My take on PR's Russia background
Posted: 2007-08-22 04:09
I've noticed the PR Devs seem to have decided to place Russia side by side with the US and the UK in Team 2. I think this is a bit out of place considering the recent events that you all must know of by now (Russia against US missile defence, UK's RAF intercepting Russian bombers etc).
I know this has already been discussed in private forums, but here's what I think on the issue:
I understand that we couldn't have Russia fighting Militia and US/UK since Militia is Team 1 and US/UK is Team 2.
But why not have the Militia on Team 2 also?
This way we couldn't have any US or UK vs Militia maps, yes, but I think it doesn't make much sense to have US/UK vs Militia anyway.
A real-life example would be that you don't/haven't see/seen the US or UK fighting the Chechnyans.
In my opinion it would make much more sense to have something like US/UK funding the Militia to distract Russia and Russia/China/MEC funding the Insurgents to distract US/UK.
Team 1: Russia, China, MEC, Insurgents (funded by Russia/China/MEC)
Team 2: US, UK, Militia (funded by US/UK)
China and Russia usually seem to have common interests and ideas, just like the US and UK. For example they are both part of the SCO (click), which is speculated to counterbalance NATO, in which US/UK are part of as we all know.
Also we'll be having more armies on Team 2 (Canada? Poland?) so number of armies on each team could be balanced a bit more.
I understand the PR Dev team wouldn't want to do the swap if they have already made maps with US or UK vs Militia, or if the Team 1 to Team 2 swap isn't something as simple as editing a line of text.
But then it would be just like replacing US and UK with Russia on those maps, like it's being done with Mestia.
I doubt my opinion will make much difference, as I'm not a prominent member of the PR community, Dev or Beta tester or whatever, but I would like to know what the rest of you think of this Militia-Russia swaping teams.
I'm just expressing what I think makes more sense here...
Thanks!
I know this has already been discussed in private forums, but here's what I think on the issue:
I understand that we couldn't have Russia fighting Militia and US/UK since Militia is Team 1 and US/UK is Team 2.
But why not have the Militia on Team 2 also?
This way we couldn't have any US or UK vs Militia maps, yes, but I think it doesn't make much sense to have US/UK vs Militia anyway.
A real-life example would be that you don't/haven't see/seen the US or UK fighting the Chechnyans.
In my opinion it would make much more sense to have something like US/UK funding the Militia to distract Russia and Russia/China/MEC funding the Insurgents to distract US/UK.
Team 1: Russia, China, MEC, Insurgents (funded by Russia/China/MEC)
Team 2: US, UK, Militia (funded by US/UK)
China and Russia usually seem to have common interests and ideas, just like the US and UK. For example they are both part of the SCO (click), which is speculated to counterbalance NATO, in which US/UK are part of as we all know.
Also we'll be having more armies on Team 2 (Canada? Poland?) so number of armies on each team could be balanced a bit more.
I understand the PR Dev team wouldn't want to do the swap if they have already made maps with US or UK vs Militia, or if the Team 1 to Team 2 swap isn't something as simple as editing a line of text.
But then it would be just like replacing US and UK with Russia on those maps, like it's being done with Mestia.
I doubt my opinion will make much difference, as I'm not a prominent member of the PR community, Dev or Beta tester or whatever, but I would like to know what the rest of you think of this Militia-Russia swaping teams.
I'm just expressing what I think makes more sense here...
Thanks!