With taste of the new BE I meant the current warfare mission that is in it's final stages for release in ArmA 3, because I sent some screens from the old operation flashpoint cti menus to benny, I was able to see the product itself. Clearly, GUI wise it's superior to most cti's in ArmA 3 currently. Benny is a master at what he does. The equipment setup, the unit camera and satcam look marvelous and with the easy setup a new ArmA player can get into it. Of course with some downsides that come with dumbing down the upgrade and building system and the use of a single form currency vs the old 2 currency form ( supply and money ). So I don't know how the community will receive it. In ArmA 1 I played warfare completely silly, back in those days the respawn of a unit was only 3 seconds on a camp that needed 2 minutes to take. It took a year before that changed and another year before suggestion of a guy not being able to spawn if the camp is being taken was used. Despite that I kept playing. Warfare has come a long way since then and playing it has become a lot more enjoyable. But all the growth always was towards a highly customisable planetside 2 set up vs a more tight and personal pvp game. I have talked to hundreds of guys like you on ts and forums. But the nail hardly ever hits, mainly because the end goals are different. I want a tight exiting and relatively short game. The old cti has this, that is why back then there were tournaments with match compilations afterwards on youtube or described match reports. A player could make a name for itself. Similar to what starcraft, dota, coh,c&c, bf, cod, cs etc have today with live matches and match reports. The tightness also creates a forced learning curve for players. You play as a team and if someone plays badly he gets commented on that. It's easier to learn the game if you play 7 v 7 or 10 v 10 in a tight map versus 18 vs 18 on a large sandbox battlefield. People like you who love warfare more, are more interested in the sandbox aspects. Longer games, larger numbers of players, larger numbers of towns equals excitement for you. When you add a missle system so that only a certain group of regulars with know how can fire it, you call it a fix, just because the amount of random deaths is lowered. Even when it just limits the effective use of missiles to a core group. Same goes to pilots, you just remove the problem by giving know how access to a small group that now think that they are experts because they can still pull it off. In reality they are fighting people that wouldn't know where the enemy base is, if you told them in chat several times and point it out with markers...let alone being able to fire missile with the new script. I can't even sell to clan members that parameters are a bad thing. They love the customisation of their map. And it's hard to point to get across that if players on server A play on their parameters setting, they will never play together with players on server B who dislike those settings. So while everyone can tailor the map to their liking. You will never be able to interest people to play together. And you see that in the past only 2 tournaments surrounding warfare rised, both ended prematurely on these grounds. All the games i mentioned before and old cti did not have this problem. I am not saying I know more of warfare than you, but I can say that our interest differ. And I agree with this quote by spamurai

I get your point. I am familiar with the maps and I got a taste of the new BE product. Which will be a more basic version I believe, before a new warfare is made. I like the idea because new users, instead of only veterans can get to know the concept before they are thrown into deep with the warfare concept. The concept of warfare is indeed nice. But how it works in detail can be easily compared to strategy games and older cti versions to show it shortcomings: 1) Normally if you kill a squad or unit in a strategy game, it is dead, it is gone. It will not return to the battlefield before something new comes from enemy base. In warfare depending on the spawn setting, you are either going have a tough time traveling and taking the enormous amounts towns with enormous numbers of resistance or you are going to get awarded by dying. Killing someone then is awarding them with your location, rearmed weaponry and removing injuries. If you don't have spawn of your own, killing the enemy was a bad tactical decision. Which I find an odd concept. The strategy you talk about seems about workarounds to make sure the enemy actually does return to base when it's death. 2) A set number of tactical positions. Almost every game has a limited amount of key areas that must be held. This number is limited to the function of strategy. There are flanks, usually 2 positions on each side. There a key points usually on the middle of the map for increase income. There are safe towns which are close to spawn, but can be attacked if undefended. Warfare doesn't use this concept. The islands from the past games make room for vast landscapes with various large amounts of towns. You have guys going on towns hunts somewhere in the north while enemy is pushing from south, completely away ( like 20 minutes ) from the front line to make silly amounts of income ( point 3 ). 3) The older cti's and strategy games make use of inverted or normal natural income logarithms. This is important because this means that the more income and units on the field, the slower the increase of income will be till it reaches a hold. So there is a set amount of units of various types on the field at a certain time, which allows tactics. The new cti's dont use this at all. In fact most towns increase income over town. The money system is something a engineer would describe as an system showing serious signs of instability. Which leads to the weird billions of cash in longer games on both sides. 4)Fog of war. Strategy games have areas you can't see. In older cti's, engine and pc limitations made this natural. But with the new arma any base can be shelled from a 7000 meters away. In older cti's the use of arty was marked, so that the enemy team could do something about it. This also happens in most strategy games, where either a vehicle show ups in the fog of war. In warfare you find yourself killed often either by arty, long range missles etc without ever discovering the source. You could attack a base with a small tank platoon just to have it shot away by one javelin guy camping on an unknown hill ( point 5) 5)Realistic weaponry. As the games progressed the tanks have become feebler. Old 4 minute long tank battles, which were extended by reinforcement of people on both sides from flashpoint made room for the realistic 3 sec average tank survival. This does not lead to strategy. In fact it creates a hole in the standard inf/heavy/air combination that most strategy games have. Strategy games are more forgiving, giving the team time to respond to an attack. Realism doesn't add much to fair fights. 6) Know how versus skill. If a guy is the best cqc pvper in the arma community, can I kill him easily with my years of experience? Yes, i know plenty of work arounds, exploits and tricks that other people would like to define as skill. I call it know how. If I know that i put a piece of paper on my flat screen with measured distanced to shell your base from any location on the map with my tank by making a map marker with a ai commander. While looking the unit cam to see shell landing. I would say there is a bit of difference in game influence between a player like me and random guy that just joined arma 3. In a strategy game there also players that are better, but they get pooled with better players in most games. In warfare you can just stack a team, either with numbers or skill. Even battlefield has workarounds for this, we need special scripts that doesn't allow this. This is just a small list. If you put planet side 2 and a random strategy game and compare these with warfare it will show you that warfare is more like mmo type of shooter with rpg elements. And I think the statement of calling it the perfect ai and pvp combination a bit over the top. Especially when the older versions were simple 1 to 2 hour games that did actually have features that you could compare to strategy games and where a single persons input was balanced. I don't hate warfare btw, but I see it as something that passes the time. It's not going to be tournament worthy and 1-2 hours games that are exiting from start to end instead of busywork are going to be rare.

First to answer the question. CTI type maps will eventually spawn. A mfcti/warfare combination map is on the way...in fact several types of cti/warfare are in the making. However as the game is in beta the progress is slow as programmers are developing something that is still changing. These maps should be more stable and enjoyable than what currently is out, no offence to teetimes etc. So there will be a small rise of servers hosting it eventually. Secondly I played cti's from OFP as well and in arma 1&2 I played warfare. But I don't get the interest in new age cti warfare anymore. Look ofp cti was a successful strategy map, because it held to strategy game rules. Warfare did not. Warfare is a non personal single player game in a multiplayer environment. So I am not looking that forward to cti maps to be honest. I can compare ofp cti to starcraft/company of heroes/command and conquer from a strategical point of view. ArmA3 does not the aptitude as a platform to make it that good again. New age cti maps simply break all the rules that makes a good strategy game and to make it valible for long term players and to bring tournaments back, you really need to limit some aspects like lowering max amount of view distance, max amount of players, max amount of target/towns, max missle distance and really narrow down and simplify the unit weapon customization, just to personalize combat and add dynamic to strategy. Next to that if the vanilla game doesn't ballance pvp scenarios you need addons. Island and vehicle config customization. Things that new age players can't and/or won't download themselves. Finally most strategy games have a beginning and a end. In new age cti the end is not appreciated and there is no clear start with JIP. Basically to fix the map as a valid strategy game and thus a valid game mode you need to shred the game to become more arcade like a base for a more advanced strategy game. Since no one would actually accept those changes to the game. It's just going to be for those people who want more towns and more players. In which the game is just going to be slower and slower till the point that you might as well play coop for a better challenge. Basically what evolution did to coop missions, warfare did to cti. And personally I am just looking forward for a new game mode that adds pvp to arma3 in a more meaningful way on a map that can actually be won or lost by player input.