Stickler

thank you jakerod that is what I meant. The reason I believe a system, like that would work is because then we would have more specialized soldiers in squads and that way we dont have rambos or jack of all trades out there knowing only a little of everything but not enough of each. As for the ranking leveling system, instead of increasing health allow the player to specialize further in a sort of tech tree. Like if you're a medic you can be a field medic in a squad or a medic in a chopper type situation. Though I believe everyone must begin as a private you should receive no specialization just the basics so you can learn how to move as a team and take orders.

if they were to turn it into an MMO I think they should use a sort of class system. Not like Battlefields in that you can change your role at whim but rather more like the fantasy MMO's where if you choose to play as an elf, or medic, then you will be a medic for the rest of your "career." Instead of quests create objectives. As for teamplay and the like set up "guilds" or companies that clans or groups of friends can create that have a required chain of command. For objectives, have preset objectives that you must control in certain areas. Rather than areas of control you must take out specific targets or secure a city. But these must be limited in how many soldiers can carry out this objective or everyone will rush to the nearest or best objectives ignoring the other important objectives. Instead of having people increase in health or better weapons give them more responsibility such as more soldiers to lead or allow them to specialize their role even further. And to keep a persistent world, allow players the ability to rebuild what they've lost. If you lost a radio tower or a base, allow certain classes that aren't normally seen as that important, such as engineers, to rebuild these things, as well as build structures to advance your army along the front lines. If you are to make a MMO for this type of game there must be structure for every single player. Everyone must have something to do and actually want to do it. To do this there must be many choices as well as many guides as to where or what you must do.

About the convoy idea: -Is it possible to use the convoy as a sort of transportation for infantry. For example: Let's say you create a spawn point for new players or killed players at the harbors you were describing. How about having at any given time one or two convoys traveling between cities like a sort of mass transit system. Each convoy would have several accompanying vehicles such as: Ammo Trucks that can resupply soldiers and vehicles, several escorting vehicles like humvees, as well as the ability for human soldiers to "tag along" on these convoys if they want to get to another city. This would not only increase security for these convoys but also allow players to catch a ride to certain areas without having to purchase new vehicles to do so. These can also be those mobile spawn points mentioned earlier allowing players to spawn near important areas while still controlling where players can spawn. -Also is it possible to create specialized or several specialized convoys such as ones that only go from spawn points to "secure" cities, another that travels from just behind the front line to designated staging areas outside cities to organize an assault, as well as a supply convoy (this can aid in your want to have a destructible economy) that go to cities that request ammo. -Special note about supply convoys: Is it possible to create supply depots in certain cities from which these supply convoys will come forth? Only from these supply depots will ammo be replenished. And if so, is it possible to create small ammo depots in every controlled city, even deployable depots in the field, that must be resupplied by these convoys every so often, maybe when radioed in. If you clearly mark each kind of convoy (supply has many ammo trucks, repair trucks and maybe heavily guarded, troop transports have a lot of transport trucks and humvees, and front line convoys have many strykers and humvees,) then when an enemy force comes across a supply convoy then they will immediately understand that this is a priority target and either attempt to destroy it, or trail it to find the city that it is hoping to resupply then destroy it and know now that the current objective, the city, is dying or at least running out of supplies and therefore a simple siege can bring them to their knees. This type of specialized convoy system may also create another level of strategy giving players decisions on which convoys are of highest priority. Should we attack the convoy transporting soldiers, or attack the convoy transporting supplies. This also gives players the option to scout out convoy routes to plan for ambushes. -I would say a counter to this would be randomizing or changing certain routes that have been effectively compromised by any ambush forcing the enemy to change his approach or recon all over again to find where and when these convoys are coming from. Also supply convoys may be purchasable making them a high priority target to attack and defend. I can see whole firefight erupting around these convoys because one team spent a lot of money on this convoy and the other spent a lot of time planning to attack it, or specialized roles in defending and attacking these convoys.

From a technical standpoint on my computer I think this thing has been optimized up the ass. I have a 3.2 ghz computer with a gig of ram and my graphics card is an ATI Radeon x500 or x800 and though all settings are to low, yet with a resolution of 1024x768,I can run it fairly smooth. My system is completely laughable, I was waiting for the U.S. release before starting any new hardware upgrades. judging from this demo ArmA may be playable on lower end computers. This may be a reason why everything looks like it's losing polish even on max settings.

um... as cool as that video was I was wondering once I found out the Americans had a robot of their own why they didn't use that in the first place instead of using planes that would obviously lose. Other than that it would have been interesting to see the Japanese and American Robot fighting.... maybe a sequel?

A suggestion for resources and squad mechanics. Please understand that this by no means is a request to add these to a wish list or to do list, rather consider them or maybe use them to expand on already existing ideas. -For resource gathering I was thinking rather than using purely credits like money, why not force the player to capture certain areas to generate the kind of item they need. This would be in tandem with the forward base and production facilities. For example to use tanks or other more advanced vehicles, you must control a certain building or structure such as a vehicle factory. These structures of course would not be built by the player but already exist in certain cities thus creating static objectives that teams fight for rather than erect afterwards. This structure would then, when captured, allow the team who captured it to use the options available with it. Another could be, to use air support such as airborne troops, or air strikes, you must capture an airport. Others may be an ammunition dump or depot to allow teams to use more advanced weapons. I say this because this can make certain places more valuable than others. It can also give opponents a way to shut off production to the other team. And if the enemy shuts off your ability to make tanks then you'd be haulin ass to defend or take back that point. As a side suggestion for this area why not create a sort of supply depot somewhere that may increase either production or rate at which materials are transferred (Units and buildings build faster and convoys move faster.) -Second idea revolves around squad mechanics. Would it be possible to create role specific squads such as an assault squad (Heavier weapons,) Medical Squad (This squad may be able to use vehicles to get wounded out of battle,) Engineer Squad (Used to create vehicles or structures such as sandbags, set up defensive measures ie. mines. Engineers might also be required to erect any and all buildings or structures needed to progress.) etc. This might allow players to focus on certain aspects of the game rather than everyone trying to rush to the territories and everyone defending at once. Also having specialized squads may give some squads some slack for example if an assault squad has just captured a city, an engineer squad can come in and set up certain defensive measures allowing the assault squad to watch for a counter attack or move onto the next objective. Medics can be called in with a chopper to heal wounded while the remaining soldiers can secure an area for the medics to work. Think Close Combat or Company of Heroes type squad selection. -My final thought pertains to gameplay and/or base layout. Because you already have everything coded I only wish you think about this for any future projects or patches. Going along with the resource suggestion above, why not eliminate any need to build structures to generate units. Instead why not use the factories or buildings provided to create units. These in turn would turn into convoys that would go where they are needed. This is based heavily on the idea of a supply depot. When a unit is created they may, depending on proximity, appear or go to supply depots from which players pick them up or do with them what they will. Supply depots would be hubs for supplies and vehicles. If you need ammo call up a supply depot for a convoy of supplies. All vehicles and supplies, when idle, can congregate to these places. These of course would be ideal objectives for the enemy to capture or attack because not only would it destroy a good chunk of the player's supplies, but may allow the enemy to use whatever they capture. These ideas I believe could open many doors to new strategies as well as create a living breathing battlefield that, without each piece working, could be victory or defeat. PM me if you have any questions.

um that was the worst trailer I have ever seen for a game. It definitely does nothing to help market this game. In fact it seems that Atari put hardly any effort into making this trailer. If they couldn't create something better they should have used something from the community or another trailer already being used. This is pure crap.

I was reading the debate about 3 to 4 sided games for this and I was thinking about another possible strategy or maybe even resource to the game. You commented about the civilians being neutral to the AI until they're joined to your team, could this be a trigger based on who owns the territory. For example: Let's say you come upon an enemy forward base or an enemy controlled city and you prepare to attack it. Well from what you've seen there isn't a whole lot going there, possibly because everyone is out assaulting another base, and when you attempt to enter the city you find yourself being shot at by the civilians because they're allies with the occupying army. But let's say you're able to destroy the enemy forward base and capture the town. Now all those people fighting against you are fighting with you when you find yourself besieged by the enemy. This could allow players and the commander himself from having to babysit territories if there are already a sufficient number of civilians already there. Of course the civilians must be armed so crates could appear throughout the city and when contact is to be made an order from the commander might allow civilians to grab ammo and weapons from the crates to prepare to defend the city until help arrives.

Haha I can see a time when fighting in some open area when out of no where a missile shoots over head at that speed then destroys the city you were either trying to defend or some reinforcements. Man imagine the psychological damage this could have on the enemy. "We're beating them back!" then from over head a missile flies overhead and BAM a tomahawk slams into the rear of the players force. "Holy Sh*t where the hell did that come from?"

The recent remark about mcgyvering something just let loose several hopes for Game 2. I whole heartedly agree to ending traditional stats but allowing certain traits to be increased like the marksmanship, or stamina when running, hell they can even have some kind of monetary system in place since you will be interacting with the local population. Bribe the local police to give information about certain activities going on. The whole idea they described about being able to finally interact with the locals to get information is fascinating. I hope they create a sort of loyalty or occupation versus liberation type game play. Let' say for example you went into a city trying to fight the supposed bad guys but you do it by bringing half the city down with them the locals are going to be realistically pissed. You just destroyed their favorite strip bar who wouldn't be? With this they can possibly create a sort of cause and effect mechanic meaning that if you do stupid things and cause collateral damage then the people may not want you there any more. This sort of mechanic can be seen today in the form of insurgency. Now after your attempt to save the day and drive out the bad guy you only pissed off the people you tried to save and now you're fighting the bad guys and the locals. I believe however that to truly be able to pull this off there would have to be some kind of measure to allow you to make amends if you wish to keep the trust of those you are trying to save. This may end up being a fight for the people rather than a fight for certain towns, which I think is usually the case anyway. In war you don't fight for cities you fight for the trust or loyalty of the people. This sort of trust versus loyalty mechanic can be two different strategies for both sides. Trust can be a sort of cooperative compassionate sided approach and loyalty can be a sort of direct or more destructive approach allowing you to focus on the destruction of the enemy and suppressing those who stand in your way. And how you treat the people will change how the people see you and treat you. For example in the trust approach they could include an option to help rebuild a city or give aid where there is aid needed. This type of mechanic can involve a resource or economic management system. Another advantage may be in the form of military aid from these locals. So lets say you find yourself on the receiving end of a counter attack by the enemy the locals may be more inclined to fight along side you essentially adding to your defense. While the destructive approach means shooting those who protest your actions and because of this show of force the people may be less inclined to openly fight back. If this were integrated I believe civilian AI will have to be upgraded significantly allowing the civilians to realistically respond to certain actions like protesting after certain approaches or after so much collateral damage is made and then dispersing or as a city cowering underneath the foot of your fighting force. Though because of this may be less inclined to aid you in your fight if there was a counter attack and may even, during this counter attack finally decide to fight back making your life worse. This may help out as well meaning that if you win the hearts of the people you may actually grow in power. I would think that maybe this sort of increase in power may give some kind of benefit maybe a higher reinforcement rate, if this is added, or maybe it can allow you to have a more efficient fighting force. And if you find yourself losing the people's trust you find yourself losing power and ultimately losing the game because no one wants you.

I agree with everything you say here. I also believe that your ideas to integrate game play mechanics that take time should be easily if not suitably used in an RPG type game. If he game is going to be an RPG then you shouldn't be able to just jump into a game and shoot stuff. You should have to work for what you get like any RPG though I'm still curious as to how this will pan out seeing as I don't believe there have been many if any at all, military RPG's of this proposed magnitude. One thing that I believe should happen, adding on to your ideas for the clan and hierarchy structure, is to join a server that you will play on for a while and when you join in, after let's say basic training, you're assigned or possibly even choose a regiment or company to serve in. This may come in the form of clans or it may come in the form of a random selection process so that when you join in you will always be with the same people allowing a deeper connection between you and the other players you fight along with. You may even find yourself fighting for your life but that of your squad mate. Another thing I would like to add to is your idea of shock. Could this be a greater form of immersion the shell shock used by many games today? I ask because I had similar ideas or at least hopes of this type of game play used. As a personal suggestion I would like to see the shock go deeper than the usual darkened screen followed by great amounts of visual distortion. I would ove their to be an animation or at least a form of, dare I say, rag doll that would, from the players first person point of view, knock the player to the ground. This could end either in some sort of great handicap, ie. legs are broken as you said earlier, or end in a sort of prone position with that blur there as an after effect. I believe that this type of rag doll would be better suited for these tyes of situations as well as create a greater sense of immersion for the player. This might come around when a shell goes off near you and you're knocked to the ground either by the force or because you didn't expect it. You always see these things happen but usually in first person cut scenes. Why not incorporate them into game play instead. Shel the place where your enemies lie not to just kill them but to create confusion and chaos so that you can essentially mop up anyone left. These types of gameplay would be a great promotion for support classes like medics. With your idea to have wounds be deadly over time as well as create a sort of incapacitation for players caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, medics would be greater in number and demand. To add to your medical ideas about hospitals and the ability to go where you can be healed or have a limb reattached, could there be a possibility to have med evacs as well. In essence a medical squad whose sole job is to get the wounded out of the battlefield and get them healed as fast as possible to get them back into the fight. With this I have always wanted, as a medic, to be able to drag people who have been injured, for example those who have lost their ability to walk or those in a longer state of shell shock, to med evacs or somewhere where they can be treated without risk of injury or death to the medic.

Deanos was this taken on the moon? It seems the gravity was late or not paying attention during that explosion.

In regards to the mission parts what I had in mind was for an army to be able to get to those other maps that are adjacent to the starting or current map they need to essentially capture that map. Complete all the objectives for that map before they can move on to the next or before they can choose the next map. Imagine a quilt or even a region in a country that consists of let's say nine counties. Now imagine the army you are a part of rests in the middle of those nine counties, you might say a major city like map. Now imagine having to complete all the objectives on that one map like capture certain points such as cities, or if you wanted to go even further capture certain resource points like a factory or an airport that was just on that map. Now after you control everything you need to control you can choose, or if you like have a scripted sequence, which map you go to next and the battle or war continues. My reason for wanting to know this and also my reason for joining this discussion was because I was wondering if this is possible to integrate into, or even create a whole new, CTI like game where instead of just capturing cities you must capture points of interest like airports or certain industrial areas. I was also wondering if it was possible to create a resource system off these points of interest so that for every factory you capture on certain maps you can create more tanks or have a faster production rate, as well as for airports you get the opportunity to use local air strikes. My other reason for asking about this is because I was wondering if it would be possible and also enjoyable to allow the enemy, if it's multiplayer the other team, to capture a map and essentially attack you on the same map you just fought for creating in essence a tug of war for maps as well as the individual objectives on each map. If you capture an airport from the other team they lose the air strike and you gain a great asset to your assault. I know this sort of goes off topic and I wanted to begin a thread about it but I was wary if this map idea was possible at first and now that I see it's at least plausible I'm beginning to gain more interest and motivation to design and hopefully begin this mod.

Being an American I was drawn to this idea. But my from my own perspective why not create counties, or even states, instead of whole countries. I was thinking about this earlier and I was wondering if it was possible to create, let's say all the counties in England, and then have a sort of map pack that went together like a quilt. So let's say you get to the end of one map you essentially load a new map of the adjacent county. Sort of like an entire map script that opens certain maps when you reach the end of certain maps. I ask this because I want to know if it was possible to have large campaigns take place on countries or large regions of the world but not render the entire region. Only parts of it but when you reached a certain side eg. north side, east side, west side, south side, you would essentially start a script that would load a specific map of a certain region that would in the real world be adjacent to that region. If anyone has played Close Combat Invasion Normandy then you would know what I mean. Instead of having a huge map of the Carentan Penninsula they cut it up into regions and each region was essentially a battleground and when you beat or lost that battle you would load an adjacent map and essentially create dynamic front lines on a regional level. Like a hex map but in a much larger scale.

The soldier on the right looked as if he had tourette's. Nice job on the destruction models. When I first saw the ones BIS did I was a bit disappointed. It's nice to see that you can now demolish an entire city block with an air strike and buildings don't crumple like paper but it seemed a bit boring and a sort of cop out to just have them go into the ground like a broken elevator and then have nothing left. I'm glad you're model now allows for further use of a building after it's been destroyed. I can see this being used in mods with resistance fighters or guerrilla style conflicts. Imagine cities reduced to this type of building and you're walking along not know which piece of rubble holds an rpg or a sniper. One suggestion would be to have some kind of smoke or small flame, if possible, to sort of add to the ambiance. Just one model using this smoke effect would suffice. Imagine rolling up to a city that had just been blown to hell and all you see is smoke filling the skies and rubble on the ground. I believe that if you turned this into a full fledged mod like add on you might be able to create some impressive looking and possibly interactive destructed buildings. Possibly have some buildings with scripts or other structures that turn to similar models when they are in contact with explosives. Electrical wires that might spark, twisted water towers, who knows. Just a thought.

It is possible, though a huge possibility of more lag, to allow the trees to also be damaged. Seeing as now they can be individually destroyed might it be possible to have them fall flat when the nuclear blast goes off? If it is possible especially with some optimizations, then I think it would look quite intense to see a ring of trees fall in a sort of ring from the blast. Then afterwards if you were to be able to walk through the area you find yourself in a very different place. And i was also wondering if it was possible to change the texture of the ground to a possibly huge version of an explosive crater like the one created when a vehicle is destroyed or a shell hit the ground. I understand the inevitable lag generated from such effects but I was wondering if it was theoretically possible. So rather than having a flashy show of force you could also leave your mark if you will when setting one off.

About that mech thing, I'm wondering why they have to make it so tall. If they were to make the legs shorter and maybe even on the side rather than the bottom of the cockpit it might give a lower center of gravity, and profile, as well as lessen the risk for problems with balance. Instead of mimicking human movement why not just make it similar but more effective. Plus aesthetically I think it being so high and awkward looking it just looks like crap to me. Unless it was agile, which I highly doubt it is, then maybe it could prove effective but if it was essentially skating around on wheels and I saw it coming at me I would laugh my ass off watching it shuffle over to me while I hit a leg with one rocket all while still laughing.

I've been thinking of some ways to possibly improve the standard idea of capturing a point in military games. I also believe that this would help reinforce why armies are dispatched for situations described in Armed Assault, and may give some insight into the conflict in Iraq. I love the fact that OFP as well as Arma have civilians in the game. I love how cities are actually full of people and not empty with a couple broken cars in them. Battlefield 2 and other games that emphasize capturing a point, like a sort of flag capture or arena type military game play, tend to stray from the real reasons a military is used and why soldiers volunteer to fight over seas. It is because of these civilians and the threat to their daily lives that soldiers and countries come to their aid. Iraq is a good example. My biggest problem, and disappointment, with Armed Assault is that they don't use the civilians as much as I wish they would. I myself do not own the game nor the demo, the computer I am currently using for the internet has less ram than my brother's PSP, but from what I hear Armed Assault has also gone the way of Battlefield in it's gampleay or strategy for capturing cities. This is my idea and suggestion for how to change this as well as a question to mod makers out there whether this is possible in Armed Assault because if so I would love to create a mod that uses this idea. My idea revolves around the idea of civilian fighters. Not in the sense of terrorists as is so widely used today but rather in the sense of a people trying to preserve their own way of life no matter what. My idea is to Liberate rather than capture a city. Instead of capturing a piece of land you are showing the people in that city that you are there to help not to hurt them. And if you show little care or compassion for the civilians of that city you worked so hard to fight for then you may find the same lack of compassion or grateful response you were looking for. I was wondering if it was possible to implement a script, or possibly and entire new game play mechanic, that gives a consequence to the player based on how they treat the locals after they've expelled the enemy forces from the city. I would also like to know if there was a way to automatically create a group of resistance fighters, dressed in regular civilian clothing maybe modified, that will fight back if you go in guns blazing without any care for who is in the way. It is essentially a sort of persuasion strategy that may help or hinder you when fighting for these cities. If you're nice to the civilians they may help ypou defend when you find yourself on the end of a counter attack or you may find yourself fighting an enemy from within as well as forces trying to get into the city. If this is possible, which I don't see why it can't be, then if anyone else has any suggestions of how it can be implemented or any ideas that would improve upon it I would like to hear them. I've never created a mod for any game and I was hoping to create a game play change rather than models or islands. I believe this type of game play can also be implemented into CTI type games. Saying it won't work isn't a suggestion. If it won't work then tell me why. I'd like criticism followed by a suggestion or reason. Thanks.

I've been thinking of some ways to possibly improve the standard idea of capturing a point in military games. I also believe that this would help reinforce why armies are dispatched for situations described in Armed Assault, and may give some insight into the conflict in Iraq. I love the fact that OFP as well as Arma have civilians in the game. I love how cities are actually full of people and not empty with a couple broken cars in them. Battlefield 2 and other games that emphasize capturing a point, like a sort of flag capture or arena type military game play, tend to stray from the real reasons a military is used and why soldiers volunteer to fight over seas. It is because of these civilians and the threat to their daily lives that soldiers and countries come to their aid. Iraq is a good example. My biggest problem, and disappointment, with Armed Assault is that they don't use the civilians as much as I wish they would. I myself do not own the game nor the demo, the computer I am currently using for the internet has less ram than my brother's PSP, but from what I hear Armed Assault has also gone the way of Battlefield in it's gampleay or strategy for capturing cities. This is my idea and suggestion for how to change this as well as a question to mod makers out there whether this is possible in Armed Assault because if so I would love to create a mod that uses this idea. My idea revolves around the idea of civilian fighters. Not in the sense of terrorists as is so widely used today but rather in the sense of a people trying to preserve their own way of life no matter what. My idea is to Liberate rather than capture a city. Instead of capturing a piece of land you are showing the people in that city that you are there to help not to hurt them. And if you show little care or compassion for the civilians of that city you worked so hard to fight for then you may find the same lack of compassion or grateful response you were looking for. I was wondering if it was possible to implement a script, or possibly and entire new game play mechanic, that gives a consequence to the player based on how they treat the locals after they've expelled the enemy forces from the city. I would also like to know if there was a way to automatically create a group of resistance fighters, dressed in regular civilian clothing maybe modified, that will fight back if you go in guns blazing without any care for who is in the way. It is essentially a sort of persuasion strategy that may help or hinder you when fighting for these cities. If you're nice to the civilians they may help ypou defend when you find yourself on the end of a counter attack or you may find yourself fighting an enemy from within as well as forces trying to get into the city. If this is possible, which I don't see why it can't be, then if anyone else has any suggestions of how it can be implemented or any ideas that would improve upon it I would like to hear them. I've never created a mod for any game and I was hoping to create a game play change rather than models or islands. I believe this type of game play can also be implemented into CTI type games. Saying it won't work isn't a suggestion. If it won't work then tell me why. I'd like criticism followed by a suggestion or reason. Thanks.

I agree with FunnyGuy. While there should be a back story, someone invades or oppresses then someone else comes in to help or what not, but in the end the fights and progress of the war may change dramatically during the war. I agree that a sort of General AI would be a great implementation. Instead of a Dynamic campaign there could be dynamic objectives. A whole campaign would be hard to create on the fly but if the player were given objectives on the run it would be much easier to give local and immediate information to the player to allow them to execute the objective. Many soldiers may not know exactly what it is they're fighting for or where they will go to next until given further orders after completing objectives. I believe that along with this AI General proposed by FunnyGuy there could be a sort of preset list of priorites that this AI General can create objectives. For example, as mentioned above, a bridge that controls a lot of traffice or is a huge checkpoint to and from a certain objective. Well the AI General may want to attack a speecific place, let's say a power plant, then before that they create a list of prioritized objectives before they can actually get to that power plant. And to get there you must capture and secure the bridge. I believe, in a multiplayer aspect, that there should be more of an emphasis on class based objectives. For example if a squad was to attack a bridge and secure it, could there be an objective for the engineers in the area to locate and create a sort of defensive structure or barrier in case of a counter attack. I don't mean in the sense of an RTS like construction but let's say an engineer has the ability to create a small sand bag barrier in case a defense is needed for something like a bridge or crossroad. I also believe that if you give these sort of class specific objective it may open up more tactical freedom or choices and allow those who play seemingly minor support roles, like engineers, to actually become involved in the choice making of defending or assaulting. I also would like to be able to set up garrison's or essentially create small field HQ's in the cities based off of existing buildings like an office turned into a fortified position looking over a large intersection in a town. the closest I can come to it look at the garrisoning in Red Alert 2 but from a first person tactical point of view.

This is an idea I had that would work along side a mod I had in mind. It would change the way squads are set up as well as their functionality in the field. It could also change the way CTI's are played and may allow better teamwork while playing these sort of extended "persistent wars." This is how the squad creation would work: -There would be several types of squads a player may choose to play in rather than just picking a class and then hoping to god you are able to find some people to pair up with. I derived the basics for this type of squad creation from the Close Combat series or more recently the Company of Heroes game. -This is how each squad would be set up as well as their roles during game play. Take note that each squad will have certain classes of soldiers in them as well certain roles each will perform during the game. This will allow not only specialized roles but also the ability for soldiers with similar tastes in combat and roles to work together more intimately to achieve their objectives: -Assault Squad: This may consist of several rifle men, a machine gunner and an officer or NCO that will take command of the squad. This squads role will be to attack or defend objectives. The players in these squads will be more likely to enjoy straight on combat as opposed to support. -Engineer Squad: This squad may consist of several engineer type soldiers and their objectives will consist of erecting and destroying defensive structures. This can be either erecting sandbags at bridges or crossroads, or setting up garrisons (this will be explained further as I describe the rest of the mod I had in mind.) Engineers may also be needed to destroy certain structures such as bridges or enemy defenses. -Medical Squad: This squad will consist of a couple medical personnel and they may work in tandem with crewmen such as pilots of helicopters or APC crews. Their role is purely support. If an assault squad or engineer squad requests medical emergencies this squad will arrive via chopper or may even work along side convoys in APC's to assist fallen soldiers. Their primary objective is to support first and fight second, unless of course they are the last men standing. This squad could also be a sort of med evac or rescue squad that will arrive on the scene of soldiers who are severely crippled and cannot complete their objective but do not wish to lose their life and need an evac as opposed to just fighting to the death. -Because of the high use of vehicles in Arma as well as OFP I decided to also add a crewman or vehicle squad which will essentially be a small platoon of crewmen who work together much like the assault squads. This can also include mechanized infantry. This squad may work with a medical or rescue type squad to assist in the aid or evacuation of an assault or engineer squad pinned down or severely crippled from a failed objective. -Command Squad: This will consist of high officers who command the other soldiers on the battlefield. This squad will consist of two high officers as well as riflemen for support. Their role is more specific to the mod I have in mind but to share more detail they will over look the battlefield and give objectives to the soldiers while keeping track of resources. (Yes the mod I had in mind is a sort of FPS/RTS hybrid but staying away from the usual follow everything the commander said and rather the commander giving an order to take a town or to set up a defensive perimeter around an objective and then leaving the execution of the job up to the soldiers themselves. Some other ideas I had are variations of each squad depending on the objective such as a beefier assault squad when having to attack or defend an objective or possibly a very light assault squad consisting of small arms for a recon objective. I believe that something along these lines for an overhaul of the squad an unit system may allow for several types of gameplay for any number of players who wish to complete objectives other than "Assault this position" or "Defend this Position." It can also allow commanders on the battlefield to not thave to micromanage or even manage groups of soldiers who may not have the necessary tools or soldiers to complete a specific objective. Imagine an assault squad completing an assault objective and then ordered to defend againsst a possible counter attack while sending in a medical squad to tend to any wounded soldiers while an engineer squad is busy setting up pillboxes or sandbags at the same objective allowing the assault squad to focus on their own objective knowing that the others are doing their job. I would like some feedback to this idea and if so please give me some reasons as to why this could or could not work and if possible alternatives. I am tired of just selecting a class and then hoping to find a squad that will do some kind of objective beyond "Hey let's go attack this place. We done? Cool let's go and attack this place now." And more along the lines of "Alright the Assault has taken the objective let's move in and design and construct defenses in case of a counter attack while the medics heal the wounded." Meanwhile a squad dedicated to recon missions is already out watching for enemy movements and may report to the engineers allowing them time to build more appropriate defenses.

well I guess you'd have to carry the wounded, and in which case you might have to be asked to clear a landing zone and secure before it can land. And when i speak of a crew of medics I mean they get out of the chopper and defend that thing while soldiers load wounded. And more often than not the team will need to be asked to clear an LZ, let's say to secure an area for the chopper there can be zero enemies in a certain radius around the squad. I was also wondering if there was a way to drag bodies in Arma because I was always disappointed when I wasn't able to drag a wounded soldier to the side so I could heal them more safely and this would be helpful when you need to carry wounded to the chopper let's say an over the shoulder carry. I imagine a sort of special ops mission where you have to rescure soldiers or you have to get to a certain point like black hawk down and when a soldier fell but didnt die you could bandage him and carry the soldier over his shoulder, or even have a medical humvee in a convoy so that if a soldier is shot he can stay alive in the humvee until he gets to better treatment or it could be a sort of light medicle vehicle so it can heal but it should have a limit on it's resources and room for the wounded. This would be awesome to see this in a CTI game where you must protect the convoy as it go to the bases and you become ambushed and must call a med evac cause everyone pretty much died and you find yourself in an attempt to hold off what you can and stay alice until a med evac convoy can get to you and take out any hostiles.

responding to the medic idea: I agree with your idea for stabilization of soldiers when they are wounded. If I may offer some suggestions or ideas of my own because I too had these ideas a while back. My first idea for this is to allow a player to be knocked down by a bullet, not die but incapacitated, and essentially not allow them to move but to look around and call for help. This could simulate an injury and also allow the medic to get to a soldier rather than searching for him while he runs around looking for a medic. Another goes along with your stabilization rather than heal mechanic. I agree that you can't heal someone in the field only prevent them from dying. Could there possibly be a way to give the medic two different ways of stabilizing a pain killer like morphine (im using this because i dont know what they use in the field now,) as well as bandages. The morphine can allow those who aren't critically wounded to get back into the field earlier while those who are critically wounded ie. those knocked down, must get bandages from the medic so that the bleeding may stop. One last idea I had for medics is this. While the medics may be able to stop the bleeding could there possibly be a way to evacuate the wounded with a helicopter. Because the field medics can't heal the wounded could the med evac provide better support for healing soldiers. Let's say a squad is pinned down and needs to evacuate two wounded soldiers to heal them. They call a med evac and a helicopter arrives to pick them up and while in the choper have an option to be able to heal those who are wounded so that you don't lose men and you can get those who are wounded back into the field. I know this is a little unreaslistic in the chopper but I imagine having an entire squad dedicated to medical help so that if someone calls in a med evac they get there to pick up soldiers and essentially heal them in the chopper and then bring them down when there is a lull or seecure time in the combat. I wouldnt see soldiers coming right back from the fight but rather having to wait, like a spawn point, on the chopper until they are allowed to land in a secured area.

You guys have to understand that the people we're playing in this game are soldiers. It's not like they grabbed statistics of how a civilian would use the weapon. The recoil for a gun will always be the same but the person using that weapon can change how that recoil affects them. So seeing as this game puts the player in the shoes of a professional soldier, wouldn't that proffesional soldier then be able to fire a wepon effectively and therefore far more accurately than we think he may. I'm not a soldier but I feel that this complaint of accuracy is a bit unreaslistic itself. They're soldiers and so they've had training in how to use a weapon so the recoil may not affect them as we would think it would. An M249 is a powerful gun but the soldier wielding it has had training with the wepon, hell they may be specialists for that wepon for all we know, and because of that they know how to deal with recoil and have learned how to effectively use that weapon. I would get destroyed if I tried to fire off any automatic weapon, I just don't have the training, but I don't think a soldier trained in the use of these weapons would have nearly as hard a time as I would because of this.

I wasn't hoping to start a political debate only offering a suggestion. Again I'd like to state that I like America, I was born here, so I'm not here to bash it only give one point of view. However there are things we do that are far more hindering to any country than to roll in with a couple Abrams and some soldiers but those are things no one talks about because it's done through money not military. Back to my suggestion. I had this in mind not just from the idea of changing armies but just think of the scope of a game fought in the U.S. Plus America hasn't seen a war on it's own soil for at least a hundred or so years. I always wondered what it would be like to fight in my hometown. Also this change in enemy can allow other people around the world to fight in their own army. It would be nice to see a game where there is a coalition rather than just America fighting everyone. Also this type of scenario would be intense during guerilla fighting. And to end on a good note, while this idea will prove rediculous for those who are die hard Americans, it doesnt have to mean that everyone in America will be evil, it just means that our government screwed up somewhere. And who knows, this may mean that America needs the same kind of liberation and freedom we gave all those other countries.