Question on Setting: Why 2037?

[Lauxman 10]

Drones are widely in use today in a recon role, sometimes used to strike targets at a strategic level. That's about it.

Vehicle-mounted lasers used to blow up mines? Prototype stuff that is not as cost-effective as a robot and a block of C4. Exoskeletons? Please.

Constantly updated, but the technology largely remains the same at heart. Especially if there isn't a huge threat to reactively spur on military hardware development.

Go watch Black Hawk Down, and then go watch a youtube video of some combat today. There isn't a huge difference in the technology, not the kind that is represented in ARMA. Not like a leap from kevlar and plates to exoskeletons...the biggest leap i'd expect is from ALICE to MOLLE to another new way to configure your kit.

[Heradon 1]

So we would get the new missile technology that come from Norway. That will avoid obstacles and can see difference between friendlies and foe's and the small micro drones in game and the other stuff below?

The drone technology have came far in the past 10 years. There will be more unmanned drones/robots in future. If this game gonna replicate our future 2037. Will that mean the game will be based on unmanned machines on the battlefield? Arma 3 will be a drone war? I don't like the futuristic style because the longer we get in future less men will be on the battlefield and more computer/robots will replace them. Also we would probably get more advanced technology that allow us to destroy the enemies satellites which means you can take out the enemies communication systems. China have already destroyed a satellite with a rocket, so the technology is available today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45yWLgI40wM

Invisible tank:

Edited March 19, 2013 by Heradon

[chortles 263]

I'm going to agree with those who believe that BI just outright got bored of the modern setting and "new game" freed them up to be... more imaginative; the Ubisoft Montreal devs admitted the same dynamic re: the Tyranny of King Washington DLC for Assassin's Creed III, that they actually had creative freedom by no longer being bound by the constraints of history... and if that was true on BI's end then I'm actually happy they went "near future" warfare; working on a game that "fans of authenticity" want more than the devs themselves do can't be good for morale, and I know how much "phoning it in" can be the response to such.

[LordJarhead 1721]

I think it suites BIS a bit because they are not forced THAT much to really inform themselves about certain things. They could create something they just have in mind but not exist in real life yet. Before they always had a blockage of imagination due to real life and already existing informations. What ever they create now they could always say: "Hey what the f*ck do you know how it would be like in 2037?" :)

Easier for them I think. Maybe the lack of imagination was the kick in, who knows.

LJ

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Invisible tank:

http://www.bdtechie.com/wp-content/uploads/invisibile-tank.jpg

You should get your eyes checked, I can see the red car right there man! :D j/k

LJ

[DavidCastle 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.

If you love Dues Ex/Ghost in the shell, my friend is working on a mod for that now. Includes the realistic cloaking, as well as a gui based brain hacking system.

As for the setting, think of it this way, how long has the M16 been our service rifle? the M4 itself was an invention of the first iraq war and 20 years later we still use it, how much could possibly change small arms wise within 20 years? I think they have hit it right on the head with the exception of 6.5 as the main round used. I think the next 20 years in small arms evolution with be the growth of modular weapons to be able to have 1 system meet as large a range of needs as possible... thought honestly i can see us just using some ar15 style platform in 20 years since us americans LOVE the ar15 which i still must say have proven to be the most accurate 5.56 platform, even over the HK416. Eitherway more than likely 20 years will bring us evolution on modularity and ammunition. As for the drone stuff, we are only playing a partial alpha so I can't comment on how the drones/uavs and airstrike will be, but the vehicles themselves seem realistic, the hunters which are basically mraps are representative of the actual transition taking place now from humvees to mraps. My friend deployed actually used the exact model of MRAP in arma 3 his entire deployment. Technology evolves quickly but until we find a better way to fling projectiles at our foes physics lay out certain limitations on the performance of our current weapon systems.