What is the difference between the Georgian Oil War campaign and Oil War Part I, II, III..? Is the Georgian Oil War just the whole campaign whereas the other three are the campaign divided into three parts? If I play the Georgian Oil War all the way through am I essentially playing the 3 parts..?

Confused..

Yes. They broke it up to give users options, I think. It's a very long campaign, and this allows users to break it up a bit more should they choose.

Thanks Rusty..!

Small pet-peeve of mine. The first mission of Georgian Oil War is an all-in, offensive push up a valley with several objectives and a fairly heavy bit of combat and resistance. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), campaigns need a bit more build up to the heavy action. I think it was JF-18 where the first mission was to troll along the edge of the enemy positions and get familiar with the area. One of the next missions was to escort a recon mission (F-14 TARP mission?).. It would have been nice if the first mission in (any) campaign would be something like a fam flight, followed by something a bit simpler like maybe taking out a sentry position or something similar. Just something to get your feet under you, and get you familiar with the local operations area.

Again - just my opinion (I'm available for consulting for other campaign builders..lol..)

The deployment campaign in BS starts with a fam flight just like this, and - AFAIK at least - GOW is a sort of a sequel to it. So maybe the devs thought you know the area already

Correct. The idea is that you should play the Deployment campaign (which is excellent) first before advancing to the Georgian Oil War campaign.

In my personal experience, the Deployment campaign is far more atmospheric, engaging, varied and just plain enjoyable than the Georgian Oil War.

I'm really looking forward to playing the new campaign that shipped with BS2, though.

Well..learn something new everyday! Deployment first! Cool..

I take back everything I said then!

Georgian Havoc strings together an excellent narrative (such as you mention above) as well.

Chris,

I couldn't agree more on the "ramp up the intensity" thing. Over the years, I've made lots of campaigns, and I've always tried to start slow and let the pressure build.

For instance, in the 10 mission " mini- campaign" that I'm doing for " WH + BS2", I start you with a simple deployment mission. Of course it's getting dark, the weather kinda sucks (a bit of fog and gusty surface winds), you're low on fuel, you have to land short of your destination, do the re- fuel thing, then rejoin the rest of the big gaggle of jets/ helos inbound to the destination airbase). It has an intensity all it's own that has nothing to do with combat.

Mission 2 is a trip to the Range to get up to speed on your weps usage. You don't see actual combat till mission 3, and that begins on the " Alert 5" pad with a call to provide RESCAP for a downed pilot.

As we both know, in R/ L, fam flights (what we call IOE in the airline world) is vitally important. Just because it's a flight sim doesn't mean it should be any different.

Good luck in the campaign!

Have a great day,

BBall

It's a great campaign, but I thought it was quite high-pressure compared to Deployment.

Exciting!

I used to be a huge fan of dynamic campaigns (I spent a HUGE amount of time in Falcon 4.0), but I've come to realise the value of beautifully crafted scripted campaigns, too.

I guess it's partially a product of how little spare time I have these days. I have no expectation of being able to play a sim over and over again, so the idea that a scripted campaign has little replay value doesn't really weigh into my considerations any more. I'd much rather go though a perfectly paced, well-constructed, atmospheric and immersive missions and get a sense of closure on completion than engage with the endless "variations on a theme" of the campaign missions that come out of the likes of Falcon, EECH and Il-2's DCG.

None of the above is intended as a slam or slight on dynamic campaigns - I totally see the value for "time rich" players - but it's all very subjective and my own preferences have definitely changed towards the scripted.

I've recently been trying (and repeatedly failing at) the "On the other side" mission of the Deployment campaign. What's hugely engaging about it is the way that temperature and altitude are woven into the mission as vital factors. These are elements that are often overlooked when designing missions in a combat sim, but they provide unique and engaging challenges that really freshen up the experience. The Deployment campaign does a great job in that regard.

Anyway, all of this is just a long way of saying that I can't wait to see what you come up with, BBall. Your approach definitely sounds like one that strongly appeals to me.

I'll be honest I tried to capture that in the Serpent missions I did for Warthog, atmospherics for me are king. But I also love a dynamic campaign, but I do think some of the missions I've done surpass greatly any mission a generator can come up with.

Now, that said, if you fly them again, they will be different, but generally the same.

Nate

Can't wait to try out your missions BBall.. They sound like they will be well crafted!

I loved GOW. I didn't play it in BS2 because it lacks replayability and the mission generator makes it redundant. But God I'd kill for a dynamic campaign that I and other players could join online. There is no multiplayer experience that comes close to that. People are currently, as you read this, playing Falcon 4 (a sim older than some of its players) because of that campaign. And yet there are experts who say that Dynamic Campaigns are a waste of development time. I just don't get it.

Did I just digress?