OA - Campaign Suggestions

[Blake 0]

I know with Mr.Buchta & co doing the new campaign for Operation Arrowhead it will be excellent & realistic, but there are some things I'd like to see impelemented/taken into account:

- No warfare missions: I hope we won't see any base-building, buying units or flag capturing anymore on this campaign, they kind of ruin the intense atmosphere. Otherwise the Harvest Red campaign was really good. However, I don't have problem having one or two High Command missions where you command an infantry platoon for example, it can simulate rise into command position nicely.

- No "everybody must survive"-rule: This is a mixed bag - on the other hand forcing all team characters to survive allows to create various personalities and dialogue to soldiers, on the other hand it is REALLY annoying to have AI kill itself all the time, forcing player to load a save games frequently. In multiplayer this is also serious nuisance. But 1985 CWC and Resistance didn't have forced survival rules yet they were very engaging and atmospheric campaigns in their own right.

- Dedicated server support: The campaign should be playable also on dedicated servers with full storyline and continuity. Admin should be able to save the campaign progress on the server. Dedicated server would drastically reduce CPU load and lag when compared to current hosting method.

- Respawn option: For co-op gameplay this would be good to have so that people would not have to wait while others play and/or have the host load the game. Amount of respawns or disabling them should be adjustable by the host/admin.

- Bug testing: I'm not trying to sound arrogant here but I really really hope the campaign bugs are ironed out better than they were on initial ArmA II release. I see the bugs in 1.00-1.02 version being the single most important reason for gamers and reviewers getting annoyed and negative about the game. So I hope the utmost is done is to have a working campaign on initial release and not spend time on script gimmicks which sometimes add little to overall gameplay.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Blake

[almanzo 144]

It would be great to see a greater variation in missions, like when you had different characters in the original OFP. Some tank squad missions, air support missions, air transport missions, some spec-op missions, and well, the kind of mission where you actually plays as part of a huge team, like being a no-body trooper in a 9+ troop. The climbing in OFP from private to commander was brilliant. Give it a good story, and I would buy the add-on for the campaign only.

This game has incredible potential, use it!

[mr_centipede 31]

I agree with you on warfare mission. No WARFARE mission in the main campaign. It really kills the immersive of a realistic war. I know warfare is good and fun, just dont let them in the main campaign pls. in Single Mission, is okay :)

[Blackhawk 0]

Definitely no warfare missions. If I want to play warfare I'll go online and do it.

[GoOB 0]

I think that the "no teammates killed" thing might be easier to alleviate in a campaign that involves more than just a small team of special forces soldiers - In OA it will be possible to create strong and important characters that recur through the campaign with the help of other squads/platoons figuring in the main characters' life.

[Maddmatt 1]

Completely agree on the first post. No warfare, earning money for killing baddies just doesn't suit a campaign. Maybe as a single mission that's not part of the campaign.

And the whole "America lost the war because one of your team died" just isn't fun.

If there are going to be small missions leading something like a force recon team, they should not be about attacking loads of bad guys. It should focus on stealth and recon type stuff.

The biggest flaw in the plans for the Harvest Red campaign was restricting the player to a force recon team. This lead to missions that involve things that a small recon team just wouldn't do.

Some simpler missions like playing as a grunt in a platoon sized assault on a town can be very enjoyable and fit into a campaign when done well. Think back to OFP.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

This lead to missions that involve things that a small recon team just wouldn't do.

Like, seizing an airfield that has known MBTs, with nothing but HMMWVs and no tank support? It happened in Generation Kill. Not sure about how real that mission was, but the series is supposed to be fairly accurate. And those guys were force recon, just like Razor.

As for warfare, I'd like to see it go like this:

"Go to the base and report to xxxx". When you get there the base is already built by warfare system, and the whole thing is a war that takes place in the background. But instead of taking commander role, you are given certain tasks that may or may not be timed with random warfare events.

I think Warfare and ACM is a must to make it look like a real war going on, instead of having it narrowed down to the "battlefield sizes" I remember from OFP. I seriously can't imagine why anyone really want that back.

Also, I don't mind the "keep alive" system, especially for something like Razor team. It makes perfect sense to me. And although reloads, the Arma2 campaign had nothing of the reload nightmares I recall from OFP and Arma1. You might have casualties back then, but the missions were hundred times tougher to complete.

[.kju 3245]

CWC similar campaign. Means simple missions with clear objectives and not too long.

There should be no cutscenes, just on the fly talk or communication.

Designed to be playable in COOP from the start. Any team member can die, and will watch

in a cam view the other players until the mission is done or lost. People love that!

Focus on great gameplay and atmosphere by using the guard waypoint a la DAC or grouplink!

Warfare only as 3rd party support to simulate a larger dynamic combat scenario.

The player should NOT be meant to have ANY means to use the warfare system.

Only to have to AI teams fight each other and limit the towns to <5 and instead

focus and great terrain use - this is the key for great gameplay: great terrain!

Edited October 11, 2009 by kju

[NoRailgunner 0]

There should be no cutscenes, just on the fly talk or communication.

Thats complety wrong according and maybe lack the knowledge how good stories are told. Even action-movies have little breaks from action to tell something like a story/background. ;)

Sad to see that some people are only like to play missions without proper/plausible background story. Arma2/OA is then turning more and more into a mp game without soul & sense.

Imho its better to have slightly different campaigns for SP and MP. In that way mission designers could focus on specific parts of the story and implement features, cutscenes etc in a proper way for SP + MP scenarios.

[hamis 0]

First post +1000.

[GoOB 0]

Like, seizing an airfield that has known MBTs, with nothing but HMMWVs and no tank support? It happened in Generation Kill. Not sure about how real that mission was, but the series is supposed to be fairly accurate. And those guys were force recon, just like Razor.

Generation Kill revolves around the 1st Reconnaissance Batallion of the USMC - Not Force Recon. As far as I know, the recon batallions operate in far larger numbers and closer to the main ground forces than Force Recon would. Though the recon batallions do have deep reconnaissance platoons that carry out some of the same type missions that Force Recon would be carrying out if they hadn't been thrown in under the MARSOC umbrella. I doubt one would see any size detachment of Force Recon carrying out the same sort of missions that Evan Wright was around to chronicle for Generation Kill - And I further doubt that a journalist would be able to imbed with a Force Recon detachment.

Edited October 11, 2009 by GoOB

[maturin 12]

Thats complety wrong according and maybe lack the knowledge how good stories are told. Even action-movies have little breaks from action to tell something like a story/background. ;)

Sad to see that some people are only like to play missions without proper/plausible background story. Arma2/OA is then turning more and more into a mp game without soul & sense.

Half-Life is quite successful at telling a good story with engaging characters through on-the-fly dialog alone. Harvest Red didn't have any true cutscenes, they just glued you in place for a minute or two.

[.kju 3245]

Cutscene = static scene that disallow player movement and/or cannot be skipped.

The OFP way is far superior to how its done in a2.

[cole 0]

Agreed on Warfare in the campaign. Drop it, it's quite fun in MP, but if I totally H A T E it in SP.

[Binkowski 26]

One thing I've really gotten into and would like to make a campaign with. Is using the high command module. Imagine being a Platoon leader, or Squad Leader and leading full sized squads or fire teams. It's really immerse, and adds an RTS feel to the game. Granted, that's just me. Some people may see differently.

[Blake 0]

Cutscene = static scene that disallow player movement and/or cannot be skipped.

The OFP way is far superior to how its done in a2.

Most cutscenes can be skipped in OFP if not all of them. I think using mixture of cutscenes and 1st person viewpoint "cutscenes" is good.

One thing I've really gotten into and would like to make a campaign with. Is using the high command module. Imagine being a Platoon leader, or Squad Leader and leading full sized squads or fire teams.

1-2 missions like that would be nice, I think most people are not opposed to controlling platoon via High Command but the Warfare-style RTS (base building, buying units, capturing flags) is not what they want to see. That's entirely different issue than having multiple units at your disposal which can simulate your rise to position of command authority.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Blake

[Maddmatt 1]

I think cutscenes and a story are very important. Otherwise it feels like you're just playing some community coop mission without any friends...

So long as they're not long and drawn out, and are possible to skip. CWC and Resistance used them well for the time IMO.

The method of seeing all cutscenes from first person like in Red Harvest isn't good IMO. Feels like you're still supposed to be in control of the character but you've been paralysed or something, and we miss out on proper cutscenes with good camera angles.

If I wanted a simple scenario without cutscenes or story I can spend 3 minutes creating it in the editor.

[Callsign 128]

I'd have to agree with everyone above really, OFP had something really special (and thats not just sentimentality talking) in regards to how the conflicts were approached on a human level. The key ways you felt involved were;

1. through the characters you played who felt 3D in terms of detail and;

2. the nature of how those characters participated in the campaigns. I really hating dying, not just because i'd have to replay a chunk of the mission, but because I felt responsible for the characters I played.

While I thought that Arma2 did well in terms of the characters (as you were stuck with only 1 main character and the people around him), I didn't really feel part of the bigger operation and I think the best way to have done this was through different characters.

In terms of cutscenes, I quite liked the first person view for at the beginning of missions, but it would have been better having cutscenes to show the bigger operation and to show the scale of the campaign ala OFP.

High Command = Good

Warfare in Campaign = Bad

[Flash Thunder 10]

I know with Mr.Buchta & co doing the new campaign for Operation Arrowhead it will be excellent & realistic, but there are some things I'd like to see impelemented/taken into account:

- No warfare missions: I hope we won't see any base-building, buying units or flag capturing anymore on this campaign, they kind of ruin the intense atmosphere. Otherwise the Harvest Red campaign was really good.

- No "everybody must survive"-rule: This is a mixed bag - on the other hand forcing all team characters to survive allows to create various personalities and dialogue to soldiers, on the other hand it is REALLY annoying to have AI kill itself all the time, forcing player to load a save games frequently. In multiplayer this is also serious nuisance. But 1985 CWC and Resistance didn't have forced survival rules yet they were very engaging and atmospheric campaigns in their own right.

- Dedicated server support: The campaign should be playable also on dedicated servers with full storyline and continuity. Admin should be able to save the campaign progress on the server. Dedicated server would drastically reduce CPU load and lag when compared to current hosting method.

- Respawn option: For co-op gameplay this would be good to have so that people would not have to wait while others play and/or have the host load the game. Amount of respawns or disabling them should be adjustable by the host/admin.

- Bug testing: I'm not trying to sound arrogant here but I really really hope the campaign bugs are ironed out better than they were on initial ArmA II release. I see the bugs in 1.00-1.02 version being the single most important reason for gamers and reviewers getting annoyed and negative about the game. So I hope the utmost is done is to have a working campaign on initial release and not spend time on script gimmicks which sometimes add little to overall gameplay.

110% Agreed.

No Warfare, Actually be able to play the SP campaign without waiting for patches, No huge bugs!!

I also would like to add, More characters in SP, side character plots, better cutscenes more action ones and maybe some better dialogue eh?? :o

[almanzo 144]

The OFP campain made me replay missions time after time, even though I completed the missions. I see someone here are saying that they felt responsible for their characters... I tried as hard as I could to get all my men trough missions without them dying on me. I felt attached to my unit, and that is a huge accomplishment by bohemia.

Operation flashpoint is one of the greatest games I've played so far, thanks to a great, great, great campain... and the expantion packs got me even more great campains. The expantion packs added enough value in my opinion to stand as single titles. Both ARMA and ARMA II neglect storytelling to much, I just ordered ARMA Gold edition to be able to play queens gambit and the main campain again, just to see if it's better without the buggs. The last time I played it was with a friend on his computer, so I've never owned it becouse of the dissapointing story.

ARMA II has huge potential. There isn't much need for more units or weaponry. Fix what you have, fix some of the bugs and give us a campaign that is thought true, and please, hire better voice actors this time.

[AnimalMother92 10]

I heartily agree with the OP. No warfare in single player please, makes it more realistic.

[mr_centipede 31]

I would like to reiterate on WARFARE... I dont mind having WARFARE in SINGLE MISSIONS, but would NEVER WANTED it in the CAMPAIGN.

Because I kinda like warfare, and playing it in SP, ability to save = countless hours of gaming. But in campaign, a big NO NO because it really kills the immersion

regards

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Generation Kill revolves around the 1st Reconnaissance Batallion of the USMC - Not Force Recon.

I stand corrected. Now that I look up Force Recon more in detail, I get the feeling that maybe the whole campaign shouldn't have been Force Recon at all... Or?

Oh well. Thanks for correction, learn something every day here :)

Edit:

Again, I don't understand the fuzz about warfare. You don't have to take such a big part of it (except that tiny mission to take a few places, which btw makes sense in the campaign). The other warfare element can be for the most time background stuff. You have some orders in warfare active areas, but these are minor. The rest involves non warfare regular scripted events (Dogs of War).

Edited October 14, 2009 by CarlGustaffa

[twisted 128]

to add to the list

realistic support as per what a real squad can expect. close to real life missions and odds (number of enemy and goals.) being part of a bigger battle rather than being the the only force fighting the war while the rest of the army sits around twiddling their thumbs.

arma2 was v good. ofp capmaign and cwc were excellent.

[4 IN 1 0]

No warfare mission is the only request for me, it is good to have real time random task alongside with main task that would give game play related rewards(like addiction fire support, air support, reduced enemy, more weapon to choose, etc) like in fallout or any other RPG game through, but plz no RTS "build A base and earn money by owning enemys" warfare mission

Edited October 14, 2009 by 4 IN 1