Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

(Realistic) Battlesuits... no, seriously.
Closed, ResolvedPublic


I expect this to get a lot of downvotes by people who wished A3 wasn't in the future, but here goes. This game is set in 2035. We already have military exoskeletons capable of hauling hundreds of pounds; our only limitation is battery technology. We can be sure dozens of new, powerful battery chemistries have been developed in 22 years time, and can also be equally sure someone has combined those with an armored, lighter, stronger version of the exoskeletons under development today. Soldiers in suits would be able to carry more, run faster, farther, and longer, all while firing heavier weapons with less recoil and being able to see the world in thermalvision, identify the exact location of enemy fire via sound signatures, etc.

All of this we can already do today except for that elusive battery chemistry, which is certain to be developed in over two decades time. When one thinks about it like that, it doesn't seem unrealistic at all that some special purpose units would be equipped with armored exoskeletons 22 years into the future. They would be exceedingly expensive and valuable, but would make up for this by being much better than a naked soldier in terms of armor, firepower, and mobility.


Legacy ID
Have Not Tried
Feature Request
Additional Information

I have no idea how something like this would be balanced, and it would no doubt be OP as hell... but it's realistic considering the game is set in the future and we already have most of the technology needed to do this today.

The biggest weakness of such as suit is that it needs battery power, and even with advanced batteries, they have to run out sometime - meaning suits can't be issued to guards, patrols, or anyone who isn't going straight to the front lines. They will also weigh several tons, considering they'd be armor plated in depleted uranium over their carbon fiber exoskeleton, so transport helicopters would have problems carrying more than X number at a time.

I realize why lots of people will want to omit this from the game, but as I previously stated, it's realistic and very likely for this time period.

Please discuss.

Event Timeline

GeneralScott edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
GeneralScott set Category to Feature Request.
GeneralScott set Reproducibility to Have Not Tried.
GeneralScott set Severity to None.
GeneralScott set Resolution to Open.
GeneralScott set Legacy ID to 2967582283.May 7 2016, 3:13 PM
GeneralScott added a subscriber: GeneralScott.

Article on current (2010) and future (2020) infantry technology, including artificial muscles, other toys currently in development -

Video detailing exoskeleton technology in 2007 -

As I said, if we had the batteries we could do this today.

well, would it really benefit gameplay?

when we have everything in arma that would be possible in 20 years, then the game would become a self running tech demo of computer controlled drones fighting each other without player input. could be possible in 2035, would not be fun though!

Regardless of how it would impact gameplay, it's very realistic, and ARMA is a war simulator. It's pretty much possible NOW, if we had really, really long power cords! Still a fun thing to discuss though. :)
I really don't expect this to be in the base game, but hey, if they ever need creative ideas for a DLC, the Future War pack! Complete with advanced drones, remote controlled combat robots, and armored exoskeletons!
Come on, you can't admit that wouldn't be cool... At least a little? :P

Whoever is downvoting can you at least tell me why? Since armored exoskeletons are entirely likely and realistic for 2035? I'm not talking japanese mechsuits with laser cannons here... I'm talking about the stuff currently going through DARPA R&D today.

Egosa-U added a subscriber: Egosa-U.May 7 2016, 3:13 PM

Downvoting without commenting seems to be the new problem here in the issue tracker. (@devs: maybe include a list of voters which the reporter can expand to see, who voted).

I agree with you, that the 2035-era isn't well represented in the game as it is now - its more like a 2015-Version.

Maybe we will get some more future-stuff (like exosceleton, robot-mules, drones, intelligent ammunition), maybe we won't.

The big problem is:

"No dev can test those things nowadays to represent them right in the future-gamesetting.
Its just about assuming how it could be - and that is the hard part.
It all comes down to balancing in the end..."

AD2001 added a subscriber: AD2001.May 7 2016, 3:13 PM
AD2001 added a comment.Jul 2 2013, 4:32 PM

Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy, nanosuits!!!!!! It's been a long time since I started thinking how cool nanosuits would be in this game!

bez added a subscriber: bez.May 7 2016, 3:13 PM
bez added a comment.Jul 2 2013, 4:36 PM

You guys really think that in 2035 exo suits would be a common thing in the battlefield? I don't think so. it would probably take a bit longer.

@AD2001 Good job not reading the OP

AD2001: Not nanosuits, although the Army says soldiers will be equipped with nanotech armor by 2020. If you read the post and looked at the resources I posted then you will know that this is something they can almost do today. Less nanosuit/iron man, more big bulky guy in an exoskeleton weilding at most a .50 and a future version of an RPG. They would not be invincible, but would be armored by as much armor which is practical to carry on an exoskeleton.

@bez: I said they wouldn't be common. But if the United States Army says soldiers can be equipped with exoskeletons for their lower body so they can carry 400 pounds more in 2020, soldiers with full exoskeletons should be availible in 2035. (Future Warrior 2020 project) I envision these used as urban combat tanks, more effective in close combat because of their smaller size, rather than Heinlein's "starship troopers" in which every soldier has one of these.

Honestly, the only reason for downvoting is that you wish the game took place in the modern day and are trying to limit as much tech as possible so the game plays like 2015.

Scott, it is obvious why it is being downvoted, and that is because this, even as likely as it stands, would not be a standard in warfare, mostly due to cost really. If tech like this ever hits the battlefield, it would be limited and more secret than whatever resources you posted. Also when it will probably then just be testing for more years before it actually becomes affordable and gets used in production on the battlefield, so that stretches the time frame far past 2035 before it even becomes an option.

Truthfully speaking, a new alternative for batteries has already been anounced, and it is a "stable" form of nuclear equivelent power packaged to the size of your finger. (ofcourse much more testing will need to be undergone etc so we wont see it for years or decades to come) but the point being, the cost.

In 2035 you will just have a bunch of operatives testing it on the battlefield most likely, so as far as this request goes, your best bet would either be a DLC expansion to copy Crysis and attract those fans to arma, but I doubt BI would go that way, so safest bet would be a mod.

AD2001 added a comment.Jul 2 2013, 5:13 PM

I agree a mod would be fun :D, but not in vanilla.

I dont find that as an interesting addition though, atleast i wouldnt want them in combat. Id rather have that BigDog twitching around the squad as a support unit, would blend in much more imho. Also theres plenty of illustrations that show what the future soldier may look like in fully closed helmets with HUD that shows everything everywhere and biohazard protection systems, exoskeletons under the uniform etc. like something out of command and conquer tiberian sun cutscenes (if you remember that), and arma3 soldiers look nothing like em. An interesting thought though.

I understand what you're saying about the battlesuits, I really just posted this because I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought. Sure, they'd be technically possible in 2035, but money is eternal!

Honestly, I think the most we would see in terms of game changing revolution tech for warfare would be something like google glasses, but for the military.

So much is already possible, target aquiring, gps with maps for navigation, seeing what another soldier sees via headcam etc. Practically your entire map interface with briefing and more can be smartly displayed in front of you. I imagine that might be what the additional attachment on the tactical glasses are for?

But we will see. If not, it would make an awesome mod =P

Those are interesting thoughts though, im reading your other tickets about the future warrior, i think the game is far to in to make such drastic changes and alot of stuff would just clash against eachother making a confusing mess. Wars would be fought much difrently aswell, considering the tech theyd use. I wouldnt mind a completely new game with such super soldiers and super tech with reimagining how wars would be fought under those conditions.

You gotta remember that this is still only 20 years in the future. Even if those suits had improved to where you say, they would be too cost prohibitive and complex to be fielded in any reasonable way.
But I like the out-of-the-box thinking.

I agree about the suits - they'd be ready to use but they'd be so expensive they wouldn't do it. If I could close this ticked I would.

bez added a comment.Jul 2 2013, 6:24 PM

Don't be hard on yourself dude, the idea is nice, and you know,
maybe you are right, maybe I wish ArmA 3 would have take place in 2013,
and that's why I have a problem with Exo Suits,
I don't know, it just feels to me not in place in ArmA, don't take it personally.

Though I do believe Exo Suits won't be at the battlefield by 2035,
none of us really have a way of knowing, so we might be wrong.

Either way, the BigDog as a support unit, with that i could live.

Well the ticket might not belong for the devs, but I'm sure a Modder would find it appealing =)


Try Planetside 2. :D

MadDogX added a subscriber: MadDogX.May 7 2016, 3:13 PM

Mass closing ancient tickets with no activity for > 12 months; assume fixed or too trivial.

If this issue is still relevant in current dev build, please re-post.