Challenges of Jungle/Marine Warfare in Tanoa

[lukio 18]

So currently diving can be used in the following mission types:

 

- "Stealthy" Insertion / Exfil

- Defusing underwater mines

- Sabotage on boats / harbors

- Retrieving / defending intel / assets on sunken wrecks or other POI

- Rescue missions

 

As long as we don't have structures on or under the water (like a oil rig, underwater base, frigate or tanker), there is no point on having pure underwater / naval missions.

 

Most of the available, larger ships are used as a staging area for a mission, seldom are they actually involved in combat or fight against other ships. The ATLAS LHD has some defensive capabilities and will take out smaller craft and helicopters, which is nice - but imho employing it for attacking coastal enemy forces would be overkill. Just like with artillery or MLRS it's difficult to implement a fun mission (with infantry) with such overwhelming fire support.

 

Combined arms in ARMA has it's limits, Can't find a link but basically think at the airstrike scene in "Jarhead" where he is about to take his shot and then they blow up the whole airport.

[mistyronin 1181]

Combined arms in ARMA has it's limits, Can't find a link but basically think at the airstrike scene in "Jarhead" where he is about to take his shot and then they blow up the whole airport.

I think there's an incredible huge amount of shades of gray between your black & white scenario.

Meaning, from little corvettes that can provide direct fire support or missiles. They would be exactly like self-propelled artillery. I'm talking about rockets & short range missiles not cruise missiles.

Check the 72m long Visby class.

Or the 47.5m Skjold Class

Proper patrol boats and patrol ships (with a 25mm auto-cannon, a couple of .50 cal).

Not to talk about possible disembark ships.

And for example my sim group already use the ATLAS LHD a lot as a platform for sea-borne assaults & raids.

[lukio 18]

I think there's an incredible huge amount of shades of gray between your black & white scenario.

Meaning, from little corvettes that can provide direct fire support or missiles. They would be exactly like self-propelled artillery. I'm talking about rockets & short range missiles not cruise missiles.

Proper patrol boats and patrol ships (with a 25mm auto-cannon, a couple of .50 cal).

Not to talk about possible disembark ships.

And for example my sim group already use the ATLAS LHD a lot as a platform for sea-borne assaults & raids.

 

Not really black & white - just as I said combined arms has it's limits. A small patrol boat or perhaps small / mid corvette can be useful, but needs to be employed with care.

 

I do enjoy the ATLAS LHD as a staging ground, but thinking about ships like destroyers or battleships involved with combat would imo be overpowered. Same with deploying a AC-130 or other strong long-range artillery. To me a ship like the one you posted is great for launching an assault & staging platform, however I feel it's fire capacity already might have too much "Oomph".

 

Fortunately every unit has it's own way of playing and using such assets, I'm just speaking in general that such firepower can be difficult to employ in a regular mission, just like artillery.

[chortles 263]

And for example my sim group already use the ATLAS LHD a lot as a platform for sea-borne assaults & raids.

That's pretty much what sie said about the current game use for big ships... Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations is out there for those who want to get into realistically-scaled big ship or contested fast air encounters. Problem with missile-armed patrol boats is that even the Naval Strike Missile range exceeds Altis' dimensions -- unlike, say, the Hellfire, the Maverick, the TOW, their intended successor the JAGM, of the Toophan (an Iranian reverse-engineering of the TOW) -- and the boats that the Hellfire has been tested on are even smaller...

[x3kj 1247]

I think everything considered Fast Attack Craft would be right up the alley of Arma.

 

Hamina class looks like it could fit the part

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Tornio_S%C3%A4rk%C3%A4nsalmi_1.JPG

Offers almost every aspect of naval combat (other then firing torpedoes and diving^^)

 

Dont feel like Cruisers/ Corvettes would fit that well. A tad big i think. They would offer mission start/end points mostly, instead of beeing usable for actual combat i feel. But i certainly wouldn't complain if we get some.

[chortles 263]

I think everything considered Fast Attack Craft would be right up the alley of Arma.

Not everything considered FAC since that term is a bit broader in use than you may be meaning -- the Hamina-class is only four meters longer than the Skjold-class, both at Arma's existing fifty (50) meter "safe" limit for object length, and it's got the same issue of their surface-to-surface missiles having beyond-Arma-scale ranges IRL, an issue that we've already seen the implications with SFP's Norrköping or the vanilla game's artillery. :P

Dont feel like Cruisers/ Corvettes would fit that well. A tad big i think. They would offer mission start/end points mostly, instead of beeing usable for actual combat i feel.

Apply this to most ships worthy of the name -- that is, most that aren't the vanilla game's Speedboat in size or at most up to the Mk V SOC (25 m) -- and you've got a point I'd agree with.

[mistyronin 1181]

Not everything considered FAC since that term is a bit broader in use than you may be meaning -- the Hamina-class is only four meters longer than the Skjold-class, both at Arma's existing fifty (50) meter "safe" limit for object length, and it's got the same issue of their surface-to-surface missiles having beyond-Arma-scale ranges IRL, an issue that we've already seen the implications with SFP's Norrköping or the vanilla game's artillery. :P

Same can be said of air assets and a good amount of vehicles. It makes little sense to limit the gameplay.

Are we forgetting that Arma 3 is a game and that a lot of armament systems are simplified or their ranges reduced?

Do you want to check the ranges for AA equipment? In RL you would be able to shot down enemy planes dozens of km before they could even reach inside Altis airspace.

Corvettes, as well as patrol ships and boats, as well as landing crafts would make a lot of sense, and increase game-play a lot in a terrain like Tanoa. Has any of you played BF1942 or the Forgotten Hope mod for it?

Besides naval artillery is shot even at few kms from the coast, which is well within the range of Arma 3.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I think everything considered Fast Attack Craft would be right up the alley of Arma.

 

Hamina class looks like it could fit the part

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Tornio_S%C3%A4rk%C3%A4nsalmi_1.JPG

Offers almost every aspect of naval combat (other then firing torpedoes and diving^^)

 

Dont feel like Cruisers/ Corvettes would fit that well. A tad big i think. They would offer mission start/end points mostly, instead of beeing usable for actual combat i feel. But i certainly wouldn't complain if we get some.

Bingo. Most big ships and heavy weapons systems won't really have a place in Arma for a long time, or maybe ever. But for Arma 3, medium and smaller ships do, and can serve great purpose in many ways without being overkill, but just another asset, except on the waters and not on land, or in the air. They can be fitted to be armed like a Technical (boring), a gunboat (we has), an IFV (better, i like auto-cannons), a Tank Destroyer (that would be interesting), or with a Mortar. (Patria's Speedboat anyone?).

 

None of these would be overkill or OP, considering we already have those in game, with the exception that they're either all on wheels, or on tracks, and well, the Mortar is simply a Mortar. You can then dis-arm the boats, and use it fr either Military Logistics, or Civil Logistics, which then plays on a more over looked part of combat, that really most mission do not have, and should probably have at some point, given game play has gotten stale with the usual.

 

(imagine having to provide your forces with stuff, so they can get stuff, to bring stuff to battle, to be effective)

[x3kj 1247]

the Hamina-class is only four meters longer than the Skjold-class, both at Arma's existing fifty (50) meter "safe" limit for object length, and it's got the same issue of their surface-to-surface missiles having beyond-Arma-scale ranges IRL, an issue that we've already seen the implications with SFP's Norrköping or the vanilla game's artillery. :P

Where is the issue? just model it shorter to fit inside the limits. It's not like this would be the first time something is smaller. Besides, it's still a fictional setting. Limited missile range is a nonissue either. We already had that a 1000 times in A2 and A3.

[Chairborne 2594]

Where is the issue? just model it shorter to fit inside the limits. It's not like this would be the first time something is smaller. Besides, it's still a fictional setting. Limited missile range is a nonissue either. We already had that a 1000 times in A2 and A3.

Uhm i don't entirely agree...

It seems like a pointless compromise, why don't just take some smaller vessel that works in the engine then?

 

And the missile range is probably one of the biggest features for bigger ships, if you want ships that are meant to combat each other then you should at least try to make them work the way they are supposed to.

It's like adding a SEAD jet then leaving it with regular AT missiles because you don't want to spend time in making actual anti-radar missiles and radar batteries.

 

BTW the engine limitation is now 80x80x80m cube for collision, if linking multiple parts together through proxies was possible though this limitation would be irrelevant.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Uhm i don't entirely agree...

It seems like a pointless compromise, why don't just take some smaller vessel that works in the engine then?

 

And the missile range is probably one of the biggest features for bigger ships, if you want ships that are meant to combat each other then you should at least try to make them work the way they are supposed to.

It's like adding a SEAD jet then leaving it with regular AT missiles because you don't want to spend time in making actual anti-radar missiles and radar batteries.

 

BTW the engine limitation is now 80x80x80m cube for collision, if linking multiple parts together through proxies was possible though this limitation would be irrelevant.

Missile range... Hmmm. Sigh

 

Un fortunately, Missile Range is a big feature of anything dealing with a rocket, period. For example in Arma 2, you had many kinds of rockets, guided, and non guided. The Guided rockets had ranges that varied. The one with the longest range was the Igla, reaching out at around 8-9 Kilometers. Now, in Arma 3, there's zero variety, and all Titan launchers reach out to the same limited distance to... if i had to guess, 2K, maybe less. It's odd, considering the game is set in 2035, and we get "better" weapons that erm, are worse? That's for a different topic, but anyway. Given that rockets have already been "nerfed" despite having an even bigger map, and realistically faster vehicles, it wouldn't hurt to arm a ship with Titans, or some SSM version, or SGM or SAM even. The best we could possibly get is BI getting creative and making new interesting weapon systems that function i different ways. But all in all, it doesn't have to be complicated, everything is already simplified 10 fold. It's simply, add a rocket, add an ammo count, guided or un-guided, done

 

On another note, something i didn't realize before, but it would be ideal for different kinds of boats, for example a weapons ship that can re-arm boats at sea without taking them back to port, or fuel boats, or repair ships. Or, a ship that carry supplies designed to be used with the boats. You you can ship out say a vehicle re-arm box, pull up to the ship, re-arm it, and leave. Or you know what would be more interesting? The use of RopeX with a sort of Gas Hose texture that can be attached to the ship for refueling. Just some thoughts, XD

[chortles 263]

@MistyRonin: Landing craft are certainly within the "vanilla scale" -- albeit because shore-based ATGMs could use something else to shoot at :P -- but while range has been discussed above I'm also thinking of the most appropriate way in a vanilla Arma context to simulate SSMs, TAB targeting just like ATGMs/SAMs or "map click" in the style of BI artillery and Norrköping? Similar to how I'm thinking that naval guns should be treated as BI artillery albeit with a direct fire capability (that is, action menu "artillery computer" access).

Uhm i don't entirely agree...
It seems like a pointless compromise, why don't just take some smaller vessel that works in the engine then?

That wasn't the issue, because the aforementioned Hamina- and Skjold-classes are already within previously verified A2 limits.

Agreed though re: the issue of "ships that are meant to combat each other" versus 'motherships' for smaller forces or helicopters (seeing as dr. hladik confirmed that "Aircraft carrier is awesome, but not a priority for A3" as far as BI leadership is concerned), unless the idea was essentially to simply have SSMs be treated as TAB-targeted ATGMs... thankfully, that (and 'program a location into the missile before launch') isn't unheard of either.

BTW the engine limitation is now 80x80x80m cube for collision, if linking multiple parts together through proxies was possible though this limitation would be irrelevant.

Hmph, so you and other modders verified that A3 actually had a higher limit than A2 after all? That... changes things in my estimation.

@darksidesixofficial: I'm left thinking of creating boats with an ammo/fuel/repair truck equivalent config?

[Chairborne 2594]

@MistyRonin: Landing craft are certainly within the "vanilla scale" -- albeit because shore-based ATGMs could use something else to shoot at :P -- but while range has been discussed above I'm also thinking of the most appropriate way in a vanilla Arma context to simulate SSMs, TAB targeting just like ATGMs/SAMs or "map click" in the style of BI artillery and Norrköping? Similar to how I'm thinking that naval guns should be treated as BI artillery albeit with a direct fire capability (that is, action menu "artillery computer" access).

That wasn't the issue, because the aforementioned Hamina- and Skjold-classes are already within previously verified A2 limits.

Agreed though re: the issue of "ships that are meant to combat each other" versus 'motherships' for smaller forces or helicopters (seeing as dr. hladik confirmed that "Aircraft carrier is awesome, but not a priority for A3" as far as BI leadership is concerned), unless the idea was essentially to simply have SSMs be treated as TAB-targeted ATGMs... thankfully, that (and 'program a location into the missile before launch') isn't unheard of either.

Hmph, so you and other modders verified that A3 actually had a higher limit than A2 after all? That... changes things in my estimation.

@darksidesixofficial: I'm left thinking of creating boats with an ammo/fuel/repair truck equivalent config?

No clue about other modders but i did my own tests and yes, the limit seems to be higher.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/27340919359194969/EB52590A5695203264BF1A62DF4ECDDD01F00A0C/

 

This was walkable in its entirety.

[chortles 263]

And that was a single, seamless MLOD with single-component geo/roadway/pathfinding LODs and no geometry holes?

[Chairborne 2594]

Not that i could find.

This come from a very old Arma ships package that was never finished, i stumbled upon these a lot of time ago and used them as test bed:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7o7i776q3frqelb/SIG_ships.rar?dl=0

 

(this is an edited version i made to see how they worked in A3, i'm not the original author nor this is a complete playable mod)

There are also some bigger tankers where the issue is evident, like at some point you just fall of the ship.

[chortles 263]

I was thinking of how it looked in Object Builder, i.e. no stitching.

[x3kj 1247]

72m at max if you wanna walk on it,

100m at max (to be safe) if you are not supposed to walk on it. That's where it currently stands at.

[Chairborne 2594]

I was thinking of how it looked in Object Builder, i.e. no stitching.

Looks like any regular model, the only issue is that in buldozer if you look away from it when you're distant it just disappears.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I think he looks ready for Tanoa. =D

 

Taken from the 70'th National Chinese Parade, a massive display of personal and weaponry, including some of the latest and advanced toys in the PLA's Arsenal. 

[x3kj 1247]

camouflaged seats... holy crap... run, we can't win this anymore!

[theevancat 277]

camouflaged seats... holy crap... run, we can't win this anymore!

 

Of course we can win it... They don't even have seats in their vehicles. I mean, I can't see them anywhere. How do you even drive those things?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Hahaha, well to be fair, the PLA are quite well trained. Disciplined to the max, and accuracy is first hand, at least in regards to their fire arms training. Their gear is pretty much modernized Russian tech, or upgrades thereof, except for some of the new ones are straight up Chinese made, and most of their aircraft is indigenous. I think the PLA would fit in well, mainly given the fact that i'm sick of Guerrilla forces, it's actually getting old now. A well trained enemy is more interesting, and would make Arma 3 more fun.

 

Also, besides most of their newest weaponry, their Camouflage and gear is pretty awesome,

[Hate 232]

I envision a lot of Guadacanal simulators and mods and missions for Tanoa. Long rang recon patrols, nighttime raids, taking hilltops, air duels, naval warfare. Though it's kind of odd that with all the water present around A3's islands, there are almost zero real naval assets--aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, landing ships, destroyers, etc.

[mistyronin 1181]

Hahaha, well to be fair, the PLA are quite well trained. Disciplined to the max, and accuracy is first hand, at least in regards to their fire arms training. Their gear is pretty much modernized Russian tech, or upgrades thereof, except for some of the new ones are straight up Chinese made, and most of their aircraft is indigenous.

On the training I can really say because I haven't seen much of them.

But the PLA doesn't really use Russian stuff. They mainly steal tech from different nations and make quite cool mixtures, taking advantage of the Chinese legislation on Copyrights. But is mostly all is fabricated locally.

 

I think the PLA would fit in well, mainly given the fact that i'm sick of Guerrilla forces, it's actually getting old now.

In fact the PLA is an expert in guerrilla forces. And having in mind that hybrid warfare is becoming the mainstream nowadays will be the main warfare in the future, guerrillas make sense. Just check all the "Maoist" guerrillas in the countries that surround China.

In addition, guerrilla warfare is the main kind of warfare in the jungle. You can't really use most conventional tactics in a small jungly South Pacific archipelago nowadays. Conventional war requires a lot of open space for tank battles, aerial battles, artillery etc. That's out of the scope of little islands.

- - -

And just to see how China depicts an hypotetic PLA vs an undetermined force (really similar to the US) in island conventional warfare:

[chortles 263]

I envision a lot of Guadacanal simulators and mods and missions for Tanoa. Long rang recon patrols, nighttime raids, taking hilltops, air duels, naval warfare. Though it's kind of odd that with all the water present around A3's islands, there are almost zero real naval assets--aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, landing ships, destroyers, etc.

Air duels and naval warfare is... tricky, and I wouldn't be surprised if the devs chose to leave the status quo (i.e. they haven't put time into resolving underlying issues, both technical and conceptual, with naval assets in Arma as moving ships and haven't budgeted time to solve that within the planned Q1/Q2 2016 release window), whereas "Long rang recon patrols, nighttime raids, taking hilltops" are all perfectly possible in Arma and have been for years.

But the PLA doesn't really use Russian stuff. They mainly steal tech from different nations and make quite cool mixtures, taking advantage of the Chinese legislation on Copyrights. But is mostly all is fabricated locally.

They definitely leaned on Soviet/Russian design for decades though, i.e. for some of the more famous PRC exports, and reportedly the PLA still uses Russian fighter engines because engines remain the albatross-around-the-neck of PRC aircraft R&D or production, although there are indigenous engine replacements planned for the JF-17/FC-1 (WS-13), FC-31/J-31 (ditto), and the J-20 (WS-15), and not too long ago Shenyang Aircraft Corporation may have given another go at the WS-10A for the new -D variant of their J-11 after earlier difficulties in the 2007-debuting J-11B.

In addition, guerrilla warfare is the main kind of warfare in the jungle. You can't really use most conventional tactics in a small jungly South Pacific archipelago nowadays. Conventional war requires a lot of open space for tank battles, aerial battles, artillery etc. That's out of the scope of little islands.

*cough*

Note that were you able to collapse/destroy trees/foliage then the capability gap would narrow, and indeed that's part of what you'd try to do with tanks IRL (make that open space with HE)... alternately, think past the current "main battle tank" concept to the earlier "infantry support tank" role -- as assault guns and light tanks can do -- although a modern trend has been to use wheeled armor for that purpose.

And just to see how China depicts an hypotetic PLA vs an undetermined force (really similar to the US) in island conventional warfare:

#1: No telling how much "China" was involved as opposed to a random fanboy with CGI skills.

#2: Soooo... basically achieving superiority, clearing the beach, then committing an amphibious landing? Not that far from what other maritime powers would try to do.