My Suggestion: K.I.S.S.

[Sertorius21 10]

Instead of going off on a thousand minor tangents, I think the best idea would be to improve the very core of OFP/ARMA. The benchmark for how good ARMA III's core is should be how well it can portray battalion vs battalion combat, not specialized tasks like riot control or specwar. There's a lot of games that focus on specwar because it offers Man Against the World scenarios, but only OFP/ARMA provides a good simulation of large-scale infantry combat. In order to improve infantry combat, ARMA III could do stuff like this:

*Optimization for large-scale combat instead of small-scale skirmishes. This might mean sacrificing nifty gadgets or specialized A.I. routines in favor of the bigger picture.

*Improved artillery/mortar/CAS support. Not just stuff like laser-guided bombs, but basic meat-and-potatoes stuff like mortar barrages.

*Streamline transitions between different combat environments. For example, a company moving from a forest into a village should change combat formation, start MOUT tactics, etc.

*Further develop basic infantry routines. How well do soldiers use concealment, cover, and covering fire? How well do they use air or artillery support? Do infantry and armor work together? At the company or battalion level of command, does the AI have a coherent strategy for the orders going down the chain of command?

[Tonmeister 14]

MOUT tactics. yes!!! i'd really like to see this implemented for the AI in A3

[rye1 21]

MOUT tactics. yes!!! i'd really like to see this implemented for the AI in A3

Agreed. It would be great. If they cleared a room properly that would be awesome and a few more voice prompts like 'Clear' and stuff. We'd see them covering each other and reacting to contact with better fluidity.

I agree about formations also, good points. If they could double column, staggered column or column on roads it would look better.

[Psilocybe 3]

This.

Modders can work with this and then the nifty extras can come

To play but that solid base of infantry tactics in a number of

Scenarios (Forrest, urban, mechanised etc) there would be be nothing else I'd ever need to play.

[xman1 10]

Agree as well. Though I have to admit, I have seen some large scale battles on Youtube, and the impression I got was you were lucky to be alive after them (Much like real war IMHO).

-X

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

This makes me think.....Benny's Warfare on....the Outerra planet.

<---runs for cover :o

[Freeborne 10]

Sorry but I have to respectfully disagree :p

I do agree on applying the principle of KISS to ArmA3, but mainly to change the look of ArmA to make it more accessible to new players, while still containing a powerful system underneath, full of complexity and detail. I love that I can still learn new things playing ArmA after several years. I'd hate BIS to follow the path of KISS too much that it ends up like a console game.

What I mainly disagree on is that "the benchmark for how good ArmA3 is, should be battalion vs battalion combat".

You're not going to get 300+ players on a server at once, organised, behaving, and playing realistically. You can substitute them with AI, but who wants to feel like an insect in a game, surrounded by hundreds of faceless AI? This is unlikely to feel realistic, or be enjoyable. Lose/Lose IMHO.

I don't play MMORPG's but what I imagine is a game like WoW with everyone in the server, all in one big room and I can't expect anything except complete and utter chaos.

Also remember ArmA is played in real-time (effectively). Is there really that many scenarios where we require 500 soldiers present over a 1-2 hour gaming session?

I think smaller groups make better use of "ArmA's core" by playing tactical missions with proper teamwork, roleplaying, and walking away at the end of the day with realistic kill counts.

[ArmAriffic 10]

I agree but there is a thread for wishlists/ideas

[kevaskous 10]

Sorry but I have to respectfully disagree :p

I do agree on applying the principle of KISS to ArmA3, but mainly to change the look of ArmA to make it more accessible to new players, while still containing a powerful system underneath, full of complexity and detail. I love that I can still learn new things playing ArmA after several years. I'd hate BIS to follow the path of KISS too much that it ends up like a console game.

What I mainly disagree on is that "the benchmark for how good ArmA3 is, should be battalion vs battalion combat".

You're not going to get 300+ players on a server at once, organised, behaving, and playing realistically. You can substitute them with AI, but who wants to feel like an insect in a game, surrounded by hundreds of faceless AI? This is unlikely to feel realistic, or be enjoyable. Lose/Lose IMHO.

I don't play MMORPG's but what I imagine is a game like WoW with everyone in the server, all in one big room and I can't expect anything except complete and utter chaos.

Also remember ArmA is played in real-time (effectively). Is there really that many scenarios where we require 500 soldiers present over a 1-2 hour gaming session?

I think smaller groups make better use of "ArmA's core" by playing tactical missions with proper teamwork, roleplaying, and walking away at the end of the day with realistic kill counts.

Sorry but Arma prides itself on it's ability to be diverse and deliver your personal choice of how you wish to play the game. Hence why it is so modable, if this was not the case you would not need the mod-ability this game has. Keep this in mind when saying such things about Arma, the more diverse of a playing style it can cover out of box, the better chances it has of going viral.

[Make Love Not War 10]

Some very good thoughts. Completely agree with suggestions and general line of reasoning.

The benchmark for how good ARMA III's core is should be how well it can portray battalion vs battalion combat <snip>

I think that sums it up nicely. Of course, what you're asking for here is a infantry-centric, ground warfare simulator. I think it's fair to say that this is the direction the OFP/ARMA series started out heading towards. I'm afraid, however, that judging from many of the noises coming out of BIS lately, it appears to me that they are consciously moving away from this original ideal and heading towards something more "gameplay" oriented and "fun".

Hell, I've even been getting this weird vibe that "simulation" is quickly becoming a dirty word around the BIS compound. So, yeah, something tells me that we won't be seeing many of your suggestions in ARMA3. I expect the best we can hope for is that the new engine is going to be flexible enough to allow modders the opportunity to take things down the simulation route. I could be wrong, of course.

[Freeborne 10]

True, Kevaskous, but the same can be said about the OP. Unless I misunderstood, it sounded like Sertorius21 was okay with sacrificing detail and 'extras' in the aim of having 'bigger' engagements, not about offering both types of play.

All the other ideas I agree with, just not that ArmA3 should be about huge battles. If you can offer that option, without sacrificing the little things (that make ArmA authentic and highly detailed) then sure of course I'd vote for that, but the liklihood is there is always a cost.

[Splintert 10]

I think battalion vs battalion battling is, for the most part, unrealistic. In arma ii Warfare, the most you ever fight is a few terrorists or some OPFOR. There's no real reason for each player to have to command 50 soldiers, or AI to control themselves.

It's really a server option to allow the player to control 24 soldiers. Those soldiers can be effectively commanded by someone with an overhead view of the battle, rather than being inside the battle.

[Cookieeater 10]

I agree with OP. I want all out war OFP: CWC style. If I wanted to play special forces with tactical equipment, i'd play Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield. BIS can fill in a special forces niche, but OFP and ArmA has always been viewed as a huge amount of units clashing against each other. Though i'd think battalion sounds a bit too excessive. Maybe somewhere between a company and a battalion.

[Laqueesha 474]

Battalion Vs. Battalion?

Pfft. Think of Division Vs. Division.

[l mandrake 9]

Agree with the OP on all points.

In order to progress, the Armaverse should focus in on its unique selling points, one of which (and the best IMO) is the ability to place the player in the middle of large-scale, dynamic combined arms operations...this is what sets Arma apart and is where development resources should IMO be focussed.

To this end, the inclusion of extra AI routines to streamline the order-giving process and make AI units adapt their posture automatically to the terrain around them is a particularly good suggestion. Faffing around with complex command menus in critical situations often breaks the '4th wall' and therefore reduces 'fun', so I really hope BIS prioritise this idea...

Mandrake

[dmarkwick 261]

I'd rather the acronym KIFS. Flexible :)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

. I'm afraid, however, that judging from many of the noises coming out of BIS lately, it appears to me that they are consciously moving away from this original ideal and heading towards something more "gameplay" oriented and "fun".

Hell, I've even been getting this weird vibe that "simulation" is quickly becoming a dirty word around the BIS compound. So, yeah, something tells me that we won't be seeing many of your suggestions in ARMA3. I expect the best we can hope for is that the new engine is going to be flexible enough to allow modders the opportunity to take things down the simulation route. I could be wrong, of course.

My god, if this post doesn't sum up the absolute retardation of most of the new joins around here, nothing will.

Judging from the noises coming out of BIS? What "noises"? All we've gotten is a bunch of pictures, a website with nine tenths of funk-all information on it and a few dev posts (all of which seem encouraging, I might add), none of which have convinced me that BIS "are consciously moving away from this original ideal and heading towards something more "gameplay" oriented and "fun.""

What a load of utter arse. I wish I had an option to ignore posts from everyone who joined after 2010 in my profile.

[Tonmeister 14]

appears to me that they are consciously moving away from this original ideal and heading towards something more "gameplay" oriented and "fun".

damn. i hate it when things turn out to be fun.

...I could be wrong, of course.

there's always a good chance you are wrong, but never a chance that you could be wrong. don't assume you could ever be right.

[Make Love Not War 10]

Rage much, trollock?

Rest assured my response is not so much for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of the other readers in this thread.

Judging from the noises coming out of BIS? What "noises"?

You'll have to excuse me if I don't keep an up-to-date notebook detailing every quote, screenshot, etc coming out of BIS, but, yes, for those of us who are paying attention there has been some evidence suggesting that BIS - and the ARMA series by extension - may be moving away from its roots. Two quick examples:

A) The screenshot of Miller craddling the Barrett. Pop quiz, hotshot, which does it suggest more: lonewolf, l33t sn1p3r gameplay where the player gets to take out half the enemy base, or realistic, squad-based infantry simulator?

B) Over the last several months, I recall a number of times BIS suggesting that they're not all that interested in catering to the "hardcore" crowd, and underscoring that their simulations are casual gamer friendly.

Granted, it's still very early in terms of ARMA3, but you have to realize that from my previous experiences with other FPS developers - *cough* DICE *cough* - once a company starts saying and hinting things like this, it tends to signal a major shift away from anything that could be considered a milsim.

Of course, this is BIS we're talking about. And, because this is BIS, I have faith that we won't see any of ARMA's core gameplay dumbed-down anytime soon. I might not have been clear enough on this point in my original post. Rather, what I was suggesting is that with the direction things seem to be moving over at BIS, it's probably unrealistic to expect further significant development of the war simulation features that are the hallmark of the series. And, that would be a shame, IMO.

All we've gotten is a bunch of pictures, a website with nine tenths of funk-all information on it and a few dev posts

True, but if we were going to see major improvements in core infantry gameplay, we would have definitely heard something about them by now. Interesting how sometimes a lack of "noise" can be just as telling as an abundance of it. Whudda thunk?

none of which have convinced me (emphasis added) that BIS "are consciously moving away from this original ideal and heading towards something more "gameplay" oriented and "fun."

Well, you're not convinced. How nice for you. I'm not convinced either, but my spidey-senses are a'tingling and I'll trust those over your weak-ass excuse for an opinion. Still, I have to admit that I hope you're right. Also, I gotta say that the new physics simulation and changes to the gear and equipment interface have the potential to really improve some of the (hard)-core gameplay. Really looking forward to seeing them in action.

What a load of utter arse. I wish I had an option to ignore posts from everyone who joined after 2010 in my profile.

Well, thanks for the warm welcome along with the well thought out response. You've enriched everybody's experience here. And one might wonder why it took me this long to register to these forums.

---------- Post added at 06:25 ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 ----------

damn. i hate it when things turn out to be fun.

Sure, nothing at all wrong with fun, as long as it's not corporate double-speak for "we're going to make things fun for the lowest common denominator". Notice the use of quotation marks in my OP? Some of you guys sure are literal minded around here. :rolleyes: :(

[maddogx 13]

*Optimization for large-scale combat instead of small-scale skirmishes. This might mean sacrificing nifty gadgets or specialized A.I. routines in favor of the bigger picture.

This is one point I disagree on, as it sounds to me like you want to dumb down the micro-AI simply to enable larger scale battles. Why? That might make sense in a top-down RTS game, but looking at it from the ground (as one generally does in an infantry-based FPS), any individual soldier will only be involved in a small part of any large scale battle, I would say on a squad vs. squad scale. This is where the engine needs to shine - individual AI opponents behaviour aswell as squad-level tactics need to appear as human as possible in order to make the game more immersive.

Arma2 still isn't great in the first respect (while squad-level are already quite good), so I would hate to see BIS take that a step backwards just to make large scale battles more workable. But perhaps I just misunderstood you. Anyway, long story short: improving battalion level AI is fine by me, but not at the cost of lobotomizing smaller scale AI behaviour.

*Improved artillery/mortar/CAS support. Not just stuff like laser-guided bombs, but basic meat-and-potatoes stuff like mortar barrages.

No argument here.

*Streamline transitions between different combat environments. For example, a company moving from a forest into a village should change combat formation, start MOUT tactics, etc.

This also seems logical.

*Further develop basic infantry routines. How well do soldiers use concealment, cover, and covering fire? How well do they use air or artillery support? Do infantry and armor work together? At the company or battalion level of command, does the AI have a coherent strategy for the orders going down the chain of command?

This is a strange one, because you're going all the way up from individual AI behaviour (concealment, cover), through fireteam-level behaviour (covering fire), then squad-level (calling in support), and so on right up to what sounds like battalion level strategies. What part of all that do you consider "basic infantry routines"?

Looking purely at the latter, higher level subpoints: on the one hand, yes, I agree that AI squads and support units need to be able to work together properly, and implementing a kind of autonomous hierarchical AI capable of strategic "thinking" would facilitate that - but at the same time, mission makers need the freedom to choose not to use such a feature. As it stands, large scale AI strategies are currently implemented by the mission maker through basic waypoints and scripting.

Now from what it sounds like, you want the AI to be able to all that kind of stuff themselves. That's a great idea, in principle, but certainly not as "default" behaviour, because it would simply screw with missions where the designer is trying to make the AI do specific things. Instead, I would rather they implemented something like this in the form of an editor module.

[Tonmeister 14]

...nothing at all wrong with fun, as long as it's not corporate double-speak for "we're going to make things fun for the lowest common denominator"..

well sure, but I can't see why a developer would wish to undermine the gaming concepts behind the arma series? Why not just create a new title that specifically targets that lcd audience you speak of.

[Daniel 0]

*Improved artillery/mortar/CAS support. Not just stuff like laser-guided bombs, but basic meat-and-potatoes stuff like mortar barrages.

*Streamline transitions between different combat environments. For example, a company moving from a forest into a village should change combat formation, start MOUT tactics, etc.

*Further develop basic infantry routines. How well do soldiers use concealment, cover, and covering fire? How well do they use air or artillery support? Do infantry and armor work together? At the company or battalion level of command, does the AI have a coherent strategy for the orders going down the chain of command?

This, I want to see more of. Excellent points.

*Dons flak jacket*

The community can and will make all the special features that make spec ops missions cool, just look at ACE and SLX. The BIS bit (as usual: IMO) has to cater for the core aspects of infantry warfare, not warfare specific to Iraq/Afghan style COIN, but more regular symmetrical warfare. And we need all the related aspects simulated too. For example, if mortars can become as much a part of regular Arma warfare as heavy machine guns, then we need an AI that can react properly to mortar fire. I don't just mean counter-battery fire, I mean literally legging it and hugging the dirt, perhaps even running for the hills. As opposed to the current system of stop, slowly turn to observe your squad mates being exploded by death from above, carry on as before.

FLIR and AN/PEQ are prime examples where something cool is added without the AI being able to handle it.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Daniel

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Cool story, bro.

A) The screenshot of Miller craddling the Barrett. Pop quiz, hotshot, which does it suggest more: lonewolf, l33t sn1p3r gameplay where the player gets to take out half the enemy base, or realistic, squad-based infantry simulator?

Yeah, I might be bunking the norm here, but that picture suggests that a) this character will more than likely be in ArmA 3, and b) said game will also include a Barrett antimaterial rifle. I suppose back in the day when ArmA 2 came out you saw this picture...

...and immediately soiled yourself because "...it suggests l33t sn1p3r gameplay where the player gets to take out half the enemy base." Perhaps someone over at BIS thought it looked good. Crazy idea, I know.

I'm not convinced either, but my spidey-senses are a'tingling and I'll trust those over your weak-ass excuse for an opinion.

Last time I checked, ArmA brought significant development of the milsim components in OFP.

Funnily enough, ArmA 2 brought significant developments of the milsim components of ArmA.

Amazingly, against all expectations, Operation Arrowhead brought significant developments of the milsim components in ArmA 2.

Strap yourself in for this one. Would it be borderline insanity to suggest that ArmA 3 brings in significant development of the milsim components of Arrowhead? I dunno, man, just speculating. Absolutely no historical evidence to suggest that. Not a shred.

Well, thanks for the warm welcome along with the well thought out response.

No worries, took me at least 15 seconds to type that in. :party:

[dmarkwick 261]

A) The screenshot of Miller craddling the Barrett. Pop quiz, hotshot, which does it suggest more: lonewolf, l33t sn1p3r gameplay where the player gets to take out half the enemy base, or realistic, squad-based infantry simulator?

What you get out of a single screenshot at this stage is probably what you wish to get out of it to be honest with you. However, if it's a concern to you of course you can raise it as a concern :)

B) Over the last several months, I recall a number of times BIS suggesting that they're not all that interested in catering to the "hardcore" crowd, and underscoring that their simulations are casual gamer friendly.

This is how it should be in my opinion. ArmA is first and foremost a game, and it should be marketed and developed as one. However, what WE like about it is the optional hardcoring and modification of the core game into something more difficult. This is what the game should be: a game, with enough flexibility and ability to be used as a milsim.

True, but if we were going to see major improvements in core infantry gameplay, we would have definitely heard something about them by now. Interesting how sometimes a lack of "noise" can be just as telling as an abundance of it. Whudda thunk?

In that case there's little BIS can do to please everyone :) BIS's past behavior is general silence with a few titbits here & there, a presentation of a major release, followed by regular patching & fixing. It doesn't seem too concerned about what the silence, or it's opposite, might mean to people.

Well, you're not convinced. How nice for you. I'm not convinced either, but my spidey-senses are a'tingling and I'll trust those over your weak-ass excuse for an opinion. Still, I have to admit that I hope you're right. Also, I gotta say that the new physics simulation and changes to the gear and equipment interface have the potential to really improve some of the (hard)-core gameplay. Really looking forward to seeing them in action.

Well, thanks for the warm welcome along with the well thought out response. You've enriched everybody's experience here. And one might wonder why it took me this long to register to these forums.

Heh, I'll trust the eventual release of the product over your spider-sense ;) no offence :)

Sure, nothing at all wrong with fun, as long as it's not corporate double-speak for "we're going to make things fun for the lowest common denominator". Notice the use of quotation marks in my OP? Some of you guys sure are literal minded around here. :rolleyes: :(

Game's gotta sell. Sell it as a game. No problem with that. I know what's under the hood, as long as that doesn't change I'm good.

[froggyluv 2130]

I'd rather the smaller scale stuff -fireteam on fireteam tactics be absolutely perfected and then gradually moved out into larger and larger scaled AI forces.