Unofficial Story discussion thread

[Bobylein 1]

Okay as we had a discussion about the backstory of the game in the dev branch thread and it does not fit there, I opened this thread for it.

Could you elaborate a little more on which real life countries are supposed to be part of this coalition in particular?

Even for a fictional scenario set in 2035, I still can't really see a coaltition of Iran and some Arab states (and possibly Russia and China?) as realistic in any way (even disregarding religious, cultural and ethnic differences and tensions). I don't see what common economic and geopolitical

interests those ressource-rich countries would have to form a coalition agains the declining "west" and fight alongside each other, moreover as subordinates of the apparently spearheading Iranians.

Personally I would have found a scenario with a split among NATO nations much more interesting than the old clichéd "east vs. west" paradigm.

Yes, would be really nice but I think campaigns are something the community can do really well and the current game campaign sounds nice as long as the CSAT aren't the bad guys only.

The reason I prefer to play as Americans is not because I love America, but because they tend to have better weapons, gear and equipment in the game (which mirrors the real word, to a reasonable degree). I suspect most other people do it for this reason. Similarly, I don't think people play Germans or Russians in WWII shooter games because they are Nazis or Soviet Communists but because they have a preference for equipment or tactics or logistical support and the situations evoked in the game.

Actually, if you look at the economical trouble the NATO is in this time and the vast resources the CSAT got, the CSAT may have the better weapons and equipment, the CSAT even got climated uniforms while at least the US part of the NATO (I do not know about the others) couldn't effort new uniforms.

thought it may be true that the US is one of the last forces in NATO which got resources left to be the "world police" on altis as all european states are slowly falling.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Bobylein

[Thanath 1]

Iran and China have somewhat close ties currently because of the latter's oil dependency. Also, Russia uses Iran to vent its own anti-American/anti-west sentiments. Iran and these countries having a fictional alliance doesn't bother me since it's quite credible. However, China and Russia being allies I find harder to believe (if that is so), considering that they are rivals in terms of economic and military power. It has been stated previously that by the 2030s many smaller European/Eurasian countries have been looking to Russia for support.

I don't really want to start an argument about this, but having NATO as the protagonist faction is more silly than the CSAT. It has been stated that NATO has been growing weaker and unstable, as have many European countries... And exactly what are the main NATO countries again? Does USA alone have the resources to operate a battlegroup in the Mediterranean, considering its (proxy-)wars in the Pacific? What of the EU? Was it struck a death blow when Altis receded from it?

Edited August 24, 2013 by Thanath

[GottyPlays 10]

@missioncreep

i agree with your point, but since this game is still fictional, why not change the roles?

this game is still quite fictional, why bet on the classic "us saves the world again" type of campaign? after all, we are in greece.

i would prefer some originality. i would just like some more depth in the storyline, that's all.

[alx 20]

Digging deep into the back story, writing some fiction for it, and basing a tabletop roleplaying game on the computer game setting (using The Company) would really add legs to this game. Consider me interested.

[mistyronin 1181]

I don't really want to start an argument about this, but having NATO as the protagonist faction is more silly than the CSAT. It has been stated that NATO has been growing weaker and unstable, as have many European countries... And exactly what are the main NATO countries again? Does USA alone have the resources to operate a battlegroup in the Mediterranean, considering its (proxy-)wars in the Pacific? What of the EU? Was it struck a death blow when Altis receded from it?

I don't see why any faction wouldn't be the protagonist ( I mean you could even play as the Altis Resistance guys for instance ). In fact playing with the most strong side can even be boring.

BTW NATO countries are also France and UK ( two of the most important armies in the world ) that can operate easily a battlegroup in the Mediterranean ( UK has bases in Cyprus and in Gibraltar ). Though I think it could be nice besides the NATO, some EU peace force or a rapid reaction force ( some of the EU Battlegroups ).

And if there was a CSAT invasion of Europe soil, I'm sure that there would be a lot of volunteers from other european countries ( even from South American like in WW2 ). I would even like to see what the eternal neutral countries like Switzerland and Sweden would do if iranians start to invade Europe.

IMO I even think that Russia would help any effort to weak their US/NATO opponents ( at the same time the CSAT would also be weakened ).. so Russia will grow.

Edited August 26, 2013 by MistyRonin

[antoineflemming 14]

Iran and China have somewhat close ties currently because of the latter's oil dependency. Also, Russia uses Iran to vent its own anti-American/anti-west sentiments. Iran and these countries having a fictional alliance doesn't bother me since it's quite credible. However, China and Russia being allies I find harder to believe (if that is so), considering that they are rivals in terms of economic and military power. It has been stated previously that by the 2030s many smaller European/Eurasian countries have been looking to Russia for support.

I don't really want to start an argument about this, but having NATO as the protagonist faction is more silly than the CSAT. It has been stated that NATO has been growing weaker and unstable, as have many European countries... And exactly what are the main NATO countries again? Does USA alone have the resources to operate a battlegroup in the Mediterranean, considering its (proxy-)wars in the Pacific? What of the EU? Was it struck a death blow when Altis receded from it?

And you obviously don't know geo-politics. Russia and China are NOT economic/military rivals. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation? Look it up. And there already is a campaign thread so use it.

[Thanath 1]

@antoineflemming: I wonder why I had missed that completely... I always though that China tried to lessen its reliability on others.

@MistyRonin: That's exactly what I meant. Why do all the European countries seem so passive in this scenario, barring (maybe) small UK presence?

[mistyronin 1181]

That's exactly what I meant. Why do all the European countries seem so passive in this scenario, barring (maybe) small UK presence?

Well, the campaign isn't released yet, so we don't know exactly how is it gonna be. But in anycase I hope that some modders will add some other countries ( there's already Swedish, Spanish and French mod ).

Hopefully too FDF will update the mod for A3 ;)

[instagoat 133]

@antoineflemming: I wonder why I had missed that completely... I always though that China tried to lessen its reliability on others.

@MistyRonin: That's exactly what I meant. Why do all the European countries seem so passive in this scenario, barring (maybe) small UK presence?

Actually, the SCO in part is apparently used by China to exercise power over the other Nations, instead of going into reliance on russia. As an example, they illegally copied the SU-27 late models off from Units purchased from Russia to produce them themselves as the Shenyang J-11, and Russia so far has not openly levelled any complaints about this. (There's a discussion wether or not they actually did illegally copy the SU-27, but it seems likely from available information) They rely on China for a -ton- of resources, especially for their computer industry, which has been catching up to the western markets rather slowly. As far as I know, many russian weapons actually use western designed computer systems produced in China (sometimes even purchased directly from US factories, actually.), so they are reliant as far as the industry goes too.

China can offer many capacities the Russians don't possess right now, and economically, the whole SCO block has pretty deep inter reliance. China is also massively involved in the Pacific and Africa, so they are much more directly and openly doing global political powerplays than the russians.

[rehtus777 10]

And you obviously don't know geo-politics. Russia and China are NOT economic/military rivals. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation? Look it up. And there already is a campaign thread so use it.

I look at Russia and China like this: They aren't good friends, but for now they are willing to work together against the "Lone Superpower." It sort of reminds me of The Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact of 1939. Stalin and Hitler were mortal enemies, but they both used each other for political ends to promote their own interest. Of course, we know how that turned out.....Hitler used the Non-Aggressive Pact for 3 major Reasons: 1) to buy time to build up his Army; 2) To avoid a 2 front war once he invades Poland....once he invades Poland, he knew that France and Britain would declare War; 3) the two sides divided up Poland. Also, Stalin felt secure with this Pact because he thought the German's would leave them alone and not invade the USSR. Eventually, Hitler turned on the USSR (which was his plan all along....he wanted to invade the USSR for "revenge" of WWI and he wanted their resources, especially the oil) and he invaded the Ukraine and Russia.

I believe that today and in the future, China and Russia are going to work together in order to promote their own interests and to "Poke the West in the eye," but in the end they (China and Russia) will most likely turn on each other.

As for ArmA 3 and 2035, I like the geopolitical scene they are creating in the game. The large economic debt crisis of the West has accrued over the last 50 years and it has gutted the economic engine of the United States and Europe....the Western Military (NATO) is in decline and vulnerable. China, Russia, and Iran have an alliance to protect and promote their own interest in the region. Also, Iran has more than one reason for invading the West..... 1) they want land / money / power; 2) They also want to promote their form of Islam around the world. Maybe their intent is to crush Christianity by going after the two Capitals of that Religion (Athens and Rome).....of course, I'm not sure how the Orthodox Russians would feel about this move?

If you look at today's Geopolitical scene in the Middle East, Iran almost has the bomb and they are very aggressive......and they are good allies with China and Russia. If the USA should happen to have a major economic collapse, it will leave a vacuum in the Middle-East.....Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and etc would go into Total Chaos paving the way for Iran to take over the region by threatening to use their Army / nukes against the more vulnerable weaker states (assuming Israel doesn't use their nukes) and eventually declare "One Man" (the komani) as sole ruler of the Arab World. In the end, Russia and China are the strong nations behind Iran .... they are actually calling the shots.

Things are very fluid around the world right now. The glue that holds the world's peace / stability is the United States and her Military / Dollars. If the Dollar collapses, then everything will change very rapidly. I've got a degree in World History.....trust me, man is very ambitious and greedy.... if the "Dominating World Power" gets into the hands of the wrong people (like back in the 1930's), you'll have WW III on your hands.

The ArmA 3 scenario is a real possibility as long as Russia allows Iran to be Aggressive.

PS. Side note: Who isn't to say that the USA goes the way of Rome: the President assumes total power over Congress and the States (like what Julius Caesar did....and what Hitler did) .....and you have a new "Neo-Caesar" on your hands terrorizing everyone. It's happened before.

Edited August 25, 2013 by rehtus777
Grammar correction

[firestormxs 0]

If you look at today's Geopolitical scene in the Middle East, Iran almost has the bomb and they are very aggressive......

Iran very aggressive? Could you elaborate on that?

[mistyronin 1181]

Iran very aggressive? Could you elaborate on that?

Well according to this maps of US bases surrounding Iran... Maybe the aggressive country is not Iran... What would do any country if another surrounds it with bases?

But I think we shouldn't turn this conversation in something political.

[rehtus777 10]

Iran very aggressive? Could you elaborate on that?

I'm not here to start a political argument....all I'm doing is pointing out the Chess Pieces on the Chessboard.

Perspective:

Communist v. Capitalist; Democracy v. Monarchy; Secularist v. Religious. I guess it all comes down to perspective, doesn't it? :p Depends on what your "Philosophy of life" is within your ethic system. "One man's meat is another man's poison" or "One man's terrorist is another man's hero."

If you're an Iranian, then you look at the West as the "Aggressor"..... if you're from the West, you look at Iran as not being part of the "Family of Nations" but an aggressive theocracy.

What did I mean by "Aggressive"? That means that Iran "Marches to their own tune." I'm going to leave it at that because I'm sure they'll close down this thread if we go into detail on politics.

Edited August 26, 2013 by rehtus777
Spelling Error

[mistyronin 1181]

What did I mean by "Aggressive"? That means that Iran "Marches to their own tune." I'm going to leave it at that because I'm sure they'll close down this thread if we go into detail on politics.

I'm agree with you rehtus about the chess game. But a country that have even US tourists ( link ) I wouldn't call it aggressive.

To me an aggressive country ( generically, to avoid politics ) is the one that threatens and attacks other countries.

We'll agree that the textbook example would be the Third Reich when started to invade different countries to have access to more resources, to get "Lebensraum". Or to keep it balanced the URSS when started invading countries ( like part of Finland or Poland ).

You could even argue the Manifest Destiny against the tribes zones ( but I'm not gonna get into it ).

Iran hasn't yet done that, yet. Though in A3 2035 it seems that has become a full-fledged Persian Empire that threatens to invade Europe starting for Greece were the 300 from Sparta will have to stop them enough time to allow all the allied NATO nations to form an army to send the invaders home.

In my opinion, in such case against so aggressive threat much of the nations in the world would make a common front. I don't know how BI has planned the campaign, but in my opinion some kind of other international units should appear in the game, not only NATO. It doesn't need to be a huge and detailed group, but at least some infantry soldiers, maybe from UE and some volunteers from South America.

As it happened for example in WW2, in the Spanish Civil War ( International brigades ), or the 1917's Russian Revolution ( where among others US troops and Czechs fought inside Russian soil on the white side link ).

I think that addition would make it more interesting and would give a bit of depth to the game ( a bit like the BAF, Czechs and Germans in A2 ). One of the best features for me in OFP and Resistance is that it gives you different sides of the war, and why everyone fights ( even inside the same faction there can be a lot of different reasons ).

And as I guess that the CSAT would also be a religious union, maybe some mujahideens from other islamic countries. Not only the regular units of the iranian army.

[antoineflemming 14]

I'm agree with you rehtus about the chess game. But a country that have even US tourists ( link ) I wouldn't call it aggressive.

To me an aggressive country ( generically, to avoid politics ) is the one that threatens and attacks other countries.

We'll agree that the textbook example would be the Third Reich when started to invade different countries to have access to more resources, to get "Lebensraum". Or to keep it balanced the URSS when started invading countries ( like part of Finland or Poland ).

You could even argue the Manifest Destiny against the tribes zones ( but I'm not gonna get into it ).

Iran hasn't yet done that, yet. Though in A3 2035 it seems that has become a full-fledged Persian Empire that threatens to invade Europe starting for Greece were the 300 from Sparta will have to stop them enough time to allow all the allied NATO nations to form an army to send the invaders home.

In my opinion, in such case against so aggressive threat much of the nations in the world would make a common front. I don't know how BI has planned the campaign, but in my opinion some kind of other international units should appear in the game, not only NATO. It doesn't need to be a huge and detailed group, but at least some infantry soldiers, maybe from UE and some volunteers from South America.

As it happened for example in WW2, in the Spanish Civil War ( International brigades ), or the 1917's Russian Revolution ( where among others US troops and Czechs fought inside Russian soil on the white side link ).

I think that addition would make it more interesting and would give a bit of depth to the game ( a bit like the BAF, Czechs and Germans in A2 ). One of the best features for me in OFP and Resistance is that it gives you different sides of the war, and why everyone fights ( even inside the same faction there can be a lot of different reasons ).

And as I guess that the CSAT would also be a religious union, maybe some mujahideens from other islamic countries. Not only the regular units of the iranian army.

CSAT won't be religious. In the E32012 story, Iran had a coup that overthrew their religious leadership. So it will definitely be a union of secular governments. CSAT definitely includes China though. And NATO is basically European although represented in-game by the US.

[mistyronin 1181]

CSAT won't be religious. In the E32012 story, Iran had a coup that overthrew their religious leadership. So it will definitely be a union of secular governments. CSAT definitely includes China though. And NATO is basically European although represented in-game by the US.

In that case maybe volunteers of the CSAT cause ( like people that enlist the Waffen SS during WWII for ideological reasons ).

And I'm not agree of your thought Europe and NATO may be the same. For example in the map that you made http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7726/arma3greensearegionlarg.jpg (723 kB) the areas with NATO influence would depict the other european countries and as I also said it would also mean probably south american and australian volunteers ( basing my theory in other big wars over the world ). For example Sweden is famous for sending volunteers.

As I said adding a few inf. units would made a large amount of players feel represented and make the game more deep ( you can check the forums to see that a lot of people doesn't want a US only campaign ).

[rehtus777 10]

CSAT won't be religious. In the E32012 story, Iran had a coup that overthrew their religious leadership. So it will definitely be a union of secular governments. CSAT definitely includes China though. And NATO is basically European although represented in-game by the US.

I did not know about the coup in Iran with their religious leadership before 2035......interesting.

As for NATO, more of the Nations are from Europe but the United States is the "Lone Superpower" and NATO has been heavily influenced by the United States for the past 60 years. As Europe rebuilt after WWII, the United States and Britain carried the load and were the power behind NATO. During the Cold War, it was mainly the USA and Britain who financed NATO and supplied weapons / vehicles / men. But now that Europe has fully recovered and the USSR has dissolved, European countries now have more influence......but the USA and Britain still pretty much run the show with NATO.

Now, in 2035, I'm not sure how weak the USA military has become before the conflict on Altis starts....not sure how BIS has written that scenario. But since the USA has 5000 - 10000 nuclear warheads, the USA will always be a player in NATO.

[antoineflemming 14]

In that case maybe volunteers of the CSAT cause ( like people that enlist the Waffen SS during WWII for ideological reasons ).

And I'm not agree of your thought Europe and NATO may be the same. For example in the map that you made http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7726/arma3greensearegionlarg.jpg (723 kB) the areas with NATO influence would depict the other european countries and as I also said it would also mean probably south american and australian volunteers ( basing my theory in other big wars over the world ). For example Sweden is famous for sending volunteers.

As I said adding a few inf. units would made a large amount of players feel represented and make the game more deep ( you can check the forums to see that a lot of people doesn't want a US only campaign ).

Honestly, I'd like something that's more representative of NATO. As in, more than just the US but definitely not excluding or going against the US. Like, instead of playing as an infantryman one mission, and a pilot the next, I'd like playing as a US soldier one mission, a British soldier the next, German the next, etc. That'd be cool. That, or play as your own nationality (choose the uniform) and then you and your squad could be an attachment to a larger unit (whose nationality is already designated in the mission). Can't expect this though...

[mistyronin 1181]

Like, instead of playing as an infantryman one mission, and a pilot the next, I'd like playing as a US soldier one mission, a British soldier the next, German the next, etc. That'd be cool.

That would be the best. To me it's ok if most of the campaign you play as US soldier, but a lot of other countries deserve also their part ( for example in WW2 though the US took important part of the fight in the Pacific with Japan, in Europe there were millions of other soldiers from other countries that took most of the fight: France, Poland, UK, partisans in the balkans, Russia in the east, etc. ). For example other NATO armies like the spanish or italian, german or british. Or non-NATO like Australia, Mexico or Brazil ( these last two had volunteers between the allied lines in WW2 while the first was completly involved).

This would also add more depth to the game, avoiding the nasty propagandist: "US is the police/paladin of the free world". And more a: everyone contributes (which is btw more realistic and would recognize everyone's efforts ).

That btw, it could be represented as a italian fighter pilot, a spanish spec ops unit, british tanks, etc; to give also some variety of gameplay like in the first OFP and Res.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

I actually would prefer to go a little more old style, e.g. ofp resistance. Old weaponry iron sights which can malfunction to start with, low ammo count so you need to watch your aiming skill, trying to disrupt enemy transports along the way to get your hands on better weapons and fight your way seriously up to get there, it doesn't even need to have a good ending, "meaning winning the war" for example in stead keep the end neutral so they can build on the story in a next campaign. Maybe add some decisions you need to take to build your characteristics up, which in the end will be taken with you to the next part of another campaign.

they may "frustrate" the player a bit (in the good sentence of the word) to get trough the campaign, which will hopefully give you the feeling you achieved something along the way ...

But that is my personal taste ;-)

Edited August 26, 2013 by LiquitHQ