ravenholme

Also, I will agree with people that this episode felt short, but that might be due to the lack of a hub area and the free-roaming missions present in Adapt. I think it actually has roughly the same number of "actual" missions as Adapt, from a rough headcount.

Pretty sure it's appearance is such so that mission makers can use it for, well, anything they want. It makes a great prop for a variety of missions/scenarios.

The only thing that irritated me through it was the AI. I like the future setting (Although I'm still not sure how I feel about the MacGuffin, except that I think it might be a deliberate bird flip at the people who complained about the 'Railgun Tank', which I heartily approve of. In general, I think they were far too conservative about the kind of technology that will be in operation by 2035, with stuff that isn't too different to current equipment, when it seems like we'll have load bearing exoskeletons and hypersonics by 2035. Also, really exhausted with present day settings, so future setting with something other than 'Terrorists' as enemies is really, really refreshing), and I enjoyed the campaign - varied missions types encompassing all the aspects of warfare, and the writing wasn't terrible, which is an improvement (Barring the MacGuffin, which kinda came out of nowhere and should've been foreshadowed more, I think). I also think for having worked to introduce the Scuba mechanic, it was seriously underutilised by them, only showing up in that one mission in Survive. I guess due to the lack of large naval units to operate against. (BIS really needs to add something the size of a small patrol vessel to the various factions)

Also, for those complaining about the device...

NATO MEDCOM confirms that they know about Miller's activities to Crossroads, who then tells Kerry to not get involved with "The Brits and their Black Ops bullshit". So, you find out a lot of what's going on, and shows it's not just the brits, NATO is in on it, whatever "it" is. (And we all, naturally, have a good idea what it is)

Welcome to the community, understanding and rationality are oft in short supply here.

It sped up, the countdown is over. Release for Zeus is Q2 2014. I imagine Dev branch will start playing with it after the release of Win.

Except VBS has had similar features for a long time, it's far more likely to be derived from that. As the MCC and similar things were originally inspired by those features of VBS.

Been trying this with the campaign and so far, barring one instance, it works perfectly. (That instance being Death Valley in Survive. The Artillery Spotters take cover so well that Charlie can't kill them, so it registers Bravo as dead after a while) Otherwise, it's like night and day to compare this to the vanilla AI. Such a great overhaul.

Ah, possible, since it's an ArmA 2 PMC port, I was assuming that it was set up in the same way the weapons are there.

Very cool. Any chance of making it compatible with the ArmA 3 attachment system, so we can add the various scopes and flashlights/lasers ourselves?

I also had the Within Reach issue

Okay, I only have one bug to report and it's pretty minor: In "Within Reach", the FIA driver gave dialogue saying he didn't have enough fuel (because I had given the fuel to Miller to use on taking out the HVT) but a minute later Miller gave dialogue as if I hadn't given him the fuel to take out the HVT, so there were patrols I had to avoid on my way to the boat. That should probably be resolved. Otherwise: Fantastic campaign, and that twist at the end was bloody neat, and the final couple of battles may be some of my favourite in the campaign so far. Very, very cool. Can't wait for Win!

Yep, the new vehicles are pretty awesome - they give the AAF a bunch of new tactical options without overpowering them. Just ran a bunch of tests, and in a straight field battle of even Kumas versus Varsuks or Slammers, they get destroyed hard. Usually 3:1 casualty rate. I think the Hellcat needs a variant that has a small amount of guided AT missiles though. I like the loadout of the default one, mind, but I do feel there needs to be one with some guided AT or maybe some DAGR. (Partially due to the fact that in a Hellcat the commander MGs of the various side armour can kill the pilots pretty easily when setting up for a rocket run) (Also, an unarmed variant in the Digicam and the Armed variants in the Olive Drab - like the Black/Camo versions of the CSAT helis)

I have to say that I hoped if the AAF got an attack chopper, it would be a Mangusta or Rooivalk. Maybe it could still happen, though the other sides would have to get another chopper too.

No, I mean I agree with you, I was saying that, albeit more briefly, to Alwarren et al. My one problem with ArmA 3 is that I feel they have been a bit too conservative with the technology available to at least the NATO side for a 2035 setting.

Pretty much what I was going for, I just did so in a far more brief fashion.

That would be my guess too

I'm guessing not at this rate. Don't think there has ever been an update this late in the day

I think that's really the only advice you can give to someone like Alwarren. ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future. If you can't handle that. A2CO is always waiting for you. Me? I personally love that they're having a pretty good and realistic bash at what things might be like in 22 years time. If anything, I'm disappointed that their view is so conservative, but that's another kettle of fish.

Reality says hi! Hellcat is based on the Wildcat due to go into service next year, and there may well be variants of that with skids too in the next 23 years. Also, it often happens that when foreign militaries induct new hardware from other states into their service that they rename it to their own tastes.

Anyone suspect the talk about a build up in the Pacific vs (Presumably) China is a hint for an expansion of some kind?

I would really like for the 2035 setting to be utilised properly - as it stands, BIS have been too conservative (A lot of that due to pressure from certain elements of the community screaming because the game isn't ArmA 2.5). When you have L-M saying the SR-72 is slated to be operational by 2030 (A Hypersonic, Unmanned or Optionally-Manned Spyplane AND CAV), DARPA intending to have load-bearing powered systems operational on soldiers by 2025 (similar to the exo-skeletons in STALKER), the things we have in ArmA 3 end up coming across very tame for a 2035 setting - based on a flat technological progression rate when really we're advancing in jumps and jerks. A lot of this can be handwaved now that we have the campaign - the NATO peacekeeping deployment is some back of the beyond barely funded and politically untenable deployment, but still...

I've noticed that I get some weird camera shake whilst piloting the UCAV in third person mode, which I was doing to admire it. Not sure what's causing it but SFP was the only addon I was running besides CBA, so thought you'd want to be aware of it. Great work, otherwise!