Talk: The World War (Battlefield 2)

Allied Victory?

I always thought the US lost the war, based on the release of expansion packs. In regular Battlefield 2, the US is fighting on MEC and Chinese soil. If you assume the expansion packs are released in chronological order, Armoured Fury would be the last. Since by then the MEC and China have landed on American soil and America no longer seems to be on the offensive, this suggests to me that the US is losing.

Also, with DC under seige in the final map, about the only thing I can see saving the US would be a last-minute nuclear barrage against both MEC and China. 216.161.11.219 02:41, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

No actually the US won the war. I think in a last ditch effort the MEC and chinese was to draw as many US troops home in order to lift up the pressure it didnt work and the EU if they won Great wall they had a straight road to Bejing and where did you see that DC was under siege?--Slopijoe^{Aurelia's finest} 03:26, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

If you consider Back to Karkand to be cannon in the BF storyline, it would show that the U.S was victorous against the MEC and Chinese, due to the distinct lack of either of their forces. And in regards to the events of Armoured Fury, it seems the MEC and Chinese only managed to hit Alaska and the Washington area of the East Coast, and the Chinese couldn't even push out of Port Valdez quickly enough even when facing the few U.S units stationed there before reinforcements arrived.

While if you look at the battles of the rest of the game, U.S and NATO forces have managed to meet MEC forces in many places, such as the Caspian Seal, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman. While the Chinese Theater shows the American advance being well underway, due to Operation Blue Pearl, it can be assumed the battles of Dalian, Songhua, Daqing Fushe Pass and Dragon Valley all ended in American Victory, as it shows that the Americans were almost in a strategic position by then to defeat China, thus it's safe to assume the West won the conflict. DEathgod65 - OMDF (Contact)

Dates of the War

The template says that the war broke out on March 23rd and ended on November 30th of 2007. Where exactly were these dates confirmed in-game? Also, even though we can assume that the Battle for Wake Island occurred in 2007 (hence the map's name, Wake Island 2007), we can't necessarily say the same for the entire war. Unless there is credible evidence to confirm the exact dates of "March 23rd - November 30th, 2007," I suggest that the Date section of the template reads something along the lines of "Early 21st century, in and/or around 2007." 99.138.92.222 01:16, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

The War

After glancing around the Euro Force Trailer page, the three newspaper articles in the trailer (which are also screenshots on the page itself) all mention the Sino-American War by name, which is just simply the War. It's barely noticable to most, no thanks to the video being 240p resolution at best, but with a good eye, one can easily see it. According to the wiki's policy on the naming of conflicts in the Battlefield universe, which I first became aware of when perusing the War of 2020's talk page, "conflict names are not official unless otherwise specifically stated in the game's fiction." (as quoted by PLR Soldier at 07:15 on July 13, 2013)

Now, in the case of Battlefield 2, a confirmed name is actually given for the conflict, so it would only make sense to rename the page to reflect the wiki's own naming policy. Additionally, considering the recent name change of the Iranian-American War to the War of 2014 to reflect the inclusion of multiple factions, rather than just Iran and the United States, I propose that the same change should be done for the Sino-American War on the same grounds. Green light ops (talk) 14:32, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

Good eye! So, to be clear, you are proposing that "Sino-American War" should be renamed to "The War" since that is what is present directly in the game? PLR Soldier^Talk 04:44, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, because "(The) War" (debating on having "The" in the title or not) would better take our naming policy into account; the only concern being that others may not deem it as "easy on the ears" as the current name, but such is beside the point. We have regulations to go by. Of course, "Sino-American War" could potentially be in parentheses as a nickname, as could the "War of 2007" (although the "War of ____" title seems to used enough here as it is).

Also, a few other confirmed facts and speculations I've noticed on the Euro Force Trailer page:

• The European Union declared war on China and the MEC on February 15th of an unspecified year (most likely in or after 2007, as the Battle of Wake Island has presumably already occurred) at 4:00 am in Geneva, Switzerland.
• The Siege of the Great Wall commenced on February 18th.
  • As such, it can be assumed that the non-aggression treaty signed with the Russian Federation was signed at any time within the three-day span of the EU entering the war and attacking the Great Wall.
    • Another possibility, albeit unlikely, could be that the treaty was signed before the EU entered the war.
• The Battle for the Taraba Quarry began February 19th.
• The "New Weapons Of War!" screenshot showcases a Challenger 2 (yes, it's a Challenger) with a caption underneath which mentions that it belongs to the Greek Armoured Brigade (which, once again, is BARELY noticeable). Green light ops (talk) 20:14, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have gone ahead with the change. Redirects to this page should remain as "Sino-American War" (to prevent confusion), the main page will bear the official name. If you could go ahead and add the dates/information you discovered to the respective map pages, that would be great. Great discoveries, by the way! PLR Soldier^Talk 20:40, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Move

Having never played BF2, feel free to point out if I'm mistaken, but The War seems like a slightly vague title. Would it possibly be more appropriate to move the article to one of the alternative titles listed in the first sentence - perhaps War of 2007, to make it consistant with War of 2014 and War of 2020. I'll move it accordingly tomorrow if nobody objects... - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 13:35, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposed change - It will help remove some of the ambiguity in the article's name. LegendFPS (talk) 13:43, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

It is a vague title, yes, but as I stated in the topic above this one, "The War" is the correct name for the conflict in the Battlefield universe, as given in Euro Force Trailer. Conflict names are not official unless stated in the game's fiction, which "The War" was given. (Again, see above.) This was done to reflect the wiki's naming policy, not out of ignorance. The "War of 2007" was added alongside the original "Sino-American War" in parentheses as nicknames for the conflict. Green light ops (talk) 14:20, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point that I hadn't fully appreciated. The naming policy is more of a guide than a strict rule and allows the use of common sense. In which case, perhaps it would be best to retain the current name but clarify it somewhat - The War (Battlefield 2) perhaps? - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 16:26, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that works just as well. Just so long as the actual name of the conflict is "The War." I'll edit the page name right now. As PLR mentioned before, though, all redirects for the time being shall remain as the "Sino-American War." The redirects could eventually be renamed to "The War (Battlefield 2)" once everyone has gotten used to the new title. Green light ops (talk) 17:21, December 4, 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Looks like you two took care of it. Looks good. PLR Soldier^Talk 18:08, December 4, 2013 (UTC)