Sky999

I get the feeling some people feel the need to simply dislike MW3 purely because it's seen as the 'in' thing to do. As far as games go it looks good, it's a damn sight more fun than a lot of other games, and it deserves credit for that. Obviously it doesn't have the lasting appeal that ARMA has, but it's still a good game.

I still can't wrap my head round how they somehow thought this was good voice acting... 5FlVL5jy4Rc I mean come on!!

Can you point out an army that has female frontline combat soldiers that, unlike Israel, is engaging another army equiped with their same level of equipment, man power, tanks and aircraft?

The thing about the campaign for ARMA3, is that from what we know the blufor consists of basically a special forces squad and a submarine crew (Which likely get's destroyed early). From that basis alone we know that women will not play active combat units in the campaign, because despite not even playing active combat roles in normal units, they certainly don't play a part in special forces units.

Some people argue that women should be represented in the ARMAVERSE as soldiers. This causes a few issues, for example, the models are different, and also the fact that some consider it unrealistic because women don't play much of a part in combat. To be frank, the ARMAVERSE still has yet to portray Hispanics in the US military and are just getting around to portraying Asians, I think female soldiers can take a seat at the back of the list of importance.

Response to the above post ^ Israel is different. They require everyone to serve and therefore like guiltyspark said, they can get the support they require due to large numbers of other women serving. The US military would be vastly different like he also pointed out. Plus it's yet to be seen how a unit consisting of females would react to fighting a modern enemy, armed to the teeth with well trained and well equipped men, who are their technological equals.

I'm pretty sure the first one isn't for proaganda use... Also the Miss England girl is an actual soldier. ;)

Which ones? The above two are real, the British soldier won Miss England, and as for the other Finnish girl...I simply don't know.

If we were to have women, are they going to be realistic models of the average female soldier? or what we all dream of seeing in our units? ;)

In all seriousness I definitely wouldn't mind female units in the form of pilots for example, but I'd have to stress to BIS to please for the love of god get the numbers correct. So far we've seen that BIS, when including a new type of person into already existing units, they tend to go a little overboard. Remember when we had the BAF DLC? That was fine, until the PMC DLC made every squad in the British army have an inexplicably explained Chinese member... So to sum up, I'm all for women, but keep them realistic in their numbers and realistic in their roles on the battlefield.

Women? In the military? How deliciously absurd!

So...you would prefer the instant black models?

Sure is fun though!

Did the Spetsnaz have female members back then? Do they even have them now?

1. What sort of world do you live in? 2. Can I come and live in it too?

I've often wondered why it is that BIS seems to fail when it comes to sounds. The majority of user made sound mods just blow away the default ARMA2 sounds for example, where the AK sounds incredibly weak.

I want to point this out, and there's every chance I'm wrong about this, but wouldn't an extremely advanced wounding system lead to many units not actually being killed? If so, then that's fine, it's realistic, we all know that in combat a bullet to the chest often does not mean you are instantly dead like ARMA2 portrays. I would love to see a more realistic portrayal of wounding and bullet damage instead of the stereotypical view ARMA seems to take which is "Well If a bullet hits you then you're instantly dead"... The problem with this would be that in the context of the game and it's objectives, players would essentially be forced to become war criminals to accomplish their goals. Say a mission involved capturing a town and the mission was set to accomplish this when 'Opfor not present'. The only way, unless wounded opfor would count as 'dead', would mean to execute every wounded opfor in the vicinity. Realistically I don't see this as something that can be helped, in real life If a battle takes place at a town, then there are higher percentages of combatants being WIA than KIA, but in ARMA most missions require a 100% enemy KIA rate to accomplish missions. I'm not under the illusion it can be helped though, If it was then a lot of our time in-game would be spent treating enemy combatants who we've wounded and setting details to guard them until they can be handed over as POWs.

Better AI and more realistic voices. I still don't understand how even in this day and age the voices still sound like robots.

Yeah go tell that to a room full of recovering amputees and tell us how that goes...

So do these guys have a site for this or...?

I really want to see gore this time around, what's a war/military simulator without gore. .

Alright well since you're ok with all of it, is it fair enough for the Americans to wear pink camoflage and carry Arisaki rifles? While we're at it let's give the Opfor Apaches and M1A2s, it's not like any of it matters...

Why does it look like there is a Comanche? Weren't those cancelled back in 2004?

Alright, well I think it's fair to assume that June 6th will be either the release of all the information, or the release of information that is significant to the puzzle.

I thought there was meant to be some big reveal today? :j: