The still missing and badly needed Marines DLC

[maffa 29]

Hello everybody

 

After the news about the Jet DLC, i couldnt help but wonder why something has never been done about amphibious/littoral operations, namely something around the concept of a Marines DLC. 

 

More than a third of all vanilla maps are made of water, but in turn the only seafaring vehicles available are the RHIBs, the minigun boat and the submarine thingie. Way too little, considering all the operations that can be conducted from the sea. 

 

Burnes had started to make some landing craft utility boats, namely the LCAC and the Mk10, but due to a hardware meltdown everything was lost and the project has been halted since. But i feel there should be more in terms of amphibious operation vehicles -moreso than jets, BTW, but as far as i am concerned thats gonna be a badly needed Sensors DLC with some planes thrown in as a bonus. 

 

In particular, there should be for both west and east sides, something on the category of a LHD (more on that later), LCU, AAV and LCAC or heavy cargo lander. 

About the issues pertaining such a large ship as a LHD, there are some unexplored problems:

 

• there hasnt been such a big vehicle yet, so there is no reference about it's physics, hitpoints, vulnerabilities, how it should be damaged and eventually break and sink, etc;
• there is an engine issue about moving objects with people standing on them which wont stuck on the surface of said object but will slip away (or rather they stay still while the vehicle moves away), and this is a problem that also Burnes met when working on his landing crafts of his;
• and if our maps are waaaaaay too little for jet operations the very same thing can be said about naval operations (once you create a LHD for both sides it stands to reason that then youll place them both in a map and try to have the both of them throw things at each other). But if the first two are engine's problems, the third one is rather easy to solve: the space outside the map of Tanoa and Altis is still seawater, so you can go off the map as much as you want to. 

 

But then again, i dont plan to solve all the problems: i dont have the skills to address these issues. And the smaller vehicles are useful for storming beaches and badly in need to put all this water to some use.  I only wanted to raise awareness on this issue and gather (or maybe just test) the interest of the community.

 

So, what say you?

[masonddg87 16]

From my view point the platform was never meant to support Marine nor Naval units. It has away been Army, Air Force centered. It was stated years ago that all nations have an Army and Air Force, but not Marines or Navies. But starting with Operation Flashpoint the battles have always taken place on Island nations witch would fall under Amphibious Operations. But no go. When ArmA 2 was released, the community complained about not have army units not added to the platform. But you will never hear the reverse. What I am trying to state here is that BIS has never supported Amphibious Operations for ArmA in the past 16 years. An I fear they will never do so. For me the Marine units in the community is a waste due to no support from the creator of the platform.  

[semiconductor 309]

@masonddg87 In my opinion, the Marines DLC would make way more sense than Jets DLC. Jets have no place in Arma, period. Not with 2500m view distance, 100m average flying altitude, 10km-wide maps and stupid simplicity of flight model and aircraft operation. The engine just isn't capable to meet the basic requirements needed for interesting jet gameplay. Jets are fun in two cases: when it's Ace Combat-tier arcade with fancy explosions and epic music and when it's DCS/FSX-level of simulation when you spend 5 hours reading manuals on how to assign target and actually fire that $1000000 missile at lone $170000 T-34 that could be destroyed by a illiterate underage partially disabled mentally challenged mujahedin fighter under the influence of unhealthy dose of naswar armed with $500 RPG-2 and when you finally launch the missile you realize that you forgot to turn the autopilot on and, because you were flying upside down, the fuel stopped flowing to the engines so they stalled and there's no way you can start them mid-flight so you catapult and land into the forest in the middle of nowhere while seeing your $19000000 plane helplessly falling right in the center of some rural city. None of that is possible in Arma so it blows my mind why on Earth BI would waste time and resources on useless jets when even a goddamn tanks are way more useful, way more related to the infantry and their overhaul is long, looooooong overdue.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

^ I'm sensing some minor angst. ;-)

 

 

I thought that Tanoa and Apex would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce landing craft that can implement the new Vehicle-in-vehicle system to allow players to craft scenarios where vehicles can be shipped from one island to the next without needing aircraft.

[semiconductor 309]

7 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

^ I'm sensing some minor angst. ;-)

I'm just tired of not understanding BI's strategy throughout the entire Arma 3 lifetime. It seems to me that they almost randomly pick stuff and implement it because reasons.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

2 hours ago, semiconductor said:

I'm just tired of not understanding BI's strategy throughout the entire Arma 3 lifetime. It seems to me that they almost randomly pick stuff and implement it because reasons.

 

Actually believe it or not but they are catering to what the crowd have been asking for; you just have to look really hard to see it and not be blinded by what YOU want Arma 3 to be.

 

This is coming from someone who's been following every dev branch change log since they started them in A2.  BI are specifically targeting what people have been asking for for the last 8-10 years.

[heavygunner 179]

Saying that BIS doesn't do what the community wants is utterly retarded and one should look back at things like the 3D Editor, Bipods, AFM, AKs etc. and the list goes on which all were done by BIS. Also thta BIS should do somethign about Jets is also an often requested thing, so just because you don't want to have better Jets, doesn't mean no one is interested in it, 

[maffa 29]

Thanks guys for the feedback. 

 

The poor urgency of a Marine DLC, or any other sea related activity, is shown by the very low response to this very thread. I wrote it more than a month ago, and yesterday it got its first reply. This says all. Compare it to any jet or airplane thread, and get your own conclusions. 

 

TYhis thread was meant to cater attention and interest on the topic, but as you all can see almost nobody gives a toss about ships, period. Be it because there never were ships in any other arma titles so there's no experience attached to the activities involving marine warfare, be it because ships are seen as slow moving unexciting pieces of hardware, be it because beach storming dont excite anyone's fantasy... search me, honestly. In my mind a mission where you start from a LHD and you can land anywhere on a island shore with a fast armoured transport is much better than being transported by a C130 that took off and landed 6 km away from the dropoff point. it also is a much more employable piece of asset in public server mission types as KotH and alike.

 

I fought for years against the tide of people that want the strangest jet planes on Arma maps, because they dont make any sense whatsoever. Of course anyone is free to like anything they want, but dev time is a limited resource and i wanted something that was much coherent with the scope where Arma moves in. Serious fighter jet maps include both Koreas and sea up to japan, or the whole Balkan area, half of Italy and a piece of Greece, and DCS maps are as big as the Caucasus, while the second biggest map on Arma is an island you can stroll coast to coast and back on a lazy afternoon. moverover, with all the due respect for the outstanding job BIS devs do, planes "fly" like drifting air balloons, be it because flying is something that the engine doesnt handle very well, or because if they were to properly fly they'd need ten times the space to do so. I am an avid Arma player as i am a flight enthusiast, and everytime i see a plane on Arma my heart aches and my eyes are in pain. 

 

But again i cant blame anyone for liking what they like, and in this specific case this Jet DLC will bring a major sensor overhaul which is most welocome as it is overdue, and i cant wait for the Armor DLC. But i cant just help but wonder what all that water on Tanoa Altis Stratis is there for, if not to brag on map sizes on gaming magazines. 

[semiconductor 309]

5 hours ago, heavygunner said:

Saying that BIS doesn't do what the community wants is utterly retarded

Since you're clearly posses a wide knowledge regarding mental disabilities, I have a question worthy a well educated person such as you: are people who attribute statements they made up to other people in order to win an argument in the Internet considered retarded by the psychiatric community?

 

10 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

blinded by what YOU want Arma 3 to be.

Well, apparently I'm "blinded" with reality of the fact that Arma's engine isn't able to handle pretty much any kind of aircraft with the exception of helicopters and some unmanned drones. I would very much like it to be otherwise (I even made some F/A-18 missions back in A2 days on a huge desert map with small amount of objects so players would be able to see further than 2km, fly at an altitude higher than 500 meters and don't cross the map in 1 minute tops) but it's simply isn't. The people who demand better jets should have started with demands for a completely new engine because everything else without the foundation of an engine is a waste of development time. Arma couldn't have even remotely decent representation of jets just like the Silent Hunter couldn't have a remotely decent representation of infantry combat, all due to engine limitations, that's the reality, sorry not sorry.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

2 hours ago, semiconductor said:

Since you're clearly posses a wide knowledge regarding mental disabilities, I have a question worthy a well educated person such as you: are people who attribute statements they made up to other people in order to win an argument in the Internet considered retarded by the psychiatric community?

 

Well, apparently I'm "blinded" with reality of the fact that Arma's engine isn't able to handle pretty much any kind of aircraft with the exception of helicopters and some unmanned drones. I would very much like it to be otherwise (I even made some F/A-18 missions back in A2 days on a huge desert map with small amount of objects so players would be able to see further than 2km, fly at an altitude higher than 500 meters and don't cross the map in 1 minute tops) but it's simply isn't. The people who demand better jets should have started with demands for a completely new engine because everything else without the foundation of an engine is a waste of development time. Arma couldn't have even remotely decent representation of jets just like the Silent Hunter couldn't have a remotely decent representation of infantry combat, all due to engine limitations, that's the reality, sorry not sorry.

 

I'm fully aware that jets aren't and won't ever be properly simulated in Arma.  I think you'll also find that the crowds of people wanting more jets and jet related content probably also don't give two hoots whether the jets are properly aerodynamically modeled.  They just want jets that look cool, fly reasonably realistically and blow stuff up.

 

 

All Arma 3 needs naval wise in my opinion is 1 or 2 nice static LHD type vessels (like the USS Khe Sahn from A2), some landing craft with ViV functioanlity and maybe a riverine/coastal patrol boat of some sort.  Anything larger just won't quite fit or work in-engine due to size limits.

 

[maffa 29]

10 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

All Arma 3 needs naval wise in my opinion is 1 or 2 nice static LHD type vessels (like the USS Khe Sahn from A2), some landing craft with ViV functioanlity and maybe a riverine/coastal patrol boat of some sort.  Anything larger just won't quite fit or work in-engine due to size limits.

 

That's exactly what i asked for in my OP, except i can do without the coastal patrol boat since there's already the minigun boat. I never though of having a mobile, functioning LHD, with armaments and bells & whistles, even though i can hope for it. Unfortunately there's the problem of having unattached units to mobile vehicles that skid on place as i wrote before, so iether everyone has a position inside the vehicle (driver passenger you name it), or it wont work. Besides, the real missing asset is the landing craft, as there's nothing like that in either vanilla nor mod. 

[[evo] dan 79]

I would like a marine dlc, with a focus on littoral areas. This would consist of the following:

 

-Marine Infantry

-Small patrol craft (around 40-50m max)

-Landing craft up to the size able to carry a single tank

-Assault Vehicles

-A fixed launch pad (LHD/LPD) with working dock door and some self defence weapons

 

However, unless project Orange is this, then your probably better off having a go at making them yourself.

 

[maffa 29]

LOL if i could i'd already done it, dont you think? ;)

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

15 hours ago, maffa said:

 

That's exactly what i asked for in my OP, except i can do without the coastal patrol boat since there's already the minigun boat. I never though of having a mobile, functioning LHD, with armaments and bells & whistles, even though i can hope for it. Unfortunately there's the problem of having unattached units to mobile vehicles that skid on place as i wrote before, so iether everyone has a position inside the vehicle (driver passenger you name it), or it wont work. Besides, the real missing asset is the landing craft, as there's nothing like that in either vanilla nor mod. 

 

For the coastal patrol boat I was thinking something slightly larger than the current minigun speedboats we have now.

 

Maybe something like the Swedish CB90 or the Mk V SoC boat.

Or even something like Australia's Armidale class patrol ships.

[maffa 29]

That'd be nice, but as i said there's the problem that infantrymen canot move around the boat while it moves. If the ViV works because vehicles arent supposed to move around while being ferried around, people do move around, and if you need to defend a large obvious ship then you got a problem on your hands. Now, if i think at Burnes' LCAC and Mk10, they where made so that even if people remain stuck on the platforms if wont change much because the ship walls are so high that they wouldnt be able to do much anyways. But be as it may, im happy with anything. I just say that landing ships and USMC AAVs and a static LHD are much more urgent than anything else (as far as this supposed Marines DLC is concerned). 

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I'd love to see some more things to enable more use of the water, especially after the effort that was put in to make swimming underwater possible in Arma 3. I think even small things like a simple harpoon type weapon would be fun. And of course I think a few bigger things like an LHD, a proper submarine, and landing craft would open up a lot of options. I know the ViV doesn't work for players but I would be happy with a static LHD that teleports with a fade to black screen between transitions. They could add a USV/UUV drone to compliment the land and air drones. And some oil rigs to assault would be pretty cool too.

[joostsidy 685]

> small things

 

A water plane would be cool! You know those small/medium size propellor planes with ski's. Good for civilian or rescue purposes and even some (historical) military purpose. But probably it requires a lot of work because it needs a new fly-boat class.

[maffa 29]

(In the topic opened to take some attention away from planes to give sea assets some love, here's the proposal for yet another scenario irrelevant plane. This is hopeless...)

[joostsidy 685]

3 hours ago, maffa said:

(In the topic opened to take some attention away from planes to give sea assets some love, here's the proposal for yet another scenario irrelevant plane. This is hopeless...)

LOL, I went from thinking APEX missed an opportunity to have a water-plane instead of the 'standard' civ. plane, to suggesting a new plane in a thread that focuses on water assets.. I apologize sincerely.. :-)

 

I would pay many bucks for a - modest - Sea DLC which contains:

- Two types of landing craft for the main factions that can carry vehicles as well infantry. With black, arid and jungle color scheme.

- A 'cardboard' destroyer. No functionality, just like the Tanoan tall buildings. Didn't OFP have a cardboard destroyer?

- Functional wooden boat based on the Tanoan wooden civ boats that you see everywhere on the island

- Some random shit so BI can add another bullet point to the advertisement. Example: Vindex's idea: harpoon gun :-)

 

I like Vindex's suggestions: another asset added like an oil rig or some kind of water unmanned vehicle and I will upgrade my offer to big bucks

[maffa 29]

there are a couple oil rigs in the workshop already. You dont need much in order to do one, there are all the assets ready to make a passable one. What we need are operable things, nominally landing ships, stuff that can combine with land troops. I am not too convinced about riverine/patrol boats because thats something that cannot be done nothing about: say the enemy has such an asset, how are you (you infantryman) supposed to do anything about it? It's like an out of target tank that can obliterate you from afar and that will never come closer to your position, nor you never will to it.

 

Now, landing crafts: thats another set of things. With landing crafts (and USMC AAVs) you have a vector of entry from sea to land, you can hope from a Tanoan island to another, you have shore storming scenarios. And yeah, a functioning (as in "non clipping to your death") Khe Sahn is badly needed. 

[DieselJC 196]

This looks promising....Ive done a few offshore bases..pretty easy as the editor has everything you need...as far as landing crafts I use Burnes MK10 in all my missions..you can find it on his youtube channel with a link I believe..I know its not on Steam Workshop as he doesn't allow that.

 

Diesel

[masonddg87 16]

From my view point the platform was never meant to support Marine nor Naval units. It has away been Army, Air Force centered. It was stated years ago that all nations have an Army and Air Force, but not Marines or Navies. But starting with Operation Flashpoint the battles have always taken place on Island nations witch would fall under Amphibious Operations. But no go. When ArmA 2 was released, the community complained about not have army units not added to the platform. But you will never hear the reverse. What I am trying to state here is that BIS has never supported Amphibious Operations for ArmA in the past 16 years. An I fear they will never do so. For me the Marine units in the community is a waste due to no support from the creator of the platform.  

 

Staying with the subject of amphibious operation so far as ArmA is concern. BI IMO will never support aspiration by players who live in nation with a Marine Corps or Navy. The platform is made for Armies with Air Force support. Why are trying to shoehorn a branch of the arm forces that is unfamiliar to most of the planet. Everyone has an army an air force. Very few have a marines an navy. Even do its logical to be more focused on amphibious platforms due to most of the terrain being provide are islands or coastal landmass. I say BI will never support this in ArmA due to VBS witch provide the space and core engine components for the support of amphibious operations. This is a financial issue for them. ArmA is 65.00 - 35.00 a copy, while VBS is 3200.00 - 4500.00 a copy.  I wish for the day that we who wish for a proper amphibious operation can do so on ArmA. Just to upgrade the Terrain Builder to be able for a 387 by 387 km landscape would by wonderful. That would give terrain builders a chance to build the Green Sea for operations that would be more fitting for all operations. No more, no less. 

 

[kklownboy 43]

2 hours ago, masonddg87 said:

sip*

ARMA 1 was all marines.

[joostsidy 685]

8 hours ago, masonddg87 said:

shoehorn a branch of the arm forces that is unfamiliar to most of the planet. Everyone has an army an air force. Very few have a marines an navy.

 

 

Really weird argumentation. I don't believe many players will base their choices on whether their home country's military support certain assets. Everybody knows marines, landing craft etc. from popular media.

 

 

I think the lack of ships is because they are somewhat on the bottom of the Arma hierarchy: infantry, vehicles, helicopters, planes, tanks, uavs/boats.

 

I can understand BI not wanting to do large ships, like destroyers or attack submarines, because the BI terrains are in reality super-tiny and not suitable to medium/large scale warfare. The engine is also not so suitable for that kind of thing at the moment.

 

But landing craft should be doable. The Burnes Mk10 is a nice example and proof of concept. But I believe there are some issues with it.

[semiconductor 309]

On 2/1/2017 at 3:26 AM, masonddg87 said:

Why are trying to shoehorn a branch of the arm forces that is unfamiliar to most of the planet.

Because it one of the most important branches of armed forces of those countries which matter on a geopolitical scale. UK, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, US, China, India. Yeah, a bunch of small fries most of whom were part of aforementioned countries (or even each-other) mere 20-50 years ago don't have a Navy - so what? Their entire military wouldn't make a difference to the big guys in case of shit hitting the fan anyway.

 

One of the crucial things for an armed force is supply. And there are only two ways by which a sizable amount of supplies could be delivered: railroad and sea. The moment a country lost the ability to resupply or transport its army is the moment it lost the war. Russian Empire collapsed partially because the trains with loyal troops failed to reach the rebellious St.Petersburg in time because railroad workers took the side of revolution. Germany stuck in mere 50km (50,000 meters, 31 miles, less than an hour of relaxed driving) from Moscow during the WWII because it had overstretched it's supply abilities. It have failed on the Western Front partially because the Allies bombed their railroads to the stone age making transportation of the troops, resources and products to factories in different regions difficult. Not to mention the naval convoys to the Soviet Union and shipping of various ores from Sweden to Germany during the same war. UK managed to dictate it's will to a countries on the other side of the globe thanks to navy. Wars have been fought solely for control over a naval supply routes.

 

The Navy is crucial to defending one of the two critical supply routes, even more so when we're dealing the island state (Altis, Sahrani). There's no point in boots on the ground in Altis, for example, because the CSAT could have just cut NATO supply lines and just waited until the folks on the island starve themselves into surrender (note that they have already eaten all the furniture in a desperate attempt to prevent starvation). There were no need for the USMC to start the Northern Sahrani campaign - they could have just block its supply routes and in a couple of months the closest generals of the Il Presidente would have staged a "democratic coup". In 4 cases (OFP, Sahrani, Altis, Tanoa) out of 6 there is no point in a armed invasion because the invader can just cut the only supply route available and stare at this fancy timer counting seconds until "Hold" victory condition is triggered.

 

But yeah, a Tuvalu sure doesn't have a navy.