Zoz

If you like RTS that take place in WW2, you might want to take a look at Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943, and it's sequel Achtung Panzer: Operation Star, released some days ago. You can find a demo link in that page. I'm not going to lie, the UI is bad and the game in general will probably be very frustrating to most of the people, especially at the beginning. (Yeah, just like ArmA!) This is not your typical RTS at all, and probably most of you will hate it, but still.. give it a try if you have some (very) spare time.

I havent played warfare a lot, anyway: Well, since the US are so overpowered in terms of equipment, its actually pointless to play a gamemode where two obviously unbalanced sides play with the same objectives. Maybe the takis objectives and rewards should be different as they are bound to get their ass kicked most of the times, fighting on the same level of the US. And in real life it would probably be worse. Perhaps the gamemode is broken unless we have 2 equal sides (maybe we are getting them this time), or different objectives for each side, depending on strenght.

Given my experience (10 minutes) with GTA 4, I will believe it only after I see it running on PC with my eyes. And I might still not believe it even after seeing it! They could be hiding a console inside a computer case! Developers these days..

On that last quote, I think he is referring to having trenches in game, unless I am missing something, and not at having super evolved AI routines if thats what you meant. And yes, I knew we already have morale system, I was just thinking about it on a higher level. And we might always use this more evolved routines with modules, without forcing things on anyone, and leaving us enough flexibility. (I see you have experience with how the AI works, so I ask you, Carl) Anyway I'm glad to see we are putting out some good ideas (to me, at least) but probably we arent thinking enough about our CPU at this point. So maybe we have to keep most of our wishes for Arma 7. :( Still, I fell (hope) that having less suicidial AI, a new suppression system (based on what we said on the last pages), a new cover system ,as AIs are already kinda good at finding it, but cant really use it properly (imagine AI being able to pop out of cover, shoot, get back to cover, and swap his position with another AI, so he can reload while the new AI keeps the fire up!*) isnt that impossible to achieve! Btw, I was going to speak about a Med-evac module, because, as someone pointed out on the official suggestion thread, this isnt ww2, but I will save you that! I would probably push it too far, anyway :p * Dream alert

What can be fun to you might be boring to me and vice versa. Thats why I said that in my opinion they should'nt balance the realism (again, the title of the thread), because thats part of the fun I can have with ArmA. (The OP suggested slower planes) I also see your point but I cant see how asking for a complex damage model can hurt the way you play the game. Or having a good driving model, for that matter! Thats the realism we are asking for. The best thing about ArmA is indeed the fact that is a sandbox. You can bet there is some arma player that doesnt even know what Harvest Red (for example) is and just makes rally time attacks with the lada and so on! Also the key word for the so called realistic features, can be "optional". I'm not askin for realism to be forced on anyone. We are getting a optional evolved flight model for instance. How can that be bad? You and I like ArmA for the same reason. We probably just use it for different things, thats all.

In my opinion we are touching the most important subjects of ArmA, here. Even more than stealth kills! I am going to expand this a bit more, speaking about morale. I dont rightly know how the current one works, but here is my thought on how it should work on a fictional situation where we can set up entities formed by more than one group (see previuos posts) : -Having module to set up "parent" groups (HQ) and sudordinates groups (rifle, weapon ecc squads) -Making them use a simple chain of command (radio, visual contact) -Making them employ basic fire and manouvre tactics (with enhanced suppression and cover system) Now, in this system the morale of a unit might be defined by: -Connection to chain of command (losing contact with friendly units during a firefight is bad. Someone might think "Hey did everyone forgot about us and pulled back?" or who knows what) -suppression (with a new suppression system, of course. Maybe even introduce visual feedback for suppression or cowaring, and I'm speaking of small animation here, not user interface) -Average physical situation of soldiers in that group (a module for physical tiredness) -Average mental situation (If a Striker is blown up and the squad inside it manages to get out, they will be shaken) -Casualties and wounded soldiers sufferd by the group -Are Squad-leaders or even low rank soldiers alive? (leadership factor) All this factors plus some others I cant think of might define a group's proficiency and, if morale gets below a given number, the group (or whats left of it) might take action on its own, ignoring orders from parent unit (if they even are in contact with them) and eventually leave position and fall back or surrender. After reading my thought you can soon realize how the AI wont react as you expect them to in most situation you can think of, with the risk of making this very frustrating perhaps. (Or very rewarding) Plus using such "realistic" factors to define the AI proficiency might lead the already selfless AI (read:suicidal) to perform even worse. Still, for a military simulator, this should be the way to go, probably. The problem maybe is to get the AI on-par with the tactics we want them to use. Introducing the unforgiving equations I explained above with a AI that cant actually use cover would be pointless maybe. Btw this is just brainstorming, I didnt even post in the official suggestion thread.

Having some sort of basic coordination beetween groups would be very nice (read: essential) to have, but I know that would take a huge lot of work. Just imagine what would be like to have the AI being to do all the things you posted! (Detection and classification of threats, understanding the environment they are acting into, being able to transmit infos on a realistic chain of command using: radio, visual contact, put on a coordinated and balanced effort, and so on..) I would be watching AI meeting engagements all day! Anyways, to have the "AI platoon" react in a realitic way, they should be told via editor the situation. They must have clear objectives and knowledge of the surroundings and general situation. That would be hard to achieve. Still doenst mean we cant have something even very basic. There would also be the need to simulate suppression effects a bit better! Its all about using your assets to create fire superiority, thats how you not take casualties and can create room for manouvering. If you dont have fire superiority you fall back! Sometimes I think AI doesnt understand how their lifes are at risk here! Anyway, considered all I said before, I would even settle for a "small" change like: AI squads (and I mean the squads we have now) being able to decide whether or not to retreat or attack. Just that. But this would probably lead to a infantry squad running around the island while being stalked by mech forces. Not that it would be a problem to me, but maybe to mission makers.. (module request!) Right now every time a AI is spawned it doesnt care to know where it is or what it is doing. He just knows, that no matter what, he will need to attack! :( That is sad. On the matter of firefights, considering what you guys said, the best solution would probably be better cover system, as the easiest way to increase survivability is to cover most of body while fighting. But I think we are getting that, already.

We actually dont know if he is a fan of the serie or the game. I think he said he liked the OFP campaing. But leaving that aside, this thread was probably worded badly and contained too many "swear" words or words whose meaning is a bit blurred (you know wich one!) and it all went down hill from there. The decision of the OP to ignore the good and constructive responses just to pick up on the guy who told him to buy a wii didnt help this poor thread's life, too. Then he came up with the "I dont care", so...

After I posted a tought on ArmA's AI on offtopic I decided that maybe it would have suited this thread better. I am talking about ArmA's AI on a higher than squad level and thinkin of a reason why we are gettin more special forces than combined arms action: Also, on a slightly related note, I would like to hear some thoughts on the way the AI fires their weapons. I think that when AI opens fire it is always aiming to kill. They dont really fire in your general direction just to gain fire superiority, they really aim at you! Mind you, I'm not complaining about the so called deaths from "random" bullets. That quite never happened to me. I just mean that the AI being so deadly every time they open fire, leads to shorter-than-real-life firefights. Its even more weird when guerrilias squad are so deadly. Just by looking at the bullets-per-kill ratio you can understand how winning a firefight is strictly related to gaining fire superiority. This is the very role of machineguns after all. They havent got a 800rpm ratio because they need them to kill 800 persons in 1 minute! Hope someone picks up the discussion so we can expand this a bit, as pretty much my every single post in this forum gets ignored! (I even got a new shiny avatar, so you can see me better!) I personally would really like to hear some thoughts on that quote of myself above, as I think that the things I explained are what keeps ArmA away from the large combined operations we all love!

Just to clarify, I'm all for technical improvements (more clear UI , AI , netcode , animations , sound system ecc ecc) and such. But since I, for one, like the ArmA gameplay I wouldnt touch the gameplay that much. Nothing makes me think they are altering it, at this point, but there are some people that suggest a slight cut of realism if favor of some, not so well defined, accessibility. Additionaly I am all for expanding on old features and getting new features especially the optional one, whether they came from different kinds of games or not. Its just that seeing people starting threads with suggestions to alter the gameplay just to say after a few pages "Anyway I dont care about the game, see you" makes me go "meh". So maybe I'm just a gameplay-fanboy, because I know ArmA needs tons of technical improvements but I think that gameplay speaking there is only one way to go for ArmA, that is getting as close as possible to reality, step by step (alongside with tech improvements!) and not finding a balance (like thread title suggested). But thats just my personal view and I dont think that ArmA would be a better game to most of people on planet Hearth this way, just that I would surely enjoy it!

Spot on. I was going to expand on this, but after all you have really put this out clear and simple. Any further explanation from me would be pointless.. As I already said in the (wild)suggestions thread: I wonder how many people in the ArmA 3 forum play/like this game actually.

Then why did you post that? "Look at me, I dont care!" Bah.. First asks for more accesibility then suddenly stops caring about the franchise.. Watch out BI, people throwing suggestions around are not even fans of the serie..

Maybe the reason we are gettin more OMG-ninja-delta-speshul-forces carp is that ArmA's AI cant really simulate a combat on a lets say even platoon level! What I mean is: If we have a platoon on the field (lets say 3 infantry squads,1 weapon squad,HQ) some things became really obvious, like: -No chain of command -HQs are just guys with guns and a high rank -Each squad is on its own and doesnt really reads the situation(ie: enemy contact->go danger->attack without evaluating the situation and enemy forces) Squads are supposed to be connected togheter and work towards the same objective, having them lying around and doing whatever they feel like doing makes it hard to simulate something bigger than squad level operation. So maybe, since the squad is the biggest coordinated entity we can have on the field(without scripting or High command?) having this OMG-ninja-delta-speshul-forces carp esulating from any chain of command is what would make more sense? Anyway, I have to say I never really used the High Command feature in my missions so, I ask you: would it be able to simulate something like this?

I also enjoy wider manouvers to be honest, especially from the commander point of view. Beacuse thats the only way you can actually understand the situation.:) Even though not understanding totally the situation is part of the fun, according to a lot of people around here! (Meanging that you are just a soldier taking part in something bigger than you, and wich over you have no control) But what I really want to say is that I dont really know how these kinds of big manouvers would be done in a 2025 environment or if they would even be possible. I know there is still need for boots on the ground, but not having air superiority would be a massive no-go I guess. Assets are becoming a lot less forgiving. I guess I'm going offtopic again. Are you referring to the situation of gaming industry?