Daniel

Apple crumble please. Nice caves I hope BIS nail this place, there are some very nice terrain details.

We're definitely talking about different levels of realism here. And BIS (or the community) can implement a number of them, they've all get their pros and cons, and their audiences. Way I see it: As realistic as possible. This means if the systems are in place, survivors will be CASEVACed and triaged. They won't get back in the field, but their evacuation is there for realism's sake and as an objective of sorts. This would be especially suited to single player campaigns, where the killed:wounded ratio could have an influence on the overall outcome. Only minor injuries would allow a soldier back into the fight. "Semi-realistic" co-op gameplay. Here you want a mix of realism, and gameplay. So you might still have CASEVACs and field hopstials, but the healing process would be sped up for the sake of gameplay. You then have various levels of realism all the way down to infinite revives or instant respawn. At any point during this, any level of complexity could be used in the actual action of "healing" a player, from the simple HEAL option to a complex minigame. What actually determines the type of gameplay are the options I outlined above. The exception being the added gameplay value when playing a medic.

I think we all just want to hear campaign dialogue along the lines of: "Where's our Commanche support?! We're getting hammered by a pair of Hamoks out here!"

It's what the weapons are designed for and for too long it's been disregarded in the OFP/Ama franchise. I mean where does the beaten zone feature when AI are concerned? That's why armies don't want machine guns that are too accurate. And at the same time every man is packing grenades. There needs to be a system in place for the AI that goes from long range suppression, all the way to closing with the enemy all off the bat. Just having a basic gun group / rifle group system for AI would raise the bar.

Agreed with the OP, would be great to see a more engaging AI, right out of the box. And it'd be even better to see different doctrines and techniques for different factions or for different levels of professionalism.

Idiot. The Gospel says no one but the Father knows the day or the hour. He's an embarrassment to his own religion.

No worries! And I guess we'll see a few more never ending stories until Arma3 is released next year. :lecture: If BIS can't make world war 3 epic, no one can. :p But they've got a clean slate with Arma 3, i've got high hopes for the campaign.

Fixed that for you, I know some crazy Scots that would feel left out otherwise.

And I don't see improved netcode or shooting from vehicles. So i'll just go with bayonets as a default. :p

I wasn't picking you up on the term. Call it whatever the hell you like for all I care. I was talking about the topic of people being scared that ragdoll will mean over exaggerated deaths. We agree on that, fine. I wasn't being personal.

You haven't seen everything in Arma 3 yet though. It's obvious they'd show the cool new stuff at first to draw the crowds. There's nothing to say the bad guys (or good guys) won't be wielding good old AKs and technicals too.

The Hollywood argument against ragdoll just isn't a valid. Ignore what you've seen in other games, ragdoll just means the body reacts to the impact (if high caliber) and hits the ground as they would in real life, with the weight of a real human in combat gear. That other games have over done it is beside the point. If you want to argue against ragdoll, you need to discuss the multiplayer and performance implications.

I just hope they keep it simple and consistent. There seems to be too many different systems at work in Arma as it is, never mind once you add ACE and so on.

If BIS have implemented ragdoll, there's no reason why they can't tone it down. I think most developers make it over the top for the sake of it. If it's done right, it should look very impressive. I couldn't comment on the multiplayer implications.

There's a very good reason why you couldn't see them.

Haha, yeah I guess they've caused enough of a stir as is. -Paladin-, take everything Iroquois Pliskin says with a pinch of salt, if you get my meaning.

...bingo.

Yep, next thing you know they'll have stealth Blackhawks. STEALTH BLACKHAWKS?! I tells ya. World's gone mad. It can be assumed by the fact that you play Cpt Scott Miller, the sole survivor of the Task Force.

I'd love to be proved wrong. Maybe we'll see some input from Take On in this regard.

Modern submarine warfare would be boring as hell unless you were actually there, or commanding. I don't believe BIS are going to look much into making the crew jobs playable. But having an SSN on map with capabilities is something else altogether.

Crash landings I can see as a possibility. Complex damage structural damage affecting the flight model and you're wandering outside the scope of the game. And auto-rotation has been possible since Armed Assault. In fact i'm lead to believe it was in OFP. Don't quote me on that though.

It could be far worse, it could have been this.

Concerning the OP and Poll: I'd like to see laser guided bombs and other high energy weapons vaporise their targets and in some cases send them flying. I wouldn't mind the occasional limb being blown off by autocannon or other very high caliber munition. But i'm not in it for ultra-realistic or over-the-top gore.

What are you talking about? It's world war three. In the near future. It has the potential to be the purest form of combined arms warfare possible, exactly what BIS games have been renowned for from the start. No magic. No science fiction. No mindless, tactic-less action you can expect from other triple A titles. All you've got to go by are some epic screenshots, a list of new features and a storyline.

Well then you'll have to join one of said realism units because BIS aren't about to create actual sentient artificial intelligence. Are you, BIS?