Something that disturbed me about A2: amount of enemies you were up against.

[Jaypaul97 1]

Arma 2 didn't feel too realistic at times how it was 9 of you against like 30 of them. It seemed like in a more "realistic" scenario it would be something like 9V10-15 at the most, if not 9V5-8. Because IRL why would they send only 9 people to go take down an entire airbase?

I hope Arma 3 improves on this...did anyone else find the odds stacked way in the enemy's favor?

[LeeManatee 4]

thats absolutely okay thing. more enemies - more fun.

[sirfire 0]

In Arma 2 you where a special forces operative who goes in before the main force does at times.

I liked the opening missions in Arrowhead more in which I really did feel that I was part of a big assault force. The first mission in arrowhead and the mission in which you look for a downed C-130 was just awesome.

[Nicholas 5]

Arma 2 didn't feel too realistic at times how it was 9 of you against like 30 of them. It seemed like in a more "realistic" scenario it would be something like 9V10-15 at the most, if not 9V5-8. Because IRL why would they send only 9 people to go take down an entire airbase?

I hope Arma 3 improves on this...did anyone else find the odds stacked way in the enemy's favor?

It's always been that way, since Operation Flashpoint.

[Tonci87 163]

Mainly because the AI is not that good, so they simply use more of them.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

It's got to be difficult to create AI that reacts well to all situations and stays fun. With PvP you can have really intense long duration skirmishes in a way I can't see the AI simulating for a long time in gaming.

[lapa 1]

The feeling of being a small cog in a large machinery was a big part of the appeal of Operation Flashpoint. That was the selling point! Simulating different experiences in mechanized infantry. This was something that previous games never tried or even could do. I didn't care for the lone wolf night-ops missions then, and I don't care for them now. The cracks in the AI are easier to see in those kind of missions.

I felt that BIS's decision to ride the current trend of focusing on a small team of "cool" spec-up guys with names like "Razor" etc. in Arma2 was a mistake. This trend started in Arma, where there were several small team and sniper missions. The campaign took a step toward the realm of cinematic rollercoaster shooters (mainstream). This plays against everything that differentiates the game series from other military games.

The quality of campaigns has gone downhill after OFP and its extensions. They have been lacklustre and even broken. I own OFP and its extensions, Arma, Queen's Gambit, Arma2 and OA, but I don't think I've finished any of the Arma games (to be precise, I've completed few of the minicampaigns). The OFP campaigns I've completed several times.

EDIT: Of course, it might be nostalgia speaking, when I remember OFP days.

[LeeManatee 4]

tend to agree: never liked this rpg-alike campaign in arma 2. the beauty of the game in scale. i still like that defend ortego mission where tanks ans shitload of infantry comes to your positions. yeah. chaos, screams, smoke, fire. awesome feeling.

[-Coulum- 35]

I personally hate huge difference in numbers in arma 2.

-- For one they don't seem realistic

-- They also force you to use cheap tactics against ai like hiding in a building

-- I just can't get immersed in the game when I get 35 kills in a mission

-- I don't feel like I did a good job in a mission when it takes me 20 autosaves to complete

I like the idea of being "a small cog in the larger machine". But I also do like smaller scale skirmeshes. Love making patrol missions where a couple squads engage in a firefight. Problem is the ai aren't good enough to balance the player at these numbers. hope this is improved in a3.

[Jaypaul97 1]

Some long time fans may send me death threats...

I wasn't impressed by original OFP. Its Cold War Crisis right? Enemies kinda just...looked at me. And thats it. If I did a little dance for them they might start shooting...but still.

On the topic of enemy #'s: so fun is being taken into account? I dont think thats what we need in a simulator. I think if it were more real some missions might pass where the player never kills anyone, and some might find that boring. But if it's realistic so be it...

If players want to do the rambo thing let them do it in editor or a separate game mode.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

PS- think of any situation on the news where commandos go after some 3-5 people, there's like 15 "good guys" against 3-5!

Edited May 27, 2012 by Jaypaul97

[Gunter Severloh 3949]

Arma 2 didn't feel too realistic at times how it was 9 of you against like 30 of them.

Game came with an editor for a reason, if you dont like how the game plays out then make it how you want, cant say that really for

alot of big name games out there, you can make the game about as simulated as you want, using scripts, mods, or whatever.

You cloud also just turn up the AI skill but problem with that, the Ai tends to just get more accurate then anything better as far as i know.

I'd like to see more diversified use of tactics and cover, there are plenty of addon and mods out there

to help on in accomplishing this, but for Arma3 we wont know how well the AI will be tactically until we get our hands on the game.

[rye1 21]

PS- think of any situation on the news where commandos go after some 3-5 people, there's like 15 "good guys" against 3-5!

Depends on situation doesn't it?

Aussie Commandos have faced dire numbers.

And USSF have faced big numbers too.

From Vietnam till now.

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

In the MSO our team has faced at least 50 in support. Some engages have started out with 10ish and attracted more, including vehicles.

Rommel also made a 'swarm' mission where level by level they grow... getting in their 30-40's+!!!

[antoineflemming 14]

At least for the U.S. Army, the principle is to always outnumber your enemy. Higher level BLUFOR unit against lower level OPFOR unit. Battalion vs company. Company vs Platoon. Platoon vs Squad. Squad vs Fireteam. 3:1 ratio. For SF, it's like 1:3 I think or something like that. Seems to be that way. But, then again, a lot of times, SF operate with indigenous forces (Delta or SEALs with ANA for example). Being outnumbered isn't what you aim for. Usually you're outnumbered because the enemy sends in reinforcements. So, realistically, you'd go into a firefight outnumbering your enemy.

[Jaypaul97 1]

Those situations where it's like "Oh such and such held off [insert insanely large number of evil people] soldiers!" I always think there's something sketchy going on; maybe the enemy was incompetent or they had some insane advantage or were snipers hidden peeking out of a tiny hole.

[antoineflemming 14]

Those situations where it's like "Oh such and such held off [insert insanely large number of evil people] soldiers!" I always think there's something sketchy going on; maybe the enemy was incompetent or they had some insane advantage or were snipers hidden peeking out of a tiny hole.

Or SF were/are just that good?

[rye1 21]

Tactical philosophy: You can create the advantage for yourself. Layering of fire, interlocking fire, out-range the enemy, create sectors and rates of fire, provide suppressive or preventitive fire to isolate the enemy.

Haven't you played PR:A2? If you get a good fireteam in a Jackal and mount some vehicle-bourne operations you can kick arse! Same goes with the APC's, IFV's such as the Warrior. We have easily racked up 15+ kills to every death, and that is purely based on some simple tactics, minimal movement or exposure. I'm disturbed at how well you can defeat people in such a PVP game-mode with some simple tricks up your sleeve.

One subject for this topic is; Arma 2 currently has a maximum amount of groups. Now with dynamic game-modes such as Domination (? Kind of!), the MSO, so forth, which I believe still have to play by this maximum rule... it leaves one question... Will the maximum number of groups or individuals be increased in Arma 3? This may be due to the fact that you are fighting in a bigger terrain with more towns and even more open-water space.

[pd3 25]

It's always been that way, since Operation Flashpoint.

The "newfriends" need to sit back and quietly accept conventions that have been staunchly defended by the community who supported this company while it was being smeared by the likes of PC Gamer in favor of other franchises such as "ghost recon" back in the day.

I don't know, the ARMA series is the last untouched bastion of tactical gaming that hasn't been polluted by the activision/DICE lowest common denominator.

Don't mess with a good thing I say.

[antoineflemming 14]

Tactical philosophy: You can create the advantage for yourself. Layering of fire, interlocking fire, out-range the enemy, create sectors and rates of fire, provide suppressive or preventitive fire to isolate the enemy.

Haven't you played PR:A2? If you get a good fireteam in a Jackal and mount some vehicle-bourne operations you can kick arse! Same goes with the APC's, IFV's such as the Warrior. We have easily racked up 15+ kills to every death, and that is purely based on some simple tactics, minimal movement or exposure. I'm disturbed at how well you can defeat people in such a PVP game-mode with some simple tricks up your sleeve.

One subject for this topic is; Arma 2 currently has a maximum amount of groups. Now with dynamic game-modes such as Domination (? Kind of!), the MSO, so forth, which I believe still have to play by this maximum rule... it leaves one question... Will the maximum number of groups or individuals be increased in Arma 3? This may be due to the fact that you are fighting in a bigger terrain with more towns and even more open-water space.

Tactical philosophy and principle: You always try to outnumber your enemy. It'd be great if the AI were competent enough that you wouldn't even dare face them outnumbered/outgunned.

[rye1 21]

Yeah agreed, what did you think of ZEUS AI and ACR AI compared to vanilla? Sometimes I dare not face them.

[Booster 1]

It'd be great if the AI were competent enough that you wouldn't even dare face them outnumbered/outgunned.

They are if you dare to change the precisionFriendly/precisionEnemy/UltraAI values. Don't complain about the AI if you don't have the balls to give them some teeth.

[rye1 21]

They are if you dare to change the precisionFriendly/precisionEnemy/UltraAI values. Don't complain about the AI if you don't have the balls to give them some teeth.

Super-human teeth? Sometimes to the point of no good gameplay so you have to dumb them down to human level then a little bit more! ;)

[ProfTournesol 956]

Some long time fans may send me death threats...

I wasn't impressed by original OFP. Its Cold War Crisis right? Enemies kinda just...looked at me. And thats it. If I did a little dance for them they might start shooting...but still.!

Lol. You obviously didn't play it really. AI is as deadly in OFP as it is now, i could even say that it is more "straightforward" (not running around struggling with their AI algorithm, just killing you).

Edited May 27, 2012 by ProfTournesol

[pd3 25]

Yeah agreed, what did you think of ZEUS AI and ACR AI compared to vanilla? Sometimes I dare not face them.

What I really like about ASR_AI is the fact that not only are they more coordinated, but they will also withdraw from a fight that they believe is not tactically worth investing in.

They'll bugger off many times after taking too much heat if they believe they've lost the advantage, and they're -damn- good at making you work for the ground you gain.

I think the community does a great job of "tweaking" and offsetting any minor issues people might take with the ai or gameplay in general.

The new people coming to this game need to realize that, as one person on this forum already stated: ARMA is not a game, its a hobby, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

If the hordes that are awakening to the greatness of ARMA cannot appreciate that, I sincerely hope BIS does not forget their core demographic in favor of appeasing these people.

[andreas1183 10]

Wasn't the meaning of the ArmA series to be a realistic shooter where you aren't 4 persons against 100 and they have tanks?

You should just be a normal soldier it's unrealistic to have these guys who thinks there are badass with there bad armor and that.

[metalcraze 290]

Arma 2 didn't feel too realistic at times how it was 9 of you against like 30 of them. It seemed like in a more "realistic" scenario it would be something like 9V10-15 at the most, if not 9V5-8. Because IRL why would they send only 9 people to go take down an entire airbase?

I hope Arma 3 improves on this...did anyone else find the odds stacked way in the enemy's favor?

Are you talking about ArmA2 campaign Red Harvest? Yes it was shit. BIS tried way too hard to recreate the analog of Call of Duty on RV engine and about half of missions in they ran out of ideas and made the rest of the missions boring CTI.

BIS needs to come back to realistic and varied scenarios of OFP CWC.

OA had an OK balance, but mission design was mediocre and the whole campaign felt like a very rushed showcase of stuff you can do in the game. CWC was nice and long and each new mission felt connected to the previous one - so you had a smooth progression gradually introducing you to all the cool stuff.

BAF was fun. Third mission could've used some balance, like dudes inside the base trying to fight back instead of just staying there in the open - apart from that trying to survive there was fun.

PMC was just horrible. It was a total CoD attempt. Except health regen was so bad I took 5 shots from .50 cal and still didn't die. I have an impression PMC flopped and good riddance. Don't do that ever again.

Edited May 27, 2012 by metalcraze