Could the future setting have been done better?

[target_practice 163]

 (Most of the CSAT vehicles are Russian, but Russia don't belong to CSAT)

It does, if I remember correctly Arma 3's files contains textures for CSAT uniforms with Russian insignias and flags.

[angel24marin 34]

It does, if I remember correctly Arma 3's files contains textures for CSAT uniforms with Russian insignias and flags.

I remember the lore of Alfa and Beta stage saying that Russia is friendly of CSAT but that don't belong. May changed.

[target_practice 163]

Arma 3's story changed completely through development. The campaign was originally a WW3 scenario.

[silentghoust 132]

The future concept is actually quiet realistic in my opinion. Militaries continue to push for modular systems and streamline productions. Almost all future projects involve using a basic design and then "addon" the roles it plays. The Styker system for example, or the new T-15's series from Russia. Open topped gunners is a thing of old wars as well, at what point would any military want a open topped gunner if they can afford to use remote. 

I actually enjoy the future warfare, what naggs me is the fact the assets are not nearly diverse. For example, we have zero medivac variants of anything, No HQ or communications vics, civilian assets are pretty basic to. Grant it, it has improved thanks to DLC. But honestly the lack of say ambulances for civs, or a basic medivac hellcat makes it pretty slim pickings. 

[Mirek 166]

I dont really care about the futuristic settings.  Arma is and Always was Just a Platform for me. I use Mods to make it the game i want it to be.

[Maio 293]

I am eagerly awaiting for content packs and functionality expansions for the available gear. At this point, the current roster (especially the Pacific forces) has left me craving for diversity.

 

Syndikat for example. I really wished they would be a well equipped paramilitary force (headgear, ex army vehicles, etc) What we got... eh...

 

And pleas oh please add a High Tech - Heavily Armed- Mobile- ION PMC faction.

[Valken 622]

I personally like the future warfare scenario and really wish BI had grown a pair of balls to push it further instead of catering to the naysayers. I know BIS built their business from OpFOR, ARMA and ARMA 2/CO but to cut back on the original full vision leaves the consumer feeling half full for both old school and new school users.

 

It would still be incredible if ARMA 3 had been a very hardcore tactical version of Ghost Recon Future Soldier with all the electronic enhancements in place yet still feel grounded in a real world setting.

 

Rail weapons, smart munitions, exo suits, electronic enhancements, bionic limb supplements, new stealth tech, advanced  energy propulsion, in ground, sea, land, air and even space (1980s had SDI from the USA) and etc... are all available NOW in very rough forms and 20+ years from now would be completely normalized by then. It is NOT hard to believe in at all.

 

I'm not talking about big mechs or jump boots like Titanfall or the latest CoD but  a real hardcore near future Battlefield is closer to reality than we think.

 

It would have completely opened up a new path as nobody has done it better yet.

 

Its too bad BIS had to tread softly on eggshells due to their own legacy.

 

If anybody says well, the future warfare would not have even sold, I can point out to all the Call of Duty, Crysis, Battlefields, Ghost Recons and those franchises sell magnitudes over the sales ARMA 3 has. And even point directly to DayZ - Zombies that have been to DEATH and back, yet the market still has a huge appetite for it.

 

If only BIS would really give us that full fat un-adulterated  near future warfare sim they desperately want to make inside instead of that joke DLC - Karts.  I would have gladly paid for the grey alien "teaser" DLC instead of Karts. At least we can make a case for hostile foreign entities in a war sim. 

[target_practice 163]

I think another reason for the opposition to near future is the view that Arma should be a game/simulator that emulates real-world elements, and shouldn't try to apply the same level of realism to concepts.

I do agree though that BIS should have made the plunge into a true near-future setting, instead of the rather restrained one we have.

 

Spoilers for East Wind campaign ahead:

I also have to ask, how plausible is CSAT's seismic WMD device. I don't just mean the technology itself, but also the fact that it was constructed by 2035.

 

I also wonder how plausible the construction and deployment of a kinetic bombardment system would be within the near future.

I imagine it wouldn't be too far-fetched when the US believed that a system as elaborate and complex as the SDI would be of sufficient strategic value to justify the massive expense that its creation would have involved.

Not to mention that metal bars apparently fall outside of the outer space treaty.

[silentghoust 132]

I am eagerly awaiting for content packs and functionality expansions for the available gear. At this point, the current roster (especially the Pacific forces) has left me craving for diversity.

 

Syndikat for example. I really wished they would be a well equipped paramilitary force (headgear, ex army vehicles, etc) What we got... eh...

 

And pleas oh please add a High Tech - Heavily Armed- Mobile- ION PMC faction.

Lets just say it's in my work pipeline. Just got other things I'm cranking out for mod groups at the moment. The concept I see for ION in 2035 is picking up abandon projects from other countries. Such as the SWORD project, and some other unique things.

[AJE2 3]

I think another reason for the opposition to near future is the view that Arma should be a game/simulator that emulates real-world elements, and shouldn't try to apply the same level of realism to concepts.

I do agree though that BIS should have made the plunge into a true near-future setting, instead of the rather restrained one we have.

 

Spoilers for East Wind campaign ahead:

I also have to ask, how plausible is CSAT's seismic WMD device. I don't just mean the technology itself, but also the fact that it was constructed by 2035.

 

I also wonder how plausible the construction and deployment of a kinetic bombardment system would be within the near future.

I imagine it wouldn't be too far-fetched when the US believed that a system as elaborate and complex as the SDI would be of sufficient strategic value to justify the massive expense that its creation would have involved.

Not to mention that metal bars apparent fall outside of the outer space treaty.

I think it's possible to create a device like the one in the campaign, but it wouldn't fit on a single truck like that.  It would likely have to consist of multiple precisely emplaced machines at various points, each generating a specific frequency or shockwave, to work.

 

As for kinetic bombardment systems, they work against hardened targets and have considerable range (as the railgun prototypes and tank sabots demonstrate).  The problem is that it will just penetrate into the ground, leaving a hole a few inches wide on or near the target, without doing much else.  It's better to have an exploding projectile against soft targets that can actually transfer its energy to the targeted area.  Finally, orbital defenses like the SDI would work, but there are much cheaper missile-based missile defense systems like the Ground-Based Interceptor or the Israeli Arrow 3 that can do the job just as well.  That's why those systems aren't deployed; it's not that we can't do those things, it's that they just aren't the best way achieve certain effects in war.

[target_practice 163]

I think it's possible to create a device like the one in the campaign, but it wouldn't fit on a single truck like that.  It would likely have to consist of multiple precisely emplaced machines at various points, each generating a specific frequency or shockwave, to work.

 

As for kinetic bombardment systems, they work against hardened targets and have considerable range (as the railgun prototypes and tank sabots demonstrate).  The problem is that it will just penetrate into the ground, leaving a hole a few inches wide on or near the target, without doing much else.  It's better to have an exploding projectile against soft targets that can actually transfer its energy to the targeted area.  Finally, orbital defenses like the SDI would work, but there are much cheaper missile-based missile defense systems like the Ground-Based Interceptor or the Israeli Arrow 3 that can do the job just as well.  That's why those systems aren't deployed; it's not that we can't do those things, it's that they just aren't the best way achieve certain effects in war.

What makes you think it would do that? Pretty much every source on kinetic bombardment systems say they would be used more as precision nukes than railguns. The amount of kinetic energy a several-hundred kilogram tungsten rod traveling at a hypersonic velocity would carry is huge. Upon impact, the projectile would transfer that energy to the surrounding environment, completely destroying almost anything nearby.

 

If you want a real-life example of this, just look at the many known meteor impacts; at sufficient speeds, relatively small and light chunks of rock have impacted with several megatons energy.

[angel24marin 34]

A large iron bar dropped in a step fall in teory will make a explosion when the iron evaporate and incinerate the surrounding air. (It is on of the theories of Tunguska)

[dragon01 902]

People tend to overrate "orbital bombardment" and related concepts. They sound awesome, but IRL have to face too many problems. It's hard to get up there, hard to get down (both orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are working against you there) and forbidden by international agreements anyway. Given everything, it'd be easier to just stick a large, guided conventional warhead on an ICBM, for a similar effect for a fraction of the cost. Which is what both US and Russia are working on right now. 

 

 

TBH, I think that the near-future setting could have indeed been done a lot better. It has potential, but it wasn't realized. For example, BIS did give us a great UAV/UGV system, along with many autonomous units and even remote MGs to go with it. How many missions is it used in? Three. One at the start of the campaign and another at the very end. The third one is the autonomous vehicle showcase. Displays on tactical glasses and CSAT helmets? Unused, they do nothing, only the Viper helmet has any effect besides protecting the wearer's head. We get no datalinks, helmet-mounted cameras (something Ghost Recon did quite well, TBH), none of that "battlefield information network" systems that various countries are working on. 

 

Sure, the storyline justifies NATO's inferiority to CSAT neatly (an underequipped, second-line NATO garrison vs. first line CSAT troops), but Apex should've given us more "futuristic" equipment for NATO. In the end, ArmA3 feels too much like "modern day, except with fictional/misplaced equipment" than future.

[angel24marin 34]

I think that CSAT wear helmets with integrated sunglasses instead of VR glasses.

[dragon01 902]

Right now they very well could... They're supposed to be tactical displays, but that functionality is nowhere to be seen..

[target_practice 163]

People tend to overrate "orbital bombardment" and related concepts. They sound awesome, but IRL have to face too many problems. It's hard to get up there, hard to get down (both orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are working against you there) and forbidden by international agreements anyway. Given everything, it'd be easier to just stick a large, guided conventional warhead on an ICBM, for a similar effect for a fraction of the cost. Which is what both US and Russia are working on right now.

Getting what is effectively a large railgun with solar panels into orbit is hardly any more difficult than doing the same for other satellites. If such a device was a particularly large assembly, it would simply be a matter of launching it up piece-by-piece and assembling it in orbit.

In terms of cost, assembling and launching a platform, along with periodically supplying it with ammunition would be more expensive then producing a nuclear warhead and missile.

However, considering the platform's ammunition would be metal bars, the cost per shot would be fractions that of an ICBM launch.

As for the problem of treaties, in a state of total war (which is the only scenario in which such a weapon would every feasibly be deployed) such agreements would likely be ignored by combatants.

The other advantage of kinetic bombardment system, is that it would be able to produce the destructive force of a small nuke, but with none of the radioactive fallout.

[lexx 1363]

Thing is, as far as I am aware, it's pretty easy to shoot this thing out of the sky. If I remember right, the chinese tested this already. /Edit: I was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test

[target_practice 163]

I'm perfectly aware that several nations have anti-satellite weapons systems.

I also assume though that within the next few decades they will also have been able to develop a countermeasure system to mount on military satellites.

[instagoat 133]

Body Augmentation is missing. If the future goes the way I hope it will, Deus Ex is more realistic than Arma 3's setting. There's also a distinct lack of active defense systems, which will be -very- mature by the time of A3. Those would also be good for a present time setting.

The community really broke the back of the A3 world, with the rage about railgun tanks and all the "the future sucks" threads. Consequently, it's basically today's equipment but with a different Date on it. The only thing that gives an Idea about the setting is CSAT. And CSAT has not been explored yet.

They are not the evil guys. We need a CSAT perspective campaign.