Official A3 campaign thread - discussion, wishlists & more

[msy 22]

Please remove the "never fire" act. mi-48 in the last mission.

It is unreasonable and irrational it is fully a big stupid vase.

The idea is worse than the MI24 in the COD4 or MI-28 in the BF4.

Remove it or let it down by something or somebody!:mad:

vote it!

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15844

Edited November 4, 2013 by msy

[bazacop 0]

hello plp

just to say im a bit disappointed in the campaign not the campaign itself but buy the way is played out is basically like playing a load of scenarios put together then on to the nexted if u no wat I mean, after every mission it ends the u end up back at camp. I would much prefere the way it was in arma 2 where u done the mission then had the choice of either going back to base or just carrying on. more real I think that way. also if u don't complete the mission u have to restart like playing a mission in call of duty or bf just not arma in my opinion :(

[antoineflemming 14]

Anyone suspect the talk about a build up in the Pacific vs (Presumably) China is a hint for an expansion of some kind?

Yeah. Definitely. I mean, we know what's going on. It's a proxy war between the US and China, but I bet it will be the standalone expansion. I mean, the conflict in the Pacific is bigger than what's going on in the Mediterranean. Chances are, it's WW3 outside of Altis/Stratis. Why? Because the original 2011 story was post-WW3. Then it got pushed back to pre-WW3 basically. So, in an expansion pack, the US and NATO will probably be in a war with China and Russia.

[IanH 1]

While I'm enjoying most of the campaign story so far there's one big thing thats a bit disappointing to me. For a military sim, there's no military tactics being used by the AI for movement from A to B i.e Cover & Manoeuvre (1/2 move & 1/2 cover) or Use of the High Ground etc. Instead so far it's just - everyone run into a forest or valley without stopping to check your surroundings before, unsurprisingly, running into something you didn't spot as you were too busy running all the time. The AI even miss simple things like keeping to the treeline & shadows instead of walking out in the open.

These constant non-military actions by the AI really curb my enjoyment at times as I shout loudly at the monitor as my AI Leader sprints off again into the next contact!

Most of this could be cured by simple waypoint speed/awareness editing hopefully.

[antoineflemming 14]

While I'm enjoying most of the campaign story so far there's one big thing thats a bit disappointing to me. For a military sim, there's no military tactics being used by the AI for movement from A to B i.e Cover & Manoeuvre (1/2 move & 1/2 cover) or Use of the High Ground etc. Instead so far it's just - everyone run into a forest or valley without stopping to check your surroundings before, unsurprisingly, running into something you didn't spot as you were too busy running all the time. The AI even miss simple things like keeping to the treeline & shadows instead of walking out in the open.

These constant non-military actions by the AI really curb my enjoyment at times as I shout loudly at the monitor as my AI Leader sprints off again into the next contact!

Most of this could be cured by simple waypoint speed/awareness editing hopefully.

The AI don't use military tactics period, so it's not really a campaign issue, it's an AI issue. For AI to factor in all this, they'd need a major rewrite or to be scripted to do so.

[katipo66 94]

everyone run into a forest or valley without stopping to check your surroundings before, unsurprisingly, running into something you didn't spot as you were too busy running all the time.

That's about when I stopped wasting my time with it, first mission where they decide it's a great idea to abandon their vehicle and go for a run in the forest for the inevitable.. I guess im being to harsh and should try to persevere a bit more and give it a chance but time better spent on more believable missions thrown together in the editor.

[IanH 1]

The AI don't use military tactics period, so it's not really a campaign issue, it's an AI issue. For AI to factor in all this, they'd need a major rewrite or to be scripted to do so.

Surely it can done with waypoints quite easily??? You select the waypoints to route along high ground (rather than a valley) or stay inside tree lines etc and you set "Speed" to Limited and "Behaviour" to Aware/Combat/Stealth, whichever would cover the Cover/Manoeuvre best for the particular situation. It doesn't have to be as accurate as a human player would be but just some military basics would be nice.

The biggest issue I see with that would be missions would take much longer if everyone's moving at a walking pace :D

[Polygon 11]

figured I'll post my neg. feedback here as well:

- attacking an AAF VIP in the middle of the day?

- naive soldiers, doesn't present questions to Miller or anyone else high in command in this dire situation

- Maxwell full of lights in the dark? next time don't be surprised why arty hits you hard later. (why not use metal military barracks for cover?)

- AAF miraculously incapable of locating a group of survivors... on an abandoned MILITARY COMPOUND (lol) (even survivors doesn't put any effort into covering up their traces before danger closes...)

- advancing through a valley? squad's leader should have his head chopped off.

- Wet Work: terrible insertion with no recon info or any smart preparations. like, "let's gamble our lives guys!"

- didn't notice any actual active patrols around Maxwell or going further to ensure safety of others. everybody relaxed.

- AAF air harmless? jets flying over and disappearing, attack helis ignoring obvious threats... epic win.

- no vehicles utilization while so many of them on the battlefield.

- terrible waypoint placements in terms of tactics/safety/etc. by game designers. both sides take the most stupid approaches possible.

- Tipping Point: remnants of survivors attack the main city (logically, it should be most defended!) of Stratis... then their evac boats ignore everything around (no covering fire, etc.).

- with so many AAF helis/jets occupying the sphere, Miller decides to leave for Altis right now in boats, through plain sea (genius). equals to death sentence. nobody, perhaps aware of themselves, opposes dumb Miller's decisions.

* no cutscenes

* storyline hooks on a massive cliffhanger

[chortles 263]

@ Polygon: You sure that those AAF jets weren't Winchester?

[antoineflemming 14]

Surely it can done with waypoints quite easily??? You select the waypoints to route along high ground (rather than a valley) or stay inside tree lines etc and you set "Speed" to Limited and "Behaviour" to Aware/Combat/Stealth, whichever would cover the Cover/Manoeuvre best for the particular situation. It doesn't have to be as accurate as a human player would be but just some military basics would be nice.

The biggest issue I see with that would be missions would take much longer if everyone's moving at a walking pace :D

There's more tactically wrong than just walking through the valley.

[bonchie 39]

@ Polygon: You sure that those AAF jets weren't Winchester?

It's also tough for a fast mover to locate a few infantrymen without some form of JTAC on the ground guiding them.

[MissionCreep 12]

;2544798']I´ve just finished the campaign and I had a pleasant surprise: I´ve read at least 8 brazilian names (or are those portughese?) in the final credits (and 2 on the initial credits)' date=' may I ask how many brazilians have been working with the campaign and/or ArmA3?

BTW, loved the campaign so far, but I guess we´re all having to wait till the end of november (or [b']Adapt [/b]is coming a little earlier than planned?) for more...

cheers!

Probably Brazilian. Arma 3 has a Brazilian Portuguese version listed, but not Portuguese.

[chortles 263]

I'll say this, immersion-wise... is there any reason, devs, that the infamous "not attacking Mi-48" can't be replaced with an unarmed PO-30 Orca, or at least have the Mi-48 be visibly "Winchester" as an explanation (for its not attacking) for someone who manages to look closely enough?

[chortles 263]

Apparently someone (Zipper5?) said something to the effect that the Mi-48's infamous non-attacking might actually be a scripting error... here's looking forward to its revision.

Also, Zipper5 goes behind-the-scenes with the campaign (SPOILER WARNING: Link has spoilers) with some interesting insights, like his take on Death Valley.

[Zipper5 74]

It should already be fixed on the dev branch. See my note attached to this ticket if you want more information: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15844

[Alwarren 2767]

One thing I noticed now that I am replaying the campaign (yeah, I am replaying it. I never said it was bad :P) is how annoying it is to pick up some weapon in the armory and have that replaced by another weapon in the mission.

Also, I think losing people in one mission should carry over to the next, i.e. lose a certain amount of people, you get one guy less in your team for the next mission.

I really liked the atmosphere of the first three missions (up to Maxwell). The first one especially since it started out with menial tasks, and reminded me some of the beginning of "Crimson Lance", I liked it that it wasn't all about combat and just hanging around in the base. I always like a glimpse at the less dramatic times.

[Zipper5 74]

Losing squadmates in Survive is almost never a consequence of the player's actions as he is not the squad leader. It is unfair, and frustrating for most, to punish them in the next mission because their squadmates couldn't take care of themselves. Plus, each mission was designed to provide the best experience with a set number of people in the player's squad, something that is vital when it is many players' first contact with the game.

However, you will notice if you look at your team as you progress, that squadmates who die are never with you again. You don't have fewer people in your squad, but they are different people. This includes your squad leader as well, which is made more obvious if you hover over your squad's marker on the map and see who's leading you after your squad leader died.

[NeuroFunker 11]

It should already be fixed on the dev branch. See my note attached to this ticket if you want more information: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15844

cool thing, i guess now some people will complain, about how hard it is to complete last mission, cause mi-48 giving a hell to them :P

[Varanon 892]

cool thing, i guess now some people will complain, about how hard it is to complete last mission, cause mi-48 giving a hell to them :P

I'll complain because I still can't save in the last mission and no one even acknowledges that it's a problem.

[Alwarren 2767]

Losing squadmates in Survive is almost never a consequence of the player's actions as he is not the squad leader. It is unfair, and frustrating for most, to punish them in the next mission because their squadmates couldn't take care of themselves. Plus, each mission was designed to provide the best experience with a set number of people in the player's squad, something that is vital when it is many players' first contact with the game.

Understandable. It however hurts the concept of "small group of survivors".

When I fist played it, and Lacey asks how many they have resucued this way and the answer is "none", my first thought was "how can we do anything with so low a number". Later, when I lost my entire squad in Death Valley, and had a full squad again in the next mission, I wondered where they were coming from.

The reasoning to not do it, however, is pretty valid, and I guess I don't think like a newbee to the series but rather "punish me if I screw up" :)

However, you will notice if you look at your team as you progress, that squadmates who die are never with you again. You don't have fewer people in your squad, but they are different people. This includes your squad leader as well, which is made more obvious if you hover over your squad's marker on the map and see who's leading you after your squad leader died.

Nice, that's one of the little details that are easily lost on the player, but noticeable if they're not there :)

[chortles 263]

Understandable. It however hurts the concept of "small group of survivors".

When I fist played it, and Lacey asks how many they have resucued this way and the answer is "none", my first thought was "how can we do anything with so low a number". Later, when I lost my entire squad in Death Valley, and had a full squad again in the next mission, I wondered where they were coming from.

I think that that's one's simple, though perhaps it could (have been) better reflected in the campaign, i.e. in the future: your squad's replenishment may be at the expense of other squads that weren't so depleted.

Then reasoning to not do it, however, is pretty valid, and I guess I don't think like a newbee to the series but rather "punish me if I screw up" :)

You'll have to wait for "WIN" I think. ;) Jay Crowe's "A War On All Fronts" and Zipper5's "Report In!" both lead in with seeming emphasis on the new-player experience as relevant to how they designed "SURVIVE".

[Zipper5 74]

I'll complain because I still can't save in the last mission and no one even acknowledges that it's a problem.

Unlimited saves as a difficulty option are disabled by default on Regular difficulty and above. If you want unlimited saves, please make sure this difficulty option is enabled.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Zipper5

[HKFlash 9]

Unlimited saves as a difficulty option are disabled by default on Regular difficulty and above. If you want unlimited saves, please make sure this difficulty option is enabled.

Mr. Ryan,

He's unable to save even once in this mission. I must say though, I did not experience this issue (but I was playing on Regular).

[Variable 322]

Unlimited saves as a difficulty option are disabled by default on Regular difficulty and above. If you want unlimited saves, please make sure this difficulty option is enabled.

Zipper, in veteran we suppose to have a single save. The problem is that in the last mission we don't have even this single save available. the "Save" button is grayed out from the beginning of the mission. I actually tried setting an easier difficulty but it still didn't enable.

[Alwarren 2767]

I think that that's one's simple, though perhaps it could (have been) better reflected in the campaign, i.e. in the future: your squad's replenishment may be at the expense of other squads that weren't so depleted.

I guess it's all a matter of scale/impression. The impression I got from the first missions is "a handful", i.e. 20 or so. Apparently there are more, it just didn't come across as such, and made me wonder where all the reinforcements were coming from.

You'll have to wait for "WIN" I think. ;) Jay Crowe's "A War On All Fronts" and Zipper5's "Report In!" both lead in with seeming emphasis on the new-player experience as relevant to how they designed "SURVIVE".

I'm already looking forward to the next one. I was surprised that there are places on Stratis that I haven't seen yet during alpha or beta, but I am sure happy to see Altis instead of Stratis... I've... well.. grown a bit tired of it, to the point that I even load up Altis when I do my addon tests even though it takes longer ;)