Factions sharing equipment/ not having unique equipment

[swissgrenadier 10]

It's something that has bothered me since the launch of ArmA 3 but only now, with the release of APEX came to my mind again. Why do the three mein factions NATO, CSAT and AAF have so much equipment in common? Is it laziness of the developers?

Let me give you some examples:
The Tigris and the Cheetah have exactly the same turret
The Sochor and the Scorcher have exactly the same turret
The Kamysh and the Gorgon have exactly the same turret
Strider, Ifrit and Hunter have exactly the same armement which is one of two options, HMG or GMG
All factions use exactly the same static weapons. EXACTLY the same, albeit differently colored
All factions use exactly the same guided AT and AA launchers, AAF and CSAT even use the same unguided AT launcher
All factions use the same underwater rifle

All factions use exactly the same drones and AAF and CSAT drones even have the same name
AAF and CSAT use exactly the same sniper rifle, the Lynx

I always thought that was some kind of placeholder solution that will stay this way until the unique equipment will be done and implemented but now, it seems like this is final.
Why was the decision not to add more variety made? Would it be too costly? Did they think no one would notice? Or is there still work being done? I don't know but it bothers me a lot.

[gstoetti94 4]

There are several armies that use the same equipment - just think of the F16 or the Steyr AUG.
​Best-practive-weapons are and will be used by more than one army.


Personally, I don't care if the AA-Launcher looks different or not - as long as it works properly.
Of course, a rebell army using the brand new sniper rifle prototype would not be realisitic. But take a look on Syndikat - where "old" and "different" weapons are needed, BI created them.

[ineptaphid 6413]

Yes some of it was most likely done to save time-and Arma 3 does not have the same amount of variety as some past games. But with the new factions now, and the massive amount of modded units,groups and armies, i really dont think it matters to much.

 

Also like the previous post-a lot of countries use the same gear.There have been countless wars fought where the soldiers on both sides were using the same rifles,pistols,vehicles etc. Even when you take bigger things that would be comperable to Arma 3 having the same drones for each group-well Look how many countires use the F-16 :

•  Bahrain
•  Belgium
•  Chile
•  Denmark
•  Egypt
•  Greece
•  Israel
•  Indonesia
•  Iraq
•  Jordan
•  Morocco
•  Netherlands
•  Norway

•  Oman
•  Pakistan
•  Poland
•  Portugal
•  Republic of China (Taiwan)
•  Republic of Korea
•  Romania
•  Singapore
•  Thailand
•  Turkey
•  United Arab Emirates
•  United States
•  Venezuela

[lexx 1363]

AAF and CSAT sharing equipment isn't too far fetched, as CSAT supports AAF - most likely not only with manpower, but also with said equipment.

 

NATO and CSAT sharing equipment... well, yeah. Was talked about already a truckton of times since A3 release.

[ineptaphid 6413]

AAF and CSAT sharing equipment isn't too far fetched, as CSAT supports AAF - most likely not only with manpower, but also with said equipment.

 

NATO and CSAT sharing equipment... well, yeah. Was talked about already a truckton of times since A3 release.

True-but as we see a lot, even long time enemies will use the same equipment. There are a lot of conflicts fought with the same weapons and vehicles on both sides.

 

But I agree-Variety between CSAT and Nato would have been better.

[drebin052 323]

There are several armies that use the same equipment - just think of the F16 or the Steyr AUG.

​Best-practive-weapons are and will be used by more than one army.

 

The key difference is that the countries that use the F-16 and AUG are allied or are at least affiliated in some way to each other militarily (not including non-state actors like paramilitaries and former friends-now-turned-hostile obviously).

 

The countries in CSAT and NATO on the other hand, are supposed to be in the midst of a 21st century Cold War. Did you see the Soviet Union using the M16 and the U.S. using the AK, even though they were both considered the "best practical weapons" (and still are) of the time?

 

It's even more silly when you consider that NATO is described as being technologically inferior to CSAT, and yet here we have Iranian and Chinese forces using Western equipment like Czech SMGs and American-made optics...with the usual excuse that everything was "reverse engineered".

[gstoetti94 4]

The general equipment of NATO and CSAT differs - MX and Katiba.
​But it makes sense, that special purpose Equipment (underwater rifle, etc.) is the same. Developing an own prototype is expensive as hell - so why not use what can be bought on free market?

​BI's ressources are limited.
​So I'd rather see them working on the game-engine than creating several different HMGs for the vehicles. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see as much variation as possible. But to my mind, there are more important things that should be taken care of.
 

[Mynock 244]

You do realize that in the real world militaries purchase equipment from manufacturers right? Very little is developed in house by militaries, and while yes some of them do have exclusive contracts with certain manufacturers or for certain pieces of equipment, I'd be willing to bet those are a small percentage of the total dollars spent on military equipment. Have you by chance heard of SOFEX? If you have the right connections to get in you can buy virtually everything the most elite forces in the world use regardless of what nation you're from. Differences in equipment typically come down to money and ease of serviceability for a nation, not loyalties or to be different from other nations.

[2nd ranger 282]

There are several armies that use the same equipment - just think of the F16 or the Steyr AUG.

​Best-practive-weapons are and will be used by more than one army.

 

 

You do realize that in the real world militaries purchase equipment from manufacturers right?

 

The answer is "BIS didn't have the time or resources". It's a perfectly valid reason. You don't need to make excuses.

[drebin052 323]

If you have the right connections to get in you can buy virtually everything the most elite forces in the world use regardless of what nation you're from. Differences in equipment typically come down to money and ease of serviceability for a nation, not loyalties or to be different from other nations.

 

NATO and CSAT aren't PMCs, nor do both factions main forces consist solely of special forces.

 

This also doesn't explain why the superior faction would choose to use the same equipment as the inferior one. You could argue that the "it was reverse engineered!" excuse used by BI to explain the copy & paste and...bizarre choice of non-Eastern equipment on CSAT comes from the situation that you mentioned, but it does not explain how everything is able to be copied on a 1:1 basis nor does it explain why both sides' forces have the exact same heavy weapons.

 

EDIT: 2nd ranger summed it up.

 

The general equipment of NATO and CSAT differs - MX and Katiba.

 

...but still use the same 6.5x39mm NATO calibre? Co-incidentally, the latter is somehow chambered to fire caseless ammo even though it very clearly isn't modelled as being such.

 

​BI's ressources are limited.

​So I'd rather see them working on the game-engine than creating several different HMGs for the vehicles. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see as much variation as possible. But to my mind, there are more important things that should be taken care of.

 

 

That's true, but I doubt that the dev team's artists are the ones responsible for working on the code for the engine.

 

But like lexx said this topic's been brought up plenty of times in the two and a half years since release. I have doubts that it will change, so any discussion is just flogging a dead horse at this point.

[lexx 1363]

One could also argue that "you never see both factions use the same equipment in the campaign (at the same time)", therefore turning the "surplus equipment" into more or less non-canon bonus material for mission creators to use, if they chose to. A bit like the green hex CSAT vehicles we have with Apex, which - except for the stomper - were never used in the campaign.

[swissgrenadier 10]

I understand that it's not impossible or even unlikely that they would share equipment, my problem is much more that it just seems like a lack of content to re-use so much.
Yes, of course there are a lot of weapon systems used by a hell of a lot of countries, just look at the Browning M2 for example but when comparing NATO to CSAT we have two fundamentally different armies that probably wouldn't buy equipment from their opposers suppliers for political reasons. The cold war has been brought up and you wouldn't have seen Russia supplying their troops with reverse engineered M16s, just to prove that their technology is superior. Look at the uniforms, BI obviously tried to create two unique factions with different doctrines but then seems to cut corners by giving exactly the same static weapons to every single faction.

I just know that BI can do better. When you look at ArmA 2 the main factions don't share a single piece of equipment. Maybe I am just spoiled by that...

And yeah, no need for excuses if it really was just to save resources

[Mynock 244]

I'm not defending anything, I'm simply stating that if you're under the impression that armies design, engineer, and manufacture their own equipment and that's why it's "unique", you're sadly mistaken. It just so happens that they either have an exclusive deal with the manufacturer or no one else has purchased it. If there were one design of something that was superior in every fashion and any nation could purchase it, then I could theoretically see a monopoly where everyone is using the same type of weapon for a particular job. If you want to take that as "fanboy defense" feel free; I just prefer to think critically and logically as to why some equipment might be the same vs jumping on the "BIS is lazy" bandwagon.

 

NATO and CSAT aren't PMCs, nor do both factions main forces consist solely of special forces.

SOFEX was used as an example, I understand that NATO/CSAT aren't SpecOp exclusive militaries. And national militaries attend it as well, not just PMC's. Again, just an example.

[nodunit 397]

Time, resources, space saving.  Making new turrets means new design, new UV mapping, new texturing and all that entails, new rvmats, new p3d setup and all of its LOD's.  Or you can use the same turret with a different paint scheme which is essentially painting on the bottommost layer so all the details remain.

I wouldn't call it lazy so much as efficient in this case, time = money and all that jazz and if the worst thing we have to deal with is the idea that some manufacturers may be selling to both sides then oh well.

[Rich_R 1087]

With Humvees seen all over the world, AK47's the choice of poorer countries and M16's used by nations the US likes as well as the huge contracts weapons manufacturers announce to nation after nation.................I think some may be nitpicking slightly.

 

The age of countries developing their own weapons died just after WW2.

[2nd ranger 282]

 If you want to take that as "fanboy defense" feel free; I just prefer to think critically and logically as to why some equipment might be the same vs jumping on the "BIS is lazy" bandwagon.

 

 

Yes but you don't need to. There is no need to apply some made-up rationalization to a legitimate concern if there's actually a valid reason for it. People do it all the time on this forum and it doesn't help anybody. The latest example I can think of is the non-enterable buildings on Tanoa. Someone says "Why can't we go in all the buildings? This is a step back from Altis!" Someone else says "to save performance" or (more likely) "BIS didn't have the time". Both are valid reasons. Disappointing, but valid. But then someone else comes along and says "Tanoa is a jungle map! You won't even be in the towns that much!" That isn't the reason that the buildings aren't enterable. It's a made-up excuse.

 

When someone gripes about the shared assets, it's a reasonable complaint. This is a game that features different factions to play as. It's reasonable, if not expected, that each faction should have totally different assets, so that when you play as one faction it feels different from the others. This unfortunately isn't always true in Arma. Applying real-world logic to the issue is useless. This is a game. The reason that NATO, CSAT and AAF all use the Titan launcher is not because BIS sat around the conference table and said "you know guys, I think in the Armaverse, NATO, CSAT and AAF all held procurement trials and each one concluded that the Titan was the best AT system for the job". It's because they didn't have time to make different ones. They probably would have wanted each of the main factions to have their own distinct AT system like every other game in the series, but concluded at some stage that it was impractical to spend time making three different models when the weapons' characteristics would be otherwise identical. Sounds reasonable. The problem is, they took the same attitude to mortars, static MGs, AA turrets, MRAP turrets, drones, and even hand grenades.

 

From my own perspective, the real shame is that the AAF and NATO do not have their own equivalent of CSAT's Alamut. I find it more challenging, and thus more rewarding, to use unguided weapons to take out armour. In OFP, everything was of course unguided, but even in Arma 2 we still had the SMAW, M136, RPG-18 and RPG-7.

 

When you look at ArmA 2 the main factions don't share a single piece of equipment. Maybe I am just spoiled by that...

 

We've all been spoiled by Arma 2 and that is the true root of pretty much all discussions relating to lack of content. But with all the talk of Apex being the 'best Arma release' and the pinnacle of A3 development, it seems like a missed opportunity to actually finish the game. Everything that fans perceived to have been 'missing' from Arma 3 - be it civilians, unique launchers, static weapons or vehicle turrets - could have been dealt with in Apex. Maybe we'll see some of these gaps being filled over the next couple of years, assuming there are no big plans for any more DLC. But it still seems like they're overestimating what they are realistically able to produce in a certain time frame. This manifested itself in the Apex development as a total news blackout for about a year, followed by an underwhelming release, which -- just to bring the discussion full-circle -- contained a shitload of re-used assets.

[en3x 209]

Taken all this onboard sitting down as designer what assets would you pick and why..

 

Civilians (what civilian variety can we have?Excluding woman because of lot of work due to technical issues)

 

Boats (transport boats in particular - able to transport from tanks to lighter vehicles

 

Distinct RPGs (due to copy cat amount of reskins this would help in terms of variety)

 

Distinct per faction turrets (opened up turrets - counterpart of remotely operated)

 

Distinct mortars

 

Strike out:

 

Particular rifles (in case is not feesable within the timeframe)

 

Headgear (there is lot variety here already)

 

UAV (already existing set is there, they are are rarely used since they are specialized)