MEC army's future

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2007-08-10 20:05

I've always thought of the MEC as a "confederation" of sorts. The Middle-East nations intially starting out by operating under one currency, then moving on to operating a single army. In light to recent "western" aggression in the middle-east (Which is where Iraq and Afghanistan come in), the MEC begin showing opposition toward the U.S and it's allies. First by ceasing oil exports to them, and selling it to China and even Russian Federation instead. Tensions begin to arise from there, eventually escalating to a full-blown war.

Such a process would have taken them many years, which is where PR could write it's "lore" so to say into modern history.

Or... a more dramatic approach would be that one of the middle-east nations actually conquers the region in a long-term war. Say... during the 1980 war between Iran and Iraq, Iran defeats Iraq, actually gaining their territory in the process. Afterwards, they initiate a "blitzkrieg" on the many middle-east nations. With support from the Russians and the Chinese, "western" intervention seems unlikely. Eventually, the Iranians form a new "empire" of sorts. The newly formed "MEC" make a mistake by exporting the majority of its oil to China and the Russians, and with the growing oil crisis the U.S and the various western nations decided to go to war.

I could go on and on with the scenarios.

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-08-10 20:11

Terranova wrote:I've always thought of the MEC as a "confederation" of sorts. The Middle-East nations intially starting out by operating under one currency, then moving on to operating a single army. In light to recent "western" aggression in the middle-east (Which is where Iraq and Afghanistan come in), the MEC begin showing opposition toward the U.S and it's allies. First by ceasing oil exports to them, and selling it to China and even Russian Federation instead. Tensions begin to arise from there, eventually escalating to a full-blown war.

Such a process would have taken them many years, which is where PR could write it's "lore" so to say into modern history.

Or... a more dramatic approach would be that one of the middle-east nations actually conquers the region in a long-term war. Say... during the 1980 war between Iran and Iraq, Iran defeats Iraq, actually gaining their territory in the process. Afterwards, they initiate a "blitzkrieg" on the many middle-east nations. With support from the Russians and the Chinese, "western" intervention seems unlikely. Eventually, the Iranians form a new "empire" of sorts. The newly formed "MEC" make a mistake by exporting the majority of its oil to China and the Russians, and with the growing oil crisis the U.S and the various western nations decided to go to war.

I could go on and on with the scenarios.

Did you even care to read what I posted a page before? Unless you care to remodel the MEC characters to look Persian in both uniform and facial structure, change and add the weapons of the Iranian Military, Change the Arabic communications commands to Farsi then I don't see this happening.

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-08-10 20:13

MEC, contrary to popular belief, stands for Middle Eastern Country.

On each map it could represent a different country.

Them all having the same equipment, vehicles etc. is just because it would take to much work to make each countries equipment different.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2007-08-10 20:15

Cheeseman wrote:Did you even care to read what I posted a page before? Unless you care to remodel the MEC characters to look Persian in both uniform and facial structure, change and add the weapons of the Iranian Military, Change the Arabic communications commands to Farsi then I don't see this happening.

I realize that, they're generic concepts at best, and not entirely accurate (or even inteded to be for that matter). The basic idea being that I believe in order to make the existence of the MEC credible, you'd have to alter modern day history, and things of that nature.

bugsyrw · Post by **bugsyrw** » 2007-08-10 20:23

cheese lol years to write. Give a starving college student some money or food and they will cook something up for you in a week. This post makes me question. Why do all these FPS games focus solely on the middle east. There are conflicts going on everywhere in the world at any given time. The general public is not away of these skirmishes. This is why I would like to see different types of maps in the game with different types of terrain. Snow maps would be nice, Swampy maps, island maps. the game is called PR not desert combat. This is just a personal preference I like map variations.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2007-08-10 20:34

Patience Bugs, everything you see in .6 is new style. The huge maps...militia forest maps etc etc. This last release was a huge jump tech wise...now the new content will come in to support it. Weapons, maps, vehicles, factions, assets. It's coming, just in time.

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-08-10 20:44

Terranova wrote:I realize that, they're generic concepts at best, and not entirely accurate (or even inteded to be for that matter). The basic idea being that I believe in order to make the existence of the MEC credible, you'd have to alter modern day history, and things of that nature.

Yes, Battlefield 2 is a EA owned game. It was made by DICE, and like many other unacurate decision they made (such as giving the USMC M16A2's in modern day conflicts) they made a fictional Middle Eastern Coalition (MEC) as well. Project Reality is a move towards reality; believe it or not Iran’s history existed long before Canada's or the United States history, you can't "alter" a countries history which has existed longer than most modern day countries of the West. And I thought the whole point of this thread was a "realstic" middle eastren military not something to "alter" to fit our own interests?

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-08-10 20:59

Concurred, heh, gotta love that word. Sounds like something they'd say in the House of Lords.

Guerra · Post by **Guerra** » 2007-08-10 21:58

Sorry to burst your bubble ladies, but Iran isn't a pushover force like Iraq was.

Iran has some VERY advanced Surface to Air systems, they have missiles than can take out entire carriers anywhere in the gulf or as far as the Indian Ocean.

Some very advanced Sukoi and Migoyan jet fighters, not to mention an abundance of American F-16 jets.

Gunships would get obliterated by Iranian AA, they'd have to bomb Iran with F18s and F22's if they are going to succeed.

So, yeah, just because you think it's another generic middle eastern country, it's not.

A war with Iran would be a costly mistake for the US. Iran can take out warships. Iraq never had the technology or capacity to do so.

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-08-10 22:02

Guerra wrote:
Some very advanced Sukoi and Migoyan jet fighters, not to mention an abundance of American F-16 jets.

They don't have F-16s. They have F-14s and F-5s.

Guerra · Post by **Guerra** » 2007-08-10 22:04

Of course they have F16s, Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iran bought a shitload of F16s from Israel.

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-08-10 22:06

Guerra wrote:Of course they have F16s, Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iran bought a shitload of F16s from Israel.

:/ can you show me some sources?

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-08-10 22:44

'[R-CON wrote:GeZe;454617']MEC, contrary to popular belief, stands for Middle Eastern Country.

On each map it could represent a different country.

Them all having the same equipment, vehicles etc. is just because it would take to much work to make each countries equipment different.

the manual say Middle East Coalition

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-08-10 22:45

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:the manual say Middle East Coalition

Shhh, I was trying to make up a reasonable explanation.

Jimmy_Smack · Post by **Jimmy_Smack** » 2007-08-10 22:53

Jesus guys i didn't really mean IRAN i just said the first Middle Eastern country that came to mind. And there is NO WAY the Middle Eastern countries would band together to make a Coalition.

puglous · Post by **puglous** » 2007-08-10 23:19

And there is NO WAY the Middle Eastern countries would band together to make a Coalition.

Yeah think of all the countries that allied against Israel over the years; Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and like...

Ahem.

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-08-10 23:30

puglous wrote:Ahem.

Technically Egypt isn’t in Asia, which means it’s not part of the region we call the Middle East. Egypt is part of North Africa and doesn’t count as a Middle Eastern Coalition.

puglous · Post by **puglous** » 2007-08-10 23:57

The definition of the middle east varies depending on who you ask...

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-08-11 00:15

Guerra wrote:Of course they have F16s, Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iran bought a shitload of F16s from Israel.

I'm still waiting for you to post sources...

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-08-11 01:08

Gameplay realism, not political realism.

Thats what, as far as I understand, PR is aiming for.

Plenty of "Realistic" games have unrealistic political situations as a background. OFP for example. Did the USSR and NATO directly go to war at any point? No. They did not. Does it take away from the realism? no, it doesn't.

If you can imagine that the Cold War gets hot, or that the modern US Army goes to war on some fictional Island (ArmA, from what I hear) whats to stop you imagining that the Arab Speaking nations formed a NATO like organization for what ever reason?

Nothing. Thats what.