Who is MEC ?

[Masaq]

Np - but yeah, the problem with a storyline is that, say we put in place that the PLA and MEC are fighting together against US expansion in the middle east and western pacific regions, yadda yadda yadda... well, someone then is prevented from making a MEC vs PLA map for example - even if they came up with a really interesting scenario/setting.

Likewise, a storyline stating the Militia are US or UK funded in an attempt to unsettle the Balkans and tie up Russian forces in the area, rules out ever having Militia/Chechen vs US/GB maps again.

All in all, except for maps that are tied together into a series - Assault on Mestia, Fool's Road, Dragonfly, for example - the mod is best served by having no fixed storyline at all and allowing mappers to come up with whatever scenarios they feel are reasonably realistic.

GB vs USMC is pretty much out - storyline or not. GB vs Militia is only out if we write it out through a storyline. No storyline leaves us free to have GB vs Militia, GB vs Russia and Militia vs Russia maps, all together - and that's just one example.

IDF vs Insurgents is obviously fairly likely, IDF vs MEC is obviously a strong possibility. But what about if someone wanted to do a MEC vs Insurgents map? A storyline saying the Insurgency is formed of former MEC soldiers in US-overrun areas prevents that map being made.

[Napoleon_TR]

Pakistan and Persian

[Masaq]

So they're speaking Arabic instead of Farsi... why?

[Hitperson]

yeah funny that.

i think we can rule out the iranians now.

[badmojo420]

They're whatever the devs need them to be. But i voted Arabs and Iranians.

[Bob_Marley]

As we all know the storyline of PR is NATO's last, desperate war to prevent those fiendish orientals and thier arabic allies from blowing up the moon.

[CodeRedFox]

Also remember that the MEC is a bf2 faction. So for now they are any middle eastern faction. Maybe later in the future PR can create its own Middle East Faction that will be more correct.

[Solid Knight]

As we all know the storyline of PR is NATO's last, desperate war to prevent those fiendish orientals and thier arabic allies from blowing up the moon.

I thought NATO forces were trying to stop them from blowing up the ocean.

[Rangu]

I bet they're RAVs; Russians, Arabs and Villains

[Airsoft]

Jews will be represented later with the IDF faction.

[scandhi]

I bet they're RAVs; Russians, Arabs and Villains

I vOte for The RAV team!!

but who cares.. it's just a book.

[daranz]

I'm assuming that MEC is a union of several middle eastern countries, with majority of the population being Arabs. Since it seems to have its own army, I can only assume that MEC is in fact not merely an alliance of separate countries, but a state on its own. Assuming that's true, it probably came about as a result of overthrowing or otherwise changing of several governments of today's middle eastern states, and uniting them under one banner of some political and/or religious ideology.

The new entity decided to call itself the Middle Eastern Coalition, and either started aggressive expansion resulting in a response from western nations protecting their interests (states still friendly to the west); or, it was actively invaded by western nations, after they decided the MEC is an illegitimate entity.

As to the PRC, any alliance with the MEC would be one of convenience. Allied forces were heavily involved in fighting on one side of the world, and the other faction decided to exploit that, making them fight on two distant fronts. A MEC vs PLA map would mean that the tenuous alliance was broken, as either MEC or China found some reason to finally invade one another.

[Cobhris]

I'm assuming that MEC is a union of several middle eastern countries, with majority of the population being Arabs. Since it seems to have its own army, I can only assume that MEC is in fact not merely an alliance of separate countries, but a state on its own. Assuming that's true, it probably came about as a result of overthrowing or otherwise changing of several governments of today's middle eastern states, and uniting them under one banner of some political and/or religious ideology.

The new entity decided to call itself the Middle Eastern Coalition, and either started aggressive expansion resulting in a response from western nations protecting their interests (states still friendly to the west); or, it was actively invaded by western nations, after they decided the MEC is an illegitimate entity.

As to the PRC, any alliance with the MEC would be one of convenience. Allied forces were heavily involved in fighting on one side of the world, and the other faction decided to exploit that, making them fight on two distant fronts. A MEC vs PLA map would mean that the tenuous alliance was broken, as either MEC or China found some reason to finally invade one another.

This pretty much coincides with my thoughts, except I see the MEC as the military arm of the entity, which could be called the Middle Eastern Union (just one possibility). It would be somewhat similar in organization to the EU, except with a greater level of centralization. Aggressive expansion came as part of an attempt to gain monopoly over the world petroleum markets in conjunction with Russia, and thus control over the West. Aggression was needed because a number of governments that had not experienced revolution or were allied with the West resisted MEC demands. However, a NATO weary of the war on terror (about 2012 or 2013 at this point) does little as the MEC sponsors rebel armies in Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, with the vast majority of the resisting countries under MEC control, its leaders began to call for an invasion of Israel. The US immediately declared war on the MEC, with other NATO countries following soon after.

Several months later, China (who had allied themselves with the MEC in order to secure a safe supply of oil for themselves) declares war on NATO, calling its actions in the Middle East "brutal aggression, nothing more than the West once more treading on affairs it has no business in!" With the war unfolding on eastern and western fronts, the NATO countries are forced to split their troops between the Middle East and China, where the US has taken the initiative in attacking before the Chinese can mobilize forces beyond its borders. As a result, Europe is forced to commit increasing numbers of troops to the Middle Eastern theater. With European forces concentrated in the Middle East, Russia seizes the opportunity to push west into Eastern Europe, into Ukraine, the Balkans, and Poland. At this point the war could still go either way, but no one disputes that it has grown into World War III. As all sides possess nuclear weapons, the fear of MAD prevents their use, keeping WWIII a conventional conflict.

My version of the PR story

[CodeRedFox]

I bet they're RAVs; Russians, Arabs and Villains

I vOte for The RAV team!! :

I'm guessing this is from the movie "Thank You for Smoking"? If not...your both VERY very wrong. There are no Villains in this game. Faction color are based on affiliations and opposing nations (Blufor vs RedFor/Opfor)

So lets put that term "Villian" relating with MEC down to rest.

[steve_06-07]

I always thought of the MEC as different Arab governments joining this Coalition, which could be like the EU, just not have the word Union in it. The Military of the MEC could be like NATO, but with the same uniforms, weapons, vehicles used by all the states in the MEC.

[Rudd]

Turns out NATO is in it for the oil, while the MEC are trying to restore peace and order to the world.........................................

'xfiles theme tune'

[Spec]

Turns out NATO is in it for the oil, while the MEC are trying to restore peace and order to the world.........................................

'xfiles theme tune'

AND blow the moon. (The question is: NATO or MEC?)

[Tannhauser]

This pretty much coincides with my thoughts, except I see the MEC as the military arm of the entity, which could be called the Middle Eastern Union (just one possibility). It would be somewhat similar in organization to the EU, except with a greater level of centralization. Aggressive expansion came as part of an attempt to gain monopoly over the world petroleum markets in conjunction with Russia, and thus control over the West. Aggression was needed because a number of governments that had not experienced revolution or were allied with the West resisted MEC demands. However, a NATO weary of the war on terror (about 2012 or 2013 at this point) does little as the MEC sponsors rebel armies in Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq, and Afghanistan. However, with the vast majority of the resisting countries under MEC control, its leaders began to call for an invasion of Israel. The US immediately declared war on the MEC, with other NATO countries following soon after.

Several months later, China (who had allied themselves with the MEC in order to secure a safe supply of oil for themselves) declares war on NATO, calling its actions in the Middle East "brutal aggression, nothing more than the West once more treading on affairs it has no business in!" With the war unfolding on eastern and western fronts, the NATO countries are forced to split their troops between the Middle East and China, where the US has taken the initiative in attacking before the Chinese can mobilize forces beyond its borders. As a result, Europe is forced to commit increasing numbers of troops to the Middle Eastern theater. With European forces concentrated in the Middle East, Russia seizes the opportunity to push west into Eastern Europe, into Ukraine, the Balkans, and Poland. At this point the war could still go either way, but no one disputes that it has grown into World War III. As all sides possess nuclear weapons, the fear of MAD prevents their use, keeping WWIII a conventional conflict.

My version of the PR story

Cool, the only problem is that US attacking china is likely to get it's (US) economy in a bad, very bad, situation.

But for whoever daydreams of PR's fictionnal storyline, as we all know none will EVER exist, remember something clear was said about it : Who said the maps we play in are events happening during a same unique world war? They could be different wars at different times, hence the illfated MEC-PLA alliance being more of a restriction when we could simply leave them free, eliminating any restrictions that could burden mappers in their working.
Why restrict when we can just leave minds floating freely? Isn't it fun anyway? To always be uncertain of a story we will never know? It's been a tool for other games, to show fragmented bits o' story leaving the sole interpretation to the players?
I think PR is fine with no «official» storyline.

[Flanker15]

Who are the the MEC, they are the MEC duh!
It's like asking who are the GDI?

[shifty66]

Arabs and Iranians. As it is the COALITION...