Jump to content
dale0404

New terrain reveal - Tanoa

Recommended Posts

In modern naval battles visibility is not needed, it's even more exaggerated than in air combat. Naval combat nowadays happens at dozens and even hundreds of kms from ship to ship.

Said that. In the A3 scale of things, there's a lot of possibilities from amphibious and coastal warfare...

I was talking mainly about underwater part of the sea since water surface implemented on acceptable level and apart from synchronizing waves, adding something like setWaterLevel command and making tracked vehicles able to swim I don't really see a room for significant improvement. I would love to play with a full-scale (ok, even something bigger than inflatable boat) sailable/walkable/sinkable ships though. :)

On a side note, I really hope BI will manage to fix ponds. Xirolimni Dam makes me sad every time I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrain size is paramount for air power (just see how Tinter's port of TKOH South Asia was received) but from an infantry/ground vehicles perspective I think I'd care more about variety within the terrain than about size.

lol arma never was naval focused ,but now A3 could shine in the naval area because its new

imagine properly working ships and amphibious vehicles with fully armed marines on board - ffv , diving , artillery etc heh

Ehhh, I don't expect much benefit out of out-of-the-box FFV for new maritime assets as opposed to adding FFV to the Motorboat and Speedboat*, and I'm not sure what you have in mind for naval artillery -- considering what both drebin and MistyRonin discuss, I dare say that it falls under some of the same issues as fixed-wing -- but I'd also like to see diving expanded on. Similarly, if we had non-rear-ramp FFV for non-Littlebird helicopters then players could get their HITRON on... ;)

@ MistyRonin: While your proposed missions are all valid ideas, I'd ask you this: what new (to Arma 3) assets are required to enable specific "possibilities"? I ask this in part because stuff like "Boat raids into coastal villages or infrastructure" is perfectly doable with any boat as long as the terrain has inland waterways, demining and sabotage by divers are both in the Scuba showcase (even if the latter is actually a scripted setFuel 0; ) and "Sea support for coastal ops" sounds hella generic... clearly "ship as platform" gameplay needs such a 'platform', but then questions must arise as to how much else it should do besides being an metal micro-island in the sea with a well deck...

Two observations arise from going through VBS3's official-from-BISim public content (assets) catalog:

  1. Quite a few if not the majority of big ships are simulated as unarmed irrespective of what's modeled, with the MK 45 gun (US Guided Missile Destroyer, the Anzac aka "Fregata", the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate) and Mk 8 (Daring-class/Type 45 Destroyer, 4.5 in/113 mm) as the main exceptions, although the De Zeven Provinciën- and Rotterdam-class (a LPD) have the A-10's GAU-8 (used in the Goalkeeper CIWS)... while boats other than the "Boghammar" (VBS's only OPFOR boat, with an aft-mounted DShKM -- the bow-mounted multiple-rocket launcher is not simulated) are either unarmed or have some combination of M2/M240/MK 19.
  2. The majority of military ships (as opposed to civilian ships) have ab amphibious warfare role, to say nothing of how many landing craft and boats there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ MistyRonin: While your proposed missions are all valid ideas, I'd ask you this: what new (to Arma 3) assets are required to enable specific "possibilities"?

I was thinking of a little ship per side like the Iranian-Chinese Type 021-class or the Type 022-class for the CSAT, that have missiles that could be used with the artillery module.

For NATO something like the stealth "sci-fi fashion" Norwegian Skjold-class corvette. Heck even the US navy was interested in them.

Maybe even a minesweeper.

Then a naval variant of certain helos like the Ghosthawk (like a SH60 Seahawk) or the Hellcat (Sea Lynx) with a sonar/radar to catch mini-subs. Or an accessory that could be sling loaded.

Also a midget submarine, like the Russian Losos-class for the CSAT, to not have a copy of the SDV.

A static aircraft carrier in the map like in Utes (A2), would give a lot of gameplay.

Maybe a disembark ship or hovercraft to use as connectors to bring vehicles to the coast.

Obviously an amphibious feature for tracked vehicles, with maybe a modern version of AAV or BMP.

And as the jewel of the crown, maybe navy aircrafts like the V22 or a F35B variants.

Type+022+a.jpg

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a static Aircraft Carrier like the one on Utes would provide more gameplay, a few smaller usable Naval Assets would be 50 times better, and more usable. While you could say that landing heli's and such out at sea is doable on a floating metal island like the one in Utes, the same can be done with a smaller boat that can actually be manned by people/AI. It's already easily possible to land a heli on moving vehicles at sea, BIS just need to fix the Man-Class problem, and we would enter an era where a whole not more is possible. Of course it won't be hard to implement movement on a moving object with a medium ship, as it's more stable in the water than a small one. however if the sea's are rough, then that's what seats are used for.

Example -

Now of course we don't need ships THAT big, obviously, but there are are massive variety of ships that could be used well in Arma 3 if it's implemented right. The Engine now already provides for most of that to work very nicely. The rest needs to be fixed up in Engine. The new Terrain has water, so this means that boats are a very welcome addition. And for the sake of 2035, i hope some of the most modern boats do make an appearance. Staring at empty waters in Arma 3 really sucks. I also hope the coastline of the new terrain is different, what ever it may be. Hopefully lots of inlets and stuff. =D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the biggest ship I would expect would be something similar to the Royal Navy's new River Class OPV's. I wouldn't mind some landing craft, the EFV V-22 etc, as well as a proper inbuilt logistics system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While a static Aircraft Carrier like the one on Utes would provide more gameplay, a few smaller usable Naval Assets would be 50 times better, and more usable. While you could say that landing heli's and such out at sea is doable on a floating metal island like the one in Utes, the same can be done with a smaller boat that can actually be manned by people/AI. It's already easily possible to land a heli on moving vehicles at sea, BIS just need to fix the Man-Class problem, and we would enter an era where a whole not more is possible. Of course it won't be hard to implement movement on a moving object with a medium ship, as it's more stable in the water than a small one. however if the sea's are rough, then that's what seats are used for.

Example -

Now of course we don't need ships THAT big, obviously, but there are are massive variety of ships that could be used well in Arma 3 if it's implemented right. The Engine now already provides for most of that to work very nicely. The rest needs to be fixed up in Engine. The new Terrain has water, so this means that boats are a very welcome addition. And for the sake of 2035, i hope some of the most modern boats do make an appearance. Staring at empty waters in Arma 3 really sucks. I also hope the coastline of the new terrain is different, what ever it may be. Hopefully lots of inlets and stuff. =D

The problem is, does the scale of the game support it?

I don't know if the game supports enough players to make use of this stuff. You can't have 100 people on a MP server to man all these boats, helos, ground vehicles, while still having ground troops left over. If ARMA had more of a persistent universe with hundreds of players in a single world, I could see naval assets being more useful. As it stands, who's going to want to drive a boat or stand on the deck for hours while everyone else gets to go actually fight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, does the scale of the game support it?

I don't know if the game supports enough players to make use of this stuff. You can't have 100 people on a MP server to man all these boats, helos, ground vehicles, while still having ground troops left over. If ARMA had more of a persistent universe with hundreds of players in a single world, I could see naval assets being more useful. As it stands, who's going to want to drive a boat or stand on the deck for hours while everyone else gets to go actually fight?

I think you'd be surprised about people wanting to crew boats and do logisitic's stuff, just look at Euro Truck simulator and ship simulator and how well they have sold.

I can see your point about lots of manpower, but I really don't think its an issue, especially when there are I play things like domi or I&A and you see 4 or 5 heli's in the air on a 40 player server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, does the scale of the game support it?

I don't know if the game supports enough players to make use of this stuff. You can't have 100 people on a MP server to man all these boats, helos, ground vehicles, while still having ground troops left over. If ARMA had more of a persistent universe with hundreds of players in a single world, I could see naval assets being more useful. As it stands, who's going to want to drive a boat or stand on the deck for hours while everyone else gets to go actually fight?

Well, tell me why 100 people are needed to man a medium patrol boat? Around 4 people can do that. The Ghost i think they call it, only uses 3 i think? Everything else is electronics. That's tech now available. by 2035, that's probably going to have reached other kinds of boats and stuff. Tech aside, You'd have the driver, the the commander who over looks operations (me! Hi guys!), then you' have maybe a gunner or something. Oh, then guess what? Besides those people on the boat, you have those in land and stuff that could use certain things like supplies you may have on board, or support on the coast, or you could be responsible for transporting certain cargo for other players. It's not just about what this group of people is doing, as it most, if not all of the time, applies to the team. The list goes on, the possibilities it would provide, now link that with the massive variety of Naval assets that can perform multiple different tasks. Possibilities.

Most servers i join are 80 player servers that use teams, and most the time, the tea works together, people help other groups in the team and such, all of this takes place on land. All of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, tell me why 100 people are needed to man a medium patrol boat? Around 4 people can do that. The Ghost i think they call it, only uses 3 i think? Everything else is electronics. That's tech now available. by 2035, that's probably going to have reached other kinds of boats and stuff. Tech aside, You'd have the driver, the the commander who over looks operations (me! Hi guys!), then you' have maybe a gunner or something. Oh, then guess what? Besides those people on the boat, you have those in land and stuff that could use certain things like supplies you may have on board, or support on the coast, or you could be responsible for transporting certain cargo for other players. It's not just about what this group of people is doing, as it most, if not all of the time, applies to the team. The list goes on, the possibilities it would provide, now link that with the massive variety of Naval assets that can perform multiple different tasks. Possibilities.

Most servers i join are 80 player servers that use teams, and most the time, the tea works together, people help other groups in the team and such, all of this takes place on land. All of it.

Nowhere in my post did I say you'd need 100 people to man a boat of any size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, does the scale of the game support it?

I don't know if the game supports enough players to make use of this stuff. You can't have 100 people on a MP server to man all these boats, helos, ground vehicles, while still having ground troops left over.

I guess i mis read that. But yeah, in an 80 player server, even 40 player server, (granted the 40 player server is probably Co-Op anyway), it's good enough. Hell, i could say that now with other vehicles, APC's Tanks require 3-4 people, if you want to maintain full functionality 100% of the time. Most missions re designed around a certain game play aspect anyway, i'm not going to join say, Altis Life and end up using an armed Patrol boat... Or maybe that could be something law enforcement related... Idk, but i suppose you know what i mean. But as stated before, people won't go to the water if there's nothing there to use. Provide something to do that useful out at sea, and it will be utilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 500 foot long destroyer uses quite a few people to run it, around 200. Realistically though, depending on how intricate you want to get, you don't need that many people to operate a ship. You don't need a full bridge crew. You don't need the central engineering space to be manned. You don't need look outs. You don't need guys down in the engine rooms checking gauges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 500 foot long destroyer uses quite a few people to run it, around 200. Realistically though, depending on how intricate you want to get, you don't need that many people to operate a ship. You don't need a full bridge crew. You don't need the central engineering space to be manned. You don't need look outs. You don't need guys down in the engine rooms checking gauges.

Well to operate a ship like a destroyer usually with a dozen people you can pilot it, with a few more you can use all of its weapon systems. Besides they usually carry a Marines detachment, bureaucracy, mechanics, medics, etc.

IMHO the destroyer ships are out of the scope of this game, at least as manageable vehicles (as a static could be nice). But, corvettes, missile boats, patrol boats, and so on are well inside the scope and only require a few people to operate them (the NATO one in A3 its ok, but I hate the clones; and something a bit bigger and with more powerful armament would be nice).

Tho a corvette like the Swedish Visby Class or the Norwegian Skjold-class, as well as missile boats like the Chinese Type-022 would be well inside the futuristic looks and scope of the game. And give all what can be done to gameplay shot some missiles, a naval gun, drop mines or depth charges, torpedoes and such; as well as carry a few troops and maybe even a helo attached.

At least in my mil-sim group we use a lot the naval assets, some imported from A2, due to the lack of them in A3.

Kystkorvett.jpg

Naval_Visby1.jpg

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the reason why naval warfare in ArmA 3 is currently so unpopular is the system modelling. Currently, it is just boring. Driving a boat takes almost no skill because of the lack of obstacles or roads. You just hold W and wait. Being a gunner or commander is equally unsatisfying because the copy-pasted RCWS offers no challenge and thus, no reward.

Submarines are even worse. Sometimes you sit 15 minutes in total darkness, at painfully low speed. Nothing to look at, nothing to do.

So, I think unless BI implements *some* sort of systems, I don't think naval warfare will ever be popular. Even a simple navigation system or a more sophisticated radar might ease the boredom.

Another problem, at least with bigger ships, is the inability to walk on the vehicle. The current boats don't really offer much space anyways, but even on some patrol boats, you'd probably feel constrained when locked in your position. Another problem would be landing on the beach or a dock in first person when you can't walk over to the railing and take a look at how close you are.

Lastly, one of the most important tasks of naval assets are logistic missions. Until we are able to properly load crates into vehicles, I don't think people will want to do that in vanilla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be a naval ship sitting off the coast - and we call for support from the ships guns.

The ships do not need to playable - rather they show up on a map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think part of the reason why naval warfare in ArmA 3 is currently so unpopular is the system modelling. Currently, it is just boring. Driving a boat takes almost no skill because of the lack of obstacles or roads. You just hold W and wait. Being a gunner or commander is equally unsatisfying because the copy-pasted RCWS offers no challenge and thus, no reward.

Submarines are even worse. Sometimes you sit 15 minutes in total darkness, at painfully low speed. Nothing to look at, nothing to do.

One would think that now that they have added diving and submarine warfare, they will take advantage of it, so that's why it seems more logical that they would add some pacific island with nice sea-beds, reefs, etc. That's why we are commenting it on the new terrain reveal. Maybe even some wild-life like sharks, whales etc. that could attack you (now there are little harmless sharks).

Well... Seems that BI decided that with A3, they would add a lot of features that have been asked for a lot of years (sling load, FFV, bipods, etc.) so why not walking on a ship? Or some logistic stuff like carrying vehicles?

As I said, my sim-group, and I guess a lot of other groups also use a lot boats and ships in A3 (we use a lot of ports from A2), even if we are not specialized in amphibious warfare like some groups are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There could be a naval ship sitting off the coast - and we call for support from the ships guns.

The ships do not need to playable - rather they show up on a map.

I... I would nuke the world if it turned into a COD style "Call in support", and you see this terribly animated boat coming in at top speed only to crash into the coastline because the AI couldn't slow down intime, and now your support is on fire...

Ok no seriously, no one wants big battleships and destroyers. Medium Naval assets were the only logical suggestions. As misty said Corvette's are very, very nice, and fit the 2035 look, and are fairly well sized tof it within Geo LOD limits and gameplay. They require few people to operate, and can be used for lots of purposes.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

I think part of the reason why naval warfare in ArmA 3 is currently so unpopular is the system modelling. Currently, it is just boring. Driving a boat takes almost no skill because of the lack of obstacles or roads. You just hold W and wait. Being a gunner or commander is equally unsatisfying because the copy-pasted RCWS offers no challenge and thus, no reward.

Submarines are even worse. Sometimes you sit 15 minutes in total darkness, at painfully low speed. Nothing to look at, nothing to do.

So, I think unless BI implements *some* sort of systems, I don't think naval warfare will ever be popular. Even a simple navigation system or a more sophisticated radar might ease the boredom.

Another problem, at least with bigger ships, is the inability to walk on the vehicle. The current boats don't really offer much space anyways, but even on some patrol boats, you'd probably feel constrained when locked in your position. Another problem would be landing on the beach or a dock in first person when you can't walk over to the railing and take a look at how close you are.

Lastly, one of the most important tasks of naval assets are logistic missions. Until we are able to properly load crates into vehicles, I don't think people will want to do that in vanilla.

I honestly see no room for legitimate submarines. Even if there were other naval assets, sub's are almost 100% armed recon. Which, i guess would be ok, but i'd rather have other medium armed assets than an armed sub, mainly based on functionality, and how hard it would be to get a working sub in game...

The suggestions of said assets are best when paired with features no? So, you bring up Naval assets, and your going to probably need something else that isn't too complicated. For example being able to move crates around. So far, the only way you can legitimately move crates around in game, is by a helicopter, or by a Fork lift. Helicopters are ok, but what if you don't have a helicopter, just a boat, and your land route is blocked by heavy enemy positions. You could use a fork lift to lift the crates easily... if we had one. Knowing how well the physX work with crates, it would be actually amazing to have a fork lift. But we don't, so the only other option would be for BIS to create a legit way for us to drag or pick up a crate in game. I'm sure there is a way they can do that without using "attach to", as we all know they don't want to use that command in any form or way for an official feature.

Another this was walking on a moving ship, of course, there would be lots of seats in a medium boat, despite only needing a few people to operate, but it's already been done, just not in Engine.

Now imagine if that could be done, in engine, it would be smoother, and would work well with said Naval Assets. This way you ca do things like sort logistical supplies on boar, while moving about to, or from bases, on route to support, and so on. Again, Corvette for example, would be a max size reference for any Naval asset within Arma 3's limits, and gameplay wise.

You can ask the question about size of ships, can't walk in tight spaces?

This one shows ProGamer walking around on the Back of a HemTT... So yes, even tight spaces aren't a problem. But again, this is just to show that it's all possible. It's been possible, most of this is from Alpha/Beta of Arma 3.

And of course with the new Terrain sporting water, as has been confirmed, it makes adding such assets even more ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm I'm keeping my expectations reeeal(istically) low and will be happy with a new terrain with some new factions and hopefully a few more vehicles, anything else I'll count as a bonus.

There could be a naval ship sitting off the coast - and we call for support from the ships guns.

The ships do not need to playable - rather they show up on a map.

This would be a great way to introduce large naval units into Arma, they can be controlled by simple point and click as in high command and could provide fire support, semi functional carriers could at least spawn air support and air supply from them, when using the destroyer and carrier mods available I can see how even that 'simple' functionality could enhance any mission greatly.

But tbh I hope they do not focus any attention away from some issues and enhancements I think are required for the game already in hand, for example driving and more importantly different Or improved driving behavior between vehicle classes, maybe better simulation on air units, more AI improvements, it's awesome that they are improving the overall sound, the game is really shaping up.. I'm all for anything to do with the sea but am happy to leave that for modders for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ MistyRonin: Your case is clear for the Type 022/Houbei and Skjold classes, but the key question for me is how the the anti-ship/land attack missiles are implemented; the Norrköping from Swedish Forces Pack is one (scripted as heck) example, and in turn

involves quite a bit of scripting and variables-setting... so what does something more engine-supported look like?

Similarly, I'd wonder how a minesweeper or a sub-hunter helicopter would perform those roles in-game? For example, without minesweeper capability the RAN Huon-class has "only" a 30 mm gun and a pair of 12.7 mm MGs... neither of which is simulated in VBS, although the Double Eagle Mark II is (as its own vehicle)... and for the latter capability, cue questions about that radar HUD's applicability outside of that specific airframe... :p As for sling-loading, I imagine that you're thinking of a towed array or sonobuoy but then if there's an accidental disconnect you can pretty much forget about recovering the system, and I'm not sure how the system would work unless the connected PhysX ropes are basically just visual...

The main benefit I can think of from a static, terrain-embedded carrier would be runway compatibility for landing autopilot or ILS (unless there's a way to build such compatibility into an Editor-placeable carrier) and hopefully a lack of collision/roadway gaps due to imperfection in the LODs and/or assembly script (as opposed to what happened with both my LHD port and ATLAS LHD)... though in VBS the notorious ~50 meter limit was breached so its users presumably don't have to deal with the latter issue.

Finally, a "connector" will either force DarkSideSixOfficial's beloved "man class (and ground vehicles) on moving ships" technology or at least Bohemia making an exception on no-scripting-whenever-avoidable (read: attachTo) for vehicles... after all, if one doesn't require infantry to be able to move around and "dynamically" run off of the boat then "open ramp" > "get out"/"eject" from passenger seats is perfectly doable as-is with no engine changes required; see Iron Front: Liberation 1944: D-Day's LCVP ("Higgins boat") for such a landing craft.

I... I would nuke the world if it turned into a COD style "Call in support", and you see this terribly animated boat coming in at top speed only to crash into the coastline because the AI couldn't slow down intime, and now your support is on fire...
No one said it needed to be coming in at any speed... :lol:

If you're discussing naval gunfire support in and of itself though... "a COD style "Call in support"" isn't an inherently bad thing; if the use of fire support is essentially a skill check (no pun intended) then should it be only a "forward observer" alone who is tested or a gunner as well? For a JTAC Arma's answer has been "both (and a pilot on top of that)" but then the pilot/gunner are "in the fight" in a way that neither a warship nor an artilleryman are, in the latter case not unless a fire base will itself be under bombardment and/or assault, but with the Editor fire support modules and Zeus Ordnance modules we have observer/JTAC-only calls... and hell, VBS3 has real-time editor (RTE) point-and-click fire support, though for naval gunfire only the Anzac-class ("Fregata") is supported.

Ok no seriously, no one wants big battleships and destroyers. Medium Naval assets were the only logical suggestions. As misty said Corvette's are very, very nice, and fit the 2035 look, and are fairly well sized tof it within Geo LOD limits and gameplay. They require few people to operate, and can be used for lots of purposes.
You forgot to bring up P61...

For anyone that isn't aware, P61 is a modified Saettia-class ("Mark III") patrol boat that currently serves as the Maltese flagship, armed with a 25 mm gun (and two 12.7 mm MGs) and capable of launching/recovering both rubber boats and sufficiently short helicopters up to the AgustaWestland AW139, yet only slightly over the infamous 50 m limit for Arma geo/roadway LODs and thus no scripted "stitching" required (although I think that Gnat's Fast Sea Frame may have worked despite that?). Alternately, for the same approximate length and in-game benefit you can get a Visby-style "sphere-tipped pyramid" look with the Falaj 2-class, upgunning to 76 mm and exchanging the "mothership" capability for Exocet missiles and SAMs, or lengthen the ship (with presumably less walkable space) for all of the above as per the more common longer patrol vessel designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm planning to upgrade my GTX570 to a GTX970, with a tropical terrain such an upgrade would be even useful in ArmA :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In retrospect the naval talk should be in a different thread, maybe the Development Blog & Reveals? Its relationship to the topic of the terrain reveal is quite tangential (pretty much only through the possibility of waterways)...

I'm planning to upgrade my GTX570 to a GTX970, with a tropical terrain such an upgrade would be even useful in ArmA :).
Don't bother, unless there's bigger changes to Arma 3 than usually expected the CPU will still be key if not the majority of your performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New terrain is Pulau Serasen. This was confirmed as the outline of the island matches the outline in the image released by BI.

http://www.visitborneo.com/locations/location-profile.php?borneoid=8372477

This is pretty much a 90% chance of being correct. This island would be good for tropical operations with boats and helicopters.

Really?

Serasan%20Island.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the smaller islands are the Senkaku islands, and we see Japanese forces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shweet. Looks great. Can you post a link to this BIS image outline you source by chance?

I'm guessing this will be a paid DLC then? Excited for this. Anything green and tropical! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×