Statics vs Fortifications and Opposites

[victim913 10]

I think this topic is big but never gets talked about because everyone knows it will never change. Since Arma3 is coming in a year, there might be a chance to do something about it.

Statics are at terrible heights. They are pretty much just easy targets that have 0 chance of surviving.

Fortifications would provide the cover they need but they are either too big or too small.

Can we get these things to match?

Small bunker- too tall for mini tripods, too small for standing tripods. It's knee high. It won't protect statics. You can only be covered if you kneel down.

Large bunkers- is too high for statics. Only regular units in standing position. Also making Machine gunners have bad aim.

Tower- is a little better. If you use a standing tripod at the top it's the same as small bunker, however, since your targets are lower than you, the angle provides slightly better cover.

Trenches- a waste. It looks like they were made for the minitripods but are very awkward and still don't provide good cover.

Some people don't care. At least it's something. But most people aren't mission makers, so they usually get placed with the 2d map or in game when doing construction. So they need to be set at a height and ready to go. There is no luxury of adding the green sandbags on the tower to cover minitripods or building with those.

How about this:

small bunker- MG nest. Empty it. That way we can place all ranges of mini tripods in it.

regular bunker- make it chest high. It will be perfect for tripods and almost good cover for standing.

Large bunker- give a step in places. So the step next to the opening you can fit a standing tripod, but a few feet away on the ground, Standing units will be able to shoot out.

Tower- make 2. A left and a right. Having an opening on the left hand side limits where you can put it. So make an opposite one with the opening on the right side. Put a couple sandbags around the platform to give Mini protection. That way the platform can be used better as AT/AA launchers.

HEDGEHOG- make them a size that actually stops tanks. Everything I drive can drive over them, mostly without a problem.

Linekeepers box is a really good guard shed. I would like to see that with a door on both sides.

ULTIMATELY it would be cool if you release a set of buildable fortifications. Like sandbags, H-barrier, floor, etc. that mission makers can build fortifications and make what they want. They way it is now sucks. Using pallets for floor and some of the training items, to make a base. H- barriers are too big for this. The stuff we have is big and bulky more for like a base. Lets do something for small buildings for soldiers.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

There's a very big problem with fortifications in ArmA; you can either destroy them too easily or can't destroy them at all. Without a more detailed damage/destruction model for fortification objects, they probably won't see any improvement in use.

[maturin 12]

Trenches- a waste. It looks like they were made for the minitripods but are very awkward and still don't provide good cover.

The trenches actually work quite well and I've based whole fortifications around them. AI can be placed carefully so they lie down and aim between the higher parts, shielding their flanks.

It's not actually, well, a trench, though.

And don't forget how the goddamn machinegun nests never want to engage anything over 50m away and have terrible LoD issues that make impossible to see inside them.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

ULTIMATELY it would be cool if you release a set of buildable fortifications. Like sandbags, H-barrier, floor, etc. that mission makers can build fortifications and make what they want. They way it is now sucks. Using pallets for floor and some of the training items, to make a base. H- barriers are too big for this. The stuff we have is big and bulky more for like a base. Lets do something for small buildings for soldiers.

I forsee this would make them unnavigable by AI, and further exaggerate the problem with destruction (ex: destroy the bottom stuff supporting built up areas, and they stay floating in the air). I don't think we'll see this, not this time around at least.

[maturin 12]

Rather than expecting AI to navigate 3D obstructions (this would require a major AI overhaul, not just new models), I think there should static defenses that can be entered like machinegun nests and fought from. You just need to be sure that the AI has all the same capabilities as a normal infantryman in terms of spotting and shooting.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Rather than expecting AI to navigate 3D obstructions (this would require a major AI overhaul, not just new models), I think there should static defenses that can be entered like machinegun nests and fought from. You just need to be sure that the AI has all the same capabilities as a normal infantryman in terms of spotting and shooting.

You mean like pre-defined fighting positions? This would be useful, and could also be used to augment AI's use of cover.