Ichtiander 10 Posted January 2, 2014 The player should be given more control over campaign events. There should be discretion in building alliances, managing the economy, arms procurement and logistics. The economy is represented by the territory that your side controls on the island. It yields troops, which is a material factor in winning campaign battles. Scouting lets you know about enemy plans and affords possibility to pre-empt them. Weapons are captured on the battlefield, or gained in alliances. This type of gameplay throws up different types of strategic planning problems. Since the campaign can develop differently depending on player actions, it requires more work in terms of cutscenes representing different outcomes. However, cutscenes are only a small part of this work. The lion's share of effort is in building an exciting campaign structure with complex choices for the player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tinemem 11 Posted January 2, 2014 not the arma/ofp way. in the arma series, the emphasis is always on the fact that you're a small fish in a crisis you don't fully understand, but will experience first hand, and contribute in small ways, but always with the support of others either fighting with you, or presumably far off. that is why many times arma games have character switching mid-campaign to show that while your infantry character is off winning the battle elsewhere, your tank commander is winning the battle here, or losing and retreating, depending on narrative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghostjaeger07 10 Posted January 2, 2014 Arma has moved towards a open/ free-roam campaign. Back in OFP days there was only one path down the story, with one or two missions having two possible outcomes. Starting with OPF Resistance you had the option of capturing weapons and using them in subsequent missions, it was actually the only way to get decent weapons besides the standard rebel CZ-47. In Arma you could choose to do a side mission that could help you in the main story mission. To Arma II with missions that let you roam the country doing missions as you choose. Have patience, the campaign has come along way and it's getting better, who knows they may have what you mentioned coming up for release. What you're describing sounds alot like the warfare game mode. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ichtiander 10 Posted January 3, 2014 I fully agree with this approach. However, as I see it, being offered to do a side mission does not test strategic skills per se. Arma 3 should take a step forward, with the player gradually becoming the commander. This role will entail (a) correctly arranging and co-ordinating battle formations; (b) Overseeing force buildup and maintenance (continuing flow of food, manpower, weapons and munitions); © correctly weighing the pro and cons of an alliance. In other words, the player should be tasked with making decisions that carry an opportunity cost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antoineflemming 14 Posted January 3, 2014 I fully agree with this approach. However, as I see it, being offered to do a side mission does not test strategic skills per se. Arma 3 should take a step forward, with the player gradually becoming the commander. This role will entail (a) correctly arranging and co-ordinating battle formations; (b) Overseeing force buildup and maintenance (continuing flow of food, manpower, weapons and munitions); © correctly weighing the pro and cons of an alliance. In other words, the player should be tasked with making decisions that carry an opportunity cost. It's not an RTS, and shouldn't be IMO. Not only that, but I'd rather not be in command of any unit in this game until BI gets their head together and fixes AI/player commanding. As a team leader, I should have direct control of my team. As a squad leader, I should have control of my team leaders and only my team leaders. And so on and so on. As for the player gradually becoming a commander (company or battalion commander? You kidding?), it's not realistic. A corporal isn't going to become a sergeant or staff sergeant over the course of a few days or months (probable time frame for a game). And he'd definitely not become a CPT or LTC. Sure, the game could have you switch to different characters. But even then, I wouldn't want that with the current functionality, and the kind of stuff you're talking about would be at the general staff level (your generals). For something like that, you're talking about managing a bunch of stuff, with no, and I do mean no, combat whatsoever. If you're managing force buildup, alliances, battle formations, etc then you're not going to be seeing combat during that gameplay. I'm all for different gameplay, but it needs to be realistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ichtiander 10 Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Sure, the game could have you switch to different characters. But even then, I wouldn't want that with the current functionality, and the kind of stuff you're talking about would be at the general staff level (your generals). For something like that, you're talking about managing a bunch of stuff, with no, and I do mean no, combat whatsoever. If you're managing force buildup, alliances, battle formations, etc then you're not going to be seeing combat during that gameplay. I'm all for different gameplay, but it needs to be realistic. But you pointed out an easy solution to this problem in your post. You are in charge of different characters at different stages of the campaign. So you get to build strategy in one instance and then execute the plan on the battlefield in another. I concur that the AI has limitations that prevent it (in some situations) to correctly execute tasks and respond to unexpected developments. Even then, a strategy experience is well worth it, with multitudes of factors influencing the outcome of a battle. Edited January 5, 2014 by Ichtiander Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
