Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jonathan

Milsim for Ground Branch

24 posts in this topic

Since Ground Branch is focusing on realism & the default game won't be a Milsim like Arma or anything may I make a suggestion John? When you get proper funding and down the road maybe in a few years time perhaps you could create a Milsim DLC Mod for the game? I think that the NORG aspect would work really good with this and I would be more than happy to pay for for such a thing as this. Perhaps maybe this community that has UE4 knowledge could help you out in creating such a huge project. This might even help get the ARMA audience on board.

Edited by Jonathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get proper funding and down the road maybe in a few years time perhaps you could create a Milsim DLC Mod for the game?

 

1. What even is a DLC Mod?

 

2. What would this Milsim expansion thing have specifically that GB otherwise wouldn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What even is a DLC Mod?

 

2. What would this Milsim expansion thing have specifically that GB otherwise wouldn't?

 

I made an error sir. I just meant "DLC"

The Milsim would have one large map similar to Arma.

Edited by Jonathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will be possible to do with the new features Epic has promised. you'll be able to make such a map and port it into GB. I think, if there's a sizeable community around this game, people will eventually make Arma on top of GB

 

keep in mind, "MILSIM" usually means vehicles, all of them (naval, air, ground and everything in-between). that will be a challenge (although, Unreal has ground vehicle simulation already)

Edited by AbsoluteVirtue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "milsim" is as fuzzy as "tactical shooter". Every second Arma clan that doesn't play DayZ or Altis Life calls itself "milsim". Even if they only play 30-seconds-respawn-run&gun-style missions. I even remember this one console gamer who called R6:Vegas2 a milsim. Btw BI itself doesn't call Arma a milsim anymore, which is imho appropriate give the low degree of realism in the vanilla game.

 

Back on topic: Virtue is probably right, a large map demands vehicles. And that's probably way out of scope for GB. Even in Arma the implementation of vehicles comes with a bunch of limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MilSim doesn't equate large maps. Hell, A3 and its predecessors weren't MilSims. Neither is VBS for that matter.

 

The closest your going to get in relation to that term would be something like Steel Beasts, GFT, or UrbanSim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overly large maps that requires the use of vehicles? If it will do what SOCOM 3 did to SOCOM 1/2, then no thank you. I can just play Battlefield or Arma 2 or Project Reality or something.

Edited by V2_Bloodline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do remember seeing a Little Bird in one of the videos for Ground Branch. also, I remember seeing a Humvee. a step towards a "milsim" would be to make that Little Bird controllable by player pilots.

 

The closest your going to get in relation to that term would be something like Steel Beasts, GFT, or UrbanSim.

that's a fair point. in that context a "milsim" is any military game that simulates every aspect of it's subject (tanks, jets etc.). but those are all vehicles.

 

how do you make an infantry-based milsim game then? what does a game about infantry combat have to do to be able to call itself "milsim"? realistic wounding, realistic ballistics/penetration, body armor/protection simulation?

Edited by AbsoluteVirtue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

that's a fair point. in that context a "milsim" is any military game that simulates every aspect of it's subject (tanks, jets etc.). but those are all vehicles.

 

how do you make an infantry-based milsim game then? what does a game about infantry combat have to do to be able to call itself "milsim"? realistic wounding, realistic ballistics/penetration, body armor/protection simulation?

 

That's not what I said. Military Simulations are often focused upon singular weapons systems, mission types/operations, or a specific airframe or vehicle. MilSims, in the truest form, do not exist in the civilian marketplace. This is not necessarily becasue anything is Classified, but often due to the fact that it simulates the subject so precisely to negate any sort of 'fun factor'. Military Simulations are there for training and training only.

 

Examples:

 

18s0qmufevhc0jpg.jpg

 

8241625586_66e1e617fc_o.jpg

 

UrbanSim-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Detcord. People seem to think milsim = military themed sandbox game. ArmA is more or less a sandbox game, simply with a military theme. If Ground Branch follows through with its intentions, it will simulate small scale squad tactics a whole lot more realistically than ArmA. Everything from the small mechanics, like weapon features, door breaching features, movement options, AI squad commands and more. Point being, from a game perspective, Ground Branch will be as close to a "milsim" as you can get before it turns into a training tool (which we don't want!).

 

Obviously, ArmA will do more than small squad level tactics, but everything will be half done to the point you can't call it a simulator. You can't claim it is a battlefield simulator when infantry can artificially destroy tanks with much more speed than they can in the real world. This results in unrealistic battle field proportions/management.

 

As for a large scale map, it can be good and bad. Good in that it gives you longs of distance flexibility, but bad in that it will likely be less detailed. Meaning less interesting buildings to raid ect.

Edited by Flogger23m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Detcord. People seem to think milsim = military themed sandbox game. ArmA is more or less a sandbox game, simply with a military theme. If Ground Branch follows through with its intentions, it will simulate small scale squad tactics a whole lot more realistically than ArmA. Everything from the small mechanics, like weapon features, door breaching features, movement options, AI squad commands and more. Point being, from a game perspective, Ground Branch will be as close to a "milsim" as you can get before it turns into a training tool (which we don't want!).

 

Obviously, ArmA will do more than small squad level tactics, but everything will be half done to the point you can't call it a simulator. You can't claim it is a battlefield simulator when infantry can artificially destroy tanks with much more speed than they can in the real world. This results in unrealistic battle field proportions/management.

 

As for a large scale map, it can be good and bad. Good in that it gives you longs of distance flexibility, but bad in that it will likely be less detailed. Meaning less interesting buildings to raid ect.

 

MilSim is a very subjective term, especially with regards to those who don't understand it. Hell, simulator itself is a subjective term. FSX, DCS, XP etc are not simulators. They're games. Everytime someone drops MilSim in relation to these and other games I roll my eyes. Though I'd be more apt to apply the term here in one form or another than the douche-canoes running around the woods, all kitted out, playing soldier and calling it Airsoft MilSim. Ugh.

 

A3 and the previous versions do a very good job at depicting Combined Arms Maneuver Warfare. But that's pretty much where it starts and stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

milsim is way more advanced than arma 3, it would be something closer to vbs with the level of detail from virtual heroe's suite of training tools. extreme realistic injuries, sides of face blown off, making incisions of necks for tracheotomy, which is featured in virtual medic, things of that nature.

 

the standard for mil sim has evolved much beyond what would be considered mil sim in 2001 for example. in its own time, operation flashpoint was THE milsim.

 

to turn ground branch into a milsim will take more than a dlc.

 

besides, ground branch is more of a milsim than anything out there at the moment, based just on the preview and test videos, so would a milsim upgrade really be necessary? small features gradually making their way in will of course be great. do they need to be dlcs? only if the development time justifies it, even then, will there be a market to justify the price tag?

 

all things considered, milsim dlc doesn't seem like a good idea. best case scenario, we support the game right from the beginning, and features which are not necessarily milsim standard, but increase realism and depth nonethless make it into the game as it continues to evolve. for that purpose keep an open line for donation. don't bother with marketing suicide known as micro transaction dlc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MilSim is a very subjective term, especially with regards to those who don't understand it. Hell, simulator itself is a subjective term. FSX, DCS, XP etc are not simulators. They're games. Everytime someone drops MilSim in relation to these and other games I roll my eyes. Though I'd be more apt to apply the term here in one form or another than the douche-canoes running around the woods, all kitted out, playing soldier and calling it Airsoft MilSim. Ugh.

 

A3 and the previous versions do a very good job at depicting Combined Arms Maneuver Warfare. But that's pretty much where it starts and stops.

 

so those games aren't trying to simulate their real-life counterpart? i mean there could be civillian AND military simulators, but its pretty obvious which one is more advanced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A military simulation is a war game, an exercise as if it were for real (humans using military tactics for a military operation). Arma series can be judged as that provided you have everything needed for the war game/scenario i.e. all assets that would be used. If the military use computer made software (as they do vbs and so on) to practise a war game/exercise, where all types of military assets can be used virtually, then that is a mil/sim. If all those same assets are available for Arma (it is mostly for A2CO), then your on a level playing field.

 

However, it would be totally dependent on how you play/use arma, but using genuine military tactics to win a war or scenario within the game can be seen as a simulation. However the game would have to be played using genuine military tactics. At that point it becomes unentertaining.

 

Now you can have a flight simulator or anything else that takes your fancy. This GB, could be a CQB simulator provided again you use genuine tactics for the scenarios it covers and of course have all the assets. Deviate from that and all these are simply games. A2 was classed as a mil/sim. A3 wasn't.

 

Just my view of the wording 'military simulation'..

Edited by chrisb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an error sir. I just meant "DLC"

The Milsim would have one large map similar to Arma.

 

i guess just cause 2 is more of a milsim than arma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would swap the phrase "milsim" with "milspec".

 

Most tactical shooters tend to represent some kind of law enforcement, mercenary, or specops force with a high degree of freedom in their gear. Their choice in weapons is essentially "commercial market" with no affiliation with any specific country or chain of supply.

 

Conversely, there's the method of America's Army or PR, where an actual military force is represented with a specific number of role slots, each with a specific standard issue loadout of gear, with only a bit of customization freedom.

 

I would like to see both in Ground Branch, as a server-side option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, and it's a stupid one; so forgive me. But what's the difference between a Tactical shooter like Ground Branch and Milsim like Arma, infantry wise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the cornerstones of Ground Branch is the customization. There won't be anything stopping server mods from limiting it though.

 

There is nothing inherently stopping GB from being more like ArmA other than our design and the fact we are about 15 years behind the feature curve. :) UE4 can handle large open worlds and so far there is nothing in our mechanics that wouldn't scale to worlds that big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my experience, it's not just what makes gb different from arma, but what makes arma different from almost everything else. and i don't mean in a good way.

 

arma infantry basically feels like a bunch of chest pieces or figurines not wholly connected to the environment, many instances of weird interaction results in players feeling like hover tanks in the game world. look at how they implemented clambering over obstacles for example, or how one lifts off from minor contact with a pile of rocks. it's notoriously clunky and unnatural.

 

whereas ue4 has build-in features such as inverse kinematics and other up to date modern technologies making the character integrated into the game world with proper cause and effect interactions and thus helping the player feel immersed, in terms of gameplay consequences, visual representation, and the feeling of moving a character around the environment.

 

there are also other things in arma which are downright archaic in implementation.which you wouldn't find today even in an arcade game. to me, arma 3 is what happens when you chase fads and trends with old technology and old understandings. gb on the other hand is all about harnessing new technology to bring to life old ideas that have gone out of fashion. a tactical shooter renaissance, if you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MilSim is a very subjective term, especially with regards to those who don't understand it. Hell, simulator itself is a subjective term. FSX, DCS, XP etc are not simulators. They're games. Everytime someone drops MilSim in relation to these and other games I roll my eyes. Though I'd be more apt to apply the term here in one form or another than the douche-canoes running around the woods, all kitted out, playing soldier and calling it Airsoft MilSim. Ugh.

 

A3 and the previous versions do a very good job at depicting Combined Arms Maneuver Warfare. But that's pretty much where it starts and stops.

 

I agree with that. A military simulator is a simulator for the military, and likely can't be fun at all. My point was that if you take mil sim concepts and try to merge it will fun, you'd get something like Ground Branch. I am splitting hairs here, but the ANG/USAF does use DCS A-10C. There are a few pictures floating around. They're using the cheapest Thrustmaster (T Flight?) HOTAS though.

 

Edit: Found some images:

 

http://www.pakwheels.com/forums/attachments/non-wheels-discussions/1236519d1375139529-dcs-10c-simulator-2011_05_25_01_01.jpg

 

http://www.pakwheels.com/forums/attachments/non-wheels-discussions/1236515d1375139163-dcs-10c-simulator-us-air-force-using-dcs.jpg

 

from my experience, it's not just what makes gb different from arma, but what makes arma different from almost everything else. and i don't mean in a good way.

 

arma infantry basically feels like a bunch of chest pieces or figurines not wholly connected to the environment, many instances of weird interaction results in players feeling like hover tanks in the game world. look at how they implemented clambering over obstacles for example, or how one lifts off from minor contact with a pile of rocks. it's notoriously clunky and unnatural.

 

whereas ue4 has build-in features such as inverse kinematics and other up to date modern technologies making the character integrated into the game world with proper cause and effect interactions and thus helping the player feel immersed, in terms of gameplay consequences, visual representation, and the feeling of moving a character around the environment.

 

there are also other things in arma which are downright archaic in implementation.which you wouldn't find today even in an arcade game. to me, arma 3 is what happens when you chase fads and trends with old technology and old understandings. gb on the other hand is all about harnessing new technology to bring to life old ideas that have gone out of fashion. a tactical shooter renaissance, if you will.

 

Exactly. ArmA 3 just feels antiquated. Like those old games that attempted to model realism by adding unrealistic or fictional features; like pointing upwards after a small burst of automatic fire as found in some games from the early 2000s. The tech has improved but ArmA 3 still has the mindset of a game from the early 2000s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve not really had that many problems with A2 over the past few years now. They addressed many issues, it took time but they got there, well more or less.

 

But A2CO is nothing like the vanilla game when its modded well, then it’s a completely different game altogether, one that so far, has no competition.

 

GB will be the CQB answer to all that, hopefully. Because that is one area where the Arma series lacks a little, even with the best mods. Hope GB sorts out that area for us.

I should add, I don't really play A3 much at all, but I'm always in A2CO (modded).

Edited by chrisb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, and it's a stupid one; so forgive me. But what's the difference between a Tactical shooter like Ground Branch and Milsim like Arma, infantry wise?

Well, as already said there is no strict definition for these terms in any dictionary. Imho the difference is simply the intention behind the game:

- an arcade game is focused on pretty fast, (more or less) simple action

- in a tactical shooter the focus is more on tactics, usually realistic ones; stuff like thinking, planning and teamwork are more emphasised, but it's still focused on the actual combat

- a milsim however tries to simulate/depict complex military operations, usually with a high degree on realism; as DetCord pointed out already, strictly speaking a milsim is a military training tool and not a game meant for entertainment.

 

So a milsim (in the broadest sense including games) can actually be pretty boring, if you are looking for a fire fight. Infantry might patrol on foot for 2 hours and come back without a single enemy contact. A jet might take off, fly half an hour to its station area, do a Combat Air Patrol for 1.5 hours, fly back to home plate and land. No enemy contact, no action, but still mission successful. One might even spend an hour in the safe FOB just preparing a vehicle for an upcoming mission.

Now a tactical shooter might as well inlcude a long planning phase and stealth missions where one has to avoid enemy contact. But in a milsim there might not be an enemy at all. It's about the experience of the military procedure, the operation itself rather than pure combat.

Arma allows this style of play, and with the right mods it even features a good realism (both up to a certain degree). And I personally enjoy that. However in Arma one can have pretty fast action as well. Or hunt zombies. Or do RPG stuff. Hence I don't feel comfortable calling Arma a milsim. I'd call it a military sandbox.

 

@213: while infantry stuff in Arma 3 is far from perfect, it's imho not as bad as you describe it. I actually enjoy it and find it pretty immersive/atmospheric most of the time. Arma is not focused on infantry but features vehicles as well as air and limited sea assests. Moreoverover it's not focused on a certain area but covers a variety of terrains and environments. So naturally it can not stand up against a game focused on small scale infantry combat like GB if you only compare this one aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0