Underwater element. What is the point?

[antoineflemming 14]

Whilst I am really looking forward to the feature, I also agree with this. One of my favourite things about Arma is that the basic situation is usually so straightforward: big land, loads of clever troops. And the genius comes out of that. I always prefer that to the 'special' stuff. It does feel a little bit CODdy.

It only feels CODdy to you because that's probably your only exposure to special forces. It's just like any movie. A person who grows up watching Chuck Norris's Delta Force may think that this is a true look at special forces, simply because that's the only SF exposure they've gotten.

[mrcash2009 0]

Another infiltration method. Nearly all methods are "GET TO THAAA CHOPPER". Minimal involve boats. This would inspire more missions to use them, and the new methods of underwater infiltration.

I agree, I haven't found many boat insertion missions, recently "Cut The Power" has a great insertion for a mission esp when at night and using stealth. On water it just adds far more atmosphere.

At least you could then set a mission to disembark boat under attack and know you can kit up to be able to hit the water and survive and use to advantage more.

[Thawk 1]

You missed my COD point quite spectacularly there antoineflemming, in fact, you missed most of my points quite spectacularly.

My point was that COD takes things that rarely happen, if ever and makes it into this big, full scale thing. Just blows things out of proportion. Take the SPIE rig scene or many of the others. I have literally no problem with it, in fact I very much like the series, but it is very far-fetched sometimes. I was just making a point that this underwater combat thing is, in a way, like that. It rarely happens and now it's a full scale feature of the game. I have no idea where your tangent about M4s and Strykers was going either.

My point about communities, was the one I am in and mine alone, have no idea how you extrapolated that to me demanding communities play in a certain way.

And finally, my personal favourite, me saying that I would take shooting for vehicles instead of underwater play is me saying that BIS can only do one thing, and not the other. Once again, that was me simply using an example, that I believe shooting from vehicles would be more practical then underwater and that I, personally, would choose the former over the later.

You do a lot of assuming and extrapolation. Two very bad forum habits to have.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Thawk

[[evo] dan 79]

I think it happens more then you might think Thawk. Otherwise why would the USA convert some of its old boomers (i think 2 or 4 of them) so that they are capable of carrying divers, seals and an SDV? Its just that the spec ops community doesn't like talknig about its ops as much as the regular army does.

[Thawk 1]

Dan;2141406']I think it happens more then you might think Thawk. Otherwise why would the USA convert some of its old boomers (i think 2 or 4 of them) so that they are capable of carrying divers' date=' seals and an SDV? Its just that the spec ops community doesn't like talknig about its ops as much as the regular army does.[/quote']

I would be inclined to agree that the US is perhaps training more teams in it's usage and has many plans on how to use it. But actually used in the field? There hasn't been that many chances in the last few years for Seals to do under water operations against enemies of the states. Unless we're talking about Seal Team 6 hiding in the few oasis' in the desert :D Seriously though, definitely, 100% agree that SF teams train and plan on using all of these methods, just their actual usage in combat would be a different story.

And to say, I definitely agree with your last statement. None of us really know the actual goings on of SF teams, we can only assume based on what limited things we see. But thanks to modern media, we will undoubtedly see the aftermath of any SF goings on and be able to try and piece together what happened.

[wolf359 19]

Dan;2141406']I think it happens more then you might think Thawk. Otherwise why would the USA convert some of its old boomers (i think 2 or 4 of them) so that they are capable of carrying divers' date=' seals and an SDV? Its just that the spec ops community doesn't like talknig about its ops as much as the regular army does.[/quote']

sometimes secrets surface...

Here is one recent example of how combat swimmers and SDV´s have been used recently in Somalia.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/10/military-seals-horn-of-africa-al-qaida-terrorists-103011w/

The south korean Cheonan sunk by a mini sub

http://www.smh.com.au/world/torpedo-parts-reveal-north-sank-south-korean-ship-20100520-vpcq.html

The swedish submarine incidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents

The secret war against sweden - US and british submarine deception

http://books.google.de/books?id=_MGCqjcJCHYC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=diver+missions+sweden+soviet&source=bl&ots=S8ksVMP0q9&sig=3cFV6RMoVd9l9nif4PTVxT2kLpM&hl=de&sa=X&ei=taaZT-HOH4_Z4QTL8q3FBg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=diver%20missions%20sweden%20soviet&f=false

The Rainbow Warrior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281955%29

The Wiretapping in the sea of Okhotsk

http://www.specialoperations.com/Operations/ivybells.html

The Green Island Raid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bulmus_6

This Blog here lists most of the known SDV´s and midget submarines:

http://covertshores.blogspot.de/

Many reasons for the underwater element :cool:

Edited April 26, 2012 by wolf359

[onlyrazor 11]

sometimes secrets surface...

Many reasons for the underwater element :cool:

You forgot the time the U-boats reached New York's coastline and started sinking cargo ships.

[antoineflemming 14]

You missed my COD point quite spectacularly there antoineflemming, in fact, you missed most of my points quite spectacularly.

1) My point was that COD takes things that rarely happen, if ever and makes it into this big, full scale thing. Just blows things out of proportion. Take the SPIE rig scene or many of the others. I have literally no problem with it, in fact I very much like the series, but it is very far-fetched sometimes. I was just making a point that this underwater combat thing is, in a way, like that. It rarely happens and now it's a full scale feature of the game. I have no idea where your tangent about M4s and Strykers was going either.

2) My point about communities, was the one I am in and mine alone, have no idea how you extrapolated that to me demanding communities play in a certain way.

3) And finally, my personal favourite, me saying that I would take shooting for vehicles instead of underwater play is me saying that BIS can only do one thing, and not the other. Once again, that was me simply using an example, that I believe shooting from vehicles would be more practical then underwater and that I, personally, would choose the former over the latter.

You do a lot of assuming and extrapolation. Two very bad forum habits to have.

1) MY point was that you don't know whether or not the underwater thing is "rare" or not. What I was saying was that just because COD did it doesn't mean that it's either a) false, or b) rare. That may be for most things, but like you said about us not "really know[ing] the actual goings on of SF teams", we don't know, so I just don't see how you're in a position to say what rarely happens. Maybe you're right and SF don't really operate underwater that much. Maybe you're right just about the combat part, and SF do underwater transport a lot. Like you said, we really just don't know. But, I bet that the underwater thing will be just as rare in ArmA3 as you say it is in the real world, especially when it comes to MP. The M4s and Strykers bit were examples basically meant to show that just because something appears in COD, it doesn't make it unrealistic. That was my understanding of your post. Thanks for clarifying your post.

2) I asked for clarification (the part in parenthesis: "unless you are talking about your specific community", I added that in because I wasn't sure); you simply said "our" community. So I didn't know who was included in that "our".

3) I apologize then. You did not say that this was an example. I took "I would 100% swap underwater for a more practical feature like shooting from vehicles" to mean that BIS can only do one, necessitating a wish to "swap" from one choice to a second choice. It's not the first time someone has mentioned an either-or scenario.

[whiskeytango 11]

Sequels need feature expansion and this is one big area to get it.

Being set on an island, it makes sense to have a lot of work invested into boats and underwater action. I'm looking forward to seeing whether you can create a navy diver mission. Drop off from a boat - locate an item underwater or search for mines whilst a squad of marines prepares for a landing and then get to the surface and get picked up.

Speaking of special forces, I read a navy seal autobiography recently which mentions the trainees having their hands bound behind their backs and feet bound. They then have to slowly swim laps underwater of an Olympic sized swimming pool. The amount of underwater and delivery vehicle action was amazing.

To me it sounds much more interesting doing this in a sand box environment than in COD's corridor style. If it's done well, I expect that fans of other games will take a look at it and then realise how limited corridor shooters are. It also sounds much more interesting than parachuting in or getting dropped off by a helo.

[slatts 1978]

sure even Irelands ARW have a combat diver unit ;)

[mr.g-c 6]

For its simple that its realistic. It adds a whole lot of new opportunities for scenario designers.

Sea warfare was previously fully let down in the Arma Series, now its in. Can't be happier ;-)

At the end of the day, you don't HAVE to use the new opportunities when playing, creating your missions or whatever... Its just logical that the opportunity to do so was now added.

[kimozabbi 1]

I enjoy playing community user missions and I think the underwater element will add a lot more suspense to missions near the ocean because you will never know what to expect, I will never feel secure near the water because who knows what lurks beneath.

[RadicalAtHeart 11]

more insertion methods... more tactics...

[kridian 33]

We're going to need a new Rescue Chad Hudson mission.*

[chekko 1]

It can be cool, I guess. But I don't really get it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Why underwater element? Just like in the real world, sometimes it just looks cool :) Saw these today, and I'm still wow'ing. Simply awesome idea.

[antoineflemming 14]

Why underwater element? Just like in the real world

Honestly, you can just stop here. That's all the explanation needed for the point of it being in the game...

[rye1 21]

Because the SDV periscope allows us to peek upon bikini chicks.

[Minoza 11]

Because the SDV periscope allows us to peek upon bikini chicks.

Assuming we're getting those. Are they in VBS? :D

[PLRSniper 3]

Because it can be done and it does give a whole new dimension to play with.

It's not THAT expensive to do. (A few extra animations, models, gravity and movement speed settings and some shader code)

I always considered games that have lots of water on their maps that doesn't allow you to dive under said water to be horribly limited. Not even BF3 allows swimming under water and when you compare the two titles, if one allows you to swim under water, then ARMA 3 will get 1 point over BF3.

Same thing with FarCry 1 and Crysis, why did they let you swim under water in those games? Not much content was designed around being under water but it did add to the completeness of the games and that is good enough to warrant it being added in ARMA 3.

EDIT: And i did use underwater routes in Crysis in my assault on certain objectives. Once again, totally worth it!

[Flogger23m 2]

This is something I did not care for. It is nice, but how many missions will utilize it? Not many.

IMO the time/resources could have been put into a large number of areas that would have been used far more.

[antoineflemming 14]

This is something I did not care for. It is nice, but how many missions will utilize it? Not many.

IMO the time/resources could have been put into a large number of areas that would have been used far more.

Like what areas?

[celery 8]

IMO the time/resources could have been put into a large number of areas that would have been used far more.

Game studios don't have all-purpose resource points that they can move freely between features. They have people who are assigned to do certain things that have to meet certain requirements, i.e. dropping the underwater element wouldn't make textures sharper or above-ground parts of Limnos more detailed. :)

[EricM 0]

I for one applaud the new underwater element. It's fun, it's fresh, it opens new tactical options, stealth operations, and naval warfare (not only underwater but sea-level physics have also been enhanced).

Actually, with the new flight models, longer distances and new volumetric clouds, even the sky will be a lot more fun to use than before, not only underwater.

It's all contributing to balancing the Air/Land/Sea equation. Otherwise, one of them would start to look bad in comparisons to the other elements.

[kimozabbi 1]

but how many missions will utilize it?.

I would say lots, definitely more than ten thousand, probably more than one hundred thousand, possibly more than one million. I don't know exactly how many people bought Arma2, I'll hazard a guess that over ten thousand copies have been sold, Arma3 will likely outsell Arma2, most people who own Arma3 will experiment with the new editor and features and make at least one underwater mission, even if it's just a basic mission like placing one diver in the water to swim around for the sake of curiosity, many people will make multiple underwater missions, some people will create incredible underwater missions and share them with the community, a handful of people will create masterpeice underwater missions that many people will want to play several times.