Kerc Kasha

It's strange that the campaign is having a bit of a focus on the rag-tag rebel faction yet all their small arms are high-end military weapons albeit without optics.

it's probably the way it is for balance reasons and to be honest its one of the balance things I'm totally fine with as you can just add the 3 round magazines if you really want it

I do all the time play with a player driver, and it's usually 500% easier to do so as you can communicate exactly what you want them to do and pay more attention spotting/gunning rather than worrying about the direction you are driving. Add a delay in, there's barely any delay right now with the AI it's easily less than a second

What does that have to do with anything I said? How it currently works: WSAD Orders AI to move in the direction you want, occasionally glitching out due to how the AI's driving reacts poorly How it can work by having an AI driver allow the command to directly WSAD bypassing AI entirely: WSAD orders the AI to move in a direction you want, without glitching because it works the same as if you were driving it. Now maybe I'm just the dumbest man alive but how is the second option any less realistic than it is currently? Or are you seriously trying to argue that the AI's poor driving skills are 'realistic'

I know what it's supposed to simulate but functionally it's exactly the same, the only difference being is the AI will randomly disregard orders (like you will be moving *FAST* down a road and it will suddenly slow down because of a street sign on the side of the road as if it's trying to obey road rules). Having it be direct control will leave you with the exact same system but working better because there's no AI in between your orders and the actual act to screw it up.

Because pressing WSAD to make the AI drive for you is so much more realistic than allowing you to directly control it when there's an AI in the driver seat. Seriously some of you need to lay off the bleach

The AI can barely handle the small towns we have now. I'd personally love to see the stuff you're talking about but arma has only ever really excelled at open field warfare, unless it's pvp.

It's going to take a lot of effort to effectively make a proper wounding system. I know a lot of people are screaming for 'one shot one kill' kinda crap but it's honestly excessive and is particularly unfun for those who play no-respawn missions. Short of an overpowered round (like a 50 cal) a shot to the chest (ignoring hitting a vital organ dead on) will not kill instantly, it would incapacitate you, yes but modern body armour would either take most of the brunt or absorb all of it leaving you with just the pain or maybe broken/fractured bones. There's a lot of variables, a high powered rifle round to the chest should drop them but not kill, wounding being linked to fatigue would be best.

It's a multiplier so multplying by 1 isn't going to change anything

The fatigue system is obnoxious and excessive, imagine the current stable system except instead of heavy breathing you get tunnel vision that's incredibly over the top compared to how much stuff you're carrying/how far you JOGGED(not sprinted).

as someone who's played a lot of vbs 2, please don't.

I wouldn't call it lazy as it's not like the Merkava was a copy paste it was a brand new vehicle for ARMA 3. More a poor choice if anything

It seems like the idea was to allow us to do so but it doesn't seem to work - as there's a 'ragdoll' config entry for animations but it doesn't seem to do anything

The 'realistic' word is just a buzzword being thrown around by people who have no idea what it actually means. For example a tanks loadout being different from reality isn't unrealistic it's incorrect at best, and a lot of the tank and vehicle loadouts from arma 2 had the same problem (looking at you, t-72).

I'd like to see the stuff they can name to receive the proper names but for example the slammer being renamed the Merkava would be stupid as that's the Israeli designation for the tank - the US would give it its own designation, you know, like they've done for every other vehicle they've used from another nation. Most things (like those still in prototype stage or do not have a real military designation) will be copyright infringment if they used the real name. It wasn't a problem in A2 because while an AR-15 is copyrighted, an M4a1 is a military designation. Same reason they used the military designations for the Humvees instead of calling them Humvees, the only one that seems like it might be an issue is the Land Rover Defender but I'm not sure.

I'd like to see the Darter made a bit more durable. The drone it's based off is very tough when it comes to collisions and hard landings but the way it is now the thing immediately breaks if it doesn't land completely softly

Or the whining about the HUDs for the Iranians.

I don't see how balance has anything to do with what I said. Russia Vs. USMC was pretty balanced in Arma 2, clearly in ARMA 2 OA opfor vs. blufor was not balanced but I believe that was somewhat intentional. I personally prefer symmetrical warfare as some of us like the play the game as sides other than just super blufor. EDIT: just to state, I do not like the current method of doing it where essentially the sides are the same with very little differences but both sides should be on equal footing (or CSAT having a fair upper hand due to the setting) but I don't want to go back to the days of blufor having remote control everything while opfor has a single AK to share amongst each other to fulfill the power fantasies of wannabe military enthusiasts.

RO2 messed up because it wasn't realistic, it wanted to be historical but had weapons that didn't exist in the time period or the place it was set. ARMA 3 is trying to have a basis in reality but isn't trying to simulate a time in history (nor is it simulating the present), so calling a change in weaponry 'unrealistic' is an oxymoron. It can't follow the realistic direction of ARMA 2 because it's set in the future and therefore has nothing to go off unless we all want a game that's set in 2030, but everyones using gear from 2013. So it's just 2013 in everything but name. People might just want the mortar and the loadout - it doesn't mean they demand nothing but realism.

It's more the fact that the different designation means it can be equipped differently. In the Merkava example, if ARMA 3 was supposed to be set in modern day with blufor being the IDF, then the Merkava missing the mortar etc etc would be a massive oversight. But ARMA 3 is set in the future, with a fictional NATO joint task force that uses the chassis of the Merkava that has several features removed or changed. A real life example would be the M113, a lot of armies used the M113 APC, for example West Germany had the designation M113A2 GE for the M113A2, it was largely the same as the US version but used a MG3 instead of the M2 .50 cal. If you want a real example of bungling, look at RO2 as that game was trying to be historically accurate but messed it up big time, but because ARMA 3 is completely fictional and is based in a time period that hasn't even happened yet, there's absolutely no way of saying 'this is wrong' and saying it's 'unrealistic' is a 'no duh' statement because it only has a basis in reality but ultimately is fiction.

The omission of the loader position, the mortar and the extra MG isn't anything to do with laziness, they chose to do this. It would have taken the same amount of effort to add those additions as it would to not do so. It's not a Merkava IV, it's like the T-72M to the T-72A, for whatever reason the nato variant removed these extra features and installed an autoloader, this is in no way shape or form unrealistic. It'd be unrealistic if it had a jet engine strapped to it and wings, not because some of it's hardware was removed by choice.

But i need a realistic weapon on my made up space chopper.

You could add 'reveal' to the loop so the AI knows exactly where you are at all times.

Forgot to post this but I played "Skirmish" again with the updated version and this time it pretty much killed our server as when the helicopters showed up it dropped to 1 fps.

Oh boy I'm sure glad this thread hasn't changed at all from the one that existed in the Alpha with the same exact posts posted over and over again. With stellar performances such as: hurr the only people that want it just want to be/to have scantly clad women women are useless in combat situations blah blah distraction women are inferior to men what do you mean? that isnt sexist at all Women serve in the military, they have done so since the dawn of time. It hasn't been consistent, no, but it has happened quite a lot, usually in straight up combat roles, such as the Soviet army that had female snipers, tank crew, AA gunners etc etc. But even if we ignore that, believe it or not female civilians do exist and they don't in arma 3. And even a copy paste from arma 2 would be better than that.