The difference in preference between American and European players

[dcm]

As you may have noticed already. Most American players. Have a high preference for the Insurgency gamemode and/or maps that are small and tight and best facilitate close quarters and urban combat. On the flip side Europeans, have a much greater preference for AAS gamemodes and large wide maps. Why is that? What makes the American and European mentality so different when it comes to map preference?

[Suchar]

[dcm]

Says the man who got his *** beat by a bmp on muttrah. Even though he had two at4s backing him up.

[Suchar]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't play assets.

[Corvin]

As you may have noticed already. Most American players. Have a high preference for the Insurgency gamemode and/or maps that are small and tight and best facilitate close quarters and urban combat. On the flip side Europeans, have a much greater preference for AAS gamemodes and large wide maps. Why is that? What makes the American and European mentality so different when it comes to map preference?

Insurgency is fun when you can meme and talk with people. In NA all people speak English while in Europe every squad speaks diffrent language usually so there are no much fun or role play. Also Europeans are tryhards and want to play as much competative and balanced maps possible while average NA player actually enjoys Squad so casual, fun game mode is something cool for him.

[sweedensniiperr]

I have not noticed that Americans prefer urban maps more, but won't deny this and I'm happy to proven wrong. I feel like urban maps usually wins against forest maps regardless. However when it comes to INS, even though I have no data to back this up, Americans will vote for this more.

What makes the American and European mentality so different when it comes to map preference?

I honestly don't know why. Please explain yourself.
EDIT: oh didn't see this

...meme...tryhards...competative...NA player actually enjoys Squad so casual, fun game mode is something cool for him.

Is it this simple? Uhm...Yeah please always put me on Europe servers where INS is never voted on.

[BubblyNinja]

As someone who has played both "communities" for a substantive period of time, INS sucks imho and I can maybe only tolerate Grozny ins. AAS embodies the core teamwork aspect of PR along with the whole combined arms warfare feature. INS to me is just sanctioned freekitting and lone wolfing save the one or two squads whose whole PR personality is to place dozens of mines around the cache or blockade a cave entrance and to me this is also the NA tryhard meme if anything. Additionally, this gameplay seems incredibly boring and a waste of time.

As a rebuttal, I would say wide open maps preference is actually a tossup. Inf players prefer 2k urban or forest however the existence of assetwhores sees that larger maps with greater sightlines get played more often. This factor is a community wide thing and not a matter of NA v. EU from my perspective.

In NA all people speak English while in Europe every squad speaks diffrent language usually so there are no much fun or role play.

NA and EU are not that different in this regard. I hear a combination of English, Spanish, and Portuguese on NA. Also, dunno how you got to not speaking English means you can't have fun or RP.

[InfantryGamer42]

As Bubbly said it, if I want that core teamwork PR experience in limited timeframe, I know I will most likely get in if server plays AAS.

Core issue of INS is that you need well balanced teams (which as we all know is hard thing to archive in todays PR, specially after this Squad player infusion last weeks), as on one side you do not want free kit insurgent team wich will get steamrolled in 30 or something minutes by convetional team, but you also do not want unorganized passive conventional team which takes 30+ minutes to take one cashe and prolongs game for almost 2 hours. And on top of this, even if you archive that perfect balance of teams, you come to the point of asking why playing harder to play INS, when you could simple run another round of AAS which guaranties that fun experience for everybody.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Whoa whoa whoa where is all this INS slander coming from? I love both game modes but a good balanced round of INS in the end is so much more satisfying than a good round of AAS. AAS rounds you can almost always get a picture of how the round is going to end within 10 minutes, so sometimes you are just playing barreling toward an already forgone conclusion. I will say though AAS has a broader range of side missions that appear throughout the game and are more important that many side missions that appear in INS. Opfor mortars are usually not that big of a factor in INS so that mission isn't as crucial as it is in AAS. Dealing with superfobs on asset maps is always important. So each mode has its own challenges that make it fun, but as a whole, the open-endedness of INS is what makes it better.

[Grump/Gump.45]

How about we all learn flexibility through all environments, become good at all of them as an individual then spread what you learn to the squad or team to do. Find what works, then get people doing it same time as you.

The more of this poem you use the better off you will be. Here is 3 parts.

"One man per piece of cover, in view of each other to save each other, one man hit per tank shell spread formation".

For desert and urban maps, its mostly no camouflage or very hard to use it. There be little bushes. I like all maps, its just different attacks.

Over the desert or open snowy maps you need AA and tanks in view by at most 1 kilometer to survive as infantry.

In the urban areas you need to be moving as an aggressively scanning booby trap of a unit.
Anything that comes in view or tries to shoot dies, control through suppression, anticipation of the fast peeking RPG or grenade. You can't prevent everything. Find enemy, contain and limit their movements, hold their attention, cut them off.

AAS and INS are the same game mode. Some AAS have 2 teams with iron sights, 1 with scopes/1 with iron sights. But all insurgents have binoculars except some machine gunners and grenadiers. Its defending and attacking objective. Insurgency is more clear cut, all 50 attack or defend 1 or 2 objectives increasing intensity.

Put some method to it, position up with another squad in view, see what you get and bound up to the objective with the other squad. Don't push into a meat grinder, hold on the edge together as 2 squads in their own space, work them and wait for the rest of the team.

I believe overall it has to do with military cultural interests. As Americans, we came from guerilla fighters with muskets, learned those tactics from fighting with and along side the Native Americans. Its American Hollywood movies traversing wide array of cool looking terrain. Whether it be "Black Hawk Down", "Tears of the Sun", "We Were Soldiers", any terrain beautifully scenic in movies and anything to do with Iraq/Afghanistan. We like old weapons in America, but we go crazy with high tech too.