MEC forces

[Outlawz7]

I was wondering....everyone knows, that MEC is a made-up bedtime story from EA...so why do we still have it in the mod...if you look at Middle East, I doubt, they would all get together and make a coalition/union...
Most of the countries are neutral (U.A.E.) or friendly (Saudi Arabia) or dont even have an army (Iraq, Afghanistan) or they "purchased" their forces from the West (Egypt, Saudi Arabia)...As said, most of the hardware and forces would be made up from the Iranian army...so why dont we have the Iranian army instead of MEC?

Just a suggestion

[arthuro12]

well, i think its stupid.. Israeli army would be awsome... they have nice weps

[Cascyth]

we need opfor... who else could it be? NKoreans? not enough

[atps[swe]]

well, i think its stupid.. Israeli army would be awsome... they have nice weps

And who would the Israelis fight, US? I also think it should be Iran instead of MEC. If Bush gets his way it´ll probably be a reality soon..

On the other hand, since when is China involved in any fighting with US and UK?

[BlakeJr]

The "Middle Eastern Coalition" will do nicely. It covers most bases for an Arab opponent in this game.
No need to go Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or any of the other nations down there.

Also having China as an opponent in PR is as realistic as the MEC forces.
Even though the MEC does not exist, neither does an armed conflict with China.

Edit: unless you count Chinas intervention in Tibet...

So, if MEC is to be removed for reasons of realism, then so should China.

[arthuro12]

The "Middle Eastern Coalition" will do nicely. It covers most bases for an Arab opponent in this game.
No need to go Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon or any of the other nations down there.

Also having China as an opponent in PR is as realistic as the MEC forces.
Even though the MEC does not exist, neither does an armed conflict with China.

So, if MEC is to be removed for reasons of realism, then so should China.

true, well said

[ZaZZo]

Well China is a growing country, better economy, so who knows? Might be a threat to the US?

[Salah ad Din]

you just wait a bit, the MEC will be along anytime now
On the other hand: a wise man once said:
the Arab countries agree on one thing, to not agree with each other

[BlakeJr]

you just wait a bit, the MEC will be along anytime now
On the other hand: a wise man once said:
the Arab countries agree on one thing, to not agree with each other

Please forgive me but he couldn't have been very wise if he said that...

[bosco_]

I'm fine with them.

[eddie]

They'll offer more technological options than the Militia and the Insurgents, so I say we need to keep them. Sure the Chinese have a lot of technology, but they're not Middle Eastern.

[KingLorre]

we need ISAF now theres a good idea combinded german, dutch, canadian, french, american, britch troops but then we leave out the american and britchs... and now your able to make a whole new Afganistan campaign... assault on the compound, patrolls etc... you would have: canadian SF's, Dutch Rifleman, australian medic's and ofcourse the bluby english talking... like dutch english, australian english, german english, french english etc...

[[T]Terranova7]

This has been discussed before.

But anyhow, the MEC are a best fit since they allow us to bend the rules a bit in terms of their equipment and such. Not to mention with the MEC we can use a variety of locations for our battles, and not just one country.

On the note of China, the only chance of a conflict between the U.S and Chinese is Taiwan. If you're not familiar with that scenario, look it up. But it seems unlikely it will happen.

Still, I think both the MEC and Chinese are alot more interesting than fighting Iran and North Korea.

[puglous]

Terranova makes a good point. Also, given that the US/UK fight about as many battles with China as they do with their Middle Eastern enemies, the Middle Eastern opposition would have to be fairly large.

Then again I'd also prefer if the EU should be brought (if some of those awful voices are redone) back instead of just having GB fight by itself, so I can't say my opinions can be used to predict the plans of the devs.

[Bob_Marley]

I like the MEC in. As far as I recall, this is a mod to make BF2's gameplay more realistic rather than its political situation. They allow far more intersting equipment, possible battle locations and expanison options than a single nation.

[Blackhawk 5]

or dont even have an army (Iraq, Afghanistan)

Umm Iraq does have an army in which allied troops are training so they can handle the problems of insurgents themselves than us.

[Outlawz7]

Umm Iraq does have an army in which allied troops are training so they can handle the problems of insurgents themselves than us.

Yeah, and one of the recruits either blows up the whole training centre or joins the insurgents, after hes done with training...

Hmm, seems, we're fine as it is...

37 <> 10...

Well, could add this to the poll...what about having separate factions?

Split up the MEC into Iranian army, Iraqi forces, insurgents (which we have), Israeli, Lebabon...
But a lot of work, unless you just copy all the player models and give the a new name with new weapon loadout...

[Salah ad Din]

One more: the thing is, the MEC are fighting the USA, which have one of the biggest (if not the biggest) army in the world. If the DEVs replace MEC with, lets say Iran, there wouldn't be any large conventional conflict.
It would be like Iraq: US moves in, Iranian army is defeated, Insurgency ensues.
Maybe not that easy, I think the Iranians have a better army than Iraq had, but still, no long term match for US forces.
So, as I stated before: If we want to have a middle eastern force opposing the US, we need a coalition, because no single country has enough power to seriously lead a war (read: resist invasion) with the US.
So, MEC must stay.

[robbo]

Iran has the largest Army in the world so i would be a very conventional conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... tal_troops
12,285,000 total troops.