I'd direct you to the last part of my post, above this quote. What you and others seem to misunderstand is, it's not an ArmA replacement. They are separate games, offering separate experiences within the realm of realistic tactical shooters. Which is why I find it odd that people get in defensive posture in YouTube comments, various forum threads and almost want to kick the game because X and Y game is available. It seems people don't want multiple choices when it comes to tactical shooters, despite everyone screaming at the top of the lunges that the genre is dying and nobody releases any games.
But let's see come release, it'll either fly or fall
I hope it flies, and I'll probably try it out once it gets released and some objective assessments become available.
I really just don't understand why every time I see someone discuss how much they love Squad (a game they haven't even played yet) they always seem to have to slam Arma for some reason. Arma is probably the best tactical infantry game ever made IMHO, so I'm confused as to why it gets dragged into these discussions and beat on for no reason? The thing that really kills me is that people claim that Squad will be so much better because it offers way less options and forces people to play a certain way. Really, this is the thing that sets Squad apart?
A lot of people grew up playing Counter Strike and games like it on public servers full of immature troll/griefers and hated it. This is why you see clans grouping up and fighting the AI in Arma, because dealing with griefer kids just ain't no fun. I don't see how Squad, on public servers is going to be any different than CS other than larger maps, and forced grouping.
I do agree with those that say that the Arma community is fragmented, because it is! There are a large amount of mods and play styles that created this problem. There are some groups trying to get large scale PvP servers going, but again, as you and others have mentioned it requires a certain amount of computer savvy and patience to get all of the mods installed and running which turns a lot of people off. All of that being said, I'm not sure that forcing people into playing roles and styles of gameplay that they don't want is the answer to that problem.
ArmA gets dragged into this kind of discussion because both parties like to mention it. Unfortunately, in the world of tactical shooters with few games to pick from, players from both parties are extremely defensive and guarded about their choice of games, to a point where it sounds like only one game can and should exist in the genre -- Despite the community wish for more games in the genre. Same goes for Insurgency, which also gets brought up for comparison sake.
So what the discussion usually revolves around is trying to debate that ArmA isn't perfect, despite sitting completely alone in the genre, offering something very unique, it has an immense amount of drawbacks that annoy tactical players. Usually boils down to janky gameplay features, the performance and the sheer fragmentation as mentioned by both community standard and also the mods.
I've not seen a single soul claim SQUAD is better than ArmA full stop, because it's not doing what ArmA is. What is being claimed, is the fact that what SQUAD does, which has a certain amount of overlap with ArmA due to ArmA's sandbox nature and offering just about anything, it does those specific things a lot better. That has been proven by the extension of Project Reality.
You are already trying to downplay it by saying it 'forces' you to do something, play a certain way, less options. All negative words to attach to a game, that isn't trying to offer a sandbox experience. It's meant to offer a focused, player-versus-player experience on large maps with planes, helicopters along with armour in all shapes and sizes.
It's meant to offer a fluid experience from starting the game, to joining a server, to joining a squad and participating in voice communication and to enjoying a tactical experience. All that without having to jump through the many hoops you have to with the ArmA series. Yet it goes in the opposite direction from Insurgency by also offering the freedom in size of the map, vehicle combat and all that.
You disbelief in how public teamwork and communication works seems to stem from games that aren't tactical at all. Games catering and being played by a completely different crowd. Hence why I asked about Project Reality. Anyone who has genuinly PLAYED Project Reality, not just dabbled with it for 20 minutes knows how mature and active the community is. They know the kind of teamwork and voice communication that happens on public servers
because the core gameplay simply doesn't cater for the lone wolf Call of Duty superstar player. They don't have the patience for it.
The same goes for Insurgency to some extend, maybe a lesser extender from my experience. It's a slower paced tactical game that caters for a specific type of player. The type of player that is happy to use a microphone to communicate maturely and apply some basic tactics.
I personally don't share your experience with public servers outside of the usual mainstream drivel of Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty and all that. In core tactical, realistic games, people are much more mature and willing to play properly. Even if you still aren't convinced, nothing is stopping you from teaming up with your friends and starting an in-game squad, nothing. The entire game is built up around easy squad management and high-quality, easy to use in-game coms. Best of both worlds.
Counter-Strike is a mainstream title, full of prepubescent kids that caters specifically for the lone-wolf "look at me and my sniper 360MLG pro skills". It's the Call of Duty of the PC platform. So if you rely on that as your measurement for how public games work, then you've given yourself a pretty big ball and chain around your ankle.
As for your last part, I don't understand. How is that any different from playing a milsim ArmA scenario? Players are given 'roles' that specify their tasks in the missions. A squad leader, riflemen, machinegunner, designated marksmen, medics, all that. SQUAD offers exactly the same. Could also pick up another kit from a dead body if you so choose. So I don't see how that is any more forced than your average ArmA scenario.