Preference of Arma 2 equipment

[chortles 263]

Oh, Arma is in an alternate timeline and have been since Operation Flashpoint: Resistance (I'm not going to lie, I had fun pointing this out to people months ago) -- but yes, I do mean weaponry as such. See, as last year's "E3 guy tries to lecture MOH executive director dude only to get pushback" showed, authenticity and realism are two different things. The realism arguments rage on these forums still, but I recall the that original complaint/backlash wasn't against BI going unrealistic, but against BI going inauthentic by bucking the tradition of "different timeline but 'coincidentally' similar/near-identical TO&E", even though as the authenticity thread quickly pointed out the overwhelming majority of what was depicted was in fact in use around the real world... just not in the real-world US military, which is why I made fun of other shooters for coloring the complainers' ideas of what's real and what's not. :lol:

"Replace Greece with Israel"? Pffft, have you seen how badly the Project RACS modder took the mere idea of Israeli-looking weapons in Iranian hands?

[defk0n_NL 2]

No, I'm not really. Each ArmA game has had a different scenario. You want a scenario that they have already covered in a previous game, ergo, you want that previous game. Every game has had engine improvements, and people still play the previous games if they want Cold War (OFP), or brushfire-esque conflict (ArmA 1), etc etc etc.

They've also steadily been advancing in time, they hit the present day with ArmA 2 OA, and now they're going beyond, it just happens to be in a new game.

Basically, deal with it. Some of us don't want ArmA 2 in a new skin, because if I wanted a game series like that, I'd go play the endless spew of CoDs and Battlefields. I want games that do something different every time, not just regurgitate the same sides with minor differences in different geographical locations. Future NATO vs Future Iran is something I've not seen before (nor the Mediterranean setting), and I want to see more. I really hope BIS will continue with this vision they have for ArmA 3 rather than listen to the people who want a Arma 2 2.0

You are basically describing arma 3 as it stands now. Its Exactly like the CoDs and Battlefields. Minor diffrent in gameplay then Arma 2 Except units and animations. Its whipping up the same concept with a new jacket instead of making a great game (arma2) greater with new concepts and gameplay.

All Arma titles were set in wars that have or are happening right now. Having to play Persia Vs US is a major game breaker.

Because what are the chances that Iran will invade Greece? The Iran i know, not spoon fed, (i am not Iranian) is a country with the deepest cultural history in mankind. (Muḥammad ibn MÅ«sÄ al-KhwÄrizmÄ« was a Persian mathematician who basically created algebra inside Persia, now know as irag.) And last time i checked Iran is not in the business of starting wars.

Unlike USA or Isreal which are countries that have been artificially created along with their culture(Columbus and Holocaust). Of which many wars have been documented.

tl;dr Arma 3 is just not as realistic as Arma 2.

(post might be a bit blunt but last time i checked, freedom of speech is also allowed without mainstream consensus)

Edited July 6, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[dragon01 902]

War with Iran actually seemed likely for some time, but the recent election shook things up a bit .

About ArmA III being less realistic than II, I agree. ArmA III has gone too far into the future, and in my opinion jumped the shark. The "AKA-47" equipment naming adds insult to injury. You could imagine ArmA II happening somewhere in the former Yugoslavia, or OA to be "Afghanistan with serial numbers filled off", but AIII doesn't allow that. Not only does it use nonexistant/theoretical equipment (half of which will be canceled before 2035, considering the US military's track record these days), it renames the real vehicles it does use. And I don't like the names themselves, either, I can post an entire list of alternate propositions if you want. High-tech Iranian forces are ridiculous, considering what we've seen of their tech (remember that dinky "stealth fighter" they showcased some time ago?). IMO, BIS should get back to Cold War, or even to Vietnam. That would allow them to focus less on implementing a myriad of (highly hypothetical) advanced techs and more on improving the actual gameplay. At the same time, players would have to do with older, less advanced equipment (iron sigts FTW!) and thus have to rely more on features such as new stances and other such gameplay improvements in order to gain tactical advantage.

[2nd ranger 282]

(post might be a bit blunt but last time i checked, freedom of speech is also allowed without mainstream consensus)

Your post is is mainly hyperbole.

You are basically describing arma 3 as it stands now. Its Exactly like the CoDs and Battlefields. Minor diffrent in gameplay then Arma 2 Except units and animations. Its whipping up the same concept with a new jacket instead of making a great game (arma2) greater with new concepts and gameplay.

Come on. This kind of exaggeration doesn't help anyone.

All Arma titles were set in wars that have or are happening right now. Having to play Persia Vs US is a major game breaker.

All previous games were set in fictional locations in fictional conflicts. The only settings that vaguely resembled any real life conflict were in Arma 2 and Arrowhead.

Because what are the chances that Iran will invade Greece? [...] And last time i checked Iran is not in the business of starting wars.

Unlike USA or Isreal which are countries that have been artificially created along with their culture(Columbus and Holocaust). Of which many wars have been documented.

It's not certain that Iran is going to be the OPFOR anymore. Nor even that the game will be set in Greece. The Iranian flag was removed from the games a few updates ago, and the Red faction is never referred to as Iran in the game, always OPFOR or 'the enemy'. From that, plus comments made at E3, it seems like right now the game is just Blue vs Red vs Green Somewhere in the Mediterranean. I get the impression BIS is trying hard not to make anyone angry after the real-life Lemnos incident.

As for BIS renaming equipment, that is nothing new. There have always been silly borrowed names like Hand-Over Offender and Coyota.

High-tech Iranian forces are ridiculous

Not in the context of the story (or the original story, assuming Iran is still the OPFOR). An election or a revolution that resulted in a more open, less-hard line government who embraced technology and built up their military to become an advanced and formidable player. Which brings me to this:

Iran [...] is a country with the deepest cultural history in mankind. (Muḥammad ibn MÅ«sÄ al-KhwÄrizmÄ« was a Persian mathematician who basically created algebra inside Persia, now know as irag.)

But what have they done lately? What if Iran reinvigorated that deep culture? What if they re-harnessed that innovation and that ambition and that progress that you believe made them great? Couldn't they be great once again?

[dale0404 5]

War with Iran actually seemed likely for some time, but the recent election shook things up a bit .

About ArmA III being less realistic than II, I agree. ArmA III has gone too far into the future, and in my opinion jumped the shark. The "AKA-47" equipment naming adds insult to injury. You could imagine ArmA II happening somewhere in the former Yugoslavia, or OA to be "Afghanistan with serial numbers filled off", but AIII doesn't allow that. Not only does it use nonexistant/theoretical equipment (half of which will be canceled before 2035, considering the US military's track record these days), it renames the real vehicles it does use. And I don't like the names themselves, either, I can post an entire list of alternate propositions if you want. High-tech Iranian forces are ridiculous, considering what we've seen of their tech (remember that dinky "stealth fighter" they showcased some time ago?). IMO, BIS should get back to Cold War, or even to Vietnam. That would allow them to focus less on implementing a myriad of (highly hypothetical) advanced techs and more on improving the actual gameplay. At the same time, players would have to do with older, less advanced equipment (iron sigts FTW!) and thus have to rely more on features such as new stances and other such gameplay improvements in order to gain tactical advantage.

That's your opinion and I am glad that you have one, however it will not change anything.

[doln 10]

It's really not even slightly difficult to extrapolate what a rifle firing a 6.5 cartridge down a 20 inch barrel would behave like. If thats your issue with the 'futuristic' setting "We don't know what the weapons are like", you're a twit.

[Deadfast 43]

All Arma titles were set in wars that have or are happening right now.

Ignoring the fact that none of the countries present in any of the BIS games actually exist, I am instead going to address what they are supposed to be analogues of.

OFP - USSR never openly fought each other.

Resistance - There was no organized resistance in Czechoslovakia that with the help of US successfully drove out the Warsaw Pact forces in 1968.

ARMA1 - Uhm, I dunno. I guess this was sort of analogous to North and South Korea?

ARMA2 - US never got involved in Georgia,

Red Square never got bombed.

Arrowhead - Afghanistan and/or Iraq did happen.

I guess it's fair to say the Armaverse works in mysterious ways.

[doln 10]

Adding to that, is it really so hard to use a tiny sprinkle of imagination that Iran would Invade Greece? Do you guys not have a sprinkle of 'what-if'?

[max power 21]

People are happy to use what ifs to make exciting scenarios based in the near past, but reluctant to use them to do the same thing with the near future. ...well... people around here, I mean.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

Many people's worldviews revolve around "cold hard" facts and feel uncomfortable when they' dont have those around to back up their visualisation.

It is odd how folk are happy with utterly fictional scenarios and forces deployment but rail against the "future arms" kit we have.

Again, the 30 seconds into the future is not a scenario i'm really into but as it plays the same as A2 what's the issue? I'm unable to comprehend the angst, especially as the kit we are being given isn't completely scifi and is based somewhat in reality even if only prototypes.

Rgds

LoK

[defk0n_NL 2]

People are happy to use what ifs to make exciting scenarios based in the near past, but reluctant to use them to do the same thing with the near future. ...well... people around here, I mean.

History is factual, the future is not so if you want to provide what ifs it will always be through speculation.

What-ifs are also inherently based in the past.

adding speculation + wide distributed media and you might see where one is "reluctant to make exciting scenarios in the future"

and this is not weird. for a game that always strives to be realistic. things like this can become a ... "big deal" i suppose.

and yes i should correct that all conflicts in arma were fictional but probably had a basis in reality either by historic technology or by faction

Edited July 7, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[Alistair 10]

Invasion of Anchorage/Seattle would be awesome.

I think someone already posted this in here:

[max power 21]

edit: @defk0n_NL I guess you're probably not talking about OFP then when you're thinking of a model past based story.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Max Power

[dragon01 902]

It's really not even slightly difficult to extrapolate what a rifle firing a 6.5 cartridge down a 20 inch barrel would behave like. If thats your issue with the 'futuristic' setting "We don't know what the weapons are like", you're a twit.

TBH, this is not the biggest issue. In fact, once AIII comes out, I anticipate some talented gun nut will build himself an MX-series rifle, 6.5mm Grendel and all (or some rich gun nut will have one made). Also, a good approximation of the rifle's behavior would be quite well approximated by taking a regular 6.5mm Grendel rifle with a 20 inch barrel and fitting it with some tacticool accessories. That's not the issue. The issue is taking an obvious Commanche helo model and calling it "Blackfoot" or renaming Patria "Marshall" for little reason. Or the worst, calling a Kamaz truck "Zamak", which verges on parody. If I could change a single name in ArmA III, it would be this. I hate seeing obviously fake names for familiar equipment, something ArmA never done until now. Doubly so if the names are just silly.

Previous ArmA series had a very authentic atmosphere, they "felt" like reality. Real names, procedures you could recognize, everything down to details. Gameplay mechanics are one thing, but ArmA III feels less authentic than Tom Clancy's GRAW (to think I was afraid ArmA III might turn out like GRAW... Well, it turned out worse in that regard). It's not even about the story (we don't really know anything of it at this point) or the politics involved, but about all those little things that make it feel "right". GRAW, despite it's faults, managed it pretty well.

[max power 21]

The issue is taking an obvious Commanche helo model and calling it "Blackfoot" or renaming Patria "Marshall" for little reason. Or the worst, calling a Kamaz truck "Zamak", which verges on parody. If I could change a single name in ArmA III, it would be this. I hate seeing obviously fake names for familiar equipment, something ArmA never done until now. Doubly so if the names are just silly.

To avoid lawsuits, no doubt, like the one with bell helicopters. But this has nothing to do with the future setting really. I don't think they made those choices as part of the fiction, but to meet business requirements.

[JdB 151]

History is factual, the future is not so if you want to provide what ifs it will always be through speculation.

What-ifs are also inherently based in the past.

One example: Many games, missions, stories and movies have been made about operation Neptune Spear yet no one knows which story (or even part of) is actually true, or whether or not the people that carried out the mission even managed to get all of the details exactly as they actually happend in their after action reports. History is not strictly factual, it is subject to perception and recollection, biased and altered by the level of knowledge on the part of the audience, interests involved and restricted to those that need to know.

The ArmAverse split off from our reality in 1982. The history in the game (1982-2035) is the one and only truth, not what you think you know about the last 31 years (1982-2013) of our history.

I hate seeing obviously fake names for familiar equipment, something ArmA never done until now. Doubly so if the names are just silly.

Suppose you've never seen the "Hatchback" from ArmA2 called "Rolf" which is quite obviously a VW Golf IV with a changed logo and name and the "Kamaz" named "Utility truck" with a name on it that says "3amak" ;)

Just two examples.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JdB

[dragon01 902]

Generic names are fine. "Utility Truck" is generic, but who cares about the marque. I never noticed the names on cars, TBH. Besides, those were civilian cars, you couldn't even see the names in the editor, and those vehicles were hardly of any importance. ArmA III has fake names on military equipment, which is far more prominent, with the Zamak being a military truck, and named such in-game instead of going with a generic name. There were actual Kamaz and Ural trucks in AII (called such), and nobody seemed to mind.

To avoid lawsuits, no doubt, like the one with bell helicopters. But this has nothing to do with the future setting really. I don't think they made those choices as part of the fiction, but to meet business requirements.

Well, then why ArmA II (and OFP, before it) could have authentic names? I'm aware that sometimes, lawyers get in the way of authentic naming, but how come it has never been an issue until now?

Also, it's just a personal opinion, but those fake names suck. I really hope "Zamak" is just a placeholder, because while other names may sound a bit goofy, this one is just plain silly.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Dragon01

[JdB 151]

Generic names are fine. "Utility Truck" is generic, but who cares about the marque. I never noticed the names on cars, TBH. Besides, those were civilian cars, you couldn't even see the names in the editor, and those vehicles were hardly of any importance. ArmA III has fake names on military equipment, which is far more prominent, with the Zamak being a military truck, and named such in-game instead of going with a generic name. There were actual Kamaz and Ural trucks in AII (called such), and nobody seemed to mind.

The ArmA2 "Utility Truck" (and "Utility Truck (Open)" for that matter) vehicle I mentioned is the "Kamaz", the Russian truck under OPFOR and a fake logo that actually says "Zamak" since "3" equals "Z" in Russian and not some civilian vehicle you seem to be thinking of/confusing my post with. So the Kamaz trucks were already branded as "Zamak" in ArmA2. BIS has used fake or descriptive names before instead of brand names in previous titles including ArmA2 and they will do it again for legal reasons ;)

Edited July 8, 2013 by JdB

[fkymplbo 5]

It is rather disappointing to me to play this game with all fictional, futuristic armies and units.

I want all the units from arma 2 to play with also it would be way more fun.

I see bis releasing this game with all these dumb fictional units and leaving out all the real stuff and its not going to be fun

It is already bad enough more than half the features in arma 3 are copied from people who made their own mods for arma 2 like ACE and such and there sound effects arent even touching user made sound mods for arma 2. pretty sad if you ask me

The same point!

[dragon01 902]

The ArmA2 "Utility Truck" (and "Utility Truck (Open)" for that matter) vehicle I mentioned is the "Kamaz", the Russian truck under OPFOR and a fake logo that actually says "Zamak" since "3" equals "Z" in Russian and not some civilian vehicle you seem to be thinking of/confusing my post with. So the Kamaz trucks were already branded as "Zamak" in ArmA2. BIS has used fake or descriptive names before instead of brand names in previous titles including ArmA2 and they will do it again for legal reasons ;)

OK, so looks like the KAMAS I've seen had been from a mod. There's Ural, GAZ, Lada, UAZ (all very much existent companies) but no Kamaz. Guess they couldn't get the permission from Kamaz. Still, "Utility Truck" is better than "Zamak". The latter is only on a barely visible nameplate, it's not something you see unless you look for it. Not really an easter egg, but comes close. It's still a Kamaz, as far as I'm concerned, it's just that you can't say it aloud in-game. And I've got nothing against descriptive names, just against silly sounding fake ones.

[gossamersolid 155]

It's like Datsun and Coyota trucks in ArmA 1/ArmA 2. Who gives a shit if the names are real or not.

You guys are so over-concerned with little things.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The issue is taking an obvious Commanche helo model and calling it "Blackfoot" or renaming Patria "Marshall" for little reason. Or the worst, calling a Kamaz truck "Zamak", which verges on parody. If I could change a single name in ArmA III, it would be this. I hate seeing obviously fake names for familiar equipment, something ArmA never done until now. Doubly so if the names are just silly.

Military organisations rename equipment all the time. I don't see why it's such a big deal for Arma 3's non-specific armies to have their own designation system that differs from the various commercial names that defence manufacturers give their equipment.

Just taking the Patria AMV as an example; in Finland it's called 'XA-360', in Poland it's called 'Rosomak', in Croatia it's called 'Svarun', in South Africa (the version modelled in Arma 3) it's called 'Badger' and the version being trialled by the USMC is called 'Havoc'. What exactly is wrong with calling it the 'AM-7 Marshall' in a fictional, non-specific NATO military?

[JdB 151]

OK, so looks like the KAMAS I've seen had been from a mod. There's Ural, GAZ, Lada, UAZ (all very much existent companies) but no Kamaz. Guess they couldn't get the permission from Kamaz. Still, "Utility Truck" is better than "Zamak". The latter is only on a barely visible nameplate, it's not something you see unless you look for it. Not really an easter egg, but comes close. It's still a Kamaz, as far as I'm concerned, it's just that you can't say it aloud in-game. And I've got nothing against descriptive names, just against silly sounding fake ones.

That's exactly the point (and issue). BIS can make a car, tank, aircraft etc that looks exactly like something that is being sold in real life. They just can't name it the same or put the logo on it that it should have because it violates copyright and could get them in trouble. I'd rather have a vehicle being called "Zamak" than "Utility Truck" (or another completely fictional name), that sounds like it's coming to mow the lawn ...

At least now you know immediately what to expect. For military designations it's easy, but I can imagine if the Russian military system of designations confuses people. I tried to make a realism mod for ArmA: CWA that used all of the official designations ... AA missiles were shot at infantry and fragmentation shells towards aircraft before that idea was promptly binned :p