How close is ArmA 3 to real military action?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

War games allows fat guys like me to "practice" war without joining the army, getting shot at, getting tired, or getting married :p Seriously, how realistic a game becomes depends more on the players you end up playing with than the actual game. It is the most realistic multipurpose platform there is, but that doesn't help the majority of the public games going around.

[Echo38 1]

In basic, unmodded ArmA 2?

You are correct; Arma 2 does not feature adjustable weapon sights. The expansions do, but not the original Arma 2.

[Timnos 1]

It's a lot closer to reality than some here might think -

One blistering afternoon in Iraq, while fighting insurgents in the northern town of Mosul, Sgt. Sinque Swales opened fire with his .50-cal. That was only the second time, he says, that he ever shot an enemy. A human enemy.

"It felt like I was in a big video game. It didn't even faze me, shooting back. It was just natural instinct. Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! " remembers Swales, a fast-talking, deep-voiced, barrel-chested 29-year-old from Chesterfield, Va. He was a combat engineer in Iraq for nearly a year.

Like many soldiers in the 276th Engineer Battalion, whose PlayStations and Xboxes crowded the trailers that served as their barracks, he played games during his downtime. "Halo 2," the sequel to the best-selling first-person shooter game, was a favorite. So was "Full Spectrum Warrior," a military-themed title developed with help from the U.S. Army.

"The insurgents were firing from the other side of the bridge. . . . We called in a helicopter for an airstrike. . . . I couldn't believe I was seeing this. It was like 'Halo.' It didn't even seem real, but it was real."

This is the video game generation of soldiers. " 'Ctrl+Alt+Del,' " the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, "is as basic as 'ABC.' " And computer simulations -- as military officials prefer to call them -- have transformed the way the United States military fights wars, as well as soldiers' ways of killing.

"There's been a huge change in the way we prepare for war, and the soldiers we're training now are the children of the digital age who grew up with GameBoys," says retired Rear Adm. Fred Lewis, a 33-year U.S. Navy veteran who now heads the National Training Systems Association, a trade group that every year puts on the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, the military counterpart of the glitzy Electronic Entertainment Expo. "Live training on the field is still done, of course," but, he adds, "using simulations to train them is not only natural, it's necessary."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302437.html

[ProfTournesol 956]

You are correct; Arma 2 does not feature adjustable weapon sights. The expansions do, but not the original Arma 2.

Since a long time now, the common game and state of the art today is ArmA2:Co (with zeroing, thermal imaging etc.) not ArmA2 alone, as it was for OFP:Resistance compared to CWC. So it's always better to play the mainstream game before judging it.

[Echo38 1]

Since a long time now, the common game and state of the art today is ArmA2:Co (with zeroing, thermal imaging etc.) not ArmA2 alone, as it was for OFP:Resistance compared to CWC. So it's always better to play the mainstream game before judging it.

I'm planning on getting C.O. when I can, unless Arma 3 comes out before then. In the meantime, I make do with Arma 2 vanilla. That's what I play, so that's what I gotta go by.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Echo38

[HKFlash 9]

In ArmA2 you don't feel all that physical and psychological discomfort. No sweat, no tears, no blood.

[maddogx 13]

In ArmA2 you don't feel all that physical and psychological discomfort. No sweat, no tears, no blood.

No urine either. It's basically war, minus all those disgusting bodily fluids. :D

[Timnos 1]

"I think video games have definitely prepared my hand/eye coordination for targeting other vehicles"

Corporal Brendan Faul, USMC

d6sMjxrqvzU

[mistermdg 10]

lol ya it's so real that future wars will be fought by the politicians at massive international LAN weekends

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

ARMA 2 is let down by AI and by a clumsy system of squad control which doesn't allow for intuitive play. For example there is just no command for "Hurry the f*** up", so you can spend 10 minutes waiting for your AI teammates to clear an area before moving to where you told them to, which is beyond unrealistic. You can't command them precisely which makes trying anything coordinated with AI teammates impossible, especially CQB where margins for error are so much smaller.

Also, the zoom function where your view zooms in when you hold right click is just 100% unrealistic. I spent a month with the Israeli army in desert mountains very similar to those in Operation Arrowhead and most of the time you're wondering "Is that thing 150 meters away a well camouflaged threat or is that just a rock?" and there's no right-click-zoom to help you out.

That being said, I play about 3 hours of ARMA 2 a day and I am very hopeful that the developers will take note of my detailed input to their "ARMA 3 suggestions/ideas" thread and implement the ideas outlined which will ultimately create the most true-to-life experience possible without $15 000 worth of simulator technology.

All this talk of how real video games are and I can tell you one thing; I've played them all and ARMA 2 is the only one that comes close. Bottom line is you take ARMA 2 and make the squad commands more precise and intuitive (add a "movement style" command i.e. "Cautious", "Normal" and "Fast"), make the AI smarter, remove that zoom function and other small unrealisms like having to stop running to switch weapons and it taking 5 long seconds to select and throw a grenade, and you've got as real as it can be on a screen.

Edited July 26, 2012 by mistermdg

[metalcraze 290]

FYI when you will order AI to move somewhere - they will drop everything and move there immediately - even in combat mode.

Also, the zoom function where your view zooms in when you hold right click is just 100% unrealistic.

"Zoomed in" view is how you really see everything, but alas your monitor is like 1/8 of what you can see yourself so there had to be some way to simulate a full field of view. You don't "zoom in", you stop zooming out.

[Echo38 1]

Also, the zoom function where your view zooms in when you hold right click is just 100% unrealistic. I spent a month with the Israeli army in desert mountains very similar to those in Operation Arrowhead and most of the time you're wondering "Is that thing 150 meters away a well camouflaged threat or is that just a rock?" and there's no right-click-zoom to help you out.

Are you serious? Zoomed-in is approximately the real-life picture size (it varies based on your monitor size and your distance from the monitor). Having to zoom in and out is indeed unrealistic, but it makes things unrealistically difficult, not unrealistically easy as you imply. I.R.L., you have all of the FoV of full-zoomed-out-view and all of the zoom level of full-zoomed-in-view (or most of it, if you have a bigger monitor and/or sit closer to it). More, in fact, because even with the zoom at minimum, you only have about half of your real life FoV. I.R.L., you have both; in the game, you have to choose between the two. (And even then you can't get all of the FoV.) This isn't a problem with the game, but rather a problem with computer monitors being a small fraction of the R.L. FoV.

So, zoom is only giving us the option to get a small part of what we see in real life, instead of a tiny part (which is what we'd have without a zoom function). Another couple of things: if you removed the zoom function, those with smaller monitors (and/or sitting farther away from them, as recommended for health reasons) would have a large disadvantage compared to those with larger monitors. This disadvantage itself would be extremely unrealistic. Secondly, who exactly is to be the judge of what zoom level is to be used? Again, R.L. zoom level varies between monitor setups, but even if we all had the same setup, what standard would be used to determine at what level the zoom is to be locked at? If you put it at the R.L. zoom level (roughly maximum zoom), then you have a minuscule FoV and extreme tunnel vision, like you're looking through a cardboard tube. If you put it at the R.L. FoV (about twice as wide as the game allows), then you have a very tiny picture and soldiers will appear to be a few pixels even when they're only a few yards away.

In short: zooming in is only unrealistically easy if you have a massive monitor/screen and are sitting close to it. Most people don't have anything of the sort. For the rest of us, zooming in only lets us get part of what we have I.R.L. Trying to take even this away from us is like stealing from the poor--it'd be making "unrealistically difficult" into "even more unrealistically difficult."

Edited July 26, 2012 by Echo38

[Tonci87 163]

@mister

If you want your AI to go somewhere fast give them a waypoint and set them to hold fire

[SnowSky 12]

@mister

If you want your AI to go somewhere fast give them a waypoint and set them to hold fire

Sounds good, I will try that the next time! thanks

[noone1 1]

Too much realism would be bad for gameplay imo. It's still a game and not a military training tool so it should be focused on fun, atmosphere and authenticity imo. It would be interesting if there was a "super realism" mode included though. One that would simulate real-life combat without any HUD and other aids, deadly wounds, crushing difficulty, voice commands, complex vehicle control and such.

[Tonci87 163]

@SkySnow you can search for my channel on YT. My latest ASR AI test video is a good showcase on how to retreat fast. The USMC squad was to much for my little ChdkZ group. (Can't link the video right now...)

[Timnos 1]

It would be interesting if there was a "super realism" mode included though.

They should have done it long ago because now it's going to bite them on the ass. The army is replacing VBS2, check out the date on this link my friend from Fort Polk sent to me -

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=381b5211ac79426be30287479138c4fd&tab=core&_cview=1

[Echo38 1]

FYI when you will order AI to move somewhere - they will drop everything and move there immediately - even in combat mode.

Not in vanilla Arma 2. I've tested this. If another member of the squad (even if he is half-way across the map) is in combat, all members of the squad will ignore move, board, and action commands, and instead waste minutes pausing to scan the horizon every couple of feet.

[-GR-Operative 10]

They should have done it long ago because now it's going to bite them on the ass. The army is replacing VBS2, check out the date on this link my friend from Fort Polk sent to me -

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=381b5211ac79426be30287479138c4fd&tab=core&_cview=1

Just saying, it gonna take some development time to comply with include, but is not limited, to the components and capabilities of the current FPS game, Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2).

I must say it's pretty ambitious. But you cant forget that BIA can simply get this one too.

Potential future capabilities that may be included in the Flagship acquisition, or as separate efforts, are as follows:

1. Construction and Management Simulation (CMS)

2. Massive Multi-player Online Role Playing Games (MMOG)

3. Real Time Strategy (RTS)

4. Turn Based Strategy (TBS)

BIA has this one sorted already haha

Constraints

1. The contractor shall provide all the features of VBS2.

Edited July 27, 2012 by [GR]Operative

[metalcraze 290]

Not in vanilla Arma 2. I've tested this. If another member of the squad (even if he is half-way across the map) is in combat, all members of the squad will ignore move, board, and action commands, and instead waste minutes pausing to scan the horizon every couple of feet.

Who cares about vanilla ArmA2 anymore? Why won't we complain that OFP has no features?

They should have done it long ago because now it's going to bite them on the ass. The army is replacing VBS2, check out the date on this link my friend from Fort Polk sent to me -

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=381b5211ac79426be30287479138c4fd&tab=core&_cview=1

Actually it says they are staying with VBS2

Because there is still nothing to replace it with on the horizon

[max power 21]

Timnos

This thread is about how realistic ArmA is. It has nothing to do with VBS or the status BISim's business. There is a thread for discussing VBS and you may discuss it there and only there.

+1 infraction for thread derailing.

@All Please stay on topic.

[PuFu 4600]

Who cares about vanilla ArmA2 anymore?

Mostly...everybody? Oh well, minus a few like yourselves.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Mostly...everybody? Oh well, minus a few like yourselves.

I guess he meant : "who cares about ArmA2 when ArmA2:Co is the standard game played".

[PuFu 4600]

I guess he meant : "who cares about ArmA2 when ArmA2:Co is the standard game played".

In that case i stand corrected, but i really doubt it (even after reading the posts again).

[Ninja_Prime 10]

Not having been in the military or even seen any combat, except in movies and documentaries, then I would have to say that it will be the closest I will ever get. Real life and PC games can’t really be the same thing, so if there are ex-military people out there, or who are in the military and play ARMA, then their opinion would have more weight, than someone like me.

I guess the answer for me would be no, because as far as I am concerned this is just a game simulation, there is no substitute for the real thing.

[metalcraze 290]

Mostly...everybody?

Everybody? Well that explains the abundance of ArmA2 vanilla servers.

In that case i stand corrected, but i really doubt it (even after reading the posts again).

I dunno man - if the "vanilla" word isn't much of a hint then I don't know what is