Singleplayer with epic plot

[jakerod 254]

I agree with Carl as well. Although the CWC maps do have their charm.

I thought I would add the one thing that the ArmA campaign did right here. I liked the idea of support missions to help change how the main one plays out. I didn't like the lack of characters from it but I do think it would be cool to kind of mesh the ideas of the OA campaign, HR, and ArmA.

Characters

Essentially you could make it so that there are five different characters; Infantry, Squad Leader, Special-Forces, Tank Commander, and Pilot. It might be necessary to add in more characters since if you want to maintain realism the Pilot shouldn't be flying every air vehicle. Maybe make him an attack helicopter pilot or something and add another one for transport. The other option being to just have an attack helicopter character since that role is more dynamic. The main point would be to develop the main characters here more than just oh you're playing as a tank gunner this time.

Missions and Side Missions

The missions would be set up kind of how they were in Armed Assault with one main objective and several side missions that impact the course of the battle. Perhaps make it so that there are a few main types like:

• Recon- Could find enemy positions and enemy numbers which may give you access to more equipment later on.
• Sabotage- Sabotage some type of enemy equipment so that they can't use it in the battle (ex. destroying trucks so they can't bring reinforcements or disabling communications so they can't call for reinforcements.
• Attack- Attack to take a position that will be advantageous to the main objective.
• Defense- Defend a position to deny them the ability to use it in the main objective.
• Movement- the weakest of the ones I have come up with. Move to a location with possibility of enemy contact so that you can attack from a different angle later on.
  

Each side mission could be geared towards a certain unit. Sabotage could always be Special-Forces with the other ones changing depending on the main objective.

The main difference between this and Armed Assault would be that it would be set up more like Manhattan. You operate out of a base or multiple bases depending on what character you choose to play as. When you RTB or radio in the objective status (either Accomplished or Failed) then you have an option to choose a different character (like in Blood, Sweat, and Tears in Armed Assault) and do a side mission. If you don't want to do a side mission maybe the AI could "Take it On", aka there is a certain percent probability of success if you choose not to play it and there is a dice roll type dynamic where it is accomplished or failed depending on the outcome. Or maybe the AI actually goes and does the objective while you're trying to do a different one.

I also kind of like the idea of some Side Missions being strategic rather than tactical. If you take out fuel depots whenever you get a chance then the enemy might not be able to move troops as quick or use their tanks as effectively. If you hit ammo depots then troops may surrender quicker because they lack ammo etc. These wouldn't be things that would affect the main objective that you are playing at but might influence the final objective or some of the final ones or perhaps end the war quicker.

Dynamics

It would be cool if the side missions weren't always of the same type. For example, every Main Objective shouldn't have one of each different type of side mission but should just have whatever fits into the mission. So one main objective might have it so that every side mission is an attack or all except one is an attack depending on the main objective. I also think it would be cool for some side missions to be dynamic. Ex. You were playing as a helicopter pilot and crash landed your helicopter in a field in enemy territory. You are then given the option to either play as the pilot and get back to base or to switch to Infantry or Special-Forces to go rescue the pilot.

Conclusion

The point of these ideas were to take what I saw as the best elements of all the campaigns and put them together (Main Mission / Side Mission dynamic of ArmA, Characters of CWC/CWA/Res/OA, and the Openness of HR) while avoiding the worst elements (Lack of characters, Warfare (I didn't think it was terrible but I would prefer something more realistic), non-realism of CWC/CWA/Res, and easiness/feeling of superiority or invincibility of OA. This would all have to be done in a realistic way though or else I feel it might not go as well and break the immersion. Would be cool to have a resistance character too or some aspect where you have to manage equipment or troops.

Additional elements that I think would be good;

• Surrendering Enemies
• Multiple Endings/Story Branches
• Side Missions within Side Missions (helping out civilians if they ask)
• Placing Defenses (One of few good elements of Red Hammer campaign)
• Enemy Campaign or option to play as an enemy soldier occasionally.(Other good element of Red Hammer)
• Cooperative Campaign both as multiple roles and within the same group/vehicle.
  

This is all probably too late for the ArmA III campaign but maybe we will get a Front Line expansion to it and this could be implemented. Additionally, I am aware of the difficulty of pulling this off. Highly aware.

Sorry for the long post.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Jakerod

[Provac 0]

If people want over the top action I agree they should seek it elsewhere in games designed for that type of game play. If people want the ultimate in realism they should look elsewhere as well as this this franchise does not represent real life. This is a game like any other, it just has its own concepts.

I think if you want to push more realism then even before being able to operate it you should go through proper training. If you want to fly a plane, operate heli's or tanks. Use a certain rifle, you need to be licensed. Then when you have gone through months of acquiring licenses to even operate on foot you get assigned realistic military tasks like watch a road for a week or so. Then huff to a new forward area and watch another road for a set amount of time. Do this for a year, and listen to some action down the road that by random chance. There are soldiers in wars that hasn't even been able to be in the shit, just doing mundane tasks.

The argument against what I just said is that this is just a game, which proves my point exactly. This isn't realistic, its just a game. So saying you prefer realism over well planned stories doesn't really present your case well because this game isn't real.

The concept of AA3 is already based on events and branches into a time we haven't experienced yet. Makes it unrealistic already even though they have their own predictions they aren't seeing the future.

It doesn't hurt to have a well developed campaign to enjoy, of course it has to be well made and not just some action junkie killing machine title. But its not impossible to create engaging stories.

This is just a silly opinion so don't take to much heed to the words above, I usually don't know what I am talking about 90% of the time :D

Edit note! I just re read my post and I didn't really make much sense of it, teaches me to post when i'm sick. Should be a funny read though so I will let it stay haha :D

Edited October 21, 2011 by Provac

[Tonmeister 14]

epic.

[maturin 12]

I like that are a battlefield. I don't mean a constant scrum, I mean a large map with markings that show you the greater disposition of forces and networks of pre-placed defense. Then you choose how to crack the nut.

[wiggum2 31]

In AA3 it will most likely be you driving the tank in the country side - oh a random enemy patrol - then another 20 mins of driving over an empty land. Pfft.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

...then go play OF:Red River, because it will give you this style of gameplay. ;):p

Edited October 22, 2011 by Wiggum

[bonchie 39]

...then go play OF:Red River, because it will give you this style of gameplay. ;):p

Driving for 20 minutes in OFP:RR?

They'd never dream of taking you off the leash that much. ;)

[MADDOGdb7 10]

I think it would be cool to play through the campaign as a grunt, but also have the choice to play through the same missions as a squad leader and a platoon commander.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

@Wiggum: Glad you added those smileys, because I couldn't figure out what you meant by that :p I tried it, but quit playing after an hour and so.

@MADDOGdb7: Yes, but pretty much impossible to setup. At least I don't have a clue where I would start on that approach.

[MADDOGdb7 10]

@Wiggum: Glad you added those smileys, because I couldn't figure out what you meant by that :p I tried it, but quit playing after an hour and so.

@MADDOGdb7: Yes, but pretty much impossible to setup. At least I don't have a clue where I would start on that approach.

Me neither... But the Idea is Pure GOLD!

[Ragingbear505 10]

Me neither... But the Idea is Pure GOLD!

It wouldn't be that difficult I imagine, just extra work. You choose the campaign from the main menu, it gives you the option to be in a command role or a grunt role. If you play the grunt role you have an AI squad leader who holds your hand and leads you around. If you play the squad leader you're given objectives and its up to you how you handle them like in Harvest Red. Of course I'm simplifying it, there's probably a whole lot of things that make doing that annoying but I'm not an expert.

[rübe 127]

@MADDOGdb7: Yes, but pretty much impossible to setup. At least I don't have a clue where I would start on that approach.

RUBE Fire Ants. Case closed. :D

It's a bit of extra work, but it's no problem at all to setup your mission so you can play them as leader or as grunt. In case you're not leader, there just needs to be a bit of extra AI/FSM running (if at all; waypoints don't need any extra effort) and that's it. You can aswell switch from grunt to leader and back while the mission is running (if only teamswitch wouldn't be broken by design)...

For a campaign you'd probably like to restrict the opportunities to switch role, but that's no problem either... So no, there is absolutely no (technical) reason why this shouldn't be possible.

Btw. aslong as the mission doesn't end if your buddies horribly die, you might end up as leader of your group anyway in any mission. So really, the extra effort is rather minimal, since the engine handles this already very well (aslong as you don't fuck up your mission design, hehe)

Edited October 23, 2011 by ruebe

[metalcraze 290]

I'm not really seeing your complaint. It's the same AI regardless of whether it's random or not. And nothing was truly random in Manhattan either. Those patrols were pre-placed on a set path.

I don't complain about AI. I complain about missions not feeling authentic.

AFAIK in Manhattan BIS used ACM to generate AIs so the result was that random enemies were walking around guarding nothing.

With focused missions of CWC there always was logic to BLUFOR's and OPFOR's actions. You drive in convoy and so there are ambushes set up. And then there's help coming to you. And each mission felt unique.

In AA2 it was "reach the point X, do something, go to the next point". No big fights, no changing frontlines. Just a bunch of SF guys killing random patrols all over a barely active map (in a war torn country lol). It was terrible. If not for PMC - Harvest Red would be the worst BIS campaign to date.

When you don't have that you lose the feel of actually being there because war isn't all non-stop fighting. CWC accomplished this by having specific missions where almost no fighting went on flanking the action packed missions. Manhattan does much the same thing. It just does it in an open world environment where the missions don't end after each segment.

Except Manhattan, much like AA2 campaign, does nothing else.

There's never a war raging on. And warfare was a cheap excuse and a disgrace.

There's not a single mission in AA2 that compares to CWC.

On the other hand AA3 campaign can't possibly be worse than PMC but that doesn't say too much.

Sounds to me it's just nostalgia talking here. The CWC missions wasn't all that great at all. It was the concept of a free game and the whole atmosphere that made it feel great - not mission design. It was good at the time, but would fail today (for me).

Tried CWR2 demo?

After AA2 and OA it was very refreshing and reaffirmed to me that it wasn't some "nostalgia".

CWC random mission: you fly in a chopper guarding a column of tanks and infantry forces while they push south on Everon. Enemy is also counter-attacking.

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: Gastowski crawls through mud on Kolgujev, sabotaging 3 shilkas, avoiding combat as enemy will come agressively after him if he will mess up

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: a pilot is taken captive, has to escape (in one of three ways btw) and navigate to the base using stars while enemy is looking for him.

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: a few squads of infantry paradrop onto an island to take out an enemy base (or two), completely with enemy counterattacks and friendly armor support

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

Catch my drift?

So on next playthrough you adopt your tactics to suit existing knowledge about the mission. Where is the surprise in that?

You mean just like in AA2? In AA2 after you've captured Bardak once you will always capture him in the exactly same location and the exact same time. It isn't different at all in free approach. But the design is worse.

Not being attacked doesn't mean they're not there, assessing the situation.

They are no there and they don't assess the situation. As nobody ever attacks anyone on Chernarus. A few random patrols walking around and some preplaced forces sitting on their asses in set locations - totally a wartorn country.

I'm sorry, but go play CoD2 or something if you want constant action with sense of action being on the realistic side.

Don't you even try to pull "go play CoD" on me.

I don't want to shoot constantly, but I want a war that feels real, not a bunch of SF guys running around on an empty land.

Edited October 23, 2011 by metalcraze

[jakerod 254]

I don't complain about AI. I complain about missions not feeling authentic.

AFAIK in Manhattan BIS used ACM to generate AIs so the result was that random enemies were walking around guarding nothing.

With focused missions of CWC there always was logic to BLUFOR's and OPFOR's actions. You drive in convoy and so there are ambushes set up. And then there's help coming to you. And each mission felt unique.

In AA2 it was "reach the point X, do something, go to the next point". No big fights, no changing frontlines. Just a bunch of SF guys killing random patrols all over a barely active map (in a war torn country lol). It was terrible. If not for PMC - Harvest Red would be the worst BIS campaign to date.

Except Manhattan, much like AA2 campaign, does nothing else.

There's never a war raging on. And warfare was a cheap excuse and a disgrace.

There's not a single mission in AA2 that compares to CWC.

On the other hand AA3 campaign can't possibly be worse than PMC but that doesn't say too much.

Tried CWR2 demo?

After AA2 and OA it was very refreshing and reaffirmed to me that it wasn't some "nostalgia".

CWC random mission: you fly in a chopper guarding a column of tanks and infantry forces while they push south on Everon. Enemy is also counter-attacking.

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: Gastowski crawls through mud on Kolgujev, sabotaging 3 shilkas, avoiding combat as enemy will come agressively after him if he will mess up

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: a pilot is taken captive, has to escape (in one of three ways btw) and navigate to the base using stars while enemy is looking for him.

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

CWC random mission: a few squads of infantry paradrop onto an island to take out an enemy base (or two), completely with enemy counterattacks and friendly armor support

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

Catch my drift?

You mean just like in AA2? In AA2 after you've captured Bardak once you will always capture him in the exactly same location and the exact same time. It isn't different at all in free approach. But the design is worse.

They are no there and they don't assess the situation. As nobody ever attacks anyone on Chernarus. A few random patrols walking around and some preplaced forces sitting on their asses in set locations - totally a wartorn country.

Don't you even try to pull "go play CoD" on me.

I don't want to shoot constantly, but I want a war that feels real, not a bunch of SF guys running around on an empty land.

They are two different types of wars. CWC was symmetric and AA2 was asymmetric. Patrols don't have to be guarding anything they use them for recon too.

Additionally, there is very little fun in; "Oh I just got ambushed in this convoy mission. Now I know where they are at so I'll just stop short of it and shoot them all from a distance and then continue until I get killed again and then just keep repeating since they are going to be in the same spot every time."

AA2 wasn't like that. Things were truly random. Bardak isn't always in the same spot. The base isn't always in the same spot. The patrols were random. I ran into like an entire motorized rifle platoon one time while trying to get to the pilot. It was interesting. AA2 did a good job of doing asymetric warfare while CWC did a good job, minus realism issues, in symmetric warfare. Both are fun to me. I would like them mixed (see my last post in this thread).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

RUBE Fire Ants. Case closed. :D

Hehe, roger that, might give it a go eventually. I remember one of these "uber dynamic missions" in OFP (Malden I think) where you started by going up a cliff and try to grab a pistol. It looked completely awesome, but the scripting toll was too much for my hw to handle. I fear a repeat of that. But we'll see. At least some fsms to learn from by reading the description.

AFAIK in Manhattan BIS used ACM to generate AIs so the result was that random enemies were walking around guarding nothing.

That's what the army does best ;)

With focused missions of CWC there always was logic to BLUFOR's and OPFOR's actions. You drive in convoy and so there are ambushes set up. And then there's help coming to you. And each mission felt unique.

I never thought of Harvest Red missions not feeling unique. Pretty good to me.

In AA2 it was "reach the point X, do something, go to the next point". No big fights, no changing frontlines. Just a bunch of SF guys killing random patrols all over a barely active map (in a war torn country lol). It was terrible.

CDF, NAPA, Civilians - after the initial invasion which left CDF kinda crippled, these elements doesn't exactly spell out "war torn country", and I was never under the impression that BIS tried to tell us that either. The second mission where you did some basic MOUT was the closest we got to "war", it was also one of the most unplayable ones because too much was going on for my hw to handle. There can be "war, war crimes, and atrocities" going on without it having to take the shape of a WWII carpet bombing or scale in mass. They did focus on the operations of a small SF unit, and I think they did it well. If you read up on force recon, that is why I think the mission focus was actually kinda authentic.

If not for PMC - Harvest Red would be the worst BIS campaign to date.

Huh? PMC? Yeah, I always thought the "insert and steal a chopper and blow up 20-30 vehicles" mission in Arma1 was very good :rolleyes: In Arma1 you completely disconnected with your character(s). That is very much restored in Arma2. Which is why I think Arma2 is better, and since it does so without repeating old grounds.

Except Manhattan, much like AA2 campaign, does nothing else.

There's never a war raging on. And warfare was a cheap excuse and a disgrace.

For the better, I think, see also above. Given the campaign parameters of using a small FR team (making it consistent, which is good for us role players). DA missions support was in the beginning, unconventional warfare was later on when you became separated from the force. Made much sense to me. "You pick the fight you can win", obviously there is very little a four man FR team can do other than provide expertise and leadership. Warfare provided some battle coverage over a large area, and the whole area became your playground. Excellent in my book.

There's not a single mission in AA2 that compares to CWC.

Why should it? I'm all for fresh ideas, unlike certain other games that seems to do the same stuff over and over again.

Tried CWR2 demo?

After AA2 and OA it was very refreshing and reaffirmed to me that it wasn't some "nostalgia".

Of course I did :) I loved it too, but I can't deny much of that love came from nostalgia. The focus was different, and it fit. But so is Arma2, even if you didn't happen to like it. I prefer Arma2 campaign over all the others (maybe with exception of Resistance, but then mostly for character development rather than believability).

CWC random mission: you fly in a chopper guarding a column of tanks and infantry forces while they push south on Everon. Enemy is also counter-attacking.

Force Recon aren't pilots. On the other hand, in one playthrough I had a Hind blowing up the insurgent base we had as an objective, considerably easing up my tasks.

CWC random mission: Gastowski crawls through mud on Kolgujev, sabotaging 3 shilkas, avoiding combat as enemy will come agressively after him if he will mess up

See next comment instead.

CWC random mission: a pilot is taken captive, has to escape (in one of three ways btw) and navigate to the base using stars while enemy is looking for him.

OA mission: A pilot (you) is taken captive, but only if you mess up and get shot down. In following mission, you (in other role) have to rescue him. Which is more authentic? A rescue attempt or a single pilot escaping a whole base? I'm not saying it can't be done, and the navigating part was a fresh twist. I just think the way I executed my "great escape" just felt horrible, and in very little time spent. I list OA mission rather than A2 mission to prevent repeating force recon != pilots. Whups. :p

A2 mission: After Manhattan, depending on earlier choices and successes, you have to cover pretty good distance by foot at night, where enemy is actively searching for you. That includes choppers and BMPs, where given your current equipment, really want to avoid contact other than trying to setup ambushes. I'm always completely exhausted after this one.

CWC random mission: a few squads of infantry paradrop onto an island to take out an enemy base (or two), completely with enemy counterattacks and friendly armor support

I'm imagining that this is going on in the end Warfare mission (abstraction). But that's not what I would expect force recon to participate in, they do deep recon (semi check), DA for support (check), UW (check) and limited SO in relation to force (check). If we were regular grunts, hell yes I want that kind of action. But we're not, so it goes against authenticity if FR were to do so.

AA2 random mission: 4 SF guys go to point X, killing a few random patrols on the way.

Catch my drift?

No, not at all. Explained above.

You mean just like in AA2? In AA2 after you've captured Bardak once you will always capture him in the exactly same location and the exact same time. It isn't different at all in free approach. But the design is worse.

Bardak? On that one, all of my games have been completely different. He's even escaped in our HMMWV on a couple of occasions for crying out loud.

You sure you don't mean capturing Lopotev (special objective in last warfare)?

I already said I wanted more randomness. There are several tower locations which could have been used for this. However, the insurgent base in Manhattan can show up in two places iirc. Making it fully dynamic, which has its own charms, you risk making objectives far too easy since you cannot control the outcome of the generation very much (scope too big). The small camps in Manhattan are a great example of this; you only have to deal with some of them to finish that objective, and most are very hard as pure infantry due convex surface top and grass.

They are no there and they don't assess the situation. As nobody ever attacks anyone on Chernarus. A few random patrols walking around and some preplaced forces sitting on their asses in set locations - totally a wartorn country.

I meant I roleplay it. And again, I don't think of Chernarus as a wartorn country. Unlike Kolgujev's appearance, buildings are pretty much unharmed.

Don't you even try to pull "go play CoD" on me.

I don't want to shoot constantly, but I want a war that feels real, not a bunch of SF guys running around on an empty land.

I didn't even mean it in a disrespectful way (like I normally do, lol). I meant that back in the day when CoD did WWII, it felt a whole lot more authentic since battle rifles of the day was a much more "decisive weapon" compared to our assault rifles are in modern warfare. Don't forget we can't have realistic troop movement to simulate anything "realistic" wrt "major battles".

As for "empty land", check out CWC surroundings again. I'm sorry but we're getting a much grander AO, which also have to be playable. Given a "realistic Chernarus in WWII", there is no need to squeeze all events from the entire war into the few days we are there.

Bottom line:

For the task they set out to do, a small force recon team, they did an excellent job on it by keeping it fairly coherent to their usual tasks, while having the area to operate in big while not making it super safe to be in - not watching out gets you killed. ACM could have been better, but I didn't find it horrible either.

[metalcraze 290]

But that's not what I would expect force recon to participate in

You should've replied just with this sentence. Do you understand now?

Instead of giving a proper, interesting war - BIS pulled off a boring SF crap limited to just running from point A to B and never having normal varied missions. No combined ops. No sabotage missions. No aerial combat. Just run from one NPC to another and talk, talk, talk. Fight infantry teams. Avoid anything bigger. Horrible. I couldn't care less about one-dimensional guys in my team that can't die, they are boring - I just want to play the damn game, not run around talking to boring NPCs.

They are two different types of wars. CWC was symmetric and AA2 was asymmetric. Patrols don't have to be guarding anything they use them for recon too.

I didn't notice anything asymmetric about AA2 war. Unless by asymmetric you mean spamming enemy harder with tanks that he spams you in the latter half of the game.

Additionally, there is very little fun in; "Oh I just got ambushed in this convoy mission. Now I know where they are at so I'll just stop short of it and shoot them all from a distance and then continue until I get killed again and then just keep repeating since they are going to be in the same spot every time."

Just like in AA2 you mean? You will also go to those camps up on the hills and always find a marine patrol there. And always find Bardak at a quarry or later driving through a village at set times. There's no "replayability" in AA2 campaign either.

Except in CWC case it isn't boring.

AA2 wasn't like that. Things were truly random. Bardak isn't always in the same spot. The base isn't always in the same spot. The patrols were random. I ran into like an entire motorized rifle platoon one time while trying to get to the pilot. It was interesting. AA2 did a good job of doing asymetric warfare while CWC did a good job, minus realism issues, in symmetric warfare. Both are fun to me. I would like them mixed (see my last post in this thread).

There was nothing asymmetric about warfare in AA2 (or do you mean 4 SF dudes liberating the whole country? Yeah that's some fun) Mission design was just boring shit, no excuses. If you enjoy hiking simulations about walking for kilometers doing nothing - be my guest.

Edited October 23, 2011 by metalcraze

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Just like in AA2 you mean? You will also go to those camps up on the hills and always find a marine patrol there. And always find Bardak at a quarry or later driving through a village at set times. There's no "replayability" in AA2 campaign either.

I'm going to call bullshit here.

The first time I captured Bardak, he was just outside of Gorka. Recently, I played through Red Harvest again and found him about 2 clicks south east of Vyshnoye.

I ended up pursuing him through a forest and had to shoot him in the thigh to stop him.

[Militant1006 11]

Not to mention that the Ambient Combat Module is used, I remember on Manhattan I was ambushed about 500m away from the base.

[metalcraze 290]

I'm going to call bullshit here.

The first time I captured Bardak, he was just outside of Gorka. Recently, I played through Red Harvest again and found him about 2 clicks south east of Vyshnoye.

I ended up pursuing him through a forest and had to shoot him in the thigh to stop him.

He moves along a set path. I never said he spawns at special places like some MMORPG raid boss.

Of course when you come to get him - it's ArmA2 AI overtaking from there.

[jakerod 254]

He moves along a set path. I never said he spawns at special places like some MMORPG raid boss.

Of course when you come to get him - it's ArmA2 AI overtaking from there.

Have you been to the Official Missions forum at all? That thing is filled with "Razor Two- Where is Bardak?" posts mostly because it isn't the same every time as everyone else has said. People have found him hiding all over the place or going for a run in the woods.

It isn't a hiking simulation. I'd just like to point out that in the 3 biggest missions* you have a helicopter to fly you around whenever you want.

*In the last one this isn't guaranteed but is possible.

I honestly don't like the whole SF thing that much. But that is what we got and I think they pulled it off well. They did a good job of showing what real Force Recon guys do (or so I'm told). I'm glad we got a break from the Special-Forces "sneaking" (by which I mean shooting 500 people) to get into a base deal that most games have. I agree with you that CWC was fun but HR was enjoyable for me too. I wish there was a variety of missions of too but what they had was also enjoyable for me too. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't enjoy it.

[Tonci87 163]

I also think that HR was really good in showcasing the Tasks a FR Team has to do.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Instead of giving a proper, interesting war - BIS pulled off a boring SF crap limited to just running from point A to B and never having normal varied missions. No combined ops. No sabotage missions. No aerial combat.

"Boring SF crap"? I guess that's just in the eyes of the beholder, isn't it? I found it interesting, educating, fun, fresh, and varied - without the "usual combined ops crap" which would have severely tampered with the force recon approach.

I'd rather have a campaign that spawns an interest, keeps it fueled, and educates me in areas I was dumb at, than entertain me with something I've done so many times before - that stuff gets old very quickly. I knew nothing about force recon before this game.

"No replayability"? That's why I want more randomness, but still it's the campaign in this game I've replayed the most. CoD, Crysis, Farcry2 etc I never even completed, even if they had higher "entertain value". Newer games I don't even bother trying, as I now know them to be boring.

It's the same for stone age games like Frontier Elite II. It changed my life and spawned a gazer interest in me, for being realistic with clear references to the real thing. Modern space games are arcadic (flight wise) and doesn't give a damn about proper planetary motion at all as long as it "looks nice".

Modern games with educational value are far apart. Looking for "pure entertainment" you have endless options to choose from. You want entertainment, I want to be educated as well.

[Militant1006 11]

Although it may be hard to make it educational with a mostly fictional future setting.

But, I am looking forward to the campaign, I like the "lost behind enemy lines" setting as much as a frontline infantry setting, and it allows you to use your imagination more, if they make it mostly bugfree, I am going to try to forget to take everything as "how/why did they do that" and get an immersive experience out of it, will probably make it more enjoyable than trying to be a critic on every aspect.

I suppose that the biggest downfall for me was trying to play the Harvest Red campaign and getting up to parts where it would bug out or crash and not save, which sorta ruined its immersion, it would have been great, but once they fixed it, it was too late for me.

[Baff1 0]

I never finished it.

Probably never will.

The bugs stopped me the first time I played it.

The second and third time there was some dreadful multiplayer gametypes slap in the middle of the campaign.

The bits I did enjoy, I enjoyed a lot.

The bits that sucked, sucked so bad I gave up on the whole thing.

What I liked about the special forces was that you didn't have too many men to control.

[dragon01 902]

ArmAII campaign is indeed really fun to the point at which Warfare missions starts. Then it becomes less fun, since Warfare seems to be designed for multiplayer (and thus unrealistic), not to mention heavy on the hardware and quite buggy. Though it's the last mission that is worst about that, other Warfare missions are tolerable for me.

[Binkowski 25]

nuclear missile bomb.