I think it would be a bad scenario for a game. In both wars you have a modern army versus some insurgents without a big arsenal of weapons, so the mission design hasn't a big variety of options. If you want a balanced gameplay (for the MP balanced) you would only have defensive mission like ambushes etc and offensive commando like operations. Also you should exclude most scenarios including civilians cause of the moral conflicts. And what should the campaigns look like? In a game with a 79-89 scenario, you surely have campaigns for both side, but the developers should be very careful with the heroization of the partys. Some weeks ago i saw a game like this from a russian publisher heroizing the the russians in this conflict. I assume for some western people including me this is kind of odd. In a modern scenario i dont want to play the insurgents.
In a MoW type game you also want a multiplayer. And this would be some of the problems:
1. realism vs balance: highly trained soldiers vs insurgents, high tech equipments and vehicles vs some captured and mostly antique stuff. small hightech units versus massive insurgents troops ? ( turkey hunt .. would be kind of offensive in a realistic game. more likely a gameplay for a game like cc:genarals etc). infantry only for balance ? become unrealistic and let t72 and lower tanks have a chance versus abrams ? ... very problematic
2. playing the insurgents: ok, in a 79-89 scenario it would be ok to play them cause of the cold war scenario and because they were the good guys in the eyes of the western world. But in a modern scenario the developers would a very bad PR after making this game and surely the game would be forbidden to be sold in some countrys.
3. weapons: like i mentioned before realistic warfare with suicide bombers would be a bad idea for a developer.
Last edited by Groth; 08-30-2011 at 11:42 AM.
|
08-30-2011, 11:26 AM
(Which is why I wouldn't rule it out.)
Hybrid Mode
