Insurgency fighting zombie in zombie mode is quite fun. Hell the zombie even lost lol.
This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Germanico wrote:
"....but MY people, of MY country should have a morale boost because of fighting terrorists, a patriotic backlash, not a penalty"
Yeah - that's why generally we've seen so many pro-war rallies and demonstrations of support for the army in the UK, US, France and all other nations embroiled in wars against insurgents *sarcasm off
I have said all there is to say from the dev's side about this. My participation in this thread ends here...
Kalrakh wrote:
You are mixing short time patriotism with long time war tiredness.
Germanico wrote:
It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.
It's how we envision the game.
Dealer of Death wrote:
Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.Germanico wrote:
It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.
It's how we envision the game.
blue44elephant wrote:
Dude fighting insurgencies is NOT FUN, however if you suggest that system then it will not only lead to absence of realism but also abuse. People will just start an insurgency in a city or two and then get morale boost for rest of the game.
Pafufu wrote:
Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.Dealer of Death wrote:
Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.Germanico wrote:
It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.
It's how we envision the game.
blue44elephant wrote:
Dude fighting insurgencies is NOT FUN, however if you suggest that system then it will not only lead to absence of realism but also abuse. People will just start an insurgency in a city or two and then get morale boost for rest of the game.
Dealer of Death wrote:
Those were MILITARY OPERATIONS against Terrorists.Pafufu wrote:
Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.Dealer of Death wrote:
Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.Germanico wrote:
It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.
It's how we envision the game.
Pafufu wrote:
Targeted military assassinations against terrorists, yes. I don’t know why you put that in caps.Dealer of Death wrote:
Those were MILITARY OPERATIONS against Terrorists.Pafufu wrote:
Those were all targeted assassinations where nothing went wrong and people who killed civilians without a single thought were killed. Not a war against insurgents created by invasions that are disliked in the first place.Dealer of Death wrote:
Sorry, but again that's apples to oranges again.(capturing a foreign city vs fighting terrorists) We did see great swells when, 1 we got Kahlid Shiek Mohammed, 2 blew up Al-Zarqawi, 3 Al-Bahgdadi, 4 Qasem Soleimani and of course Bin Laden. Each time Great swells of support were reported.Germanico wrote:
It's a deliberate decision - just as we deliberately did away with the morale bonuses for capturing a capital.
When did we last see crowds giving their heroes the victory parade after eg. conquering Baghdad? Like... never?
So yes. War has changed and with it the feeling that it instills in the populace, hence our approach. Our decision.
We stand to it: to generate a modern feel in the game there even have to be repercussions for killing civilians.
It's how we envision the game.
1 Guest