nkenny

It is possible to script around this. My recent missions have both vanilla, ACRE and TFAR support. (My gaming community recently moved back to ACRE). I've tended to make ACE optional, but by now, RHS and ACE are industry standards as far as I'm concerned. -k

Like many others have expressed, I too believe that Bohemia has not produced any better campaigns than Flashpoint's CWC. There were many elements that combined to make this the case: The setting, the gameplay, the characters and the authenticity of the scenario, and finally the novelty, i.e., context which CWC was released. I think that the elements of a good campaign can be narrowed to two key points: (1) Leverage the strengths of the Arma engine. (2) Storytelling. Authenticity rather than accuracy. (1) The strengths of the Arma engine has two further sub- components. (i) Arma is a beautiful game which offers unrivalled freedom of movement. It is a great walk-about simulator, and from a tactical stand point, no other first person shooter game I know of offers tactical combat manoeuvres that span kilometers. A good campaign can showcase both the size and quality of the world all while offering challenging game play that employ the vicissitudes of terrain, time of day, and equipment available. ( ii) Along similar lines. To make the gamer involved the world must look lived in. This was the strength of CWC and to a certain extent Arma2. The civilian populace and (especially in CWC) the day to day lives of the soldiers offered charming insight into their situation and provided a very effective settting backdrop for the events of the story. Indeed, getting this right seems more important than having the fog look perfect. Though personal standards for what is acceptable diverge considerably, there are unfortunately no excuses for poor voice acting. Campaigns which fail to leverage the technology of Arma alongside the immersive social/cultural terrain Arma can display are doomed to fail. Attempts to recreate CoD high-energy cutscenes likewise break with the pacing Arma excels at delivering. (2) Trying to capture what good storytelling is, is difficult. I think storytellers should aim to achieve authenticity rather than real world accuracy. By this I mean that trying perfectly simulate real life is not a useful aspect of storytelling-- indeed it may be a mistake(!). Instead, stories with robust internal structures and sensible logic capture our imagination. Look to the plethora of superhero movies and fantasy series to see this in effect. The viewer immerses him- or herself in the rich setting material. In the case of military themed scenarios what accounts for an immersive (authentic) experience may again differ wildly-- but these are challenges every storyteller faces. In other words, tell an internally consistent story with interesting immersive qualities to achieve authenticity. Another aspect of this is telling an effective story. Ones efforts will go to waste when the setting elements become too enigmatic or obscured from the viewers attention. I argue not for against weaving rich story tapestries, I argue in favour of using well known tropes to communicate effectively. Effective stories are also affective-- they capture, alter, hold hostage the mood of the viewer. Finally, once held, the attention must permitted time (and pacing) to develop and reach fruition. Campaigns need not be realistic, but they must tell effective stories with a high degree of internal consistency. Where realism is sought, it is in order to leverage familar tropes and elements both as inspiration and to reinforce the immersive environment within which the story is told. It must be frustrating as a developer to always have your first developments held as the gold standard. While I have a suspicion, though not investigated, that key persons involved in the CWC campaign are no longer with Bohemia-- the differing quality of their early work as compared to the latter is considerable. In short, I have found Bohemias recent attempts at campaign storytelling to be shit. Which is not to say that they are bereft of good designers-- as in particular some of their one-shot scenarios give excellent proof of their abilities! Indeed, some of my favourite examples of good mission design (with the context of the Arma engine) are found in Bohemias own work. The scenario "02 Eye for an eye", in Arma2 is well and truly excellent, capturing perfectly some of the ideas I have presented above. It is a shame that this excellence does not applied to their campaign making. Which leaves us with the current state of Arma campaign and mission design. I do find Arma to be a wonderful COOP game, but is it necessarily the best platform to tell stories along the very popular "four heroes attack the world"-- genre? I believe not. I believe these kinds of stories fail to capture the strengths of the Arma engine and experience. Arma is not cinematic in an action sense, it is cinematic in vistas. Arma gameplay is not high-speed twitch shooting, it is paced-- drawn out-- and tactical. Arma is at its best when it paints an authentic picture within a believable and compelling setting. After discussing the past and present, it is only natural that we look to the future. In fact, Arma has the potential to tell stories of a different size and magnitude than other games. We need not four player hero-coops. We could have 10, 20, 30, platoon level, player campaigns. Campaigns which explore, through a lense of authenticity the visual and cultural (societal) terrain that the Arma engine can give us. One could argue that each new expansion does give the community the tools to make these things-- it is true-- but this is also something Bohemia is uniquely positioned to grasp, enhance and master. Now that would have been a sight to see. I will now start Arma2 to play "Eye for an eye" again. -k

I too would like to use the Arsenal more extensively in my missions. In particular your first note deserves emphasis. I would love an arsenal that permitted white listing with counted limits. Ie,. the ability to add X units of equipment Y to the arsenal. Once removed, they become unavailable. Will check out that mod ImperialAlex, looks interesting. -k

This has me very excited. :) I must say that after having an Arma sabbatical, coming back, RHS has improved the experience dramatically and is continuously adding high quality expansions to both the gameplay and immersive appeal of Arma. Well done!

Thanks Kylania! So, no easy solution. I guess I'll just make due with what I have so far. :) -k

In regards to the new weapons. Firstly I'm happy to see that the Warhammer 40k, boxed and ridiculously oversized, aesthetic which was adopted for the Marksman DLC has been abandoned. Overall I think the new weapons look well, and the focus on smaller faster calibers will benefit gameplay. Moving on to commenting some specific weapons. The CAR-95 series of weapons look, sound and feel excellent. In fact I would go so far as to say that I wish it would replace the Katiba in CSAT hands wholesale. I would add that it would be nice if the AR version would show whether or not a regular or drum magazine is loaded on the model. In its shadow stand the similar CMR-76 which feels at present kind of pointless, as in lacking in any special unique character. For sure there are no other 6.5x39mm semi-auto-only rifles yet, but why bother? I ask in other words: "What is its military niche?" As others have commented the SPAR-16 family of weapons are wonderful in all regards save one, the gun stock fails to connect with the shoulder-- inconsequential for gameplay, but impossible to ignore once seen. SPAR-16 and 17s come in a good number of variants with nice neutral colour toning. By far my favourite weapon in Arma3. Which leads us to the LIM-85. While I understand wanting to do something different, the dual-rate of fire feature seems woefully missplaced, and if anything, ripe for criticism. If it must be present, and I do commend the visual indicator in terms of showing rapid or slow full-auto, please set the rapid-full-auto as the default setting. Indeed in a jungle environment it is difficult to see what one would want with slow full-auto in the first place. Whilst on the subject, further criticism to some of the design decisions must be directed. I do not really grok or get the weapon selection offered to the bandit forces. As a unit they are carrying the venerable AKM and AK-12 in 7.62x39, the (in the real world) rare AKS-74U in 5.45x39, and finally the LIM-85/M249 in 5.56x45. This seems eclectic and aimless. While I fully appreciate that the bandit forces are haphazardly equipped, it doesn't come across as thematically coherent. While there is an interesting contrast between new and old, this would have been much better emphasised by showing both the modern polymer weapons alongside older in-house-modified. Think: Rail interfaces screwed or home welded to receivers. Flashlights and IR sensors taped on. Oldfashioned wood spraypainted. Essentially the AKM home-upgraded to a modern era. Right now, both it, the AKS-74U, and the RPG-7 simply look out of place. (and not in a good way) On the subject. Shifting the AK-12 caliber from 5.45 to 7.62 seems woefully arbitrary and unnecessary. The weapon itself sounds good, but suffers from ultra-shiny textures. Indeed while speaking of texturing, I am happy to see a good number of variants. My only concern in this regard is that too many Hex, Digital and MTP variants are made, instead of making camo-variants which still look good, but can be applied across a multitude of situations, scenarios and uniform combinations. A good example of this mode of thinking is the Mk14 (camo). A lot of gameplay potential is potentially lost due to illogical equipment. Likewise, I think it is better to avoid weapons which are too black! They tend to look out of place in the hands of the over-camoed soldiers that carry them. Especially when the black weapons are shiny like the AK-12 (and MX black). A good example of a black weapon which is not black is the SDAR and ASP-1 KIR. I greatly appreciate the neutral variants of the different optics. Good job! Finally, the less said about the Type 115 the better. -k

edit: moved to correct topic.

While not really the place for making suggestions, so I shouldn't be encouraging this sort of behavior. 51 - 60mm mortar-- yes, yes yes. Lighter loads More ammunition Less overwhelming gameplay effect on target. Mortars are highly effective, but unfortunately not very sexy, therefore much underestimated weapon systems. -k

The latest few betas has brought an interesting development. As a mission editor, I spend quite a bit of time experimenting with the AI. And as each patch seems to bring adjustments, I have a set of very simple-- rather unscientific-- vanilla scenarios that I run. Two squads, one CSAT the other NATO, facing one another in a heavily wooded area and across an open field. I run the test multiple times. Sometimes taking part as a lowly rifleman, sometimes not. Sometimes with their starting positions reversed. For me it is a feeling-barometer, proving ground, for vanilla AI moreso than anything else. Now the last time I ran this test extensively was a while back. Before the christmas armour update certainly. However with the latest dev version I have seen an interesting change: The previous behaviour was that the NATO squad would win the woodland test and the CSAT squad would dominate the open fields-- something I attributed to CSATs frankly superior weaponry. The winning squad would generally end with three to four squad members surviving. In the latest dev. branch release this behaviour is reversed. Now NATO owns the fields and CSAT dominates close in fighting. Additionally, the winning squad tends to be more survivable, loosing only one to three members-- sometimes none! Finally rates of fire seems to have increased (particularly the NATO squad) and the posture seems generally more aggressive. There are obviously many variables: weapons, armour, terrain, how cover is sought--formations maintained, suppression or Stamina mechanics, my own malleable recollections, etc. I am not interested in pointing any fingers. Just wondering if anyone has experienced something similar over christmas. -k

Fantastic, I absolutely love this terrain! -k

@Alwarren and roshnak Pardon. That line was poorly written, hastily I might add, at work. It was not meant to pick out any of the most recent posters in particular. I stand by the rest of the post however. -k

While the continious tweaks to AI behavior--Seven Hells, tweaks doesn't seem to cover it. Lets say good work instead-- is very welcome. It seems to me that the greatest challenges to the current AI interaction and behavior are questions of (i) immediacy and (ii)feedback. (i)Immediacy in response to human commands. Which would be a boon to both ZEUS scenarios and player led AI squads. (ii) Feedback in terms of wounding and suppression. The current AI interaction suffers when the underlaying, often rather advanced, behavior becomes invisible to the player. The narrative, squad A is suppressed-- press forward-- is inaccessible. Instead the AI appears to, stupidly, to hold fire or be rendered inactive. A solution of narration, through obvious animations and/or voice feedback is necessary to make AI behavior evident to a observing player. Changes along these lines would benefit gameplay tremendously. Having responsive AI that doesn't appear to second guess my (hopefully superior human intelligence) not only promotes tactical utility, but permits the creation of responsive and challenging ZEUS based scenarios. Or even facilitating strategy-game like interaction with the AI. (A side goal I believe with ZEUS). Likewise by improving the feedback of both enemy and friendly AI forces, the simulation and narrative taletelling potential of the game is greatly enhanced. Supression would cease to be the hidden hand of firefight economics, and instead become an integral, entertaining, and beyond all, tactical aspect of the game. In other words. (i) A way to make the AI move, even whilst receiving fire. (ii) Making AI suppression obvious and entertaining. For fundamentally and sound changes to gameplay. k

Put bluntly, if you haven't tried the latest iteration of the stamina system. Your opinion carries little weight beyond scare tactics. The new system of stamina is intuitively different, it is also also a work in progress. With the new system I find myself thinking about my loadout more. Though it does seem to cater to a faster style of gameplay, that is, that the soldier in a combat situation will do a bit of sprinting. Thusly, regulating access to that type of combat speed is what is immediately relevant to gameplay. And you know what? That very much seems to me to be the case to me. As for the hardcore realism crowd. I play in an ACE using community, and generally, weight and stamina considerations are null and nothing. Vanilla Arma3 (pre-dev version) is much harsher on the loadouts than ACE is-- which is at times laughably forgiving. Bohemia are advancing a view of the vanilla game, centred on making meaningful choices, all whilst adding powerful tools (and codehandles) to create and manipulate a stamina system more to ones liking! (something which many mods and gamemods already do) Whats not to like? -k

Mule/drone based mortar systems, networked via touch screens and command interfaces to friendly units. Counter-artillery computers and sensors capable of tracking incoming artillery/mortar shells and executing automated responses, such as shooting down said artillery and performing counter artillery barrages. (exists) Laser targeted artillery shells. (1980s tech) Dumb-AA mules to shoot down enemy UAVs. Cheap UAVs to swarm over areas with limited weapon systems. Modern networked FCS for vehicles 360 sensors (which can be damaged) for vehicles Minute resolution radar technologies. Counter-radar (SEAD) weaponry Semi-intelligent listening posts (passive radar/IR(whatnot)) that can be deployed by infantry or parachute. In an amphibious environment, automated hybrid/land/sea drones are to be expected-- if not even trained animals. Underwater weapon systems to engage aerial targets (everything is networked. Remember!) And more! I can easily imagine an engaging sensor and information war (ECM) offering varied and interesting gameplay. Modeling this kind of technology would be realistic and interesting-- yet it would not remove the human element. Infantry is still infantry. Civilian presence complicates matters. -k

I love the weapons pack. Would it be possible to get a siderail on the AUG2 series of rifles-- to mount flashlights or IR lasers. I know the A3 has that capability, but sometimes your scenario calls for a slightly older styled Aug :)

Offhand I believe the Leo has been deployed in Afghanistan by both Canadian and Danish forces. To the extent one would call Afghanistan a war. However, by such stringent standards little to no modern equipment has seen contemporary war against a worthy adversary, as is depicted in Arma3. If we are going to be charitable and call the mopping up actions in Iraq (1 and 2) war, Abrams (not in the game) would have similar battleproven technologies. Lets face it, the current Arma3 FCS is little more than a tube with a thermal camera stuck on it. The video is meant as an illustrative example, a minimum, of what modern armoured war might look like. Bearing in mind the video is from the early 2000s! The point I am trying to get across is that additional technologies are expected and would greatly enhance gameplay. For heavens sake. In Arma3 a civilian hatchback has more sensors available to the driver than a multi-million dollar, ultramodern, main battle tank does! -k

Arma3 might look techy, but the underlying gameplay and simulation aspects offer little to challenge our conception of what future-- or even just contemporary war against modern industrialised nations-- might actually look like. Vehicle firecontrol systems are particularly glaring. As is the lack of networked information and command channels. UAV combat integration. Autonomous, and/or, Smart weapon systems. And, most importantly, the countermeasures to defeat such equipment. -k edit: Leo tank example.

These are very well made. I must particularly applaud your sense of colour, as your work matches both the A3 terrain, and existing equipment assets(always a bonus!). Great work.

Emphasis my own. Patently nonsense. Starcraft, WoW, Eve Online, Diablo, or for that matter Counter Strike, all bear witness to strong multiplayer centered games that released (sometimes controversial) updates to core mechanics to great effect. Whilst cash-cows like Call of Duty or Battlefield tend to avoid such mid-life changes, preferring instead to release upgrades as new games, practically every game with a large large community following will go through restructuring. Without which, meaningful upgrades and updates would be pointless. While the current stamina system does leave some questions, I welcome the will to commit and experiment with core gameplay updates. This is what drives a game forward. -k

This map looks outstanding. I can't wait to make and play missions for it. -k

Hero effort Megagoth. (and, of course, the Arma sound design team!) :thumbs:

"The controlls are planned to be like in the Jedi Knight series." Excellent! JK, particularly with Sabre Battle X, had the best, smoothest, and simplest lightsaber control system I have ever played with. Good job. :)

Cool stuff!

@Toadie2k Having seen your predicament on twitter, I would, even as one excitingly waiting for the G36, say go for it. Commissions are commissions in the sometimes unpredictable world of 3d art. -k

Well! Colour me excited. /k