Command & Conquer

The U.N. doesn't have much of an army unless you cont the limited peace-keepers which are subservient to the member-states that supplied them not the U.N. and can't fire first.

I do like your second suggestion and Israel does fit into the story of this game.

I believe this game occurs ten years after the original so it's not 2050 firstly. Secondly, I don't know why people quote BF2142. It was a flop and not a very popular FPS. If you want popular look at MW2. If you notice in that game it involves the United States and Russia. Those types of games are a success because it inspires patriotism in one of the biggest markets that EA has: America.

China won't be in-game. They wouldn't keep their existence a secret. They would have just said we are going to announce one new side the EU, and returning factions: GLA, China. No, China is out.

It would make a lot of sense to have the Russian Federation in the game. Just because Russians deal with terrorism every year and still have a heavy influence over Central Asia. I could see some strong story elements involving their existence.

It is going to be the European Union as we know it. If they were going to say the faction was the Euroasian Union they would have stated that. EU is a common acronym for the European Union just like U.S. is an acronym for the United States.

Actually they have http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1214474p1.html

The developer states "We have three factions in the game, the GLA, the EU and one more we aren't revealing – yet!"

I don't think China or the U.S. will be present in game from speculation I have made thus far about an event occurring that destroyed both factions and possibly set up the peace conference to begin with. I think it is likely that another faction will rise that will mimic China's style such as the Russian Federation.

2002 was nine years ago. That is not a huge time lapse. It is ridiculous to state that the largest economy in the world and one of the most high tech military forces in the world is going to vanish in nine years unless an actual catastrophic event happens.

I kind of agree with it, but it has to make sense. In our timeline the United States isn't going away or is going to suddenly lay down arms and retreat into isolationism (unless Ron Paul becomes the next president). So, we have to wonder what has changed from the original timeline. The destruction of the politicians at the peace-conference would allow the Generals to take over, but two superpowers don't vanish over night. China and the U.S. absence from the game makes me think that the peace-conference attack was part of a larger strike against China and the U.S. which could have left both sides crippled. OR the peace-conference itself could have been a post-war conference held after a global war between the U.S. and China that left both sides devastated. Either way there will have to be some backstory/lore or explanation in-game as to why China and the U.S. are both gone.

If China was in the game there wouldn't be a mystery revolving around the 3rd faction. Bioware-Victory would have stated, European Union, GLA, and China instead of saying -one faction not announced yet. We have to think outside the box and wonder why the GLA is the only faction so far from the original game still in place. I doubt we will be seeing China or the U.S. and it is entirely possible that in the context of the game world both sides have been annihilated (most likely by each other) following the tragic peace conference.

No they are not irrelevant, because the tensions stretch back for over a decade and after Generals 1 the tensions could even be higher since the U.S. is backed into a corner and let me tell you patriotic Americans would never hand over sovereignty of the military forces to communist China.

The OP is correct in his assessment. If you have been following the news at all (American) you would know that there is tension between China and the U.S. now. This is modern politics, in the near-future it is not far-fetched to assume a trade war or cyber war of some sort with China.

However, in the context of the game.. Generals 2.. China and the U.S. did work together in the original game. If Generals 2 is building off the original game a few things could explain the absence of the United States and China. What if this global peace summit that destroyed the civilian leaders of the world sparked a nuclear exchange between China and the U.S. which wiped both sides completely out (leaving the remnants of NATO) mostly Europe to continue the fight against the GLA and perhaps even another NGO 3rd party which orchestrated the attack between China and U.S. (think sum of all fears).

I don't think the United States is a tier under in technology compared to Europe. Also, it doesn't make sense for the U.S.A. to be out of the game if we are looking at modern politics. The United States pays for over 70% of the U.N. peacekeepers and is currently engaged in two global wars against terrorist factions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the game is about the war on terrorism which it states to be the absence of the United States is formidable. The only way E.U. as the (western) faction makes sense is if the game is about a terrorist/3rd faction pressure/attack in Europe and if the U.S. truly did retreat into isolationism. I would predict that the 3rd faction would be Russian Federation or some kind of Pacific Federation with China (not U.S.) it would make sense if China gobbled up south-eastern Asia and Central Asia which would make it a threat to the Euros (militarily).

I remember when Generals first came out. I had been playing Command and Conquer since the original in 95. Red Alert 2 was my personal favorite of the series.

I was a little upset at first because of the game mechanics (dozers, etc). However it grew on me. I would keep the label it is CnC at it's core, (modern CnC).

I'm not surprised that the next CnC is Generals 2, but Bioware? They are known for their rpg games not for the rts genre.