bardosy Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I read a lot of years ago in a book (maybe Churchil's diary), in the WWII there was a little confusion in the allied command, because of British used red color to mark friendly units and blue for enemy, but Yankees did it reverse: blue is friendly and red is enemy. How is it works nowdays? Brits still use red color to mark their own units? Or they throw their traditions and use the yankee blue? It's important to me, because I want create british missions and I want draw proper tactical maps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm pretty sure but not 100% that they adopted the NATO system of blue=friendly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm rather curious on how they're going to do Red/Blue in CM:Afghanistan. We all assume the campaign's going to be from the Russian pespective. So are they Blue (friendly) forces or Red (Soviet) forces? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I'm rather curious on how they're going to do Red/Blue in CM:Afghanistan. We all assume the campaign's going to be from the Russian pespective. So are they Blue (friendly) forces or Red (Soviet) forces? I think the Soviets always used RED for friendly and BLUE for enemy. Red is the colour of communism after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuirassier Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Maybe Red vs Green would be most suitable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The international (NATO) maps symbols for 'neutral' is green, 'unknown' is yellow, 'friendly' is blue and 'enemy' is red. So Red Russians attacking Green Afghanis may send the wrong political message about the conflict from the Russian perspective. The Afghanis may not argue with that coloring, though - but they aren't exactly the primary market for the product. Those with long enough memories (20-30 years ago now) will recall news stories of our 'valient mujihadeen allies battling the Soviet aggressors'. Red Russians versus Blue mujis might be incongruous from the Russian perspective, but playing the Blue mujihadeen side in 3rd party campaigns it would be appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I know there are probably 10's of Afghani's waiting for CM:A. The Afghanis may not argue with that coloring, though - but they aren't exactly the primary market for the product. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well whatever Snowball used (and I wouldn't be surprised if they used Red for the Soviets) it won't change at this late date. Here's hoping we get an official announcement on the game soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuirassier Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 But they are Russians. Why would they care at all about NATO symbols? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Warsaw pact defiantly used red/black for friendly and blue for any enemy, they switched to NATO after '91. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.