Czech Cashed: Arma II Getting Czech Army DLC

Soldiers do a lot of laying about long grass together. It's nice.
“The civil war in Bystrica is at its end. But it’s not the end of fear for the people. War criminals like Colonel Miyovic still terrorize the country with their militia looting and murdering civilians. Forces of the Czech Republic Army are sent to restore order.” Go Czech army! Also this: “15 new missions in the singleplayer campaign, scenarios and procedural template gameplay modes” and “two new summer-season terrains: Bystrica and Bukovina.” One of those is the lovely green environment pictured above. £8 pre-order pricetag on this, it’s turning up in Q3 of this year. One for a, uh, limited audience, perhaps.


  1. Wolfox says:

    Oooh, I’ll czech it out!

  2. Stellar Duck says:

    A limited audience? Perhaps. But I think I’d like those maps to play on.

    • dsi1 says:

      I bet these maps have completely enter-able buildings too, DayZ anyone?

  3. Mr. Mister says:

    I bet they’ll try to convinbce Day Z staff to make it a requirement.

    • oWn4g3 says:

      There have been other DLCs before (British Armed Forces and Private Military Company) which are not required for DayZ. Why do you think they will make this new DLC a requirement?

      Please take into consideration that were are talking about BIS instad of EA or Activision before answering.

    • Auldreekie says:

      They might make the map (which would be fantastic) available for Dayz but that wouldn’t mean you couldn’t just continue playing chernarus.

      • oWn4g3 says:

        The problem I would see is that it would require you to have two characters on one CD Key and of course you would need different servers. I think splitting up the community at that point would not be helpful.

        • Auldreekie says:

          Yes, I’m not sure how it would work.
          In any case the lite-dlc would be available for assets that are taken from it and if there is a possibility of setting up additional servers for those who want a different map wouldn’t take away from those who opt out of the dlc (besides players).

    • Unaco says:

      Assuming they follow the same process as with BAF and PMC (the previous 2 DLCs), even if you don’t own the DLC, you’ll be able to use the assets in multiplayer, at a lower than standard resolution. With BAF-lite and PMC-lite you can play MP missions that use the equipment from these DLC even if you don’t own them… they have a lower resolution for the textures however. The benefit of owning the DLC is access to the singleplayer parts, and improved/standard textures.

      So, even if this is incorporated into DayZ, you won’t NEED to buy it to play DayZ. Assuming they go the same way as the previous DLCs. In fact, iirc, DayZ already uses PMC assets, but you don’t NEED to own PMC to play… it just uses the PMC-lite assets if you don’t own it.

    • Benny says:

      They’ll do another ‘Lite’ version of them like they’ve done with the previous DLCs. DayZ already uses the PMC dlc models for the default player, hence being blurry as hell if you don’t own it.

      Edit: Unaco beat me to it, and more elaborately.

    • Mr. Mister says:

      Jejeje… dropping a stupid comment like this just so I csn read the discussion is worth the crappy image I give.

  4. AzureBlu says:

    I/all Swedes demand a Sweden version!

  5. Auldreekie says:

    Sod it, I just spent £40 on the Arma X pack with all dlc included and now they tell me there is more.
    Looks interesting but certainly won’t be pre-ordering given that I don’t usually do so and I have plenty of Arma content to make my way through.

  6. neonordnance says:

    Not that limited, think of all the new players who’ve bought ARMA for Day-Z!

    I was one of those players, and I imagine as the Day-Z team adds in new features, those numbers will only swell. Bottom line: ARMA II is still selling very well, and a DLC will probably be well-received.

    Oh, and kudos to BI for picking a less-than-common army to model. Plus they have home-team advantage in terms of access to gear, soldiers, etc.

    • DodgyG33za says:

      I bought Arma2 for DayZ but guess what, I only played 10 minutes of ARMA2. I have no idea of whether it was the core game or DLC, but I noticed it didn’t have zombies in it, and I kept getting told that there was a submachine gun, 250 metres, nine o’clock just before receiving a bullet in the head.

      • Mctittles says:

        You have to go into the editor section to see what really makes Arma II great. Put in a bunch of tanks and soldiers for each side then play a civilian and watch the carnage. It’s so easy to set up any scenario you want. Even dayz is relatively easy to make yourself; most of the mod is already what Arma was made to do.

        Personally I believe the single player missions are just really poor examples of what you can do in the editor. To me it’s been nothing but a sandbox game.

  7. loshon says:


  8. buzzmong says:

    How…odd, what with Arma III being on the horizon.

    • Iskariot says:

      Yeah that was the first thing that came to mind.
      Perhaps they had some unpublished stuff lying around and decided they could earn some extra money now, because of Day-Z I mean.

      • pepper says:

        They multiple teams working on multiple products independtly from eachother, so this is that odd at all. And its something that the ARMAII community welcomes.

  9. jonfitt says:

    Ooh more foresty maps with perhaps the added interiors that came with the maps from OA onward? Also perhaps the single player missions will be more like their more recent efforts?
    Colour me interested.
    I couldn’t care less about Czech army units and weapons though. Sorry Czech soldiers.

    • jonfitt says:

      Although that shot of the jet over the town looks like it includes many of Chernarus’ un-enterable buildings. Booo!

    • Mattressi says:

      Yeah, if I get this, it will be solely for the beautiful map(s). I was disappointed that OA had such an ugly, boring map (I understand that it’s meant to parallel the real-life Iraq/Afghanistan war, but that doesn’t mean a 164 km^2 map of barren desert, is interesting) and that the other two DLC didn’t take place in Chernarus – or, even better, have their own good-looking maps. This looks like exactly what I want.

  10. Dudeist says:

    Czechs fighting!
    I must see it :)

  11. GlokyCZ says:

    Aaaawwww yeeeeeeah, bring in the homefront (and superior firearms)

  12. Hug_dealer says:


    I find the lack of outrage here absolutely hilarious. DICE gets condemned for doing this exact thing.

    One developer is loved for additional content for money. The other completely vilified for doing the same thing.

    • malkav11 says:

      It’s potentially a large amount of content for a decidedly nonpremium price, and it doesn’t split the community because you don’t need to own the DLC to play multiplayer with people who do.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        Its basically the same price as other DLC of this size. But consider how much Armed assault content is out there. That you also have to pay for.

        I’m not against it at all. I think additional content is a great way to keep a game alive and interesting.

        Also, you do need the DLC to play DLC content. Just like BF3. But everyone can play on regular servers for both games.

        • Unaco says:

          Also, you do need the DLC to play DLC content. Just like BF3. But everyone can play on regular servers for both games.

          Wrong. With the release of DLC, Bohemia have updated the base games, regardless of whether you own the DLC or not, with the DLC Lite. This allows you to play on servers/missions using the DLC content, even if you haven’t bought it – you get lower res textures, but can still play. You don’t need the DLC to play the DLC content with ArmA2. Buying the DLC gives you access to the single player, and better texture quality.

          • pepper says:

            Just to make it clear, you also get the maps that are included with the DLC in the lite version, just with the low-ress textures, which is no problem if you are running ARMAII on low anyway.

    • Snuffy the Evil says:

      The difference being that Arma 2’s DLC is non-exclusive. People who don’t own the DLC can still play online with people who do with no limitations save low-quality textures and sounds.

      Arma 2 also has extensive mod support which means one isn’t forced spending money if they’re looking for additional content.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        link to

        Stop being wrong. You dont get access to everything, you dont get the equipment. you dont get mods, you dont get alot of things, esp when it comes to all DLC content not provided.

        Why do people think that bf3 is dividing the community? It doesnt matter if you bought the DLC or not, everyone can play together on regular servers, and you can pick up weapons you dont have access to use and use them. You dont suddenly become incompatible with other players because you dont buy the expansions, you just dont get the new content. Just like This DLC.

        • Unaco says:

          Stop being wrong yourself. That’s ArmA2 Free, a FREE version of one of their games they released. What Snuffy is talking about, is the DLC. BAF, PMC and this. With BAF and PMC, the base game was updated with BAF and PMC Lite. This means that for multiplayer, you don’t need to own the DLC to join the games. You get the assets, with lower quality textures. With this method, everyone can play on all servers.

        • malkav11 says:

          With the way many multiplayer shooters do new paid maps, anyone that doesn’t buy the new content is incompatible with anyone that is playing the new content, and thus either unable to join those servers, or dropped any time those maps come up. That fragments the playerbase. ARMA 2 doesn’t do that with the DLC (admittedly, Operation Arrowhead does split that, and ARMA 2 Free is more limited in compatibility, but OA is essentially the core ARMA 2 experience these days and ARMA 2 Free isn’t intended to be a full substitute for buying the game.)

          Personally I don’t particularly care because I don’t play competitive multiplayer, but that’s the rationale.

    • Stellar Duck says:

      I can count 3 pieces of DLC: BAF, PMC and this new one. That’s not precisely a huge amount since 2009 when A2 released. Or even 2010 when OA released. Unless we count OA as DLC? Which seems wrong to me. But that would still only make it 4. Over 3 years.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        it might seem wrong, but OA is a requirement for all other DLC. If you own the original AA2, you cant just buy the other DLC, gotta buy OA also.

        Its a clever way to sell more. Sell the original game. Release a stand alone expansion, which people will love you for because its standalone, then require the Standalone for all future DLC. SNEAKY SNEAKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        What is Battlefield 3 released an expansion, and then required all future releases to require that expansion…………………………….yeah buddy. RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

        • Unaco says:

          Because the DLC is for OA, not ArmA2. You require the standalone for all future DLC, because the DLC is for the standalone. There is no DLC for ArmA2, and you don’t require ArmA2 to play the DLC.

          Just give up, please. You’re embarrassing yourself.

          • malkav11 says:

            It’s especially weird because, y’know, ARMA 2 and Battlefield 3 are very different games with substantially different audiences that have substantially different expectations.

          • pepper says:

            I really think that guy is just trolling given all other irrational posts in this thread and his lack of research/reading comprehension skills.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            So what you are saying is people who bought the original AA2 are SOL, because the OA expansion basically removed all support for the original. I see.

            Everything i have stated has been the absolute truth about both games. I am simply trying to point out the illogical rage on battlefield 3 DLC, when other games are doing the same thing.

            There is nothing with what bohemia is doing. FYI i own AA2/OA. I know all i need to know about the games.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            If you knew all you needed about them you’d know, as pointed out by Unaco several times, that the DLC does not prevent anyone from playing on a server that has it. You just get lower quality assets from the DLCs.

            As for the original Arma 2, there is no DLC to split any community. The DLC is for the expandalone. If people want to play the original Arma 2 in the original executable they can do that (though I don’t know how many servers run it.) But most people play in OA, myself included, even when using assets from A2.

            There really is no split as it’s 2 separate games.

            Edit: is there an outrage over the BF3 DLC incidentally? I’m somewhat annoyed by the premium stuff they’re rolling out, but I got no issues with DLC for BF3. B2K was pretty good, if rather expensive. That said, none of my regular servers run B2K maps due to not everybody having them. So I need to go elsewhere to play those. That’s annoying. And that shows the potential issue with map packs. That’s not what is (or will be happening) with Arma though.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            I havent purchased the booster packs for AA2, but if i remember right, i cant use selected equipment from those in multiplayer, others can, but i cant. I quite playing AA2 a long time ago.

            A standalone expansion is still just an expansion of the original game. Hence standalone Expansion. People would have absolutely raged about BF3 if instead of DLC, they released all the additional content as an entirely seperate game.

            Thats all i am saying and pointing out.

          • Unaco says:

            There is nothing with what bohemia is doing. FYI i own AA2/OA. I know all i need to know about the games.

            Bullsh*t, because you’ve been talking crap this whole thread… Claiming that ArmA DLC meant you couldn’t play on servers using it if you didn’t own it (YOU CAN), linking to ArmA2 Free when we’re talking about DLC. I don’t think ANYTHING you’ve said here has been accurate.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            I’m not precisely sure why you call it booster packs? What does it boost?

            The DLC is available for anyone in at least a Lite version and you don’t *need* the campaigns unless you enjoy playing Arma in single player. I sincerely don’t understand what it is that eludes you.

            Oh, by the way, another difference between this DLC and the BF3 you keep going on about: this has been released over the course of 3 years. The BF3, B2K in particular, was released very close to the base game.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            Unaco. Please quote me on that if you can. Several other people have said that. I never said that people couldnt play together(other than if 1 person owns AA2 and the other owns the xpac. My linking to free was merely for the information listed on that page. The entire point i was making here was the foolishness of the battlefield 3 ragers. There was no outrage here. But people are freaking there

          • Unaco says:

            I’ve quoted you already, further up the thread, saying…

            “Also, you do need the DLC to play DLC content. Just like BF3. But everyone can play on regular servers for both games.”

            ArmA DLC is NOT like BF3 DLC. To play ArmA DLC on multiplayer servers, you DON’T need to own the DLC. You get the lite version. ArmA DLC does not divide the community, because everyone can join in.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            wrong. AA2 and OA are both needed for full content. If i own AA2, and you own OA the standalone EXPANSION PACK. We cannot play together. Esp if i want to play any mods, they basically all require both games. I cant just load up AA2 and start playing with you guys.

            Now lets talk about stand alone expansion packs in other games. dawn of war 2 and Chaos rising standalone expansion integrate with each other, you dont need both to play with each other, just both for all the content. We all get to play together and against each other. So i could play against Chaos, but not as Chaos, on all the new maps. They later moved to Steam with the next expansion breaking that compatibility.

          • Unaco says:

            “If i own AA2, and you own OA the standalone EXPANSION PACK. We cannot play together.”

            That’s like saying, if I own BFBC2 and you own BF2, we can’t play together. NO SHIT. They’re different games, hence the STANDALONE. That isn’t what was being questioned though. You claimed that someone who DIDN’T own BAF or PMC couldn’t play with those who do own it. You were wrong, which you just won’t admit.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            I’ll quote myself on it.

            “Also, you do need the DLC to play DLC content. Just like BF3. But everyone can play on regular servers for both games.”

            That is me refering to the must have requirement of Operation Arrowhead. Sorry i didnt make that perfectly clear back then, but i have said it multiple times since.

            As i have already pointed out that Dawn of war 2 had an standalone expansion. Chaos Rising. People who only own Chaos rising, can play with people that happen to only own Dawn of war 2. So dont give me the its a standalone expansion bullcrap line.

  13. thecaptain says:

    Is this for Arma 2, or for Arma 2: OA? Just curious, because OA had some nice features (backpacks, thermal imaging, etc) that I’d like to see in this DLC. I’m assuming OA/CO, as that’s what PMC and BAF were for.

    • Unaco says:

      Bottom of the preorder page, system requirements says: “Arma2:Operation Arrowhead (or Arma2:Combined Operations) is required to play this addon!”

      • malkav11 says:

        Operation Arrowhead is pretty much the default version of ARMA 2 at this point. Even Combined Ops runs the original ARMA 2 content in the Operation Arrowhead executable.

  14. kud13 says:

    Bukovina? really, now what’s that got to do with the Czech Republic? it’s an area split between Romania and Ukraine, not even bordering Transcarpathia (which is is a bit of land where I *could* imagine the Czechs being involved in (still a stretch)

  15. dejoh says:

    Give credit to keeping their designers-artist busy while other gaming developers are shutting down.
    Thanks Boheimai for many hours of enjoyment. Waiting on Arma 3.

  16. Triggerhappy says:

    Hah, both of the new map names are related to Romania: Bystrica is actually derived from Bistrita-Nasaud, a county located in the so-called “Oriental” Carpathians, and Bukovina is an historical region on the border between Romania and Ukraine, pretty close to Bistrita-Nasaud.

    Both maps would look great if the devs from Bohemia take into account the real terrain features in these two regions. Unfortunately, all we can see is just a retextured Elektrozavodsk.

  17. MajorManiac says:

    Not sure if this is possible, but I’d love to see a new map that was just one huge city. Something on the scale of Assassin’s Creed would be nice.