Project Reality Forums

+1 I think MEC needs to go. If the devs truly want to get rid of EA product in PR, then they'd get rid of MEC and replace it with these other ideas. Most of the work is already done and I think it would be a lot more unique.

Tirak wrote: So 1 in 3 US soldiers is black, everyone speaks with a midwestern accent and everybody looks the same?

As a matter of fact 1 in 3 US soldiers are non white, black or Hispanic. And why can't we add some new U.S. voices it would be good.

Tirak wrote: Stranger things have happend. Italy was an ally of the Allies during WWI and an Enemy in WWII

If you know the historical context it's not that strange. Saudi Arabia own a fifth of the U.S. economy, they buy all their arms from the U.S. and the Saudi royal family are best friends with many powerful people in the U.S. they ain't gonna go to war any time soon.

aperson444 wrote: A Saudi Arabia faction might be good too, since they are increasingly more friendly with the West.

The prince maybe, not the saudis.
Did you forget? Saudis crashed into the twins, not iraqis or iranians.
It's over likely that if a war errupted over there, there would be an uprising and the royalty would be quickly overthrow. It hasn't been yet, because it's a good protection for radicals that use SArabia as a base and they keep it like that until they're forced into a war.

As for Egypt supplying Hamas ; the border is bocked and any transfer of weapons is illegal, hence not Egypt being pointed at for illegal weapons trafic with them because it's not under their direct control. Egyptian forces of order do try to uncover those trafics and stop them, Israel has no reason to attack a cooperative ally like Egypt.
And even if Israel did, I swear, they'd have everyone in NATO pissed off with them attacking an ally for no reason. Believe me.

Finally, bout' MEC.
I think an interesting addition would be Pakistan vs India, they are very hostile to each other and would spice up PR a lot IMO. Otherwise, those you listed were pretty much what I had in mind, maybe Egypt vs Insurgents too, would be cool...
I'll try to list assets for ME armies later when I get time, it's a good project, i'll try to help as much as I can. Try to put up a design plan for each armies and to see what needs to be modeled and what doesn't.

An Egyptian or Saudi faction would be interesting, the problem of having them as OPFOR is that they use western military equipment. Abrams tanks, F-16s or Apaches fighting against each other would be confusing, and may not be entirely realistic with the current political situation.
Iran uses old US military equipment like the F-14A and Cobra. The USMC uses the Cobra, but I don't think there would be a problem with that, as long as they aren't fighting the USMC on any maps.
Pakistan vs. India would be interesting to see, but I'm not sure if it fits in with this current proposal of replacing the MEC.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote:[R-CON]Wyspa

If you like G3s so much why don't you give them to the Polish forces?

I do not remember the Polish Forces using G3s at all.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Look objectively at the implications of such of such a concept: All Arabs speak the same, all Arabs look the same, all Arabs are the enemy of the US. Stereotyping to such a scale is dangerous, deconstructive and anti intelligence and is just not as interesting as reality.

I see the danger of stereotyping - I was trying to make that clear in my previous post - but you can't get around a certain degree of stereotyping in a video game due to technical limitations.
If you can implement 32 different models and voices, go ahead. But I doubt you will be able to accomplish that.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Because we're not talking about 60 or more years in the future.

In fact 'these countries' have been allies for a long time now.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Vietnam proved that you don't need a state of the art army to counter a state of the art army.

That was because it was a guerilla war. Don't compare apples with oranges.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Then why bother with the German faction or any of the other community factions, surely they're a waste of time when you could just play as US? Answer: because PR is not all about a realistic and teamplay focused game it's about more than that.

You mean about using the cool hardware that is used by these factions?
Seriously though, the main reasons why community factions exist is because there are some guys who want to play as this specific faction.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: This is supposed to be Project Reality not Project Make Believe, the sooner this cowboys and Arabs fantasy stops the better.

People take the name "Reality" too serious. It was stated many times before that this is a freaking GAME, not a politics simulation.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Saudi Arabia own a fifth of the U.S. economy, they buy all their arms from the U.S. and the Saudi royal family are best friends with many powerful people in the U.S. they ain't gonna go to war any time soon.

If I remember correctly, Saddam and Bin Laden were also befriended with the Americans at some point, weren't they?


My point stays. There is no need for a new faction or a "rename" of the MEC.

Just found out that the Oman army uses Steyr AUG, OMFG wow nice stuff!

Wouldn't that be badass, playing as the RAO on Muttrah with Steyr AUGs vs M16s? Amazing hehe.
Ain't hard to make if the AUG is being made by the Australians. The rest of their weaponry is basically variations of the Steyr AUG, the Javelin, the British SAW and TOWs. No info on their sniper/DM rifles yet.

And they have some Saxons lol. Challenger 2s and M60A3s (upgraded Pattons) for their tanks and VBL/LAVs for APCs. The RAO and some lots of other ME armies are using Cadillac Cage Commando, similar to the BRDM and pretty cool IMO. They use a lot of british equipment.

Royal Army of Oman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: If you like G3s so much why don't you give them to the Polish forces? And while you're at it you might as well just use the Russian voices for your faction since all Slavic languages are pretty much the same no? Nie ma huja w shi (man I can't spell in Polish)

First you write this, and then this:

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Maybe that's because you're from Germany and not Iran. Look objectively at the implications of such of such a concept: All Arabs speak the same, all Arabs look the same, all Arabs are the enemy of the US. Stereotyping to such a scale is dangerous, deconstructive and anti intelligence and is just not as interesting as reality.

You really couldn't be more hypocritical than this.


First of all, Polish army has never even gotten close to a G3.

And for second, Slavic languages are similar, but in no way the same.

"To co jsi napsal je dost velká blbost, stejné platí o celém tomto nápadu."
- right, Czech is Slavic language as well, but I bet my *** the only ones actually able to understand it are Czechs and Slovaks. Other Slavic nations might get a part of it, but that's about it.

But since you're the one speaking about generalization I am sure you realize this.





@MEC being replaced by *whatever*:
No.

Sgt.Sheep wrote: I see the danger of stereotyping - I was trying to make that clear in my previous post - but you can't get around a certain degree of stereotyping in a video game due to technical limitations.
If you can implement 32 different models and voices, go ahead. But I doubt you will be able to accomplish that.

You don't have to make 32 different models and voices to move away from stereotyping.

Sgt.Sheep wrote:In fact 'these countries' have been allies for a long time now.

Germany has only existed as an ally of the west since 1990.

Sgt.Sheep wrote: Don't compare apples with oranges.

Why not they are both fruit, one is orange the other is green. War, as are many things, is not simple, clean cut or straight forward. Has the US won the war in Iraq?

Sgt.Sheep wrote: You mean about using the cool hardware that is used by these factions?
Seriously though, the main reasons why community factions exist is because there are some guys who want to play as this specific faction.

No man I mean PR is not all about a realistic and team play focused game it's also about national identity, community, cooperation not just in game but outside as well.

Sgt.Sheep wrote:People take the name "Reality" too serious. It was stated many times before that this is a freaking GAME, not a politics simulation.

So why don't we have US vs GB? Could it be because it's unrealistic? Why does realism apply to the West but not the East?

Sgt.Sheep wrote:If I remember correctly, Saddam and Bin Laden were also befriended with the Americans at some point, weren't they?

No they were owned by the US where as the House of Sa'ud own part of the US.

Deadfast

Man you missed my point entirely. Of course all Slavic languages are not the same, I can speak a little of Polish, Serbian and Czech, I know they are not the same. My point is neither are all Arabic dialects the same and how many armies in the middle east use G3s?

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote:My point is neither are all Arabic dialects the same and how many armies in the middle east use G3s?

And that's why there's MEC. The fictional coalition of whatever nations.

Is it realistic? Not really.

Is it completely unrealistic? Not really.

Does it matter? Not to me.

Is it against the principles of PR? Not at all - PR is about realistically portraying the conflicts, not what's behind them.

Deadfast wrote:And that's why there's MEC. The fictional coalition of whatever nations.

Is it realistic? Not really.

Is it completely unrealistic? Not really.

Does it matter? Not to me.

Is it against the principles of PR? Not at all - PR is about realistically portraying the conflicts, not what's behind them.

What do you mean "And that's why there's MEC"?

And it should matter to you if it matters so much that Slavs are not stereotyped you should stand up for Arabs too otherwise the principle is pointless.

That MEC is whatever you think they are.

Nighthawk, are you actually aware of how many different factions you would have to create to build a "realistic" image of the Middle East? In how many countries are the MEC maps located? Do you want to make a separate faction for each map?

Who will do that? And even then, you still must have the MEC behind it to "explain" how a country like Syria can actually repel an attack by US forces. The only friggin' country that has any significant chance of withstanding the US military if fighting on its own is Iran. So you want to scrap all the MEC maps and make new ones that are all located in Iran?

I would like to see new models for the Opfors, yes, the MEC should be using the Zulfiqar and the Khaybar, but not as national armies.

I think the main problem all the Coalition fanboys have is the fact that MEC smells too much like Caliphate to them.

@Terror^3: Why don't you leave it to the Muslims to decide whether an MEC faction is insulting or not? Maybe MEC appeals to their pan-islamic/arabic dreams? Maybe they don't care?

PS: I am not sure if I would continue playing PR if MEC gets removed, no matter if they get replaced by underdog-cannon fodder or balanced national factions.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Germany has only existed as an ally of the west since 1990.

That is just outright wrong. Please do your homework before you make a statement like this.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: Why not they are both fruit, one is orange the other is green. War, as are many things, is not simple, clean cut or straight forward. Has the US won the war in Iraq?

I suppose you don't know the idiom "to compare apples and oranges"? Here is a Wikipedia Link for your convenience. Guerilla Warfare is not the same as "normal" warfare against an organized force, fullstop.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: No man I mean PR is not all about a realistic and team play focused game it's also about national identity, community, cooperation not just in game but outside as well.

Then I think you didn't get the point of PR. You don't play as Insurgent because you want to "kill infidels", but because you want to play a GAME with realistic aspects.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: So why don't we have US vs GB? Could it be because it's unrealistic? Why does realism apply to the West but not the East?

No, because it's implausible and purely illogical. This is in no way comparable to a US vs. MEC conflict.

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: No they were owned by the US where as the House of Sa'ud own part of the US.

What?

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: My point is neither are all Arabic dialects the same and how many armies in the middle east use G3s?

Many. Again, a Wikipedia Link for your convenience.


I'm not sure if arguing with you in this thread is of any more use. Please PM me if you want to drag this on.

Stop the flame war now.

This thread is not there for you to criticize the author or people agreeing with the proposal. It's not a debate to justify it either ; If they are willing to do the ammount of work required to implement the real middle-eastern armies depicted by the MEC in PR and further moving away from BF2ness, then they have greenlight IMO, as much as every other community faction has greenlight for working on their own on such projects.

If you disagree, you can discuss in PMs, to an extent post your opinion once, but this is not meant to be a debate or a flame war.

---

About ME countries not being able to fight off NATO partly or fully, again it has nothing to do with this thread. You can discuss your political e-peens somewhere else please, Chechnyans were implemented in PR, yet we know they have a hard time fighting the full of Russian Forces. Same goes for Insurgents, Hamas, Talibans, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.

Second, YOU do your homeworks, Saudi Arabia is also capable of holding off against a NATO attack. As for Syria, Jordan and Oman, they are more than capable fighting forces and i'm sure if they'd be able to put up a good fight. But i'll remind you again ; it's not because they're not equal to NATO in terms of power, that they shouldn't be implemented - main example being Chechnyans.

Please, if you're not going to support this project, then don't come and flame the people behind it or the idea. You wouldn't do it against the Israeli, Dutch or Russian factions, then don't do it with MEC's armies.

Keep it civil people.

Tannhauser wrote:Stop the flame war now.

This thread is not there for you to criticize the author or people agreeing with the proposal. It's not a debate to justify it either ; If they are willing to do the ammount of work required to implement the real middle-eastern armies depicted by the MEC in PR and further moving away from BF2ness, then they have greenlight IMO, as much as every other community faction has greenlight for working on their own on such projects.

If you disagree, you can discuss in PMs, to an extent post your opinion once, but this is not meant to be a debate or a flame war.

---

About ME countries not being able to fight off NATO partly or fully, again it has nothing to do with this thread. You can discuss your political e-peens somewhere else please, Chechnyans were implemented in PR, yet we know they have a hard time fighting the full of Russian Forces. Same goes for Insurgents, Hamas, Talibans, Democratic Republic of Congo, etc.

Second, YOU do your homeworks, Saudi Arabia is also capable of holding off against a NATO attack. As for Syria, Jordan and Oman, they are more than capable fighting forces and i'm sure if they'd be able to put up a good fight. But i'll remind you again ; it's not because they're not equal to NATO in terms of power, that they shouldn't be implemented - main example being Chechnyans.

Please, if you're not going to support this project, then don't come and flame the people behind it or the idea. You wouldn't do it against the Israeli, Dutch or Russian factions, then don't do it with MEC's armies.

Keep it civil people.

I apologize for my rudeness and if I was not civil enough.

I am not trying to flame you, but I just don't see a need for a MEC replacement. The MEC as it is, is a good placeholder for many middle eastern armies, and even has "fans" that like to play this faction. There is no good reason to replace it with a different faction, therefore I am against the idea that was brought up in this thread. That's my point.

The main argument for splitting up the MEC forces is, imo, that it would add alot of variety to the game. But at the same time I've always thought that PR is more about realistic gameplay and teamwork rather than realistic scenarios. A fictional superpower lke the MEC mean that the devs have another kind of freedom when creating new assets and maps than they would if every faction was based on a RL-army.

But I agree with Terror. The concept of a Middle Eastern Coalition is somewhat insulting and stupid. Like they are all the same, having the exact same goals, etc. We can compare it to Europe - would the PR community like it if the devs reintroduced EAs European Union Army concept and scrathed faction like the Bundeswehr and British Army?

I'm not sure what to think about this... I like the MEC concept for the reasons I mentioned above, but would at the same time like to see the individual armies of Iran, Syria and Libya ingame.
But what's the point of throwing bullshit at each other in a thread like this? The people that want to split the MEC into a number of factions should get to work instead.

Salah ad Din wrote:Nighthawk, are you actually aware of how many different factions you would have to create to build a "realistic" image of the Middle East? In how many countries are the MEC maps located? Do you want to make a separate faction for each map?

Who will do that? And even then, you still must have the MEC behind it to "explain" how a country like Syria can actually repel an attack by US forces. The only friggin' country that has any significant chance of withstanding the US military if fighting on its own is Iran. So you want to scrap all the MEC maps and make new ones that are all located in Iran?

I would like to see new models for the Opfors, yes, the MEC should be using the Zulfiqar and the Khaybar, but not as national armies.

I think the main problem all the Coalition fanboys have is the fact that MEC smells too much like Caliphate to them.

PS: I am not sure if I would continue playing PR if MEC gets removed, no matter if they get replaced by underdog-cannon fodder or balanced national factions.

All I want to do is add some variation to the OPFOR factions in PR. Making a new faction for every Middle Eastern country is not my plan. As I've stated, I'd like to see 2 or 3 new factions added that can replace or even go alongside the MEC.

The MEC could still exist as an idea. You don't see a united NATO army with one standard issue assault rifle, one standard uniform, one standard transport vehicle etc.

For the sake of a realistic storyline (even though there is no story), lets say the MEC is an alliance like NATO. Syria and Iran (and maybe some other countries) can be members, and fight against the US. Maybe the US invaded to stop Syria and Iran getting nuclear power/material/weapons in the near future/alternate reality of PR.

Please, I don't want to turn this thread into some sort of religious flame war. This is not a medieval crusader game and I doubt the people here are scared of Middle Eastern/Islamic unity either. I don't intend to offend anyone with this proposal. Is it so bad to want realistic factions in a reality modification? I have no intention of turning the Middle Eastern factions into cannon fodder.

Syria represented in-game would probably be very similar to the MEC, and having Iran gives us the opportunity to show some indigenous Middle Eastern-designed/modified technology and unique assets, instead of German and Russian weapons. I don't think it's that people are scared of a caliphate, but no such caliphate exists.

Thanks for replying. My intention for this thread was to help make the game better, not spoil it for people. What do you think is wrong with replacing the MEC with real factions on some maps?

Note: This is only a proposal, I haven't really talked to the devs about it. This might not even mean a replacement for the MEC. The new factions could appear only on new maps, the MEC could stay as they are. You never know, this idea might not even get off the ground if not enough people are interested in helping, or if the idea is unpopular.

Judging from that you decided to name the thread "Replacement of MEC" it sounded like you wanted to scratch the whole MEC-idea. Creating new maps for an Iranian faction (and maybe give them Kashan, that's in Iran, after all) is not the same thing as "replacing" MEC.

I'm an old fan of MEC - fictional factions are great in the way that you can place them anywhere and give them whatever you want. It won't spoil the reality aspect completely because of the fact that the realistic gameplay will still be the same and the weapons will act the same way as their RL-counterpart. It's about realistic gameplay, not realistic scenarios (for example, a middle eastern coalition is more likely than a US/GB invasion of mainland China).

Sgt.Sheep wrote:I apologize for my rudeness and if I was not civil enough.

I am not trying to flame you, but I just don't see a need for a MEC replacement. The MEC as it is, is a good placeholder for many middle eastern armies, and even has "fans" that like to play this faction. There is no good reason to replace it with a different faction, therefore I am against the idea that was brought up in this thread. That's my point.

Man you were civil enough. We have differing opinions can't we express this and work towards a solution or at least air our opinions?

Deadfast wrote:That MEC is whatever you think they are.

I think they are the CIA wearing beards

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: I think they are the CIA wearing beards

Aliens.