Should the MEC forces be changed?

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-01 01:31

Cerberus wrote:I'd rather see the MEC have T80s, BMPs, RPG-29s, and Frogfoots, and stuff like that

Scud's are not your thing then?

. On a note; a Scud could counter a MLRS?

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-01 01:45

Nah, SCUDs would be nice; I didn't have time nor patience enough to mention everything

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-01 01:48

I am looking trough my files trying to find a truck with rocket pods on the back, its suposidly the only thing the russian/middle eastern forces has to compete with the MLRS.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2006-04-01 02:19

Alright, first of all Russia would be likely to sell any of their weapons. The Russian Federation has been so damn poor since the fall of the Soviet Union, they can barely place locks on their nuclear facilities. Not to mention that the borders of the country are so long, you know how easy it would be to smuggle equipment in and out of the country.

The MEC should stay. With all the oil held in the middle-east, its really a wealthy place. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and many others benefit from oil. The only thing really holding them back is their beliefs; as in religon and culture. I think the MEC is some sort of "organizer" of the middle-east. Perhaps some well educated and "intelligent" leader or leaders decides to bring order to the middle east by expanding what is now known as the MEC.

In terms of weaponry, I think the MEC should use more common weapons along with some newer exports. AK-47s are too damn abundant in the middle-east to say they don't use any. Not to mention 7.62 rounds are alot more lethal than 5.56 rounds. Although I think T-90s could be purchased by middle-east nations. Also, remember that exports are exports. Exports can be usually slightly downgraded from the original in terms of features and what not.

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-01 03:01

I would like to think that the MEC have a tank that is capeable of taking on the western MBT's.

What happend to the T64 and T-80? Althogh they were not exported legaly some arab states alegidly had a few, mabey the MEC should have them?

T-55's are a NO, NO! They are practicly incapable of takeing on anythink other than troops.

I would like to know wether the armour values are implemented. One day we will have to stop>aim at the right point>fire instead of just hit the enemy tank anyware.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-01 04:31

on direct comparison though, scud and MLRS system that many NATO nations uses are quite different. scud is basically a tactical ballistic missile, whereas MLRS is more of a rocket artilerry for area saturation and the likes.

to put it more clearly we can look at their origin model, MLRS can be compared to the granddaddy katyusha in ww2, whereas scud can be traced directly to it's origin in V2 rockets.

On the other note, the range at which the fight occurs in BF2 would likely prohibit the use of scud. I've also not heard of scud ever used directly in the battlefield to support troops, although the info i have on it is based on the older scud model used in the 1980s war.

PS: forgot to add this in: the latest model of MLR (multiple rocket launcher) in the russian side is the BM-30 as far as i know which was introduced in 1989. Max reported range for standard 300mm HE rocket is around 70 km.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-01 04:41

For the MEC's rocket launching vehicle, they could have the BRDM AT-5 ATGM

Doesn't have as many rockets as the MLRS, though

There's a BRDM... model

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-01 04:47

BRDM??? isn't that the series of whelled armoured recon vehicles that the russian made??

if u meant the BMD-20 which carries 4 200 mm fixed fin rockets, then yeah.. but russian phased it out ages ago.

BRDM doesn't serve the purpose of artilerry though. like u said.. it carries ATGM and other weapons in different configurations, but if we are asking for MLR platform it definitely is not it.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2006-04-01 05:02

I would prefer the The 9K58 Smerch 300mm Multiple Launch Rocket System be given to the MEC as an MLRS. Its been exported to countries such as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/smerch/

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-01 05:05

Sounds nice

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-01 15:32

The thing though is that, MRL cannot fire on the run and require a deployment time before it can fire. Now normally this isn't a problem IRL since they fire at range so far (they ARE artilerries in the first place) that the chance of them getting engaged by the enemy is close to nothing. But in BF2, having something the size of an MRL platform deploying on the field would practically mean suicide since aircrafts can pass the map in less than 10 seconds and kill it in a blink of an eye.

Tacticsniper815 · Post by **Tacticsniper815** » 2006-04-01 23:03

well the MEC is unrealistic like the entire middle east would band together to form a coalition alot of those countries hate eachother so I vote YEAH CHANGE EM

SpetsnazFox · Post by **SpetsnazFox** » 2006-04-06 17:43

well could add MEC militia and paramilitary forces (in addition to the regular MEC Army)

they could use this stuff here

you could even add carbombs or pipebombs with nails

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-04-06 17:56

is that a DShK heavy machine gun i see in the last pic??
oww.. whoever's gonna get shot by it is going to go home hurting quite a bit.

Post by **Wraith** » 2006-04-06 18:30

Man, me and a m8 used to pwn bfv on the scooter...

Chase Armitage · Post by **Chase Armitage** » 2006-04-06 21:25

I think before we even get to discuss which weapons, equipment and other stuff MEC gets we really should decide if the surrounding story has to be realistic or if we rather create a realistic battlefield not depending of any international political situation, economic thoughts whatsoever.
And by that I mean to only slightly adjust to the present and real situation in ME countries and their armies but not analysing there relations to other countries, there actual economic standard and their military budget.
To make my point just snapshot which weapons they are using and then implement them adequate into the whole game concept aiming for balanced gameplay.
All that is because I really dont think you can make the player think he is actually shooting with a real ak74,m16 or whatsoever.
Maybe I could make my point...somehow

GreetZ
CA

Pence · Post by **Pence** » 2006-04-06 21:52

lonelyjew wrote:On the Israeli army addition

PR cant do the Israeli army, its already being done: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~idf/idfmod/

So if they do -- do it then we can have Russia too.

Grey_Ghost · Post by **Grey_Ghost** » 2006-04-06 22:06

I'd rather play against the Russians in an alternate timeline where Communism never fell in the USSR. It's their hardware we'd seem to be facing no matter what, and we'd have quite a bit of diverse terrain to play with other than sand.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2006-04-06 22:11

I think this is what its going to come down to.

Do we really want to bring in current real-life international policies, politics and relations to a storyline. Or do we stick to a fictional and out of the ordinary storyline. If we bring the most controversial faction; the MEC down, do we replace them? If so then with who?

As it is, PR might not attract many players if just ends up being a U.S/U.K modification going against some third world arabic nation. Not to mention its not even close to being original. It doesn't even make for interesting gameplay, since most of these nations carry the same old AK-47s, RPGs, T-72s (and lower) tanks and some guys with beards who can't shoot for shit. Where as the MEC is something of a refreshment of modern warfare held in the middle-east. Sure, its purely fictional, but it makes for an interesting side that could virtually make use of a large variety of equipment rather than some Cold War Soviet Union weapons.

I guess the bottom line question is, fact or fiction?

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2006-04-06 22:16

Alternate timeline = unrealistic

Should the MEC forces be changed?

Should the MEC be changed to have more crappier weapons?