Ezekiel

There are apparently 'over 50' of them, going on the screenshots and interview released so far, what is confirmed? EDIT - Confirmed: (US) Ground: AAV M1A1 HMMWV (uparmoured) Air: C-130 UH-1Y MV-22 Osprey F-35 STOVL MQ-9 Predator Weapons: Colt .45 (Russian) Ground: GAZ-3937 Vodnik BTR-90 T-90 BMP-3 9K22 Tunguska Air: Mi-24 V/P or Mi-35 KA-52 Weapons: Makarov PM Bizon AKM AKS AK-74 (w/ GL, reflex sight) AKS-74 (w/ reflex sight, PSO sight) AKS-74U AK-107 (w/ GL, PSO sight) VSS Vintorez

Ye gads no, not the complete list by any means! Just the ones that have been seen and confirmed in pre-release screenshots/videos. I'm almost certain they'll include and LAV (it may already be in a screenshot but no one's mentioned it). Plus almost certainly an AAV, if not then only because they've done the EFV instead (aka AAAV). I wouldn't count on an M1A2 though, they'd be a lot more complicated to implement - thermal sensors, digital maps, radio interfaces... they're all little electronic improvements made at the expense of the commander being able to fire his .50 from inside the turret (commanders of A2s have to turn out to fire them, but its justified on the basis that his extra gadgets mean he should be spending less time firing it anyway - not as fun in a game).

Just a small thing, but how easy would it be for BIS to incorporate some kind of modular attachment type thing for the units and weapons? The whole system of having a hundred individual weapons just so you can have the option to put a silencer, aimpoint, ACOG or M203 on an M4... well. It just seems a bit archaic when games have had a 'select gun then select attachments' system going on forever. Same goes with units, their uniforms, weapon platforms on vehicles... It'd be nice to be able to simply 'attach' slat armour to a vehicle as a modular thing in exchange for, say, a small loss in speed. Even if the engine treats it the same way it ever did (ie swapping an entire 3d model for another), implementing it in the actual *interface* as a modular thing instead of having hundreds of weapons and vehicles and people in the editor would be cool.

Hmm, isn't it just a great big white texture that shows up only in FLIR more? It certainly looks good. I'm wondering how far it can be pushed without trashing performance? Like say, realistic heat signatures for vehicles - cooler hulls, warmer suspension, hot engine block only visible from certain directions etc. Obviously it'd be over the top to make a full IR system with all the terrain and objects showing up at different temperatures (which would dramatically go up and down like a tank's will as they heat up and cool down), but some sort of way of making the IR signatures of vehicles blend in better might be cool, people are generally big white blobs but vehicles all have hot and cold bits that you can use to identify them. Course SF forces with IR blocking skin paint might also be a good idea. EDIT: Oh yah, also at the moment do vehicles show up when their engine is off?

I'm not a scripting genius but surely you wouldn't need a script constantly running checks to see if it's in or out? Drawing and holstering your pistol is a one-off event so surely you'd just script it to add the model into the holster by default, remove it when you switch to sidearm, and replace it when you return to primary/secondary. Course if you don't have a primary weapon... or you do something which takes all guns out of your hand like going prone with an AT4... I dunno. But there were games which actually animated the drawing and returning of a pistol long before stuff like GRAW or COD4, and I'm pretty certain they weren't constantly eating up resources checking whether it should have a pistol model visible or not. Anyway I dunno why I'm even saying it, I couldn't care less. Again, nice work Jonny.

I think weapon proxies would be unlikely, isn't that kind of a core engine thing? The way they do all their animations, weapons models etc would have to change.. But at least if this sort of system was integrated into the editor and loadout screens (you could take it as far as changing tank and uniform textures while you're at it) then it would add a much needed element of polish to the game. I think everyone can agree that if BIS want to compete with other games they need to spend a bit of time working such things into the first release. And who knows, maybe it will inspire people to believe said proxies will show up in a patch/addon/Arma3.

Lol just what I was thinking 2 pages in. Beautiful work Jonny, thanks - these ones are going in right next to your marines and the 1st Inf addon.

Actually don't quote me on this but I think one of the devs said that boats won't be a major part of ArmA2, which won't be so bad considering the game isn't set on an island this time. Maybe.

We're getting a carrier plane, we're getting large boats (or an aircraft carrier at least by the look of things) and there's always been supply trucks to move supplies. I'm not saying ignore the 'logistics' side of warfare, just consider how exactly this will affect the way you play the game. I don't think 'supply trains' will ever be a big enough feature to justify spending time on them, that sounds like a job for community modders. Military supplies don't just zoom around the map in trains on autodrive, you're not going to see an island populated with zippy little trains and you fly your helicopter around. At best they'll be a target to attack or defend in a one-off mission and the ocassional bit of ambient decoration which has no real affect on a battle.

Why even bother arguing over which platform is better? It's going to happen, the only think I'm interested in is whether BIS go for a multi-platform release or spend some time between versions tinkering to get the most from each platform. The latter to me sounds more desirable, since we know BIS won't get all their intended features into the game anyway I think it might be shooting themselves in the foot to try and release them together (cos we'll end up with a straight port rather than tailored versions, they don't have time to do one then the other and release them at the same time). So far we've already seen some concessions to consoles - the squad control is being cut down drastically. You won't control more than your immediate team. I LOVE this idea and I'm glad that perhaps the console release is what allowed them to rethink a fundamental flaw to the game. Giving orders is currently clumsy and unintuitive, which makes it unrealistic and contrary to what giving orders is supposed to be (to enhance the normal actions of a unit, not to just allow it in the first place). If the best way to make order giving work better is to cut down your control of units in the game, then great. I never liked having to scroll through pages of radio commands and unit selections anyway, you can let the AI do that and get on with playing your own part in the conflict.

I agree with Dslyecxi on this... Actual moving trains, fully implemented, would be a hideous waste of time. We all know that no matter how many cool things could be done with the engine, there will still be great features that don't make it to the final release. Having trains fully implemented but not having something more fundamental like units able to cross bridges properly or poor performance looking at foliage would be a fatal mistake for BIS at this stage. They've done the right thing by putting in a train network - It's realistic, fits with the industrial settings of the new island, and will make a good navigational tool for players using the map. Static trains will also add greatly to the atmosphere when fighting around docks and depots, and if we're lucky they may even be destructible. But moving trains... the only use I can see is a one-off 'bomb the train behind enemy lines' sort of mission, which wouldn't even be that realistic considering it's much easier to just sabotage a line or leave a mine before the train even turns up (or these days more likely, just bomb/shell it from the air). In terms of NoRailgunner and the argument about how we need trains to realistically portray heavy cargo movements in a war - who really cares? Seeing trains with tanks or gun crates loaded up moving around is not exactly enhancing the gameplay much, and we can all just assume the supplies were brought by train before the mission began so it doesn't ruin the immersion. Again, the only real gameplay use of them is the old 'bomb the train' type mission, and you don't really need to use a train to get a great mission of that sort. The only other use is if you want to see people loading and unloading crates, which quite frankly I could go down to the harbourside to watch. :P

Ok some interesting points I've discovered just from scanning around various screenshots, interviews and Wikipedia: There will apparently be a Ka-52 for the Russians - basically a 2-seat Kamov. I can understand why they'd do this - the 1-seat Ka-50 from ArmA was a bit unrealistic since the engine's control system doesn't allow for the pilot to aim the cannon around on its pivot (well it *is* possible, but not with the simplified weapon systems currently seen in ArmA). One problem - there are apparently on a handful of Ka-52s in existence and they were designed to work in tandem with multiple Ka-50s, the extra pair of hands a second crewman being used to spot out targets and the like presumably. Russia is apparently ordering a dozen more but not until 2012, 2-3 years after ArmA2 is supposedly set. Even if it were set in 2012, they're so rare and specialised that you wouldn't see more than one on a battlefield, and certainly not on their own. The F-35B (Marine variant for use on carriers) is apparently also included, despite also being slated for a 2012 release. Until then the Harrier and F-18 it's designed to replace will continue to be used instead. There is also apparently a UH-1Y Iroquois.. which I'm assuming means the UH-1Y Venom, currently not in full production yet. The Hind is slated in screenshots as the 'Mi-24 V/P - Mi-35'. Hinds have a huge number of diff designations but I gather the VP quite a specialised variant with only a handful produced, and 35 denotes and export version. Am I splitting hairs here? I'd like someone to come by and prove me wrong on these points, all I've done it tap the names into google.

Any chance of considering adding the ability to 'become' any unit from any side? I've recently downloaded a ton of mods and addons and for the purpose of testing them out it'd be unbelievably handy.

It'd be lovely to have new styles of reporting.. the most depressing thing for about buying ArmA the second it hit the shelves was the way the radio chatter was *exactly* the same as OFP (followed swiftly by my AI swerving the HMMVW off the road and hitting the wall with a strange clunk sound, then driving on like nothing had happened). How about a 2 step thing? First, a soldier shouts 'infantry/armour/chopper etc, x o' clock' Then a pause while they count (in their HEAD), then 'I count 6 riflemen, 2 T72s' or similar..? You could even wire it to a 'report' command for the leader so he can prompt his spotters to give exact counts of the enemy composition without having to struggle with coding their AI to talk smart without repeating what they or the others said. Whatever happens, I really hope BIS come up with something new and outside of their box, cos it's actually painful to listen to. I haven't shown the game to a single person without them laughing at the constant "MAN! At..! 2 o clock!" and "OHNO! two. isDOWN!" stuff going on.

I wanna keep the OP list up to date, so if anyone spots new stuff appearing in screenshots or confirmed in interviews then feel free to post.

Uh, that bit about them making sure it's a PC game.. ArmA is going to be a console game as well, innit?

It's a brilliant idea, SO handy for those that just downloaded a weapon/vehicle addon pack but can't be bothered tooling around in the editor adding hundreds of playable units or adding lines of init script. Anyone that claims it's nothing but a (quote) 'cheating tool' obviously doesn't use addons and mods...

And to answer your question, the AT-4 isn't designed to take out a main battle tank, it's designed for light armour (so yes, any vehicle featured in ArmA short of the T-72 and M1A1 should be susceptible to it, though not necessarily a 1-shot kill). The US use other weapons to take out heavy armour, the marines alone have at least 5 standard rocket launchers, the Javelin being the largest with the longest range and the AT-4 being the smallest. Also don't forget that the AT-4 is only meant to work up to 250 metres, it's not exactly meant to be fielded in tank battles. A very lucky infantryman might get behind an MBT in an urban environment and get a crippling hit on a T-72 (which are notoriously less capable than they're supposed to be anyway).

One thing I learned from ArmA; Don't expect realism from BIS (other than gameplay ofc) Sad but true. Yea but is this really a "reaism" issue? Force Recon teams really did exist, and only recently dissapeared... so its not something BIS made up or anything like that, they are in fact REAL. They are just not used anymore... but as I said before, the conflict that takes place durring ArmA2 is not real either, but would you say that is a "realism" issue? Obviouslly the events in the world the game is set in took a diffrent path then the events of the real world... and situations dictated that the F35 needed to be rushed into use, and the FRT's were kept active a little longer. Its all just the GAMES (can't forget that word right there) story... Well now that's an explanation I can live with.

Uh, another thing - apparently you play as a member of a 'Force Recon' team. These ceased to exist 2 years ago.. all force recon marines AFAIK we're transferred to USMC Reconnaissance Battalions, or assigned to the new MARSOC (which is what prompted the end of the Force Recon in the first place, since they were excluded from SOCOM operations). Again, wiki is your (unreliable) friend.

All elements of the US armed forces interact to some extent, although the Marines are unique in that they tend to also work in self-contained units - which is probably why BIS are using them.

There's a reason for this - ArmA is 'special' in one very particular way that the developers always cite - it is a 'true' simulator. The 1st person view is TIED to the animations. The angle of scopes actually have to be carefully zeroed because the eye is looking out the end of the scope and the bullet is coming out of the end of the gun. When you look left, people will see you turn your head an equal amount in game, and its not a case of 'you see the head move because the player moved his view left' - it's actually 'the view of the player moved because the head moved left'. It's actually the same result either way but the principal is different - in most games the animations work for the game, in ArmA the game works for the animations. This is the main reason for all the screwiness with movement too.. The way BIS want to do animations, they have to make a LOT of complicated transitions to pull off traditional style first person shooter controls, but in ArmA they didn't put the effort in. Anyway the point is that if you wanted to be able to look directly behind you in a vehicle you would have to be able to physically turn the model of your soldier 180 degrees round, which would look incredibly disturbing when your pilot/driver does it while you're sitting behind them. BIS could make a workaround by detaching the camera view from the crew model when in vehicles. Thus, you wouldn't be able to see when your co-pilot moves their head (which is a cute feature Ill admit) because they'd be in a 'fixed' animation loop (ala people in the back of trucks, apparently this has been 'fixed' in the most recent patch), but you WOULD be able to look all around as is realistic without a complicated animation system (think aiming the gun out of the window in GTA4 - point it in all directions out of a car and look at the way the arm moves as the aim changes).

@ EricM: If they don't then the community probably wouldn't have much trouble porting one to the other. @ Dr_Eyeball: I'm not expecting heavy-lifting to turn up in ArmA2, but it would be a pleasant surprise. Those artillery cannons don't airlift/tow themselves, and having choppers capable of bringing light armour into a battlefield would be a very cool thing to see in-game, even if it doesn't add much to the plot or gameplay. The C-130 would imply we're gonna see fixed-wing armour transport at least. The inclusion of the F-35B is really peculiar - I heard the game was to be set in 2010. The F-35B isn't rolling out to replace the Harrier or F-18 until 2012... Makes sense though, 2 birds in one stone for BIS. I think it's becoming clear that they want to include all the brand new equipment the Marines are rolling out - not just the F35 but the Osprey, which has only just entered service. I'd be interested to know if they're using the new AAAV/EFV (due out n 2015).

Well since the US forces are apparently going to be entirely USMC this time (thank god, the crazy patchwork forces of ArmA were depressing for the realism fans), lemme make a list of US vehicles and gear I'd *expect* to see in ArmA2. Weapons: *M16A2/A4 assault rifle + variants *M4 assault rifle + variants *M249 machine gun *M240*G* machine gun *M14 DMR sniper rifle *M40A3 sniper rifle *M224 mortar (~ 3 1/2K range, please please BIS don't make us model our own mortars again this time ) *AT4 rocket launcher (single shot, incapable vs MBTs, *can* be fired from prone! Predator SRAW rocket launcher (like Javelin but suited for shorter range urban AT roles, designed to replace AT4) * Javelin rocket launcher * FIM-92 Stinger * M198 howitzer Ground Vehicles: * HMMWV + variants * M1A1 Abrams MBT * LAV-25 APC + variants * AAV amphibious APC * HIMARS MLRS Air Vehicles: * MV-22 Osprey * AH-1Z Viper * UH-1Y Venom * CH-53E Super Stallion (capable of heavy lifting) * AV-8B Harrier II * F/A-18 Hornet That's a pure USMC list, so no Blackhawks, A-10s, M113s, Strykers, Little Birds... I'd hope BIS concentrate on representing just one full and correct fighting force (actually there are still holes in my list), and maybe consider representing the US army in a future addon pack (man that'd be pretty sweet). (sorry I know I've changed this into more of a suggestions type thread)

That list is pretty much what inspired the post - I played unmodded ArmA barring sound, mostly cos so much stuff seems to be unstable or unusable for MP. Then when the official new patch came out I came back to the game (stopped playing after the... second beta patch in a row came out, and people started arguing about which beta was better) and downloaded almost *every single addon* on that list. I had to disable pretty much all of them cos they didn't seem to be liked by any public server, and even when I played single player with the best ones loaded they didn't integrate very well at all, leading to much jigging, disabling, editing and eventually deleting.