Is Arma 3 authentic?

[purepassion 22]

Please not. It will only create more space and more reasons to complain. If you start it again, it will all start again... We have seen it already happening in multiple places. The discussion shouldn't be brought up

:rolleyes: Edited May 3, 2012 by PurePassion
Maoinaze, don't! ;)

[instagoat 133]

Oki doki... how about I make a thread in which I will gather the pro's and cons of the design direction of Arma 3 from the community's point of view? That way we will have all the complaints/praises on the first post so that we can avoid rehashing the same pro/con arguments over and over and over and over and over again :) Sensible people will refer to it and think twice before posting, the hill folk wont... and they will look like idiots. (although I doubt their e-persona will suffer)

Yay or nay?

That´s gonna be a long thread, with long, elaborate, civil discussions I am certain! I bet the mods will love how peaceful and polite it´s gonna be :>

But no really, maybe that is a good Idea. Can´t hurt to try it out. Much.

Edit: after consideration, I think that thread will turn into a candidate for a lock quickly, if things go awry.

Edited May 3, 2012 by InstaGoat

[near_blind_sniper 10]

First off, why is Iran using Isreali military gear? That is just silly. I mean, sure they could have captured it but the US captured plenty of Germany's FlaK 18/36/41 88mm AA/AT guns in World War Two, and we never started making them even though they were definitely superior.

On the same token, Germany captured plenty of Soviet PPSH-41 SMG's and SVT-40 Rifles during War 2 and they were put right back into service, they even issued weapon manuals translated in German. That being said I hope NATO gets a different tank at some point, if nothing else to avert the friendly fire issues.

[Maio 293]

Please not. It will only create more space and more reasons to complain. If you start it again, it will all start again... We have seen it already happening in multiple places. The discussion shouldn't be brought up

:rolleyes:

I, don't worry. I wont start anything ;) The thought just popped in my mind after the 2230 post...

[Ian560 10]

its 2030 not 2230...

the guns still fire bullets, the tanks still fire shells(all except one)

theres still wheels and tracks, not hover vehicles

everything is based on present day tech and not made up

so your argument again?

Made a mistake with the 2230 and 2030, but I wasn't talking about hover vehicles like Battlefield 2142, just a typing error.

Sorry for the confusion!

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

Uh, sarcasm or are do you actually think it's 2230? If you bought ArmA1, ArmA2, and Arrowhead because it's set in the modern time period, then you could have just bought MW1/2/3 or BF2/3. Those games are set in the modern time period since that's so important to you. Oh, and what's the point of making ArmA3 if it's the same as ArmA2? If you just want ArmA2 then it's available to you.

I didn't mean to make a copy of the game at all, I meant to keep the style of the game. Gosh sakes why would I waste money on Call of Duty and Battlefield? It's run, shoot, die...Whole point I bought the Arma series games, so don't compare the two together.

Once again, sorry for the confusion...I will make sure to write better replies next time.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ian560

[slatts 1978]

Made a mistake with the 2230 and 2030, but I wasn't talking about hover vehicles like Battlefield 2142, just a typing error.

Sorry for the confusion!

even still, your point is sorta off ;)

for example, the helmets being "sci-fi". how are they exactly?

[Ian560 10]

The best way to know is to take a look at the soldier's helmets yourself

http://www.arma3.com/surveilance/imagery/

[Corvinus 35]

Ok, it's not like anyone is interested in my opinion, but I have an urge to throw it in nevertheless: there is only two vehicles in Arma 3 with which I am not quite happy about. Both of them are easy to guess: first is the "railgun tank" - I mean, railguns on tanks in 2035?! More like 2050. 2035 is more like "railguns in coastal defense systems" or maybe (just maybe) "railguns on military ships". Second is, yes, you guessed it right, the (in)famous "Hamok". I'd rather prefer something completely fictional or an existing model with some alterations (i.e. kind of that "Merlin"-thingy) to a horrible chimera made from parts of various helicopters trowed in and mixed - I found there Mi-28 (hull), Ka-50/52 (coaxial rotors), Mi-24 (troops compartment) and Ka-60 (rear landing gear). It's more of a parody on a military helicopter than a well-thought-out design.

PS: Strictly offtopic, but today I saw the reveal trailer of CoD: Black Ops 2. I will not take back the above-stated, but somehow I was reassured and got the feeling that Arma 3 is going to be the most realistic shooter set in the near future, at least for 2012 year.

[daellis94 1]

On the same token, Germany captured plenty of Soviet PPSH-41 SMG's and SVT-40 Rifles during War 2 and they were put right back into service, they even issued weapon manuals translated in German. That being said I hope NATO gets a different tank at some point, if nothing else to avert the friendly fire issues.

Tanks are different. Their use is much more dependent on nation-specific armored doctrine. The Merkava, in this case, is an Israeli tank very much deigned with Israeli interests and concerns in mind. That said, yes I really hope they change the NATO tank. I think pretty much any NATO tank surpasses the Merkava in performance, not to downplay the Merkava, but I'd like to see a proper Western MBT on the field.

[Zacho 0]

Just to clear some stuff up on the T-95 with the 'railgun'.

Its much more likely its a coil-gun, and there a lot of stuff out there today in the works to use that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun#Potential_uses Take a read, its not as far out as you think.

[max power 21]

...with trapezoidal coils?

[Corvinus 35]

T-95

It's may be a coilgun indeed, but the tank itself isn't "T-95". I've already explained this here.

[myshaak 0]

Well, BIS call it a T-95, see the

@ 0:37.

[paecmaker 23]

Tanks are different. Their use is much more dependent on nation-specific armored doctrine. The Merkava, in this case, is an Israeli tank very much deigned with Israeli interests and concerns in mind. That said, yes I really hope they change the NATO tank. I think pretty much any NATO tank surpasses the Merkava in performance, not to downplay the Merkava, but I'd like to see a proper Western MBT on the field.

Ever heard about the Panzer 38(t)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t)

Maybe the Iranians liked something about the Merkava and started copying it.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well lets see if this Iranian T-95/Merkava thingie will be supported by BMPT Ramka/Terminator vehicles. BIS said this time they made OPFOR really badass-awesome and not like a poor underdeveloped third/fourth country controlled by the usual madman/maniac. Its getting boring and cheesy if BLUFOR have to be "the best" equipped side/faction in every game.... hope that BIS make something on the sensor/radar/surveillance and communication part of A3. Let the player feel that it is 2035 and he is fighting against a well equipped and combat proven enemy. Btw how Iranian Forces/Navy could manage to occupy the Mediterranean/Aegean Sea without beeing pushed back at least by all the states that have a coastline to it? What happen to the (naval/air) forces of Spain, France and Italy?

[liquidpinky 11]

...with trapezoidal coils?

Would work just the same as rings, current deosn't really care whether they are round or not.

Stricktly speaking though, the shell would be a pain to make fly straight.

[antoineflemming 14]

Well lets see if this Iranian T-95/Merkava thingie will be supported by BMPT Ramka/Terminator vehicles. BIS said this time they made OPFOR really badass-awesome and not like a poor underdeveloped third/fourth country controlled by the usual madman/maniac. Its getting boring and cheesy if BLUFOR have to be "the best" equipped side/faction in every game.... hope that BIS make something on the sensor/radar/surveillance and communication part of A3. Let the player feel that it is 2035 and he is fighting against a well equipped and combat proven enemy. Btw how Iranian Forces/Navy could manage to occupy the Mediterranean/Aegean Sea without beeing pushed back at least by all the states that have a coastline to it? What happen to the (naval/air) forces of Spain, France and Italy?

That's one reason I'm hoping that Iran will have Middle Eastern allies, like Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or whatever. I've said it before in another thread, but if Iran, or any nation for that matter, wanted to expand, it would first solidify and consolidate power in its own region before expanding into other regions. Iran would consolidate power in the Middle East before moving to conquer Turkey and then Greece. One thing I am glad about - its no longer asymmetric warfare (as at least the U.S. Army is moving back to preparing for conventional warfare).

[NoRailgunner 0]

It can be still asymetric if you look at the greek resistance and the campaign where the player is left alone, somewhere stranded on Limnos..... imo those simple "blue vs red" missions/concepts are somewhat boring on the long run and can be mostly found in those all action, no substance games.

[metalcraze 290]

Don't even bring that up. But, you're right. That's set in 2025 - 10 years before ArmA3, yet it looks like it's 50 years afterwards. ArmA3 is a pretty probable future when looking at that crap.

It doesn't look like 50 years afterwards. It looks like a pure fantasy that has nothing to do with reality.

And people are like zomg mi-48 looks like a slightly changed mi-28, this is some extreme futurism

[antoineflemming 14]

It doesn't look like 50 years afterwards. It looks like a pure fantasy that has nothing to do with reality.

And people are like zomg mi-48 looks like a slightly changed mi-28, this is some extreme futurism

Yeah. You're right.

[Desert1 1]

amm, actually "real life" photo of the infamous Mi-48 "Kajman" is not authentic. That's just Mi-28. Sure, devs have taken lot of stuff from it, but i think description need to be corrected. For great justice, you know...

I agree, you see that on the gun the Kajman has a triple barrelled gun, whereas the MI-4(2)8 "supposed" real picture has a single barrel gun with a buffer on the front. Which the MI-28 has.

[daellis94 1]

Ever heard about the Panzer 38(t)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t)

Maybe the Iranians liked something about the Merkava and started copying it.

Of course, though the Germans never made it at all a standard battle tank.

My point about the Merkava is that the Israelis build the Merkava to be very centered on the survival of the crew rather than the survival of the vehicle. Israel does not have a large body of available troops, so it cannot take strategic losses in a time of war. One design feature that supports this on the Merkava is the placement of the engine at the front. The main function of this is to add another object that a penetrating round must go through. As a result, you have the thicker front armor backed by an engine, which makes the crew safer, though a frontal penetration will kill the tank by knocking out the engine. Because there is thick frontal armor in the way, as well, it is very difficult to access the engine for maintenance, one of the problems with modern composite armor and one of the reasons the rear hull of most any MBT is protected by next to no armor. Because of this, there is an access hatch of some sort located I think on the lower left front hull, which is a weak point on the armor. Again, this does not concern the Israelis as much as the potential loss of the crew, as tanks can be replaced, but men not so easily.

I just think, based on indigenous tanks already designed and produced in Iran proper, for instance the Zulfiqar, would have specifically Iranian interests in mind, one of those, especially with a large Iranian "empire in Arma 3, would definitely not be manpower.

[instagoat 133]

Of course, though the Germans never made it at all a standard battle tank.

My point about the Merkava is that the Israelis build the Merkava to be very centered on the survival of the crew rather than the survival of the vehicle. Israel does not have a large body of available troops, so it cannot take strategic losses in a time of war. One design feature that supports this on the Merkava is the placement of the engine at the front. The main function of this is to add another object that a penetrating round must go through. As a result, you have the thicker front armor backed by an engine, which makes the crew safer, though a frontal penetration will kill the tank by knocking out the engine. Because there is thick frontal armor in the way, as well, it is very difficult to access the engine for maintenance, one of the problems with modern composite armor and one of the reasons the rear hull of most any MBT is protected by next to no armor. Because of this, there is an access hatch of some sort located I think on the lower left front hull, which is a weak point on the armor. Again, this does not concern the Israelis as much as the potential loss of the crew, as tanks can be replaced, but men not so easily.

I just think, based on indigenous tanks already designed and produced in Iran proper, for instance the Zulfiqar, would have specifically Iranian interests in mind, one of those, especially with a large Iranian "empire in Arma 3, would definitely not be manpower.

I think somewhere in this or the confirmed features thread a BI dev hinted at the Opfor textured Merkava being a placeholder. If they use that at all, possibly only in small numbers to supplement their actual MBT.

[daellis94 1]

Just to clear some stuff up on the T-95 with the 'railgun'.

Its much more likely its a coil-gun, and there a lot of stuff out there today in the works to use that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun#Potential_uses Take a read, its not as far out as you think.

Coil guns, also known as Gauss guns, are another similar option, but have the same fundamental flaws railguns have: energy inefficiency. Of course, that leads to the issue of storing enough energy on-board or generating enough to power the gun. Keep in mind you will end up with muzzle velocities in excess of 10 megajoules, for which you would need to supply more than 40 I would think given heat loss. They are interesting weapons, to be sure, just not as close perhaps as we would like them to be.

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

I think somewhere in this or the confirmed features thread a BI dev hinted at the Opfor textured Merkava being a placeholder. If they use that at all, possibly only in small numbers to supplement their actual MBT.

Did they? Good, there's closure on that. I was talking with a friend a few days ago about how I really hope the weapons shown as Iranian are just placeholders, and that not all weapon and vehicle models are finished.

Also, the picture shown in your signature....... That Arma 3 logo is displaying the Chinese flag, isn't it? Hmmmm, hint about the game to come, perhaps.

[purepassion 22]

I think somewhere in this or the confirmed features thread a BI dev hinted at the Opfor textured Merkava being a placeholder. If they use that at all, possibly only in small numbers to supplement their actual MBT.

If I recall correctly, It was Celery who was hinting towards the Merkava being not the main battle tank (of the BLUFOR?) :)