Campaigns

[jakerod 254]

Wasn't the campaign supposed to have the option to play each of the 4 guys (infantry, delta, tank, apache) in each mission? I thought I heard that somewhere. I know in coop it works out that way but I was hoping to go back through the campaign and play as a different guy after beating it completely with one. Especially since I would enjoy it more with infantry, delta, and apache only. I'm not a big tanker fan. I have fun with it but the other 3 are a lot more fun to me.

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

You'd think so, going into units you can see all the names listed even though they aren't actually in your squad, plus they all seem to be present in all missions by looking at the maps and group names (ie: Hitman 1, Badger 1).

[Tonci87 163]

I thinjk you can do this in the Editor

[Zipper5 74]

In each mission you can play as each character if you change it using the editor, but the main character of each mission must have his objectives completed (though not necessarily done by the main character himself, seems BIS planned for the other playable characters to do it too. There's even voice acting for it) for the mission to complete, along with the other objectives of the secondary characters.

[efefia 0]

The warfare stuff is a fine example of a big idea gone slightly awry, definately the biggest mistake BIS have made imo. When you've got a community of players enjoying and thriving on the grunt experience it doesn't really make a lot of sense to throw them headfirst into sn RTS style micromanagement nightmare at the end of a great single player experience.

I think it's under-estimated just how much fun it was to pile out of the back of a truck as just another face in the crowd, trying to stay in formation under fire, seeing countless other grunts eaither side on your flanks scrambling around.

[mant3z 1]

I think you are wrong efefia

Warfare in campaign was a very god idea because it makes your side missions unpredictable.

When you play it you can never feel safe, enemy can be everywhere and this build great atmosphere.

There was only one mistake, you should never have possibility to command. Player should focus on side missions and avoid danger if it possible. From time to time AI commander should advice you to help in some places if there is a need.

Of course you can chose to not play it as a commander... but the time until AI commander will force OPFOR can be veeeery long or it can never happen.

The whole idea was very good, but not reconsidered.

[nettrucker 142]

The warfare missions in Harvest RED turned the ArmA II campaign down for me. I loved the campaign of Artma II until the warfare missions started. I'd rather prefer not to see warfare missions in a singleplayer campaign. I really prefer straight forward missions as in the OFP series at least when it comes down to the SP campaign.

But that is just my opinion. Sad is that the OA campaign is so short.

Kind regards

Edited July 9, 2010 by nettrucker
added content

[Zipper5 74]

You have people express their dislike of Warfare in Harvest Red, thus BIS makes sure to not include it in SP content in the future. However, when they do this, then people start to express their dislike that it's no longer being used in SP. You simply cannot please everyone. :rolleyes:

[nettrucker 142]

You have people express their dislike of Warfare in Harvest Red, thus BIS makes sure to not include it in SP content in the future. However, when they do this, then people start to express their dislike that it's no longer being used in SP. You simply cannot please everyone. :rolleyes:

Yeah this is true, but it's a matter of taste too I guess. I prefer simple and straight forward missions as it was during OFP times, since I've played the OFP campaigns and customer made campaigns several times. Liked your campaign Operation Cobalt a lot. Straight forward missions with a good story telling and plot. Warfare is just not my thing when I want to play a campaign and there were a lot of people around which had the same opinion.:)

kind regards

[smeg head 10]

welcome to the real world SF team :)

as one of my NCOs (former SF) said: "We're just glorified school teachers. we teach the local kids to kill our enemies."

i liked the first missions of HR. they were pretty authentic SF type stuff in an asymmetric environment. not the standard type of "SF" mission as portrayed in most community missions. when i played through, i probably only killed 12 guys from the beginning to most of the way through Manhattan (for the whole team)

I'm sure it is the most realistic representation of what an SF team does. I really do agree with you!

After all, I just finished the manhattan mission by completing all the following highly-realistic objectives

- Kill a pistol-wielding farmer

- Harass a local girl for information

- Search an entire town for hidden weapons

- Conduct a vehicle check-point on an empty road

- Search kilometres of forest for two guys on a hill

In terms of REALISM, BIS has progressed leaps and bounds since 2001! Imagine what OFP would have been like if the missions were this realistic... David Armstrong would spend hours filling sandbags, before cleaining his rifle! Robert Hammer would wash the mud off his tank, and Sam Nichols would wipe the bugs from the windscreen of his AH-1! It would be the most realistic game ever

In terms of FUN however, I think we've gone a bit downhill. Even in a 'realistic' game like ARMA 2, I would still prefer it if all the mundane aspects of military life were shunned in favour of the more exciting ones. I like the missions where you just take your squad and blast a few shilkas before assaulting a village. I REALLY do not want to play a mission where I have to simulate something boring like piqet (Although there was a 'piquet' mission in both OFP and ARMA - and they were OK) I would much prefer a mission where i have to tackle an insane Russian renegade general and his cronies... not some silly farmer with a pistol... EVEN IF the farmer with a pistol is a more realistic representation of the modern military threat

I enjoyed the first mission of Harvest Red too :) The problem was it just went down from there. For me anyway... Different folks different strokes i guess

Edited July 9, 2010 by smeg head

[.Taffy 10]

I think Warfare can work well in the context of a campaing, certainly one with elements of High Command can, jus look at Bardosy's campaigns. The problem for me with Harvest Red was the way it was used, with Razor Team controlling it, just didn't really sit well with me.

However it is used very well in the BIS made scenario 'Bear Rising' which sees you as commander of a tank squad being part of a much wider war where the units around you all have their own objectives and intentions.

It's a great way of creating that essential feeling since OFP that you are a cog in much larger machine. Warfare could be used within missions where you have specific mission maker assigned objectives to create a very immersive environment.

It's clearly a versatile game mode so I personally hope we see it used much more in missions in future, just perhaps in more subtle ways.

[dale0404 5]

;1672206']Hi' date='

regarding this "issue" I am all for the paid DLC way to bring some uber campaign gameplay. It wont devide the comunnity as the content will stay the same but for us the "singleplayer junkies" a 40 mission epic campaign will be more than worth, lets say 15$. And in this topic i must remember that not only campaigns but also epic single scenarios need to be mentioned. I think that BIS can make a lot of good with producing single missions like Ambush from OFP or Blood Sweat and Tears from Arma1 as free downloadable content for their newest games[/quote']

DAmn a big +1 for this.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

You have people express their dislike of Warfare in Harvest Red, thus BIS makes sure to not include it in SP content in the future. However, when they do this, then people start to express their dislike that it's no longer being used in SP. You simply cannot please everyone. :rolleyes:

True mate, but then again I have never played Warfare, not my cup of tea...

[ijozic 9]

Unfortunately it's the truth. The last fantastic and moreover long campaign was Resistance. Everything which followed later on was quite short and disappointing. I liked the ArmA II campaign apart from the warfare missions. OA seems nice too, but haven't had the time to finish it yet.:)

I just want to agree with most comments from this thread that I was very disappointed with the ArmA and latter campaigns. I remember having much more fun playing the CWC Reworked in ArmA 2 so it's not simply a case of nostalgia.

IMHO, the last great and long campaign was OFP Retaliation. Yes, it wasn't done by BI so it's not relevant, but just thought that it deserves a mention in this thread. Too bad those guys never made a sequel.

BTW, I'd also pay for a good campaign as I already paid more for these two DLCs and wasn't thrilled by them at all.

[xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10]

I just bought combined Operations and played arma 2 campaign ( last mission) and about half way trough OA campaign. I honestly enjoyed the arma 2 campaign a lot.Good story line nice fire fights I found it good and realistic. The fact that you start as a private, then command your 4 man team, then a bunch of Independents. Really nice. Then I tried OA campaign and I really dislike it compared to arma 2 one. first mission your a random soldier then you lead a convey later your a random pilot. What I liked about arma 2 one is your all the same guy

[Tonci87 163]

I remember having much more fun playing the CWC Reworked in ArmA 2 so it's not simply a case of nostalgia.

Tell me how please :eek:

[ijozic 9]

Tell me how please :eek:

To simplify, by enjoying the old campaigns again vs the new ones, it means I'm not JUST basing my dislike of the current campaigns on idealized memories from the past (nostalgia). Part of it might come from revoking old emotions, but if I consider this emotional feedback from playing some other old games, it is rather minimal. Thus, I still find that IMHO the campaigns are notably lacking in atmosphere building and storytelling.

Maybe it has something to do with the chosen theater (I'm referring to AO) - the closer it gets to some real world conflicts, the more limited the storyline aspects become and more disturbing the whole thing gets (and less interesting the enemy becomes - fighting some ragtag guerillas for some dubious reasons with the latest in modern weaponry is not suspensful at all).

Edited April 10, 2011 by ijozic

[jakerod 254]

To simplify, by enjoying the old campaigns again vs the new ones, it means I'm not JUST basing my dislike of the current campaigns on idealized memories from the past (nostalgia). Part of it might come from revoking old emotions, but if I consider this emotional feedback from playing some other old games, it is rather minimal. Thus, I still find that IMHO the campaigns are notably lacking in atmosphere building and storytelling.

Maybe it has something to do with the chosen theater (I'm referring to AO) - the closer it gets to some real world conflicts, the more limited the storyline aspects become and more disturbing the whole thing gets (and less interesting the enemy becomes - fighting some ragtag guerillas for some dubious reasons with the latest in modern weaponry is not suspensful at all).

I think he was asking you how to play it or where to download it from. Something like that.

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah, you wrote that you play the OFP Campaign in Arma 2.

[ijozic 9]

Yeah, you wrote that you play the OFP Campaign in Arma 2.

Did I? Sorry if I did, I'm stupid; it's ArmA, of course :) But, I think I saw a news flash that CWR was being worked on for ArmA2 as well.

[Tonci87 163]

Oh Ok