Campaign Countries: Real vs Fantasy?

[Jonne]

How would I love a Vietnam campaign...

 

But honestly I really do not care too much about real country names, as long as they are not sounding childish (The MiG-21bis campaign is one really bad example here) . However what really kills a campaign or mission for me is the wild mixing of all planes and vehicles along both sides. A russian A-10 is for example a total killer for me, in a way I would like to throw up on my keyboard. The funny thing is, 5 years ago nobody would have cared at all about not using real country names...

[CheckGear]

It depends on how well its executed. I'm a huge history buff and, 99 times out of 100, I prefer scenarios that are based on real-world locations with real-world plausibility.

 

At the same time, fictional settings also offer opportunities that real-life settings cannot. This is precisely the same reason why our militaries create fictional countries of their own for their military exercises. A lot of military simulations that have been released in the past have used fictional setting (not just OFP and ArmA) and the campaigns have been just as enthralling as if it were based in a real-life locale.

 

As long as its done in a realistic manner, why not? That being said, if they had a Strait of Hormuz map and they decided to re-name Iran, then that'd be an issue, as someone already mentioned. Real countries are real countries; fictional countries are fictional countries.

 

I also wonder when it became such an issue to name a country explicitly in a game. In the past, simulations had no problem labeling places like Iran and Syria the OPFOR.

Edited November 11, 2015 by CheckGear

[DrDetroit]

Personally, I loved the Cold War setting and campaigns of the original Operation Flashpoint, while the subsequent Arma campaigns were getting progressively worse IMHO -.

 

Agree with you 100%. What I don't get about Arma3 is the huge map, and the entire campaign takes place in a 1km area...very disappointed about that. About 95% of the map is unused and some of the missions are really awkward.

 

FPK was such a great sim/tac game with a fantastic campaign engine (semi dynamic from what I remember)...I still remember some of the vicious and long fire fights, hiding in a house behind enemy lines because the Reds push my squad back a few hundred km outside the town - had to wait until nightfall to escape. Just fantastic.

 

Anyhow, don't really bother me about the fictitious names I guess....but why not use the real names of the countries they just mapped?

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

[NineLine]

Please dont use this thread to review other games.

 

As for the poll question, either or as long as its a good campaign.

[cichlidfan]

I'm in the 'Who gives a flying chrome ball?' camp. I play games and read books that don't always take place in real locations. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment one bit.

[grunf]

I prefer real countries, fictional ones only if they are plausible. But if it's a realy good campaign, I'd care less for the country names.

[shagrat]

If I get an Afghanistan map and want to recreate OP Herrick, Operation Halmazak or Operation Anaconda, why would I want to name the Country Goofanistan and the Coalition Forces NEUTO (NeoEuropeanUnionsTradeOperations) or change location names from Kandahar to Gonhorar or Camp Bastion to Camp "Fortress"?

First of all, everybody would know what I meant in the first place, second it won't change the scenario...

 

Last, but not least fictional conflicts in Hollywood Movies, also use real names if it suites the story telling. Or can you think of the "United Countries' Primeminister" getting attacked in the "Green House", rather than the original "Olympus has fallen" setting?

Edited November 13, 2015 by shagrat

[Zimmerdylan]

I have 2 flight simulators. DCS and Xplane. DCS focuses on a country that I have never been to and I don't really know where it to find it on a map (Georgia is my only reference point). All of the man made scenery is fictional and in all probability, nothing like what I would see if I were actually flying over this country. I give that a 100% fact.

In Xplane, you are flying over scenery that is geographically accurate to a point and it encompasses the globe. However, all of the scenery and geographic specifics in areas that I know are not detailed all that greatly and if I did not know what I was looking at, I probably could not really tell you where I was on the map. The buildings are all generic, and the configuration of vegetation and landmarks are vastly different from it's real world counterpart. And even though the roads are taken from Google Earth, you still cannot tell the area because of the lack of landmarks.

It is hard to distinguish anything unless you actually know the area your in from memory or whatever.

I cannot imagine that it would matter to me one way or another as far as reality or fantasy. I know that the Nevada map is suppose to be pretty spot on ( a few copyright issues aside) so maybe it might change my mind on this. But as it stands......I'm not particular. I own the custom Xplane Las Vegas scenery but it's so cartoony that it's hard to take seriously unless you fly it in the late part of the day to hide the overstressed colors and boxy look of the buildings.

On a last note: I got to fly several commercial flight simulators that a company called Arizona Flight Safety owns. They are designed to simulate any and all situations that commercial pilots might face. They are complete cockpits on hydraulic systems that are insanely accurate. However, the ones that I flew had scenery from all over the world, but it was very vague and other than the geography, you absolutely could not make heads or tails of the city you were landing or taking off in. They did have a Bell 400 scenario where you could land on an L.A. Freeway that was so realistic that it was intense. But it was a small geographic location and each scenario from a different location had to be loaded into the simulator. I imagine it would take a boatload of memory to have all scenarios and locations loaded up, It was the only sim that I had ever flown in, Including the $40 million ones from Arizona Flight Safety that I could actually go to the location and easily identify the area. So I'm not particular. Imaginary or not. You could locate the sim on Mars, call it Russia and I would be none the wiser.

Don't get me wrong on this. I understand that technology cannot recreate this stuff without eating tons of memory and making even the fastest gaming rig run like a brick. I get that. So until that technology is available. I'm perfectly content flying in Easter land, or that crazy country in "Duck Soup" so long as the planes are making me feel warm and fuzzy inside......

 

Ah....Freedonia. That's the country from Duck Soup. If your a kid and haven't seen it. Great comedy.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Zimmerdylan

[QuiGon]

From my side - in the upcoming "The Enemy Within" DLC not only you will have real life country names (obviously), but also more or less realistic storyline (realistic = not fantasy, though the sole fact that the campaign starts at the point where Georgia is awarded the NATO Membership Action Plan is by itself not very likely to happen in real life at the moment).

 

Moreover, all the units appearing in the campaign are based on their real life equivalents (at least the US and Israeli ones) with real life logos, subunits etc. I did my best to do enough research for everything to be as close to real as possible.

 

In my view keeping as much realism as possible adds a lot to immersion. Although, having said that, I have nothing against made up countries or enemies, but that would work more for a Red Flag type of campaign.

 

I can't express how much I appreciate this! This is exactly what I like to have :thumbup:

[shagrat]

I have 2 flight simulators. DCS and Xplane. DCS focuses on a country that I have never been to and I don't really know where it to find it on a map (Georgia is my only reference point). All of the man made scenery is fictional and in all probability, nothing like what I would see if I were actually flying over this country. I give that a 100% fact.

Your fact is wrong! The Caucasus map even sports "sightseeing" landmarks, like the star observatory. A Soviet era parade park with a Mig- Fighter monument, an ancient osmanic era Palace etc.

The cities are in the correct space even major streets are represented (though of course buildings are based on "type", they represent typical urban areas in city centers and outskirts etc.) The landscape is pretty accurate as well. And you an actually use real world maps for planning missions, routes etc. for a VFR flight!

So it's 100% NOT just a fictional arrangement, more the opposite as in ED trying to reproduce a true to life area in the given limitations of a computer simulation.

[mmaruda]

As someone who enjoyed most of the Ace Combat games, I don't mind fictional countries. However, in order for something like this to feel right, there needs to be a really good story and some "lore" behind it.

[Zimmerdylan]

Your fact is wrong! The Caucasus map even sports "sightseeing" landmarks, like the star observatory. A Soviet era parade park with a Mig- Fighter monument, an ancient osmanic era Palace etc.

The cities are in the correct space even major streets are represented (though of course buildings are based on "type", they represent typical urban areas in city centers and outskirts etc.) The landscape is pretty accurate as well. And you an actually use real world maps for planning missions, routes etc. for a VFR flight!

So it's 100% NOT just a fictional arrangement, more the opposite as in ED trying to reproduce a true to life area in the given limitations of a computer simulation.

 

 

LOL....I stand corrected. However, you hit the nail on the head. The cities are most probably all there as you say but again, all generic buildings. And I'm not trying to bash DCS or ED. I completely understand that it's just not possible to reproduce every building and have functionality. It's a common issue with all flight sims. And FSX and Xplane both have the cities where they're suppose to be. But....landmarks are again Generic. And OK....there probably is a "parade park with a monument" somewhere. But I'm not going out of my way to find one or two landmarks in a land full of generic landmarks just to sight see. I have 0 issues with how DCS has set up this place. I love it. But......when it comes down to reality VS fiction, 90% of DCS users don't really know or care about the scenery here. If they did, it would be posted all over the forums like many of the other alleged "short comings" that people think DCS may have. I think that they understand completely, as do I. It's just not practical or really even possible. As for the VFR routes and such. Again, not really relevant as you could plaster any names on the charts and mark them and people could follow them. People can follow fake names of fake places created the same way just as easily. And again....I have never heard of 99% of the places mentioned in the map so I'm none the wiser. It's pretty much a non issue.

So again...And it's only one person's OPINION in a sea of OPINIONS. It would make no difference to me at all. And as I said before, you could put me on Mars and call it anything you like because I have never been to most ( ok...lets be honest....any) of these places and would not know the difference anyway. And I doubt that many who come here would. And why would they??? It's a sim, not a real world mission.........It's for fun.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Zimmerdylan

[chev255]

That's not the point, I have no problem if they create a fictional maps with fictional countries on it - just can't see myself flying over Georgia & Russia but calling it the Republic vs the Butchers.

[Aginor]

I voted real countries, for several reasons:

- immersion

- I don't have to remember new country names and what they stand for and what their insignia are (which were the good ones, Southeria or Northeria? DAMMIT!)

- I can look up real procedures of those countries to make it more realistic for me

 

People who can't fly as Russians or Americans or Georgians or Iranians or Germans because they can't play as their "enemies" or "the guys who murdered XYZ" or whatever just shouldn't fly the campaigns, or they should mod the game to have other countries. Or just lighten up and don't care. It's a PC simulation. Nothing bad will happen if you play as the evil Russians, evil Americans or evil Germans.

 

EDIT: Also what chev255 said. If it were completely fictional I wouldn't care much. But the Caucasus is a real place.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Aginor

[QuiGon]

I voted real countries, for several reasons:

- immersion

- I don't have to remember new country names and what they stand for and what their insignia are (which were the good ones, Southeria or Northeria? DAMMIT!)

- I can look up real procedures of those countries to make it more realistic for me

 

People who can't fly as Russians or Americans or Georgians or Iranians or Germans because they can't play as their "enemies" or "the guys who murdered XYZ" or whatever just shouldn't fly the campaigns, or they should mod the game to have other countries. Or just lighten up and don't care. It's a PC simulation. Nothing bad will happen if you play as the evil Russians, evil Americans or evil Germans.

 

Word!

[Wolf Rider]

Red Team versus Blue Team flying on real maps...

[Specter1075]

I may be thinking on too grand a scale, but the vehicles modeled in this sim are the products of peoples who each have their own histories, their ownview points, their own cultures, and their own physical environments. The things we see are the culmination of all those factors. Therefore I think it would be detrimental to divorce Russian aircraft from Russia, American from the United States, Czech from the Czech Republic, British from the United Kingdom, and so on.

 

Moreover, my understanding of the issue of place names is not so much on the names themselves, but how they would be used in a campaign scenario. One would not wish to offend a particular group of potential clients by making their country the 'bad guys'. However, it is certainly plausible (I'd say even realistic in many historical cases) to frame a conflict around a number of events that led countries to war without a clear aggressor or clear victim. Therefore, I think that efforts to avoid offending specific groups should fall to the campaign makers, rather than restricting the tools or options available to them. (I realize that fictitious names is not really a limitation, but it is in the sense that any history that embodies a place would automatically be non-existent in a fictional world.)

Edited November 13, 2015 by Specter1075

[shagrat]

LOL....I stand corrected. However, you hit the nail on the head. The cities are most probably all there as you say but again, all generic buildings. And I'm not trying to bash DCS or ED. I completely understand that it's just not possible to reproduce every building and have functionality. It's a common issue with all flight sims. And FSX and Xplane both have the cities where they're suppose to be. But....landmarks are again Generic. And OK....there probably is a "parade park with a monument" somewhere. But I'm not going out of my way to find one or two landmarks in a land full of generic landmarks just to sight see. I have 0 issues with how DCS has set up this place. I love it. But......when it comes down to reality VS fiction, 90% of DCS users don't really know or care about the scenery here. If they did, it would be posted all over the forums like many of the other alleged "short comings" that people think DCS may have. I think that they understand completely, as do I. It's just not practical or really even possible. As for the VFR routes and such. Again, not really relevant as you could plaster any names on the charts and mark them and people could follow them. People can follow fake names of fake places created the same way just as easily. And again....I have never heard of 99% of the places mentioned in the map so I'm none the wiser. It's pretty much a non issue.

So again...And it's only one person's OPINION in a sea of OPINIONS. It would make no difference to me at all. And as I said before, you could put me on Mars and call it anything you like because I have never been to most ( ok...lets be honest....any) of these places and would not know the difference anyway. And I doubt that many who come here would. And why would they??? It's a sim, not a real world mission.........It's for fun.

No, the landmarks are not generic in any way, they are at the correct place and city, and are not repeated! I meant the city scapes that use "generic" blocks of multistory living complexes and generic suburb houses or villages. Still the areas in the cities are filled with correct building types, the football stadiums are, where they are in real life, and so are the Palace of that Khan, the Naval Administration in Sochi(?), the Observatory on the coast. Only issue, they could just put a few landmarks in the Caucasus map, as the old DX9 graphics engine and hardware put some restrictions for performance' sake.

With EDGE in DCS World 1.5 these restrictions are gone, at least greatly enhanced.

Have a look at the Las Vegas pictures and Videos!

The Strip, all the Hotels, McCarran Airport in fantastic detail.

The first pics from Dubai on the Street if Hormuz map is similar detailed and show all real life iconic buildings like the Burj-el-arab etc.

 

The real issue is most of the time we fly too high and too fast to appreciate the little goodies on the Caucasus map, but that changed for me, when I started flying Huey in the area if Tshkinvali, Kaspi, Gori, Kashuri. The only thing I'm missing is the oil pipeline along the railway, which is one of the major strategic targets of that area.

 

But comparing this level of realistic real life "environment" to the Simulations I started with in my youth, EF 2000, Gunship! Apache vs. Hokum, Flacon 4.0. Even FS2000... We were fascinated to find a Spot on the Ground with some buildings where there is a town or city in real life. We gasped at bunch of rectangular blocks representing downtown New York and were exited to see a "pointy one" that represented the Empire State building... Now with DCS World this is an incredible progress in the last 15 years.

It might not look 100% real, but it is real enough to immerse and is useful for VFR flying. The street grid, rivers, Powerlines and few identifiable landmarks make for great and strait flying on visual queues. Something virtually impossible in the 90ies/early 21st century. :)