Jump to content
XerXesCZ

Lore friendly hub for CTRG

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'm at a loss now, so I'm asking for help here;

 

Currently, I've been thinking about making a small CTRG campaign for A3. I have some good ideas, some less good ones. However, I want it to be more or less realistic and lore friendly. The one thing that always bothered me about The East Wing campaign was the hubs. In todays warfare with all the possibilities, UAVs able to spot a mice on the ground, I've always wondered how in the year of 2035 they always somehow manage to hide their base of operations from technological superpower like CSAT. I'm always thinking that in a real life scenario, that base wouldn't last for an entire day.

 

The problem is - I'm planning to send the CTRG on various islands available in A3 and I need a believable hub. I'm pretty sure I can't make a base in a forest, much less in a power plant, for it not to be destroyed in a few hours. I was also thinking about using the USS Liberty - and narrate it like it's equipped with advanced cyber-warfare systems so it manages to stay hidden on the sea, but I can't think of a believable scenario in which CTRG can commandeeria whole destroyer-class ship.

 

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're overthinking it.

 

If you want to make a base for the CTRG, then just do it. Or make the base mobile, something that can be moved from location to location. 

 

Also, it's very realistic for special operation groups to operate off of naval ships. In fact, one of the options considered by the commanders of Task-force Ranger (Blackhawk Down) was to operate off of a carrier at sea instead of Mogadishu International Airport.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe fake a submarine, or a ship. There's the aircraft carrier. There's SDV's, and helicopters to move people into place. Maybe have them hide out by teams in ruins and abandoned buildings. Or, maybe, have some hackerman break into the drone streams and make the base disappear. This is the future, posibillities are endless.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the others by not overthinking it and also look at it from a gameplay perspective. You have to realize that all the terrains are large in computer game terms, but small (and even shrunken) RL terrains. Even with WW2 technology, Arma camps on Altis for instance would not remain hidden because the enemy would just send out numerous patrols (a couple of platoons) that can easily cover the entire island in one or two days.

 

But Arma terrain is also small for gameplay reasons. In RL WW2, the SAS had hidden camps in the desert from which it organized raids. These camps could remain hidden, because the area of operations was incredibly large. To get to their target they drove for many hours, I think even days. In modern warfare, transport helicopters still take hours to reach the objective and even then drop the infantry miles away from the target, so there's also hours of just walking. Recon in RL might also mean multiple days of just walking around, looking at traffic, goats etc.

 

No one but the most dedicated milsim group would like to do that, so therefore the scale of the whole game is limited. Terrain is smaller, travel times shorter, fuel tanks smaller, air defenses limited, etc. So it's perfectly ok to just put your base in a patch of jungle on tanoa and pretend it is impenetrable Colombian jungle where militant groups can hide for years.

 

Nevertheless I also feel sometimes uncomfortable with the scale and realism. What helps me is to include objectives that in RL are not enough, but in game symbolize a greater effort. I destroy a communication post and that prevents the enemy from sending in reinforcements (whereas in RL this would not be enough on Altis). I observe a road for about 10 minutes to destroy a patrol vehicle (which is already boring as hell in computer game!) symbolizing a stake out of multiple hours. I destroy two roadblocks and that symbolizes that the enemy has lost control of the roads in the area and I can now drive freely on them, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the CTRG units under Captain Miller were operating off from HMS Proteus. Zodiaks for fast insertion to Altis.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I agree, in the start it took wayyy to long for Miller's base to be bombarded, and its strange that no ground assault followed up. On the scouting missions you see A143's circling overhead, etc, how would they not have gone to check that base?

No thermal camouflage was used (in east wind), and some lights were used.

Once on Altis, presumably, there were civilians around (otherwise, what was with the roadblocks, and its not like the entire nation was evacuated and populated only by soldiers) and its easier to blend in.

Now the submarine asset is a British one, and Miller is British, and they somehow had access to SDVs, so it seems like maybe CTRG was supposed to have arrived via submarine.

Countering that is that a (presumably) CTRG helicopter was seen at camp maxwell shortly before things kicked off, and a submarine wouldn't have delivered a helicopter.

 

As to your missions:

1) HMS proteus and SDVs. In this case I guess beached SDVs would be the "hub", and would change position frequently

 

2) In a forest or other place, using the IR masking tents. If CTRG is using thermal camoflauge suits, and the base is covered in canvas that hides IR sources, it will be much harder to spot. A problem here is that vanilla CTRG don't have an arid camo thermal masking suit (can be remedied by mod or set texture commands)

 

3) Offshore carrier, and just say they have super stealthy Ghosthawks for insertion anywhere, and end missions with extraction back to the carrier/destroyer.

 

As to your campaign, it depends on the setting, as to whether or not a carrier or destroyer sitting offshore would be viable

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for your opinions. 

 

I was probably overthinking it, really, but thanks to your very helpful posts, I think I've got it figured out. 

 

Thanks again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 9:58 AM, joostsidy said:

Terrain is smaller, travel times shorter, fuel tanks smaller, air defenses limited, etc. So it's perfectly ok to just put your base in a patch of jungle on tanoa and pretend it is impenetrable Colombian jungle where militant groups can hide for years.

 

Nevertheless I also feel sometimes uncomfortable with the scale and realism. What helps me is to include objectives that in RL are not enough, but in game symbolize a greater effort. I destroy a communication post and that prevents the enemy from sending in reinforcements (whereas in RL this would not be enough on Altis)....

I also feel uncomfortable with this... but only in the context of a campaign/mission series. On a single mission, as an infantryman, its fine when there's not need to zoom the map out to see more than several km or terrain at once. From the boots on the ground perspective, the terrain seems huge. Once you start traversing it with helos, or doing several missions as in a campaign where you are advancing across the terrain, you realize how small it is.

 

All the way back to OFP... could the rebels really have hid in that castle in plain view of St. Pierre for so long? Nope... (but back then the view distance limit of 900 meters also made things seem bigger)

 

Its surprising to me that map size hasn't increased all that much from 1999

Spoiler

Maps_RV_full.png

Back in OFP, the largest terrain was 57 km (yet somehow back then I thought everon was larger). By 2002, we had a 95 km terrain. This was nearly doubled by 2009. From 2009 to now, the largest terrain is still Altis, at 270. Only 1.5x the size of A2's terrain, and 4.7x the size of OFP vanilla's terrain.

 

The detail has increased much more, so ports of the old terrains seem to run faster, but the size hasn't increased to the point that the scale isn't limiting. I think map layout also has a big effect.

Digression:

Spoiler

A 164km square will seem smaller than a 164 km island with an irregular shape. Compare United Sahrani vs Nogova, virtually the same land area, but United Sahrani seems much bigger. Distance for the sake of distance does help, so featureless water helps a lot Arma 3 changed this a bit, but large amounts of water can be made featureless. and feature cound on a peninsula will be much lower than in the middle of a square.

 

I'd like to see something much bigger, but at the detail level of CUP-everon or so... Then maybe the scale wouldn't be so limiting.

 

Heck, I'd just like to see ports of the original 3 islands, with about 50km between them. Actually, I'd like to see Chernarus+Utes (I know there's a cap that adds it, but the Utes island is right off the shore) + Everon (done with Chernarus assets to save memory), all 50km apart. That would only hav a combined area of 234 sq km, but I think it would seem bigger than Altis.

 

One thing that helps with the scale now is the use of offshore assets like carriers and destroyers. The base no longer seems to be right on top of any objective. Planes can launch and not immediately do a 360 and have a radar scan of air threats over the whole island, etc.

Even 30 km off shore, with a Blackfish transporting your squad, you can reach the objective in about 4 minutes... about 3 minutes if using a Xian.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ex3B said:

Its surprising to me that map size hasn't increased all that much from 1999

 

 

At that time I was fantasizing about how exponentially larger maps would be in the future! Unfortunately it hasn't come to be. 

 

You do see nowadays that map-size, map detail and GPU/CPU load are less correlated with all the newest technologies, so maybe an era of increasing map size is coming up. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 10:52 AM, Ex3B said:

All the way back to OFP... could the rebels really have hid in that castle in plain view of St. Pierre for so long? Nope... (but back then the view distance limit of 900 meters also made things seem bigger)

 

To this day, I still think of good old OFP campaign as being the best in the whole series, Resistance being only slightly better. From that day I bought all the successors and played every campaign. I agree completely, they couldn't hide, but I've come to realize this much later when replaying the campaign for old times sake.

 

I'm trying to recreate this in my campaign, but I'm being too hard to myself. I was largely inspired by IndeedPete's campaign M.E.R.C.S. - he managed to create the perfect hub where you can hang out between missions. But - CTRG operations being mostly unsanctioned black ops (Captain Miller's certainly was on the lower level of chain of command) - which exactly suits needs of my campaign, but also limiting me to place their base of operation on Liberty or Freedom, as they are simply too large ships to sit near shore unnoticed - and my campaign being "shady black ops and all 😀. The HMS Proteus would be great for this purpose - but it lacks interior and I lack the skill needed to make one. 

 

But, as I said, I think I've managed to solve this problem - I simply needed to stop overthinking it too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you managed to solve it, I think it is an interesting topic.

 

IMO what plays an important role in game / campaign design is that consistency is more important than realism. In game design it is a mistake to think that more realism or more options is always better (I think StarCitizen might be making this mistake). It's more about the consistency and integration. In the world you play it is normal that rebels hide in a castle only a few hundred meters away from the enemy. It would only be a problem if most bases would have realistic setups (size and distance), but the rebels in the castle are the only camp that is too close. Because OFP's campaign was so good, you subconsciously don't ask questions about the camp placement.

 

I think BI does a good job of maintaining this consistency with constraints: bases and distances small, everything taking place on islands or remote locations, etc. Yes, sometimes it is a bit forced, but that's also the charm of the Arma series. In real life, an infantry division, a couple of nuclear submarines or realistic radar and missile ranges can easily upset the whole game world. So that's why they are not in the game.

 

The curse of the designer is that you will always see a hundred flaws, but, fortunately, if you create something with good internal consistency, your audience will hardly notice!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, XerXesCZ said:

I think I've managed to solve this problem - I simply needed to stop overthinking it too much. 

Which is?

 

11 hours ago, XerXesCZ said:

To this day, I still think of good old OFP campaign as being the best in the whole series, Resistance being only slightly better.

 

I agree, it didn't have any plot holes really - unless you consider the ability of the FIA to hide to be a plothole (I forgave it, limited view distance, and limited scale, scale the island up, add civilians to blend in with, and its better. After all they passed roadblocks posing as civilians and such... happens on Altis in A3 as well)

It had infantry missions, it had stealth missions, it had tank missions, it had helo missions, at had a plane mission. It had missions where you get dominated, or do the dominating.

Sure, the story was fairly conventional (rogue general, has nuke, must be stopped. Red dawn-ish scenario where the tide turns). The helo missions were fairly simply, and the plane mission was super simple.

Resistance: didn't get the expansion pack when it came out, played it much later. Was enjoyable, but I missed having a few vehicle missions in the mix.

 

Further digression from the topic:

Spoiler

Arma "1" ... didn't play when it came out. Bought it for $2 when on sale, played a few missions, but it felt too dated compared to A3. I have the impression that the campaign would have been nice, but the interface simply felt really dated.

 

Arma "2": ... didn't play it when it came out, bought it on sale before I bought Arma 3 (even though A3 was out with Apex at that time). I was initially liking the campaign until the 1st free roam missions... it was a little too unstructured, and then I was worried about being completionist and getting everything for the "good ending". Then I saw that there are some warfare scenarios which I didn't really get into. I liked the OA expansion though, it had a mix of infantry and vehicle combat, good combined arms scenarios, etc. BAF started out good, but then I got to the 1st warfare scenario... and went... meh... I had played the PMC campaign through several missions. One mission I encountered a bug, and just never got back too it (coming back late to Arma, too many things competing for time and attention)

Then I played around a lot in the editor, loved chernarus, basically made my own series of missions/campaign that was a fairly straightforward NATO invasion of the southern coast of Chernarus, starting with F-35 missions, vertical envelopment, seizing the airfield on the south coast, on to cherno with helo support, etc. One mission as special forces in the north tasked with taking out an artillery site near devil's castle prior ot the invasion, and 1 mission taking skalitsy island prior to invading the mainland)

Then I had NATO forces stop after seizing the southern coast for "political reasons", and continued the conquest of the north as CDF vs chedaki (in my headcannon, a Northern Chernarus invasion, with there being a north and south chernarus like north and south korea), with some setbacks, constantly pushing north in a mix of infantry, armor, and hind missions... 1 mission taking out a convoy of reinforcements coming from the northwest along that road that leads off the map. The large north western airfield is secured, the north eastern airfield, the sobor towns, etc, all seems won.

Then a second wave of Northern chernarussians (russian forces), after NATO pulled back, that pushes the CDF back to a desperate defense of Cherno, with ACR mechanized forces arriving from the road along the southwest to save the day representing a fictional neighbor. Exhausted North-Chernarussians sue for peace, as they basically just lost the battle of the bulge.

 

A3's campaign was relatively good if you don't think about the larger plot, but just individual missions (still many plotholes, and I'm not a fan of the magic- eastwind device). I think it lacked in combined arms combat (well, on your side, it always felt like guerilla forces vs a competent enemy, even after the NATO invasion). There was a lack of vehicular combat content. The Steel-pegasus and tanks DLC stories that tied into the campaign solve this partially, but it still lacks aeriel missions (just how does the fixed wing showcase or jets DLC demo mission fit into the campaign? I don't think they do).

Spoiler

So, like A2, I made mission series that have a mix of armored, aerial, and infantry combat - for Tanoa and Altis. As it lacks voice acting, proper intros, and scripts for ambient animations to add ambiance, I don't release them (they lack polish, but the outline and gameplay are there).

 

Its a shame, too, because A3 has a lot of mechanics that make for even better possibilities for combined arms scenarios. Fastk movers doing Air superiority missions, then SEAD, followed by Blackfish dropping buttloads of infantry and medium armor/ Helis dropping off infantry, MRAPS, Nyxs, etc.

SDVs swimming up an inlet and showing up in an unexpected place, take down an ADS, and secure an LZ for the airmobile MRAPs, tankettes, and medium armor... couldn't be done without VERY heavy scripting before.

 

The big limitation is CSAT, their airmobile ground combat vehcile assets are horrible (MRAPs, LSVs, and that's it, vs NYx's for the AAF, and MRAPs, Rhinos, and Marshals for NATO), going with amphibious assets doesn't help much (marid with an HMG and GMG vs NATO's marshall with a 40mm autocannon, and AAF with a 30mm autocannon and AT missiles).

Its why I modded a Marid variant that is airmobile, and can fire APDS rounds (and its GMG can fire "saboted" 20mm cannon shells at higher velocity for more range, but still significantly lower velocity than standard 20mm cannons such as on the Nyx and buzzard).

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex3B said:

Which is?

 

 

For some of the first missions I've decided using the Liberty; it's simply too good so it overweights some of my former decisions of not using it. Haven't decided if I use helo or boat insertion, but in any case I'll add fade to black and "a few hours later", making the impression that the ship is far more away from the shore than it actually is. Later - because always returning to a ship would be time consuming and non-viable - I'll go with forest camps using the camo nets and a safehouse in a city. 

 

1 hour ago, Ex3B said:

Sure, the story was fairly conventional (rogue general, has nuke, must be stopped. Red dawn-ish scenario where the tide turns). The helo missions were fairly simply, and the plane mission was super simple.

 

I was basically a kid when my dad got it for me, but yea, the story was fairly conventional. I wouldn't consider it a flaw, however.

 

Elaborating on previous titles - first OC only:

Spoiler

Arma1 - I've played the campaign about half a year later when it came out - so it didn't feel dated to me. It was a good campaign, but far from qualities of the OFP one.

Arma 2 - Well, that's a different story. I've liked first few mission which were pretty straightforward recon ops. But when the free roam missions started, I've kinda forced myself to finish it. Didn't like them very much, lack of straight objectives and "figure it all for yourself" approach on the map size of Chernarus... I liked the DLC campaigns more though.

 

I've liked the A3 campaign, actually, my campaign is planning to elaborate on it a bit. Eastwind device seems believable to me - considering the year being what it is. I use to think about the CTRG as some general purpose black ops unit that don't have to necessary "research" combat technology (like the Eastwind device). There was this TV show called The Unit in which the actual unit was called something like "Logistics Divison", hinting that they are some kind of military clerks and not giving away it's actually a combat unit used to do the dirty work. When someone on Reddit has connected the dots for me (I was too dumb to figure it out myself), I've realized that it actually might have some added depth - like the crater in A2 PMCs campaign might be actually from the early tests of the EW device, or that at some point in ToH campaign it was transported somewhere. 

 

It's a shame you didn't released your work, I for one would certainly enjoyed it. I still replay some user made campaigns and missions in A2 from time to time. One thing is for sure, when I release mine, it's going to need some serious proofreading, since my English is far from perfect. If I invest in voice acting depends if people will like it.

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

×