User blog comment:Charcoal121/EA Comments On Why It Chose Battlefield 4 Over Bad Company 3/@comment-24.7.34.177-20120721090812/@comment-2224289-20120724150237

OK, I'm gonna settle some things down here.....

Having BF2143 doesn't mean they'll add in crap that people think it makes sense to have. BF2142 has a realistic evolution to warfare, and the weapons, vehicles (except the Battlwalkers and the Northern Strike add-ons, which are the Type-36 Hachimoto and the A3-Goliath IFV) and tactics are closely related to nowadays technology, without mentioning the tactics are pretty similar to WWII's.

The US got pretty much frozen off at the time of 2137 with just California and the East Coast line surviving off, but at the time of The Cold War, it probably froze completley.

North Africa has kept its sustainable Mediterranean biome, and the Union of African States has accepted the European evacuation, in exchange of protection of their territory. With Sidi Power Plant in Egypt supplying more than 40% of energy in the EU, it's the Pan-Asian Coalition who's having trouble, while Europe is sustainable. Facing refusal of help from the EU and Africa, the PAC invade Europe and places the cities under siege, while the EU gets almost no hold of the European territory, except the main refugee point at Camp Gibraltar in Iberia and a "last stand" in Cerbère. The EU only restored control of the Invasion by keeping the PAC off Africa in the Battle of Suez Canal and Shuhia Taiba in Egypt, reorganizing the armies and putting the in the field the Goliath. Then they basically were able to reconquer everything, leaving only a bit of a stalemate in the night-time invasion of Leipzig, on which the canon outcome is unknown.