Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

[chortles 263]

Pretty much. It's quite interesting. Having used BIS's boats for years, they're so bland and plain. Most other assets provide a core element of gameplay that offers a certain feel. I think that Boats should be upgraded to such a certain feel. Well, provided BIS should first put time into developing big enough boats for such, as detailed as the Mk V Soc. Honestly, as i continue to use the mod, i can't help but notice how well it was made, it feels exactly like what yu'd expect a BIS boat t feel like, but it's not, if that makes sense. It's like a mod that literally fills a massive void in BIS game, it looks the part, feels the part, functions the part, but is not apart of the base game. It actually stresses me out it's not in the Vanilla game, i guess i gotta give Hatchet props when he returns, hopefully he's not sick or anything.

Eyehhhhh... here's the thing: a lot of what you've described as supposedly unique to this boat, quality aside (and undisputed), is something that by its very existence in the engine means that it can be reproduced -- however challenging -- and indeed, a bunch of what you described about its capability to work with characters/smaller vehicles beyond the "moving on moving objects" limitation was also found in Gnat's Fast Sea Frame, the 'original' A3 "mothership."

By the way thanks for remembering what I told you... does it boggle anyone else's mind that the last time OPFOR even had an armed boat was almost fifteen years ago in Cold War Crisis/Cold War Assault? That all they got in ArmA and Arma 2 was a PBX, BLUFOR had both the CRRC and the "RHIB" (NSW RIB) with bow pintle-mounted M2 or MK 19 in both games, and Arma 2 simply added a fishing boat and small boat (two variations) for the Civilian side? That frankly speaking even the copy-pasted boats of Arma 3 are still the most diverse maritime selection in the series' history?

So far i've transported the MH-9 after Landing, did take off and landing runs while it's moving at sea, transported crates, supplies, a quad bike, and not even shitting you, a Strider. XD (so given the theory of transporting wheeled vehicles at least, one could make a proper landing craft without the use of the attachto script)

Now this is interesting... helicopters were long-ago proven to have functional transportation in PhysX ships at least with what would be named the Standard Flight Model (I've heard that the Advanced Flight Model is not as reliable in this regard), but at the time I had issues trying to get a quadbike to deal with even a stationary ship (in this case the FSF) flight deck in a "natural seeming" way with no obvious PhysX interaction issues such as lack of friction or bouncing when attempting to drive the quadbike around on the deck... are you saying that the latter (driving a ground vehicle on a moving object's surface) is not an issue on the Mk V SOC, even allowing for how little room there is to drive on?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Eyehhhhh... here's the thing: a lot of what you've described as supposedly unique to this boat, quality aside (and undisputed), is something that by its very existence in the engine means that it can be reproduced -- however challenging -- and indeed, a bunch of what you described about its capability to work with characters/smaller vehicles beyond the "moving on moving objects" limitation was also found in Gnat's Fast Sea Frame, the 'original' A3 "mothership."

By the way thanks for remembering what I told you... does it boggle anyone else's mind that the last time OPFOR even had an armed boat was almost fifteen years ago in Cold War Crisis/Cold War Assault? That all they got in ArmA and Arma 2 was a PBX, BLUFOR had both the CRRC and the "RHIB" (NSW RIB) with bow pintle-mounted M2 or MK 19 in both games, and Arma 2 simply added a fishing boat and small boat (two variations) for the Civilian side? That frankly speaking even the copy-pasted boats of Arma 3 are still the most diverse maritime selection in the series' history?Now this is interesting... helicopters were long-ago proven to have functional transportation in PhysX ships at least with what would be named the Standard Flight Model (I've heard that the Advanced Flight Model is not as reliable in this regard), but at the time I had issues trying to get a quadbike to deal with even a stationary ship (in this case the FSF) flight deck in a "natural seeming" way with no obvious PhysX interaction issues such as lack of friction or bouncing when attempting to drive the quadbike around on the deck... are you saying that the latter (driving a ground vehicle on a moving object's surface) is not an issue on the Mk V SOC, even allowing for how little room there is to drive on?

Wasn't going to forget the info you provided me, it all fits together so well now. =D

In regards to the Quadbike, yes and no. Yes to driving it on board, taking it out to se, then driving around on the tiny space of the Mk V Soc without a hitch. I didn't try driving the Quad while the ship was moving however, I didn't think it was necessary, given you wouldn't need to drive around on a vehicle being transported. However staying on it is ok, or if not there are plenty of seats in the boat you can take while you head to your destination. =D

I guess I'll try it out later. Oh, yeah the Strider worked the same. Smooth, no noticeable hitches, only problem really, was driving slowly with a heavier cargo.

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:59 ----------

Oh, sorry, for those who didn't see it.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yep, pretty fun toy to play with and I can see it's potential. Basically like having a little mobile base out at sea opening up countless possibilities and expanding tactical gameplay. Add to that -it's just damn fun. Problem I had was while i was able to land on the moving craft, the helo in a sense wasnt able to 'keep up' with the ship's momentum and took damage (even tho fully landed) and eventually exploded -killing #2 and sent me into the ocean whereupon the crew opened fire on me while I was underwater for TK'ing - +1 for emergent! In the same sense if you are not firmly planted in a ship position you have to run to keep from being pulled off the boat - kinda like the game has you locked in one position while the boat is trying to pull away from you.

All that said i love it and its potential. Diver combat was silly because it had no real context. Fast forward to a an enemy demo diver under your floating base at night coupled maybe with more realistic diving operations = pure win.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yep, pretty fun toy to play with and I can see it's potential. Basically like having a little mobile base out at sea opening up countless possibilities and expanding tactical gameplay. Add to that -it's just damn fun. Problem I had was while i was able to land on the moving craft, the helo in a sense wasnt able to 'keep up' with the ship's momentum and took damage (even tho fully landed) and eventually exploded -killing #2 and sent me into the ocean whereupon the crew opened fire on me while I was underwater for TK'ing - +1 for emergent! In the same sense if you are not firmly planted in a ship position you have to run to keep from being pulled off the boat - kinda like the game has you locked in one position while the boat is trying to pull away from you.

All that said i love it and its potential. Diver combat was silly because it had no real context. Fast forward to a an enemy demo diver under your floating base at night coupled maybe with more realistic diving operations = pure win.

Pretty much. As for landing the Helo, it took damage because of the guns sticking up, anything faster than the slow boat speed will cause too much extra bouncing from waves and every time it goes down your heli will take damage. As for man class moving around while the boat is in motion, that's unfortunately an engine limitation, for now hopefully. But given a boat big enough for the heli, those issues would be removed, and everything would work perfectly and seamlessly.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Do you guys think BIS can actually make a better more believable rainforest than Far Cry? I mean, they would need to make it quite good, and Fiji, in which Tanoa is based off of, at least in terms of forests, has a lot of in land water. Meaning streams, small lakes, little water falls. Now, I know for a fact BIS could do the waterfall part if they really wanted to, all they need is a really nicely textured particle effect for falling water, and to put it on some rocks over a pond. Streams on the other hand can be done, and of course it's not anything but looks, because let's be honest, no ones going to be swimming in a little stream, or up a waterfall, it's physically impossible. They would just need to put particle effects on the stream for when people walk over it.

[kbbw123 115]

Pretty much. As for landing the Helo, it took damage because of the guns sticking up, anything faster than the slow boat speed will cause too much extra bouncing from waves and every time it goes down your heli will take damage. As for man class moving around while the boat is in motion, that's unfortunately an engine limitation, for now hopefully. But given a boat big enough for the heli, those issues would be removed, and everything would work perfectly and seamlessly.

I totally agree that Naval assets are a must. however I'm more interestet to see proper working LCAC's the partol boats are awesome and yes you can put supply's on it but a LCAC would be way more appropiate for these kind of things as it can transport heavy loads of equipment or units and properly

this would be more helpfull to move a platoon of motorized inf than having a patrol ship that cannot land on the beach properly and getting stuck on it or having to lift them all with Choppers for that small distance to a hostile iland with possible AA systems active.

Also things like the AAV-7A1 or the LAV-25 are very usefull if arma would let them make proper use of there amphibious parts. (not sure about RL but in the video it looks like the AAV is going pretty fast through the water in comparison to A2 with there lousy 10 Km/h)

Having patrol boats as your fire escort to suppress enemy's on the beach, Aye. having patrolboats for quick supply delivery, Aye. having Partolboats for proper troop deployment, Naye. thats where LC's come in and than LCAC's the most of all!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I totally agree that Naval assets are a must. however I'm more interestet to see proper working LCAC's the partol boats are awesome and yes you can put supply's on it but a LCAC would be way more appropiate for these kind of things as it can transport heavy loads of equipment or units and properly

this would be more helpfull to move a platoon of motorized inf than having a patrol ship that cannot land on the beach properly and getting stuck on it or having to lift them all with Choppers for that small distance to a hostile iland with possible AA systems active.

Also things like the AAV-7A1 or the LAV-25 are very usefull if arma would let them make proper use of there amphibious parts. (not sure about RL but in the video it looks like the AAV is going pretty fast through the water in comparison to A2 with there lousy 10 Km/h)

Having patrol boats as your fire escort to suppress enemy's on the beach, Aye. having patrolboats for quick supply delivery, Aye. having Partolboats for proper troop deployment, Naye. thats where LC's come in and than LCAC's the most of all!

I suppose. But it's another trade off. With the LCAC, you can transport heavy and large amounts, but it's slower, and i'm not too certain about armament. With a Patrol boat, using the Mk V Soc, as an example, it's more Arma scale. It can actually transport i think just over half the amount of people a C-130 can, plus the 3-4 crew, and 4 gunners, and it's faster than an LCAC. The LCAC's main purpose would have it's own benefits how ever, being that it can transport Un-amphibious armor. However, the point would be Variety. So having multiple Naval assets that fulfill different roles is important in an environment such as Tanoa, in fact, it's more important to have Naval assets than Helicopters to be honest.

[chortles 263]

Wasn't going to forget the info you provided me, it all fits together so well now. =D

Oh, the context surrounding the contrast between the vanilla maritime situation and what Hatchet's done?

In regards to the Quadbike, yes and no. Yes to driving it on board, taking it out to se, then driving around on the tiny space of the Mk V Soc without a hitch. I didn't try driving the Quad while the ship was moving however, I didn't think it was necessary, given you wouldn't need to drive around on a vehicle being transported. However staying on it is ok, or if not there are plenty of seats in the boat you can take while you head to your destination. =D

Your idea may make sense for a landing craft -- not least because what you describe has implications for whether or not "secure the vehicle to the deck" scripting is actually needed anymore...

I guess I'll try it out later. Oh, yeah the Strider worked the same. Smooth, no noticeable hitches, only problem really, was driving slowly with a heavier cargo.

Was it any particular issue with the Strider or just the 'usual' issue of operating the Mk V with a heavy PhysX cargo and very little deck space? I mean, at least with the MH-9 you seem to have chalked up the damage to collisions with the deck-mounted machine guns due to PhysX/waves/so little clearance...

Also things like the AAV-7A1 or the LAV-25 are very usefull if arma would let them make proper use of there amphibious parts. (not sure about RL but in the video it looks like the AAV is going pretty fast through the water in comparison to A2 with there lousy 10 Km/h)

According to Reuters it's not that much faster if at all in real life, which apparently led Mitsubishi Heavy to come up with its own design intended to go possibly as much as three times faster in water. That, and (as I was told) the Arma 2 incarnation's other problem besides water speed was how it only has a M2 and MK 19 versus defenders (or "counter-landing" forces) with shore-based AT and armor... paralleling these training photos of PLAMC armor firing ATGMs out to sea.

@DarkSideSixOfficial: I'm not sure if I'd call it "more important" but rather I'd say that there's simply more growth potential in the maritime dimension than where Bohemia could theoretically take helicopters, because official helicopters across all factions in every Arma game have been more diverse gameplay-wise than official boats were, with the Helicopters DLC's Huron and Taru families simply making sixteen-player airlift no longer INDFOR-exclusive (though vaulting the BLUFOR and OPFOR airframes over INDFOR's advantaged by both airframes having over double the sling-loading weight threshold of a Mohawk, the Huron having a side-Minigun option, and the Taru's variants). Light ("Little Bird"-style) and medium tactical transport, attack/recon (I'm including both the Blackfoot and Pawnee helicopters here), utility, Hind-style "transport-capable" gunship, the "sixteen man" transports, and the other Taru options... that's quite a bit of pre-existing variety, wouldn't you say? I'm not sure how Bohemia should build on top of that.

Although, speaking of LCACs with non-amphibious armor the PLA doesn't just field Zubrs but even USN-LCAC-style craft too.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

snip

Pretty much.

Landing craft are a whole new beast, not sure exactly how it would work out for tracked, haven't tried that. But for Wheeled vehicles, it's perfectly possible in that respect, not having to use any kind of scripting for it to work either. Essentially, it's as seamless as any of the other tasks. But pretty much, it works, being that even though it's not built for such things, still being capable of doing all of those things within the Arma engine without even trying. Now imagine assets built exactly for such roles, properly, with acceptable space, clearance, and everything else thereof. No hitches would occur, the only problems would become present due to someone doing something wrong, like sailing too fast and pulling super hard turns, or trying to land on a heli-deck upside down.

In regards to the AAV, i think the US actually had what Mitsubishi is now trying to develop before any of us even knew it. The EFV for the Marine Corps had been in development for years but i think was cancelled at some point, i just came across it while searching around through Future Weapons series on Youtube, and some other modern Tech being developed.

It can go up to 4 times the speed of the AAV at sea. So fast it looks like a speedboat. Plus it's better armed, with a 30mm Cannon, and 7.62 Coax. It was expected to be in service by 2011... sooooo, no idea what BIS was thinking when they added the AMV-7 Marshall. Then again, it's the Army in current Arma 3, not the Marines. Wonder why it was cancelled though.

Edited July 24, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[chortles 263]

@ DarkSideSixOfficial: The EFV program got cancelled allegedly due to costing too much "given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets."

Ironically the AMV-7 isn't so much a bad call if you treat it in the vein of the LAV-25, which the Patria AMV was a one-time candidate to replace, as it had the Finnish Army's Pasi 6x6 amphibious APC; Patria partnered with Lockheed Martin to offer the AMV (as the Havoc) for Phase 1 of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program (formerly the Marine Personnel Carrier program), only for Lockheed Martin to withdraw from the partnership and offer their own design. (Questions will abound as to how much of that came from what they learned of the AMV...)

As far as having not tried tracked vehicles but wheeled vehicles working fine (suggesting that carX simulation actually does work correctly, not just helicopterX, with moving ship decks) and just needing "assets built exactly for such roles, properly, with acceptable space, clearance, and everything else thereof"... download Gnat's Fast Sea Frame, use that as your new testbed.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

@ DarkSideSixOfficial: The EFV program got cancelled allegedly due to costing too much "given likely Marine Corps procurement budgets."

Ironically the AMV-7 isn't so much a bad call if you treat it in the vein of the LAV-25, which the Patria AMV was a one-time candidate to replace, as it had the Finnish Army's Pasi 6x6 amphibious APC; Patria partnered with Lockheed Martin to offer the AMV (as the Havoc) for Phase 1 of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program (formerly the Marine Personnel Carrier program), only for Lockheed Martin to withdraw from the partnership and offer their own design. (Questions will abound as to how much of that came from what they learned of the AMV...)

As far as having not tried tracked vehicles but wheeled vehicles working fine (suggesting that carX simulation actually does work correctly, not just helicopterX, with moving ship decks) and just needing "assets built exactly for such roles, properly, with acceptable space, clearance, and everything else thereof"... download Gnat's Fast Sea Frame, use that as your new testbed.

The AMV-7 is about as slow as the AAV in game, just fitted with a cannon. Granted it's more protection, it's still doomed to ATGM's. Actually, in game, all the Amphibious vehicles are slower than their real life counterparts it seems. Also the handling isn't that great, and could use tweaking. I should probably post a ticket about that.

I was planning on trying his FSF, but i'm not sure what's holding me back. I've seen video's awhile ago, and it looked alright, aside from being too wobbly , or something else. Not too sure what it was. Maybe at a later date. Or maybe i'll wait for a more recent ship to be released, developed in the time of the most recent updates to Arma's engine, just to be safe.

Although, i find it sad that "funds" was a main cancellation of a vehicle that would probably be worth every penny, given that keeping the AAV is probably a more expensive option if you think about it. I guess they didn't calculate maintenance, and replacement, and transportation costs of the AAV when a large amount of them could be destroyed limping up to the coast of heavily fortified South Pacific Archipelago's by ATGM's and other modern technology. They would probably be paying much more that EFV per unit.

When you think about it, you kinda wonder what it is that costs so much. It's interesting seeing how much new technology for weapons systems is out there. If you've ever looked up the IDEX show, you'd understand what i mean.

[chortles 263]

The AMV-7 is about as slow as the AAV in game, just fitted with a cannon. Granted it's more protection, it's still doomed to ATGM's. Actually, in game, all the Amphibious vehicles are slower than their real life counterparts it seems. Also the handling isn't that great, and could use tweaking. I should probably post a ticket about that.

I was talking about depicting the AMV in the first place, it's perfectly fine to complain about it (or all in-game amphibious vehicles) being unrealistically slow. Ironically, the Gorgon is the only official amphibious vehicle that could shoot back with ATGMs (two Titans) of its own...

Although, i find it sad that "funds" was a main cancellation of a vehicle that would probably be worth every penny, given that keeping the AAV is probably a more expensive option if you think about it. I guess they didn't calculate maintenance, and replacement, and transportation costs of the AAV when a large amount of them could be destroyed limping up to the coast of heavily fortified South Pacific Archipelago's by ATGM's and other modern technology. They would probably be paying much more that EFV per unit.

When you think about it, you kinda wonder what it is that costs so much. It's interesting seeing how much new technology for weapons systems is out there. If you've ever looked up the IDEX show, you'd understand what i mean.

Trivia: General Dynamics may have partnered with Mitsubishi Heavy for the latter's amphibious vehicle, so who knows how much of what could have been the EFV will appear in Mitsubishi's offering, if not to the USMC then presumably to the JGSDF.

As for the cancellation of the program... the SECDEF and CMC specifically disagreed about the EFV being "worth every penny" with Gates even citing maintenance and unit costs as factors against the EFV, hence a declared goal of "a more affordable and sustainable amphibious" to succeed the AAV, and the EFV had been weighed against what else the Marine Corps could have been procuring instead. (Note that "likely Marine Corps procurement budgets" was probably referencing relatively-impending budget sequestration, as the Budget Control Act of 2011 followed later that year.) However, even before that the EFV's role itself had been questioned: it's one thing to decide to increase the range at which a mother ship could launch amphibious vehicles (hence the EFV) without itself being targeted, but what if new anti-ship missile ranges overtook that? Also (though not cited) and ironically considering your remark that even the AMV-7 (uparmed/uparmored relative to the AAVP7A1) was "still doomed to ATGMs" in Arma, the EFV was in the same "no ATGMs with which to shoot back" boat...

... but not the PLA's the ZBD-05, thanks to an ATGM launcher to the left and right on the turret, and a 105 mm rifled gun variant able to fire ATGMs, to boot. (That last capability was was intended for the Abrams' 120 mm guns until Future Combat Systems was cancelled.)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I was talking about depicting the AMV in the first place, it's perfectly fine to complain about it (or all in-game amphibious vehicles) being unrealistically slow. Ironically, the Gorgon is the only official amphibious vehicle that could shoot back with ATGMs (two Titans) of its own...Trivia: General Dynamics may have partnered with Mitsubishi Heavy for the latter's amphibious vehicle, so who knows how much of what could have been the EFV will appear in Mitsubishi's offering, if not to the USMC then presumably to the JGSDF.

As for the cancellation of the program... the SECDEF and CMC specifically disagreed about the EFV being "worth every penny" with Gates even citing maintenance and unit costs as factors against the EFV, hence a declared goal of "a more affordable and sustainable amphibious" to succeed the AAV, and the EFV had been weighed against what else the Marine Corps could have been procuring instead. (Note that "likely Marine Corps procurement budgets" was probably referencing relatively-impending budget sequestration, as the Budget Control Act of 2011 followed later that year.) However, even before that the EFV's role itself had been questioned: it's one thing to decide to increase the range at which a mother ship could launch amphibious vehicles (hence the EFV) without itself being targeted, but what if new anti-ship missile ranges overtook that? Also (though not cited) and ironically considering your remark that even the AMV-7 (uparmed/uparmored relative to the AAVP7A1) was "still doomed to ATGMs" in Arma, the EFV was in the same "no ATGMs with which to shoot back" boat...

... but not the PLA's the ZBD-05, thanks to an ATGM launcher to the left and right on the turret, and a 105 mm rifled gun variant able to fire ATGMs, to boot. (That last capability was was intended for the Abrams' 120 mm guns until Future Combat Systems was cancelled.)

Wow. Interesting reading. It almost seems like the PLA have what were looking for in terms of the latter, but without the speed factor. No one has that, or at least, that we know of. most Amphibious tanks are very slow, but the next best options remains who is able to take out the other first, and granted the PLA have guided munitions plus the cannons...

[gibonez 18]

why not just use the existing vehicles for the amphibious role.

Those will not be getting replaced anytime soon and definitely not before 2030.

[chortles 263]

why not just use the existing vehicles for the amphibious role.

Oh, the vehicle wrecks? ;) Because the ZBD-05 up top is in service now and has been so...

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

If you're landing on a beach protected by ATGM's you're doing it wrong. At least in Arma that is.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

If you're landing on a beach protected by ATGM's you're doing it wrong. At least in Arma that is.

Granted, Arma (in most cases) doesn't have this kind of well detailed missions anyway. But, it's still a practical implementation. How else to do you get on land? Parachuting wouldn't be the best option as an island in the pacific is going to be super well fortified. Only option is to tackle the ATGM's and you guessed it, amphibious landing. (Yes, this could also mean the use of Assault Divers and Saboteur Divers)

[chortles 263]

Granted, Arma (in most cases) doesn't have this kind of well detailed missions anyway. But, it's still a practical implementation. How else to do you get on land? Parachuting wouldn't be the best option as an island in the pacific is going to be super well fortified. Only option is to tackle the ATGM's and you guessed it, amphibious landing. (Yes, this could also mean the use of Assault Divers and Saboteur Divers)

According to an Undersecretary of the Navy in 2010... don't do a landing in an area that hasn't already been cleared of anti-air/anti-ship defenses.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Granted, Arma (in most cases) doesn't have this kind of well detailed missions anyway. But, it's still a practical implementation. How else to do you get on land? Parachuting wouldn't be the best option as an island in the pacific is going to be super well fortified. Only option is to tackle the ATGM's and you guessed it, amphibious landing. (Yes, this could also mean the use of Assault Divers and Saboteur Divers)

Well that depends on your opponent. Some back-water 3rd world country might not neccessarily have access to a steady supply of ATGMs. As Chortles mentioned however if you're landing at a beach that hasn't been hammered to hell and back you're doing it wrong.

Heck just look at Talisman Sabre here in Aus recently, beaches were pounded before landing.

[mistyronin 1181]

According to an Undersecretary of the Navy in 2010... don't do a landing in an area that hasn't already been cleared of anti-air/anti-ship defenses.

Well. The first step of an amphibious assault is to clear the area from all important defenses (already in WW2, for example, check the Op. Overlord when the D-Day).

As Chorles well said anti-air and anti-ship defenses are a priority with air assets.

Then spec ops must recon the area and make sure to neutralize and sabotage points.

Naval artillery is used to pound strong points.

Afterwards divers have to make sure that the beach is clear of obstacles and enemies and mark the paths for the landing element.

During the main landing itself, airship helicopters and jets give cover and neutralize any last defensive position.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well that depends on your opponent. Some back-water 3rd world country might not neccessarily have access to a steady supply of ATGMs. As Chortles mentioned however if you're landing at a beach that hasn't been hammered to hell and back you're doing it wrong.

Heck just look at Talisman Sabre here in Aus recently, beaches were pounded before landing.

Pretty much. But lets all not forget there are no 3rd world countries here. Tanoa is a rich nation, with ties to both East and West. The PLA are well equipped, and logistics don't seem to be to serious a problem with them. Hell, the PLA build their own Pacific Islands. So it would be, interesting.

[chortles 263]

Interestingly enough, said Undersecretary of the Navy as of 2010 (writing for USNI) used the term "littoral maneuver" instead of "amphibious assault" as the former "purposely shifts the focus and the conception of trying to directly confront or storm a contested shoreline a la Tarawa or Iwo Jima. The terms “forcible entry†and “amphibious assault†recall for too many people the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan or HBO’s The Pacific. That is not the model the Navy–Marine Corps team should prepare for or the mission the Department of the Navy should invest in."

In that regard, the Navy-Marine team will never contemplate littoral maneuver until an enemy’s battle network, capable of firing dense salvos of guided weapons, is suppressed. Consequently, the initial phase of any joint theater-entry operation will require achieving air, sea, undersea, and overall battle-network superiority in the amphibious objective area. Air Force bombers, naval strike assets, Marine reconnaissance, and special-operations forces would work to degrade and destroy enemy antiship capabilities and to reduce the guided rockets, artillery, mortals, and missile (G-RAMM) threat ashore.

I can safely say that between this quote and what MistyRonin has laid out in the previous post on the last page, there's multiple Arma 3 scenario concepts -- with clear objectives and rationales (that is to say, the backstory of each scenario being how they fit into a wider operation) -- waiting to be assembled in the Editor...

@DarkSideSixOfficial and @Imperator_Pete: For Arma 3 purposes (in terms of what's "in engine" simulated) we can imagine that the ATGM -- or, horror of horrors, precision-guided munitions from defenders -- threat is what (can? will?) be simulated primarily, but in real life anti-ship missiles would be a particular danger; it was P. W. Singer (an author of Ghost Fleet) who pointed out the extent to which modern AShM technology made the EFV's improved range not as much a game-changer over the AAV, if perhaps at a scope wider than what Arma was meant to simulate...

[pvt. partz 248]

  I am wondering if there will be swamps, lakes, rivers, and maybe caves. Sorry if I missed that if that's posted.

[Chairborne 2594]

Now caves and underground structures would definitely be something cool.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

  I am wondering if there will be swamps, lakes, rivers, and maybe caves. Sorry if I missed that if that's posted.

Tanoa will feature a Mangrove Swamp. That's all we know aside from the fact it's an Archipelago, in terms of water.