ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead British Armed Forces vs SB Pro PE

[mp96]

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2011/02/arma-2-operation-arrowhead-british.html

Arma 2: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics now.

SB Pro PE: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics in future?

[Companion]

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2011/02/arma-2-operation-arrowhead-british.html

Arma 2: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics now.

SB Pro PE: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics in future?

AFAIK, no FPS style infantry control planned for SB.

And graphics - finer graphics are "only" an eye candy. What this sim needs (and actually achieves to a great degree) are model fidelity and graphic details good enough to cause immersion and run smoothly on army's/most students and players' not-so-top-notch machines

[Volcano]

Arma 2: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics now.

SB Pro PE: controlled by the infantry, excellent graphics in future?

If you mean controllable infantry in the sense that you can run all over the place without a squad/team type structure like headless chickens then, no, it will never happen in SB. However, if SB could just get shadows, light sources, and normal mapping then it would look like that screen shot.

[dejawolf]

If you mean controllable infantry in the sense that you can run all over the place without a squad/team type structure like headless chickens then, no, it will never happen in SB. However, if SB could just get shadows, light sources, and normal mapping then it would look like that screen shot.

and specular maps.

[squiduk]

Arma 2 has a lot to be said for it. Graphically and in many other ways its excellent.

Where it falls down (IMHO) is all the vehicles (including aircraft) are very arcade like and the lack of good serious games. Usually it devolves into a COD like experiance on a larger map.

That said I dont think there is anyone that wouldnt mind seeing an advance in the graphics engine of SBP

[Gibsonm]

That said I dont think there is anyone that wouldnt mind seeing an advance in the graphics engine of SBP

Well as I've said before elsewhere (cf post #5 here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=15053), I think the standard of graphics currently is definitely at least at "acceptable" standard and while an improvement would be nice, there are other things that should take priority over just adding "gloss".

[Grenny]

One downside of ArmA 2, VBS 2 for that matter, is the map creation as it somehow "flattens" the hight maps to a point that it realy changes the character of the terrain.

(If you want training in mountains...lush hills just wont do the trick). But maybe I'm doing something wrong here.

The physics and pathfinding in SB sometimes suck.(f.e. towing in MP sessions)...but some things seen in VBS easily top that (f.e. tank rolling themselfes over by hitting an obstacle with the guntube; or that stupid health-bar)

Edited February 9, 2011 by Grenny

[Apocalypse 31]

ArmA has a feature called High Command.

Similiar to SB Pro, where you can command entire platoons, but lacks the level of detail that SB Pro has.

I feel like ArmA is on the scale of a Squad Leader , while SB Pro is platoon and above.

[BlackDeath]

If you mean controllable infantry in the sense that you can run all over the place without a squad/team type structure like headless chickens then, no, it will never happen in SB. However, if SB could just get shadows, light sources, and normal mapping then it would look like that screen shot.

Some sight for the AT squat units would be so cooool.

There is nothing more boring than spotting a target and waiting for the infantry to engage by themselve who is finally killed because they waited to long to engage

[Apocalypse 31]

Some sight for the AT squat units would be so cooool.

There is nothing more boring than spotting a target and waiting for the infantry to engage by themselve who is finally killed because they waited to long to engage

Sights for the rifles and mg's wld be nice..along with the ability to manually fire.

Not asking for SB Pro to become an first person shooter, but more inf involvement would be more realistic..and fun

[Ssnake]

SThere is nothing more boring than spotting a target and waiting for the infantry to engage by themselve who is finally killed because they waited to long to engage

You are aware that this is our feeble attempt to model suppression and deteriorated combat power. The more losses a squad has suffered, the more reluctant will they be to continue fighting.

That being said, involvement is a good thing.

[mp96]

Not asking for SB Pro to become an first person shooter, but more inf involvement would be more realistic..and fun

Yes. Tanks need real people in multiplayer. It's very interesting for troops and tanks.

[Grenny]

You are aware that this is our feeble attempt to model suppression and deteriorated combat power. The more losses a squad has suffered, the more reluctant will they be to continue fighting.

That being said, involvement is a good thing.

Ssnake has a point there.

This way players could make the lone Inf. man take a suicidal AT-shot at a whole tank platoon whilst any sane soldier in the same position would just lay low and wait till they moved on.

What would be more realistic?

[Ryujin]

Ssnake has a point there.

This way players could make the lone Inf. man take a suicidal AT-shot at a whole tank platoon whilst any sane soldier in the same position would just lay low and wait till they moved on.

What would be more realistic?

To play devils advocate, by that logic there shouldn't be any tank controls either.

The infantry do handle quite awkwardly at times, especially in urban environments, and it becomes near impossible to advance without taking losses for dumb reasons like PVT Johnson had to stand up and run to move 1m forward so he could see over the edge of the ditch while prone. The abstracted cover from bumpy terrain has really helped, but there's still a few issues.

While direct shooting wouldn't be at the top of my infantry wish list, it would be nice to have some more options like crawling and a more intuitive way to order them to enter buildings. A handful of formations would be nice, especially if you just want to put everyone in a column so the point man can discreetly peak around something or over the crest of something.

I'll accept that infantry will never be fully featured enough to avoid some casualties due to game limitations, but some times it can be pretty frustrating.

[Ssnake]

To play devils advocate, by that logic there shouldn't be any tank controls either.

Except that, historically speaking, there is no clear evidence that ties suppression of armored vehicle crews to a certain loss rate. A squad with 40% losses is essentially combat ineffective as those who are still in good health are busy keeping the injured alive and providing perimeter security.

AFVs isolate their crews from the surrounding war to some extent, so that losses in other vehicles do not have a direct influence on the combatworthiness of this vehicle, or its crew.

That being said, like I wrote above, taking control and being able to influence things is a good thing, so rest assured that we'll do something about it.

[Ryujin]

Sorry, to be more clear, I mean that players can always do things that no sane individual, in an AFV or not, would ever attempt. There really isn't a way around that without removing all control.

Even the AI will often take completely suicidal AT shots where it's a squad with one RPG vs the front armor of a platoon tanks, leading to their swift demise. Or they'll pop up to shoot at some infantry in the distance with a bunch of AFVs staring at their position. If anything I'd make AI even more cautious around enemy AFVs. I'd argue they probably could use even more self preservation.

I also imagine suppression could be abstracted to some degree on infantry. Perhaps just have suppressed infantry become uncontrollable and/or less accurate. The player would not be able to override the infantry taking cover from effective incoming fire and/or low moral. Units that had taken casualties could just be suppressed very easily. While the player may be able to get the AI to do some insane things, it could be limited.

Well this is getting a bit long winded, I'll just leave it to the experts

[scowlmovement]

Ugh. Steel Beasts is dominated by MOUNTED warfare. Can we please keep it that way? That's why I love this game, because mounted combat is the focus. I'm sure ArmA is a great game, but has a completely different focus (FPS?).

[Ssnake]

Once that you start to have a closer look at the mechanized infantry - and how can you not, if you want to simulate combined warfare? - you get inevitably drawn to some extent into the twilight zone of dismounted operations. If SB Pro is supposed to remain a useful standalone simulation tool for training purposes we can't ignore this aspect - even though we will make sure that our focus remains on the vehicles.

I think, the important aspect it to improve the autonomous behavior of dismounted troops so that we can avoid drowning the user with too many details that require his attention. Not quite trivial that, though.

[Captain_Colossus]

I noticed in the past, it could be difficult to ignore or bypass combat ineffective infantry because they could still call artillery- they didn't seem to suffer suppression effects or they didn't seemed to be cut off from the radio net somehow.

I think this effect might be compounded in maps that tend to be open with clear line of sight with few terrain features, i.e., relatively flat deserts, plains- if you happened to wipe out a mechanized unit, you could face scattered survivors everywhere calling in artillery, making it a high priority to spend time mopping up all of them just to be certain. Infantry units at the maximum edge of visibility barely detectable from the player's point of view could still spot and pound away it seems, there were times I'd have to form a detail to go around hunting for them.

[Ssnake]

Maybe we should add a (low) random factor whether such a survivor still has radio connection (and the skills to place his calls).

[Captain_Colossus]

I think that makes good sense.

[Homer]

What about the infantry using a similar damage effect system like vehicles?

[Ryujin]

I think pretty much any hit would take an infantryman out of action, so I'm not sure they need a complex damage model within SB. However at the squad level perhaps they could have a "buddy aid" or "casualties" damage. It would immobilize and significantly reduce the fire output as they tend to casualties, time adding and penalty up for each additional casualty and could only be addressed when not under direct fire (as the timer would be stabilizing and evacuating casualties and quite slow). Possibly sped up by the presence of a medical M113 (but not requiring a medical vehicle to abstract some ability to slowly extract casualties on their own without the player micromanaging some infantry medics).

A unit with casualties would be pretty much useless due to penalties adding up until they were evacuated. It'd also have the side effect of keeping the survivors in cover and less prone to letting themselves be picked off one by one in a suicidal situation and instead staying pinned down. However, lingering penalties would be hard to model without going into moral and such.

Though on the other hand it seems that totally immobilizing them would backfire in extreme situations. It's a tricky issue to address without adding lots of player management.

Also on the topic of artillery, it'd be nice if the scenario designer could set the artillery response time and accuracy for FOs and non-Fos for each side (with an option for some variation). Both to break up the predictability of the current fixed time and to give some longer and probably more realistic response times when applicable. For example an OPFOR BMP commander or infantryman landing dead on first round fire for effect rounds within 2:30 of spotting the enemy does seem a bit speedy (in my unqualified opinion).

[Ssnake]

Also on the topic of artillery, it'd be nice if the scenario designer could set the artillery response time and accuracy for FOs and non-Fos for each side (with an option for some variation). Both to break up the predictability of the current fixed time and to give some longer and probably more realistic response times when applicable. For example an OPFOR BMP commander or infantryman landing dead on first round fire for effect rounds within 2:30 of spotting the enemy does seem a bit speedy (in my unqualified opinion).

It is certainly a very extreme case of optimism. But it seems that the training effect that it generates is actually welcomed. Users learn to conduct combat with a mobility mindset as opposed to the "mobile fortress" idea. Still, lots of useful suggestions in your post.

[12Alfa]

"A unit with casualties would be pretty much useless due to penalties adding up until they were evacuated."

Never saw this, in fact it made the unit fight harder knowing they were giving some back.

But hey what do I know, maybe some units doint like to be shot at.