arma 3 warfare

[Valiant 1-4 10]

So while i think this may be somewhat niche, i had an opinion about Warfare MP Gamemode for ArmA 3 and where i/(we?) hope its going.

In ArmA 1 you know what i loved? The scale, and im glad to see thats returning and then some, I also liked the chokepoint at Corazol in the middle i think that really helped to determine a game of Warfare, so that you could use that as a rough idea at least what side of the island the enemy was on so a game didnt last for endless hours.

But one point i hope the scale will encourage is less of a need or even allow for the uprooting of bases, there is nothing - more - trolling than spending one hell of an amount of time (so i pay my dues) tracking down the enemy base, for it to either have a fake MHQ or there be no MHQ at all because he just uprooted and took off as easy as that. (I know alot of that is server side settings or mods but still thought id mention here) Id just preffer that to be disalowed by default, and where you choose, coupled now with the scale to hide in, is where you stay.

I think ArmA 2 had problems with base hunters ending games too quickly, so thats why these rules and abilitys were used?

Again, i just hope the scale and perhaps a few settings to make base hunting hard but not too hard are employed. I loved winning a match by stalking for hours and then finally calling in that laser guided bomb to wipe out the base without firing a shot. I still had to pay with time to do it (In Sahrani's larger scale anyway) so here's to that returning.

Anyone else have hopes for Warfare in ArmA 3?

p.s the Merkava surviving what looks like a Hellfire in the trailer has me worried.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Valiant 1-4

[11aTony 0]

Personally, I like to play warfare in different style. Fixed bases on two sides of the map so everyone know what is up. Heavy defenses around the bases to prevent easy air strikes.

The only problem is that with square shaped maps there is no chokepoint. Thats why I love Sahrani. There is a one as you mentioned so you get that frontline feeling. Limnos should be perfect for that.

[Alienfreak 0]

p.s the Merkava surviving what looks like a Hellfire in the trailer has me worried.

Because a Hellfire can't miss? I see.

The important thing for warfare working out better in ArmA 3 are things like no freaking IR Radar, proper vehicle signatures, having a solid armor simulation and not having an vehicle combat system superior to the one of Iron Fist. (TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE).

So if they scrap that radar, put in a WW2O like armor system, a Mandos Missile like aiming for missiles and bombs plus an at least rudimentary simulation of radars (for the vehicles which have one that is) we have a winner.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Alienfreak

[cj 1]

if you check the map of Lemnos (google maps) you will see a city partitioning the island by East and West named Varos (east of the airstrip) which will undoubtedly be used as a reference as to who is where on the map and maybe a chokepoint. Although there is a good couple Kilometers of space north and south of the town for people to easily sneak past undetected, all in all the island seems perfect for warfare.

[5LEvEN 11]

Because a Hellfire can't miss? I see.

The important thing for warfare working out better in ArmA 3 are things like no freaking IR Radar, proper vehicle signatures, having a solid armor simulation and not having an vehicle combat system superior to the one of Iron Fist. (TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE).

So if they scrap that radar, put in a WW2O like armor system, a Mandos Missile like aiming for missiles and bombs plus an at least rudimentary simulation of radars (for the vehicles which have one that is) we have a winner.

Mando missiles was good for trying to simulate what the game engine could not at the time. With RTT being implemented you could potentially have a real set-up for targeting.

The following is an example of how to use AGM-65H in an A-10C from DCS:

[Alienfreak 0]

Mando missiles was good for trying to simulate what the game engine could not at the time. With RTT being implemented you could potentially have a real set-up for targeting.

The following is an example of how to use AGM-65H in an A-10C from DCS:

Whats RTT? And it doesn't have to be that realistic. I have played both DCS titles and it is really hard to get anything done.

We just need a more realistic type of "electronic warfare" that makes playing on a large scale more fun and cuts the fun destroying elements of aircrafts when you are in a tank and just can't hide and on the contrary SAMs being godlike (often)

[5LEvEN 11]

Whats RTT? And it doesn't have to be that realistic. I have played both DCS titles and it is really hard to get anything done.

We just need a more realistic type of "electronic warfare" that makes playing on a large scale more fun and cuts the fun destroying elements of aircrafts when you are in a tank and just can't hide and on the contrary SAMs being godlike (often)

RTT = Render to Texture. It would allow the MFD (multi functional displays), with TGP (targeting pod), and the cameras on the Mavericks to display. I agree with the proper counter measures though, but those are usually to get away or buy some time for killing the threat. With the way you can Tab to cycle identified threats in arma you will never be able to hide...

P.S. I can help you out with DCS A-10C, but my knowledge for Black Shark is still limited as I have not dedicated enough time to it. I find its time consuming to get something done, but not difficult once you have learned the controls and functions of everything. Also having a basic understanding of each threat helps (like weapon range for example).

[deltafiveone 11]

So while i think this may be somewhat niche, i had an opinion about Warfare MP Gamemode for ArmA 3 and where i/(we?) hope its going.

In ArmA 1 you know what i loved? The scale, and im glad to see thats returning and then some, I also liked the chokepoint at Corazol in the middle i think that really helped to determine a game of Warfare, so that you could use that as a rough idea at least what side of the island the enemy was on so a game didnt last for endless hours.

But one point i hope the scale will encourage is less of a need or even allow for the uprooting of bases, there is nothing - more - trolling than spending one hell of an amount of time (so i pay my dues) tracking down the enemy base, for it to either have a fake MHQ or there be no MHQ at all because he just uprooted and took off as easy as that. (I know alot of that is server side settings or mods but still thought id mention here) Id just preffer that to be disalowed by default, and where you choose, coupled now with the scale to hide in, is where you stay.

I think ArmA 2 had problems with base hunters ending games too quickly, so thats why these rules and abilitys were used?

Again, i just hope the scale and perhaps a few settings to make base hunting hard but not too hard are employed. I loved winning a match by stalking for hours and then finally calling in that laser guided bomb to wipe out the base without firing a shot. I still had to pay with time to do it (In Sahrani's larger scale anyway) so here's to that returning.

Anyone else have hopes for Warfare in ArmA 3?

p.s the Merkava surviving what looks like a Hellfire in the trailer has me worried.

Exactly my thoughts about Warfare MP in ArmA 2, the bold/italicized words especially. Got tired of the bases being found within 1 hour or less of gameplay. Made me switch up to Insurgency after too many situations as such. Good post Valiant.

[tsb247 0]

I have high hopes for warfare mode in Arma 3. In fact, I have another thread where I posted some neat ideas on how it could be rebuilt to both be more realistic and more intense. In fact, I would do away with the MHQ 'Base' concept completely and have more of a transparent system where the player can establish larger bases by holding key points on the map and set up smaller bases where they need to.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119359

I think my ideas would greatly increase game length, realism, and the intensity of the battles.

[deltafiveone 11]

Tsb247, saw your thread a while back regarding Warfare MP. Good ideas as well.

[Valiant 1-4 10]

if you check the map of Lemnos (google maps) you will see a city partitioning the island by East and West named Varos (east of the airstrip) which will undoubtedly be used as a reference as to who is where on the map and maybe a chokepoint. Although there is a good couple Kilometers of space north and south of the town for people to easily sneak past undetected, all in all the island seems perfect for warfare.

Yeah that does look good, im not sure if id of preffered a smaller chokepoint but the town itself will note enough for knowing whos where in a way.

Because a Hellfire can't miss? I see.

Im not sure you do, because it looked like a direct hit to me.

The important thing for warfare working out better in ArmA 3 are things like no freaking IR Radar, proper vehicle signatures, having a solid armor simulation and not having an vehicle combat system superior to the one of Iron Fist. (TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE TAB SPACE).

So if they scrap that radar, put in a WW2O like armor system, a Mandos Missile like aiming for missiles and bombs plus an at least rudimentary simulation of radars (for the vehicles which have one that is) we have a winner.

Id like those things as well, and agree WW2OL armour system is great, also having more of a hope in hiding in a tank so your not easy fodder for a AH etc, bring more of a game to the table for tankers/ground vehicles.

[Steakslim 1]

The tank had an anti-missile system (even modeled on the tank in the screenshots released) which was probably the reason why it appeared to miss/hit and do nothing to the tank. There was a discussion about this in another thread, but unfortunately that's a lot of shit to dig through to find it.

[Valiant 1-4 10]

Is anyone else in favour of only allowing one uproot and relocation of an MHQ? Especialy now that the island is surely big enough to hide in.

[dmarkwick 261]

One improvement I'd welcome is that irritating habit that Warfare has of changing the mission on you after you've spent a lot of time scuffling into a position :) often necessitating a 180 about face and a yomp halfway across the map :D

[hel389 1]

So i have been wondering allot about arma 3 warfare and i was wondering now that there a high possibility that submarines and other underwater vehicles will be in the game, how do you think that will effect warfare mod and how do you think you can get underwater vehicles.

[NeuroFunker 11]

yes, i do think.

[Black Cat 10]

Subs are static objects like the LHD in A2. SDVs (SEAL Delivery Vehicles) will be usable but no screenshots have been released yet, and for all intents and purposes, underwater features should be used only for stealth, infiltration, and extraction.

[[evo] dan 79]

However the game should be good enough to allow proper moving ships you can walk on this time, so you could probably have a naval warfare mission (of course with community made ships)

[Fenrisulven 1]

Heres hoping that BIS will look into AI for warfare to make coop more interesting in vanilla. Maybe with AI commanders using mixed units tactics, allowing them to purchase air and use arty.

[onlyrazor 11]

They did say something about underwater combat between divers.

[Brutus404 10]

What underwater options will do to warfare? It'll probably end up in 50% of the players wanting to get their hands on sneaky underwater gameplay, leaving almost no one to play the actual objective of warfare...

[onlyrazor 11]

What underwater options will do to warfare? It'll probably end up in 50% of the players wanting to get their hands on sneaky underwater gameplay, leaving almost no one to play the actual objective of warfare...

Even better. A free victory

[Zip_90 1]

Armed assault 2 had alot of bugs in it with the Warfare maps. i hope they will aim more for it this time.

It was the best gamemode i ever played in any game.:cool:

[wipman 1]

Hi, i didn't join any Warfare game mode server on the ArmA or ArmA2, i'd found it boring, pointless, buggy and bad; IMO it should be more about build a front line from a conquered FOB/point until make a solid front line made out of cleaned/safe territory with alive villages and small towns. Have to clean up forests, hills and valleys, have to gain the air space, with two possivilities, simetric and asimetric warfare; for me the ArmA/ArmA2's Warfare is the most boring game mode. The game should have Racing, CTF, C&H, Assault & alot of coop missions; i wouldn't use the Warfare game mode in MP and is something that keept me away from the MP on the ArmA & ArmA2. Let's C ya

[cadmium77 16]

The thing I hated about Warfare mode was the fact that the AI enemy was perpetually the defender really. The game design should have incorporated triggers that initiated varying methodical AI counterattacks.

And when you played it in coop all too often it became an air game where the ground forces arrived in time for the boring mop up after air assets had blasted the crap out of the town.

Not real fun.