My review of the "The Gamblers" Campaign: Rain, Chaos, and the Legacy of the 77th Fighter Squadron

[wiewla]

Review of the "The Gamblers" Campaign: Rain, Chaos, and the Legacy of the 77th Fighter Squadron

In the campaign The Gamblers, created by Baltic Dragon in collaboration with John "Rain" Waters — a pilot from the Viper Demo Team and former member of the 77th Fighter Squadron "The Gamblers" — we take on the role of a fictional lieutenant with the callsign Chaos. Alongside our unit, we begin a deployment in Syria as part of the international operation “Inherent Resolve”, launched in 2014.

Throughout the campaign, we participate in 13 missions, many of which are inspired by real events experienced by Rain and his fellow squadron members. We have the opportunity to take part in the 2017 Battle of Raqqa and other remarkable operations, such as the integrated attack on Shyriat Air Base conducted by U.S. carriers and air forces.

Gameplay and Mission Design

The campaign includes a variety of scenarios divided into two main phases. The first consists of missions set in 2014, based on Rain Waters' personal experiences, while the second features historically grounded events from two years later, supported by in-depth research. Despite the diversity of missions, a certain repetitiveness of patterns becomes noticeable. The tasks are designed with great realism and military logic — undeniably a strong point of the campaign — but this same realism can, paradoxically, sometimes lead to a sense of monotony.

It's easy to imagine that military operations are also governed by strict procedures and patterns. That’s precisely what’s reflected here with high fidelity. We act in a predictable, controlled environment — much like a well-planned combat mission, whose goal is to accomplish the objective without unnecessary risk. The campaign avoids the kind of dramatic flair typical in action games. There are no random threats or edge-of-chaos situations. Instead, we get logically connected segments where every action has a clearly defined purpose and its own consequences. It’s a structure designed for smooth learning and tactical adaptation. It accurately mirrors an environment where predictability and discipline are key to success.

For this reason, I also recommend The Gamblers to players who are just starting their journey with the F-16C in DCS. While the campaign requires an understanding of several advanced aircraft systems and weaponry, it does not place the player under constant pressure. It doesn’t demand perfection or split-second reactions. Nor does it punish mistakes unnecessarily. It’s a calm, well-guided experience — more a test of discipline and tactical awareness than of nerves. Instead of sudden strikes and chaos, the campaign flows like tactical rain — steady, deliberate, each radio call a reminder that decisions made in the air carry more weight than they might seem.

A unique feature of the campaign is the presence of decision-making mechanics. This allows certain parts of the scenario to be played in multiple ways, leading to different outcomes. These choices are not merely cosmetic — they have an impact on mission progression. At times, we can even take the initiative, reporting what we observe in the area of operations, which then affects the decisions made by the mission leader or command.

Narrative and Characters

Characters and voice actors play a remarkable and distinctive role in this campaign. Dialogues are well-written, and because we’re not always flying as the flight lead, we get a real sense of being part of a living, dynamic team. The conversations feel natural, credible, and free of artificiality. They're complemented by ambient communication — radio chatter and unrelated unit conversations — that reinforce the impression that we are part of a much larger operation. This greatly enhances the credibility and the sense of scale of the conflict.

It’s also the first campaign I've encountered where we fly as a wingman. I have to admit, it’s something I’ve long wanted to experience. It allows you to improve your formation flying skills in a realistic, narrative context rather than simply following a scripted aircraft in training missions. The campaign, through the naturalness of its interactions and rich ambient detail, effectively recreates the operational environment of fighter pilots.

Realism and Atmosphere

The missions are designed with attention to conveying the true nature of combat operations. Often, we circle over the target area for extended periods, observing the unfolding events on the ground. These aren’t artificially created sequences — they are logical elements of the scenario that reinforce the illusion of being part of a real mission. Such moments build tension and evoke a sense of responsibility — when looking through the targeting pod or glancing past the canopy, you feel like you have the situation in your hands, that a single trigger pull could change the course of events.

There are also moments of helplessness, when intervention is impossible and we are left only to observe — the emotional impact of these sequences can be strong. This is not only a powerful narrative device but also a reflection of real operational frustration, where not every situation ends in a successful intervention.

Technical Layer

From a technical standpoint, the campaign runs smoothly and follows best practices, with only rare and minor bugs — mostly due to the game engine itself. What really sets The Gamblers apart is the audio layer. It's one of the highest-quality productions I've encountered in this genre. Radio communication builds an excellent atmosphere. Especially noteworthy is the innovative decision-making menu, controllable via HOTAS. This seemingly small feature greatly improves the fluidity of gameplay and the sense of control over the situation.

The campaign also introduces a new feature in the form of debriefings — summaries available immediately after each mission. This reflects military procedures, where analyzing actions and discussing mistakes are key elements of every operation. Debriefings allow you to review your engagement, assess the soundness of your decisions, and draw valuable conclusions, which deepens the realism and gives the virtual pilot a strong sense of responsibility for the task.

An additional convenience is a note in the briefing with the estimated mission duration. It’s a small but practical innovation. A good expansion would be to add a list of systems used in the mission to make preparation easier without having to interrupt gameplay.

Impression and Final Verdict

The Gamblers campaign undoubtedly meets — and even exceeds — my expectations. I’ll certainly return to the missions that left a lasting impression. I strongly recommend it to players seeking deep storytelling, realism, and history. It’s also a solid choice for newcomers who prefer a slower pace but want to immerse themselves in a credible military environment.

While the structure of missions may feel somewhat repetitive at times, this stems more from a commitment to operational realism than design limitations. Despite its many strengths, the campaign is not without elements that may not appeal to everyone. Players seeking fast-paced action and unexpected twists might find the lack of sudden changes or dynamic threats underwhelming. Although the mission structure reflects real-world planning, it can occasionally feel too predictable, which may affect pacing over time. Nevertheless, each mission carries a distinct character and tells a different story based on historical events. Excellent narrative and the emotional weight of the tasks help to offset this impression. It is also important to note that the gameplay is entirely devoid of air-to-air combat, which is again historically accurate, but may be significant for players who are looking for that type of engagement.

The Gamblers leaves more than just memories of well-executed missions — it gives the feeling of being part of something larger than yourself. A story of people who flew before we ever sat in a virtual cockpit. Yet the campaign doesn’t tell this story outright — it leads us through it by way of conversations, decisions, and tension, and sometimes the silence in the cockpit, which lingers in the air like heavy, dense rain before a storm. When the ordered reality of air operations meets the unpredictability of the situation on the ground, a space emerges where chaos is no longer a mistake, but part of the rhythm. And it is there — between order and uncertainty — that legacy is born. A legacy that this campaign delivers to the pilots of the 77th Fighter Squadron "The Gamblers" with care and respect.

Edited April 20 by wiewla

[Dovivan]

I just startet,but im frustrated in M02=too quickly(unrealistick)  cold start to taxi. Why not use simple triger where player can manual "say ready"? No time for real start-up and check plane, or setup weapons like AGM-65 etc. Choice for refuel is too late, Why fly to tanker when i dont need AAR?,  Number 3 dont attack sec. target, (not realistick feel), Missing FENC OUT, in PDF is wrong numbers for Runways. no information about NVG, missing APP/SID info, Chaos dont comunicate durring APP..... hmm

Edited June 18 by Dovivan

[Sparviero1978]

Thanks for this review. Can you compare the difficulty of this campaign with "Weasels over Syria" (the first one)? My experience with Weasels over Syria is mixed: great story/mission design, but very difficult for me due to the constant threat of SAMs and difficulty in find/lock groud targets... and lot of pressure. I thought that is my (lack of) experience with F16, because in FA/18 campaigns such Rise of the Persian Lion I play without problems. Thanks.

[baltic_dragon]

On 6/18/2025 at 12:49 PM, Dovivan said:

I just startet,but im frustrated in M02=too quickly(unrealistick)  cold start to taxi. Why not use simple triger where player can manual "say ready"? No time for real start-up and check plane, or setup weapons like AGM-65 etc. Choice for refuel is too late, Why fly to tanker when i dont need AAR?,  Number 3 dont attack sec. target, (not realistick feel), Missing FENC OUT, in PDF is wrong numbers for Runways. no information about NVG, missing APP/SID info, Chaos dont comunicate durring APP..... hmm

This is because you have a planned TOT and everything has to work according to the clock. I tried different timings and if I made it too long, people complained that they had to wait in the pit... But if you just left it for the player, there would be no TOT, so had no option there. 

IIRC you don't need to refuel. Number 3 didn't have weapons for attacking second target if I am not mistaken, that is why it was up to you (which was mentioned in the comms I think). 

Fence out - it is there, but ziplip. Maybe you weren't following the flight plan and missed it?

As for Approach - Chaos communicates during checking in, then the flight lead takes over all comms with APP and Tower. This is realistic. 

My impression is that the mission may have overwhelmed you - and this is normal, my own missions (and other devs) do that to me too :)) I often have a feeling of being behind the plane and with constanct freq changes etc things can become hectic. 

Anyway, I would definitely recommend that you don't get discouraged and move on, I am pretty sure you will like what lies ahead. 

[wiewla]

On 6/18/2025 at 9:02 PM, Sparviero1978 said:

Thanks for this review. Can you compare the difficulty of this campaign with "Weasels over Syria" (the first one)? My experience with Weasels over Syria is mixed: great story/mission design, but very difficult for me due to the constant threat of SAMs and difficulty in find/lock groud targets... and lot of pressure. I thought that is my (lack of) experience with F16, because in FA/18 campaigns such Rise of the Persian Lion I play without problems. Thanks.

Sure, 

Gamblers is much more static, which solves the FIWOS / LOWOS problems. We have more time to locate the target, and we often receive hints about its location. In addition, we usually have to confirm that we’ve acquired the target before we’re allowed to engage it, and if we can’t find it, the wingman will often give us the exact coordinates. This doesn’t make Gamblers easy by any means, but it is much more controlled — actions are deliberate rather than dynamically chaotic like in WOS.

I had similar feelings about WOS as you, and in that regard, I think Gamblers is much better designed. "I really liked WOS's storytelling, but sometimes the pacing was a bit overwhelming — especially for me, since I was doing a lot of F-16 stuff for the first time.Still,  I sometimes enjoyed replaying Gamblers mission when I already knew ‘what’s what’ in order to play it more ‘by the script.’

In my opinion, it feels more like the calm, precise operations of real pilots rather than flashy shootouts, as I mentioned in my review. Also — spoiler —

Spoiler

the campaign is very safe; there’s rarely any real danger as long as you stick to the assigned tasks.

 

[wiewla]

On 6/18/2025 at 12:49 PM, Dovivan said:

I just startet,but im frustrated in M02=too quickly(unrealistick)  cold start to taxi. Why not use simple triger where player can manual "say ready"? No time for real start-up and check plane, or setup weapons like AGM-65 etc. Choice for refuel is too late, Why fly to tanker when i dont need AAR?,  Number 3 dont attack sec. target, (not realistick feel), Missing FENC OUT, in PDF is wrong numbers for Runways. no information about NVG, missing APP/SID info, Chaos dont comunicate durring APP..... hmm

"Hi, I also had to replay M02 to catch up, but I think if you get past that one, it starts to get better. After all, it’s still just a simplified game. From my experience with different campaigns, I’ve learned that you kind of have to play 'by the script' for the missions to work as intended.

Try to overlook the fact that you you don’t have time to go through all the startup procedures. I like to think of it this way: the jet is mission-ready and has already been checked — the payload was assigned by command, and there’s no time for changes."

AAR in this campaign is treated as optional, mainly for those who want to 'simulate' the need for it. It's a sandbox-like feature. (I think that’s a good thing, since a lot of people struggle with it — as we know, it's relatively difficult.) I guess real pilots spend way more time in the air during missions than we do in-game, and need to refuel few times per flight. I'd say what we get is kind of a summary — the distilled essence of a real mission so it is only an option.

And since we're sometimes flying as wingmen, we’ve got to keep up . It wasn’t that obvious to me either at first, since no other campaign really offered that kind of setup.

I hope you’ll give this campaign a chance — it really stands out compared to other F-16 campaigns and is executed at a very high level."

Edited July 1 by wiewla

[Dovivan]

On 7/1/2025 at 8:57 PM, wiewla said:

"Hi, I also had to replay M02 to catch up, but I think if you get past that one, it starts to get better. After all, it’s still just a simplified game. From my experience with different campaigns, I’ve learned that you kind of have to play 'by the script' for the missions to work as intended.

Try to overlook the fact that you you don’t have time to go through all the startup procedures. I like to think of it this way: the jet is mission-ready and has already been checked — the payload was assigned by command, and there’s no time for changes."

AAR in this campaign is treated as optional, mainly for those who want to 'simulate' the need for it. It's a sandbox-like feature. (I think that’s a good thing, since a lot of people struggle with it — as we know, it's relatively difficult.) I guess real pilots spend way more time in the air during missions than we do in-game, and need to refuel few times per flight. I'd say what we get is kind of a summary — the distilled essence of a real mission so it is only an option.

And since we're sometimes flying as wingmen, we’ve got to keep up . It wasn’t that obvious to me either at first, since no other campaign really offered that kind of setup.

I hope you’ll give this campaign a chance — it really stands out compared to other F-16 campaigns and is executed at a very high level."

Thanks for the reply, but unfortunately it’s not working for me. I didn’t invest money and tons of time into learning a beautifully crafted aircraft just to fly it in an arcade-style way — it simply doesn’t bring me any joy that way.

I choose campaigns based on whether they aim to be realistic, and this one claims to do so in its description.

 I guess this one will end up in my list of “started but never finished” campaigns

Edited July 12 by Dovivan

[Dovivan]

Thanks for the reply, Baltic.

For me, these rushed startups — where I don’t have time to follow standard procedures — really ruin the immersion of the whole flight. Are the other missions like this too? I absolutely loved Arctic Thunder, both for the F-16 and the F/A-18.

I understand that we’re a diverse community, which is why I specifically look for campaigns where, based on the description, the goal was to make it “as real as it gets.”

I’m currently playing Reflected’s Red Flag campaign, which is ultra realistic and absolutely great, BUT… I’m given 9 minutes to prepare the F-4 for taxi.  I honestly don’t understand how people can buy such a realistic campaign — where everything is based on procedures, timing, altitude, AOA, etc. — but then have a problem with a realistic startup.

I get it — we’re in the minority, and campaigns are made for the majority, so what can you do. I don’t mind buying something I probably won’t finish; I’m happy to support the effort. I was just really excited after Arctic Thunder to dive into another similarly realistic campaign, and so far, this one just hasn’t delivered that feeling.

By the way: As for the refueling — I know it’s optional if not strictly needed, but the game only gave me that option once we were already near the tanker, which we had to fly to first.

Edited July 12 by Dovivan

[Fiztex]

В 12.07.2025 в 16:17, Dovivan сказал:

Thanks for the reply, Baltic.

For me, these rushed startups — where I don’t have time to follow standard procedures — really ruin the immersion of the whole flight. Are the other missions like this too? I absolutely loved Arctic Thunder, both for the F-16 and the F/A-18.

Personally, for as long as there's no realistic interaction and animation of ground crew, I don't really care about start-up realism, because it really is not there anyway. Clicking buttons and switches and waiting for things to happen without talking to the crew doesn't bring me anything valuable. DCS is simply not there yet, so why highlight the negatives?

What I wished while playing is a bit more chatter on a tactical channel, at least as an F10 option. Makes transitions less boring for sure. But overall campaign is great on immersion because almost everything that happens makes actual sense.

Baltic Dragon always pushes the quality of DCS campaigns further, and "unfortunately" to me it became a standard for quality, which kind of hurts other DCS SP experiences

Edited July 13 by Fiztex

[baltic_dragon]

On 7/12/2025 at 4:17 PM, Dovivan said:

Thanks for the reply, Baltic.

For me, these rushed startups — where I don’t have time to follow standard procedures — really ruin the immersion of the whole flight. Are the other missions like this too? I absolutely loved Arctic Thunder, both for the F-16 and the F/A-18.

I understand that we’re a diverse community, which is why I specifically look for campaigns where, based on the description, the goal was to make it “as real as it gets.”

I’m currently playing Reflected’s Red Flag campaign, which is ultra realistic and absolutely great, BUT… I’m given 9 minutes to prepare the F-4 for taxi.  I honestly don’t understand how people can buy such a realistic campaign — where everything is based on procedures, timing, altitude, AOA, etc. — but then have a problem with a realistic startup.

I get it — we’re in the minority, and campaigns are made for the majority, so what can you do. I don’t mind buying something I probably won’t finish; I’m happy to support the effort. I was just really excited after Arctic Thunder to dive into another similarly realistic campaign, and so far, this one just hasn’t delivered that feeling.

By the way: As for the refueling — I know it’s optional if not strictly needed, but the game only gave me that option once we were already near the tanker, which we had to fly to first.

Other missions are not like that, only those where you have strict TOT - and I don't think it happens anywhere else..

[Dovivan]

On 7/13/2025 at 9:56 PM, Fiztex said:

Personally, for as long as there's no realistic interaction and animation of ground crew, I don't really care about start-up realism, because it really is not there anyway. Clicking buttons and switches and waiting for things to happen without talking to the crew doesn't bring me anything valuable. DCS is simply not there yet, so why highlight the negatives?

 

Of course it brings you value, because you're learning the real process thanks to it. If you're not interested in the real process, then why play DCS at all? We’ve got War Thunder for that.

Even professional, highly realistic simulators used for real pilot training don’t include animated ground crew movement, because it’s not necessary for accurately simulating procedures — it’s just icing on the cake, not essential.

I don’t expect the full process to be strictly followed 100%, although I always appreciate when Reflected pushes the limits. Thanks to that, I really enjoyed every mission in the F-16C Arctic Thunder campaign. But there should still be at least some time allocated for aircraft setup — like configuring departure procedures, weapons, bingo, jamming, and defensive programs, etc

 

20 hours ago, baltic_dragon said:

Other missions are not like that, only those where you have strict TOT - and I don't think it happens anywhere else..

nice to hear it. S i ll finish your artic thunder and try it again. Thanx BD

Edited Thursday at 08:22 AM by Dovivan

[Fiztex]

8 часов назад, Dovivan сказал:

Of course it brings you value, because you're learning the real process thanks to it. If you're not interested in the real process, then why play DCS at all? We’ve got War Thunder for that.

It brings about the same value as dry firing a gun. It's good practice for some technique development, but it is not fun and you will never learn to shoot the real thing like that.

Why do the strict startups if nothing ever fails and your ground crew never screws anything up? Where is fun in it and where is the purpose behind that process? Animated crew is indeed nice, but the issue is far beyond that. How many times do you really need to repeat the same thing to realise that you know how to do it?

And why the sudden obsession with sending people you disagree with to WT? Thanks, but I know better for myself.

My opinion is that we all should not forget the purpose of simulation and that as such it should remain flexible to people needs and not dictate useless scenarios...

Edited Thursday at 04:36 PM by Fiztex

[Dovivan]

 

On 7/24/2025 at 12:26 PM, Fiztex said:

It brings about the same value as dry firing a gun. It's good practice for some technique development, but it is not fun and you will never learn to shoot the real thing like that.

Why do the strict startups if nothing ever fails and your ground crew never screws anything up? Where is fun in it and where is the purpose behind that process? Animated crew is indeed nice, but the issue is far beyond that. How many times do you really need to repeat the same thing to realise that you know how to do it?

And why the sudden obsession with sending people you disagree with to WT? Thanks, but I know better for myself.

My opinion is that we all should not forget the purpose of simulation and that as such it should remain flexible to people needs and not dictate useless scenarios...

Dude, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm just giving feedback to the mission creator. And I'm not sending anyone to War Thunder either. In fact, I like playing War Thunder too – that's why I said "WE HAVE it!" But War Thunder is not a simulator.

You yourself mentioned that we shouldn't forget the purpose of simulation – and I agree with that. But I think we might differ in what we consider a simulation to be. In my opinion, a simulation is precisely about being able to do things as if you were doing them in real life. For people who enjoy learning, that process – even if repeated – can be part of the fun. 

But I think you've somewhat missed my original point. As I already mentioned earlier, I'm not demanding a 100% accurate procedure down to the tiniest detail – DCS doesn't even allow for that in most cases. But if I don't even get the chance to prepare the aircraft before a mission, then it just stops being fun for me.

I totally get that some people will use auto-start, won’t set up bingo fuel, departure procedures, or anything else – and that’s perfectly fine. But if a campaign is marketed as realistic, then it should also allow players to do things realistically. That’s all I’m saying.

Edited Saturday at 09:12 AM by Dovivan

[Fiztex]

12 минут назад, Dovivan сказал:

 

Dude, I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm just giving feedback to the mission creator. And I'm not sending anyone to War Thunder either. In fact, I like playing War Thunder too – that's why I said "WE HAVE it!" But War Thunder is not a simulator.

"If you're not interested in the real process, then why play DCS at all?" were your words and there is absolutely nothing real in sitting alone in a jet and clicking buttons in a defined sequence.

You can get the same "realism" by reading a procedure, if nothing ever happens, so there is absolutely no point to force a player to do that and on the opposite better give people a way to skip through that nonsense. We have autostart and really waiting for DTC to be properly done, but you literally came and said "you shouldn't use that in a realistic campaign because it breaks immersion for me". And yet you can stay as long as you want on the ground in most missions, just don't reply till you are ready to taxi and enjoy your immersion.

DCS has decent realism in the air, but never had it on the ground, and it's simply unbelievable to me how the way the campaign is built manages to appear unrealistic to you, while clicking buttons and switches alone in a hangar appears to you as realistic. To me in VR it appears just as ridiculous.

For sure it is possible to script every failure check and ground crew ops communication, but you can't expect it in every campaign as a must to be called "realistic" and maintaining all that scripting with DCS updates will be a nightmare. So, until the game itself manages the ground decently enough I believe content creators should focus on things that actually work well. Otherwise the price will double and many will be skipping that part anyway as they come to fly first and don't have the time to sit on the ground for 20 minutes for every single take off and through bugged scripts, as you seem to understand.

So this one already definitely deserves to be called realistic for what it is.

[Dovivan]

 

On 7/26/2025 at 11:58 AM, Fiztex said:

"If you're not interested in the real process, then why play DCS at all?" were your words and there is absolutely nothing real in sitting alone in a jet and clicking buttons in a defined sequence.

You can get the same "realism" by reading a procedure, if nothing ever happens, so there is absolutely no point to force a player to do that and on the opposite better give people a way to skip through that nonsense. We have autostart and really waiting for DTC to be properly done, but you literally came and said "you shouldn't use that in a realistic campaign because it breaks immersion for me". And yet you can stay as long as you want on the ground in most missions, just don't reply till you are ready to taxi and enjoy your immersion.

DCS has decent realism in the air, but never had it on the ground, and it's simply unbelievable to me how the way the campaign is built manages to appear unrealistic to you, while clicking buttons and switches alone in a hangar appears to you as realistic. To me in VR it appears just as ridiculous.

For sure it is possible to script every failure check and ground crew ops communication, but you can't expect it in every campaign as a must to be called "realistic" and maintaining all that scripting with DCS updates will be a nightmare. So, until the game itself manages the ground decently enough I believe content creators should focus on things that actually work well. Otherwise the price will double and many will be skipping that part anyway as they come to fly first and don't have the time to sit on the ground for 20 minutes for every single take off and through bugged scripts, as you seem to understand.

So this one already definitely deserves to be called realistic for what it is.

Dude, based on what you wrote, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not demanding that we have time to go through the full-check startup procedure. I’ve said this like three times already. What I’m asking for is just a bit of time to properly set up the jet, because in this particular mission there really wasn’t enough of it, and I didn’t have time to configure things I actually needed during the mission — things that autostart doesn’t handle, like Maverick alignment, bingo fuel, CMS programs, departure procedures, TOT... etc. I understand and accept that for you, having the jet already started is ideal because the startup is always the same — but try to understand that not everyone feels that way.

I think the campaign author has already taken care of it anyway, and I honestly don’t know why we’re still going back and forth about this. So no hard feelings if I just wish you a nice day and end it here. Thanks for the chat.

Edited Sunday at 04:09 PM by Dovivan