kid

that's the only way I can do it. I am quite happy in an attack chopper, making runs at the enemy in a straight line, but always there are times when proper rudder would really come in handy. Not to mention war against humans. Before we put new maps on our server, we played the vanilla "Black Hawk Down" a decent bit. A preplanned straight littlebird run against a human with a PK does not last long, at all... My squad has a few chopper simulator pilots, who can manage to fly in an oblique flight path until the final turn very close to target when they bank and fire. In that scenario, rudder means the difference between a good run and a bad one. Indeed, that may not be needed, but it could still be appreciated. Most people love this game for the realism, I don't understand why they would campaign for overheating barrels but make the choppers and planes as easy to fly as anything (and they really are that easy) I think it simply has to do with the offline market, which is by far the biggest part. People want to be able to fly anything and everything, which requires a little "dumming down". What I want to see is an alternative flight model that is much closer to reality and much more difficult to master that can be forced server-side, so whoever flies on that server must bloody well know what he's doing. I'm surprised there's so much talk about the heli flight model and so little about the planes... Pity, I was really looking forward to that little biplane...

A lot of these CTF maps (that I have played) are similar to CS in one way, the size of the map. It's not that people hate CS (well, many do, but that is not an argument) it's that the dynamics of a small map are completely different. In CS and in these CTF maps camping becomes crucial. Behind every sandbag, around every corner, especially in ARmA where the static defender has such a large advantage. Similarly in a map with 4 avenues of attack it is common sense to control them all, which probably means leaving teams of 2 at 3 of them, and pushing hard down one or two of them (maybe leaving a reserve). This has nothing to do with RL, and (in my mind) it's a waste of the scope and potential of ArmA. The world is a big place, soldiers don't just sit watching a random road because people might pop up, not unless they have some intel regarding that section. Attacking a town where it is quite impossible to cover every entry will reveal the need for such tactics as are in this guide, and the ensuing battle of retreating/manoeuvring squads and the reinforcements will show an aspect that is ArmA's alone, that of the large scale battle. This is also the reason why (where I play at least) we are 100x more effective as an organised squad. People do rambo all the time, but by and large they don't take their time, they don't cover each corner, they just move as fast as they can to the action, and start firing. Sometimes that works, but most often they get ambushed by the AI, or we take them out in transit in PvP. No planning, nor organisation, leads to a quick death in battles of a large scale

the lack of effective rudder is really a massive problem for me. The worthless flight model in general is something I can understand. People don't want to have to study stalls, angle of attack, laminar wing flow and thousands of other factors to be effective pilots, but dumming down a control surface?! While it is true that there is more pressure at high speeds to keep the plane pointing in the right direction, this does not in any way eliminate the effectiveness of the control surface, it only means that the rudder will have to work harder. It is true (especially in a chopper) that after a time the force needed to swing the craft cannot be generated (or is generated with much more difficulty) with the tail rotor, but this happens at very high speeds, and tail rotors are not equal. The Cobra rotor would be a far more powerful mechanism. Yaw is critical for proper aiming, after all. What most people consider to be realistic lack of rudder at higher speeds is incorrect. At high speeds, there is less yaw and more slip and of course far more friction. The difference between yaw and slip is a fairly complex one, and one that is difficult to observe. It's a bit of a misnomer to say yaw OR slip, as in both cases the plane yaws, it's just a matter of permanent direction change, but this has become the accepted syntax. I had meant to try to define both when I first started writing this post, but now I realise that I am not well suited at all. There are people who have already done it far better than I ever could, and their word should be looked at first. If anyone's interested, search simhq or airwafare or the il2 forums for the meaning of slip. I'm a simmer, though, and I'd like a FM every bit as hard as in real life.

Excellent points. Quoting your responses would probably clog up the forums, so I'll just use headings -"special" slots: tricky... You've got me on the binocs, as you say everyone would take one if they could. NVG on the other hand... that's trickier. If you use a "headslot", the same problem arises. No reason not to take them. The RL considerations of field of view and, ya know, a large clunky blob protruding from your forehead, don't seem to be modelled, oddly enough but if it takes up 2 normal slots, it's hardly a big deal, is it? Everything's a trade-off. I think different pouch sizes are a bad idea. Better to keep things general -tripod or backpack: good point. -levelled load: yes, I see the problems, but I think jumps in the load would break immersion more than the alternatives. Can any 4 people really run in perfect time? I'd have more fun trying to match my leader (although, as head of a clan, I can just jog and leave the mortals behind me to worry about that ) through judicious timing of when to sprint/run/walk to match rough speeds. This would be in addition to getting tired more rapidly as one moves, and eventually omitting certain movements entirely. 40kg load = no sprinting... ever. -bullets: now that sounds awesome. besides the problem of what to do with the empty mags (but hey, so long as we're rewriting the whole system, why not keep empty mags? ) I can just imagine an embattled group of soldiers huddling in an enclosure where the backpacks have been dropped, replenishing their empty magazines in preparation for the battle to come as the enemy surrounds them... no backup, lads, LZ is hot... -weight: agree completely. Currently there seems to be no point at all in only taking a rifle, except very rare cases like space limitations or stealth (launchers do thankfully stick out) -no secondary sniper rifle: another good point. @KyleSarnik: thanks for that, I had no idea. I don't think it's a permanent solution, but it really (REALLY) helps.

yes, but in RL you could check to see which mag has bullets, it would just take time. To be clear, I'm talking about a scenario where (for example) you pick up an RPG from a fallen OPFOR. Which M4 mag do you part with? You know that 2 of them have fewer rounds, and one has far fewer, but which is it? As far as I know, there's no way to tell, is there?

@Dslyecxi My logic does not stand on the precipice of a steep, slippery slope One needs to look at individual aspects and how they fit together. Firing your weapon can be modelled, and so it is, in complete simplicity (good thing, in a war sim) but triping over a rock cannot be modelled, nor can a fumble with one's hands. One can approximate, at best, by slowing down the animations, or having scenarios that run on probability, but then questions arise as to the probabilistic algorithm and the "correct" speed of the animation. That's not fighting reality, that's looking at computer limitations from an unbiased perspective. No, indeed I have not served, and I do for that reason read your posts (and those of the others who have) with greater care, but there comes a point when common sense does rear it's ugly head. I'm not suggesting that all characters should be terrified morons, and I'm not taking anything to extremes, I'm merely pointing out the limitations of a computer game and the aspects that it cannot model. Now this is getting dirty :P You've made some good points, but don't just brush everything else aside. You've made it clear that you see this as a shameless limitation of the engine, but others clearly don't. I'm not justifying why it's not there, I'm justifying not putting it in. read: "I prefer ArmA without it". Crazy, but there it is It's not about what a human can do, it's about what a human would do in RL and in the game. I prefer the "feel" of the game if it requires more foresight and care. Actually, while I've never tried to reload a weapon on the move (and certainly not under fire) amongst some rubble of a town or in an open field, moving with binocs is something everyone tries, and there's a limit, a magnification level beyond which you just can't keep your object in focus. It would be nice to keep the binocs in hand though... As an aside, do real armies really use those old school roof binoculars instead of prism or hybrid binoculars or monoculars? Seems like a real waste of weight and space... Nice to see one reply to my post (is it really that indimidating? :P ) but really, to quote a few lines, ignore the rest, and reply like I'm a child that needs to be coaxed towards the light... not what I expected from the writer of those articles... You have not replied with a single counter argument that was not (at least marginally) an ad-hominem fallacy.

Frederf, you are THE MAN! I love and adore the idea of a proper inventory system, and your image really gets my imagination going. The in-weapon slots are a very good idea, and overall it's well thought out. The "special" slots should (as in vanilla) be apart from the rest, in my opinion. It just doesn't seem right that they replace magazine slots. It's already strange enough that high-tech military units use old, clunky roof binoculars instead of prism or hybrid binoculars or even prism monoculars quick question: can RPGs be carried in pouches at all, or would they all be in the backpack? a few things to think about: -half slots. a pistol mag or a 30mm grenade doesn't take as much space as an M4 mag. -maybe a tripod OR a backpack. I've never tried, it must be said, but I don't see where one would find space for a weapon on the right shoulder, a weapon on the left shoulder, a packpack... and... something alongside the backpack? or maybe the tripod can be a secondary weapon, slung over the left shoulder permanently. -no "levelled" encumbrance I hate the idea of "green, yelow, red" as if someone could run at speed X with 10kg but would break down and snap a shin bone with 10.01kg. Speed should not be pre set, but calculated according to load. -bullet amounts shown in the inventory (not sure if this is feasible) I try to make a habit of reloading before the dead man's click, so I'm often left with mags that have few bullets in them. I've gotten around it somewhat by getting to cover and then squeezing off the last few rounds to get rid of the mag, but it's bloody irritating, and I don't know what to do with mags that have 15 rounds left in them. A number to show how many bullets are in each mag would go a long way, as would a function to rearrange the bullets in all the mags to fill up the unused ones. It could also be implemented as "loose bullets" in the backpack or a special slot. Each mag would have an "empty" function and a "replenish" function. This would also be a cheaper way to carry more ammo, in bullets instead of extra mags. I do realise this is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, but I just thought I'd mention it -more rigid weight criteria I know the thousands of bullets in the backpack are not meant to be factual to the "yellow" phase, but in general I think people are expecting soldiers to carry too much. We can't expect the engine to represent muscle fatigue and mental weariness, so in effect we'd have people carrying 30kg of gear, sprinting across the landscape and after a 30 second stop be as refreshed as a newborn babe. That's just not right. Perhaps an idea would be to allow only limited movement with a backpack, and expect the soldier to drop it and the tripod/special item before entering combat. -no secondary sniper rifle I know it does happen in RL, but I hate the idea of being able to run around with a sniper rifle, an anti tank and an automatic pistol. Faaaar too rambo. I say let the secondary slot be launcher only. This would also mean no rewriting of animation code to expect a normal weapon in slot 2.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps fixating on the realoading issue. Sure, in theory, it could be very helpful, and yes, a true combat simulator would give you all the choices of real life, but, with great respect to Dslyecxi, it just seems far too much of a hassle for the given gain. Reloading on the move would mean your weapon bounces somewhat. You might have to look at it to do it properly, loosing situational awareness. You will probably need to slow down, and then there are the aspects that are impossible to model in a computer game such as doing three things (getting the mag in the right spot while moving, watching the ground [the best soldier in the world can trip on a rock] and watching the enemy) under enemy fire. How often would a soldier drop the mag? how often would the rest of the possibilities happen? If BIS gives in to the pressure, there would simply be a slew of more complaints about the level of tweaks that need to be done (not THAT slow, fewer mag drops, I can do it in RL) etc and each would probably bring it closer to the arcade idea that all simulated characters need to be modelled as elite soldiers who have had decades of training and have seen combat countless times, bringing their expertise to a completely different level. Sure, some people might be able to leap over a low wall while reloading under heavy fire, and not drop the mag or trip or just whack into a low branch, but I sure as hell can't, and I'd rather my character be modelled closer to the average human, frankly. In short, if characters are able to reload on the move, I don't think it will stop there. More difficulties (and realistic innacuracies) will arise from the fact that people can now move while reloading. It does get in my way sometimes, but not often. I learn to plan around it, and I accept it as one of the necessary limitations to keep the game realistic not in the letter of the law, but in the spirit. I don't fight alone, and my team mates know when I am reloading so that they can cover me while I do so and I tend to reload before I hear the dead man's click. This brings the issue to nothing more than a mild annoyance. Something one only notices when one forgets to get to cover, at which point I'm more annoyed at myself than at the game engine. Similarly, firing from the littlebird could be done in RL (or sniping from the blackhawk) but then the possibility arises that both are turned into weapon platforms, which is hardly realistic. Can the engine properly model the difficulties of firing from a flying chopper? not in my mind, it can't. Not while there is no air resistance at all, for one thing. Against humans, I'd be dead miles before I reached the drop zone thanks to the inherent weaknesses of the littlebird, so I wouldn't have a chance to kill them as I land, and I'd frankly rather not take advantage of the incredible stupidity of the AI by landing a littlebird within easy firing distance. Now, this post may come across as defending BIS. Not really. I think it is pretty shocking that they give us a half-baked game that the community os supposed to flesh out, and I think there are many, many problems that should be addressed, but splitting our attention from the important stuff towards such problems as reloading while moving is, in my mind, quite counter-productive. The AI is by far the biggest problem in ArmA. Their strategy is utterly non-existent, their macro tactics aren't bad, they do try to flank and encircle you, which is great, but the micro tactics are as shoddy as it gets. They are shot at, they get down, even if they are 2 cm from perfect, full cover. A large armoured wave of Abrams rolls in, they get down. Sniper fire, they get down. A human has no trouble with clearing a street off AI by himself, from behind cover, because they just get down in the ONE PLACE where there is no cover, the middle of the street, and they stay there. They reload in full view of the enemy, they use RPGs against infantry (and consistently miss) And the fact that they see right through bushes and leaves hardly helps. man, those guys piss me off! The other priorities in my mind are -proper damage modelling (both humans and vehicles, shooting someone's toe of 4 times won't, in fact, kill him) -no more non-destructible items (bus-stops are the bane of my existence when fighting human players) -proper inventory system (and I do mean proper. I've seen suggestions that each man should be able to carry 60kg!!?) -rocket weapons fired from prone position (I don't know how much they weigh, so I don't know how possible it would be to fire it standing up) -better ground collision detection (does an AT rocket drop immediately after leaving the tube, and if so by how much?) -new grenade launching system, for small throws and also perhaps underhand rolls. In theory there should be three, a throw, a lob and a roll, each measured by the amount of force applied. -better flight model (my kingdom for proper rudder) -easy walk for urban engagements (it's annoying that walking tires you out every bit as fast as sprinting your butt off) I'm sure there is more, but that's it for me today. It's important to think of the limitations of the engine and general computing power when requesting changes. For example, the stamina system. It only models cardiac work, so sprinting tires you out, yes, and sprinting with a lot more weight would also tire you out, were it implemented. Then again, muscle fatigue is not modelled, nor can it ever be. Your character will never suffer from impaired cognitive reasoning thanks to that 2km sprint with 25kg of gear, not will it hurt to keep supporting your weapon, so it is most definitely NOT, in fact, more realistic to have a soldier able to carry as much as in RL. I feel the same way about firing from choppers or reloading while moving. We'd be obeying the letter of the law, but not the spirit, due to the limitations inherent in all computer games and current technology. I think it was in the Brothers In Arms forum that someone once said: "it's not accurately realistic, but it's realistically accurate" /rant

I don't know how this game can ever be boring. It's certainly slow and, like a flight simulator (My life for il2!! takes large amounts of study to really excel in. But that's what makes it fun! Having your support team suppress the enemy while your assault team flanks and your Sierra teams pick off the stragglers.. there's just no game on the market where you can do that to human players. Thanks to the long respawn times (if any) the feel of realism and the large travel times, people don't want to die and that alone is enough to make this game great, in my mind. That it has more to offer just makes it better Certainly, the reliance on the community to flesh out the game is pretty yellow, but I can live with that. As for CTF, I don't share the same views about the ACU. Sure, it's easier to spot, but if you're been playing long, you look for outlines and movement anyhow. A good player will spot the OPFOR mere fractions of a second after the BLUFOR in green areas. There is desert in ArmA though, and in that setting, the green of the OPFOR tends to stand out, and the tables are reversed, so what does it matter? And thanks to the mission editor, you could always download new character skins and make a new CTF without the desert ACU.