Talk:Arma: Armed Assault

message: It's called Queen's Gambit, why is there no information of it?
Look  and  Samrulez91 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um.. hello??? An expansion has been released! 

message: Do we really need this section? The only screenshot that is in there is entitled "night", which when viewed appears mostly black anyway. Brophmeister 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Screenshots" section 

message: Deleted.
This really does not belong in Wikipedia. Use the game's own websites / wikis.
Can we get around that by saying "The current version is 1.05, with 1.07 in the beta stage"?  Brophmeister 03:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.05 Patch Released. 

message: The xbox introduced the grass to flashpoint, which is what is most noticeable in Arma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.216.130 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Xbox

message: Edited By Victor on 3/3/07
Let me just clarify this. Armed Assault is not going to be published by IDEA games. IDEA games is a group of developers, and sources inside Bohemia Interactive Studios have told websites such as OFPEC that IDEA games are not publishers. This happened after false speculation. If you need to check out Armed Assault Zone, or OFPECfor proof, then please do so. Until then, try not to speculate.
If you have any info to prove me wrong, please provide it.
--Peidu 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher 

message: Edited and abridged. Removed "IDEA games" reference. IDEA games isn't a publisher.
--Gordonf238
* Hooray, finally someone agrees with me.--Peidu 22:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: I can see this quickly getting out of hand, considering the amount of fan sites listed, and the fact that Armed Assault hasn't been released yet. I think if anymore are put up then the least relevant or smallest site should be removed.--Peidu 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the whole fan-site section. It's totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and none of the other major games I checked had any in theirs. --Frescard 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably readd it in context; a lot of these sites are developer/editor sites that provide information not available on the community wiki. They're relevant in so far as they provide information about the game without being blind sycophancy as most people consider fansites to be. Professor Ninja 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan Sites

message: in my opinion , Armed Assault is a "military simulation" with an emphasis on simulation . why? not only is it clearly much much more realistic (so much so that militaries are using a modified version of this very series as a simulator) , but it also encompasses far more then a First Person shooter. anyone care to comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.77.120 (talk • contribs).
It maybe a simulation, but to me it is still a computer game which comes under the first/third person shooter category because thats what it is. 172.207.250.18 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic Ace Combat and Microsoft Flight Simulator are the same genres. I don't think so. Professor Ninja 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Person Shooter classification? i think not

message: Does somebody want to add a list of weapons and equipment?
:I think that would be a bit over the top. Especially since we have a link to the Bohemia Wiki, which has all this information already. --Frescard 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons list 

message: I have reverted the edit which removed that screenshot. There are a number of IP addresses removing it for various reasons quoted in their edit summaries, and from the style of the summaries I believe them to be operated by the same user or same small group of users. Your reasons for removing the image may be valid, however it is clear that other users disagree with you, therefore you must open a discussion here on the talk page. Further removal of the image without discussion I will class as vandalism, and the IP addresses will be warned. Please discuss, thankyou :) SGGH speak! 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: I just visited the article, and it looks like an interesting game.  A couple points that I think the article should answer but doesn't do very well.
* Player capacity - it is mentioned that it is limited only by the server, but that doesn't really say much.  If the server requires 25% cpu utilization to support 1 player, that's a 4 player max.  If the server requires 2% cpu utilization, its a 50 player max.  And of course that says nothing of other issues (network, disk and so on ).  A little more detail on player numbers would be valuable.
:CPU utilization depends on CPU, doesn't it? 100+ players anyway, all up to server and its connection.
* Weaponry - I see there was another bullet on this above.  I agree, it would be overy the top to list all supported weaponry.  But there doesn't seem to be anything on this point.  For instance, i'm not even sure if this is just an infantry game, armor and infantry, armor infantry and air... is sea included?  How many weapons are modelled, and so on.
64.174.34.254 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weaponry, good point about it not being the in article.  Although I think generic types should be recorded rather than specific vehicles and weapons. Icemotoboy 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server Capacity 

message: Given that there are now plentiful addons available, and indeed that BIS have announced a "Community Awards 2008" programme to recognize these, I think that a section should be added to the article to note this.  I believe its encyclopedic because I think developer support of community projects, particulary as far as running and sponsoring an award programme, is of reasonable interest to future readers in differentiating this game title from others.  I would be happy to write one myself, however I am an addon developer so I feel like I have a personal interest in the subject.  I think, perhaps, a link to one or two of the known Addon hosting sites (such as armaholic.com and armedassault.info) would add some value to the article.  Anyone have any thoughts? Icemotoboy (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addons 

message: I have to take issue with the use of the phrase "completely overhauled game engine".
I was and still am an avid fan of OFP, and there is almost a 90% similarity between the engine used in OFP and ArmA. The only thing ArmA noticeably does better is the graphics. Physics, squad commands, movement, interactions, shooting, driving, flying and the overall feeling haven't been touched almost at all.
I think this should at least be clarified. Whether BIS intended for it to be a completely new engine or not, I don't really care. But I think we should avoid advertising for game developers. F33bs (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed it from "completely overhauled" to "overhauled". Icemotoboy (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely overhauled game engine? 

message: I removed the category to :category:Games protected with Starforce as this was only for the EU region, and that protection was removed with patch 1.14Icemotoboy (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starforce/Securom

message: Why the second half of the lead section is filled with this naming controversy info? Shouldn't it be in a separate section and not in introduction? At the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant to the game. --Hamarainen (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section Clean Up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413085253/http://pc.gamezone.com:80/gamesell/p30966.htm to http://pc.gamezone.com/gamesell/p30966.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090412011636/http://www.gamespot.com:80/pc/action/armedassault/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/armedassault/review.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412231735/http://www.bistudio.com:80/flashnews/OpenLetter/openletter.html to http://www.bistudio.com/flashnews/OpenLetter/openletter.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on ARMA: Armed Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620081327/http://www.armedassault.com/warfare.html to http://www.armedassault.com/warfare.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080728134358/http://www.armedassault.com/queensgambit.html to http://www.armedassault.com/queensgambit.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bistudio.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ARMA (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress