Official A3 campaign thread - discussion, wishlists & more

[HKFlash 9]

Yeah, except that was in the US's backyard in the midst of a standoff between two superpowers. So, that's not the same. Just so you guys can compare, this is what the E3 2012 story was. Note the similarities.

Tensions rise as NATO and Iranian forces stand-off in the Aegean: the strategic fault-line between crumbling European influence and a powerful, resurgent East. But when a key radar facility drops off the grid, a Greek flashpoint risks escalating into global conflict.

NATO and CSAT are the two superpowers in the ARMA3 storyline. Plus these islands are not in the US's backyard, they are in the European Union's backyard. So of course its not the same but it is perfectly comparable.

[froggyluv 2136]

Little confused here -is CSAT going to be represented by actual countries IE. Iran or just generic baddie arab types? That would be really disappointing if it's the latter...

[near_blind_sniper 10]

Little confused here -is CSAT going to be represented by actual countries IE. Iran or just generic baddie arab types? That would be really disappointing if it's the latter...

BI hasn't really specified yet. If I had to guess, it would be a Middle Eastern alliance with Iran as the dominant power, and Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon in it's orbit. Perhaps Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia and some of the Central Asian Republics also would have come under their influence as well.

This is however, all conjecture. ;)

[Scoggs 1]

As other people said, I want coop.

Not even specialized for it, I just want to play the same single player missions with a friend. Oh and dedicated server support for said coop would be nice.

[pauliesss 2]

As other people said, I want coop.

Not even specialized for it, I just want to play the same single player missions with a friend. Oh and dedicated server support for said coop would be nice.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere long time ago that campaign will not be playable in coop. However, personally, I would love to have a coop for campaign missions, since thats entirely different experience.

[antoineflemming 14]

NATO and CSAT are the two superpowers in the ARMA3 storyline. Plus these islands are not in the US's backyard, they are in the European Union's backyard. So of course its not the same but it is perfectly comparable.

NATO isn't a superpower. The US is. Either way, I hope there's still some advanced weapons research being done on Altis, as that's what made Limnos important in the E3 2012 storyline.

@froggyluv I do believe that CSAT is a generic Middle East coalition.

@near_blind_sniper Take a look at my previous post (the one with the E3 storyline) as well as looking up the relations between nations, and that will give you an idea of who would make up this CSAT. Pretty much it'd be Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria. I'd say Afghanistan but that place is lawless. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are US allies and are not going to side with Iran. Iraq now is possibly considered a US ally but is shifting towards Iran.

Edited August 6, 2013 by antoineflemming

[HKFlash 9]

NATO isn't a superpower. The US is. Either way, I hope there's still some advanced weapons research being done on Altis, as that's what made Limnos important in the E3 2012 storyline.

Details. Its an Alliance which includes the most powerful western nation while CSAT probably has Iran as the Coalition leader. I'm pretty sure you got my point.

[TSAndrey 1]

NATO isn't a superpower. The US is.

Don't think so

[nodunit 397]

Now that I think about it that is a bit tricky...while heavy armor is certainly not US, other vehicles kind of are... HEMTT, Hunter, Ghost hawk, Little birds, Blackfoot..or perhaps in this alternate reality someone else owns them.

[markocro 66]

coop :D

[HKFlash 9]

Protip, this aren't our reality, looking at the vehicles on the NATO side, you've got maybe 3 that are US.

The largest unit of the NATO faction in game is the 7th Infantry Division, 4th Brigade Combat Team. Search the .pbo files and you will get what I mean.

So yeah its not just the U.S. but the majority of its force is made of american units.

coop :D

You're mistaken.

[kylania 568]

You're mistaken.

He's mistaken that he wants co-op in the campaign? I think most people would want co-op for the campaign. I know there's been plenty of times when my friends and I have wanted to play campaign missions co-op.

There's been so much work getting silly gamemodes like defend and tickets and sector control functional that they surely have come closer to getting multiplayer campaigns working again.

[chiefboatsret 14]

Read about the campaigns here;http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/08/06/arma-3-interview-bohemia-explains-the-arma-3-campaign/

[NeuroFunker 11]

The largest unit of the NATO faction in game is the 7th Infantry Division, 4th Brigade Combat Team. Search the .pbo files and you will get what I mean.

So yeah its not just the U.S. but the majority of its force is made of american units.

You're mistaken.

umm, did you play any of arma 2 campaigns? You know they are coopable up to 4+ players? It was personally quite boring to play them alone. But together with my friends, it was quite enjoyable. So maybe it's you whos mistaken?

[Scoggs 1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere long time ago that campaign will not be playable in coop. However, personally, I would love to have a coop for campaign missions, since thats entirely different experience.

I know they have. Bust since campaign was delayed till after release maybe they could add it in. I'm not talking 10+, 4 would be great. I'm not asking for special additions to the campaign for coop either. Just want to enjoy it with friends.

[HKFlash 9]

He's mistaken that he wants co-op in the campaign? I think most people would want co-op for the campaign. I know there's been plenty of times when my friends and I have wanted to play campaign missions co-op.

There's been so much work getting silly gamemodes like defend and tickets and sector control functional that they surely have come closer to getting multiplayer campaigns working again.

Hold your horses. I was referring to his sig because there will be no coop campaign. Has been confirmed a long time ago. And as an experienced mission maker you know its not "easy" to make coop campaigns.

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

umm, did you play any of arma 2 campaigns? You know they are coopable up to 4+ players? It was personally quite boring to play them alone. But together with my friends, it was quite enjoyable. So maybe it's you whos mistaken?

Of course I did play them, all of them, including in coop.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Hold your horses. I was referring to his sig because there will be no coop campaign. Has been confirmed a long time ago. And as an experienced mission maker you know its not "easy" to make coop campaigns.

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Of course I did play them, all of them, including in coop.

i did miss, when and where devs said that?

[HKFlash 9]

i did miss, when and where devs said that?

Ivan gives you the answer.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Ivan gives you the answer.

oh i see, thank you.

However, given the open nature and endless possibilities of the Arma games, we may create a multiplayer-oriented campaign in the future, focusing more on the cooperative combat experience. It all depends on how successful we get with Arma 3.

sounds good to me.

[kylania 568]

Hold your horses. I was referring to his sig

Totally didn't see his sig, now it makes sense and is rather funny. Sorry for being dumb! :)

[near_blind_sniper 10]

@near_blind_sniper Take a look at my previous post (the one with the E3 storyline) as well as looking up the relations between nations, and that will give you an idea of who would make up this CSAT. Pretty much it'd be Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria. I'd say Afghanistan but that place is lawless. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are US allies and are not going to side with Iran. Iraq now is possibly considered a US ally but is shifting towards Iran.

Generally, I agree with you, in fact I like that idea.

My alternative is contingent on the assumption that North America achieves petrochemical self reliance through the exploitation of oil shale, which leads to a general US withdrawal from the Middle East.

Iran, already exerting a mode of control over Lebanon and Syria quickly expands its influence to the Shia majority Iraq, and into the natural gas rich Central Asian Republics. With a huge swath territory under their marginal control, Iran creates CSAT to standardize the diverse military units it has at it's disposal, and unify the disjointed command structure that comes with them.

With the US busy playing footsy with an expansionist China, and its main motive for intervention removed, they leave the Saudis and Jordan to their own devices. The Saudis have a formidable military, but it's not up to taking on the combined armies of their most powerful neighbors. They grudgingly join CSAT.

I would think of Pakistan as more of a Chinese ally due to the close relationship they've developed in the past decades through arms development and their mutual regional rival: India.

Most likely I'm way off base with all of this but until we get a definitive storyline, we can let our imaginations run wild

[chiefboatsret 14]

Haven' any of you read what the campaigns are going to be and how they are coming into the game?

[KingoftheSandbox 10]

Yes, indeed, Coop would be great if it is without too many annoying bugs. But 1. They clearly sayed it wont have Coop 2. Im pretty sure it would be full of bugs again

[antoineflemming 14]

Generally, I agree with you, in fact I like that idea.

My alternative is contingent on the assumption that North America achieves petrochemical self reliance through the exploitation of oil shale, which leads to a general US withdrawal from the Middle East.

Iran, already exerting a mode of control over Lebanon and Syria quickly expands its influence to the Shia majority Iraq, and into the natural gas rich Central Asian Republics. With a huge swath territory under their marginal control, Iran creates CSAT to standardize the diverse military units it has at it's disposal, and unify the disjointed command structure that comes with them.

With the US busy playing footsy with an expansionist China, and its main motive for intervention removed, they leave the Saudis and Jordan to their own devices. The Saudis have a formidable military, but it's not up to taking on the combined armies of their most powerful neighbors. They grudgingly join CSAT.

I would think of Pakistan as more of a Chinese ally due to the close relationship they've developed in the past decades through arms development and their mutual regional rival: India.

Most likely I'm way off base with all of this but until we get a definitive storyline, we can let our imaginations run wild

Well, if I were in charge of the story, I'd have just had CSAT be the SCO + Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Syria. Because, you've already got Russia and China, then you've got Iran's CSAT bloc (minus the Saudis and the Jordanians). Pakistan would be there because of China. So then you've got an expansionist Middle Eastern bloc led by Iran and backed by Russia and China. While it'd be NATO vs SCO, you'd have Russia and China engaged in proxy wars with the US.

But, it was not to be, hence the addons in my sig. But, pretty much this is why I'm interested in the campaign and why I really liked the old story. Real nations, real locations, real names, with an interesting geo-political background story. So, yeah, hopefully most of that background makes it into the campaign.

[chortles 263]

Hmmm... from the PC Gamer interview:

Will the result of certain events affect how the campaign plays out or ends in Arma 3? What are some examples?

van’t Land: Branching and player agency over the plot is not what we’re after with the Arma 3 campaign. We went back to a simpler approach that is focused on fun, and one we can test properly.

Crowe: The gameplay itself provides some opportunities for players to approach their objectives with a degree of autonomy. An example would be one mission where you have the choice to go to a weapons cache. It’s an optional objective but, if you do go there, you’ll be able to scavenge weapons to use in the following mission that best fits your style of play. However, if you mess up, that mission becomes more difficult.

van’t Land: So there is some persistency between scenarios and episodes, but it’s fairly limited and not the focal point of the experience. Big “cinematic†choices aren’t really something we want to confront the player with too much—at least to begin with.

Also, regarding the Arma 2 campaigns:

Crowe: I think “mixed†is a fair description. There were a lot of great things in the campaign, which—one way or another—players couldn’t always access. The very nature of the design made it a bit of a nightmare for QA to test, and—unsurprisingly—that meant, where’d you’d have one person having a solid play-through, you’d have another—like me—aborting two or three hours of progress—or, indeed, restarting the entire campaign—because it needed to be patched up. There’s also something to be said about the general framing of the campaign. In A2 you were playing as a fairly elite recon leader. I think some people missed the feeling of being more down to earth, something like “a nobodyâ€â€”just one cog in the war machine—that eventually comes to play a bigger and bigger role.

van’t Land: We went for too much complexity and cinematic approaches that we could not execute well enough. Ambition has always been something that drives our games—it’s important to creatively challenge yourself, but it also can mean we take on too much. Something that was also true of the original concept for the Arma 3 campaign. Plus, the use of higher-than-squad command in the Arma 2 campaign has always been a bone of contention. The Warfare mode, base building and such elements in single-player—a lot can be said about that …