DerKonig

Yeah, except this is WW III, with both sides being major powers. This is not TF Knight fighting civil-dressed derkas in the mountains of Takistan. This is a major power(s?) versus another. The front lines will be completely clear in the force deployment sense. And again, you misinterpret the term frontline. And no, you can't just google and find pics of women patrolling in rifle platoons with men. You can find a pic of one in a support role talking to a local through a terp in a zone classified as "low risk". And yes, the definition of a combat occupation is an occupation in which the service member's job is (Guess what?) combat. A female being involved in direct action is mere happenstance. Should female models be able to fight? Sure, but only in guerrilla units.

You obviously have no idea what the term "Frontline" means. These are not pictures of front line combat zones. These are pictures of female service members in second/third line occupations. I mean really, people, its not this mythical debate that's answer is hidden by the government. Google it, in most modern militaries (Including the one that matters, the US) women CANNOT serve in combat occupations.

Weapon resting, rocket blow-back, individual weapon ballistics, auto-rotation, all things I want to see. Don't want to see combat deafness or the ridiculous high-G blackouts (The pilots wear G-suits...).

this... is spertah! :rolleyes: Anyway, if BI needs some voices, I will gladly fly over record every possible command/announcement/call-out/etc each as one fluid sentence. I don't care if it takes a week, I'd do it for free.

Using something that may not be concrete proof is not a contradiction. The article also does not say there is any sort of serious legislation in motion to increase the number of females in combat roles. If this community paid any attention to military news, they would see that this sort of thing pops up every now and again and gets shot down once it gets placed on the desk of someone sensible. And yes, a comment section is for sure not a solid resource that one might use as for a bibliographic source in a College essay, but be honest. Read the posts. KU's community is one with a highly military background. They know what they're talking about (Most of them, I'll allow that there are, of course, the few internet tough guys and SEAL- wannabes). EDIT: And yes, I'm aware that making a decision that is influenced solely or heavily on gender is sexism, but the word carries a connotation that causes many to interpret the word as meaning a "sexist" decision is inherently unfair.

An over abundance of female service members would be highly unrealistic. Anyone who knows anything about the military is that woman are physically not fit for combat roles, which is why they are not allowed in front line occupations in the military. If anyone wants to pull any "sexism" card BS, they can follow this link: http://kitup.military.com/2011/03/breaking-news-commission-recommends-women-in-combat.html Kit Up is military news blog that is maintained by a retired Navy SEAL and a seasoned military news correspondent, and is frequented by veterans of all nations and branches. In the comments you will find little but utter proof that woman are not fit for combat, and therefore, if Arma 3 is to be more realistic than "dude let's have hawt chicks in the game!", there shouldn't be female soldiers. There is so much more to focus on than being PC in this game.

I hadn't even though of the positions before, which is right, if we've had building positions for a while... then this isn't that big of a jump, or at least a slightly smaller one. And yes, after market content would present a problem I presume... would it be difficult to script your own custom scripts for AI movements inside your custom structure? Hmmm...

Hi, new to the BIS Forums, been on Armaholic for a while, but just got on here when I heard about A3. Anyway, I've been reading some discussion on AI improvements and CQB actions, and I was wondering whether or not this would work. My idea is that, since BIS knows what different structures they arm putting on the island, and that there are a limited number of different structures, they can implant a standard AI script for AI to enter and clear the building based on what building type it is, what entrance is used, how many AI are in the group clearing the building, and so on. This could prevent the debacles that usually result in ordering your AI teammates to clear a structure, and make the game smoother, if not too repetitive. Would this present problems that I haven't thought of? Would it be too COD-ish with the scripted movements and such? Too repititive? Discuss. :)

No, I think what should be expected is that A3 should take a more holistic approach on stealth using stance, speed, terrain, lighting, distance from AI, AI's orientation, AI's skill level, etc. to create a stealth system.

lol Thanks

Easy briefings, little to no scripting for loadouts, the outlines of objects actually showing where they are in relation to the map, being able to start a mission with a unit in a heli's cargo without the unit having to be part of the heli's group, etc, etc. That's what I want.