tsb247

I was playing PMC, and I noticed that the pistol bug is still very much present. Asano will draw his pistol (I can't imagine why - he has TONS of ammo for his M8 sharpshooter), and he will freeze. He will not follow commands or anything. I am running the latest versions of everything (minus the beta patches). Has anyone else experienced this? Is there a workaround, or will I have to restart the mission. What really baffles me is that he switched to his pistol even though he has about 6 mags for the rifle he is carrying. Does the AI automatically switch to a pistol if they are being engaged below the minimum range for a marksman weapon? It makes sense, but it is a behavior I have not seen in the AI before.

I would love to see an improved warfare game mode in ArmA 3. I really enjoy what BI has offered thusfar, but I believe it could be done with more realism and in doing so, it could be far more intense, realistic, and strategically focused game mode. I would enjoy seeing the following: ---> No warfare buildings like before. Instead, capturing and holding ports and/or airports provides an influx of troops, supplies, weapons, and other equipment. Instead buildings would be built to fortify those areas and buildings like barracks, "War Factories," and, "Air Factories," would be built to improve/repair/maintain the units given at resupply. However, small logistics points with smaller command centers could be constructed as before. Forward observations posts, FARPS, and whatnot would still be implimented. ---> Improved supply management. The supply system that I mentioned above would require management. Airspace must be clear for cargo planes to land safely, ports must be held in order to ensure that ships can dock and offload their cargo. Air/naval patrols could be employed to ensure supplies are delivered safely and securely. If those supplies are threatened, the player or an AI faction must act to secure them or face possible defeat due to lack of supply. Also, instead of vehicles and infantry being, "Built," on base, they would be delivered via cargo plane or ship, and there would be some kind of time delay between deliveries. Units and supplies would be requested and then delivered. --->Civilian interaction. It would be interesting to see an active civilian presence in warfare rather than just AI that runs around. Civilian AI would react to how each faction treats them. If you don't bomb their cities to ash, they may provide useful intel such as possible enemy locations, allow use of medical facilities, or even side with a faction in the form of a militia. Treat civilians badly, and they may be hostile toward a faction be refusing to give useful information, blockading roads, or even forming guerilla groups to combat a faction. ---> Money for operations comes from stateside and/or from a large external source of funding (NATO?). Rather than earning money by capturing towns and cities, the player (and all factions) have funding from a single source, be it a government, organization, or something along those lines. That source would either grow or shrink based on how the war unfolds. If the US bombs the hell out of civilians, support for the war effort drops and funds my decrease as a result. If the OPFOR does the same or either side is losing badly, money may either increase or decrease as a result. ---> Include the Media. The presence of news reporters is a fact on the modern battlefield. What they report sometimes drastically affects the outcome of an armed conflict. Military operations that aren't popular at home or anywhere else in the world may be hindered by poor relations with the civilians in the conflict zone, decreased funding, and decreased flow of new recruits. Positive media coverage may bolster morale of troops, improve civilian relations in the conflict area, increase funding, etc. The presence of embedded reporters on the battlefield could add an entirely new and subtly complex game mechanic! ---> SecOps. As a result of adding the above, SecOps could be implimented in such a way so that the player could be made to manage some of the above or even have the AI handle it. ---> UAVs in warfare. If the above game mechanics were implimented UAVs would have a purpose in warfare withough breaking the game (right now, they could instantly reveal an enemy base if used in vanilla ArmA 2). Scouting would be essential in securing new observation points, tracking enemy movements, planning operations, and so on. ---> Improved game customization. The player could be allowed to choose which features are included in a warfare game. The above features could be turned on or off, or could possibly be controlled before the game is started i.e. set civilian perceptions of faction beforehand, set wartime budget, set the amount and kinds of supplies/weapons/units available before the game starts. Supply delivery times could be set. The number and type of starting units could be set, etc. I would love some feedback on these ideas. I am also hoping that BI will take some notice! Let me know what you all think! :)

I have always been under the impression that the warfare game modes needed to be bigger. Rather than havingthe player manage everything themselves as a commander, often thought it would be better to have them simply be a cog in the machine. I had some nice ideas for warfare a while back in another thread. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119359 It has been my opinion for quite a while that the idea behind the warfare scenarios should be to simulate and entire battlefield - not necessarily create a, "Team vs. team," scenario.

I think a Dev blog would be perfect. I would enjoy reading about the processes/challenges behind the development of the new(er) engine, PhysX implementation, equipment, and/or research done for Arma 3. Either way, I would love to know more than we know now; Even if for the sake of having more to discuss.

I was thinking about something similar to this the other day as well. With the ability customize/choose your uniform, the door is opened to be able to masquerade as an enemy soldier on the battlefield. I'm hoping that the AI will have some kind of algorithm that will allow them to distinguish uniforms and treat those wearing them accordingly (with some exceptions of course). Think of the possibilities if a feature like this were put in the game. Can you say, "Espionage???"

I have high hopes for warfare mode in Arma 3. In fact, I have another thread where I posted some neat ideas on how it could be rebuilt to both be more realistic and more intense. In fact, I would do away with the MHQ 'Base' concept completely and have more of a transparent system where the player can establish larger bases by holding key points on the map and set up smaller bases where they need to. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119359 I think my ideas would greatly increase game length, realism, and the intensity of the battles.

Dragon skin was tossed due to some rather severe problems. The small plates delaminate and fall apart when exposed to diesel fuel (something soldiers and Marines come into contact with regularly), and extreme temperatures do the same thing as well. If you toss it into the back of a vehicle on a hot day, you may well lose all protection. http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/files/dragon_skin_release_000121may07.pdf

With all of these pictures of tanks (mostly of Israeli design or influenced by them), I am surprised NOBODY has noticed this yet! Those goofy little trapezoidal structures on the outside of some of the MBTs in the screenshots appear to be Trophy modules! Here's a link to another screenshot: http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l202/tsb247/A3_Tank_Trophy-2-Circle.jpg For those not familiar with the Trophy system, here is a little video that explains it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IqZhonKzU&NR=1 Imagine how terrifying tanks would become if the rockets you were carrying were utterly useless (to an extent anyway). The days of the one-hit javelin would be long gone, and to be honest, I think it's about time. Tanks in Arma2 are great, but a single javelin, a well-placed AT-4, and a good hit from a SMAW can cripple the MBTs very quickly (as it should be). However, if a system like Trophy was simulated in Arma 3... Tanks would be damn near unstoppable. Such a system could force the player to get creative; putting together larger AT teams for ambushes or even resorting to IEDs. What do you all think? This looks promising, but it's anyone's guess as to whether BI will impliment this. I, for one, am hoping they do!

A railgun would definately move fast enough to get past Trophy. A railgun is the very pinnacle of KE weapons technology at the moment. However, I am also in favor of using groups of people when ambushing a tank (as it should be). A traditional rocket system, if employed by an organized team firing from multiple directions at once could overwhelm the system as well.

That's what I am hoping for as well. Tanks are supposed to not only be devastating on the battlefield, they are also supposed to be terrifying. As of right now, they aren't so much terrifying as they are inconvenient. A single well-placed rocket usually takes them out of commission, and the crew is usually more of a threat as long as you fire your rocket before the tank sees you. If BI impliments Trophy or any other active defense system, tanks will finally be soemthing to be feared. I also like the idea of an anti-material rifle being used to disable the system. The Lynx would be perfect for that role!

You know what has two thumbs and wants a T-shirt???? ... This guy! XD

To be honest, I'm not sure. I haven't been able to find much data on the weapon. From what I could find however, the entire system seems to be more of a proof-of-concept than anything else. It exists to demonstrate a recoil dampening system. It could be argued that a Javelin would fill the same role, and it would do so more accurately, but Trophy would likely squash one if it got too close.

So if Trophy has trouble stopping klinetic energy weapons, then we can speculate that a tank sabot will likely be near 100% effective if they system is implimented. However, that leave us with another small issue... I don't know of any man-portable KE anti-tank weapon. I could however see the 76mm High-Impulse weapon system with a KE round be useful or possible a Metal Storm type of system. High-Impulse Weapon System: This system with a KE round (which would likely have to be 'dreamed up' by BI unless it already supports such a round. I don't know) could be the answer to the possible, "Invincible tank," counter to Trophy if it is added to the game.

The system is likely not fool-proof. I'm sure there will be a way around it, and from the video, it looks like Trophy may very well make an appearance. I'm sure you have seen the trailer I am referring to.

Well, he did start that thread as well, so the two topics are obviously related in his mind anyway. However, I only mentioned it to simply point it out; not to discuss it any further here. As for the real military using stats... I doubt they care about K/D ratios, 'assists,' how many people a medic has healed, how many mines an engineer has diffused, etc. What the military cares about are the overall number of casualties, the time it takes to accomplish a mission, and how organized the overall execution of a mission is (among other things). Hence, the, "After action review," feature in VBS2. If we got an after action review feature here, that would be great! However, I would be heartbroken to see such things as K/D ratios and other things find their way in here. This is not an arcade shooter, and features found in arcade shooters generally have no place here. It's not about relating it to CoD or Battlefield. It's about keeping the franchise in it's niche. This is war simulation; meant to portray a plausible future warfare scenario. I don't see how stats such as those described by the OP are useful in achieving that overall goal. Besides, if anyone really has their heart set on such things, some scripting in the editor could probably add stats fairly easily. There's no need for BI to add them when a modder could add them easily enough.

The U.S. is/was developing a similar system, but when they tested Trophy, the Army didn't seem to like it for some reason. There are many who speculate that the Army had already invested too much in their own system and didn't want to give the money to a foreign company - despite the success of Trophy. To the best of my knowledge, Trophy is the only active defensive system of this type that has been widely fielded.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=120216 Well, there is this thread... :p

I too was wondering what Iranians were doing with Israeli equipment. It all seems a bit odd to me. I am hoping that there is a rational story that can back some of it up.

If you are referring to the trailer here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=2003660142328&oid=192181357495269&comments Then yes, that was what got me thinking. :D

I am very much against stat tracking, unlocks, rank systems for said unlocks, etc. The distinct lack of these things are part of what sets the Arma franchise apart from the rest in MP. It is my feeling that any sort of stat tracking opens the door for those who would become obsessed with such a things as K/D ratios. The stat system that is present is enough for most.

I have never played Z, but I will look it up. I agree that warfare has a lot of problems right now, and it is my hope that the game mode is vastly improved for Arma 3. I have noticed that quite a few aren't particularly fond of it right now, but when I look at it, I see raw potential; potential to make the Arma 3 the most accurate portrayal of large-scale combat available to the common consumer. After reading the thread on high-command AI, I felt compelled to mention that as well. Some tweaking in the AI department would make a lot of these other ideas I have listed possible. Some redesign of the high-command interface would help as well. Left Ctrl+Spacebar? There has GOT to be a better way!

ADDITION: Improved High-Command features ---> AI that can communicate to units with each other with respect to the chain of command. ---> AI that assigns units tasks based on their combat roles. ---> The ability to add high-command groups (to a certain extent of course) ---> Air units as high-command groups

I too would love to see the High-Command system improved. That, and an improved warfare model could finally give us a simulation of not just a small battlefield, but an entire war! I would love to see AI that can manage the following: - Troop movements with respect to the player or respective opposing force. - Usage of units with respect to their combat roles - Supply management - Supply chain defense - Defensive planning/anticipation of enemy attacks - Communicate through the chain of command These are just a few of the things I have thought up. Yeah, I know it's wishful thinking, but these kinds of improvements would GREATLY improve not only warfare game modes, but also give us the ability to simulate conflicts on a larger scale than we have been able to thusfar.

There are some features such as, "Buy equipment," that I am not in favor of either, but I have never had a warfare game turn out like you described. I would rather see BI revamp warfare (see my, "New ideas for warfare," thread), and add some more realistic features such as a better supply system, more precise and sophisticated command system, and more support for AI and different mission types within the scenario as a whole. Some of my best MP experiences came from ArmA warfare. I've directed airstrikes with a laser designator, reconned possible base locations, and led tanks over a hill to assault an enemy held town, set ambushes, etc. In fact, I have never had a bad experience. The only real issue I have had was being kicked from a server for destroying the admin's base with artillery, but hey, it was a public server.

It is actually my hope that they don't make the Comanche into a gunship. Technically, it was meant to be a scout vehicle (albeit heavily armed). I would rather see it relegated to sneaking around behind enemy lines gathering intelligence and (quietly) taking out high-priority targets and then retreating.