ArmA Franchises's Needs: A Practical Look

[frederf 0]

Having been a critical but continuing fan of the OFP/ArmA/ArmA2 series of games, I'd like to share my views, praises, and criticisms of the continuing development of the franchise. I'd like to do this in an organized way with open feedback including agreement, disagreement, correction, and expansion on topics expounded below.

To start I will question the nature of ArmA and the source of its value followed by proposing some basic underlying principles for ArmA's design and continue with more direct topics of where ArmA hits the mark and where it misses. All of my opinions are of course my own but I try to state them clearly and with sensible rationale with the intent of clarifying points and convincing instead of arguing or pontificating.

What is ArmA and what makes it fun?

OFP/A1/A2 is, to me at least, an engaging sandbox tactical simulation game with strong multiplayer abilities. OFP-ArmA is fun because the player is immersed psychologically in a choice of military situations requiring cunning, teamwork, and other abilities to succeed either alone, with or against other humans.

Principle #0: No Mission, No Go

One of the best parts about OFP-ArmA is its near limitless flexibility and replayability thanks to its modular design and powerful editor. All of the addons, vehicles, weapons, scripts, etc are nothing without a mission that utilizes them and does so well.

Principle #1: Infantry is the bedrock

The basic rifleman experience is, must be, and must remain the primary focus of OFP-ArmA for the game to retain its value. The reasons for this are manifold. First, the graphical elements are designed to be appreciated on foot The detail of the grass, buildings, etc would be senseless in the context of combat involving faster, bigger, and more powerful military forces. Second, the terrain/view distance is relatively limited in size. Lastly, the infantry experience must be as desirable (if not more so) than the non-infantry experience if the game is to succeed as a combined forces game.

Principle #2: Scale is important

If both a realistic feel and usability are desired then scale must be of paramount importance. Weapons and equipment must "fit the battlespace" such that they can be used with a plausible reflection of their real world capability and still contribute to a functional game. This principle serves mostly as a cap to weapons and equipment with an operating scale exceeding the existing ArmA-OFP battlespace in physical, complexity, and manpower terms.

Complying with this principle is often against our gamer nature for wanting cooler, faster, more powerful equipment. The problems caused by out-of-scale thinking include: immersion-breaking unrealistic matchups, unsatisfactorily modeled complex equipment, inability to use equipment in realistic number/manner, degradation of lesser equipment's relevance on the battlefield, less challenging/rewarding involvement for lesser forces, larger requirement of justified forces, less teamwork, disregard for collateral damage, missing intermediary equipment use, and human balancing problems.

I offer this picture as a sobering reminder of how out of scale an MLRS battery is to the island of Sahrani.

A much, much better option is the 60mm to 120mm range of mortars. These provide fun and challenging weapon systems that are able to be modeled much more realistically without overshadowing the battlefield or being too difficult for gamers to use. They still fulfill the primary purpose of infantry support but have to remain somewhat close to the FLOT.

Principle #3: The farther from infantry, the more abstraction is OK

This stems from Principle #1 in that infantry matters should have the least abstraction from real life. If the mission wishes to have combined forces and reasonable balance then the majority of players will have their boots on dirt.

Detail is depth and realism is believability. Players have much knowledge about how human bodies work and will not tolerate abstract departures from what they know. Flexibility and nuance are the very definition of the infantryman. Also, since the majority of play time is spent as an infantryman, effort invested in developing this area is effort well spent.

Principle #4: The bigger boom it makes, the more work it takes

This rule is based predominately in balance. A good combat game will always make the weakest weapon the easiest to use and scale up skill, effort, time, and teamwork requirements. Some of this comes about naturally due to real equipment's complexity and size. However due to Principle #3, a lot of this difficulty in use is lost during abstraction (i.e. Tab-Fire-Tab-Fire).

It is vitally necessary to maintain this boom-for-work ratio for a good, balanced game. The proper response that should occasionally be uttered by the powerful equipment player is, "Fudge this noise, this is too hard, I'm going to grab my rifle and walk." The natural place of a player should be as a rifleman and only when skill and necessity offset the risk and effort should bigger, badder equipment be sought. The rule is that in a comparison between three infantrymen and a fully-crewed tank, the choice of which is more effective should be roughly equal and depend on the situation. There are many, many ways in which ArmA fails Principle #4 and why a lot of online games suffer.

Principle #5: It's a small war without AI

All of the above principles followed would make an excellent practice space or deathmatch arena but without a healthy AI contingent. A fluid, human-like, and capable AI is needed to fill the spaces between human player(s). The majority of actions that define the infantryman suppose an enemy that is dangerous and hard to defeat. Without an AI that is capable of surviving and returning the threat, the core aspect of OFP-ArmA is hollow.

Reactions?

[maddogx 13]

Wow. Excellent post. I don't think there's any part I don't agree with, though I think you could have gone more into detail on principle #3, i.e. that it's okay if aircraft flight models aren't 100% realistic. (At least that's how I understood your meaning.)

[mcvittees 0]

Good post - my thoughts on many matters exactly.

Principle #3: The farther from infantry, the more abstraction is OK

This stems from Principle #1 in that infantry matters should have the least abstraction from real life. If the mission wishes to have combined forces and reasonable balance then the majority of players will have their boots on dirt.

With this principle I was expecting you talk about the performance advantage that can be had by not simulating everything individually if it is located away from what the player(s) are currently experiencing (as done in Falcon 4 using the 'player bubble' method).

[maddogx 13]

Good post - my thoughts on many matters exactly.

With this principle I was expecting you talk about the performance advantage that can be had by not simulating everything individually if it is located away from what the player(s) are currently experiencing (as done in Falcon 4 using the 'player bubble' method).

That's more of a technical concern, reducing the simulation fidelity of anything going on beyond what the player can accurately percieve. Frederfs post seems to be centered more around gameplay and game design issues.

In this case he's saying the devs should focus primarily on making the infantry simulation as realistic and believable as possible, while allowing for abstraction and simplification in other areas that are not as frequently used. (At least that was my interpretation.)

[.kju 3241]

Good post. Agree to most parts.

People need to understand that mimicking real world is NOT desirable goal.

Real world elements can add to the game, if adapted properly.

Also non AI play is very possible. AI is far too dump in many regards,

has no flexibility. It is good for transport and convoy tasks to a degree.

To limited degree also to be lead by human command.

Several mission scenarios have proven that 100+ player count with human only

can provide a very interesting setup. 95% of humans are nearly as dump as AI,

yet are bit more flexible and provide more random behavior (in the large flow).

Even < 10 humans on each side can provide large scale scenarios with

all elements present, if only capable humans are playing.

Refer to ECL and ESL league in OFP.

[whisper 0]

About #4, I personnaly would enforce more teamplay above simple difficulty of task to get a bigger boom.

You should force teamplay for better result, not technical difficulty for a single player. Otherwise you often end up with "skilled rambos" everywhere.

apart from that, excellent post!

[celery 8]

Imho forced teamplay is the responsibility of mission makers and not the devs. I'd throw my mouse out the window if every mission had artificial limitations to make it look like a war movie instead of a well-planned operation with available assets used to their full potential (bunching up together does not teamwork make).

[frederf 0]

I'd be happy to go into more detail on P#3. There's only so much typing that I or reading that others can take in a single go. Plus, the shorter the points hopefully the more interactive and discussion-like this is.

I am attempting to make gameplay and game design arguments for the most part, not really focused on the technical aspects of design. Of course there is an implicit connection to feasibility in terms of computer resources. A good game design that won't run on your PC is not a good game design at all. As far as I know the only working multiplayer bubble-based scheme is in Evolution by Kiljoy and a spawning script but I want to say GroupLink, but it is a noteworthy idea and a good way to get complex micro behavior but also large scale AI behavior at the same time.

What I meant by P#1 and P#3 is primarily this:

OFP-ArmA has historically been an "infantry-up" combined forces game. That's what fans expect, that's where a lot of effort in development has gone, and that's what makes ArmA unique. There are other valid ways to make a game of course. You can simply have one element of combined forces simulated, making it a pure "infantry sim," "tank sim," or "flight sim." You can also have a different focus in a combined arms game, "aircraft-down" or "tank-expanded." The idea is OFP-ArmA is an "infantry-up" combined arms game and this is what it's good (if not the best) at, so it should keep that focus. If it tries to focus elsewhere, flight, armor, small scale infantry, then it will compare poorly with other games that do those styles better.

People time and again have argued against super-fidelity in armor and aircraft in OFP-ArmA. This is a rational argument for a number of reasons:

1. Computer resources. Modeling all of the nuances in complex vehicles takes a lot of CPU cycles.

2. Developer resources. Making accurate models for many complex vehicles is too much to ask which are often classified.

3. Player resources. The player cannot be required to know each vehicle in detail enough to operate a complex simulation of that vehicle, nor can he always devote the mission time necessary to perform some of these tasks.

We accept that these "extra-infantry" vehicles are not sim-like reproductions of the real vehicles but enjoy the additional flavor and tactical depth they add to the battlespace. I like to give a general guideline set for how complex to make vehicles in OFP-ArmA. The abstractly-simulated vehicle should:

A. do the job(s) on the ArmA battlespace it should.

B. have similar positive performance as the real thing.

C. be subject to the same limitations and liabilities as the real thing.

D. be accessible to a new player.

E. reward a skilled player with depth and increased performance.

A simple example of a failure by ArmA is the HMMWV MK19MOD3 variant. It fails to provide small lightly armored transport (A) due to its poor armor modeling against small arms and RPGs, unattended simplistic reload ©, and lack of adjustable sight picture (E).

The health bar method of vehicle armor means many low-powered weapon impacts have a drastic effect on the vehicle's health. An RPG (which the AI rapid fires) that disables the vehicle means de facto death for all occupants. On the other hand, the vehicle reloads automatically without an exposed gunner making it overly potent against normal threats. And finally the main armament is lacking the sighting ability that would allow a skilled player much better MK19 gunner performance over a less-skilled player.

Most of the light ground vehicles could use a moderate reevaluation of hitting and getting hit but are otherwise spot on. Commonly the weapon systems are under-modeled as as the armor/destruction characteristics. However you note that engine overheating, opening doors, changing tires, etc are left out which is generally a good thing as its possible to overlook these details while complying with rules A-E above.

Heavy ground vehicles such as mobile AAA, tanks, and ATGM platforms should strive for a more difficult, more complex weapon systems modeling to deter the casual Rambo. Too seldom the limitations to performance and survivability are neglected making them vehicles of "all the pluses and none of the minuses" which can terribly disrupt the balance of a battlefield and a game.

Aircraft are a step above ground vehicles in their abstractedness, potential power, and hopefully potential liability. In the strongest examples of abstraction the controls, sensors, and weapons of an aircraft bear only passing resemblance to their real life counterparts. Again we accept because of rules 1-3 and seek to balance the resulting vehicle through rules A-E.

Following Principle #4, the requirements for skill and effort to turn this liability of a vehicle into an asset are steeper than a ground vehicle (which was steeper than an infantryman.) Still it's able to be flown satisfactorily by a capable individual (or crew) while a skilled player can get more performance out of the vehicle. While being accessible is nice it's impact on the battlefield has to be reigned in by enforcing limitations that simplification would have dispensed with.

Offensive firepower is the first to consider. A good limitation on firepower should seek to mimic the real aircraft's impact rate on the battlefield. Transit time is likely reduced drastically compared to real life so turnaround times, targeting speed, and weapon number should be kept in check. Ideally a careless pilot will get shot down, displaced, or disabled, a inexperienced pilot will have minimal or no offensive impact but survive, and an experienced pilot will achieve a reasonable impact rate.

A good sanity check is to ask yourself, "If this aircraft was flown at peak effectiveness would its battlefield impact exceed a reasonable level?" If the answer is yes then more adjustment is in order to bring the peak effectiveness down to a reasonable level.

I do think the speed-based throttle instead of the thrust-based throttle of airplanes and helicopters is unfortunate and serves little to help the inexperienced pilot. Often it is counter-intuitive and makes a pilot's job harder.

[frederf 0]

About #4, I personnaly would enforce more teamplay above simple difficulty of task to get a bigger boom.

You should force teamplay for better result, not technical difficulty for a single player. Otherwise you often end up with "skilled rambos" everywhere.

apart from that, excellent post!

I think teamplay = more performance and skill = more performance both have their places and can operate parallel to make a good game. Personally I learn to favoring teamwork more than skill. Perhaps 2 players working well together have an effectiveness of "2.9 players" while 1 player who is very skilled is equivalent of "1.2 players."

The idea being making skill matter is just to give a reason to be better or more clever with what you've got rather than having a weapon or vehicle that's so brain-dead that you can't help but be good at it.

If you think about effectiveness on the battlefield imagine a baseline where every rifleman is "1.0 effectiveness." Imagine a player jumps in a tank or an AH-1 and really sucks at it. He might be "0.6 effectiveness." If on the other hand he was really good he might be "1.5 effectiveness."

My love affair with teamwork is that there's a natural balance to encouraging it. Yes, maybe 4 players working together are powerful but it took 4 of them which removes them from the rambo pool.

Imho forced teamplay is the responsibility of mission makers and not the devs. I'd throw my mouse out the window if every mission had artificial limitations to make it look like a war movie instead of a well-planned operation with available assets used to their full potential (bunching up together does not teamwork make).

I consider the developers, mission makers, and players all part of the "gameplay chain" where you cannot put the burden on a single element nor excuse any elements. Human nature is for the most part fluid and takes the shape of the container. It is not a crime for the developers, modders, and mission makers to collectively funnel the end user to act how they want him to act. There is no distinction between developer and mission maker as they both produce the final product and it is in the final product that the player finds himself.

Now I think you are misunderstanding my intent when I mention limitations and pronounced liabilities. All mechanics in the game are selection inclusion and exclusion of various real life effects. I'm simply asking that we include and exclude these effects with the result being realistic end-of-the-day performance.

For example take the upcoming 81mm mortar. Surely that is a weapon that takes a team to operate. Would you call that forcing teamwork?

I am fervently against the romanticized, mindless "war movie" mold. All I want is to take out tab-fire spam and other overpowered nonsense by finding legitimate differences between current game behavior and real life behavior (that is not demonstrating the nonsense behavior) and include those real life effects that are preventing real life tab-fire spamming (for example.)

Good post. Agree to most parts.

People need to understand that mimicking real world is NOT desirable goal.

Real world elements can add to the game, if adapted properly.

Also non AI play is very possible. AI is far too dump in many regards,

has no flexibility. It is good for transport and convoy tasks to a degree.

To limited degree also to be lead by human command.

Several mission scenarios have proven that 100+ player count with human only

can provide a very interesting setup. 95% of humans are nearly as dump as AI,

yet are bit more flexible and provide more random behavior (in the large flow).

Even < 10 humans on each side can provide large scale scenarios with

all elements present, if only capable humans are playing.

Refer to ECL and ESL league in OFP.

I think many people get too caught up in specific real life behavior that they lose sight of the big picture real life behavior. It's the classic case of tank armor penetration values being accurate for WWII tanks except the game has 1/10th the engagement distances so the resulting carnage is not realistic.

There's also the real life reality about war... it sucks and isn't fun. If you simulated war perfectly you'd feel like you were in a war which would suck. My ideal war game behaves more like a game of chess where a side equal to the other chooses the right moves to win, each equally-valuable piece having its own unique abilities, cooperating to achieve a unified victory. This is all while having that somewhat present (but not hollywood) war glory feeling.

In my experience 10 players at a time was as much as you could ask from OFP-ArmA. Congratulations to you for getting more (I've been up to 80 or so myself) but it's rare and the game should either work with the most common player configuration or enact a change so 100 player games are common.

Also there would be the day when telling AI and people apart would be very hard to do.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Frederf

[olro 0]

Frederf, Id like your thoughts on entrenchments ,suppressive fire, suppression effects and simulated morale/fear/psychology ingame.

How do you think these factors would change any dynamic and balance of the game?

Edited May 13, 2009 by olro

[von_paulus 0]

Frederf, Id like your thoughts on entrenchments ,suppressive fire, suppression effects and simulated morale/fear/psychology ingame.

That's the main problem of all "combat sims". Emotions play an important role in a battlefield.

[Scrub 0]

And information. It is difficult in games (or just not done for simplicity) to make a gray area where the information isn't starkly known, or unknown. That is, to make it an 'I THINK I saw something over there' type situation. The unknown is at times more interesting and suspenseful than the known. Creates hesitation, or an action to confirm..

[olro 0]

Take a look at this thread and its content for a view on how much psychology matters even on todays modern battlefield:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72779

[frederf 0]

Suppressive fire, uncertainty, and morale are certainly important elements to the battlefield that, to be fair, BIS and/or modders have addressed to limited success. One of the Big New Things in ArmA2 is suppressive fire (don't know if suppressed-by-fire is in) which is a long time coming being rather basic to combat around 1985.

Suppressive Fire is by definition fires (shooting) to deny enemy maneuver, sight, and/or the ability to deliver their own fires. It should not be confused with covering fire (attempting to kill targets which prevent themselves while posing a threat to self or that who is being covered) which is quite different.

If you want to implement AI (humans are on their own) units successfully employing suppressive fire you need to manage some very critical elements in the decision making process that control this ability.

1. Decision to use Is it a good idea to use suppressive fire now? This is likely one of the hardest questions for the AI to answer as it depends on so many things. Is the AI unit capable of suppressing the target? Is the range to target suitable? Will engaging in suppressing assist the AI unit in achieving its mission or will it only delay, deplete, and distract? Will suppressing destroy something the AI didn't want destroyed? Is the AI in good terrain to engage in a fire fight? Is there enough ammunition to engage?

2. How much to fire and for how long This is where the AI has to make a choice between preserving ammunition and having a sufficient impact. Unlike the movies, suppressive fire is usually not maximum rate of fire, aimless noise-without-effect. The AI will likely have to identify the level of suppression necessary by taking into consideration the target composition, how suppressed it is currently, and if its weapons are capable of achieving suppression. If the target is outputting more fire than it should then the AI will have a desire to ramp up its suppression. Alternately, the AI will have to decrease its suppression if it sees that it can get by with less fires for adequate effect and as it runs lower on ammunition. Also if a friendly unit is approaching (say on a flank) then that should lessen or stop the suppression so as not to risk the AI shooting each other.

Suppressed by Fire is a separate case than the above. This behavior only finds use if the AI (and players) have the means and the will for self-preservation. The AI has to understand getting cover or distance from a threat before being encouraged to do so by 10,000 incoming bullets will have any meaning. Combine this with the ability to identify that self is being suppressed and you have 90% of the job done. When you apply decision making penalties and such to the AI values then you start to approach 100%.

Morale is already in ArmA simply. Units can flee if their morale drops. It really doesn't happen much because many mission designers use canFlee=false or that it takes 90% casualties to trigger the effect. It's a complex and subtle area and I don't have too many thoughts on it.

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

it all reads very nice and stuff , but what I genuinely don't get a few things:

• 1. How does an "Infantry-Focus" make OFP/Arma/Arma2 unique? That is basically what all other games are doing , or am I getting this wrong?
  
• 2. Would you not agree that playing "Infantry" is already and has increased so in ArmA to be by several orders of magnitudes more powerful , more interesting and ultimately more fun?
  While one would except armoured vehicles and helicopters to be a menace , in this franchise they usually just provide a player with an opportunity to use his secondary weapon slot.
  
• 3. While I fully agree that the vehicle system should become more complex, isn't that in contraction to the "abstract rule". I am afraid your post on this hasn't fully cleared that up for me.
  
• 4. How much more development can you put into the infantry part until you run into a dead end? And when does the cost-effectiveness of those new features become ridiculous?
  
• 5. And finally , doesn't a focus in which every other element is towards making it fun for the infantry man make this game incredibly one-dimensional , in that playing as a tank man or a helicopter pilot will be undesirable and unfun?
  

I apologize and will feel silly if I misunderstood the main points of your posts.

For one I am very happy you included that playing with AI should be fun.

On the general discussion of "realism" I think that that term is highly overated as well. Not only aren't all real aspects of war fun , but once you call for "real user interfaces"(whatever that is) on a game that is played via a mouse and a keyboard on a tiny screen I believe many people mistake "Accuracy" for realism.

Just because something doesnt look or operate like in real life on your screen doesn't mean it can't have the same impact on the battlefield simulation as use of same asset would have in a real world situation.

I guess to point out where I am coming from , I always liked OFP for the fact that you make something a lot of people could enjoy:

You could put 1vs1 platoons of mechanized infantry with the optional helicopter,CAS and artillery support in there and everyone from the grunt to the AI squad leader,to the driver to the IFV commander to the forward observer to the pilot to the overall platoon commander could expect to have a fun night.

This is what made OFP from a gaming point (apart from editing) unique for me.

Hence why a much more restricted ArmA where really only playing the infantry grunt is fun isn't in my list of alltime favourite games.

(And even as the grunt you have some movement problems , hah!)

Long story short: I see where you are coming from , but I fear that under those designs principles many ways to have fun with this game could be lost.

On a sidenote: I would be very interested to hear your views on the appropriate island size for this franchise? :)

Edited May 13, 2009 by lwlooz

[Muzza 0]

Totally agree with #4.

A helicopter shouldn't be able to kill 8 tanks effortlessly with the 'lock-fire-lock-fire' hellfire missiles. Acquiring a target should entirely occupy and challenge a gunner and thus force his co-operation with the pilot. That kind of effort should be able to defeat 8 tanks over a long timescale.

[PuFu 4598]

It all reads very nice and stuff , but what I genuinely don't get a few things:

• 1. How does an "Infantry-Focus" make OFP/Arma/Arma2 unique? That is basically what all other games are doing , or am I getting this wrong?
  

I guess it is related to arma franchise being a Join Op, rather than another shooter. It's a tactical game that should be taking advantage of the gear such as tanks, helicopter etc by making those work as support roles for infantry, in the proper sense of it. All the game is going around infantry anyways: if you want to play a infantry simulation you go for ArmA (or VBS), but if you want to play a flight sim you go for Falcon 4, Lock On, BS, etc. Same goes for tanks - Steel beasts. But then again, in those you are stuck to your role and join ops are not possible.

• 2. Would you not agree that playing "Infantry" is already and has increased so in ArmA to be by several orders of magnitudes more powerful , more interesting and ultimately more fun?
  

I agree, but then again, infantry simulation should be closer to what it means - recoils, proper weapon handling and usage etc. Also the overall controls are important to give you a sense of imersion and not the feel you are controling a robotic creature.

• While one would except armoured vehicles and helicopters to be a menace , in this franchise they usually just provide a player with an opportunity to use his secondary weapon slot.
  

i really don't get what you mean by that

• 3. While I fully agree that the vehicle system should become more complex, isn't that in contraction to the "abstract rule". I am afraid your post on this hasn't fully cleared that up for me.
  

Not really. Kju is right that modeling the same stuff as in being realistic in the game is not going to work. But by covering the main parts of each at least - armor system, weapon systems and handling, vehicle phisics etc - without needing to go towards a Black Shark approach, but still need to be proficient enough with the controls, FCS, etc etc to be able to operate them to the max effectivness is just gonna help out balancing things over and reducing the use of certain vehicles in enviroments and conditions you won't normally use.

• 4. How much more development can you put into the infantry part until you run into a dead end? And when does the cost-effectiveness of those new features become ridiculous?
  

Some stuff that he is talking about have already been done by the community to an extent. It is proven possible. Wouldn't be better that BIS to be doing it in vanilla, rather than having mods and addons try to fix, ameliorate or change certain behaviours? Yes, most should be kept within game reasons, but bearing in mind the listed concept frederf based this thread/post on would be a start in my book

• 5. And finally , doesn't a focus in which every other element is towards making it fun for the infantry man make this game incredibly one-dimensional , in that playing as a tank man or a helicopter pilot will be undesirable and unfun?
  

I guess it is about having a certain learning curve. This should include the teamplay factor - for instance not being able to operate all weapons by yourself in a cobra - Also, there are a lot of factors in arma than makes certain areas way too easy for the average player to operate - TAB locking, radar system - which is dull, very inaccurate comparing to his real counter part - makes vehicles such as MBTs, Attack Choppers, as well as other vehicles that would require teamwork, coordination and a certain level of experience from its driver/pilot way way too easy to operate in ArmA, and breaking this balance factor and teamplay aim by just adding it in a mission (there is no reason for me to wait for a gunner to get in a cobra if i can take every armor on the field by myself, or to wait for eyes on target from infantry, and information about target position, as well as recommended vector of approach. Same goes for a lot of other vehicles, such as tanks - being able to single operate them etc etc)

@Frederf, really good post, it's one of the first threads/posts i've seen on BIS forums where i have nothing to disagree with.

[frederf 0]

How does an "Infantry-Focus" make OFP/Arma/Arma2 unique? That is basically what all other games are doing , or am I getting this wrong?

Good catch. I should have said that infantry-focused combined arms is OFP-ArmA's identity and OFP-ArmA's identity is what makes it relatively unique. There's certainly more to the equation than that. BF1942 shares the same characteristic and yet OFP-ArmA is certainly rather separate from BF1942.

Would you not agree that playing "Infantry" is already and has increased so in ArmA to be by several orders of magnitudes more powerful , more interesting and ultimately more fun?

While one would except armoured vehicles and helicopters to be a menace , in this franchise they usually just provide a player with an opportunity to use his secondary weapon slot.

Yes and no, certainly modern warfare's miniaturization of firepower has given the infantryman an awful lot of previously not enjoyed firepower and that is reflected in ArmA. However most players will still gravitate to tanks and helicopters not necessarily for firepower reasons but for the all around experience. Infantry could still use a lot more intrigue and depth; backpacks, medicine, weapon configuration, etc to make the player attracted to it.

While I fully agree that the vehicle system should become more complex, isn't that in contraction to the "abstract rule". I am afraid your post on this hasn't fully cleared that up for me.

That is the big struggle between simplifying vehicles and keeping their performance in check. At first it seems like performance-limitation and abstractedness are mirror opposites of each other but it is not necessarily the case. The trick is to make it simple enough to code and use but not overly-effective. It's a very tricky science.

The radar in a fighter jet in real life is complex but you can still make an abstract representation without making it God-like. The radar could only cover wedge of space (vs 360°), not tell friend from foe, have a B-scope style cockpit display, and take a few scans to register a target. This could be just as "arcade" in abstractness, just less effective.

My personal philosophy is that if you can learn everything there is to know about a vehicle in 30 seconds then it needs to be more complicated. You should be able to work it passably in 10 minutes, be OK with it in 3 days, but take 30 days to approach complete understanding.

How much more development can you put into the infantry part until you run into a dead end? And when does the cost-effectiveness of those new features become ridiculous?

That's another good question to which the answer is, depends on where work is needed elsewhere. The effort you put into one aspect of the game is hard to judge until you compare it to another part. For the most part there's no danger in "overdeveloping infantry" as there are many aspects that are lacking that that point won't come for a long time. Unfortunately the effort is not always directed into the areas that need it the most. There are some very efficient ways to invest effort, mostly into tools and basic abilities that modders can do the brunt of the work.

And finally, doesn't a focus in which every other element is towards making it fun for the infantry man make this game incredibly one-dimensional, in that playing as a tank man or a helicopter pilot will be undesirable and unfun?

By no means should infantry be the only fun part of the game. The feeling of the supporting players should be one of challenge, accomplishment, and necessity to the combined force. Ideally all force types will feel that they are doing their job and that the effects of their work are worthwhile yet they require the assistance of other force types. The motivation for a tanker player should be that he has to be good to be an effective tanker, learning the systems and subtleties of his vehicle such that he can provide the most effect that would be expected of him.

The reward for the player of any force type is to feel the harmonious effect of many different force types working together to achieve an effect greater than the sum of their individual parts. "Man, that Shilka would've eaten me alive if that SF operative didn't point him out." "That BMP3 would've eaten my squad alive if that Styker MGS hadn't taken him out." "I'm glad my M1A1 has an infantry screen in this urban setting." "Our SEAL team wouldn't have stood a chance without that air strike."

At no point should the tank or aircraft be an end solely for itself. The supporting element must remember that they are there for others, not that that is any less important. The fun should come from cooperation, not domination.

On the general discussion of "realism" I think that that term is highly overrated as well.

Realism is a tricky word since a lot of people consider it a Boolean (yes/no) instead of a value on a continuum. The phrases "more realistic" and "less realistic" should be used instead of the lone word "realistic." Pursuit of realism must constantly reference why realism is desired instead of for its own sake. To me realism means that I can believe what is going on, there's more to know/play about, and powerful things have flaws/limitations.

I'd like a more realistic Javelin so people would have to cope with its real world limitations. I would love to be skilled and knowledgeable about the weapon moreso. It would mean that it takes skill and time to use and that increases the potential for mistakes and a more plausible end result in the mission. There's a joy when you think to yourself "I'm doing what the big boys are doing" and there's a sense of accomplishment when you utilize equipment that isn't brain dead easy.

As far as being able to get lost in the fantasy, realism required depends a lot on how much you know and how able you are to mentally ignore flaws. If you don't know that an AH-1 is USMC and a AH-64 is USArmy then it won't matter if they're used in the wrong context but it can bother someone that does know. The more you known the harder it is to construct a world that you will believe is authentic.

Of course you need to have an understanding that some realism is just not worth it to obtain so you accept the next best alternative in a dumbed down version. For example I don't mind that a jeep would have an AT transmission because it would be a little much to ask for. It's only when there's a choice of ways to do something that are all equally difficult to program and they get it wrong that it bugs me. For example, 6x GBU-12s on the Harrier is just as easy to do as a more realistic number (2 or 4 or so) but they chose to put more bombs on it than is realistic and it detracts from the game.

As for the appropriate map size for OFP-ArmA... as big as you can make it. I'd be intrigued what a map with a densely detailed "interest zone" and large less detailed "transit zone" so your jet would take 10 minutes to get to the battle might be like. When you spread things out you make transportation an interesting factor as well.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Frederf

[chops 111]

I think the more true-to-life limitations that are put on the higher-end vehicles and weapons systems, the more team work will be encouraged.

An example being the radar, which has bright red squares on it representing enemy vehicles and green ones for friendlies. I reckon this needs to go. Without it a CAS pilot needs to visually find and then identify appropriate targets.

The biggest aid to the pilot in this situation would then be a player on the ground, describing target types, locations and movements to him, ie teamwork. This, I imagine is along the lines of what Forward Air Controllers do for real.

As it is at the moment, "fire-tab-fire-tab-fire" reduces teamwork and for me, enjoyment.

The player should have to practice and "train" to become proficient at the more complex tasks. I'm not suggesting the aircraft should be Lomac quality, but the first time you land a free fall bomb on target, you should get a "fuck yeah I did it! I'm getting better at this." reaction. A reward for your efforts.

As for expanding the features on a vehicle or aircraft, I think this will also add to the game, giving the player more tactical decisions to make and therefore more immersion. An example would be dynamic loadouts on aircraft;

Say you're a pilot in a COOP mission, you've been asked to attack infantry along the edge of a forest, there's also an anti-air vehicle in the area and maybe an enemy helo too. What weapons would you load on your SU-25?

The more options you have open to you, the more responsibility, the more team work becomes necessary.

[Scrub 0]

Well said Chops.

[mcvittees 0]

In this case he's saying the devs should focus primarily on making the infantry simulation as realistic and believable as possible, while allowing for abstraction and simplification in other areas that are not as frequently used. (At least that was my interpretation.)

Amen to that!:)

[Alpha-Kilo 36]

This is one of the best discussions on this forum. The postings are very clear and organized and the discussion is polite and on topic.

But is this a purely academic discussion or is there a chance to actually bring the desired higher degree of realism into the game?

I can imagine that modders and mission makers are able to implement some of the communication-related features into multiplayer games. A modder might be able to mask the color of the radar blips and teamspeak communication may enhance the importance of a Forward Air Controller. But is it at all possible to create dynamic weapon loadouts for vehicles?

And what about realism in SP? The ACE mod, for example, has been doing a lot to make Arma more realistic. Playing mostly SP, I see that the game is much harder to play, but the team aspects are not working too well. Probably this is a limitation of the AI system and beyond the modders' control. But does it mean single players will remain limited to a somewhat simplified gameplay and excluded from the benefits of a higher degree of realism in the game?

[whisper 0]

We don't know the level of ArmA2 AI. All we know is BI saying they worked a hell lot on AI aspects, so there may be hope. Time will tell.

I think they know they'll be pitchforked if their AI is subpar ;)

[frederf 0]

Academic discussion unless it interests those with the ability to enact change

I was going to say that probably more important than the other bullet points I mentioned was the OFP-ArmA community. The collection of modders, mission makers, clan organizers, etc are the primary things keeping the series afloat. The out-of-box content is barely worth the cost of admission, but the potential content is highly valuable. As such it pains me every time BIS releases a new tank or airplane that use the same set of abilities that have been in the game engine forever.

Yes a new BTR-90 is shiny but it's only good for one vehicle's worth of fun. Make towable trailers, adjustable sights, backup sights, complex missile logic, multiple weapon type proxies, or other such abilities then you get a large scale payoff in quality user-made equipment without BIS having to make any models or textures. There are just so many things that modders are willing and eager to do that they just can't do.

Just to let you know I personally have modded out the radar blip color. It also happens to control the mouseover color in the UI for sides. There are methods of dynamic weapon loadouts for an addon aircraft that gives you a nose-on view and you can pick which weapon goes on which station but it's very difficult to code as the engine does not want to do this natively. I wish I could find the video of I believe an F-16 addon.

Communication is a great example of an aspect of OFP-ArmA that could be so much better given an "open source" approach. The VON in ArmA is less than useful primarily because it is so inflexible. You have 5 rigidly defined channels tied to everyone's group, side, and vehicle status. They work over any distance with no need for equipment. If VON arrangement had at least the option of channels and range limitations and such via scripting commands at least a modder could attempt something. Everyone uses the Side channel because most missions don't have a group structure designed to accommodate logical voice communication. It quickly becomes annoying to use.

[Scrub 0]

Of course it's academic unless it interests the Devs. However, if it's in the engine in Arma 1 to do this:

Imagine what will be accessible in the new engine that they have stated has many more commands, is more open, and has more common uses 'canned' (i.e. logic modules).

It would be very nice if each unit had some general limits/benefits from it's real world example. Instead of just higher armor, bigger gun. But I use what is written above to soothe my pangs. :)