USMC vs ...

[lemonfridge]

How come BF2 is always USMC vs ..., and not Chinese VS MEC?

 

[JellyWorld]

Because it has to be US-centric to pander to it's US core audience.

 

[lemonfridge]

well thats what I thought, but surely it wouldnt do that much damage to have all vs all? Kinda sad that things have to be like that to get sales. or that games companies are willing to do that to increase sales.

 

[skarrob]

Bf2 lets see thats battlefield 1942 basically a U.S. won war. WWII maybe they should have put in Hitler to make it more fair. Maybe they should have put in some poor 3rd world country.It would have sold like hotcakes.LMAO

 

[lemonfridge]

BF2 doesnt portray any actual real-life combat event/war/whatever. but we all know what it hints at.

I just dont see why there arnt maps that dont involve the USMC.

 

[MiccyNarc]

basically a U.S. won war.

You obviously have no knowledge of history beyond Saving Private Ryan.

While yes, we did defeat the Japanese, Germany was crushed by Russia. The tide in Europe turned after Stalingrad, not D-Day.

[/dragging thread off topic]

I doubt MEC would go against China (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
IT wouldn't make sense.

 

[lemonfridge]

It's a game. It's not based on any real conflict. Would it have to make sense?

 

[Fletch]

Can they make a british team? so we can laugh at the over the top cockney accents

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

It's a game. It's not based on any real conflict. Would it have to make sense?

Why does it have to be MEC vs China's forces? They are basically allies, I just think it wouldn't be very smart to do so. How it is right now is fine.

 

[Razor]

They could of atleast added a Royal Marines or another British force .

 

[Gunner]

Yeah why is it always the USMC? Where's Sudan or Iceland in these war games, c'mon!!

 

[lemonfridge]

I was just thinking that Razor. Royal Marines would have been very nice indeed.

Im not saying it should be MEC vs China...just some non-USMC maps. Would add a little more varity.

Or is it that everyone likes playing as USMC?

 

[The Monkey]

I always thought MEC and China was allied.... Although a 1v1v1 map would be neat.

 

[ricera10]

Or is it that everyone likes playing as USMC?

The servers usually have more USMC people than the other teams. Go superior weapons and technology!

 

[CptStern]

I thought the reason was pretty obvious ...no one army could ever to hope to defeat the good ol' US of A ....rah!rah! USA USA

 

[Foxtrot]

It would be a waste of time, since the US usually makes up the majority of the forces on their side it would be a complete waste of time to add voices and skins for another army for 1 map.

 

[Bob_Marley]

er... BF2 is supposed to be set in the future where bassicly the whole of the middle east has decided that it's a good idea to have one massive armed force, that would be quite capable of taking on the US, especially the USMC as they don't have the numbers/weapons/logistical support of the US army/airforce and the PLA would give the US a good whooping too. The numbers of the Chinese army combined with the latest battlefeild technology? now that would be a force to contend with the US. I would like to see maps with the MEC facing off agaist the PLA insetad of having to fight the USMC the whole time (even if it is great fun to give the US what they've got coming) and i'd like to see a combined EU force. Because they'd own everyone. I mean come on... German and Belgian small arms, british tanks, the Euro fighter, French missiles, Swedish rocket launchers.... then again it might not be fair to put the rest of the world up agaist the best trained and best equipped soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines in the world...

 

[Gray Fox]

US defense budget= 590 billion a year
rest of the world cobined= 500 billion a year
as much as I hate it US>everyone else

 

[ray_MAN]

Go us!

 

[Icarusintel]

US defense budget= 590 billion a year
rest of the world cobined= 500 billion a year
as much as I hate it US>everyone else

thank you, really it does come down to the numbers game, as many people as China has, they're still fairly poorly equipped technology-wise, same for middle-eastern countries, though they should've added the regular US Army into the mix for a few maps, because that would've been more realistic

and something tells me the europeans could never unite an army that combined all their forces, cause they'd all have to let people vote on it and it would go nowhere, like the EU constitution....

 

[ricera10]

and something tells me the europeans could never unite an army that combined all their forces, cause they'd all have to let people vote on it and it would go nowhere, like the EU constitution....

Lol that would be true. Go USA and its incompetent decision maker president! Even though he may be incompetent, he doesn't "vote" on whether or not we should go to war.

(If you guys remember Social Studies, the Senate declares war, not the President).

 

[ray_MAN]

Well, the President can declare it, but only if there is some kind of emergency. It still has to go through the Congress anyway, and it won. That was when the information coming from the CIA was credible.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

(If you guys remember Social Studies, the Senate declares war, not the President).

*cough* Congress. :cheers:

 

[sinkoman]

The servers usually have more USMC people than the other teams. Go superior weapons and technology!

No. Noobs just seam to think that a certain team is better.

I'm perfectly happy on whatever team I get slammed on.

 

[Foxtrot]

No. Noobs just seam to think that a certain team is better.

I'm perfectly happy on whatever team I get slammed on.

The USMC does have a few advantages, like their helo is better because it is narrower, and the missles hit closer together. But the MEC have a pretty big advantage with rifles, their AK is much better.

 

[mortiz]

Aye, The Medic's Colt Carbine sucks, badly.

 

[DiSTuRbEd]

Aye, The Medic's Colt Carbine sucks, badly.

Thats why you have a gun to unlock

 

[sinkoman]

Thats why you have a gun to unlock

A gun that makes up for (and even more) it's weak shots with extreme accuracy.

So far, it seems as if the medic unlock is the best there is.

 

[Foxtrot]

A gun that makes up for (and even more) it's weak shots with extreme accuracy.

So far, it seems as if the medic unlock is the best there is.

DAO-12 is ownage, and compared to what it replaces (the crappy SMG) it is IMO the best unlock.
The only problem is, you cant use unlocked weapon in clan matches

 

[Pesmerga]

You obviously have no knowledge of history beyond Saving Private Ryan.

While yes, we did defeat the Japanese, Germany was crushed by Russia. The tide in Europe turned after Stalingrad, not D-Day.

While yes, Russia did defend their country and eventually stomp all over Berlin, the moment D-Day was successful was the moment Hitler lost the war. Same goes for Hitler's betrayal of Stalin, and Hitler's refusal to continue attack on GB. You can't really say one event was more drastic than the other, if any one of those events had been put into motion, Hitler would have lost anyway.

On topic.

I rather enjoy USMC Vs * , it's more cinematic. MEC Vs China would just be silly!

Edit - Foxtrot, the DAO-12 is that semiauto shotgun, right? Imo I don't really like it, even compared to the smg. I'll take it on maps like Strike on Kankard, but anywhere else I prefer the SMG's full auto and quick reload time (even if the damage is low as hell, I can generally take out a guy with one full clip.

 

[Adidajs]

(If you guys remember Social Studies, the Senate declares war, not the President).

the last time we declared war was ww2. the president can send troops in without any approval for war (aka Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, etc). I don't think Congress declared war on Hussein.

edit: found this in Wikipedia (which is awesome btw) which basically confirmed what i thought...kinda

Under the United States Constitution, Presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected.[50] Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily[51], and Congress delegated its war powers to the President[52]; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

 

[ray_MAN]

While yes, Russia did defend their country and eventually stomp all over Berlin, the moment D-Day was successful was the moment Hitler lost the war. Same goes for Hitler's betrayal of Stalin, and Hitler's refusal to continue attack on GB. You can't really say one event was more drastic than the other, if any one of those events had been put into motion, Hitler would have lost anyway.

Exactly. In the end, Russia did topple Berlin, but they had a lot less distractions and a lot less ground to cover.

 

[Gray Fox]

I really hate the DAO-12, and the mp5 is fine, I don't know why a lot of people complain so much about it, I killed many people with it.

 

[Foxtrot]

I really hate the DAO-12, and the mp5 is fine, I don't know why a lot of people complain so much about it, I killed many people with it.

Being the #6 rank with the SMG, I know a lot about it. Its accuracy is garbage, and it hardly does any damage, it takes half a clip to kill someone if you are lucky, and often more than a whole clip to kill them. The shotgun though is amazing, two shots up close and you can easily kill someone, usually can get 3 without reloading.

 

[MilkMan12]

You obviously have no knowledge of history beyond Saving Private Ryan.

While yes, we did defeat the Japanese, Germany was crushed by Russia. The tide in Europe turned after Stalingrad, not D-Day.

[/dragging thread off topic]

I doubt MEC would go against China (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
IT wouldn't make sense.

oooh...be careful...it wasnt just stalingrad. The way the allies won the war was making a war on two fronts...so leningrad was a major battle (more so than stalingrad) on one front. What about Rommels defeat in Egypt? The western front was extremely important and the US and Britain won just as important battles in Egypt on the western front. So hardy har har

Update: By the way I just noticed your D-Day comment. Without D-day Russia would have lost as Germany would be fighting a 1 front war instead of two. D-day basically crushed Hitler's blitzkrieg strategy. Not saying D-day won the war. D-day, lenningrad,egypt, RAF pushing germany out of Britain, and a few others but mainly the ones I listed won the war against Germany. Japan was completely different.

 

[MiccyNarc]

. The way the allies won the war was making a war on two fronts...so leningrad was a major battle (more so than stalingrad) on one front

Leningrad was a major battle, yes, but not on the same level as Stalingrad.

What about Rommels defeat in Egypt? The western front was extremely important and the US and Britain won just as important battles in Egypt on the western front.

Yes, that is true, but those battles were minor skirmishes in comparison to the combat in Russia.

Without D-day Russia would have lost as Germany would be fighting a 1 front war instead of two

You really can't defeat Russia, it's just too huge, there is too much manpower to ever fully destroy them. By the end of the war Russia was rolling across Germany, practically unstoppable. D-day probably just sped up their advance, at best.

 

[15357]

And also, Russia = ocean of men tactics

 

[Bob_Marley]

er... the Germans were acctually fighting on 3 fronts: the Russian, Itallian and Western Europein. Although it is fair to say that the tide turned at Stalingrad it was no this sole battle that secured victory for the allies in WWII. The defeat of Rommel in the western desert, the allied invasion of Sicily and Italy in 1943, the defeat of operation citadel, the German counter attack on the russian front in 1943, at Kursk, the Normandy landings, the ardenne offensive in late 1944 that used up the last of Germanys best tanks/planes/troops on the western front. And another major reason was the failire of germany to design and produce a tank that was effective and could be built in great quantity like the T-34 or the Sherman. If the Germans had had such a tank the war could have gone the other way. also if the germans had acctually invaded the UK they may have been able to have been victorus in russia and they definitly wouldn't have had to worry about an allied invasion in western europe

 

[Pesmerga]

Italy was a worthless front and a waste of resources

 

[Gray Fox]

Italy was a worthless front and a waste of resources

that doesn't matter the allies didn't expect to have major victories in italie, but the thing was the allies ahd more soliders then germany so they had to use that to their advantage, what italiy did was open up a third front for which germany had to divert material, the allies could spare the soldiers, and still have a big force in the west while germans couldn't, and as far as I knew italians weren't that great fighters.