Ex3B

My bad, seems that the wiki is still unreliable: https://armedassault.fandom.com/wiki/AMV-7_Marshall_(Western_Sahara). "When outfitted with ATGMs, the Marshall can stand on an even footing with other ATGM-armed IFVs - albeit without the ability to ferry troops. It can double as an amphibious tank destroyer to complement the Rhino MGS, while still keeping the added benefit being air transportable with the help of Blackfish VTOLs." "Crew Capacity All variants support a crew of three consisting of the driver, a commander, and the gunner. Only the baseline IFV and CV variants are able to transport up to eight passengers at a time." "The main difference is that it has been retrofitted with Titan missile pods on both sides of the turret. Each pod contains two Titan AT missiles for a combined total of four missiles (neither pod has access to spare missiles). This variant specifically lacks the ability to carry troops in its rear compartment." The wiki said it 3 times, so I thought I had overlooked it... I'm glad this is a mistake, and I can directly replace the Marshall/"NATO Gorgon" with the Marshall ATGM in my missions

I looked at the new values, they seem to be right to me. My only suggestion now is lowering the base XMS inertia from 0.5 like an MX to 0.4 like a mk20/trg-21/katiba. Although, I know it is inline with the SPAR-16 I think the apex's spar-16 and CAR-85 weren't so well balanced (800m/s muzzle velocity, 0.5 inertia vs 930m/s, 0.3 inertia with a 9% better ballistic coefficient) Also, I realized that the Marshall ATGM does not carry passengers... why? Its not like it's cargo space is all taken by extra ammo. With troop capacity, it can function like a less armored/durable version of the NATO skinned Gorgon with a bit more powerful autocannon. If that airmobile part matters much, and there's no troop capacity, it is more comparable to a Rhino, and I would take the Rhino over the marshall for an anti-armor role

Which leaves me curious: in hindsight, a modified Marid (ATGM/autocannon variant) would be more interesting to me. Why choose the marshall over the Marid? In your view was the Marid not suitable for a PMC? Given that it's a PMC, Even with a HQ in a western county, I could imagine them operating a Turkish built apc/ ifv if it's competitive in price, and doesn't contain sensitive technology

Well, I think some lessons can be drawn from the positive reception of the Western Sahara CDLC: -The armaverse 2035 setting is viable -BI may provide source files for modification of A3 assets -Remastered A2 assets are viable, as long as one is open about it (ZSU-23) -Many of the new assets work in earlier time periods/other settings (the up-armored pickups, but not marshall ATGMs or XMS). So, with that in mind, we could have: -up-armored and upgunned Ifrits that handle like pigs, but can function as small airmobile IFVs? -upgunned Marids? -variants if the Xian: *add a big radome on top, remove the cannon turret, put a datalink and 16km 360 degree radar, allow it to mount r-77s and arms * slim it down and remove the cargobay, put a couple wing hardpoints on it, remove gunner and add a fixed forward firing cannon and a nose radome to ito make a fighter/attack variant of the Xian? -Real EFAMS for the AH-99 (not that the DEGA AH-99 isn't pretty good). Throw in a new F-35B model (not an A2 X-35b remaster), a remastered Khe Sahn, remastered V-22 with variants, a new amphib/light carrier for CSAT, and landing craft for each side. Then *just* a new map. One would hope a series of moderately sized islands with a lot of separation would get decent frame rates. Coastal areas have the sea to cut down on objects in the vicinity. Separating each island by more distance would help as each island would normally be out of object render distance if any other island. This is a problem on Tanoa if you set object render distance moderately high. Of course *just* a new map downplays the level of work needed, but every cDLC has had a new map so far

I am curious how much support there would be for a DLC similar to what I want (not that I would be in a position to develop such a DLC) Basically, my DLC concept would focus on operations from ships or islands, assaulting other islands. I figure it should include: A new terrain, consisting of 2-3 large (>50km2) landmasses, and some smaller islands. Could be just islands, could be a coast and islands. 4096x4096, with a 7.5m grid size (same as Altis). 2-3 New static ships: A NATO assault ship (A higher poly and better textured version of the atlas lhd plus) A csat carrier and csat assault ship, or some sort of hybrid light-carrier with a well deck and single cat+ wires (if on must make do with only 1 ship 2-3 new multi role fighters An f-35b derivative for NATO, and a "j-31" catobar carrier fighter for CSAT, possibly some kind of slimmed down y-31-ish stovl fighter for CSAT. 2-3 new laning craft. 1 LCAC/LCU type ship each that can carry heavy armor and large logistics trucks, possibly some civy ferry boat. A few new amphibious/ air mobile ground vehicles, particularly for CSAT, which lacks anything that can cross water and is protected against small arms while also having an autocannon or aa/at missiles. Even a vodnik port to A3 standards would be a big improvement (include working vehicle interiors for gunners and drivers) A mv-22 or future vertical lift Helo/tilt rotor for NATO, to be somewhat equivalent to the CSAT xian(big enough to carry a nyx, no bigger)- the blackfish is a bit too big to operate from lhds without problems. A giant heli (mi-26 like?) Or STOL aircraft for CSAT to be the CSAt answer to the blackfish vehicle transport... Should allow air transport of CSAt medium armor. Then a campaign battling across the 2-3 island, possibly 2 short campaigns, one from blue's pov, and one from opfors

Doesn't explain the XMS, being a bit worse than expected I didn't mean to imply that it was "crazy" A muzzle velocity of 800 instead of mid-to-low 700s isn't "crazy", nor is 950 instead of low 900s is 800 instead of low 900's for the XMS It won't make much difference, but it's more of the OCD in me. The ballistic coefficient is generally more important, and A3 has quite a different BC for 7.62x51 and x54 vs x39 (an 800 m/s 7.62x39 round will not have nearly the range of an 800 m/s 7.62x51 round) I don't think you'll find real world 7.62x39 rounds getting 800m/s regardless of barrel length, unless it's some impractically light bullet with a poor BC. Another tiny suggestion: enable the gunshield by default for the up armored off-road+HMGs, and make the gunshield match the camo scheme. On another note, I'm loving the Marshall ATGM variant, love that it has color schemes for pacific/woodland forces. It seems unnecessary for the mod given NATO forces aren't really a focus, and with a few lines of text one can get NATO camo schemes for the Gorgon, which fit with NATO in the lore, and function as an 8 wheel amphibious IFV with an autocannon with ATGMs (ie nearly the same as the new marshall), doing a green reskin for the Gorgon is trivial (I have done it). I guess you had the marshall files for the down-gunned CV variant for Ion, and figured, why not? Why not indeed, the Gorgon doesn't fit in the blackfish, but the marshall ATGM does! No need to take a Rhino MGS along with the Marshals, the Marshals can defend themselves against enemy armor.

Also a bit disappointed that the drone's weapons weren't modular, making use of dynamic loadouts. While the zafie or mk200 are good pairings for the drone, they are really powerful for such a small target. I'd like to be able to put nerfed variants, like one mounting just a Lim-85. Even better if the drone is viewed as OP/unrealistic (a LMG with full magazine would be quite heavy for such a hexacopter): An ADR-97: 50 rounds, not 200, significantly lower effective range. Right now that drone can engage from ranges where infantry don't stand much of a chance against the drones. Drones with SMGs instead of LMGs would be a great option for balancing scenarios.

A few balance suggestions: The 7.62x39mm Galat has a muzzle velocity higher than any other A3 weapon in that caliber, even the much longer barreled RPK-12. I suggest taking it down from 800n/s to something more like 715-750 m/s to be more in line with other A3 weapons. Similarly, the Velko 556 has a higher muzzle velocity than any other A3 556, but not by so much 30m/s higher) Conversely, the 556 XMS has a really low muzzle velocity (800), lower than the carbine bullpups like the trg20 and mk20c. The xms SW should have a muzzle velocity approximately equal or better than the velko, and the standard versions should have muzzle velocities of 880-920 to fit in with other A3 rifles of similar barrel lengths. I also have my doubts that the FAL rifle grenade is well balanced against A3 vanilla UGLs. Higher blast radius and greater muzzle velocity? Seems unrealistic to me, but maybe I am mistaken and rifle grenades can fire larger grenades at higher velocity than UGLs

An unfortunate side effect of CSLA, which I feel got a much worse reaction than deserved. Those were not just simple A2 ports equivalent to CUP

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1839481841 Sorry if this is a Necro of a Necro, but that version is more recent and claims to be completed. Personally, I would love a map like this without the post apocalyptic stuff

Ok, how about this for a setting: 1991-1992 - the end of the cold war, as the USSR is fragmenting, Japan decides to take advantage of the moment to reclaim some disputed islands. These would be a fictional island chain near the Kuril Islands, but not part of them (according to the Japanese claim). Said island chain consists of 3 major islands, each about 50 km^2. The southernmost one being japanese controlled prior to the invasion, the northern 2 being Soviet. Russia responds with a Kiev/Ulyanovsk class carrier and yak-38s/yak-41s (its the armaverse, which has a track record for having military equipment operational a few years too early (or equipment that gets cancelled in the real world)- m1a1 Abrams in ofp, su-34s in Arma, f-35s in Arma 2 - xm-8s, AK-107s, scars, etc in Arma 2). Russians then proceed to mount a counter invasion to retake the islands. A us amphibious ready group stands by, unhappy that their ally started this stuff: They can't abandon an ally, but attacking Russia as the USSR is collapsing would be a bad idea given that it could cause reintegration as the US could be perceived as a common predatory enemy that will prey on weakness, causing them them to unite to fight. Or it could lead to the Russian government becoming even more unstable, with a lot of nukes to account for. Thus the US is there as a deterrent against pushing back too far (ie taking the island that the Japanese held before this all went down)- the campaign is mainly the Russian fleet and marines retaking "their" 2 islands. Integration with one of the cold war CDLC mods would be great- I don't like the CDLC concept if each cold war CDLC is going to have it's own M16, it's own AK and it's own bmp... Etc. Plus by using preexisting CDLC assets, the scale of work is kept more reasonable. If one went with stuff that could have been new in the early 1990s (Ulyanovsk and yak-41s, harriers and wasp class LHDs), '90s era air cushion landing craft craft, ch-53 sea stallions, etc... Many (not all) of those assets could still be usable in the 2035 setting (replace the harriers with a f-35b mod- I'm working on converting the open source "fc-37 thunder" model of an f-35c into something closer to a f-35b - hopefully it will end up close to arma 3 quality, unlike a port of the A2 "F-35B"/X-35).

But the driver protection? 7.62 can still kill the driver from the front? That marshall in the pic I linked in a previous post, are those ATGMs? SAMs? An option for both? All versions of the marshall remain amphibious and air transportable? ----- Anyway, I am not really excited about the location/ a desert setting, and yet another square map. However, I am liking the 2035 setting... or rather that these assets have stats meant to fit in with the official BI assets, and thus expands the base game rather than being more standalone. I am excited about the marshall variants, the up-armored pickups, the armed modular drone, the zsu-23s and the zamaks carrying them*. That all seems very interesting to me, and the price isn't too high, so I can excuse uniforms that look like are just a color swap of the syndicate fatigues. *I hope those AA guns can be slingloaded, can they also be transported by flatbed trucks?

I'm guessing this holds true for the pickups and the old style hmg with a ballistic shield. Bi being willing to share the source files opens up so many possibilities, but they will all be behind paywalls for a while, and this makes it less likely they will release the files anytime soon I guess. I would love to be able to mod the A3 models. Anyway, since you have the marshall source files, any chance you could increase the armor thickness for the driver? It always bugged me that the driver could be killed by even 7.62 (and 6.5mm? I forget) from the front. I can accept the gunner and commander being vulnerable to 50 cal HMGs from the turret sides+although I think they are also vulnerable to 7.62 and maybe 6.5mm from the sides), but 7.62 from the front? Come on. Any chance of a Marid with an auto cannon? A panther? An upgunned ifrit with the 20mm cannon of the nyx, etc... These are things I would really like to make if I had access to the source files.

I shouldn't have mentioned free. My poiyis only to compare the scope of the proposed concept to ones that have been done. Jets DLC was basically a proto-CDLC because the assets were done by an external team of modders. I mean ... we do have a few... It just needs to be reasonable enough. There will always be complaining. There's complaining about armor and penetration values for armored vehicles for glob mob for example. Yea, and the OICW was going to make cover obsolete. I think they have a 25mm weapon based on that tech fielded in very low numbers, but many of these things are far less practical than they seem at first. Well, I still think that there is a middle ground that could be taken. A SP campaign can be set in 2035 using 1990's assets. Example: a remastered A2 Khe Sahn - the wasp class is pretty old, but in armaverse kire, the khe Sahn was the most recently built one - thus likely to be the last to be retired. Such a 2035 campaign can portray the forces using old equipment nearing retirement - but the closest forces available and still suitable to respond to whatever crisis is dealt with. Similar excuses could be made for LCACs or LCUs So on the blufor side, the static ships and LCACs could be also used in a late cold war setting. Ie, stuff that's old but still in use in 2035, but state of the art in the late 80's If the Chinese/pacific cast are the enemies, this would be harder to do, given that their amphibious capabilities have grown rapidly. We could either take Ruskies in a dispute with Japan, or claim the Chinese press the old Varyag into service as a combat vessel (not a training vessel) - but given the extensive modification, a rusky themed set of assets may be needed (or the armaverse 2035 setting has some explanation for a relatively unmodified Russian carrier). Alternately, we could throw in a Ulyanovsk carrier for the 2035 setting, and it can also serve in a late cold war setting in an alternate history where it is finished before the collapse of the USSR Well, one can do like the A2 campaign, and not have a lot of ai action on the deck I would think that a multi island terrain, with units enabling logistical support to ground forces (delivery of ground combat vehicles more capable than mraps with hmg/gmgs) would be of great interest to MP players

Well, for armament, I wouldn't see an issue reusing the jets dlc armament, it's what I did in the update if the Atlas LHD (itself an enhanced port of the A2 LHD). The interior need not be more detailed than the USS freedom (which is even less than the liberty destroyer), the most important thing is a well deck and space for vehicles, a large open hangar isn't nearly as much work as many other things. After all, the jets DLC and encore update added "2 large static ship" for free. I don't think doing a static ship is as hard as making new vehicles, they are essentially a set of buildings, and we've already seen new buildings in every CDLC released thus far, no? Well, every CDLC thus far comes with its own map, all of which are over 150km^2 of landmass, no? Well, I don't see what armament has to do with it, configuration of pylons isn't that hard (I've done it for my ports of A2 aircraft, I am not talking out of my butt here). I think see-through sensors are out of the scope (I guess you're referring to the f-35 helmet projecting what the 360 DAS sensors see? Maybe that could be done with the TI texture of the plane being made 100% transparent, and giving the pilot helmet TI capabilities like the viper helmets? Maybe it wouldn't be so hard... Hmmm... The glob mob DLC already added a heavy lift chopper (ch-53), and iirc csla and of have new choppers too... Don't see how an even bigger one is fundamentally different, it's not going up in size by an order of magnitude or anything. Well it could still be intended for a 2022/contemporary setting, combined with appropriate mods, but for a campaign, it would need to use A3 assets. But perhaps judicious use if A3 assets could be done to place the conflict in 2022-2023. The car-95 is a contemporary Chinese rifle. The TRG-21/ mk20 are contemporary rifles used by some NATO forces (mainly spec ops, but Slovakia adopted the fn2000). The gorgon is a contemporary amphibious ifv used by some NATO forces. Germany uses the "nyx", "Kuma", and "strider". A few quick retextures, and one might be able to have enough assets for some interesting single player missions and a campaign. One just has to have the blufor forces be a multinational force operating from the same ships, as we're seeing a bit of with the QE 2 class carriers carrying some USMC f-35bs, and as we occasionally see with french rafales operating from us carriers (and f-18s from the french carrier). One might be able to pull it off You mean with drones and from aircraft with targeting cameras? If so you also wouldn't like a contemporary setting?

That would be part of a "platform update" and outside the scope of a CDLC Actually, I think the concept is fairly limited. Consider what would be added: No new infantry weapons/uniforms No new light vehicles Base Arma3 already supplies those to an acceptable standard, this would fill in gaps for amphibious assaults: 1 new multi-role fighter capable from operating from a ship for each side (f-35b and a J-31 or similar) 1 new smaller transport VTOL for blufor: v-280 based or mv-22 based as a Xian counterpart 1 new heavy lift Helo for opfor as a blackfish counterpart, perhaps Mi-26 based? Something big enough to slingload a Marid. 1-2 new slingloadable and/ or amphibious ground vehicles for opfor: Perhaps something like a bmd-3 (yes, bmd, not bmp), or a Chinese a type-05 (zbd-05 or ztd-05) 1 landing craft for each side (LCAC or LCU types) 1 static ship each side That's 4 aircraft, 1-2 ground vehicles, 2 drivable boats, and 2 static ships. As far as new assets, I think that's less that the other 3 CDLCs Then of course a map of similar land area, just more dispersed across water (should also help with performance, limiting the object numbers within a certain radius of the player across much of the terrain) The idea would be it's actually 2020- 2025 ish real world assets, that can go with contemporary mods, or the 2035 setting. Putting it in a contemporary 2021 setting would require doing a lot more assets, or combining with other DLC)mods, the latter of which rules out much of a single player campaign, as the CDLC couldn't have that and be standalone. First, it's not so much my focus, as a hypothetical concept for a CDLC, and the concept can evolve. My issue with a cold war setting is... What does opfor get? A Kiev class carrier and yak-38s? Against av-8s/sea harriers and British carriers or American LHDs? Seems to me that real life equipment to use for opfor's assets would be lacking in the aviation and large ship department. But maybe it would work, or have it be one sided... a Falkland islands war CDLC? Or if it's going to be one sided, a USMC DLC, that basically remasters and expands the USMC faction from Arma 2? Btw, both global mob and prairie fire add amphibious light tanks to opfor's side, so that's already something...

Question: there seem to be new variants of the AMV marshall, how was this done? Was the marshall recreated, or did BI give the unencrypted files to the cDLC creator? If the later, this suggests it could happen again, or even that A3 sample models for the base game may be out soon?

I'm curious, if I provided you with the files for the LHD, which already has memory points defined to spawn it by the new BIS system for the stock aircraft carrier/destroyer, could you make it driveable through the same methods? Well, I would say the simple solution is tell the driver not to unload all vehicles, otherwise the carrier's air wing will have a very bad day... What I do with the static LHD is make the VIV component be a seperate entity, without a driver (like the boat rack), that attaches to the LHD. There is no driver to perform the "unload all" action, and the only way to get a vehicle out is to get in the vehicle, and then unload that specific vehicle. As to loading only in the up position, couldn't you make it such that the get-in points are only accessably to the aircraft when they are on the lift in the up position (well, except for some hovering helos and VTOLs with precision flying). Regarding the down position, you could simply spawn them such that they spawn above the lift when its down, but below the lift when its up: don't lower the lift, then you likely lose the aircraft (this may work better on the LHD, where the elevators are on the side of the deck). I realize that you'd like to avoid having an aircrafft lost because somebody clicked an option in the menu when they shouldn't have... but... there are limitations. Personally, I plan to re-write my script to get the position of the elevator, and just spawn the vessel on the elevator (instead of where the elevator should be relative to the LHD)... but right now I'm working on an F-35B update, that mostly doesn't use just an F-35 arma2 port. If I were to have a driveable LHD, I would certainly want to update the ViV hangar.

I had a similar problem trying to get a ViV hangar working for my update of the ATLAS LHD. I placed loading points in multiple places along the deck (contemplated just having them by where the elevators are in the down position)... I used a very crude addAction script that slept for 10 seconds, removed all added actions of the contents of the ViV hangar, and then added unload to port elevator and unload to starboard elevator actions. However, within the last month (?) they added event handlers to support vehicle loading and unloading, so I can change the script to be a single event handler that places unloaded vehicles to the aft/starboard elevator. I could make the script a bit more advanced and add an unload to port elevator action as well (that would be removed whenever the vehicle unloads). I imagine something similar can be done here

Actually, just trying to be able to pack them closer together on a deck I would rather not do it this way (plus I seem to recall trying it already, and it didn't seem to work) I want it to be reversable, but to make this reversable requires repairs, and having it as an action for a man results in a man able to repair main rotors to 100% Ah, about time, I will use that to update a different script. Well, the script I have now works: but it sleeps for 10 seconds (due to the lack of an event handler to signify when to do this), then removes all actions and adds back an action to unload to the port or starboard elevators. I'd rather have an event handler, as you can imagine that this script is less than ideal (one big improvement already would be to only remove the previously added actions)

Basically, I want to pack more helis in an area, and no A3 units have a rotor fold script... But rotors do dissapear when rotor s are damaged ... If possible I would like to enable a player to approach a landed helo with it's engine off, and hide/remove/"pack" the blades. Ideally, I would want to require an action from a player outside the heli to "unpack" put the blades back before the engine can start. If not, then I guess just using the engine event handler to unhide the blades when the engine turns on would be fine. Anyway to do this?

From the Arma wiki, just look at the m240 models Certainly not just a simple port... Maybe they started with a port, but it's not now.

So I was looking on the wiki at the CSLA m1 Abrams pics, and at the corresponding Arma 2 Abrams, and it is clear that this Abrams is a higher poly model. I saw a lot of complaints that CSLA was just porting and retexturing a bunch of A2 models, with a few new models. That is clearly not the case for the M1 and the LAV-25... But is it the case for anything? Is the criticism completely unjustified?

Sounds good to me, I will have to find time to check it out. I mean... Arma 3's engine just isn't suited to naval combat beyond patrol boats and landing craft. But static ships + Altis already get planes starting 60km away, which isn't bad considering the shortened range of missiles and sensors. Still... Not very useful for pvp except for a KOTH style map - without respawns, the first side to achieve air superiority wins. Could be interesting for a guadalcanal style campaign though where one captures an airfield, but friendly carriers are driven off, and one must hold the airfield at all costs. Static ships add a lot of flexibility in mission design for all island maps though... I'd like to be able to portray a CSAT/Chinese amphibious assault, not just a NATO one. It's kind of hard to make use of them. Diver vs Diver combat seems contrived, so it's really just a way to approach the coast unseen. Faster/longer ranged SDVs would help. As would terrain suited for it. For example: lots of narrow inlets where you can swim quite far inland. Altis isn't too bad though with some long and narrow bays. An upgraded SDR that is actually an effective combat weapon would be appreciated (I mod the MAR-10 to accept a magazine firing subsonic ammo that also works underwater as a sort of ASP-1 Kir and SDR hybrid, combined with a DMR... Plus I increase its semi-auto rate of fire) Tanoa is pretty nice though, multiple islands and airfields... Would fit with a guadalcanal style campaign... But just increasing the distance between islands would help. I would try to have varied terrain and vegetation... It could be made with CPu limits in mind and have only the smaller islands have thick jungle, with the larger ones having more sparse vegetation (the larger ones would also be more suited to vehicle combat in that way). I would be fine with basically a chernarus map in the north west corner of a 4096x4096 grid at 7.5m grid size (so the chernarus terrain only occupies 1/4 the grid area) with a tanoa-like terrain in the south east corner (although tanoa doesn't have the same grid size, so it would lose terrain resolution)

Well, it could be similar to the case of Apex, where CSAT=China. I figure such a DLC would probably be set in the Pacific, making China the natural CSAT member. I figure that "CSAT" is just a way to make certain scenarios less politically provocative. The Sahrani factions were fictional, as were the chedaki and CDF... Pacific CSAT is just China, but a bit less blunt politically. Plus, with good assets (map and vehicles/static ships), there would be good user created content. I would advocate for 2021-2025ish equipment, so it can fit in with modern assets, or armaverse 2035 assets. All the more reason for the Pacific, China vs "NATO (Pacific)" or CSAT vs "NATO" (should be SEATO) is essentially the same thing. I am also a SP player, that spends a lot of time in the editor. I don't really like the A3 tectonic weapon BS, and enjoy making scenarios with my own head cannon. The old man scenario ended up being not so far fetched as it seems after China has tried engaging in "vaccine diplomacy" while a lab leak scenario is highly plausible. A2 also had a not far fetched story, seemed to be inspired by the Osetia conflict, but shares many similarities in backstory with the Ukraine mess (though the US stayed out of that). Story aside, ignoring the faction, the units (most of which are mere re-skins of real equipment) are good. I'd have no problem putting in a nyx/kuma with German forces, an Angara with Russian forces, etc... I'd have no problem putting a ghost hawk in with US special forces My desire would be that the same could be done with assets of such a hypothetical DLC... Ideally already with real national texture options alongside the fictional NATO/CSAt ones My hope would be a high quality map with contemporary assets. I only stress 2035 compatibility to keep the scope of such a DLC under control: no need to combine with other cDLC or mods, and no need to make new infantry equipment, ground vehicles etc. Just patch the holes in the vanilla lineup (as far as amphibious assaults are concerned) with contemporary assets, and provide a high quality map to fight on. I suppose that a campaign, if done well, could be us vs china, being ambiguous if it's a parallel armaverse 2035 setting, or a real setting, making use of mainly the amphib assets of each side, with perhaps a minor (weaker than the AAF) island defense force using basically syndicate paramilitaries, technicals, and some reskinned A3 assets based on real things (gorgon, strider, nyx, Merlin, hellcat, a-143, zamak, etc)