Two irregular factions-insurgents and Militia

[upyr1]

I was thinking about this after someone posted the request for real-world irregular/terrorist factions. While I see no point in adding Hamas, Isis, or Hezbollah, I do see some logic in having multiple irregular forces, mainly we could have a scenario with two irregular forces fighting. As DCS currently only has two combatants Red and Blue I figure two irregular factions could work. The insurgents, which we already have and the militia the two would be identical except for flags as the entire point is one would be hostile and other friendly irregular forces 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It would be nice to have some generic masked militiamen that sort of "escape" the clear cultural influence our current insurgent has.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

In ARMA you have blues, reds, insurgents and civilians, something similar would be nice

Edited December 11, 2023 by Dr_Pavelheer

[Northstar98]

32 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

In ARMA you have blues, reds, insurgents and civilians, something similar would be nice

 

This the main thing for me - if we could have multiple coalitions beyond just 2 belligerents and a non-combative neutral (who is just everybody that’s unassigned) then the insurgent “country” would be fine.

The panacea for me is something like C:MO where you can add, edit, rename and delete coalitions/sides completely at will. Instead of having “countries” assigned to a coalition, they’d instead just be an optional way to filter units with a selection to determine the coalition/side.

[cfrag]

While I definitely would like to see more factions in DCS, I hope that if this should ever come, we (us code heads) will get sufficient advance warning. I foresee that >90 of all code that deals with factions will break (and the fact that an airfield can return faction = 3 for 'contested' status does not help). So I'm hoping for a 'faction API' to come to DCS, and a 1-year-plus transition phase if it comes. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by cfrag

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

While I definitely would like to see more factions in DCS, I hope that if this should ever come, we (us code heads) will get sufficient advance warning. I foresee that >90 of all code that deals with factions will break (and the fact that an airfield can return faction = 3 for 'contested' status does not help). So I'm hoping for a 'faction API' to come to DCS, and a 1-year-plus transition phase if it comes.

Yeah, good idea. If it could work, in principle, to some deprecated units (such as the CVN 70 Carl Vinson) where it's still present in the files, but removed from the unit list - allowing existing missions with it to function, then that would be ideal as what I'm describing would be a massive change.

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It would be nice to have some generic masked militiamen that sort of "escape" the clear cultural influence our current insurgent has.

I think that would be better as an additional model 

[twistking]

On 12/11/2023 at 10:08 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It would be nice to have some generic masked militiamen that sort of "escape" the clear cultural influence our current insurgent has.

On 12/12/2023 at 1:02 AM, upyr1 said:

I think that would be better as an additional model 

I think these are very good points. There should be at least three flavors of insurgent type fighters. If we get a more "generic" broadly european archetype and a "generic" asian archetype, we would be set up for many history conflicts without having to modell hundreds of factions. A few different infantry units, maybe gun crews, a few cosmetic objects like flagpoles and we would have much more options than before without too big of an development effort.

And yes, having a second "generic" insurgent faction in the ME would be helpful as well. The combined redfor/blufor factions are a workaround, but not a very elegant one.

Edited December 13, 2023 by twistking

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, twistking said:

I think these are very good points. There should be at least three flavors of insurgent type fighters. If we get a more "generic" broadly european archetype and a "generic" asian archetype, we would be set up for many history conflicts without having to modell hundreds of factions. A few different infantry units, maybe gun crews, a few cosmetic objects like flagpoles and we would have much more options than before without too big of an development effort.

And yes, having a second "generic" insurgent faction in the ME would be helpful as well. The combined redfor/blufor factions are a workaround, but not a very elegant one.

 

I figure there are two ways to have more generic archetype. One is more irregular factions such as partisans, guerillas and so forth the other would be to have historical mode check the date and theater. For example you are using the Normandy map the irregulars are basically French resistance or  werewolves. 

[twistking]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

[...] the other [way] would be to have historical mode check the date and theater. For example you are using the Normandy map the irregulars are basically French resistance or  werewolves. 

Not a fan of having assets locked to certain maps/dates. What if i want to have werewolves in las vegas (or something like a french resistance fighter as a VIP in the pacific war)?

*edit* ignore

Edited December 14, 2023 by twistking

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, twistking said:

Not a fan of having assets locked to certain maps/dates. What if i want to have werewolves in las vegas (or something like a french resistance fighter as a VIP in the pacific war)?

Then when you are building missions don't use historical mode. Having the option to lock assets down makes it easier to build historical missions 

Edited December 14, 2023 by upyr1

[twistking]

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Then when you are building missions don't use historical mode. Having the option to lock assets down makes it easier to build historical missions

you are right. i did not think properly before posting.

[upyr1]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:55 PM, twistking said:

you are right. i did not think properly before posting.

Anyway since we only have Red, Blue and neutral your thoughts on having 2 irregular factions that incorporate everything vs multiple irregular factions that are themed by time/era? 

[twistking]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Anyway since we only have Red, Blue and neutral your thoughts on having 2 irregular factions that incorporate everything vs multiple irregular factions that are themed by time/era? 

i think i would go for 3 very generically named factions different only in colour of their symbol/flag (insurgent (blue), insurgent (red), insurgent (grey)) where each would incorporate all "unconventional" units (historic mode would hide/show historic and local variety). if ED would make specificaly named factions, mission designers will eventually end up having to use akwardly named factions, because ED won't be able to account for all conflicts (historical and fictional)...

Edited December 17, 2023 by twistking