New MEC Title

Malik · Post by **Malik** » 2006-05-20 23:02

OK, OK Iraq was a bad idea, it's just the first Middle Eastern country that comes to mind. Scrap that idea.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-20 23:07

The whole idea of a war involving MEC (would never form) and PLA (not going to fight in foreseeable future) is bizarre in the first place...I'm going to go away and think of a way to make it make sense though...

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-20 23:09

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']The whole idea of a war involving MEC (would never form) and PLA (not going to fight in foreseeable future) is bizarre in the first place...I'm going to go away and think of a way to make it make sense though...

The sence is to sell a game! America fighting (Or rarther smiteing as someone has put it before) the most powerful and typical enemys.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-20 23:10

Ye - commies = old enemy, mec = new enemy

The "War on Terror" rolls on

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-20 23:47

Heres a list if you would like to draw up a possable MEC force, its quite varied but i have spent time on targeting the possable MEC at countrys with a large count of Islamic influenced people.

POSSABLE MEC (Middle East/Africa) :Sudan, Egypt, Eritea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Libya, Tunisia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, The Congo, Angola, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Togo, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mali, Iran, Lebanon.

NONE MEC / NONE MEC BUT USUAL SUSPECTS: Bahrain, United Arab Emirate, Oman, Kuwait, Pakistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh.

Other possable threat's: Georgia + Armenia + Azerbaijan + Parts of South Russia (Dagestan, Chechnya, Severnaya Osetiya-Alaniya, Ingushetiya, Kabardino-Balkariya, Karachayrov-Cherkesiya, Stavropol'skiy, Adygeya, Krasnodarskiy)
I would rarther comicly call this the USSR or United States of Southern Russia.
Argentina.

Eden · Post by **Eden** » 2006-05-20 23:53

I'll say it again, why are people focusing on politics, who cares about the current wars the us has on other contrys, why cant we just look at an army (ARMY not contry) that will be fun to play?

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-20 23:54

Because this is Project REALITY - I can imagine a great battle between US and UK in terms of weaponary....but will it ever happen....no!

Post by **Fullforce** » 2006-05-20 23:56

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']Because this is Project REALITY - I can imagine a great battle between US and UK in terms of weaponary....but will it ever happen....no!

Training maps would be awesome, though.

Eden · Post by **Eden** » 2006-05-21 00:02

Ok, then. the PLA and MEC need removed completely, we need to replace then with ill-equiped 12year olds fighting for something that was brainwashed into there heads.

In adition to that, the Austrailian, Japanese Armys in adition to a number of smaller armys need to be added.

We also should only make maps situated in Iraq since in REALITY that is where the fighting is.

Does that suit you?

PR is about Realistic ARMYS not the current wars and fighting that is going on, we should'nt be talking about who the US/UK should be against realisticly because there is no point we dont know who we may be fighting next so anything you can come up with would be unralistic.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-21 00:06

BF2 is set in the future so your Iraq point is a bit null.

Also, as you should know, PRMM's reality has to be slightly skewed so of course we do not follow things to the letter.

But we should set up the 'most likely' = 'most realistic' conflicts that appear to be emerging.

This IS the MEC (or similiar) and to a lesser extent China.

Oh and the 'Japanese Army' doesn't exist really - I suppose you must have meant the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force which as the name suggests is mainly a defensive force.

This is why its move to deploy to Iraw was so controversial.

Eden · Post by **Eden** » 2006-05-21 00:15

Sorry to continue this because I do think its just a stupid argument but if I may disect your post.

[quote="[R-PUB]maverick']BF2 is set in the future so your Iraq point is a bit null.
[/quote]
This is Project Reality not BF2

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']
Also, as you should know, PRMM's reality has to be slightly skewed so of course we do not follow things to the letter.

But we should set up the 'most likely' = 'most realistic' conflicts that appear to be emerging.

This IS the MEC (or similiar) and to a lesser extent China.

MEC dont exist, it was created by EA/Dice so they would be allowed to sell the game in America, the MEC force just represents &lt"]maverick']
Oh and the 'Japanese Army' doesn't exist really - I suppose you must have meant the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force which as the name suggests is mainly a defensive force.

This is why its move to deploy to Iraw was so controversial.[/quote]
My apologies, Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force it is then.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-21 00:21

Eden wrote: MEC dont exist, it was created by EA/Dice so they would be allowed to sell the game in America, the MEC force just represents <insert middle eastern contry here>

I'd put money on the DEVs not specifying a country as their data wouldn't be accurate enough. It would be hard to implement. It may offend some players. And also the socio-political climate would make such a change suicidal.

Eden wrote: Thats my main point, we want PR to be as realistic as posable, MEC isnt realistic because it doesnt exist, that is why I suggested that we look at replaceing them with an Army that is fun to play i.e has the weapons, armor and technology, The Artesh Army was just one example of a middle easter Army that does indeed have the weapons, and armor and technology to make them a fun but at the same time realistic army to play.

Find me any mid east country with the Air force/ground force/armour strength that can even come close to matching the US and i'll gie you a cookie. The only way the Mid. East could face the US is in coalition.

eden wrote: My apologies, Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force it is then.

Arrogance when you've made a stupid remark doesn't make you look good. My point was that the Japanese would practically never get involved in a conflict, as you suggested.

Topf · Post by **Topf** » 2006-05-21 00:25

'[R-CON wrote:NikovK']West Asian Sovreign(sp.) Powers (WASP)

United Arabic/Mesopotamian Nations (UA/I/MN)
.

Those were the very best suggestions so far...noone seems to have noticed them!
Especially WASP is a FAR better name than MEC

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-21 00:26

I'm fighting WASPs....hmmm!

I don't see what is wrong with MEC....its just a name....would a rose smell as sweet by anyother name?!

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-21 00:40

Roses smell like my pond = Wet, stinking and full of animals.

I think the name does mean alot to players, a better name reflects well on the mod too.

Edit: WASP is not a good name, remember, its not just how it sounds its what it represents:

"West Asian Sovreign Powers"

Its just not kicking in my mind.

Eden · Post by **Eden** » 2006-05-21 00:59

[quote="[R-PUB]maverick']I'd put money on the DEVs not specifying a country as their data wouldn't be accurate enough. It would be hard to implement. It may offend some players. And also the socio-political climate would make such a change suicidal.

[/quote]
Why not, it is true that the Iranian Forces does keep some of its new hardware a secret but then so do all Armed Forces, it is not posable for the PR team to make any Army 100% realistic because they would never be allowed to have the kind if information needed to do so. The BF engine is also not up to that task of making anything 100% realistic.

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']
Find me any mid east country with the Air force/ground force/armour strength that can even come close to matching the US and i'll gie you a cookie. The only way the Mid. East could face the US is in coalition.

Erm, the Iranian Forces (Artesh &amp"]maverick']
Arrogance when you've made a stupid remark doesn't make you look good. My point was that the Japanese would practically never get involved in a conflict, as you suggested.[/quote]
The Japanese are currently in Iraq, unless they have recently pulled out then they were in Iraq.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-21 01:08

Eden wrote: The Japanese are currently in Iraq, unless they have recently pulled out then they were in Iraq.

Less than 80 of them went it? I think they were just aid supplying troops and other none forcefull operations.

Eden · Post by **Eden** » 2006-05-21 01:11

never the less they were still there, just because there presence there was small does not mean it wasnt important.

the.ultimate.maverick · Post by **the.ultimate.maverick** » 2006-05-21 01:12

Point #1 Iraq is not a conflict it is a peacekeeping operation. Thus Japan is not involved in a conflict. After WWII she has never depolyed in conflict and I think Iraq maybe one of her first oversees postings.

Point #2 - I have trianed Middle Eastern forces, and yes their hardware is substantial, but they do not have the satellite/smart weapon/specilist training of the US army. Also, the quality of hardware means nothing if the troops using it are not trained professionally. 11 million paramilitary's would not be as effective as a mere 3 million US well trained infantrymen with the support they carry.

Point #3 - Numbers count for nothing without the ability to arm, maintain and deploy. Look at Russia @ start of WW1 - 21million men, 7 million rifles, ammo for 4 million. Iran does not have the supply capabilities of the US.

Point #4 - In a conflict vs. Iran, the Americans would not go in on ground initially - they would use strategic bombing and decapitation to limit the enemies ability to respond. This would negate any initial advantage of Iran.

Point #5 - The Iranians do not develop significant hardware at all - most is imported or remanufactured under license.

Point #6 - Where are they buying these tanks from? Britain and US? Can you give me accuracte and reliable data please. To my knowledge the Iranians have 2,500 tanks which are either broken or out of date.

Point #7 - The US pilots are better trained than the Iranian pilots, have better armaments and better planes.

Point #7 - Irans mil budget is at most a tenth of that of the US - you do the math.

Point #8 - Underestimated the Middle East? No - I know thier strength and I know they are not strong enough to fight the US. How do I know this - because no nation in the area has gone to at war with America.

Point # 9 - The US army is defending their country from whom? I thought modern society used LEA to deal with internal threats....

Point #10 - Have you ever been to a tacitcal/mil history school?

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-05-21 01:35

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick']
Point #6 - Where are they buying these tanks from? Britain and US? Can you give me accuracte and reliable data please. To my knowledge the Iranians have 2,500 tanks which are either broken or out of date.

I think he means old British Centurions and American M48's.

Like South Africas Centurions (Olifant series MBT).