ArmA maps are TOO large for public servers

[code-red 0]

Mission makers can make their missions as small as they like right.

I just dont think the demand is that great for such small mission maps but there are some around.

Maybe some one could build a cool one for the action junkies and see if it hits off.

As for unit density.

If you do the math on a warfare be version on the xr server.

20v20 with every one 12 ai units = 480 units

Plus all the RACS in all towns.

That makes a hell of a lot of units.

I have seen people with 350 kills in some hours.

So the map cant be that empty as the OP states.

It is all about SKILL.

You have to learn how to find the action.

You travel for 15 minutes to your goal and you get killed right away once you get there.

This can happen several times in a row if you dont watch it.

So you eighter stop, frustrated, or you accept the challenge and addapt and learn.

[dentist guba 0]

all you really have to do is play smaller missions (there were some good team dms in OFP 1) people tend to stay within a reasonably small area in them 'cause they will get bored if they wander off.

[General Barron 0]

As for unit density.

If you do the math on a warfare be version on the xr server.

20v20 with every one 12 ai units = 480 units

Plus all the RACS in all towns.

That makes a hell of a lot of units.

I have seen people with 350 kills in some hours.

So the map cant be that empty as the OP states.

I think this is a useful discussion to have, so I made some diagrams.

First, let's remember The Captains quote here:

Quote[/b] ]The old soviet style doctrine for a mechanized infantry company in the attack called for a frontage of about 800m.

Now, let's say such a company consists of 4 vehicles and 40 dismounts (this might not be exactly correct, but it should be close). I placed such a company in a formation 800m wide and 100m deep. See below.

A soviet mech company

Wider view

3D view

Now, you said that in a Warfare there were 480 units in total. That is roughly equal to each side having 5 of the above companies, which is roughly equivalent to a battalion. I placed this many units in battle lines across the island. See below.

5 companies vs 5 companies

Now that we have something solid to work with, let's discuss it.

My opinion is that the above battle lines look decent. However, here are the problems:

-There are no rear area personnel in the diagram. They are all on the battle lines.

-There aren't any spare personnel to mount an attack. They are all on the battle line or in reserve.

-Because of this, it would be very difficult for the battalions to control the entire island at one time, which is the objective in Warfare. They would be stretched way too thin.

-Actual warfare / Arma missions tend to NOT organize themselves into coherent positions like the ones shown. Warfare forces you to hold towns, not to organize a coherent battle front. So, in practice, those units would be scattered all over the map.

My gut feeling is that 500 units total would make for a realistic sized battle, if only half of south Sahrani was used. You should be able to scale that number down accordingly. If you had 1/4 of South Sahrani, you would need about 250 units; or 125 units for 1/8 the island.

1/8 of the island is about Paraiso plus surrounding area; or one grid square. So, about 6 squads vs 6 squads (plus support vehicles) in one grid square. Below is a rough example of what that would look like.

Realistic (?) unit density around one town

I leave it up to the reader to decide if this is close to most Arma missions.

Also note these numbers are all for "open" areas. Large cities (say, population 100,000+, maybe half the size of South Sahrani) would require much higher unit density to make for a realistic fight.

[General Barron 0]

I have seen people with 350 kills in some hours.

Btw I'd like to point out how absurdly unrealistic this statement is.

Even Medal of Honor winners and similar never go above about 80 kills in real life. I wonder if ANY soldier in history has ever had 350 kills in one battle.

Is this Arma or Battlefield you are talking about?

Please don't imply that the OP wants something "arcadey", when you are using such an arcadey reference as an example of "good" or "realistic" Arma gameplay.

[The_Captain 0]

Re: Number of kills: That's most likely over multiple lives. Encountering AI one-ten at a time, a player could get a few dozen kills per life, especially with AI that like to sit in one spot and be sniped one by one. If you're shooting what are effectively turkeys, and don't really have much regard for your own life, a dozen or two kills shouldn't be that difficult to get.

Re: Battalion size unit density:

As I mentioned previously, one of the issues I personally have with warfare (and to an extent, the old MFCTI which I did enjoy quite a bit), is that players spend much of their time 'harvesting' money/supplies, saving up for units, traveling to/from factories and cities, waiting for squads to be built, and not enough time on actual combat. In my experience, players don't want to wait for other players to gear up/catch up with them, whether it's a fast paced shooter like Red Orchestra or a slower game like warfare, so players often move out to engage the enemy in onesies and twosies. (This is actually optimal behavior if you can respawn quickly and the game is lethal: your chances of survival don't go up immensely if you team up with one or two other people, and your time is better spent trying to fight rather than wait for another player to build/buy something or travel to you.). In the old MFCTI, and to an extent warfare as well, my average time to save up for and equip a proper squad (perhaps fighting in the meantime) was about 30 minutes. Once equipped, travel time would be about 10-15 minutes and combat time quite a bit lower than that. If you imagine each of the players within these time constraints, it seems like it would be difficult to get most of the players combat ready at the same time, and in the same general area to fight a battle as outlined in the above diagrams.

Thus, the 20 'squads' per battalion would not all be at full strength and ready to maneuver or fight as they might in a combat ready battalion. This means that the effective unit density in terms of units ready for combat would be *much* lower. Cutting down the non combat time and focusing the objectives might make the effective-combat-unit density higher. Clearly we have an engine which can support a battle of this size, but a mode like warfare does not encourage players to form up and fight a battle at that scale. As I mentioned previously, a mode with a similar scale to warfare, but simpler objectives and a focus entirely on combat and maneuver could probably organize players to fight a battle such as the one General Barron outlined.

The flip side to this, is that if you DO have a mode where players are spending a lot of time doing things other than combat (traveling, building), or if the combat is over very quickly (eg, players encountering each other one by one in Berzerk or warfare), you'll need a smaller combat area to get a high combat intensity, and more players simultaneously involved in combat.

More players participating in each individual battle or enagagement, I think, is what is needed for interesting battles and proper teamwork.

[lecholas 2]

The disproportion in preparing for combat time and the itself combat time comes also from the fact that ARMA is great in simulating wandering around the environment, walking, driving a car etc. but it's not great in simulating the combat at all. AI can't take cover, can't use fixed positions (houses, sandbags etc.) and even if they could there isn't enough cover in most of the maps. Land is too flat. There are no ditches, bumps etc. You're allways on a plate. And trees, bushes and artifical objects are to scattered (due to game's performance issues). AI can't use suppressing fire. It all results in very short firefights ending with one side completely dead and the other one mostly dead (if it was AI vs AI) or only slightly dammaged (if it was players vs AI, eg. on 'realistic' coops). In real life a lot of firefights (especially the ones on a small scale) can end with no kills at all. Just ten minutes of returnig fire and withdawal. Did you see anything like this in ARMA? I really hope that Maruk told us truth saying in one of interviews that in ARMA 2 even very small firefights can take minutes (though we haven't seen any confirmation of this in any of the so far released videos).

It all comes from the conception of the game: let's make the biggest world we can and then let's make the best combat simulator we can on such a big terrain. IMHO it should be the other way round: let's make the best combat simulation we can and then let's make the biggest terrain we can preserving this combat simulation.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I keep saying you can make any size island you want and you can make any size of mission you want.

No I will not make it for you, get off lazy arses.

Some of you seem to think if you whine loud enough and long enough people will make your island and mission for you.

Kind Regards walker

[lecholas 2]

What I was saying is that it is next to impossible to make a realistic mission in ARMA. Because of (for example):

- AI which will not take cover, use suppressive fire, care for its life

- lack of micro cover due to terrain grid size that can't be too small without huge performance drop and due to performance drop when you place too many objects on a map (not to mention the troubles for AI which this would cause)

Those are engine limitations (or limitations on a high level of design). It's not something that can be overcame easly in a mission.

You should rather say: you can make a game that supports any size of mission you want yourself.

[Second 0]

Talking about troop density. Modern tactical idea presented to me is that mechaniced battalion will assault in 1 kilometer wide line. 2 companies in front, 1 kept in reserves. Batallion is supported by tank-company 2 platoon in front one behind in reserves(one tank per mechaniced platoon). Troop density is insane 1 man per 6 meters, one IFV per 50 meters, one tank per 170 meters in front which is 1000 meters long (reserves are still waiting behind), try that in ArmA and you'll see that it's shock and awe, very much.

Assault is supported by 60-120 tubes caliber varies from 81mm to 155mm Or 82mm to 152mm. Thay can barrage defenders positions with 50% of that capacity for many minutes. Try that and it's horrible. In regular ArmA game no-one lives thru it, fortifications can't protect enough.

This is the principle in open terrain. In Sahrani there might be just few locations where this can be used at it's potential.

Dunno does it contribute anything. Well that is one example. I tried it in ArmA. Sheer scale is staggering. Artillery fire is worst, i recommend anyone to try it just of pleasure. Don't remeber how many grenades they are expected to fire in that barrage, but it's huge. Thousands of grenades.

ArmA's limits are also staggering.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Since ArmA 1 can do battalion level battle missions with CEX the maps are about the right size.

By the way I regularly play company level MP missions on Zeus in ArmA and have been playing such missions since the old OFP1 days.

Any one else remember "The Forrest of Death" in the Breakthrough mission by Jineff on Nogova in OFP1?

5hr mission you came out of it Shell Shocked if you managed to suvive to the end.

We are repeating that game style on Zeus.

Kind Regards walker