Arma Reflecting Today's Modern Day Warfare Tomorrow

[R0adki11 3949]

As noob1 said above, look what happened to the IS Mod thread (well, you can't, because its been deleted)...

Its been removed upon a request of the author of the Mod.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

The earlier games in the series were exactly this. Fictious conflicts that nevertheless drew so much inspiration and familiarity with real world conflicts that they were very believable and easy to relate to. It is only Arma 3 that created an alien geopolitical environment and quite a messy or lacking story around it. You are rooting for a setting that isn't that much different from Takistan.

I'm rooting something a lot more deeper. As I mentioned, today's militants are that much more organised, skilled, armed and a lot better financed. Even the media refer to the likes of ISIS fighters as soldiers oppose to militants/terrorists. The maps would have be more urban like Fallujah to represent cities like Ar-Raqqah. Of course we have the whole region surrounded by several seas to add some coastal maps.

[Jackal326 1181]

Its been removed upon a request of the author of the Mod.

I assumed as much, thanks for the clarification.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

100% this. Representing real-life countries/factions/groups/organisations will inevitably end up in someone, somewhere, getting pissed off at it. Even Operation Arrowhead cut it a little too close for some people with its "generic middle-eastern setting". ITV made a meal out of ArmA 2's main campaign forces using the Chedaki to illustrate IRA forces (google it). So even semi-realistic yet fictional representations of existing entities can cause issue with small-minded people blowing things out of proprtion. I think keeping things a little far-fetched is the safest bet, at least from BI's perspective. As noob1 said above, look what happened to the IS Mod thread (well, you can't, because its been deleted)...

The reason I said the perfect opportunity for BIS to create a storyline similar to today's conflict and adversary is because country/region, politics, religion, ethnicity and nationality are totally irrelevant to such a potential fictitious adversary. Let's not beat around the bush here, we all know that the militant group ISIS are of the Muslim faith, but what they are doing is un-Islamic, so they represent Muslims no more than Joseph Kony's LRA represents Christians.

[onlyrazor 11]

With the recent developments, I think that a well-organised irregular faction would be a great option for the Arma expansion to choose: The warfare's leaning towards, but is not completely asymmetric. Factional tactics and strategies are varied and distinct for all factions - a conventional 'good-guy' coalition force or whatever, a nebulous, decentralised yet well trained and equipped 'insurgent and whatnot' faction (with sympathetic government support perhaps?) and maybe some PMCs or local resistance as conventional and unconventional INDFOR factions, respectively.

From what I understood, the design goal of Arma 3 was to achieve a more conventional battlezone, and I think something along the lines of my proposition will fit the template nicely. Since I never expect such opinions to get noticed 100% of the time I don't usually post them, but I kind of hope the devs read the forums. This would be an intriguing direction to see Arma take.

Any thoughts?

Edited February 4, 2015 by OnlyRazor

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Pretty positive that NATO in ArmA 3 includes faces of different nationalities.

I've continued the discussion of ISIS here.

Faces of different Nationalities? You mean Ethnicity? A face can't exactly have a nation. All the NATO faces seem to be wearing cloths under the United States, considering there only US flags on MTP's. on't count the British flag on the Unknown Special Forces uniform. They don't exist.

[Nicholas 5]

Faces of different Nationalities? You mean Ethnicity? A face can't exactly have a nation. All the NATO faces seem to be wearing cloths under the United States, considering there only US flags on MTP's. on't count the British flag on the Unknown Special Forces uniform. They don't exist.

That's what I meant, I typed it very quickly and posted without reading it thoroughly. If they're all US flags, then they should simply be changed to the NATO flag. I suppose that wouldn't suffice either though, would it?

[2nd ranger 282]

No, because soldiers of different nationalities don't get thrown together in the same unit. That's not how NATO works.

[gibonez 18]

This makes me wonder before the Atlis and Greek storyline pulled through, was there ever any other storyline that was dumped ?

What is the deal with the Israeli weapons and vehicles.

[Nicholas 5]

No, because soldiers of different nationalities don't get thrown together in the same unit. That's not how NATO works.

I suggested it as a simple and easy compromise without being in favor of any particular nation. Hence why I said that it probably wouldn't suffice.

---------- Post added at 16:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

This makes me wonder before the Atlis and Greek storyline pulled through, was there ever any other storyline that was dumped ?

What is the deal with the Israeli weapons and vehicles.

Yes, there was a different storyline that was dumped. I'd have to do some digging on the forums to help my memory.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I prefer Arma 3's current timeline way more. I love the futuristic setting and with a little bit more content (railgun tank :D) it'd be golden.

[jakerod 254]

If I got a dollar every time Jakerod tells you what "futuristic" means.

You would have $2 ;)

Point taken, point proved. No mean to come off as a jakerod, but everything I mentioned is used in the now, before the future which is the days ahead of today, therefore, it is Modern Technology.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

Only poll I remember was:

"I'd rather have a modern or historic (Cold War) setting" - 44%

Likes the current setting or doesn't care - 56%

I can't see many signs of disappointment.

Yeah it doesn't look that disappointing when you go lumping options together that don't belong together.

44% Would rather have a Cold War/Modern setting

20% Like it better than modern settings

20% Don't care

15% Would rather have a new futuristic setting

So that is 20% of people like this setting better than a modern one. Those are the 20% of people who are only happy with this one. 40% are presently happy because they like this one or don't care.

44% of people want a Cold War/Modern setting. 64% would be happy with a Cold War/Modern setting.

15% Want a different futuristic setting. So 35% of people would be happy with a new futuristic one.

So numbers:

40% Are happy with the present setup.

64% Would be happy with a Cold War/Modern setting.

35% would be happy with a different futuristic one.

If you're trying to maximize happiness, Cold War/Modern wins (according to the poll).

Overall, this isn't going to happen. It is highly unlikely that BI will suddenly jump back 20 years. It isn't financially sound. They wouldn't be able to use 95% of their present content. Not to mention it seems dumb to jump back in an expansion or dlc unless there is some good story point to it and ultimately it would have to make an impact on the "present/future". I am hoping that ArmA 4 is Cold War though.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Jakerod

[gibonez 18]

Is this the poll you guys seem to be referencing.

[jakerod 254]

Is this the poll you guys seem to be referencing.

http://i.imgur.com/VyypgWp.png

Yes it is.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

The militants even have, or at least had access to fighter jets.

At no point ever have any of the various factions within the Syrian Civil War and it's associated spill over into the Iraqi Daesh insurgency been capable of maintaining let alone operating either rotary or fixed wing aircraft. Yes there are photos of them standing atop numerous captured Syrian combat aircraft but this is far far removed from actually integrating those assets into their operational forces.

As for Arma; I got quite tired of shooting poorly equipped insurgents in sandy Takistan back in Arrowhead and relished the new environment that Altis delivered.

ArmA III's campaign was focused on the AAF having a conflict with CSAT that somehow escalated into AAF and CSAT working together..? I really didn't understand what the hell was going on. I bring all of this up because I don't mind what Bohemia does as long as they can reasonably build up a conflict. It doesn't have to be based on actual, real life things, as I don't think many games have done that tastefully. I think when ArmA III's conflict was first announced, people were perplexed that it appeared to be Iranian forces as the central enemy. Many consider Iran to be a very small threat in the world theater today, especially one that cannot rival NATO

Here's a very rough guideline to the A3 storyline:

Late 2020's the Repulic of Altis & Stratis suffers through a civil war.

Early 2030's NATO intervenes and overseas peace keeping operations despite economic crisis developing in the West

CSAT (Canton Strategic Alliance Treaty) begins to develop as a global counterpart to NATO (the exact make up is not ever defined as far as I recall) and begin cosying up to the AAF and assisting them in counter-insurgency operations agains the FIA rebels.

Relations are strained between NATO and the Altis Armed Forces (as seen during the Bootcamp missions) which results in NATO being dismissed from Altis itself (this explains why we never come across other NATO survivers on Altis.)

AAF then stage the attack, as seen in the main campaign, against NATO in which CSAT begin assisting AAF forces on Stratis.

I won't go too much into the rest as that reveals storyline points however there are multiple endings to the main campaign and BIS have not declared which is canonical.

[drebin052 324]

This makes me wonder before the Atlis and Greek storyline pulled through, was there ever any other storyline that was dumped ?

What is the deal with the Israeli weapons and vehicles.

If some people already hate on the current setting, they probably would've foamed at the mouth if BI went down the route for the original two stories. ;)

Anyway the 2011 one basically had a reformed Iran (CSAT doesn't exist in this storyline) that wasn't fanatically Islamic any more but fervently nationalistic. They conquered Turkey and presumably Israel as well through a 'humanitarian' intervention after Turkey suffered from a series of natural disasters that basically tore apart the whole country. Cue NATO vs Iran WW3, but NATO loses big time and gets pushed all the way to the English Channel due to ongoing economic woes and being outmatched by Iran's acquisition of advanced technology.

NATO MEDCOM then commences Operation Magnitude and sends Miller (who was the main character) along with a few CTRG teams deep behind enemy lines to Limnos in order to find out about a superweapon being developed by the big bad CEO of Red Pegasus Engineering, Ostad Javeed Attar. The teams get ambushed though, and Miller washes up onto Stratis as the sole survivor. The campaign after that was basically open world gameplay with Miller trying to build trust with the local guerillas, find any NATO troops that were left on the island prior to it being conquered by Iran, avoiding contact with Raven Security (a Russian PMC), Iranian, New Greece government and paramilitary forces while trying find the WMD. There were also supposed to be multiple endings like A2's Harvest Red.

The second story in 2012 still had Iran as being powerful (once again CSAT doesn't exist but there is mention of a 'coalition of Eastern nations') and managing to conquer Turkey, even bringing the war to Greece and Bulgaria's doorsteps before the Jerusalem Peace Accords kick in and puts an end to Iranian expansionism for now. The whole 'superweapon on Limnos' plot still existed in this one but was changed slightly since there's no ongoing WW3. I'm not sure if you still played as Miller in this one, but it did introduce some new characters like Rick Hutchison (tank commander), Evan Illing (SF operator), Jeff Larkin (heli pilot) and Ben Kerry (infantry grunt). Just like OA, you probably would have been able to switch between them in missions and the campaign would have probably been more linear instead of free roaming.

Edited February 5, 2015 by drebin052

[Greenfist 1863]

Yeah it doesn't look that disappointing when you go lumping options together that don't belong together.

44% Would rather have a Cold War/Modern setting

20% Like it better than modern settings

20% Don't care

15% Would rather have a new futuristic setting

So that is 20% of people like this setting better than a modern one. Those are the 20% of people who are only happy with this one. 40% are presently happy because they like this one or don't care.

44% of people want a Cold War/Modern setting. 64% would be happy with a Cold War/Modern setting.

15% Want a different futuristic setting. So 35% of people would be happy with a new futuristic one.

So numbers:

40% Are happy with the present setup.

64% Would be happy with a Cold War/Modern setting.

35% would be happy with a different futuristic one.

If you're trying to maximize happiness, Cold War/Modern wins (according to the poll).

Cold war/Modern would definitely maximize happiness, but:

The claim was that people are disappointed. So according to the poll:

44% Would rather have a Cold War/Modern setting: Disappointment, most likely yes.

20% Like it better than modern settings: Not disappointed.

20% Don't care: Not disappointed.

15% Would rather have a new futuristic setting: Disappointed with how it was executed, but not the idea of futuristic setting. So they don't want modern/history. Not disappointed.

Hence, 44% are disappointed.

And 158 votes? Which is 0.008% of the players who bought the game (assuming 2 000 000 sold copies). A very bad sample, because of the size and that forum users are a very specific narrow cross sections of active playerbase. Furthermore, I'm sure that majority of the people who even opened that thread did it only because they already had problem with the setting.

Anyway, it's a poll. You can spin it anyway you want to make it back up any conclusion you want.

Sorry about the little offtopic. This wasn't the OP's main point.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Greenfist

[gibonez 18]

If some people already hate on the current setting, they probably would've foamed at the mouth if BI went down the route for the original two stories. ;)

Anyway the 2011 one basically had a reformed Iran (CSAT doesn't exist in this storyline) that wasn't fanatically Islamic any more but fervently nationalistic. They conquered Turkey and presumably Israel as well through a 'humanitarian' intervention after Turkey suffered from a series of natural disasters that basically tore apart the whole country. Cue NATO vs Iran WW3, but NATO loses big time and gets pushed all the way to the English Channel due to ongoing economic woes and being outmatched by Iran's acquisition of advanced technology.

NATO MEDCOM then commences Operation Magnitude and sends Miller (who was the main character) along with a few CTRG teams deep behind enemy lines to Limnos in order to find out about a superweapon being developed by the big bad CEO of Red Pegasus Engineering, Ostad Javeed Attar. The teams get ambushed though, and Miller washes up onto Stratis as the sole survivor. The campaign after that was basically open world gameplay with Miller trying to build trust with the local guerillas, find any NATO troops that were left on the island prior to it being conquered by Iran, avoiding contact with Raven Security (a Russian PMC), Iranian, New Greece government and paramilitary forces while trying find the WMD. There were also supposed to be multiple endings like A2's Harvest Red.

The second story in 2012 still had Iran as being powerful (once again CSAT doesn't exist but there is mention of a 'coalition of Eastern nations') and managing to conquer Turkey, even bringing the war to Greece and Bulgaria's doorsteps before the Jerusalem Peace Accords kick in and puts an end to Iranian expansionism for now. The whole 'superweapon on Limnos' plot still existed in this one but was changed slightly since there's no ongoing WW3. I'm not sure if you still played as Miller in this one, but it did introduce some new characters like Rick Hutchison (tank commander), Evan Illing (SF operator), Jeff Larkin (heli pilot) and Ben Kerry (infantry grunt). Just like OA, you probably would have been able to switch between them in missions and the campaign would have probably been more linear instead of free roaming.

That actually sounds pretty interesting, having been set in 2012 however it would have probably been met with arms wide open by the community as it would have mandated currently issued weapons and vehicles not to mention it would have allowed for use of Arma 2 assets thus a larger arsenal of weapons and vehicles.

[drebin052 324]

^ Both of the plots were still set in the near future, roughly early 2030s like the current story.

History

Limnos played a vital role for many cultures throughout history. There are many traces of antique history to be found across the island. The island became particularly important to Allied troops during the Gallipoli campaign and later in 1918, when the armistice between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire was signed in the city of Moudros.

The most recent history is partially unknown due to the general lack of records from the contested territories after the outbreak of hostilities in the 2020′s. During 2025, the island was defended by the 27th MEU of the United States Marine Corps, elements of which successfully repelled Iranian attacks for several weeks despite the sinking of the MEU’s amphibious assault ship early in the campaign. In the following years, the island has been under the administration of Iranian armed forces. Around 2029, the puppet government of the New Greece was created with the support of Iran; on Limnos, local government collaboration with the local Iranian military was established (see Factions – Militias). In 2030, the first incidents of armed resistance against the New Greece government and Iranian troops was recorded; ever since, Iranian troops and N.G. militias are engaged in a low-intensity COIN campaign.

I'm still trying to find the source for this, but it basically described the 2011 storyline's background on Limnos' history.

[devilslayersbane 28]

I was more disappointed with ArmA III's conflict because I actually didn't understand it.

- ArmA: CWC has Guba acting on his own in the Malden islands, leading to a conflict involving three campaigns (Resistance, Red Hammer, and Cold War Crisis)

- ArmA I has a conflict between a northern and southern groups on Sahrani (Sahrani Conflict, Rahmadi Conflict) that leads to a potential tyranny (Royal Flush)

- ArmA II focused on dealing with terrorists on Chernarus (Harvest Red, Operation Silver Lion) that had some connection to Colonel Aziz and the Takastan region (Operation Arrowhead, Operation Crimson Lance, Operation Black Gauntlet)

ArmA III's campaign was focused on the AAF having a conflict with CSAT that somehow escalated into AAF and CSAT working together..? I really didn't understand what the hell was going on. I bring all of this up because I don't mind what Bohemia does as long as they can reasonably build up a conflict. It doesn't have to be based on actual, real life things, as I don't think many games have done that tastefully. I think when ArmA III's conflict was first announced, people were perplexed that it appeared to be Iranian forces as the central enemy. Many consider Iran to be a very small threat in the world theater today, especially one that cannot rival NATO.

ArmA III's campaign was focused on the AAF having a conflict with the FIA which sparked a brutal civil war in Altis during 2030. After the war was won by the corrupt AAF government, NATO forces were deployed as peacekeepers. Meanwhile China (a big-time player in CSAT) was stirring up tensions in the Pacific with the US. Most if not all NATO nations during this point are in economic decline, and a huge shift in international politics occured when Turkey switched sides from NATO to CSAT. After the Altian Civil War and the observation of NATO's diminishing power and care over Eastern European conflicts, the AAF invite CSAT to supplement the NATO peacekeeping mission. At some point, the geographical location of Altis is determined to be a good place to research and test a machine. This becomes a major point of interest for both NATO and CSAT (although it's not clear which side starts the research, it's presumed to be CSAT). From here on out it spoils everything in the Bootcamp Campaign and the opening Cutscene.

Then the AAF government invites the FIA for peace talks. This ends up going downhill resulting in the AAF massacring the FIA who fling themselves at Kavala. After which the AAF kick NATO out of Altis and position their peacekeeping mission solely on Stratis. NATO then finally orders a drawdown from the Republic of Altis and Stratis. Leading up to the events of the Campaign.

Sorry Pete, I had to go into a bit more detail.

As I've expressed before, I enjoy vanilla arma 3 (maybe upgraded a bit with SOS and Blastcore) and while the content isn't the most diverse we've seen, I enjoy the fact that you actually have to learn the subtleties of the weapon/vehicle you're using. The only thing I'm really disappointed with is the fact that even though the Gorgon has a fully rendered 3d interior (including driver, commander, and gunner's seat) at no point would you know this if you were in either of those 3 positions. And the lack of variation in the static weapons.

[silentghoust 132]

I like the future concept, and honestly I hope there expansion focuses on the current Arma 3 story line. I beaten the campaign about twice now, and after seeing all the little hints, and oddities in each mission I came to my own conclusion on what is happening. The only real complaint is the holes in each army in terms of how they would actually operate on a Island.

At least in Arma 2 you had C-130s, Aircraft carriers, ect. Stuff you would think "ah so that is how they managed to move a ton of armor from Stratis to Altis". Also the total lack of civilian interaction or population in the campaign for that matter was a bit disappointing.

[Sandy* 10]

I'm rooting something a lot more deeper. As I mentioned, today's militants are that much more organised, skilled, armed and a lot better financed. Even the media refer to the likes of ISIS fighters as soldiers oppose to militants/terrorists. The maps would have be more urban like Fallujah to represent cities like Ar-Raqqah. Of course we have the whole region surrounded by several seas to add some coastal maps.

Harvest Red with the Chedakis is about well-armed and skilled militants. Takistan provides everything to create your setting, but you just want more urban maps. There is nothing "deeper" in what you describe, and Takistan draws just as many parallels with very recent events. You are only rooting for a setting that is exactly like ISIS, which would not only be a bad idea for BIS to create due to aforementioned things, it would also be too much like Arrowhead. They can't please everyone, and probably prefer making something new for a change.

I've enjoyed the official campaigns in the series, but they've never been important to me other than giving a nice backdrop for user made content. A2CO vanilla content provides you with all the assets to sew together an ISIS-based mission, while Arma 3 is starting to have a big collection of Near East style mods entirely new, or ported or refurbished from A2. You can literally cherry-pick mods - what do you need BIS for?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

*Much nicer explanation of storyline*

Sorry Pete, I had to go into a bit more detail.

Thanks mate; I was writing mine from my rusty memory while at work haha!

The duplicating of statics and AT/AA launchers are probably my main gripe with assets available to players.. Personally I LOVE Altis/Stratis and cannot wait to see what the new terrain holds for us. The BIS Twitter at one point had some posts regarding some of the devs travelling to Hong Kong and posting lots of Asian themed images. Perhaps we're in treat for an Asian themed island that fits into the Pacific theatre?

Also, as much as I loved and played Takistan to death, it kind of was a terrible map. Missions either had to take place entirely in a 'green zone' which at best were some 300-400m wide or they were in the open desert areas where the AI could be plinked off at a distance with relative ease. Altis at least introduced better differentiations in terrain level eg; dips/ditches to take cover in.

[jakerod 254]

And 158 votes? Which is 0.008% of the players who bought the game (assuming 2 000 000 sold copies). A very bad sample, because of the size and that forum users are a very specific narrow cross sections of active playerbase. Furthermore, I'm sure that majority of the people who even opened that thread did it only because they already had problem with the setting.

Anyway, it's a poll. You can spin it anyway you want to make it back up any conclusion you want.

Sorry about the little offtopic. This wasn't the OP's main point.

I see what you're saying now and valid point about the low sample number. I hadn't looked at total votes just percentages. I do think we should maximize the happiness though and not minimize the disappointment. Especially since it supports what I want. :D

[chrisb 196]

I am certainly no fan of the setting of A3. However, when and where its set is of no real importance, its BI that decide, so we have little to do with their decision.

Also some/many, as the OP suggests, may be bored of playing against ill equipped Taliban, Insurgents, in fact Opfor of most kinds, to be fair. They’re all pretty well ill equipped on that side.

Those players should re-think things a little. We’re playing a game, not an ideology, religion, country, whatever else. So play as the underdog ‘equipment wise’, if your bored. The challenge is in beating the game, which will obviously be your opponent in the game at the time, Blufor, Opfor, Independent. That’s the aim of the game. We’re not beating an actual people, country or element within society.

Beating the better equipped side is much harder, but also much more fun and challenging, try it out.

Further to spinning of poll’s etc here on the forums. This always happens, there is a feeling within this community, that this forum is ‘the’ arma series community. But really, in number, it’s a fraction of the player base. What players really want or think of the game, are shown in sales.

I don’t like the A3 settings, but obviously there is a huge number that do, possibly millions. So my/our concerns, although valid from our own points of view, are pretty insignificant really and do not paint a picture of the actual player base of A3 or this whole series. The vast majority of the player base aren’t even on here.

Back to topic. For me I love a modern warfare setting, not for who the factions are, but for the weaponry, equipment, faction setup (not what nationality, ideology, religion they may represent). Its just has to be modern/present day'ish.

With that, I/we can put down the format for a really good mil/sim style gaming world, which A2, Arrowhead or A2CO is and does. That’s why I stick with that game really and the playing group I play with do the same. Some of our group play A3, as sometimes I do, but when it comes to a good mil/sim experience I always turn to A2CO, modded of course. Just for that whole modern day'ish war-gaming feel, plus the mod/addons/scripts etc we use, all run really well with that format.

I'm not sure if BI have captured a theme of modern warfare set just 20 years from now. I'll let you know in 20 years. But for me, no, its just not my thing, may not be the setting, just the game as a whole. We were spoilt in A2CO.;)

If there is to be an A4, I would love to see it come back to a modern setting, not backward or forward, just present day'ish. But I know that it will make no difference to what BI decides, its up to them.

We still have previous games in the series we can return too. Unfortunately at the moment we have no alternative, but that may change in the furture.