Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ex3B

Would you buy an amphibious assault focused DLC?

Recommended Posts

I am curious how much support there would be for a DLC similar to what I want (not that I would be in a position to develop such a DLC)

 

Basically, my DLC concept would focus on operations from ships or islands, assaulting other islands. I figure it should include:

 

A new terrain, consisting of 2-3 large (>50km2) landmasses, and some smaller islands. Could be just islands, could be a coast and islands. 4096x4096, with a 7.5m grid size (same as Altis).

 

2-3 New static ships:

A NATO assault ship (A higher poly and better textured version of the atlas lhd plus)

 

A csat carrier and csat assault ship, or some sort of hybrid light-carrier with a well deck and single cat+ wires (if on must make do with only 1 ship

 

2-3 new multi role fighters

An f-35b derivative for NATO, and a "j-31" catobar carrier fighter for CSAT, possibly some kind of slimmed down y-31-ish stovl fighter for CSAT.

 

2-3 new laning craft.

1 LCAC/LCU type ship each that can carry heavy armor and large logistics trucks, possibly some civy ferry boat.

 

A few new amphibious/ air mobile ground vehicles, particularly for CSAT, which lacks anything that can cross water and is protected against small arms while also having an autocannon or aa/at missiles. Even a vodnik port to A3 standards would be a big improvement (include working vehicle interiors for gunners and drivers)

 

A mv-22 or future vertical lift Helo/tilt rotor for NATO, to be somewhat equivalent to the CSAT xian(big enough to carry a nyx, no bigger)- the blackfish is a bit too big to operate from lhds without problems.

 

A giant heli (mi-26 like?) Or STOL aircraft for CSAT to be the CSAt answer to the blackfish vehicle transport... Should allow air transport of CSAt medium armor.

 

Then a campaign battling across the 2-3 island, possibly 2 short campaigns, one from blue's pov, and one from opfors

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!  Kind of a Spratley's-esque type scenario.  Obviously lots of time and sweat to make such a thing, but a South China Sea scenario would be epic.  I guess the concern is it might be "too big" for Arma, but still a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely NOT buy such a DLC if it was 2035 based. If it was set sometime between the 1940s and now, I would probably go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, scimitar said:

I would absolutely NOT buy such a DLC if it was 2035 based. If it was set sometime between the 1940s and now, I would probably go for it.

A guadalcanal type DLC would be epic, but why the opposition to a 2035 setting?

The problem with a 1940's setting is that it would basically be a total conversion dlc, and would need to replicate uniforms, guns, and all sorts of vehicles. Every cDLC thus far has been like this, and they all lack a "full" complement of vehicles needed for combined arms warfare (generally no fixed wing combat aircraft)

A 2035 setting would just need to fill in the gaps of the vanilla lineup with regards to amphibious assaults

 

18 hours ago, gatordev said:

Yes!  Kind of a Spratley's-esque type scenario.  Obviously lots of time and sweat to make such a thing, but a South China Sea scenario would be epic.  I guess the concern is it might be "too big" for Arma, but still a great idea.

 

Yes, the size of the maps is rather limited for 2 sides with airbases to be operating at the same time.

Generally, it would be best to not portray a NATO amphib going against a CSAT amphib...

But a CSAT amphib going up against some 3rd world military with equipment somewhere between that of the AAF and Syndicate? That could be done.

Also, static ships on island maps effectively expand the battleground with respect to air operations.

On Altis for example, one can place static ships off the normal map edge, 60 km apart. 60 km still is crossed really fast by the jets, particularly when they may open fire from 15 km away... But it's getting closer to being practical for gameplay - and imposing koth style protections around the team bases means that you can fight for territory between the bases without new jets launched by either side just immediately showing up right over the battleground.

 

I have heard that it may be possible to make a 8192x8192 grid map, which even at a grid size of 5m (intermediate between that of Altis-7.5m- and that if stratis/tanoa -4m/3.75m)...

If so, then the static ships could be 80km apart while still having excellent terrain detail (most of the map would be water in this case, but I would still expect 150-300 km^2 of land area)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the 2035 setting is criminally underused, so yeah, I guess I would be potential customer.

 

But it's not going to happen as an "official" DLC, integrated into the main game, anyway, so... bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2035 - Check

new Vehicles - Check

new Ships - Check

 

Spratly Islands?! That is really SMALL in terms of terrain design... We already have user made terrains like that - Kerama and Wake Island in the workshop!

 

If you proceed, you should model some anti-ship defense and sea to land bombardment systems... That is probably a more likely requirement by that time ... no one is going to allow some "freedom of navigation" rule to get close to their territorial range if they have the ballistic muscles to back it up.

 

You can keep it interesting with land to sea or low earth orbit hypersonic drones or cruise missile system a la Reagan's Star Wars program. Heck, even that low orbit steel rain system (Project Thor) would be interesting to see modeled since we now have militarized space.

 

Would be interesting but Amphibious assaults ships are so WW2. Those guys would be useful for a clean up operation, AFTER softening up the LZ. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Valken said:

2035 - Check

new Vehicles - Check

new Ships - Check

 

Spratly Islands?! That is really SMALL in terms of terrain design... We already have user made terrains like that - Kerama and Wake Island in the workshop!

 

I wasn't thinking 2035, but given the options we have available now, I wouldn't be totally upset if it was 2035.  I'd just use the map and make things contemporary with available mods.

 

But something to keep in mind with the Spratly's...it's not those islands that would be the battleground, it could (via an Arma storyline) be the actual islands of the PI where some of this would occur.  Or maybe Vietnam.  I was using the Spratly's as an example of what strategically may be in the storyline, but may not be in actual gameplay.  "Unnamed OPFOR" is pissing some governments off with their popping up in the Spratly's.  If the local countries aren't happy with economic concessions (or what seems to be happening more lately, economic strong-arming), something could blow up locally that NATO (and definitely the USN and USMC) gets involved in.

 

I tried to do this with a Tanoa mission set that I made for my own SP play, but it quickly fell apart into "local anti-government radicals."  But this might be a neat idea to try on the PF map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the storyline topic is interesting NOW due to geopolitics but by 2035, it might be way different (if keeping it somewhat realistic or plausible).

 

I believe it will be another false flag operation where radical fundamental insurgents in PI would trigger issues in various hot spots, covertly funded by those fed up of a strong CSAT + APAC neighboring alliance (not taking sides, just survival plausibility with CSAT including Russia's Naval Power and economic benefits for APAC neighbors).

 

Then you can go up and down the coast, model other Pacific Island nations including NATO friendly ones, and add some twists such as PI rebels try to break free of colonization (real world on going political issue). Then you have NATO coming in... I mean it is kinda hilarious NATO is involved in the Pacific as the A in NATO stands for Atlantic.

 

Probably better create the NATO allied Quad inspired factor to counter CSAT (Japan, India, Australia and USA + some APAC nations) as more plausible.

 

Hey look, history just wrote itself... CSAT + PI Rebels vs Quad vs Insurgents. Done, done and done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ex3B said:

A guadalcanal type DLC would be epic, but why the opposition to a 2035 setting?

The problem with a 1940's setting is that it would basically be a total conversion dlc, and would need to replicate uniforms, guns, and all sorts of vehicles. Every cDLC thus far has been like this, and they all lack a "full" complement of vehicles needed for combined arms warfare (generally no fixed wing combat aircraft)

A 2035 setting would just need to fill in the gaps of the vanilla lineup with regards to amphibious assaults

 

 

My answer to that fairly is simple. I just don't like the quasi realistic 2035 setting and never have. I've been playing since OFP though and I know what the mod community can do, so I didn't let 2035 stop me from buying A3. I knew that mods would eventually provide the gameplay that I was looking for and that has come to pass. Also, I did give 2035 a chance. I played the main campaign as well as many user made campaigns and missions that use the 2035 setting. I just don't enjoy that content as much as I do historical or contemporary settings. As for DLCs, I've only bought the ones that provided something that I felt was worthwhile to me, like Apex and Contact because of the Tanoa and Livonia maps but it was an easy decision to skip the ones that mostly only contained 2035 assets and gameplay. Unless an amphibious assault DLC provided interesting new maps or something else that could be used for the types of gameplay I enjoy, I just wouldn't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scimitar said:

 

My answer to that fairly is simple. I just don't like the quasi realistic 2035 setting and never have.

I've been around since OFP too (with a significant gap).

I'm... ambivalent about the change from real forces fighting in fictional countries of OFP, to real+ fictional forces fighting with real equipment in fictional countries, to real and fictional forces fighting with real and fictional equipment in fictional countries.

A2 even had shades of this with anachronistic f-35s, and A1 somewhat as well with the su-34.

 

A lot of the "future" stuff in A3 is actually real equipment.

Fictional, base game:

The MX rifles, CSAt suits, caseless ammo, A-164, greyhawk/abail, kajman, the new HMGs/gmgs ... The rest is real, although some never got past prototypes. Of those, none are really functionally different from real equipment other than the CSAt suits.

So to me it's basically still fictional forces with real equipment.... Same as earlier titles

 

With DLC, fictional:

Blackwasp, sentinel, shikra, xian, CSAt drone,blackfish, lsvs, type 115, Huron/ taru

The black wasp isn't that different from the latest super hornet with podded external weapons, or functionally different from a f-35c.

Shikra- not functionally different from the Su-57.

The apex vtols were the worst offenders. The Huron has no functional stealth, it's a Chinook.

The Uh-80 I left out because we know some kind of stealthier Blackhawk exists

 

Quote

I just don't enjoy that content as much as I do historical or contemporary settings. As for DLCs, I've only bought the ones that provided something that I felt was worthwhile to me, like Apex and Contact because of the Tanoa and Livonia maps but it was an easy decision to skip the ones that mostly only contained 2035 assets and gameplay. Unless an amphibious assault DLC provided interesting new maps or something else that could be used for the types of gameplay I enjoy, I just wouldn't buy it.

 

Well, if it added an A3 quality America or wasp class amphib, would that work for you? It's not future/fictional. Neither would LCUs or LCACs be.

Nor are F-35bs, or  "J-31" Chinese 5th gen fighters (although those are not operational/ finalized yet).

A Chinese amphib need not be fictional either:

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1222263.shtml#:~:text=The newly commissioned amphibious assault,purpose well in islands and

 

Granted, at this time, the only "opfors" carrier based fighters are going off skijumps, and are basically SU-33s.

 

As for the CSAT amphibious armor, I would model them on something like this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_05_amphibious_fighting_vehicle

Or similar...

So generally, no fictional equipment need be added. It would be a good idea to have a choice between a CSAT texture, or a more realistic color scheme.

 

I think such a DLC could be added that would use modern assets, and fit in with a real 2021 setting, or the armaverse 2035 setting.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually HMG/GMG is just a renamed weapon system that never made it past prototypes or testing. So technically it's real too.

 

As for would I buy a Amphibious DLC for ARMA 3, sure, assuming the assets are of good quality. Even better if it manages to add additional gameplay/feature enhancements similar to the official DLC's from years past. Things like radar functionality and anti-radiation missiles with the jets DLC, weapons resting with marksmen DLC, sling loading with the helicopter DLC etc etc. Something like maybe better ship based AI that would allow for more functional naval/coastal operations and fire support or can at least do some level of ship-to-shore work moving vehicles/personnel from a amphibious assault ship to the beach and vice-versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2021 at 8:35 PM, Valken said:

I think the storyline topic is interesting NOW due to geopolitics but by 2035, it might be way different (if keeping it somewhat realistic or plausible).

 

Overall, I don't think we're that far apart on some of the players, but looking at the handwriting on the wall, I don't think things will get any better by 2035.  There's a reason The Quad increased it's participation with interactions amongst its players.  They're all seeing the gorilla in the room expand and there's concern.  I can't imagine that changing, especially as the Belt and Road initiative continues to expand (and as I mentioned before, co-opting governments into hosting the expansion).

 

What is a cool idea from Ex3B's initial take is to approach the "game conflict" from the Quad's point of view.  The Aussies are players with the West, and the Indians are looking towards the future and starting to procure resources as a partner, so it's an interesting idea with assets, specifically in the SCS.

 

Obviously talking about it on the internet is a lot easier than actually making game content, but it is a neat idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saharani 2035 with Porto Island and South saharani, with spanish languages........ you can redone easily the Royal Flush campaign 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2021 at 3:08 PM, Ex3B said:

Well, if it added an A3 quality America or wasp class amphib, would that work for you?

 

 

 Sorry but that wouldn't do it either. I get that some of the weapons and vehicles are realistic (though many are prototypes that were never fielded) but that doesn't change A3 canon, which would certainly be an integral part of any missions or campaigns included with such a hypothetical DLC. Personally, I've always found CSAT to be just a bit ridiculous but not solely due to some of their gear or the CSAT suits and bug helmets. As an Islamic theocracy, I doubt that Iran will ever be secular enough (at least not by 2035) to be so centric in such an alliance. Whether CSAT is (or could be) realistic in the near future was discussed quite a bit when A3 was first released, so I won't rehash that any further but I do fall squarely on the side that believe that such an alliance is not realistic or feasible in the time period between when A3 was released and 2035. I didn't mention it earlier but I'm also a solely SP gamer, so story often means a lot to me. I'm not solely story motivated though, as I enjoy dynamic scenarios such as Hetman War Stories and others but considering that I now have high quality CDLCs and mods to provide the factions, vehicles, gear and gameplay that I prefer (mostly Cold War), I find no reason to ever use the vanilla factions and gear ever again. Sorry but considering my preferences, it's unlikely that any new DLC will appeal to me unless it's historical or contemporary in nature or contains new high quality maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, scimitar said:

 Sorry but that wouldn't do it either. I get that some of the weapons and vehicles are realistic (though many are prototypes that were never fielded) but that doesn't change A3 canon, which would certainly be an integral part of any missions or campaigns included with such a hypothetical DLC.

Well, it could be similar to the case of Apex, where CSAT=China.

I figure such a DLC would probably be set in the Pacific, making China the natural CSAT member.

I figure that "CSAT" is just a way to make certain scenarios less politically provocative.

The Sahrani factions were fictional, as were the chedaki and CDF...

Pacific CSAT is just China, but a bit less blunt politically.

Plus, with good assets (map and vehicles/static ships), there would be good user created content. 

I would advocate for 2021-2025ish equipment, so it can fit in with modern assets, or armaverse 2035 assets.

 

Quote

 Personally, I've always found CSAT to be just a bit ridiculous ... I doubt that Iran will ever be secular enough (at least not by 2035) to be so centric in such an alliance.

All the more reason for the Pacific, China vs "NATO (Pacific)" or CSAT vs "NATO" (should be SEATO) is essentially the same thing.

Quote

I didn't mention it earlier but I'm also a solely SP gamer, so story often means a lot to me. I'm not solely story motivated though, as I enjoy dynamic scenarios such as Hetman War Stories and others but considering that I now have high quality CDLCs and mods to provide the factions, vehicles, gear and gameplay that I prefer (mostly Cold War),

I am also a SP player, that spends a lot of time in the editor.

I don't really like the A3 tectonic weapon BS, and enjoy making scenarios with my own head cannon.

The old man scenario ended up being not so far fetched as it seems after China has tried engaging in "vaccine diplomacy" while a lab leak scenario is highly plausible.

A2 also had a not far fetched story, seemed to be inspired by the Osetia conflict, but shares many similarities in backstory with the Ukraine mess (though the US stayed out of that).

Quote

I find no reason to ever use the vanilla factions and gear ever again.

Story aside, ignoring the faction, the units (most of which are mere re-skins of real equipment) are good.

I'd have no problem putting in a nyx/kuma with German forces, an Angara with Russian forces, etc...

I'd have no problem putting a ghost hawk in with US special forces

 

My desire would be that the same could be done with assets of such a hypothetical DLC... Ideally already with real national texture options alongside the fictional NATO/CSAt ones

Quote

contemporary in nature or contains new high quality maps.

My hope would be a high quality map with contemporary assets.

I only stress 2035 compatibility to keep the scope of such a DLC under control: no need to combine with other cDLC or mods, and no need to make new infantry equipment, ground vehicles etc.

Just patch the holes in the vanilla lineup (as far as amphibious assaults are concerned) with contemporary assets, and provide a high quality map to fight on.

 

I suppose that a campaign, if done well, could be us vs china, being ambiguous if it's a parallel armaverse 2035 setting, or a real setting, making use of mainly the amphib assets of each side, with perhaps a minor (weaker than the AAF) island defense force using basically syndicate paramilitaries, technicals, and some reskinned A3 assets based on real things (gorgon, strider, nyx, Merlin, hellcat, a-143, zamak, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see this happen..in the very early days of Arma 3 I was working on something called "The Bering Sea Project"  I had more or less finished 3 relativley small fictive islands, based on real life locations. One Island being a Nato Airbase ( google Eareckson Air Station), one being a CSAT Navy Base (completely fictive) and one being a vulcanic island lying between them (google Amukta island).

The map was called Kommandorskaya.

I would die for an 2035 arctic scenario like this...enough space for air and naval combat, landing operations and special operations of all kind, especially using the underused Arma underwater mechanics...

In opposite to Tanoa such a location would run buttely smooth since there would be nearly no vegetation and no big cities.....

 

still have some old screenshots 🙂

 

https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198055404693/screenshots#scrollTop=0

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, Private Evans said:

I would love to see this happen..in the very early days of Arma 3 I was working on something called "The Bering Sea Project"  I had more or less finished 3 relativley small fictive islands, based on real life locations. One Island being a Nato Airbase ( google Eareckson Air Station), one being a CSAT Navy Base (completely fictive) and one being a vulcanic island lying between them (google Amukta island).

Sounds good to me, I will have to find time to check it out.

On 8/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, Private Evans said:

enough space for air and naval combat,

I mean... Arma 3's engine just isn't suited to naval combat beyond patrol boats and landing craft.

But static ships + Altis already get planes starting 60km away, which isn't bad considering the shortened range of missiles and sensors.

Still... Not very useful for pvp except for a KOTH style map - without respawns, the first side to achieve air superiority wins.

Could be interesting for a guadalcanal style campaign though where one captures an airfield, but friendly carriers are driven off, and one must hold the airfield at all costs.

Static ships add a lot of flexibility in mission design for all island maps though... I'd like to be able to portray a CSAT/Chinese amphibious assault, not just a NATO one.

On 8/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, Private Evans said:

landing operations and special operations of all kind, especially using the underused Arma underwater mechanics...

It's kind of hard to make use of them. Diver vs Diver combat seems contrived, so it's really just a way to approach the coast unseen.

Faster/longer ranged SDVs would help.

As would terrain suited for it. For example: lots of narrow inlets where you can swim quite far inland. Altis isn't too bad though with some long and narrow bays.

An upgraded SDR that is actually an effective combat weapon would be appreciated (I mod the MAR-10 to accept a magazine firing subsonic ammo that also works underwater as a sort of ASP-1 Kir and SDR hybrid, combined with a DMR... Plus I increase its semi-auto rate of fire)

On 8/9/2021 at 3:35 PM, Private Evans said:

In opposite to Tanoa such a location would run buttely smooth since there would be nearly no vegetation and no big cities.

Tanoa is pretty nice though, multiple islands and airfields... Would fit with a guadalcanal style campaign... But just increasing the distance between islands would help.

I would try to have varied terrain and vegetation... It could be made with CPu limits in mind and have only the smaller islands have thick jungle, with the larger ones having more sparse vegetation (the larger ones would also be more suited to vehicle combat in that way).

I would be fine with basically a chernarus map in the north west corner of a 4096x4096 grid at 7.5m grid size (so the  chernarus terrain only occupies 1/4 the grid area) with a tanoa-like terrain in the south east corner (although tanoa doesn't have the same grid size, so it would lose terrain resolution)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would blindly buy a naval themed DLC...

 

I would like small merchant ships for performing MIO (Marine Interdiction Operations), ASW and ASuW plus helo landings and assaults.

 

For ASW a new sensor (Sonar) would have to be created.

 

I also would like to see removed the dreaded 70 m limit in GEO and Rad LODs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this is simply an unrealistic, over-ambitious project with too many time-consuming assets. Unless you're already a rich person and can pay numerous artists a lot of money who would then do the whole (except the coding) work for you. Apart from that, I will not buy a 2035-themed DLC ever again, it's just not my taste. And judging from the number of likes and responses in this thread - I would not hold a breath for great success with this particular DLC. If you are willing to change your focus on the cold-war time frame, then - yes, I would possibly become a buyer. It would nicely complement all CDLCs that are lacking such assets and naval warfare gameplay in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2021 at 4:42 PM, odie0351 said:

Even better if it manages to add additional gameplay/feature enhancements similar to the official DLC's from years past. Things like radar functionality and anti-radiation missiles with the jets DLC, weapons resting with marksmen DLC, sling loading with the helicopter DLC etc etc. Something like maybe better ship based AI that would allow for more functional naval/coastal operations and...

That would be part of a "platform update" and outside the scope of a CDLC

 

On 10/27/2021 at 3:01 PM, NightIntruder said:

To me, this is simply an unrealistic, over-ambitious project with too many time-consuming assets.

Actually, I think the concept is fairly limited.

Consider what would be added:

No new infantry weapons/uniforms

No new light vehicles

 

Base Arma3 already supplies those to an acceptable standard, this would fill in gaps for amphibious assaults:

1 new multi-role fighter capable from operating from a ship for each side (f-35b and a J-31 or similar)

1 new smaller transport VTOL for blufor: v-280 based or mv-22 based as a Xian counterpart

1 new heavy lift Helo for opfor as a blackfish counterpart, perhaps Mi-26 based?

Something big enough to slingload a Marid.

1-2 new slingloadable and/ or amphibious ground vehicles for opfor: 

Perhaps something like a bmd-3 (yes, bmd, not bmp), or a Chinese a type-05 (zbd-05 or ztd-05)

 

1 landing craft for each side (LCAC or LCU types)

1 static ship each side

That's 4 aircraft, 1-2 ground vehicles, 2 drivable boats, and 2 static ships.

As far as new assets, I think that's less that the other 3 CDLCs

 

Then of course a map of similar land area, just more dispersed across water (should also help with performance, limiting the object numbers within a certain radius of the player across much of the terrain)

 

Quote

Apart from that, I will not buy a 2035-themed DLC ever again, it's just not my taste.

The idea would be it's actually 2020- 2025 ish real world assets, that can go with contemporary mods, or the 2035 setting.

Putting it in a contemporary 2021 setting would require doing a lot more assets, or combining with other DLC)mods, the latter of which rules out much of a single player campaign, as the CDLC couldn't have that and be standalone.

Quote

If you are willing to change your focus on the cold-war time frame, then - yes, I would possibly become a buyer.

First, it's not so much my focus, as a hypothetical concept for a CDLC, and the concept can evolve.

My issue with a cold war setting is... What does opfor get?

A Kiev class carrier and yak-38s?

Against av-8s/sea harriers and British carriers or American LHDs?

Seems to me that real life equipment to use for opfor's assets would be lacking in the aviation and large ship department.

But maybe it would work, or have it be one sided... a Falkland islands war CDLC?

 

Or if it's going to be one sided, a USMC DLC, that basically remasters and expands the USMC faction from Arma 2?

 

Btw, both global mob and prairie fire add amphibious light tanks to opfor's side, so that's already something...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Actually, I think the concept is fairly limited.

 

The concept is, indeed. I was talking about the amount of work that needs to be done to create eg. two large static ships, presumably with interiors or even armament - for enhanced gameplay. It's like 6-10 months of work for each one to be completed by a single artist. The same is when it comes to maps with large land masses.  Four aircraft with armament and some of them with interesting features, like "seeing-through" sensor? Super heavy lifting chopper with realistic AFM? Oh man, I've tried to make every single of those assets, with some limited successes and some horrible failures 😉

 

14 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Putting it in a contemporary 2021 setting would require doing a lot more assets, or combining with other DLC)mods, the latter of which rules out much of a single player campaign, as the CDLC couldn't have that and be standalone.

 

This argument kills any further discussion for cold-war or contemporary set of said DLC in this "limited" scope. One can only go for 2035-sh time frame or stick to any of the CDLC dev team to enhance their assets. Most likely SOGPF wouldn't be interested, as not much was going on in Vietnam when it comes to Marines-style OPs. GM could be interested if a new map was made with a shoreline (they were working on one for some time). CSLA - well, it's not gonna happen until they get access to a sea. 😄 And as I said, don't like 2035 theme. This computer-ish style of killing people like squeezing a trigger while glaring at a screen scares me as hell! 😂
But jokes aside, I really would love Global Mobilization team to take the challenge and enhance their DLC by marine style gameplay for bluefor and opfor sides. They have the experience, skills and resources to make it happen. Obviously, the best for me would be to see kinda a new CDLC - LHD/British mini-carrier with their planes and helicopters against Kiev with Ka-27/32 and Yak-38 with all associated soldiers and vehicles, all clashing on a large German or Danish terrain with shoreline. A nice, big one, worth of every penny of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

The concept is, indeed. I was talking about the amount of work that needs to be done to create eg. two large static ships, presumably with interiors or even armament - for enhanced gameplay.

Well, for armament, I wouldn't see an issue reusing the jets dlc armament, it's what I did in the update if the Atlas LHD (itself an enhanced port of the A2 LHD).

The interior need not be more detailed than the USS freedom (which is even less than the liberty destroyer), the most important thing is a well deck and space for vehicles, a large open hangar isn't nearly as much work as many other things.

After all, the jets DLC and encore update added "2 large static ship" for free.

I don't think doing a static ship is as hard as making new vehicles, they are essentially a set of buildings, and we've already seen new buildings in every CDLC released thus far, no?

 

8 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

The same is when it comes to maps with large land masses. 

Well, every CDLC thus far comes with its own map, all of which are over 150km^2 of landmass, no?

8 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

Four aircraft with armament and some of them with interesting features, like "seeing-through" sensor? Super heavy lifting chopper with realistic AFM?

Well, I don't see what armament has to do with it, configuration of pylons isn't that hard (I've done it for my ports of A2 aircraft, I am not talking out of my butt here).

 

I think see-through sensors are out of the scope (I guess you're referring to the f-35 helmet projecting what the 360 DAS sensors see? Maybe that could be done with the TI texture of the plane being made 100% transparent, and giving the pilot helmet TI capabilities like the viper helmets? Maybe it wouldn't be so hard... Hmmm...

 

The glob mob DLC already added a heavy lift chopper (ch-53), and iirc csla and of have new choppers too... Don't see how an even bigger one is fundamentally different, it's not going up in size by an order of magnitude or anything.

 

8 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

This argument kills any further discussion for cold-war or contemporary set of said DLC in this "limited" scope. One can only go for 2035-sh time frame or stick to any of the CDLC dev team to enhance their assets.

Well it could still be intended for a 2022/contemporary setting, combined with appropriate mods, but for a campaign, it would need to use A3 assets.

But perhaps judicious use if A3 assets could be done to place the conflict in 2022-2023.

The car-95 is a contemporary Chinese rifle. The TRG-21/ mk20 are contemporary rifles used by some NATO forces (mainly spec ops, but Slovakia adopted the fn2000).

The gorgon is a contemporary amphibious ifv used by some NATO forces.

Germany uses the "nyx", "Kuma", and "strider".

A few quick retextures, and one might be able to have enough assets for some interesting single player missions and a campaign. One just has to have the blufor forces be a multinational force operating from the same ships, as we're seeing a bit of with the QE 2 class carriers carrying some USMC f-35bs, and as we occasionally see with french rafales operating from us carriers (and f-18s from the french carrier).

One might be able to pull it off

8 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

This computer-ish style of killing people like squeezing a trigger while glaring at a screen scares me as hell! 

You mean with drones and from aircraft with targeting cameras?

If so you also wouldn't like a contemporary setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex3B said:

After all, the jets DLC and encore update added "2 large static ship" for free.

Who told you that "2 large static ship for free" means no work or very little? You have also got hundreds of things and stuff for free with GM, SOGPF and CSLA compatibility addons. Yes, you got it for free (with some limitations) but it doesn't mean they made all of that with ease and in months. It took them years to release point.

 

2 hours ago, Ex3B said:

I don't think doing a static ship is as hard as making new vehicles, they are essentially a set of buildings, and we've already seen new buildings in every CDLC released thus far, no?

Ehh, no. Well, technically - yes, they are static structures although might be drivable ships, too. But no - they are not easy. Otherwise, we would have much more static cargo ships, aircraft carriers, LPDs and LHDs on Steam. There is a demand for such assets among players. Still - none of British or Russian mini-carriers and LPDs were published, except for some hacking-driven crap or early work of Foxtrop. I usually port a vehicle in a few days. When it comes to CVA-31 carrier addon that was published - we were working with TeTeT for ca. 2 months to port only that carrier and it wouldn't happen without his knowledge and JDog initial work that was developed during their work on Nimitz. Making one from a scratch is a whole different story. Eggbeast from SGD said once - app. 8 months of work would be required to get one quality carrier made by SDG. I fully agree with that statement.

 

2 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Well, every CDLC thus far comes with its own map, all of which are over 150km^2 of landmass, no?

True. I am not an expert on terrain. Everything I know in this regard - I would never touch such addon knowing how tedious and long that work is. I would gladly accept their salary throughout the duration of the whole work, tho 😉
 

2 hours ago, Ex3B said:

Don't see how an even bigger one is fundamentally different, it's not going up in size by an order of magnitude or anything.

No. Everything changes itself dramatically if you want to create AFM based on real data so that no one could say "hey, lame, you put too powerful engines in the helo configuration. IRL it has blablabla...". If you make such a mistake, you won't be granted a privilege to advertise that your work is "as real as it gets" or simply "realistic". Yes, the bigger mass the bigger problems you've got to tackle. This is a very true statement in RL aviation too.
 

2 hours ago, Ex3B said:

You mean with drones and from aircraft with targeting cameras?

If so you also wouldn't like a contemporary setting?

Yeah, somehow don't like that. I grew up in the late Cold War era and became imbued with traditionalism, sort of. If I fly sim, I rather fly a plane with press gauges than with MFDs. Once I read and watched footage about DARPA project that showed steerable 12.7 bullet and the sniper was controlling the bullet with the scope of his rifle. Scary stuff. It's not the 2305, it's contemporary weapon, not in mass production yet, thankfully. Perhaps, it was just fake footage, but still scary 😉

 

My conclusion is - yeah, great idea. I would love to see more quality DLCs but framed in cold-war era. That is because, It would complement what we have now, not only from CDLCs but also from RHS or CUP. I do not believe there is a large enough portion of arma players who play vanilla. I mean, not large enough so the whole hustle would pay off for those who would invest their money and time to create such very needed DLC.

PS. Well, maybe it wasn't well-thought statement about "vanilla" players. Maybe there is a lot of them who play SP only and for those making the 2035-themed CDLC would make sense, of course with SP campaign included? Perhaps, I just cannot "see" them coz I am mostly focused on MP environment? But, one must think about AI behavior during said SP campaign. AIs don't act well on a walkable boat (LCU, LCAC) and weird static structures. They don't like each other, which is also true for the DLC placed in any other era, sadly.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NightIntruder said:

Who told you that "2 large static ship for free" means no work or very little?

I shouldn't have mentioned free. My poiyis only to compare the scope of the proposed concept to ones that have been done.

Jets DLC was basically a proto-CDLC because the assets were done by an external team of modders.

 

Quote

Ehh, no. Well, technically - yes, they are static structures although might be drivable ships, too. But no - they are not easy. Otherwise, we would have much more static cargo ships, aircraft carriers, LPDs and LHDs on Steam.

I mean ... we do have a few...

Quote

No. Everything changes itself dramatically if you want to create AFM based on real data so that no one could say "hey, lame, you put too powerful engines in the helo configuration. IRL it has blablabla...".

It just needs to be reasonable enough. There will always be complaining. There's complaining about armor and penetration values for armored vehicles for glob mob for example.

Quote

, it was just fake footage, but still scary 

😉

Yea, and the OICW was going to make cover obsolete. I think they have a 25mm weapon based on that tech fielded in very low numbers, but many of these things are far less practical than they seem at first.

 

Quote

My conclusion is - yeah, great idea. I would love to see more quality DLCs but framed in cold-war era. That is because, It would complement what we have now, not only from CDLCs but also from RHS or CUP. I do not believe there is a large enough portion of arma players who play vanilla.

Well, I still think that there is a middle ground that could be taken. A SP campaign can be set in 2035 using 1990's assets.

Example: a remastered A2 Khe Sahn - the wasp class is pretty old, but in armaverse kire, the khe Sahn was the most recently built one - thus likely to be the last to be retired.

Such a 2035 campaign can portray the forces using old equipment nearing retirement - but the closest forces available and still suitable to respond to whatever crisis is dealt with.

Similar excuses could be made for LCACs or LCUs

So on the blufor side, the static ships and LCACs could be also used in a late cold war setting.

Ie, stuff that's old but still in use in 2035, but state of the art in the late 80's

If the Chinese/pacific cast are the enemies, this would be harder to do, given that their amphibious capabilities have grown rapidly.

We could either take Ruskies in a dispute with Japan, or claim the Chinese press the old Varyag into service as a combat vessel (not a training vessel) - but given the extensive modification, a rusky themed set of assets may be needed (or the armaverse 2035 setting has some explanation for a relatively unmodified Russian carrier).

Alternately, we could throw in a Ulyanovsk carrier for the 2035 setting, and it can also serve in a late cold war setting in an alternate history where it is finished before the collapse of the USSR

 

Quote

PS. Well, maybe it wasn't well-thought statement about "vanilla" players. Maybe there is a lot of them who play SP only and for those making the 2035-themed CDLC would make sense, of course with SP campaign included? Perhaps, I just cannot "see" them coz I am mostly focused on MP environment? But, one must think about AI behavior during said SP campaign. AIs don't act well on a walkable boat (LCU, LCAC) and weird static structures.

Well, one can do like the A2 campaign, and not have a lot of ai action on the deck

I would think that a multi island terrain, with units enabling logistical support to ground forces (delivery of ground combat vehicles more capable than mraps with hmg/gmgs) would be of great interest to MP players

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, maybe there is a middle ground to take and a potential for a good sale volume. Let's hope BI is aware of that and will proceed with remastering their own A2 assets with already contracted license fees, invite right people to cooperation, enhance the whole thing by a few assets and bring it to us. They could then easily create some new mechanics to the game like logistic cranes, walkable moving entities, etc. in support of their own DLC. It would surely bring some bresh breeze to this game. I am actually surprised they haven't done it yet. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×