Arma 3: Community wishes & ideas- DISCUSSION

[metalcraze 290]

BIS said there will be gear selection in the editor this time.

Better 11 years later than never

[Maio 293]

I think it would be nice if there was a nice little gear editor built into the unit placement... device... thingy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a load of issues typing in code into the initialization box, but it is a bit time consuming.

What do you guys think? Am I totally in the wrong?

Nope :) You will be able to select your headgear, tactical vest, backpack/pouches, comouflage and weapons from a drop down menu within the editor.

[EDcase 87]

Yep, UI is one of the main things BiS has to work on in the editor.

More options in menus and less typing in fields.

Altering parameters of modules should NOT be done with text files that are made outside of the game:j:

Make parameters with drop down options or numeric input

[Herbal Influence 10]

Please don't make the mistake of Battlefield 3. Please continue to allow offline usage and not-spying on your users. And allow non-DVD-usage after first upgrade. Thank you!

On the most frequented jounal on politics EA is since yesterday on the front page with the main headline: "EA spying on users with BF3" and there is - for good reasons - an enourmos reaction in the forums!

[Zoz 10]

After I posted a tought on ArmA's AI on offtopic I decided that maybe it would have suited this thread better.

I am talking about ArmA's AI on a higher than squad level and thinkin of a reason why we are gettin more special forces than combined arms action:

Maybe the reason we are gettin more OMG-ninja-delta-speshul-forces carp is that ArmA's AI cant really simulate a combat on a lets say even platoon level!

What I mean is:

If we have a platoon on the field (lets say 3 infantry squads,1 weapon squad,HQ) some things became really obvious, like:

-No chain of command

-HQs are just guys with guns and a high rank

-Each squad is on its own and doesnt really reads the situation(ie: enemy contact->go danger->attack without evaluating the situation and enemy forces)

Squads are supposed to be connected togheter and work towards the same objective, having them lying around and doing whatever they feel like doing makes it hard to simulate something bigger than squad level operation.

So maybe, since the squad is the biggest coordinated entity we can have on the field(without scripting or High command?) having this OMG-ninja-delta-speshul-forces carp esulating from any chain of command is what would make more sense?

Anyway, I have to say I never really used the High Command feature in my missions so, I ask you: would it be able to simulate something like this?

Also, on a slightly related note, I would like to hear some thoughts on the way the AI fires their weapons.

I think that when AI opens fire it is always aiming to kill. They dont really fire in your general direction just to gain fire superiority, they really aim at you!

Mind you, I'm not complaining about the so called deaths from "random" bullets. That quite never happened to me.

I just mean that the AI being so deadly every time they open fire, leads to shorter-than-real-life firefights.

Its even more weird when guerrilias squad are so deadly.

Just by looking at the bullets-per-kill ratio you can understand how winning a firefight is strictly related to gaining fire superiority.

This is the very role of machineguns after all. They havent got a 800rpm ratio because they need them to kill 800 persons in 1 minute!

Hope someone picks up the discussion so we can expand this a bit, as pretty much my every single post in this forum gets ignored! (I even got a new shiny avatar, so you can see me better!)

I personally would really like to hear some thoughts on that quote of myself above, as I think that the things I explained are what keeps ArmA away from the large combined operations we all love!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

AI being so deadly every time they open fire, leads to shorter-than-real-life firefights.

They have to be like this to counter our own incredible accuracy. As long as we keep fighting as if it is a video game and not like real soldiers (not fearing for our lives and no breath control to achieve aiming stability and no "forced fear"), that would only make the AI incapable.

[-Coulum- 35]

I think that you are right zoz. Ai squads must be able to at least try to work with one another. It doesn't have to be perfect but anything would be better than what bi has implemented so far... Which is nothing. I think that their should be another type of group which consists of several smaller groups.

The squad with the highest ranking soldier is the hq of the "platoon". When the platoon meets an enemy the hq will assess the friendly to known enemy ratio, assess the terrain and cover the platoon is in, assess it's overall objective and decide wether to attack, retreat, hold position or try to bypass the enemy. Depending on the chosen course of action the hq will assign squads to basic roles such as suppressive, aimed fire advancing and flanking roles. Depending on each squads role they will fight in different ways.

A really important part of this system is that the ai actually knows when to and how to retreat or seek advantageous terrain to make a stand in. Right now, too often ai will get attacked by greater numbers and instead of running away they go prone and make a stand in the middle of totally open terrain.

as far as ai weapon handling, the ai are far to accurate, far to quickly and rarely try to suppress each other. But as Carl Gustav pointed out, this is simply to balance the fact that the player is also uber accurate.

To solve this I think a more complex aiming system should be implemented that forces you to steady your weapon and breath in order to get accurate shots off. This would allow for the ai to be less accurate and thus would increase firefight times.

But in my opinion the thing that will improve firefights and stretch their length to more realistic times is making the ai not only know how to find cover but also know how to use it. Finding cover means that they can put an object in-between them and the enemy- they already do this relatively well. Using cover means when a shot wizzes by them they will actually hide behind the piece of cover making themselves totally out of sight from the shooter. Basically ai should actively be peaking in and out of cover depending on how much fire they are taking. Not only would this make it harder to shoot enemies quickly and make firefights longer and tougher, it would also introduce real suppressive fire.

[PuFu 4600]

They have to be like this to counter our own incredible accuracy. As long as we keep fighting as if it is a video game and not like real soldiers (not fearing for our lives and no breath control to achieve aiming stability and no "forced fear"), that would only make the AI incapable.

They could always increase the sway some more. I mean i have a HUUUGE sway when moving around with sights up (even in the slowest mode available in A2), a lot more than anyone with 2 capable hands and somewhat acquainted with a rifle will ever be able to achieve without some sort of mechanical illness, but i get to keep the weapon straight on no matter of stance (which reminds me of the fact that one cannot affect the sway individually, crouch and prone are defined the same, while standing is different :|)...

[Zoz 10]

I think that you are right zoz. Ai squads must be able to at least try to work with one another. It doesn't have to be perfect but anything would be better than what bi has implemented so far... Which is nothing. I think that their should be another type of group which consists of several smaller groups.

The squad with the highest ranking soldier is the hq of the "platoon". When the platoon meets an enemy the hq will assess the friendly to known enemy ratio, assess the terrain and cover the platoon is in, assess it's overall objective and decide wether to attack, retreat, hold position or try to bypass the enemy. Depending on the chosen course of action the hq will assign squads to basic roles such as suppressive, aimed fire advancing and flanking roles. Depending on each squads role they will fight in different ways.

A really important part of this system is that the ai actually knows when to and how to retreat or seek advantageous terrain to make a stand in. Right now, too often ai will get attacked by greater numbers and instead of running away they go prone and make a stand in the middle of totally open terrain.

as far as ai weapon handling, the ai are far to accurate, far to quickly and rarely try to suppress each other. But as Carl Gustav pointed out, this is simply to balance the fact that the player is also uber accurate.

To solve this I think a more complex aiming system should be implemented that forces you to steady your weapon and breath in order to get accurate shots off. This would allow for the ai to be less accurate and thus would increase firefight times.

But in my opinion the thing that will improve firefights and stretch their length to more realistic times is making the ai not only know how to find cover but also know how to use it. Finding cover means that they can put an object in-between them and the enemy- they already do this relatively well. Using cover means when a shot wizzes by them they will actually hide behind the piece of cover making themselves totally out of sight from the shooter. Basically ai should actively be peaking in and out of cover depending on how much fire they are taking. Not only would this make it harder to shoot enemies quickly and make firefights longer and tougher, it would also introduce real suppressive fire.

Having some sort of basic coordination beetween groups would be very nice (read: essential) to have, but I know that would take a huge lot of work.

Just imagine what would be like to have the AI being to do all the things you posted! (Detection and classification of threats, understanding the environment they are acting into, being able to transmit infos on a realistic chain of command using: radio, visual contact, put on a coordinated and balanced effort, and so on..)

I would be watching AI meeting engagements all day!

Anyways, to have the "AI platoon" react in a realitic way, they should be told via editor the situation.

They must have clear objectives and knowledge of the surroundings and general situation. That would be hard to achieve. Still doenst mean we cant have something even very basic.

There would also be the need to simulate suppression effects a bit better!

Its all about using your assets to create fire superiority, thats how you not take casualties and can create room for manouvering. If you dont have fire superiority you fall back!

Sometimes I think AI doesnt understand how their lifes are at risk here!

Anyway, considered all I said before, I would even settle for a "small" change like:

AI squads (and I mean the squads we have now) being able to decide whether or not to retreat or attack. Just that. But this would probably lead to a infantry squad running around the island while being stalked by mech forces. Not that it would be a problem to me, but maybe to mission makers.. (module request!)

Right now every time a AI is spawned it doesnt care to know where it is or what it is doing. He just knows, that no matter what, he will need to attack! :(

That is sad.

On the matter of firefights, considering what you guys said, the best solution would probably be better cover system, as the easiest way to increase survivability is to cover most of body while fighting.

But I think we are getting that, already.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Right now every time a AI is spawned it doesnt care to know where it is or what it is doing. He just knows, that no matter what, he will need to attack! :(

That is sad.

Not entirely true, because that is decision making left to the mission maker. We can manipulate waypoints, change their modes, cause them to flee or surrender, disable leader to not issue attack orders and so on. The reason few tries to do it is that it is painfully difficult and that it creates too serious overhead you really don't want to have.

I've done artillery decision making using fsm. Like evaluate situation and choose what to do based on that. It evaluates lighting, use of spotting rounds, mortar or artillery, enemy types (not density), choose weather or not to use illumination coordination (slightly random), re-evalution of the situation after spotting rounds, accounting for enemy movements, friendly activities in the area - basically all the stuff I would have tried to think of as a forward observer. Even at 84kB, this is a fairly easy decision making process compared to realistic "what to do and how to do it" behavior on a per unit/group basis. I fear that what can now run 100 AI units would only allow 10 AI units with this stuff running, but without causing the mission to get 10 times more difficult because of it.

[-Coulum- 35]

Even at 84kB, this is a fairly easy decision making process compared to realistic "what to do and how to do it" behavior on a per unit/group basis. I fear that what can now run 100 AI units would only allow 10 AI units with this stuff running, but without causing the mission to get 10 times more difficult because of it.

I don't have much knowledge of the game mechanics or the limits of computers but I still think that it would be possible to improve ai's decision making and situational awareness on a broader level. yes, if we were to make ai large scale decision making totally realistic, our computers wouldn't be able to run the game so bi shouldn't be doing this. but they should in my opinion, try to implement the basics. when I make missions I use upsmon and it does the job relativley well without crashing the computer. Units are able to coordinate and communicate with one another and will surrender when they know they are beaten. I think this type of interaction between groups should the standard in arma 3.

There would also be the need to simulate suppression effects a bit better!

Its all about using your assets to create fire superiority, thats how you not take casualties and can create room for manouvering. If you dont have fire superiority you fall back!

Sometimes I think AI doesnt understand how their lifes are at risk here!

This is my biggest grudge against arma and its ai. The game is supposed to be a "modern combat simulation" yet it doesn't have the most important element of any firefight - suppressive fire and effects. This is because the ai doesn't really care for their lives and would rather stand up and try to shoot you instead of go prone and hide behind the wall they are behind so they can live a little longer.

This is why I think a key improvement to the ai is to teach them how to properly use cover. If ai will fully hide behind cover when under fire it will be possible to actually suppress them so that they can't see or shoot you.

on another note, increasing the availability of cover would go a long way to making fire fights seem more realistic as well. having micro terrain, and making long grass/brush actually somewhat conceal you will make it possible to have long fire fights even in realativley open spaces.

[Zoz 10]

In my opinion we are touching the most important subjects of ArmA, here. Even more than stealth kills!

I am going to expand this a bit more, speaking about morale.

I dont rightly know how the current one works, but here is my thought on how it should work on a fictional situation where we can set up entities formed by more than one group (see previuos posts) :

-Having module to set up "parent" groups (HQ) and sudordinates groups (rifle, weapon ecc squads)

-Making them use a simple chain of command (radio, visual contact)

-Making them employ basic fire and manouvre tactics (with enhanced suppression and cover system)

Now, in this system the morale of a unit might be defined by:

• -Connection to chain of command (losing contact with friendly units during a firefight is bad. Someone might think "Hey did everyone forgot about us and pulled back?" or who knows what)
  
• -suppression (with a new suppression system, of course. Maybe even introduce visual feedback for suppression or cowaring, and I'm speaking of small animation here, not user interface)
  
• -Average physical situation of soldiers in that group (a module for physical tiredness)
  
• -Average mental situation (If a Striker is blown up and the squad inside it manages to get out, they will be shaken)
  
• -Casualties and wounded soldiers sufferd by the group
  
• -Are Squad-leaders or even low rank soldiers alive? (leadership factor)
  

All this factors plus some others I cant think of might define a group's proficiency and, if morale gets below a given number, the group (or whats left of it) might take action on its own, ignoring orders from parent unit (if they even are in contact with them) and eventually leave position and fall back or surrender.

After reading my thought you can soon realize how the AI wont react as you expect them to in most situation you can think of, with the risk of making this very frustrating perhaps. (Or very rewarding)

Plus using such "realistic" factors to define the AI proficiency might lead the already selfless AI (read:suicidal) to perform even worse.

Still, for a military simulator, this should be the way to go, probably.

The problem maybe is to get the AI on-par with the tactics we want them to use. Introducing the unforgiving equations I explained above with a AI that cant actually use cover would be pointless maybe.

Btw this is just brainstorming, I didnt even post in the official suggestion thread.

[-Coulum- 35]

Morale would be an interesting game concept to have in-game. There's no doubt that it has been a huge factor in every war in history so it would be a reasonable addition to arma. It would allow you to essentially scare units off objectives, and would reduce the amount of kills you get in a sitting – which may be a con for others but is a good thing in my opinion – because half the enemy will surrender or run away before you can shoot them, assuming of course that the ai actually knows how to use cover. Also on the larger scale games, it would add a whole new dimension to strategy. This is assuming that enemy ai have the mentioned commanding abilities however. You would be able to pull off realistic tactics like the blitzkrieg – hit em hard and fast with the tanks before they can effectively form a defence and use the infantry to clean up the unorganized and demotivated remainders. The more I think about this the more I think of it as a must have in arma... but players wouldn't really be able to realize its full potential unless they were playing platoon+ sized scenarios. In my opinion there is still much that needs to be worked on at the squad level (suppresion and ai cover usage) and that bi should work on making these things much better before they try to get into the bigger stuff. That being said, it might be nice if bi could set up a frame work for a morale system so eager modders can create a morale system.

Never the less, to add to your morale system I think that known enemy to friendly ratio would need to be taken into account when calculating a units morale. Also, the general training, and base motivation of units would need to be taken into account. Ie. A villager defending his home town would have better moral than lets say a conscript fighting over seas.

It is a very attractive feature but right now I think the focus should be on fixing up squad sized engagement. Like mentioned before, introducing these more complex ideas before the ai knows the basics may make things worse. When bi gets to the larger scale stuff Morale will be a must however. Another thing that is a must in the larger scale engagements would be logistics.

[Haystack15 10]

This is my biggest grudge against arma and its ai. The game is supposed to be a "modern combat simulation" yet it doesn't have the most important element of any firefight - suppressive fire and effects. This is because the ai doesn't really care for their lives and would rather stand up and try to shoot you instead of go prone and hide behind the wall they are behind so they can live a little longer.

This is why I think a key improvement to the ai is to teach them how to properly use cover. If ai will fully hide behind cover when under fire it will be possible to actually suppress them so that they can't see or shoot you.

+1:)

Plus Another Word.

[Tom1 10]

I'm loving all of these ideas about AI so far.

Morale, supression, use of cover and chain of command stuff.

I would like to see AI perform room and building clearance properlly, AI surrender, AI retreat properlly with smoke grenades and supressive fire and bounding movements.

People have been talking about AI supression? Why settle for JUST supression when you could have AI supression, AI attempting to supress you, AND AI splitting up; some supressing and providing over watch, some flanking or advancing, and sometimes even retreating.

This could mean that at platoon level 2 squads could stay back and supress while one advances, then stays to supress while the others advance.

At squad level, a fireteam may stay and supress while the other(s) move.

At fireteam level, buddy teams are used. This does't mean that 2 groups of 2 will split up and piss off 200 metres away from each other, but when moving in danger mode, they will take turns covering and moving, and when one is reloading the other will increase rate of fire.

Infact buddy teams are just as important as the platoon level tactics, they give a basis of how units (from snipers to 12 man squads) should work together and asides realism, tougher AI and sheer awesomeness, buddy teams open windows for:

Working assistant machine gunners that will 'spot' for the gunner in either direct chat or group radio chat. This could be done by assigning all members of any given group a buddy team of either 2 or 3 people (for odd numbered groups) who will communicate over direct chat stuff like "you're firing too far to the right" and "you're on target". It doesn't have to be to the same standard human spotters work at, but it is something that will greatly improve the game and open many windows of opportunity for the game to be further improved in post-release patches.

The machine gunner assistants also cover the gunner when he's reloading and may even be able to help change barrels and mags.

Working assistant AT gunners who can cover the gunner while preparing, spot and even help reload some AT weapons while the gunner stays zeroed in on target. This reload is faster than if the gunner did it himself and also the the gunner stays aimed in on target. The assistants will chose to load the same type of round (if you have more than one) you just fired to avoid getting loaded with a HEDP round and getting shot by the tank you would have killed if you used your last HEAA round.

AI should also be able to use frags and grenade launchers. Grenade launchers are used by the AI against soft vehicles (stationary), static enemy positions, and are also used like a mahcine gun would to gain fire superiority. Explosions should have a supressive effect on AI as well as bullets.

One last thing:

Vegetation, while not hard cover, SHOULD STILL BLOCK AI LINE OF SIGHT :D

Not just the tree trunks, the leaves and bushes AND LONG GRASS should cut off their line of sight (prone enemies should no longer be able to see just as well as if they we standing up). They don't need to see someone to shoot them, they can still shoot at suspected positions, so dont let them cheat by letting them see through long grass and the leaves of bushy trees in a forest.

Forest battles were fine in OFP and Sahrani, where there pine trees and there was only the tree trunk to block your view (bushy bit way up top) and there was only the occasional bush or patch of long grass to get in your way. It is the vegetation that mkaes the AI hard to see in arma 2, yet they can see you fine.

The day I see a prone AI in long grass come up to a knee to take a shot in arma is the day I will drop absolutely everything i am currently doing in life and only play arma :)

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Moving away from AI I would like to see placeable trenches in the editor (not little dirt textures an actual trench that is 4 ft deep and can be made longer and wider in the same way a placeable trigger would. No it's not world war one but trenches and fox holes are still dug in when military are tasked with defending/occupying a place.

This would add to the possibilities of the game making it more fun. I am not however, suggesting that there should be an action in the action menu to dig a trench, that kind of stuff should be like placing an object - editor only.

This would give the 3d editor some real potential ;)

I would love for the body armour of troops to be taken off just like the vests and give them protection against bullets, but armour piercing bullets can penetrate heaps better (but do less damage after penetrating).

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Morale would be an interesting game concept to have in-game.

Like this? Don't think I've ever toyed with it myself though.

Morale, supression, use of cover and chain of command stuff.

But, all of this is already in, it's just that us mission makers find using it creates too much overhead, or in some cases I guess we're just plain old fashioned lazy about it.

I would like to see AI perform room and building clearance properlly, AI surrender, AI retreat properlly with smoke grenades and supressive fire and bounding movements.

Proper CQB just seems clunky with the current animation system I guess.

People have been talking about AI supression? Why settle for JUST supression when you could have AI supression, AI attempting to supress you, AND AI splitting up; some supressing and providing over watch, some flanking or advancing, and sometimes even retreating.

Try Domino (based on Domination, but a bit more broken, lol). AI will suppress you with everything they've got to make their arty and mortar rounds count. You know what's coming once they start suppressing you, and there is nothing you can do about it due being pinned down so badly. Probably not accurate to real life, but very effective. But again, this comes with an overhead, and I cheat badly with it to prevent that. All this is at mission makers discretion, there is no way to make a "general system" that would always work.

This could mean that at platoon level 2 squads could stay back and supress while one advances, then stays to supress while the others advance.

At squad level, a fireteam may stay and supress while the other(s) move.

There is really no point to fire & maneuver as long as AI doesn't desire selv preservation, fail to move efficiently, and we get to "ignore supression" and just mow'em down from great distances with weapons that I don't expect to be effective at those distances (tried silenced XM8 today; grossly overpowered - maybe not to real life, I wouldn't know - but compared to AIs abilities and disadvantages).

At fireteam level, buddy teams are used. This does't mean that 2 groups of 2 will split up and piss off 200 metres away from each other, but when moving in danger mode, they will take turns covering and moving, and when one is reloading the other will increase rate of fire.

This is already in, although abstracted (probably for coding complexity), in that a squad leader may send out pairs.

Infact buddy teams are just as important as the platoon level tactics, they give a basis of how units (from snipers to 12 man squads) should work together and asides realism, tougher AI and sheer awesomeness, buddy teams open windows for:

...SNIP...

Solve that for a "squad" consisting of one commander, one AA specialist, one spotter, one AT ammo bearer, and one crewman. See the problem? In a game where everything makes sense by being set in stone, that might be possible. But near impossible in a sandbox game where mission maker can setup pretty much all the weird compositions of a squad he desires. My mission portraying a norwegian engineer squad and teams would not confirm to "usual" standards.

Just try to make a "logistics selector and sorting" algorithm thing where you get out what you expect no matter what you put in. I'm no expert, but I think this cannot be done (within reasonable time and overhead).

One last thing:

Vegetation, while not hard cover, SHOULD STILL BLOCK AI LINE OF SIGHT :D

Not just the tree trunks, the leaves and bushes AND LONG GRASS should cut off their line of sight (prone enemies should no longer be able to see just as well as if they we standing up).

This is already in afaik.

They don't need to see someone to shoot them, they can still shoot at suspected positions, so dont let them cheat by letting them see through long grass and the leaves of bushy trees in a forest.

Unfortunately they don't fire blind though. I wish that instead of "removing the red target box" that they're actually shooting at, it would move about somewhat to simulate blind fire instead of cease fire without appearing as accurate fire (as it used to).

...SNIP...

This would add to the possibilities of the game making it more fun.

Unfortunately it would limit the fun because number of AI would make them unresponsive (even today they go "dumb" when too many and scripts doesn't get enough time to run).

Edited November 1, 2011 by CarlGustaffa

[Zoz 10]

On that last quote, I think he is referring to having trenches in game, unless I am missing something, and not at having super evolved AI routines if thats what you meant.

And yes, I knew we already have morale system, I was just thinking about it on a higher level.

And we might always use this more evolved routines with modules, without forcing things on anyone, and leaving us enough flexibility. (I see you have experience with how the AI works, so I ask you, Carl)

Anyway I'm glad to see we are putting out some good ideas (to me, at least) but probably we arent thinking enough about our CPU at this point. So maybe we have to keep most of our wishes for Arma 7. :(

Still, I fell (hope) that having less suicidial AI, a new suppression system (based on what we said on the last pages), a new cover system ,as AIs are already kinda good at finding it, but cant really use it properly (imagine AI being able to pop out of cover, shoot, get back to cover, and swap his position with another AI, so he can reload while the new AI keeps the fire up!*) isnt that impossible to achieve!

Btw, I was going to speak about a Med-evac module, because, as someone pointed out on the official suggestion thread, this isnt ww2, but I will save you that! I would probably push it too far, anyway :p

* Dream alert

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I actually don't think trenches are completely out of reach, even if we may not build them 100% accurate to real life. If the VBS underground system is able to "cut ground", even if by cutting slightly large and cover the rest with "something else than trench and generic ground", it would be better than nothing.

[purepassion 22]

here's a shit-long post and concept that took a crapload of time and effort :rolleyes:

:D

Would really appreciate if you could take some time, read it and give me some feedback of the ideas :)

Enjoy your day!

Pure :)

[Whalenator 15]

MiG-style planes for insurgents, improvised weaponry.

SU PAK FA (Experimental)

SU-47 (Swept Wing)

MiG-29 (aka "Fulcrum")

Also, although it would be more realistic just to have one airfield, it would really suck for CTI. Please. At least two.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Okay, you asked for it, so here goes :)

1) It's a bit too vehicle oriented?

2) Your MAV isn't needed, regular UAVs cover all needs and doesn't add anything unique. If anything small scale, I'd vote for HuntIR instead. There are few controls and usability issues that can go wrong, whereas UAVs I find pretty daunting to setup successfully (my way) in missions.

3) For UAVs, let's just keep what we have and improve those. We have one that hovers, a big one that can carry weaponry, and a small one which might be setup to be portable.

4) UGVs I really don't see so much purpose/usability potential in. Already existing mounted remotely operating guns are pretty much over-awesome already, even if it at least puts players at risk. Sad fact is that in 95%+ of the time, it will only be used as a pure killing machine in a game we're already killing with far too much efficiency already. But I'll go on a stretch and say yes to simple electrical based support vehicles that could be considered "cold" (no ir target), enemy would have to make visual confirmation of the threat, on a target (that is small and electrical, so little noise, especially in the future) have pretty good camoflage value. I don't understand why everything has to be armed to the teeth. All I'm asking for is M224, 60mm mortars that does less damage and may be less overkill to actually use (against AI, almost everything is a problem, and there isn't much I feel I can use without ruining my missions).

5) UUVs, I want to see how much of a hit the submersible system is before devoting too much effort into it. If very successful, maybe as part of DLC or something.

I really don't want a Skynet influenced war. Sorry for being a bit negative, but I don't see that much potential in your vehicles suggestions that would add something unique that most people would want. Oddly enough I'm more interested in more variants of existing stuff to ease the modeling cost. Granted, HMMWVs and Strykers are pretty well covered atm, but I don't want to loose those either for some fancy uber killing equipment I can't put to good use.

[purepassion 22]

Well if you don't like the UAV idea in general it's obvious that you're not a fan of increasing their use and presence ^^

However, by the fact that Pettka told me they will be a new key-aspect of the game and Lord Ivan was once asked to shortly present the major improvements in A3 and he mentions "engine-supported unmanned vehicles"within the few others, you get a glimpse of what role they might play in Arma 3 ;)

So there will be a new scope of UAV's, the question is how could it look like.

You mentioned "easing the modelling costs". The two vehicles regarded as most important (RQ-16 and TALON) can be found here and here ;) So yeah, thats exactly the case here :)

Another concern of you were the "lack of unique additions"

The major advantages of the T-Hawk over the existing ULB is

it's size, the maneuverability (the t-Hawk could even infiltrate larger buildings and fly into them),accessible video feed via HUD and especially it's man-portability.

All being completely new and unseen aspects that open a whole horizon of new tactical possibilities. :)

Other than that i totally agree that unmanned vehicles should also be used for simple support missions!

[NoRailgunner 0]

UAS "Switchblade" could be handy for some A3 missions where you won't get any arty support from base/oupost. Or some "throwable" air vehicles for infantry to recon and monitor certain areas. If you opponent is clever or lucky he will be able to track them down to find the source/operator or simply to shoot them down. ;)

Time is changing - armored cruisers/dreadnoughts are long gone...

[-GR-Operative 10]

PP, nice post! I like the ideas, only missing the BigDog by Boston Dynamics!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Hehe, BigDog - I could send it in to infiltrate a building and its sound would annoy the enemies to death :D

@PurePassion: Well if that's what they're focusing on, I guess I can agree on the THawk (Micro Air). My "issue with UAVs" isn't so much about the vehicles themselves, but lack of transparency to actually use in missions. If I have to choose between 2-3 UAVs that are easy to get working in a dedi MP environment and 10-12 ones that I have to spend a month to get working, I'll take the first option any day. That's what I meant with other observing techniques like HuntIR being less prone to being problematic to use (for a mission maker).