Digital battlefield and futuretech

[Lauxman 10]

In that case, let BIS keep the game somewhat realistic. Leave the Iron Man suits to the modders.

[samco 1]

I'm not saying we should have mechs and Master Chief armour in Arma, but some of the tech available today might be nice, even if it's just occasionally available if the mission designer chooses to. It makes more sense to have a tablet with a digital map or the glasses with streaming from team members cameras than that a railgun on a tank which BIS already announced. If it's change in gameplay people fear, they should not be concerned, since you can always play missions and campaigns that don't have that stuff - that is the beauty of Arma.

Wise words here...especially if you consider that putting a Railgun on a mobile vehicle its totally unfeasible now ...Railguns to operate efficiently would require a huge power generator (new form of energy or micro nuclear reactor ) and of course coolant and major breakthroughts in new materials . Okay that is sci-fi . But again its there unfortunately.

Railguns on ships or static...that is another story...

[mmaruda 20]

Railguns to operate efficiently would require a huge power generator (new form of energy or micro nuclear reactor ) and of course coolant and major breakthroughts in new materials . Okay that is sci-fi . But again its there unfortunately.

Railguns on ships or static...that is another story...

I was going to write that, but I thought it was self explanatory. :) Anyway, they actually work on miniaturising the thing and making it less power hungry, still the effort is just not worth it, if you consider the cost vs. the cost and abilities of traditional cannons. The only argument for putting a railgun on a tank is being environment friendly - it allows the desired armour penetration parameters without using uranium cores. Some people say the amount of radiation that went into the air after the last Gulf War's tank battles is equal to that of Chernobyl. Not that any military would care.

Also I just though of something. If we don't get all that GPS hud, internet data-link and other stuff, it should be reflected in the plot somehow. For example GPS might not be available due to the satelite network being crippled. Recently China shot down their own satellite and everyone was shocked. US military got scared and it wasn't because China showed they can shoot down a satellite - it's because shooting just one down causes a lot of space debris floating everywhere and collisions are possible. There is a serious threat of a domino effect where parts of a destroyed satellite hit another one, destroy it and more debris starts floating around. The orbit is quite crowded. Anyway that sort of scenario would justify lack of certain technology based on the global satellite network.

[Zak757 1]

Why? That would assume that body armour research makes one great leap after another, and small weapons research just comes to an abrupt halt for +20 years.

This stuff is 10 times stronger then kevlar. If you make guns 10 times more powerful, you'll end up with a bunch of warped barrels and broken shoulders. There is a hard limit to how much recoil can be reduced.

In that case, let BIS keep the game somewhat realistic. Leave the Iron Man suits to the modders.

Nobody is wondering why we can't play as Iron Men or Space Marines with bolters and plasma rifles, they are wondering why nothing in the 2035 battlefield is different from the 2003 battlefield. They still use fucking paper maps, for god sakes. This game is sure "somewhat realistic" alright. Emphasis on somewhat. My gaming computer from 10 years ago is a third as power as the phone in my pocket which isn't even a centimeter thick, and the trends in technology are only rising.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Zak757

[scrim 1]

What stuff? And yes, if you mean SAPI plates, probably. That's why they can resist rifle shots and Kevlar can't. And if you think it's all about making a gun more powerful by making the cartridge 10 times bigger, you're so naive you're under the age limit for Arma 3. Muskets have a darn much harder recoil than modern assault rifles, and which would you reckon penetrates body armour the best?

[PFC Magician 10]

in 2006 EA launch:Battlefield 2142 and fail...why? because there are two kinds of players the arcade, children usually and simulation for over 18 years but we all know who play for all ages;for that reason "battlefield" return to actual combat.

If BIS decide something futuristic in arma3 then i'm sure arma4 will ever be actual combat simulator as did EA

I would like to play the simulation with art weaponry (kriss, tabor, MPAR, Benjamin Rogue) but if there is speculation prototypes only get a fantasy game and that is not simulation, that is arcade game for kids or a rpg like skyrim

My gaming computer from 10 years ago is a third as power as the phone in my pocket which isn't even a centimeter thick, and the trends in technology are only rising.

cellphone technology is at the height, but there isnt an argument to be based on other technologies (according to your reasoning, the automotive technology, in 2035 all vehicles should fly)

Edited April 2, 2013 by PFC Magician

[Sanguinius 1]

The internet is huge in the military, but on the battlefield, name one way it changed things. Not in the planning of operations, but on the battlefield for an infantryman.

Tablets and handheld devices changed the civilian world, but name one way they've been featured on the battlefield. No, we still use handheld GPS that has advanced, but still retains the same features, along with simple maps. Especially if we're talking about battling with a fictional conventional military that no doubt by 2035 will have a strong cyberwarfare department? In that case, the battlefield advantage would go to the LOWER tech conventional military, not the conventional military that relies on their virtual reality technology.

The internet and tablets revolutionizing the civilian world have obviously been adopted by the military, but not on the actual battlefield. They make no difference to an infantryman. Again-go watch a video on Youtube of a firefight today, and then go watch Black Hawk Down. 20 years and, really, how different is a firefight?

The huge things that have changed are the surge of IEDs on the modern battlefield (surprisingly absent from ARMA) and unmanned vehicles. But you'll probably start asking for the robot from that one Gerard Butler movie with machine guns and hellfires on it because it was in an action movie.

IEDs are on Insurgency...

To add to your reasoning, look up a little movie called Blade Runner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner . In 1982, they thought we'd all have flying cars, laser guns, robots that looked exactly like humans, false memories being planted, and space travel. By 2017.

Enhanced networking, computer, and display technology would all be in use by that time, and they would definitely help with finding targets and being part of a larger war. But in an ordinary engagement, by the side of the road, will you use that?

[lightspeed_aust 681]

Something to think about - the Javelin.

Not available in original Arma, Arma2 but added, say one or two years ago to the joy of all players.

Should we not have introduced such a weapon because it was too futuristic?

Let's look at the development of the Javelin - (wiki article)

In 1983, the United States Army introduced its AAWS-M (Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System—Medium) requirement and, in 1985, the AAWS-M was approved for development.

In August 1986, the Proof-of-Principle (POP) phase of the development began, with a $30 million contract awarded for technical proof demonstrators: Ford Aerospace (laser-beam riding), Hughes Aircraft Missile System Group (imaging infra-red combined with a fiber-optic cable link) and Texas Instruments (imaging infra-red).[7]

In late 1988, the POP phase ended and, in June 1989, the full-scale development contract was awarded to a joint venture of Texas Instruments and Martin Marietta (now Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin). The AAWS-M received the designation of FGM-148.

In April 1991, the first test-flight of the Javelin succeeded, and in March 1993, the first test-firing from the launcher succeeded.

In 1994, low levels of production were authorized, and the first Javelins were deployed with US Army units in 1996.

The Javelin was used in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq on Iraqi Type 69 and Lion of Babylon tanks.

Thousands of launchers have been sold to nations around the world.

Technology in the military progresses everyday, it takes time and it takes testing, but if it's good enough it's implemented and utilised.

I don't imagine Star Wars in 2035 but I do see some significant changes.

[scrim 1]

Absolutely ridiculous argument, seeing as how the Javelin very much existed when they made Arma 2. So apart from not being very futuristic about it in that regard, what else is? That it has a top attack mode. Big deal, it's been around since like the '80s. And no, military technology does not progress every day. It does when it's financed, which it hardly will be to anywhere near the same extent when the war is over.

[samco 1]

but many civilian applications have military applications and reverse .... so military technology progress every day indeed because so does science overall.

Technology advances but ...at the end to field something you have to finance it ...it cost money to make things afterall.

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

cellphone technology is at the height, but there isnt an argument to be based on other technologies (according to your reasoning, the automotive technology, in 2035 all vehicles should fly)

no its according to your reasoning, cellphone technology is advancing so fast because of processors (Moore's law) and softwares ....its complete realistic to assume that a 2035 cellphone would have the power of a today PC .

It is not realistic assuming flying car in 2035 ( unless as fying car you mean airplanes and helos or something like that) because there isn't the technology ( antigravity ?! ) and the need for it .

This thread is asking for more realistic 2035 tech and actual use of the ones that are already ingame ( see the sci-fi looking iranians that probably go around with mock-ups

head mounted displays and a mock.up micro-climate suit ...if only we can have also the Qaher-313 )

[hudson78 1]

The internet is huge in the military, but on the battlefield, name one way it changed things. Not in the planning of operations, but on the battlefield for an infantryman.

Tablets and handheld devices changed the civilian world, but name one way they've been featured on the battlefield. No, we still use handheld GPS that has advanced, but still retains the same features, along with simple maps. Especially if we're talking about battling with a fictional conventional military that no doubt by 2035 will have a strong cyberwarfare department? In that case, the battlefield advantage would go to the LOWER tech conventional military, not the conventional military that relies on their virtual reality technology.

The internet and tablets revolutionizing the civilian world have obviously been adopted by the military, but not on the actual battlefield. They make no difference to an infantryman. Again-go watch a video on Youtube of a firefight today, and then go watch Black Hawk Down. 20 years and, really, how different is a firefight?

The huge things that have changed are the surge of IEDs on the modern battlefield (surprisingly absent from ARMA) and unmanned vehicles. But you'll probably start asking for the robot from that one Gerard Butler movie with machine guns and hellfires on it because it was in an action movie.

First let me prefix this comment by saying that one video of a solider in contact does not support your claim.

The military (speaking for the US Military), uses technology all the time in major and minor ways. Just because you didn't see it on a youtube video or in a photo doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't currently in service. Products like the Harris Tactical Chat are used everyday by soldiers in Afghanistan at every level of operations, including infantry, to give status updates, share target and movement information between units. The devices used range from desktops, to laptops and handheld PDA's. This is just one technology used that is part of an integrated technology battlefield. These systems are force multipliers. They allow soldiers to do more with less. Moving forward and looking towards 2035 this ideology and practice is only going to continue to pick up pace.

I disagree with your assessment that a military that is using more technology will be at a disadvantage to a low tech conventional force. It is hard to move pieces on a battlefield if your OPFOR knows your every move. Any sizable amount of armor or aircraft they throw out or up will be pounced on either by strike aircraft or QRF's. This eliminates the ability for an enemy force to use little more than small arms and forces them to fight an insurgency rather than in a full scale capacity (sound familiar).

This is where your IED's come in. However even on that front technology is starting to inch ahead. By 2035 I would think they science of detection and disruption would create a situation where the only viable IED's left would be command det and even then I am not sure even those would be that successful. Even in our time IED detection/disruption is already very good. Sure, people do still get killed by them, but that in my opinion is only because of the numbers of IED's placed. If you cover a countryside with enough IED's the laws of probability are such that eventually you will be successful.

At first I was like you. I wanted ARMA to stay conventional. However the more I thought about it, I am glad it is just a little ways in the future. I think that a setting in 2035 makes the game more accessible. You can still play the game in a conventional manner if you choose or you have the ability to use technology to change the face of the battle. In my opinion the idea of a 2035 setting gives everyone more options.

I feel in some ways ARMA 3 has fallen short on the technology currently. I realize this is an ALPHA and things might change but when I look at the NATO soldier I find myself asking; "Why Multicam?" Why not one of the camo's that are in development now, something like Kryptek or the ADS Transitional that is in development? Or the night vision for example. The system currently in ARMA 3 is hopefully a placeholder. There are systems online now that far outpace what is currently in the game. There is a lot more but what I am getting at is ARMA could have really went all in on the future side of things. However at this point it seems that they have toned things down a little. Take a look at the PEO Solider Portfolio sometime. While there are some items in there that are :391: whoever approved that should be fired, there are also some really neat things in the works that will change the battlefield both now and in the future. Check out pages 187-188, the Nett Warrior system. https://peosoldier.army.mil/portfolio/#1

Edited April 4, 2013 by Hudson78

[samco 1]

I agree totally with you especially for the Night Vision ... it looks outdated even now at least throught special forces ...http://www.elbitsystems-us.com/sites/default/files/imported/seo/esam0079_quadeye.jpg

[hudson78 1]

I agree totally with you especially for the Night Vision ... it looks outdated even now at least throught special forces ...http://www.elbitsystems-us.com/sites/default/files/imported/seo/esam0079_quadeye.jpg

Those are the GPNVG-18 from L-3. Once a little known piece of special operations gear, they have now become mainstream enough to be sold on websites to police officers and military personal..assuming they can afford the 30K price tag.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/clasky/GPNVG18_16.jpg (281 kB)

Edited April 4, 2013 by Hudson78