Jump to content
Z-trooper

Factions You Would Like To Play As Or Against

Faction wishlist poll  

2,228 members have voted

  1. 1. Which faction would you like to play as/against the most?

    • British Forces
      470
    • Russia
      252
    • China
      153
    • Middle East force (real - state in comment which nation)
      77
    • Middle East force (fictional - we make one like MEC from PR)
      86
    • Another European force (such as German, French or something else)
      573
    • African Forces
      75
    • Another US branch (such as USMC)
      185
    • Other (explain in comment)
      164
    • Another Insurgent army (state which in comment)
      48
    • Israel Defense Forces
      140


Recommended Posts

@ Obaama

@ Ivorystate

 

A Russia or China map could easily be urban, not just forests and mountains etc. there could be a Beijing or Moscow map. the modern battle field can be anywhere on earth, literally, and nothing should limit the devs from making only nature or urban maps for any factions. there could be an urban map even for the Taliban: Kabul or Khandahar, for example.

You realize there is a multiquote functionality on the forums right? You don't need to make 2 posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syrian Arab Army (SAA) as they are the only mid east country with current active military combat operations. i imagine these battles (Some of which are actually happening right now:

 

SAA vs FSA

SAA vs ISIS

SAA vs IDF

SAA vs USA/USMC

SAA vs Turkish Army

 

and because the SAA is so engage in combat operations right now (tank combat even), i think it would be most realistic to have the SAA as the first mid east state military force, not Egypt or Iran (srry Obaama, i know u want it to be Egypt;))

Yes, but that army is a mess, its equimpent are mostly outdated, its leadership sectarian, its training subpar, and is generally known to be one of the not-so-efficient armies in the area. It's had 60,000 defectors and is losing bases to insurgents ffs. You simply cant have it as the middle eastern faction in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that army is a mess, its equimpent are mostly outdated, its leadership sectarian, its training subpar, and is generally known to be one of the not-so-efficient armies in the area. It's had 60,000 defectors and is losing bases to insurgents ffs. You simply cant have it as the middle eastern faction in the game.

That may be, but I would still LOVE a map set in the Syrian civil war, and since it is a prevalent conflict in the world right now, it would be a good idea as one of the earlier maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that army is a mess, its equimpent are mostly outdated, its leadership sectarian, its training subpar, and is generally known to be one of the not-so-efficient armies in the area. It's had 60,000 defectors and is losing bases to insurgents ffs. You simply cant have it as the middle eastern faction in the game.

yes but the SAA has been engaged in combat operations, all out war really, for years now against US backed rebel fighters, ISIS, and so on who have with heavy weapons like TOWs and captured tanks, and the SAA is supplied with some advanced russian weapons like T90 MBTs, Mig jets, etc. its not easy to fight such an intense war for years and any military would eventually begin to tatter after fighting a civil war for so long. also, it definately should not be the mid east state military in the game, but i think it should be the first based on real life geo-political conflicts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but the SAA has been engaged in combat operations, all out war really, for years now against US backed rebel fighters, ISIS, and so on who have with heavy weapons like TOWs and captured tanks, and the SAA is supplied with some advanced russian weapons like T90 MBTs, Mig jets, etc. its not easy to fight such an intense war for years and any military would eventually begin to tatter after fighting a civil war for so long. also, it definately should not be the mid east state military in the game, but i think it should be the first based on real life geo-political conflicts

good point. a Sbeneh reboot would actually be awesome. also maybe an (unbalanced) map vs the IDF but i dont think the other scenarios would work; ISIS, USMC or Turkey. and It's already been decided that ISIS would never be featured in the game, and the other two are very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point. a Sbeneh reboot would actually be awesome. also maybe an (unbalanced) map vs the IDF but i dont think the other scenarios would work; ISIS, USMC or Turkey. and It's already been decided that ISIS would never be featured in the game, and the other two are very unlikely.

ah, i didnt know ISIS wouldnt be featured, cant say im surprised though. too much of a politcal no go. i could imagine politicians and corporate media etc blasting SQ for allowing players to play as IS/ISIS whatever, even though the US help create them, at least according to former US Gen McInery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0dcjLjH9g).

yea, SAA vs IDF would be really cool to play and would be true to the spirit of PR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia could be fighting the US anywhere on the world map, and it would still be realistic. Further possible locations:1) Venezuela2) Alaska3) Cuba

Alaska.. I think I'd like that, has anyone done alaska yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a single player game. It has no campaign and it has no back story. This is a semi-fictional game, for lack of major wars. Therefore there is not such thing as primary defacto adversaries. This is also a multiplayer game, with each map providing two opposing forces with realistic equipment, for players to play as either side.

 

MEC was a terrible and lazy idea, providing a force not representative of any Middle Eastern power, to fill in the ME opfor role.

 

And the Russian army in 2004 when BF2 was in development wasnt nearly as strong as the Russian army in 2014. Same for the Chinese army.

 

And no, Squad isnt a "commercial" game, in the sense that it does not intend to break into the mainstream of triple A shooters. It's an indie game for those who like their FPS experience realistic and engaging. And I dont think that the latest round of sanctions imposed on Russia is going to hinder its gamers' buying power for an indie game.

At this point, we are debating the priority of which factions should be included in the initial release of SQUAD, in addition to the US Army and Taliban. Unless you are advocating that SQUAD either be limited to solely the asymmetrical gameplay provided by a conventional faction (US Army/GB) vs insurgent/guerilla (Taliban), or worse, that conventional vs conventional gameplay be portrayed by two historically aligned factions (US Army vs GB) in conflict, you will need to present a 'de facto' conventional force that is feasibly in conflict with that of the US Army (who represent the de facto release BLUFOR faction. Unless, of course, you dont consider immersion an important aspect of the gaming experience. Despite the lack of a clear narrative in their products, both the BF2 and PR:BF2 DEV teams were intelligent enough to maintain this adequate level of immersion by not positing traditionally allied factions against one another. Presuming the level of work required for the SQUAD team to field a conventional faction may limit SQUAD to having a single conventional OPFOR on release, we are debating what will be, for all intensive purposes (until further content is released), that de facto adversary.

 

For a range of reasons, we find merit in Dice's decision to include the MEC as one of two adversarial factions (coincidentally, along side the PLA).

In terms of originality, the MEC, the PLA, and both the Middle Eastern and Pacific theatres, provided players with an aesthetic pallet of modern warfare that had not since been visited outside of the context of WWII. Rolling dunes, turquoise waters, sand-swept cities, muggy swamplands, paddy villages, walling bamboo, mosques, temples.

Revisiting the decrepit concrete, pine forests, indistinguishable fields, monochromatic snowscapes, faded murals and twisted steel of cold war 'Eastern Europe' that had rivalled WWII  in dominating the last 15 years of gaming would have simply been lazy. Perhaps terrible.

 

Dice's choice to synthesise a fictional ME faction is a humbling admission of the political complexity of interstate and transnational politics in the Middle East. While an Iranian faction would have deprived players of the iconic export soviet/russian arsenal with which they are familiar, an appealingly modern Saudi, Israeli or Turkish faction would present an unimmersive discord when battling the US Marine Corps. Nevertheless, the Middle-East provided an awesomely vivid context to virtual warfare, with BF2 being released 4 years after 9/11 (the most pivotal event in the history of global security since the fall of the Berlin Wall) and only 2 years after the Second Gulf War. The end of the decade has since seen violence flare further in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, where US forces have become involved in each. Turkey, Israel, Iran, Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Lebanon and Pakistan(cntrl Asia) have also been involved in military action within the last 3 years. Events in the Middle East of the past two decades has generally overshadowed those conflicts of Eastern Europe in terms of length, intensity, complexity and reach. South Ossetia. Chechnya. Kosovo. Ukraine. Yugoslavia. I would personally be interested in what a video game entitled Project Sanctions Simulator: Spreadsheet Embargos might look like, yet I think many would agree that they find SQUAD has more appeal. What is increasingly gaining peoples' attention, particularly that of military analysts' and those in fiction and entertainment, is the economic superiority, globally competitive military RnD, military spending and hawkish foreign policy increasingly displayed by the PRC.

 

As Chinese power projection capabilities currently remain an irrelevance, this still leaves Russian power projection unhelpfully far behind that of the US and its allies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

As I have shown previously, the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces has announced a reorientation of the US military buildup in the Middle East to the Pacific. The US has essentially announced that it will be bolstering its military force in the PRCs back garden, lessening the need for Chinese power projection to serve as a pretext to war.

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally, I'd like to see US Army and the British with the Russians and Taliban as the opposing forces for the first release. Branch out from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, looks like we have a figure here.First batch is USA vs Taliban, then they'll add the British, the Russians, and a then an European nation force (I bet Germany).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, looks like we have a figure here.First batch is USA vs Taliban, then they'll add the British, the Russians, and a then an European nation force (I bet Germany).

 

In my first post it says that we will not necessarily implement any of these factions or in the order of most votes.

 

I was merely curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd personaly like to see some african maps maybe Blufor vs Boko Haram, or maybe insurgents vs insurgents like tribal battles I think it would be pretty fun to have iron sights vs iron sights, but it doesn't seem like there are a lot with me on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd personaly like to see some african maps maybe Blufor vs Boko Haram, or maybe insurgents vs insurgents like tribal battles I think it would be pretty fun to have iron sights vs iron sights, but it doesn't seem like there are a lot with me on this one.

I agree, I think it would be cool to have insurgents vs insurgents, another one that comes to mind is kurds vs iraqi insurgents(cough cough not IS cough cough).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(oc this is long term down the line, just saying)

 

i think these all new match-ups would be awesome and are true to spirit of PR:

 

(blufor vs opfor)

UK vs Iran

IDF or FSA vs Hezbolla

IDF vs SAA

Iraqi Army vs Mahdi army/other real ins force

France vs Mali insurgents

US vs Nigerian insurgents

S Korea vs N Korea

US vs N Korea

S Korea vs China

US Africom vs rebel force

limitless...

 

and duh duh duuun

 

US Nat Gaurd vs US rebels/ins (basically Civil War II for the US)

mua hahaa

 

I agree, I think it would be cool to have insurgents vs insurgents, another one that comes to mind is kurds vs iraqi insurgents(cough cough not IS cough cough).

i would rather IS be in SQ than not, but i know it cant be done. the way things are, terrorism charges not far away now adays. but other other real non-state military-political forces are actualy in PR like Hamas, Taliban (was), Chechen Rebels (think its called militia now) etc, but IS cant be in this game, imo.

 

although there is ins vs ins irl, i think its not worth actually putting it in game only because there are other more epic n exotic match ups (Germany vs Russia in PR was always really cool to me, what other game does that so flawlessly? anyways) bc too much redundancy of weapons/abilities, indeed ins vs ins is brother vs brother, a mirror match of sorts. id rather mix it up more but thats just me.

 

Kurds would be cool though, like Turkish Army vs PKK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×