Mission ideas

[firedude_edd]

I always thought a dynamic campaign would be good. Anything can happen during missions, you might go on a patrol and find nothing, and whilst returning to base you run into a tank battallion heading towards the base.
Yes, it would be nearly impossible to do such a thing(although it has been used in Flight Simulators like Falcon 4.0, where events including ground forces occured in real-time around you).
Maybe randomizing missions? Give a number of different events that randomly get added during the mission would be good.

[Stryder]

Ideally, you'd have both a dynamic and a scripted campaign (yes, some games do have both)

[funnyguy1]

AI generals and commanders should now where and how the can attack. For example, AI should calculate the number of enemy units, and hold the attack/retreat (an I mean the tactical movement not a run for your life).
Particular units should have a morale system that motivates them or makes them flee/panic or surrender (and that should be a completely independent thing of the AI general/commander level, however would be extremely cool if a commander under certain circumstances could surrender a whole squad).

Moreover some templates should be done, like possitions in buildings that are best for mg nests, possitions for rpg`s, possitions for entrenching tanks, guns, possition for snipers.
Templates just like in DMA dynamic missions, "attack a city", "patrol here", "destroy tanks there", "black op here", "hold possition here". Some templates however should be connected together shomehow, (with some randomness) for example if you take a city or a village, the nex night a milita or a resistance could try sneak in and destroy your supplies, ammo or vehicles, or when on patroll you could be ambushed...or no, If the AI commander decides to call support.

Things like convoys, entranching, diging foxholes, creating fire possitions, and minefields, securing important objects such as power plants and bridges, should be automaticall. No matter if player is assigned for such task or no...would be cool also if the campaign had a mode in which you observe the warfare on a detailed map, the AI general or you can give orders and move forces around the map, and you can jump into action wherever and whenever you want.

Taking a large city is a matter of couple days or weeks, and securing it and holding is even harder...the dynamic war system would allow you to stick so long ina one city...That would require months to finish the game...

edit:
Quite important thing imho...
What about some strategic points (places, buildings etc.) on map? I mean points like hospitals, power plants (nuclear ones or water-power station maybe?) oil fields, bridges were mentioned many times, but what about other things?
When entering a city It`s obvious that there are some places/buildings you must secure first like post office, local media office (radio, tv etc). It would add a lot more of ***immersion and realism. The economy aspect is very important, and controling those volunerable and important places really helps with your progress.

edit2:
What about ambushes? Would be nice if AI knew how to hide in the foliage or in buildings, and I`m not talking about simply taking cover...What I mean Is to make the AI able to cover so that the enemy couldn`t see them. Both friendly AI and the enemy AI of course. Ambushes would be really messy..

[Stickler]

I agree with FunnyGuy. While there should be a back story, someone invades or oppresses then someone else comes in to help or what not, but in the end the fights and progress of the war may change dramatically during the war. I agree that a sort of General AI would be a great implementation. Instead of a Dynamic campaign there could be dynamic objectives. A whole campaign would be hard to create on the fly but if the player were given objectives on the run it would be much easier to give local and immediate information to the player to allow them to execute the objective. Many soldiers may not know exactly what it is they're fighting for or where they will go to next until given further orders after completing objectives. I believe that along with this AI General proposed by FunnyGuy there could be a sort of preset list of priorites that this AI General can create objectives. For example, as mentioned above, a bridge that controls a lot of traffice or is a huge checkpoint to and from a certain objective. Well the AI General may want to attack a speecific place, let's say a power plant, then before that they create a list of prioritized objectives before they can actually get to that power plant. And to get there you must capture and secure the bridge.

I believe, in a multiplayer aspect, that there should be more of an emphasis on class based objectives. For example if a squad was to attack a bridge and secure it, could there be an objective for the engineers in the area to locate and create a sort of defensive structure or barrier in case of a counter attack. I don't mean in the sense of an RTS like construction but let's say an engineer has the ability to create a small sand bag barrier in case a defense is needed for something like a bridge or crossroad. I also believe that if you give these sort of class specific objective it may open up more tactical freedom or choices and allow those who play seemingly minor support roles, like engineers, to actually become involved in the choice making of defending or assaulting. I also would like to be able to set up garrison's or essentially create small field HQ's in the cities based off of existing buildings like an office turned into a fortified position looking over a large intersection in a town. the closest I can come to it look at the garrisoning in Red Alert 2 but from a first person tactical point of view.

[Sniper Pilot]

I belive they should have both, where you could choose between a storyline Battlefield or the Dynamic

[mickuzy]

would be cool if you had to train to open missions. so although the whole campaign you would be mainly a grunt. then the side missions (this is if there is no dynamic campaign) could be opened thorugh your training that you would only have to do once. so lets say your platoon is ordered to assault the town. You want to have armoured support, unlock it with the training ( and you may or may not have to do a side mission to relieve the tanks so they can aid your push.) You want air suppourt, chopper training. you might also have to do a side mission like ride in a convoy protecting artillery pieces to have artillery support.

then lets say you have done all the training, have all the side options open, you would only be allowed to pick a limited number of them more than one but not to many. so you could pick combos like artillery and armour or air and sniper or extra squads and special forces. but if you pick the maximum the enemy is more entrenched in the town. so lets say you chose to relieve the pressure on a fellow company, while you relieve the pressure on them the enemy has longer to prepare.

i know some of these features are already in armed assault but im trying to suggest a more evolved method of it. if all of this is already in armed assault i do apoligize.

[mickuzy]

What about a resistance hiring mission. ur a resistance leader and u go into villages in an attempt to bring people to your cause.

[churnedfortaste]

What about a resistance hiring mission. ur a resistance leader and u go into villages in an attempt to bring people to your cause.

Sounds pretty neat.

[smellyjelly]

Is the campaign going to be free roaming, where we can get asked for special missions, explore our base, go through training, and get requests for us join an on going battle (with no loading screens like Evolution), or is it going to be in chapters like Arma was?

I think if BIS adds a free roaming campaign to ArmaII it will really improve the gameplay and will make the series more popular. The game would be much more realistic, smooth, and enjoyable if we could travel from the kill zone to our base independently and without joining a mission. It would be cool if fighting outside a mission would actually make a difference:

Let's say, for example, that City A is kept dependent on the missions, but the smaller group of cities, B, are dynamic. So if we go to B and kill all the soldiers/guards, they will be replaced by the soldiers/guards from A. Then, when we join a mission, City A will have less reinforcements so the mission should be easier.

In Arma the missions were usually so forward, "just follow that street" or "kill the group of enemies standing over there". I'm hoping there will be larger cities, where the enemy will have set up positions on rooftops, bases, checkpoints, roads/alleys, ect, and we will have to fight them along with other squads. That way we have some nice background noise as they fight, we're not forced to do all the work, and if the AI is dynamic enough then every mission should end differently as the other squads take different paths or eliminate sections of the city. The missions shouldn't be perfectly balanced, like 25 guys on one side and 25 on the other, but rather 50 guys with only light vehicles on one side and 25 with light and armored vehicles.

Honestly, I'm hoping for battles that last a while, so it'd be nice to have a few checkpoints and more than one save spot to choose from when loading, preferably unlimited like in Oblivion.

Of course free roaming would have other advantages. Let's say that you're down a dirt road in the middle of a forest, when suddenly, a bomb next to your humvee explodes. Everyone escapes from the destroyed vehicle uninjured, but then you're ambushed from all sides. Something like that would have been expected in the Arma chapter-style campaign, but if it's done randomly when free roaming it'd be unexpected and surprising.

The idea behind free roaming is you'd have the kill zone, neutral zone, and a friendly zone. Obviously in the kill zone you're going to be fighting, in the neutral you're should be expecting the unexpected, but in the friendly zone, which I haven't really mentioned, there's not much to do. I'd say eating and sleeping, but I doubt most fans will welcome to these RPG features. Target training would work, as long as the so-called "skill points" is from the actual player and not tallied by the character.

So, what do you think? Since my ideas of free roaming are very similar to Evolution, I think this should be possible. The problem is, BIS may not have enough time, or just may not be up to it. If this is added though I think it could bring ArmaII from average to new and refreshing.

[Lou Montana]

What about a resistance hiring mission. ur a resistance leader and u go into villages in an attempt to bring people to your cause.

By the way, this thing makes me remember about Midwinter, an Amstrad and Atari game, where you are the fresh new leader of the resistance on an icy lost island, and where there is people in town.
You had to get people with you to fight better (each person had different abilities) but some guys/girls couldn't bear some others, so if you wanted the better sniper of the island, you had to get the boy from a village. You could also get the old lady, as anybody on the island had respect for her, she could make anybody follow you... and so on, the angry scientist could also pirat radio stations to contact people around, etc, etc

A nice game by the way ***