mcvittees

Thread title says it all. I'd like to see missions in the armoury have a 'replay' option if you fail or die during them. Some Armoury missions are really good and it's a shame when you die quickly and they have to hope you'll be issued it again. Good example was the MOUT course in a village. Timed out first time because wasn't sure of the route...now when will I get to try again? I'm only left waiting to see.

That's about my experience (playing of VET with enemy AI accuracy reduced 0.6) also. I'm amazed to hear some of you guys have made it to the airfield with I assume some of your team intact.

The left/right direction indicators work fire me - at close range - but anything over 100m I'd prefer they used a compass heading. I like the new warning dialouges - sound much more real. As Walker said, it's hard enough to give comms to humans in MP, so for AI to do it must be a real programming challenge!

This mission realy bugs me (even though it is great fun): We have no AT gear (there is an LAW in the huey but no ammo!) and the Cobra keeps getting shot down. Mission therefore becomes uncompletable. Also, each time I play my team gets slaughtered until just I'm left. To be fair though, I guess we are outnumbered (it seems) so in reality I think we'd all be killed attacking through a village.

Haha! Never thought of it like that but it's true! :) Any aircraft hitting the ground should pretty much disintergrate.

Check, but usually with digital downloads you get activations back when you do an uninstal.

Same error here. Downloaded it from two different sites. Don't really want to take the 'ignore' option.

Basically, start up ArmA2 and get: Wait a moment... receiving... loading... Receiving... ArmA 2 has stopped working. Windows gives a message saying the files listed below explain the error. However, a search of my computer reveals these files do not exist. C:\Users\Jack\AppData\Local\Temp\WERC5DD.tmp.version.txt C:\Users\Jack\AppData\Local\Temp\WERD846.tmp.appcompat.txt C:\Users\Jack\AppData\Local\Temp\WERD847.tmp.mdmp In case you can't see my Sig, running E6600@3Ghz, GTX 8800 w/186.18 drivers, Vista 32bit and 4Gb RAM. Have bought 505 DVD copy of game. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Problem fixed by re-installing to default instalation path (C: as opposed to my D: ). One and a half hours playing impressions: Graphics - excellent detail to objects and environment but needs AA - without Shaders set to high game world is ugly. Weapon and player detail excellent. A few glitches here and there when flying around. AI - quickly made scenario in editor of two squads in a village. Friendly AI comms excellent! Swearing and much more real directions - 'ahead', 'infront' etc. AI moves to cover and overwatches. Much more realistic animations. Sounds - much better than ArmA! Helicopters - feel sluggish. Will need more time. Editor - alwasys crashed for me in ArmA, but is stable (so far) and quick loading for me. Also, transition to map and back is quicker. Chenarus - seems waaay bigger than ArmA's Island(s). Although, I have read, the area is about same as in ArmA, because there are no silly big mountain ranges all the terrain is usable so the available land mass seems much larger. Having read the trashing some posts have given ArmA2, I am very pleased.

Okay, I feel kinda embarrassed (but releaved to report) that re-installing to the default drive has resulted in a playable game. :) I wouldn't have believed a re-install would make a difference but it has!

Not yet, I'll try now - nope didn't help. Thx for the quick reply though.:)

Loading...loading...receiving...windows has encountered an error. Edit: Sorry, got the above a bit wrong: wait a moment....wait a moment....loading....receiving....ArmA 2 has stopped working.

As long as you unistall before re-installing you won't use up activations. I think..

Haha! Exactly!

Cool! :p

...because they were on the other side of a slope! It had nothing to do with the size of the T-72s turrets! You can't shoot or see something if there's something between you and it - e.g. the earth! The Iraqs could have been in coaches painted bright yellow with flags on saying 'shoot me' and the Americans wouldn't have been able to hit them without crossing the ridge (and therefore ending up nearer!) :icon_rolleyes:

Your absolutely right Baff1, Russian tanks do have a smaller turret and thus a smaller profile than the M1. But don't over estimate it's value. Anything an M1 can see it can most likely hit. From 3000m, an object 1m wider or taller than another isn't really a big deal. Most tank battle positions involve having a slope that allows only the gunners (or commanders) optic sight to poke out, with the barrel and rest of the turret being hidden until the tank shifts forward to fire. Most of the time virtually none of the turret can be seen. Also, western tanks have the ability to depress their barrels further than Russian tanks which are hampered by their autoloaders. Again, this allows them to assume better defilade positions. Thus in defence, there is virtually no tactical difference in relative tank sizes. (On the move in the open, that might be a different matter).

Not true. It was because the Iraq's were positioned on the reverse side of a slope (i.e. the American's had no line-of-sight) so they had to drive over the slope to engage and thus were forced into a close range engagement. Just a small point. There is no such thing as a 'heavy tank' anymore - the concept was abandoned in favour of the Main battle Tank. Every NATO tank in the last 50 years was designed to fight in Europe against a numerically superior Warsaw pack. The explicit assumption in there designs was absolutely that they would be out numbered. Superior weapons, armour, communications and crew training were meant to give them a capability that made up for their small numbers. American tactics may emphasise overmatching the enemy, but this is nothing special to the Americans! All military doctrines, as you say, aim for at least a 4:1 ratio, and any commander will if possible move this ratio further in his favour. The key thing to note though, is the design of nearly all western weapons systems emphasises superiority of capability rather superiority of numbers, as numbers alone mean very little.

Oh wow, that brings back some memories! Man, I remember thinking the graphics were so awesome! I loved the way enemy tanks were red!:D

Erm...your joking right? You don't honestly believe that? I don't think even BIS would agree with you on that one. :butbut: No, there are better armour simulations which are not figments of anyones imagenation, that are heads and shoulders above ArmA's in their accuracey and do give 'creditable representations'. Of course they're not perfect - we don't expect or need that - but they are alot better.

I have often felt this way too! The problem with poorly, no that's unfair, over simplified vehicles is when they enter the mission they behave in highly unrealistic manners (sniper BRDMs, tanks that the chase you round buildings and up mountains, have turrets that spin like round like Darleks...well, I'm sure we all know about this stuff) and it killls the immersion and thus the fun of playing as an infantryman.

If BIS are intentionally leaving certain things undeveloped for anything other than reasons of resources then that, in my opinion, is a mistake. The ArmA franchise is not casual enough for casual gamers and as such, BIS should evolve the game to suit its core audience. That's not to say that it isn't fantastic that it can be so extensively modded (which it is), but some things I've seen as mods in ArmA have features that it would have been nice to see integrated into the core game.

I disagree. Firstly it is a historical fact that tanks unsupported by infantry are totally at the mercy of enemy infantry, therefore there is no imbalance to fear from more realisticly modeled tanks! Secondly, it is the unrealistic depiction of tanks at the moment that makes the game unbalanced against infantry because of all the unrealistic/absent features discussed in this thread. IMHO things should be simplified but realisticially modeled, so you can employ real life tactics and get real life results. That's what playing ArmA should be all about. Save 'balance' for games like Unreal Tournament or BF2!:)

I'd definitely like to see damage threshold armour - it would make a tremendous difference to ArmA2 (assuming damage modeling works the same as ArmA - and it sounds like it does), not just for tanks but helicopters, trucks the works. It strange (to me) why such a serious simulation doesn't include such a feature. :confused: I would also like to see a simpler steering interface when in the commanders or gunners seat. In SB Pro it is seamless: WASD+Z does it all with no OFP/AtmA lurching left or right. Oh, hang on this isn't a wish list... :o

The graphics is SB is due to them not being necessary for the clientel it is aimed at. If they had the financial motivation (and thus time)...well, then I'm sure it would be a different matter.