james mckenzie-smith

"Oh, no, for two, zee vorr is over."

The presence of suicide bombers and IEDs is actually not a guaranteed thing in something like the fictitious Operation Arrowhead, just because the game is set in somewhere based on Afghanistan, with smatterings of Iraq. For one thing, it is possible that the game is set in the early days of the US intervention. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the suicide bomber/IED problem arose more after the intial operations were long over. For another, one of the prime enemies is the Takistani Army, and if the armies of the Middle Eastern/Central Asia region are any guide, they do not use suicide bombers and IEDs as a first resort. Suicide bombers and IEDs are nice for mission builders to have, to be sure, but it makes sense to me that they would not initially appear in the timeframe of ArmA2:OA for reasons of historical precedent.

I exclusively play SP. Why should I subsidize expansions that enhance the MP experience, but MP players under this plan would not pay a dime for what I want, nor indeed for the addons that enhances both SP and MP games? I have nothing to do with the MP aspect of the hobby, and I do not see why the contents of my bank account should be used to the benefit of people whose interests mean so little to me. As far as this notion of 'splitting the community' goes, I think that it is an overrated problem, more likely a problem that does not even exist. First, as an SP player, I can say to the rest of you, that you can amuse yourself in whatever ways you see fit, in SP, or MP en masse, or MP as a 'split' community. Community splitting means precisely nothing to me; in terms of my actual game play, I am a community of one. Second, is it really such a problem? Has it ever been a real problem? From what I understand, the best MP experiences are on private servers, full of like-minded people that use the same mods, and these interests and tastes are not universal. Some people prefer WW2 mods, some prefer ACE or whatever it's called, some prefer sci-fi mods, some even play vanilla. There are many other topics covered. MP Game types vary, from totally public to totally private, with PvP and Co-op plus whatever novel game type anyone can come up with. Lots of 'splitting' of the community there. Look into any other player's addon folder. If you find any differences, there is a possible 'split' right there, and you will see it in their game play choices. The fact is, this is not a homogeneous community, and it has not been so since OFP was released way back when. I rather think that this is a good thing. I am absolutely against being a part of the larger gaming community, as I would rather do almost anything other than play MP. Also, divergent tastes mean a large number of diverse mods, which increases the choices that we have to enjoy our hobby, and I cannot see that being a bad thing. DLC from BIS fits that rather well, and will be at least an easily obtained item for people who fear a supposed split in the community, and are actually willing to pay a few bucks for it.

Let me wade into this den of intellectuals, and have a quick word. About the only useful posts so far have been people suggesting what they would like in a DLC, also with price suggestions. So, here are my suggestions: I would like DLC packs with at least one major faction, at least one island, not less than 8x8km (larger than that is, of course, better), with a medium length campaign, and a handful of single missions. There could also be extra game play or mission editing features. For all of this, 25% to 50% of OA's price would seem fair to me, depending on the amount of content. Content I would like to see: Armies: British Army USSOCOM forces (USSF, SEALs, Rangers, 160th SOAR) Minor NATO/ANZUS forces (Dutch, Canadian, German, Australians) - These would not necessarily need to have all kit used by each nation, just enough to represent what could realistically be used on operations in fictional Takistan, or wherever. French Foreign Legion + any new OPFOR/neutral units. Regions: Another Takistan map Coastal regions of an area of Takistan bases on the Persian Gulf coast of Kuwait/Iraq or Iran, complete with an oil rig or two. A map based on the Horn of Africa. Useful for the FFL. Something rather like Indonesian islands. All of that could be done in say four major DLC packs. That means that I would be willing to pay out a total of twice what OA costs, over a couple of years, say $80 total. Less than $4 a month, in effect. I think I can swing that.

I think that saying that it is destroying gaming is going rather far, even in the case of payware DLC. That said, ArmA2:OA has a huge default selection of kit and terrain already, so it is not as if anyone absolutely needs to download extra stuff from BIS, whether or not the DLC in question is payware. Of course, BIS's history has been for free DLC, and, as a method of marketing and keeping the game's name out there in order to maintain steady sales over months (rather than the usual one or two weeks, as with most games), free DLC does no harm, provided that the original product is not crippled. We have hitherto survived without BIS created Brits so far, so we can see their lack of inclusion in the initial release is scarcely a game breaker. So, I do not think that we need worry overmuch. If DLC appears and is payware, we still have a complete game in our hands. If it is free, hurrah. If it does not appear at all, there will be plenty of mods for years to come. If this is PC gaming being destroyed, then I wish that more companies would work on the destruction of our hobby. Now, a slightly different topic. The new Takistan video is excellent. My initial thoughts on what I would do when I finally received the game were to place down some Delta operators, and civvy, ambient combat, and SECOP modules, and have a sneaky look around, punctuated with a few firefights. Having seen that video, my plan has changed. I will put the civilian and animal modules down, then take an ArmA2 civvy (and his babe girlfriend) and a car, and play tourist for half and hour or so. That mosque looks beautiful, and Takistan in general looks well worth a virtual visit, without worrying about getting slotted every step of the way.

Well, even then, how can we agree what is correct, in the context of ArmA2? From the standpoint of the man on the ground, the helis flying overhead look like they are flying realistically, apart from the odd AI cock-up that is more to do with the AI, than the modelling of the Heli (and even this looks better in OA). For the people in the cockpits, some will consider the FM to be too hard, some think that it is way too easy, and for others, it's the porridge that Goldilocks chose. Ditto, systems modelling. There is no objectively correct method of simulating helis across the board. In ArmA2, the current method of heli simulation is not at odds with the other aspects of the simulated battlespace, so I would argue that, if it is not truly correct by some standards, it is close enough. For me, a non-helicopter pilot in real life, the helis perform roughly as I would expect them to, while not proving an undue challenge that detracts from the overall survey game play experience. Understood. Of course, BIS's challenge is to balance the needs of a diverse community that has wildly variable expectations, with their own vision, resources, and need to make a living making the games we play and conduct friendly debates about. I think that the baseline that they offer is a good compromise of quantity and quality, and they have given modders the ability to tweak it somewhat for those who want certain features introduced, emphasized, or changed. I think that those are my last words on the subject for now. May all of your real lives be peaceful and full of bliss, and may your virtual lives be full of blood, stratagems, and wars.

Fair enough, then. I'll meet you halfway, and argue in favour of scalable systems/procedures/flight model simulations, to satisfy guys like you who want a realistic heli sim in the Armaverse, and a more survey approach for those who would like a light sim buffet, or the opportunity to perform many roles over the course of a single long scenario. That said, I think that it will be a long time before you are satisfied (if ever), whereas the status quo is pretty good to me right now, especially with the OA improvements that we have read about.

The assumption being made here is that complexity equals quality, or that quality lies in procedural accuracy, rather than how well something integrates into its virtual world. That is open to some debate, and I would argue that complexity for its own sake does not add either to game play, nor does it actually guarantee realism. It certainly does not guarantee quality, if badly implemented. That would be the antithesis of the freedom that ArmA2 offers. One of the great liberating aspects of BIS games, is the sheer number of options that are presented to a player. With BIS games, I have been a virtual everything, from an Apache pilot, to a tank commander, to a leader of a Spetsnaz team scouring the woods of Everon for guerillas, to a Harrier pilot dropping ordnance on targets in Chernarus. Using mods, I have been the virtual commander of a WW2 mech company, on the run from the NVA in Laos, inserting Ranger teams from an MH60 in the Afghan hills, a leader of an SAS troop in Land Rovers in the Libyan desert, and a commander of an entire US Army tank battalion in VBS2 (with the ability to drop into almost all of the vehicles, at any point in the mission, to fully experience the battle as I designed it). You seriously think that people should be pushed into training with what they are good at? I cannot agree with that idea at all. That would certainly junk a significant part of my gaming hobby, at any rate. If I wanted to do that, then I would just play individual sims (as a matter of fact, I do play SB Pro PE, but there is a good variety of kit in there, the game is not drowning in switchology for its own sake, and there is a strong command simulation in it, as well).

I do rather hope that BIS does not succumb to switchology for its own sake.

The civilian vehicles do not all handle the same way, just pretty close. Excluding real world, specialized vehicles like Gallardos and Porches, that is actually not that far off the way it is in real life. A ten year old Corolla's handling is not too far off a brand new Focus, for most purposes. Additionally, there is plenty of reason to have many different civvy vehicles. It's going to look pretty silly if someone makes a scenario that includes a VCP, and everybody is driving a white trabant or something. As for realistic gear shifts etc., perhaps you are mistaking the concept of quality with complexity. Provided your controller is not porked, the vehicles should handle more or less as you would expect a civvy vehicle should, if realistically driven. Nearer the limits, it is not quite as good, but then, this is not rFactor. Why should it be? Almost everything is simplified, and given the number of assets and the purpose of the game, that is as it should be. Do you really imagine that the realism of what you consider polished shift and realistic traction could be maintained with all assets in the game? Do you expect Falcon 4.0 avionics and flight models for the FWAC? A recreation of Longbow 2 for the RWAC? Forward assist on the M-4s? Steel Beasts ProPE standard FCS on all of the vehicles? If they included these things, who would have the time to become proficient on more than one or two weapons systems, or one more than one or two aspects of warfare? This game simulates a lot of things, and it at least gives a taste for each thing, in a manner that is at least somewhat reasonable. Of course it is not perfect - some aspects more so than others - but in terms of being a light, accessible sim, there's quality there if you allow yourself to recognise that your own definition of quality is by no means universal.

I would like an AI battledrill editor. Think of this as the equivalent of an American football playbook, with the player able to create new formations, reactions to effective enemy fire, SOPs for various combat situations, new movement commands, etc. etc. This has the effect of enabling various world units to be simulated more accurately, as well as giving more scope for historically accurate game play (so that Heer and Red Army units deploy their LMGs differently, for instance), as well as letting the player experiment with completely new concepts.

I viewed the campaign in ArmA2 as something of a game play buffet, that allowed the player to try a little bit of everything in the game, and thus gain insights into his own requirements for missions made in the editor. The whole ZU23 vs. the SU25s seems to be the same sort of thing. By the sound of things, OA's campaign will allow the player a chance to play pilot, tank commander, paratrooper, and Delta Force operator, so the whole buffet of game play experiences trend seems to be holding. Hopefully, there is a good, compelling scenario holding it all together.

I rather doubt that you could reach a consensus among ArmA2 players as to what ArmA2 should have been in the first place. Compare your addon folder to just about anyone else's, for a start; you will find that what you consider completely essential is not necessarily considered so universally. I almost never use any mods for ArmA2, but I somehow manage to enjoy the game without them. Maybe it's just because the game is flexible enough that I can make an enormous variety of missions for my own use, using an editor that was made by BIS...not by modders. The vanilla release is a remarkably good product, even if it was rather buggy at release. The fundamental features that make it a good game are there by default, with no help of any mod. Where would the sainted ACE mod be without ArmA2's editor and capability of having huge numbers of units on huge maps, among many other features? Why do you suppose that ACE was made for ArmA2, and not for MW2, or some other product? If I were utterly bereft of imagination and ability to use the mission editor, then yes, I suppose that you might be correct. As things stand, I can make missions that satisfy my own requirements far better than anyone else in the community, and at that using only the stock units, so I am still happy with ArmA2. I am most certainly not bored with it. Of course, I am looking forward to Operation Arrowhead, because new units, new terrain, and new features are welcome, but I could live without them for quite a long while yet. Doubtless you are correct that the modders will do some very good work. There are a handful of mods that I am looking forward to myself. That said, BIS does the dirty work and makes the great games. Modders just give the games a little bit of extra flavour.

Quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive concepts. I'll take as much good quality kit as I can get. That said, the kit and force mix has been better in vanilla ArmA2 than in previous versions, for the most part. I currently have no mods to speak of, beyond the ability to plonk the LHD on the Chernarus map. That's not to say that I will not use any in the long run - Liberation '44 has got my eye, to be sure - but the impending release of AO should actually satisfy most of my modern unit requirements and new battleground needs for the forseeable future. The quality of the new BIS addon units and terrains should be pretty high, and there's a lot of it.

His covers may look good, but they will not necessarily make sales improve. Two of them look like covers for non-US helicopter simulators - and let's face it, that's a bit more of a niche market than military-themed FPS games. Whose sales would any publisher like to emulate? The sales for DCS Black Shark, or MW2? The ACU one looks good, but what does it tell you, really? That there is some sort of camo fabric pattern on the cover, and not much else. Good art and art direction, to be sure; increased sales, however, are not guaranteed by good art alone, otherwise we would see toilet paper packaging with the Mona Lisa's face on it. The current cover design hits the main selling points, as I have mentioned elsewhere. It certainly does not '(reflect) poorly on the community', as has been claimed elsewhere in this forum, among other peculiar assertions. As for the complaints about the 'America, Fuck Yeah' aspect of the NA cover, well, you can buy a European release online if it bugs you that much, but the same damned thing was on ArmA2's NA release (along with an open-mouthed, shouty soldier). Face it, the average American tactical gamer is deeply patriotic, and their flag alone is enough to make many of them take a second look at a product. There's nothing good or bad about that, it is just the nature of the market. Remember, just because one person does not like the box, and says that they would not pick it up, one person is not a statistically meaningful sample, and nor are the small numbers of people responding to this thread, who represent but a small part of a market that BIS already has captured. I cannot agree with the implication that ArmA:OA really demands serious and hardcore box art. The vast majority of people play games to have fun, and the subset who prefer 'serious and hardcore' military games as we know them is relatively small. In order for this product to sell a significant number of units, it cannot appear too hardcore and serious, otherwise a large number of more casual gamers who might actually enjoy some of the variety of gameplay and relaxed systems modelling in the ArmA2 series will be driven off. Fewer sales means a correspondingly lower chance of ArmA3 ever appearing, and larger sales means the opposite. Sure, this might attract some of the 'wrong crowd', as if anyone here has any right to decide who is right or wrong crowd material. This is a gaming community, not the Augusta National Golf Club in the 1930s. MW2 fans have money that is just as green and crinkly to the touch as anybody's, and even if they goof around in public MP games, I have not heard of those being the home of ArmA2's best gameplay as it is. Private servers will still be private, and those of us who would rather play SP will be unaffected, and hopefully we will all see more ArmA games down the road.

Who of you people who hate the cover are not going to buy the game because of it? Who of you would not pick a game with this cover up and look at the back, if you saw it in the store, and did not know about the ArmA series at all? Box art serves more than one purpose, and it makes no sense at all to sacrifice effective point of sale advertising, just to satisfy the demands of ArmA series fans who will likely buy the game regardless of what the cover looks like. Box art like this tends to be carefully thought out and tailor made for various markets. There is nothing about the current design that suggests to me that it will not be effective at generating sales. Could the design be better? Sure, anything can be improved, but it should be enough to do its jobs.

Speaking from a personal point of view, the OA box is not destined to be my favorite box art, but then, I am going to buy the game anyway. Speaking from the perspective of one who was once in advertising, the proposed Operation Arrowhead cover is fine. Its first, and one might say primary, purpose is to act as a point of sale advertising piece. The shouting of the soldiers shows some urgency, and the weapons, outfits, the apparent geographic location, and activity of the men implies the marketable heart of the game; tactical infantry fighting, toe to toe with a present-day enemy. Of course, there is much more to the game than that, but conveying the total freedom in OA on a cover is pointless. That is the back of the box's job. The front provides attraction and interest, the back provides the description of the product, creating desire, and offers a call to action. Imagine if you saw the cover art, as it is now, on a box in a store, but bearing the name "Firefight", and a subtitle blurb "Operation Battleaxe" or something. Do you like tactical shooters, set in the present day? If so, I am certain that you would pick the box up, and look at the back, if ony to sneer. Front cover mission accomplished. It's up to the back cover to make the sale. To those who remarked on the US flag in the background of the NA release, well, that will help sell it in that market. Of course, that little trick does not work for every product, and is not always necessary. For a game that will not be as heavily marketed as MW2, every little extra effort must be made to attract this sort of gameplay's fanbase, and the background flag will not hurt. I would be interested to see the spine of the box, as in places like EBGames, that is often the first part of a PC game that one sees. ArmAII's European release was actually a little weak in this regard, as the name ArmAII was hard to read, and it conveys little to people who do not know what 'ArmA I' could possibly have been. The name 'Operation Arrowhead' should work rather better, however. The word 'Operation' with another warlike word after it conveys a message in itself, so should attract the fingers of browsers looking for a combat fix. Raizjames, you're right, MoH has a good cover, fine art direction and it is very evocative. However, I noted on another forum a lot of whining about how crap it is. There's just no pleasing some people.

I have searched for the opposite of 'Alive "unitname"', whereby a unit is only present at the start of a mission if another is determined to be NOT present. I have not found it, alas. Is there such a command in ArmA2? I know for a fact that there was one in OFP, but it has been a long time since I have made any OFP scenarios, so I have forgotten. Any ideas?

Ronin Storm, I just noticed this now. It works! Good solution, I can now do the things that I wanted to with several missions that I have in development. Thanks!

I like the general direction that the ArmA series is taking, at least as it pertains to the sort of player that I am. ArmA2's AI has improved alot since ArmA (and OFP), and this has in itself improved the single player experience. For me, the main gameplay improvement has been in the control of assets outside of the player's squad. From OFP's limit of twelve men under command, to the team switching of ArmA that gave a little more flexibility in that regard, to the High Command function of ArmA2, there has been a definite improvement. For the immediate future, I hope that the command engine gets polished and thoroughly fixed in ArmA:OA. For the longer term, I would like to see an even more expanded command system, retaining the team switching capabilities. If anyone has played the new game Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1945, they will know about the campaign system there, as well as the way that tactical battles are integrated into the larger operation. My ideal would be a similar system in the ArmA series. I would also like the simulation aspects to get a little more hardcore, but not TOO much. I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to play a sim that is a high fidelity simulation of multiple complex weapons systems. I would rather play with somewhat simplified systems that at least can reproduce the results and general look and feel of what they represent, even if procedures are trimmed somewhat. The current level of simulation is a little too simple for my purposes, but not too much. I would like the behind-the-scenes number crunching to be pretty realistic, though. There is no reason that a fairly realistic penetration model cannot coexist with relatively simplified targeting systems. As for setting, not so keen on sci-fi for the base game, although I was known to fool about with the Warhammer 40K mod for OFP. For me, ideal settings would be places with room to maneuver battalions, and make use of the usual array of modern weapons against conventional and assymetric foes, and also with scope to control smaller, commando type units and patrols. Maybe a BIS clone of Iraq, much like the creations Chernarus and Takistan, so long as the terrain is based on a real-life location, as they always do. Anywhere else in the world would do, as well, from Central America, to an Indonesia clone, to Africa, so long as the gameplay was top notch. You now have the general direction that I would like the series to take, and for the most part, I have been pleased with progress so far. Even if gameplay stays like this and improvements are confined to graphics, new campaigns, and fine-tuning existing features, I will not be too unhappy.

This is something of a non-issue, I think. The ranks are pretty much generic, they mix enlisted and commissioned, and are used more for establishing hierarchies in mission design than anything else. Creating several rank structures for the USMC, Russians, and whoever else would make things more confusing for mission editors, and would waste BIS's time, while accomplishing virtually nothing. Might I point out that VBS2, as used by the US Army and the USMC, uses exactly the same system? That said, I can meet proper rank nitpickers half way, and make a suggestion for the longer term (ArmA3 or whatever). Perhaps, as well as the scenario design unit rank as currently designed, there could be an in-game displayed rank, where the scenario designer could give any unit any rank, so that, as seen by players of a scenario, a unit would be whatever authentic rank for whatever force that the scenario designer chooses, while maintaining the hierarchical structure within the scenario? This would only be for immersion, and would have no bearing on the AI's actions within the game.

Is there a way to make branching waypoints? Let's say you have a normal linear waypoint system. Would it be possible at one waypoint to have TWO possible options, where one option is taken if a trigger is activated, while the other is taken if the trigger is not activated?

Why is it certain to contain Strykers, you ask? Because BIS mentions them specifically in the feature sheet for OA. http://www.arma2.com/arrowhead/arr-download/Arrowhead-Features-webA472dpi.pdf They also mention Bradleys, and there are pics of M1s as well. At any rate, it is not particularly nonsensical to have Strykers as well as airborne soldiers in the same game. It's not as if the US only deploys one type of formation per war, after all, and we have probably not seen pictures of all of the types of US soldiers in the game just yet.

Inlompetent, I understood waypoint 0 to be the starting location of the unit. Regardless, I did as you suggested, and once again, no positive result. Bhaz, I know of that particular use of waypoints, and while it is most useful, it is not quite what I am looking for. Thanks both of you for your input, notwithstanding that I am still foiled by this issue.

I have TrackIR, and tried it with ArmA2. Can't say that I am still using it. Free look with the mouse is good enough for the odd glance around, and anyway, I operate under the philosophy that, if something is worth looking at, it's worth looking at down the barrell of my rifle.