Jump to content

Infantry vs Vehicles - What do you prefer?

What role do you prefer?  

62 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you like more - Infantry or Vehicles?

    • I prefer infantry only, im trying to play everytime as infantry and avoid vehicles as good as i can
    • most times, i play as infantry. I have no problem with vehicles and use them, but rarely
    • I prefer vehicles over infantry, im trying to play with vehicles everytime as often as i can
    • i like to play with both
  2. 2. Would ArmA be better without vehicles in your opinion?

    • Yes, ArmA should focus only on infantry, i dont mind if terrains would become smaller to fit infantry gameplay
    • No, ArmA need vehicles due to the large maps.
    • Vehicles are fine, but in its current state, they do not fit into ArmA, they should get more love (please explain)

Recommended Posts

ArmA needs better AI to handle against wheeled vehicles. They don't shoot on wheels and aways die - Roadkill the most powerfull feature on Arma

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO Arma is doing best and is most unique as comprehensive battlefield simulation/representation (battlefield as a whole - that's the proper focus here to me). And definitelly should stay that way. That means all kinds of forces at least decently simulated (currently there's additional emphasis on infantry, which seems OK) and huge geotypical terrains, to avoid any artificial limitation, that would distort reality of combined arms combat as for battlefield size, room for maneuver, allowing avoiding detection tactics, flanking etc. etc... and allowing "whole, big map" SP scenarios, which I like most. Apart from that, why not, some small maps could be present too, could be even just cut out pieces of the main terrain, whatever. But never instead. 


IMHO again, as for further improvements, emphasis should be on the AI aspect, then terrain/weather/environment (including both, nature and civilian population) tech. Both are crucial aspects of battlefield simulation. Also, it may be expanded, why not, in the direction of some kind operational level layer including dedicated AI. 

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both infantry and vehicles and i agree with most of the people.If you remove one element or the other the game is half complete.The keyword here is Combined Arms,that's what ArmA was from the beginning.Infantry,tanks,helicopters,drones,arty and somehting important that we all tend to forget...logistics.That's right,every little piece is important in ArmA games and without even one the game would be incomplete.

I like how players using all these elements together to win and each player has his/her role and play his/her part for the team.I believe we all did that at least once,some of us we doin' it more often and when it works is f@cking beautiful.I wouldn't give it up for the world.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not immagine arma3 without a combined arms theme.


When i create a mission,i leave it open ended,it usually contains tanks,IFVs,transport/AH aircraft But the mainstay will always be infantry groups.

There are situations where either infantry,or vehicles are the right "tool" for the job,it creates a sense of tactical decision making on the commanders part.


I never know what i will feel like playing as when i boot Arma3,so my missions contain all assets where possible,and are as balanced as possible.But even if i play as infantry,chances are that me and my AI squad will at some point be clamering into a BTR-80A,and rolling into battle,or boarding a MI-8 and rappeling behind enemy lines to set the stage for armour to safetly roll through later on.


If my missions where limited to only infantry,or veihicles,it would be boring,and i would actually return(cant beleive im saying this) to Battlefield(fuck you EA)


However...if Bohemia ever create assets for LARGE interior spaces,i would not complain,settings like a metro/underground,or large factories would be a nice variety shake up.


I do understand people frustrations with AI driving,its my biggest gripe in Arma3,when a combined arms mission fails because of terrible path finding,it needs to be improved,or there needs to be a system in place to "get vehicles back on their WPs" but i appreciate the sheer scope of this game.I will always support Bohemia and the modding community as they aim to improve these aspects of the game....but completely ripping out a very important part of this game would be a terrible idea,and thankfully it will never happen.Its Arma's selling point,combined arms.


The only time i play infantry only,is when i escape the realm of military themed mission,for example i love exploring chernarus,i use Ravage mod as foundation for this,its survival.Tanks have no place here,for me at least,There are of course other players who can justify armour in a zombie apocalypse,and thats fine.we all have our own tastes,and the fact that we have CHOICE,makes Arma3 what it is

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, I just couldn't see ArmA without vehicles.  ArmA  = Armed Assault, so why limit it to just one realm?


The problem I see with a lot of people who agree with limiting content like vehicles is that they usually base ArmA as a whole on the one or two Mods that they have experience playing.  e.g. King of the Hill, Life, Exile, CTI, etc..  From that narrow view point, I can totally understand why they'd want something removed; because in these mods there is usually little to no restrictions on how things like vehicles are played. e.g. Where they must start from, where they must stay, what their role is.


For example, King of the hill... When you require infantry to fight inside a little circle but give tanks and helicopters freedom to roam around outside and kill from beyond visual range, players are going to flock to those vehicles for as long as they can afford it... This in turn makes the game less fun for newer or infantry focused players, which is why KOTH has rules about such things now.  I myself have asked for things to be removed from King of the Hill servers because of this.


The same can also be said about those who call for the removal of a certain vehicle because it doesn't match up with the missions they want to make and play.  For example, complaining about generic factions, NATO, CSAT, AF, because they all have similar vehicles but the player wants to play super power vs. underdog... Rather than just not adding certain assets to one side, they write post and complain about why such and such vehicle should be removed. 


The point is that one or two mods or one or two different play styles, doesn't even  begin to represent the whole of what ArmA is, A MILITARY SAND BOX.  


Side note: I've been inactive for a long while but way back in 2013 or 14 I wrote out a big wishlist of futuristic or realistic-ish things I would like to see added to the game including things like...
Being able to shoot out vehicle optics.
Being able to shoot through gun ports in certain armored vehicles.
Better vehicle damage models.
Balanced Active Protection Systems for many vehicles, not just tanks.
Different key binding sets for vehicles to discontinue as much need for the scroll wheel menu. 
Interiors for tanks, possibly a futurisitc forward looking video display moutned on a helmet. (I even drew a sweet picture... https://postimg.org/image/daaxxygnj/

Tactical goggles/glasses that remove the hud when not worn. 

Ammo consolidation.
One point slings.
And even... The possible option for the driver of the tank or IFV/APC to take control of the turret and drive/shoot .... Kind of like Tanks in Battlefield 3, to keep us from having to rely on crappy AI drivers or gunners...  As with a lot of different suggestions though, this should be an option that you have the ability to disable, say for multiplayer game modes.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now