Ideal setting for an Arma game.

[target_practice 163]

What would be your ideal of preferred setting for an Arma game?

I'm aware there is already a similar topic, but I wanted to create a thread with a poll to make opinions more visible.

 

I know I mostly go against popular opinion with this, but I personally am quite comfortable with modern/near future settings, as long as they are plausible.

 

For me at least, part of Arma's appeal is how it is a toybox of military hardware of various different types.

Whereas games like Battlefield present such equipment in a very limited and gameplay-oriented fashion, Arma features them as they would appear and be used in real life; giving you the opportunity to use them as you wish.

This is one of the reasons why I like Arma's current setting.

 

I fully understand arguments for earlier settings, such as the mid cold war. Some people have said that as electronic warfare and complex equipment as NVGs and FLIR feature less prominently, it makes the game far more skill based. I personally feel that Arma has always been far more about tactical opportunities than individual skill, and therefore by setting a game in a period where technology is far more limited, you detract somewhat from this element of the game; it's the flexibility and sandbox nature of Arma that sets it apart from other games, not so much its realism.

 

In regards to this, I feel the 2035 setting of Arma 3 could have been explored even further; where are the railguns, the active protection systems, the laser weapons? All of these things are perfectly likely to be in use by this period. I definitely sympathise with the arguments of the large number of people against this, but since this is the setting that has been used, shouldn't we make the most of it?

 

Just my opinion on the matter, what are your thoughts though?

[EDcase 87]

Its a bit late for this question no?

 

Personally, I'm OK with the near future setting the way its been done in ARMA3.

I did miss the contemporary equipment but thankfully they're available as mods.

 

So its all good...

[target_practice 163]

Its a bit late for this question no?

 

Personally, I'm OK with the near future setting the way its been done in ARMA3.

 

I do miss the contemporary weapons but thankfully they're available as mods.

 

So its all good...

 

I don't see how it's late in particular. It's been asked more than a few times already over the past few years, but people's answers are still likely to be the same. Besides, the only real reason I started this thread is due to the apparent lack of polls for said question.

[BroBeans. 279]

I do feel the same about technology not being where it could be in the Arma 3 setting..

 

15-20 years is a long time if we're talking about advancements in technology. Even with todays technology research is ever advancing..

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

I am fine with cold war, current, near future or other to some extent, BUT as long as this is supposed to be a mil sim it has to be done right in regards to realism aspects. What Arma 3 failed hard on in regards to modern tech was that they assumed, wrongly, it would be okay to have two opposing factions using the same weapons manufacturers. Would never happen with a East vs West scenario in real life. So them in A3 having the same gun turrets etc on some vehicles, specially the artillery. Was ridicules.

 

To put a practical example from real life to state why it wouldnt.

Back in 1982 the Falklands war happened between Argentine and the UK. A very important aspect to this conflict was that Argentine was getting weapons that, at the time, had strategic importance for a sea conflict from France, aka the Exocet missile, but because the conflict happened before the full shipment of missiles was delivered. The fact that the UK and France was in a military alliance via Nato. France had to, rightfully, stop sending Argentine weapons. This in turn had a huge negative on the Argentines weapons capabilities vs the British fleet the Brits were dependent on for conducting their military operations in the area. Speculative, one could argue that if the conflict happened 6 months later. The Argentines might have won because of British increased ship losses.

 

Bottom line is. There is no way a "future Iran/Axis/East" etc or West would use the same manufacturer in a way that would increase such a risk considering their up to now history. Aspects a mil sim should get correct and not cheap out on to save resources. It would have been better if they just upgraded the look on older tech and said "that" side hadnt swapped out their current one yet etc and just ported a current day M109 (dropping the Merkava chassis with future tech M109 turret) for the US and act like the Iranians copied and produce a better one or something.

[Wiki 1558]

Nâm war!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I voted near future, and here's why.

 

Near Future - For me, this means now. Currently, militaries and corporations, companies are creating hardware that's more modular, more versatile, and each with their own advantages while some will of course have disadvantages. This creates, in a video game prospective, a lot of stuff to work with. Say i was creating a combine arms game. I could give each faction a setup of hardware that differed from the opposing faction, each with pro's and cons. One side could have a an APC, while the other has a light strike vehicle equipped with a hard hitting 30mm cannon. I could give one team a heavy tank, and the other a light, more potent tank. Down to the infantry, or up to say, types of aircraft and light assault ships, everything is modular, and fitting in the universe. Lets not forget that all the current hardware, despite being to kill people, are quite sexy vehicles of carnage and destruction. But lets look at things on the bright side, it's a Video Game. =D

 

Current time frame also gives the ability to pitch a various amount of different faction against each other. I suppose to some extent you could base this off of real life events, what country versus what country, but of course re-name them in game so as to avoid actually worrying people of said nation. It is a game, it's meant to be fun, not a political game. Not to mention that all the new tech becoming available makes for some interesting features that could be added to the game. Imagine despabalizing bullets. You could shoot someone, and they could slowly die over time instead of instantly, thus dooming them to taking bandages. Or perhaps metal storm, you could think of a variety of ways to use these in a fun way.

 

Locations, and places of interest? Well with a current time frame, and fictional event, imagine this.

 

It's 2042, and CSAT has a firm grip on the Pacific. But one nation is holding it's own, and while NATO has been getting it handed to them, they're starting to get back on their feet after having taken a beating from botched defense budgets and economic crashes. This Nation happens to be Singapore. It's neighboring nation a CSAT member, pushing Singapore to join CSAT, or face collapse. CSAT starts invading, and NATO has to move, land on the shores of Singapore, a super modern nation with very neat streets, awesome cityscape mixed in with Florescent skyscrapers, and Archipelago with a more jungle like countryside. You land on docks, tracers in the distant countryside from Allied AAA trying to repel a large Rotary insertion by CSAT. It's already foggy, and it's around sunset, the sky bluish-red and grey. You hop into a Light Strike Vehicle armed with a 30mm Cannon, and follow 6 other Light Strike Vehicles moving fast to take on the invading forces. Rushing from the docks, through the vibrant city lights, into the jungle countryside of Singapore, where lead is freshly served from advancing CSAT forces.

[gibonez 18]

Mid to Late cold war is the best setting for Arma imo.

 

This was the time when the cold war was still red hot thus the military spending budgets of the Soviet Union and Nato were still extremely high, this leads to a wide variety of units, weapons, vehicles and experimental equipment.

 

As far as gameplay is concerned Cold war also means alot of good things for infantry combat.

 

- Little to no thermal optics

- Limited optics

- Lock on Fire and Forget missiles are rarely in the squad level and instead are vehicle based, meanwhile the most common anti vehicle weapons for infantry are unguided rockets and Saclos missiles.

- Recoiless rifles and other towed crew served weapons

- Napalm and other less than humane weapons.

- Two almost equally powerful factions - Nato being slightly more technologically advanced, and the Soviet Union possessing huge amounts of Artillery and very capable tanks.

 

 

One Final reason why such a setting might be the most ideal setting for Bohemia to place their 4th arma game in is the Potential for zero licensing fees.

 

The weapons used in the cold war should by and large remain trademark free setting the game in the near future or current day would raise lots of litigious and financial hardship on the studio not to mention the headaches they would get from trying to circumvent silly trademark laws when it comes to firearms and vehicles.

[FoxFort 341]

I would like ArmA4 with BF 2142 settings. I really want a game like BF 2142 :(

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I would like ArmA3 with BF 2142 settings. I really want a game like BF 2142 :(

Completely agree. BIS pls.

[Mirek 166]

There is allready enough somewhat realistic or utterly arcadish WW2, coldwar or modern era games.  Gameplaywise there is almost no difference if you play WWII, Modern day or Far Future. Actualy most of the games just feel like someone just picked old WWII shooter gave it different models and textures added few gadgets, and realeased it. (Iam looking at you CoD, MoH and BF)

 

What i would like to see most would be Scientificaly Accurate (in boundaries of todays level of scientific knowledge)  and realistic Mid or far future Tactical FPS. I would be content with at least "kerbal space program" level of realism in orbital and space flight physiscs, and "Arma 2 with ACE" combat realism.

I would be specificaly interested in, how would devs realisticaly solve Low and Microgravity combat and Orbital insertion, and orbital support.

 

And/Or realistic First person 18 or 19 century  experience.

[Karolus 5]

Maybe it's because of nostalgia for the game, but i found myself enjoying ARMA 2 and ARMA 2 OA setting the most.

[trent 14]

Would love a proper Falklands game. Small islands, FALs, Harriers.

[target_practice 163]

Would love a proper Falklands game. Small islands, FALs, Harriers.

The Falklands war isn't really significant enough to base a whole Arma game off it. It would probably be better to make it a mod.

[Maio 293]

For me, the era/setting is irrelevant as long as the content and overall presentation fits.I am eagerly waiting for the APEX update to see what it brings to the table in terms of "near future" tech, as I have grown tired (I know it sounds pretentious, but I cant find a proper word right now) of the current content.

[weaponsfree 46]

Far future (2080) would be cool if you can integrate some new tech into the Arma world.

 

- Possible Futuristic environments (Hawken style).

- Orbital Drops/artillery/support

- VTOL vehicles

- Mechs

 

Ideally you would have low-tech companion factions for BLUFOR and OPFOR, to keep the classic straight infantry type combat for mission makers.

 

I think many would consider this blasphemy for the Arma brand, but every other relevant period has been explored (except WWII I guess, but so many mods have done it). Adding a new layer of tech on the franchise would be really interesting.

[haleks 8212]

For me it's either Cold War era (the low-tech equipment is so much fun) or far future : something like BF2142 as said above (it would look absolutely awesome in Arma, although it would require 36 tonnes of work)...

[Beagle 684]

For a computer game the use of tech gadgets is counterindicative. ArmA III demonstrates that clearly when you sit in front of a PC to play a virtual guy that sits in front of a Laptop to control a drone ?!

I takes away the intial fun we had in OFP playing simple grunts with basically no tech gadgets, when you found yourself very lucky when you could get a NVG. All the thermal imaging, drone controling, network intruding gameplay is bad for computer games, particular when it comes to competetive online multiplayer.

 

Its no thrill anymore to play as an infrared eyed mIssile sniper camper just because when you don't you fall prey to such one.

 

For a video game there is no better setting than the 70's, because while you have some tech to make your life easier, nothing of it comes without drawback in some other way..

For the same reason WW2 and Korea are so popular in combat flight simulations. There is not much fun in the turn and burn AIM-120 spam you see in modern aircraft combat like in DCS, compared to the thrill that a 1917 furball in Rise of Flight gives.me.

 

Modern and future settings make good single player content, but the past times are way better for competetive multiplayer where, tactis and  strategies should make the difference, not the amount of fire and forget missiles one can pull out of a carryall.

[BroBeans. 279]

As much as a love games set around our current tech (as it seems much more real) I could fantasize over a Vietnam 70's set game for hours. 

 

The bottom line is, no matter the setting it has to be balanced. Sometimes in arma 3 i feel as though the Titan is severely "overpowered", and infantry bloke can just pick it up (now don't get me wrong this is purely up to the mission maker) and slug around 3-4 spare missiles in his backpack. Firing one AT at most vehicles is a definite disable, on most its a firey explosion. Even if you happen to avoid it in your tank (hypothetically) the missile user can rearm it within a few seconds and fire a second fire and forget blood seeking 2km range missile. It seems unfair.. 

 

I miss the 1-2 AT4 single fires per squad where you have to sneak up behind a tank from an alley and pop it in the track or the direct rear to even do some damage. Maybe thats just me, I've always somewhat been a fan of the guerilla warfare style of play. Tight urban scenarios where infantry have the upper hand on vehicles. Or maybe Arma 3 has bread that onto me, just look at the kuma for example. That thing is a nightmare. 4-5 titans head on is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

It's 2042, and CSAT has a firm grip on the Pacific. But one nation is holding it's own, and while NATO has been getting it handed to them, they're starting to get back on their feet after having taken a beating from botched defense budgets and economic crashes. This Nation happens to be Singapore. It's neighboring nation a CSAT member, pushing Singapore to join CSAT, or face collapse. CSAT starts invading, and NATO has to move, land on the shores of Singapore, a super modern nation with very neat streets, awesome cityscape mixed in with Florescent skyscrapers, and Archipelago with a more jungle like countryside. You land on docks, tracers in the distant countryside from Allied AAA trying to repel a large Rotary insertion by CSAT. It's already foggy, and it's around sunset, the sky bluish-red and grey. You hop into a Light Strike Vehicle armed with a 30mm Cannon, and follow 6 other Light Strike Vehicles moving fast to take on the invading forces. Rushing from the docks, through the vibrant city lights, into the jungle countryside of Singapore, where lead is freshly served from advancing CSAT forces.

 

This got me going.  ;)

[target_practice 163]

All the thermal imaging, drone controling, network intruding gameplay is bad for computer games, particular when it comes to competetive online multiplayer.

 

This is one of the places where I definitely go against the opinions of many, because these are some of the reasons why I really like Arma 3.

 

I don't think competitive multiplayer is much of an issue to be honest. I'm aware there was a competitive scene for OFP and there continues to be some competitive play in A3, but the Arma series never has and probably never will be designed around competitive gameplay. If you wan't to make a competitive mission for Arma 3, just remove or limit such equipment, there's no need for the whole game to adhere to such a requirement.

[drebin052 324]

disableTIEquipment and disableNVGEquipment exist for that reason.

 

Plus, nothing is stopping you from not adding UAVs/UGVs into a mission either.

[Guest]

On my side, I just want to remind you that devs say  that Apex will add less futuristic content.

Aside of it, over-electronic stuff doesn't bother me. The only issue I have is that all turrets are RCWS, I sort of miss basics HMG controlled directly by the player.

[gibonez 18]

On my side, I just want to remind you that devs say  that Apex will add less futuristic content.

 

Proof ?

 

That would be fantastic btw.

[rowdied 44]

Nam or WW2 with WW2 setting my vote

[Rydygier 1309]

Some unexplored theater of early/mid Cold War (my vote), like, say, Africa, with emphasis on merc/irregular aspect. Or inbetween A2 and A3, means strictly modern. IMO A2 setting isn't contemporary anymore, rather slowly becomes past, A3 is more modern now, I think, but pretends fictional/alternative near future, so isn't optimal here. Also obviously in this context I'll love to see my part of the world (Poland etc.) as the theater, but it's rather unlikely choice - too similar to already used (Chernarus), still pretty different.

 

Anything before WWII sounds rather like a theme for a mod than Arma game itself (too far from what Arma is/provides/focuses on), while WWII is heavily exploited already in so many games... Unless game will focus on it's early period, which is usually ignored/neglected, because US not involved yet etc. political/marketing stuff.