Food for thought, and a rant about "Context"

[p-hienz 16]

I've been playing ARMA II for a few years, When I got a new game rig, I set it up specifically for ARMA, investing heavily in RAM rather than graphics so it could handle those giant full scale battles that can often include over 3000 AI units engaged in once place. That has been what I loved about ARMA, besides the incredible detail in the models, and military tech.

 

The Scale of this game is massive, not many devs out there dare attempt something this big, and fewer ever actually achieve it. This is as much my introduction on this forum as it is about ARMA, I want to share my opinion on something that may interest some of you, and since it is an opinion, I like to explain why I believe what I am saying.

 

 

The shire size of these levels opens new horizons, literally

 

 

I'm going to state my bias right off the bat: I didn't like ARMA III when I first saw it, and I haven't warmed up to it. Its a great game, as far as sequels go, this is exactly what a sequel should be, a new and improved game. Its better in almost every possible function. But with that said, both ARMA's suffer one major short coming that to many is inconsequential but, convinced me not to buy ARMA III even after Game Spy crashed.

 

What made ARMA great to me, was the scale, being part of something bigger than a team death match. A battle with more at stake than a score on a board. A game where there are no tactical limitations, no rules dictating how many troops you have or can use, rather the game is about how you use them. In one moment, you could lose an entire company, or tank battalion. If you are smart, and really lucky, you can survive even the most unbalanced situations. It was a strategy game at the largest scale. But ARMA never could quite get it right.

 

ARMA had all the tools to wage war. It had the mechanical capabilities. The engine despite the bugs was capable of simulating full scale war. But it lacked the infrastructure required to run an army. Some of you out there may be more skilled than others at scripting, and mission editing. It is in fact a great feature of this game, that you can go under the hood and edit things to your own liking. Mods have put this game on the map. But giving players a sand box to build in, is not a compete game. The level generator is limited and buggy but most of all, it still resembles a sand box at the end. Even the best level designs I've played by other players have never come close. Some major holes have yet to be filled. Things that the original devs never added, that have not been addressed by mods.

 

This game lacks Command structure, and logistics, it lacks what I like to call "Context"

 

Let me give an example of lack of "Context"

When you play a common FPS game, the scenario is often bland and to a certain extend arbitrary do to lack of "Context", it requires you assume alot of information without explanation, and only works if you don't think about it.

 

For example here is lack of context in a COD level. Two teams face off in the streets of Paris, The local French military and the Russian invaders. That is it, that is the whole set up. That is all she wrote. Let me take a second to tear this apart, then explain how this is comparable to ARMA and why it is a problem for ARMA. First off, How did Russia get all the way across Europe to Paris, did we just skip the entire war just to get to this one spot? Second assuming they did fight as far as Paris, what makes this part of Paris worth fighting over? More generally: Why are they fighting for Paris? Lets sit in the shoes of the Commander in charge of that part of France: If the Enemy came within Artillery distance of Paris, why would the commander then lead them INTO the city itself? In WWII They surrendered Paris without a fight to spare the city from this exact scenario. And for good reason. Paris has NO Strategic value, it is only of symbolic value. Why #1: would Russia divert troops and resources to capture a city that is effectively a giant traffic jam of old roads and streets, #2: why would the French station Troops there if holding it has no affect on the outcome of the war. In reality, the battle for Paris is won or lost miles from Paris at the last line of defense outside the city, once the enemy enters the outskirts of the city, Paris is already lost.

 

 

This is why no French general would ever chose to fight in Paris

 

 

 

All that, is context. The details that provide motivation for the actions taking place. It sets the stage for what is going on, and explains why the characters in the story are doing what they are doing. COD has a story, but all the context that went into that story focuses on the Spec Ops and the conspiracy they are involved in. The War itself, is just something going on off camera. The writers didn't put any thought into what Russia would have to do to invade Europe, they ignored the implausible way Russia would have to pull millions of combat ready troops out of thin air, and then write off NATO and it's many allies as incompetent in order to give Russia chance to make it as far as France, who without any less time to prepare than Russia, are somehow completely taken off guard. Even if Russia did surge into Eastern Europe at random. The Idea they'd reach France before Europe could mobilize is laughable. Look at it from a logistic side. How is Russia going to supply their army all the way across Continental Europe? They can't drum up a NAVY in that short of time. Building ships takes months. So their NAVY would be at the same strength as everyone else's for the entire first half of this war. Even if they captured every airbase on their way to France, They'd not have the airbases ready for Russian aircraft for some time.

 

To maintain forward momentum, for every 1 combat troop in the field, you need 4 in the rear with the gear, keeping up a steady supply line. Where is that going to come from?

 

I am drastically over anylising this. The guys who wrote COD just needed a way to raise the stakes for the sake of their story. The outcome of the war was not based off realistic circumstances. They wrote what ever best fit their story., which as I said wasn't about the War, it was about a CIA agent and some nut named Makorov.

 

That is why I loved ARMA II, ARMA II isn't about Makorov, its about the War part, but it has no context. Once again, we have a place, soldiers fighting in that place, and nothing but some weak backstory tying it together. I played a scenario yesterday called "Bear Rising" it was one of the vanilla scenarios in ARMA II. Here is the story: You are a Russian Tank Commander, The Russian army is attacking CDF held ground from the North. Before I even get started, what is the objective?

 

The game awards points for capturing villages and marked objectives on the map, the AI commander assigns objectives to you and the other AI team leaders. Both the AI commanders and the marked locations are completely pointless and arbitrary. First off, how did we get all the way to the Northern Air Base? And why isn't the Airbase an objective?

 

Secondly, if they are trying to spare the airbase like Paris by circling around it, wouldn't the smarter place for the CDF to make a stand be Grozovoy Pass, North ahead of the airbase? So the CDF Are also strategically inept. But again, lets just assume there is a reason for all this, even though none is given, and look at the objectives more closely.

 

The towns marked as important seem to have no important qualities what so ever. In fact looking at the CDF front lines, I don't even know why they are holding onto those towns. Why set up your defenses in a town at the bottom of a hill? wouldn't setting up on the high ground be smarter? and why are the Russians only attacking from one side of the air strip? Are they being polite and allowing the CDF to evacuate the airbase? Everywhere I look, I see holes. The game has all the tools to wage war. But its led by a AI with downs. Don't get me started with the AI drivers. God forbid a pine cone land on the road, then they have to reset the GPS and do 5 loops to get around it. But I'm not going to dwell on the bugs.

 

If I was in charge of the Russian side, My first action would be recon. Where is the enemy supply HUBs? Then follow the roads. Occupy any towns near but not on that supply line. The enemy shouldn't put up too much resistance holding the town unless they see I'm targeting their supply lines from there. Which would be exactly what I'd do next. Establish my own lines. Once you break their lines, you just advance like a bat out of hell on their Depo.

 

This game emphasizes on taking out their HQ as the key to victory, but why? It would hurt them, it would defiantly disrupt communications. However, Officers can be replaced, so can radios. If you destroy their weapons and ammo, they can't fight back. They lose. How does destroying a forward command center prevent them from holding their line? And even forward command isn't right on the front line. You'd have to penetrate really deep to reach their forward most HQ, and by then, the command staff who are watching this whole thing unfold would probably have closed shop and fallen back. But that is whats missing from this game. They have no command staff, with enough sense to fall back. They just sit there and get destroyed. They can't fall back, the game hasn't programmed a place for them to fall back to.

 

The entire scenario is arbitrary. Its just a gun show, a little skirmish set up in a sand box so you can play with the many toys the game has in it's chest. But no war to be seen. Aside from getting points awarded on a score board, what have I accomplished by capturing this town? What did killing that rifleman laying in a random field do to advance the war effort? My actions have no affect on anything because there is no context.

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps context is not the right word, if you know a better term, please tell me.

 

When you establish a beach head, you're not just doing it so that your commander can set up his tent on some nice beach front property. Your creating a cushion ahead of the landing zone, so that the quarter masters can establish their first field depo's and start bringing in reinforcements. Why? because wars are expensive and you need alot of Stuff, to fight with. That stuff is valuable. And the enemy will destroy it to prevent you from waging war against them. The larger part of war is about allocating and defending resources. The enemy will attack them to cripple you, and if you attack the enemy resources, they will be less of a threat to you too. The tools of war are not to be taken for granted. But because of the respawn system, and how resource points are exchanged like currency gamers and game developers take them for granted too much. They must be loaded into ships, sailed to ports, unloaded, loaded onto trucks, driven to the front lines, and distributed. all the while organizers oversee every step to ensure everything is accounted for. Its a MASSIVE operation, and makes up the greater part of every army, navy and air-force. So why is it ignored? That is my problem with this game. It sets out to create the largest most epic war game ever, and falls sort of the war part. Its just an unorganized mess. a series of unrelated skirmishes happening in an nondescript alternate universe.

 

This may seem like a petty complaint. But this isn't COD, this is ARMA the most realistic war game to date. Logistics, and "Context" are part of real war. If the game doesn't take them into account, its not realistic. None of this matters when playing other lesser war games. But for ARMA to reach the next level, it needs to back itself up, with a solid and dynamic logistics network, and a command staff that can allocate troops and assign them to objectives that serve a greater purpose than just killing stuff. That is how this game will cross from being a war game to a war simulator.

 

ARMA III has all sorts of new tech, but no new organization. I see the same thing, players trying to role play as soldiers, but they have no war to fight, its like DayZ without Zombies. Its just a survival game. Whether you accomplish your objective or not never means anything. Its just an arbitrary excuse to instigate a conflict for your amusement. That may be enough for some more mindless FPS games. But this game has the potential to be more. There is only one other game I've ever seen that attempted this sort of grand scale warfare, and it DID have context:

 

It went by two names: WWII Online and Battleground Europe

 

If you want to look it up for reference, It is comparably the biggest War Sim ever made. But its old, really old, IDK if the servers are even still going. I think its nearly 15 years old now. It was a MMORPG, but not in a traditional sense. You didn't lvl up your character like in the WOW sort of way, you just progressed in rank, and got access you higher level positions, you could command larger tanks, and could pull rank on other players who valued the rank system as a means of establishing command, rather than just for bragging rights. It wasn't just a war simulator, it was a World War simulator. It was very technologically limited, but it had an AI high command that constantly analyzed the situation on the front lines, it was a real time war, meaning when you logged out, battle raged on in real time. The front lines moved miles at a time. And the logistics ruled the war. Towns that had major train hubs, or bridges weren't just mission objectives, they were campaign objectives, commanders would be plotting days in advanced, allocating reserves, and trying to plug holes in the line. if they suffered too many casualties, they'd fall back to a better position. On large open fronts, they'd purposely fall back for miles to stretch the enemy supply lines out and shrink their front line, so they could focus more men on a smaller line. Then they'd counter attack and destroy the enemy advance. But only when it served to benefit them. Crazy maneuvers like that took days, even weeks to complete. All the while the sea and air war raged in completely different locations. Affecting the war on the ground in many ways. Bombing factories and sinking supply ships from the US and UK would harm their production quotas and cause supply shortages. They were a major target for German Subs, and yes, the game had submarines. I heard people saying ARMA III has cool underwater warfare, and there has even a few projects in the works to introduce more large scale Naval operations. Submarines would be a milestone addition to the game. Full size Nuclear hunter subs, not midget subs.

 

But back to Battle Ground Europe: That game was very out dated, and suffered alot of technical short comings, the tools of war were crude, being that it was a WWII game, but the engine wasn't all that powerful either. Worst of all, it had no AI. So the fight only lasted as long as there were ample players around to fight it. Clans would organize massive assaults, were all their member's would log in at one time on a predetermined day, and the shire influx of soldiers would completely overwhelm the enemy lines. But there were many clans, and every major advance was often countered by another days or even hours later. When a battle wasn't going well, the AI command would post it on the spawn menu. Players who were logging in would be ushered to the battles where they were most needed. Parts of the line that were quiet would have no men playing on them. As soon as the enemy started to assault the location, players would flood into that part of the server to cover their post.

 

 

 

ARMA isn't big enough to simulate a full scale war across multiple continents, or even one continent like Battleground Europe. But a single campaign, in a single region as small as the Ukraine could provide weeks of combat, and it can be replayed over and over without getting repetitive. But you can't wage war on a full scale without organization and logistics

 

To get back to why I didn't buy ARMA III when it first came out: Its focused on the spec ops and makorovs. Not the war. In fact, its not even a WWIII game anymore, its about the aftermath of WWIII and the players use the editor and mods to recreate WWIII using ARMA III's new and improved mechanics. I couldn't get myself to leave Cold War Chernarus. I know WWIII isn't the newest concept. But this future warfare thing just isn't doing it for me. One major mistake the Devs made, is they were too reliant on real world military ideology and real world military equipment when they tried to make a fictional future WWIII scenario. WWIII is not the same as Afghanistan. Thus all these weapons, gear, and vehicles developed overseas today are useless in a WWIII scenario. Even the command structure. PMCs have no use in a WWIII scenario, MRABs have no use in a WWIII scenario, and I will dare to say, thought I know I will get flak: Multicam does not work in a cold war scenario. M81 was developed in the Cold war to cold war specifications. The dark color scheme and pattern were expected to be used in the dark dense forests of East Germany, and the Ukraine. On the home front, Alaska was seen as a possible invasion spot for Russia. M81 once again works well in Dark Northern woodlands. Another example of context: Alaska has a large oil reserve there, and historically first belonged to Russia before we bought it from them. Taking Alaska would give Russia a beach-head in North America that they could easily supply, and cut off a major oil supply here in N America making us more dependent on foreign oil supplies, that if cut off would starve us. The lessons learned in wars past, like mass logistics, and arctic warfare could not be applied to counter terrorism or guerrilla warfare. So we adapted. Those adaptations have no place in a traditional WWIII scenario. Its safe to assume everything we've learned in the last 20+ years, everything we've changed, would have to be reverted backwards, or revised again. I'm not saying M81 would make a comeback, but the new uniform would have to resemble it in some way. Either take multicam, and use darker woodland colors, and/ or increase the print size so the camo is effective at a longer range. Russian forces have optics, and advanced weapons. The average operating range will be near 200-300 yrds, Not street to street urban combat. That is a lesson we learned in wars of old, that has been forgotten in recent times.

 

 

Not everything from the Cold War has disappeared...

Some things are still left over from the Cold War: like these Striker APCs these are the tools the devs should be looking into more, seeing that they have the most potential in a WWIII Scenario. Not MRABs or armored Humvees. Strikers were designed to be mass produced, like the Humvee, adaptable to fit many roles from one chassis. Using parts and consumables that are common in the American Motor pool. Strikers were designed not just for performance, but with logistics in mind. Custom armored Humvees are expensive to upgrade, and very limited in their applications because all that armor still doesn't make them tanks. MRABs are even worse. But the point of this article isn't about tools of war, its about management:

 

Even command structure must change. Our commanders today work on a budget, they don't have an inexhaustible supply of men, and their objectives are 100% defense all the time. They can't just raid a village and start gunning down suspected terrorists. Fighting an organized army is different. You can go into an enemy controlled region and gun down OPFORs. And they can do the same to you. That requires a much bigger, and much different command structure. We need to start talking Divisions and Army groups, not companies or platoons. Those Divisions have their own logistics, their own HQ, their own forts, camps, and areas of operation. When they overlap, and provide assistance to other divisions, like say an Armored division working with an Infantry Division, or Coordinating Ground and close air support. You need a separate HQ that can manage both of them separately, but on the same radio network. That is alot to take in. Lemme break that down again real slow so it can sink in.

 

Divisions have their own logistics, their own HQ overseeing it all, but they get their supplies from the same place. You have an entire corps dedicated to moving supplies. And they have to work with the divisional head quarters to manage it all. Each area of operation has it's own commander and his/her staff, they must oversee all the divisions under them. They coordinate the campaign. All the intel vital to the campaign must be processed, and sent to whom it most concerns: This is too much for just the General and his closest staff. An entire dept within the Regional HQ have to handle this. This intel is taken from and sent to Divisional HQ as needed. In a completely different dept. Then you have different branches: Navy, Air, Army, Even possible, in some armies and under some situations: VDV, Marines, NASA and what ever branch of the Airforce handles that sort of thing. Satellites are not out of reach anymore. They are assets, and targets now. Don't forget Nukes; They still exist.

 

Different countries have different command networks. NATO has been working for decades to streamline and make allies more compatible. Russia is not part of that system, and has its own unique command structure. To be fair, you have to devote time to study both East and West military command structures, because the structure affects how resources are allocated, and how command is split. Which translates to different strategies used, and even has an affect on the troops on the ground. The Russian military model uses different weapon classifications and has different role descriptions. We are used to looking through a Western lens. You can't assume just because NATO has a European Command center, that Russia has the same thing or equivalent within their realm. You can't assume because the Marine Corps is separate from the NAVY, that the Russians have their Naval Infantry separated either, or that because the US Airborne are part of the Army, that Russia's VDV aren't their own separate corps. One major difference that almost doesn't need mentioning; Russia is one unified Country with one unified military. NATO is a coalition, and thus faces unique challenges that Russia does not. The US will not, and would not fight this war alone. People forget that Canada, Germany, England, and many other nations all took part in ISAF in Afghanistan. And their contribution drastically reduced the number of American lives that were needed there. Even France plays a role. Coming from a WWII background I am guilty of poking fun at the french. But Europe isn't going to sit idley by if Russia goes to war. If you do the research, you may be surprised to find that operations like Chernarus may fall under someone else's jurisdiction. We assume alot when we accept that the MEU are the ones chosen to sort out Chernarus. What if Germany or a local NATO Baltic State answered the call, and the MEU were sent elsewhere? Most NATO action I've seen has always been with the ARMY not the Marines. Its not outside the realm of possibilities that the Marines would be used along side NATO allies, but it'd make more sense for the ARMY to do it. Unless an amphibious assault was in the works.

 

Today SOCOM and EUCOM work to simplify this mess, and give spec ops more direct access to support from other branches, and even other NATO countries. But that isn't enough to wage war on a global scale. New COMs will be needed. Positions will be appointed that don't exist today. We would possible even get to see our first 5 star General raise through the ranks since WWII. That was the last time something this massive happened.

 

This is all what I call "Context" The more of it this game gets, the less like a sandbox, and more like a WAR this game will get. Its complicated to say the least. But if anyone is ambitious enough to take it on. Its a whole new level for gaming. And no game is better suited for it than ARMA. I'm not saying ARMA needs to be a bigger game, I'm asking for a bigger war. I understand that ARMA can't be as big as Battleground Europe. But that doesn't mean all the "Context" I mentioned isn't still just as applicable to this game. A single campaign, in a level as small as Chernarus is plenty of room for some really epic battles.

 

 

[bad benson 1733]

i like how planetside 2 does it. the map looks similar to the ones you showed from those other games but on a smaller scale closer to arma's.

 

http://i.stack.imgur.com/5reqF.jpg

[devilslayersbane 28]

You're very right. Not that Arma III's and Arma II's campaigns don't include some context. In the first episode of the Arma III campaign, you fight for the most strategically advantageous base on the island besides the airbase only a few missions after making your way to friendly forces. Unfortunately, it ends up being a "waste of time" due to Miller's team sabotaging the comms equipment in the base to call for reinforcements. Later, you meet up with some guerilla's in order to establish some supply lines, which ends poorly. The last mission of the same episode has you fighting for a beachhead for NATO forces to land in Agia Marina which fails due to CSAT's invasion of Stratis. In the second episode, you're called to scavenge for supplies in order to supply the FIA with fuel for their vehicles, and keep an airfield busy for NATO's actual invasion. When NATO forces take the international airfield, you're tasked with taking down enemy camps to hamper reinforcements coming from the northwest, which would end up being behind the main attack force if left unchecked. It's not that there's no context in the ArmA games, is just that you have to put it there (or play the campaign). Arma III's campaign, while limited, actually doesn't focus on Captain Miller and his UKS- sorry, CTRG team. You're a Corporal, a grunt. Only one of the few surviving members of a NATO peacekeeping force in an island nation which (as far as we know) is the closest island for CSAT to stage an invasion point to Mainland Europe. Altis' location and it's abundance of Airfields, really improve the islands overall strategic value both as a deterrent to NATO forces, and as a staging point for an invasion.

[chrisb 196]

I enjoyed most of your piece. However most all of the things you would like to see, are more than possible in this series, but you have to take the time yourself to make your 'war' gaming world, its not something that comes with the game. BI, well indeed the player made content side, supply most of what players want or need. The largest part though, is down to the player/group to set out that world and how it functions. What, where & why conflicts are taking place will need to be placed/set-out at the start.

 

The Editor is a powerful tool to use and is a little wasted on simple scenarios. However, if simple scenarios is all you have time for, or want to play, then its not wasted for that player, its ideal. But its more ideal for the grand scale warfare player. It can be used to spread across numerous terrains. But how you 'join-up' those terrains and form your world, is for the player/group to set out.

 

Open, fully militarised terrains. That is where, I believe, the series works its magic. But for that you need to think and set-out a complicated war-gaming world that suits what your looking for. If its WW2 type, then you will have to fit that into the vast amount of terrains available. After that you will need to join up your terrains.. Not easy when you want to deal with factual historic war, but more than possible to make a really good representation of it.

Along with this you will need to use a great deal of the content available to fulfil your factions and everything that goes along with that. Also a great AI setup to help you achieve it. It can be done to a reasonably good level using available ones such as GL3/4, plus some others (A2 only really). Previously for years, we used GL3&4 ( plus a few others 'mixed') for that reason, they can be set-up to feel very independent. Our current AI mod however, was built for that exact style of play 'war-gaming' with very independent AI.

 

As for the world, it needs to be joined up, which obviously differs from Battleground Europe. But there again this series is some way beyond BE, as you correctly point out. In-fact that is where this series wins out for me/us. Its the detail that can be put into the smallest skirmish, yet the large-scale battle can also be fought in as much detail. But this will have to be thought out by the player or group playing and done across as many terrains as you feel it should. It really is just a case of setting out your 'board'.

Even here in this community there was/is an 'Armaverse', although it seems its died somewhat over the last few years.

 

Many players want simple, quick, in & out type gameplay, now. There is nothing wrong with that, because it is very time consuming to set up a war-gaming world, also there are far less groups doing war-gaming now, which is a shame. But there are still communities that put the time in and play that way. Its the way to get the best from the series imo. Also you can play SP this way, it is just upto the player and the world he/she wants to make and play in.

 

But regards the type of game, we probably differ here. I/we play fictional, not historical or present day 'fact' type war-gaming. Ours is current (modern warfare) and of the day, but the factions for our war-gaming are all fictitious, as are the terrains and locations. But all terrains are connected, supply routes, assets, reasons to fight and gain ground or whatever, are there for a reason. What are its assets, why should a faction want or need to fight for those, who are the domineering factions or indeed dictatorships, plus all the other varying factions etc. What and where are the supply routes, between which ports or territories, what terrain borders another and so on. All of that needs to be setup at the start and is the foundation for your game world to progress.

 

But none of this comes with the game, a simple campaign is provided. But the strength of the game, is in the building you do within the sandbox. All of that however, is down to the player (you) to build/make.

That after all, is what a sandbox is.

__

 

Just a note regards A2 & A3.

A2 is far more geared towards war-gaming, the amount of content available is huge. It plays far more stable than A3 when using A2 terrains (obviously). Also the AI, when modded, is far better in A2 (way more). A2, I believe is simply better for that style of play.

A3 is more of crossover game, certainly for me anyway, but A3 is good at what it does though. I'm not saying you couldn't play a large war-game style game within A3. I just think that it would not be anywhere near to the same level as A2 with all its dlc's and player/group made content.

[ratszo 17]

I don't normally speak of my desire to kill all redfor --the killing is easy; the explaining is hard.

 

It's not their bug helmets, nor their panty-hose legs ..., it's their lemming ez-mode i enjoy killing.

 

How's that for wwiiol propaganda?

[froggyluv 2136]

 So your looking for believable backstory as well as realistic logistics?

 

 Not sure about the first bout have you tried the ALIVE modules? You can set up pretty much anything as an objective with varying priority and I believe there are all kinds of Logistics aspects as well though Ive never diven too deep. One bonus of Arma over those games you mentioned are the civilians as they they may be bland, but I find NOT having any really annoying and unrealistic for a war campaign game. Without them why not just Artillery the whole map...?

[Von Quest 1163]

I had face stubble by the end of that. Wow.

Agreed. Except ArmA is an open-world customizable war-game/sim. You can set it up with any story and logistics of your own. Have you looked into Armaholic yet? There are a few logistics mods available.

If you really want to see something in ArmA, you usually have to build it yourself. Which for a lot of us, is a huge part of the hobby. It's a great creative outlet.

I would love to see more cause/effect systems in place myself. Good read.

[p-hienz 16]

It's going to take ALOT of work, but I do really like the mods. I've seen a few logistic mods. I saw a few years ago someone had done some AI coding. To make them more tactically challenging. As of now, The vanilla AI just stand there and shoot at what ever bumps into them. Programming them to seek cover and move automatically based on what intel is fed to them is a HUGE step forward. It makes them more human-like, and reactionary. If they see enemies run across a field, they asses the numbers. If they outnumber them, they'll fall back to a place with more cover. If the enemy threat looks small, they may go after them. Unless of course their objective instructs them otherwise or are scripted to do something else. Back in ARMA II, which I am way more familiar with, they had to be scripted to do everything. Every attack and counter attach had to be scripted in. So you couldn't count on the enemy to just think for themselves.

 

This isn't news, computers only know what we program into them. But that lack of reaction is what kills most attempts at a Full Scale War.

 

You need a system that automatically creates simple objectives based off real time intel. Not plain scripted events. a dynamic system. I can only do little things. But the idea is to create a system that can be applied on a large scale. Take a few towns, and assign them a value based on a checklist.

 

Main Roads, rail ways, bridges, large hills, anything that is or could possibly have any future importance. Some things have importance because of their location in relation of something that more important.

 

For example, an otherwise normal hill may be ideal for defending a more obvious objective like an Air Field.

 

Making them all secondary objectives. The main objective would be made for each "group" of AI/players. More groups, more active objectives. The active objectives would simply be secure or defend the secondary locations that would have been scripted in. of varying value.

 

This has been done before. Back before the Gamespy crash I played alot of Domination on ARMA II I'm sure there are a few of them left, but I don't know the IPs. They were not dynamic though. the objectives didn't turn on or off they where just a series of random preset locations that would randomly be assigned as the main objective.

 

It was a good first step at simulating a large war. but it was all very arbitrary and fake. It lacked "Context" as I called it.

 

 

IDK how to give objectives varying value. meaning one town may be worth more than another based on a list of criteria. For example a hill might be important because it overlooks a major supply hub. If the Hub is lost or moved, the hill should lose value. Likewise. Towns in the rear that are safe from enemy attack shouldn't have a high value. But if the enemy line moves near it, it should gain value. Thus more troops will be allocated to defend it. Areas that are being attacked at that exact moment would be given the most value, and the most troops would be sent there.

 

this is where the logistics comes in.

 

Instead of having a number ticking down. it would simply be a matter of taking the town before the defenders can reinforce it.

 

Remember what I said about AI retreating when they know they are outgunned or out maned? That already exists, but what about when an objective is completely overwhelmed. The AI need to know when to throw in the towel. And when to throw in all they got. They need a system to prioritize objectives not just targets.

 

Everything I see is focused on the AI vs Player level. But no one looks at the AI/Player to Command relationship.

 

Every mission is made from scratch. This puts ALL the work on the solders of the level designer. The vanilla level generators don't take into account ANYTHING I just mentioned. What this game needs, is a new level generator. Something that level designers can plug values into and help them create larger levels. So they can focus their efforts on the "context" everyone exchanges scripts and ideas, but there is still no system in place. The vanilla ARMA is like a War themed Gary's mod. All the mods are mostly just reskins and new content. But very few mods like the AI tweaks exist. To me, the AI mod I saw years back, and the one Chrisb posted was the greatest thing I've seen. Again, it only applied on a squad level, but it was a step in the right direction. The AI took cover faster, picked out targets more logically, that bit from Chrisb where they dragged the wounded to cover. The one I saw a year ago utilized different nades, they utilized smoke to retreat. They didn't understand the concept of using the smoke to advance, but its still an improvement. IDK how the guy did it, That kind of code stuff is beyond me, all I do is mess with spawn scripts and stuff in the level editor. But its awesome. I love it cuz you need good AI to make a full scale war game. There are not enough players to fill all the positions, and in a full scale war, you have to rely on each other. Reliable AI are a must.

 

One issue I saw back in ARMA II that I'm not  sure was ever fixed was the navigation. War Needs supply. The AI drivers I remember were terrible at navigation, they could get to a spot on a map, but if as much as a pine code landed in the road, they'd waste 10 min regrouping. And setting up a convoy was a nightmare even with myself as the commander. Telling 5 trucks to move to the town over would cause a traffic jam like the witch I still find laughable today. That would need to be addressed before a full scale war could be done. AI and players need reliable Transport to replace the repawn system. As of now, player and AI just spawn at the objective or rally point. This is great for players. But logistically, material and men don't just appear at the front line. You need a transit system to at least simulate the movement of troops. Even if players still use the same spawn system. You need to make it a prerequisite that a supply truck must resupply the spawn point before it can be used.

 

What I spent most of my time talking about was the IDEA, not so much how to put it in practice. I admit this is a lot of wishful thinking and not a whole lot of useful tips. But its something I've been working towards for years, and I wanted to see what other people thought of it, or what they had for input.

 

The idea is create a series of scripts that can repeat themselves over and over and create a full war, instead of just a brief moment, or single skirmish. This gives you context as to what your running into. The events leading up the battle you join dictate the scenario, and knowing your actions have an affect on the overall outcome of the campaign give the battles more weight. Victory and defeat aren't just arbitrary values. You have a better understanding of what your doing. If you lose a whole platoon in order to capture a hill, what justifies it? was the hill important enough? Only "Context" can answer that. That will tell you whether you actually did good or not. As of now, battles play out like really drawn out death matches.

 

It makes a more natural battlefield.

[almanzo 144]

When I saw this thread I immidately thought "my god, not another one of these", but I was immidately proven wrong. And I agree with you, even though OFP kind of had it's unrealistic moments, I felt OFP Cold war crisis gave this more thought and that that was the reason it felt more genuine and real. That, and the fact that the characters themselves where nervous, afraid and actually cared about their friends. Confusion and fear was mixed in, combined with excitement and eagerness to see war, even though it was hell.

It felt like an operation, where actually taking out strategic points was the important part, where you, the player, was nothing but a cog in the wheel, no matter your role. Even if you where a Spec Op, you didn't save the world. You prepped for the regular army boys, who where doing the mayor attack the next day.

I would also point out ALIVE though, together with the closest you can get for a multiplayer experience, namely tactical battlefield. It has it flaws, sure... but in TacBF, logistics and high command is just as important as individual soldiers, squads and fire teams. I've played Tactical Battlefield as a part of squads that has been operating really tightly and done really well, but still lost or had to break due to a lack of higher command and proper support on the front lines. Even though the objectives themselves might be arbitrary, it's the only mp game mode I've played where logistics and high command actually matters in the way it does.



 

[theevancat 277]

In regards to command and control, I feel like a lot of that is lacking. I think it would have been cool to see that expanded upon as a feature. Command networks, communications, information technology, cyber countering... It's 2035, that stuff would definitely be there. Get into a network and, instead of crashing it, send out false orders that confuse AI subordinates. There's a lot more to radios and comms than most people realize... I trained at a very basic level on working radios (and then we also got the death-by-PowerPoint briefing on other various radio systems as well) that things like TFAR got pretty right and there are a lot of moving parts that could factor into a mission. All of this is something that would benefit both high-command styled missions as well as your basic squad or platoon stuff. Going back to my original scenario with the network hacking, you could be in one of those Invade & Annex missions and get an order to head to a certain area... You'd play differently if you knew that the enemy might have compromised your network and would be sending out false objectives to lure you into an ambush. You'd avoid certain terrain if you knew that your comms wouldn't work well through a giant valley instead of the side chat button doing whatever it does all the time.

 

I agree about the military technology being geared towards a more asymmetric environment, but I think that just reflects current trends... We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with a military designed to outshoot Ivan in Europe. I can guarantee that we'll go into the next war with the perfect military for ousting insurgents in the mountains of Aghanistan... I think that they should have fictionalized it a bit more, especially being all future-war. Why not bring back concepts and equipments that make a game-changing impact instead of functionally-similar vehicles that look in-place for the time period? I think they tried that with CSAT and their Landwarrior-type gear, but there was no meaningful impact on gameplay. Their HUDs didn't do anything. They just look cool.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

It's going to take ALOT of work, but I do really like the mods. I've seen a few logistic mods. I saw a few years ago someone had done some AI coding. To make them more tactically challenging. As of now, The vanilla AI just stand there and shoot at what ever bumps into them. Programming them to seek cover and move automatically based on what intel is fed to them is a HUGE step forward. It makes them more human-like, and reactionary. If they see enemies run across a field, they asses the numbers. If they outnumber them, they'll fall back to a place with more cover. If the enemy threat looks small, they may go after them. Unless of course their objective instructs them otherwise or are scripted to do something else. Back in ARMA II, which I am way more familiar with, they had to be scripted to do everything. Every attack and counter attach had to be scripted in. So you couldn't count on the enemy to just think for themselves.

 

This isn't news, computers only know what we program into them. But that lack of reaction is what kills most attempts at a Full Scale War.

 

You need a system that automatically creates simple objectives based off real time intel. Not plain scripted events. a dynamic system. I can only do little things. But the idea is to create a system that can be applied on a large scale. Take a few towns, and assign them a value based on a checklist.

 

Main Roads, rail ways, bridges, large hills, anything that is or could possibly have any future importance. Some things have importance because of their location in relation of something that more important.

 

For example, an otherwise normal hill may be ideal for defending a more obvious objective like an Air Field.

 

Making them all secondary objectives. The main objective would be made for each "group" of AI/players. More groups, more active objectives. The active objectives would simply be secure or defend the secondary locations that would have been scripted in. of varying value.

 

This has been done before. Back before the Gamespy crash I played alot of Domination on ARMA II I'm sure there are a few of them left, but I don't know the IPs. They were not dynamic though. the objectives didn't turn on or off they where just a series of random preset locations that would randomly be assigned as the main objective.

 

It was a good first step at simulating a large war. but it was all very arbitrary and fake. It lacked "Context" as I called it.

 

 

IDK how to give objectives varying value. meaning one town may be worth more than another based on a list of criteria. For example a hill might be important because it overlooks a major supply hub. If the Hub is lost or moved, the hill should lose value. Likewise. Towns in the rear that are safe from enemy attack shouldn't have a high value. But if the enemy line moves near it, it should gain value. Thus more troops will be allocated to defend it. Areas that are being attacked at that exact moment would be given the most value, and the most troops would be sent there.

 

this is where the logistics comes in.

 

Instead of having a number ticking down. it would simply be a matter of taking the town before the defenders can reinforce it.

 

Remember what I said about AI retreating when they know they are outgunned or out maned? That already exists, but what about when an objective is completely overwhelmed. The AI need to know when to throw in the towel. And when to throw in all they got. They need a system to prioritize objectives not just targets.

 

Everything I see is focused on the AI vs Player level. But no one looks at the AI/Player to Command relationship.

 

Every mission is made from scratch. This puts ALL the work on the solders of the level designer. The vanilla level generators don't take into account ANYTHING I just mentioned. What this game needs, is a new level generator. Something that level designers can plug values into and help them create larger levels. So they can focus their efforts on the "context" everyone exchanges scripts and ideas, but there is still no system in place. The vanilla ARMA is like a War themed Gary's mod. All the mods are mostly just reskins and new content. But very few mods like the AI tweaks exist. To me, the AI mod I saw years back, and the one Chrisb posted was the greatest thing I've seen. Again, it only applied on a squad level, but it was a step in the right direction. The AI took cover faster, picked out targets more logically, that bit from Chrisb where they dragged the wounded to cover. The one I saw a year ago utilized different nades, they utilized smoke to retreat. They didn't understand the concept of using the smoke to advance, but its still an improvement. IDK how the guy did it, That kind of code stuff is beyond me, all I do is mess with spawn scripts and stuff in the level editor. But its awesome. I love it cuz you need good AI to make a full scale war game. There are not enough players to fill all the positions, and in a full scale war, you have to rely on each other. Reliable AI are a must.

 

One issue I saw back in ARMA II that I'm not  sure was ever fixed was the navigation. War Needs supply. The AI drivers I remember were terrible at navigation, they could get to a spot on a map, but if as much as a pine code landed in the road, they'd waste 10 min regrouping. And setting up a convoy was a nightmare even with myself as the commander. Telling 5 trucks to move to the town over would cause a traffic jam like the witch I still find laughable today. That would need to be addressed before a full scale war could be done. AI and players need reliable Transport to replace the repawn system. As of now, player and AI just spawn at the objective or rally point. This is great for players. But logistically, material and men don't just appear at the front line. You need a transit system to at least simulate the movement of troops. Even if players still use the same spawn system. You need to make it a prerequisite that a supply truck must resupply the spawn point before it can be used.

 

What I spent most of my time talking about was the IDEA, not so much how to put it in practice. I admit this is a lot of wishful thinking and not a whole lot of useful tips. But its something I've been working towards for years, and I wanted to see what other people thought of it, or what they had for input.

 

The idea is create a series of scripts that can repeat themselves over and over and create a full war, instead of just a brief moment, or single skirmish. This gives you context as to what your running into. The events leading up the battle you join dictate the scenario, and knowing your actions have an affect on the overall outcome of the campaign give the battles more weight. Victory and defeat aren't just arbitrary values. You have a better understanding of what your doing. If you lose a whole platoon in order to capture a hill, what justifies it? was the hill important enough? Only "Context" can answer that. That will tell you whether you actually did good or not. As of now, battles play out like really drawn out death matches.

 

It makes a more natural battlefield.

 

All that fussing can be replaced by one mission curator (zeus).

 

2000 hours scripting AI to play your gamemode like that, or 2 hours teaching a few guys how to curate (zeus) your gamemode.

 

 

At the moment, there are two main issues holding back AI scripting:

 

1. Driving. Getting a wheeled vehicle from Point A to Point B intact is still a dicey prospect.

 

2. 'Sticky' combat mode. Once the AI go into combat mode, good luck with your scripted AI maneuvering goals.

 

3. You mention 'full scale war' a few times. I hope your full-scale war is done with under 100-125 AI total (all sides). Above that and you run into serious performance problems.

[p-hienz 16]

Back in ARMA II my uber  PC could handle nearly 500 units, but ARAM III, with all the extra details and scripts; you need a massive server to hold it all together, no PC can host thise. Like I said, its best to make a mini version, test it, then just apply it on a large scale. instead of 30,000 AI, just start with a few 100. Have them go about their business. Let them resupply, and roam around the map, and observe what bugs you hit. Like trucks getting stuck at the entrance of a base, cuz they don't know who has the right of way. Or supply shortages caused by the AI not being given enough trucks. It like all things would be alot of trial and error.

 

In development, you might just want to use a half duzen towns and bases. and see how the AI can handle running an operation on a small scale before renting a the star ship enterprise to host your game and having them resupply 70 locations at once. This sort of thing is too big to keep to oneself. The point of a "Full Scale War" is to be part of something bigger than a random skirmish. the final product would be hosted on a server, or even across multiple servers. Which is why you can add, Server configuration to the list of problems stopping this from happening.

 

And the final product wouldn't be a mod, but a series of mods and patches strung together and then put together like a mission, except unlike normal missions, this one would regenerate itself over and over in a cycle, or until the war is won. Meaning all possible strategic objectives are captured.

 

I'm sure just like the AI could be programmed to fight smart, they can be programmed to drive smart too. Its just a matter of finding the right guy for the job. I don't know exactly how the AI "See" but I know they aren't optical like we are. They operate on a virtual GPS, and they react to obstacles the same way a rumba vacuum does. They bump into it, and then just randomly swerve around till they find a rout around it. then they return to course. They need to react to obstructions BEFORE hitting them. And even recognize different types f obstacles. A fallen tree is a natural barrier, and can usually be avoided. Dragon's Teeth tend to be a bit more difficult to counter. If an AI truck finds a man made structure like a barricade blocking their path, they need to recognize that it was done on purpose and they are in danger.

 

Rather than just ram into it till they stumble across a hole big enough to fit through. Which can damage the truck, and get they ambushed if they are dumb enough to drive into an enemy road block.

 

Another thing AI drivers do I noticed, is they only bail out when the vehicle is completely immobilized. Worse still the crew will bail out even if parts of the vehicle AREN'T immobilized. Tank crews abandon their perfectly good Main cannon just cuz a track was busted. They need to know when to fight, and when to flea. Those are all the AI issues I foresee coming up. Good news is, unlike the boring logistics stuff, anyone can utilize improved AI crewmen. I mean who wouldn't mind having an AI driver that didn't get them killed?

 

I love being a tank gunner, but if the driver stupidly runs into a ditch, suddenly I'm dead. Or order several trucks to form a convoy to move out, and be able to do so in a timely manner.

[p-hienz 16]

The Vanilla campaigns for ARMA haven't disappointed me, yes there are some holes, and there are times when some "context" in the form of back ground info would help. But, we also have to take into account that as a grunt, you're not suppose to know EVERYTHING that is going on. So the lack of context can be forgiven, as long as the scenario is still realistic. But, one thing the Campaigns don't have is an alternative ending. You're role isn't just small, its completely inconsequential. The story is linear, the events are prewritten, and nothing you or anyone else does affects them. Even if you complete the mission, the end result is scripted. You're not fighting the war. Its a savage amusement park ride and your just trying to survive long enough to see the end of the story. Its like playing a WWII game as the Germans knowing Historically how it is all going to end. It sucks the role playing element away by making your role completely obsolete.

 

This whole "War Simulator" thing I've been harping on about is the idea of a fictional war, with no predetermined ending. A war that each time you role the dice is different. It plays like a randomly generated war, but its not random. Everything correlates. Even as the level designer, once you place the units on the board, and give them a little push, the war fights itself. But your role as a player, however small, is still vital. The intel you get as a recon mission will decides the next plan of attack. Your failure directly affects the outcome. Your success directly affects the outcome, and though you may still find yourself losing, you know its for a reason. Not just cuz the level designer said so. Even if you can't see the context working behind the iron curtains, knowing its there makes all the difference. Where as in the campaign, you rely on suspension of disbelief. You accept the CSAT invasion, cuz you don't have any reason to deny it. The writer said so, so it is. Knowing that the situation is being generated in real time however, you know that your actions DO affect it. If the CSAT invade its not a plot device, its a real invasion, with logistics, and objectives. The enemy isn't there just to greet you, they have their own plans. Its more interactive. When you stumble upon an enemy convoy, its not just scenery, that convoy is doing something. You might not know what, the "context" behind why that convoy is carrying all those troops to Gorka might not be handed to you on a silver platter. But you know there must be a reason. All thats left is, what are YOU going to do about it? Most logically, report it to Command. And then it'll probably be handed off to a larger more capable force that can take the convoy out. But even if you don't get to take out the convoy yourself, you know your actions affected the outcome of that situation. And a half hour later, when pillars of black smoke erupt from Gorka with a bang. You know you had a part in that. Its not just a scripted event.

 

That is what made Battle Ground Europe an awesome game. It wasn't just the size of the game, (Though a full scale map of Western Europe was impressive) It was knowing every enemy you took out, ever town you help capture was going towards a larger goal. Players and clans had genuine celebrations at wars end. Winning the War in Battle Ground Europe was the Gamer's equivalent to winning the Super Bowl. The server reset, and a week later, the War started again. Sometimes the war lasted for 5 months, sometimes it took 13. It sounds nuts, and it kinda is. But I for one loved it.

 

ARMA III can't become the next Battleground Europe. Not any time in the foreseeable future. Battle Ground Europe had to cut alot of corners to achieve that size and scale.That sort of Continental Warfare would require Herculean efforts to replicate to the standard ARMA III operates on. But something similar to it, on a smaller scale, is Very Possible.

[bad benson 1733]

yea arma is more of shooter with a ery large map. not really built for any of this at all. but when you said on a much smaller scale i was thinking like a mix between HETMAN, ALiVE and DAC would be great. like having the advancing of HETMAN and then have them build bases/fobs like the DAC respawn camps too and of course having everything be virtual until you actually get there like in ALiVE.

 

i think considering the horrible driving it could work to have the supply routes virtual. you could have some ambient trucks actually driving them if you get there but the route's functionality could be down to other factors like enemy presence around the road.

[p-hienz 16]

That falls under "optimization". Making the units only spawn when they meet enemy or players would take a huge load off the server. But you need a system that can keep up with them in real time. And you still need a huge server to handle the influx of units spawning in and out of existence.

 

Imagine a jet flying over enemy territory: Units would be spawning in under-neath him as he flies by, and despawning as soon as the jet leaves that area. It can be done, but it'll be hard. In AAA games, the textures and 3D models are greatly simplified when they aren't in view. This drastically reduces the amount of RAM needed to render them. The Trucks shouldn't despawn completely, but should rather be replaced with an invisible Cube that can simulate the truck's driving, without bogging down the engine or the server itself.

 

The Trucks can't despawn completely, or else it would have to respawn each time. This influx would not only cause noticeable spikes, but the AI would suddenly have to plot it's course on the spot. It would spawn stagnant, and it wouldn't even be pointed in the right direction unless you worked some incredibly complex code in to compensate for it's orientation in real time. Despawning on paper would work great, but in practice, simplicity is best.

 

Simply changing the way the vehicle is rendered would be alot easier, and more practical.

[bad benson 1733]

In AAA games, the textures and 3D models are greatly simplified when they aren't in view. This drastically reduces the amount of RAM needed to render them. The Trucks shouldn't despawn completely, but should rather be replaced with an invisible Cube that can simulate the truck's driving, without bogging down the engine or the server itself.

...

Simply changing the way the vehicle is rendered would be alot easier, and more practical.

 

arma already does that. each model has different LODs (levels of detail). and textures are being mip mapped like in any other modern (been like that for a while actually) engine, most games do that actually. seems like arma is already more complex than you think :P

"optimization" is actually the deal breaker here tbh. you can't just do a lot of stuff at the same time without clever resource management and dynamic scaling of detail in simulation much like with the visual LODs.

 

 

Imagine a jet flying over enemy territory: Units would be spawning in under-neath him as he flies by, and despawning as soon as the jet leaves that area. It can be done, but it'll be hard. In AAA games, the textures and 3D models are greatly simplified when they aren't in view. This drastically reduces the amount of RAM needed to render them. The Trucks shouldn't despawn completely, but should rather be replaced with an invisible Cube that can simulate the truck's driving, without bogging down the engine or the server itself.

 

there are, on the sqf level, more methods than just creating new units with certain properties on the fly and deleting them again. one is moving units around from outside the map. another is creating one of each unit at mission start near the camera to load all the textures into the RAM and stuff. but again. BIS, if they wanted to do this, which i'm not sure they do, could design the whole engine around all this. you should consider what the target gameplay actually is, which is what the campaign is.

 

the examples i listed are what people actually trying to partly achieve what you described came up with after testing and seeing what actually can be done with mods and considering the current engine architecture.

 

i honestly don't know if ALiVE considers supply lines but i think it would be a great feature. adding the possibility to attack a weak spot of a concentrated force instead of only being able to attack that force directly would be great.

 

are those games you had as examples doing all that in SP or MP? that makes a huge difference too since you get essentially a bot net with lots of players if you do it right :lol:

[almanzo 144]

Please delete, posted in wrong thread.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I've been playing ARMA II for a few years, When I got a new game rig, I set it up specifically for ARMA, investing heavily in RAM rather than graphics so it could handle those giant full scale battles that can often include over 3000 AI units engaged in once place. That has been what I loved about ARMA, besides the incredible detail in the models, and military tech.

 

The Scale of this game is massive, not many devs out there dare attempt something this big, and fewer ever actually achieve it. This is as much my introduction on this forum as it is about ARMA, I want to share my opinion on something that may interest some of you, and since it is an opinion, I like to explain why I believe what I am saying.

 

 

The shire size of these levels opens new horizons, literally

 

 

I'm going to state my bias right off the bat: I didn't like ARMA III when I first saw it, and I haven't warmed up to it. Its a great game, as far as sequels go, this is exactly what a sequel should be, a new and improved game. Its better in almost every possible function. But with that said, both ARMA's suffer one major short coming that to many is inconsequential but, convinced me not to buy ARMA III even after Game Spy crashed.

 

What made ARMA great to me, was the scale, being part of something bigger than a team death match. A battle with more at stake than a score on a board. A game where there are no tactical limitations, no rules dictating how many troops you have or can use, rather the game is about how you use them. In one moment, you could lose an entire company, or tank battalion. If you are smart, and really lucky, you can survive even the most unbalanced situations. It was a strategy game at the largest scale. But ARMA never could quite get it right.

 

ARMA had all the tools to wage war. It had the mechanical capabilities. The engine despite the bugs was capable of simulating full scale war. But it lacked the infrastructure required to run an army. Some of you out there may be more skilled than others at scripting, and mission editing. It is in fact a great feature of this game, that you can go under the hood and edit things to your own liking. Mods have put this game on the map. But giving players a sand box to build in, is not a compete game. The level generator is limited and buggy but most of all, it still resembles a sand box at the end. Even the best level designs I've played by other players have never come close. Some major holes have yet to be filled. Things that the original devs never added, that have not been addressed by mods.

 

This game lacks Command structure, and logistics, it lacks what I like to call "Context"

 

Let me give an example of lack of "Context"

When you play a common FPS game, the scenario is often bland and to a certain extend arbitrary do to lack of "Context", it requires you assume alot of information without explanation, and only works if you don't think about it.

 

For example here is lack of context in a COD level. Two teams face off in the streets of Paris, The local French military and the Russian invaders. That is it, that is the whole set up. That is all she wrote. Let me take a second to tear this apart, then explain how this is comparable to ARMA and why it is a problem for ARMA. First off, How did Russia get all the way across Europe to Paris, did we just skip the entire war just to get to this one spot? Second assuming they did fight as far as Paris, what makes this part of Paris worth fighting over? More generally: Why are they fighting for Paris? Lets sit in the shoes of the Commander in charge of that part of France: If the Enemy came within Artillery distance of Paris, why would the commander then lead them INTO the city itself? In WWII They surrendered Paris without a fight to spare the city from this exact scenario. And for good reason. Paris has NO Strategic value, it is only of symbolic value. Why #1: would Russia divert troops and resources to capture a city that is effectively a giant traffic jam of old roads and streets, #2: why would the French station Troops there if holding it has no affect on the outcome of the war. In reality, the battle for Paris is won or lost miles from Paris at the last line of defense outside the city, once the enemy enters the outskirts of the city, Paris is already lost.

 

 

This is why no French general would ever chose to fight in Paris

 

 

 

All that, is context. The details that provide motivation for the actions taking place. It sets the stage for what is going on, and explains why the characters in the story are doing what they are doing. COD has a story, but all the context that went into that story focuses on the Spec Ops and the conspiracy they are involved in. The War itself, is just something going on off camera. The writers didn't put any thought into what Russia would have to do to invade Europe, they ignored the implausible way Russia would have to pull millions of combat ready troops out of thin air, and then write off NATO and it's many allies as incompetent in order to give Russia chance to make it as far as France, who without any less time to prepare than Russia, are somehow completely taken off guard. Even if Russia did surge into Eastern Europe at random. The Idea they'd reach France before Europe could mobilize is laughable. Look at it from a logistic side. How is Russia going to supply their army all the way across Continental Europe? They can't drum up a NAVY in that short of time. Building ships takes months. So their NAVY would be at the same strength as everyone else's for the entire first half of this war. Even if they captured every airbase on their way to France, They'd not have the airbases ready for Russian aircraft for some time.

 

To maintain forward momentum, for every 1 combat troop in the field, you need 4 in the rear with the gear, keeping up a steady supply line. Where is that going to come from?

 

I am drastically over anylising this. The guys who wrote COD just needed a way to raise the stakes for the sake of their story. The outcome of the war was not based off realistic circumstances. They wrote what ever best fit their story., which as I said wasn't about the War, it was about a CIA agent and some nut named Makorov.

 

That is why I loved ARMA II, ARMA II isn't about Makorov, its about the War part, but it has no context. Once again, we have a place, soldiers fighting in that place, and nothing but some weak backstory tying it together. I played a scenario yesterday called "Bear Rising" it was one of the vanilla scenarios in ARMA II. Here is the story: You are a Russian Tank Commander, The Russian army is attacking CDF held ground from the North. Before I even get started, what is the objective?

 

The game awards points for capturing villages and marked objectives on the map, the AI commander assigns objectives to you and the other AI team leaders. Both the AI commanders and the marked locations are completely pointless and arbitrary. First off, how did we get all the way to the Northern Air Base? And why isn't the Airbase an objective?

 

Secondly, if they are trying to spare the airbase like Paris by circling around it, wouldn't the smarter place for the CDF to make a stand be Grozovoy Pass, North ahead of the airbase? So the CDF Are also strategically inept. But again, lets just assume there is a reason for all this, even though none is given, and look at the objectives more closely.

 

The towns marked as important seem to have no important qualities what so ever. In fact looking at the CDF front lines, I don't even know why they are holding onto those towns. Why set up your defenses in a town at the bottom of a hill? wouldn't setting up on the high ground be smarter? and why are the Russians only attacking from one side of the air strip? Are they being polite and allowing the CDF to evacuate the airbase? Everywhere I look, I see holes. The game has all the tools to wage war. But its led by a AI with downs. Don't get me started with the AI drivers. God forbid a pine cone land on the road, then they have to reset the GPS and do 5 loops to get around it. But I'm not going to dwell on the bugs.

 

If I was in charge of the Russian side, My first action would be recon. Where is the enemy supply HUBs? Then follow the roads. Occupy any towns near but not on that supply line. The enemy shouldn't put up too much resistance holding the town unless they see I'm targeting their supply lines from there. Which would be exactly what I'd do next. Establish my own lines. Once you break their lines, you just advance like a bat out of hell on their Depo.

 

This game emphasizes on taking out their HQ as the key to victory, but why? It would hurt them, it would defiantly disrupt communications. However, Officers can be replaced, so can radios. If you destroy their weapons and ammo, they can't fight back. They lose. How does destroying a forward command center prevent them from holding their line? And even forward command isn't right on the front line. You'd have to penetrate really deep to reach their forward most HQ, and by then, the command staff who are watching this whole thing unfold would probably have closed shop and fallen back. But that is whats missing from this game. They have no command staff, with enough sense to fall back. They just sit there and get destroyed. They can't fall back, the game hasn't programmed a place for them to fall back to.

 

The entire scenario is arbitrary. Its just a gun show, a little skirmish set up in a sand box so you can play with the many toys the game has in it's chest. But no war to be seen. Aside from getting points awarded on a score board, what have I accomplished by capturing this town? What did killing that rifleman laying in a random field do to advance the war effort? My actions have no affect on anything because there is no context.

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps context is not the right word, if you know a better term, please tell me.

 

When you establish a beach head, you're not just doing it so that your commander can set up his tent on some nice beach front property. Your creating a cushion ahead of the landing zone, so that the quarter masters can establish their first field depo's and start bringing in reinforcements. Why? because wars are expensive and you need alot of Stuff, to fight with. That stuff is valuable. And the enemy will destroy it to prevent you from waging war against them. The larger part of war is about allocating and defending resources. The enemy will attack them to cripple you, and if you attack the enemy resources, they will be less of a threat to you too. The tools of war are not to be taken for granted. But because of the respawn system, and how resource points are exchanged like currency gamers and game developers take them for granted too much. They must be loaded into ships, sailed to ports, unloaded, loaded onto trucks, driven to the front lines, and distributed. all the while organizers oversee every step to ensure everything is accounted for. Its a MASSIVE operation, and makes up the greater part of every army, navy and air-force. So why is it ignored? That is my problem with this game. It sets out to create the largest most epic war game ever, and falls sort of the war part. Its just an unorganized mess. a series of unrelated skirmishes happening in an nondescript alternate universe.

 

This may seem like a petty complaint. But this isn't COD, this is ARMA the most realistic war game to date. Logistics, and "Context" are part of real war. If the game doesn't take them into account, its not realistic. None of this matters when playing other lesser war games. But for ARMA to reach the next level, it needs to back itself up, with a solid and dynamic logistics network, and a command staff that can allocate troops and assign them to objectives that serve a greater purpose than just killing stuff. That is how this game will cross from being a war game to a war simulator.

 

ARMA III has all sorts of new tech, but no new organization. I see the same thing, players trying to role play as soldiers, but they have no war to fight, its like DayZ without Zombies. Its just a survival game. Whether you accomplish your objective or not never means anything. Its just an arbitrary excuse to instigate a conflict for your amusement. That may be enough for some more mindless FPS games. But this game has the potential to be more. There is only one other game I've ever seen that attempted this sort of grand scale warfare, and it DID have context:

 

It went by two names: WWII Online and Battleground Europe

 

If you want to look it up for reference, It is comparably the biggest War Sim ever made. But its old, really old, IDK if the servers are even still going. I think its nearly 15 years old now. It was a MMORPG, but not in a traditional sense. You didn't lvl up your character like in the WOW sort of way, you just progressed in rank, and got access you higher level positions, you could command larger tanks, and could pull rank on other players who valued the rank system as a means of establishing command, rather than just for bragging rights. It wasn't just a war simulator, it was a World War simulator. It was very technologically limited, but it had an AI high command that constantly analyzed the situation on the front lines, it was a real time war, meaning when you logged out, battle raged on in real time. The front lines moved miles at a time. And the logistics ruled the war. Towns that had major train hubs, or bridges weren't just mission objectives, they were campaign objectives, commanders would be plotting days in advanced, allocating reserves, and trying to plug holes in the line. if they suffered too many casualties, they'd fall back to a better position. On large open fronts, they'd purposely fall back for miles to stretch the enemy supply lines out and shrink their front line, so they could focus more men on a smaller line. Then they'd counter attack and destroy the enemy advance. But only when it served to benefit them. Crazy maneuvers like that took days, even weeks to complete. All the while the sea and air war raged in completely different locations. Affecting the war on the ground in many ways. Bombing factories and sinking supply ships from the US and UK would harm their production quotas and cause supply shortages. They were a major target for German Subs, and yes, the game had submarines. I heard people saying ARMA III has cool underwater warfare, and there has even a few projects in the works to introduce more large scale Naval operations. Submarines would be a milestone addition to the game. Full size Nuclear hunter subs, not midget subs.

 

But back to Battle Ground Europe: That game was very out dated, and suffered alot of technical short comings, the tools of war were crude, being that it was a WWII game, but the engine wasn't all that powerful either. Worst of all, it had no AI. So the fight only lasted as long as there were ample players around to fight it. Clans would organize massive assaults, were all their member's would log in at one time on a predetermined day, and the shire influx of soldiers would completely overwhelm the enemy lines. But there were many clans, and every major advance was often countered by another days or even hours later. When a battle wasn't going well, the AI command would post it on the spawn menu. Players who were logging in would be ushered to the battles where they were most needed. Parts of the line that were quiet would have no men playing on them. As soon as the enemy started to assault the location, players would flood into that part of the server to cover their post.

 

 

 

ARMA isn't big enough to simulate a full scale war across multiple continents, or even one continent like Battleground Europe. But a single campaign, in a single region as small as the Ukraine could provide weeks of combat, and it can be replayed over and over without getting repetitive. But you can't wage war on a full scale without organization and logistics

 

To get back to why I didn't buy ARMA III when it first came out: Its focused on the spec ops and makorovs. Not the war. In fact, its not even a WWIII game anymore, its about the aftermath of WWIII and the players use the editor and mods to recreate WWIII using ARMA III's new and improved mechanics. I couldn't get myself to leave Cold War Chernarus. I know WWIII isn't the newest concept. But this future warfare thing just isn't doing it for me. One major mistake the Devs made, is they were too reliant on real world military ideology and real world military equipment when they tried to make a fictional future WWIII scenario. WWIII is not the same as Afghanistan. Thus all these weapons, gear, and vehicles developed overseas today are useless in a WWIII scenario. Even the command structure. PMCs have no use in a WWIII scenario, MRABs have no use in a WWIII scenario, and I will dare to say, thought I know I will get flak: Multicam does not work in a cold war scenario. M81 was developed in the Cold war to cold war specifications. The dark color scheme and pattern were expected to be used in the dark dense forests of East Germany, and the Ukraine. On the home front, Alaska was seen as a possible invasion spot for Russia. M81 once again works well in Dark Northern woodlands. Another example of context: Alaska has a large oil reserve there, and historically first belonged to Russia before we bought it from them. Taking Alaska would give Russia a beach-head in North America that they could easily supply, and cut off a major oil supply here in N America making us more dependent on foreign oil supplies, that if cut off would starve us. The lessons learned in wars past, like mass logistics, and arctic warfare could not be applied to counter terrorism or guerrilla warfare. So we adapted. Those adaptations have no place in a traditional WWIII scenario. Its safe to assume everything we've learned in the last 20+ years, everything we've changed, would have to be reverted backwards, or revised again. I'm not saying M81 would make a comeback, but the new uniform would have to resemble it in some way. Either take multicam, and use darker woodland colors, and/ or increase the print size so the camo is effective at a longer range. Russian forces have optics, and advanced weapons. The average operating range will be near 200-300 yrds, Not street to street urban combat. That is a lesson we learned in wars of old, that has been forgotten in recent times.

 

 

Not everything from the Cold War has disappeared...

Some things are still left over from the Cold War: like these Striker APCs these are the tools the devs should be looking into more, seeing that they have the most potential in a WWIII Scenario. Not MRABs or armored Humvees. Strikers were designed to be mass produced, like the Humvee, adaptable to fit many roles from one chassis. Using parts and consumables that are common in the American Motor pool. Strikers were designed not just for performance, but with logistics in mind. Custom armored Humvees are expensive to upgrade, and very limited in their applications because all that armor still doesn't make them tanks. MRABs are even worse. But the point of this article isn't about tools of war, its about management:

 

Even command structure must change. Our commanders today work on a budget, they don't have an inexhaustible supply of men, and their objectives are 100% defense all the time. They can't just raid a village and start gunning down suspected terrorists. Fighting an organized army is different. You can go into an enemy controlled region and gun down OPFORs. And they can do the same to you. That requires a much bigger, and much different command structure. We need to start talking Divisions and Army groups, not companies or platoons. Those Divisions have their own logistics, their own HQ, their own forts, camps, and areas of operation. When they overlap, and provide assistance to other divisions, like say an Armored division working with an Infantry Division, or Coordinating Ground and close air support. You need a separate HQ that can manage both of them separately, but on the same radio network. That is alot to take in. Lemme break that down again real slow so it can sink in.

 

Divisions have their own logistics, their own HQ overseeing it all, but they get their supplies from the same place. You have an entire corps dedicated to moving supplies. And they have to work with the divisional head quarters to manage it all. Each area of operation has it's own commander and his/her staff, they must oversee all the divisions under them. They coordinate the campaign. All the intel vital to the campaign must be processed, and sent to whom it most concerns: This is too much for just the General and his closest staff. An entire dept within the Regional HQ have to handle this. This intel is taken from and sent to Divisional HQ as needed. In a completely different dept. Then you have different branches: Navy, Air, Army, Even possible, in some armies and under some situations: VDV, Marines, NASA and what ever branch of the Airforce handles that sort of thing. Satellites are not out of reach anymore. They are assets, and targets now. Don't forget Nukes; They still exist.

 

Different countries have different command networks. NATO has been working for decades to streamline and make allies more compatible. Russia is not part of that system, and has its own unique command structure. To be fair, you have to devote time to study both East and West military command structures, because the structure affects how resources are allocated, and how command is split. Which translates to different strategies used, and even has an affect on the troops on the ground. The Russian military model uses different weapon classifications and has different role descriptions. We are used to looking through a Western lens. You can't assume just because NATO has a European Command center, that Russia has the same thing or equivalent within their realm. You can't assume because the Marine Corps is separate from the NAVY, that the Russians have their Naval Infantry separated either, or that because the US Airborne are part of the Army, that Russia's VDV aren't their own separate corps. One major difference that almost doesn't need mentioning; Russia is one unified Country with one unified military. NATO is a coalition, and thus faces unique challenges that Russia does not. The US will not, and would not fight this war alone. People forget that Canada, Germany, England, and many other nations all took part in ISAF in Afghanistan. And their contribution drastically reduced the number of American lives that were needed there. Even France plays a role. Coming from a WWII background I am guilty of poking fun at the french. But Europe isn't going to sit idley by if Russia goes to war. If you do the research, you may be surprised to find that operations like Chernarus may fall under someone else's jurisdiction. We assume alot when we accept that the MEU are the ones chosen to sort out Chernarus. What if Germany or a local NATO Baltic State answered the call, and the MEU were sent elsewhere? Most NATO action I've seen has always been with the ARMY not the Marines. Its not outside the realm of possibilities that the Marines would be used along side NATO allies, but it'd make more sense for the ARMY to do it. Unless an amphibious assault was in the works.

 

Today SOCOM and EUCOM work to simplify this mess, and give spec ops more direct access to support from other branches, and even other NATO countries. But that isn't enough to wage war on a global scale. New COMs will be needed. Positions will be appointed that don't exist today. We would possible even get to see our first 5 star General raise through the ranks since WWII. That was the last time something this massive happened.

 

This is all what I call "Context" The more of it this game gets, the less like a sandbox, and more like a WAR this game will get. Its complicated to say the least. But if anyone is ambitious enough to take it on. Its a whole new level for gaming. And no game is better suited for it than ARMA. I'm not saying ARMA needs to be a bigger game, I'm asking for a bigger war. I understand that ARMA can't be as big as Battleground Europe. But that doesn't mean all the "Context" I mentioned isn't still just as applicable to this game. A single campaign, in a level as small as Chernarus is plenty of room for some really epic battles.

Erm... Arma III has very decent context, as apposed to most AAA titles. However, there are some things missing. Though to request Cold War Era tech isn't really feasible, as most of it's been replaced, or will be replaced by the the time Armaverse' 2035 era comes around. Look around in real life. I don't see the US army using the Stryker by 2035. They just now replaced Humvee's, with the L-ATV, yet people are still begging for the "good ol' Humvee n' M-4's". Come on now, in the context of Arma, 2035 is NOT "Future". It's Modern.

 

The story line is much more brought up than other titles, well played out in some respect, while some key features however, are missing, and it's really up to BI to fill these holes. They sort of did that with the Boot-camp update, giving a mini story line before the actual Campaign kicks off, which by the way, was an amazing little introduction. Though, the things that are best yet to be revealed, is the British Navy involvement in which Miller gravitates, how the Army got onto two islands in the Mediterranean, and a few other Logistical issues. Why an island nation has no ships... CSAT however, is a bit more believable, they have vast resources, from China, from Export Russia. They flew up from the North East Mediterranean, and during the Blitz of the Republic of Altis, they likely inserted massive amounts of Para-Soldiers. Of course though, the story is more detailed than that, i can barley remember most of it off the bat.

 

Though i do agree, the parts that are missing, i really do hope all of that shows up. weather it be sooner, later, the Expansion, it's something that needs to be explained.

 

Also, i played Battleground Europe. The reason i liked it was because i flew all the way to Belgium from a French base somewhere South. Then got into engagements with some BF-109's, and died. Lol, story short, i didn't have much experience in the game, so spent more time flying tricks and dodging than actually fighting back. The experience from that game is interesting because it's a REAL scale battlefield of Europe, which is insane, but the mechanics and Graphics aren't as good as Arma's. Arma has it's own great advantages, it's a different game. This is the divide in which functionality of one game is never going to match the other. Maybe one day we'll get Ultra Computers that are affordable and capable of developing Arma 6 with a server capable of having Thousands upon thousands of players on a server at once, fighting with Modern Tech. Of course, at that time, we'd probably be using Modern Battleships with long range Rail-guns and more Electronic warfare type systems with very few smart armies on the ground.

 

But the Context of Arma right now, is good, it just needs to be great. It needs a few more special treatments to make it a "finished" product, however, the time we have left for BI's support to the game, is slowly fading away. The Expansion is confirmed to be the last known update. After that, it may be all she wrote. Though there are a few more important things i would love to see in Arma 3 before the end of her development, like View distance enhancements, so that only weather effects view distance instead of having a large grey-blue imaginary fog wall limiting you to 1-2K of visibility. A logistical overhaul, so that we don't need mods and scripts to move things around in game, such as transportation of crates, supplies like Fuel Barrels, Vehicle Ammo Box's, and other stuff that is unable, or unnecessary to use a helicopter to lift. Important things like maybe Sub-Pixel rendering, and visual optimizations that look good, and function well. Ai improvements that make them more human like, and not detect you from behind 2 walls just because you spun your character 30 degrees, and the AI heard you without you even taking a step. Light not passing through buildings, a working Fixed Wing flight model, and working targeting systems instead of just fancy lines on the HUD that appear realistic. And maybe better particle effects, and Audio advances, which without doubt, anyone who played Arma would agree, the sound is the worst thing about the game, and has been since OFP.

 

Maybe once a few of those things are fleshed out, it should start taking shape, the context, would become more clear. Instead of NATO just being on an island, would it become clear they had supplies moved there by logistical assets first, so on, so fourth.

[p-hienz 16]

Erm... Arma III has very decent context, as apposed to most AAA titles. However, there are some things missing. Though to request Cold War Era tech isn't really feasible, as most of it's been replaced, or will be replaced by the the time Armaverse' 2035 era comes around. Look around in real life. I don't see the US army using the Stryker by 2035. They just now replaced Humvee's, with the L-ATV, yet people are still begging for the "good ol' Humvee n' M-4's". Come on now, in the context of Arma, 2035 is NOT "Future". It's Modern.

 

The story line is much more brought up than other titles, well played out in some respect, while some key features however, are missing, and it's really up to BI to fill these holes. They sort of did that with the Boot-camp update, giving a mini story line before the actual Campaign kicks off, which by the way, was an amazing little introduction. Though, the things that are best yet to be revealed, is the British Navy involvement in which Miller gravitates, how the Army got onto two islands in the Mediterranean, and a few other Logistical issues. Why an island nation has no ships... CSAT however, is a bit more believable, they have vast resources, from China, from Export Russia. They flew up from the North East Mediterranean, and during the Blitz of the Republic of Altis, they likely inserted massive amounts of Para-Soldiers. Of course though, the story is more detailed than that, i can barley remember most of it off the bat.

 

Though i do agree, the parts that are missing, i really do hope all of that shows up. weather it be sooner, later, the Expansion, it's something that needs to be explained.

 

Also, i played Battleground Europe. The reason i liked it was because i flew all the way to Belgium from a French base somewhere South. Then got into engagements with some BF-109's, and died. Lol, story short, i didn't have much experience in the game, so spent more time flying tricks and dodging than actually fighting back. The experience from that game is interesting because it's a REAL scale battlefield of Europe, which is insane, but the mechanics and Graphics aren't as good as Arma's. Arma has it's own great advantages, it's a different game. This is the divide in which functionality of one game is never going to match the other. Maybe one day we'll get Ultra Computers that are affordable and capable of developing Arma 6 with a server capable of having Thousands upon thousands of players on a server at once, fighting with Modern Tech. Of course, at that time, we'd probably be using Modern Battleships with long range Rail-guns and more Electronic warfare type systems with very few smart armies on the ground.

 

But the Context of Arma right now, is good, it just needs to be great. It needs a few more special treatments to make it a "finished" product, however, the time we have left for BI's support to the game, is slowly fading away. The Expansion is confirmed to be the last known update. After that, it may be all she wrote. Though there are a few more important things i would love to see in Arma 3 before the end of her development, like View distance enhancements, so that only weather effects view distance instead of having a large grey-blue imaginary fog wall limiting you to 1-2K of visibility. A logistical overhaul, so that we don't need mods and scripts to move things around in game, such as transportation of crates, supplies like Fuel Barrels, Vehicle Ammo Box's, and other stuff that is unable, or unnecessary to use a helicopter to lift. Important things like maybe Sub-Pixel rendering, and visual optimizations that look good, and function well. Ai improvements that make them more human like, and not detect you from behind 2 walls just because you spun your character 30 degrees, and the AI heard you without you even taking a step. Light not passing through buildings, a working Fixed Wing flight model, and working targeting systems instead of just fancy lines on the HUD that appear realistic. And maybe better particle effects, and Audio advances, which without doubt, anyone who played Arma would agree, the sound is the worst thing about the game, and has been since OFP.

 

Maybe once a few of those things are fleshed out, it should start taking shape, the context, would become more clear. Instead of NATO just being on an island, would it become clear they had supplies moved there by logistical assets first, so on, so fourth.

1.) I'm not talking about physics, or dynamic lighting, I'm talking about the perimeters by which the game operates: Dynamic Mission objectives that change along with current events in game. Logistics that give you a firmer grasp on what you have available to work with.

 

2.) I'm talking about recreating a Fictional WORLD WAR Scenario, not another boring "Combat Operation"

 

 

I already explained. NOTHING, the US military has deployed to the middle east has any application in a WWIII scenario. The B52 has been in service since the 1950s, and isn't slated to be taken out of service for a long time. The L-ATV is absolutely worthless. Its an armored car, Literally, nothing more. It's logistical abilities are that of a taxi cab. Its tactical application in Battle is pretty much as a taxi cab as well. Humvee's are not front line vehicles. They are light transports. MTVRs and M939s are medium transports and then you got your big ass 8 wheelers, and specialty transports.

 

The MRAB, L-ATV, are all just 1 time solutions to a temporary problem. Fighting a war where there is no front line, just a big grey area. I guarantee if you Give a developed country's army a "grey area" to fight in, they'll be chasing your PMCs all the way to the sea. I'm talking about WWIII a REAL WAR. Not peace keeping in Nigeria.

 

I explained in the beginning of this LONG thread what I meant by "Context". Your talking about context from a narrative sense, which is how it is traditionally used. I understand how you'd come to that conclusion, But I'm referring to Tactical and logistical Context. Information vital to deciding the next course of action. ARMA the game is just a story with some interact-able scenes. The thing people love about ARMA is that once you play the campaign you can make your own missions. But no one knows how to work "Context" in the form of tactics and logistics into their scenarios. So they just play out like a really dull version of Battlefield.

 

Its a sand box game, with no structure.

 

The ARMA III Campaign is good, and it fits the theme of this game. But compared to the WWIII scenario in old Cold War Chernarus, ARMA III is tiny. Fighting Russia is a war: Fighting the Takistani National Guard or some disgruntled mountain men isn't really a "WAR" its just another "Combat Operation" if your trying to simulate literally walking through a park, and then an IED exploding, ARMA as it stands is capable of that. But ARMA Never quite captured WWIII as effectively as it did Arrow Head.

 

I believe it was do to the lack of Logistics and Tactics. Those are an essential part of War time Operations. The reason I have been brutally beating on the MRAB and modern military ideology is that people keep forgetting that all this modern tech is designed for combating Takistanies and Islamic militants. And has never been tested against a REAL military force. Lead by competent leaders, or a well trained/ organized troops. When was the last time US service men had to worry about Enemy aircraft? when was the last time US servicemen had to worry that the gun on their tank wasn't big enough? When was the last time We lost an Aircraft Carrier to enemy action? When was the last time we had a Draft and America had to send their sons and fathers to fight on foreign soil? There has only been one war in American history, and in the history of the world that raised the stakes that high.

 

I don't meant to belittle the ISAF or Operation Desert Storm, but give credit where credit is due. Our great grandparents earned the title "Greatest Generation". I'd almost find it laughable if it wasn't so serious. When someone compares Afghanistan or Iraq to Vietnam. OR when they said Vietnam was the worst war in US history. I scoff.

 

"In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields."

 

I needn't explain that poem, you all know it, you know what it's significance is. You all know what REAL WAR is. I'm just reminding yall cuz some of you mistake war with building bridges for the UN or something. I call the "War in Iraq" a war cuz people died, and that deserves credit. "Our quarrel with the foe" isn't insignificant today just cuz we didn't sacrifice 100,000 troops last year.. But Afghanistan ain't WWIII, is what I'm saying. If you think IEDs are our greatest worry in a WWIII scinario, you obviously don't know what a real WAR is really capable of

 

I don't mean to completely ruin the fun of this, I know its just a game, and this sort of dark gloom kinda takes the fun out of virtually murdering one another. But Once you learn about REAL Wars, you learn some things change, some things don't. Technology changes, but war is the same. When and if the time comes, those fancy armored cars won't win the war. History has proven its quantity over quality. Humvees may be obsolete, but the concept isn't. A simple, utilitarian design, that can adapt to any situation, that can be mass produced and utilized to fill any role. That was the idea behind the striker too. I'm not saying these vehicles will never go out of style, but their replacement must do everything they do and more. L-ATVs and MRABs can't replace Strikers and Humvees, they fail at every hurtle.

 

There is only one thing L-ATVs and MRABs can do that humvee's can, only one reason why they exist: They can survive an IED. Let me clarify something, I never saw combat, I never even served. I know there are worse things in this world than IEDs. You don't need that big of an imagination to see it. IEDs are just really shitty land mines. What makes them so terrible and EODs can't rely on a manual to disarm them, each one is unique and many are faultily wired. Each one is a death trap not just for the Soldiers who cross paths with it but the Engineers who have to disarm them. They are unpredictable. But we're not talking about IEDs anymore.

 

This article is about simulating WWIII. Or at least, a microcosm of WWIII since ARMA III Can't handle the same burden as Battle Ground Europe.

IEDs are dangerous to the person laying them as well as the target. Organized armies use reliable standard mines for territory denial. Not just for killing stuff. They are methodical, they are thoughtful. To get away from Flander's field and get back to the game: They are a challenge to combat. Compared to the Russian or Chinese Army, ISIS is just a little rat. I'd put North Korea above ISIS, simply because N Korea has China backing them. Granted, as they stand N Korea would probably fall as easily as Saddam's regime. But with China protecting them, its not that easy. Stop thinking about IEDs and start thinking about how you're going to get 30,000 combat troops into the Ukraine during a World War. Consider that the enemy can reach out and touch us in ways a hijacked civilian air-liner cannot.

 

Its fictional, but its still scary to put yourself in that situation. Just to think about it, In a way its kinda healthy though. To remember how much we take our situation for granted.

 

AGH, see what ya did, you made me get all philosophical about World Wars, now I'm too depressed to talk about video games any more.

[chrisb 196]

Not sure myself, probably not really.

 

But to anyone that wants to re-begin, or just begin. Looks like they want to get it back up there.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=P3-FAT4_GQQ

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

The L-ATV is absolutely worthless. Its an armored car, Literally, nothing more.

Erm... So is the Humvee... not sure if you realized that or not. The L-ATV is just more preferred, tested concluded the design was better than the Humvee.

 

 

 

Why go with Oshkosh? Think back to 2006-7 and you'll remember that American Army soldiers and Marines were getting clobbered by improvised explosive devices in Iraq. In fact, IEDs accounted for 60 percent of American casualties. The situation was so dire that units were bolting steel plates to their Humvees for protection. That led to the development of heavy Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, which worked well in Iraq but not in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. There, the Pentagon's solution was the lighter M -ATV or MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle built by Oshkosh Defense.

 

Which led to...

 

 

 

But the Army and Marines needed a lighter vehicle still—something that could go where a Humvee could go, but with the kind of protection offered by an MRAP or M-ATV. Those were the requirements of the JLTV program, which this week selected Oshkosh's L-ATV  over offerings from AM General and defense titan Lockheed Martin.

 

And there you have it. So to say the L-ATV is crap, is mere Opinion.

 

Secondly, you also said...

 

 

 

The MRAB, L-ATV, are all just 1 time solutions to a temporary problem. Fighting a war where there is no front line, just a big grey area. I guarantee if you Give a developed country's army a "grey area" to fight in, they'll be chasing your PMCs all the way to the sea. I'm talking about WWIII a REAL WAR. Not peace keeping in Nigeria.

 

vehicles like the L-ATV, and even the M-ATV, would be very important front line vehicles. Imagine having to transport certain personal and light supplies, fast very close just behind front line positions. You need a fast, but armored vehicle that's got room. A reason why the L-ATV came about was a request of the USMC, and let me tell you, the USMC does not fight petty battles. Anyhow though...

 

Let's see how the expansion turns out. perhaps this context of a war theater, and not a single conflict may pan out more... Which by the way, i was impressed about the East Wind Campaign, it was detailed and believable enough, but the ending left me wanting moer.

[the_noob 88]

Props for mentioning WWII Online, that game was doing things thought not possible in it's time and it's still pretty impressive to this day. But I don't think ArmA will head into the MMO direction anytime soon, the MP code and engine is not optimized for large-scale battles at this point. But as advancements in VBS show us, nothing can be ruled out.

[theevancat 277]

vehicles like the L-ATV, and even the M-ATV, would be very important front line vehicles. Imagine having to transport certain personal and light supplies, fast very close just behind front line positions. You need a fast, but armored vehicle that's got room. A reason why the L-ATV came about was a request of the USMC, and let me tell you, the USMC does not fight petty battles. Anyhow though...

 

Honestly, they should've had something like this in A3.  It'd make sense... You need a platform that you can slap stuff on all quick-like so you can have an ambulance, a flatbed, a mobile antenna... Anything you need. The Hunter would be more for heavier-duty stuff and would work in concert with the smaller, more vulnerable vehicle while still maintaining somewhat of a logistics and training commonality (it's probably easier to learn to drive a MATV if you know how to drive a LATV if they have similar characteristics.) Besides, the LATV is supposed to be scalable... You don't need a ton of armor while tooling around Ft. Dead General, USA.

 

I mean, they should've had a lot of stuff in A3. But MRAPs as the main vehicle for everything didn't really make sense. I'd be here all day if I wanted to throw my wishlist around!

[chortles 263]

I mean, they should've had a lot of stuff in A3. But MRAPs as the main vehicle for everything didn't really make sense. I'd be here all day if I wanted to throw my wishlist around!

As previously mentioned, the M-ATV is the basis for the Hunter so it's understandable if Bohemia's designers didn't look at (much less incorporate) the L-ATV's capabilities -- but the lack of a lighter military vehicle beyond the quadbike, I believe that that omission (by Arma 3's designers) parallels a real-life souring in the US on the idea of a vehicle so lightly armored (or not) as the Humvee, hence the protection-level requirements in the JLTV procurement.

[anton_st 1]

Personally after playing ArmA for a couple years I find it's nice to have one game that the devs didn't spend too much time creating their story/campaign/plot. I almost wish BI didn't spend any time attempting a campaign since it just never feels like a full mission/campaign no matter how hard they try because the community make such awesome content (damn you super awesome community!). I do wish there was more structure to the parts of the game to be able to make a better large scale war type mission.

I say it's nice to have one game like this since it wouldn't work for most games. I find ArmA is created by really bright people that normally stick to solving really hard problems and creating a tool for their customers to expand and modify. Yes it's a mil sim in it's core but it's also a pretty good 'anything simulator' because the devs spend most of their time creating a plausible world with plausible physics in plausible locations ...and not much context, as you clearly point out.

I would LOVE more context and logistics as well as personal attributes for AI / Players to be added by BI, I think we have all the tools to make a great war with all the bells and whistles, I just think it may be up to the community to create a type of mod that would allow more automation to easily add an actual reason for everything we see and do and results/consequences to our actions.

IMO the ArmA formula that allows the community to mod all the content is a great reason to add context to all the items and units in the game. Couldn't agree more. On the other hand I feel the campaign & BI created scenarios are unplayable compared to the awesome community made content. They should think of getting the community to create their next campaign instead of doing it themselves. All just imo :)