Armed Assault so far....

[lwlooz 0]

ArmA being an optimized OFP, I think the main improvement from that is that we perhaps might be able to run company vs company missions or even battalion vs battalion ones. It seems ArmA can take a lot more units on the map , which is a great thing.

Not so great for many of you perhaps whos picture of war ends at a single SF soldier parachuting into water,swimming to land , wasting some enemy while running to the objective and then blowing up stuff.

Coincidently BIS's complete disregard for the linux-server community stops me from trying out larger-than-average-shooter scale battles. This is biggest letdown in ArmA , and BIS probably still doesn't care much about getting a linux server done.

The second great improvement in ArmA could be the custom FSM-AIs , which hopefully allow us , the community , to change the squad-behaviour of err.. squads (How the squad commander orders his man around and organizes them. For example I very much would like to change the current bounding overwatch procedure which seems rather ineffective).

But that is still to be seen as core FSM documentation is lacking and perhaps we might not be able to control AI that much.

And Shifty , you seriously need to start looking into how one can customize(not fix) ArmA . Its about the biggest selling point the BIS engine has

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

And Shifty , you seriously need to start looking into how one can customize(not fix) ArmA . Its about the biggest selling point the BIS engine has

i wish i was that clever and had that much time/patience. i'm not that good with pc's, so modding is definitely beyond my little pc/engine knowledge.

besides, if we all end up modding our own game, it won't be compatible anymore. we would all need the same hundreds of addons/mods to play with each other. makes it all too complicated imo.

[churnedfortaste 0]

VBS2 Looks a lot more interesting than ArmA, Is the reason why ArmA is so limited with its features because of limited memory due the huge scale of the map? I guess if it were to have in depth features and such a large scale then the requirements would be way beyond the modern setup.

[froggyluv 2136]

I also strongly agree with Dslyecxi's assesment of Arma and what makes good tactical gameplay in general. I also share Shifty-16AAB-'s desire for better squad management, suppression effects, steerable parachutes etc... But the bottom line is it's very difficult to please everyone's taste for what makes tactical gaming enjoyable. For some it's dead-on realism,clever AI, 1 shot kills while for others it may depend more on exacting models of weaponry and uniforms and still others Zombies!?!

I'm always craving the sim/game that gives me the most freedom in a dynamic sandbox like environment. One that lets me move how I think I can move in RL, that accurately reflects ballistics, weather, cover, squad morale and overall General's battlefield point of view. One that features an AI that can follow orders as well as my person competently yet acts as an individual who wants to survive and will take the appropriate measures. One that gives me an objective and various resources to complete them in any way I see fit be it armour, air, infantry or spec ops.

I'm still trying to find this game but until then OFP/ARMA satiates me the best

[dslyecxi 23]

VBS2 Looks a lot more interesting than ArmA, Is the reason why ArmA is so limited with its features because of limited memory due the huge scale of the map? I guess if it were to have in depth features and such a large scale then the requirements would be way beyond the modern setup.

I would suggest that you don't get too wound up in trying to hypothesize why VBS2 is different in certain respects from ArmA. It's not a very fruitful thing to do. Your current hypothesis is quite flawed, but I don't think I need to fuel the speculation by being any more specific than that. Let it rest - the two are different products, priced and targeted at wildly different markets.

As to realism and such in ArmA, I think people will find some extremely high-quality mods in the future that will really redefine how the gameplay in terms of realistic combat. I'm sure many of you have played Wargames League for OFP. Well, the team that did that is coming back for ArmA - the mod they'll be doing is going to be just what a lot of you are looking for, I think. It's going to be mentioned extensively in the massive ArmA tactics guide I'll be publishing this weekend, so... stay tuned. Biggest project I've done on my site by far.

[4 IN 1 0]

well Dslyecxi pretty much sum it up for me, an updated OFP i'd say, i couldnt say its a disappointment or let down for me as i goes like:

did they implante it? no? did they wanted to make it in future patch? no? is it possible? can someone test it and try it out? no? ok i will get back later to see if anything new*when to work*

you feel so much that you could do in this engine, but somehow, you cant

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Its not a disappointment if you are playing it.  

It IS a disappointment if you DL'ed it and couldn't get it to work, or if your DL version ceased to work after the wonderful patches!

Frankly the most disapointing thing is that forum apologists are doing all the talking for BIS.

echm...needless to say I have a US version reserved.  Hope to be more cheerful in about a week once I can work some pent up fustration out in MP.

[whisper 0]

For me it's a major improvement : I can play this game in MP. I couldn't anymore play OFP MP because of time constraints and the hassle that OFP MP was.

ArmA has solved all that for me.

+ it's more than just a graphical update to OFP. There's a whole list of things you now can do in ArmA which were impossible in OFP (multiple turrets anyone?), a bunch of limitations removed (island size, squad size, ...), and also a bunch of annoying things that remain from OFP.

If I sum up my personnal view :

- updated MP engine that puts ArmA up to the basic level all other games already achieved. That's a minimum that OFP couldn't provide.

- scaling ability is even larger now, in geographical terms, possible size of engagement, number of players, everything. Imho it's one of, if not the major change, and we should take advantage of that. Focusing on one area only to fuel up your complaints is passing completely past the product.

- a few advancements in specific areas. Ballistics, graphics, FMs, anims, .... With the wagons of bugs and oddities accompanying all these changes, and remaining of OFP most annoying glitches too. If you seek a revolution from OFP, you won't find it here. Many changes are nice, though.

[-Puma- 2]

At first (1.02) arma was a lagfest, but kept playing it anyways, and enjoyed, all the cook little coop missions ppl made in the early days. 1 thing that rocked in 1.02, was that u could play AIR CAVLARY, and finish it without some1 demolishing the airbase

After 1.05 we got lots of fixes, and the game runs pretty well, and looks cool, but on the downside, the community has grown and we get alot more dudes, who like AT4 and Tk'ing too much.

alltough Evolution has crushed these lamers, im still kinda waiting for the "visitors" to leave so we can play this game properly.

Not holding anything against the Americans, but I fear to go MP after US release, because we got a whole new bunch of these "sociopaths"

But in the end of the day, I find myself wondering, how cool the last MP session was, re-picturing that RPG shell, wich missed 2 inches from our tank, wich was red, And me turning the turret, and shooting this BMP with pure luck and relfex. And after the fight, chatting with driver "shit, did u see that PRG??" , "yeah that was COOL wish we had that on tape"

these little incident makes me wanna play this game more and more.

[Heatseeker 0]

I take it the way it is .

I dont need to reload on the move, i didnt before and i dont need it now. Maybe i got used to it during the past 6 years...

I dont care about shooting from a littlebird, want to spit hot brass over the guy sitting next to you? Would it really be that usefull?

Steerable chutes would be nice but i wont die because of something so trivial.

Havent seen a tank fly in Arma yet... my game is patched though.

Im not into the BF games, Joint Operations or GRAW, these games might have a <span style='color:red'>few</span> good things to them but i choose Arma over all of them any day.

Maybe its time for the critics to consider what BIS gets wright and other developers get wrong too. Arma is the only real tactical shooter released in a long time, its a very big/open game and has its limitations but its a game im proud to own, and feel happy to play.

Play the game and apretiate the experience, Arma is a one of a kind and from here it will only get better.

Arma + full veteran mode (no 3rd person, no crosshair) = .

[-Puma- 2]

and in what other game u choose to spend 2 hours, in MP repairing damaged Helo???

[wodin 0]

The game has promise. My main gripe like many others is the poor performance especially as lets be honest its not the best looking game around (however I do feel ArmA and OFP has a realistic quality about the tanks\planes etc, seem less.........cartoon like).

Also the missions and campaign lack atmosphere, which means everyday I spend time searching the net for new user made ones.

Still it has promise.

[colligpip 0]

haha that above post sums it up. I spend more time delivering trucks with helos and mending stuff in the mission RTs4 than combat I think - although if i want to switch to any other form of combat i can. No other game lets you be as flexible.

[Sennacherib 0]

personally, i don't like the US and east army. i don't care about choppers, about actual tanks, cars, etc. yeah Arma is already outdated if you compare with some other recent games.

yeah Arma has still some bugs, yes i'm also disappointed because this game is not really finished; yes it's sad that the community must do improvements by itself.

yes, i'm also tired to dl patchs all the time.

yeah i prefer actually play at ofp. it's just because, i'm a scifi addict, and for the moment arma doesn't have any scifi addons.

but Arma has one thing really important for me. this is the freedom. like ofp, you can do what you want on a map. and we can make addons (i'm member of ww2ec), maps, missions, etc etc.

just for that i bought Arma.

but i also hope that game2 will be a lot better.

[-Puma- 2]

Quote[/b] ]yes, i'm also tired to dl patchs all the time.

show me a game that haven't got a single patch released.

Arma is not that bad. See americas army: They release a couple of maps, and u have to DL 300+ meg patch or 1gig full install.

[Bad Pilot 0]

I love it.

I'm incredulous at people's complaints about graphics in ArmA. They're brilliant and evocative. The environments are lifelike and challenging. The skies, landscapes, weapons effects, weather and lighting are awesome. Loads of times, I've just stopped en route somewhere - even during a firefight - to look at the rising/sinking sun on the water or colouring the clouds.

Playing ArmA immerses you in the authentic atmosphere, sights and the sounds of modern warfare isntantly recognisable from contemporary TV news reporting.

It's buggy as hell but I'm glad I'm playing it instead of BF2142 or Red Orchestra. Each patch (anyone not using the beta patch needs to wake up and install it) brings significant changes and improvements. All future patches will also do this.

Linux should be supported. VoN should be fixed ASAP. Graphics whingers should be shot for missing the point, after they've installed the beta patch and/or tried the US demo and still complain.

F

[HamishUK 0]

VBS2 Looks a lot more interesting than ArmA, Is the reason why  ArmA is so limited with its features because of limited memory due the huge scale of the map? I guess if it were to have in depth features and such a large scale then the requirements would be way beyond the modern setup.  

I would suggest that you don't get too wound up in trying to hypothesize why VBS2 is different in certain respects from ArmA. It's not a very fruitful thing to do. Your current hypothesis is quite flawed, but I don't think I need to fuel the speculation by being any more specific than that. Let it rest - the two are different products, priced and targeted at wildly different markets.

As to realism and such in ArmA, I think people will find some extremely high-quality mods in the future that will really redefine how the gameplay in terms of realistic combat. I'm sure many of you have played Wargames League for OFP. Well, the team that did that is coming back for ArmA - the mod they'll be doing is going to be just what a lot of you are looking for, I think. It's going to be mentioned extensively in the massive ArmA tactics guide I'll be publishing this weekend, so... stay tuned. Biggest project I've done on my site by far.  

Whilst I agree with the majority of what you are saying. ArmA still uses the same basic engine as VBS2. With that in mind the basic core elements of VBS2 could have been ported over to ArmA without corssing over into the military production side.

I am talking vehicles and some of the basic core elements that make a military game simulator.

Having served in the military I am well aware of some games that have provided more accurate representations of military simulation were developed for the gamers and never intended to be used by the MOD etc.

There is some large differences between VBS2 and ArmA and that is toally understandable. However there are minor simple elements such as the third tank crew member firing the loaders .50 and tracers that obviously have been incorporated and IMHO should have been a feature in ArmA. These real basic elements are not necessarily militaristic in value but have been incorporated into many older games prior to ArmA.

The community is great the game is good fun but the more I play it I feel ArmA is a by-product of VBS2 and been half baked in it's vanilla form. I would never expect it to be as detailed as VBS2 in it's execution but as I said previously simple gameplay elements are lacking.

Javelin, No TOW guidance and as you yourself have pointed out certain actions.

This really isn't a rant or a flame. Just an observation on a good game that the community makes better, but as a vanilla product so much more should have been incorporated and expected

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Quote[/b] ]Arma + full veteran mode (no 3rd person, no crosshair) =

Couldn't agree more.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well of course I cannot speak for the training qualities of other country's armies but I certainly was not trained to reload on the move. You find cover, then reload.

This is built in to ArmA, it's assumed you are a trained soldier

[dslyecxi 23]

Well of course I cannot speak for the training qualities of other country's armies but I certainly was not trained to reload on the move. You find cover, then reload.

This is built in to ArmA, it's assumed you are a trained soldier

I'm sorry, but this is a really poor excuse. I'm a former Marine, and we were definitely taught how to reload while moving. That's beside the point, however. A fully fleshed-out infantry sim will have a huge amount of possibility in what you can do, and it will be based off of how things work in reality. It may not be a good idea to try to reload a rifle while jogging, but a fully-featured infantry sim would have that option. You'd have the realistic drawbacks, too - it would take longer, or you might fumble the mag or drop it entirely. Whereas if you walked, you'd be able to reload just fine, maybe with a sliiiiight speed penalty.

You're making an excuse for why ArmA doesn't allow for reloading on the move. It's not a design decision, it's a limitation of the animation system (apparently). Accept that and realize that there are many tradeoffs in ArmA and it's fine to acknowledge them and recognize why they're there, without having to make excuses for why they might be there. Same thing for firing from Littlebirds. It may not be the best thing in the world, but given the choice to fire back at the enemy while heading in to a drop (and potentially suppress them or even wound/kill them), or sit there and smile as the enemy plugs you full of holes, I think the choice is obvious.

Let's not kid ourselves and say that things like these are core design decisions. They are clearly limitations or oversights and should be thought of and treated as such.

[whisper 0]

Mmmmh, I'm really not sure, Dslyecxi.

In fact, animation for reload on the move could probably be done, and I think it's really a design decision from BI part. I may be wrong, though, but this is the kind of decision from their part that wouldn't surprise me.

I'm not saying it's right, etc.... but I'm not that sure it comes from real engine limitation.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well of course I cannot speak for the training qualities of other country's armies but I certainly was not trained to reload on the move. You find cover, then reload.

This is built in to ArmA, it's assumed you are a trained soldier

I'm sorry, but this is a really poor excuse. I'm a former Marine, and we were definitely taught how to reload while moving. That's beside the point, however. A fully fleshed-out infantry sim will have a huge amount of possibility in what you can do, and it will be based off of how things work in reality. It may not be a good idea to try to reload a rifle while jogging, but a fully-featured infantry sim would have that option. You'd have the realistic drawbacks, too - it would take longer, or you might fumble the mag or drop it entirely. Whereas if you walked, you'd be able to reload just fine, maybe with a sliiiiight speed penalty.

You're making an excuse for why ArmA doesn't allow for reloading on the move. It's not a design decision, it's a limitation of the animation system (apparently). Accept that and realize that there are many tradeoffs in ArmA and it's fine to acknowledge them and recognize why they're there, without having to make excuses for why they might be there. Same thing for firing from Littlebirds. It may not be the best thing in the world, but given the choice to fire back at the enemy while heading in to a drop (and potentially suppress them or even wound/kill them), or sit there and smile as the enemy plugs you full of holes, I think the choice is obvious.

Let's not kid ourselves and say that things like these are core design decisions. They are clearly limitations or oversights and should be thought of and treated as such.

Hehe, well I thought my little dig at other countrys' training qualities might bear fruit (hence the ) but I still maintain that reloading while moving is poor practice. It could be argued that desperate times might force someone to attempt it but if you built it into the game then you can be sure that everyone would use it all the time.

I think half the problem (certainly it is with me) is that we reflexively hit the reload upon the dead-man's click, then instantly regret not finding cover first as, of course, we cannot move for those few seconds we're sitting ducks. But that's just training, if you found cover BEFORE hitting reload the experience would be enhanced. Of course the AI need to be scripted to do this too.

[Shifty-16AAB- 0]

Well of course I cannot speak for the training qualities of other country's armies but I certainly was not trained to reload on the move. You find cover, then reload.

This is built in to ArmA, it's assumed you are a trained soldier

I'm sorry, but this is a really poor excuse. I'm a former Marine, and we were definitely taught how to reload while moving. That's beside the point, however. A fully fleshed-out infantry sim will have a huge amount of possibility in what you can do, and it will be based off of how things work in reality. It may not be a good idea to try to reload a rifle while jogging, but a fully-featured infantry sim would have that option. You'd have the realistic drawbacks, too - it would take longer, or you might fumble the mag or drop it entirely. Whereas if you walked, you'd be able to reload just fine, maybe with a sliiiiight speed penalty.

You're making an excuse for why ArmA doesn't allow for reloading on the move. It's not a design decision, it's a limitation of the animation system (apparently). Accept that and realize that there are many tradeoffs in ArmA and it's fine to acknowledge them and recognize why they're there, without having to make excuses for why they might be there. Same thing for firing from Littlebirds. It may not be the best thing in the world, but given the choice to fire back at the enemy while heading in to a drop (and potentially suppress them or even wound/kill them), or sit there and smile as the enemy plugs you full of holes, I think the choice is obvious.

Let's not kid ourselves and say that things like these are core design decisions. They are clearly limitations or oversights and should be thought of and treated as such.

well said, m8. i myself want to decide how to reload, when to open the parachute, where to land or when being able to shot. that's what i understand under a military sim - do whatever you wanna do but be prepared for the consequences. if i open the parachute to late i'll be dead. if i fire inside a car i might kill a team mate. when i might reload while moving i might lose the mag or slow down. arma is too restrictive when it comes to that, i miss the freedom when being a soldier.

[dslyecxi 23]

Quote[/b] ]I still maintain that reloading while moving is poor practice.

That's not the point. The point is that it should be an option, with realistic pros and cons for how it works.

Quote[/b] ]if you built it into the game then you can be sure that everyone would use it all the time.

Well, of course they would! What idiot would stand still while being shot at when they're reloading? Again, I think you're missing the point. It should be an option for a huge variety of reasons, and saying that it should not be included because it's "poor practice" is bogus. It's not poor practice, and that's before we examine the really ridiculous scenarios that occur in ArmA where someone is stuck reloading a weapon and dies because of it, because they have no capacity to move or seek cover.

Quote[/b] ]But that's just training, if you found cover BEFORE hitting reload the experience would be enhanced.

This is an excuse for the gamey and unrealistic behavior currently present. I do not agree with you here - individual tactics are a completely separate beast from actual infantry simulation fidelity.

[lwlooz 0]

I know this is controversial , but sticking to little issues like that seems to me to be the wrong fight . I barely believe reloading while running will change the outcome of many battles (CTF and DM aside, but I still consider those incredible misuse of this engine). So is shooting from LittleBirds actually. If you model it correctly,the accuracy of your fire is going to be awful and the enemy is still going to have a large advantage of him killing you instead of you killing him. Shooting at him might help your morale but I am just going to say that I doubt it is going to help you much at surviving.

But this is a problem that comes up very often. Due to OFP/ArmA being an FPS, people extremly focus on the Infantry part(because most come from an FPS/Shooter background) , while ArmAs true underlying strength lies in the Combined Arms part. You might have a better Infantry Sim and you might have a better Heli Sim,the beauty of ArmA/OFP is that you can play both components on the battlefield at one time. And that in a "large-scale" (relative term) enviroment.

So to me it seems kinda bizarre to always demand that the Infantry part of this Engine has to be developed to extreme details,while the other parts kinda stay at a very basic level.

See the Hit/IndirectHit/Damage Model for vehicles and tanks for example.

That said, any improvement in any area of this engine is very welcome by me as long as it still allows big combat