MBot

The patch was ok. A small step into the right direction. The campaign seems more playable now but still has bugs. Now being able to somehow play with less bugs unfortunately also opens a clearer view on more elementary design problems of the campaign.

So, after the 1.02 patch I have finally been able to continue with the mission after Manhatten. What came next was the first warfare mission which quite frankly is horrible. This warfare stuff is a control-disaster. The control interface of Arma 2 already comes to its limits with your own squad. Trying to play a strategy game like that is a complete failure. Frankly the UI of warfare feels like a scripting solution of a mod. Adding warfare to the campaign has been a huge mistake in my opinion. You are frequently loosing complete control over your men during combat while your character chats over the radio for minutes. Combined with how the game handles auto-saves, I have now endured the same endless cut-scenes and radio conversations repeatetly for hours. The campaign has some nice moments but is ridden with design problems. It is very ambitious but falls flat on it's face in execution because the game (control interface, AI) can not handle it. Plus it is still has plenty of bugs. So far the campaign has been a major disappointment for me.

I couldn't observe any effect suppression has on AI while actualy playing the game. Doesn't make any difference as far as I can tell. Because AI also does not tend to effectively fight from covered positions, you couldn't suppress them into "heads-down" anyway.

That in my opinion is anything but certain. Many core mechanics of OFP stayed the same in Arma and Arma 2 which might be an indication that BIS thinks they are ok as they are.

Absolutely agree about removing the "magic-radar" in non-radar equipped vehicles. Spotting your targets is as fundamental to a pilot as it is to an infantry man. And for the helos, tanks and many airplanes, this is still a matter of scaning the landscape with your eyes (or through some optics). The magic-radar is a big gameplay killer for vehicle combat. Keep it as a difficulty option, just as it is for infantry, but give us the option to remove it.

I like the idea of manualy entering the grid reference and then adjust additional fire as needed. What is rather silly of the current artillery system as implemented into the campaign is that you only get one fire mission at a time. So you call in a adjust mission, get your 2 spotting rounds and then it's over...

Couldn't have said it better.

While the engine of Arma 2 provides some impressive results regarding terrain size and vegetation details which are certainly top-of-the-line today, I agree that there are some aspects that made little progress since OFP and that are in need for a major overhaul. The thing in Arma 2 that reminds me of the OFP heritage the most is the sloppy collision detection/the animation system, or simply how your character moves close to objects. Moving inside houses or close to objects is still twitchy and stuttery for the lack of better words (while it isn’t as bad as in OFP, anyone who has played it will recognize what I mean). Crawling against a pile of rocks means you character first sinks in with his first half, then he stands up completely. If it is actually because of imprecise collision detection, the stubborn animation system or a combination of both I don’t know, but by today’s standards it leaves a bad impression. My guess is this is also the reason why such important features such as resting your weapon on objects or more dynamical character adaption to cover is not implemented in Arma 2. One thing that could be improved for the future, although certainly not bad by today’s standards, would be micro-detail of the terrain. From the perspective of an infantry man searching for a fighting position, the terrain of Arma 2 is basically flat. You are either in LOS with the enemy or behind a hill, but the terrain does not offer the detail to find cover. I understand that this is would be a demanding feature that could not be expected from Arma 2 but I think it would be an important aspect for the future.

Arma 2 is simply not able to handel modern jets, not only because their complex weapon systems but also because of the relative short viewdistances and small map size. In my oppinion BIS should leave the jets aside as non-playable support assets and concentrate their efforts on playable aircraft that can be modeled with a decent degree of realism in the Arma world. Prime examples would be COIN aircraft like the OV-10, simple point and shoot aircraft without avionics, that fly low and slow and are STOL capable. They fit a lot better in the Arma enviornment (as playables) than the jets.

I can't give any specific tips other than the stuff you most likely already do instinctively (stop to scan, bounding over watch etc.). Also for me it got a lot more difficult to spot the enemy in Arma 2 than it was previously. Additional to the visual complexity of the scenes, no tracers for most guns and no visible muzzle flash at your usual engagement distances makes it very hard to determine the location of incoming fire. In the end it is part of the fun but at the moment is also a bit frustrating because the AI has various advantages. Not only the missing ground vegetation, also the fact that they don't have to deal with camouflage effects (other than Ghillie suites) and that they are worlds better than me to spot the exact location of incoming fire.

I think those knobs on the nose of the A-10 are something different because they are also on A-10s from 1982 (when MLWS was still far away). Most likely just the RWR. I would remain sceptical about that brochure, it is mostly marketing and talks about planes that -can- be equiped with that system. One thing I learned about such topics is to not trust the internet, photos of showing the stuff on operational airframes is hard currency :)

I am certain that the A-10A (which is in Arma 2) has no MLWS and pretty certain that the A-10C and AV-8B+ don't have one neither (never seen it on photos). Perhaps you can point me to pictures of this system on operational A-10C and Harriers in case I am wrong?

To me as flightsim enthusiast the absence of flares doesn't bother me that much. Even in sims with realistic distances and air war dimensions like Lock On: Flaming Cliffs, it is extremely difficult to spot MANPAD launches in time and launch flares. In Arma 2 the air aspect is compressed to such a small space (small map, small viewdistance) and engagement distances are so short, I think it would be next to impossible to react to MANPAD launches anyway. And I am not convinced about the reliabilities of passive missile launch dedectors, which many of the Arma 2 planes don't have anyway (Su-25, A-10A, AV-8B+, Hinds etc.). One issue that in my oppinion is a lot more important and has a way bigger impact on the aviation gameplay is the magic radar on top of the screen. This completely removes the element of searching for targets for radarless planes/helos, which is as elementar to pilots as it is to infantry. A small thing that would improve the realism and gameplay of the aircraft significantly, I think people should put their attention on this, rather than concentrate this massively on counter measures, which I think don't realy have a big gameplay impact on the simplified world of Arma 2.

My campaign is stuck in the mission after Manhatten so I am waiting for the patch to continue (after being stuck at Manhatten itselfe until the 1.01final patch came). I guess there is no point to continue with the endmission cheat with the campaign in such a state. Lets hope 1.02 will make it playable. The warfare missions don't sound encouraging to be honest. If I wanted to buy units and build bases I would play an RTS. The otherwise SpecOps heavy campaign was ok, altough I would have prefered to see more "I'm just a simple soldier in a big war"-type missions. I loved those in OFP. Also the squad-leader missions with standard tasks worked very well in OFP. The Arma 2 campaign was ok so far (assuming it would have worked flawless) but frankly it didn't blow me away either.

USSRsniper got it right, the Mi-24 only has armored front windshields. The bubble canopy is just plexiglass.

That is also a pretty big problem I have with MGs, since we are not able to rest it on elevated objects.

It seems to me that by using the SecOps Manager you only get a single artillery strike, even when using the 'adjust fire' strike (which makes it pretty pointless, since you don't get to adjust anything...). Is there a simple way to get strikes as long as the battery has ammo? I think it would be a good idea to add the line to the artillery biki how to disable SecOps in the SOM module for the people that only want to use SOM to get the artillery request interface.

Wondered the same thing just yesterday. Wanted to add some artillery for a little fight I set up in the editor but didn't get it to work. The depth of the editor is great for the editing experts but why you have to read wiki pages and know scripting code just to get artillery support in your missions is beyond me. For beginners, the editor is anything but user friendly.

Unfortunately the pilot can only fire one of the miniguns in fixed-forward position.

How long were the firefights people had so far? For me the fights are still rather short and in concept very similar to the way we fought in OFP and ArmA. The new AI shows some impressive abilities compared to ArmA but it seems mostly about moving close to cover, not to actually fight from cover. Kneeling next to a corner or tree is nice for looks but it provides as much cover as kneeling on open ground. As such it is my impression after playing Arma 2 for two weeks pretty intensively that combat is not fundamentally different than in ArmA. There is AI that leans around corners or shoots over small walls but it happens not that often. Of course it has also to do with the fact that, save for urban terrain, there is not that much cover available in the world (as trees are no cover). The AI seems generally to be very reluctant to fight from good positions should they find one, moving further quite quickly. Also I do not have the impression that suppressive fire works for the AI on the receiving end. I do not say it isn’t in the engine but while playing I could not yet see it making any noticeable difference. The concept of fighting from sheltered positions, exposing only as little as possible when firing and to quickly duck back to full cover when under fire, still seems to be missing from the AI. I hoped for longer firefights from clear positions in Arma 2 but my impression is that combat still plays pretty much the same as previously.

What are your tips to efficiently control your AI squad? I am not talking about tactics but how you actually control them with the UI. What are the most efficient combinations of combat mode and stance in various situations? Do you use the color teams or do you control them individually? What are the finesses of the “engage†and “engage at will†commands? I think you get the idea, tell us a bit about how you play as a squad leader. Some observations I made: In the default “copy my stance†mode the AI does not seem to run ducked when the player does, instead they run upright. It would be nice if they copied also this behavior. I also think that your squad should only copy your stance when in formation with you. If you send them off as a team, they should choose their own stance. For example when I order a fire team to hold position while I lead the other on the flank, the supporting team should figure out themselves to go prone, even if I am running. Of course I could order them to go prone directly but if you have to micromanage the stance of your whole team (don’t forget to order them to get up again later), the game becomes a micromanaging nightmare. I am still a bit unsure when to use ‘aware’ and when ‘danger’ modes when in combat. It is really nice how they seek cover under ‘danger’ but they do very short bounds (in bounding over watch) in open terrain. In urban terrain it seems to work ok but in the field the bounds look very short (perhaps 10-20 meters). This means a group generally spends a lot of time by going prone, standing up and turning around, and hangs around on the same spot doing maneuvering and fine tuning. They don’t advance with any useful speed and make themselves targets. The combat mode ‘aware’ is quicker but also less safe. It would be nice if under ‘danger’ they would make longer bounds, sprinting with maximum speed to the next cover or if none is available in useful distance, bound after perhaps 100 m (1/3 of engagement distances of the covering weapons sounds reasonable). What would be the RL specs here? Also wouldn’t the bounding over watch be done by teams rather than by individuals like in game (looks often a bit chaotic)? Generally speaking I am a bit disappointed that the squad control UI is still the same as in OFP. In my opinion it is in urgent need for a complete re-design. The game expects you to define your standard fire teams at the start of each mission instead of coming with pre-grouped fire teams. Commanding whole teams is rather clumsy and slow. The game itself and the manual does not explain many of the available control options at all and some only barely. Generally the UI is quite awkward and unintuitive. Let’s hope this central game play element gets a re-design at some point.

Some good advice there already. The problem I have in ‘danger’ mode when in combat is that there are still quick movements needed, combined with the ability to take cover where available. Sending one team to flank when under ‘danger’ means they wont make much progress when swift movement is needed. Sending them under ‘aware’ means they wont take cover at their destination or select a more covered route. How do you guys do manauvering when already in combat?

I can’t confirm (or deny) everything but I also had my AI team call out targets far ahead when we were actually advancing up a hill with no view over the hilltop (perhaps 20m ahead).

Frankly I am a bit surprised that it matters so much to some what kind of gender you play. I played No One Lifes Forever as agent Catherine Archer and never spend a thought that I would rather play a male character. Doesn't matter at all for me.

Yes, I would also love to see the AI doing this: