Arma Reforger: Campaign and Single-Player Feedback

I've recently completed Reforger's five-mission campaign and the Air Support scenario, and unfortunately, I came away disappointed.

I understand that Reforger was developed as an intermediate step towards Arma 4 rather than a full successor to Arma 3. However, when it comes to single-player content, it feels like an afterthought.

For context, I primarily played Arma 3 for its campaign and single-player scenarios. I'd revisit the campaign every couple of years, and that was essentially what Arma meant to me. I enjoyed the tactical freedom, commanding AI squadmates, experimenting with equipment and approaching objectives however I wanted.

I originally purchased Reforger at launch but ultimately refunded it due to the lack of single-player content and OCE servers at the time. I only recently purchased it again to play multiplayer with friends. With single-player content having since been introduced, I was interested in seeing how that side of the game had developed.

Unfortunately, despite the additions, I still feel that single-player has received relatively little attention. Reforger has the foundations of the experience I enjoyed in Arma 3, but much of what made it memorable seems to be missing.

1. Campaign Presentation and Immersion

The campaign itself is alright, but it lacks something I initially struggled to identify. At times, it almost reminds me of one of those generic military FPS games from the early 2000s rather than an Arma game.

I think a significant part of that comes down to the presentation and lack of immersion between missions.

In Arma 3, travelling to and from objectives was part of the experience. You'd receive your briefing, gather your equipment, board a helicopter or vehicle, and travel to the operational area. Afterwards, you'd extract or return to base.

These seemingly insignificant interactions helped make the world feel connected and grounded.

In Reforger, missions frequently begin or end with cutscenes and fade-outs. You complete an objective, the screen fades, and you're suddenly somewhere else.

Even the first mission illustrates this difference. In Arma 3, I could imagine walking out of the briefing room, boarding the helicopter myself and experiencing the deployment firsthand.

These moments might seem unnecessary, but to me, they're part of Arma's identity.

2. Mission Design and Tactical Freedom

Mission 1

I actually enjoyed the premise of the first mission.

After the crash, I scavenged whatever equipment I could find and began making my way towards the rendezvous point.

I eventually located an enemy vehicle with two Soviet soldiers nearby. Using a suppressor I'd recovered from the wreckage, I eliminated them, equipped their uniforms and equipment, and stole their vehicle.

I thought this was a great opportunity to disguise myself and travel through enemy territory relatively unnoticed.

Unfortunately, none of it mattered. The enemy continued identifying and engaging me regardless.

I understand that disguises don't necessarily need to function as a dedicated mechanic, but this illustrates something that frustrated me throughout the campaign. The sandbox allows you to come up with creative solutions, but the missions rarely acknowledge them.

Mission 2

I enjoyed the second mission.

I located the radio van fairly quickly using my binoculars, marked its position on my map and planned my approach.

This felt more like the Arma experience I remembered. Observing an objective, gathering information and navigating towards it independently was satisfying.

I'm unsure whether the radio van's position is randomised, but that would certainly improve replayability.

Mission 3

This was probably my favourite mission because it offered the most freedom.

I spawned near the lighthouse and encountered a Soviet BRDM crew. After eliminating them, I decided to take their vehicle.

Unfortunately, without any AI squadmates to accompany me, I had to operate it alone. This also turned out to be the only opportunity I encountered to use one during the campaign.

Later, while preparing to extract, I discovered two trucks and two cars north of the objective building.

I recovered explosives from the trucks and planted them on the vehicles, leaving one intact for my escape. I then detonated the explosives to destroy enemy equipment and create a diversion while I withdrew.

None of this was required, but it was enjoyable because I could make those decisions myself.

I also attempted to drive the captured BRDM through a Soviet checkpoint, although that ended with me being destroyed by an RPG.

That's the sort of freedom I associate with Arma. Unfortunately, the mission's relatively limited scope and lack of AI squadmates prevent you from taking full advantage of it.

3. Squad AI and Command System

Mission 4 was the first mission where I received AI squadmates, and this was easily one of my biggest disappointments.

Compared to Arma 3, the AI and command system feel incredibly primitive.

In Arma 3, squadmates had individual identities and could be commanded independently. I could choose formations, establish rules of engagement, position individual soldiers and coordinate movements.

I actually cared about keeping my squad alive because they felt like individual soldiers under my command.

In Reforger, squadmates simply follow you in a predetermined wedge formation, with almost no meaningful control over their behaviour.

The available commands are so simplified that they barely feel worth having.

Some specific frustrations:

• Squadmates don't automatically follow you when the mission begins, despite the objective requiring us to assault an enemy position together.

• There's no way to select different formations.

• Individual squad control is extremely limited.

• Even when ordered to open fire, squadmates frequently fail to engage visible enemies.

• AI soldiers repeatedly walk directly in front of me while I'm firing, occasionally resulting in friendly-fire incidents.

• Squadmates often stand exposed under incoming fire rather than seeking cover or responding effectively.

I've genuinely experienced more convincing squad AI in games released over twenty years ago.

I understand the need to accommodate console players, but accessibility shouldn't come at the expense of tactical depth, particularly in a franchise like Arma.

My suggestion would be an optional advanced command system.

The existing command wheel could use nested menus to provide additional functionality without overwhelming players who prefer simpler controls.

For example:

• Formations: Wedge, Column, Line, Staggered Column, etc.

• Rules of Engagement: Hold Fire, Return Fire, Open Fire.

• Movement: Follow, Hold Position, Advance.

• Individual Commands: Select specific soldiers and issue independent orders.

• Combat Behaviour: Adjust positioning and engagement behaviour.

Keep the existing simplified controls as the default, but allow players to enable advanced squad management.

This would preserve accessibility while restoring much of the tactical freedom that made commanding AI in Arma 3 so enjoyable.

4. Mission 5: A Scripted Finale

The fifth mission was easily the most disappointing, particularly because it was also so short.

After clearing the mountaintop, I attempted to interact with the radio. However, the interaction prompt wouldn't appear.

Despite my squad having secured the immediate area, a single enemy soldier had apparently wandered away from the objective. I had to search the surrounding terrain until I eventually found and killed him.

Only then could I progress.

This felt like an arbitrary restriction you'd encounter in a heavily scripted Call of Duty campaign rather than a military sandbox.

The subsequent defensive section initially seemed promising.

I ordered my entire squad to get into defensive positions. One soldier occupied a mounted machine gun, another entered a mortar emplacement but never fired it, and the remaining soldiers simply stood exposed.

Eventually, enemy mortar fire began striking our position.

I started searching for the mortar emplacement so I could identify its location and potentially neutralise it.

Shortly afterwards, the game announced an approaching BTR. I recovered an anti-tank launcher from a fallen friendly soldier and prepared to engage the threat.

I eventually located the enemy mortar position using my binoculars and opened my map to mark its location.

My intention was to either coordinate counter-battery fire or personally assault the position.

Instead, the mission abruptly ended, and I was presented with a cutscene.

Nothing I had been doing actually mattered.

The enemy infantry assaulting the hill, the incoming mortar fire and the approaching armour were all seemingly irrelevant.

As far as I could tell, I could have remained inside the radio bunker until the timer expired and achieved exactly the same outcome.

That's incredibly disappointing for a game built around tactical decision-making.

Imagine if the final mission had required players to actively defend their position until extraction.

Perhaps the extraction helicopter could be delayed by an enemy anti-aircraft position you needed to neutralise. Maybe the incoming BTR would need to be destroyed before the helicopter could safely approach. The enemy mortar emplacement could become an optional objective, allowing players to eliminate the threat rather than endure its bombardment.

You could choose to remain defensive, send a small team to eliminate the mortar crew or personally undertake the mission.

There are numerous ways to create a dynamic and memorable defensive scenario using mechanics already associated with Arma.

Instead, the finale feels like a scripted sequence where the player's decisions have very little influence over the outcome.

5. Equipment and Vehicle Restrictions

Another major disappointment is the lack of freedom when it comes to equipment and vehicles.

You cannot meaningfully customise your squad's equipment or decide what individual soldiers should carry.

You're largely restricted to predetermined loadouts, removing another aspect of tactical preparation that I enjoyed in Arma 3.

Vehicle gameplay is similarly limited.

The first three missions offer opportunities to acquire vehicles, but you're operating alone, and the missions generally encourage stealth.

Using vehicles frequently leaves you exposed and vulnerable, making them impractical despite technically being available.

By the time you receive AI squadmates, there are very few meaningful opportunities to incorporate vehicles into your tactics.

There's also no Soviet campaign.

Considering both factions are playable elsewhere in Reforger, I think this is a missed opportunity. A Soviet campaign could provide an entirely different perspective on the conflict while allowing players to experience their equipment and vehicles.

I don't expect every mission to feature combined-arms warfare, but I would like the freedom to experiment with the equipment available in the game.

Arma should encourage creativity rather than make players feel they're approaching missions incorrectly simply because they aren't following the intended path.

6. Air Support Scenario

The Air Support scenario was probably the most enjoyable single-player experience I had in Reforger.

Flying the Huey around the island, navigating between objectives and providing support to ground forces was genuinely enjoyable.

Unfortunately, the scenario is extremely limited, both in content and player freedom.

There are only four missions, and while their locations have some randomisation, there are relatively few possible locations.

I initially assumed that completing the available missions would generate another set of objectives, allowing me to continue operating as a helicopter pilot.

Instead, the scenario simply ends.

This significantly limits its replayability.

I'd love to see the scenario expanded into an ongoing operation with randomly generated objectives.

Some possibilities include:

• Transporting infantry between bases and forward operating positions.

• Inserting troops into hostile landing zones.

• Extracting infantry under enemy fire.

• Delivering supplies and ammunition to isolated units.

• Providing close air support for friendly ground operations.

• Conducting casualty evacuation missions.

Even relatively simple objectives could provide considerable replayability if they were integrated into a persistent, repeatable scenario.

Player Freedom and Consequences

My other major criticism is how restrictive the scenario becomes when something doesn't go according to plan.

I want my decisions, mistakes and circumstances to have meaningful consequences without the game immediately forcing a mission failure.

If I lose a co-pilot or door gunner, I should have the option to return to base and replenish my crew. If my helicopter is damaged, I should be able to attempt an emergency landing, assess the damage and potentially repair it.

If the helicopter is beyond repair, why not allow me to abandon it, commandeer a friendly or Soviet vehicle and return to base to acquire a replacement?

Even if I crash-land behind enemy lines, surviving and finding my way back to friendly territory could become an entirely new experience.

Instead, the scenario seems determined to end the mission whenever the helicopter becomes sufficiently damaged, regardless of whether the player survives.

During one mission, my helicopter sustained some relatively minor damage. I decided to land in a nearby field and assault the enemy position on foot.

I eliminated several Soviet soldiers, recovered their body armour and an AK, and began preparing to continue.

When I turned around, my helicopter was on fire.

I hadn't heard an RPG or any other obvious indication that it had been attacked, so I'm unsure whether it was destroyed by enemy fire or some kind of scripted damage mechanic.

Regardless, shortly afterwards, the mission failed.

I understand that, as a helicopter pilot, abandoning my aircraft to engage infantry isn't exactly standard procedure. However, why does the game actively prevent me from doing so?

I'm not asking for the mission to consider that a success. I'm asking for the freedom to deal with the consequences of my decisions.

This is exactly the sort of emergent gameplay that I enjoyed in Arma 3.

I was playing on a modded server as a combat pilot when my helicopter came under fire. I was knocked unconscious, and the helicopter crashed.

Somehow, I survived.

The helicopter was beyond repair, and I could have simply respawned and returned to flying. Instead, I made my way towards the nearest friendly objective and began assisting my team on the ground with nothing but my handgun.

I was an ill-equipped pilot who had survived a helicopter crash and decided to stay in the fight.

Nobody scripted that experience. There was no objective telling me to abandon my aircraft, find friendly forces or continue fighting.

It happened naturally because the game allowed it to happen.

That experience was more memorable than anything I encountered in Reforger's Air Support scenario.

I don't expect every possible situation to have dedicated objectives or scripted outcomes. Quite the opposite. I want the game to provide the tools and freedom for those situations to develop naturally.

A crash landing shouldn't automatically mean mission failure. Losing a crew member shouldn't necessarily end an operation. Losing an aircraft could create an entirely new challenge rather than immediately returning the player to a menu.

These situations are opportunities for gameplay, not reasons to stop it.

Aircraft Selection and Replayability

The limited aircraft selection is another disappointment. I understand that Reforger originally launched with only one helicopter per faction, but having more options for aircraft and armament would make the experience significantly more interesting.

I'd also appreciate the opportunity to play the scenario from the Soviet perspective.

The fundamentals of helicopter gameplay are already enjoyable. They just need more content and freedom to make full use of them.

Ultimately, I'd love for Air Support to feel less like a collection of scripted missions and more like an ongoing military operation.

Let me complete objectives, return to base, replenish ammunition and crew, repair or replace aircraft, and head out again.

And when something goes wrong, let me deal with it.

Some of the best experiences I've had in Arma weren't planned, and that's precisely what made them memorable.

7. Overall Thoughts and Concerns for Arma 4

My disappointment isn't simply that the campaign is short.

A five-mission campaign could still be excellent if those missions provided meaningful tactical freedom, memorable encounters and opportunities for experimentation.

The problem is that Reforger's single-player content feels like it has lost much of what made Arma distinctive.

There's very little squad management, limited equipment customisation, almost no meaningful vehicle integration and relatively little freedom to influence how missions unfold.

The campaign often feels like a conventional scripted FPS built inside Arma's engine rather than a campaign designed around Arma's strengths.

I appreciate that Reforger is intended to establish the foundations for Arma 4, and I understand that its scope is different from Arma 3.

However, that makes these shortcomings more concerning, not less.

I don't want Arma 4 to abandon the tactical depth and freedom that made the previous games enjoyable simply to accommodate a broader audience.

Accessibility and complexity don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Give players simplified controls if they want them, but retain the advanced systems for those who enjoy the tactical side of the franchise.

Ultimately, I want Arma to embrace what makes it Arma.

The freedom to plan an operation, equip a squad, choose an approach, adapt to unexpected situations and experience the consequences of those decisions.

That's what made Arma 3 memorable to me, and it's what I hope to see return in Arma 4.