Rebuild existing sides and add integrated support for relationship between sides

[ajsarge 10]

As you're probably aware, there's Bluefor, Opfor, Independent, and Civilians as playable sides in Arma 3. This setup has been around for a while (Definately since Arma 2, but since Arma 1? Since OFP?) and has become the standard we've gotten used to. My issue is that we've grown TOO accustomed to these terms and a chance to change things may make things better for mission designers and expanding our options in the future. The solution I have seems decently simple in theory to me, but may require a bit of effort in converting a lot of code that's deeply tied into how the game works.

- Keep BlueFor (NATO, US Army, USMC)

- Rename Opfor to RedFor (CSAT, Takistan Army, Russia)

- Change Independants to GreenFor (AAF, ACR, CDF)

- Create a new Independents (FIA, Takistani Rebels, NAPA) and change their color to Grey or something

- Keep Civilian and keep their "Opinion" of other sides linked with Independents, while Blue/Red/Green always consider them friends/neutral

In the editor's Intel menu, add a "Side Relationships" section. Here, you can chose how a side views other sides, and create options like having NATO and CSAT combined forces fight against AAF and FIA in one mission while another pits NATO as the bad guy with AAF and CSAT teaming up on them while FIA takes advantage of the situation and attacks everybody. This is also useful for having a CTI mission with 3 sides and still being able to have guerrilla fighters as the initial defense for non-captured areas.

Would anyone like to see this, or have a better way that it could be done?

[dmarkwick 261]

I think that even the sides are a little unnecessary now - we could just use factions. So factions that in the past were on the same side could be set to be enemy of each other. I think it would be much more flexible.

It might be a problem though that part of any scenario setup would have to include the setup for the relationships. In this case it would be slightly increasing the complexity of basic mission design, so perhaps some sort of opt-out for default side setups could be implemented.

[rübe 127]

Yeah, this should have been done a long time ago.

Seeing how BIS is copying configs of factions to make them available to different sides - wow, what a great solution! (not) - just proves it even more (as if we didn't knew already).

I think that even the sides are a little unnecessary now - we could just use factions. So factions that in the past were on the same side could be set to be enemy of each other. I think it would be much more flexible..

Agreed; factions are enough. And if you really need the concept of sides, feel free to model something ontop of factions.

Null problemo.

It might be a problem though that part of any scenario setup would have to include the setup for the relationships. In this case it would be slightly increasing the complexity of basic mission design, so perhaps some sort of opt-out for default side setups could be implemented.

I dont see a problem here; especially not if we're dealing only with default factions, which could easily have default relationships with each other to still be backwards compatible (as far as it goes...). And a usable dialog to set relationships (from all available/loaded factions; e.g. from mods too) shouldn't be a problem either.

I'm really not sure what's holding BIS back in this regard? Are sides that deeply entrapped in the engine (some "evil" optimisation maybe?)?

Actually I see this as a huge opportunity to push things forward (but I might be mistaken): what if each faction had it's own code-book/AI-rules? Maybe just slightly different (in parts/derived from the default AI)? What if a new modded faction would not only bring in new models, but also new combat behaviour? Wouldn't that be awesome?

And on another note: what if each faction could occupy its own thread for AI calculations (as far as I know, all AI calculations is still done by a single thread, no?)? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate level of modularity?

[mistyronin 1181]

My two cents, I think that the simplest way would be to separate factions and sides.

IMO there should be three sides ( blufor, opfor and independent ), and you should be able to determine for each mission in which one each faction is aligned.

Or another way to do so, easier to program, it's that every unit can be assigned to any of the three sides ( no matter which faction its from ). That would allow even fights inside the same faction ( mutinies , civil,war, etc. ).

That would allow more flexibility and freedom for mission makers,

[artemas 1]

The issue though is what if your scenario attempts to model more than three sides?

Anyway, I agree, this current system is an awkward implementation, and something badly needs to be done about it. Either add additional sides that can be attached to any other, or better, the faction idea with a quick and dirty "friends with", "enemies with" "neutral with" column that you can click and drag for every faction.

Though I think that using sides could be a useful default, ie the NATO factions are all friends by default, and enemies with REDFOR groups, but tinkering could remove some from one column, and add to others.

[adanteh 58]

I'd prefer being able to create sides on the fly. Especially as an independent player it would be nice to create a group and be able to shoot other people without it being registered as friendly fire. Would be nice to have factions as well, rather then sides like we have now. (Especially seeing guerillas fall under BLUFOR now)

[Sandy* 10]

Even my wild imagination cannot begin to understand what we would benefit from the renaming and recoloring of the sides. Especially since BLUFOR and OPFOR are real life military terms (in the US).

[artemas 1]

REDFOR is also a military term. The idea being to make the naming scheme more consistent, and entirely based on colours, ie blue, green and red, rather than the ambiguous and suggestive blue, independent and opposition that we have now.

Of course, the real point is to fundamentally change how the sides and factions interact, and the above is infinitely less important than that.

[BL1P 35]

Isn't the USA part of NATO ?

If so shouldn't it read "- Keep BlueFor (NATO)" ???