Jump to content

Arma 3 Cold War Add-On - Global Mobilisation


Recommended Posts

I confess I'm afraid of ARMA 3 because of its constant need to be modded (and those mods becoming obsolete when the game updates), and because of its lack of technical accuracy vs Steel Beasts, but this does look very interesting and pretty. Especially the maps and the vehicle mod abilities. Have 20 Leopard 1s on the field, all with different reg and tac numbers, external stowage etc. That's quite something. In German (with English subtitles) especially for SSnake. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not a proper one :) I do think it's insanely pretty, but I was always shy of ARMA because of the whole modding nightmare. With Steel Beasts you get a very useable finished product and never have to pay for anything until a major new version comes out. SB is not cheap, but it's the best value in a computer "game" I have ever purchased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never taken to ARMA, and I dont know why. It looks great, but I always found Id be plodding along with the rest of my section, then Id be felled by a single shot from a Kalashnikov about 2 miles away. Or something absurd like that. You could in the first incarnation almost walk up to a Russian tank with a law and shoot it in the ass and get away with it. Before being shot by a guy 2 miles away etc etc. The AI always seemed to be all over the place.

 

And they have a lot of potential at Bohemia. When I went to a military trade show in 2006 (I was showing Steel Beasts) they actually had a BI display stand using their engine for Forward observers. Its jsut never really translated into anything I seem to want to play.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, this is a recurring theme for me. Why can't computer sim creators get infantry combat right? They can do it with jet fighters, attack helicopters, SSNs, MBTs, even major regional conflict, but not infantry. Why the fuck is that? I have played Verdun quite a lot. Verdun was and is claimed to be the most realistic WW1 land warfare sim. Well, I would argue that it is the least hideoously unrealistic. Some things I have discovered about WW1 infantry combat since playing Verdun.

 

1. It is incredibly easy to shoot accurately, even when being shot at, have just been wounded, having leapt into a trench, run hundreds of metres etc. Headshots at the equivalent of 400 metres are very easy, even with an open sighted Lee Enfield. You can also shoot quite accurately whilst doing the Cotton Eye Joe dance, which was a tactic taught to all WW1 infantrymen to prevent them being shot when trench fighting. Sadly there is quite a strong lobby wanting to reinstate "jump shooting" in the game, presumably inspired by this video.

2. Every soldier had a VHF data link with a blue force tracking system and tactical display.

3. Armoured anti gravity ballet shoes prevent you coming to any harm running across shell pocked land with muddy holes full or scrap metal, barbed wire etc. You can leap into a trench and instead of your feet crashing through the rotten duckboards, breaking your ankles or landing flat on your face, you can instantly achieve Olympic level accuracy with any firearm, all in about 0.5 seconds. This kind of movement was accurately depicted in the movie Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon.

4. Fragmentation grenades only hurt the other side - individual fragments (and somehow the blast itself) were fitted with an IFF system to prevent hurting your own comrades.

5. No one in WW1 was killed by friendly small arms fire - the shooter just had 10 points knocked off.

6. Every four man section(?) had at least one guy who could call in GPS/INS guided munitions. It was not unusual for a section to have a 42 cm mortar firing such guided munitions on call, but they never leave craters for some reason. It was typical to have your mortars and artillery shooting into the middle of a firefight you and other teams were engaged in.

7. Somehow you will always be seen and shot if you expose one nanometre of your body above the ground, even in an intense dynamic battle.

8. The dead in WW1 actually respawned in groups of four in shell craters.

9. Given that every soldier we deployed to the front must have died something in the region of 10-100 times a day, this was just as well.

10. Every soldier had an invisible immortal executioner following him around to execute him for such offences as trying to move a couple of metres to a better position to take a shot, or failing to run away and get shot in the back when ordered to do so.

11. The thing that REALLY bugs me the most - weapons lack inertia and momentum. You can shoulder a rifle and shoot near instantaneously, almost as if you were just pushing a mouse a few millimetres across you desktop.

12. Speed of movement. Again, zero inertia/momentum allows instant changes of direction.

13. Sniper rifles were deployed on a massive scale in WW1, down to section level.

14. Heavy machine guns and crew served direct fire weapons only existed as set dressing and were not actually used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive not tried Squad, ive heard good things about that. And the same engine has been used in Post Scriptum, which again, looks good, and ive heard good things from a friend. But of course, such things are dependent on good clans, buddies who give each other mutual support. If you end up in a squad of 12 year olds, as I seemed to do all the time on World of Tanks, you're fucked.

 

But thats multiplayer. I quite like the idea of playing standalone games. It is kind of strange to me we could get decent AI in games like Close combat 20 plus years ago, but nobody seems to manage it with a 3d engine. Close Combat isnt too bad, but of course, its not really RTS, and certainly not a sim.

 

Like you say, it shouldnt be that hard. Ironically games like Rainbow 6 (which date back years) and even Konami's SAS squad game seemed to do a far better job of this kind of thing. As one poster here reflected, the very best squad level sim game he ever played was Electronic Arts Seal Team. Which im horrified to see, came out as long ago as 1993....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad and Post Scriptum are both nice simulators of infantry combat. However, they are games and thus make allowances for gameplay's sake. This means respawns, revives, the map showing the location of your team mates and gameplay modes such as 'advance and secure', 'destroy the weapon caches' etc. Both games include arcade style vehicles which do improve the game. I am especially in awe of the effect of an IFV / recce vehicle mounted autocannon in both games, those are just so dangerous to you as an infantryman.

 

If you liked the game Verdun, I do recommend trying out Post Scriptum.

Edited by Daan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Squad and Post Scriptum are both nice simulators of infantry combat. However, they are games and thus make allowances for gameplay's sake. This means respawns, revives, the map showing the location of your team mates and gameplay modes such as 'advance and secure', 'destroy the weapon caches' etc. Both games include arcade style vehicles which do improve the game. I am especially in awe of the effect of an IFV / recce vehicle mounted autocannon in both games, those are just so dangerous to you as an infantryman.

 

If you liked the game Verdun, I do recommend trying out Post Scriptum.

I really like Squad but it's not an easy game. I too like the vehicles as the challenge of having 3-4 human players crewing a vehicle and coordinating their actions is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, this is a recurring theme for me. Why can't computer sim creators get infantry combat right? They can do it with jet fighters, attack helicopters, SSNs, MBTs, even major regional conflict, but not infantry. Why the fuck is that?

 

Years ago when I was more active in WoT one of my clan leaders shared a vid of a massive infantry op he took part of in... one of the Arma games? I'm not sure what it was but in trying to watch this vid (which was over 2h long) it actually did bring back memories of my Army days. The problem was... it was too spot on. While I had fun back then I wouldn't want to spend all that time now in a pure infantry sim.

 

I'm in full agreement that modern FPS games have too many quality of life improvements that basically take them to arcade level. The catch for me would be to find a game that both respects your time as well as the realities of the subject matter. Honestly I wonder if it's even feasible and if the real answer is in more of a platoon or company level sim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably why close combat worked so well.

 

Have you played the Gateway to Caen one? That looks really good. CCABTF was my favourite wargame (as opposed to milsim) of all time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stuart, this is a recurring theme for me. Why can't computer sim creators get infantry combat right? They can do it with jet fighters, attack helicopters, SSNs, MBTs, even major regional conflict, but not infantry. Why the fuck is that?

 

Years ago when I was more active in WoT one of my clan leaders shared a vid of a massive infantry op he took part of in... one of the Arma games? I'm not sure what it was but in trying to watch this vid (which was over 2h long) it actually did bring back memories of my Army days. The problem was... it was too spot on. While I had fun back then I wouldn't want to spend all that time now in a pure infantry sim.

 

I'm in full agreement that modern FPS games have too many quality of life improvements that basically take them to arcade level. The catch for me would be to find a game that both respects your time as well as the realities of the subject matter. Honestly I wonder if it's even feasible and if the real answer is in more of a platoon or company level sim.

 

 

Yes, I'm in total agreement and in particular with the "The catch for me would be to find a game that both respects your time as well as the realities of the subject matter." Respawning is essential for playability for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about Verdun. If I simply disobey orders and find a spot to camp with a rifle, I get lots of medals and often achieve "most effective player". If I try to push forwards into the enemy trenches, still killing my fair share of enemies, I get bugger all. I don't think the game mechanics should reward completely ignoring the mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, camping, that most victorious mainstay of online battles. :)

 

I just did a little experiment. Attempting to storm enemy trenches, I achieved casualty exchange ratios of between 1:4 (yes, I died four times per enemy killed) and 2:1. Camping and shooting from a distance got me between 10:1 and 12:1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which to be strictly fair, does sound pretty much like WW1. Although it doesnt really make a very interesting game I would have thought.

 

A game based around Stormtroopers or trench raids would be more interesting I would have thought. You would be on similar ground as Rainbow 6 but with WW1 weapons (and clubs).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which to be strictly fair, does sound pretty much like WW1. Although it doesnt really make a very interesting game I would have thought.

 

A game based around Stormtroopers or trench raids would be more interesting I would have thought. You would be on similar ground as Rainbow 6 but with WW1 weapons (and clubs).

 

There are lots of Sturmtruppen in Verdun (the variety of units and equipment is one of the big plusses of the game). You get clubs, entrenching tools and even daggers. On one occasion recently, I'd been camping in no mans land with a luger PO8 when my 96 rounds of ammo ran out. I thought what have I got to lose, drew a trench knife and jumped into the closest enemy trench. I took out two enemies and the game promptly ended :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a good TV programme on BBC4 of late on the development of weapons in the UK since medieval times, and it pointed in the first episode to the reintroduction of clubs and maces on the WW1 battlefield. They looked like they would have been more suited for Agincourt.

 

In a Richard Holmes book, a former British officer took a tour of the some battlefields in the 1920's, and went to pick up what he thought was an old Lee Enfield dropped in the mud of a trench. It turned out to be a Brown Bess Musket, presumably dropped by Wellingtons Army as they passed there on the way to Paris in 1815. Makes you think....

 

I had a fondness for the War of the Roses multiplayer game, but the devs eventually borked it and its now been taken off steam. A damn shame, it was about the only medieval combat game of that time out there.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a good TV programme on BBC4 of late on the development of weapons in the UK since medieval times, and it pointed in the first episode to the reintroduction of clubs and maces on the WW1 battlefield. They looked like they would have been more suited for Agincourt.

 

In a Richard Holmes book, a former British officer took a tour of the some battlefields in the 1920's, and went to pick up what he thought was an old Lee Enfield dropped in the mud of a trench. It turned out to be a Brown Bess Musket, presumably dropped by Wellingtons Army as they passed there on the way to Paris in 1815. Makes you think....

 

I had a fondness for the War of the Roses multiplayer game, but the devs eventually borked it and its now been taken off steam. A damn shame, it was about the only medieval combat game of that time out there.

 

Yes, I'm watching that too. It covers ground that's been covered dozens of times, but it's still fun to watch. I didn't get why the matchlock musket shown was a huge advance on the (relatively advanced) arquebus shown earlier though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheap to build. I guess its a similar thing to the musket over the Longbow, it wasnt as accurate and had nothing like the rate of fire, but it was cheap to build, and everyone could use it. I guess you could see the arquebus as a stepping stone between the medieval weapon and the arrival of the machine age.

 

Episode 3 is interesting, its got the siege of Sidney Street and the Mauser Pistol. The hysteria over terrorism and an armed populace will much amuse you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically about the matchlock musket made it cheaper to build? All I can think of is that the lockwork may have been less complex. I'm familiar with the Sidney Street episode :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Less the musket than the ammunition. There was an OU documentary on about Henry V, and apparently before Agincourt they mandated that everyone in the kingdom whom owned a goose had to donate a tail feather. Which when you think about how many arrows they got through at Agincourt illustrates why big battles were not all that common. It was a major industrial achievement to achieve the kind of arrow storm they had there. On top of that, you have the training issue. I think Edward I mandated that there had to be time put aside for archery training on every village green, to ensure he had enough longbowmen. Even then, as the Mary Rose illusrated, longbowmen were not so much trained as grown. They were all physically deformed to one extent or another.

 

Conversely all you needed for a musket, when it was made, was gunpowder and lead. Gunpower is expensive but at least you could stockpile it. Lead, well if you get desperate, there is always a church roof. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...