02-03-2016, 03:45 PM
(02-03-2016, 03:19 PM)Variable link Wrote:As I said, these discrepancies will surely be there, but it's worth it given the expected immersion boost. Did it bother that in Wiggum's mission we played the units we played against were not really pro-Turkish separatists? Well, a bit, but it was cool, it sets the environment, it gets the occurences closer to one's heart and makes the mission, at least for me, much more exciting.
To be perfectly honest, I don't remember these missions. The "real-world" factor for me never was an issue when it comes to immersion. It may be because I am not very well informed about the specifics of these conflicts (I am not "illeterate"when it comes to global politics, I'd wager to say I am better informed than the average, but I don't really "research" these conflicts). So for me, personally, it never mattered whether the Chedaki exist or not, if I was into the setting, it was as real for me as if these were Ukrainian or anything else.
Quote:In Fuiba's campaign, when we had to shoot down Greek reinforcement choppers, did it matter much that the Hellenic Army doesn't use that type of transports? Not much, but it still was a great touch that made the mission a lot more exciting.
This is actually the point I cannot follow, to be honest. To me it didn't matter that the choppers were not Hellenic Army, I didn't care if it were AAF or something else, it does nothing for me. I mean, I will gladly use "Russians" or "Americans" because, well, in game they are Russians and Americans, but other than that the fact that the faction is fictitious (difficult sentence) doesn't make a difference.
On the contrary, when I used the AAF in Greenback Mountain, I didn't like it because they were AAF and not really supposed to be there. But calling them anything else but AAF would cause the same issue for me.
But then, I am the guy that is opposed to infantry flying choppers...
Quote:For starters, ME insurgents is a great start when compared to the stuff we have in the vanilla game (much like Wiggum's "pro-Turkish" separatists"), however, using ISIS or Taliban would be even better, definitely. It makes it more, well, real.
I rather think the contrary in this case. I cannot get myself to call Takistan Afghanistan, even though it basically is (it's based on Afghan terrain). So for me, in my head, it will always be Takistan, and that is a non-existent location to begin with. I prefer to keep my insurgents generic.
The only time I use real-life factions is when I want to evoke a specific situation or mindset. For example, if I want to make a mission about the Russian Afghanistan war, I would call them Mujahedeen because it immediately evokes that specific setting. For most of my other missions, were this type of background isn't required, I don't go through this, mostly because I don't want to fact-check everything. If I start to do that, I lose motivation and inspiration for the mission.
As an example, in Evening Shift I used "Taliban" as the opponents. As I made the mission it occurred to me that the Taliban might not have been active in the North Waziristan Agency which the FATA map depicts, and went to check online if they did. Turns out there were Taliban active in the region. If there hadn't, well, I was actually thinking of scrapping the mission.
Quote:If you used IDF in that mission and used, for example, AAF units, it would have been great, and that comes from a person that knows what equipment and uniforms to expect from an IDF unit.
I was actually considering making IDF uniforms for my uniform pack just for this mission. I am this kind of person, because this mission was supposed to be based on geopolitical facts (Syria, the Balkan war) and was supposed to take place at the Syrian border near Israel. But, as I said, I do this only if I want to set a specific mood, and that requires me to have made this mission specifically for this purpose. If I "just make a mission", I don't and I can't work like this.
I hope this makes sense
I don't need luck, I have ammo.