Hierarchy in Command System

[Hierarchy in Command System]

Sorry, I've met the pictures limit, most of them are not the most important, but this is quite essential:

Quote[/b] ]1) Step 1: privates are under command of corporals

2) Step 2: corporals are under command of sergeants

3) Step 3: sergeants are under command of lieutenants

And so on until Colonels, who are under command of no-one (originally)

[Hierarchy in Command System]

Topic: Hierarchy in Command System

Hello to everyone! This is my second thread (post actually) in this branch. What I wanted to talk about now was slightly described in my previous thread, but I decided to take this out in a separate thread because it’s well… less revolutionary, but it is very essential. So here we go:

Hierarchical Command System

Note: the topic is briefly described in “compressed thread†section, read it for know what it’s all about, all other parts are detailed explanation and special cases explanation. If you want to read full thread, then skip it.

(0) Compressed thread

So where will be hierarchy in ARMA command system? Let’s go to Mission Editor. Imagine that we’ve placed a “basic squad†on the map. In ARMA1 there are 7 ranks (from lowest to highest): 1) Private 2) Corporal 3) Sergeant 4) Lieutenant 5) Captain 6) Major 7) Colonel. And here’s default ranking of the basic squad: SL – Sergeant, TLs – Corporals, and all the rest are Privates. Ranks are okay for our case, so we won’t change them, now let’s preview the mission.

Now: we placed only one basic squad, so in original ARMA there’ll be one team:

“One†– Squad Leader, “Two†– Team Leader, “Three†– Team Leader,  “Four†– Grenadier, “Five†– Automatic Rifleman, “Six†– AT Specialist,  “Seven†– Grenadier, “Eight†– Automatic Rifleman, “Nine†– Sniper

BUT! With hierarchy com-sys implemented we’ll have 3 teams instead:

Team One: “One†– Squad Leader, “Two†– Team Leader, “Three†– Team Leader

Team Two: “One†– Team Leader, “Two†– Grenadier, “Three†– Automatic Rifleman, “Four†– AT Specialist

Team Three: “One†– Team Leader, “Two†– Grenadier, “Three†– Automatic Rifleman, “Four†– Sniper

Note: Team consists of only neighboring ranks, where is one commander, and the rest are subordinates (classical – commander-“one†and all others), and the squad will consist of whole teams hierarchy, connected with each other. (in case described above – these three teams form a squad, because they are connected with each other by Team Leaders.)

NOW, who’s in charge of who: Squad Leader is in charge of both Team Leaders; Team Leader #1 is in charge of his sub-team, which consists of “three†to “five†in original team; Team Leader #2 is in charge of his sub-team, which consists of “seven†to “nine†in original team

Translating these lists to text, Squad Leader gives orders to TL1 or TL2, who in their turn give orders to their sub-teams (three men each) to complete Squad Leader’s order! BUT Squad Leader can’t give direct order to f.e. sniper, although he does have indirect control of him. So Squad Leader can’t f.e. order sniper to target and shoot a man, BECAUSE it’s completely up to defined Team Leader to decide who in his team will complete Squad Leader’s order.

(I) Introduction

Preconditions of the topic I’ve seen in ARMA1: remember, if we place a basic infantry squad in Mission Editor, first unit in it’s named “Squad Leader†and the second as well as the sixth are named “Team Leaderâ€. So I thought that after the whole squad commander – SL gets killed, then team splits into two and both TLs take per three units under their control (There are nine units in “basic aquadâ€, so TL “two†takes “threeâ€, “four†and “fiveâ€, while TL “three†takes “sevenâ€, “eight†and “nineâ€)… Well, I was a bit disappointed when I found out, that this is only a naming feature, without consequent functionality itself. Ok, that’s enough of history, now here’s the subj itself:

(II) The Subject

So where will be hierarchy in ARMA command system? Let’s go to Mission Editor. Imagine that we’ve placed a “basic squad†on the map. In ARMA1 there are 7 ranks (from lowest to highest): 1) Private 2) Corporal 3) Sergeant 4) Lieutenant 5) Captain 6) Major 7) Colonel. And here’s default ranking of the basic squad: SL – Sergeant, TLs – Corporals, and all the rest are Privates. Ranks are okay for our case, so we won’t change them, now let’s preview the mission.

Now: we placed only one basic squad, so in original ARMA there’ll be one team:

1) “One†– Squad Leader

2) “Two†– Team Leader

3) “Three†– Team Leader

4) “Four†– Grenadier

5) “Five†– Automatic Rifleman

6) “Six†– AT Specialist

7) “Seven†– Grenadier

8) “Eight†– Automatic Rifleman

9) “Nine†– Sniper

BUT! With hierarchy com-sys implemented we’ll have 3 teams instead:

Team One:

1) “One†– Squad Leader

2) “Two†– Team Leader

3) “Three†– Team Leader

Team Two:

1) “One†– Team Leader

2) “Two†– Grenadier

3) “Three†– Automatic Rifleman

4) “Four†– AT Specialist

Team Three:

1) “One†– Team Leader

2) “Two†– Grenadier

3) “Three†– Automatic Rifleman

4) “Four†– Sniper

Note: Team consists of only neighboring ranks, where is one commander, and the rest are subordinates (classical – commander-“one†and all others), and the squad will consist of whole teams hierarchy, connected with each other. (in case described above – these three teams form a squad, because they are connected with each other by Team Leaders.)

NOW, who’s in charge of who:

1) Squad Leader is in charge of both Team Leaders

2) Team Leader #1 is in charge of his sub-team, which consists of “three†to “five†in original team

3) Team Leader #2 is in charge of his sub-team, which consists of “seven†to “nine†in original team

4) The quantity of sub-team’s (in this example sub-team is quantity of all privates, and TLs are all the corporals) units is defined by dividing quantity of sub-team units in squad by number of TLs; and given to them, sorted by their number in squad, rounded of cause if after division we get non-integer number. Here is distribution formula:

In formula “n†is number of current commander; “k†is number of the lowest rank (i.e. if lowest rank in squad is private – k=1, if it’s corporal – k=2, ect.); Rk – quantity of units of rank “k†and Cn – quantity of units under the command of current commander.

SO if we have f.e. 4 commanders, then the formula will be calculated 4 times.

Translating these lists to text, Squad Leader gives orders to TL1 or TL2, who in their turn give orders to their sub-teams (three men each) to complete Squad Leader’s order! BUT Squad Leader can’t give direct order to f.e. sniper, although he does have indirect control of him. So Squad Leader can’t f.e. order sniper to target and shoot a man, BECAUSE it’s completely up to defined Team Leader to decide who in his team will complete Squad Leader’s order.

Well, actually if developers decide, that f.e. rank3 commanders (sergeants) should have direct control of rank1 (privates), then I think it’s possible to make such control: Imagine our basic squad again, and we are playing rank3 commander – Squad Leader, and for example we want to order sniper to shoot some target. In our command interface Team Leader 2 is commander of sniper, so HE (TL) is binded to F2 button. So the controls might be: we press F2 once and this will select TL, BUT if we press F2 twice, TL2’s sub-team members will be shown in our command interface (by command interface I mean the green bar with units at the bottom of the screen), and sorted as in TL2’s screen +1 (so TL2 becomes “two†instead of “one†and though sniper “four†comes as “five†in our command interface), because Squad Leader, which we are playing at the moment becomes “one†So we simply press F5 and give direct order to sniper, that’s it!

Some pics:

1) This is how basic squad will look in Mission Editor: privates at the bottom are connected to TLs (who are corporals), who in their turn are connected to a Squad Leader (sergeant).

3) Command interface of Squad Leader

4) Command Interface of Team Leader 1

III Some details

(1) Commanding Steps and Skipping of them.

(1.1) Commanding Steps. There will be 6 “steps of commanding†for there are 7 ranks in ARMA. So if we f.e. will have 16 privates (rank1, step0), split in four teams, 4 men each and have 4 corporals (rank2, step1) in charge of every team. An further, we’ll have two sergeants in charge of two corporals (rank3, step2) each, so for coordinating all of them it’s best to have a lieutenant (rank4, step3) in charge of both Squad Leaders. So we have:

1) Step 1: privates are under command of corporals

2) Step 2: corporals are under command of sergeants

3) Step 3: sergeants are under command of lieutenants

And so on until Colonels, who are under command of no-one (originally)

Note: this is only an example, in-game “one†(Squad Leader) can command 4 teams (TLs), not only 2, or there can be f.e. 8 privates under one TL command. The number of privates under one corporal,  or corporals under one sergeant and so on is infinite (or 256 or what is game-max?)

(1.2.1) Step-Skipping. Usually one rank units will command only his sub-rank unit (colonel-major, corporal-private, ect.) but there will be cases, where commanding steps will be skipped. F.e. if after a battle there is only one sergeant, one corporal and some privates are left, and they are all in command hierarchy, and corporal suddenly gets shot, then sergeant takes command of the whole team of privates, which makes him skip one step of commanding.

(1.2.2) Hiring. Higher-step commanders will be able to “hire†step-skipped units: ask (or order?) a lower-step commander to move one or even several their subordinates under their command (f.e. sergeant asks corporal to move several privates under command of sergeant).Cases for this might be following: 1)Two teams, both under corporals command, coordinated by one sergeant are conducting operations in town, and this sergeant gets on a roof of some building for better seeing the region of operations for well, let’s say better coordination. In this case he becomes twice more valuable and as a result twice more likely to shoot and as result of THIS – twice more vulnerable. So he might like to “hire†one or even several AI “bodyguards†to cover his six or take cover, when told, when bodyguards notice some weapons aimed at our sergeant while he performs his direct duties)

2) Another situation, when higher-step commander would like to hire a unit under his control is for some special operation: put a sniper on essential position, or maybe even some covert sabotage, while coordinating both teams to distract attention from his covert op.

Other step-skipping situations are described further in vehicle hierarchy command section below.

(2) War machines hierarchy, temporary and limited commanding.

(2.1) War machines hierarchy As we know, all war machines have their internal command posts: helicopter’s commander is a pilot, tank’s and armored vehicles’ is “tank commanderâ€, ect. Imagine that we have a standard air attack squadron – pilot of the first helicopter will be sergeant and will command three other helicopters (pilots of those, who are ranked corporals) , while commanding his own helicopter’s gunner, who’s ranked private. So we have strongly pronounced hierarchy here: pilots of 3 other helicopters are under command of first helicopter pilot, while they ARE commanders of their machines, being in charge of their gunners.

PICS:

Attack squadron:

Helicopter crews:

Sorry, a bit mixed, but step 0 are privates (gunners), step 1 are pilots under command (corporals), and step 2 is first pilot (sergeant)

Note: this will be almost same for all war machines, but more details in further sections.

(2.2) Temporary commanding. Let’s talk about armor . Imagine that we have a tank battalion, which consists of 4 vehicles. Remember that tank’s internal command post is tank commander’s post. So first tank commander appears to be commander of  rest 3 tanks (tank commanders). But IF f.e. first tank commander will switch places with driver in same machine, who appears to be private, and this private automatically becomes temporary commander of this vehicle (including ex-commander, driver and gunner), but sergeant, who is now driver remains on his post of battalion commander… but again under temp. control of the private. And private can give orders to both driver and gunner in the same vehicle.

Note: well, this system will work, but for some issues I think it’s better to introduce “vechicle rank-locking system†– as an example: tank commander’s post will be locked for privates, ect.

(2.3) Limited commanding. Imagine the situation where a squad must board a helicopter, helicopter in it’s turn must fly to the specified location and para-drop squad there (I remember such mission in OFP ). So here we go: Team Leader orders his squad to board the helicopter, and boarding himself of cause. The if TL is higher rank than helicopter’s pilot – he gets temporary limited command over him (he can give pilot position where to go and some other order, but he can’t f.e. tell pilot to abandon his vehicle ), but if TL has lower rank, than pilot, he receives no command. The temporariness of command is in time of TL being on board of the helicopter. After TL gets out, he loses his command over pilot completely. ALSO in this situation the pilot gets temporary limited command over TL as well (it’s limited to “disembark†and “target†if a gunner will be under TL command). So retelling our story with para-drop: TL orders his team to board a helicopter, boards himself. Then if he’s higher rank than pilot, he tell pilot where to go, if he’s not, well… then pilot is supposed to know where, After location is reached, pilot commands “disembarkâ€, after what the whole squad will abandon the vehicle.

Hello to Bohemia dream – this can be very well used f.e. for missions where there is a long distance between respawn zone and combat action zone, and cargo helicopter is present… AND NO SCRIPTS HERE, just AI logic.

(3) “Up and Down†or “taking commandâ€

(3.1) Down.I’ll start with very simple in-game situation: imagine that we have a Squad Leader, who’s in charge of two Team Leaders. And IF SL gets shot the squad (I’ll remind that in this case squad consists of 3 teams, in hierarchical order) will just split into two teams, with both TLs in charge of them. (so team 1 just ends its existence) – so try to shoot commander first! Less coordinated – less victory chances))

(3.2) Up.Not much complicated game situation also: f.e. if there is a sergeant, who has a “take command†waypoint, and two corporals within its placement radius. So when sergeant gets to the location and joins one team firstly – the new team appears (and will consist of Sergeant as commander and one corporal as only subordinate).and after sergeant joins second team, then second corporal just joins this last created team (“one†– sergeant, “two†– first corporal, and “three†as this last corporal), so these two teams (corporals, not counting newly created) will now form a squad, and sergeant will now be able to coordinate both of them.

Note: this will also work with step-skipping, f.e. if we have same situation as described above, but we’ll have captain instead of sergeant, so the third team will be captain-corporal-corporal).

(3.3) Couple of other “taking command situationsâ€. Imagine that we have same situation as in 3.2, but sergeant gets “take command†waypoint, and in placement radius we have major-corporal-corporal squad. In this case when our sergeant joins this squad, he get into middle cell – now HE commands both corporals but appearing under command of the major.

Now another situation: if some rank unit joins squad where his rank is present and highest at the moment (f.e. sergeant joins sergeant-corporal-corporal squad) this will be up to developers, if he will join new sergeant-sergeant team as “two†or he will take second corporal squad under his command.

IV Epilogue

Concerning all the details, implementing such hierarchy me as simply as it looks at first, but I understand not all sections of this thread might find themselves in game (of cause if developers WILL like the idea AT ALL). And though it can be simplified as much as need for again saying wishes of dev’s. F.e. the vehicle section, not likely of cause, but can be thrown out completely. Well, anyway, the whole idea I think will be just candy for campaign and SP missions creating, as well, as for multiplayer, with big amount of players/AIs on server.

Now, if you came through all of this wall of text, then I must congratulate you for your patience and assiduity and really want to thank you for respect.

Now tell me please, what do you think? And again if some boy has any questions, please feel free to ask!

P.S. I look at this whole wall of text and surprise to myself… got a bit tired lol, and… hope it was worth it

[Advanced Command System and Ranks]

Hello to everyone who’s reading this post. I understand that it is quite big so if you are in a hurry just read the bold text at the bottom

Bohemia Inc. is being very nice to make a special thread for suggestions for upcoming AMRA2. And very nice because they are making games for players of cause AND of cause players will play it! In my humble opinion these kind of  offer-games are the future of game industry… wanted to write much more about this, but it’s not the suggestion which I was actually to make.

So what I’ve had on my mind is to suggest making 4 kind of “ranks†with actually 4 completely different types of gameplay for each, here they are:

1) Private (or Soldier)

2) Group Leader

3) Field Commander

4) The General

First two are classical ranks of OFP-ARMA, where the private IS the private (person who gives no orders, but receives them), and Group Leader is head of the group, who gives orders to <his> men (“One†in group). Classical gameplay both of them.

Now begins most interesting part: Third one is Field Commander.

(Real-Time Strategy)

Let me explain as much close as it is in my mind: first imagine battle where 3-4 groups (5-10 players or AI in group) on each side. SO the Field Commander will be the one WHO gives orders to all of them, coordination their action and ensuring more quality victory for a team.

The interface for Field Commander will be… just like a classical Real Time Strategy interface! (Free camera, top-down view… well with bit of an angle of cause, mouse “square select†and “give orders†controls… something like the “command modeâ€, default “del†button, but with not-soldier-locked top-down camera).

It’s classical because this interface has been used a lot of times in <wc3 and clones>-games, but I’ve NEVER seen a strategy on the FPS engine (let’s call it “SonFe†– strategy on FirstPersonShooter engine). And plus to that OFP or ARMA engine will be the best choice for SonFE. And, the most important – even despite of my thought, please believe me developers – thousands of people dream to play SonFe in ARMA, as well of cause me – that would be really fun and another step into deep team-play. RTS on ARMA engine will be the most enchanted RTS of all today’s existing, well… by several reasons: 1) 3D targeting and shooting as well as pathing (every today’s rts is only RENDERED in 3D, but not appears to be so (I really can say about this – have a very big modding history behind my shoulders) 2) Will be first strategy where soldiers do reload their magazine (it’s true lol! 3) Original soldier/vehicle proportions 4) enchanted (this I hope more actually) ordering and pathing (other thing than in p.1) ect.

It would be best if a Field Commander would be able to construct structures and produce infantry and vehicles… For that there must be a resource in game. I’ve had several thoughts – oil, money, and some kind of requisition score. Well first I’ve never seen a commander which was given some $ to recruit soldiers and that makes money resource quite weird. So then I thought to tie last two together. And here I’ve got two branches of thought as well:

1) If a commander captures an oil well or deposit for example OR a town and holds it for some time ect. – making our imaginary war chiefs proud of him – a commander get some requisition score which he could spend as usual resource in RTS – buildings, soldiers, vehicles, turrets. (Wh style) (by the way just got an idea while I was writing this – is it possible to make some possibilities for building trenches which require terrain-modding in-game?)

2) If some soldiers get killed or tank get blown-up commander gets some requisition score to refill his army numbers (WiC style)

And I think that there should be some “team selection†in after the game is created but not launched dialog: for example there can be four teams and two of them can ally with each other as well as the other two… or 4-teams FFA play can be done this way. Again – classic RTS Style

Certainly if you think that building a base is too much, then simply “top-down squad command†will do nevertheless. (RTS with no buildings)

If the server is heavily populated (either ppl or ai) there can be several FCs on each side.

In Multiplayer FC can only give orders to Group Leaders, but in SP he can command anyone, including single soldiers… for easier controls – if you press once on GL in FC mode – the whole group is selected (air squadron, tank battalion), if twice – ONLY GL is selected (will be useful for covert, sabotage and scouting operations), or vice-versa.

Now, the forth one, not less fun and competiting – The General.

(Tactical Strategy)

Unlike the FCs, there can be only ONE General on each side.

The gameplay of General will also be a strategic one, BUT unlike the Field Commander’s RTS mode, it’ll be more a tactical strategy mode. He will not have a direct control of the army, and his most time will be spent on the island map. So this gameplay will be more tactical than real-time dynamical.

First time in FPS history player will be the one who CREATES missions, not completes them! Sometimes it’s good to feel yourself a boss!

Now I’ll again try to describe it as close as it is in my head: imagine that you are on a mission on some island in ARMA2 – your base is here and enemy base is somewhere on the other side of the island, and between them there are several towns. So General takes a look at the map (maybe even considering some intelligence, about it further in new classes section) and says: “Group #1 should take this town, hold it before the group #2 comes. After they did, they (group #2) must hold this town, which will be a distracting action, while group #1 is left-flanking the enemy to eliminate them from the site they won’t expect us to be! And that’ll make a great advantage on the enemy with same numbers on both sides!â€

After that he opens the island map and places waypoints for the Field Commander which will be called “Missionsâ€! The placement interface will look something like classic “mission editor†from ARMA1… but maybe they’ll be more pictures rather than circles for easier learning for General and easier understanding for Field Commander. These “missions†will appear as classical ARMA waypoints for FC and also recorded in some kind of journal for easier keeping further plans in mind. General may change his battle plan anytime in-game process.

Also General can create map notes for FCs by the way (which both GLs and Privates may see on their map)! – for example operation borders or arrow of his and enemy armies’ advance or enemy forces locations.

An about Multiplayer: don’t forget that every battle is not about whom’s got better reflex-clicks, but it’s a battle of general’s minds, and soldiers’ discipline and courage!

That’s it with the main idea. Now some subtleties as you said to give more details.

Vassal of my vassal is not my vassal (classic feudalism).

For players to be less confused (as well as for AI to load processor less if there are any instead of players) the order system should be a chain-like:

1) General will give orders only to Field Commanders

2) Field Commander will give orders only to Group Leaders (in MP, in SP to anyone)

3) And Group Leaders will give orders only to privates who are only in their submission (their group)

BUT would be a very good to add some kind of hierarchy support… In “mission editor†there is a choice of ranks if you place a new unit – so if for example I can command Pete and Frank, who are privates, and Jay can command me so I can give orders for Pete and Frank to complete Jay’s orders… so in my command screen I’ll have Pete as “two†and Frank as “three†while Jay’ll have me as “twoâ€, but neither Frank, neither Pete in his… that’ll make more fun and certainly deeper MP gameplay and greater opportunities for creating scenarios and modding the game! I think the ladder of total 9 (7 (how much ranks there are in ARMA1 now+Fc+General) will be enough (pre-highest for FC and highest for General)) Looking in code part – FC gives standard orders, just like any Group Leader in ARMA1, but General gives no orders – he creates something like waypoints for all the FCs (because no direct control here).

In Multiplayer candidates’ opportunity to be Generals and FCs will be calculated based on player’s votes and ranking on server (players get additional general/FC ranking score if they prove themselves talented FCs/Generals and are more likely to be ones in next created game).

In Singleplayer players make their career from private to General AND anytime in-game will be able to switch their mode (gameplay) – General/FC/GL/Private by clicking something like “possess†button and clicking on a soldier/pilot/driver to “possessâ€. But of cause they won’t be able to switch to general before they’ll complete all the missions till the first “General†mission and so on.

I really liked bohemia’s idea for non-scripted AI… well… I believe that AI generals/FC in campaign WOULD have their scripts to meet the campaign story, BUT nevertheless WILL have their artificial intellects, for not being just signs that are showing direction to player, but will be able to command him for more deep and dynamic gameplay.

Two new unit types.

(both suit FC and General idea for more realism)

I’ve also considered adding few unit types that might be good addition to these modes in game:

1) First one is Radio Soldier (the one who carries radio device on the battlefield - tell me the word please) – it is a must for every group and just a soldier with ak47/m16 and with radio device on his back but… you will notice only the absence of this soldier, because if he gets killed and before a group is refilled with another radio soldier – your group won’t be able to receive orders from FC as long as he cannot contact your group. So you won’t lose last orders which were given to you by FC and they will still be visible on the map/in-game but FC won’t be able to give you new orders before you will have a radio again. Also he can contact General for giving intel (more about it further in Scout description). And it can be much enchanted and realized by community and developers wishes and ideas)

2) Second one is the Scout. If there are a lot of players or AIs on server it can even be group of scouts. They will be armed with sniper rifle (maybe… that’s their close-to-real-army weapon, but it’ll be more to game balance if they’ll have something which they can use only on very short distances – handgun or shotgun maybe…) and his most deadly weapon – binoculars. Their purpose is quite clear I think – to gather intelligence of enemy troops positions for the General! “Prosveshen – znachit vooruzhen†says Russian proverb which is translated as “Had been told – means had been armedâ€. I am sure that Generals will make much more efficient battle plans if they can consider the intel of enemy forces positions

It’ll be very arcadish if player just presses “b†rounds the horizon and runs to base, so I think, that after pressing “b†(binoculars screen comes up) he’ll have to left-click on every soldier (or a group of soldiers) and vehicle he sees… (only for developers – again if considering the game code part – I imagine it like weapon with bullets that cause no harm to nothing it shots to, as well as awareness… and actually I think it would be reasonable to make it more like shell than a bullet – so it’ll have a slight target hit radius FOR left-click spotting for example a group of soldiers that stand near to avoid clicking 10 times on one place). After he clicks on an object it appears on the island map (that screen when you press “mâ€) AND it’ll appear in same direction and spot when scout gives the intel (a bit more about giving the intel further), even if the enemy had moved from the spot location – no mr. Bond’s mini radars here… but I’m thinking of approximately calculating the speed if it’s vehicle he spots for General to calculate approximate position concerning position, speed and direction of that vehicle… but that seems to be more RPG’ish style heh…

Scouts will be the class for people who like more tactical thinking than tactical shooting – they always have to keep their eyes open: they can be included in standard group to spot enemy position right from the place of action and of cause radio them to General (certainly if group didn’t lose it’s radio man) as well as making manual notes on the map – like hints for General (for example arrow which shows direction of enemy movement, or places of interest, or anything he thinks is right to general to consider or know about.) – inspired by Dr EyeBall’s markers wish.

Returning to Intel-scouting (right after the game begins): best grouping will be scout + radio man: If he goes alone for intelligence (and making auto-notes with his binoculars as well as manual ones) General would be able to “see what scout sees†on map only after he returns base… unlike if he goes with radio man who will give him ability to radio his discoveries right from the field!

So compressing all this lot to 3 lines of text I’d like to suggest adding real-time strategy and tactical strategy modes as well as two new soldier classes and all what’s connected with them to the game for more fun and much deeper MP team play. And I THINK (actually hope) that these ideas won’t be hard to code on ARMA engine and they won’t conflict with game conception itself.

So, what do you think about it?

P.S Hope you’ll like this idea as much as I do)

P.P.S If anyone want more details – please feel free to ask, and sorry for my english