Mission realism

[dpolwarth]

My suggestion is to correct the woeful lack of realism in the missions.


Simple facts:

1) people need to check weapons and vehicles out at a quartermaster. You don't just walk in and drive them off. Also, you don't leave them behind - everything must be accounted for or people will just end up selling their gear off (in real life.)

2) Soldiers are trained for one job, and one job only. You are a driver, or a loader, or a gunner etc. You can't do all three. Plus, you can't drive multiple vehicles. One vehicle, one station. That's the law of the military.

3) Soldiers don't interrogate civilians, and are not expected to find intelligence. That is the CIA's remit. If intelligence gathering is needed the CIA will do it, or specifically brief hand-picked men to do the job. Soldiers are just bullet-stoppers - even special ops.

4) Regular troops and officers hate and distrust special ops troops. They don't give them carte blanche to swan round the area causing havoc. They see them as potential loose cannons, and to some extent they are right to hold this opinion. Despite what the movies depict, special ops troops are not always gifted with bright, insightful minds, so you don't give them delicate political missions. You have trained civilian liaison officers for that sort of thing.

5) When did armoured vehicle start operating alone? The are all attached to larger military units, and do not under any circumstances work alone unless they are specifically tasked with scouting. Furthermore, scouts are told never to engage the enemy because they act alone. So why does every enemy vehicle seem to be moving around without backup of any kind?

6) No one, but no one, gets to go on UAVs at the drop of a hat. Their missions have to be specially tasked, and only highly trained operators go near them. You ask them for intelligence, and they supply videos and other details. They are not a Playstation terminal. Also, they operate at very high altitudes in order to provide a stable unmoving image - in ARMA2 they seem to be flying way too low to get accurate images.

7) Where is the satellite data?

8) Where are the logistics operations? Why are there no trucks supplying ammunition and food and all the other essentials?

While I accept that some combat realism must be sacrificed to make better gameplay, the above points are all part of the mission design. They do not affect gameplay, just make it necessary for mission designers to put more thought into presentation.

While the current campaign in the game is utterly worthless, I have no doubt you will be releasing a forthcoming addon. I would ask that you ensure that the issues raised above are addressed.

However, I do not claim to speak for everyone. If any people agree or disagree with me then please comment below.

[vshadow]

I’m sorry but I have to disagree with some of that.
As you said at the end of the day this is a game, so you are going to have to accept some not so realistic things.

I don’t mind the quartermaster idea as I always hate having to take things and think “I would be taken away by the mp’s for this in real life” though this may be to lengthy and boring for some people.

The one job thing is a bit to, erm drastic, as it would then lead to questions of, so why do we have [insert vehicle] in game if we can’t use it? Also I like to have a nice variety of things to choose.

UAV as you said are kind of “bad” I found that it was kind of a pointless thing as you could not see anything for s*** due to ether limitations in graphics or by the fact when zoomed in the ground go’s past to fast.

I agree that there are a lot of unrealistic things in the game, but it is a game, and to limit the freedom which people don’t have in real life, might hinder on their experience.
Remember they are trying to appeal to the average gamer as well and to limit them will just put them off which would equal one bankrupt company.

In the words of one of my mates “if you that much realism why don’t you go do it for real” Though I don’t agree with him 100% I though that phrase might be some nice food for thought.

[Jonny_LI]

1) It's a game, relax. I don't want to have to Sign out weapons and ancil's in a game.

2) Again, just a game. What you ask for would add uneeded ball ache to said game.

3) Soldiers are expected to gather intelligence, speak to the local CivPop, recognise the absence of the normal and the presence of the abnormal, conduct Recce patrols and man OP's. It's not the same as tapping phone lines and infiltrating Al'Qaeda with a dodgy fake beard but it's still raw intelligence that gets passed to your units Int Cell on a Patrol Report.

4) Not all regular troops hate and distrust SF units, It can be a ballache when they conduct deliberate Op's in your AO without telling you and you're the one that has to deal with any potential fall out from either the enemy or the local CivPop.

5) Agreed, fair enough.

6) Again, agreed but it is a game and needs to be made accessable (sp?) to both 'hardcore' and casual players alike - that's how games sell.

7) Don't see your point here, as a game I don't feel I'm lacking anything mission-critical when playing it. The campaign has pretty crap Int briefs but thats about it.

8) See point 6

Lighten up mate! If you want to worry about Logistics, Int and Comms along with delicate political situations then sign up! If you have already then enjoy the fact you don't have to worry about it when you play a game.

[galzohar]

While I would love to see more realistic missions, the points you bring up don't seem like they're going to make it happen. There are much bigger issues than the ones you mentioned, and like already said some are untrue, impractical or simply don't really affect the game anyway.

Things like realistic scale (manpower/firepower per area and per side) and no respawns are a lot more important for making realistic missions.

[-Paladin-]

My suggestion is to correct the woeful lack of realism in the missions.


Simple facts:

1) people need to check weapons and vehicles out at a quartermaster. You don't just walk in and drive them off. Also, you don't leave them behind - everything must be accounted for or people will just end up selling their gear off (in real life.)

2) Soldiers are trained for one job, and one job only. You are a driver, or a loader, or a gunner etc. You can't do all three. Plus, you can't drive multiple vehicles. One vehicle, one station. That's the law of the military.

3) Soldiers don't interrogate civilians, and are not expected to find intelligence. That is the CIA's remit. If intelligence gathering is needed the CIA will do it, or specifically brief hand-picked men to do the job. Soldiers are just bullet-stoppers - even special ops.

4) Regular troops and officers hate and distrust special ops troops. They don't give them carte blanche to swan round the area causing havoc. They see them as potential loose cannons, and to some extent they are right to hold this opinion. Despite what the movies depict, special ops troops are not always gifted with bright, insightful minds, so you don't give them delicate political missions. You have trained civilian liaison officers for that sort of thing.

5) When did armoured vehicle start operating alone? The are all attached to larger military units, and do not under any circumstances work alone unless they are specifically tasked with scouting. Furthermore, scouts are told never to engage the enemy because they act alone. So why does every enemy vehicle seem to be moving around without backup of any kind?

6) No one, but no one, gets to go on UAVs at the drop of a hat. Their missions have to be specially tasked, and only highly trained operators go near them. You ask them for intelligence, and they supply videos and other details. They are not a Playstation terminal. Also, they operate at very high altitudes in order to provide a stable unmoving image - in ARMA2 they seem to be flying way too low to get accurate images.

7) Where is the satellite data?

8) Where are the logistics operations? Why are there no trucks supplying ammunition and food and all the other essentials?

While I accept that some combat realism must be sacrificed to make better gameplay, the above points are all part of the mission design. They do not affect gameplay, just make it necessary for mission designers to put more thought into presentation.

While the current campaign in the game is utterly worthless, I have no doubt you will be releasing a forthcoming addon. I would ask that you ensure that the issues raised above are addressed.

However, I do not claim to speak for everyone. If any people agree or disagree with me then please comment below.

1) half agree, qoutermaster no bringing back leaving stuff behind yes big no go punishment for PPL that do this stuff.
2)Apsulut yes to 100% cheering and crying because i am happy that some think like I. this would even help to get the vehicle ai behaves more realistic now its a joke
3)half agree, solders do that not the privet but Sargents and officers with this task, you are sarg in campaign you have the mission you have to do it because of a order.
4)i would love them becose of
a)they are high skill PPL from what i coud maybe learn something by watching what they do how they do it if they do something when i am near.
b)they are a much more worth than a grunt(lets say so much like a the combat vest you wear)spec. ops(so much how a tank) thats means they get evact when they need they have loots of support thats move in faster than a normal unit would have (fac in speckops unit or forward observer)
5)they do o it because of the mission designers fault unnoleg, my explain a tank never comes alone, remember that(lots of INF arty mortars air-support more tanks support units) ;-)
6)engin. limits, should be chose before a mission lets say you get that new BFG for havoc or you can chose a uav for recon before the mission starts(maybe you are not playing playuavstation but looking over the shoulder of this skilled PPL.
7)in the satellite
8)there are this trucks(no food that you can eat :-() but you dont have this cool animations how they relode and refuel the troops just magical flying ammo from truck to tank and troops)

[orlok]

Hello there

Interesting ideas, and I think that a specific role with a specific "set" loadout of kit would be great, rather than the grab an acog and a law and a few law rounds thing which seems to be prevelent.

There were missions in arma which did limit you but the name escapes me at the moment.

I think ideas like this would work and are doable, but they would appeal to a subsectio of players as does the quick in and out of some game types.

For eg in SWAT there was a mod in which you had to turn off your safety catch before you could discharge your weapon.

Completely pointless really but it added to the immersion factor immesurably.

Its all about balance and I for one would like to see a more mil-sim type of mission but withought going to rediculous extremes.

For eg I dont want to have to clean my kit before going into battle.

I think there is alot that could be added to facilitate more support roles (ie forthcoming ACE mod and medic) but it would be nice to get supply lines going as in WW2Online ad for folk to accrue points/candy/kudos for doing stuff in game that isnt 100pc combat related.

Engies and medics in ACE and some missions make a nod towards this and in A1 I knew some folk who just heloed folk in and out in Bh's and LB's and never actually fired a shot.

Those guys were golddust IMHO and if there could be more for them to do in that role that would be great.

Again its a compromise tween uber realism and semi realism rather than the rambo run and gun ideal.

Nevertheless intersting ideas.

Rgds

LoK

[Binkowski]

Well jeez, he's just expressing an opinion. If I could make a suggestion dpolwarth, come play with the 31st MEU. They don't play domination, or evolution, usually very realistic and realism based coops. PM me for more information.

[orlok]

Hello all

Yeah, shouldnt knock a chap for expressing his views, especially when they are cogent and definatly withing the scope of the forums.

Rgds

LoK

[dpolwarth]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

The thing is, I like this game. It may surprise you, but I don't bother posting criticisms on games I don't like.

The suggestions I made were just off the top of my head, and I wouldn't expect all of them to be realised in any new campaign. The point was that while individual points can be overlooked, the overall effect of the game is confusing. Is it meant to be a military simulator? Then why not simulate military life? And if its not and is meant to appeal to 'dumb' players then why bother to make it realistic in combat?

I should point out there is a huge thread on this forum complaining about how shot penetration of armoured vehicles does not represent real-life effects. While I totally understand how to some people that is important, in my mind it is not as important as telling an immersive story. Anything that makes me feel I'm just playing a sandbox computer game destroys any sense of immersion.

Let me give you a practical example. Break down the missions in Manhattan. For example, you need to arrest a woman in a town. Intelligence agents have gathered that information and need a reasonable sized unit (at least a platoon) to act on it. You are part of that unit.

Tell the story: where is your platoon to start with? Are they resting? If so, what are they discussing - politics, girls, weapons, complaining about blisters on their feet etc. Keep the dialogue close to real military jargon and humour. Then the sergeant comes over and berates them, tells them to get together because they have to act fast on fresh information.

They jump in an APC ready to take off. But true to military life there's a problem and they have wait around for a while (the 'hurry up and wait' scenario.) Finally on the move, word has gotten out and and they're expected, and already people are trying to smuggle the woman out in a civilian car.

Cue action ...

Not difficult is it? In a word, 'immersion.' Its amazing how so many people seem to find this sort of thing unnecessary. They don't seem to understand the importance of telling a good story, and how it can make or break any sense of realism. Simple things like keeping dialogue accurate to current military humour and slang, following military procedure (and breaking it as you would in real life) are all parts of keeping a story moving and fluent.

It is utterly missing in the campaign as it stands. Theres a vague, confused sense of wandering around in a Grand Theft Auto kind of way.

Some of you feel that other things need fixing, and I agree there are a lot of bugs. But I also feel that there is no coherent story or thread to the missions, and this makes or breaks a game. Its the one thing that can't be fixed with a patch.

Thanks anyway for your feedback.

[vshadow]

New you put it like that I understand. Yea I like that idea. Unlike some people I don’t mind the missions where it’s mostly dialog and banter (especially if there are options of different dialogue to join in) I feel it really is a good way of making you feel like you are there.

Though I have to admit I do like the parts of the campaign that work atm. I do like the option if right I will take the car and go other there then approach, though as I was kind of saying on my last post, it’s not realistic but that is what seems to sell.