Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

[krycek 349]

It's an interesting list but I'm not sure how it could be implemented in A3 and still keep the fun factor.

Cyber warfare could be implemented at a practical level where you hack(minigame)the enemy network grid to disable their radars,their autonomous defenses or their drones(if these things are implemented).For example not all minigames are pure crap,they could have something like in DX:HR:

Advances in drone technology,I think BI devs already announced they have much more of these systems in-game.

Optical camouflage,not sure how much fun will be to kill enemy after enemy while you are the super duper invisible Rambo.

[instagoat 133]

Many of these technologies will be specialty application in 2035, not first line issue.

Some technology is actually being discussed in politics today already, such as at home 3D printers aiding in developing and producing home made weapons.

And weapons will usually be used until they wear out or are rendered obsolete. In a battlespace contested by 4th and 5th generation stealth aircraft, B-52s will be eaten for breakfast. Even Iran is making forays into stealth fighter tech now (even though their Fighter is a rather poor mockup, it still exhibits a basic grasp of stealth shaping.), both russia and china have stealth aircraft flying, and India will be receiving PAK-FAIs as soon as possible.

The only field where Nato has a true advantage in the midterm is C&C as well as Combat Intelligence and Digital Networking technologies for ground forces. Everywhere else, we are increasingly being outdone as far as technology goes.

I am still gathering data, by the way, but the whole thing turns out to be a little more daunting than expected.

Cheers, Insta

[scrim 1]

IIRC, one of the biggest criticisms the F-22 and F-35s have faced is that neither the Chinese nor the Russians are anywhere close to developing stealth fighters.

[Binkowski 26]

I want rocket boots like in Dead Space.

[dysta 10]

Can ARMA 3 do this?

http://fav.me/d1decbc

http://fav.me/d3l6qfd

http://fav.me/d5sr1gs

[krycek 349]

Can ARMA 3 do this?

http://fav.me/d3l6qfd

Hah well if we fight Reapers the only tech gameplay feature in A3 will be us running,hiding and avoid indoctrination on Altis while we yell "someone text Cmdr. Shepard!!!!".

[bravo93 37]

Seriously who even gives a toss about the weapons/vehicles that come with the game? I'm just excited about the improved physics, graphics, size, lighting etc. Weapons, vehicles and units you can just make yourself. I don't even like this futuristic stuff, kinda makes me think of Halo and I hate that game.

[Westonsammy 1]

I think the ideas in the post, although i'm not one to say if they will or will not be possible in 2030, seem a bit sci-fi ish for the ArmA series. I think BI wants to keep ArmA 3 familiar to modern military gamers, while giving it a easily believable future setting/skin. If they did implement some of the features you suggested in this post (Such as cloaking, exo-skeletons, ect) it would start to feel more like a realistic version of Crysis then a ArmA game. And we have no idea what sort of tactics would need to be implemented to counter these advances in military technology, because they obviously have not been mass-fielded yet. This would impact the simulation because BI would have to implement elements and features that may not be realistic or feasible in the year 2030, simply in order to keep them from becoming too overpowered.

Maybe in ArmA 4 or 5 (If ArmA goes on for that long... ) they will implement some of these features, because we will have more solid evidence that these features work and are being fielded, and more information about them and methods for countering them, which can be implemented to create a accurate futuristic simulation.

[nkenny 1057]

I think this is a great thread, filled with relevant information and discussion concerning the future of warfare. I agree with the OP. From what we've seen so far, ARMA3 does not challenge our perception of what the future of warfare is.

I specifically do not want to see 50s or 60s level technology repainted and passed off as future-tech. (cue tank sensors in arma2)

-k

[Streaks 0]

I am not terribly picky....as long as I can still have my 1911 :P Talk about miltech that has stood the test of time!

[Zenith 10]

All of this technology may be developed and available, but militaries are never keen to spend the sums of money needed to field it. Just look at the U.S for a good example of this; a few years ago they had the promising XM8 in development, a modular weapon intended to replace the aging and flawed M16 and its derivatives. What happened? Well, despite showing far superior performance, and being much better suited to 21st century warfare, the program was binned in 2005 for what amounts to financial reasons. This is but one example of a list that goes on and on, with decades of technological advance essentially thrown away by the penny pinching higher-ups.

To be honest, I suspect the next 30-40 years will be no different in this regard. You will see minor changes and updates here and there, but we will probably be plodding along with the same old equipment until change is forced on us, i.e. World War II.

[el0375 10]

well maybe instead of the super albatros we will have a derivative of the yak 130

in my opinion what i see as future, rather than the weapon systems and the ways to kill the enemy to change, what will might change further for future warfare ( supposing an up to date army) is networking, information, better situational awareness. if a plane spots something for example, the information will be automatically send to the whole group so they all know about it or something that follows that idea

[cadmium77 16]

Seriously who even gives a toss about the weapons/vehicles that come with the game? I'm just excited about the improved physics, graphics, size, lighting etc. Weapons, vehicles and units you can just make yourself. I don't even like this futuristic stuff, kinda makes me think of Halo and I hate that game.

I feel like that too. If you look at serious science fiction they invariably get the future wrong. We simply cannot imagine the future.

From what I'm seeing out of the Afghanistan and Israel theatres it looks like there's already plenty of futuristic robots and drones being used that haven't been implemented to their full extent in Arma II..

[AkwArdfLy 0]

It's kind of funny seeing how people in 2012 were discussing how realistic/unrealistic Arma 3 equipment is. and honestly, it is quite realistic for 2020 standards. Most armies have now adopted or are using Multicam for certain units and the US army is even changing to 6.8 SPC, planning to replace most M4s and M249's by 2022.

[squirrel0311 16]

I know I'm late to the party but this post interested me because I've always been a fan of Arma 3's take on the future of warfare, even the CSAT bug helmets/suits. 
 

While I agree that most of the of the stuff the OP mentioned does already exist in some capacity in the real world and implementation of it in the storyline would certainly be interesting to see... When it comes to actually making it a workable part of an actual game, that's something totally different and in my opinion, asking a lot from an engine that can't even simulate walking around in a moving vehicle.

Furthermore, we're talking about a game that released in 2013 and was probably being worked on for a while before that, therefore it's not really too surprising to see how conservative their outlook was by todays standards. On top of all of that, they had the huge backlash they got for going for the future theme in the first place. Does anyone remember the storm that came about after the images of the railgun tank? Heck, I remember how much flak I got for saying we needed heavy lift tilt wing and heavy lift quad-rotor aircraft, or for suggesting that they should've added thermal integration to the nightvision since so many people  were complain it was "too clear" even though it's set in the future and more than likely wouldn't be Gen3. 

I love the future setting and gear, to me, the cold war-era and time before have been done enough in Arma.... On the other hand, I know that everything needs to come in moderation and with balance. Warfare technology advances for one main purpose and that is to be more effective and therefore devastating. Real war isn't fun, at all. So when you start implementing weapons like orbital strike capabilities or smart missiles and bullets, generally speaking the gameplay becomes much less fun unless the mission makers spend a lot of time thinking up ways to balance it all. (Just look at Warlords where the Rhino is allowed.)

At that point, you have to ask, is it worth spending the time and money to add those kind of assets to a game where you can't even jump over a fence, consolidate your ammo, or bump into another vehicle without exploding?  Everyone wants a game/situation where all the latest and most devastating weapons are at their fingertips but when those weapons are pointed at them it suddenly becomes much less fun... Just ask the Armenians.