squirrel0311

I think he means that you already have a similar thread posted. You could just edit the original post rather than start a new one.

Well if I remember correctly, none of the vehicles in Arma 3 are really named BMP or Shilka so you'd have to learn the new names all over again anyway. (However I can't find what the BTR and the Tigris were actually modeled after...It could have been the Ukranian BMPV-64...but I don't think it is.) Besides, if someone you're playing with doesn't know what a little bird, blackfoot, bmp, shilka, apc, ifv, aav, or tank is.....then all you have to do is simply tell them. That's not your fault or the game's fault. It's just theirs for not knowing the basic lineup but like everyone else... they will learn.

Are you talking about in general or in the campaign? See, this is where I think people get confused on what is considered realistic military power. Most…if not all militaries ALWAYS look for the best weapon to do the job…If they can afford it or not is a different story… The important issue is numbers. It’s like comparing Israel to the United States. Israel is pretty darn well equipped (with a lot of gear we gave them or paid for.) But in terms of how much of that good equipment they have…the U.S. has more. Just because the AAF bought weapons and vehicles that are just as powerful and capable as NATO, doesn’t mean that that the AAF is stronger and better. You still have to look at the numbers. (e.g. The size of the force.) If both sides have equally capable tanks but NATO has 50 and the AAF have 10. Then the AAF is at a severe disadvantage and is in no way more powerful. Now in the single player campaign, they might stack the forces pretty evenly but again, that’s only looking at a small part of the big picture. On top of that, most Peace Keeping forces are relatively small so it’s not uncommon for them to be matched or outnumbered in terms of both vehicles and personnel. And as far as militaries having good equipment…Again, militaries try to find the best equipment for the job and when you’re near the bottom of the totem pole all you have to do is look u. If you can buy equipment to beat the man on top, you don’t have to worry much about anyone else along the way.

The ability to disable the terminator mode..... Scenario: I set 3 friendly CAS Grey Hawks and 1 friendly UGV on the runway... First I play with the UGV, drive it around, then park it near the end of the runway and turn it off.. Then I send the Grey Hawk on a mission to destroy an enemy tank but it gets shot down. I send the second one but I take control and accidentally crash it.... (Here's the good part) On November 7th, 2013 at 11:33AM Central Standard Time the UGV becomes self aware... Sensing that I am responsible for the death of it's super sexy robot girlfriend (The Grey Hawk I crashed manually) ...It promptly chases me down with guns blazing and kills me. Now don't get me wrong, that feature is kind of cool and I think it would be really cool for some kind of scenario.. but I don't want it shooting me every time I make a mistake. Also: Turret operator should have control of the bombs and the laser or at least have the option to use both at the same time. Bombs should have a better glide slope to avoid the need to dive.

Yeah I heard they were fielding the HK417s too, I honestly don't know too much about the L129A1's performance, I just kind of threw it out there. On second thought though... if they brought the RFB back to 7.62 and gave it the 18 inch barrel.. we could say that was the GreenFor/British DMR... Keep the Bullpup style rifles on the same side. (-Sniper) DMR: Bluefor - Mk14 Opfore - VS 121 (Rahim) Greefor or British - L129A Sniper Rifle: BlueFor - Remington M2010 Opfor - ORSIS T-5000 GreenFor or British - Accuracy International AX338 Anti Material: BlueFor - M107A1 w/ Hornady AMAX .50 OPFOR - Arash - 20mm (Haha :P ) GreenFor - Gepard GM6 Lynx - 12.7 Well it's bed time so I so I'm not sure I'm reading your post correctly and I certainly didn't read that entire manual but here I go... Yes, I think you're pretty accurate in saying that the role of a Squad Advanced Marksman is fairly new. We're always changing the way we fight in an effort to find something that works better. As of right now it seems to be common practice but it is certainly not doctrine. From what I remember the Mk11s and Mk12s were still in the test phases we didn't have that many of them so they would jump from off going to the on going unit. In my first unit I used an M14 DMR and in my second unit I used a MK11. And again, Yes, I think in the game they meant for the MXM to be used as a SAM-R. So you'd be correct to have a squad marksman and a Platoon Designated Marksman.

Not at all. Those games aren't sandboxes. They're pretty much linear story lines, not having an option is expected with those kinds of games. Not having an option is expected with games like COD and BF3/4 as well because most of the stuff is done for you. It's very linear, pick your class, choose a weapon, go shoot. However it's much different with sandbox games like ArmA. As I said before, the thing that makes it great is that you have a choice to play how you want to play, where you want to play and hopefully, who you want to play as. People like to identify with the character their playing as, not all... but I'd say a good percentage. If you've ever seen someone with a custom character in ArmA, maybe a contractor outfit, or hat with earmuffs, different color sunglasses.... You can bet they probably enjoy having some sort of control in their characters appearance. Something that they feel reflects what they like. For females... having a female character could do this even more, plus it's just more realistic. Not to mention having female soldiers opens up the additions to more immersive and realistic scenarios. E.G. FET Marines (A.K.A. Lionesses.)

Yeah this is getting kind of dumb now. Women's roles are expanding more and more in the miltary. They deserve a place in the game as well, not only for simple immersion but also because we have female players! I have 3 female friends who have expressed a desire to have a female character to play as rather than just a male. You don't even have to designate specific roles, just put them in the game and make sure the uniforms work. As to the ones that say having female characters serves no purpose - Yes it does, immersion and customization. Why have profile heads? Why have different uniforms? Or a variety of rifles or vehicles? And no we don't have to lower the stamina and load ability. While it maybe true that the general female population generally can't cope with the work load of the modern infantry soldier. I know a few females who I'd bet on against just about anyone else I know when it comes to their physical ability, so when it comes to that I think we can give the characters the benefit of the doubt that they can keep up and perform just as well as the males. And in case it's not widly known, people do like to have scenarios where they play civilian men and women...so there's another level of immersion right there.

I believe the reason why is because a large portion of the community didn't like the direction the game was going or how it was changing. In fact there seems to be a large number of people who still can't stand the futuristic setting and want a more modern version of Arma 2. If I remember correctly, BIS had plans for things like Tanks with rail guns and I think there was even a pulse rifle or something being talked about.... As a result there was a furious poop storm of undoo dooed proportions in which the fallout can still be seen today.

According to the Internet Movie Firearms Database - The MX rifle seems to be a combitnation of the Remington ACR and the Robinson Armament XCR-L http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III As I said in my wish list... I'm fairly happy witht he weapons we have in the game now but if they insist on adding more then I would say add only the most modernized versions of the classics. Also, WHEN IS THIS THREAD GOING TO GET MADE INTO A STICKY? This needs to be where everyone can see it. Same with the COMMUNITY WISHES AND IDEAS - DISSCUSSION thread. We have the NO DISCUSSION thread stickied but what is the point of seeing a wishlist if you can't discuss it?

Yes I know, but I said that more for the sake of thinking about different calibers. It should have said, "Yes also known as the modular M2010" ...or something along those lines. They are basically the same rifle but like you said the MSR is modular so it has a bigger action for different barrels and what not. Then again.. the M2010 is a pound lighter... so that might be a better choice... Oh and on the point of the Bluefor Anti Material rifle..... We could say that CheyTac got contracted to build a .50 cal version of the Intervention. :p I hear they're not doing too hot even with the limited government contracts they have out right now. :/ Fixed other post too! :P

Ok, first let me say that I haven't messed around with the in game...(I suppose I should call them "Accurized" because they're certainly not all precision.) rifles. Also I apologize for the long post, I'm trying to stop but it's hard when I find a topic I like to talk about. Haha Since the BlueFor still seem to be the only side with a SPR. Does this mean that we can finally give the binky back to the "FU BIS! We want realism, not some crappy BALANCED COD tactical tooter!" crowd, so they'll stop crying? I certainly hope so. Personally I'm a little thrown off by the selection they made...even though it really doesn't matter because I don't pay much attention to the Single player portion other than just playing the game... I think they could have made choices that seem to make better sense. For instance, I can't really see the CheyTac .408 as an anti material rifle...True it's got more energy at range than a .50bmg BUT that is when comapred to Ball rounds. Now as I said in my wish list on page 213 of the NO DISSCUSSION thread - I'm sure BIS doesn't have the time to go back and add different calibers to the ballistics system but this is what I would have went with... Standard Rifles: I don't really think the MXM is needed but since it's already in game, it should stay. DMR: Bluefor - Mk14 Opfore - VS 121 (Rahim) Greefor or British - L129A Sniper Rifle: .338 Lapua Mag (Yes I know there are better calibers) Another thing that I kind of don't like is that they all look very similar. BlueFor - Remington MSR (Yes also known as the Modular M2010) *Fixed this, see below* The M2010 is a pound lighter and slightly less bulkier so that may be the better choice... You don't need a modular rifle in a game.. Opfor - ORSIS T-5000 GreenFor or British - Accuracy International AX338 Anti Material: BlueFor - (Not sure, I like the way the CheyTac looks though.:p) or maybe M107A1? - Hornady AMAX .50? - Could say that CheyTac was contracted to build the Intervention in .50, I bet they'd do it to fix their debt problems. OPFOR - Arash - 20mm (Haha :P ) GreenFor - Gepard GM6 Lynx - 12.7 Also, I included in my wishlist the suggestion that the Keltec RFB (SDAR in game) be changed back into a .308 and added as a battle rifle... Though now that I think about it.. another unique option would be to put it in with the 18inch barrel as the BlueFor DMR. http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/keltec/RFB_24in_prone_8921wallpaper.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1 In addition to that, a few people mentioned adding a few civilian rifles that could be used for certain scenarios. One rifle I mentioned was the Remington 700 in 300win. I suppose the sniper rifles mentioned above could be in that caliber so that all the rifles would share ammo and thus reduce the work load on the devs.. then again none of this should be added until bigger problems are fixed so I guess it doesn't matter.

Nail on the head. That's exactly what it's supposed to be, a Special Purpose Rifle, like the Mk12. It's not a DMR, I know because I was a DM. Rifles like the Mk12 or what the MXM is are given out normally to companies before they go over. You may get one per squad if they have enough (They normally don't.) Or more than likely you get one per platoon. The person that gets the rifle isn't a DM...He's just....a marksman. They don't go to DM school and the most they usually get is a week or two of classes from the STA platoon or something.. even then that's usually only if they have time. And yes they use the same ammo as the standard rifles because sharing is caring. Not to mention some if not most BN/CO SOP is that you carry your Marskman rifle, plus your regular rifle. This way, in theory...if one goes down you still have the other. It's still a B to carry around though.

Yeah well that's why I said the coaxial rotor.. but the crew compartment looks a lot like a Mi-24 Hind and the whole concept of having transport helo's supporting the troops they drop off. Although many people don't know it but the Havoc's actually had a small compartment that would fit 3 people in emergency rescue operations.

Yeah I think the MXM is supposed to be what the Mk12 is now.. A special purpose rifle. A little more range and maybe slightly powerful but still firing a 5.56. And yeah the Mk14 EBR is your actual Designated Marksman Rifle.

Explain this because I don't get it... I agree if you mean set vehicle controls should be set up as seperate from infantry so that just because I have F set as go prone or brake in a car, that doesn't mean I can't have it set as Flares or something like that....that's a bad explaination too but yeah... Tell use what you mean exactly.

To the ones asking why other countries might use a gun made by General Dynamics or any other American company.... The answer is in the question.... They are companies and they are out to make money! The only thing that stops them from selling the latest and greatest weapons to any country around the world with money to buy them is the export laws put on them by the governments. When something better comes out the old stuff is normally cleared for export within a year or 2 and sometimes not even then. Just take a look at IDEX. (International Defense Exhibition - Held normally in the U.A.E.) I'd also like to point out that it's not just American companies that operate this way.

Ok first let me focus on the issue... I never said it didn't have its flaws... Squirrel0311 - "Personally I see nothing OVERLY wrong with the movement and turning/spinning,I think it's a huge improvement over Arma 2." Please not that I have capped and underlined the key word which entails the next point... Squirel0311 - "I don't want belly spinning (360 or even 180 quick spins in the prone) You should have to move in segments just like when you crawl sideways. The same goes for the sitting position." " like I said...The only thing I don't like is the spinning, but if they can't get it right then I'd rather them just leave it alone." Again... I think the movement system is a huge step forward but there are things that need to be tweaked. (E.G. Spinning in the SITTING and the PRONE as well as a little inertia while jogging and something for the weight of the loadout.) However, as I stated before, I think it's good enough right now... If they can't come up with a system that realisticly and smoothly mimics the real mechanics of movement with gear...THEN....I'd rather them just leave it how it is now. ....Maybe instead, focus on building a medical rose and also a repair rose. As for the video.... Yes I know you can do all the moves in game at relatively quick speed but that video is still sped up. When people post videos for youtube they sometimes use programs called editing software.... These programs can take recorded video be it from a camera, or a live stream and seperate audio and video, cut out segments and yes even slow down and speed up the frame rate. Since the audio and video can be seperated, he sped up the clip slightly and slowed it down at 00:33 (I think - watch the bullets impact near the end.) but just put the audio (Voices with music) to it as normal. Also there is a part early on where the vidoe lags so don't confuse that with the part I'm talking about.

It being livestream has nothing to do with it being sped up and slowed down. You hear their voices talking just fine while it cuts back and forth, slows down and speeds up at about...00:30 especially. Nearly the whole video is slightly sped up. Besides being able to drop into different stances quickly or rise relatively quick isn't unrealistic either unless you're wearing 80 pounds of gear. Now that part needs work depending on their load outs but like I said...The only thing I don't like is the spinning, but if they can't get it right then I'd rather them just leave it alone.

......In case you didn't know....that video was sped up and slowed down to match the beat of the song. However, now that you point it out I should go ahead and clearify... if they haven't fixed it yet... (I can't recall) I don't want belly spinning (360 or even 180 quick spins in the prone) You should have to move in segments just like when you crawl sideways. The same goes for the sitting position. Like I said though I don't recall it being an issue but if it's possible to do what I described above then yeah that part should be fixed. As far as the OP video though, nothing too unrealistic about that and like I said I think they tweaked the movements since the alpha when that video was made. Don't get all butthurt just because you suck at break dancing. :p

Well I'm not 100% as to if this has already been said but there are a few things that should be mentioned. 1. This video was filmed in the Alpha stage if I remember correctly. and 2. He was using a pistol and carrying pretty much no gear which makes what he did VERY doable in real life. People claim it's unrealistic but not really... if he was wearing a heavy backpack, using a rifle, and crouched then maybe.. or prone then yes. But he was standing, he knew he just shot someone and so he was on alert that others may have heard and are nearby. Most military training today teaches some sort of basic reflex movement for shooting enemies behind you. Even in relatively close quarters it's possible to be crouched with a backpack on and twist your body enough to shoot someone with a rifle who is behind you.. aiming down the sight is more difficult but not completely impossible. Personally I see nothing overly wrong with the movement and turning/spinning,I think it's a huge improvement over Arma 2. I'd rather die because I took a stupid chance by talking and letting someone spin around and kill me rather than I would if I had some sort of clunky movement hindering system preventing me from saving myself when I know it was completely possible.

I agree, it's nice to have real world weapons but it's not 100% necessary all the time.. Especially on a fictional chopper. However I will say that the Internet Movie Firearm Database does call it a GAU-19. I bet that was a mistake though because they don't mention that it's not chambered in .50cal and they even show a picture of a GAU-19 .50. In cases like these I just like to say it's a fictional UPGRADED version of the Shipunov 2A42 since it acts similarly in regards to switching ammunition. Again that's the great thing about making a GAME. You don't always have to be 100% correct on every little detail.

What do you mean they don't exist? From what I remember there is only one vehicle that doesn't exist and that's the MI-48 Kajman which is just a mix of a Mi-28 Havoc, and a Mi-24 Hind but with a coaxial rotor.

Yes I know the tanks and probably the Zubr too are the wrong caliber because of time constraints... That's why I didn't say much about the tanks except point out the biggest issues. As I outlined in my wishlist on the Community Wishes and ideas - No discussion thread... I'd like to see a few more calibers but I'm sure they don't have time to go back and work out the ballistics for such. As for letting your enemy benefit off of you... That's something that has to be weighed by the ones making the shots. If you have a bigger or as big of a budget as the people you expect to be fighting then you might not care about matching calibers... But if not then it might be something to think about. I'm not saying positively that an army would or wouldn't... just that it's not unbelievable to have certain guns refitted to fire matching calibers. Personally I'd like to see the addition of the 7.62x39 and 54 as well as the .357 for the zubr.

I suppose I should have covered calibers as well... Weapons manufacturers often offer weapons in many different calibers to suit the wants of many potential buyers... this is something that is also taken into relatively great consideration when equipping a military force. You want to look at who you have a good chance of fighting and also who the biggest and the baddest are and then compare to see what kind of equipment you could use to at the very least, level the playing field. In times of economical instability or in other words...SHTF, sharing calibers with your foe could possibly yield great advantages. Why buy and ship bullets in when you can seize enemy supplies? The same goes for ammunition capacities...manufacturers and aftermarket companies are always looking to expand their products usage and capabilities..... Why build a completely new IAR when you can just slap on a bigger mag or maybe a new belt fed receiver and use existing stuff from the weapon it replaced? Also, I never said it was a complaint, just that I see a lot of people crying about this and that simply because someone said "futuristic". Although I still fail to see how the game is starting to feel like Battlefield or COD aside from the medical system and also repairing vehicles....which reminds me I have an idea to post about that too. All that goes without saying that there aren't other things they could have done better.

Well I'm still not certain what you're talking about by unrealistic.... and as far as damage goes I haven't tried all the vehicles against all the others but I can say this... More than likely BIS didn't have the funds to pay for licensing to use the correct vehicle names and since a lot of the vehicles aren't in wide spread service and are made by one company respectively... that could cause problems with people not being happy about a game using their product and not getting paid for it....especially if they are supposedly prided on being realistic yet do a crappy job representing the vehicles capabilities. As for the weapons systems... I haven't seen anything too farfetched other than the tanks. (No coaxial gun or No commander gun and using High Explosive rounds only.) :/ So all in all I'd have to say I could give two dog turds about the proper names... If you like the vehicle then look it up and find out what it's really called, same with the weapons system names... I care about realistic movement, handling, ballistics/terminal, damage, and over all game play.... However one more thing about the damage and weapons... For those who think that certain factions or certain vehicles shouldn't have this or that....it's supposed to be the future and just like now, the battlefield changes and if you have an opportunity to equip your fighting force with up to date gear then that is what you will do! It's also not too far out there to think that armor might improve by 2035 and give vehicles the "Oomph" they need to sustain an extra rocket or two. Just like the people that whine about night vision being too clear or thermal being able to see depth...it's not that hard to believe that those advancements wouldn't have been achieved by 2035. I'd rather leave that stuff and focus on making a smooth running game. As I've said before, it seems a lot of people crying about the vehicles and weapons in Arma 3 do so only because they wanted and expected it to be Arma 2 again with modern vehicles as the vanilla. That being said, it's just not the case so get over it. BIS chose a different direction and that’s what they should stick to. The vehicles and weapons aren't too futuristic, there aren't any lasers and phasers and as long as it stays that way we'll be just fine.