CTI 2

[Grayace]

Well I have been reading ArmA CTI and stuff, and things doesnt sound hot enough for me, Im glad that BIS tried to keep things realistic, but steering away from the CTI's core without replacing it with a decent stuff isnt the brightest idea in the rack..

well here is my recommendation to keep both action, realism in place.

my points in suggesting this are,

Class based operatives (crew,pilot,infantry,officer,commando)
Mission templates for operative classes
Realistic base command
Realistic tactical mission conduction
Realistic material and equipment handling
-------------------------------------
Total and realistic modern warfare

Ways to implement this,

There should be domination areas on the map, like towns or other strategic points but I would recommend map should be "Hex"ed, rather than unbalanced town locations. This should help to maintain a certain Battle Front

These areas should be under command of Garrisons which are to be represented by a field base (few tents maybe) and the area under their control should be guarded by few AAA/SAM units, few mobile MBTs/IFVs. Let say each of this hexes are sized around 5-10 km2

Having mobile and static armoured units will give something to shoot for Allied Helicopters and Armor units, If allied units are just the infantry that has been inserted via APCs or Airborne means, they could move into demolish Garrison Base In this case, Garrison will deploy few infantry squads to fight off. So infantry will have some stuff to deal with.

Damaged Garrisons will need supply trucks to replace the losses, and these trucks should be sent from HQ, so they can be intercepted by the Allied Special Operations units that are operating behind the enemy lines

A Garrison base without enough supplies (this should also reduce the ammo/fuel carried by that garrison's defenders) would be more vulnerable to further attacks and it will collapse, so this garrison will pack and fall back to a hex behind

Now in this case, base commander can "create missions" for the operatives, for example if the HQ has enough amount of supplies to perform an offensive operation, Commander will assign missions to Operatives, missions could be (regarding to supplies and equipment availability)

Motorized Infantry Assault (Infantry offensive)
Mechanized Infantry Assault (Infantry offensive)
Armored Spearhead (Armored offensive to kill enemy units)
Airborne Infantry operations (Tactical Infantry insertion)
Air Cavalry Operations (Tank busting / SEAD / Deep Strike)
etc...

When a Offensive Mission operatives (players) suitable for this class will take the mission and will be equipped accordingly, Once they start their operation, they can be supported by other mission operatives if there are any...

Operation commander should be responsible for the tactical planning for the missions assigned to single enemy garrison, while operatives can be other players. So other than Base commander, there could be Lt. Commanders to command squads assigned to that mission (example: 2 groups of Infantry, 1 group of APC/IFVs, 1 group of Support units)

So operatives, usual combatants, could get their squads moving respectively to the orders of Lt.Commander, in case they die, they should GROUP SPAWN so tank and helicopter operations can be kept going on. While Lt.Commander can be travel with the support group (ex. 2 trucks, 1 M113 mobile c2 unit)

Well Lt.Commander can be included if the battle size gets large enough to battle with few enemy garrisons at the same time other wise Commander can command the battle..

During offensive, both operatives and commanders should keep eye on their equipment, if they start to lose too much units, they should pull back their units and re-organize. Tanks and helicopters dont come-by easily as well as the weapons.

If the HQ is low on supplies, they should wait for shipment from mainland which should occur in certain time intervals, if the battle is going in favor, shipped equipment will be more offensive oriented, other wise mainland will send defensive equipment.

And if HQ is still low on supplies, where they cant launch an offensive, Base commander will assign defensive missions to operatives like,

Infantry Area Patrol, (to increase security in controlled territory)
Infantry Area Hold&Support (to intercept enemy offensive ops)
Armored Recon&Scout Operations (limited offensive ops)
Airlift operations (to supply garrisons)

Well both in defense and offense, all operatives (Crew, Infantry and Pilots) will be able to perform operations,

Special Operations teams can be deployed at all times since they dont require much supplies.

Base commanders can be loaded with other strategic options, like setting forthcoming supplies to offensive or defensive, requistition of advanced units (ex: T62 to T72 to T80...) and also they can be put in charge of strategic decisions. placing artillery pieces, calling in airstrikes, paratroopers... reinforcing or re-balancing existing garrisons...

also there will be 3 or 4 garrisons per side (accoring to zone of control) and since they will have certain amount of force (also infantry they have will only go out (appear) when enemy forces are entering their zone) this will keep the existing unit count as low as possible to provide smooth and lagless play...

let say;
3 AAA/SAM (per garrison)
2 MBT/IFV patrol
1 Squad of base area guards
2 Squads will be created if attackers are located inside zone of control

this means 3x2 + 2x2 + 1x8 + 2x6 = 18 units/garrison if the area is clear, and will top at 30 units if the garrison is under attack

so, 18x3 (garrisons) +12 (1 garrison is on alert deployment) = 66

so 66 per side is not a very high number in OFP standarts,

attackers size could be
1 group of Infantry
1 group of Support
1 group of MBTs

let say 1x8 + 1x6 + 1x6 = 20 units... is also nothing so total existing units would barely reach at 200 globally including support trucks, base commanders and other misc. units.

will add more I got to go...

[Cam51]

Is this what you think BIS should have done, or a mission idea that you've come up with?

Either way, it seems pretty loaded with large and good ideas, but you gotta remember that with a free-to-go-anywhere game like OFP or Armed Assault, your going to have to put up with people that just want to do their own thing.

It would be pretty cool to see this played out on a tournament event or something with people actually on TeamSpeak and working together for the good of the cause, but in a open server I just don't see it happening.

Your idea is pretty good, I would like to give you some suggestions on different things you could do by email if you don't mind.

For BIS has made with their CTI, or from what I've read of it, it sounds like a pretty straight forward, get to the point style mission. You idea would be praised, but the time needed to play and plan stuff out in a mission like that would take some time (this is why I think it would show its true strength in a tournament or competition).

I am interested in hearing more.

[mickuzy]

yeah and make sure u implement co-op and single player stuff as well

[Grayace]

well this is what I think that new CTI should BE, because I dont like tanks and helicopters spawning from buildings, and also Command&Conquer style building placing is not something I like neither.

This should keep the battle in a unified way, so people wont wander pointlessly but they will be conducting their operations on their will according to the outline of the given mission, also this will keep the units in a certain location of the map, rather than scattered units all over the map (like a group consists of 2 tanks and few infantry and they are all over the place... useless)

for example a helicopter team on SEAD mission is supposed to hunt down enemy AAA/SAM units, supposedly support allied airborne insertions. and since garrisons will have set of air defence units, Helicopter pilots will certainly get something to shoot or got shot at, so everything will be in balance and in an organized way

on the other hand, think the battle on this island is a part of a bigger operation, so Homeland will send units and supplies accordingly to the situation. No Chief of Staff would sent valuable set of gunships while all the forces are on full retreat.

so briefly, there will be a chain of command, there will be supply based weapon/equipment/vehicle availability and an organized warfare because of attack/defence mission templates and proper garrison deployment and also special ops like, base supply and infiltration ops.

I will add more, its pretty late around here now, Im a little drunk http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif and got to go... (I made some changes in first post...lower part)

[Grayace]

http://www.planetunreal.com/airfight/files/blackace/Personal/SahraniHEX.jpg

Each Hex is representing an area of apprx. 5.00 Km2 area. In each of these Zone of Controls, A certain amount of Air Defence units and Armored patrols will be active,

Garrison field base should be located somewhere in the center of this hex. And garrison's defensive assets have to be fielded within this area.

If a garrison is completely destroyed, control of that Hex should be given to other side. The defeated side will choose a hex on retreat vector. There are black areas, I added them to squeze the corridor to keep the 3 Garrison area enough, and also those areas doesnt have any strategic value, (city/town...)

Some examples,

Motorized Infantry Assault,
Let say this mission consists of 2 groups of Infantry each equipped with a Truck, and 1 group of support unit equipped with an Ambulance, 2 recce vehicle and C2 jeep/tank, Infantry trucks should have some AT and AA launchers in cargo... Lt. Commander has to perform recon operations, deploy the squads, coordinate actions along with the other missions underway, (like Armored or Helicopter strike packages) to get maximum efficiency. While squad leaders have to deal with local tasks like deploying units, picking targets etc. And also Lt.Commander should be able to ABORT MISSION or CALL FOR REPLACEMENTS according to losses sustained.

In mechanized Infantry, trucks will be replaced with APCs/IFVs to increase mobility and fire power with cost of reduced stealth.

Infantry operations should be the premier operations at all, because they need delicate planning since they are slow and vulnerable but formidable as well. Helicopter and Armored strike packages should perform their operations on their own (without Lt.Com) but an Infantry Lt.Commander should be able to call in Armored/Rotary Wing units on his will.

So Infantry will be handling the main offensive operation while other units (Helicopters,tanks and specOps) will be just giving tactical support to suppress enemy actions. Because it's quite useless to bind these mobile units to a single location...

Infantry Defence,
If the side is unable to perform offensive operations, deploying available units to reinforce Garrison areas could be useful to weaken enemy's ability to fight. Again this group can be consist of 2 Infantry squads with a carrier and a squad of support units. Lt.Commander is again responsible to locate enemy attack runs, and position his available units to cut enemy operations.

While in defence mode, Armored/Rotary Wing units would be grounded, and only support would come from garrisons itself, as AAA/SAM and limited amount of Armored units. So, in defence mode, Lt.Commander should be able to coordinate and position that garrisons defensive assets.

[Commando84]

a cool idea but maybe a bit to complex, but if you can pull it off i'll be impressed. I myself like it the way cti works and i liked the way bis descibed their cti version so im open minded about different Cti versions. But the thing is Cti is about fun too and freedom to deploy troops and think "hmm where will we attack now..." Aswell as driving around in a civil car and placing out mines and sniping enemies around randomly http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Grayace]

well Im able to script, but things I dont know, how to run a script only server sided, how to put buttons (figuring out right now) and also Im not very experienced in runtime created squad management...


anyways, this should be done by community or BIS, Im just giving the idea that would both provide realistic warfare without loosing the action and freedom sense. CTI is a veerryyy unorganized combat on the other hand it has a great potential to be realized.

[Zorbtek]

I like the hexagon idea, but please for dear god don't leave out the mini islands

[Call911-AGE-]

Yeah to see a great game as this with the Mass multiplayer wars with no command an control structure, I mean the potential here is unreal, unlike any other game out there.

[Timblesink]

This idea sounds great, now all that needs to be done is... Everything else http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

P.S. Love the photoshopped sahrani http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

[Nemesis_wales]

cool idea,

[Balschoiw]

http://www.socal.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/1960-Enga%20tribesman%20warrior,%20new%20guinea,1970.jp g
Whata zulu meen ?

Hard to follow you there Nemesis_wales. Maybe you can try it in english ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

[Placebo]

Moving to ArmA:UM

[Grayace]

cool idea,
Dude you dont need to erase your post because of *someone's opinion* and Balschoiw, I was able to understand his point... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif



anyways, experience points could be a little too much but, thinking of a large battle, filled with both veteran players and newb transfers from BF2 fray, will create a need for Ranking system,

Since JIP will be in place, setting unit classes at the start wont help it, so, having a RANKING system would help to Base Commander to assign missions to Lt.Commanders accordingly, because I dont know you guys but I wouldnt lend my best 2 Squads of Infantry to a would-be John Rambo figure...

So, speaking of Ranking system, Im not sure if there is going to be a integrated system where the player will be ID'ed by the server prior to join session. If we can have such system it would be so easy to rank players. On the other hand, a "session performance chart" can be implemented to see if player is doing fine, or just came from other side to screw the stuff up. Best way I could think is, "Tour of Duty" limiter (from Apache VS Havok)

Tour of Duty limiter will give you a certain time to play and prove yourself, if you keep screwing things up you will be relived from command and operations. But I know that, its pretty tricky to implement, how can you measure the success of a Lt.Commander or a Base Commander, its slightly easier to measure Combatants performance though..

Best guess is, if a Helicopter pilot, or a Tank commander is taking his given equipment back to base in one piece (damaged but operational) would give him some ToD credit, on the other hand killing enemy units, certainly give some credits also. And Infantry squad leaders is also the same case, if he still have some soldiers alive when the operation ended (Success or Abort) should give some credits to this Squad leader.

Lt.Commanders' performance can be measured in way to "kill/loss ratio" and also "mission time" could be another factor, a Lt.Com able to read enemy deployment can finish his offensive/defensive operation faster than others I think. Whether he aborts after a point or completes the mission by inflicting sufficient amount of damage to enemy garrison. (Where SpecOps guys could finish the rest up..)

Base Commander performance is of course the outcome of recent battles, if you cant advance on enemy, you should better not to lose your soil! So, since Commander will be arranging incoming supplies/equipment he has to make a delicate adjustment in both offensive and defensive equipment...

Requistition of 4 MBTs without ordering any SAMs would tell pretty much about what will happen next...

On the other hand, Im thinking about my FAVOURITE Commander, German General Erwin Rommel, damn he gave very hard times to his English counterpart in Africa where he doesnt have enough supplies at his hand... (He captured pretty much English supplies when launched an offensive while he was on full retreat...)

So, in this case, there should be a building in HQs where players can change their current class to others, Infantry, Pilot, Crew etc.. Im not sure how the Lt.Commanders should be handled, but preferably they should be selected among Infantry Squad leaders

And also speaking from Supply Shipments and their content, which reveals great information about what you are up to There could be a intelligence gathering operations for SpecOps, (rather than sabotaging stuff up..) if they are equipped with some special Electronic Surveillance Equipment, when they are in range of enemy HQs, they could read some of the content of next move,

So if, enemy has requested some helicopters, our Commander would better requisite some MANPADs, SAM or AAA units...Which would give SpecOps a higher importance

[Grayace]

And here are some ideas for the mission templates...

<u>PLAYERS WILL BE EQUIPPED FROM THE HQ SUPPLIES ACCORDINGLY TO THE MISSION, IT IS NOT LIKE "I BUY A MBT LETS GO".... BASE COMMANDER WILL "FLAG" A MISSION, PLAYERS WILL APPLY FOR IT, SO THEY WILL GET THE EQUIPMENT FOR THAT MISSION... EQUIPMENT QUALITY DEPENDS ON THE SUPPLIES SENT FROM HOMELAND, THINGS DONT SPRUNG OUT OF SOIL... INFANTRY OPERATIONS ARE TO BE SUPERVISED BY LT.COMMANDERS.... ARMORED/WINGED UNITS WILL PERFORM THE GIVEN MISSION, FAILING TO DO SO, WILL PENALIZE THEIR "TOUR OF DUTY" SO THEY MIGHT NOT GO ON MISSION FOR SOMETIME.... THIS IS WARFARE, NOT THE RAMBO CRASH COURSE....

AND ALSO, BASE COMMANDER HAS TO KEEP EYE ON SHIPMENTS FROM HOMELAND, ADJUST THE TECHNLOGY LEVEL AND THE SETTING (DEFENSIVE/OFFENSIVE) OF EQUIPMENTS...IN EXAMPLE GETTING LAW LAUNCHERS OR STATIC TOW LAUNCHERS IS HIS DECISION...WHILE ALL SQUAD LEADERS HAVE TO KEEP EYE ON THEIR GIVEN EQUIPMENT, ITS COMING FROM SUPPLIES, LOSING IT WILL SERIOUSLY REDUCE THE ABILITY OF THAT SIDE&#39;S OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY</u>

Helicopter Missions (Offensive/Defensive)
---------------------------------------------

-x- SEAD (F)
suppression of enemy air defences, one or two attack helicopter is able to wreck some of enemy air defences, but Helicopters carrying ATGMs (Cobra, Apache, Hind, Hokum..) are not cheap units, so these units should be fielded carefully and relatively rare.

-x- Tank Busting (F)
Helicopters carrying FFARs could give some hard time to enemy tanks if they are not under AAA protection...

-x- Deep Strike (F)
Again helicopters with FFAR could damage enemy garrison base, in doing so this should reduce the supplies of that base, which should cause reduced Ammo/Fuel capacity for the units under that garrison command

-x- Air Scout (D)
Helicopters can be used to spot enemy vehicle movements to give friendly units Early Warning to set up some defence, and also spotting enemy convoy movements could help SpecOps guys to set up their ambush positions to cut the enemy garrison from supplies. Or scouting position of enemy artillery could be another great task..

-x- Air Lift (F/D)
If a Lt.Commander has called for replacements, (symbolized by some soldiers, equipment to repair damaged vehicles, some ammo/fuel) Pilots could air ferry this "cargo" under sling from HQ base to operations area.

-x- Airborne Area Denial (F/D)
Utility Helicopters like (Hip, B.Hawk..) can deploy airdropped mines to create minefields (AT/AP) for both defensive and offensive reasons

-x- Battlefield Air Interdiction (D)
Utility and Attack helicopters can operate within friendly garrison areas to provide fire support to friendly units that are under attack. While doing so they will be away from enemies AAA/SAM units located in enemy garrison, but they will be still vulnerable to MANPADs, or AAA units coming with attackers


ACV (Tanks) Missions (Offensive/Defensive)
---------------------------------------------

-x- Spearhead Operations (F)
a unit consists of 1 or 2 Main Battle Tank(s) and few IFVs could perform a spearhead operation to clear the way for Infantry squads, especially decomissioning enemy tank patrols would clear the way for infantry carriers, and will speed up the process.

-x- Combined Arms (F)
Few IFVs could help Infantry squads to advance under enemy fire, by giving fire support and cover, but still Platoon leader of this unit should take care of his units, preferably, I would position my IFVs behind the infantry, as soon as enemy units (armored/light) show up, they can zap&#39;em from distance

-x- Armored Strike (F)
Few MBTs could easily neutralize enemy AAA unit which can not be defeated if the side doesnt have any Attack Helicopters, During this operation a friendly Utility helicopter could move with the armoured package to locate enemy AAA while keeping watching on enemy armored patrols. Difference from armored spearhead is, that operation requires more time to clean up enemy armored patrol, while this one is only targeting enemy air defence assets and supposedly will retreat as soon as target is down.

-x- Armored Support (F/D)
Again few IFVs/APCs can deliver supplies to the front on request of Lt.Commander who is conducting an defensive/offensive operation.

-x- Armored Mine Sweep (F)
MBT units can be equipped with minesweep blades, as far as I know their task is to move the mines out of the way not to explode, but in ArmA, because of limitations, this could be made as mine defusing with a BLADE.. I know.. but do you have a better idea?&#33;?

-x- Recce (D/F)
If the side doesnt have enough MBTs/IFVs, a recce mission can be given to "crews" so BRDM/HMMWV class vehicles could move to front and watch for enemy movements to provide Early Warning to friendly Lt.Commanders.

Infantry Missions (Offensive/Defensive)
---------------------------------------------

Well, the missions I explained in previous part are supposed to be limited to a single group, which refers to min of 2 or 5 vehicles at max. But Infantry operations are large and slow moving missions, So I when I say "group/squad" perhaps it refers to few infantry equipped with light vehicles, where "platoon" refers to few groups that are operating together in these missions. And the Lt.Commander is in charge of _a platoon_ while Squad Leaders are commanding their squads

And also a standart Infantry operation should be equipped with:

- 2 groups of infantry (2x8-12 inf) each with a 5ton Truck
- 1 group of support/command unit (3-5 infantry with Command APC (C2 unit) and Support APC (carries fuel/ammo, limited repair capability) and may be a recon/scout unit (jeep)

And the quality of the equipment and size of the squads are to be defined by the available supplies of the HQ...

On the other hand, to keep "fielded units" amount in a reasonable level, Garrison bases should be on "Secure" mode as default, once the enemy Infantry operations take place, that Garrison will switch to "On Alert" so it will deploy 2 Groups of Infantry (will be explained later..)

-x- Motorized Infantry Operations (F)
In this mission, Lt.Commander has to deploy his forces regarding the intelligence on enemy positions, he will move his troops in enemy area to destroy the Garrison base, where he could encounter enemy resistance from Armored patrols and Infantry units.

-x- Mechanized Infantry Operations (F)
5Tons trucks can be replaced with APCs/IFVs according to the availability, but Motorized Infantry is slightly more stealth and fast but vulnerable, so the decision should be left to Commanders. Otherwise both mission objective and the profile should be same with Mot. Inf. Ops.

-x- Airborne Infantry Operations (F)
If enemy air defence has been suppressed previously, Lt.Commander can deploy his troops from air (by aircrafts). Where he wont have supply vehicles, but a static supply cache (paradropped along with units) Good use of this operation would be seen best if enemy Commanders has positioned a tight frontline defence which is hard to pass, but leaving soft spot in behind. (And also, when this operation performed, enemy will move his defense assets to back in order to defend the base, so friendly armored/winged units could have better chance against units on the move rather than dug-in units.

-x- Infantry Area Patrol (D)
This mission should be made available as soon as enemy Infantry enters our garrison area. In this case, Lt.Commander will have 2 carrier load of Infantry but the supply/command wont take place, support will be given directly from garrison base.

I dont think Infantry would be usefull other than full offense or full defense, because they lack mobility and flexibility as well

Special Operation Missions (Offensive/Defensive)
---------------------------------------------

This refers to CommandoOps http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif but since SpecOps units are left pretty helpless due to nature of OFP/ARMA, (in example no civilian factor to conceal movement/operations) may be they can be given a special ability to "lurk" behind enemy lines, So they can get teleported to safespots within enemy garrisons where they can launch infiltration and sabotage operations, otherwise they will have to travel aaaallllll the way on foot which would SUUUCCKKK, I guess

-x- Sabotage
Sabotaging enemy AAA/SAM units will help much, on the other hand, ambushing enemy supply convoys that are coming from HQ to garrisons will leave garrisons more vulnerable. On the other hand, if an garrison is already damaged and in a state where it cannot deploy too much infantry to defend the base, SpecOps units can level the entire garrison back to *farmland* so area will be captured, and enemy will be forced to fall back

-x- Surveillance
Closing to enemy HQ and deploying Electronic Surveillance Equipment should let them to gain intelligence about enemy operations underway, and also intelligence on enemy strategy by learning what units they have requested next...

-x- Combat Support
Designating enemy units with LASER and calling in airstrike/artillery strike could be another option to these fellas in black outfits..

[HellToupee]

i prefer town locations to hexs, its just simpler hexs would lead to IMO a confusing front line of sorts, no clear idea of what empty peice of land is yours or theirs.

If town locations are unbalanced u just adjust the worth of controling such a town based on its location.


Quote[/b] ]well this is what I think that new CTI should BE, because I dont like tanks and helicopters spawning from buildings, and also Command&Conquer style building placing is not something I like neither.

they still gota spawn somewhere the advantage of the base building approach it gives players the ability to choose where to place their base, not a static location where units reinforce.


COmmander instead of some complex auto performance system could just be a vote system, since how well the people under his command like him is generally a measure of his performance :P.

All human players should be treated as squad leaders, and ai units should just be assigned by commander, however i think players should have control over their own infantry squad of some size, commander should only deal with powerful units eg tanks, attack helecopters else his role becomes too administrative.

The chain of commander in my oponion would revolve around those heavy units, since the commander would have control of them and pretty much everyone would want one http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif, like battlefield it had a chain of command but rarely it meant anything people just wanted to do their own thing, so u need to bribe players with big toys.

[Victor]

All the time spent to write those posts. Could have learned scripting - went into OFP - tested the core scripts - got arma - and made it yourself http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

I cannot wait for RTS 4. I&#39;ll play CTI in a few years.

[Nemesis_wales]

now this would b a game worth playing, but is it all possible http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
but ur ideas r great, and if implemented into the game would make for a much more enjoying experince

[Grayace]

just a short reviews for the replies,

@HellToupee:
Hexes are preferable (IMO) to create zone of controls and battlefronts, and in real life not only towns are strategic points, so.. hexes could keep it clean and sizeable

And also about spawning (hurts my brain here) Squad leaders are to be GROUP spawned, not to be sent to HQ all the way back, it would really suck..

and yes I agree that ALL PLAYERS has to be handled as squad leaders, even if they are pilots or crews or specOps...

Lt.Commanders should only be assigned to Infantry operations, where they have 1 or 2 squad leaders, because Lt.Commanders are supposed to run a tactical mission with the squads,

Armored and Winged units doesnt need any Lt.Commander, because they are compact and highly mobile, so they can help one Lt.Commander on offensive ops, and then fall back to another place to help another, so they will perform their operation, but Lt.Commanders will seek their help, however they will not be placed under direct command of Lt.Commanders because OTHERS will need them as well...(But they will get orders from Base Commander, like mission templates..)

About chain of command, Im sure as hell if a squad leader cant get a AT-14 Kronet but a less effective RPG-7V, would probably try to keep his squad along with the other squad and support vehicles.

and a pilot cant get Ah-64 but a messy UH-1, will certainly keep his eye on friendly units where he can get support, so he wont endanger his valuable TOUR OF DUTY credit, to keep flying...

a tank commander trying to earn some credit to be assigned in command of advanced units, will certainly keep eye on his current vehicle,

and so on... players will be still FREE to roam around and blow stuff up, but they will do it in a certain radius and in a organized way. I REALLY HATE TO SEE some tanks with some infantry SCATTERED over 10km2 AREA... I dont know you guys but for OFP/ARMA this is way too much idiotic. There should be ORGANIZED static and mobile units, so pilots crews and infantry can move in a unified way... (what is the good point in CTI to get a AH-1 Cobra without FFARs, people dont even know which tank they are shooting at... unacceptable)

@Victor,
I know scripting, I do my own dynamic missions, but Im incapable of producing this large scale mission on my own, ON THE OTHER HAND, planning and outlining an idea is the start, I never seen a building built before the plan was drawn.

@Nemesis_wales
I have been playing OFP since it got out, and also I have been playing many other simulations and strategy games (for more than 13 years), ideas I proposed above are a mixture of them. AND they are ALL possible in OFP/ARMA.. I just dont have enough knowledge to do it on my own, and also it would be quite stupid not to share something good where others can build it much better than I could.

[HellToupee]

just a short reviews for the replies,

@HellToupee:
Hexes are preferable (IMO) to create zone of controls and battlefronts, and in real life not only towns are strategic points, so..

And also about spawning (hurts my brain here) Squad leaders are to be GROUP spawned, not to be sent to HQ all the way back, it would really suck..

Lt.Commanders should only be assigned to Infantry operations, where they have 1 or 2 squad leaders, because Lt.Commanders are supposed to run a tactical mission with the squads,

Armored and Winged units doesnt need any Lt.Commander, because they are compact and highly mobile, so they can help one Lt.Commander on offensive ops, and then fall back to another place to help another, so they will perform their operation, but Lt.Commanders will seek their help, however they will not be placed under direct command of Lt.Commanders because OTHERS will need them as well...

About chain of command, Im sure as hell if a squad leader cant get a AT-14 Kronet but a less effective RPG-7V, would probably try to keep his squad along with the other squad and support vehicles.

and a pilot cant get Ah-64 but a messy UH-1, will certainly keep his eye on friendly units where he can get support, so he wont endanger his valuable TOUR OF DUTY credit, to keep flying...

a tank commander trying to earn some credit to be assigned in command of advanced units, will certainly keep eye on his current vehicle,

and so on... players will be still FREE to roam around and blow stuff up, but they will do it in a certain radius and in a organized way. I REALLY HATE TO SEE some tanks with some infantry SCATTERED over 10km2 AREA... I dont know you guys but for OFP/ARMA this is way too much idiotic. There should be ORGANIZED static and mobile units, so pilots crews and infantry can move in a unified way... (what is the good point in CTI to get a AH-1 Cobra without FFARs, people dont even know which tank they are shooting at... unacceptable)

@Victor,
I know scripting, I do my own dynamic missions, but Im incapable of producing this large scale mission on my own, ON THE OTHER HAND, planning and outlining an idea is the start, I never seen a building built before the plan was drawn.

@Nemesis_wales
I have been playing OFP since it got out, and also I have been playing many other simulations and strategy games (for more than 13 years), ideas I proposed above are a mixture of them. AND they are ALL possible in OFP/ARMA.. I just dont have enough knowledge to do it on my own, and also it would be quite stupid not to share something good where others can build it much better than I could.
Yes but towns are generally the most strategic points we have, in ww2 the most strategic points were generally towns especially cross road and port towns. A hex is generally not a point needs to be something in them of value, something visual.

I dont get what you mean by group spawning.

Also i dont really see the point of a lt commander, its entirly symbolic in game, i dont really see what a seperate role brings to the table. The only role i could see is unit allocation to the infantry squads, eg transport. Squad leaders are perfectly capable or coordinating themselfs they just have to be willing.

AS i indicated armour and airpower would be under some command of commander because without control over them his role would also be entirly symbolic.

You have to be realistic to, there could be alot of organisation in CTI ofp, it is down entirely to the players even with a chain of command in place like battlefield for example it is no gurantee of organisation.

Organisation will not prevent scatting of people over the map only limited points of focus will, there is no way to force organisation without reward.

[Grayace]

just a short reviews for the replies,

...
Yes but towns are generally the most strategic points we have, in ww2 the most strategic points were generally towns especially cross road and port towns. A hex is generally not a point needs to be something in them of value, something visual.

I dont get what you mean by group spawning.

Also i dont really see the point of a lt commander, its entirly symbolic in game, i dont really see what a seperate role brings to the table. The only role i could see is unit allocation to the infantry squads, eg transport. Squad leaders are perfectly capable or coordinating themselfs they just have to be willing.

AS i indicated armour and airpower would be under some command of commander because without control over them his role would also be entirly symbolic.

You have to be realistic to, there could be alot of organisation in CTI ofp, it is down entirely to the players even with a chain of command in place like battlefield for example it is no gurantee of organisation.

Organisation will not prevent scatting of people over the map only limited points of focus will, there is no way to force organisation without reward.
Briefly Hexes keeps the Garrison control area sizeable, and in each hex there could be a strategic location like cross roads, industry, river bank, town... and keeps the strategic battle in a chess style

Group spawn gets you transfered in to control of next alive unit in your group WHEN you got killed, so you will not be teleported to a base 10km away from your squad WHILE you are in command of them... samething goes for pilots and crews..

Lt.Commander thing is important because when an infantry goes on operation its WAAYYY to vulnerable to enemy fire, and they are so slow, but when 2 groups of Infantry move with a support group, step by step, they are far more powerfull than full group of MBTs (in ex. 20 soldiers with enough ATs can make short work of them) so as long as they stand close, they are strong.

But squad leaders has to deal with their squad level tasks, like moving them around, picking targets, watching a direction etc.. So a Lt.Commander could be responsible for moving both 2 squads of infantry and the support group TOGETHER while tasking his recon/scout unit to look out enemy moves, ordering his supply unit to heal/rearm nearby units, and deploying Infantry squads over areas where he thinks that he can create a defensive position. And also a Lt.Commander can keep eye on other allied mission operatives, like nearby armored group, so he can plan his moves accordingly, A squad leader cant do this, even if he do, he probably leave the other squads away and in open..

Armored/Winged units are under the control of the Base Commander, and they are responsible to fulfill the mission they&#39;re given, and also responsible to return the equipment they are using.

Even in best clan operations people go "rogue" and they screw the CoC beyond belive. Only way to keep the "would be rambos" is to PUNISH em with Tour of Duty. If they keep getting killed, and wasting valuable supplies of the side, they WONT be allowed to go on missions (so there wont be any squads, tanks, helis for them)

Now they can go SpecOps where they wont need any CoC, just the rambo ops, so they will do what they like without wasting supplies, Cowboy stuff

[HellToupee]

Briefly Hexes keeps the Garrison control area sizeable, and in each hex there could be a strategic location like cross roads, industry, river bank, town... and keeps the strategic battle in a chess style

Group spawn gets you transfered in to control of next alive unit in your group WHEN you got killed, so you will not be teleported to a base 10km away from your squad WHILE you are in command of them... samething goes for pilots and crews..

Lt.Commander thing is important because when an infantry goes on operation its WAAYYY to vulnerable to enemy fire, and they are so slow, but when 2 groups of Infantry move with a support group, step by step, they are far more powerfull than full group of MBTs (in ex. 20 soldiers with enough ATs can make short work of them) so as long as they stand close, they are strong.

But squad leaders has to deal with their squad level tasks, like moving them around, picking targets, watching a direction etc.. So a Lt.Commander could be responsible for moving both 2 squads of infantry and the support group TOGETHER while tasking his recon/scout unit to look out enemy moves, ordering his supply unit to heal/rearm nearby units, and deploying Infantry squads over areas where he thinks that he can create a defensive position. And also a Lt.Commander can keep eye on other allied mission operatives, like nearby armored group, so he can plan his moves accordingly, A squad leader cant do this, even if he do, he probably leave the other squads away and in open..

Armored/Winged units are under the control of the Base Commander, and they are responsible to fulfill the mission they&#39;re given, and also responsible to return the equipment they are using.

Even in best clan operations people go "rogue" and they screw the CoC beyond belive. Only way to keep the "would be rambos" is to PUNISH em with Tour of Duty. If they keep getting killed, and wasting valuable supplies of the side, they WONT be allowed to go on missions (so there wont be any squads, tanks, helis for them)

Now they can go SpecOps where they wont need any CoC, just the rambo ops, so they will do what they like without wasting supplies, Cowboy stuff
Does the game allow group spawn and normal respawn? OFP had only one or the other. Also when ur whole squad is dead u need to spawn somewhere.

I dont see those examples as being terribly important for a lt.commander, squad leaders are easily capable of coordinating like that on their own picking targets watching direction is for individual soldiers, the best way to have a ltcommander level of control is just have people on something like teamspeak. Squad leaders should be very independant, no one is going to follow continious move orders, all squads should require is an objective.

I dont see any punish ment system working, you should not punish people for anything, only reward, any punishment system will likely punish people who just dont deserve it.

[Grayace]

@HellToupee

No, players have to be Group Spawned, but due to technical limits, they can be BASE SPAWNED and right after the spawn unit can be teleported and exchanged with next Highest Ranking unit... (actually game allows you to Group Spawn, but if there is no more unit in your group game ends.. which wouldnt fit in to CTI concept...)

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Well, I think a Lt.Commander is terribly needed because there could be 3 or 4 squads operating under his command, a full platoon I mean. In this case, Squad leaders are to deal with fighting and squad level management, It is really hard to keep eye on units when enemy units are attacking, at least I would HAVE hard time;

to manage 12 soldiers,
coordinate move with another Squad,
keep distance with Support Squad,
Send recon units to forward to seek enemy units
Request support from nearby Armored/Winged units

under heavy enemy fire, cant having enough time to plan moves carefully, could disasterously put you a situation refered as FUBAR... Some Supervision is BADLY NEEDED in large operations.

A Lt.Commander can see the combat from top, tell the squad leaders what to do, so squad leaders would HAPPILY pull the trigger and send units around, and they would NOT NEED worry about who is where, going to where, who is coming.. they will just reload and shoot...

And also Lt.Commander can keep in contact with the Base Commander, telling what forces they encounter, what supplies would be necessary for further offensive operations... for example if Lt.Com&#39;s forces are repeadetly encountering armoured units, this would tell that enemy is weak on infantry and airborne operations...

Clear enough?? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

About punishment, well when I was flying in Apache VS Havoc, I was ALWAYS able to move just TWO MORE MILES, and kill more tanks, but I know that if I do that, a CAP unit could drop by and easily shot me out of air, SO I ALWAYS DO THE MISSION, KILL THE TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY IF I FEEL SAFE, AND KEEP MY TOUR OF DUTY LIMIT FLYABLE...

SO players has to know its not only to kill enemy but to stay alive... This makes killing much more REWARDING, because there is no joy in SUICIDE BOMBING... This is why most of the hardcore players are like to start with low-tech stuff, to take more cover than shooting recklessly...

[Franze]

I see a lot of relation to EE in your idea. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

The only thing I see as a problem is the heavy limits FP (and probably ArmA too) has on maximum number of units. Tops, maybe no more than a battalion of units for each side - which is optimistic IMO. A flight of whirlybirds, one or two jets, a platoon of tanks, a couple APCs, and some infantry squads - all for each side. You could definately add more to a supply pool as you suggest, but the amount of active units at any one time is going to be very limited.

When you take into account all the scripting and the units, FP gets sluggish, and I don&#39;t know if ArmA will change that or not. I don&#39;t have a lot of faith in ArmA&#39;s ability to handle massive force-on-force battles, especially since they&#39;ve thrown so much into eye candy. I&#39;ve always thought FP/ArmA as a small infantry unit game, not a wide area mixed-vehicle combat game.

I&#39;d much rather start simple, then work up on the ladder, seeing the viability of some ideas and whether or not it&#39;s possible to make them work. The biggest issue (from my perspective) has always been getting the AI to do things on a dynamic basis.

Also, the hex based system - while I really like it - seems awfully complex to implement. I think area control should be more along the lines of what EE did, in which control was by important bases. It&#39;s much easier to take control and keep track of a number of small bases than 20-30 hex areas.

[Grayace]

@Franze

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Thanks, actually I took only Tour of Duty from EE, but other than that like any dynamic combat EE has similarities with the ideas I took/build up from other games..

about unit count, well I would like to hear your opinion about this, because I tried to implement this in OFP already,


Quote[/b] ]also there will be 3 or 4 garrisons per side (accoring to zone of control) and since they will have certain amount of force (also infantry they have will only go out (appear) when enemy forces are entering their zone) this will keep the existing unit count as low as possible to provide smooth and lagless play...

let say;
3 AAA/SAM (per garrison)
2 MBT/IFV patrol
1 Squad of base area guards
2 Squads will be created if attackers are located inside zone of control

this means 3x2 + 2x2 + 1x8 + 2x6 = 18 units/garrison if the area is clear, and will top at 30 units if the garrison is under attack

so, 18x3 (garrisons) +12 (1 garrison is on alert deployment) = 66

so 66 per side is not a very high number in OFP standarts,

attackers size could be
1 group of Infantry
1 group of Support
1 group of MBTs

let say 1x8 + 1x6 + 1x6 = 20 units... is also nothing so total existing units would barely reach at 200 globally including support trucks, base commanders and other misc. units.

And about Hex, well its from "People&#39;s General" one of my favourite strategy game... but its only flags the garrison area, other than that it doesnt have much to do.. in ex. computer will calculate the WPs according to distance..

Im really working on it, but I really need to know how to run SCRIPTS server sided only, and adding buttons appeared to me a little tricky...

[Franze]

If you want a script to be server only, just add a simple local check:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">?&#33;&#40;local server&#41;&#58; exit[/QUOTE]

Or replace "exit" with a goto command to skip a portion of the script that&#39;s supposed to be server only.

The unit count seems OK, but does that mean active at any one time or active only in a specified area?

Getting the unit count balanced with framerate has always been a pain in the butt for my missions.

EDIT: Not 100% certain on the local check (someone here correct me if I am), but as a failsafe you can use a game logic and call it something like "netcheck" and then use the local command on it - then it will know which client is the server.

[Kev]

Its all reading very interesting, cant wait until i see ur ideas in a finished mp-mission.

[neswrossi]

Hmm I&#39;ve scanned over the posts, its all too much to take in at once really. Some nice ideas.

However, I dislike the idea of having a player controlling a squad of AI. Why cant we just have a squad of human players? Use AI for maybe some forms of attack and transportation. Perhaps AI chopper ingress to carry human players to the front line?

[Grayace]

Actually AI is much better than Players when the case is "obeying the commands" and completing basic tasks like, move, watch, target.. etc, and also they have much better perception.

So putting them into grunt position, and placing humans to command would give preferable results,

But still having players as Squadmates offers different options, like Coop, actually if Im flying a group of helicopters I would prefer another human player to be the other pilot

[Hustler_Baby]

This could definantly be used for something like tournament play where you wouldnt need to do something like you Tour Of Duty reward thing. If a player doesnt follow orders in the tournament I take part in (21st Century Warfare for BF2) then they get kicked out, simple as that.

Also tourny play means that you will definantly be able to fill a server every game. You could have each side designate a hex to attack and then they fight over it for a designated time with certain forces. If the size of the tournament gets too big then you can add different army groups so you can have multiple servers holding lots of battles between different army groups.

The Lt.Commander sounds alot like the commander role from BF2 without the arty/UAV/Scan options and definantly serves its purpose in game. I really like this idea&#33;&#33;&#33;

[RicoADF]

Sounds like some good ideas, however punishment in a game is stupid, we are here to enjoy the game. The only punishment i would agree with is kicking/banning if a player continually stuffs around, however thats admins job, not the mission maker.
Also restricting stuff is abit silly, i say let the commander ingame make the decision on who gets what.

As for organisation:
1) If people dont want to co-operate with others on a PUBLIC server, they dont have to. I dont see what right anyone has to tell them otherwise.
2) If you want to have real co-ops with squads working together (which I personally prefer myself anyway), then join a clan or grab a group of friends/players and work together. Dont just jump onto some random server and expect full coheason.

just my 2cents.

[Grayace]

Sounds like some good ideas, however punishment in a game is stupid, we are here to enjoy the game. The only punishment i would agree with is kicking/banning if a player continually stuffs around, however thats admins job, not the mission maker.
Also restricting stuff is abit silly, i say let the commander ingame make the decision on who gets what.

As for organisation:
1) If people dont want to co-operate with others on a PUBLIC server, they dont have to. I dont see what right anyone has to tell them otherwise.
2) If you want to have real co-ops with squads working together (which I personally prefer myself anyway), then join a clan or grab a group of friends/players and work together. Dont just jump onto some random server and expect full coheason.

just my 2cents.
Well "punishing" is necessary for;

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,
-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding
-x- Will let Commander to have limited supplies, and each single part of equipment will be worthy
-x- Those who wants to roam free can still go on SpecOps where they have their best options at their disposal,

And also, if you want to run a game worths playing with so many people; Existance of "Chain of Command" and way of its ENDORSEMENT is IMPORTANT not STUPID...

Otherwise, neither Commander nor Lt.Commanders would be respected, so people wouldnt be interested in these, and also Players will start to run all over the place, supposedly "trying to do their best" however they will be screwing the Order of Battle beyond belive...

I have been playing JointOps, where 130-150 players play, and its soo occasional when a group of players team up and plays throughly (and when they do, they do good, no matter how good shooters they are, because a well organized attack based on numbers not personal skills)

BY THE WAY, I DID NOT say that players have to CO-OP, I said they have to CARRY OUT their mission, and I explained what those missions could be, a certain group of unit supposed to deal with certain area of operation, and should be able to see WHAT OTHERS are there to INTER-OP or CO-OP with them. Try to think large, its not like I hold here you hold there.

[HellToupee]

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,
-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding
Focus should be on winning, not hiding in the bushes. You have to accomplish something no matter what in the game u can be easily killed punishment would do nothing other than cause frustration.

Trying to force people to play in some narrow role through punishment dosnt work in a game if a person whats to do something, they do it.

[Grayace]

-x- To prevent people running suicide missions,
-x- Keeping focus on survival than killing, will make killing harder and rewarding
Focus should be on winning, not hiding in the bushes. You have to accomplish something no matter what in the game u can be easily killed punishment would do nothing other than cause frustration.

Trying to force people to play in some narrow role through punishment dosnt work in a game if a person whats to do something, they do it.
well I think we agree to disagree http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

because in my game I want people TO DO as they&#39;re told, if they are taking a damned &#036;20M worth AH-64 just to "fly around and so called helping others" THEN it is definitely NOT MY TASTE http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

They have to fly as per mission orders, and bring back the damned vehicle back to base AT ALL COSTS, if they cant, they should NOT fly it, but if they loose it for a good cause (suicide is not option in anyways) it could be acceptable, or can be credited through Tour Of Duty limits..

A GOOD PILOT ALWAYS FIGHTS ANOTHER DAY

Besides there is hoot load of cheesy games out there just to play, where the unrealistic elements are abundant in them, like flags, health packs, stuff like that, even in OFP and in CTI people plays like that, when it comes to WARFARE, it should be done in a ORDER, and of course, running all over the map is not something heard of in history of warfare

and also you said "winning" did I read true? And which war has ever been won by running all over the place without any TRACE of ORGANIZATION? Not even barbarians did that, belive me

And also, you are having problem understanding my concept, (or I couldnt make myself clear enough) why would people should stay in bushes? INFANTRY supposed to move with their squad, they dont need to hide...

You&#39;re mixing it with current CTI where people run all over the map for Km&#39;s with 2-3 persons, and when they got shot they end up in home base, this is not I want....I want people to go out there with their PLATOON or UNIT of ARMORED/WINGED vehicles, DO their mission, and either PULL BACK or DIG IN...when they die, they should GROUP SPAWN right back into group and continue from where they left...

you&#39;re pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...

[Franze]

Why not just have resources limited per squad? That way they could do whatever they wanted with those resources, but when they run out from kamikaze attacks - they have to fend for themselves. I would suggest the overall commander (if any?) could dole out resources from the campaign pool to the squad commander, but then that&#39;s a fallible position.

[HellToupee]

you&#39;re pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...
Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.

[Grayace]

Why not just have resources limited per squad? That way they could do whatever they wanted with those resources, but when they run out from kamikaze attacks - they have to fend for themselves. I would suggest the overall commander (if any?) could dole out resources from the campaign pool to the squad commander, but then that&#39;s a fallible position.
They have Tour of Duty limit.. so they can join on more skill requiring missions http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

that is open to discussion anyway

[RedStorm]

you&#39;re pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...
Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.
A lot of people will love the setup Grayace mentioned. You don&#39;t have to play it if you don&#39;t like it. There&#39;s always CTF etc. to play... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

[Hustler_Baby]

I have to agree that punishment is wrong.

Sometimes in game things can just go wrong and cause you to mess up and end up dying. For instance what happens if im flying the harrier on a mission to take out some tanks attacking a friendly position and just as im about to drop the bombs smoeone knocks on the door or distracts me?

Its unfair to punish becuase people will be punished for accidents. Why not take up the quakewars style and reward instead. So you can only fly that AH when you have completed a certain mission in your unit?

[Stickler]

I had an idea that was a sort of RPG versio of this type of gameplay. I&#39;m sure most of you have seen or even played Company of Heroes and you&#39;ve seen how the squads are set up. Why not when joining a game select which type of squad you wish to be a part of. For example if you like to drive vehicles be it tanks or choppers decide to be in a class or "race" that will allow you and and only your class to drive vehicles. At the same time if you enjoy being a medic or support gunner join an assault squad whose sole purpose is to attack and defend points. While engineers in an engineers type squad are supposed to defend and construst defensive measures for a siege or to repair certain things when there is a lull in attacks. I understand the need to create structure in a game like this, especially due to the sheer size of maps and armies, but instead of punishment why not reward them for performing operation sor completing mission sthat are designed for their unit class. I also think that a ranking system should be in place. This may allow you to increase certain stats (Sprinting, aiming ability) as well as allow those who have never been in charge learn slowly through small squad mission sthat forces the sergeant to command a squad of grunts to take a point or to hold somewhere. Inlike battlefield however there should never be "unlocks" or you should never have to research units unless it was a progressive game because chances are the military you are fighting for already possses the necessary materials to produce most of what you need. This type of unit and ranking can be used when created squads like mechanized or armor squads.

[Blazen]

I think your idea sounds pretty good but I also think there are many flaws that seem to be overlooked in your planning process. Most squads that play CTI do have thier commanders and thier pilots, tankers, inf, ect. The difference is they get to pick and choose what they need to do to help the team in any given situation they are currently exposed to. Not limited to one thing that could (depending on the situation) hinder them from helping thier team altogether.


Quote[/b] ]Class based operatives (crew,pilot,infantry,officer,commando)
Mission templates for operative classes

For example what happens when your pilot can&#39;t get his plane or heli&#39;s off the ground because the base is being constantly bombarded and he is not in a playing role to operate a Tank?


Quote[/b] ]So, in this case, there should be a building in HQs where players can change their current class to others, Infantry, Pilot, Crew etc.. Im not sure how the Lt.Commanders should be handled, but preferably they should be selected among Infantry Squad leaders

This seems to defeat the purpose and would practically be the same as if you could just pick and choose what you want to do freely like you already can do in current working versions of CTI&#33;


Quote[/b] ]There should be domination areas on the map, like towns or other strategic points but I would recommend map should be "Hex"ed, rather than unbalanced town locations. This should help to maintain a certain Battle Front

This is a decent idea, however the maps already in the game are realistic, and the game is already set up so that icons can be placed both globally and team specific. You can already assign positions for players to move to and take as the commander in existing CTI. This is done by placing a waypoint on the map and assigning it to the unit or player you wish to move there.

I am assuming the style would be like the current working CTI that comes with ArmA when your talking about how fortifications are to be equiped on the defensive end. This is where a supply truck drives up and starts building at flag areas after a team has taken over that area.


Quote[/b] ]A Garrison base without enough supplies (this should also reduce the ammo/fuel carried by that garrison&#39;s defenders) would be more vulnerable to further attacks and it will collapse, so this garrison will pack and fall back to a hex behind

I&#39;m not to sure what you mean by the withdrawal process when a base is low on supplies and has to fall back, but it sounds interesting.


Quote[/b] ]Realistic tactical mission conduction

Group respawn is NOT realistic and will only promote more camping on infantry player roles. When an officer dies he should have to either control AI from respawn or withdraw his troops so that he may return to the battle and command them as a team. The game is already setup so that troops can react the way you would expect them to even if you were there with them. Knowing how to read map elevations and determine where and how to move troops without actually being there is one of my favorite parts of this game&#33;

I&#39;m not trying to be to critical; don&#39;t get me wrong I think there&#39;s alot of good ideas here. However I strongly disagree with the whole hex thing, and also the team respawn thing. I&#39;m very interested in seeing how the mission options would work and also how it would effect different roles. There&#39;s also another thing I&#39;ve noticed that they have implemented into ArmA. When you have a squad thats animations are larger than the bar at the bottom of the screen, you can hit F12 to switch it to an alternate bar and select the remaining troops as F1, F2 ect. Does this mean we will be able to script more troops per officer than 12? If so then players could be given roles such as the one suggested in this idea, sufficently so that players could be given higher ranks and more troops to command over larger areas.

Just my two cents.

[ongold]

I search mission for about links (cords) that indifferently CTI arma


I own MFCTI BUT it unis possible to buy in BARRACKS WEAPON

[Kruniac]

you&#39;re pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...
Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.
If they want to play a combat simulation, they can play this (Hopefully developed) map. If they dont, they can play normal CTI.

This will be for hardcore players only, not "Lawlz u g0t awnt by t3h mizzle&#33;&#33;111oneone11111eleven" people.

[Yarrow]

is anyone making this or is this just a bunch of talk?

[HellToupee]

you&#39;re pretty much confused with QUAKE style gaming, Im talking about WARFARE, Order of Battle, Chain of Command...
Im talking reality. People are not real soldiers following they are geeks behind a computer screen u must take that into account.
If they want to play a combat simulation, they can play this (Hopefully developed) map. If they dont, they can play normal CTI.
Yes go make a cti based entirely of simulation and make no attempt what so ever to make it fun or enjoyable.

Why not make it so u only have 1 life, thats pretty realistic, but does that work? no it dosnt. Trying to create a island wide war for probly only a handful of human players


Quote[/b] ]
This will be for hardcore players only, not "Lawlz u g0t awnt by t3h mizzle&#33;&#33;111oneone11111eleven" people.

self proclaimed hardcore players are often the most immature bunch for any game. To be honest i see far more maturity in games with no connection to any hardcore realism.


Quote[/b] ]
is anyone making this or is this just a bunch of talk?


its all talk

[Wisebone]

Maybe you can give some of your ideas to Cleanrock, he made the old crCTI in OFP that was so famous. Then BIS saw it and tried to do something similar in ArmA but heh..

You can visit his site here, http://cr-ofp.dyndns.org/
(Is down at the moment, check it in the future.. he is working on the CTI for ArmA)