What do you think off the "future" setting

[NoRailgunner 0]

See it more as an "What if..." or "Once upon a time..." setting with some new creative and hopefully working features. ;)

Developments of different military technolgies make progess too. Guess in the 80's only a very few people would have agreed that UAV's can play a important role on battlefields.

So get rid of old habits (bugs, issues, limitations...) and get a new haircut. As long BIS creates open sandboxes with modding support the chances are high to make something you like or simply & patiently - wait for it.

Arma3 is announced to be released "TBA 2012" or maybe "TBA 2013" - thats a bit of time where BIS can change some details/models/textures....

Think most interesting is what kind of engine improvements will we see?

Will we get something like terraforming or ground destruction effects in A3?

[ricnunes 0]

Existing and feasible doesn't mean effective! I doubt that any anti-tank missile defence is effective against a top-down final-aproach missile such as the hellfire! One thing is to defeat an RPG, other completly diferent is to defeat a Hellfire missile...

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

Developments of different military technolgies make progess too. Guess in the 80's only a very few people would have agreed that UAV's can play a important role on battlefields.

Nope! In the 80's the Israelis used UAVs which at that time they were called Drones in their operations against Lebanon and Syria in 1982 and they played a very important role in helping to hunt down Syrian SAM sites.

[Maio 293]

@ricnunes . I think the idea behind Arma 3 is to take some creative liberty with everything , including the conflict concept .

Plus let's be serious , how many people who don't know what the Arma series is about would buy a game that's focused on one of the conflicts you mentioned above .

They have to bring in new players as well . They have to make something appealing that's not tied with a chain to realism .

I'm staring to wonder how many people play the game for it's flexibility in terms of gameplay and how many just play it because they can run around/drive in realistic vehicles and fire realistic guns ( not that that's a bad thing ) , after all that's one of the reasons I bought OFP/Arma .

[max power 21]

Like I said in other threads I'm completly against this future setting of ArmA3 and of course I prefer past, present or even near future (2-3 years, 5 years max) settings since there is ABSOLUTELLY NO WAY to know what will be in service in 15 years from now (ArmA3 202x setting) and even an aproximate guess will certainly be completly wrong! There are too many variants that can happen which will dictate which weaponry will exist in 2020's - It could even be possible that in the 2020's that the weaponry in existance be BASICALLY the same (with small improvements) as we have in the present since prototypes of future weaponry could get canceled (like happened to the Comanche) due to global economic crisis (present and/or future ones).

I think you're kind of missing the timescale in which it takes to change something in the armed forces. In 5 years the army will look the same as it does now.

IMO, it seems that the only "valid argument" of people that defends the ArmA3 futuristic setting is that it will model diferent weaponry and units/sides/countries.

I guess you mean the only argument you're sympathetic to. If not please help me understand what your idea is of a valid argument regarding personal taste.

So my sugestion in other to cater this argument is the following:

Instead of making controversial futuristic setting, why doesn't BIS models conflicts based on real ones set in the past (even using diferent names since BIS seems more confortable with this) such as:

- Iran vs Iraq --> this one would have completly diferent sides, no USA, no NATO, etc... it would have a very diferent mix of western equipment (such as G3 assault rifle, AH-1J Cobra helicopter, F-5, F-4, F-14, Mirage F1 fighter aircraft, etc...) and eastern equipment (AK rifle familiy, Mi-24, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25 fighter aircraft)

- Various Israel Vs Arab countries conflicts --> These ones would also have very diferent sides with also a very diferent mix of western and eastern equipment.

- Falklands War --> This one would bring a completly diferent kind of side/faction which is Argentina. It would have a very diferent mix of western-only equipment and it wouldn't have USA as a side and it wouldn't have any Russian weapons - how's that for "diferent"?.

- Various African conflicts ranging from the Portuguese Colonial Wars to the Bush Wars (Angola versus South Africa) or more recent African conflicts such as the intervention of Mercenary and British Forces in Sierra Leone.

As you can see there's no need to use the future setting to be inovative and inventive - If BIS want it can invent a conflict based on those that happened in the past we would have REALISTIC equipment with REALISTIC setting/scenario and with DIFERENT equipment/setting (units, weapons, vehicles, scenario, etc...)

BIS already stated in the past that they will not be doing any real-life conflicts. End of story on that one until we hear differently.

Personally, I'm ready for another super-powers clash, and I don't really care where or when it's set within reason as long as it's interesting and warfare has a similar face to modern combat.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Max Power

[Big Dawg KS 6]

In 5 years the army will look the same as it does now.

Five years is not a lot of time, but don't forget in ArmA 3 there will be a world war going on, so that'd definately accelerate things.

[ricnunes 0]

BIS already stated in the past that they will not be doing any real-life conflicts. End of story on that one until we hear differently.

Therefore and if you read carefully my post, I used the "words":

"based on real ones"

and then I posted a few examples of some military conflicts where BIS could base on. For example, it's clear that the conflicts that BIS modeled in their games (ArmA and ArmA2) are based in rel life conflicts...

[Valiant 1-4 10]

anti-tank missile defence and coil guns have been discussed to death. Both exist and feasible. Get over it.

u mad bro?

If i think something is too "2001 Space odyssey fail" ill say.

Im for near future, but its a hard one to get right, and i think its been failed more than triumphed. But im up for being surprised!

Edited June 28, 2011 by Valiant 1-4

[Daniel 0]

Therefore and if you read carefully my post, I used the "words":

"based on real ones"

and then I posted a few examples of some military conflicts where BIS could base on. For example, it's clear that the conflicts that BIS modeled in their games (ArmA and ArmA2) are based in rel life conflicts...

What conflict was Arma based on? You're arguing for the sake of it now, BIS aren't going to change their entire design intent after this much promotion.

[dmarkwick 261]

Therefore and if you read carefully my post, I used the "words":

"based on real ones"

and then I posted a few examples of some military conflicts where BIS could base on. For example, it's clear that the conflicts that BIS modeled in their games (ArmA and ArmA2) are based in rel life conflicts...

I can't quite think of what words you might have used to actually mean what you're complaining Max is implying :D if not "based on" then I cannot think of another better way of saying it. I'm sure Max did not mean that BIS could actually recreate a conflict :D

BIS already stated in the past that they will not be doing any real-life conflicts.

[max power 21]

The way I read (or skimmed, I guess) the suggestion is they should create a game set in some real life war. Like a fictionalized account.

At any rate, era is not so important to me as long as the setting and atmosphere are good.

[Montanaro 0]

u mad bro?

If i think something is too "2001 Space odyssey fail" ill say.

Im for near future, but its a hard one to get right, and i think its been failed more than triumphed. But im up for being surprised!

the problem with your complaint is that the anti missile defense actually exists and has been used in combat

and as for railguns, yes they exist, but it's hard to say when they will be adopted.

Those two things are no where near being

[SPC.Spets 21]

I vote "I dont really care" although I dont like the idea of a futuristic warfare, Im not going to say anything until I play the game and see it myself

[Valiant 1-4 10]

the problem with your complaint is that the anti missile defense actually exists and has been used in combat

Alright, i didnt know one had been used in combat, but please if you have any links to where its saying its been used in combat id like to read, and if that its defended against missiles of a Hellfire's class with ease, as in rolled away after and didnt just save the crew so they could bail.

and as for railguns, yes they exist, but it's hard to say when they will be adopted.

Those two things are no where near being

[img ]http://spyhunter007.com/Images/a_space_odyssey_discovery.gif[/ IMG]

See, by 2001: Space Odyssey i didnt mean general futuristic spaceyness, i meant that in 1968 the plot was that it would look like your pic by 2001.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Foxhound
please do not quote images!!

[Montanaro 0]

IDF Trophy Source

[5LEvEN 11]

Why does a future setting mean a completely different game with different weapons? Why not a future date, but with current weapons and gear. Maybe you could change things that are known facts to be changed. For example ACU to Multi Cam. If you keep it like this, it will be realistic, won't be far fetched, and will still be in the future. Besides I thought it was NEAR future not 20 years from now....

[Valiant 1-4 10]

IDF Trophy Source

Well fair enough it stopped some french knock off javelin MILAN or something, and in the future it could be improved. But Challenger 2's without that stop MILANs, and probably an M1 can today, its just a matter of taste and game mechanics now.

[Rhodesy77 11]

Oh for fuck sake becuase BIS want some god damn creative freedom with this game? maybe they dont want to make the same humvee, the same M1 abrams the same blackhawk again and gain and again! it is going to be set in the near future, everything shown thus far is well within the realms of possibility even today... DEAL WITH IT!

[soul_assassin 1750]

See, by 2001: Space Odyssey i didnt mean general futuristic spaceyness, i meant that in 1968 the plot was that it would look like your pic by 2001.

and can you imagine someone coming to A.C. Clarke in '68 and saying:

"you know what...actually you should stop writing about this garbage...and write books that I want...you better put some '65 mustangs in it...oh yeh and i head some shit is happening in vietman now, you better write something about that. Or I WONT BUY IT!"

come on man get over yourself. Don't like it don't buy it. In fact don't even post about it, because it doesnt solve or change anything. Just a waste of kb's on someone's SQL server.

[teegee 10]

Well fair enough it stopped some french knock off javelin MILAN or something, and in the future it could be improved. But Challenger 2's without that stop MILANs, and probably an M1 can today, its just a matter of taste and game mechanics now.

sure they can take hits on the front turret from anything man portable but a hit anywhere else and its game over.

active protection systems provide a great deal of added security against threats from the flanks but they're not infallible and afaik, no current system can deal with top attack munitions like the javelin. nor can they deal with massive HEAP missiles like the kh-29 and other 'bunker busters'/heavy bombs.

Edited June 29, 2011 by teegee

[Perforator 10]

Oh for fuck sake becuase BIS want some god damn creative freedom with this game?

If this were the Carrier Command forum I'd agree with you.

[Tonmeister 14]

yawn... :padlock:

[Valiant 1-4 10]

and can you imagine someone coming to A.C. Clarke in '68 and saying:

"you know what...actually you should stop writing about this garbage...and write books that I want...you better put some '65 mustangs in it...oh yeh and i head some shit is happening in vietman now, you better write something about that. Or I WONT BUY IT!"

come on man get over yourself. Don't like it don't buy it. In fact don't even post about it, because it doesnt solve or change anything. Just a waste of kb's on someone's SQL server.

Brother of mine, art thou agrevated?

We're just talking, maybe i wont buy it. Activate forum mode, and discuss!

I am voiceing concerns over the near future setting, like the thread asks me, you have given valid rebutle and i have taken that onboard, but then also measured it up against how play style, in forinstance MP might be, when tanks are'nt killed by giant missiles of death anymore.

Its a big shake down in armatown and the locals are at the town hall chins a'grasp.

A game thats based on being current and real as possible, then starts to take libertys on what will and wont be around in 20 years, i get a bit worried and concerned how far it can go, they're writing their own script now.

This is new ground for a game thats been "what is" for so long and becoming a "what if". It could work out great, look at the film Aliens, i think its a great combination of future with gritty practicalities. But my concerns are from what ive seen alot of future or near future games (especialy with a studios everpresent temptation in trying to reach a bigger audience, IE usualy the rest of the gaming population or Halo dummys) start going too far fetched and lasery pew pew to attract them, so it ends up making gamey choices and saying "oh its cool you can fire lasers from your ass, its the future" then paste it onto armas background and ethos to date and its a bold ass new step that has alot of people worried is all.

Again, could be great, but special concerns, its a long way to go and from the other side of town

Or you could troll away and post padlock gifs and uninteresting internety comments like above.

LOL TLDR YAWNYAWN

sure they can take hits on the front turret from anything man portable but a hit anywhere else and its game over.

active protection systems provide a great deal of added security against threats from the flanks but they're not infallible and afaik, no current system can deal with top attack munitions like the javelin. nor can they deal with massive HEAP missiles like the kh-29 and other 'bunker busters'/heavy bombs.

Yeah i hear that, its the worry of how a game translates things, in game you can fire a bunch of rounds from a T72 and kill an M1, in reality you would be there all day pinging round after round off of it.

I think some will say "We wont know till the game comes out" But this is just a bit of banter. So read other threads!

Its like i say, all concerns, it could work out great and fresh. I have some faith it will.

[4 IN 1 0]

So did BI say there will be stargate, spaceship, alien, killer lazer, 2 leg robot that stand 10 meters high, synthetic organism, and stuff like that? If no then why don't just walk out of the door?

[Valiant 1-4 10]

Because this is not a building, and they didnt say they wouldnt, to answer 100% in your vein.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Because this is not a building, and they didnt say they wouldnt, to answer 100% in your vein.

BI also didnt say there wouldnt be zombies. Yet nothing points in that direction so its pretty safe to assume there wont be any. :rolleyes: