Why the USMC?

[C4SINO 10]

For example, I'm sure everyone knows the Game Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. The game's plot is that the Chinese and Russians are at war on an island that has the largest untapped oil and gas reserves in the World.

The USMC back the Russians to remove the Chinese from the island.

The reasons or motivation for doing so was not only to have a stronger alliance with the Russians, but more than likely to strike a deal to get the oil and gas for cheap or for free.

Now look at ArmA 2, they intervene with this civil war, they back the democrats over the communists...but why? There's no oil or anything there, there's no plan to develop a base there so why?

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

Please do not discuss politics and analyze real life conflicts and such here. If you wish to discuss events of real life conflicts and such, there's plenty of offtopic threads for that.

My apologies, I didn't realise. It's just that this is on-topic as it has to do with the political side of the ArmA 2 storyline.

[usmc123 1]

Countries that asked for serious aid, what about the Rwandan Genocide? Almost 1 million people killed in 100 days, no help came for them? And I'm sure they asked for aid.

True, very true, but the UK didn't send aid, how many nations did. Why is the U.S. the problem? The world sucks, no nation will commit without a political gain, it is the truth. Most superpowers won't commit unless they are connected by some sort of agreement or there is a political gain. Maybe back in the day people would fight for honor or justice but rarely does that happen on an international scale. I don't want to justify selfishness but I don't see why the U.S. should be on the spot when there are other nations that wouldn't do differently.

But like Centipede said, you may be thinking to far into this. It is a war simulator not a political simulator.

EDIT: Read your thing about OFPDR and somehow I doubt the U.S. would ever fight China and China would never fight the U.S. now that could be marketing. :D And if most modern war's were portrayed with politics in mind then it would be a boring and depressing game.

Edited June 20, 2009 by usmc123

[Alex72 1]

...And you all know we have a very heavy duty editor right? The very same BI made their campaign in and made up the story. So now you can figure out that you yourself can recreate ANY war ever faught.

Enough said really.

[C4SINO 10]

True, very true, but the UK didn't send aid, how many nations did. Why is the U.S. the problem? The world sucks, no nation will commit without a political gain, it is the truth. Most superpowers won't commit unless they are connected by some sort of agreement or there is a political gain. Maybe back in the day people would fight for honor or justice but rarely does that happen on an international scale. I don't want to justify selfishness but I don't see why the U.S. should be on the spot when there are other nations that wouldn't do differently.

But like Centipede said, you may be thinking to far into this. It is a war simulator not a political simulator.

EDIT: Read your thing about OFPDR and somehow I doubt the U.S. would ever fight China and China would never fight the U.S. now that could be marketing. :D

So I guess I have my answer, there is no real reason that the USMC are intervening, they only do it to be good guys. I guess I should get ready for another corny story, I'll still buy though.

You ask why the U.S. is the problem? I only asked because their the main characters in the game, but if you want me to get political and tell you why their the real problem in real life, your better of PMing me.

BTW, for OFPDR, it probably is a marketing strategy. Ever notice they got the biggest armies in the world and mashed them into one conflict on a small island?

I just do hope that the 360 game comes out shortly, maybe I can fill in the gaps

[Sniperwolf572 758]

As for the reason, I don't think BI ever specified a specific reason you asked for, and left it up to your imagination.

What we know is that CDF and the goverment asked for help, and someone responded, it turned out to be US and the USMC. Why did they do it since it doesn't benefit them in any way? Nobody knows, but we can imagine that BI imagined a world where there are selfless people, who'd come to help without any benefits for them.

[Barnaby 10]

As for the reason, I don't think BI ever specified a specific reason you asked for, and left it up to your imagination.

What we know is that CDF and the goverment asked for help, and someone responded, it turned out to be US and the USMC. Why did they do it since it doesn't benefit them in any way? Nobody knows, but we can imagine that BI imagined a world where there are selfless people, who'd come to help without any benefits for them.

Thats something we can all hope for.

[C4SINO 10]

As for the reason, I don't think BI ever specified a specific reason you asked for, and left it up to your imagination.

What we know is that CDF and the goverment asked for help, and someone responded, it turned out to be US and the USMC. Why did they do it since it doesn't benefit them in any way? Nobody knows, but we can imagine that BI imagined a world where there are selfless people, who'd come to help without any benefits for them.

Yeah...I guess that's basically it. There's my answer, there is no reason, in this World everything is black and white, good and evil.

Well if the Mission Editor is all it's cracked up to be (and this game comes out on 360), perhaps I can fill in the gaps.

Or if BI decide to make ArmA 3, they might think through the true reasons.

You can close this thread by the way, my question is answered.

[Junker 0]

As for the reason, I don't think BI ever specified a specific reason you asked for, and left it up to your imagination.

What we know is that CDF and the goverment asked for help, and someone responded, it turned out to be US and the USMC. Why did they do it since it doesn't benefit them in any way? Nobody knows, but we can imagine that BI imagined a world where there are selfless people, who'd come to help without any benefits for them.

Wheres the British guys..? having tea and crumbets again :D

[Alex72 1]

Yes the editor is that "cracked up". It is the most advanced and yet easy to start learn in of all games ive seen since 1980-ish. And i dont think 360 version will be able to do all you can on a PC. Might be wrong.

[dreday 1]

72;1318037']Yes the editor is that "cracked up". It is the most advanced and yet easy to start learn in of all games ive seen since 1980-ish. And i dont think 360 version will be able to do all you can on a PC. Might be wrong.

Agreed. Besides, the 360 version (if it ever comes out) will not be able to run all the community mods and campaigns...

Peace,

DreDay

[jakerod 254]

You've been given several answers that are at least some what realistic.

There could be airfields there that the U.S. needs for Afghanistan or just so they can have a base there if they need it. An important U.S. airbase in the region was either shut down or was going to be shut down (given what I read at the time I think the Russians paid for the country it was in to close it) which would make getting troops and supplies into Afghanistan much more difficult. News Story (I think)

Kyrgyzstan: Independence (Wikipedia)

On 3 February 2009, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced the imminent closure of the Manas Air Base, the only US military base remaining in Central Asia.[10] The closure was approved by Parliament on 19 February 2009 by 78-1 for the government-backed bill

There could be oil there. Look how close it is to the caspian sea which has lots of oil. Chenarus Map / Caspian Sea

Perhaps part of the missile shield is going to go there. Although, it seems a bit out of place, but what do I know about missile shields?

Insert several other reasons here. Some what similar situation: Operation Restore Hope

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

Early on December 9, the MEU performed an amphibious assault into the city of Mogadishu.

That sounds familiar. Edited June 20, 2009 by Jakerod

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Deleted some unnecessary comments.

Wheres the British guys..? having tea and crumbets again :D

Too busy sniping arms off imaginary terrorists. ;)

[CuteQA 0]

Maybe a US and Russia joint anti-terror or peacekeeping campaign for expansion? It is kinda strange always making Russia the bad guy. :) While playing the ARMA2 campaign, it just sound so outdated when the teammate calling Russian red or commies, com'on! it is 2009. :rolleyes:

btw, has Russian army replaced their helmet yet?

[dreday 1]

Maybe a US and Russia joint anti-terror or peacekeeping campaign for expansion? It is kinda strange always making Russia the bad guy. :) While playing the ARMA2 campaign, it just sound so outdated when the teammate calling Russian red or commies, com'on! it is 2009. :rolleyes:

Please see my earlier post in this thread. There is a reason for the way that the storyline is written. And while you and I might find it regrettable, it is understandable.

btw, has Russian army replaced their helmet yet?

They are currently in a process of replacing it. The top readiness units are largely equipped with either 6B7 or newer 6B2x series helmets by now. Other units are still using the old SSh-68 (which is what you see in A2).

Peace,

DreDay

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Maybe a US and Russia joint anti-terror or peacekeeping campaign for expansion? It is kinda strange always making Russia the bad guy. :) While playing the ARMA2 campaign, it just sound so outdated when the teammate calling Russian red or commies, com'on! it is 2009. :rolleyes:

btw, has Russian army replaced their helmet yet?

totally agree, somehow the OFP plot and the ArmA 2 plot offends me as a Russian. I am a bit disappointed that BIS did not think of the russian gaming community. Alot of russians ive talked to are quite disappointed in the campaign plot. Most russians nowdays do not want to be known as communists or part of it. We are democracy now, not communist. I do agree that the the plot is a bit biased and should of been somewhat different. Like a Joint NATO and Russian Cooperation trying to end a civil war conflict. I mean when i play games where russians are potrayed as bad and your friendly allies say " Die you bloody reds or commies" i really see where this goes. I think we should see more fictional conflicts where every country is somewhat potrayed positively.

How many games now days potray Russia as Negative and Evil?

[Deadfast 43]

The OFP plot was in fact about a rogue Soviet general who acted on his own.

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

The OFP plot was in fact about a rogue Soviet general who acted on his own.

yes but still... i was killing russians/soviets in the game..

[An-225 0]

I was not around for OFP, so I don't know much about its plot.

But I do not see the problem with having Russia as an adversary to America.

Will someone please propose a worthy adversary to America? There isn't much sense in pitting the USA against a member of the EU/a member of NATO.

So that leaves us with two other worthy adversaries.

Russia and China. And personally, I wouldn't say a country that uses a variant of the MiG-21 is a threat to the USA. In all seriousness though, China is a threat to the USA, but Russia provides a far more interesting and detailed backdrop from which you can create a game out of.

It is most likely appealing to players to fight against another country with counterparts in equipment. You can still do COIN while fighting against NAPA.

Another good thing about ArmA is that anyone can be the bad guy. You have the capability to play as any faction, and it is only in a USMC based mission that Russia is your opponent. If I remember correctly, you can even set Russia as an ally to the USMC.

ArmA 2 does not portray the Russians as savages, as most other games would. They are only the 'bad guys' in the eyes of the USMC in the campaign. I don't believe the game would have the Russians committing war crimes either, so there is no purely evil side...

The ArmA 2 campaign is not black and white. There are all shades of grey. It has a lot more depth than simply stating that the Commies are bad.

[BaseJumper 10]

Why does America view China as a threat when America borrows billions and billions of money from China (about 739.6 billion) ? :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

search for "China" in that article.

Seriously folks.. it's like trying to piss your creditors off or sumthin.. :rolleyes:

[Depleted 10]

I'm not complaining about the US being the hero's of the game but don't people think it's getting a little old now? Portraying the US as hero's of every conflict...

Why not let us play as the British SAS instead ;) that'd make a hilarious mod hahahahaha.

"Oi dave, make us a brew wud'ya mate. I dont see why any pillock would walk down this valley anytime soon at this hour."

[Andi 10]

The US always will take the opportunity to seed a US-friendly democracy in unstable states. That's why I think USMC gets deployed to Chernarus. The option to help insurgents is in player's hands, but would never been considered by USMC (That's the part of CIA). :D

[horror1 10]

cia helped, funded and supplied the taliban in the 80s.

the us helped funded and supplied saddam in the 80s and 90s.

i could go on and on

seems like the rootcause of most problems today is the us interventions :)

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

I'm not complaining about the US being the hero's of the game but don't people think it's getting a little old now? Portraying the US as hero's of every conflict...

Why not let us play as the British SAS instead ;) that'd make a hilarious mod hahahahaha.

"Oi dave, make us a brew wud'ya mate. I dont see why any pillock would walk down this valley anytime soon at this hour."

yea i think its getting a bit old with us as the good guys all the time. I mean we are'nt all americans wtf?

[djewt1 0]

Maybe a US and Russia joint anti-terror or peacekeeping campaign for expansion? It is kinda strange always making Russia the bad guy. While playing the ARMA2 campaign, it just sound so outdated when the teammate calling Russian red or commies, com'on! it is 2009.

If a real war ever broke out between Russia and the US, US soldiers would probably call there advisaris all kinds of names, related to communism. The Russian soldiers will probably do the same, although I have no idea what they would say ;)

But I agree, the US as the eternal good guy is getting old and only belongs in a black and white world. I don't think governments are able to be good in general :butbut:

Edited June 20, 2009 by djewt1

[ScorpionGuard 10]

totally agree, somehow the OFP plot and the ArmA 2 plot offends me as a Russian. I am a bit disappointed that BIS did not think of the russian gaming community. Alot of russians ive talked to are quite disappointed in the campaign plot. Most russians nowdays do not want to be known as communists or part of it. We are democracy now, not communist. I do agree that the the plot is a bit biased and should of been somewhat different. Like a Joint NATO and Russian Cooperation trying to end a civil war conflict. I mean when i play games where russians are potrayed as bad and your friendly allies say " Die you bloody reds or commies" i really see where this goes. I think we should see more fictional conflicts where every country is somewhat potrayed positively.

How many games now days potray Russia as Negative and Evil?

Some people in the West wish for the good old days. NATO countries still have the cold war mind sat. In the Cold War there where a line in the sand type of view. But to be honest US, Eastern & Western Europe are the bad guys. We have to face that in the world today. For we are the biggest terrorist countries in the world. We have destroyed so many countries imposing the will of our States. Now that's the game I wish to see. NATO & Russia using there military power to rule the world. Oh that was the Cold War. Nothing like seconds. Ha.

Edited June 20, 2009 by ScorpionGuard