Some fresh ideas for ArmA3 Warfare mode!

[tsb247 0]

I would love to see an improved warfare game mode in ArmA 3. I really enjoy what BI has offered thusfar, but I believe it could be done with more realism and in doing so, it could be far more intense, realistic, and strategically focused game mode.

I would enjoy seeing the following:

---> No warfare buildings like before.

Instead, capturing and holding ports and/or airports provides an influx of troops, supplies, weapons, and other equipment. Instead buildings would be built to fortify those areas and buildings like barracks, "War Factories," and, "Air Factories," would be built to improve/repair/maintain the units given at resupply.

However, small logistics points with smaller command centers could be constructed as before. Forward observations posts, FARPS, and whatnot would still be implimented.

---> Improved supply management.

The supply system that I mentioned above would require management. Airspace must be clear for cargo planes to land safely, ports must be held in order to ensure that ships can dock and offload their cargo. Air/naval patrols could be employed to ensure supplies are delivered safely and securely. If those supplies are threatened, the player or an AI faction must act to secure them or face possible defeat due to lack of supply. Also, instead of vehicles and infantry being, "Built," on base, they would be delivered via cargo plane or ship, and there would be some kind of time delay between deliveries. Units and supplies would be requested and then delivered.

--->Civilian interaction.

It would be interesting to see an active civilian presence in warfare rather than just AI that runs around. Civilian AI would react to how each faction treats them. If you don't bomb their cities to ash, they may provide useful intel such as possible enemy locations, allow use of medical facilities, or even side with a faction in the form of a militia.

Treat civilians badly, and they may be hostile toward a faction be refusing to give useful information, blockading roads, or even forming guerilla groups to combat a faction.

---> Money for operations comes from stateside and/or from a large external source of funding (NATO?).

Rather than earning money by capturing towns and cities, the player (and all factions) have funding from a single source, be it a government, organization, or something along those lines.

That source would either grow or shrink based on how the war unfolds. If the US bombs the hell out of civilians, support for the war effort drops and funds my decrease as a result. If the OPFOR does the same or either side is losing badly, money may either increase or decrease as a result.

---> Include the Media.

The presence of news reporters is a fact on the modern battlefield. What they report sometimes drastically affects the outcome of an armed conflict. Military operations that aren't popular at home or anywhere else in the world may be hindered by poor relations with the civilians in the conflict zone, decreased funding, and decreased flow of new recruits. Positive media coverage may bolster morale of troops, improve civilian relations in the conflict area, increase funding, etc.

The presence of embedded reporters on the battlefield could add an entirely new and subtly complex game mechanic!

---> SecOps.

As a result of adding the above, SecOps could be implimented in such a way so that the player could be made to manage some of the above or even have the AI handle it.

---> UAVs in warfare.

If the above game mechanics were implimented UAVs would have a purpose in warfare withough breaking the game (right now, they could instantly reveal an enemy base if used in vanilla ArmA 2). Scouting would be essential in securing new observation points, tracking enemy movements, planning operations, and so on.

---> Improved game customization.

The player could be allowed to choose which features are included in a warfare game. The above features could be turned on or off, or could possibly be controlled before the game is started i.e. set civilian perceptions of faction beforehand, set wartime budget, set the amount and kinds of supplies/weapons/units available before the game starts. Supply delivery times could be set. The number and type of starting units could be set, etc.

I would love some feedback on these ideas. I am also hoping that BI will take some notice! Let me know what you all think! :)

[.Taffy 10]

I really like these suggestions, particularly when it comes to controlling Ports and Airfields etc. it would make controlling specific areas of the map more important.

Perhaps it would be good to make playing it offline in singleplayer more enjoyable, so that players will find it easier to cut their teeth as commanders or even just grunts. Then maybe they'll be more willing to set up games.

Also a way to be able to have warfare missions where you don't have to join a server for several hours to see it through. A savegame function perhaps or some way to make a perpetual drawn out game with JIP a more realisitic prospect?

I think warfare is a fantastic game mode with so much untapped potential. I would love to see more made of it.

EDIT: There was a game called Conflict Zone, an RTS, a while back which included the press and the way you treated civilians as a way of controlling the cash flow. It's an interesting idea for controlling resources in this game.

Edited May 20, 2011 by .Taffy

[BigMorgan 11]

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but most of what you suggest could be accomplished by you, in Arma2/OA, right now. It's just a matter of coding it.

What you suggest there does sound like fun - so get to work. :p

[AlexVestin 24]

How about regular warfare, plus more versions, or just parameters? There's no need to replace it fully is there?

[.Taffy 10]

Well no one's talking about replacing it fully but certainly there's room for improvement and additional features.

[Nicholas 5]

I'd say have Warfare as a playable singleplayer and multiplayer mode. Do not make it part of the standard singleplayer missions and campaign.

By standard singleplayer missions, I mean missions like Steal the Car from OFP. Warfare is not a standard mission. (In my book)

[.Taffy 10]

It would be cool if standard missions could be generated on the fly within a warfare game. I don't mean pre made ones that are just slotted in and nor do I mean the exisitng "attack this town, now this one" but ones that respond to the flow of the conflict. "Set up ambush here, destroy this bridge, investigate suspected activity here, gather info from population here etc"

Difficult? Sure. Brilliant fun and replayability? I think so! :D

[tsb247 0]

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but most of what you suggest could be accomplished by you, in Arma2/OA, right now. It's just a matter of coding it.

What you suggest there does sound like fun - so get to work. :p

I thought of that, but that would require a LOT of work.

The way I see it is that BI sets the bar, and then the modding community raises it. If BI were to include these types of features in a plain vanilla mode, it would give the modding community one hell of a jumping-off point!

My other concern is that a mod of this scope would almost require a LOT of coding (something I'm merely O.K. at). I would also be concerned about keeping it up to date as the game changes. We all know how BI works. They release a base program, and they update it over time and improve it constantly. The same would likely be true for a mod like this.

I'm also a fan of content like this being present in the vanilla version of the game upon release (or soon thereafter). A warfare simulation of this scope just makes sense is a simulation like this. I want to see a more realistic simulation of not only battle, but command and control elements as well, and I want to see it in the stock version. Like I said before, if BI sets the bar, the modders will raise it. They always have, and they always will. It's what I love about BI games!

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

It would be cool if standard missions could be generated on the fly within a warfare game. I don't mean pre made ones that are just slotted in and nor do I mean the exisitng "attack this town, now this one" but ones that respond to the flow of the conflict. "Set up ambush here, destroy this bridge, investigate suspected activity here, gather info from population here etc"

Difficult? Sure. Brilliant fun and replayability? I think so! :D

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of when I thought of SecOps. A dynamic mission generator that responds to enemy movements. If a vital supply route is threatened, the SecOp AI would give you a nudge saying, "Maybe you should defend this?"

Of course, that feature should be able to be turned on and off. Either that, or missions like that could be at the commander's discretion, or AI commander's if the player sees fit.

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

How about regular warfare, plus more versions, or just parameters? There's no need to replace it fully is there?

I'm not so much talking abuot replacing it, but rather just revamping it. It could do with a little more realism, and in creating that realism, it would be more intense and have a little more depth.

[SpyderPB6 10]

I like alot of those points, mostly the first one, that sounds interesting.

[tsb247 0]

ADDITION: Improved High-Command features

---> AI that can communicate to units with each other with respect to the chain of command.

---> AI that assigns units tasks based on their combat roles.

---> The ability to add high-command groups (to a certain extent of course)

---> Air units as high-command groups

[instagoat 133]

I would love to see an improved warfare game mode in ArmA 3. I really enjoy what BI has offered thusfar, but I believe it could be done with more realism and in doing so, it could be far more intense, realistic, and strategically focused game mode.

I would enjoy seeing the following:

---> No warfare buildings like before.

Instead, capturing and holding ports and/or airports provides an influx of troops, supplies, weapons, and other equipment. Instead buildings would be built to fortify those areas and buildings like barracks, "War Factories," and, "Air Factories," would be built to improve/repair/maintain the units given at resupply.

However, small logistics points with smaller command centers could be constructed as before. Forward observations posts, FARPS, and whatnot would still be implimented.

This reminds me of Z. Have any of you played Z? Hard-arse game, an RTS. It didn´t have base building, instead you had to capture sectors with different buildings in them. Each building did something different, for example give you a map, construct infantry or tanks, or provide units with boosters.

This would make for a new warfare mode, along with the battlezone style one.

But to be honest... I feel Warfare has many other problems that need to be adressed before even thinking about expanding. For example a more sensible AI, an improved, dedicated interface, more detailed control over units in HC, etc... the list is endless.

Anyway, if warfare gets fixed, I´d love to see new modes.

[Daniel 0]

I've never been a great fan of Warfare, but I do like these ideas, especially the first one, about having to actually capture airfields and ports. It'd also make a big difference whether the terrain was land locked, and whether it had one or multiple airfields.

[katipo66 94]

I'm all for any improvement/addition/variation to Warfare or any of the modules, and I know it's doable as a lot of mods have vastly improved certain modules, I.e. GranQ's EBS to name a recent example.

Another layer of AI intelligence would be awesome.

[tsb247 0]

This reminds me of Z. Have any of you played Z? Hard-arse game, an RTS. It didn´t have base building, instead you had to capture sectors with different buildings in them. Each building did something different, for example give you a map, construct infantry or tanks, or provide units with boosters.

This would make for a new warfare mode, along with the battlezone style one.

But to be honest... I feel Warfare has many other problems that need to be adressed before even thinking about expanding. For example a more sensible AI, an improved, dedicated interface, more detailed control over units in HC, etc... the list is endless.

Anyway, if warfare gets fixed, I´d love to see new modes.

I have never played Z, but I will look it up.

I agree that warfare has a lot of problems right now, and it is my hope that the game mode is vastly improved for Arma 3. I have noticed that quite a few aren't particularly fond of it right now, but when I look at it, I see raw potential; potential to make the Arma 3 the most accurate portrayal of large-scale combat available to the common consumer.

After reading the thread on high-command AI, I felt compelled to mention that as well. Some tweaking in the AI department would make a lot of these other ideas I have listed possible. Some redesign of the high-command interface would help as well. Left Ctrl+Spacebar? There has GOT to be a better way!

[5LEvEN 11]

Sounds like some good suggestions. :D

[Regey 1]

i love all these ideas and i think that if they did go with the port/airfield that airfields should get things to you very fast but can only bring very little to you in terms of weight. And ports can bring alot in terms of weight but takes a longer time to get it to you.:p

[sqb-sma 66]

Honestly I don't think Arma's strong point is Dom or Warfare, it lies in clan play and custom made missions.

Nevertheless these are good ideas.

[radar_owns 1]

There are some great ideas but personally a great deal of things could be fixed with AI improvements. Personally being able to have a larger squad for each player may help a lot. 12 people really doesn't get you far in the large scale maps (don't even get me started on the amount of rpg soldiers that seem to exist). Having more people to control with a higher level of AI would allow more enjoyment for a player and more fun to play

[Westonsammy 1]

Something that really could be improved in Warfare is a increased priority by the AI to take out enemy Artillery units spotted while on patrol. An obvious problem with the current warfare missions is a players ability to simply find the enemy base (Via aircraft/UAV) and then commence the artillery bombardment from a random hidden location.

This could probably be done with some modding in vanilla ArmA 2, by simply giving AI on patrol a higher chance to spot enemy artillery units, and for the spotting of such units to be more obvious to the defending player (Maybe in the form of a message saying "ENEMY ARTILLARY SPOTTED" the second a unit spots a enemy artillery unit). This could definitely be done and implemented in ArmA 3, at least before the Beta.

[gossamersolid 155]

Honestly I don't think Arma's strong point is Dom or Warfare, it lies in clan play and custom made missions.

Nevertheless these are good ideas.

Dom and Warfare are both missions originally made by community members, so...