Chris2525

Agreed. I think that bullet snaps should be much louder than they currently are in the game. This would improve the suppression modelling by giving the player a sense of "oh s***t!!!!" when accurate fire comes down near them. If nothing els,e we should be able to clearly differentiate near flybys and far flybys. As it stand right now, the only way i can tell if rounds are coming at me is by hearing impacts in the dirt nearby. In reality, bullet cracks are quite loud. They sound like firecrackers going off over your head.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3099

Oh, i'm sorry to have disturbed you.

Well, that's the drill IRL! ---------- Post added at 03:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 AM ---------- The term "suppression" is used loosely in the way you describe, but in doctrinal land warfare vernacular, it's quantified and separated into two main effects - completely inhibiting the enemy's ability to act (suppressed), or turning him around and sending him somewhere else (neutralized). So when we apply fire, we do so knowing it will have one of 3 outcomes - the enemy will either be suppressed, be neutralized, or remain effective. No matter what, the result will always be one of those. And even diminished effectiveness still constitutes effective in this context. A diminished capacity to act - as little as one guy holding his AK above the trench - constitutes him still being effective - because if he can do that, he can also do other things like throw grenades, shoot your assaulters when they approach or what have you. The point is he's still resisting and can still inflict casualties. That means he's not yet suppressed. In tactics language, suppressed means not able to do anything. So suppression is either a one or a zero. You've either suppressed someone or you haven't. And while it may sound like semantics, suppression is a very important event in a firefight that triggers subsequent steps being set into motion. I'll use the example of the typical canadian section attack drill to illustrate what i mean. Once the advancing section comes under effective enemy fire, the next thing they do is try to gain fire superiority over the enemy position they're taking fire from and which they want to attack. The section will actually stay put (no longer advancing) and try to put down a volume of fire on the enemy that totally forces him to hunker down. The section commander will know this has been accomplished when there's no more fire coming from that location. That point in the attack is what we call "winning the firefight". And once the section commander knows he's won the firefight, then and only then will the section begin their advance up the the enemy position. And they'll do it while simultaneously keeping constant amount of fire on the enemy location that's sufficient to KEEP the enemy's head down. But the point is, the "winning the firefight" is a very concrete landmark in an attack. It's the point where the targeted enemy is no longer firing back. That's what we refer to as "suppression". It's a black and white thing, although we sometimes refer to suppression as being subjective. Oh, and to answer your question - 16 years in the infantry.

I'm all for a robust suppression system, though i realize it's not for everyone and at the end of the day, it's a game and people want to have fun. For the ultra-hardcore milsim enthusiasts however, there really ought to be an optional, if not scalable suppression system so that so that those who want a realistic experience can employ proper tactics. At the very least, suppression and neutralization should be modeled for AI. We're not concerned about their gameplay experience after all. And as "overdone" as the BF3 model may be, even that is unrealistically forgiving. In BF3, what you're usually experiencing is neutralization - being compelled by overwhelming incoming fire to change your course of action (i.e. turn around and run away, then carry on). Suppression is total incapacitation (i.e. you can't do anything except stay put and try to dig your way out using your helmet).

I'm posting this as a suggestion to the devs. It seems that a recurring theme from successive versions of ArmA is the lack of a functioning "suppressive fire" command for use with AI subordinates. The issue In the existing command menu, we do have a "suppressive fire" command, but as with ArmA2, it doesn't cause subordinates to fire suppressively at a piece of ground. Although i can't get it to work at all in the alpha, I suspect it's meant to function the same as in ArmA2 where you command "suppressive fire" against a known enemy, in the same way you'd command "engage that...." against a known enemy, the only difference between the two commands being that with "engage that", units will only shoot at the target if they can see it whereas with "suppressive fire" they'll fire at the target's last known location if they don't currently have visual contact with him - but only until their knowledge of the enemy expires (or such is my understanding anyway). The issue here being that a unit has to have knowledge of an enemy at a location before you can get that unit to shoot there. What I'm suggesting is that we be given the ability to command units to fire at a location/area whether or not they currently "know about" an enemy at that location. You should be able to command your squad to begin laying down fire on any area at any time, regardless of enemy being acquired there. The reasons are simple: In a firefight, it's perfectly reasonable for a commander to order his subordinates to fire at a piece fo ground where said subordinates don't see enemy. The contexts where this is done include, but are not limited to: -Suppressing a *suspected* enemy location as opposed to a known one. -Higher units or lateral units informing you of enemy at a location even if you can't see them. -Denying ground to the enemy i.e. cutting off likely escape or reinforcement routes with fire. -Speculative fire, or "recon by fire", engaging an area to see if you get a reaction. -The commander knowing about an enemy at a location that the others cannot see. (sometimes you spot an enemy, but the the behavior engine doesn't think you see him, so there's no communication of "Rifleman, 300m, bearing....", even though you're looking right at a unit) All of these techniques are perfectly reasonable in the real world, and they involve a commander ordering subordinates to shoot at a place as opposed to a seen enemy. As such, we should have that same freedom in ArmA. Even more importantly, the ability to fire at locations regardless of whether enemy are seen there is critical to supporting fire. Indeed, that's preciceley what supporting fire is - trying to keep an enemy's head down in order to enable another friendly element to maneuver. Shooting only at targets you can see is not supporting fire. That's just firing at targets of opportunity, and has little suppressive value. Effective supporting fire results in not being able to see the enemy because you've forced him to keep his head down. So having units only capable of shooting at targets they can see means precisely that you have no supporting fire function in your simulation. And anything deserving of the term "infantry simulation" would have supporting fire modeled, being that it's one of the most fundamental concepts of land warfare. Suggested solution(s): I feel that the current system for controlling AI's direct fire is very convoluted and disjointed, and which is very unrealistic. In reality, all an infantry section commander really does is either points at a piece of ground (which may or may not contain a seen enemy), and says "shoot there" or "shoot those guys", or he says "Just watch out and shoot any targets that pop up", or he tells them not to shoot.* To realistically simulate squad fire control, they should model several rates fire and use that as a basis for how the commander orders the AI to engages/fire. At the very least, the rates of fire should be should be "Slow Rate (suppressive)", "Rapid Rate (suppressive)" and "Watch and Shoot" (and of course, hold fire). While pointing the cursor at a place on the terrain, ordering "Slow Rate" or "Rapid Rate" to your subordinates should cause them to shoot slowly or rapidly respectively (exact RPMs being open for debate) at the area you're pointing at (not unlike "fire at location" for artillery). They should fire randomly within a general area centered around the designated point (as opposed to directly at the precise point, for obvious reasons). And while they're doing that, they should be free to take aimed shots at any targets of opportunity that appear in the vicinity of their designated target area, and then go back to firing suppressively within the designated area once the target is gone, and continue to fire there until you tell them to stop. This is how section/squad fire is controlled in the real world. Ordering "Watch and Shoot" should simply make your subordinates watch the designated area, and shoot anything that appears in front of them. (Note: The watch and shoot *area* would want to be modeled larger than the suppressive fire area as "watch and shoot" is a speculative, "keep an eye out" kind of command, where "suppressive fire" is specifically directed at a particular place/area. This could serve as a decent analogue for assigning arcs/sectors of fire/observation to individual subordinates) *The other thing a section commander does is he divides the ground up into "arcs" or "sectors" and allocates them to individuals/teams. This stops the whole section observing the same area and potentially missing things in front of them. I don't see this being all that difficult to model. In fact, you could even use the existing "Fire at Location" command menu item, and then have the sub-menu offer "Slow rate" and "Rapid Rate" or "Watch and Shoot" (where for mortars it has "Single round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds" etc). So that's my $0.02 on the squad fire control modelling in ArmA2&3. I hope the devs see this and give it some consideration.

Still can't use DoFire function against objects. ---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 AM ---------- .....and still can't join combined ops servers using retail version of A2+Steam version of OA. Looks like BIS wins and i'm going to have to buy a full retail copy of CO.

....make that three.

Sometimes you won't have a choice. Transitioning to a sidearm is by nature an emergency action.

Yes, please share...

hmmm. Seems the dofire function is broken and can't be used on neutral or game logic targets.

I'd like to see a large map with huge, flat open desert areas which would be conducive to long range tank battles. I find that the mountains in Takistan partition the map into a patchwork of much smaller maps and that it's difficult to use assets like tanks at their maximum effective ranges.

I haven't the first clue about scripting, but am thinking about starting up a script that will give the player the ability to properly have subordinates provide supressive fire against locations (as opposed to units). 1) Is it possible to create an object that can only be seen by certain units and which is indestructible? 2) Can such an object be created at a location designated by the player's cursor/crosshair upon activation of a menu command? 3) Can said object be removed upon activation of another menu command? My idea is simply to be able to point at a location and have selected units fire there whether they are aware of/can see enemy there or not for the sake of having realistic suppressive fire.

^^ Correct, which is why i think such a function should come with a rate fo fire selection as well. Best soloution would be to get units to simply shoot at the highlighted area when you command "supressive fire" regardless of whether they see enemy there, and... I'd suggest another menu item under the engage(#3) menu that allows you to tell a unit what rate of fire theyre fring with when in supressive fire. This way you could change their rates of supressive fire as the attack progresses. In reality (at least in CDN army doctrine, im sure others are the same) you would see the supporting element firing rapitldy at the beginning of a firefight in order to initially supress the enemy, then that element would fire at a slow or normal rate (to conserve ammo) while the assaulting element maneuvers into position (i.e. to the flank) to begin their assualt, and then the supporting element would begin firing rapidly again a minute or two before the assault step off on their approach to the target. So an ability to change their rates of fire wile theyre firing would be useful in this manner. And if you wanted to get fancy, you could add a "shift fire left" or "shift fire right" command to any units executing the "supressive fire" command to shift their fire off of the objective just beofre the assaulting element reaches the targetted area. This is done IRL during flanking attacks. ---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ---------- ....i guess it should be mentioned that if, while supressing an area, a target becomes visible, the ai who's supressing should try to shoot that unit. ---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ---------- .....If i knew the first thing about scripting, i'd try to throw something together to accomplish this. Maybe someone can answer a few questions for me: 1 - Is it possible to get a location (i.e. x,y,z corordinates) from pointing the cursor at a piece of ground and selecting a menu option 2 - can an object be created that only a particular unit can see, and can you make it so that said unit is guaranteed to see it so long as there nothing obstructing it's view If the answers to all of these are "yes", then this should be simple to script... -Add a menu command for "supressive fire". -When activated the x,y,z coordinates of where players cursor/reticle is pointed is gathered -an invisible object is created at that location which is only seen by the selected unit(s) -On command "cease fire", that object disappears. As for controlling rates of fire, i'd have no clue.

Yeah, no doubt launchers should take more time to shoulder than pistols take to draw. I'm just sick of waiting 5 minutes to pull a pistol out when i need it NOW! lol I'm no superhero, and I know i can transition to a sidearm much quicker IRL than is represented in the game, and if it's on my hip (as opposed to my leg), it's nothing to draw it on the move. Your primary is of no concern becuase you just drop it and let it hang (provided it's slung correctly), takes exactly 0.0 seconds to disengage from your primary.