Arma 3 - APEX - NEWS and SPECULATIONS

[teabagginpeople 398]

I liked the heli and marksman dlc. I'd have liked a dlc with new weapons and new helis.

They didn't do that. Instead They gave some new weapons. and 2 3 helis but alot of new features that someone who flys helis alot would love more. same with weapons deployment.everyone could enjoy these new features . And frankly I was happier with this strategy than just some more weapons and more helis.

They gave zeus vr and eden for nothing. That shit didn't just drop out of thin air? It's hard work. Same with new sound overhaul which is benefiting players this next release and sound modders too.

With all the above I don't know why people still doubting what ever strategy bis has for apex. More features and more assets with a new island (free graphics enhancements for everyone yayy? Wait no these are bad things?)

I'd like to see transport for the tanks via air vtol and sea who knows if they can pull that off but heres hoping . for 23 euro as it is now. When put in the context of the world of gaming as it is today with gready dlc prices. I'm not fussed.

Ps Thread has derailed a tad. Anyone got any news?

[graemeshute 218]

@graemeshute

Using OFP Red Hammer and Arma 2: Op Arrowhead as the BIS models of expansions, there will be a fair amount of military content and civilian assets (not to mention new campaign, showcases and Tanoa itself!), not just "fluff" as you seem to think. With the DLCs for Arma 3, the game is vastly different. I can't remember the last time I was prone and didn't deploy or played with the normal flight model. The issue is this, if they cut back on stuff compared to previous expansions what would you then say. That that is fine? That developing for ArmA 2 was easier then ArmA 3 there for do not expect much?

Because ArmA 3 features FFV and Advanced flight model thats fine we can over look content. Would you pay for a Shader tweak and a sound tweak? These are cherries on the top of the entire experience. The fluff is thinking people want a rubber duck when in reality we want armed military boats. Yes for mission makers they maybe want female civilans and more civialn cars and huts. But again would you be happy with just civilian stuff? The very nature of the game is a Milsim sandbox. Not Sims. You also allude to past features. They gave you 7 new weapons with Bipods and the ability to use that. Imagine just a DLC called DLC Bipod. And you get 3 Bipods-thats that. Again would you be happy with a small feature coupled to one piece of kit that support its. Advanced parachute HALO pack. With awesome parachute functionality and one parachute.

I expect all of those things from an expansion. I would however like BIS to push their usual envelope though, so either better civilian presence/ interaction, a better storyline (like why CSAT are bad, basic background!), women, naval assets. Perhaps more interactive foliage if we're in the jungle? We all hope for a comprehensive Expansion. I am not blind to that fact. But what would you like a unarmed rubber duck or a Armed Gun boat? I am not talking about the current Gun boat.

[graemeshute 218]

As this topic is going into a wish list, I'd like to say naval fights improvements, which include more boats, best submarine visuals, more assets for divers...

Additionally, a military transport aircraft would be nice if VTOLs can't handle that purpose, and overhaul new variants of existing vehicles, or new vehicles of each class. I don't see which new weapons they could add.

 

 

Out of assets, what features are announced for now ?

I think we are more debating (speculating) what would work best here...I do realise not everything you like every one does like. But that is so crucial to do market analysis. I just wish the Devs said more here even if its to tell us we are all wrong.

 

But I agree its very water centric it would be a missed opportunity to not play/ utilise that premise. Perhaps Misty will humor me with high poly LAV or as he wants a armed bicycle LOL

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/4/47/DF_506.jpg/600px-DF_506.jpg There is an idea Misty the old Chuck Norris Delta Force death machine. Action Menu Delta Force 1 theme song.

[Callsign 128]

TL; DR.... etc.    '...if they cut back on stuff...'

 

Seeing as BIS haven't provided any details as to the size of the Apex expansion, all we have to go on is those previously released. Since it doesn't look like you were around when they came out (no insult intended) I think you should go and have a look and see the asset and feature lists that OFP Red Hammer and Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead provided. Any further speculation is just reified irrelevance until BIS provides some details.

[papanowel 120]

Since it doesn't look like you were around when they came out (no insult intended) I think you should go and have a look and see the asset and feature lists that OFP Red Hammer and Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead provided. Any further speculation is just reified irrelevance until BIS provides some details.

You meant Resistance, Red Hammer was made by Codemaster and it was just a campaign.

 

Bis has always made good expansion. 

[Wiki 1558]

Red Hammer was quite a good one though.

I hope they'll make a good campaign and nice showcases.

And please, not (again) guerilla warfare only...

[chortles 263]

Out of assets, what features are announced for now ?

None, though admittedly that doesn't surprise me when Apex isn't a narrowly themed DLC the way that Helicopters and Marksmen were... geometric occlusion's finally a thing (if years behind other engines) but are you really going to try to sell Apex with that the way Helicopters was sold on the basis of AFM/FFV/sling-loading?

 

Similarly I can't think of a corresponding feature for the LSVs to be designed around but also to be brought to the existing ground vehicles -- the LSVs are too light for what a hypothetical Armor DLC might imply, while having both mounted weapon and FFV options is nice but not something new to the engine -- and the... not-really-priority shown towards fixed-wing leaves me with low expectations re: the VTOL, although I imagine that if it were large enough in-game the story could claim that it was actually the Armaverse's C-130 replacement... but that's not a features thing at all.

 

At least we can add this to the confirmations: there's a Blue Pearl Industrial Port (where in Tanoa is not confirmed, maybe the harbor/red structures seen in the Tanoa reveal trailer?) and the co-op campaign supports 1 to 4 players.

[graemeshute 218]

None, though admittedly that doesn't surprise me when Apex isn't a narrowly themed DLC the way that Helicopters and Marksmen were... geometric occlusion's finally a thing (if years behind other engines) but are you really going to try to sell Apex with that the way Helicopters was sold on the basis of AFM/FFV/sling-loading?

 

Similarly I can't think of a corresponding feature for the LSVs to be designed around but also to be brought to the existing ground vehicles -- the LSVs are too light for what a hypothetical Armor DLC might imply, while having both mounted weapon and FFV options is nice but not something new to the engine -- and the... not-really-priority shown towards fixed-wing leaves me with low expectations re: the VTOL, although I imagine that if it were large enough in-game the story could claim that it was actually the Armaverse's C-130 replacement... but that's not a features thing at all.

 

At least we can add this to the confirmations: there's a Blue Pearl Industrial Port (where in Tanoa is not confirmed, maybe the harbor/red structures seen in the Tanoa reveal trailer?) and the co-op campaign supports 1 to 4 players.

The name Blue Pearl would be a new reveal. But the harbor was briefly seen in the Tanoa reveal trailer. It may have been a placeholder or it was in fact a final model(s)-the cranes and containers etc. Its hard to know when the "Twitter" pic was taken since it may be from months ago only uploaded now or them just taking a pic with old work as they pour over Tanoa for any issues.

 

I am seriously considering making a BIS ArmA 3 cake and taking a few pics or making some sorta funny You Tube video to cajole the Devs into maybe a secret or two. I have tweeted to Petr asking if they cant say anything can he at least say when they can say something. I figure a no one like me wont elicit a reply. But perhaps a industry recognized Modder can get a reply.

[graemeshute 218]

Okay news from the Top. The BIS team are busy putting EDen to bed. Everything is geared towards that now. You can after that likely expect news on Apex.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Here is more context if Dice did Battlefield 5 and the rest of their DLC's were civilian packs...cars boats helicopters. Would they sell? I doubt it because it doesn't support its premise. Blowing Sh!t up!

 

Lastly if they are banking on the confirmed stuff...I wouldn't call this a major expansion. I would call it a DLC. And not some cool name like Apex. I would call it The Tanoan DLC.

So basically Battlefield Hardline. Lmao, which in fact, sold.

Anyhow though. We still don't know. Bohemia Interactive have always stated that the Expansion would be exactly that, a major expansion on the platform that already exists that is Arma 3. They also maintain a stature of "Under Promise, Over Deliver", which in any case I would hope to believe that means if they say the Expansion is supposed to be a major expansion, then that means... It's going to be a major expansion. But, we will truly see come Q2. If they keep their word and pull through, on time... I'll be blown away.

[graemeshute 218]

So basically Battlefield Hardline. Lmao, which in fact, sold.

Anyhow though. We still don't know. Bohemia Interactive have always stated that the Expansion would be exactly that, a major expansion on the platform that already exists that is Arma 3. They also maintain a stature of "Under Promise, Over Deliver", which in any case I would hope to believe that means if they say the Expansion is supposed to be a major expansion, then that means... It's going to be a major expansion. But, we will truly see come Q2. If they keep their word and pull through, on time... I'll be blown away.

But at its core its still shooting just with different skins. I was going to add to my argument yes some will say but what about Hardline. But my point is Dice makes FPS shooty games. If they did a truck simulator under the BF name there would be a collective sh!t storm.

 

If you go back to this page https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/165834-next-dlc-and-expansion-speculation/

 

All the answers are there what we will get. That is if they stick with the story established in vanilla ArmA 3.

 

So it will either be North Korea or China-part of CSAT. An Asiatic force. Already Asian heads in Game.

US Marines. The modern "Osprey" VTOL shown. That is a Marine system.

Likely Japan as Independent or a Tanoa independent guerrilla faction versus another Tanoa Government funded force. Maybe sympathetic to CSAT. Ties to the East and West is mentioned on the page above.

 

There is some post online of a BIS animator who said he is tweaking animation speeds for a AK and M4.

 

There is also a video doing its rounds on You Tube where the guy says the US marines will likely run with black MX weapons.

 

Further left over Woodland M88 camo in Vanilla ArmA 3. Which can be used on a rag tag guerrilla faction.

 

The US Marines have basically a few need vehicles.

Osprey as air transport.

Amtrac light APC

LAV heavily armed APC or unless they do Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

Maybe if you picky a Abrams

 

LSV isn't a Marine tight Vehicle. But this is likely some artistic freedom.

 

So I nailed my colours to the mast. That's what I think will happen. Maybe some Force Recon unit coupled to the Marines. The CSAT T shirt with some multiple optic NVG likely a OPFOR Spec ops team as a balance to the the Force Recon Blufor.

[mistyronin 1181]

graemeshute if you allow me some "corrections" according to what I've seen so far in A3 (and not based on my personal preferences that are a bit away from these):

The guy on the Youtube video made that theory because according to him "no faction in the vanilla game uses the black MX"... He forgot about captain Miller and the British Spec Ops... (also by the VR simulation in Bootcamp)

The CV22 Osprey is used by the USAF Special Ops. The AC-130 tho. 

The LSV is mainly a SOCOM Special Ops vehicle (also used by the US Army Airborne). Tho the Marines use the Growler nowadays in a similar role (and can be carried in an Osprey).

A 29.1 ton tracked Armored APC is not a "light APC" (AAV7), and wait for the up-armored one that is in testing... Heck, even the Bradley weights 2 tons less. 

Havoc, an American-made variant of the Finnish Patria (aka "Marshall" in-game) was meant to replace the LAV-25 (so if BI goes for the Marine that would be more "coherent" with their former choices, you know scraped US projects like the: Comanche, Namer APC, etc.): http://www.army-technology.com/projects/havoc-8x8-armoured-modular-vehicle/

Why would Japan be an independent faction, thousands of kms away from Tanoa? When even today their external defence is legally provided by the US of A (heck technically Japan can't even have an Army nowadays according to its Constitution, just a really "tuned up paramilitary security force").

North Korea is also way far away from Tanoa, and would actually make no sense as they are mainly a China proxy. 



On the other hand China could make sense, with their new expansionist policy (they are beefing their Naval assets and building new islands, as well as claiming that any territory in the China sea is theirs), also the A3 vanilla intro map seems to point that way; that's why most people in the forums think it's gonna be China.

Having in mind proximity, Indonesia could also make sense... And they are also marked as CSAT in the intro video...

Maybe the main BLUFOR side instead of NATO is ANZUS (which is the NATO equivalent in the South Pacific): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

The left over M81 camo in the vanilla is for the NATO uniform. So I think its quite unlikely to see irregulars using a NATO uniform. 

[chortles 263]

LSV isn't a Marine tight Vehicle. But this is likely some artistic freedom.

The LSV is mainly a SOCOM Special Ops vehicle (also used by the US Army Airborne). Tho the Marines use the Growler nowadays in a similar role (and can be carried in an Osprey).

On the other hand the real-life USMC has been seeking to replace the Growler, and USSOCOM picked up the 60-inch-wide version of the General Dynamics Flyer for their own "can be carried in an Osprey" testing, so one route by which a LSV (if not the three-people-wide model in the concept art) could have ended up with the Armaverse USMC would be them procuring a sufficiently thin LSV for the role.

[graemeshute 218]

graemeshute if you allow me some "corrections" according to what I've seen so far in A3 (and not based on my personal preferences that are a bit away from these):

The guy on the Youtube video made that theory because according to him "no faction in the vanilla game uses the black MX"... He forgot about captain Miller and the British Spec Ops... (also by the VR simulation in Bootcamp)

The CV22 Osprey is used by the USAF Special Ops. The AC-130 tho. 

The LSV is mainly a SOCOM Special Ops vehicle (also used by the US Army Airborne). Tho the Marines use the Growler nowadays in a similar role (and can be carried in an Osprey).

A 29.1 ton tracked Armored APC is not a "light APC" (AAV7), and wait for the up-armored one that is in testing... Heck, even the Bradley weights 2 tons less. 

Havoc, an American-made variant of the Finnish Patria (aka "Marshall" in-game) was meant to replace the LAV-25 (so if BI goes for the Marine that would be more "coherent" with their former choices, you know scraped US projects like the: Comanche, Namer APC, etc.): http://www.army-technology.com/projects/havoc-8x8-armoured-modular-vehicle/

Why would Japan be an independent faction, thousands of kms away from Tanoa? When even today their external defence is legally provided by the US of A (heck technically Japan can't even have an Army nowadays according to its Constitution, just a really "tuned up paramilitary security force").

North Korea is also way far away from Tanoa, and would actually make no sense as they are mainly a China proxy. 

On the other hand China could make sense, with their new expansionist policy (they are beefing their Naval assets and building new islands, as well as claiming that any territory in the China sea is theirs), also the A3 vanilla intro map seems to point that way; that's why most people in the forums think it's gonna be China.

Having in mind proximity, Indonesia could also make sense... And they are also marked as CSAT in the intro video...

Maybe the main BLUFOR side instead of NATO is ANZUS (which is the NATO equivalent in the South Pacific): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS

The left over M81 camo in the vanilla is for the NATO uniform. So I think its quite unlikely to see irregulars using a NATO uniform. 

I was busy with a reply but I got so busy at work and got side tracked. I would need some time to reply each point. Since you being all technical LOL.

[mistyronin 1181]

Designed for expeditionary assault support, raid operations, cargo lift and special warfare, the MV-22B Osprey has Vertical takeoff and landing, and short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) capabilities. Its not the domain of just Spec Ops.

No one said that the Osprey is just domain of the Spec Ops. I only pointed out that the CV-22 is used by the USAF Spec Ops, as well as the AC-130 is.

PS: Could you just quote the part of the message you are gonna answer, please? And if it's not too much to ask, answer outside the quote  :)

[graemeshute 218]

No one said that the Osprey is just domain of the Spec Ops. I only pointed out that the CV-22 is used by the USAF Spec Ops, as well as the AC-130 is.

PS: Could you just quote the part of the message you are gonna answer, please? And if it's not too much to ask, answer outside the quote  :)

Wait Misty you changed your Pic? I thought I was chatting to another person. Just proves he dont read. Now I am gonna have to go all update full retard to. Speculation why did Misty Ronin change his Pic.

[Alwarren 2765]

Seriously, can people stop quoting entire posts just to write a single line of reply? If you want to reply, trim the post down to the essentials please.

[R0adki11 3945]

Wait Misty you changed your Pic? I thought I was chatting to another person. Just proves he dont read. Now I am gonna have to go all update full retard to. Speculation why did Misty Ronin change his Pic.

Indeed please trim the quote post or answer outside the post. We don't need a wall of text for a single sentence reply.

[graemeshute 218]

Seriously, can people stop quoting entire posts just to write a single line of reply? If you want to reply, trim the post down to the essentials please.

But it makes for interesting fun reading as we all wait patiently for Petr to do his whole live stream reveal.

 

I was trying to reply to Misty's points. But it turned into a 3 hour type on it wait, type on it further wait. Work took over and I couldn't complete a comprehensive set of replies. If you mean me sorry I didn't know it would be an issue.

[R0adki11 3945]

But it makes for interesting fun reading as we all wait patiently for Petr to do his whole live stream reveal.

 

I was trying to reply to Misty's points. But it turned into a 3 hour type on it wait, type on it further wait. Work took over and I couldn't complete a comprehensive set of replies. If you mean me sorry I didn't know it would be an issue.

It doesn't make fun reading at all.. Please refrain from doing it, i don't want to have to ask again.

 

And please can we get back on topic, we didn't need to know why you couldn't reply in a timely manner. 

[Alwarren 2765]

If you mean me sorry I didn't know it would be an issue.

 

Not in particular, I remember reading part of this thread on ANdroid with tapatalk and I usually don't pay attention too closely how wrote what, but the quote-everything-reply-single occurred to me quite often. It's also not only in this thread, people have a habit of not trimming replies. It's a pet peeve of mine, just like top-posting on E-Mail :)

[Alwarren 2765]

Then they have shown or hinted: a Civilian plane, a water scooter, a zodiac with a wheel, two Spec Ops buggy, a VTOL aircraft and a coop campaign.

 

I remember reading something about "more contemporary arms and armament" or something of that nature. Having seen BIS sound engineers record the sound of their T-72 and BMP-2, I could very well imagine that some of that stuff will make it into APEX.

 

In any case, for me it would be a no-brainer whether I want to buy it or not (I am supporter so I already have it anyway). My count is currently 2600 hours of Arma 3. I think even with my high entry fee for the supporter edition, this comes out at around 2 or so euro cent per hour. That is a damn good deal if I ever saw one :)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I remember reading something about "more contemporary arms and armament" or something of that nature. Having seen BIS sound engineers record the sound of their T-72 and BMP-2, I could very well imagine that some of that stuff will make it into APEX.

In any case, for me it would be a no-brainer whether I want to buy it or not (I am supporter so I already have it anyway). My count is currently 2600 hours of Arma 3. I think even with my high entry fee for the supporter edition, this comes out at around 2 or so euro cent per hour. That is a damn good deal if I ever saw one :)

I don't think we're going to see stuff THAT old. If you look at what's going for military expo right now, the closest we come to BMPs and T-72's are in the Norinco section, sporting Chinese upgrades of said vehicles. When I remember BI stating Contemporary, they motioned at gear we'd see today. So if you want to find a large portion of current gear, just search Military Expo 2015/16 on YouTube and you'll find aw variety of modern tech from FNSS to Russia, to Norinco, BAE Systems, and so on.

Example:

http://static.progressivemediagroup.com/uploads/imagelibrary/nri/army/clients/FNSS/header.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N4Ua4Ojc-AY/Vee_ZDZUR1I/AAAAAAABLIE/g30w9t0sZJE/s1600/kaplan-20-03.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COhdNZVWsAEAxUY.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/--p8hv3N3rQ/hqdefault.jpg

http://356007295890291112.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/3/5/18358769/2817871_orig.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2QdplqCEAARSJQ.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kiu3yyfDEKQ/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/czech_republic/exhibition/idet_2015/news/BAE_Systems_Hagglunds_CV9030_infantry_fighting_vehicle_under_spotlights_at_IDET_2015_640_001.jpg

http://www.zigcdn.com/media/content/2012/Apr/bvs-10-mk-ii-combat-vehicle-bae-systems_560x420.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b80Mj4-SIF4/UXLGyCYS5nI/AAAAAAAAN04/AWmQx46sEWc/s1600/Armadillo_CV90_tracked_armoured_combat_vehicle_BAE_Systems_United_Kingdom_British_640_003.jpg

[Alwarren 2765]

I don't think we're going to see stuff THAT old.

 

Why not? We're talking 20 years into the future. The M16 is in service in the US Armed Forces since 1962.and not likely to be replaced that quickly - I am sure there will still be some in service in 2035. I always found the complete exchange of equipment used in the NATO faction to be very unrealistic. I don't see a reason why a guerrilla faction shouldn't be using old Soviet/Russian equipment in 20 years. It makes more sense to me than having FIA use their own rifle instead of having scavenged either CSAT or (more likely) AAF rifles. When I think guerrilla, I always think Kalashnikov.

[zukov 484]

i smell a static aircraft carrier