Asymmetric or conventional warfare?

[celery 8]

Whether asymmetric or conventional warfare is more entertaining is a matter that has been discussed here ever more frequently. Pro-asymmetric people find that asymmetric warfare is better because there's been a lot of that in the last few years in the real world, or it forces both sides to use different tactics. Pro-conventionals are looking for a balanced fight with an equally dangerous enemy. Which kind of warfare do you prefer?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Celery

[NeMeSiS 11]

Is OFP stuff modern or low tech? (Laser designators as a secondary weapon, crappy NVGs, but no IR stuff, drones etc)

[Maciek95PL 10]

I'd like to be some guerilla fighter, organize ambushes, blow up bridges, attack small outposts at night, etc.

[celery 8]

Is OFP stuff modern or low tech? (Laser designators as a secondary weapon, crappy NVGs, but no IR stuff, drones etc)

Cold War is a historic era.

[metalcraze 290]

Where is the 'all of them' option?

[celery 8]

Where is the 'all of them' option?

You can prefer only one the most and an option that basically means "I can't vote on this matter" provides no useful information.

[Binkowski 26]

Asymmetric on the low-tech/underdog side, because that sir. is just awesome.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Asymmetric?

Means so many guys enjoy droping A-Bomb over the guys who holding AK47?

[11aTony 0]

Sides in OPF, A1 and 2 were pretty equal but not meny gadgets like flir etc. So I prefer "Conventional with modern equipment".

[Steakslim 1]

Well damn, I'm kinda the guy who likes to have all the high tech gadgets but then go up against a larger adversary whether they have equal tech or not. I'm usually not one for missions where you can just steamroll over the objective/enemy with ease.

[metalcraze 290]

You can prefer only one the most and an option that basically means "I can't vote on this matter" provides no useful information.

It isn't that I can't decide or anything - I actually enjoy all of them equally.

US vs. Russia provides for one kind of the gameplay, US vs. insurgents for a totally different one. I enjoy the variety.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

BIS should look at this poll and decide to make a DLC for the OPFOR side.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Underdogs ftw. It's so much more enjoyable when you can see all their tech couldnt help them gaining an upper hand.

[krycek 349]

Voted on conventional with modern stuff.Getting tired killing peasants armed with slingshots in my Apache or with the super flir high tech rifles.There is simply no challenge in that,it's like you set God mode on.

That's why I'm playing more with US vs Russia or merc missions instead of US vs Takistan Army or insurgents.

[Undeceived 392]

Yes, underdogs ftw!

[maturin 12]

Maybe we could stop playing as the U.S. 95% of the time, encouraged through creative mission design for the low tech faction. Suddenly it's fun, albeit terrifying, when the Apaches are flying but on the other side.

[NoRailgunner 0]

If the missions are made very well guess anyone would like to play any type of mission more often. Its more the lack of knowledge in military and scripting which leads to boring/ridiculous or purely fun missions (eg DM/CTF). Another thing is that some people leave their projects half-way done or adding simply too much stuff into it.

Vote for the missing: "More of those great combined operations!" :cool:

[Sleep 10]

underdogs ftw!

[twisted 127]

conventional modern and helpfully somehow with big battlefield and being active but not most important part of a really big conflict.

[celery 8]

I do find it strange that high-tech asymmetric is so unpopular. The absolute majority of coop and SP missions follow that style, afterall.

[spooky lynx 73]

Full-scale conventional warfare is still too large for A2 scales, unfortunately. No space for real artillery ranges, jets and especially cargo planes. Not so much units can be used at the same time without serious fps drop. Just imagine regiment vs regiment battle even without air support at the Chernarus map. So I'd vote for some counter-insurgents style battles.

[Electricleash 133]

Difficult to vote on this one, as for me it completely depends upon what film I have just watched, book I'm reading or Doco I saw on TV recently... I'm fickle like that. :)

I guess i'll go with the 'Asymmetric on the low-tech/underdog side' as my preferred choice, in ArmA2 anyway, if they were able to 'MACGYVER' a bit in order to get the upper hand.

If mission makers would think outside the box as far as scripted abilities for the low-tech guys I think those sort of missions would be really quite interesting. Improvisation being the cornerstone to low-tech warfare. Also the ability to blend in with the local populace by concealing weapons etc.

Obviously the nature of the ArmA2 engine doesn't allow the use of foxholes or cave systems, so that's a large chunk of the low-tech guy's fire-and-flee tactics removed right there.

[Laqueesha 474]

Can't we have both? :D

IIRC, the 2003 Iraq War was like this. The initial opening stages were conventional, with regular military units fighting each other in land combat. The following period was asymmetrical, with guerillas fighting regular military forces.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Laqueesha

[tswords 10]

me personally, i LOVE the conventional side of it, but the problem is, as previously mentioned, in order to have a large unit face another large unit in an all out sanbox brawl, you need a the rig from hell to process the awesomeness.

not to mention i kinda like the idea of pushing line formations of AAVs across plains towards eager anti tank positions that only get disappointed when my supporting cobra lights their defenses up.

or doing platoon insertions on an LZ prepped by CAS or artillery with 3 or 4 helos at the same time...

GOD i love this game.