Question on Setting: Why 2037?

[Zak757 1]

It's not really anything I had problem with, I (personally) just found the year a really odd time to set ARMA 3 in. ARMA is a military simulator designed to be relevant to real world combat as well as cater to actual soldiers right? Well ARMA 3 certainly is, with the only changes in warfare really being slightly more modern ammunition like 6.5mm Grendel and some more angular vehicle designs. That's the odd thing I find with it though. I imagine by 2037, warfare would have changed a fairly significant degree. The use of things like robots, drones, networked computers, vehicle mounted tactical lasers, electrothermal-chemical firearms, exoskeletons, or possibly even minor human augumentation would likely be a big part of the battlefield. But ARMA 2 and ARMA 3, despite being 30 years apart (quite a long time mind you), are pretty much exactly the same, with ARMA 3 just being more streamlined. It's probably just me bring a Deus Ex/Ghost in the Shell/Metal Gear nerd, but I found the time period a little off for the setting. Why 2037 instead of, say, 2015? The ARMA verse pretty much split from our timeline anyway with the war in Chernarus and the continuation of the RAH-66 program.

[Nicholas 5]

This is what Ivan had to say about the future setting in an interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

RPS: Can you explain the setting for Arma 3′s campaign in a bit more detail? We’ve heard that it is set in the near future, but what does that mean for the game? What sort of technologies will be available? And what made you opt for a future scenario?

Ivan: The near future setting allows us to enrich the experience by some most recent military technology, which will hopefully change the gameplay a bit compared to the previous Arma titles. We try to avoid purely sci-fi designs and focus rather on modern military technologies, which are reshaping the battlespace: precision munitions, reconnaissance means, autonomous vehicles, advanced weapons and targeting systems, lightweight equipment, enhanced survivability. The setting also allows the team to have some rest from the pressure associated with replicating reality and focus more on the actual gameplay.

[Oshi7 1]

Doesn't bother me. Lets the developers have a little breathing room, creates an interesting balance between OpFor and BluFor. 30 years in the future is enough time to let some powers shift and politics change so that they can create an interesting storyline.

I think ArmA 3 is more of a game than a simulator now.

[Nicholas 5]

I think ArmA 3 is more of a game than a simulator now.

It's always been a game. Not sure why people consider it a simulator.

[johncage 30]

ofp was a sim, that's why the military eyed bis up and down and wanted them to further develop the sim platform, which became vbs. bis makes money on the side outside of their contract work by doing gae mission and arma.

as for why the new setting was chosen. my theory: you don't have to test a real weapon and perfect its representation in game when you can create a fictional weapon and use random number generators to govern its behavior. and no soldier, wannabe or otherwise, will be able to cum at you and say you're doing something wrong.

so in my view, it's more than an artistic decision.

[Zansie 1]

It's always been a game. Not sure why people consider it a simulator.

I think because it's always given the 'simulator' vibe, plus it's been advertised as such.

When I heard of arma, they kept saying "simulator" and such, so I just regarded it as a simulator. Plus, it doesn't take ten shots to kill you, but one well placed one to do the job. Independent head movement things like that set it apart.

But it feels like more of a game now then arma 2 did. Probably because it is not nearly as clunky. And the setting of course.

[johncage 30]

simulator/game continuum isn't static. as technology progresses and allows more interactivity/more sophisticated ai, the standards for what qualifies as a sim changes. arma lost touch years ago. and now the real sims are dcs, steel armor, steel beast, etc.

[dm 9]

Why 2037 instead of, say, 2015?

Because BI got bored of doing "lets shoot M4's at towel-heads in derka-derka-stan" (like pretty much every modern shooter is currently doing), and 2035 gives them some creative freedom in art assets/mission design/storyline/technology.

So yeah, mostly: because they wanted to.

[Messiah 2]

vehicle mounted tactical lasers, electrothermal-chemical firearms

[AussieStig 10]

I'm fine with them going down the slightly more futuristic road as long as we still see some forms of technology from today, and the past.

It's only 20 years, we'd still be seeing a lot of the same aircraft used today, probably a lot of the same weapons as well.

[nimrod123 11]

probally because its lets blufor and opfor operate in the same/similar way.

on the simulator bent, they seem to be moving away from the retail sim style into a more hardcore serious game, and honestly since they also have VBS2 that makes sense

[tremanarch 6]

The use of things like robots, drones, networked computers, vehicle mounted tactical lasers, electrothermal-chemical firearms, exoskeletons, or possibly even minor human augumentation would likely be a big part of the battlefield.

in 20 yrs? i dont think so- in 50 yrs maybe. its still experimental. it must get tested, than trained than clearanced etc etc...

[Yairweinberg 1]

It doesn't change that quickly they set it out there so they'll have room to breath, Add new designs and stuff that just comes out

Because if they wont it will just be a remake of ArmA 2

[Harry_Flashman 1]

I'm guessing that setting in the not-too-distant future also gives the developers a bit of creative license that encourages creativity and makes the actual task of developing a bit more fun. At first I was disappointed by the lack of current day realism, but I now appreciate it - I've shot plenty of virtual M4s, M16s, SCARs etc. for all those weapons to become fairly boring in the gaming world. Out with the old, and in with the new!

[bigshot 62]

...also, I can smell some seriously experimental DLC coming our way in about 18-24 months. I bet the final dlc on offer for Arma 3 may be a bit on the wild side...and who knows, maybe they wont wait for the last one :-)

[magicool 10]

In a couple of months armaholic will be filled with todays weapons and vehicles for arma3

[Mac 1]

Only reason I dont mind it is I have faith in the modding community, that they will be able to add everything else in

[krycek 349]

Well the timeline is a welcomed change,got bored for shooting/using the same stuff over and over again since OFP through A2.Bring on different toys,besides if you still want to drive your OFP/A1/A2 Abrams or put some rounds with the M16 I'm sure the modders will do a great job.

Also A2CO it's far from obsolete,I'm actually playing it as much as A3 Alpha.

A side joke not related to A3 but about the same(more or less) near future timeline,where are these toys?:p

running on Stratis was never this fun

trouble spotting the pesky iranian?

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

Well, once we have the (possible) port of the a2/oa stuff to a3 then we will all be happy campers. I'm not fond of the advanced tech feel even if all the items and vehicle exist. I would like to pit them against A2/oa troops though :) Im looking forward to the Take on Arma3 merge (if it happens)

Rgds

LoK

[spreilly 1]

I would love to see new weapons, but I would love/hope that BI would include modern-day weapons like M16, M4, etc. Also, modern-day aircraft, vehicles, etc. But, a futuristic setting with some newer gear would be a nice change.

Plus, ARMA 2 still is a very good and realistic game.

[metalcraze 290]

by 2037, warfare would have changed a fairly significant degree. The use of things like robots, drones, networked computers, vehicle mounted tactical lasers, electrothermal-chemical firearms, exoskeletons, or possibly even minor human augumentation would likely be a big part of the battlefield.

You watch too much TV.

[samco 1]

even if the game setting its 20 years in the future the tech isn't as advanced as it would be .

the technology advancement isn't a linear function (for various statistics reasons Moore's law for example ) by 20 years the military would make a huge leap.

Just Think the difference from 90s to now, its huge and the advancement every year is going faster everything gets obsolete in almost 3 years.

[Lauxman 10]

even if the game setting its 20 years in the future the tech isn't as advanced as it would be .

the technology advancement isn't a linear function (for various statistics reasons Moore's law for example ) by 20 years the military would make a huge leap.

Just Think the difference from 90s to now, its huge and the advancement every year is going faster everything gets obsolete in almost 3 years.

We still fight with M4s and M16s, using the same battle drills. CCOs, EOTECHs, ACOGs are more widespread. Still use good-old Apaches and Cobras for CAS and that won't change anytime soon. UAS and robotics have changed a lot. Counter-IED technology (to inclue most robotics used by the military) and MRAPs are probably the biggest development, but those were entirely reactive changes due to the sudden shift in tactics by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are not modeled at all in the ARMA series.

I have no idea where you think everything "gets obsolete in almost 3 years."

[Mr. Charles 22]

We still fight with M4s and M16s, using the same battle drills. CCOs, EOTECHs, ACOGs are more widespread. Still use good-old Apaches and Cobras for CAS and that won't change anytime soon. UAS and robotics have changed a lot. Counter-IED technology (to inclue most robotics used by the military) and MRAPs are probably the biggest development, but those were entirely reactive changes due to the sudden shift in tactics by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are not modeled at all in the ARMA series.

I have no idea where you think everything "gets obsolete in almost 3 years."

Meanwhile the german Bundeswehr got shiny new G36s, new Leopard variants, new Pumas, new GTK Boxers, new NH90s, new Eurocopter Tigers, new Eurofighter Typhoon, new frigates, new drones, new corvettes and new Dingos.

[samco 1]

i was speaking mostly of electronic equipment of course , which is essential in warfare and every day life .

Hardware and Vehicles might be the same from the 70s but they're costantly updated ... and its the electronic equipment that makes the Real difference , radars computers networking electronic countermeasures and warfare are vital.

Anyway

drones : are widely in use today

vehicle mounted lasers : in use today to blown mines .... the power source its a big issue ... but at least i imagine their use as Counter-Ram or countermeasure in vehicle ( blinding guidance ) or aboard ships

electrothermal-chemical firearms : 50 cal could be viable ... and definately on MBT / artillery guns .

exoskeleton : there are many prototypes but the power source is an issue again .