Jump to content
  • 2
Dunabar

[Factions][Customization][Meta Game] Suggestions to Improve the WW3 Meta Game - Factions | Faction Names, Symbols, & Flags.

Question

Posted (edited)

Hey Folks

It's finally time to get my WW3 Meta Game Suggestion Post series started, I've been scratching my head trying to figure out how exactly I wanted to approach this particular matter in WW3. I was originally going to do posts covering each particular subject and everything involved with those in a single post. But, I thought it would make the posts really lengthy and ultimately it would go against how I prefer to do things. So, I'm going to be starting things off very easy with suggestions for new Faction Names and Symbols & Flags for the Factions, then move on to the next topics that require more explaining than these two suggestions in here.

If you wish to read other Suggestion posts I have made, click the link below. Otherwise, lets get started with the suggestions for Faction Name Changes and Faction Symbols & Flags.

----

Dunabar's "Master Suggestion Post Archive"

----

Content of this post

  1. Faction Name Changes
  2. Faction Symbols & Flags

----

Faction Name Changes

In my personal opinion, I think the names of the Factions should be changed from "West" & "East"  to something different and that is because they're very flat sounding with no real sense of seriousness behind them. Taking inspiration from historical/modern day Military Alliances, I have come up with some example names that could give these two factions a bit more gravitas to them.

(West Themes)

  1. J.W.S.A - Joint-Western Security Alliance
  2. W.D.O - Western Defense Organization
  3. W.U.M.C - Western Union of Military Cooperation
  4. W.D.U - Western Defense Union
  5. W.P.A - Western Protection Agreement
  6. U.W.S.A - United Western Security Axis
  7. W.T.O - Western Treaty Organization
  8. W.J.S.U - Western Joint-Security Union
  9. W.P.P - Western Protection Partnership
  10. W.J.D.I - Western Joint-Defense Initiative
  11. W.D.A - Western Defense Accord
  12. W.S.A - Western Security Accord
  13. I.W.C - International Western Coalition
  14. J.W.M.I - Joint Western Military Initiative

(East Themes)

  1. E.S.P.O - Eastern Security Partnership Organization
  2. E.M.A - Eastern Military Alliance
  3. E.C.L - Eastern Cooperation League
  4. E.M.P.O - Eastern Military Partnership Organization
  5. E.J.D.C - Eastern Joint-Defense Command
  6. E.S.C - Eastern Security Coalition
  7. E.M.T.U - Eastern Military Treaty Union
  8. E.A.A - Eastern Axis Accord
  9. U.E.A - United Eastern Accord
  10. E.M.R.A - Eastern Military Response Accord
  11. E.P.A - Eastern Protection Alliance
  12. J,E,S,A - Joint-Eastern Security Alliance
  13. M.E.A - Multi-Eastern Allegiance
  14. M.E.D.O - Mutual Eastern Defense Organization

(Neutral Themes)

  1. I.M.C.L - International Military Cooperation League
  2. M.D.U - Multinational Defense Union
  3. G.D.I - Global Defense Initiative
  4. A.M.S - Axis of Multinational Security
  5. I.S.A - International Security Alliance
  6. I.T.O - International Treaty Organization
  7. M.D.F - Mutual Defense Force
  8. J.S.U - Joint-Security Union
  9. M.S.I - Multinational Security Initiative
  10. I.S.C.F - International Security Cooperation Force
  11. J.S.A - Joint-Security Accord
  12. M.D.P - Mutual Defense Partnership
  13. I.A.A - International Axis Alliance
  14. A.P.O - Allied Protection Organization

I know these names are not the greatest or overly original, they're just random names I came up with in a short span. But, I use these to show that the Faction names can have a little bit more of a serious sound to them and not seem so flat as just "West" & "East." By also embracing the 2026 setting for WW3, the Developers can also avoid using actual present day Military/Security Alliances like NATO, CSTO, SCO, and etc. This way the Developers don't have to potentially upset someone because their country isn't with the right Faction they think they should be with or whatever.

With all that out of the way however...

----

Faction Symbols & Flags

The two Factions should have their own unique Symbols & Flags and this isn't purely just for the gravitas of the two factions. It's also so players can show their support for their Factions on their Soldier or maybe on their Vehicles in the future, and whatever other causes the Devs can get use out of them. Here are two quick examples of what I'm getting at.

North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Flag_of_NATO.svg

Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)

1280px-Flag_of_the_Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization.svg.png

Again these are just two quick examples of what I'm getting at. Obviously colors can be changed, symbols be different, and all that good stuff. But, it would be a cool way to give the Factions a little more character to them and again a way for Players to show some Faction pride through different customization options. In the end though both of these are just suggestions and the Developers can obviously do whatever they feel fit to do with them. I personally would just like to see some more interesting sounding factions than simply "West" &"East." But, that is just me. Overall neither of these two suggestions are massively pressing matters that need to be handled, they're just things I think would improve the characteristics of the WW3 Meta Game.

----

There is more that could be done to make the Factions a little more interesting. However, those would likely require some pretty deep changes/balance efforts that I don't think the Developers would find worth it all that much. So, overall I'm pretty much done with Factions for now. I was going to post suggestions for-

  • Unique Faction Uniforms & Camos <- A lot of People have already suggested this stuff before, so I don't really see any point in making my own dedicated post over these as it likely wouldn't be all that much different from the other suggestions.
  • Unique Faction Weapons <- I dropped this idea because it would be a very noticeable night & day level change the developers would need to make in WW3. You would need to designate Nations to certain Factions, you would need to make sure the weapons are balanced between the two factions, need to make sure both Factions have equal amounts of weapon types, and etc etc..Overall I just didn't think it fit WW3 in the end and just scrapped the idea entirely.

I still have a few other things I'm considering for further differing the Factions. But, I need to think on those a little longer. For now I'm done with Factions and need to get some rest. The next suggestion post in this coming series of suggestion posts will be covering the WW3 War Map. So, till the next suggestion post...

Have a good one folks!

PS: Don't be surprised if I edit this post to add something considerable that I some how magically forgot to add. It was another late night of posting and I never learn my lesson lol.

Edited by Dunabar
Minor add to the Faction names part.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Many asked, but first, who wrote this in right formula, was you.

Balancing 2 sides with different weapons isn't impossible action. Even three different sides can be balanced nice (Planetside 2). We have seen good example in Battlefield 3, but in the next game is was lost and trashed. At least, in Battlefield 5 there are different vehicles with different stats for different sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, †FeuerEuphorie† said:

Balancing 2 sides with different weapons isn't impossible action. Even three different sides can be balanced nice (Planetside 2). We have seen good example in Battlefield 3, but in the next game is was lost and trashed. At least, in Battlefield 5 there are different vehicles with different stats for different sides.

Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't possible, I just don't know if the Developers are interested in going down that path. Because if they were interested in the two factions having their own unique Weapons & Vehicles, I would imagine the Weapons & Vehicles already being divided up by now (unless they want them open to everyone for now for greater testing before dividing them between the factions, which is very possible as well.) Though one major problem I can already see is the need to address the differences between Nations that use the same weapons & vehicles, but are ideologically different from one another. A quick example of what I mean

  • Germany uses the Leopard Tank and is part of NATO.
  • Russia uses the T-72 Tank and is part of the CSTO.
  • Poland uses both Leopard & T-72 Tanks and is part of NATO.

I know I over simplified that. But, that is one those knots I see in the plans. But, as the saying goes; When there's a will, there's a way.

Maybe I should make a dedicated topic over it starting with Weapons and then later cover the Vehicles?

Edited by Dunabar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I think better names is good but it shouldn't directly imply any nations or anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, nubbits said:

I think better names is good but it shouldn't directly imply any nations or anything

That was one of the reasons I came up with the Neutral themes for the names, it does offer slightly more serious sounding faction names without actually implying forces from one region of the world or another.

That said however...I personally wouldn't mind some more clarity as to who is exactly fighting who. I know it's currently East vs. West. but it feels less like a global conflict between Nations, and more like two highly overpaid PMC groups (Private Military Contractors, or Mercenaries if you will) having an excessively large turf battle between each other. I know the main reason was to avoid having one side or the other painted as the aggressors (aka the Bad guys.) But, I think that can be achieved even while also having the stereotypical conflicts between Nations. When I played Battlefield 4 as either the Americans, Chinese, or Russians, I always viewed the other Team as the aggressors to be defeated even if the story didn't actually say who the aggressor actually was, and I was still able to immerse myself in this conflict between Nations. While I do highly enjoy WW3, that lack of clarity really does hinder my immersion of this supposed World War between Nations. However, I do have an idea that could fix this a bit and I'm going to suggest it when I get started on the War Map stuff in my next suggestion posts for the WW3 Meta game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Dunabar said:

That was one of the reasons I came up with the Neutral themes for the names, it does offer slightly more serious sounding faction names without actually implying forces from one region of the world or another.

That said however...I personally wouldn't mind some more clarity as to who is exactly fighting who. I know it's currently East vs. West. but it feels less like a global conflict between Nations, and more like two highly overpaid PMC groups (Private Military Contractors, or Mercenaries if you will) having an excessively large turf battle between each other. I know the main reason was to avoid having one side or the other painted as the aggressors (aka the Bad guys.) But, I think that can be achieved even while also having the stereotypical conflicts between Nations. When I played Battlefield 4 as either the Americans, Chinese, or Russians, I always viewed the other Team as the aggressors to be defeated even if the story didn't actually say who the aggressor actually was, and I was still able to immerse myself in this conflict between Nations. While I do highly enjoy WW3, that lack of clarity really does hinder my immersion of this supposed World War between Nations. However, I do have an idea that could fix this a bit and I'm going to suggest it when I get started on the War Map stuff in my next suggestion posts for the WW3 Meta game.

Was too young when battlefield was cool so can't really comment on that. To me it seems like the "national pride" talking point implies you are always fighting for your own country which is likely why it is this way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, nubbits said:

Was too young when battlefield was cool so can't really comment on that. To me it seems like the "national pride" talking point implies you are always fighting for your own country which is likely why it is this way

And that is very possible. But, then it goes right back into the thing I said about PMCs.

Lets say for example; I dress my soldier up in U.S Army digs from top to bottom and another player does the same thing. If both our Characters are fighting for their country, then we're fighting each other for no reason as our goals are the exact same - fight for our country. Well, whose side is the U.S actually siding with, the East or the West?

I know it's reading far deeper into it than I probably should be. But, Immersion does have a value to me as a Player and I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. But, this is one of those snags where things get really screwy to me.

Edited by Dunabar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

One idea I had once, going in the somewhat same direction, is a forum rpg. We know the conflict takes place in '26 but that is pretty much all the lore we have.

Now, why don't we let the community create some more background stories with an old fashioned forum rpg. It would need some rules of course, so nobody is offended but probably the most sensitive question would be who started the war and is the 'bad guys' as @Dunabar
has put it. Well the last two summers were very warm and especially dry in large parts of Europe. Maybe the drought goes on and even worsens, on top the permafrost in Siberia melts on a large scale etc. Basically we have massive natural disasters all around the world. Then, the answer to the question who is the bad guys is 'no one'.

One could either go by the nations theme or - to make the mixed equipment plausible - say two blocks have formed on how to approach this world wide disaster which nobody can escape from.

Letting the community create some lore would be a nice kind of interaction I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...