Why no SAM sites?

[Fulcrum90 10]

Hello

One thing that always struck me as odd was the lack of SAM sites in the ArmA series. Surface-to-Air Missile batteries are one the most prominent targets in any real-life conflict, no matter if Vietnam or Syria.

However in ArmA they were never present. I know especially in Operation Flashpoint the scale of combat was much smaller and therefore long-range weapons like SAMs wouldnt have made much sense (we got the Shilka instead), but since ArmA 2 and especially ArmA 3 I find it curious that such an obvious military factor gets left out.

[mistyronin 1181]

Yeah, it's an interesting question. Specially having in mind that it has always been a huge antiNATO weapon ( US specially gives a lot of importance to air superiority ) .

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Well we only have one jet for starters...

Buuut, most SAMs have a minimum range of around 5km and coverage up to 400km in the case of large Russian SAM systems so they don't scale particularly well into the fairly limited space we have in Arma terrains. In any case, with a 400km range the ingame islands could probably fall under the SAM coverage from sites outside of the map area anyway - e.g some mainland area adjacent to the island's location rather than on the islands themselves.

SHORAD systems scale into the game much better against the game's low-flying CAS assets.

Edited September 5, 2013 by da12thMonkey

[dm 9]

One thing that always struck me as odd was the lack of SAM sites in the ArmA series.

Arma 2 had at least the 76n6 clamshell search radar and associated gubbins: https://dev-heaven.net/attachments/7745/arma2oa_2010-08-29_11-48-01-32.jpg

[Fulcrum90 10]

Well we only have one jet for starters...

Buuut, most SAMs have a minimum range of around 5km and coverage up to 400km in the case of large Russian SAM systems so they don't scale particularly well into the fairly limited space we have in Arma terrains. In any case, with a 400km range the ingame islands could probably fall under the SAM coverage from sites outside of the map area anyway - e.g some mainland area adjacent to the island's location rather than on the islands themselves.

SHORAD systems scale into the game much better against the game's low-flying CAS assets.

Well the SA-2 Guideline which is like the AK-47 of SAMs has indeed "up to" 400km....But minimal 7km, which is already makes more sense.

But Im not really talking about actually using them...As DM has pointed out:

Arma 2 had at least the 76n6 clamshell search radar and associated gubbins: https://dev-heaven.net/attachments/7745/arma2oa_2010-08-29_11-48-01-32.jpg

ArmA II had a non-functional radar as a target and mission object. Thats also my line of argument, why not include a SA-2 site as an object? Again, SAMs are together with bridges and command & control centers THE military target in any bombing. Just watch the news about Syria, or any bombing at all. For me having no SAM sites to include is really a bit like having no tanks or machineguns. (Well of course its not the same, but I just want to point out that for me SAMs are just inextricably tied to modern warfare)

[maxton0600 10]

It is true there were no SAM sites which was problem mostly in missions like Warfare/CTI but we managed to get along with it using AA vehicles with gunner only or static defence system which in ARMA2 consisted of seat that had attached 2 Stinger/Igla missiles to it.

[Fulcrum90 10]

It is true there were no SAM sites which was problem mostly in missions like Warfare/CTI but we managed to get along with it using AA vehicles with gunner only or static defence system which in ARMA2 consisted of seat that had attached 2 Stinger/Igla missiles to it.

Exactly, whenever we made a mission on our CTI server one of the targets was "take out that SAM site". And then we just put some junk at it as a replacement. Also, Altis is an island, an island at war and no SAMs and AAA? That doesnt make any sense. I dont understand why BIS doesnt just put together a simple, non functional object. Just take a missile on put it on a launch pad, maybe a radar station to go with it. Like in this 10 year old OFP addon:

[granQ 293]

I agree, its like the basic static object and always found the "Stinger on a tripod" so silly..

and we shouldn't need addons for this but.. there is hope in addons ;)

Sa-2 and Hawk launchers so both sides covered. We will add more stuff like radars and functionality.

But its very leathal so it works great for CTI to "protect the base" and in coop to make for mission which scuba divers need to blow up the SAM sites before the invasion and stuff like that.

[f27sharps 1]

Rather than have big anti-aircraft system, they had better change the tripod of statics missiles launcher Titan AA to make it usable on 360 degree as current systems. Let's start with ...

[aus_twisted 0]

Well they sure are not needed as yet when there's one jet that can only do 700km/h in level flight.

[granQ 293]

Well they sure are not needed as yet when there's one jet that can only do 700km/h in level flight.

you missing the point of why having a SAM site in a infantry simulator/game, its a highvalue target, perfect for sneak attacks.

"You need to infiltrate the base and shutdown two rusty old 81 mm mortars" isn't that exciting as blowing up a SAM site.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Well they sure are not needed as yet when there's one jet that can only do 700km/h in level flight.

Yeah you are actually kind of right....Though I asumed we had more jets than that. But that makes even less sense! As I said, Altis is an island, and no jets? No transport aircraft?

But thats getting of topic. Also my main point was SAM sites not as a weapon to be used against jets, but as a mission objective. I want to target SAMs by night with my special forces teams, Im sick of using some random junk or these pathetic Stinger launchers as a stand-in.

By the way, the SA-2 addon from "Gulf War Crisis" is open source. Come on BIS, slap some fancy textures on it, then ask the Swedish guys very nicely for their Hawk! :D

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I dont understand why BIS doesnt just put together a simple, non functional object.

Because BIS knows their customers would expect such an object to be functional. Same as when they showed pics of that big submarine in the early Arma 3 screenshots: The first question people asked was whether it would be drivable, then when BIS said it would not be people cried a little bit and asked "why not?" - now the tears have dried, it doesn't seem to be included at all. Some of the core appeal of this franchise has always been that if there's a vehicle or weapon system in front of you, you should be able to use it, or be killed by it.

If BIS bowed to subsequent expectations to make a functional SAM, some overzealous young buck would inevitably make it available to one side in some glorious mission containing "ALL THE THINGZ!!!" just for the sake of awesome, without giving a adequate thought to proper gameplay design and balance. Subsequently we'd have a forum full of threads lamenting how "the SAM is overpowered", "SAM makes jets useless", "Side X and Y need a SAM to balance side Z's SAM". Future patches might see said SAM sight "nerfed" to some extent - in which case the advocates of realism or just generally having powerful SAM systems available to mission editors in order to control air-cover in certain regions of the map, would start rising up in fury.

Rinse, repeat - developer buys a crate of pilsner and reassesses his choice in career.:D

Not to mention that BIS themselves may have no interest in including any "SAM hunter" missions in their campaign and have though up alternative mission objectives - therefore cannot justify time+money spent developing assets that they themselves will make little to no use of in telling their game's story. Subsequently the logical choice is not to make one and never have to deal with any of the above BS at all. One could just as simply ask why BIS do not have any AVLBs, stand-off missiles, landing craft or any other such strategic assets/mission props - there's nothing particularly special about SAMs in this regard.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Because BIS knows their customers would expect such an object to be functional. Same as when they showed pics of that big submarine in the early Arma 3 screenshots: The first question people asked was whether it would be drivable, then when BIS said it would not be people cried a little bit and asked "why not?" - now the tears have dried, it doesn't seem to be included at all. Some of the core appeal of this franchise has always been that if there's a vehicle or weapon system in front of you, you should be able to use it, or be killed by it.

If BIS bowed to subsequent expectations to make a functional SAM, some overzealous young buck would inevitably make it available to one side in some glorious mission containing "ALL THE THINGZ!!!" just for the sake of awesome, without giving a adequate thought to proper gameplay design and balance. Subsequently we'd have a forum full of threads lamenting how "the SAM is overpowered", "SAM makes jets useless", "Side X and Y need a SAM to balance side Z's SAM". Future patches might see said SAM sight "nerfed" to some extent - in which case the advocates of realism or just generally having powerful SAM systems available to mission editors in order to control air-cover in certain regions of the map, would start rising up in fury.

Rinse, repeat - developer buys a crate of pilsner and reassesses his choice in career.:D

Not to mention that BIS themselves may have no interest in including any "SAM hunter" missions in their campaign and have though up alternative mission objectives - therefore cannot justify time+money spent developing assets that they themselves will make little to no use of in telling their game's story. Subsequently the logical choice is not to make one and never have to deal with any of the above BS at all. One could just as simply ask why BIS do not have any AVLBs, stand-off missiles, landing craft or any other such strategic assets/mission props - there's nothing particularly special about SAMs in this regard.

Yeah I dont see the problem. You basically just constructed 100 problems without anything to back your claims up. So far the thread was full of people agreeing with me and liking the idea of a SAM site as a mission object.

Also you cant compare AVLBs, stand-off missile and landing craft to SAMs. SAMs play a major role in EVERY conflict, as said multiple times, they are THE target for airstrikes. Landing crafts? When were they used the last time? Bay of pigs maybe?

[dm 9]

You basically just constructed 100 problems without anything to back your claims up.

No, he really didn't.

Because BIS knows their customers would expect such an object to be functional.

BI added all the Arma 2 content into A2:OA "as is", and all they were met with was complaints that the tanks didnt have thermal, the soldiers couldnt use backpacks, etc etc.

It would be similar here. I hate to think how many "I placed the SAM site, but cant get it to work" threads there would be...

Note: I do agree tho, as a dumb object, it would be nice eyecandy.

[Fulcrum90 10]

No, he really didn't.

BI added all the Arma 2 content into A2:OA "as is", and all they were met with was complaints that the tanks didnt have thermal, the soldiers couldnt use backpacks, etc etc.

It would be similar here. I hate to think how many "I placed the SAM site, but cant get it to work" threads there would be...

Note: I do agree tho, as a dumb object, it would be nice eyecandy.

And??? I really dont see your points. You would rather have BIS cut content then reading some complaints??? O_o

[da12thMonkey 1943]

You basically just constructed 100 problems without anything to back your claims up.

I've been reading these forums pretty solidly for ten years now, and have seen complaints of lack of certain functionalities and issues of "balance" in certain vehicles and weapons made by BIS and numerous community addon makers, time and time again during that time.

I consider it history that is doomed to be repeated. As DM said, Combined Operations was apparently "unplayable" because the T-90 lacked one feature, Arma 1 was apparently "unplayable" because the KA-50 had a (realistic) feature where it could use its missiles as against air targets, people wanted the large ship props to be able be crewed in OFP and Arma 2... so on and so on. This shit happens when you make content for people to play with.

I don't disagree that it would be nice to have a mission prop like a SAM launcher, but there are always underlying design decisions behind what developers like BIS do or do not decide to spend their time making; and since you asked "why?", I'm trying to give you an idea of what those decisions might be based on. They seem somewhat more likely than BIS simply not being aware that SAMs exist, and not making one through the sheer bliss of ignorance.

[Fulcrum90 10]

and since you asked "why?", I'm trying to give you an idea of what those decisions might be based on. They seem somewhat more likely than BIS simply not being aware that SAMs exist, and not making one through the sheer bliss of ignorance.

That sentence makes no sense. You seem to like elaborate sentence structure and fancy wording, but please, we have to read it.

Anyways, just as with DM my point stands:

And??? I really dont see your points. You would rather have BIS cut content then reading some complaints??? O_o

[dm 9]

And??? I really dont see your points. You would rather have BIS cut content then reading some complaints??? O_o

Since there is no content cut, your argument is invalid. (It was never annouced as added, so how can it be removed?)

I would rather BI not waste time adding non-essential items, is all.

Like I said, I agree that it would be cool, but I don't see it as game breaking if its not there.

[mistyronin 1181]

I do agree tho, as a dumb object, it would be nice eyecandy.

+1 It would give mission makers some more options, after all SAM batteries tend to be the first target in every invasion for spec ops. And for that they don't need to work in-game.

But they are obviously no priority

[Fulcrum90 10]

Since there is no content cut, your argument is invalid.

I was referring to the complaints YOU mentioned. And those were (apparently) directed at ArmA 2 stuff in OA...So your argument is the invalid one. :D

I would rather BI not waste time adding non-essential items, is all.

Well of course they are not essential. However I I and several posters made it clear that SAMs are kind of a major factor in modern warfare. This whole thread isnt really an "Addon Request" thread, I just wanted to point out how weird it is that such an essential military asset is absent. Turn on the TV, and they are just discussing what to bomb in Syra: Chemical plants, command & control centers, airports and SAM sites. Chemical plants are kind of unique targets to Syria, but the other three appear in like every modern war ever.

+1 It would give mission makers some more options, after all SAM batteries tend to be the first target in every invasion for spec ops. And for that they don't need to work in-game.

But they are obviously no priority

Thanks.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Fulcrum90

[granQ 293]

yeah, i think he is on to something.. if BIS stop releasing games they will receive zero complaints! Excellent way of handling it!

[Fulcrum90 10]

Since ArmA II Addons seem to work in ArmA III as well, I created an overview of all SAM-related Addons for ArmA II. I also added two ballistic missile launchers to simulate long-range SAMs like the S-300.

Maybe it helps you guys who look to create SAM sites in ArmA III.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Since ArmA II Addons seem to work in ArmA III as well, I created an overview of all SAM-related Addons for ArmA II. I also added two ballistic missile launchers to simulate long-range SAMs like the S-300.

http://s7.directupload.net/images/130910/mzghiehc.jpg

Maybe it helps you guys who look to create SAM sites in ArmA III.

Argh I forgot the most important one, the SA-2 guideline.

Download it here: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=16236

Its called "Takistani Extension", but they should have called it "SAM and AAA Extension", because it adds a ton of SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery. (SA-2, SA-13, SA-6, S-60...)

[lavbo0321 5]

I was referring to the complaints YOU mentioned. And those were (apparently) directed at ArmA 2 stuff in OA...So your argument is the invalid one. :D

Well of course they are not essential. However I I and several posters made it clear that SAMs are kind of a major factor in modern warfare. This whole thread isnt really an "Addon Request" thread, I just wanted to point out how weird it is that such an essential military asset is absent. Turn on the TV, and they are just discussing what to bomb in Syra: Chemical plants, command & control centers, airports and SAM sites. Chemical plants are kind of unique targets to Syria, but the other three appear in like every modern war ever.

Thanks.

I quess you haven't explored Altis too well have you. Bio weapons sites are abond. And not protecting them with SAMS are a little silly.

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

I think you first have to ask what is Arma?

If it is the "Ultimate Simulation" then yes it should have SAM sites and a lot of other gear it doesn't have.

But if it is a military hobiest video game (MHVG), then the community will make it if there is a desire for it.

IMHO