ajsarge

I didn't have the ammo problem. I'm saying other people might have that problem. And last I knew, Arma was a game, not real life. The old dev motto wasn't to make a realistic game, but an authentic one. It seems like a truly terrible game when it fails the mission on you because you couldn't reach the RV point 2.5K away in 30 seconds to help your bros who get mowed down without your help.

Steel Pegasus - LZ Nowhere - Mission Pacing

I think the OP is looking for an in-game solution, not a scripted/modded one. One "quirk" of the AI is that they make impromptu "teams" when you issue one order to multiple units at once. They cover each other when moving, everyone slows down for the slowest unit to catch up, etc. But, if you issue a move order to #2, then issue another move order to #3, then another to #4, you're effectively telling each unit to move there on its own. This little change makes them behave differently (a bit more rash/suicidal?) from if you selected #2, #3, and #4 together and then gave them a single order. It might take an extra moment on your end, but it might force the AI to move like you want them to. Additionally, I stand with Semiconductor on how to order the AI. Normally, I split my 8-unit squad into 2 teams: left and right. Left stays with me, and I tell Right to Flank Right once, getting them away from my team so we don't get stuck in the same cover. From there I let them go, usually setting line formation. If I need them to kill something right now, I'll order the entire team to attack a target, otherwise I let them return fire on their own. Unfortunately, I think many people are of the mindset that your entire squad will/must survive every engagement with the enemy. Although the majority of combat casualties today come from IEDs, the very few from enemy fire are against minimally-trained guerrillas who don't aim when shooting. Against a skilled opposing force of near-equal numbers, I expect to lose at least two or three AI per firefight unless I'm set up to wipe them out in the open.

Combining that the AI is smart enough to A: effectively-ish use vehicles to move large distances and B: drive amphibious vehicles into/out of water, I figure it's already present that they'll jump into the APC to cross the water and then jump out again when they close on their waypoint. This just needs to be tested with a helicopter and a boat assigned to a group.

I'm seeing this with mods and without. It's only the uniform/vest/backpack items like magazines, FAKs, grenades, and explosives. Weapons and everything else is fine.

Rail/coil guns as artillery is out of scope in Arma 3. However, as currently implemented, tanks are still line-of-sight only. A railgun would remove a majority of the arc you get from firing, sending the projectile downrange at higher velocities, making it much more effective than the gunpowder-launched APFSDS rounds currently in use; thus the only reason we don't already see them on tanks IRL today is because we can't build a strong enough generator small enough to fit on a tank. Lasers are in the same realm, with sufficiently high power systems to knock out large targets quickly requiring generators that are immobile or only possible on ships/large aircraft.

Arma AI is not smart enough to find the right firing spot on its own. During the same mission as froggy, I moved my team into a spot for the AT Spec to fire at the tank, and he missed horribly with a Titan. We all died shortly after. The next try, I had him move across the street from where he first fired from before telling him he could fire, and the hit was dead-on. Remember that the Titan has a minimum range where the missile will arc over the target and hit the ground behind. The Rifleman (AT) switching repeatedly between rifle and launcher is an interesting one. Was the AI trying to defend itself from infantry while the tank was its target? Or was it trying to lie down, which requires switching to a rifle, and then standing up again to move, where it tried to switch back to the launcher?

Isn't the RV engine already DirectX-based? If so, they'd have to re-write the ENTIRE CODEBASE from rendering to physics to AI to scripting for Vulcan. Many bugs and errors are bound to happen and it'd be an immense effort for little to no monetary gain. We'd be back at Alpha performance and stability until the team gets used to the API and its quirks. Instead, they save time and effort by simply upgrading to DX12.

Looking back at Arma 2 (and OA), you can see the massive difference in variations of single assets. Just with the HMMWV, you had a hard-sided version, soft-sided, M2, M2 CROWS, Mk19, Mk19 CROWS, Up-armored w/ M240, armored w/ M2, TOW, ambulance, UAV station, Avenger, and SOV. I may still be missing one or two. In Arma 3, you have the Hunter (based off the Oshkosh M-ATV) in unarmed, HMG CROWS, and GMG CROWS. That's it. No more. Most people got used to the massive variety in Arma 2 and transitioned to Arma 3 where all three factions use the same remote turret on their vehicles, and the same vehicle chassis are used in different weapons systems. NATO uses the same chassis on their two tanks, artillery, and MRLS. CSAT and NATO share their APC chassis with their AA vehicles. To me, the simplest way to fix things would be to change the remote turrets, speedboat, UGV, and UAV to be faction-specific. Unfortunately, this is an asset update that would net no noticeable return in sales and will probably never happen. For the expansion, I expect at least two new factions with completely new equipment. Preferably an existing government force a-la the AAF for BLUFOR, and a rogue faction like the FIA for OPFOR. Maybe an independent faction that hates both sides to round it off. Both cases would hopefully get new rifles (battle rifle as standard instead of assault rifle?), pistols, SMGs (future P90?), launchers, and vehicles. I could see NATO being re-used with a re-coloration of the MX to match the "Khaki" MK-1 EMR, and their uniforms being modified into a "lush" version for jungle use. CSAT would only require a camo re-color and some face and voice updates to reflect the probable Chinese force involved. Kydoimos made an excellent green CSAT officer and ifrit for his gun store showcase that would work perfectly if spread to the remaining CSAT assets.

I had 667 hours logged by Steam on Arma 2 before switching to a boxed edition of Combined Arms when OA released, and getting oodles of game time beyond that isn't recorded. Arma 3 is currently at 481 hours of campaign, scenarios, and mucking around in the editor. Not a whole lot of multiplayer for me At this point, many people have spent around $85 for five hundred hours of gameplay. Compared to spending $15 for a 90-minute movie...that's about 6 hours per dollar on Arma versus 6 minutes per dollar at a movie. And the ratio only gets better the longer you play. Best money spent ever...Not counting the thousands dropped into multiple computer systems over time to run everything at awesome details yet maintain performance. But that's another story...

There were days on Oahu where you could see clear to Molokai (roughly 22 miles, with a bit of horizon in the way) and there were days where you couldn't see one mile because of the ocean haze that is not unlike the view distance effect in Arma. The difference is that the higher your altitude, the farther you can see despite the haze; however the haze diminishes your visual acuity. The system as-is works "authentically" for infantry/vehicles, but it needs a re-do for aircraft so you can always see the ground (unless there's fog/clouds), and your view distance settings expand outwards as you go, but you lose tons of detail to maintain performance. Additionally, aircraft should always be visible from the ground, with LODs to match their distance (again, unless there's fog/clouds); this prevents one guy with a 10K view distance from staying at 7.5K while a guy on the ground with only 2.5K or 5K view distance can't retaliate with AA because the jet basically doesn't exist for him.

Aye, they're more custom-built more than modified. And the steel used isn't worth anything for armor or structural integrity of the walls/ceiling. I've seen many many many dents on the sides and heard of sunken containers having their roofs caved in from just a few feet of dirt. It's impractical to reinforce the container when you can build a concrete bunker next to it (using concrete pieces already modeled in Arma 3) with nothing but a crane and sandbags. In Arma 3, a good rule of thumb would be to leave to fight ground enemies if the container lacks firing ports, and huddle inside the nice bullet-proof container during incoming artillery where it's more safe than outside.

IRL, the US military has various structures built from interconnected/stacked/modified 20ft or 40ft "conex" or "Sea-Land" shipping containers at deployed locations. I airlifted a chow hall in Afghanistan that included a dining area, a serving area, and a built-in kitchen made from six modified 40' containers. The structures in A3 seem like a reasonable future-ization of the idea, with the exception of the large towers. I'd guess that the tendency IRL is to build bases larger outwards, not upwards where you become more visible and more vulnerable at longer distances..

It's awesome to see pistols in holsters on all the vests that have them. I was surprised when it magically showed up with no notice or change note in the changelog.

In the arsenal it lists an extra "AFCU25-SOF [TAN/AFPAT-A]" that is actually a BLK/AFPAT-A and needs to be renamed. Excellent mod! I'm not much of a mission maker so it's hard for me to create something awesome with your units. I might do some editing of existing missions/scenarios to see the units, but it'll be for my own enjoyment.