How Much Realism are you Content With?

[dr_eyeball 16]

Pretty much most requests I ever make will relate to changing or fixing what is already in the game, since I don't think that is unreasonable. If an important new feature is not in the game, there could well be a good reason for it not being there.

Since the side topic has developed into discussing actual examples, I would say the biggest oversight, overkill and oversimplified realism concept in Arma has been the support vehicles (repair, rearm & refuel).

The speed of supply from these vehicles and the 100% benefit to all vehicle types is currently unsuitable. I don't want to remove the concepts, just slow them down (especially missile/shells rearming), change the usage conditions (eg: landing/engine/empty vehicle) and limit the benefits.

I'd like to see:

• attack helicopters being required to land and having the engine turned off (and sometimes crew vacated) prior to support. (eg: the ability to hover a Cobra over each support vehicle should be removed).
  
• the ability to restore mobility to a vehicle via a tyre repair or track repair (without windscreen and weapon fixes too).
  
• Manually choosing to activate these support options via an action menu option and preferably a 'supply' person outside of the vehicle present (even if there's no animation or the person is a crewman).
  
• missile and shell rearming should be slowed down significantly and display some form of progress if waiting is required.
  

Plus currently, it's impossible to simulate some of these concepts via scripting because of the simplified damage system of vehicles (ie: damage value covers entire vehicle, not components.)

@An-225 (below): Regarding the aircraft engine being off, I was mainly focusing on rearming missiles.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Dr_Eyeball

[An-225 0]

I concur with most of your post.

In real life, aircraft can have a hot refuel - that is, refuel while the engine is running. While I agree with them having to land, they should not have to turn the engine off.

[Wildstyle 10]

you get shot get taken back to base with a medic....

spend the rest of your game times everytime you start playing in a hospital recovering.....you do this for 12 months

go on the battle field have to reload by clicking all the parts in order..

you get the rest......bad game

thats what too much realism is

[Guest]

I think a nice feature would be smi-automatic reloading on guns. Just something simple, but something that would put an end to the epicly perfect and fast reload times arma 2 has.

For example, instead of just pressing "r", you should hold down "r" and then with the arrows on the keyboard do a quick combo. For example, up, up, down, left. Or something like that.

I think reloading is one of the most overlooked feature in any game. On the real battlefield its a very key, important task to reload. But in a game you just tap a button.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I do not want to realy bleed when I get wounded and I do not want to die for real when I get shot.

Kind Regards walker

[voodoochile123 10]

Arma2 is perfect to me.

It depends on the game really. In LOMAC I accepted far more realism and difficulty with flying the planes because that was the only focus. In a game like Arma 2 though, there are so many things to do that I wouldn't like it if all the planes were super realistic. I also like having more fuel than you might have in real life.

Another thing is the travel, I love how they gave a 4x game acceleration because there are times when I am running long distances and it's nice to be able to speed those up.

As for the combat damage, I like not instantly dying when I'm shot. It's perhaps not as realistic, but it's far more FUN when you lose a man and you have to drag them to safety and then patch them up. It adds tension and excitement and it keeps the game going. If I screw up and get one of my guys shot, just having him fall down bleeding to death is enough to make me feel bad and regret not doing it better. I don't need to have him die or have the game end just because of one little mistake. Although the difficulty in game helps fine tune this too.

For me though, I'm playing through the campaign at the moment on normal difficulty, and it's absolutely great. It's realistic enough to be tense and exciting and I'm careful about what I do, but it's simplified enough so that it's not tedious, boring, and too time consuming. The only thing I would change so far, is to have a more flexible save game system.

I really love this game.

Edited July 7, 2009 by voodoochile123

[Flarmapoint 2 10]

The game can only become truly a "war sim", when dismemberment has been implemented, and since know one wants make it, but wants it in game, im gonna give it a go :)

Edit: Ive spoken to bis Devs, and they dont think its important, so they wont do it, they told me to do it my self, so i am, well try anyway lol

[Guest]

I think its important. Not stupid ridiculous gore, but basic body dismemberment. Depending on which part is blown off you could go into shock or die etc.

Not too much, just basic. People have said they wont do it due to age ratings, but c'mon the game is an 18 ffs...

Although i do understand the question of respect. Losing a limb is down right awful, and i think it would offend some real war veterans to see that in a game, especialy as the engine is used for the VBS series.

[nodunit 397]

The problem is implimentation, people hear about a possible gore mod and they assume everyone will see it.

However if it can be added as a sort of "Background" entity much like the old OFP mod did then it can be seen only by those that download it without others having to download it as well just to play with that person online.

As far as realism is concerned I like it all granted it is done in a sensible fashion, if something takes a long time to happen it shouldn't occur in a matter of minutes IE FC2's weapon aging and things of that sort shouldn't be implimented.

Edited July 7, 2009 by NodUnit