Why so NATO-centric?

[brodRga]

More than half of a missions is about NATO actions, while for red side how much, 2 or 3 scenarios? Feels underwhelming, can't even taste the Pact, because game just don't want to let me play it.

Also those bits of ingame lore that I can see basicly say "We want invade GDR, because why not?", that's kinda frustrating. Least army action of red nor described as meat wave and other, although generals portraitd as idiots that uncapable of command. In some point there's note of CIA agent that tells that Pact lost whole army, and they not even know about it and not know about fight in that sector.

[Histidine]

Originally posted by brodRga:

More than half of a missions is about NATO actions, while for red side how much, 2 or 3 scenarios? Feels underwhelming, can't even taste the Pact, because game just don't want to let me play it.

Of the seven campaign operations, three are Warsaw Pact (43%). If we estimate the length of operations by the provided time limits, it gets even closer (21 phases for WP vs. 24 phases for NATO, or 46.7%).

The DLC side operations are 1 NATO with 5 phases, and 1 WP with 6 phases.

Meanwhile in skirmish and War Paths you can play for (and in skirmish, against) whichever side you like.

Also those bits of ingame lore that I can see basicly say "We want invade GDR, because why not?", that's kinda frustrating.

Not sure if you noticed what was going on in the first two operations :thinking emoji:

although generals portraitd as idiots that uncapable of command. In some point there's note of CIA agent that tells that Pact lost whole army, and they not even know about it and not know about fight in that sector.

I don't remember which note this is, but I do notice that the two Soviet operations in the campaign seem plenty effective

[BobTank63]

I don't see how the game is NATO centric? The invasion doesn't start because WP goes "lol let's invade". It's an accidental escalation caused by mistakes on both sides in response to the East German uprising. If anything, West Germany has the most blame by sending a tank battalion over the border first.

In terms of content, it's 5 NATO operations versus 4 WP operations. 2 NATO ops and 1 WP op are one stage mini operations, so that makes 3 long operations for each side. Not much of an imbalance imo. Plus, there is skirmish and Warpath where you can play as many regiments for both sides.

Also, just a note, the developer is Russian.

[brodRga]

You have fair point, although still maybe it's a way how missions placed, cause it was overwhelming feel of that there's too much of NATO missions in a row, 2-3 in row a guess? While Pact first two missions short and more of tutorial.

About blame of West Germany, it's part of NATO and, as I suppose, they support rebels in East Germany. It's kinda strange to separete WG from it's allience.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by brodRga:

You have fair point, although still maybe it's a way how missions placed, cause it was overwhelming feel of that there's too much of NATO missions in a row, 2-3 in row a guess? While Pact first two missions short and more of tutorial.

About blame of West Germany, it's part of NATO and, as I suppose, they support rebels in East Germany. It's kinda strange to separete WG from it's allience.

Wait, is your frustration with the lore the actions of NATO? I thought your issue was with how the WP was portrayed?

In terms of content, the OP’s usually alternate evenly between NATO and WP, except there are two West German ops back to back near the start. I’m guessing you are on Blind Guard then? Just hang in there, next up is a great Soviet mission with a bunch of tanks and arty.

[Insider]

Why are we even entertaining this discussion?

It's a russian butthurt about NATO POV and not enough love for russia. Like they often do, like we owe anything to them. How distasteful is this considering real life situation?

Be happy Warsaw Pact is even playable.

[Histidine]

Let's be fair here, while OP's specific points were untrue, being peeved about popular media insulting one's country is hardly specific to Russians, and isn't inherently wrong (like everything else, it depends on the specific argument made).

I personally like that Regiments doesn't go 'here are the good guys, here are the bad guys' but it's also just good business sense.

[brodRga]

Originally posted by Insider:

It's a russian butthurt about NATO POV

What my nationality gives to this discuss? I don not care about country and allience that not even exist. It's more about game expirience and way of portaring sides of conflict

[Arwing20]

Originally posted by Insider:

Why are we even entertaining this discussion?

It's a russian butthurt about NATO POV and not enough love for russia. Like they often do, like we owe anything to them. How distasteful is this considering real life situation?

Be happy Warsaw Pact is even playable.

Thats what I thought, thats why I didn't entertain the fool with an answer. After what his people have been doing in Ukraine, he should be happy his former commie empire is even playable

[TacticalSimBR]

Because Western > Eastern, that's why!

Joke aside, of course a western game will be way more tailored for western players. Just like Russian flight sims that has this awful habbit of ignoring any technical real world documentation to portrait ANY russian stuff equal or superior even when numbers and documentation shows the opposite.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by Eagle:

Because Western > Eastern, that's why!

Joke aside, of course a western game will be way more tailored for western players. Just like Russian flight sims that has this awful habbit of ignoring any technical real world documentation to portrait ANY russian stuff equal or superior even when numbers and documentation shows the opposite.

Dev is Russian lmao.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Originally posted by brodRga:

You have fair point, although still maybe it's a way how missions placed, cause it was overwhelming feel of that there's too much of NATO missions in a row, 2-3 in row a guess? While Pact first two missions short and more of tutorial.

About blame of West Germany, it's part of NATO and, as I suppose, they support rebels in East Germany. It's kinda strange to separete WG from it's allience.

Honestly super minor but I'd wonder if dev thought consumers would better resonate with NATO platforms / recognize the kind of atmosphere / goals etc of NATO missions/campaigns more and be more familiar with the hypothetical goals of such things (i.e how ever cold war gone hot game probably includes like, fighting in the Fulda Gap to some capacity haha), though as the other commenter, the real 'ratio' breakdown of content is much closer to 50-50ish haha

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero:

Originally posted by brodRga:

You have fair point, although still maybe it's a way how missions placed, cause it was overwhelming feel of that there's too much of NATO missions in a row, 2-3 in row a guess? While Pact first two missions short and more of tutorial.

About blame of West Germany, it's part of NATO and, as I suppose, they support rebels in East Germany. It's kinda strange to separete WG from it's allience.

Honestly super minor but I'd wonder if dev thought consumers would better resonate with NATO platforms / recognize the kind of atmosphere / goals etc of NATO missions/campaigns more and be more familiar with the hypothetical goals of such things (i.e how ever cold war gone hot game probably includes like, fighting in the Fulda Gap to some capacity haha), though as the other commenter, the real 'ratio' breakdown of content is much closer to 50-50ish haha

That's the kicker. The base game doesn't have have a "Fulda Gap" campaign. Fulda campaign only came in a post launch update.

[Altair1243]

I'm not gonna lie. After reading everything objectively, and noting especially how your remarks were wrong, I just feel like you were simply complaining about Warsaw Pact being underrepresented. Just make an actual logical and defensible argument next time.

[Necrozis]

Originally posted by Altair1243:

I'm not gonna lie. After reading everything objectively, and noting especially how your remarks were wrong, I just feel like you were simply complaining about Warsaw Pact being underrepresented. Just make an actual logical and defensible argument next time.

seriously? He said he was russian. Even their president cant get his lies straight

[MrUnimport]

The developer is also Russian and he thought NATO forces were interesting and worth depicting in the game. There's no need to get personal here.