USMC Corpsman (They're Navy, reflect proper ranks)

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

One little thing that bugs me is that the Corpsman (USMC side) are given ranks such as Pvt, SGT, etc. Newsflash, the Marines use U.S. Navy Corpsman. Their rate is HM (Hospital Corpsman) with a FMF (Fleet Marine Force) Designator. For example, Razor team Corpsman "Smith" would be HM2 (FMF) Smith.

Also, the Navy personnel on board ship are given the same generic ranks. Is there a fix for this or are we stuck with it? It would seem stupid to call a Navy Seal (SO2 for example) a SGT.

318 kb

Edited January 9, 2010 by W0lle
Image > 100kb

[dmakatra 1]

The ranks are generic. Who cares anyway? It's not like the OPFOR or Independent side reflects the proper ranks either.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

Thank you for your deep and insightful response. In that case why call them "riflemen, AT gunner, etc" and just call them "guys".

My point is that ArmA II is based around USMC and USN units. Hence the reason that was given us as to why there were little "Army & Airforce" units included in the game.

My attitude towards BIS has changed significantly since the release of version 1.05 (THANK YOU BIS) and I though that this discrepancy could either be fixed by them or the community.

[dmakatra 1]

How much deeper can you go? The ranks have one task in the game - to establish which units take charge when the leader goes down. The specific soldier names have other tasks - designating their role and threat.

The ranks are just generic "main" ranks so that leader responsibilities are properly sorted out. As such, there's no ranks available for gunnery sergeants, PFCs, warrant officers and whatever ranks Russian forces might be using. Just think of the ranks as pay grades rather than real ranks.

[JB1528 10]

How much deeper can you go? The ranks have one task in the game - to establish which units take charge when the leader goes down. The specific soldier names have other tasks - designating their role and threat.

The ranks are just generic "main" ranks so that leader responsibilities are properly sorted out. As such, there's no ranks available for gunnery sergeants, PFCs, warrant officers and whatever ranks Russian forces might be using. Just think of the ranks as pay grades rather than real ranks.

I agree with this guy. Seriously bro it's not that big of a deal, you're kind of nitpicking.

[Kristian 47]

My point is that ArmA II is based around USMC and USN units

Whoa, why is that?

Just because campaing and few missions are played by US Forces it doesnt mean the game is BASED AROUND them.. right? :rolleyes:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Every faction should have their own ranks. With OA coming up, USMC ranks doesn't "make sense" either. I wish we had 10 rankIds though instead of only 7. Missions can still use custom ranks if need be but obviously won't be as "transparent" to the system.

[HAMMERJ 10]

"The ultimate military simulator" That's what it says on the out side of the box of ARMA2.

From that I expect that if it US Marines, the military service most known around the world , I would expect that BI could get those ranks proper. As well I ask how much code would it take that if russian the rank be proper as well.

BI did a great job w/A2 but I too can understand that because it is a basic thing why wasn't it done properly. I vote next patch, THE FIX the single player bootcamp which I've spent a wasteful amount of time redoing missions because of bugs in the system, Who tests these games anyway?? Maybe some voice actors , and yeah maybe proper markings for the services represented, If for no other reason than showing some respect to the men and women that fight everyday so we can sit in our homes and play make believe.

[james mckenzie-smith 1]

This is something of a non-issue, I think. The ranks are pretty much generic, they mix enlisted and commissioned, and are used more for establishing hierarchies in mission design than anything else. Creating several rank structures for the USMC, Russians, and whoever else would make things more confusing for mission editors, and would waste BIS's time, while accomplishing virtually nothing.

Might I point out that VBS2, as used by the US Army and the USMC, uses exactly the same system?

That said, I can meet proper rank nitpickers half way, and make a suggestion for the longer term (ArmA3 or whatever). Perhaps, as well as the scenario design unit rank as currently designed, there could be an in-game displayed rank, where the scenario designer could give any unit any rank, so that, as seen by players of a scenario, a unit would be whatever authentic rank for whatever force that the scenario designer chooses, while maintaining the hierarchical structure within the scenario? This would only be for immersion, and would have no bearing on the AI's actions within the game.

Edited December 31, 2009 by James McKenzie-Smith
Screw up.

[Zipper5 74]

The issue is that the ranks, in the current system, have to remain the same for all units in the game. You can't edit what they entitle. Thus, if you switched to perfect USMC ranks, then Russians would be using them, as well as the ChDKZ, CDF and NAPA. Now wouldn't that be even more odd?

Perhaps it's possible that BIS can make it so that when you place a USMC soldier, USMC ranks apply only to it. But I don't see that happening.

[FryzieDelta 10]

Just out of curiosity, if something like this was to be put into effect what kind of rank stucture would be expected for the animals?

Personally I don't think that this is something that is entirely necissary. All it's there for is to show someone's rough level in the command structure and tell the AI who's next in charge when the sniper hits the luitenant or the sergeant takes some shrapnel.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 866]

• Yes, I am nit-picking...to an extent.
  
• I understand that each branch of service (for each country) has its own ranking system.
  
• Animals... that's a good point...Alpha dog maybe?
  

The overall point I was trying to make was to improve the sense of immersion by correcting ranking mistakes USMC LT. COl vs. USN CDR, etc.

[Deadfast 43]

They aren't mistakes. They are just simplified.

As the others said before, the ranks are there only to define who takes up the command if the current leader dies.

[Banderas 0]

@Stang

Although somewhere I understand your point, please keep in mind that the developers intention was to keep the mission editor as simple as possible, to ensure a lot of users could make their own scenarios.

Also a lot of real life ranks doesn't show up on a battlefield, because of their general assignments, eg.: you probably won't see a Sergeant Major ordering a rifle squad around in an engagement, but rather as an aid for a battalion/regiment/... commander, just like Master Sergeants are usually belonging to the staff (concerning the Corps).

In that case why call them "riflemen, AT gunner, etc" and just call them "guys".

The terms "rifleman, AT gunner, Machinegunner, etc." are also generic terms, they are used for editorial designations, and to indicate the default weaponry that the unit carries. In this view MOS designations should be applied to every class of men (for example: 0311 Rifleman, 0317 Scout Sniper, 0313 LAV Crewman in USMC case or 11A Inf. officer, 21B Combat engineer, 19K Armor crewman for US Army....)

My point is that ArmA II is based around USMC and USN units.

Although USMC is one of my most liked branch, don't forget that you can also find four other armies in the game, we should say that the campaign is based around the USMC (one Force Recon team in particular). And in a campaign of your own there's nothing restricting you from adding real ranks to your soldiers, if just namely only:

http://www.arma2.com/characters_en.html

@HAMMERJ

The "Ultimate Military Simulation" phrase in my view stands for this: even today you can't find another VANILLA game that simulates the real modern battlefield as realistically as ArmA 2 in the overall picture. It might lack proper armor penetration values, but show me a tank simulator that has proper infantry modelled; it might lack realistic flight models, but show me an airplane sim where you can walk into buildings; it might lack of jumping ability and ragdoll-effects, but who needs them when you're walking around on a 225 km2 real-life based map, where the max number of persons lurking around can be more than 2500 (3000? 4000? How much in DR? 64?).

Of course there is Combat Mission series, which is more realistic in many aspects, but in that you still can't jump into the boots of a single soldier to taste the combat in absolute personally.

[TRexian 0]

Hmmm... I think the OP has a point.

Best case would really be to have the E- W- and O- rankings, which span the US branches. And, I have confidence that foreign militaries have similar designations, or some system could be used to simulate it.

It could even be a config thing. Each faction has a ranking order, with different text tags.

Learning other forces' rankings would be no different than learning other forces' battle rifle designations and things like that. Would actually be interesting.

[Banderas 0]

@TRexian

Although I see some point in the idea, it would be more or less an unnecessary complication of things, I doubt it can be changed by a small config - but I'm not an addonmaker, they will tell it.

What would make things really difficult, that even inside the US Armed Forces, branches does not always having "overlapping" ranks examples in the first post:

-USAF has two E-7 ranks, others have one;

-USN has three E-9, others two (not counting here the unique NCO ranks);

-US Army has two E-4 ranks, while other have only one

Now things will be really messed up when one will want to create other factions' rank system, for example differences in Russian and US ranks are well visible, for example Russia has three ranks entitled "lieutenant".

Smaller armies usually have less enlisted ranks, I can introduce it through the Hungarian Army: While the US Army/USMC/USAF has five levels (and 7-8 types of them) for "sergeants", the much smaller Hungarian Army has only three ranks (three levels - sergeant, staff sergeant, sergeant major), so I think the CDF would have similaliry less ranks.

Other problem, what ranks to give for insurgents/guerillas? While I'm sure much of such organisations applies ranks, but also there are a lot who don't care about such things.

@others

If someone has the free time for it I'm not against the making, but don't put such responsibilities to BI's shoulders, let them work on other improvements, such as performance and AI, and OA of course.

[TRexian 0]

That's the great thing about making it a config group. Each faction already has a config entry. For example, the USMC faction could be:

faction_ranks = {"Commandant of the Marine Corps", "General", "Colonel", "Command Master Sergeant", "Corporal", "Buck Private", "USNA Middie"};

And the Hungarian faction could be:

faction_ranks = {"General", "Colonel", "Captain", "Lieutenant", "Sergeant Major", "Staff Sergeant", "Sergeant", "Corporal", "Private"};

And the engine could keep track of the number and fill in the array of ranks. The assumption would be that the ranks were from highest ranking to lowest (or reverse, as long as it was consistent).

I agree, this is not necessarily a high-priority issue, but it could also add to immersion, and be an opportunity for people to learn about the structure of other militaries.....