ivan keska

So i've figured out how to set up the sectors, but I can't seem to make it where once a sector is captured it becomes a spawn point. So you can now spawn on that zone, until you loss it or enemies are in the area. Also this is for vehicles as well, so if you capture say an airfield aircraft would spawn and respawn if killed as long are you hold the area. Now of course if a bluefor sector is captured by opfor then opfor can spawn there and their vehicles would spawn there as well.

Like the map so far, just has that nice mix of everything also some nice choke points. The ai seem ok driving and moving around it, which is good because expected some wonkiness when crossing bridges. Some performance stuff, but nothing that bad. Though most noticeable for me in high veg areas like that little ruin fort in the northwest. So far no big problems standing out, though i wish i could demo the bridges.

I would get this, because I like arma and have all the other dlc's. But the one thing holding me back is just how this doesn't load and integrate like all the others. Instead from what i've heard it does so more like a mod. Thus I can't have it on and just hope into a normal server, instead i have to have it on or off based on if the server allows it or not. I hope that can be something sorted out, because frankly that's one of the big appeals for the arma dlc's.

I'm curios if a vehicle cap can be made within this mission (if not maybe higher cost?). Thus each team is restricted to say 1 of each jet and so forth. Because as of now, you see attack jets and gunships get spammed by which ever side can afford it and get access first. Which often is opfor, since in 2 moves they can take molos airfield. And this is honestly a real problem because once the skies are filled with those things, the other team is pretty much just doomed. Since any armor you can try sending out just gets destoryed by these aircraft. And the AA tanks don't help much either, since the flares are so plentiful and effective. Also for Altas I honestly feel the bluefor base should be more around oreckastro or maybe agios konstantinos. Then make abdera a usable airfield, which can be accessed in 2 captures through syrta and than abdera. This would balance the map out a lot, and I imagine would be a fairly simple change if this mission is designed like most community made ones. Another fair option if you want to make the bases more opposite side of the map. Is move the bluefor base to Sfaka, thus give bluefor the same 2 capture zone route to an airfield. This time just being sourthern base and then aac airfield. As for the teamkilling from people as well as aircraft bombing the home bases. A good way to counter that or atleast heavily reduce it, is to allow a player to set they spawn location. Thus if you have a town captured you can simply set that as your spawn location, and it will only change if it's lost or you well change it. This allows people to get where they are going a bit quicker well also ensuring that many aren't showing up in the same spot, thus taking away or severely restricting someones the ability to easily kill a large portion of the team. Also sorry if this is going a bit long, but can we have a few more infantry options. Like for example the guys carrying the static weapon backpacks. Since would allow us to set up AT/AA nest outside of towns vastly easier thus allowing a side without air superiority or a wave of armor to stand a better chance. Which is odd to say when we have at and aa infantry, but being able to set up a static weapon allows us the players to have a more effective way to fight back. Since we can wear the stealth uniforms, thus stand a chance to evade thermals. Though if it's possible within this mission to just allows us to clone our load out onto the ai following us or have them spawn in with same load out, that would be better. also reduce the chance of cluttering the menu.

The official servers need some admins or certain regulars allowed to kick/ban people (also people kicked should be bared from coming back until a set amount of time), since after getting back into arma and jumping into warlords (closest thing to capture the island). The teamkillers are just out of control, every single match you just see a team end up with one. As a constant list of teamkills pops up. Aside from that. wish we got atleast 3 ai to control instead of 2. Also something to limit the number of attack heli's and jets, because good god the spam of those is very real.

Something i've started to notice more and more since working on a making server, is that people often have a problem with thermals. Now I understood the concern before really just on altis which has so much open ground, thus no cover to use. But on maps like Stratis and now Tanoa, there is a lot of cover and areas in general that just greatly reduce spotting range. And now we have the anti-thermal uniforms and gear that pretty much make you invisible on thermals and only really noticeable if at very close range. Yet people still hate the idea of thermals, like they are a guaranteed win option. When avoiding them isn't that hard if you play smart and now you are free to take more risk because you can mask your thermal signature. To me it's a game play mechanic that adds an extra layer to combat, and can be countered if you know what you are doing and understand were they are good and bad. Anyways what do you guys think about the subject are you for thermals or against, and if so why.

Overall i thought it was pretty good though wish we had better storys, like what we saw in Laws of War. But the ability to choose how you will be involved with some of the missions was really cool. Now a few things about the missions starting with Beyond Hope part 2 now for Steel Pegasus

Just "completed" the campaign and i thought it was really good. Of all the campaign stuff in arma 3 I think this one was by far the best. The story telling, dialogue, and choices just made it stand out and above the others. Also I say completed because i couldn't complete the task of clearly all the land mines. I scanned the entire area with the drone and got nothing, and also walked through the town and still couldn't find any mines left. Now i think this might be due to a few disappearing, because i noticed some just no longer existed when i returned. Also the demining drone is a like a tiny stealth bomber and i love it. Like a little bee that flies around unnoticed, right up until it stings you. Also the new drones in general are great because they handle better and fly better than the normal quad copter.

Anyone able to eject from the planes strait into the ground and survive? Because that's a thing, also kinda funny how if the plane doesn't matter you can just rocket eject into the ground.

I just wana add how much I love the fact we can attach 20mm gun pods to the opfor helicopters. Also i hope we get more options like that, because it add more fun factor also if i can put 4 twin 20mm gun pods on a heli or 4 250kg bombs. Why can't I have something like more miniguns on a hellcat and such. But for the Kaijman those dumb fire weapons really should be controlled by the pilot. Because right it's a real annoying limitation to make it where the gunner has to fire the weapons the pilot aims. Which reduces the effectiveness of the heli in what feels like a very unrealistic way.

I agree that some way to control speed should be added so we have a way of moving around, without clip clopping all over the place like an idiot. Please come on, who the hell walks as loud as the character do in game without trying to walk loudly.

The showcase i feel is lacking a bit, because it's just fly in and kill two planes and 2 tanks. I wish there was a bit more to it, thus something that would show off the custom weapon loadout. Like you land at the carrier and then get called out to assist friendlies, but you now need to rearm with a more ground based load out. So we get a sense of the new jets a bit more and also see a method of employing the loadout system in game. Also the weapons on the carrier, don't detect the carrier. Thus they will track a target and fire into the carrier blowing themselves up or any friendly on deck. Also as Cnutter said above, we do need a way to get up to the carrier from the water. Because that just gives it more possibilities for both offensive and defensive situations. Since infantry can be sent into boats or apcs from the carrier, and so infantry can also assault the carrier. And is the centurion launcher only suppose to have a detection range of 4km? because i feel like it should be the more medium to long range system, with a range of atleast 6km. There for it's first line defense, the spartan is second line, and the praets are the 3rd line defense. Also if possible would be great if the Praets could function as counter missile, so if for example a cas jet fires from beyond the range of the centurion launchers. The praets can have a chance to kill the missile.

I wish we'd get some loadout options for ground vehicles, thus we can change the ammo load out or even change the weapons a bit. So an offroad for example could be changed to use a mounted zafar, lnyx, and such. Which gives players more options in missions and also that's not an unrealistic thing. As for the current system as is, i think it's pretty good. But for the helis, we should be allowed to add or remove the machine guns. Since it would be nice to customize them a bit more, thus we can have a pawnee with 1 minigun and 3 extra weapons. or an orca with 2 of those wonderful 6.5 miniguns. Also the gun pod on the AAF jet, I see as kind of the same problem since we can't really do anything with it.

The PIP camera system I found really great, and even more so since ground vehicles like tanks had it as well. Though for the gunner camera, we should just get the gun sight view. Since that is more useful and also realistic. Because not having that cuts out a lot of information that the vehicle commander really should have.

So tried out the system and I like it so much. it just is so much better then the magic radar. Though i couldn't turn the radar on inside the jets, but could turn it on inside the gunships (maybe I missed something). Also i gotta ask, will aircraft and vehicles in game that are designed for reduce radar and IR signatures have some sort of effect on this system? Like a option that can be toggled on or off, kinda like advanced flight model.

Well i used those jets for the indi because they are all older aircraft but still used in service (thus in line with the buzzard) and all were used as air superiority aircraft at some point. So F-4 does fit just fine, though will admit the F-5 and Mirage 2000 would be the better choices of the four i list for indi. As for the F-35, if they aren't going to use that. Then bluefor i could see use the F-15 Silent Eagle, which would fit in line with NATO in game having a lesser budget thus upgrading a proven aircraft to a newer standard. Or maybe just a Eurotyphoon might be used, since britan a nato member and notable one in game uses them and they are newer aircraft thus could easily be used out to 2035.

Things i hope we see from this is a better radar system, because the current one is garbage. So having one that can tell use us something in regards to elevation, would be super useful. Also one that doesn't magically detect things, since the current radar is far to effective at detecting ground targets. Plus finally adding a stealth feature in, so vehicle that aren't meant to avoid radar detection now can. Thus radar will mostly be used for air targets, and for ground it will work but you'll have ground scatter and everything looks the same on the radar besides for maybe some size variation. I hope we see is some kind of ECM, so we have some kind of counter to AA systems. Thus maybe on radar we temporary show up as multiple targets, until the radar system readjusts and accurately tracks again. So if a missile is fired at us from a SAM system for example, it might have say a 1 in 3 chance of hitting us. Since it might be going after one of the false return signatures generated from the ECM system. Also this idea extends to giving us more control of how to launch flares and chaff, since right now we burn through them way to fast because of the lack of control. Also something i think should be done, though it's really a minor note. Is Missiles don't have a maximum range, max target speeds, nor many characteristics of ones in real life besides tracking and exploding. Thus If you have no counter measures you really are screwed, because you can't keep range nor can you use speed to keep distance from an incoming missile until it burns out. This i bring up because it will help the smart ground attack pilots, but it will also give the newer jets a better change against light AA since they lack a strong ground attack capability. Now this of course only really matters for light AA and AT infantry carry and most likely would be using in static set ups, since those are often limited in performance by the fact people gotta carry them. Outside of features, i expect something like a (bluefor) F-35 and (opfor) PAK FA or J-31 and (indi) F-4 phantom, Mig-21, Mirage 2000, or Panavia Tonrado for the main multi-role fighters. And also wouldn't be surprised if we see a generation 6 aircraft (for the future theme), kinda hope if so it's a drone designed for air superiority. Also I expect some AA vehicles, most like dedicated SAM systems. But I hope we also get some AA and AT MRAP variants, because that is a realistic thing you see done to such a vehicles and would be nice to have.

What i want is the ability to damage optics, because shooting out optics and damaging view ports has been one of the oldest methods of dealing with armored vehicles. One which which still works even against the most modern and advance vehicles. Also more realistic optics as well, since ya we might have some amazing night vision and thermal sights on tanks now a days. But they still aren't anywhere near what we have in game, so seeing them get upgraded by being downgraded. Would be a nice thing to do and also work as a balancing measure. Since right now you can it's pretty easily to snipe as far as 10km with a tank, since the optics are so clear.

I know you guys improved the damage models by a lot (thankfully), but I wonder is it possible to make the body armor work like body armor. Thus actually stop projectiles they are rated for, instead of function as they do now which is like a damage reducer. It's something i'm just wondering about, since it is realistic but never heard of or atleast recall anyone trying to do it.

I have no problem with vehicles because hell it's really easy to disable nearly everything you run into. Your basic 5.56 rifle can knock out the all light turrets like on the MRAPs and Marid, with only a few hits. But medium turrets like on the BTR or Tigris, need a 50 cal machine gun or a 50 cal sniper rifle. But heavy turrets on the MBTs need AP rounds from cannons or AT rockets or missiles. BUT!! I really think we need health for view ports and optics on MBT and vehicles in general. Since that is a very real tactic, in which you shoot the view ports and optic with your rifle in order to cause crack blocking view or just break it. Which is why tanks in real life have to be careful in how they deal with infantry. Because skilled soldiers will know how to deal with something like say an BMP, even if they don't have AT. Sure they might not be able to kill it but if you break the view ports and optics, the crew either have to fall back and navigate with GPS or turn out and risk getting shot. Both situation i'm sure no armor crew whats to deal with.

I do like the look of this map through the screenshots, because we really do need a map like this. Since the water environment has been done really well in Arma 3 and opens up a lot of possibilities for different situations. So can't wait to check this map out in person.

it's an rpg7 it's self destruct at 837m or about unless they changed that from real life. Also RPG aren't reliable past i think the soviets found 300m, where the accuracy on a moving target fell below 50%. Sounds more like the RPG7 in game has more range then it should and is more accurate then it should be. Then again weapon accuracy Arma has always gotten wrong.

Fair point, also would be to much coding for any team to put in a detailed system. I guess the simplest way would be make it detect if it was stopped by armor, passed through and stopped in person, or passed through the person entirely. Thus stopped would do little to no damage but effect aim, stamina, or something else. Stopped in person would do full damage, and pass through would do some damage but not full. And i think the current system just measure armor value and uses that to act an a damage reduction to the bullets damage value.

Ya the ballistics and damage are completely wrong, on all the weapons. something you can clearly see by looking at the MX series. Anyways the 7.62x39 should actually be a less effective round then 5.56, but not by much. Granted it does have very good penetration, but that is also why it's not a very damaging round. Plus add in the poor ballistics it has overall, and you quickly understand why the soviets went with and greatly preferred the 5.54. I think the penetration of the round is fine in game, but the damage it does should be equal to or just barely below 5.56. Well the 5.54 should be buffed a bit since that round is a bit more lethal then 5.56.

Something i've started to notice being a problem when handling groups bigger then a fireteam thus into squad size and platoon. Is there isn't a way to break up group chat (at least I haven't seen it yet), so say you are running a large group you if the group leader can add a group channel. Thus each fireteam can end up having there own way of talking without interfering with everyone's comms, or being forced to split up and run two separate groups. Also a way to separate channels into direction, so I can have group to only come from my right head phone and and command come from my left. Thus a simple way to better pick out who and what channel is being used, without looking in the bottom left of screen.