Collapse
No announcement yet.
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Generals 2 story idea: What if US invaded Europe?

    #1
    Okay, this is an idea that just occured to me at some point and I found it so neat that I'd like to share it.

    So, why not? Considering how the story ended in Generals (With crippled US retreating back to America and Europe going into alliance with China), it may be quite probable.

    America may feel angsty for what happened in Generals 1. Their forces driven out from the world, most notably the Middle East, they no longer have profit and influence they used to have. Their place as the international peacekeeper (and main player) is taken over by the new Europe-China alliance This may also lead to an economical crisis in the States.

    In short, we have all the story backing we need to make nationalist moods rise all over the US with a strong need of retribution and the will of regaining lost superpower-level influence. So it's entirely plausible a new government which was chosen will, if not be slightly fascist in overtones, then at least willing to restore the lost US power.

    Fast forward 203x, the peace conference is on in order to restore peace on the world, and end the last pending conflict (China with Russia, say. We will need China really busy in order to not help Europe from the beginning).

    Then terrorists attack the conference and kill almost everybody. Naturaly, the responsible will be searched for, and the two main condemned can be America (not happy with the power placement in the proposed peace treathy) and Russia (As proposed by China, since China, using it's influence, can condemn Russia reponsible and have a reason to start a war which they wanted).

    Naturaly, the first act of the campaign will be hunting for the GLA terrorists responsible, and conflict on the Middle East, since GLA will try to push European forces out of Middle East. However, when they will start to loose, US will launch an offensive at Europe in order to cripple it's military power, while another US expeditionary force tries to regain control over Middle East.

    This results in an all-out World War III, between the US (Sometimes, in Middle East, backed by some local governments preffering them to the Europeans), Europe (Which both struggles to control Middle East and defend itself) and GLA (Which may try to drive both US and EU from their homelands and uses the conflict to cripple those superpowers. Sometimes they may ally with one of the sides when they find it's victory a favorable outcome), with the Russia-China conflict in the background.

    More of it, there may (or should, for storytelling reasons) be an "opposing force" within US, not happy with the nationalist pro-war government and trying to overthrow it. Those characters could be the main heroes of the US portions of the campaign - First fighting in Europe, then getting under influence of an anti-war political figure, being moved across all the globe searching for intelligence needed to end the war, all the time while being hunted by the nationalist US forces and shoot at by both EU and GLA.

    Now, the main question, how to make a difference between EU and US. Influenced by another thread about the US faction, here are my ideas:

    EU:

    - Steamroller/turtle defence army, created mostly for protecting the homeland.
    - Light forces utilise fast moving tank hunter vehicles and humvees backed by VTOLs, and the main forces being heavy Merkava II tanks (the ones we seen in the screenshots so far) with APC abilities. They would have the best armor and line forces in the game.
    - Best defences and great artillery.

    US:

    - Advanced warfare with the use of drones. They dominate the air and support infantry.
    - Best infantry in the game, being supported by multi-role Stryker vehicles.
    - Good air support with F-22s, F-35s, AugustaWestland AW609 gunships and V-22 Osprey transports.
    - Sub-par armor compared to European forces, Crusaders get blown off easily by Merkavas; Comparable tanks are Paladins but those are fielded only in limited numbers due to technological advancement and cost of the tank.

    ----------

    This is a rough idea, and the army concepts need reworking, but the general idea is presented above.

    What do ya think?
    Last edited by Borreh; 12-18-2011, 07:28 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    too crazy, but RA's kind of crazy, I like it!. RA3 allies campaign's twist in witch the president Ackerman betrays the allies rather that join forces with the soviets, and I just love the irony of it, what ackerman did was wrong, but he was right the soviets were very likely to betray the allies at the first chance they could find.

    yeah but on topic not sure if it fits the generals universe, they would havt to use some good writers to write a very good excuse for something like that to happen and that it would be realist or believable, yeah i feel it have to be something that fits the seriousness that Generals portraits.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by easimon1812 View Post
      too crazy, but RA's kind of crazy, I like it!. RA3 allies campaign's twist in witch the president Ackerman betrays the allies rather that join forces with the soviets, and I just love the irony of it, what ackerman did was wrong, but he was right the soviets were very likely to betray the allies at the first chance they could find.

      yeah but on topic not sure if it fits the generals universe, they would havt to use some good writers to write a very good excuse for something like that to happen and that it would be realist or believable, yeah i feel it have to be something that fits the seriousness that Generals portraits.
      I don't find the idea riddicullus at all.

      Just notice how Generals 1 ends - Cold relations between Europe and US are very probable with US failing to protect it and then blaming each other for allowing GLA get so powerful. US may not like EU trying to take the politics in their own hands. And, as proven by Germany and WWII, loosing a war may lead to very serious angst among in a nation.

      I don't find this idea silly - If portrayed well, it may be played out for great drama, as none of the characters will be obviously evil or bad. I'd find it actualy something akin to Modern Warfare 3 in terms of seriousness.

      Comment

      • #4
        ...what r u talking about? generals has no plot at all. every thing u say about europe relations with the USA as the end of the game is up to anybody's guessing.

        Comment

        • #5
          bad idea, generals is about GLA style unconvetional vs conventional factions.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by easimon1812 View Post
            ...what r u talking about? generals has no plot at all. every thing u say about europe relations with the USA as the end of the game is up to anybody's guessing.
            That's the point - We see the military action, but not the political consequences.

            So it is entirely okay for Generals 2 to tell us what Generals 1 didn't.

            Victimizer:

            And that's a boring premise. There is very little drama when all you see is well-armed soldiers stomping guerillas, since you are sure about the outcome. Not to mention it's two superpowers (US and China) against a bunch of rebels.

            Besides, there is a lot of room for GLA in this story idea.

            Heck, you could even have GLA-backed rebels fighting against US forces in Washington. That's assymetrical combat.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by Borreh View Post
              That's the point - We see the military action, but not the political consequences.

              So it is entirely okay for Generals 2 to tell us what Generals 1 didn't.

              Victimizer:

              And that's a boring premise. There is very little drama when all you see is well-armed soldiers stomping guerillas, since you are sure about the outcome. Not to mention it's two superpowers (US and China) against a bunch of rebels.

              Besides, there is a lot of room for GLA in this story idea.

              Heck, you could even have GLA-backed rebels fighting against US forces in Washington. That's assymetrical combat.
              -hmmm...ok if u put it that way then it does sound interesting.

              Comment

              • #8
                The US might supported the GLA in the attack, but they won't attack Europe as long as they are in some kind of alliance with China. They would rather let Europe and China fight each other or weaken them by supporting the GLA and attack then.

                Anyway I don't think the USA will be part of the main game. Maybe it will end (after the GLA was already "beaten") with a cliffhanger after China and Europe realized who their real enemy is and are attacked by the USA.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by bombspy View Post
                  The US might supported the GLA in the attack, but they won't attack Europe as long as they are in some kind of alliance with China. They would rather let Europe and China fight each other or weaken them by supporting the GLA and attack then.

                  Anyway I don't think the USA will be part of the main game. Maybe it will end (after the GLA was already "beaten") with a cliffhanger after China and Europe realized who their real enemy is and are attacked by the USA.
                  if USA isnt part of the main game it may become so later, I read somewhere that DLC may be released in the form of more factions for general 2, but who knows.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by easimon1812 View Post
                    too crazy, but RA's kind of crazy, I like it!. RA3 allies campaign's twist in witch the president Ackerman betrays the allies rather that join forces with the soviets, and I just love the irony of it, what ackerman did was wrong, but he was right the soviets were very likely to betray the allies at the first chance they could find.

                    yeah but on topic not sure if it fits the generals universe, they would havt to use some good writers to write a very good excuse for something like that to happen and that it would be realist or believable, yeah i feel it have to be something that fits the seriousness that Generals portraits.
                    Well, the game is made by BioWare. It WILL have some really big story and that idea with USA attacking gives a lot of DLC, or (hopefully) expansion potential.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Ok so throwing away the "sensible plot" aspect, I think it would be really interesting. Of course the U.S is going to need to go through alot of changes (New American Federation or something - with some different ideologies) but it would definitely be something that hasn't been done before.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by easimon1812 View Post
                        if USA isnt part of the main game it may become so later, I read somewhere that DLC may be released in the form of more factions for general 2, but who knows.
                        That's what I was trying to implicate by saying the main game could end with some cliff hanger and will be extended in an Addon or DLC which also include the US faction...

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          I have posted an idea about how to implement "advanced warfare" mentioned here.
                          Basically USA would be very good at one thing at any given time, but need to switch strategy at their tech building to build the other branches of their tech tree. This means they will require some foresight to play and differentiate them from how EU plays further.

                          I like that story I think it's better to have a entire EXP campaign dedicated to it, rather then having it take place alongside other campaigns in the main game.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bombspy View Post
                            The US might supported the GLA in the attack, but they won't attack Europe as long as they are in some kind of alliance with China. They would rather let Europe and China fight each other or weaken them by supporting the GLA and attack then.

                            Anyway I don't think the USA will be part of the main game. Maybe it will end (after the GLA was already "beaten") with a cliffhanger after China and Europe realized who their real enemy is and are attacked by the USA.
                            I think having China at war with Russia or some other powerful country would be enough for US to invade Europe without the fear of immediate retaliation. At least by game logic ("It's not probable, but it doesn't sound completely absurd, therefore it's okay enough to do it, as long as the premise is worth it.")

                            And I was thinking about something like a cliffhanger, but why leave out the good stuff for expansion?

                            I think that if we could cut the campaign into the three-four acts, then I'd put the classical "terrorists hunt" into act 1, and then the main war into act 2.

                            Originally posted by Coolness7 View Post
                            Ok so throwing away the "sensible plot" aspect, I think it would be really interesting. Of course the U.S is going to need to go through alot of changes (New American Federation or something - with some different ideologies) but it would definitely be something that hasn't been done before.
                            I'd preffer just US, and make the whole nationalists against patriots story Tom Clancy-ish, but I understand people may want US changed into something else.

                            And yeah, I do realise it hasn't been done before.

                            Originally posted by Nerdfish View Post
                            I have posted an idea about how to implement "advanced warfare" mentioned here.
                            Basically USA would be very good at one thing at any given time, but need to switch strategy at their tech building to build the other branches of their tech tree. This means they will require some foresight to play and differentiate them from how EU plays further.

                            I like that story I think it's better to have a entire EXP campaign dedicated to it, rather then having it take place alongside other campaigns in the main game.
                            I think having Generals 2 about this would be more interesting than the usual "oh terrorists evil oh". Besides, MW1 also started with a terrorists hunt.. But we got a WWIII by MW2.

                            And yeah, I do think US can be made different from EU easier than most people think.

                            It may be also a neat plot point - EU are fighting "a war for tomorrow with yesterday's weapons", and, despite having strong armor, get seriously kicked by tech-heavy electronic warfare-based drone-supported US.

                            Besides, I'd love US to be a mechanized infantry faction. I love infantry combat and I'd love to see it done well.
                            Last edited by Borreh; 12-18-2011, 08:55 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Borreh, there is one hole in your story, what happens to all the ICBMs everyone have lying around ?
                              You can't have wars between a nuclear power and a non nuclear power, because the non-nuclear power would just get flattened in about 30 minutes.

                              Comment

                              1 2 3 4 Next
                              X