Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:13**

MEC could stay as a faction on some maps. Wars in PR occur at different timelines so it'd be interesting to see certain maps in Syria, Jordan, Yemen or Oman with their respective factions, and see other maps with the MEC faction. But Kashan is a definite Iran faction, Kashan desert is a real location in Iran from what i've learned, so we'd need the Iranian Army to be realistic. (And anyway, they use G3s a lot so it's not SO different from MEC

)

But i'm not sure wheter Muttrah (Oman) should be RAO or MEC? the RAO uses Steyr AUGs and i'd like to see them used against M16s hehe.

EDIT : Going to college for the next hours, i'll try and collect info when I come back. Try finding the assets from Jordan especially, wiki has no information at all about what they use.

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:14**

I'll try getting the thread title changed. Obviously there are people who like the MEC, and I'm happy with the MEC staying, and new factions being added on new maps.

Again, I really don't want to spoil the enjoyment of the game for anyone, or offend anyone. This proposal is supposed to help make the game better by adding more factions to fight against all the new NATO ones.

With our differences aside, can we now move forward and plan some interesting new teams to add to the game as a community mod?

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:30**

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote:
Nie ma huja w shi

in Polish forums you should be warned or banned for that post-
allso
-your Polish isn't very good and you use curse(damn)
-(idea censored by me)
Stop flame

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:37**

well idf faction includes Hamas faction as well and not mec - i think its fare enought

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:37**

Right, then.

If any nation should be separated from the MEC and have its own army in PR it should be Iran. They are, if I've understood this correctly, one of the military powerhouses in the region and also have their own weapon systems that would add some variety to the game.

The G3A3 is their main rifle, and it's already ingame. Same thing for most other small arms they use, including the RPG-7, SA-7, RPG-29 (upcoming Russian HAT) and PKM. The MG3 seems to be quite widely used, atleast during the Iran-Iraq war judging from videos and pictures on the internet. IIRC someone was making a model for the Bundeswehr so we could also make use of that.

As for the vehicles... The Zulfiqar would be a nice MBT, but the T72 could also be used. Alongside vehicles like the M113, BTR-60 and BMP-1/2 they have some locally produced APCs and IFVs that look pretty badass (Boragh and Cobra BMT).

The attack helicopter will have to be an old favourite; the AH1J Sea Cobra! According to wiki, the Iranian army have their own upgraded version called the Panha 2091 alongside the original model bought before the revolution. Might be a tough competitor to the Apache.

Wiki also mentions that the Iranis are going to purchase modern Russian and Chinese planes like the Su-30, J-10 and JF-17. At the moment they use mainly F-4s (no wonder they want to buy some new stuff) alongside MiG-29 (which is already ingame). The Su-25 is apparently also in use and it's the only CAS airplane I found on the wiki-list of their inventory.

Then of course we'd have to do some recording in Farsi. I'll talk to an old Irani friend and his brother and father to see if they want to contribute to this project.

Posted: **2009-02-05 19:56**

Lt Mic wrote:in Polish forums you should be warned or banned for that post-
allso
-your Polish isn't very good and you use curse(damn)
-(idea censored by me)
Stop flame

lol man I can speak a little but not write or read so maybe it came out wrong, it was not meant to be a curse , sorry if it read wrong.

Posted: **2009-02-05 20:10**

STORM-Mama wrote:Right, then.

If any nation should be separated from the MEC and have its own army in PR it should be Iran. They are, if I've understood this correctly, one of the military powerhouses in the region and also have their own weapon systems that would add some variety to the game.

The G3A3 is their main rifle, and it's already ingame. Same thing for most other small arms they use, including the RPG-7, SA-7, RPG-29 (upcoming Russian HAT) and PKM. The MG3 seems to be quite widely used, atleast during the Iran-Iraq war judging from videos and pictures on the internet. IIRC someone was making a model for the Bundeswehr so we could also make use of that.

As for the vehicles... The Zulfiqar would be a nice MBT, but the T72 could also be used. Alongside vehicles like the M113, BTR-60 and BMP-1/2 they have some locally produced APCs and IFVs that look pretty badass (Boragh and Cobra BMT).

The attack helicopter will have to be an old favourite; the AH1J Sea Cobra! According to wiki, the Iranian army have their own upgraded version called the Panha 2091 alongside the original model bought before the revolution. Might be a tough competitor to the Apache.

Wiki also mentions that the Iranis are going to purchase modern Russian and Chinese planes like the Su-30, J-10 and JF-17. At the moment they use mainly F-4s (no wonder they want to buy some new stuff) alongside MiG-29 (which is already ingame). The Su-25 is apparently also in use and it's the only CAS airplane I found on the wiki-list of their inventory.

Then of course we'd have to do some recording in Farsi. I'll talk to an old Irani friend and his brother and father to see if they want to contribute to this project.

news check, I beleive Iran isn't part of MEC, because of difference in Islam

Posted: **2009-02-05 20:30**

IMHO, I like MEC as it is now : a fictional army able to withstand modern warfare against NATO powerhouses, on a par with PLA. Besides, G3 + BMP3 is a deadly combo ^^.

Iran seems "weak" if you ask me, and could be a trouble for any western faction only in it's own lands, using assymetrical means (civilians, insurgency) to defend itself. Look at Iranian equipment !

Diversify middle-east armies would result in a bunch of "old" russian equipment-user factions, mixed with western weapons. Doesn't sound nice to me, I mean, I don't want to see another faction with a M1 Abrams, or a AH-1 Cobra (with TOWs lol) or a Challenger (Oman), though the Hind and the M113 appeal me a lot. And we've got enough AK enthusiasts !

Posted: **2009-02-05 20:38**

I actually like the MEC concept. And specially the BF2 one... not much the alledged "realistic" one of PR

Anyway MEC could not be exactly something totally unrealistic, How about thinking of it as a derivate organization from the Arab League Arab League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , their objective is after all...:

draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries.

The Arab league member territories are also pretty extensive:

Well those are actually the only thing I got to support MEC. It's weapons loadout is at some points realistic while other weaponry usage is debatable.

I do however like the idea of the inclusion of some more ME factions like Iran. Like seen above in the map with Arab League members, Iran does not belong to it due to cultural and mainly historical differences.
Also makes use of several home-made equipment which would be rather interesting to see in PR. It also has an aweful number of US made equipment (Which BTW was not all adquired before the 1979 islamic revolution, many equipments were sold to Iran to finance the Nicaragua contras during the 1980s Iran-Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

Another faction that would be interesting to see but as Bluefor is the new Iraqi Army. Iraqi security forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Iraqi Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That army is about to re-arm with a lot of US-made equipment which is available for PR. That as well as the available russian-based equipment would make this faction rather easy to make. Just a re-skin of the USMC model and most vehicles and you're set.
Put it on maps against the insurgency and perhaps against the Iranian army (If made) and the MEC.
Is this faction gonna offer something new in terms of gameplay? Absolutelly not

It'd be just USMC with different voice and skins. But hey... At least it reproduces a scenery that actually takes places nowadays and could take place if things don't go well after the US pull-out.

Other ME factions would be nice and could be constructive if they actually offer new combat scenarios.

But all this is only going to happen if a community group is set up just like every other community mod has, and starts working on the assets for the elected faction/s.

The Devs are not gonna move a finger on this unless there's already a team that has made enough progress on it to NOT represent a stone on the shoe.

Anyway good luck with this.

Posted: **2009-02-05 20:42**

Big problem with the Arab League
Kuwait Saudi Arabia Iraq are friendly to the Western World and we can't have the rest of em fighting the west while those three sit on the side if they are part of it. And we can't have them fighting each other

Posted: **2009-02-05 21:33**

To all of you that say it's impossible to see Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Kuwait fight NATO, ask yourselves what is MEC and wich countries compose it, then tell me how it'd be so different?

MEC basically means the whole Arab Middle East overall, meaning New Iraq, Jordan, syrian, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Dhubai, Oman and Yemen. ... Hum. Who said MEC exists during the occupation of Iraq? I doubt it'd exist during the occupation of Iraq, else they'd be disadvantaged by having a hostile «spearhead» for NATO right in their face.
Or are you inferring MEC is only Syria, Jordan and Oman? I doubt it, and it's clear it doesn't count Iran because Iran is Persian = NOT with Arabs and also, actual MEC has no persian voices.

Deltafart said it, not only are Iranians following a different form of Islam that makes their Arab neighbour extremely angry at them, but they also are not the same culture and not the same roots.
For whoever said Iran would be weak compared to MEC, Iran is actually very close to what MEC is right now, if not better. It could hold off NATO more than you think unlike Iraq. And obviously, neighbouring states learned from the Iraq war, they know what's comming if they fight NATO, and they're more prepared than they were before, much more.

Diversify middle-east armies would result in a bunch of "old" russian equipment-user factions, mixed with western weapons. Doesn't sound nice to me, I mean, I don't want to see another faction with a M1 Abrams, or a AH-1 Cobra (with TOWs lol) or a Challenger (Oman), though the Hind and the M113 appeal me a lot. And we've got enough AK enthusiasts !

MEC would actually be Iran in terms of assets, so Kashan would be pretty much the same as it is right now, except new voices, uniforms and certain other assets.

If you search a bit, you'll find out that Yemen is the biggest user of russian hardware ; Oman uses Steyr AUGs, Iran uses the Khaybar and G3 variants, Jordan is unknown, and Syria uses AKs. Iraq and Saudi Arabia both massively use M16s variants and they're the only BIG users of US equipment.
You say it like we're removing all the good stuff from MEC, but actually we're just adding stuff and categorizing them to fit more with reality. Yemen will look like Opfor in COD4, for sure, but Iran will be very very MECish, I tell you, it's not THAT big of a change.

Posted: **2009-02-05 22:16**

This is getting strange, people seem to take an offense to this discussion.

The whole point on the end is...what does it really do?

Gameplay first, realism second, just like fuzzhead said it. What would be the point of putting in a syrian or jordan or anything army if they are so alike? What diversity would they bring to the pr plate?

there is no problem with putting in new factions, as long as they pay for the space they take up on the download with good gameplay.

keep in mind, its quality over quantity.

Posted: **2009-02-05 22:21**

HughJass wrote:This is getting strange, people seem to take an offense to this discussion.

True that.

I see members here forgetting the most important thing about Project Reality.

PR is just a GAME!

Posted: **2009-02-05 22:26**

MEC would actually be Iran in terms of assets, so Kashan would be pretty much the same as it is right now, except new voices, uniforms and certain other assets.

Yeah, but without MEC, there would be no G3-SG1 and no HK21 (but PKM and SVD instead and everywhere !). Say goodbye to SGG too (Pakistan/Turkey use it though). Iran is almost MECish like you said, apart from these guns...and BMP-3 !

keep in mind, its quality over quantity.

I'm with you. There are more interesting factions being worked up at the moment. No need for MEC split. Ever ^^

Posted: **2009-02-06 03:51**

the day arabs and persians fight together under the same flag is the day hell freezes over, JFK comes back from the dead and the Emperor steps off the golden throne.

so yeah, i support the idea of actual ME countries

Posted: **2009-02-06 05:39**

Terror_Terror_Terror wrote: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.

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.

US was the biggest friend of Iran till the revolution
Saddam was supplied by the US (among other countries) to fight the Iran.
Rebels in Afghanistan (Taliban?) were supplied by the US to fight the local communist government and the Soviets,
Bin Laden was educated in the US before he went to Afgan.

All these (and many other) "Friends" have sooner or later turned into "Enemies".
Can someone really guarantee that US will never fight Saudi Arabia one way or the other in the next 10-15 years? No.
Vietnam was supplied (weaponry,assets,consultants) by the USSR on a very large scale - that did not heart their victory either

This new kit mix/match "tech nick" could maybe work for the new factions but like the others have said:
talk is cheap and until someone can and will do all this ........it stays talk.

Posted: **2009-02-06 06:08**

You really can't call most scenarios people come up with here considering a large portion of the game has the US/UK invading China. That there trumps US vs Saudis any day. Also, the Reality of Project Reality means to have realistic tactical situations, not to recreate world politics nowadays as stated in the now-closed MBT balance thread.

Posted: **2009-02-06 07:34**

Hresvelgr wrote:Also, the Reality of Project Reality means to have realistic tactical situations

Fighting a fictionnal combat force is not a realistic tactical situation, because its capabilities are fictional hence not based on reality.
Fighting an existing combat force is a realistic tactical situation.
Those existing combat forces include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Chechnya, etc...
Why do you think we didn't implement the Euro Force into PR? Because it failed at simulating realistic tactical situations involving the EU in every ways possible. Hence why they're making the Dutch, the French, the British, the German and the Norwegian. Same goes for MEC ; it's not realistic to fight a fictionnal rushed-up version of an enemy. Heck, would you like it if you were fighting a EAC (EastAsiaCoalition) armed with old *** Type56? No, because that's not PLA, that's some fictionnal crappy idealisation of enemies ; it's not realistic then, because it's not the PLA then, it's just some failed spinoff. However if you're fighting PLA, now that's the real stuff, the real assets and the real capabilites = Realistic tactical situations.

If however you persist in saying MEC is a realistic tactical enemy, then why not create the Antartica Coalition? Fictionnal but it's a realistic tactical situation to be ...fighting pinguins. Really. No kidding.
Sorry for the irony, but the point is that MEC is not real, hence it's not realistic to fight a fictionnal enemy with fictionnal assets when others are thriving to implement realistic Blufor with realistic assets. A realistic tactical simulation involves realistic assets by existing factions, otherwise it's not project reality, it's project not-really-reality-but-just-for-NATO-Russia-and-China-mkay? ...

Balancing issues? Gameplay issues? TBH, fighting off against an enemy using similar assets (M1 vs M1) would be very interesting ; Gameplay wise you need to be extra careful to watch your fire, Balancing wise... Who cares about balance anyway? It's not like they're armed with spears and muskets.

Posted: **2009-02-06 12:23**

Tannhauser, MEC fighting off a NATO invasion is more realistic than the Syrian army fighting off a NATO invasion.

Do you actually think that Syria has a chance? If you wanted to make a realistic US vs. Syria scenario, the Syrian Faction would not get any JDAMs for example, simply because the carrier group stationed in the Mediterranean would have already bombed the sh*t out of every airfield in Syria before ground troops even got to see each other. Also, remove the Logistic Trucks with Supply crates from the Syrian faction, because B52's would have flattened every industrial complex beforehand.

IMO, it takes away enormously from having fun in-game, to know that even if my team wins this battle, if this was real, it wouldn't matter at all in the war.

So, if you want to have National Factions, PR must develop a story behind it as to why the skies of Syria are clear of NATO planes.

Posted: **2009-02-06 13:12**

Salah ad Din wrote:Tannhauser, MEC fighting off a NATO invasion is more realistic than the Syrian army fighting off a NATO invasion.

Do you actually think that Syria has a chance? If you wanted to make a realistic US vs. Syria scenario, the Syrian Faction would not get any JDAMs for example, simply because the carrier group stationed in the Mediterranean would have already bombed the sh*t out of every airfield in Syria before ground troops even got to see each other. Also, remove the Logistic Trucks with Supply crates from the Syrian faction, because B52's would have flattened every industrial complex beforehand.

Wow wait.. wait? Then tell me how and why this would not happen with MEC? It's not like MEC is any stronger, heck Syria is a part of MEC. It's not like MEC has magical powerups that upgraded their air defence into a «Fire» +9def +9str Anti-Air-Defence «o'Death».
Also, who talked about removing the coalition itself? Syria or Yemen or Oman or w/e could still be in the MEC, the thing is they'd be represented with their real combat capabilities in terms of assets. Not making them individual weaklings, don't get me wrong, i'm not aiming towards weakening the ME factions or COD4Izing them, to the contrary i'd like them to resemble their real counterparts rather than a biassed representation.

And who cares about bombings and stuff? Have you seen those bombings scenario taken into account with Muttrah city? No. We don't bomb cities during games, we fight into them with vehicles and firearms ; who cares about B-52s?
I mean, following your reasonment, then why do we bother having Chechnya? They get bombed = they're weak = they shouldn't be in PR. ««« WRONG, they're actually fun to play, who cares if they're not as strong as US? Christ, have you guys forgot about those factions already? They're in PR and they're fun to play, yet they're less «stronger» than other factions but still you persist to think it'll be any different for Syria or Yemen or Jordan.. w/e. How would it be THAT different? Are you inferring those countries are so weak they're not worth being in PR? Alright, so lets remove Chechnya people, they're too weak for our standards now. Ciao

Project Reality Forums

[Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] Replacement of MEC

Re: [Proposal] Replacement of MEC

Re: [Proposal] Replacement of MEC

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] Replacement of MEC

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] Replacement of MEC

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies

Re: [Proposal] New Middle Eastern Armies