tHa_KhAn

You must not have played the same ArmA as I played. ArmA is vastly superior in squad size and organization than BF2. You must be referring to Evolution. Most ArmA missions have the squads designed prior to play, they can be of any size(to my knowledge seen I've had 15+) and broken down in as many fireteams with specific load outs. I can only conclude that you only played Evolution or some other mission that had in game squad changing, which is buggy because it really isn't part of the game.

__________________

mingmong

Indeed. Play any mission with the BAS f framework divided into fireteams, squads and platoons. Management at fireteam level is at least as tight as squad level in BF2, and goes beyond that - BF2 can't claim to support a squad, let alone a platoon.

Shiner

I do think the squad creation and controls are lacking in-game. Where is the interface to see who is in what squad, what the kit loadouts are, who is the fireteam leader? This is being implemented by CEX, but will suffer by not having native support for these EXTREMELY vital command and control functions.

__________________

Uranium - 235

I think he's referring to the ease of joining a squad, finding your squad, seeing other squads, etc.

tHa_KhAn

Again, has nothing to do with the vast majority of missions. People are clouding the mission Evolution, with ArmA itself. Shiner's comment is appropriate because he is viewing it as a mission maker trying to create a persistent mission where joining squad in games would be relevant. Al appears to be commenting from the perspective as a player, and as such appears to not have played more than one mission. I could be mistaken about that. I don't get how in every other mission where squads are clearly defined down to the fireteam level(assuming the mission maker did this) what improvements he is suggesting. If he means incorporating GPS markers for Squad leaders or something like that, then I would suggest being more clear, but I read his statement as wanting a simpler way to join squads in game, which is only an issue in Evolution and maybe Shiner's upcoming Domination.

__________________

mingmong

If more mission makers implemented BAS f there wouldn't be a problem. It makes me sad to play a mission with 6, 10 man squads and no visual way to represent the different squads on the main map. This applies to all missions out there, including many TG ones.

vanity11

I agree that I'd like an option of being able to view other squads in various colors on the map. I don't need a minimap or anything, but I'd really like to be able to see which squad's are where. Most of the time I'm totally confused and there's a ton of radio chatter going on. I know it's not realistic to have real-time players shown on a map, but that might be a level of realism that degrades gameplay.

Plus, I like to drink booze when I play on weekends. So colors would really help me out. I can't listen do 8 dudes talking at once and decipher what's going on. That's WORK.

rcpro8

i would personally like to see only 3 things


artillery that can go over mountains and that is not limited to line of sight


voip


a movable mortar system of some sort would be interesting


thanks,
brennan

Gillespie

12. Player skin choices. Let player and mission makers have a pool of skins to camouflage people into. One uniform does not fit all environments on the map.

While fun, this doesn't seem to fit the realistic simulation of a combat zone we all want. Our unit had a uniform we had to adhere to, and we sure didn't change uniform patterns when we felt like it. In the early war, you'd occasionally get told to wear woodland BDUs instead of DCUs for night raids, but now the U.S. Army has the ACU digital pattern. It was designed to eliminate the need for different uniforms... as such, the only thing I want changed is the ACU pattern being added to the IBAS armor... only replacements getting to a unit late recieves an IBAS vest with a different pattern on it (because of the shortage of the ACU pattern).

That being said... it's just a game, so adding skins in would at least allow us to simulate different years into the game. Early 90s would use chocolate chip desert camo, around the turn of the century we'd be using DCUs and BDUs, and circa 2005 we'd be using the ACU pattern. If you want to add some kosher customization, then I say BI adds in a few different vests you can wear on your armor. Some Tactical Tailor stuff, some Army issue stuff, some BLACKHAWK! stuff, etc, etc. My unit, and most other units, have no problem with soldiers wearing their own gear, so long as it includes the IBAS and the MITCH helmet.

Need to add the 1911, Socom 16, etc, etc...

The venerable Colt 1911 may be used by the MEUs still, but the Marines aren't in the game. The U.S. Army is, and they don't have the 1911 anymore.

As for the weapons the SF units use (whether they be Delta or Special Forces), go ahead and add them, but restrict their use to those classes. To preserve the combat simulation we're trying to achieve.

- The M68 Aimpoint, we rarely use it anymore... Trijicon's ACOG is the preferred choice in most units. You get an Aimpoint when the armorer runs out of ACOGs to issue you. I've seen some light infantry units with EOTech holosights on their weapons... but nothing prevalent, just more of a "HEY, WE'RE SO COOL!" sort of posturing thing. ;P It really depends on what year ArmA is simulating... seems to be sometime after 2000, with the inclusion of M16A4's and the like.

- If you want to get really crazy with it, modify the M249 so that it has the collapsible M4 buttstock on it (modified for use with the M249) with the M145 ELCAN and the short barrel on it.

- An Assistant Gunner class that runs around with the machine gunner and can deploy a tripod to mount the M240B for really long distance suppression.

- A squad system with an in-game limit on VOIP distance (commo range). As in a RTO class needing to run around with a squad/platoon to actually communicate with other units that are within the RTO's "commo bubble". Without an RTO, units would be limited to iCOM range (iCOM's are little encrypted walkie-talkies), which isn't all that far. Also, throw in optional "radio interference" for a true simulation of military communications. ;P

- An FO that can call in fire support (this goes with artillery implementation).

- An actual reload animation would be cool (instead of the make-believe go-through-the-motion thing we have now), but NOT vital... it'd just be cool, that's all.

- Nukes. I mean... why not?

- All American forces wear eyepro (the "sunglasses"... which are actually ballistic eye protection A.K.A. "eyepro"). ALL US forces wear eyepro. It's part of the uniform now when in a combat zone. Seeing these guys run around Sahrani without eyepro is really odd. I modded my own face in wearing some ESS glasses, just to make myself feel better. :P

Dslyecxi

Gillespie, keep in mind that these are ArmA2 suggestions, not ArmA. ArmA2 is about the USMC, not the US Army.

__________________

Gillespie

Well, color me stupid and discount my weapons suggestions.

Suggestion: Do not use the USMC, purely for technological reasons. Less weapons and toys to play with.

Dslyecxi

I'm going to agree with you on that point and leave it at that. I would prefer this topic to be about suggestions, and discussing Army vs Marines in the context of ArmA2 is unproductive at best.

__________________

Gillespie

Edited my post to completely steer away from any sort of "versus" argument, which was absolutely NOT the intention.

BigGaayAl

I am aware of how ARMA works, and though I haven't used it, I also know of the squad tool dyslecsi posted. Perhaps my wording wasn't clear.

The thing BF2 does so much better, you'll have to agree, is the general ease of use of the in-game voip and it's seamless integration with the command structure.

Why is TS mandatory on ArmATG? Because the in-game voip isn't very practical. On bf2 it is voip that is (sort of) mandatory, not TS. Off course a third party app isn't integrated with the game at all, and there from stem a lot of organisational problems.

So to repeat my suggestion: improve the usability of voip and integration with the command structure.

One improvement might be to easily be able to communicate with your fire team only when it is not needed to speak to the whole squad. Right now I believe you need to fumble quite a lot of buttons before you get to the right voip mode (may have been changed in the months I haven't played the game).

*"A little more flexibility is needed (larger squads for one)." Here I just meant that Arma has a need of bigger squads then BF2, I didn't mean to say that Arma needed bigger squads, it needs RL squad sizes and I believe that is the case.

__________________

loyalguard

I think we'd all like to see better overall VOIP implementation and would like to think BIS would make this a priority in ArmA2.

I also know what you mean about changing chat/voip modes. It can be a little cumbersome

...But FYI, even currently I believe, there are binds available (though not bound by default - I will verify when I get home) to transmit in different channels (Direct, Group, Vehicle, Side, Global) with a single key-press without having to use the [,] or [.] to change channels. This is obviously under used or not used at all since the VOIP system doesn't work so well and TS is used as primary instead. I would like to see this persist in ArmA2

__________________
|TG| LoyalGuard