No building mobile hqs

[Lethn 10]

So I've recently been discovering ( after finally being able to really play this game ) that you are unable to build mobile hqs?! This is the most insane design oversight I have ever come across! This is not meant to be an RTS where the players find the most easy exploit and then all immediately rush towards it.

The most common tactic now I've seen when it comes to the retarded power gamers who you can always trust to find an exploit in a game. Is when one side immediately rushes for the air and because of the magical all seeing A.I who can somehow spot buildings easily even when they are hidden in dense woodland go straight for the damn hq and often tend to finish up.

And of course I am sure there will be some out there who will go "But Lethn! You can just build infantry AA to counter them and then everything will be fine! You're whining over nothing!" I did exactly as I would in a situation like that where they rush like loons and yet even when my AA took the scumbags down they still managed to take out the hq and we were basically left completely defenceless. As it stand now Arma 2 is less like a first person simulation and more like a freaking RTS and it reminds me of Supreme Commander with the assassination mode where all people would do is rush to commander and they know they'd win even if they lost all their troops because as long as the commander went down the game would LET them win.

I'm not saying make the hq completely useless, I like the idea of it being usably but ffs even the most simple RTS' like command and conquer let you build multiple hqs and deploy them from the vehicle factories. You should never EVER give players an IWIN button, NEVER. AVP3 did that and it has been exploited so much that only the fanbois are left in that game now.

If you won't let it be built multiple times then all I ask in that case is that you at least make it salvagable no matter how damaged and have the location automatically waypointed for teammates. That way these stupid hit and run tactics won't be useful anymore and the game can keep going and a side won't win just because they spammed all the way to aircraft first before another side.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Lethn

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Absolutely not.

Learn how to better defend your base and where to place your MHQ. No matter whether its spotted from the ground or the air, a base who's location is known is a dead base.

Don't place your AA near your base, this just lets players know that you're defending something there and will allow them to focus their search on that area.

Play on a higher difficulty so that players can't just open their map to find your base.

Invest in mobile AA.

Build your base and then when finished, move the MHQ somewhere isolated.

[Lethn 10]

Learn how to better defend your base and where to place your MHQ. No matter whether its spotted from the ground or the air, a base who's location is known is a dead base. [/Quote]

lmao that's my whole point, why exactly should they be able to win the whole game just by getting one little mobile hq? It's one thing to get the whole base but why should the whole game revolve around playing hide and seek with an apc.

And there should be no such thing as 'absolutely not' when it comes to blatant balance issues.

[PacX 10]

I agree, you don't win a war by destroying an APC.

[11aTony 0]

Its not like APC gets killed and you are done. Sure you are greatly handicaped but you are far from done.

When they are invading you that leaves room for specops.

If you could rebuild MHQ the games would be ridiculously long if you play against good team. It is fine the way it is building wise.

We had a version with rebuildable MHQ in ArmA1 and we canceled it after a week. It was not playable. I remember once one match 5on5 took for 6hours and it wasnt looking towards end. We decided to call it a draw and played normal warfare next week.

[SeaVee 10]

Hows about making it a server side option to make the MHQ rebuildable - or not. Also there could be an option to set an editable timer "rebuild delay" so that after its destroyed X amount of minutes have to pass before the replacement can be built. Maybe also set maximum times the MHQ can be rebuilt as well.

[Lethn 10]

Hows about making it a server side option to make the MHQ rebuildable - or not. Also there could be an option to set an editable timer "rebuild delay" so that after its destroyed X amount of minutes have to pass before the replacement can be built. Maybe also set maximum times the MHQ can be rebuilt as well.

I can agree with that, at least give the option instead of forcing people to accept one or the other.

Also in regards to how long it lasts, that's Arma 1, in Arma 2 you have magical all-seeing A.I who make hiding in grass rather pointless, like I said, I've been in games where the APC gets blown up by those mad power gamers that rush to get Air so I seriously doubt it will end up being a case of finding that missing factory for several hours.

I would also like to point out that if there were to be rebuildable hqs it would be nice if we could have a win condition of something like "Kill all the factories" that way you will end up winning if you take out all their buildings. I personally think that you must have had a serious design oversight in that mod in Arma 1 if you had it where you could rebuild the HQ.

[11aTony 0]

I dont think you see the point. 5on5, nearly equal skill on both sides. Bunch of AA, AT, MGs and cannons in both bases and around towns near base. Both sides control equal amount of towns so supplies and cash are equal. Rushing with Ka52 does you nothing good. You just waste 10000$ or so. Only thing you can do with it is stack up 5km away and kill whatever on radar (mostly, hmmwvs and suply/salvage trucks). If you discover enemy base and have artillery disabled (or you dont have it at all in A2 stock warfare) doesnt help you either becouse you need like 10-15 abrams tanks at once to destroy anything. ETC. AI in warfare... well if you run around with M16 then they are quite good. Buy your self APC or tank and you its same old story.

However I agree that there should be option to adjust for certain situations.

[Lethn 10]

/facepalm

Running around in an APC or with an M16?

Learn some god damn military tactics, AA or AT infantry I have found are pretty damn effective against heavy vehicles even air, you also have the fact that they can't meanuver for shit in forests hence why you have all these revolutionary groups RL suddenly adopting guerilla tactics against the big armed forces so their technology is fairly useless. Also, if you really don't have that much time to kill when playing a game like Arma 2 then don't play it at all and save it for a weekend. The problem I have with this whole APC hq system is that it eliminates the ability for a weaker force to use guerilla tactics against the enemy and that ends up messing up the game balance.

Besides, all this bickering is pointless, having a side get killed just because of one APC and they do get killed fyi is ridiculous, it's a major balance issue and it needs fixing or at least given an option. If you don't like the idea then you should be able to go and make a server and have the option you like but I can guarantee you that once the power gamers flood onto your server and everyone and their little brother starts spamming air on your ass you'll get as sick of this tactic as I do.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Lethn

[11aTony 0]

Hmm... OK. Go re-read my previous post.

[Sith 0]

The problem I have with this whole APC hq system is that it eliminates the ability for a weaker force to use guerilla tactics against the enemy and that ends up messing up the game balance.

Besides, all this bickering is pointless, having a side get killed just because of one APC and they do get killed fyi is ridiculous, it's a major balance issue and it needs fixing or at least given an option.

One question.

If this is, as you put it, a "major balance issue", howcome most online games still last between two to three hours, with no clear winner emerging until one faction´s entire supply infrastructure has been brought to its knees? That's an insanely long multiplayer session by any other game's standards, barring MMOs.

As mentioned by others, the concept of multiple MHQs sounds interesting on paper. But as soon as you put it through some testing runs, you'll discover it'll boil down to little more than a perpetual cat & mouse game. If you start playing an online game, you generally want to have at least a slight sense of how long it'll roughly take to finish, along with a concise idea how to achieve this. Most people simply prefer to round up a session with a "win" or a "loss".

Some strategic tips that might help you improve your HQ's chances of survival:

* Set up solid AA and AT defenses at all towns along likely enemy lines of advance. The automated AI garrison forces will use them and are quite capable at stopping enemy rush tactics.

* Remember that not just the destruction of your HQ, but also that of all structures in your (most recent) base is required for the enemy's victory. Keeping a good amount of SV on standby, you can use the other facilities to shield your HQ, repositioning it as soon as the base comes under attack.

* When reverting to guerilla tactics (it really works!), use infantry AA/ATteams as skirmish forces in forests-lines to intercept the enemy's heavy hitters. They won't get stuck and are a pain to hunt down from the air.

* Sticking to forested regions when repositioning the HQ makes it very tough to get a good bead on you. Stick to the narrow roads and put the pedal to the metal :)

[Bandito 10]

If you check out Warfare BE (Benny Edition), in Parameters during setup, there are 3 different victory conditions:

Annihilation, Assassination, Supremacy (Total destruction, Destroy MHQ Only, Destroy all factories)

Then again, it really depends what server you're playing on, but at the very least there are some options for you.

[Lethn 10]

One question.

If this is, as you put it, a "major balance issue", howcome most online games still last between two to three hours, with no clear winner emerging until one faction´s entire supply infrastructure has been brought to its knees? That's an insanely long multiplayer session by any other game's standards, barring MMOs.

As mentioned by others, the concept of multiple MHQs sounds interesting on paper. But as soon as you put it through some testing runs, you'll discover it'll boil down to little more than a perpetual cat & mouse game. If you start playing an online game, you generally want to have at least a slight sense of how long it'll roughly take to finish, along with a concise idea how to achieve this. Most people simply prefer to round up a session with a "win" or a "loss".

Some strategic tips that might help you improve your HQ's chances of survival:

* Set up solid AA and AT defenses at all towns along likely enemy lines of advance. The automated AI garrison forces will use them and are quite capable at stopping enemy rush tactics.

* Remember that not just the destruction of your HQ, but also that of all structures in your (most recent) base is required for the enemy's victory. Keeping a good amount of SV on standby, you can use the other facilities to shield your HQ, repositioning it as soon as the base comes under attack.

* When reverting to guerilla tactics (it really works!), use infantry AA/ATteams as skirmish forces in forests-lines to intercept the enemy's heavy hitters. They won't get stuck and are a pain to hunt down from the air.

* Sticking to forested regions when repositioning the HQ makes it very tough to get a good bead on you. Stick to the narrow roads and put the pedal to the metal :)

I'm actually pretty damn surprised a developer has replied and regardless of my bitching I am grateful of any communication from you guys and I do mean well by this bitching because I can see the potential of this game :)

Okay, here's the problems with what you've suggested to me:

. Travelling is tedious, extremely tedious in Arma 2 this is largely I feel why the games last so freaking long, the only time you start getting fast transport is when you build air factories and even then that takes quite a while, you also have to deal with retarded A.I driving where when using light vehicles like humvees an A.I will repeatedly bash into a tree or some other solid object for several minutes before finally realizing there is an object there.

. There is no auto-run key and the A.I are too stupid to drive properly in most cases, setting them to combat for some reason makes them even stupider

. Respawn times are ridiculous, 30 seconds long in some cases? I don't know whether they can be changed server side but respawn times aren't necessarily needed in my view on a map this large and even then I'm rather against them because they are just a lazy and half assed attempt at balance and we have enough annoyances as PC gamers having to wait through loading times on most games

. A.I are not as intelligent as you seem to be having me believe, I have only occasionally seen them man the static defenses, even then there is still the problem of people suicide targeting the HQ and taking that out first before anything else in planes, you also cannot repair the hq when it is destroyed and deployed so this kind of slaughter the point of building a hq and having a nice little base hidden in the woods like I'd like

. The RTS part of being a commander or squad leader is severely lacking, the keys are mapped in an awkward fashion and you can't use the map like you expect for instance building entire squads as a commander would be brilliant, you should also be able to control and command them like a normal RTS and be able to use these features as a squad leader as well except you'd only be able to command a certain number of men

. Why should I have to shield the hq with factories when I have factories available to me? Shouldn't I be able to rebuild an APC if they use cheap tactics against me? Why should they be rewarded for shoddy tactics? It doesn't make sense realistically as well as in game design that the game should turn into nothing more than a mop up the moment the mobile hq is taken out with no hope of getting it back

It does not necessarily have to be building multiple hqs but at least having the decency to let you build them in a heavy or light factory would be extremely nice and again, it would take the power gamers out of the equation, power gamers are a great tool of finding out if your game has balance issues and as I said before a major problem with the game is that people tend to rush to the Air and the other side ends up just being labourously wiped out before the game really begins.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Lethn

[teaboy 11]

I'm actually pretty damn surprised a developer has replied and regardless of my bitching I am grateful of any communication from you guys and I do mean well by this bitching because I can see the potential of this game :)

Okay, here's the problems with what you've suggested to me:

. Travelling is tedious, extremely tedious in Arma 2 this is largely I feel why the games last so freaking long, the only time you start getting fast transport is when you build air factories and even then that takes quite a while, you also have to deal with retarded A.I driving where when using light vehicles like humvees an A.I will repeatedly bash into a tree or some other solid object for several minutes before finally realizing there is an object there.

Travelling in game is ment to refelct real life! this is military simulation not Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield. The dev's included the fast travel as a parameter that can be enabled or disabled by the server admin or host, so that you can if you wish skip all the walking or driving from one town to another. But basically this is a Real life military simulation not an acrade stytle FPS shootem up. I do agree however that work needs to be done on the Ai driving, but i expect the devs are working on this in the run up to the release of the expansion, which by the way any such changes will provided for ARMA 2 by means of a free patch.

. There is no auto-run key and the A.I are too stupid to drive properly in most cases, setting them to combat for some reason makes them even stupider

As i said above its a Simulation, so when your under fire your not going to pop your head up and provide a target for them to shot at are you! well not unless you want your head blow off. I do agree they need to work on allowing you to command your squad to exit combat mode so that you can retreat more effectively, but to be honest they only go into combat mode when shot at by the enemy, and its only when the enemy threat has been eliminated that they exit comabt mode, but then their not going to get up and run in the open while under fire unless their suicidal anyway!

. Respawn times are ridiculous, 30 seconds long in some cases? I don't know whether they can be changed server side but respawn times aren't necessarily needed in my view on a map this large and even then I'm rather against them because they are just a lazy and half assed attempt at balance and we have enough annoyances as PC gamers having to wait through loading times on most games

Respawn times are set by the sever admin or host in the server parameters, they differ in amount of time on each server, but the reason they are longer on some is so that if you have bases in 3-4 different locations or able to respawn at a captured camp, you can select your respawn point which can take a bit to locate on the map when you having to zoom out and move the map around. So the respawn time gives you the time to do this, and as this is a Sim you should be greatful that they allow you to respawn, because in real life once your dead you stay dead! in fact the short 30 sec break is welcoming for some. And if your loading times are to long then i suggest you either get a better PC or leanr to have a little patience.

. A.I are not as intelligent as you seem to be having me believe, I have only occasionally seen them man the static defenses, even then there is still the problem of people suicide targeting the HQ and taking that out first before anything else in planes, you also cannot repair the hq when it is destroyed and deployed so this kind of slaughter the point of building a hq and having a nice little base hidden in the woods like I'd like

people go for the HQ becuase they are real people or they have located your HQ and ordered their AI Controled planes to attack it. Ground forces controled by AI will go into combat mode when in reach of your bases Defences so they do not attack the HQ without battling against your Defences first. The AI are only as intelligent as technology currently allows them to be. the reason you can not rebuild the HQ is simply to encourage commanders to defend the HQ and keep it hidden and safe, if you made it so it was reapirable or rebuildable the game would last forever potentially. so no it doesnt slaugther the point at all

. The RTS part of being a commander or squad leader is severely lacking, the keys are mapped in an awkward fashion and you can't use the map like you expect for instance building entire squads as a commander would be brilliant, you should also be able to control and command them like a normal RTS and be able to use these features as a squad leader as well except you'd only be able to command a certain number of men

Your forgetting something this is not an RTS game! theres only so much the devs can add to improve the RTS element, which to be honest it's fine as it is with mods like Benny's warfare. You can control the AI squads by giving them orders in benny warfare and in the games warfare missions, read your manual to find the key to press to switch between comanding your squad and that of your AI squads to give them orders, i believe its called the high command interface toggle. you do not need to create more AI squads, because one it will be a massive hog on people systems, and too your AI automatically respawn anyway. Even as commander you can command your own Squad and carry out commander actions plus each sqaud is player controllable, e.g 16 squads per team allows for 16 players per team

. Why should I have to shield the hq with factories when I have factories available to me? Shouldn't I be able to rebuild an APC if they use cheap tactics against me? Why should they be rewarded for shoddy tactics? It doesn't make sense realistically as well as in game design that the game should turn into nothing more than a mop up the moment the mobile hq is taken out with no hope of getting it back

They dont use cheap tactic against you, its WAR the aim is to destroy your ability to wage war. No offence but i think your complaining due to your own lack of skill or know how in regards to the tactics you should use and carry out in the process of defending your HQ. Your coming across as a poor loser that blames the game and the opposite team for kicking your arse

It does not necessarily have to be building multiple hqs but at least having the decency to let you build them in a heavy or light factory would be extremely nice and again, it would take the power gamers out of the equation, power gamers are a great tool of finding out if your game has balance issues and as I said before a major problem with the game is that people tend to rush to the Air and the other side ends up just being labourously wiped out before the game really begins.

Try playing on different severs where its not setup for them to so easily afford to build air factories or upgrade them to advance levels, i think you will find that the game will last for hours. In fact i have not once come across a game where they have rushed to the air and gone straight for the HQ without suffering for it, i.e they can only build so many plane before there funds are to low, so the key is to defending your base and placing it amount trees to hid it and protect it from missle fire and bombs etc.

As i said i believe your blaming the way the game was designed to cover for your poor use of tactics. You dont seem to understand that its a Simulation of War not a arcade game with RTS and FPS elements that allow you to build countless bases. This game is tactics and stragety centred, if your not able to accept that maybe the game isnt for you! Theres plenty of people here, even the DEV's, that would be willing to help you out with advise on tactic and stragety, because thats what your real issue is to honest!

I agree powergamers are good for finding exploits and bugs, but this issue your having is not an exploit, if it is then please direct us to all the posts from all these power gamers complaining about the exploit, i think you'll find there isn't any refering to it as an exploit apart from your posts! So your just saying its an exploit to cover up your own poor use of tactic's and stragety!

I dont mean to offend you but thats how your posts sound to me!

[Lethn 10]

/facepalm

IN REAL LIFE YOU HAVE COUNTLESS BASES AND EASY TRANSPORT THAT CAN TAKE US ACROSS ENTIRE COUNTRIES DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THIS ONE IN A COUPLE OF HOURS!!! STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY CRAP GAME DESIGN!!! >_<

Seeing as how you're being snide I think I'll be snide too, I think you're just trying to cover up the fact that there are some severe flaws still in this game that need fixing by blaming my tactics which ironically have nothing to do with what I'm talking about just to defend your precious game.

Making the hq buildable or repairable would not make the game last forever, it would force players to be far more organized about their attacks and it would mean they can't suicide themselves against the hq in order to win. I'm amazed I'm one of the only people here who see a god damn problem with having the game end with the hq blowing up because I think all you want is just a magical IWIN button to press, in this case it is the mobile hq, the game lasts several hours anyway after the hq is destroyed so I think your points about timescale are fairly moot.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Lethn

[teaboy 11]

The fact your the only one here that sees a problem with this just goes to show that your the only one that thinks its a problem.

I wasnt being snide at all, i was telling you what my my thoughts where and critising your lack of ability to use proper defense tactics.

I agree in real life you have countless bases and transport that can take you across the globe. but also in real life you do not have established bases in enemie countries until after you have invaded and captured a foothold in the country, as such the only airbourne transport you have until you have captured a foothold is supplied by a surpporting aircraft carrier.

So the game is based on a localised conflict area, not a global one, so you have limited resources and equipment at your disposal, the supply system is reflective of what in the real world is seen as addition equipment being send to the warzone, only you get to choose what supplies you want (i.e. factory upgrades), hence why they have factorys in the game to represent your armour, gear and airbourne units being supplied by your own goverment, and your ingame funds respresent the funding your own goverment is willing to provide to you in order to purchase such Units from the factory. the bigger the foothold you gain the greater need for additional supplies, which is why your supplies increase with more towns and each town has their own level of supply points.

So its not crap game design becuase if the game was designed where you had the resources to fly round the globe from your base right from the start then no matter how many bases you had the game would only last a few minutes, becuase everyone would be in planes bombing the hell out of your bases, and you would be back here in the forums complaining like hell if you had it like that. So its an intelligent gameplay design to enable longer and more replayable game play. Regardless of which the game still represents a simulation of real miltary combat, it is not a simulation of global economics that fund and support military combat. So your point "IN REAL LIFE YOU HAVE COUNTLESS BASES AND EASY TRANSPORT THAT CAN TAKE US ACROSS ENTIRE COUNTRIES DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THIS ONE IN A COUPLE OF HOURS!!! STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY CRAP GAME DESIGN!!!" is completley irrelevant.

If you want to play that kind of game go sign up and fight in afganistan! but dont come back here complaining when the taliban attack and destroy one of your FOB's oh thats right theres only 2 main bases in afganistan thats helmand and kabul airport which is the Nato HQ of all the bases in the country! So really having one main HQ per country or side in the game is correct compared to real world warzones.

Also i did not make any point regarding the games time scale other then a game can last for hours with just one HQ, or forever if you are able to rebuild or repair the HQ which would make the game virtual impossible for either side to win, as proven in the past when it was actually tried. So here you are admitting the game can be played for hours with one HQ, yet your arguing that its a major gameplay flaw becuase you believe people exploit it by attacking you base? Maybe thats how a particular person chooses to play the game, is it a flaw if they choose to play suicidal? No it isn't. Is it a flaw if they choose to attack your HQ? No it isn't its warfare and whole point is to destory you and your BASES. So stop complaining about them attacking your bases when attacking your base is the only way in which to win the war. jesus the taliban attack our bases in afganistan daily, why you might add? well simple, its to try and hender our ability to fight them.

Ive played games where its taken hours for them to locate the HQ and even then longer to destory due to it being moved whilst in between attacks. Your complaining because you HQ is Destroyed, well bloody defend it probably and move it once you know it has been spotted, then it will take them more time to locate your bases new position which is just as effective as being able to repair or rebuild.

So yes the fact your complaining becuase your HQ is always being attacked and destroyed just shows that your not very good at the game!

So faceplam to you too!!

Oh and your statement "blaming my tactics which ironically have nothing to do with what I'm talking about just to defend your precious game" is kind of sad consindering your complaining about your HQ being attacked and blown up and you not having the option to repair of rebuild it, when a good tactical defense and defense strategy would prevent them from blowing up your HQ in the first place, like many people here will tell!

Really you are asking for an option to rebuild and repair your HQ when if you used the right tactics and strategy, you wouldn't need such an option in order to win! so if anyones looking for a "magical i win button" it is you! as you are clearly a sore loser, because your here complaining about your HQ being destroyed making the game unwinnable when its still perfectly possible to win with just your factories that are left, if they are in a different location to where your HQ was and if the server parameters are set to allow it.

Edited April 15, 2010 by teaboy

[Lethn 10]

I agree in real life you have countless bases and transport that can take you across the globe. but also in real life you do not have established bases in enemie countries until after you have invaded and captured a foothold in the country, as such the only airbourne transport you have until you have captured a foothold is supplied by a surpporting aircraft carrier. [/Quote]

America is still fighting and trying to invade Afghanistan and they have bases plonked right in the middle of a city, the same goes for Iraq though now they've finally just moved out to the country instead.

And actually there were one or two who agreed with me that blowing up a hq should not be the end of it all, this is what I really can't understand you not seeing a problem with. For starters I'd like to point out that the game mode doesn't even end when the HQ is blown up, this could even be seen as a bug.

And stop trying to derail with inane nonsense about things that happen in real life war for one thing your being completely wrong about it and I think you should research it.

If your going to have the hq being the main building, then make it so, don't just put in half-assed coding and expect me to go along with the fact that you have to wait several hours for the game to end after the hq is destroyed or the fact there are still a lot of problems with the A.I management and A.I in general with this game that make it difficult to defend a base because that's just not going to happen.

p.s. This game is trying to write itself off as a simulation, not a game, if it's going to be a simulation then it has to mirror real life as much as possible, I don't see it doing that at all and frankly I don't think it's possible when you've designed it to be a game instead of a simulation anyway.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Lethn

[teaboy 11]

Yes Nato (not just america alone) do have bases in the middle of cities and in open country, but only one HQ which is in Kabul Airport. All other bases are forward operating bases supported by Small Outposts scattered around the FOB's operating area.

Once the HQ in the game is blown up, it is not the end of it all, you still have your FOB'S that you may have build or in other words additional bases built in another location prior to moving the HQ to a new location. So you can still purchase units etc and wage war without the HQ, you just arent able to build more factorys or upgrade ETC, but then if the HQ in Kabul airport was destroyed they would have similar issues. The only time where blowing up the HQ is when the server Admin/host has set the victory condition to Assination, so please dont blame that as a game flaw when it was a server admins decision.

In real life when the HQ is destroyed the war doesn't end there and then does it? no it doesn't, so neither does the game. (unless its assination for victory condition), the AI defend perfectly fine for me if not better then Human players, so if your having problems with AI defending your base then tell us what game version your using and what mods! Although i agree the AI driving is in need of improvement.

The game is a simulation end off, but in order for playability and becuase of technological limit's it can not be a 100% accurate representation of the real world and the AI will never be as intelligent as a human player, but they do have one hell of a good aim :p.

I just can't see how having rebuildable HQ'a in game would be appealing as the games already last long enough, so really the destruction of the HQ simply means the side whos HQ was destroyed will only beable to hold out for a limited period of time, unless they change tactics and concentrate on locating the enemy base and defending towns rather then attacking non captured towns. its perfectly possible for both sides to lose their HQ in the same game. which puts both sides back on an even playing field then.

[Lethn 10]

Here's another idea, why can't we build secondary hq's then and move the mobile hq's out of the way so that they can't be attacked so easily? These secondary hq's will allow commanders to build where they like still and it will mean that the hq is still 'the main' hq but you don't have to put it in a really obvious spot with lots of factories surrounding it and the whole game doesn't have to suffer because of one suicidal douchebag.

The reason I complain about this is because there is absolutely no way of getting the hq back even if you've maxed out all your upgrades and have hundreds of thousands of money at your disposal. It simply isn't fair that one hq should decide the fate of an entire army and regardless of what you say it simply does. The factories become useless because they are sitting ducks now and it also means that they can't be rebuilt even though there are still 'hint hint here' factories about you have a light vehicle factory and a heavy vehicle factory that by all logic should be perfectly capable of constructing a mobile hq, which let's face is just an APC with some coding and a new skin and yet for some magical bloody reason can't be built! Following this logic you may as well get rid of all APCs in the game because if a mobile hq can't be built then there's no way all these other APCs should be able to be either.

This game mode just isn't fair when it comes to the mobile hq, no one and I mean no one really enjoys a game where you've instantly won by taking out one thing and all that's left to do now is spend several hours searching and mopping up a huge map with lots of A.I and players hiding in it, bearing in mind this is damn woodland we have to deal with here too.

I honestly don't care what you do to fix it, just as long as you don't leave it the way it is because as I said it isn't damn fair. If you really want to have this in your design and have the HQ be this easily destructable APC then make it so that the game ends when it is destroyed because it is completely unfair on the whole server to have to sit through a freaking mop up which is partially why the game takes so damn long to finish.

[Alex72 1]

his game mode just isn't fair when it comes to the mobile hq, no one and I mean no one really enjoys a game where you've instantly won by taking out one thing and all that's left to do now is spend several hours searching and mopping up a huge map with lots of A.I and players hiding in it

No one heh? Doesnt explain that warfare is one of the popular game modes in A2 does it. Hide the damn thing and protect it. Also has to be said that ARMA2 is a bit harder to play publically since it many times demands maturity in the way you play the game. This because you have everything at your disposal. Kids usually needs a lot of boundaries when they play because otherwise they will go for the biggest and baddest weapon instantly because scoring is the most important thing, and that would destroy any games fun. ARMA players are usually the other way. At least most of them i encountered through all these years. Its more important to stay alive and to win through team effort then to kill the others as fast as possible. Maybe thats your problem. Your playing with people that arent on the same page as you? I mean before anyone changes this game mode you can enjoy good games. You just need to go onto a server with proper players.

Basically ARMA needs someone(s) to step up and take a leader role, and this just because the mission design is so open. Not many restrictions that "guides" everyone through the mission. If there are no proper leaders stepping up to take that role the missions might and often will fall flat. I think this is true for many of ARMA's missions.

Look up some teams/people/servers that play warfare seriously cause it sounds like you havent so far. And im not saying there isnt room for improvements so dont throw that in my face please, but im sure you can find enjoyment if you find the right crew to play with.

Try it. :)

[Lethn 10]

Seriously? I'm like the complete opposite of serious when it comes to games, I enjoy being able to play realistically and actually be able to do the kind of things you can in real life if the game code allows for it. I also avoid serious players completely, particularly the clan types becaues they often turn out to be elitist douchebags and I have very rarely found that playing with them is actually any fun at all because they take things way too far.

The only time I'm actually serious is when it comes to games is game breaking technical issues or blatant balance issues that the developers either haven't noticed yet or actually simply don't seem to care about. Oh and it's got nothing to do with kids, I love how the adult gamers everywhere love placing the blame of bad teamwork etc. on kids as if it is only them that do it when it's blatantly obvious that a lot of these retards who want to be rambo are in their 20's or 30's.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Lethn

[Sith 0]

The reason I complain about this is because there is absolutely no way of getting the hq back even if you've maxed out all your upgrades and have hundreds of thousands of money at your disposal.

This, along with your previous remark about long travel times, makes it quite clear you've been playing a community-made version of Warfare. My guess is BE, which amongst things disables fast travel, has a greatly reduced AI garisson implementation and introduces facility upgrades and spawning at old bases without an HQ. Added up, this results in a game where compared to stock Warfare:

- Player/AI squad transportation is slow

- Static defenses are significantly less effective, giving air units free reign

- Old bases remain operational as respawn locations and act as victory conditions, resulting in a very long post-HQ-destruction gameplay phase to locate all remaining facilities.

Sounds familiar?

So next time, before you claim Warfare has

the most insane design oversight I have ever come across!

,

blatant balance issues

,

half-assed coding

and

it needs fixing

which the people at BIS

simply don't seem to care about

while claiming that others trying to explain the different feature sets should

STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY CRAP GAME DESIGN!!!

instead of

trying to derail with inane nonsense

... do make sure you're actually playing the version BIS made.

Said copious amounts of inane nonsense was trying to point this out to you.

[Lethn 10]

Thanks for the reply.

For the record, the inane responses I was talking about was when people were constantly trying to go on about real life warfare where basically anything goes but they were trying to make up all these silly rules for it to back up their arguments.

If that's the case that they're playing a borked community version why is it that nearly every server seems to be like this? I also have personally not found that the A.I is much of an improvement even when trying what was supposedly the stock version and I think you still need to improve pretty heavily on that. Like I said earlier, don't get me wrong, I think Arma 2 is a great game overall, in fact it reminds me a lot of Pre-Cu SWG with it's "Lets just put in what we fucking want" sort of attitude as opposed to obeying a set of rules to a genre.

I guess I'll have to look for some stock version then, I think the TV2 server was supposed to have the original CTI warfare but even then I did find that the game didn't actually end from what I remember even when the mobile hq was taken out.

I could still offer a bunch of crits for Arma 2 but at least this throws that out of the way and gets things in the light for me. I still desperately want an auto-run key, I mean come on :p have sympathy for those who want to play infantry, not saying make the stamina go away just make it so I don't have to hold the w key for half an hour in order to get anywhere.

[Alex72 1]

just make it so I don't have to hold the w key for half an hour in order to get anywhere.

You clearly have no imagination.

And you fail to see anyones point of view but your own. And since you've been here since jul09 and still dont know where to actually file for suggestions im leaving you to yourself and your little rant thread. Have fun.

Ta ta.

[Lethn 10]

Funny that because I've actually said I don't care how it's fixed as long as something is actually done because there is more than one way to do it.

Fyi, just because you say something as fact doesn't automatically make it true if you don't provide any evidence and this is the suggestions board dumbass I have every right to post a suggestion here >_> I'll leave it up to the devs to decide whether I'm posting in the wrong section.