Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

The ability to dig. Very simple If we can dig we can make bunkers or what not
Reviewed, NormalPublic


Please give us the ability to dig and to make bunkers. Is it even possible ? We could move tons of dirt with tractors ect Build your own base! You know if you give us the ability to dig and move dirt people will make awesome mods so we can do that. I can have Vietnam style VC tunnels !! {F18558}


Legacy ID
Feature Request
Additional Information

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
RogueWarrior set Severity to Feature.Mar 30 2013, 7:04 AM
RogueWarrior set Resolution to Open.
RogueWarrior set Legacy ID to 3779879736.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

Wanted to see this for a long time, glad someone posted it.

If they were to do this & it gets enough attention maybe we'll get underground structures back.

downvoted. Try minecraft.

MadDogX added a subscriber: MadDogX.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

Very unlikely to happen, considering the limitations of the engine. Even static underground structures are only a "maybe".

LOWCZ added a subscriber: LOWCZ.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

Simple Entrenching tool and ability to at least dug some dirt in front of yourself would be just fine for me.

Digging has been a asset to the military for a very long time, i believe its a very good idea. In fact think of digging booby traps for a ambush. I VOTE YES!

at least the ability to dig a fox hole, that would be cool. giving less damage from explosives, making you less visible...i would dig that :P

The ability to dig a 'small' hole or trench for yourself and squad members which gives the cover bonuses is a nice idea. I do not know the engine well enough to see how this could be implemented easily however, going to give it a vote and hope something can come from the idea at least.

B00tsy added a subscriber: B00tsy.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

Sounds nice of course, but not possible, you can not change a map, only put stuff on it.

Atleast let me dig a ditch to sleep in that way if I get shot it's less work for the enemy.

VBS2 has the ability to do underground structures & you guys were considering it a while back.

Having the ability to dig 2-4 feet into the ground probably wouldn't be that bad of a compromise, that'd be about deep enough to make a personal firing hole. NVA style tactics.

We're not asking for spider holes atleast.

Also would be nice to dig entrenched positions into the sides of mountains/such.

B00tsy if you can't change a map & only add to it, then how is it that heavy explosive rounds tend to make craters? OR vehicles exploding near/on the ground.

@SGTIce: all "craters" in the game are just objects created above the ground. There is currently no way to actually deform the terrain, except by adding modelled objects to it (such as the ring of a crater or mounds of "dislodged" dirt.)

Making holes in the terrain, no matter how small, simply isn't possible in Arma3 at this point.

Maddog .. That's why i suggested they make it possible !

johnnynoscope, as both your name and comment suggests, you're an idiot.

entrenchment is a real thing, there's nothing "minecraft" about it

weather it should be done in real time or part of "preparation work" in the editor or strategy layer is a different story, but it would increase the depth and immersion greatly.

@MadDog, i think terrain deformaiton is possible, just not in real time. in one of the visitor videos, they actually showed you could reshape the terrain in the edtior.

@rogue Warrior: I know. I wasn't questioning the request, I was questioning SGTIce's post. ;)

@johncage: Even the devs have stated previously that very basic real-time terrain deformation is possible and they even tried it, but they were never satisfied with the results. Lowering points on the terrain mesh is (comparatively) easy, but there are several issues to consider when doing this, such as MP synch, density of the terrain mesh, interaction with objects on the terrain etc.

X39 added a subscriber: X39.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM
X39 added a comment.Apr 20 2013, 5:45 PM

would be a nice feature to see but to be more exactly
it would be nice to have!
just think about missions which are productive and helpfull for civilians in arma
just would be beautifull (for example: operation helpfull; Your job is really easy! the civ in that area need our help because one of their dam has broken so get out to there and rebuild it. after that create a bridge at chack chack so that the civ. can get over the not existing river)

but to be sure
no "i build my own base" thing please ...
for example:
a mission maker could create user editable terrain areas

this can be done in a mod, like in arma 2 domination mod, it builds a sand trench on top of the ground with out making a hole. voting no, it's a mod thing

It's not a mod thing dog.

Everyone in the community needs to get out of the "Lets shove things off onto modders" mentality.

There are some things that could or should be in the base game so the modding community can BUILD upon them.

Most of the mods i've seen that were well done were done to make up for a non existent solid foundation to build upon. That should not be the case, BI should lay the foundation & the modders should build upon it. Most of the thing's being asked in tickets are pretty straight forward & simple that have been done in mods. Some of which should have been priority 1 before DLCs.

I think it would be a good idea but digging a hole can actually take quite a while, and I would wan't it to be realistic in the time it takes. I could see players getting bored very quickly. I say add it but I don't think players will use it much.

Unknown Object (User) added a subscriber: Unknown Object (User).May 7 2016, 1:18 PM
Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 21 2013, 1:34 AM

Shall i vote yes? i mean, yes, this is true, however, i find the editor fill up this feature.

Shall i vote no? i mean, the ones that work making bases in afghanistan for the US forces are not soldiers, they are either logistical workers, contractors from the US, or local workers.

arziben added a subscriber: arziben.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

why is this "urgent" ?

come on people, use those things correctly

You'd be suprised how many people would use the feature.

Not everyone plays a mission for 5-30 mins.

Some missions go on for hours or more.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 22 2013, 4:10 AM

SGTIce, soldiers ain't gonna make a trench or a bunker in the middle of a firefight, shovels are only used when in battlefields with no human civilization close to their position (the iraq desert, iran desert, russian forest, the north pole, etc.)

Death you're wrong yet again.

WWI, soldiers dug trenches within 100M of each other.

I'm also pretty sure we'd lay wire, hedgehog steel & other types of traps/deterrents such as digging foxholes right before the enemy shows up if we had the chance.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 22 2013, 9:22 PM

ok. i dont know you, but for me this is 2013, in the game is 2035, and WWI was 1914-1918, and it was known as "trench warfare".

using those things are the same as using sandbags, and are being only used in logistical for making bases both temporary and permanent or static positions.

Wrong again.

Sand bags are used in temporary fighting positions and often to rest your weapon on.

Ever see an LP/OP or even snipers sitting in a building putting sandbags up to use for cover/bracing?

Ever see people digging ditches to make temporary fighting positions?

This could be a neat feature to have, and i think it could go very far in the modding community. However as MadDog stated, the devs have tried it and were not satisfied with results. In this case I can only imagine users not being satisfied with it.

So i would think that perhaps including this feature that the devs worked on as "hidden" content that isn't used within stock ARMA, but allow modders to play with it and see what they can do with it?

Other than that, everytime I read VBS is able to do it, I keep wondering why BIS just dont merge VBS and ARMA projects together sharing the same core content as foundation, however they could obviously differ in terms of ARMA just having addtional themed content for their campaigns etc.

That way we get VBS kind of simulation, and dev team only really need to work on the themed content, where as now the community keep begging for more realism and practically begging BIS for features from VBS.

Probably due to them wanting to keep the teams seperate/projects.

Some things in VBS they have to get licensed.

Licensed? By whom?

Well then make their own versions of it, then they probably wouldn't need to pay royalty fees for licensing.

Still, it be nice if they just could do that, save themselves alot of effort.

Unless i'm wrong, which there is a good chance there is. VBS uses some outside tech for AI & other things.

Indeed it would, VBS2 has a lot of nice features which i've always wanted in ArmA.

I'd be good even with the ability to just place sandbags / barbwire / other small fortifications by taking the needed objects/tools !

I agree with Kid18120's idea, not accualy putting holes in the ground.

I'd settle for sandbag placement better than ACE especially with hedge hog steel/barbwire.

Would work as a pretty decent substitute to digging.

Ontop of that, it would be nice to build a small personal protective structure/put on a roof/camo over an HMG with user layed sandbags.

This idea is nice but think about it - why are no tunnels ever in flashpoint/arma series? The engine is not made to do this and it will be hard to implement now. May be in some DLC or ARMA 4

On the other hand - building some sort of on-surface cover like 20cm height sand wall could be made and is relatively simple.

Taskman, you're wrong. They were going to implement underground but due to the fact the AI was having a hard time with it they decided not to. Similar to almost every other awesome idea they were going to implement.

Underground is in VBS2. It's not hard to implement into the engine itself, it's hard to get it working well with the AI.

Well if that's the case... f#ck the AI... ARMA is strongly based on co op and mp, so they can just as well implement it as a multi player feature, and the AI won't need to get involved.

MadDog already pointed out a big deal regarding the mp aspect, so I'm thinking this request won't see the light of day until the next iteration of the engine.

Given all awesome features failing due to limitations of the engine, perhaps BIS should really consider making the next virtual reality engine from scratch, and try focus on making it with all these awesome ideas in mind for a decent experience. I know it sounds like a major task and would probably set the next ARMA title back by another 5 years or so, but so what? Till today ARMA 2 holds pretty high standards, and with ARMA 3 enhancements,.I'd imagine it take a good few years before it really becomes one those horrible looking games, not to mention an active modding community to keep it alive that long.

They need to scrap this engine once they're done & create a better one which can go into the future & compete. Too many legacy problems.

While the scripting language is probably great for them, it's holding them back in a lot of places.

The way A3 is shaping it, it could hold out for 5-7 years if they just support it with some decent DLC's worth buying this time.

DLC's which come with real islands.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 24 2013, 7:20 PM

they dont need to make a new engine, every games engine is just the same thing, code and programming, wich is universal, so technically an engine have no limits at all, and look at OFP, and now look at ArmA 3 and then remember its the same engine.

I agree with the removal of tunnels because of the AI not working well being one of the most retarded things i have ever heard/seen.

there were TONS of AI mods for ArmA 2 wich made the AI look like actual human players, you cant just take off an very interesting feature that mappers would LOVE just because the AI will have a bad time in tunnels.

Death you're proving you know nothing about engines.

Coding is not universal.

They are using a coding language that went out of date years ago.

Modern engines use C++ mostly, which allows you to do just about anything.

We're all aware of the engine being the same, but you don't seem to understand there are a lot of things behind held back due to the engine being so hard to work with at times.

The scripting language is coming up short in a lot of areas which they wanted to/could have expanded in.

Val added a comment.Apr 25 2013, 1:00 AM

Upvoted. Would really like to see bunkers, trenches and underground structures like in VBS 2. It would add more diversity to gameplay. Also it will add more tactics in urban warfare (just imagine a squad of SF bypassing their enemies via the city sewers).

For the sand bags & what not. We should probably make a new ticket about deploying objects for combat support or something along those lines.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 26 2013, 8:25 PM

SGTIce, i meant the programming, mostly, not the coding, however, now that you mention it, it would be nice to have a new fresh start for the saga with a new engine that holds CQB battles more like Rainbow Six did

Kinda off topic here, but i think we should start a campaign as a community, to convince BIS to start working on a new engine after the release of ARMA 3. Everywhere it's mentioned how limited the current tech is, so i think we should be able to make a noise, and I'm not being negative now, but i think BIS just needs to be motivated. If anyone starts this movement or petition, I'd back it up.

IF anything i'd rather they work with ArmA 3 for the next 5-7 years, then move on to a new engine for their next game. This one looks like it'll be able to stay current for a while.

However BIS needs to stop dragging their feet in the sand about using old tech to save money.

Back on topic.

I said start working on it, as in actually talk about it and plan for it, never implied dropping support for A3 at all... Just clearing that up =)

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Apr 27 2013, 2:33 AM

SGTIce, finally we agree on something, id die to see a new VBS with a new engine, but i think its more about getting used to and making a new engine than monetary problems

I was just pointing out how I look at how they should plan it out sheamus.

laywiin added a subscriber: laywiin.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

It should not be minecraft.

But beeing able to make some trenches doesnt hurt, because now we need to find a rock to hide behind or a bush. nothing is possible to hide under:/

I think pre-made trench positions would help alot, if custom ones are impossible.

They technically if they wanted to could make the whole map diggable up top a few feet or 8 to make trenches all around the map via pre designation, aside from places which have buildings, possibly roads etc. Unless they wanted to allow us to destroy roads, which I doubt due to AI pathing.

Vespa added a subscriber: Vespa.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM
Vespa added a comment.Jun 6 2013, 4:07 PM

haha, yeah, right. Would be cool though. Maybe in Arma 6 ;)

SGTIce added a comment.Jun 6 2013, 9:49 PM

Fight me Vespa.

Well just allow the possibility of having a more vertical terrain deformation in the map editor and have it linked with a tool where you can define what objects make the wall of a trench, then when you draw a line on the map, it automatically digs/deforms the terrain AND add the objects you want for the walls. Then you can edit each section manually, maybe remove wall, and smoothing the slope so you can walk into the trench

Automated process =)

It's a cheat, but its been used before, but now the maps are much more higher in terms of resolution, the results will look nicer.

(Remember this is an idea for the map editor, in case this feature cannot be incorporated right now)

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 19 2013, 4:35 AM

wait, isn't underground structures already added with the underwater cave in north-east of Stratis?

That is not quite an underground structure, as far as i know it is just rocks placed around to look like you are going underground. But really you are inside a space with rocks surrounding it.

I could be wrong though...

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 19 2013, 7:11 PM

check the outside of the cave, there is one part with terrain in it, either its a well placed rock structure, or an indestructible building that looks like terrain

Underground was confirmed till the AI sabotaged yet another masterpiece which would of made ArmA 3 stand out just that much more from its predecessors.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 20 2013, 10:34 AM

then the main reason why underground structures (if not dynamic ones) are not possible is JUST because of the already stupid AI?

Underground structures were never properly confirmed (being on the dev's wish-list is not confirmation), and the AI are only one factor to be considered.

In any case, discussion of the reasons and circumstances and whether or not a feature will be implemented belongs on the forums, not the tracker.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 20 2013, 11:35 PM

but AI and movement glitches are the only factors, being the AI the most problematic and important, and yes, sorry for going off topic.

Val added a comment.Jun 21 2013, 12:29 AM

It's still better to add the possibility to create underground structures now or in the nearest future even if it causes problems with AI. If it's added there's only one problem left -- AI.

If it's not added than there are two problems left: first is that we can't create ubderground structures and second is that after adding this possibility we'll have problems with AI.

rogerx added a subscriber: rogerx.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

If you guys ever noticed, there is a graphically sealed large bunker (train) door entrance on the north side of the Kamino light house hill.

Also, someplace around an hour into the ARMA 3 Beta Livestream video, one of the developers mentioned an underwater cave with a skeleton. (It was during the beginning of the third sit-in developer's interview who is in in the background of the video. About an hour into the video.)

ARMA 3 Beta Livestream video

Novalogic Delta Force series also had caves, and I see the desire for caves; but not really necessary for overall game play. I do find caves fun to pop-up behind enemy lines, especially useful during night time or pitch blackness extremely fun though. But once the cave is known, quickly becomes not fun because it's no fun running several miles and being killed with one shot and requiring to start all over again!

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 21 2013, 10:20 PM

that cave is in north east of stratis, its hard to get in

Statek added a subscriber: Statek.May 7 2016, 1:18 PM

What about objects that go on terrain that look like the terrain but have the ability to be "dug" into? It would only be modifying/changing the object, though it would look and act like terrain
And the cave on the northeast side of Stratis isn't hard to get in(?)
You just swim under and into it

Next, we'll be having trench warfare. And then we'll have smell or odor hardware to simulate chemical warfare. Hence, the multiplayer first person shooter game to end all first person shooter games. Oh where will it end. ;-)

I really like the idea of odor hardware. Wonder why it hasn't caught on yet?

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 23 2013, 9:28 PM

because lack of odor simulation, to simulate odor it needs to be created and simuladted in real life instead of software, its maybe the hardest sense to ever simulate in a videogames, therefore, its better if we use a simulation of virtual reality using the brain as a controller (AKA, what kojima tried to show in MGS2)

All you need is a helmet sending electrical pulses to simulate just about anything.

VBS2 has had "ground cutting" for years. See this demo video. So this is possible on a technical level.

@Nordic_Harold the system in Vbs 2 would be cool. But for real digging (with shovel) Arma 3 maps are made of triangle so you would always dig giant triangles