ARMA 3 Engine and Fighting Positions, Trenches and Prepared Positions

[falcon_565 11]

Hi all!

I'd like to address and discus a major limitation of the current ARMA engine which I feel could be addressed in a way that would vastly improve gameplay. Currently the ARMA engine does not support terrain deformation or phasing objects with the terrain in any way. This means that it is currently impossible to make any sort or fighting position, trench or prepared position that has any part beneath the level of the terrain. Unfortunately this forces any existing prepared position to consist of material built up above the level of the terrain. Having positions built solely above the terrain negates or impairs many of the benefits of prepared positions including their superior concealment and survivability.

One possible solution would be to include the ability to phase objects into the terrain. This would allow players to occupy empty space in models that are placed like current static objects but push away the terrain around them. I think this would be an ideal solution because it would allow mission makers to place these objects in desired locations specific to their intentions. In addition with some simple scripting it would allow players to create these positions during missions.

An example of a similar solution implemented in VBS.

Using this method would also allow for a wide range and variety of different types of prepared positions to be made easily. However there are two types of positions that should minimally be included.

First a basic infantry fighting position:

Also a basic two-tiered vehicle fighting position:

*note this isn't a true two-tiered fighting position, which allows the tank to reverse into a hide position.

ARMA is perhaps the closest thing available to a true infantry simulator but the lack of fighting positions both for personnel and vehicles is sorely missed. Modifying the engine to provide this ability would greatly enhance both the tactical depth and flexibility afforded to mission makers which in turn gets passed into the missions they create. In addition implementing this on an engine level would allow island makers to easily create micro terrain features such as ditches next to fields and roads. All of these features in summation drastically increase the survability and effectiveness of units, particularly the infantry which in turn would help to negate the unrealistic advantages currently afforded to some weapons systems.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think of this engine limitation as well as any alternative solutions that people may have.

[Spartan 163 0]

In before lock.

This was said to be in ARMA3 already. See one of the interviews that was posted last week.

[That guy 10]

did they confirm that its in, or only allude to its possibility? i was under the impression it was a "maybe"

[Steakslim 1]

It was a maybe, just one of their more enthusiastic maybe's.

[Cripsis 10]

Fighting holes would be perfect for ARMA 3. For example imagine playing a mission where some enemy AI are crouching in fighting holes that are concealed in the long grass of what appears to be an empty field. They could remain completely hidden until your squad moves to within 30 metres range and then suddenly pop up and unleash a murderous volume of automatic fire.

Enemy fighting holes camoflauged within distant treelines would also be ideal for creating lengthy firefights as they would be much harder to hit because they would have the ability to fire from behind almost total cover or duck down and be virtually impossible to hit with direct small arms fire.

[falcon_565 11]

Fighting holes would be perfect for ARMA 3. For example imagine playing a mission where some enemy AI are crouching in fighting holes that are concealed in the long grass of what appears to be an empty field. They could remain completely hidden until your squad moves to within 30 metres range and then suddenly pop up and unleash a murderous volume of automatic fire.

Enemy fighting holes camoflauged within distant treelines would also be ideal for creating lengthy firefights as they would be much harder to hit because they would have the ability to fire from behind almost total cover or duck down and be virtually impossible to hit with direct small arms fire.

Exactly, fighting positions would help promote longer more realistic firefights. Already placing AI in the limited static positions we have available makes for much more tactically diverse and challenging missions. Fighting positions would go a long way towards making engagements particularly at range less effective which in turn leads to longer firefights and more gameplay.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Falcon_565

[NoRailgunner 0]

Guess why there is a Sticky called "Wishlist and Ideas"? :rolleyes:

Now I suggest that everyone who opens a thread with such or similar content should give at least 10 cookies to forum moderators. Deal?

[rye1 21]

And apologize, in public, while doing a dance..... in a skirt. Too far?

[djfluffwug 10]

I think this thread should stay unlocked as there is alot of possibilities with this feature. It is more than just a wish. I think it could be discussed in alot more detail.

[dmarkwick 261]

Editor placed dugouts and tank hides would be a great addition.

[st_dux 26]

Guess why there is a Sticky called "Wishlist and Ideas"?

This entire forum section is essentially a repository for wishes and ideas, and that thread is an unfocused mess. Besides, the OP specifically asked for feedback on how this feature could/should be implemented.

[falcon_565 11]

I think this thread should stay unlocked as there is alot of possibilities with this feature. It is more than just a wish. I think it could be discussed in alot more detail.

That was my thinking as well, hence why I titled the thread the way I did, as an engine discussion.

In addition to the use of this feature as fighting positions some have already mentioned the ability to make underground spaces like caves and tunnels. Personally I really don't care that much about those kind of spaces but I do think the basements in buildings would be a cool and useful addition. Basements would be nice for CCPs and CPs for missions like a defense of a town. Also basements with some basement windows would be ideal places for infantry and add a nice extra dimension to urban combat.

[Pyronick 21]

Something which has been overlooked in many if not most shooters. Prepared positions are still vital in modern warfare. Most games seem to focus mainly on UO (MOUT/OBUA, we Dutch call it OptredenVerstedelijktGebied), whereas the ArmA 3 storyline will probably still be fought in forests, plains or urban-rural fringes.

[Tonci87 163]

Basements would be a cool thing, but I don't know how common they are in Greece

[NeMeSiS 11]

Something which has been overlooked in many if not most shooters. Prepared positions are still vital in modern warfare. Most games seem to focus mainly on UO (MOUT/OBUA, we Dutch call it OptredenVerstedelijktGebied), whereas the ArmA 3 storyline will probably still be fought in forests, plains or urban-rural fringes.

You may want to add some spaces in that word, otherwise people will think our language is actually as crazy as depicted in most movies. :p

[noubernou 77]

The lack of prepared fighting positions makes artillery total over kill. There is no cover to take from impact fuze rounds really.

The current solution of using models above ground makes fighting positions that you are trying to conceal painfully obvious.

Introducing the tech from VBS2 1.50 would be very nice. I hope that the engine includes it as well as other advances going into the terrain streaming and modification features of VBS2.

[That guy 10]

the most important aspect of this featrue, is getting AI to use them effectively, with out doing somersaults in the editor and scripting madness.

[froggyluv 2136]

the most important aspect of this featrue, is getting AI to use them effectively, with out doing somersaults in the editor and scripting madness.

Yup, still got fingers crossed that some semi-known pathfinding middleware rears it's saucy head. ;)

[falcon_565 11]

the most important aspect of this featrue, is getting AI to use them effectively, with out doing somersaults in the editor and scripting madness.

I would argue exactly the opposite. Getting AI to use the fighting positions we already have isn't that hard and should easily transfer to these new models. All it takes is: setpos, dostop, setunitpos, and dowatch to have an AI perfectly placed in a fighting position. It is much more important for the feature to be there in the first place than for it to be easy to use. I'd hate to see something this fundamental get scrapped because the AI don't use it effectively. As long as it is playable by people the AI can always be scripted to use it effectively. In fact there are plenty of features that are like this in ARMA already. In short a complex harder to use system that is in the game is much preferable to a perfect one that isn't.

[st_dux 26]

The lack of prepared fighting positions makes artillery total over kill. There is no cover to take from impact fuze rounds really.

+1. I've always thought it would be interesting to integrate artillery into MP missions, but you really can't without killing the fun because of this fact alone. Being able to take hard cover during an artillery barrage and surviving would really have an interesting effect on the players' mindset.

[Cripsis 10]

I can picture everyone sprinting like madmen to their bunker when the first artillery round whistles in.

[falcon_565 11]

+1. I've always thought it would be interesting to integrate artillery into MP missions, but you really can't without killing the fun because of this fact alone. Being able to take hard cover during an artillery barrage and surviving would really have an interesting effect on the players' mindset.

Never stopped me before :P

Also hard cover isn't necessarily available while your on the attack or not in prepared positions. That's why you have reaction to artillery drills.

[st_dux 26]

How do you react to 155mm HE without hard cover? In my experience, there really isn't much of any recourse available in ArmA if the strike was accurate, but I think adding underground objects would do a lot to change that.

[*LK1* 10]

could be a paint in the ass for tankers.

[falcon_565 11]

How do you react to 155mm HE without hard cover? In my experience, there really isn't much of any recourse available in ArmA if the strike was accurate, but I think adding underground objects would do a lot to change that.

The primary reaction to artillery is to clear the strike area as quickly as possible. If indirect fire is expected than the direction and actions taken are usually given in 'actions on contact' briefing. If you happen to be caught exactly in the middle of the strike zone or for whatever reason your unable to maneuver than individuals should find the best immediate cover they can. In ARMA you can usually find something (tree, depression, some rocks) within a few steps that can help in addition to going prone. Going prone really increases your chances of survival especially in ARMA because of the way it handles damage done by explosions. But remember if the enemy was able to call an accurate for effect fire mission on you then chances are you made some mistake to give them that opportunity.