Page 1 of 2

Small back story for the BF2 fight

Posted: 2007-08-17 23:48
by Expendable Grunt
Very simple, and I intentionally left out details.

In the near future the US elects a democratic president. This president is fairly isolationist in comparison to his opponents.

In 2010, [insert small arab country here] came under attack by one of it's neighbors. This nation was a somewhat minor oil producing nation. They called for US intervention. After much debate in the Senate and House, the US decides not to go to war.

The nation fights, and using some un named contacts, manages to win the small war. In the aftermath, a fairly charismatic leader takes position as the new prime minister of this nation (the PM before him having died in an attack on the capital).

By 2013, several other oil producing nations had declared treties with this nation. Acting on a personal hatred for the US for not coming to his nations aide, he convences these nations to form a new force -- a Middle Eastern Coalition. The countries, with their resentment twords the west, and their common oil production abilities, mostly agree and many nations join. This new NATO-like faction opens up trade between the member states, joint patrols each others nations to keep sectarian violence to a minimum, and most importantly, has secured the largest oil Embargo on the USA and GB. The surplus oil is sold to China, the next largest consumer of petrolium oil in the world, at a far cheaper price due to surplus. Soon, other nations, hungry for profits, join in the embargo and sign into the MEC.

Shortly later the US declares war on this new force, in an attempt to wrest control of oil. Great Briton and Canada join quickly, and China declares war on them, coming to the aid of their allies. Tensions run high as the nations fight what threatens to become a new world war over the Black Gold.

Posted: 2007-08-17 23:51
by Nimble
Good start. Needs to be LONGER though. More detailed.

Posted: 2007-08-18 00:03
by Outlawz7
Indeed, more detail, maybe just switch years a bit back, since PR is supposed to be 2010, not 2020

Maybe Bush never got elected and 9/11 never happened?

Posted: 2007-08-18 00:17
by Expendable Grunt
I kept it vague on purpose, so I didn't have a two page long post and have it become epic fail.

Posted: 2007-08-18 01:26
by Farks
Just like Outlawz said, it needs to be sooner in the future.

Posted: 2007-08-18 02:15
by Outlawz7
No, Im trying to say, that Bush didnt get elected and 9/11 didnt happen as a prequel to the events, PR is based on.

Would make sense, because then the Iraq and Afghanistan wouldnt be invaded and would join up MEC.

Posted: 2007-08-18 02:20
by Eddiereyes909
Outlawz wrote:No, Im trying to say, that Bush didnt get elected and 9/11 didnt happen as a prequel to the events, PR is based on.

Would make sense, because then the Iraq and Afghanistan wouldnt be invaded and would join up MEC.
i agree with outlawz on this one

Posted: 2007-08-18 02:27
by Nimble
Then we'd have to get rid of the Afghanistan and Iraq maps.... Which I don't want to do :(

Posted: 2007-08-18 03:38
by Leo
Nimble wrote:Then we'd have to get rid of the Afghanistan and Iraq maps.... Which I don't want to do :(

What Iraq/Afghanistan maps?

Posted: 2007-08-18 03:53
by Doc
The way you're describing the MEC, it seems like it needs a name extension.

Middle Eastern Coalition of Petroleum Exporting Countries (MECPEC).

I think that the background also needs more tension that sparks the
creation of the MEC(PEC). Now, I doubt that sectarian violence will end
soon enough, so that provides the basis of the Insurgency.

The way I piece things together, is that the MEC uses whatever profit
they've gained in the past to buy weapons shipments from the Militia
as well as exchanging oil for training from the PLA.

Now we've made a small army. Add in vehicles purchased from
Russia (before entry into the war), and now you've got a mechanized
contingent of forces with proper training.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
After we've made our army, we need a reason for attacking.
  • MEC forces seen as a threat, attacked by Coalition forces, or vice versa.
  • Iran becomes part of the MECPEC, and BLUFOR invades. (Assuming we go into Iran, of course.)
  • They just plain want us gone.
Now that the MEC is attacking/defending, China will come to the aid
of the MEC, probably for the sole reason of protecting its interests.

And now we see the strategy BLUFOR is taking:
  • Eliminate the militia, cut off the arms shipments.
  • Convince Russia to join us, they will run out of vehicles.
  • Take out China, they won't be as well trained.
Colors are fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leo wrote: What Iraq/Afghanistan maps?
Al Basrah, Jabal al Burj, Kashan Oilfields...

The list goes on.

Posted: 2007-08-18 04:03
by TexLax
i second renaming the MEC team to MECPEC

Posted: 2007-08-18 04:08
by Outlawz7
Well, we could have US invading Iraq first, since its closest by sea (Persian Gulf) and has a poorly equiped army in comparison to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Then the Insurgency rises in attempt to drive them off, so while US Forces are fighting in Kashan desert (which is located in Iran), British are dealing with Insurgents in Basrah.

Aghanistan is also invaded to cut off the Chechenyan Militia, supported by MEC, which is fighting Russians, meanwhile the Canadian and British deal with Insurgents in Aghanistan again.

Posted: 2007-08-18 04:37
by Hx.Clavdivs
In marketing; If the horse is dead:

1. Get a bigger whip
2. Claim a dead horse is better than a live one
3. Bundle it with other dead horses and sell them on sale
... ... ...

Mecpec?

Posted: 2007-08-18 04:51
by Eddiereyes909
TS conversation

"hey dude wanna play some PR"

"Yeah im up for it"

"ok lets go to DVB since its got a few open spots"

"ok im in "

"what side you on"

"MECPEC"

"cricket"

Posted: 2007-08-18 05:40
by Hx.Clavdivs
Player has disconnected from the server.

Posted: 2007-08-18 05:49
by Eddiereyes909
Hx.Clavdivs wrote:Player has disconnected from the server.
exactly, whats wrong with just wanting to have fun and play a map, why make PR with a politcal storyline


This is not Call of Duty or Crisis

Posted: 2007-08-18 06:13
by Hx.Clavdivs
This is your gun. There is none like it. This is your enemy. Kill them.

"And all was well."

Posted: 2007-08-18 13:45
by Doc
Even if the MEC get a name change, people will still call them the MEC.
MECPEC is merely a more formal name that coincides with Grunt's
storyline.

We make storylines because not all maps are fun all the time, and
because we have a curiosity on how things came about.

Let me put it to you this way: If you were fighting in a war, and had
absolutely no recollection of any events leading up to the war, would
you not want to know why you are fighting?

Now, of course, it is still a video game. But if you don't want a background story,
then just don't read one. Even so, the best games either
have a great storyline or sandbox gameplay and a mediocre storyline.

;)

Posted: 2007-08-19 00:54
by Eddiereyes909
isnt this the back story to Basrah
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wAdTKNHnKiM