Project Reality Forums

Hey everyone. I'm a long time Project Reality fan, but this is my first time really posting something substantial here. I love this mod, and the game play, but as a political science and history student I have always been curious about the political setting of the PR world. Having a long history of becoming wayyyy too interested in the background stories behind video games, I've been trying to construct a mental picture of the PR world based on what we know for sure, and some assumptions based on the world's current geopolitical situation. The result, is this map:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/ ... psmall.jpg

Now, this is purely conjecture on my part. It doesn't reflect the views of the devs in any way, and is just something I've cooked up in my brain trying to make sense of things. I'm posting this here because I want people's input and their own views on what they think the PR world looks like, because I'm sure they'd have some interesting views. Here's the color code for the map:

Blue = BLUFOR (obviously). We can confirm for sure that the US, UK, Canada, Germany and (probably) Israel are in this faction (and soon France, Poland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Holland once those factions are complete). One must assume that the rest of NATO is also involved in the war, as Article 5 of the NATO charter has most likely been invoked due to the conflict. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Colombia were thrown in for their close US ties. Areas that are striped blue and another color are being disputed by BLUFOR with their enemies. Pakistan is striped due to the assumption it has either been invaded by the MEC, or is now suffering from a renewed insurgency. Indonesia for the same reason.

Green = MEC/Russia/Insurgencies and allies. I put the MEC and Russia together because, while it is now obvious that Russia and China are at war, the MEC and Russia have not fought each other and Russia has launched an attack on the Israelis in Beirut, probably in support of MEC and HAMAS forces. I threw Libya in because I knew that there was a map from an earlier version of PR that had BLUFOR forces attacking a Libyan air field. Again, areas that are striped blue and green are contested or are being fought over by BLUFOR forces and these forces, either through conventional or unconventional warfare.

Red = China and allies. China appears to be in a faction in itself now, not allied with the MEC and definitely not with Russia (as they are now fighting in a map). North Korea, Myanmar, Vietnam, and several other states are grouped with China due to close Chinese ties.

Grey = Most likely neutral. States like Switzerland would almost certainly be totally neutral. Other states are grayed out due to a lack of information or general assumption they would not need to get involved (at this moment in time).

Yellow = Would almost certainly or most likely be involved, but unknown which faction they would belong to, or who would be contesting them. Africa is a big wild card here. So are the Central Asian states, which are disputed by the West, Russia, and China. Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and Cuba are all also toss ups.

Alright! Hit me with some input here. Let's keep it civil, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. I'm just really curious as to what you guys think.

NOTE: Newest version of the map. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/ ... PRmap2.jpg

Its good not to be blufor when there is green to your east.
That looks interesting.

I would love PR to have some sort of cool all-out-war backstory.

Sweet stuff

this is awesomeeeeeee

Nice work

Great job making Project reality make sense.

Though some historical maps would be nice like the 1978 afgahn war.
All the weapons and stuff are already in game all you have to do is just switch them around and make a new map. Love to see the Hind though.

What a great post. I really enjoyed reading this. It ended up setting me off on one of those forty-five minute wikipedia binges that ultimately lead me to the Popsicle wiki: Popsicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Not joking.)

Anyways, I've just got a few notes. I assume you've got Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania striped blue-green due to their proximity with Russia leading to a potential for invasion. But by 2004 all three of them were members the EU, Estonia even contributing a portion of it's military to a Swedish Special Forces-lead battle group that also includes and Finnish, Norwegian and Irish soldiers. Barring some major political turbulence, I would suggest that all six of these nations would be aligned with the Western military agenda, if not from the get-go, then surely by the time that China, Russia, and the MEC all became obvious aggressors.

This is essentially a world war, and with the past two for examples, it leaves little room for neutralism and tends to polarize the nations of the world one way or the other. WWII must've seen like 100 nations involved.

But, to be completely honest, if we were to take all map conflicts into account, then we'd have to look at Yamalia, which puts the Canadians more or less smack dab in the middle of Russia. That brings in the U.S. to assist the Canucks, and depending on concerns with the eastern front of Europe, the majority of the EU. I'm leaning towards nuclear war, here.

Side note: Just realized that in this scenario, Russia is more or less at war with everyone else in the world, not to mention the internal insurgency. Heh. Awesome.

Zegel wrote:What a great post. I really enjoyed reading this. It ended up setting me off on one of those forty-five minute wikipedia binges that ultimately lead me to the Popsicle wiki: Popsicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Not joking.)

Anyways, I've just got a few notes. I assume you've got Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania striped blue-green due to their proximity with Russia leading to a potential for invasion. But by 2004 all three of them were members the EU, Estonia even contributing a portion of it's military to a Swedish Special Forces-lead battle group that also includes and Finnish, Norwegian and Irish soldiers. Barring some major political turbulence, I would suggest that all six of these nations would be aligned with the Western military agenda, if not from the get-go, then surely by the time that China, Russia, and the MEC all became obvious aggressors.

This is essentially a world war, and with the past two for examples, it leaves little room for neutralism and tends to polarize the nations of the world one way or the other. WWII must've seen like 100 nations involved.

But, to be completely honest, if we were to take all map conflicts into account, then we'd have to look at Yamalia, which puts the Canadians more or less smack dab in the middle of Russia. That brings in the U.S. to assist the Canucks, and depending on concerns with the eastern front of Europe, the majority of the EU. I'm leaning towards nuclear war, here.

Side note: Just realized that in this scenario, Russia is more or less at war with everyone else in the world, not to mention the internal insurgency. Heh. Awesome.

Glad you liked this! Yes, the Baltic states are striped as I assume they would invaded by Russia. They would definitely be western aligned, as in addition to being EU members they are NATO members as well. Matter of fact, their invasion would most likely be what forces NATO to invoke Article 5 and have everyone else in NATO declare war on Russia. As for Sweden and Finland, the more I think about it, they would most likely be Western aligned too. While they were never officially in NATO during the Cold War, they were more or less in their camp.

As for neutralism, while almost everyone was involved in World War II, keep in mind there were HALF the nations we have now back then. And many in the Western Hemisphere who declared war simply did so in support. I believe other than the US and Canada, the only ones to send any forces were the Mexicans who sent some fighter squadrons to the Pacific. I could be wrong.

As for the Canucks, yeah, not sure how to approach that. Could be some sort of raid behind the lines like the Dieppe raid in World War II. I was thinking about modifying the map to try and show the assumed status of front lines.

WAT ?!

USA together with Venezuela ?!

Something is wrong.

SavageLycan wrote:Matter of fact, their invasion would most likely be what forces NATO to invoke Article 5 and have everyone else in NATO declare war on Russia.

Good point. If you're at all interested in updating the map, I would suggest some sort of way to indicate potentially contested territory. Maybe a red dot at the center of the nation and then keep it striped with the two colors involved, it might help to differentiate between invaded states and those of uncertain alignment.

SavageLycan wrote: (...) many in the Western Hemisphere who declared war simply did so in support. I believe other than the US and Canada, the only ones to send any forces were the Mexicans who sent some fighter squadrons to the Pacific.

Participants in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Found this spiffy list of all the involved nations in WWII. Good call with the Mexicans. From what I can tell, you're right about declarations of war being a show of support in a lot of cases, but there seemed to be peripheral assistance. Costa Rica for example allowing U.S. airstrips to be built on island territories, and Cuba having plans for conscription to toss in some troops too as well as naval activity. I think we'd see similar reactions world-wide as I'd think pretty much every first-world nation has a viable and relevant defense force.

SavageLycan wrote:I was thinking about modifying the map to try and show the assumed status of front lines.

Heh, that's gonna get complicated fast. And, seeing as how some of these conflicts don't really make sense in terms of today's international political structure, we'd have to account for some pretty wonky disasters or unpredictable behavior. Who knows what we would have to come up with to justify a lot of this.

=Romagnolo= wrote:USA together with Venezuela ?!

Nah, that's Colombia not Venezuela. Who knows where the hell Venezuela would be involved with. But, I think we can safely assume that the close ties between Colombia and the U.S. is ultimately derived from American appreciation for how smokin' hot Colombian chicks are.

Zegel wrote:Nah, that's Colombia not Venezuela. Who knows where the hell Venezuela would be involved with. But, I think we can safely assume that the close ties between Colombia and the U.S. is ultimately derived from American appreciation for how smokin' hot Colombian chicks are.

I wasn't sure who to put Venezuela with at first, as they have close ties with Russia and China. But I think they'd probably go with Russia in the end, as they seem to be far closer with them at the moment, and get a lot of their military hardware from there.

As for Colombia, don't forget the cocaine. Ha. Wonder if the enemy would supply the Cartels to fight against BLUFOR.

And where is militia in all of this? Lets assume that they are the north caucasus insurgents. Russia and GB both fight them in PR. Neutral?

I say. change this into a flash map and make it look awesome Maybe make some videos. Great thinking on the basis though. An interesting idea. It's always great to see someone else thinking about these types of things.

crot wrote:And where is militia in all of this? Lets assume that they are the north caucasus insurgents. Russia and GB both fight them in PR. Neutral?

Yeah, I assume they're out for themselves in this. They don't fight the Chinese, so they may be supported by them for all we know. Or some third party. Maybe I can mark insurgencies on the map with some sort of symbol.

Papua New Guinea and Timor Lest are both now part of various defence aid and cooperation treaties with Australia and new zealand. as are a great many pacific islands. i would not consider any as neutral, but firmly as part of the bluefor countries.

it's great work, i am sure there are many others out there that would cooperate on a formal project of this nature

anglomanii wrote:Papua New Guinea and Timor Lest are both now part of various defence aid and cooperation treaties with Australia and new zealand. as are a great many pacific islands. i would not consider any as neutral, but firmly as part of the bluefor countries.

it's great work, i am sure there are many others out there that would cooperate on a formal project of this nature

Thanks for the info! I'm updating the map right now, and I'm definitely going to integrate that.

Here's an updated world map I threw together. It takes a number of things into account now:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/ ... PRmap2.jpg

1. Arrows now show assumed lines of advanced. Colors correspond to factions.

2. Insurgencies in a nation are now depicted by a little exploding star thingy. Colors correspond to the faction supporting the insurgency.

3. Retooling the stripe dynamic. Nations that are solidly one color are solidly in one bloc (ha. pun). Nations that are striped with two different colors are disputed in terms of their allegiance, or are being fought over by conventional forces at that time.

4. Sudan and Zimbabwe in the Chinese faction due to their ties with that nation.

5. South Africa now in BLUFOR due to Western ties.

6. Venezuela now in the MEC/Russian alliance due to Russian ties and support of Iran.

Did some research on Wikipedia seeing if I could find some of the actual places mentioned in PR maps. Muttrah City appears to be in Oman, so I marked an arrow depicted an amphibious assault there. Yamalia is in the heart of Russia, so I placed an arrow there as well. I'm assuming that is a raid of some sort, or an attempt by NATO to open up a new front to draw Russian troops away from Europe and the Caucasus. There is no "Kashan Desert" per-say, but there is a city called Kashan in the heart of Iran, so I placed arrows showing a Western advance towards the center of the country from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

iirc that where a story line when P.R. started... but it was taked away since it wasent making sense

Why is there an exploding star where Moscow is? lol. Typo?
You should create a legend for that map.