BF2S Forums Why is the USA in EVERY map?

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Iraq didn't "roll over"...they were relentlessly saturation and precision bombed for three weeks.  Their supply lines were devestated.  Their Command, Communications, and Control (CCC) was almost completely destroyed.  Their tanks were getting "plinked" every night from long range by Apaches and A-10s.  The term "softening up" comes to mind, but how can you soften up what was already a marshmallow?  You can't.  The only thing that is left is goo.

You are right, that they were beat down quite a bit.  Still, they didn't fight; while they were hardly in top condition they could have made more of an effort than they did.  If they had, they would have caused more casualties.  People at the time, while never doubting that we would win, were not certain that we were going to get off as lightly as we did.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Making it an urban fight wouldn't have made a bit of a difference.  Perhaps the casualties might have been a little higher, but we would have still gained air superiority, precision bombed their armor no matter where it was, and then rolled in using combined armor and ground troops.  Iraqi cities are not "urban" like New York.  It is more open areas and small buildings.  The only medium sized buildings are places like hotels and government centers.  If Iraqi troops were detected by the Forward Observation Officers to be holed up in one of those buildings, they would flatten the shack with a precision guided bomb.

With all due respect, I disagree.  I have 16 months in Iraq, and 5 months in Mogadishu.  Urban combat is a MF, no matter what your tech level is.  For a hundred reasons I won't bother listing (we could make a whole thread on the subject) It is a great equalizer for low tech troops.  Which is not to say that the US doesn't win in Urban environments...we do, but soldiers who know they are going into one spend a sleepless night.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Also, please put yourself into the shoes of the Iraqi soldiers.  You make it sound like it is an easy tactical decision to turn a conflict into an urban fight.  It is not.  NO SOLDIER IN THE WORLD wants to fight where their family, friends, and houses are at.

The bulk of the Iraqi officers, and half the troops were Sunni.  They couldn't give a fuck less about the Shiite cities in the south of Iraq.  If everyone else had stood and fought, the Shiite remainder would have done what they were told, out of fear.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

...a terrorist action and a military strike/campaign are very different and that just because somebody sponsors an action, that doesn't mean that MILITARY action will take place.  Is is possible?  Sure.  Likely?  I have my doubts.  Again, I can only think of two nations have a history of pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes against sovereign nations for claimed terrorist support.  Those two nations are Israel and the US.  I am not making any judgements against either nation by that statement, just stating the facts.  If anybody else has any other examples, they would be welcome.

My point is simply that countries that are hit by terrorists, tend to get pissed off and hit back.  If they are aware of a sovereign state sponsoring the terrorists, the hit comes harder and faster.  It's not a rule, but I think it is likely and I don't see the Chinese as being an exception.  I think if they had no doubt that a Middle Eastern country were sponsoring thier terrorists, they would hit them.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Correct.  However, wouldn't that be the same as China directly attacking the MEC or an MEC member because of supposed terrorist sponsorship?

Hardly. One is David attacking Goliath, the other is vice versa.  Israel was able to take several of them at once.  Their militaries aren't much better now...I think China could handle the task (although on reflection I must admit it would be a logistical nightmare for them).

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

I think it is best to view the fictional MEC as a Middle Eastern version of NATO or the old Warsaw Pact, not just one Muslim nation.

Speculation: Getting Middle Eastern countries to work effectively together is like herding cats.  In military terms: they aren't very good separtely, I think they would be useless together.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Historically, while China has talked a lot of big talk, they have never shown themselves to be a militaristic nation.

Well, there was Vietnam.  They got an embarrassing spank there, but they learned a big lesson.  Their forces are much better now.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

I think that they would instead look at how the situation has progressed in the Mid-East with the US and think twice.

Very good point.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Great debate, btw.

- Beatdown

Thx.  You too.

sergeriver wrote:

BlackKesha wrote:

Mavlyn wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. 

it's a not question

Why is the USA in EVERY map?

stupid question(sorry, if i offend yuo)
if game is amerikan, then USA was in EVERY map
(sorry for my english, i stupid monkey  )

Mavlyn, understend?

Stupid affirmation indeed, game is Canadian.

ха, если разработчики сами канадцы, это не значит, что ЕА канадская кампания, кто заказчик, тот и указывает, что разрабатывать...

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Okay, I've wondered about this  ever since I got bf2.

Why the HELL does EVERY map have the USMC?
Why is there not ONE map that has China vs MEC?

Is it that the American players can't stand to play anything else than themselves or something? That's the only reason I can think of, but doesn't seem very likely.

Because in BF2 the PLA & MEC are allies

History repeats itself, even in this thread, lol.
We've been over the whole 'where does it say they're allies?'  thing, it's on page 2 or something I think. Interesting debate goin on here though.
Oh and Sud, my bad. You're right it wasn't you but Erkut.tv. For some reason I had the two of you confused.

does anyone In china even play the game, Because they would probley ban it cause of USMC VS. China. It also could create tensions to US to have war with China, I frickin worried about that cause China has the biggest army in the world

smokingun wrote:

does anyone In china even play the game, Because they would probley ban it cause of USMC VS. China. It also could create tensions to US to have war with China, I frickin worried about that cause China has the biggest army in the world

Quality over quantity.

Indeed, If some numnut Chinaman gives away his position, if they have more men there you can cane more fuckers in one shot, whereas if the US / UK / AUS forces were there, they would be better drilled to sort themselves out assault wise.

I'm not gonna guarantee this, but with the recent Coalition movement in Iraq, it was said in many places the CF's where out numbered at least 3/1 by the Iraqi National Guard. Yet it took something like 7 days to defeat them. - Before someone says that they're not defeated cos the fighting is still going on, then that's against Insurgants. Not the ING.

Anyways, Yes I agree. They could make a few add-on maps where the MEC's battle the Chinese forces. After all it's only a game. So what if they're not real / wouldn't in real life... yadda yadda.

It would add some more playability to the already excellent game.

Last edited by Moonraker_x29 (2006-01-03 11:43:40)

dont you guys think britian should have been in the origional bf2, and with their own army vehicles, because whereever the americans are these days, the brits are most likely to be also. Mec v China sounds pretty crap, we least want a map with good stuff onit, if both where on, would be pretty crap

yea the sniper eifle is good

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Okay, I've wondered about this  ever since I got bf2.

Why the HELL does EVERY map have the USMC?
Why is there not ONE map that has China vs MEC?

Is it that the American players can't stand to play anything else than themselves or something? That's the only reason I can think of, but doesn't seem very likely.

Then the suedes like me wouldnt be playing coz the suedes who made the game didnt put a swedish squad in ? Riiiight!!!

why does the USA actually allways fight versus China in these games.. I mean why China?? why not Japan.. Russia? Britain..?..Netherlands? Why allways the Chinese?

You mean this game isn't real...  lmfao...

the USA rules... if it's so bad and horrible... stop coming here in droves...

Reply to Original message:

Well, just think about the largest target audience, ignorant americans convinced of their nations superiority. Only that they're economy would crash and burn without Chinese loans, and that the dollar/euro is at an all time low, they are failing in Iraq, Can't handle Homeland crises, have millions of homeless children starving and a growing number " eligales " crossing their borders. All this while waiting for the next scene to the the Intl. Terrorism play by Osama & Col