jinzor

I'm sorry, but the Philippines would be FAR too big, not a choice. Altis, in comparison, is miniscule, and did you see how long that took to make? Something like Okinawa is a much better choice.

Yes I do, and he could potentially do another if he wanted, but I doubt it. The work he did on A3 could have been enough for him.

Zipper5, the guy who made Operation Cobolt and Blood on the Sand (campaigns for ArmA II and and OA, which perfectly tied in with the stories of the vanilla campaigns, all with multiple endings as well), should definitely do that for ArmA III! The player could play as an AAF soldier, initially against NATO (since CTRG started the conflict between NATO and the AAF, he could potentially show how that was done; did CTRG fire at some NATO, and then at some AAF, which led both to think that they were shooting at one another?). When the events of Survive are over, he is transferred to Altis to deal with FIA insurgents, who might convince him to side with them at one point (multiple endings; one where he is on the NATO/FIA side and wins (Kerry helps NATO), joins NATO/FIA side and loses (Kerry helps James), stays with the AAF and wins (Kerry helps James (yes, I know AAF are hostile to CSAT during "The End", but that can be changed)), or finally stays with the AAF and loses (Kerry helps NATO)).

Several months for each helicopter or several months for all helicopters?

Agreed, and I think the sequel should actually allow you to play as Miller or one of his CTRG subordinates, preferably Miller (that way you get to call the shots and make the important decisions, like in ArmA II. Could even get a co-op option for the sequel's campaign going where other players assume control of the rest of his squad so that they don't act like absolute idiots and more like the special forces that they're supposed to be).

They really need to get the jet flight model and controls nailed down, it's always been horrible. Maybe BI should try to do the same thing they tried to do when attempting to fix the helicopters with Take On: Helicopters? Why not make a "Take On: Jets"? With future ArmA titles, they can then use that perfected flight model.

I don't think the real ending matters; whether or not Altis or Stratis sways its favor to NATO or CSAT, I don't think we will hear much of the islands in the series ever again, other than being told that there was a conflict. The same thing with Kerry; whether or not he lives or dies doesn't matter, I doubt we'll see or hear from him again (and if we do, then we'll at least know that the possible ending where he is permanently killed is not canon). Remember ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead? There were references to Takistan in Harvest Red (before OA came out. It's the same thing with ArmA III; there are references to the Pacific), but in Operation Arrowhead, there was hardly a mention of Chernarus; whether or not Chernarus was freed did not matter, but we do know that the ending where the Chedaki + Russians lost was canon due to the fact that BI had to reuse assets from the CDF for the UN, so they explained that the Chernarussians, having quelled a civil war (status quo; no change in government), were helping in peacekeeping operations, but I doubt they wanted to do that and would've rather left the ending to Harvest Red more ambiguous. I have a feeling that BI won't, if they do re-use the assets for the AAF in a sequel, have the AAF in the sequel this time even if those previous assets were made specifically for them in the first campaign. BI will probably give these assets to some other faction, probably European since the equipment was mainly from a mixture of European countries (maybe a part of NATO? Or another new faction for Blufor/Independent?). I think Miller, however, will definitely be in a sequel to the story. He is practically the main focus of interest and most of the events that occur during the campaign are a result of his doing; he was the one who instigated the events on Stratis for some unknown reason, he was the one who gave misinformation to the FIA and he was the one who delayed NATO forces from proceeding. This was all in an effort to get that tectonic device, for which we still don't know why he and his CTRG team acquired, but I can guess what.

Maybe there are things hidden within the mission, which may explain events to come (i.e. the expansion) and the continuation of the story/reveal some kind of easter egg, which is rewarded to only the best players who can survive everything. Also, it's probably just a message that Kerry is insignificant to the story afterwards; it doesn't matter whether he lives or dies, because Kerry can be said to officially die in one of the endings if you die as him on this mission (however, if it is revealed later whether or not one of the endings is canon, we won't know for sure if he survived or not).

Or that, that'd be awesome.

Now that you mention it, there was a LOT of opportunities for combined arms missions during the campaign. Maybe the community can fill in these spaces? Examples: 1. Assault on the airport (Wipeouts softening targets, tanks and helicopters moving in) 2. Siege of Pyrgos 3. NATO beach landings with amphibious APCs

No, I drove straight down the main road into their lines because I'd been playing for about 4 hours and wanted to see what happened if I did. It just continued after that.

Keep in mind that the version I played was before the patch, I'm guessing you played after the patch? Maybe there's a bug? I remember getting my squad members into a car while hearing loads of loud noises (NATO vehicles moving all at once, then some stopping/starting). At that point I just wanted to get the mission over and done with so I drove as fast as I could down the road, expecting to get destroyed, which I almost was. I parked near a gas station with one of my team members dead. I shot my way through some soldiers after disembarking from the car, hearing an increasing number of background explosions. So, I decided to help my tanks out because I thought that there may be a trigger where, if too many NATO vehicles/soldiers are destroyed, the mission is failed. I use my rocket launcher against a T-100, the crew disembarks. I see a single Slammer driving within 400 meters of me, it looks damaged. I get killed by a T-100, so I play again from just before shooting that first T-100 and hit him again, the Slammer isn't here this time. I shoot at another T-100, call in some arty because I'm sick of all of these AAF, and just when the arty is hitting the ground I hear Crossroads saying that the AAF have surrendered.

I was the one who said that (lol). Yeah, there's supposed to be massive, gigantic battle there, at least that's what I experienced. All of my armour met their armour, and I was assisting them with my AT capabilities, shooting other soldiers, calling artillery, etc. It was all-out war, but after about 10 minutes, as you're winning, they are supposed to surrender.

Ah, okay then. My bad.

Did you look at the image I gave you? Here's the link again. I know where the real life Lemnos and Stratis islands are, but this ingame map says otherwise (Lemnos (Altis) and Stratis have moved positions, probably to make the game seem more fictional to avoid controversy), which surprised me. http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps4c0ef858.png

I was exploring Game Over, and came across this map. I don't know if it was shown before, but just incase, I'm posting it here. I was surprised to find out that it actually located Altis and Stratis in the world, when they hadn't done that with either Chernarus or Takistan (they showed the map of the Green Sea Region, but fans had to speculate where it really was). The islands are south of Italy and south-west of Greece. http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x176/JinRenegade/arma32014-03-1515-39-42-77_zps4c0ef858.png (1295 kB)

I've got a question regarding one of the new features coming with the next update (which is in the dev branch right now). These achievements; are there only going to be five when the patch comes out, or are there going to be more? If it is just five, then it does seem a little pointless to have them.

Really? What you said reminds me of Sion Lenton in that interview where he was asked why there was no vehicle interaction in Red River; "we got rid of aircraft, tanks and all that... mainly because marines don't pilot aircraft or drive tanks in real life", bad reason. The campaign didn't need to focus entirely on Kerry for "Win", he was hardly an interesting character anyway. They could have done something similar to what BI allegedly planned from the beginning; play as multiple characters (not too many; like 2 - 3 other characters with one mission for each and not much narrative; one pilot, one tanker, one spec ops. We saw that in an early campaign video showcasing Altis and the interaction of the different planned characters. It's what the interactive campaign map, which you used in chapter 1, was originally designed for; select an optional mission of your choice from another character's perspective to help the main character's own mission) who represent different sides of the flashpoint with only one character being the one that changes the course of the story (in this case Kerry with the two endings, but back then it was Miller). BI did roughly the same thing with Operation Arrowhead, but in ArmA III they'd be going a little further. They referred to one of Operation Arrowhead's campaign mission's as an example of what they were planning to do with the optional missions (the one where you were forced to pilot an Apache, where if you failed to pilot the helicopter, it would allow you to continue to the next mission (yet play differently) anyway). They were planning that if you failed one of the missions as the other minor characters, it would allow you to continue as the main character, yet it would just have a minor impact on your experience playing him (there may be less allied reinforcements, and a few more enemies to deal with). That was the original plan for the confrontation between NATO and CSAT, but BI scrapped that idea in favour to pump the campaign out faster, just focusing on Kerry. However, in "Win", BI could have easily added in a couple of additional, shorter, optional missions focusing on a few different perspectives which would help Kerry's later mission in taking over the airport and/or Pyrgos, referring to the scrapped plans of the original campaign, possibly using that interactive map. The part just after Kerry takes out the AA vehicle on the hill would have been a perfect opportunity to start a separate, very short mission (maybe 10 minutes) and assume command as a pilot of a Blackfoot taking out retreating enemies near the airport, to make the invasion of Pyrgos easier for Kerry, optional of course. If you failed as the pilot, no harm done; not everyone is good at flying. But, really, these days a campaign is a tacked on thing which is usually used as a means to teach players what they can do in a game and refining their skills in those areas, and if a campaign fails to teach those things (e.g. flying, driving, using certain pieces of equipment), then the campaign has failed to teach the player in my opinion. Thank god we have those showcases (basically mini-tutorials), at least new players won't be totally confused with the game when they start.

I disagree; there wasn't a single armour, helicopter, jet, high-command, super-stealthy/incredibly difficult mission (like that mission in PMC, where you just had an anti-matter rifle and had to destroy lots of vehicles mostly by yourself) or many consequences from your actions in the campaign at all. You were always a grunt or a squad leader who couldn't really make many story affecting decisions. There was only one, ONE mission (in chapter 1) that made use of the underwater mechanics, and pretty much the only choice which had a big affect on the story was where chose either to try and save James or regroup with NATO at the end. This campaign, compared to others (e.g. Operation Arrowhead), was so repetitive and almost the same thing happened every time; mission begins, follow path, listen to Kerry, shoot some AAF/CSAT soldiers, follow path, listen to Kerry some more, destroy a vehicle or two, follow path, hear Kerry shout "What the fuck!" for the hundredth time, the end. Also, no co-op (everyone I know who is at least vaguely interested in the campaign is itching to have that implemented, even if just one person gets to play as Kerry and the other three just tag along), so no way in hell will I be playing it for my own entertainment again; I'd rather play through one of ArmA II's while enduring the terrible voice acting, at least that had more variety and would play out differently almost every time. I really liked the idea of the original campaign before A3's release and the futuristic aspect though, hope they continue with that in the expansion. I also hope that the expansion's campaign rectifies the lack of co-op. This campaign was changed completely and began sort-of well, but it ended badly. No doubt they got impatient and rushed this chapter so that they could get the campaign over and done with so that they could focus on the expected future expansion/DLC's (can't blame them for that though, I'd be impatient as well).

In the future expansion's campaign, could we potentially play from more than one perspective next time (and by that I don't just mean more than one character; I mean more than one character across different factions)? It'd be cool if we could see CSAT's perspective for once. We have not yet played, in any of the ArmA campaigns, as a guy who was not on NATO's side, or didn't have history serving with NATO (PMC).

I actually don't think that that's a bug, the campaign supposedly ended after you handed the device to Miller. But really, I think it should have made it clear that Miller got the device back safely (we don't know for sure if he did), otherwise what Kerry did there was absolutely meaningless and instead caused a war to occur.

It more reminded me of the microwave emitter device from Batman Begins (supposedly invented for desert warfare, to cripple an armies' water supply when besieging something), where it's then Regarding the actual device thing in the campaign, maybe

A potential weapon of mass destruction which can be covered up by proclaiming that it was a natural event, therefore whoever has such a weapon could have many uses for it?

Here you go man. If anyone doesn't want to know what happens, do NOT read this. You have been warned.

Alright, that campaign was incredibly short, like 3 hours long, and the story still wasn't very conclusive. Just what the hell was