Depot

OFPNAM

Operation Nam<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for replying. I will check out the websites.

[theavonlady 2]

Version 2.27 is available for download from the M.O.M. section of The FAQ.

Summary of Changes:

2.27. Mission 27, "Civil Uprising", would not end, even though all objectives were achieved. Corrected.

2.27. Addon name sebnam_1a was missing from addons declarations in campaign end missions 99 Captured and 99 Dishonorable Discharge.