ijozic

Is this perhaps the Retaliation campaign from OFP? I see it's called Counterattack, but it can be a different translation, I guess.

I stand corrected then. Why did they write it varies with Apex ownership then? Weird.

But, the size depends on the Apex ownership. I don't have Apex (asked for a refund when I tried the "campaign") and I have to download the full 8.9 GB. So, if I understand this right, I have to (re)download the whole Apex map just because the 'Laws of War' showcases that come for free (and which I really don't care about as I saw the trailer) are using the Apex map? Can't such things be made optional in the future? If Apex map is not for free, why enforce it on users who don't want to pay for it (at least not until there's a decent SP campaign that comes with it) and can't use it?

My favorite campaign IIRC was the user-made Retaliation, but the original Cold War Crisis was awesome even though some of the roles were distracting (e.g. the helicopter pilot). Resistance was pretty cool if not better made, but TBH I prefer the soldier campaigns rather than guerrilla ones so I remember CWC more fondly. Red Hammer starts well enough, but gets repetitive afterwards. I think one of the key factors in all these campaigns was the 80's Cold War setting which gives them all the extra atmosphere I personally enjoy. Starting with ArmA, I increasingly disliked every single campaign BIS published. E.g. I felt ArmA campaign was lifeless without a main character and Queen's Gambit was short and I thought I disliked the setting, but then with ArmA 2 I discover how I enjoyed those previous ones more. So, the more modern the setting became, the less I enjoyed it culminating with the IMHO awful ArmA3 futuristic setting with weapons, vehicles, helicopters and factions I couldn't care less about. The peak is of course the Tanoa campaign which I wouldn't even classify as such and it was the first time I asked for a Steam refund.

Because they're paying for it?

I'm sorry to say that I actually did the same thing. Bought it on the release day without reading any reviews and was thus shocked by the campaign (being an SP player first and foremost). After toying with it for an hour and seeing that no friends have it, I decided to ask for a refund which was a first for me as well. I pre-ordered ArmA 3 for around 30 EUR and wasn't too happy with its campaign in the end, but at least it had a proper and long SP campaign and the engine was a noticeable improvement over the previous games so I felt the price was a bargain. Hence why I also bought the DLC's which made sense to me (e.g. not the carts one obviously (?) and not the helicopter one because I don't really want to fly these invented helicopters). But, a new island with only this short MP campaign to play is something else. It's not that I think the map and the recent upgrades are not worth the asking price (24 EUR), but the direction the series is taking is diverging more and more from what I expect from it so a refund at this point is the only way to show my dissatisfaction with it (e.g. I'd gladly pay 30 EUR again if the map pack also included a comprehensive campaign like the original release did). Also have to note how I really dislike this futuristic setting and invented sides, weapons, vehicles, etc. as I really enjoyed the Cold War setting of the original OFP campaign and its expansions, so I don't really want to throw money anymore at supporting this "sandbox" which doesn't at the very least provide quality base content for the modding community that I'd be happy with (i.e. proper weapons, uniforms, vehicles, etc.) so everything has to be ported from the older games. If there's some enticing community stuff developed for the new island, I might reconsider getting it again in the future at a reduced price, but I feel enough is enough at this point.

Funny, but quite true :) I still get shivers when thinking of the similar mission in the merc DLC campaign..

*possible SPOILERS present* I'd give it 6/10 as it's much more engaging from other ArmA campaigns, but looking back it's also disappointing in many respects. For instance, I get the impression that it copies story elements of the Cold War Crisis campaign too obviously.. It is also too scripted so doesn't offer much replayability (small number of enemy units always appearing at the same places pretty much). Obviously, some of the main issues are probably caused by potential external restrictions (e.g. balancing issues due to the game AI issues and time restrictions for sufficient playtesting; possible requirement that it is an introductory campaign for newcomers as opposed to the player being a squad leader which would allow for more flexible and larger scoped missions, etc.) - it's hard to find the right balance between scripted and flexible missions and to keep them "on the rails" as far as the engaging story development goes.. Positives: - pretty good voice acting (though there seems to be some audio positioning issue, where depending on your angle towards the speaker the audio gets muted) - pretty good atmosphere (voice acting, music, animations; finally an engaging campaign in the ArmA series) - arming customization and ability to reuse captured weapons as in OFP Resistance (albeit limited by the amount of stock weapons) Negatives: - short and seemingly rather scripted missions (I'm not a fan of Arma2 campaigns' free roaming missions across large, but mostly empty areas, but some level of tactical flexibility as in OFP is clearly needed) - the scope of the missions is too small (like one or two friendly 4 or 5-men squads against a similar number of enemies, even when e.g. attacking some major village; even then, the enemy doesn't defend, but attacks for some reason) - somewhat short campaign with an abrupt and forced conclusion - camp maxwell is under strong bombardment after the mission where we failed to get supplies, but then somehow we still have enough ammo and men to make a push for the main city which is extremely lightly defended; then even worse, a huge helicopter counter-assault ensues although the helicopters are not firing, but just dropping troops or even parashooters!? (seems to be influenced particularly hard by the Cold War Crisis campaign); the island also seems to remain unused by a large part in the campaign - most of the missions seem to take place close on a roughly third of the map perhaps (not counting the first mission) - very little replayability (short and overly scripted missions don't provide much challenge or options; higher difficulty levels currently almost unplayable due to the enemy AI sniping)

The campaign seems to combine the style of the Cold War Crisis campaign (invasion, retreats, hiding in forests) with Resistance (base of operations with weapons being carried over from previous missions) and ArmA 1 (relatively short and straightforward missions; deploy, follow a short route with pretty much scripted enemy positions, fight, exfiltrate). I was thrilled when I started playing it, then got gradually disappointed when it seemed to carbon copy the storyline from Cold War Crisis a bit too much so far. Finished it on normal very fast with little to no challenge (friendly AI was very deadly). Decided to try again, but on Veteran. The game becomes almost unplayable. The friendlies drop like flies, while the enemy AI is again super deadly. Tried lowering the AI back to normal, but didn't notice a difference. I have encountered numerous situations when I am on their flank, aiming and opening fire, the enemy starts turning and before even completing the turn towards me (not to mention taking time to scan and locate me, aim, etc.), starts putting rounds on me (or headshots) even though I'm peeking behind cover. Maybe I got the wrong impression, but the enemy sometimes seems to start shooting immediately after the angle is less than 45 degrees towards me which looks weird and feels like playing some game in alpha even though the distance is like two hundred meters or smth. So, to sum it up, on normal it's too easy, on veteran often unplayable due to AI issues. Looking forward to follow up episodes, but I hope this gets ironed out. Shouldn't this AI precision thing have been resolved already since OFP? It's been 10 years already, I'd expect a complete redesign of this mechanic if problems persisted and this felt like we're back where we started (even worse considering the seemingly half turn instant fire capability) when put on Veteran level.

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.

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 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.

I think this link needs updating since it leads to an HK416 pack, and not the M4/M16 pack: 3. RH M4/M16 Pack Rearmed for OA by RobertHammer Optional http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=11789 But the HK416 pack is actually newer than the one under the 2nd link so the 2nd link should be updated (from 8573 to 11789): 2. RH HK416 Pack by RobertHammer Optional http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=8573 Perhaps the 3rd link should be modified to this one (not sure if it is the latest version): http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=8056 If I'm just being ignorant and am missing something, please ignore the post. BTW, I can't make it work. Tried the campaign versions with (with all the .pbo's and the cfg .pbo's) or without RH packs, but it always gets stuck when I press continue. I wish I could see the error message or anything useful. I have A2 + OA (no CO icons, but I can see the Harvest Red campaign from the OA menu so I guess it's OK).

This looks awesome even more so because I prefer Cold War settings. Any plans for a campaign release later on?

I see your point, but how smart is the plot in which you go for the SCUDs in tanks (and thus giving the enemy more time to launch the SCUDs) instead of just wiping them out with the air strikes (after locating their positions with UAVs/satellites/JSTARS/etc.)? It's not like you can hide those in any caves. But I was not aiming at the plausibility of the campaign - I tried to make the point that I've found the campaigns after OFP uninvolving and boring - I didn't care about their storylines or any of the characters. Perhaps they're trying to mimic real events too much and then the differences between them and reality become too obvious too ignore and the story becomes more like some article you can see in the news every day. Because of that, I'd say that e.g. the Cold War scenarios are like an escape from the grim reality and thus far more involving and less open for criticism.