Project Reality Forums

gazzthompson wrote:and your fine with having "MEC" and IDF fighting russians and what not? do they also "destroy" the reality? what would you suggest?

i think its only for a while that russia fights IDF and later there will be hamas or hezbollah, in the IDF community faction there was it suggested and i heard that MEC will be replaced by Iran,

mujahideen1979 wrote:i think its only for a while that russia fights IDF and later there will be hamas or hezbollah, in the IDF community faction there was it suggested and i heard that MEC will be replaced by Iran,

source and source? both of which are total rumours and as far as i know, not true. in till you come up with a better suggestion dont make comments like:

then let them destroy the reality, we have to live with it

i heard that MEC will be replaced by Iran,

I heard the USA will be replaced with the international order of travel agents, cash cheque or credit card?

Those of you who think Britain is in Russian lands, think of the militia as Russian ultra nationalists or balkans rebels or whatever. The point is to get an asymmetrical battle.

Back when assault on Mestia was made there was still a small story in the load menu giving a quite reasonable reason why the British are fighting these Arms smuggling militia groups.

Operation dragonfly (which consists of all three maps Assault on Mestia, Fools road and dragonfly itself) was back then apparently sold to us as an international effort to take out these arm smugglers in the Caucasus with the UK deploying in trough turkey i believe.

But since Militia is a "Generic" name it could might as well be in Bulgaria, or in Serbia if that fits your imagination better?

heh. realistic.
will you bring unrealistic factions in project "reality" vietnam ?
or unrealistic factions in project "reality" arma 2 ?

and another question : why replacing those faction ? why not add as new ? i mean, that you replaced chechens with militia doesnt mke sense, it makes more sences when you add militia as a complete new faction, you make lots of things that make no sence, like replacing weapons or vehicles, instead of add you replace what doesnt make sence, but ok...

o_0 come on, we had this discussions hundred times.
PR is setting in the future and the devs do not want to have only a strict corset for their maps and fictional armys give more freedome in design and will not go away for this reason.

in adition to that, militia and mec does not mean there would be soldiers fighting with laserweapons, they are all realistic in their setup and could exist in reality

If I am not mistaken, the devs are going for a somewhat realistic portrayal of modern combat, with certain gameplay considerations, and not necessarily a realistic portrayal of the current (or future) political situation. Even so, everything that needs to be said has already been said in this or other threads. No further discussion is needed, IMO.

There's six British maps, of which one will go to the Germans next release. That leaves us five. Three of these maps are against militia. Giving these to Russia would mean two British maps of which one no one likes to play for some reason and the other one is Insurgency..

Besides that, what's wrong with GB vs Militia maps? They are not unbalanced in any way, and it is not that they're impossible to imagine.

mujahideen1979 wrote:heh. realistic.
will you bring unrealistic factions in project "reality" vietnam ?
or unrealistic factions in project "reality" arma 2 ?

and another question : why replacing those faction ? why not add as new ? i mean, that you replaced chechens with militia doesnt mke sense, it makes more sences when you add militia as a complete new faction, you make lots of things that make no sence, like replacing weapons or vehicles, instead of add you replace what doesnt make sence, but ok...

PR: Vietnam is based on a real past conflict and therefore completely irrelevant. PR is set in the future and open to the PR Team's imagination. Adding a completely new militia faction would be a lot more work and effort for not a lot of gain; we would have a Chechen militia reserved only as OPFOR against Russia instead of a militia that can be used open to our imagination.

There's no fighting going on at the moment between the Chechens and the Russians, I don't see a very large chance of that happening in the future either.

Oh and by the way, I would cut the attitude.

I still think you guys need to make your own maps.
I'd love to see Russia VS UK on some very very rainy european map, so to see that happen, I gotta make one myself.

Startrekern wrote:In what I am assuming was a bid to save space, the Chechen faction was removed completely and reworked into the (extremely crappy) generic "Militia" faction

except the militia faction was turned into the chechens upon the arrival of the Russians to PR. It is basically a change in flag and name, i've not noticed any significant equipment change at all between the transition of militia->chechen->back to militia

The Russian vs. Chechens for Fools' Road was an absolutely perfect balance. The gameplay was just right, the Chechens were fun to play as were the Russians and there were no LEET LAZOR SAWZ/TOWZ penetrating the entire map.

because pre 0.9 when it was a Russian map there were no deployable TOWs? and russians still have a x4 zoom PKM that'd rip people apart. bearing in mind now if the russians were to be put in again they'd have more TOWs then the brits.

The current pairing is not only completely unbalanced and changed one of the best factions in PR into one incredibly mediocre

guessing you mean militia what has so drastically changed (other then name and flag) that has reduced them so?,

but also has changed what was once one of the best, most-played maps in PR into one of the least-played, least-favorite maps in the bunch. VERY few people enjoy playing Fools Road, Siege at Ochimichira, and Dragon Fly anymore because of the ridiculous pairing that's been made.

from my experience with these maps pre 0.85 (russian introduction i think) they were very popular (as brits vs militia omg!). Now i think fools is starting to show it's age slightly, mestia has been retired and dragonfly is plagued by CTDs and low framerates in the northern part of the map

Please, please give us back our beloved Chechens, and their Russian counterparts.

It's a name, and you still have Iron Ridge and Kozelsk

For the sake of realism, and for the sake of gameplay.

don't think gameplay is effected too much by it, in fact i think it's better. One of my main gripes when the chechens and Russians replaced the Brit v militia, was the mirror symetry of it all. Back when the ironsighted AK47 wasn't the best most people used scoped rifleman giving AK74M vs AK74... such diversity. As for the realism arguement, lets remove beirut, silent eagle, yamailia, all MEC maps, all PLA maps and have only US fighting iraqi insurgents and taliban, and other NATO nations against the taliban. Such excitement and variation!

Unnamed Militia faction gives more option for maps, milita forces can fight with anyone (mec china etc)

I wish to see more non standard, improvised equipment instead of tanks and BRDMs for them. For example, SPG9 technical, ZSU mounted on truck etc.

zenarion wrote:I still think you guys need to make your own maps.
I'd love to see Russia VS UK on some very very rainy european map, so to see that happen, I gotta make one myself.

Oh that is happening, almost everyone is doing some sort of mapping work. I am, but lazily.

Rudd is making this baby, which I hope to be in 0.92 ....

Modern warfare had Brits on russian ground,and the devs have stated alot of times that they use the call of duty series as thier main source,and the MA team cosist of infinity ward devs

This has been discussed many times before, it is the mappers decision and these maps were always intended to be Brits v Militia. PR is not based on any realistic events or scenarios (bar, in part the conflicts in Afghanistan/Iraq) and as such any argument of factions being "realistic" is pointless.

Locked.