Forum:Global War of 2014 / Iranian-American War

Battlefield Wiki Forum: Global War of 2014 / Iranian-American War (Archived Thread)

Search the forum

The following is preserved only as an archive. Please do not modify it.
No further edits should be made to this discussion. If you want to continue a discussion, start a new post

---

After much thinking going into the name of this article, I have resorted to asking the community on what the name should be. Before, it was known as the Global War of 2014. In my opinion, a fitting name. It captured the scope of the conflict in its entirety. A couple of weeks ago, the page was renamed to Iranian-American War. This puzzled me: why would a conflict that, despite the majority of which, is set in Iran, be called this? Especially when belligerents such as France and most-especially Russia are participated/connected to it in some way. It implies conflict between the Iranian and US Armed Forces.

I took to the talk page and presented my concerns. Yuri, who had conducted the change, explained clearly to me why. He clarified the reason and I agreed with him. Weeks have passed, and I just cannot wrap my head around it still. I realize that the events in the storyline do not directly clarify if the conflict in the multiplayer portion of BF3 is at all tied to the singleplayer, but, scroll up on that very talk page. Read through the arguments presented by others in the early times post-release. The campaign may not state or show the MP conflict as a direct result of SP, but it is heavily-implied (as I stated on that talk page), with a multitude of factors supporting the case as to why it is indeed connected.

I have more to further my reasoning, but for now, I will let the community decide on what you guys believe to be the best course of action to be taken. Please provide your opinions and, and importantly, why. Some questions to think about before answering:

Should the page remain the same (no further change required)? Why?

Should the page be renamed back to its former name? Why?

Thank you all.

PLR Soldier^Talk 03:11, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The reason I renamed it to "Iranian-American war" in the first place was because there is absolutely no clear connection between the "war" shown in the MP, and the war shown in singleplayer. It is extremely obvious that Russia has nothing to do with the war in singleplayer aside from some covert action taken by the GRU and a single confrontation between the VDV and Blackburn's unit. (Mind you, it's clearly stated that it wasn't "war" per se even then).

The war's two main belligerents are the USA and Iran. Russia has nothing to do with it, and the French are barely involved -- they're attacked by terrorists in one mission and that's about it. Even in the co-op, the Russians make absolutely no notable appearance.

The only outlier is the multiplayer. All other signs indicate a regional conflict between Iran and America -- this cancels out the previous "global war" idea, since it was not a global war in any sense of the term. Even in the multiplayer, it's not global -- with the exception of maybe three or so maps, every single map shown takes place in Iran.

I'd chalk it up to dev laziness. There's a reason I separated the singleplayer events (the bulk of the article) from the multiplayer events (shifted to the bottom and treated as a separate conflict entirely).

Additionally, treating the two as being one and the same would constitute speculation -- I was even the one who put forward the idea of causation between the events of SP and MP to start with, but I still don't think they should be treated as being necessarily one and the same. Юра 03:38, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

This is why PLR suggested called it The PLR Conflict or something as its more straight forward. The PLR-American War may also suffice. Also, the MP is never really canon to any SP in Battlefield. The only similarity they have are factions. As such MP can take place Anywhere on earth, it has nothing to do with SP. -- awyman13 ^{Talk} _{Work} 03:53, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Though the name currently used implies Iranian Armed Forces vs. US Armed Forces, which is simply not the case. The PLR are the main opposing force for both the US Marines in the game and GRU operatives. It cannot be assumed that it is DICE laziness, though, because before the events of the final campaign mission, Agent Gordon of the CIA has a firm affirmation that it is the Russians who were behind the attacks (even though they were not). This is in-line with the (what seems to be a cliche now in FPSs) Russians being blamed for a third-party's actions, and then engaging in war with the United States. This implies the US took action for the attacks and prevented attack on France and New York City, respectively. The conflict was based on an entire misunderstanding. I have more evidence but first would like others to comment with their views as well. Be sure, everyone, to check the talk page. What Yuri and I just stated are reflected on the talk page (for the most part) as well. PLR Soldier^Talk 03:45, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Except, the PLR aren't the main belligerent fighting the US. It is the Iranian armed forces who do the brunt of the fighting after the start of the actual War (why on earth would Iran leave its defense to a bunch of ragtag insurgents?)

Further, there's no (direct) evidence at all that Russia was ever directly blamed for any of the attacks -- I was pretty sure Blackburn stopped the attack on New York (and hence, stopped Russia from being even indirectly responsible for an attack on American soil). If this is the case (and is one of two possible scenarios), then why doesn't the European Union's forces show up... ever? Wouldn't it make more sense for the whole of the EU to retaliate against Russia for an attack on one of its principle cities? If anything, Europe and Russia, and not America and Russia, should be the primary belligerents. But they're not. Юра 04:06, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Blackburn did prevent the NYC bombing, however, he did so as a vigilante. He escaped CIA custody shortly after Agent Gordon leaves the room stating it was clearly the Russians behind the Paris bombing. For all we know, Blackburn could have been arrested, despite having saved the city, he did so illegally. Similar to a home defense situation, where, if a homeowner shoots an intruder, they still have to go to court, and possibly face punishment for excessive whatever, that's aside the point though, just a very basic analogy. Europe could be involved, but it is not shown, and that constitutes speculation as you stated. If anything, the reason why it isn't EU vs Russia is because it was an attempted attack on American soil (based on what the CIA believe, Russia being the perpetrators), and an attack on the major city of a NATO ally. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:16, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

To add further, if it was indeed a separate conflict. Why else would DICE (aside from the "being lazy" argument) use the Russians in place of Iranians? Especially with, as Yuri pointed out, the majority of the maps being set in Iran? It cannot be reused assets, as everything in BF3 is brand new (in terms of engine assets), whereas in a transition, between, let's say, BC1 and BC2, where the game engine is essentially the same? PLR Soldier^Talk 03:54, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

You're actually wrong there -- there were/are a fair number of reused assets from BC2. I can't remember off the top of my head but they are there, I remember having them pointed out to me at some point.

I'm also pretty sure that there are even assets from the Refractor era -- most notably would probably have to be a few of the static objects, like the freight containers. If my memory serves, they've looked nigh-the same since BF2. Юра 04:06, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems new, but I would like to see them presented if that is indeed the case. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:16, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, even if there are some, everything for the Russian team is brand new, by the looks of it, especially an important factor: voice overs. They chose the Russians for more than a reason of being an MP faction, and recorded and created designs for them. Everything present for the RU MP faction was never used in the SP, aside from, maybe the vehicles. The actual RU in SP is the VDV and GRU, as you stated. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:25, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Edit 2 @Awyman's comment: BC1 and BC2 have direct connections to MP, even though it really is not necessary, whereas here, it is a major factor as to why the events of MP are as such. On a side note: BF3 started the new era of Battlefield games with Frostbite 2, and BF4 seems to be going in that same path. Similar to, again, the BC series, and the Refractor-era games. PLR Soldier^Talk 03:57, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

The Bad Company Games again dont have much connection with SP for MP. Besides the factions and the Rush gametype. MP is meant to use concepts from the SP to make it up while its not meant to tell the story.

The Russians had nothing to do with the conflict. They were going to be blamed from the Nukes going off in Paris and what wouldve been NYC. This wouldve started another war but because Blackburn stopped it, it didnt. The RGF are just a MP faction, nothing more. And jeezw with the long answers! -- awyman13 ^{Talk} _{Work} 04:11, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

See my new point above as to why the US did go to war despite Blackburn's actions. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:16, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

PLR, MP NOT CANON. Its just a faction, you cant assume US went to war because the RGF is a faction. MP is meant for players to Kill eac other, etc. not tell a story. -- awyman13 ^{Talk} _{Work} 04:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I am not assuming it is because the RGF is a faction, rather, because of the evidence presented in the SP, as well as my points above. DICE could have well placed the Iranians instead, but they developed assets and recorded voiceovers for the Russians. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:31, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

That's still inference, ergo speculation -- they might've done that as a design choice because of how comparatively outgunned the Iranians are shown to be -- we're talking a single USMC unit overtaking practically the entire country in a matter of weeks. Think Op Desert Storm -- most of the actual fighting was done pretty quickly. By contrast, Russia is relatively modern and powerful -- perfect for facing the USA. Юра 04:36, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It was just the capital that was taken, mainly. The PLR took over, conducted a coup, which is the reason for the invasion. We do not know how outgunned they are, or how weakened they were by the coup or earthquake. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:44, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

There's a very obvious distinction made between "normal" PLR and the forces you face later on -- the soldiers you fight during Op Guillotine or Thunder Run, for instance, are very plainly better-armed and organized than the soldiers you fight in the first mission. The game shows American forces basically breaking Iranian forces very easily -- from wiping out droves of Iranian tanks (including several T-90s, which are top-of-the-line by most standards) to eradicating Iranian fighters, to scrambling the Iranian defenses in Tehran. That infers that they were, indeed, heavily outgunned. Co-op takes this even further -- a single Viper basically wipes down an entrenched village and the armored reinforcements they call in. Юра 04:51, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the PLR having secured themselves later on post-coup gave them all this high-end equipment. It is clear the distinction pre-Uprising mission and post-Uprising. Co-op is a whole 'nother ball park, but yes. Again, though, the strength of the PLR is aside the point. PLR Soldier^Talk 04:56, July 3, 2013 (UTC)