biological weapons

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Some kind of biological weapons or gas weapons would be a sweet edition to arma3. Using the volumetric clouds you could model these weapons to cause bad things for your soldier ranging from slow dps, to crippling your soldier to a walking pace.

[solidsnake2384 10]

That would be nice. Its pretty much WW3 so everyones not going to care about the Geneva Convention.

[KC Grimes 79]

Slow dps? As in, damage per second? Really...?

[dale0404 5]

I really hope that what the man meant by "slow dps", was the crippling effect NBC weapons have on soldiers. Unable to see, choking effects, unconsciousness, death. You know that sort of thing! :p

[paecmaker 23]

Maybe in some degree, but I would hate if in a mission where you have crawled for hours just to be attacked by poisonous gas and choking to death.

[Windexglow 10]

my apm is 150 when i play arma2 and 400 when im snipin

[160thSOAR 10]

At above post: what the hell are you talking about?

@ OP: Poison gas is an interesting concept, but I don't see any reason to have that in ArmA3. Frankly, it would be more of an annoyance than anything else. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Also, dps? I don't want something like Combat Arms nerve gas in ArmA3.

[Nicholas 5]

@ OP: Poison gas is an interesting concept, but I don't see any reason to have that in ArmA3. Frankly, it would be more of an annoyance than anything else. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Nothing's broke, but what's wrong with adding content?

[KC Grimes 79]

my apm is 150 when i play arma2 and 400 when im snipin

Beautiful.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

I dont like some weapons in the game but I dont mind them being there for people to use. LOL

dps = damage per second which is a rate

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I'd personally like to see these type of weapons, but only added by the mission maker under certain scenarios. No units, except maybe a few OPFOR SF, should actually carry the gas by default loadouts.

[Black Cat 10]

I'd personally like to see these type of weapons, but only added by the mission maker under certain scenarios. No units, except maybe a few OPFOR SF, should actually carry the gas by default loadouts.

Let's not turn this into a "Nova Gas" type of thing, rather, I think they should be in SCUD-like things or maybe used as mortar/artillery rounds, but not grenades

[That guy 10]

personally, i really dont see what such weapons would add to the game. besides, a skilled mission maker/scripter can already add such effects to the game with out needing a dev to do it.

so i guess i just made my opinion useless :p

[rye1 21]

Future war against Iran, I see why it's plausable... but I'm not taken to it. Mark-1 autoinjectors would be apart of your kit if the possibility of it being used arose, even LE SWAT carry them on some jobs.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Rye

[tacticalnuggets 24]

personally, i really dont see what such weapons would add to the game. besides, a skilled mission maker/scripter can already add such effects to the game with out needing a dev to do it.

so i guess i just made my opinion useless :p

Most of these people have the talent to make their own game. We will purchase arma3 because people have dedicated their careers to developing it. May you please elaborate more on why you think moders need to put even more effort in upgrading the game?

[noubernou 77]

Biological weapons are really not a battlefield weapon, besides incubation time is in dozens of hours to days/weeks so you'd not really see any effect of the weapon. :p

Chemical weapons would be cool, but probably better left to addon makers and mission makers.

[dmarkwick 261]

If the particle system would have an extra parameter that allowed for PhysX enhancement, then we could have gaseous substances that follow edges & surfaces, like mustard gas following terrain, and tear gas that stays in one room etc.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't know, would be nice to have CS gas in the game, with full support for gasmask usage. If we wanted something else, that could now be easily scripted and the equipment would be there without requiring addons. And I hope OP meant chemical weapons rather than biological :) As for volumetric cloud, no, not unless CS or what is known to be visible gases. Most chemical agents are completely invisible and can only be observed using detectors (electronic but also old fashion like paper strips reacting to those gases). Also, gas is often a misnomer, as many of these agents stick to plants and ground rather than flow freely with the air. Remember they are mostly used as area of denial rather (like a minefield) than with intent to kill. It's not WW I anymore :)

[paecmaker 23]

yeah dps shouldnt exactly be changed if attacked by gas, cause the weapon wont react to that(but the player would).

But if they implemeted deadly gas you should have a warning system(or when you hear your guy choking) and a gas mask, It would maybe be similar to the one in metro 2033.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

yeah dps shouldnt exactly be changed if attacked by gas, cause the weapon wont react to that(but the player would).

But if they implemeted deadly gas you should have a warning system(or when you hear your guy choking) and a gas mask, It would maybe be similar to the one in metro 2033.

I ment dps on you. Like, you getting damaged slowly over time. Acronyms are evil, i'm not using them anymore.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

McGyver's gas grenades were pretty nice in Ravenshield, something small like those would be nice...if required gas mask were also added (to save your arse).

IMO, large scale scuds may be to much.

[paecmaker 23]

I ment dps on you. Like, you getting damaged slowly over time. Acronyms are evil, i'm not using them anymore.

OK, then I get it, its not that you deal lesser dps :p

[That guy 10]

Bio and Chem weapons are strategic weapons, and dont fit very well into armas more tactical level focus. they would fit better into a grand strategy game like hearts of iron where the longer term and 2nd 3rd order effects come into play.

since in arma you are the boots on the ground, you get hit with this stuff its pretty much game over. they can make a good scenario, but its still game over if they are ever used. they could implement some big advanced CBRN system into the game, but what is the point?

it seems like alot of effort just for a simple "game over".

a mission maker can simulate the same thing if the mission calls for it. a scud lands, blows up, some one calls "GAS GAS GAS", your screen goes blurry and you die. simple (in an advanved way :p)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Little offtopic, but what's the difference between tactics and strategy? Doesn't strategy on one level reflect tactics on another? I.e. tactics on the squad level may be part of strategy on the platoon level which is tactics reflecting the battalion strategy? Use of chemical weapons as denial of area may be tactics on one echelon and strategy on a higher echelon. Calling chemical weapons a strategic employment sounds weird because not all of them are "static" (unsure of the english word) and dissipate fairly quickly, whereas strategy usually means something that is in effect over time.

Don't take my word for it, it's just my (limited) understanding of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But yes, I agree. Simulation of the effects I think can be very easy to script. Actual gas masks however would need to be implemented in the engine (or addon) and cannot be scripted. Although I use overlay method for oxygen masks for HALO, I'm not fully happy with the result due to the nature of overlays (covers up important aspects of the gui).

[noubernou 77]

Chemical weapons are used to disrupt tactics on a strategic level. :p

Fighting in a chemical environment is not any more lethal after the first few minutes than a normal combat environment, if the fighting force is prepared to fight in a chemical environment. What it does do is make your combat efficiency plummet! You are fighting in all that gear, with limited visibility, having to maintain your filters, drink through a special tube, facilitate the need to defecate and urinate while in chemical suits, etc. It sucks!

Also, working in a chemical environment doing other duties than combat is horrible too. Chemical weapons in a conventional fight would be used in one of two ways, area denial (troops dont want to fight in the above conditions) and on rear staging areas, ports, and airfields to slow down and hamper operations there. Since most civilian ports that would facilitate offloading of forces used to reinforce a fight are not manned entirely by military personnel the casualties would be a hindrance to efficient operations. Airbases would have to do munitions changes and fueling in chemical gear, and pilots would only be able to enter or exit their aircraft in chemically sealed hangers, and only after the planes have been washed down. It was expected that pilots would therefore be more likely to fly many more subsequent flight operations, and their planes would not have as much care taken to them between flights.

Basically chemical weapons slow EVERYTHING DOWN.