arma 3 warfare

[Fenrisulven 1]

I only play warfare, online or offline, vanilla or Benny. It's the only way to go IMO. The battles are pointless without the strategic layer. I enjoy creating my missions mid game choosing different equipment and tasks in a ever changing and dynamic battlefield. It's like any other conquest system really, but more sophisticated. Also, this way I can play for hours without ever restarting a mission. Especially when up against AI on expert and coop setting on vanilla. I never loose though, but that's not important. It's the overall feeling of a larger battle that is so enjoyable. Don't change this concept BIS. Improve it, yes, but don't change it too much.

[Engioc 10]

I only play warfare, online or offline, vanilla or Benny. It's the only way to go IMO. The battles are pointless without the strategic layer. I enjoy creating my missions mid game choosing different equipment and tasks in a ever changing and dynamic battlefield. It's like any other conquest system really, but more sophisticated. Also, this way I can play for hours without ever restarting a mission. Especially when up against AI on expert and coop setting on vanilla. I never loose though, but that's not important. It's the overall feeling of a larger battle that is so enjoyable. Don't change this concept BIS. Improve it, yes, but don't change it too much.

I personally agree with this, I enjoy this mode because of the feeling that there is a larger battle going on around me, makes me feel more apart of a larger team trying to push the enemy back.

but...

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

I don't totally disagree with this either. I'd like to see warfare mode develop and have more of a structure to it, at the moment its fun but we're kind of just throwing units out there. establish a FOB, gradually taking territory with a variety of tasks such as clearly out forests, hills, valleys etc as you said, and seeing some life in the towns as we take them rather than empty streets. Perhaps in a way what it needs is the dynamic missions similar to the Armory mode, so the AI could still be given a series of tasks it needs to complete (done in random order so its not too predictable) with the ultimate goal being to take the entire map but the missions aren't simply about taking towns.

I guess the strongholds in towns are a kind of markers for objectives the AI needs to aim for but perhaps if these could sometimes be invisible, and located in all different locations across the map. Example you have a marker in a forest that marks an objective for all players to try and take, if the AI takes it they establish a camp and attempt to control the area and stop enemy troops moving through. The AI would have this list of places it should attempt to take and in a random order but obviously it would also need the ability to determine what is currently an appropriate objective, so not attempting to take a camp that is already way behind the enemies lines (unless there is a valid tactical reason).

So I think Warfare mode is good, but it could do with some improvements.

[.Taffy 10]

I think Warfare has so much potential as a game mode both online and offline, and I would like to see it developed further. Creating a more aggressive AI and giving a reason for combat to occur in a variety of different locations rather than just around towns would be great. If AI commanders could have a doctrine to follow that could lead to some interesting matches, for instance resources devoted towards attaining air superiority and instructions issued to create flanking and pincer movements. Defence when necessary and counter attack at opportune moments.

[zooloo75 834]

I agree that Warfare should get improved. There should be a factor of civilians and independent factions. Currently it seems like Blufor vs Opfor. I'd like to see your army's actions affect the local civilian population - such as if you destroy a town and cause heavy collateral damage, the civilian population's liking of you would decrease, causing a greater output of independent resistance against your (or the opponent's) army.

Not only do you have to gain control of areas, but you have to win the minds of the people.

[.Taffy 10]

I agree that Warfare should get improved. There should be a factor of civilians and independent factions. Currently it seems like Blufor vs Opfor. I'd like to see your army's actions affect the local civilian population - such as if you destroy a town and cause heavy collateral damage, the civilian population's liking of you would decrease, causing a greater output of independent resistance against your (or the opponent's) army.

Not only do you have to gain control of areas, but you have to win the minds of the people.

Mentioning the destruction of towns reminds me, artillery should be a factor with firemissions available to all leader units wether AI or human, with priority being assigned according to importance of their actions and avilable ammunition supplies.

[Zip_90 1]

Really bad idea. The fun thing is that you can have a big map if you want and a small if you like that better. Keep on going!

[Zip_90 1]

A 3 or maybe even a 4 faction should be a option to have on the warfare maps :)

[SASrecon 0]

Really bad idea. The fun thing is that you can have a big map if you want and a small if you like that better. Keep on going!

Eeek!

§10) Do not dig up old threads

Threads older than 4 months should not be dug up unless something significant is being added. If in doubt as to what is "significant", contact a moderator and they will give you their opinion. As always old threads will remain open or be closed at the moderator's discretion. Digging up an old thread simply to ask "any news" is also not acceptable, PM the thread starter or mod leader to ask.

Try this thread? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132761-arma-3-warfare

[max power 21]

As SASrecon said, please don't dig up threads older than four months. I'll merge these two threads to organize the warfare discussions.