We need worse weapon systems

[the_demongod 31]

I already know this is going to be hard to explain, but here goes:

The weapon systems in Arma are too good, and it detracts from the realism of the game.

It may sound silly, but it's a much more familiar problem than you might think. For example, probably the biggest problem of them all is the tab-lock system.

I am certainly not a weapons expert, but I don't know of a single weapon system that works in this manner. More to come on this.

Think of all the systems in Arma that make fighting with them very easy:

- Titan launcher, both AG and AA

- All air-launched missiles

- Artillery Computer

- Every single vehicle mounted gun (on easier difficulties)

You get the picture. These systems all require little more than the press of a button to acquire, a couple seconds of waiting for tone, and to fire. There is almost no learning involved.

The same goes for the Artillery Computer. Apart from the 10 seconds it takes to figure out how the "close," "medium," and "far" settings work, it's literally just point-click.

Now lets look at a real life system: The AGM-65 Maverick missile.

Keep in mind my only experience with this is from DCS: A-10 but I assume it is similar on other platforms.

These are only set as spoilers to save space.

1. The pilot spots the target, turns their plane towards it, and any other lining up for the shot required

2. Maverick selected

3. Pilot uses a view directly through the seeker head to see the target with a camera

4. Seeker head gimbal is manually aimed by the pilot's hat switch

5. Pilot sweeps the tracking point across the target, until the missile notices a distinct object to lock on to. At this point, the crosshairs (at first with a large gap in the middle) collapse, the tip of each line touching the edge of the target

6. The Pilot fires the missile. If they do not fire quickly enough, the angle between them and the target will be too great, and the missile cannot look down far enough - the lock is lost)

But what we see in arma is:

0. Depending on setup and/or respect for realism of the player, "next target" key is spammed. Player has no idea of target location, only a cue from the radar.

1. Target is locked, and position is obviously highlighted

2. Player waits 3 seconds until lock tone is achieved

3. Player fires missile, which hits 99% of the time, regardless of angle. The missile is able to make extremely sharp turns and hit targets far off axis.

Back to another example with heat seeking missiles, fired from one airplane to another:

1. Pilot spots enemy aircraft and turns his own aircraft to face the enemy

2. AA missiles are selected

3. Missile begins to seek out a hot target

4. Pilot aims his aircraft so that the circle of the missile is on the enemy aircraft.

5. Missile detects a hot spot, and pilot hears a tone that signifies the missile sees something worth following

6. Pilot "uncages" the seeker, allowing it to follow the hot target. If the target is properly acquired, the circle on his HUD signifying the direction of the seeker head will follow the target.

7. Missile is fired at the target

Notice that not once was there any locking of any sort going on- the pilot had no control over the missile's tracking besides pointing it in the right direction.

Here's the point I'm eventually getting to: part of the fun of games like these comes from the realistically poor systems.

And you may say, "but the_Demongod, it's the 21st century, systems are super advanced now"

Au contraire. Take a look at the FGM-148 Javelin

Sorry Raytheon. The UI is a literal piece of shit if you compare it to a video game. It also just so happens to be one of the most effective man-portable anti-tank systems in production. The lesson here? We aren't in the space age here. They still swab out the breach of a

for god's sake. Few systems are as advanced as a video game like Arma makes them look. But surprisingly, this makes the system more fun to use.

A non-magical system requires players to practice and learn how to use a new system, instead of being able to use every target-tracking weapon they pick up. It adds a skill aspect that makes playing certain roles difficult. And in case you hadn't realized: difficulty is fun.

Those of you who enjoy sniping and marksmanship at range already know this. How boring would it be if you could lock on to people and have your scope auto-range so that all you have to do is put your crosshair on them and pull the trigger?

Well a similar thing could be implemented for artillery. We can use Arma 2 ACE as an example - the artillery system was very advanced. We don't need that level of detail, but the basic idea remains the same: Instead of the artillery computer being a simple click-to-win system, it would be a much simpler interface. Imagine the sidebar of info in the current computer, but with one addition: instead of clicking on a map, you enter the grid coordinate of your target, and that is conveyed to the cannon.

It's not a huge difference, but think of how it would change the way you call artillery strikes, or the way you send them. It requires better knowledge of the coordinate system. Hell, you could even require elevation to be entered. Then you would actually have to use the topographic map.

This issue is also related to waypoints - in real life, there is no floating arrow with an automatic distance. You look at your HUD or your GPS, which has a range and directional arrow. Much more interesting.

Now of course we can't have DCS in arma, we can't have real life in arma. We can't easily simulate a javelin's box-drawing system, or the seeker head view to lock an ATG missile. But there are some simple changes that could be made to "break" the systems a little.

I'll put a short list below, but I am more interested in hearing you guy's ideas and feedback, and thank you for sticking with me on such a wall of text. I'll continue to update this when I get more ideas, and I'll add yours as well.

Cheers,

the_Demongod

List of Issues (I'll add you guys' suggestions here as well):

- Only allow the titan missile to be fired within a certain angle of the target. The missile's gimbal should only be able to traverse so far. Get rid of the current point-in-any-direction-and-fire system. It's very broken.

- Replace this current non-line of sight (NLOS) system with a better one, that requires a spotter (either with a designator or UAV) to both lase the target, as well as send directions (angle and direction of fire) to the Missile specialist. They would fire using said directions, and the missile would perform a top attack mode onto the laser illumination. See an example here.

- Change artillery computer so that instead of clicking target on the map, actual coordinates were required. (should be 8 digit grid coordinates)

- Remove locking system for heat seeking missiles - sight should be a simple circle for now. When the target is in the circle, it would be "locked" invisibly by the game, but not actually show said lock (like with the A2 stinger).

- Completely get away from the white HUD overlay for lock on and jet reticles. The jets already have pippers in the HUD. We can aim on our own. Similarly, keep the "acquired" square as a HUD element. It will look 10x better.

- Change the Waypoint system so that (at least on higher difficulties) there is no magic arrow that shows the destination. Instead incorporate it into the GPS and HUD for everything (compass has a mark that shows the required direction of movement)

- Change radar guided AtA missiles so that tone must be held while they are in flight - in other words, remove the fire and forget capability. (thanks to Stilton, pg. 2)

- Nerf maneuverability of all missiles, or at least all titan missiles except for the tigris (titan missiles are extremely broken and can be fired in the opposite direction of the target, still resulting in a hit). (Stilton, pg 2.)

- Remove colors from radar, as well as names of the unit (only display tank, helicopter, etc). (JgBlt292 pg 2.)

-

I've started a list here of related tickets on the feedback tracker:

- Remove Fire and Forget Capabilities of Radar Guided Missiles

- Remove Locking for Heat Seeking (IR) Missiles

PART TWO (30AUG2014)

So I have some more to add now.

This pertains mostly to CAS aircraft, but will also be important for Air Superiority fighters when they arrive.

Soon after I made this post, I started playing DCS A-10 more seriously (I had dabbled in it before but never played it full time), and it has really given me a few good examples to back up my argument here.

What I want to do is replace the current "magic radar" with an RWR (radar warning receiver).

The A-10C Thunderbolt II uses the ALQ-69(V) Radar Warning Receiver. For those of you who don't know, a radar warning receiver is basically a passive system that detects radar emissions and classifies them for the pilot.

The display looks something like this, and like this in the cockpit (left-middle center).

Because it is a passive system, it only detects objects that are emitting radio waves. It also updates moderately slowly.

When a contact in in the inner ring, it is a bigger threat (aka within firing range). It does not indicate the distance of the contact.

Contacts show up as a letter/number designation, and have a few other features:

a. a diamond around the contact means it is the highest priority threat. This could mean the most deadly system, or that you're in range of it, or that it's targeting you.

b. a half-circle above the contact means that it is the most recent contact to appear

c. a small ^ above the name of the contact means it is an airborne threat.

Here are a few examples of designations: 3 (SA-3), 8 (SA-8), S6 (2S6 Tunguska), CS (SA-10 "Clam Shell" search radar), 15 (F-15)

If they were to be in Arma 3, our designations might be like this: 48 (Kajman), TO (Neophron), 39 (Tigris), 6A (Cheetah), 99 (Blackfoot)

You get the idea. Pilots would and should be able to know the difference. This is how it works in real life, different platforms utilize different radars.

So you'll typically see 3 things, plus two more for the A-10C.

The typical things you see are Aircraft, EWRs (Early Warning Radars, basically airborne, mobile or static vehicles with a big radar on it, such as an AWACS), and SAM/AAA.

These things are the only 3 things on the battlefield that typically emit radar waves.

The RWR will typically tell you 4 things, via audio signals.

1. Silence. There are no radar systems nearby.

2. A ticking sound every ~3 or so seconds. This means that there are radars nearby in scanning mode. They are simply searching for targets.

3. A ticking sound ~4 times per second. This means that a radar has specifically targeted you. When a radar targets a specific object, all the waves are focused on that target.

4. Missile launch. If a platform is firing a radar guided missile, the RWR can detect this. However, heat seeking missiles are invisible to the RWR.

And in the A-10 you get two additional objects:

1. IR missiles. The A-10 has a unique system that detects missile launches by seeing the physical cloud of smoke that accompanies a launch. This is a massive advantage because it can see IR missiles that would usually be silent killers. Missiles, both IR and Radar show up as an M in a circle.

2. Laser designation. If a vehicle is using a laser system to range the A-10 (typically tanks/APCs trying to hit you with machine gun fire), a circle with an "L" shows up on the RWR showing the direction the laser is coming from.

So here's why having a RWR instead of our current magic radar:

- It is far more realistic in terms of detection. Radars can hardly lock onto low flying aircraft let alone ground units (the disturbance caused by the ground denies the radar of a clear signal), so radars are not supposed to see ground targets anyways.

- Additionally, any vehicle that is not a direct threat to the CAS aircraft (and therefore emitting radio waves/laser to track it) would be invisible to it. This means that proper reconnaissance and JTAC play much more important roles in talking the CAS onto these targets.

- It still tells you when a missile is inbound, but does NOT tell you anything but the direction is it coming from. This is far more realistic than having our magic radar tell us exactly where the missile is.

- It gives a more vague description of the battlefield. It doesn't give you enough information to tell you exactly where the target is, it just tells you it's there.

- It also gives the pilot both more and less information - both of these are good things. First of all, the pilot knows what the contact is. He knows whether it's a ZSU or just a helicopter, and can prioritize accordingly. However, he does not know exactly where this target is. It doesn't magically show him exactly how far or where to look for this target. He must use his own skills to find and neutralize the threat. This means more skill is required to be effective in a CAS aircraft.

- If more advanced radar is implemented, the RWR would encourage pilots to turn off their radars as to not be picked up by the RWR. However, this also means they cannot target aircraft either so they must judge when to have their radar on or off.

And how might something like this be implemented? Well obviously the best way would be to have it as an in-cockpit display. But I understand how this would be annoying and/or difficult. So perhaps it would function similar to the GPS, where it can be toggled on and off, or can be "quick-looked" at while a key is held.

If you remember the Arma 2 radar, it already looked like an RWR. We could even have it look like the A2 radar if people don't want to have a big black circle cover up part of their screen.

If I've forgotten anything important, please let me know, I will add more if I come up with anything.

Here is a video explaining the RWR a little bit:

Cheers

Edited August 30, 2014 by the_Demongod

[vegeta897 13]

I have to agree. If there's one complaint I have about future warfare, it's that it reduces the challenging fun of using the weapon systems.

At the same time though, I'd rather have BIS simply release more weapons and vehicles than try to improve the existing ones.

[the_demongod 31]

That's true, it would be nice to have more, but it would be nice if they could start fixing these early, to save themselves work down the line.

And having more weapons and vehicles is only interesting if they are actually different, and require learning to master.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Yeah this was something that I didn't like about Arma 2 OA and I especially don't like it in arma 3.

In particular I'm not a fan of RCWS as it makes it way too easy to kill huge swathes of enemies as you dont suffer the limitation of such systems as you would in reality (issues with thermals, low resolution etc)

[pooroldspike 129]

If anybody wants "worse" weapons, go World War Two with a sim like AA3's cousin 'Iron Front' because of course nothing locks, you have to do all the ranging and shooting etc by eyeball, and it's fun up to a point..;)

I wrote some Iron Front tactical articles here-

http://ironfront.forumchitchat.com/?forum=290336

[the_demongod 31]

It's not that the weapons should be worse, it's that the targeting systems are too easy to use, requiring no skill whatsoever. The weapons are realistically powered.

[nodunit 397]

I have to agree. If there's one complaint I have about future warfare, it's that it reduces the challenging fun of using the weapon systems.

At the same time though, I'd rather have BIS simply release more weapons and vehicles than try to improve the existing ones.

The problem isn't so much future warfare but rather the lack of complexity to those systems, it hasn't really changed all that much since OFP in terms of tab lock and whatnot. In reality yes you have all these fancy toys but they don't always make things easier...radars require time, suffer from ground clutter, needs multiple modes for X altitudes, requires fine tuning the arc, can announce its presence, and requires re-beaming to update information.

Likewise missiles require some form of constant information be it a laser, coordinates, or something told about a target and then using its own radar to guide itself to it, not to mention seeker and gimbal limits.

Not trying to toot my own horn but I'm going to compare the blackfoot to my apache with and without its radar.

In the blackfoot you fly around, find a target be it friend or foe, the system will automaticly distinguish friend from foe, even spot infantry, no line of sight is required once you spot them and the information is always updated, likewise you can fire the missiles while on a constant move regardless of proximity and have assurances of hitting the target.

For the apache you must first acquire a line of sight on the target, let the gunner aim the TADS, choose the correct fire mode, ensure that you are the proper distance away from the target, keep the aircraft within a 15 degree arc so that the seeker heads aren't out of bounds and even after firing you must remain still for the missile to follow the beam, any deviation and you miss.

Now with added radar you think it would be easier right? It sort of is and sort of isn't...you first turn the radar on which will also alert radar equipped anti air vehicles, the radar will only scan in a 90 degree arc and requires several seconds to collect its data. Once the data is collected you can navigate the targets well out of range BUT it doesn't tell you exactly what the targets are..all it knows is theres something down there with wheels, tracks, looks like a plane. It doesn't pick up infantry, and it doesn't distinguish friend from foe (which is more of a gameplay thing), thus requiring you to have some form of communication with people who can see what is going on if you have friendly units near those targets.

If aircraft fly above X altitude then you must switch to air mode to find them, to which the radar will no longer sweep the ground and thus not track movement of ground vehicles.

Furthermore, despite having "fire and forget" missiles you must still adhere to a 30 degree seeker limit to the target otherwise the missile will just zip away.

Edited June 1, 2014 by NodUnit

[warlord554 2065]

When the smoke clears its still just a video game in the end. You have to meet in the middle somewhere. I personally am a huge fan of community made add-ons that feature much more weapons system complexity. You have various age groups playing this game, not to mention many different playing styles that various gamers enjoy. Some like to just load a mission and kill. Some like to "feel" the semi realism of being an apache crew. To each their own. As a game developer BIS has to make it playable for all gamers, not just the advanced. Our community has (and will continue to) fill the gap for various styles of gameplay, from novice to advanced. But hey, I'm just a guy stating his opinion on a blog :)

[nodunit 397]

I'd just like to see the tab lock system go by the wayside if nothing else, just something to replace the ability to magically acquire a target and hit a target without a steady line of sight, this would make any weapon platform that uses that system far more challenging but not so much that only a few could do it, it would also offer a degree "realistic balance". Doesn't need fire modes and all that fancy stuff, just something to make missile systems less "win bootan".

[bullhorn 18]

ARMA3 is a casual fun military sandbox set in the near future where training and skill is not required because you have Greek technology.

The backstory provides a cover to the ****iness

[Brisse 78]

Yesterday when I was commander at a WASP Warfare server I realized just how unrealisticly owerpowered some of the artillery shells were. For example the AT Mine shell which I think placed at least 10 AT mines in one shot, and these AT Mines are as powerful as an IRL 10kg AT Mine. Thats 100kg of mines in one single artillery shell that can easily be placed anywhere. Realitsic? No. Overpowered? Yes.

Edit: So what would a realistic version be in my opinion? One single AT mine for each artillery shell. Anyone agree?

Edit2: Created issue in feedback system. Please vote: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19038

Edited June 1, 2014 by Brisse

[stilton 0]

How about some suggestions then?

'get rid of tab-lock' isn't so much a suggestion, as a criticism, unless you provide a very thorough explanation/breakdown of your proposed system to replace it...

As it stands, buildings and cover sometimes obscure vehicles from the radar... This could be increased, so things are more easily obscured.

Othertimes, you can pick up every empty vehicle for 10km when you're flying at 500m.

Strictly as a player (with no real life soldiering experience) but with far too much time playing competitive online games -- i agree with everything posted so far, there is a very low-skill ceiling when the radar /weapons do everything for you...

...A quick fix, otoh,

- Nerf the radar, change the effective range/ general effectiveness of onboard vehicle radars / weapon radars

- nerf the AT / ATGM missiles maneuverability (im not sure what their current range is... And to be completely honest... You could keep the tigris as it is, you can dodge its missiles without flares.)

Change the AA missiles so they're not fire-and-forget ... AARAM? that's probably not right.

(Whats the type where you have to keep your nose / on board radar pointed on the target to keep the missile guided)

These 3 suggestions would raise the skill-ceiling for vehicular warfare, and reduce (a little) the overpowered nature of the radar / tab-lock system -

But id be interested to hear any suggestions on how to replace tab-lock with a more difficult system without it becoming -- watch 5 tutorials on how to tune in your plane's radio, once you're in touch with ATC we'll discuss how you deploy your weapons for the next 40 minutes... :)

Oh you wanted to fly? Not today. :D

Yesterday ... Please vote:

Sorry i'm waiting for them to fix the COMPLETELY USELESS (doesnt even create any light) flares-fired-from-mortars -- don't want to spread the votes around too much :D

[jgbtl292 0]

remove the colors off the radar - no longer ok empty friend enemy ;) is one little step. remove the vehicle name when its looked - only tank ,plane, copter etc. remove the radar for tanks apc etc.

more hot thermals textures for all metal and glass in the game. fix the brightness bug in thermal sight , and give the visible stop for thermal on rain and fog .

now its very harder and more real ;)

[roshnak 41]

Yesterday when I was commander at a WASP Warfare server I realized just how unrealisticly owerpowered some of the artillery shells were. For example the AT Mine shell which I think placed at least 10 AT mines in one shot, and these AT Mines are as powerful as an IRL 10kg AT Mine. Thats 100kg of mines in one single artillery shell that can easily be placed anywhere. Realitsic? No. Overpowered? Yes.

Edit: So what would a realistic version be in my opinion? One single AT mine for each artillery shell. Anyone agree?

Edit2: Created issue in feedback system. Please vote: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19038

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/raam.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/fascam.htm

[the_demongod 31]

The problem isn't so much future warfare but rather the lack of complexity to those systems, it hasn't really changed all that much since OFP in terms of tab lock and whatnot. In reality yes you have all these fancy toys but they don't always make things easier...radars require time, suffer from ground clutter, needs multiple modes for X altitudes, requires fine tuning the arc, can announce its presence, and requires re-beaming to update information.

Likewise missiles require some form of constant information be it a laser, coordinates, or something told about a target and then using its own radar to guide itself to it, not to mention seeker and gimbal limits.

Not trying to toot my own horn but I'm going to compare the blackfoot to my apache with and without its radar.

In the blackfoot you fly around, find a target be it friend or foe, the system will automaticly distinguish friend from foe, even spot infantry, no line of sight is required once you spot them and the information is always updated, likewise you can fire the missiles while on a constant move regardless of proximity and have assurances of hitting the target.

For the apache you must first acquire a line of sight on the target, let the gunner aim the TADS, choose the correct fire mode, ensure that you are the proper distance away from the target, keep the aircraft within a 15 degree arc so that the seeker heads aren't out of bounds and even after firing you must remain still for the missile to follow the beam, any deviation and you miss.

Now with added radar you think it would be easier right? It sort of is and sort of isn't...you first turn the radar on which will also alert radar equipped anti air vehicles, the radar will only scan in a 90 degree arc and requires several seconds to collect its data. Once the data is collected you can navigate the targets well out of range BUT it doesn't tell you exactly what the targets are..all it knows is theres something down there with wheels, tracks, looks like a plane. It doesn't pick up infantry, and it doesn't distinguish friend from foe (which is more of a gameplay thing), thus requiring you to have some form of communication with people who can see what is going on if you have friendly units near those targets.

If aircraft fly above X altitude then you must switch to air mode to find them, to which the radar will no longer sweep the ground and thus not track movement of ground vehicles.

Furthermore, despite having "fire and forget" missiles you must still adhere to a 30 degree seeker limit to the target otherwise the missile will just zip away.

You are allowed to toot your own horn, because you made the best addon I have ever seen in arma. It basically exemplifies everything I said in my original post. I actually had to practice to be able to use your addon, which is just the way it should be. It isn't always clear what to do in the tutorials, which is perfect. It requires the pilot to take the next step and actually have to work to learn how to use it properly.

It would be a dream come true if BI could implement a system like yours for aircraft, but I have a feeling it won't happen anytime soon.

[nodunit 397]

I personally cannot take any credit for the weapon systems, those boil down to my buddy Franze and his contacts. But yes any one of those changes would drastically change the way the weapon systems have to be handled. If the radar returned only signatures and not distinguish friend from foe then that would mean you need a line of sight or someone who can see what you're targetting. Likewise if infantry vanished from the radar for air units then it would make helicopters far less powerful in that you must scan your surroundings and its very possible you will miss some guy in a bush.

Likewise if in order to get a missile to hit a target you must fire laser..which has been in since flashpoint but only used to designate for others...then that too would drastically alter every air unit by requiring a line of sight and constant laze from the frontish.

Tanks without radars would require crew to work together in keeping track of targets, this simple change would enhance authenticity, immersion because you are getting more in depth with your surroundings, and enjoyment of playing with others when teamwork is applied due to a higher degree.

[the_demongod 31]

I have always wanted some sort of top-attack mode that would allow for NLOS launches from the Titan, etc. It would require a drone or JTAC to transmit a "firing solution," sort of like with artillery, for the unit firing the missile. The missile would zoom climb and when it reaches its calculated apex, turns downwards. If the target isn't within a certain amount of degrees of the missile's LOS, it wouldn't be able to track it. This would require the firing unit to have to learn how to accurately launch the missile, and would also require coordination and information exchange between JTAC and launching unit. On the first page there's a link to a series of pictures explaining what I mean. It would really be great if BI would implement some means of transmitting target information or even simple grid locations of objectives to other units/groups. It would be quite simple, but for some reason BI appears to have an aversion to dialogs, because otherwise a pop-up window would be used for things like linking and setting timers on explosives (a much needed feature).

[faire 10]

I love that idea!

[Westonsammy 1]

The fact that all the small transport vehicles (excluding the offroad for FIA) are bulletproof MRAPS with RCWS weapons really annoys me.

I would like at least two small transport vehicles, such as the humvee, UAC, ect that aren't 100% bulletproof and don't have RCWS. Makes gameplay a lot more fun IMO

[BL1P 35]

To remove thermals run this on all clients.

_layer = 85125; 
while {true} do 
{ 
if (currentVisionMode player == 2) then
	{ 
		_layer	cutText ["FLIR Mode Requires Maintenance. Please Turn off Thermals.","BLACK",0];
		waituntil {currentVisionMode player != 2};
		_layer cutText ["", "PLAIN"];
	};
	sleep 1; 
};

Remove all lockable Missiles from the Chopper and planes

Set server on Elite

Run this on all clients to remove shift click on map waypoint bs

onMapSingleClick "_shift";

Some hopefully helpful things to remove some of the more arcade elements bis left in

[bad benson 1733]

"FLIR Mode Requires Maintenance. Please Turn off Thermals."

too funny. add some elevator/service hotline music to make it perfect :D

The fact that all the small transport vehicles (excluding the offroad for FIA) are bulletproof MRAPS with RCWS weapons really annoys me.

I would like at least two small transport vehicles, such as the humvee, UAC, ect that aren't 100% bulletproof and don't have RCWS. Makes gameplay a lot more fun IMO

totally agree on this. it removes a lot of the tension i felt on my patrols in Takistan. if the vehicles can't be more low-tech just make the bullets more high-tech i guess.

[BL1P 35]

too funny. add some elevator/service hotline music to make it perfect :D

.

Funny you should mention that in a mission we play the AI medic back at base plays elevator music while hes healing you in the Hospital building :)

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I think the point you're trying to make is you just want more depth in the weapon systems, is that it? Well, that's most likely up to the community to invent. Maybe we'll see the introduction of new gameplay features in one of the DLC's, but I think the reason BI have implemented the tab-lock system (or just one button lock system) is because they make a combined arms game, and they want you to be able to play as infantryman, gunner, pilot etc, without having to learn to much in terms of how to operate guns and vehicles. The one button lock system allows you to play as pretty much anything, once you master the basic controls of Arma, which on itself isn't really a bad concept.

But I understand that the arma community also consists of many people who like to specialize in a certain role, I for instance love being a pilot in a fighter bomber or attack chopper, it would be nice to have the oppertunity to specialize in a certain role and play in a clan or group in which everyone is allowed to practice that speciality. In Arma 2 we had A.C.E ofcourse, which introduced a whole new set of features for guied weapons and vehicles. We also had Mando Missle which expanded on that even further. I hope that at some point we'll have these mods again, or similair projects.

[MissionCreep 12]

I suspect in a sentence you want to say "Please make the weapons in Arma3 more closely simulate real, actual weapons systems rather than weapons in an arcade game." Would this be accurate?

[the_demongod 31]

Sort of.

In a sentence, it's more like: "Please add multiple steps to systems that are too simple; Add options for guided weapons that require multiple people (teamwork/coordination); Try to better represent the system as it is in real life (such as the locking IR missiles issue)."

So yes, it is basically make them closely simulate real life systems. But it doesn't just involve adding steps or making it more realistic. It could be as simple as forcing IR missiles to lock on their own *after* they have left the jet, or adding a top attack mode that requires non-line of sight targets to be lased. Other things are simple realism settings such as showing the waypoint direction & distance in the HUD or GPS instead of the world.