User talk:Slayer of Cliffracers

Welcome
Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:First Tiberium War page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Tagaziel (Talk) 23:14, 26 March 2013

About our argument
Well, it seems like the general problem is that the GDI is portraied as "good guys side" in TD and TS. With no mention of any negative activity on it's part. However, if we take C&C3 - we get yet another picture - with GDI concerned only with the well-being of 20% of population, with remaining 80% free to die in post-apocalyptic wastelands ("yellow zones"), ravaged by tiberium and nuclear warfare and ruled by warlords (due to GDI's shutting down national governments "for security reasons")Terran Ghost (talk) 20:53, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, basically this originates from the fact that Command and Conquer plotline is at core fairly clear NATO/War on Terror propoganda. What is interesting is that the propoganda of the GDI so closely mirrors (well is identical) to the rhetoric of the War on Terror. What's funny is the game was made before the War on Terror ever happened. So the makers of the game at some level are either the one's who invented the rhetoric or they actually are seeding the rhetoric into the popular consciousness before it was brought out by government (when a suitable terrorist attack happened, if they didn't frame that as well).

As it is I kind of see Nod as the tactical evil (they do bad tactical things like kill civilians) and the GDI as the strategic evil (they start the wars but then avoid killing civilians even though the Noddie soldiers they are killing were civilians anyway before they started the war).

The GDI did actually start the war if you consider that Austria is neutral and Slovakia is Nod so the 'Nod' terrorist attacks or activities cannot really be interpreted as acts of war by Nod against GDI. But the GDI response was definately an act of war against Nod.

There's the small matter of how they seem to believe that nuclear detonators are a good way to 'influence' some Western African countries into essentially holding the line.

GDI seems to be taking a leaf out of George Orwell's book at the start of Tiberium Sun with General Solomon acting as some sort of ultimate Big Brother from the Philadelphia, having apparantly made a system of survaillance to give a precise measurement of the amount of warfare in every area in the world. And his conversation with Nod leader General Hassan is kind of totally like that, we have two global dictators pretending to be enemies but actually in a mutally beneficial arrangement (Solomon describes Hassan as 'useful' but warns him that should this cease then 'useless things tend to dissapear'). That is rather similar to the arrangement in 1984 between Oceania and Eastasia or Eurasia (they alternate).

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:36, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well, seems just so. Tiberian Dawn's plot however was pretty much "general war on terror" and thus pretty straightforward with "good and bad guys" division. As for Tiberian Sun - well Nod are still portrayed as bad guys (they want to genocide all mankind), and the GDI "good guys by virue of opposing bad guys". However, in TS GDI is portrayed as having shut down the United Nations and reduced national governments to irrelevant (or at least taking all military assets from them).

The set is finalized by 2047 with most of national governments definetely shut down by GDI. Terran Ghost (talk) 05:30, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Except people who use "general war on terror" rhetoric aren't the good guys ever. But you've got a point, as the game plot was likely initially devised as propoganda seeder for the then future war on terror, a propoganda seeder being a medium by which you expose a population to a set of assosiations beforehand in a different context and then trigger those assosiations at a given time by repeating the phrases that trigger the assosiations.

However by the time that Tiberium Wars comes out then the actual war on terror has already tainted the GDI because it's revealed that "general war on terror" rhetoric isn't used by good guys or for good causes. So the GDI becomes a far more obviously bad thing.

Nod then are propoganda strawmen, it's ideology doesn't make sense deliberately because of the assosiations it's supposed to make. Nod believe in Unity, Brotherhood and Peace, but actual terrorist organisations generally promote Disunity, Division and War. Here's the gist of how the different plot elements seed propoganda.

1. Unity, Brotherhood and Peace = Nod are terrorists, so people who promote those ideals in opposition to our War on Terror are therefore terrorists also.

2. Nod are terrorists = People with conventional armies and states can also be terrorists.

3. TD: The Bialystok scandal = When our anti-terrorist warriors are exposed committing atrocities then it is really terrorist lies and the media are actually secretly in leugue with the terrorists.

4. TS: National boundries are irrelavant = The (inter?)national anti-terrorist power does not need to concern itself with such niceties as national borders and should be able to send troops to wage war or drop bombs at the press of a button without such niceties as diplomacy and national sovereignty.

5. TS: Terrorist weapon of mass-destruction = The terrorists really have the means or the intention to build terrifying weapons of mass-destruction that actually pose a global threat to you or I rather than managing to blow up a  building or two about every few years.

6. Right goes with Might = Wealthy and powerful countries are generally depicted as supporting the righteous GDI while poor and weak countries are generally depicted as supporting the wicked Nod terrorists.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:48, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Just one thing don't get into picture when taking TD's background. Nod were reported to have 49% of world's tiberium harvesting market (which make them very powerful in economical terms), they are also told to build up political influence winning support in many "Third World" nations, but also gaining political grounds even in rich countries such as USA (via "United We Stand" political party) and Great Britain (Nod interests were represented by "Albion First" party). So why would they need "a campaign of urban bombings" (e.g. - blowing up a pair of buiding), including the destrucion of Grain Trade Center in Vienna (some peculiar coincidence, considering the real world war on terror also started with bombing of Trade Center) to start the war with GDI, which still commands the loyalty of many national governments? It would be ... well needless, considering the rise of Nod's financial and political influence in the world. Terran Ghost (talk) 07:39, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well the political influence in rich countries is probably a result of the way that GDI would basically usurp so much sovereignty over the world that certain nationalistic parties even in rich countries would object strongly. The parties you mention sound Nationalistic but Nod itself is basically Internationalistic in it's ideology, so the alliance is probably based upon mutual enmity towards the GDI.

If it doesn't make sense it's probably because what's going on isn't what it seems. A campaign of urban bombings in a neutral country supposed to achieve what, turn the country against Nod? At the time as we can see from the way the First Tiberium War works out Nod has plenty of support in Austria while historically Austria was GDI aligned. Is it not likely that the Austrian pro-GDI faction which USED to rule might carry out some terrorist attacks which pro-GDI media would blame on Nod simply to get themselves BACK into power. And they DO get back into power when you think about it.

This is why the game is kind of prophetic. The great powers (GDI) used the terrorist attacks as a pretext to launch a huge war against their rivals. What we are seeing here in truth is rivalry, the core GDI countries (G7) wish to monopolise the world's Tiberium supplies and Nod has basically got one-over on them. Swap Grain Trade Center for World Trade Center and Tiberium for Oil and we basically have the real situation in the War on Terror and Iraq.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:17, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Splitting from Government types talk page
Some really strange things seem to come up during the discussion. The game (TD) itself clearly is from the point that "GDI are good guys and fight for freedom". But there are some european countries that

a) Were Nod-aligned on the onset of conflict

b) Were designated as democratic states or democracies by the GDI prior to GDI occupation of the aforementioned countries.

A+B must mean that Nod captured popular support in such countries, with pro-Nod parties ruling and these states remained thriving democratic regimes. It comes to 2 conclusions logically

1) A nation could be under Nod's protection and still be a democracy in internal political mechanism and individual rights

2) When GDI conquer such nation they must replace democratic government (because population may become even more loyal to Nod cause when subjected to outright agression) with military dictatorship (sometimes effectuated through rigged elections to place GDI-appointed rulers in office)

About number two - how such actions can count as "defending freedom" ? Terran Ghost (talk) 17:03, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Because the GDI obviously believes in Defending Freedom in rather the same way that Nod believes in Brotherhood, Unity and Peace.

About the governments they conquered, I don't think that they necceserily established military dictatorships in the countries they conquered in the long run. Rather what they probably did is simply disband the militeries of those nations, so it wouldn't matter who the people voted for. To take a look at some of the countries that GDI conquered during the war as they appear in Tiberium Sun.



If you look at the way that the Tiberium Sun campaign map differs from the Tiberium Dawn map, you can see that what the sides fight over is not nations as such but 'militerised zones' of each side. Now the rest of the map is neutral/non-militerised.

Greece and all the countries GDI conquered clearly fall into the latter category. However as we see, while there remained GDI bases in Greece and Bosnia, though the territory is considered de-militerised overall. It is quite likely that there were Anti-GDI governments and peoples in both countries, but none of them had the strength to challenge the GDI openly. To look at the nearby militerised zones, we can see we have Ukraine, Turkey and Italy all of which were allies of the GDI by the end of the First Tiberium War. So basically they are watching over their defeated adversaries. Those countries could be democratic for all it matters, they couldn't possibly challenge the GDI in their position however regularly people elected pro-Nod governments. Until Nod turned up with sufficiant forces to actually challenge the GDI in that area.....

The reason that the Second Tiberium War played out so differently strategically might be that essentially the GDI destroyed all the national armies of the countries that they couldn't rely upon (outside of Africa and the Middle East which are Nod) while at the same time completely absorbing the national armies of their key allies into the core GDI forces. They then became a de-facto world dictatorship ironically because their commitment to freedom prevented them from installing dictatorships over national governments or mantaining a permanant occupation, meaning that the only to secure their military victory over democracies while respecting democracy was to eliminate all powerful independant national armies, thus rendering democracy militerily irrelevant.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 23:05, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

By the Second Tiberium War their commitment to democracy seem to fade away, as the plot unfolds. General Solomon doesn't seem to report to any civilian authority at all, while GDI seem to have the power to wage war in any part of the globe. The zonal division instead of national borders seem to be a sign of what to come - a system of Blue/Yellow/Red zones established sometime prior to 2047.

However, in 2030 civilian affairs and local law enforcement could still be carried by elected national governments. But it also changed with complete implementation of zonal system by 2047, with GDI Council appointing zonal directors to rule over all affairs in the zone. National governments under such system were either completely shut down by the GDI (as was the case in at least Brasil and Iceland) or faded into irrelevance. Terran Ghost (talk) 23:23, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference though, the Second Tiberium War system of zones is determined based upon a system of military control, the non-aligned zones being not always strictly neutral territory but territory that is under the sole control of the national governments whatever their formal allegiance and their military forces. But since those forces are laughable, so those areas are considered relatively irrelavant. What matters are the zones of the where core military forces of both factions hold sway and can recruit the local populace or mine the Tiberium.

The Red/Yellow/Blue zones are not really equivilant though, they are defined by the level of Tiberium in the area. That GDI chose the divide the world up in such a manner indicates that what the directors were mostly focusing upon was in reality the harvesting of Tiberium, it's an indication of the amount of investment that each director requires. You simply take the area of the zone and then multiply it by the classification.

I don't think the GDI shut down national governments at such, I reckon it's more correct to say that they used the Tiberium menace as a pretext to confiscate all the national Tiberium mining operations. National governments still matter somewhat because both sides in the Third Tiberium War ended up fighting over the Whitehouse presumably because they wished to install 'their' President on the throne.

I think by the Third Tiberium War, the folly in the earlier system in the sense that it had made mantaining control over large countries like America very difficult, without the ability to legally conscript people or appeal to mass patriotism they simply couldn't raise enough forces to control the territories they had won and keep Nod resurgance from happening as Nod simply retreated into the 'neutral' zones and popped up again.

So the GDI resorted to directly integrating national governments and national militeries rather than largely ignoring them as they had before while 'acquiring' all their Tiberium refineries. This effectively destroyed democracy and whipped up another wave of Nod support thus creating another war.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 14:14, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

As for the Third Tiberium War it is directly stated that national governments have no real power by 2047, and GDI state they mostly exist only "technically" (e.g. on paper), with GDI being the real supranational superpower. Considering the White House mission the building itself was considered only "a morale boost" at least by the GDI.

While technically President of United States could still exist as at least a formal seat of power, his real power is somewhat only nominal, with GDI Council deciding how to rule the Blue Zones and with Yellow Zones being mostly lawless (or Nod-controlled) place.

It seems that by 2030s (Second Tiberium War) GDI only taken military forces from their supporting nations and concerned itself with military/peacekeeping affairs. By 2047 it also take all the civilian buraucracy and local law enforcement into its fold, thus rendering any remaining national governments needless.

As for the democratic systems - it seemed to fall as the victim of the long war. GDI Council don't seem to be organized on elections' basis, when Boyle get to be GDI Director General after the former Director-General and many other members of the Council were dead after attack on Philadelphia, he took his post via "succession protocols" and did aquire the post as a full-fledged Director-General, instead of "acting Director-General until new elections could be brought". For me it seemed that it lest in 2040s GDI Council relied upon the system of cooptation - with Council itself appointing or removing its members from their offices by majority vote. (the seats on the Council don't seem to be a distinctive posts, but an ex-officio mandates resulting from a person taking the office that was supposed to have a voice on the Council. For example - prior to Philadelphia's destruction Redmond Boyle was a member of GDI Council by virtue of being appointed to the office of GDI's Director of Treasury). Terran Ghost (talk) 15:34, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Well powerless is not the same thing as needless, certainly GDI intentionally reduced the independant power of the national governments, but it by absorbing such governments into the GDI it is rendering them important as componants of itself. The GDI needs to control the government of America, not because that government now has any power to decide it's own destiny but because it's a key link in the chain between the GDI centre and the administration of America. If a Nod President were installed in the White House then this would result in much of the existing GDI American administration if not military defecting to Nod.

As for the rest it all comes down to what became of the UN after the First Tiberium War. It could be that it was actually abolished due to political opposition to the way that it had suddenly restored GDI funding and the political fallout of the war, so GDI itself became an orphaned organisation. It reminds me somewhat of the way that the Yugoslav army became orphaned after the collapse of Yugoslavia.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:55, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

Zonal division may become a little difficulty of putting any legitimate US president into the White House at all - for both sides. As per 2040s GDI seem to concern itself only with security and welfare of Blue Zone population, while leaving Yellow Zone population to their own fate.

United States' territory however is divided between a huge R-7 Red Zone in USA's heartlands (these are now uninhabitable as it seems), two Blue Zones (including B-2 where Washington DC is located) and Y-6 Yellow Zone. Considering massive amount of population still residing in Y-6 it is highly unlikely to even organize something close to general presidential elections for the GDI. GDI Council could just exclude Yellow Zone's unfortunate inhabitants from voting at all - but this would only result in Nod-backed "alternative elections" with yet another government formed. However, it seems that national government are needless for the GDI Council by 2047, because the GDI top brass lists them as only "technically existing" while stating that GDI Council now have all the controls.

So, it is more likely for Nod to even run same sort of elections to have a pretender for US President's seat ready to take the office and issue "a call for fellow citizens to rise against GDI's oppression" at behest of Nod's Inner Circle. Such president could have even really moved into the White House during Nod's brief occupation of B-2 Blue Zone, only to be ousted by GDI forces and replaced with their-appointed director of B-2 Blue Zone. Terran Ghost (talk) 18:32, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the setup of the Third Tiberium War. As I understand it the division is first and foremost a geographic one, not a political one, there is no reason to assume that conditions are uniform within an entire zone. That the GDI had appointed a director for each zone and classified the zones by the general level of Tiberium infestation indicates that the original logic of the system was a rather peaceful one of Tiberium harvesting. The director is primarily about controlling the Tiberium refineries and harvesters within his zone and managing the revenue.

The elections wouldn't be held on a zonal basis, the elections would be held within the constitutional boundries of the USA. The only areas that wouldn't vote would essentially be US territory under Nod control. This is where it gets interesting, it has never been the case that a president of America was considered illegitimate if some of America's territory was not under government control, Abraham Lincoln afterall won an election that excluded the Confederate States in the middle of the Civil War. But conversely, the Nod controlled areas can equally elect it's own American President. This is why the control of the White House symbolically matters, the President that sits in the White House can claim with greater legitimacy to *be* the true leader of America.

I think the national governments continued to exist for the same reason the Senate and other republican institutions continued to exist under the effectively monarchical Roman Empire. The reason that they only technically exist is that the GDI at some point approprated all Tiberium operations and then essentially funds all the 'national' armies, there is an US militery officially but it's basically a branch of the GDI militerily. So the course of events is as follows.

1. First Tiberium War: Primerily faught by national armies, core armies of Nod and GDI relatively small.

2. Second Tiberium War: Primerily faught by now extensive core armies of Nod and GDI, national armies are largely small and poorly equipped by comparison with only a minor role if any.

3. Third Tiberium War: GDI has taken over the Tiberium income of all nations under it's sway through it's zonal directors and used this to expand the national armies of all it's nations while bringing them completely under their control and reducing them to GDI branches.

The reason for the change in strategy between the first and second wars was because GDI could not reliably control particularly the defeated nations in Europe and mantain 'freedom' in those countries. So they opted to de-militerise the world and build up their core forces.

The reason for the change in strategy between the second war and the third was that the second revealed the limitations of the strategy, GDI was unable to easily control the territory that it had conquered. So it opted to help itself to the nations Tiberium operations through the system of zones and use that money to both expand and buy off the world's national armies, along with the governments too. This increased their pool of available manpower allowing them to control territory, but without national loyalty being a serious problem like it was in 1st Tiberium War.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:16, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Per 3-rd Tiberium War they may still be national governments existing in some form somewhere, but definetely no national militaries survived as a regular forces. The collapse of national militaries and law enforcement is very thing causing breakdown of law and order in Yellow Zones (by 2047 they are generally lawless areas ruled by warlords and armed gangs, unless a Yellow Zone is directly controlled by GDI or Nod forces). At some point Nod and GDI simply absorbed the manpower and inventory of national armies while stripping them from any sign of national alignment. This is true for GDI's United Peacekeeping Force or for Nod's regular troops. Nod-aligned militias could still remain somewhat nationally aligned to some point, however.

Monarchy is not exclusive with keeping or even creating some sort of representative Council or Parliament (with varying responsibility and powers), as a matter of fact.

As for the war.

1. For First Tiberium War - seem rather plausible. However, something really strange is the standartization of arms and equipment, strange for a bundle of national armies under one banner (however, this could be mitigated, assuming that some generalized unit names such as "medium tank" or "APC" means not only M1 Abrams or M113 but any MBT or APC  in GDI-aligned forces).

2. Seems rather true - at least for GDI that have taken all national militaries in its countries absorbed into GDI core forces, but this leaved civilian buraucracy and law enforcement up to national governments.

3. And yes, by the 3-rd War it get even further by GDI taking over law enforcement and civilian buraucracy in its nations as well, reducing national governments to techically existing.Terran Ghost (talk) 17:50, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

1. Well in the Red Alert Universe, the Allies militeries are already standardised already. Pretty much all the supporters of the GDI in Europe come from those who were in the Allies during Red Alert. While in Africa most of the GDI supporters armies will be armed by those nations. If 'GDI' arsenal is basically a development on Allied arsenal it makes kinda sense.

2. Yes that leaves us with the question of what Nod forces actually consisted of. They appear strategically to operate in a similar fashion to the GDI, establishing zones of control over specific often politically arbitery areas. But the basic nature of the forces between the two sides could not be more different.

The GDI forces seem to be essentially a specialised urban counter-intersurgancy outfit, hence why they have phased out the heavy tanks they used in the 1st War in favour of small and huge walkers. Walkers are only superior to tanks in a single context, that of fighting infantry in dense cities, indicating that GDI faced serious resistance from urban guerilla groups. The logic behind walkers was probably to allow a minimum of manpower to repress the maximum number of poorly armed people, their abandonment of tanks indicates they had stopped facing armies on open fields.

The Nod forces seem at core to be a hodge-podge of forces, judging from the unit buildup we have a mix of national armies (where they get the Turret Tanks from) and souped up guerilla groups reinforced by some units researched and built in places securely under Nod control like Africa. It seems that Nod was ultimately held together by certain key generals, such as General Hassan and General Vega and then General Slavik. This indicates then that although with a higher irregular content, the command system of Nod in Second Tiberium War was basically similar to that of both factions in 1st Tiberium War, a number of seperate overlapping forces under a single command. But without the existance (outside perhaps traditional Nod territory) of coherant central national commands.

3.  But they nevertheless they mostly kept those institutions in existance, even as they reduced their independant means and scope of operation. The reason for this development was to increase the amount of local manpower available to the GDI by absorbing the national armies and administrations. They continued to technically exist  but did so as completely GDI dependant organisations but they probably did mantain some national distinctions, patriotism being useful to some extent (hence the logic of their assimilation).

The question of why the Yellow Zones were generally lawless needs answering though, it makes little sense for it to be simply down to Tiberium, because that's a common threat which tends to promote social cohesion. It might be that the reason that they *are* Yellow Zones is for the same reason they are lawless. The GDI forces were able to defeat Nod some of time but they weren't able to control the territory they had taken while the Nod forces were able to defeat GDI some of the time but they couldn't get at them in space.

The eventual situation is an ongoing conflict which extensively disrupts life in the warzones and annihilates the local administration and law enforcement. At the same time it prevents the effective harvesting of Tiberium, causing Tiberium to predominate in those areas. With both organisation essentially reaching the point of MAD, it became neccesery for them to cannibalise the national militeries and administrations rendering their existance purely technical.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 12:22, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. It may be. However, we do not know of any details of what happened between Red Alert 1 and Tiberian Dawn, save for the fact, that universes may not be connected at all (release version of Red Alert 1 have reference to Tiberian Dawn only in the end of Soviet campaign).

3. We do not know if such institution are in existence at all. Per 3-rd Tiberium War no mention of national governments do appear - both GDI and Nod seem to switch to direct control of civilian affairs in their controlled areas, while majority of Yellow Zones are a lawless place ruled by warlords and gangs.

By 2047 GDI brands itself as a "centralised political super-state" and all national governments under it's hold "they are still technically around". This could easily mean, that the latter exist only on paper or being reduced to simply propaganda mouthpiece puppets with no real political power. But, there are evidence that some GDI-backed national governments (including at least Australia and Russia, but may be more) retained some limited functionality and still have something of the control over their own yellow-zone and blue zone designated territory (via local militias and leased GDI United Peacekeeper Corps forces) - however even if such stories are true - surviving governments are subjected to GDI Council's authority and control.

As for Nod - their propaganda states that the Brotherhood is responsible for social welfare programs and law&order in Nod-controlled areas, not Nod-backed national governments as per First Tiberium War. However, Kane Wrath said that at least between 2031 and 2047 there were Nod-affiliated nationalist movements around, still pledging loyalty to their own Terran Ghost (talk) 10:39, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

1. Well actually we do because we have the whole rest of the Red Alert Series and that derives from Red Alert 1. Where it gets complicated is 'only' the timelines and the non-canonical endings. And why would be a large number of references to what is ultimately the future to then? And a future based upon an unexpected turn of events, the arrival of Tiberium.

2.  There is no such in reality as 'direct control' over anything. At the end of day any government in charge of something larger than a village has to delegate power to lesser adminstrative units. Even more so on a global scale, both Nod and GDI would have to delegate nearly all power to their local authorities even if they in theory mantained complete control over these authorities.

Centralised Political Super-State is basically another way of saying Empire. And Empires had always relied upon local collaborators to run their adminstration to some extent, from the Satraps of the Ancient Persian Empire, to the Roman client-kings, to the British Sepoys and Rajas and the Tutsu adminstrations set up by the Belgians to rule (and divide) the territory that was under the control.

So the arrangement will be just that, the central GDI authorities will have established or coopted local governments to mantain their rule but will have reduced the comparitive militery, political and economic leverage of those governments to the point that they can no longer chart an independant course. As elementery politics would have it, it is easier to prop up unpopular minorities for this role than popular majority group leaders.

What we haven't discussed much though is how Nod by contrast is organised. By the same token as with GDI, because Nod is also made up of componants that ultimately must be in some sense local, Nod-backed local governments aspiring or holding national power could well be considered Nod. Running a truly international administration would be difficult in their position anyhow. I reckon Nod organisation can be summarised as follows.

1.  First Tiberium War: Nod is organised as a set of national armies with a small componant of core international forces. However Nod possesses greater independant means than GDI especially after the UN funding cut, meaning that Nod national armies probably recieved recieved far more support centrally than GDI national armies did. Consequently the boundries between core and national forces would have blurred considerably as the war progressed.

2. Second Tiberium War:  Nod is an polyglot array forces, with the consistant unifying theme of being ultimately accountable in theory to a small number of generals with an international field of operations. The forces are drawn from local guerillas, national militaries, rebellious armies and the remnants of the core Nod forces from the First Tiberium War. The latter however probably acted mostly as bodyguards and elite soldiers for the generals but in general a diverse array of different forces were thrown together in a 'melting pot' by their loyalty to a common commander.

3. Third Tiberium War: Nod is an array of basically national militias that obey paralell national rebel administrations that consider the GDI administrations to have betrayed their nations. Core Nod forces and their officers had probably been all but wiped out by GDI during the aftermath of the Second Tiberium War, meaning that the central Nod organisation is basically diminished, what we instead have is a vague loyalty to Kane (we see how vague it really is by the Fourth Tiberium War) and mostly fear and hatred towards the GDI. The GDI is unable to deal with them individually because they all undermine the legitimacy of their own client administrations and those administrations have too little power relative to GDI in order that there be any power left for GDI to offer the Nod rebels in negotiations.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 21:18, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

1. We really do not know if any Red Alert's event ever happened in Tiberium universe, and if Red Alert 1's events happened, than out of what campaign's end came the series of events leading to TW1.

2. Of course GDI should have some local government units, however, there are two general questions

a. Do they have any independent powers while following GDI Council's commands in general policy as modern-day western-type federations' local governments have? By Second Tiberium Wars it was clearly the case - it could be also by the 3-rd war, but I am somewhat confused by existence of GDI's so-called Zonal Directors, who seem to rule some zone-related (e.g. local) affairs......

b. The question about national identities. Since Yellow Zones are generally lawless place and Blue Zones are scattered across the globe would GDI concern itself with preservation of governments based on nation-state identities existed before Tiberium? C&C3's in-game Intelligence Database state that between second and third Tiberium Wars "national identities gradually faded" (however, to unknown degree). It would seem more logical for GDI for example, to organize elections for governors (or directors) and legislatures of individual zones than having to resort to old governments of nation-states, that simply are not united any more in most cases or turned into zones of anarchy wholesale. However, on the countrary, we have evidence that at least some "symbols of the past governments" such as the White House have at least ideological value and could be a valuable trophy for both sides... Terran Ghost (talk) 03:56, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

1. We do know that one of the paths for Red Alert 1 happened in the Tiberium Universe. Beyond that you are sort of correct.

2. Well an in-game map is shown here.

From the map we can see that unlike in Tiberium Sun where both sides fight over territory with little regard for national boundries Tiberium Wars has the sides fighting over specific countries, similar to the way it worked in the First Tiberium War. However this time clearly countries do not have a clear ability to chart an independant course in the conflict.

I don't know of things are really as orderly as having official independant powers or not, especially given the sheer scale of the administration we are talking about. What we probably had is a labyrinth of overlapping organisations making up the GDIs administration, with nobody really knowing clearly what powers they are supposed to have.

The Zonal Directors (and zones in general) were clearly initially envisoned to be based upon Tiberium harvesting, that's why they are classified according to their Tiberium presence. This made some sort of sense, Tiberium is not something which exactly cares out national boundries. However for lack of any official federal structure they probably ended up filling the void between the central GDI administration and the national governments.

The contradiction you note which is heightened by the way that the map apparantly works, is possibly resolvable if one looks at this decline in nationalism as being primarily a feuture among GDI supporters, their statement about national governments only technically existing is basically then contempt for they don't believe in.

But Nod supporters might well be motivated by nationalistic feelings against the GDI which would fit with the general pattern in history by which empires (such as the GDI at this point) tend to be faced with violent nationalistic opposition.

This would explain why the GDI needs to control the Whitehouse. It needs to have it's puppet president officially in charge of America in order to delegitimise Nod's nationalistic paralell rebel administration. If the Nod administration gains control of the Whitehouse then it can claim to be the American government thus making it an AmericaVSGDI battle rather than American Nod vs American GDI. Because Nod has set up paralell administrations virtually everwhere, GDI is unable to establish a more rational global administrative form than national governments (as complete the fading away of nations); as the moment they eliminate a traditional national government, the Nod alternative national government then becomes the legitimate government of that nation.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 12:00, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.... this perfectly make sense as Croatia and her neighboring countries were under firmly Nod-controlled territories by the beginning of TW3, that's why they obviously do retain a level of national sovereignity and autonomy (in striking contrast for example with zone-divided United States). Also - in the mentioned mission you can see some orderly and well kept cities in striking contrast to mentioned Yellow Zones' anarchy and decay - this may be the sign that Nod and Croatian governments work together to keep law and order and social structure intact.

As for rebel administration and nationalism - they most likely do exist. Nod really seem to be a more loosely organized entity than GDI - with many soldiers of Nod-initiatied militias fight not out of genuine belief in Kane's teachings, but out of nationalistic ideals or even simply enmity towards GDI policies. It could even be that while abandoning Yellow Zones' inhabitants to their fate, GDI Council might rule Blue Zones not by democracy and enforcing civil rights, but by authoritarian means and establishing a de-facto police-state to keep citizens "in line" and productive. This is only a minute speculation - but it could explain how Blue Zones became overrun with Nod-aligned forces and militias by the beginning of TW3. Terran Ghost (talk) 15:13, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

The thing is here that Croatia was considered a Yellow Zone during the Third Tiberium War. This means that formerly speaking the area in question will have a zone director and a formal 'policy' from the GDI.

I don't really that Nod managed to keep any territories securely under it's control after the Second Tiberium War ended. But at the same time GDI had neither the legitimacy nor the manpower to secure the territories that Nod had lost.

Yellow zones are defined not by their social conditions but by the level of Tiberium of those areas however. There is a problem though, there is no reason why anarchy and social breakdown would follow simply from the existance of a given level of Tiberium. This becomes a question of correlation and causation. Are the yellow zones anarchical because they are yellow zones or is that they are yellow zones because they are anarchical.

If you look at the world's yellow zones there are no blue zones that fall within traditional core Nod territories, they are all Yellow or Red. That's why I think that Yellow/Red zones are basically zones which the GDI 'conquered' but failed to effectively control. Because they couldn't control them but yet since they had the firepower to eliminate any Nod Tiberium operations we ended up with a situation where Tiberium grows unchecked even creating Red Zones. GDI destroys Nod refineries, Nod destroys GDI refineries.

The shift to a focus on Tiberium harvesting over military begins to make sense in this context, the GDI decided to use Tiberium in order to herd the world's populations into the zones over which they had complete control while allowing all the unruly areas to turn into Red Zones, thus eliminating Yellow Zones entirely. They would then clear the Red Zones of Tiberium slowly and recolonise the world with people under their control, establishing a one world GDI people.

This comes down to the GDIs core problem, legitimacy. Originally it was supposed to be an armed body of the UN, upholding the UN charter whatever that is in the Tiberium Universe. But once it throws the world into a global war over a few blown up buildings and starts establishing a world dictatorship, whatever legitimacy it could claim has long since faded. So it resorts to fear-mongering, afterall that was the main componant of it's ideology since the beginning, "look how nasty the Nod terrorists are, you really should like us because we're the only one's protecting you against them". But once the Nod terrorists have reinvented themselves as a charitable organisation feeding the hungry and destitute it's time for a change of plan, so it becomes '''"Look how nasty Tiberium is and look at how Tiberium free we make our loyal supporters areas, you really should like us because we're the only one's protecting your area against Tiberium". '''

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:18, May 21, 2013 (UTC)

Copy & Paste from Wikipedia
I think your cheap additions by copy & pasting Wikipedia articles about cities in this C&C wiki is of no use and not legal if you don't credit the source properly. It is weird to read about Mubarak in the first paragraphs and then what NOD did in Cairo during the 2nd Tiberium War o.O Please stop that. Matthias (talk) 20:57, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Firstly this addition was not my invention, I am continuing a practice that was already in use and I happen to like. It is my vision to combine all the info about how a location or country appears in all the different games onto a single page, alongside how it feutures in real history.

Secondly stop trying to scare me with your silly legalism. And it is not of "no use", it's called education, people might actually learn something about a place or country in real-life, I've certainly learned a fair amount since I began.

The only objection you could possibly have is the crude way I've done it, but nobody said that this is the finished article, I've certainly noticed since your 'sabotage' that I've failed to take out some wikipedia widgets that should have been eliminated from the text. I've remove them tommorow.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:32, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Avoid copypasting from Wikipedia whenever you can. "Learning something about a place" needs to be only relevant to the article and must be summed up whenever possible. CNC1 Nod Emblem.png Sheldonist (yell!) 13:46, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not indiscrimately copy-pasting, I select individual passages from typically the blurb, the economy section and the bits of the history section (which is usually lengthy).  But yes I am copy-pasting ultimately and yes maybe Wikipedia isn't the most efficiant summary but rewriting everything so that it takes up less space would be most time-consuming and why bother when there are so many irate persons that would be happy to do it for you.  Well maybe they find deleting all your work to be less time consuming.


 * Since I guess the audience has spoken I will indeed sum up even though it will tak longer to complete the pages as a result.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:45, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * You can link to the corresponding Wikipedia page for a very detailed and up-to-date real-life article. Of course you can write about land-marks. If you are just to lazy to write something yourself than a wiki is probably not the best hobby for you. A cheap copy & paste action is of no value for readers and editors who have to tidy up your mess afterwards. Matthias (talk) 18:24, May 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 Slayer of Cliffracers
 * Comrade, the problem with copy-pasting anything into the articles is that the articles themselves were supposed to be reflecting things in Tiberium Universe. For example, writing about Mubarak in section for Egypt in Tiberium Universe, where there were a noticeble war in that part of the globe in 1998-2001 seem a bit strange. If we insist on Red Alert 1 being Tiberium Universe's prequel this makes things even more complicated, since the set of events without our version of WW2 and Cold War would be entirely different.
 * This Wiki was meant for official canon only, as I can understand the current policy, not for speculations. Terran Ghost (talk) 00:22, May 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * The nation pages are ultimately meant to include the depiction of the nation in ALL the games and not specifically the Tiberium Universe for comparison.  The History section is there for educational and compative purposes, to educate the reader and to provide a point of comparison between how things were in the game and how they were in real-life during that same period.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 10:25, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Alernative History
Hey Slayer, jsut a heads up. Don't remove Alternative History headings, since they serve to provide a complete look at the character's story. The one in Michael McNeil's article is particularly important, since it's obviously Michael that gets tortured to death by Slavik (<3). http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:21, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

James McNeil gets killed by Nod after Hammerfest falls. In the GDI campaign Kane tells Michael McNeil that. It is the Nod campaign follows the story as to how Hammerfest falls to Nod and reveals that James McNeil was responsible for this.

It would make more sense for the scene to depict James McNeil. But you're saying the scene does actually depict Michael McNeil because of his appearance I suppose (no other basis and I can't tell), then that requires a whole other story as to how Nod captured him and the outcome of James McNeil is not covered except in the GDI campaign.

Clearly the final cutscene did not happen at all and the one just before can just about happen since nobody confirms the Philadelphia was completely destroyed rather than heavily damaged and it would explain their inability to counter the World Altering Missile which Nod is quite clear could be stopped by the Philadelphia. But only if it is James McNeil that is there rather than Michael McNeil.

Since they clearly overlap it is neccesary to harmonise both campaigns. It is pretty clear that the recapture of Hammerfest happens directly after or at the same time as Anton Slavik manages to launch his attack on it. This means that the whole Nod campaign happens before the GDI Hammerfest mission.

Now we need to get Michael McNeil into Anton Slavik's hands. If the Alternative History is what would have happened if GDI lost the Hammerfest mission then it all makes sense. That would explain how they manage to capture Michael McNeil. Without Michael McNeil nobody would have openly defied General Solomon and went after Kane's world-altering missile and so Nod would have pulled it all off inevitably.

If the two missions happen at the same time, then Michael McNeil can be present for the victory of the last Nod mission because he was defeated and captured in a time period less than that it took to complete the Nod Mission and transported to the Nod command centre. Problem is with this system is that mission clearly has to happen afterwards since Hammerfest base has already fallen.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:37, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * The Hammerfest attack is the point of divergence. In Nod's campaign, everything goes as planned and Philadelphia is destroyed. McNeil is captured, tortured (that's clearly Michael Biehn, not Daniel Kucan). Brotherhood wins.
 * In GDI's campaign, McNeil manages to retake Hammerfest before the ICBMs are deployed. Jake is killed during the retreat, Kane gloats. That's also why you have to destroy the ICBMs outside Cairo, not Hammerfest. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:21, September 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * That does not work Tagaziel.  The reason is that the GDI Hammerfest scenario is clearly set after the fall of Hammerfest and after Jake's death.  The Nod scenario clearly depicts the events of the disabling of the Firestorm defense shield and the fall of Hammerfest to Nod.  They take the ICBMs with them during the assault.


 * Additionally there is no mention of the ICBMs in the GDI campaign, instead they worry about the disrupter crystals and run off to Stockholm area to chase them down.


 * It is fairly clear that ICBM attacks on the Philadelphia were successfully carried out, but that the cutscene is based upon an alternative history in which Michael McNeil fails to recapture Hammerfest.  Since the ICBMs are clearly launched at the end of the Hammerfest scenario and Michael McNeil isn't in Hammerfest until after the scenario starts and what he is showing him is footage, this would indicate one of the following things.


 * 1. The first volley wasn't enough to destroy the Philapelphia and a second volley was due to be launched from Hammerfest but McNeil's victory prevented them from ever being able to launch this second volley.
 * 2. The footage shown in the first cutscene is actually what happened earlier (it isn't live footage).
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:39, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're complicating things. There was no ICBM launch in the GDI campaign, it was prevented by McNeil. The ICBMs only launch in the Nod campaign in the final mission.
 * At no point in the GDI campaign is the Philadelphia referred to as damaged by a missile strike. That's because there was no missile attack at any point during the campaign. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:57, September 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm  not complicating things, the Tiberian Sun campaign story really *is* complicated.


 * There is no mention of McNeil ever stopping any kind of missile attacks in the GDI campaign.  Additionally there is no way for our McNeil to have stopped the attacks since he only arrives in Hammerfest after the base has fallen and the Nod forces have thus been able to launch the missiles.  They arrive outside Hammerfest with the missiles in the Nod final campaign, they don't install them after they have won control of the whole base giving McNeil and opportunity to stop them.


 * The principle "Abscence of Evidence is not Evidence of Abscence" is where you have gone wrong here.  That the GDI campaign fails to mention the attack on the Philadelphia does not mean that the Philadelphia wasn't attacked in the GDI campaign.  It merely means that they did not refer to it when we were watching them.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:59, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't complicated. Philadelphia wasn't attacked by missiles in the GDI campaign, simple as that. Absence of evidence is evidence in this case. If Philadelphia was indeed bombed (and as shown in the Nod campaign, the destruction is total and knocks the station out of orbit), then there'd be no Solomon in the GDI campaign or drop pod support. Furthermore, if such an attack was perpetrated, then there would be a reference to it. Since there is none, the attack simply didn't happen. That is all. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:47, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the final final cutscene is alternative history it doesn't really matter whether the Philadelphia was completely destroyed and knocked out of orbit in the cutscene since both cutscenes are an alternative history in which Michael McNeil is defeated by Nod.  It is based upon the player losing the GDI campaign essentially at the Hammerfest mission.


 * But there is a reason why Abscence of Evidence is not Evidence of Abscence.  The reason for this principle validity here is that we have only partial knowledge of the actual dialogues between the characters; this a character failing to mention a detail which we know about from another source doesn't mean a thing. Nor does it follow that the information that we not around to watch is neccesarily insignificant; just that it happened not be be mentioned when we were around.


 * Now the fall of Hammerfest which is the conclusion of the Nod Campaign does happen within the GDI Campaign storyline.  The only contradiction between the campaigns is that in the alternative history outcome involves the destruction of the Philadelphia which you correctly point out would contradict the GDI Campaign.


 * But the fall of Hammerfest is not alternative history, it is actual history within the GDI Campaign.  Michael McNeil does not arrive until after Hammerfest has fallen and the Nod campaign covers the fall of Hammerfest but also involves the launching of three ICBM missiles at the Philadelphia.


 * Furthermore, Michael McNeil wasn't there prior to the fall of Hammerfest, so as he can't have been captured at the time of the mission the cutscene must have happened after  the first mission was completed.  This means the missiles shown in the cutscene are not actually the first volley of missiles that were fired in the mission.  There are further details from the Nod mission blurb that are relevant here.


 * In order for our ICBMs to shoot down the Philadelphia, they must be able to triangulate the station's position.  Our spies have placed beacons at the optimal launch locations.  Once the ICBMs have been deployed at the beacons the stations fate is sealed and the Temple of Nod may be built .  Move with all due haste, if the Philadelphia is able to complete three orbits, it will lock onto our position and destroy Kane's plans .


 * It is clearly implied by the mission blurb that at the present time the Temple of Nod (read World-Altering Missile) cannot be built in Cairo because the Philadelphia will use it's weaponry to lock onto it's position and destroy it.  That is the blackground for the mission, that the Philadelphia must be taken out so that Kane's Temple with it's World Altering Missile can be completed.


 * An undamaged Philadelphia would have prevented the World-Altering Missile being deployed in the first place, so the final GDI mission would not have happened.  But at the same time it clearly wasn't destroyed either in the GDI Campaign.


 * The simplest solution to all the problems is that the first volley of missiles was insufficiant to destroy the Philadelphia and a second volley was to be deployed in Hammerfest but was prevented by McNeils victory.  But the first volley damaged the Philadelphia and prevented it from interfering the World-Altering Missiles construction.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 13:49, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

The simplest solution to all the problems is to take the campaign at face value. If no mention is made of the missile strike, then it didn't happen. The fact that you have to resort to very contrived explanations to back up your point should clue you in that you are wrong.

In the GDI campaign, McNeil retakes Hammerfest before Nod could deploy the ICBMs. That's why you fight them in Cairo, not Hammerfest, where Kane is attempting to shoot Philadelphia down precisely because it can interfere with the Missile.

In the Nod campaign the situation is different: Slavik is faster than McNeil and manages to take Hammerfest and deploy the ICBMs before McNeil can arrive. Kane accomplishes in Hammerfest what he was forced to try to do in Cairo in the GDI storyline.

It's simple. Elegant. Doesn't require contrived explanations as to why an event that would be a vital part of the storyline is not mentioned at all, not even implied. I'm not really sure why you are arguing that complete absence of evidence is actually evidence for your point. There is completely no indication that McNeil is actually a woman with a gruff voice. By your logic, that lack of evidence is actually proof that he is a woman with a gruff voice. Which is, you know, absurd. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:16, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

It might be simple and elegant but it is also completely contradicts everything that is actually known.

What you are saying happens in the GDI campaign goes against what we know happens in the campaign. What happens in the GDI Hammerfest scenario is that Michael McNeil gets sent to Hammerfest by General Solomon after the base has fallen. The GDI have already been defeated and Nod has control of the whole base by the time he arrives. And there is no mention of McNeil stopping any ICBMs being deployed there.

In the Nod Campaign the ICBMs are deployed during  the assault on Hammerfest. There is no way for McNeil to have stopped them because he doesn't arrive until Hammerfest has already fallen and Hammerfest hasn't yet fallen during the final Nod scenario.

You also seem to be trying to incorrectly use the principle of one does not have to prove a negative. But I didn't pull the ICBMs being fired at the Philadelphia thing out of nowhere. I got it from the Nod campaign, which we know ends before the GDI Hammerfest mission because it depicts the events of the fall of Hammerfest while the GDI mission clearly happens after Hammerfest's fall.

You simply cannot argue based upon the fact the attack on the Philadelphia isn't mentioned at all in the GDI Campaign that said attack didn't happen in said campaign's universe because the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:12, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * You're using some bizarre kind of logic. The only mention of ICBM launchers in the Tiberian Sun GDI campaigns comes in the final mission. That is all. There is absolutely no mention of an earlier attack on Philadelphia. There is zero evidence to support your theory, with relies on unproven assumptions. The Nod campaign is complementary to the GDI campaign, which is the canon ending of Tiberian Sun, per Firestorm and Tiberium Wars. As such, if the two campaigns are different, the GDI once takes precedence. The presence of ICBMs at Hammerfest contradicts the GDI campaign, the canonical campaign, where they are deployed in Cairo, not Hammerfest.
 * I think you should refresh your knowledge of logic. The burden of proving that Philadelphia was attacked by ICBMS launched from Hammerfest is on you. You have failed to provide any proof, because there isn't any. In the Nod campaign Slavik captures and tortures McNeil to death, while the WAM transforms the Earth. This contradicts the GDI campaign, therefore it is classified as alternative story that is not canon.
 * In this case, the null result is evidence of absence. An ICBM attack on Philadelphia is not a minor insignificant event that would not be mentioned in the story. Since there is zero evidence for it in the campaign, it's evidence of absence. Why is it not absence of evidence? That's because we don't lack the means to identify evidence in this case. If the characters or the game implied anything of the sort, then we would be able to identify the evidence.
 * But they do not. Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. That is final. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:03, September 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * No it is your reasoning that is fundamentally flawed.  This is clearly shown by your inability to understand that a significant event being omitted from a limited dialogue does not prove that said event did not happen just because it is significant .  As an example if one randomly happens to snoop on two important people talking about what they are going to have for breakfast, it doesn't mean that they are not engaged in starting WW3, just that they didn't happen to talk about it when we were snooping.


 * We are in agreement on the point that the 2 final Nod cutscenes are counter-factual.  That's because they contradict the GDI Campaign in an irresolvable manner.  However the mission itself is not in the same situation.


 * The fall of Hammerfest to Nod forces, which the final mission of the Nod campaign covers, is clearly shown to have happened during the GDI Campaign.  Since there are not only 3 ICBMs possible in the world, there is therefore no problem in ICBMs being deployed at Hammerfest and then another batch being deployed at Cairo.   Consequently the contradiction you speak of does not even exist.


 * The burden of proof is already met .  The ICBMs were clearly launched at the Philadelphia in the Nod final mission, so I don't know why you are even bothering to throw no need to prove a negative at me.  You are trying to argue that this didn't happen based upon the fallacious line of reasoning that results from rejecting abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.  What I described above as the breakfast table snoop fallacy.


 * I agree with you that the Philadelphia was clearly not completely destroyed but that does not prove that the ICBMs weren't launched in the canonical storyline, only that the Philadelphia wasn't completely destroyed except in the non-canonical cutscene.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:50, September 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't meet the burden of proof. You have failed to present any kind of evidence that a significant event from the Nod campaign also occurs in the GDI one, namely the missile strike against the Philadelphia. There is not a single sentence in the GDI campaign, from Hammerfest onwards, that would so much as imply that anything happened to the Philadelphia. No text briefing suggest anything about this fact. No special effect. Not even actor behavior.
 * All you have offered me is a flimsy theory mashing two campaigns together, trying to avoid having to present concrete proof by referring to a principle that doesn't apply. Furthermore, you are completely forgetting that we are discussing a story. If something is not mentioned in the narrative and is not implied to have happened, it did not.
 * As such, unless you can provide concrete proof and proper references for your theory, please contain it to your personal pages only. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:46, September 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Both the GDI Campaign and the Nod Campaign are clearly the same story.  Thus since they are the same narrative, the missile strike is mentioned in the narrative, because there aren't two narratives but only one.


 * You have to prove to me that despite the clear overlap between the two campaigns storyline, stuff like the way that Anton Slavik helped set up the Tiberium Missile plants in Denmark/Germany while Michael McNeil helps destroy them; the two storylines are indeed seperate.


 * There is nothing flimsy about the way that I resolve the apparant contradiction between the campaigns.  Despite the final Nod mission follows the general pattern of storyline overlap between the campaigns you assert without any evidence that the events of the Nod Hammerfest campaign definately did not happen during the GDI Campaign so the campaigns represent completely different narratives/stories.


 * It is also pretty clear that in the GDI campaign something happened to the Philadelphia even though it is not mentioned.  This is because in the Nod mission it is made clear that Kane's plans to build his Temple of Nod and launch the WAM cannot be completed if the ICBMs are not launched before it completes three orbits (it's why there is a timer), yet in the GDI Campaign Michael McNeil in a hurry to stop the World-Altering missile even though it is clearly established then a intact Philadelphia can negate his plans?


 * You'd think it would be the ICBMs that they would be worried about given that Kane's plans cannot go ahead with an intact Philadelphia.  But they don't even mention them!
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 12:24, September 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you actually play the game? The final mission has you, as Michael McNeil, destroying three ICBM launching platforms that are deployed to shoot down Philadelphia, before ruining Kane's day. It's the exact same scenario as in Hammerfest, except for a different location. Furthermore, since even one ICBM is enough to destroy Philadelphia, this makes a previous attack even more unlikely. If one is enough to destroy it completely, then your alleged attack would have destroyed it three times and there would be no Solomon for the latter half of the game.
 * My evidence is the null result for a thorough inspection of the GDI campaign and finding no evidence of any attack on the Philadelphia with ICBMs before the final GDI mission. I've never denied the overlap between the campaigns, my consistent position was that the overlap is limited to things consistent with the GDI campaign. Things like the resurgence of Nod, reestablishment of Nod's chemical weapons program, or the attack on Hammerfest. However, there are items that are inconsistent with the GDI campaign, like the aforementioned deployment of ICBMs at Hammerfest and the resulting destruction of Philadelphia.
 * There is no way to reconcile this event with the GDI campaign. Therefore, the path of least resistance is simply taking the campaign at face value. If such a major event of strategic importance is not mentioned in conversations discussing the current strategic situation (not a casual breakfast as you suggest), then it did not happen. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:09, September 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * But as I've already explained there *is* a way to reconcile this event with the GDI Campaign?  The only bit that cannot be reconciled with the GDI Campaign are the 2 cutscenes at the end.


 * We do not get briefings discussing the current strategic situation.  We get the briefings for specific tasks to be performed.  That's why the breakfast table principle here matters, in the cutscenes they are not  generally talking about the general strategic situation but specific actions to be taken and the relevant information to the specific task to be performed.


 * You also missed my point about the ICBMs.  They are not mentioned in the briefing for the GDI Cairo mission even though they are directly relevant.  So there we have it, cutscene briefings for a mission frequently fail to mention information directly relevant to that mission; so why would it mention all the important events and details of the general situation?!


 * One ICBM will do it in the Cairo Mission, but only a synchronised  attack by 3 ICBMs will do in the Hammerfest mission.  Well my answer to this is simple, the Philadelphia was already heavily damaged by the first volley of missiles and now in it's weakened state one missile is enough to finish it off.  The weakened Philadelphia is unable to 'interfere with Kane's plans' hence why General Solomon doesn't ever reassure Michael McNeil that the Philadelphia can simply stop the World-Altering Missile!


 * If the Philadelphia were intact to stop Kane's plans in the Cairo mission, then the ICBMs in Cairo would be the primary concern for GDI and the World-Altering Missile would not be so, since it cannot be launched or even built perhaps until the Philadelphia is taken out, yet there is clearly an urgency to deal with the World-Altering Missiles and the ICBMs aren't even mentioned.   But at the same time in the GDI mission the Philadelphia was clearly not destroyed.


 * The simple and elegant solution to all the above problems, is that while the ICBMs were launched, canonically they failed to destroy the Philadelphia as is depicted in the cutscence but damaged it enough to prevent it from messing with Kane's plans.  Any further ICBMs hitting the Philadelphia would destroyed it utterly as is the case in the Cairo mission.


 * The final Nod cutscenes represent an alternative history based upon McNeil's defeat during the GDI Hammerfest mission.  With Hammerfest in Nod hands for longer, further ICBMs were able to be launched and obliterated the Philadelphia utterly.  The weakened GDI was then unable to carry out the Cairo mission, leading to the WAM's launch and Tiberium Earth.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:08, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Watch the final cutscene again. The first ICBM impact and explosion destroyed the station. The other two are redundant. I'm increasingly sure you haven't played the game at all. Michael McNeil's deployment in Cairo was not authorized by Solomon, who insisted that the GDI needs more time to prepare an attack. When it turns out that Kane has deployed ICBMs to shoot the Philadelphia down (which is perfectly plausible, as mobile launchers are built specifically to be hard to detect and give second strike capability).

The fact that you have to resort to increasingly outrageous claims should tell you that you are wrong. Slavik never launched subsequent missiles from Hammerfest, only three were launched, and those three are shown destroying the Philadelphia. In fact, it is explicitly shown that even a single ICBM is enough to destroy the station (not heavily damage, but completely destroy, breaking it apart and knocking it out of orbit) in the Nod campaign, something that is corroborated by the final GDI mission, where even a single ICBM is enough to destroy the station.

As such, there is no merit to your argument. You rely on some kind of bizarre logic trying to mash two campaigns together without the least amount of proof. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:10, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

2 Slayer of Cliffracers

The problem is that in earlier C&C games-  including Tiberian Dawn, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun and even Red Alert 2 the campaigns are set to exclude events, triggered by completing missions from the other campaign. Only in Firestorm and C&C3 did the rules change so that ALL campaigns are united in a single storyline.

The ICBMs used to eliminate Philadelpia are seem to be packed with nuclear ordnance or, at least, very powerful conventional warheads. The cutscene shows only ONE is enough to mortally cripple the station, should it hit the target. Three missiles were shot to ensure that any one of them actually scrore a hit - because the missile can miss a target (including being set off the course by ECM devices) or being outright shot down before impact by GDI's ABM systems, if such proven to be existed. This is corraborated by GDI's final mission - where only ONE ICBM is necessary to destroy the GDSS Philadelphia. Terran Ghost (talk) 14:46, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

@Tagaziel

There's nothing outrageous about my claims. I have played both campaigns all the way through and I have watched the final Nod cutscene many times over.

It is uncertain how much damage the first missile causes because the explosion does not subside until the other three hit. But I'll agree with you that one missile was enough to destroy the Philadelphia in the cutscene.

That's because the cutscene *is* the second missile attack on the Philadelphia and not the first. We are looking at the equivilant of the Cairo missile launch, that is a counterfactual alternative history that didn't happen because the success of the GDI Campaign's Cairo mission (I've decided that a second missile attack from Hammerfest is unnecessary, the Cairo one will do).

With the Philadelphia weakened by the earlier Hammerfest attack, a single missile would have been able to destroy it, this is consistant with the realities of the Cairo attack. While in the Hammerfest scenario it is very clear that 3 synchronised missile attacks will do. Additional evidence that it does not represent the first attack from Hammerfest is the presence of Michael McNeil who wasn't in Hammerfest until after Hammerfest had already fallen when he sent by General Solomon to retake it.

This is because the final 2 cutscenes are an alternative history based upon McNeil's defeat in the GDI Campaign, so the second volley of missiles was launched unopposed and the WAM was as well, leading to a tiberium world.

@TerranGhost

That is not strictly true as regards Tiberium Sun. Unlike with the Tiberium Dawn campaigns which happen in a different location and do not overlap at all, except that the African campaign is mentioned briefly in passing in one of the cutscenes of the GDI Campaign; the Tiberium Sun Campaigns cover the same events, referencing eachother's outcomes in the same locations.

For instance the outcome of the 3rd Nod mission clearly results in the 1st GDI mission. And the 9th Nod Mission clearly results in the 8th GDI Mission. It was clearly supposed to be the same universe.

But they did do a rather bad job of the whole overlap thing. They did mash two plotlines together in order to create a single plotline, but they didn't harmonise the details properly. This means it's up to us to harmonise the details in their place to create a single storyline as was clearly intended.

For instance the GDI Campaign did get the bit about Hammerfest falling, but did not resolve the bit about what happened to the ICBMs and the Philadelphia (the details). It actually looks like both campaigns were made by different people based upon the same general storyline but without either of them knowing or bothering to take into account the details of eachother's work.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 12:20, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

It is true - either the GDI campaign's events happenes as these missions were successful, or the Nod's one do. They cover the different variations of the same events.

There was NO second attack - only one, and happening in Nod's campaign only. You can see the missiles are..well very powerful with one enough to mortally cripple the station. Before the missiles hit - GDSS Philadelphia do not appear to sustain any noticable external damage at all - this indicates there was only ONE attack. 82.196.93.83 14:34, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear that the Philadelphia is undamaged. Compare.

0.20 in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxByWYI6-Nk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyYpfzGllgM

And 11.13 in the second video.

Even accounting for differences in gamma, the second video shows a battered looking rusty looking Philadelphia which also appears if you look closely have had a chunk blown out it's side. And why are the lights particularly on the right so dim compared with the first video?

Additionally, if you look at the direction the missiles are coming from, the missiles are clearly coming from Africa, not from Norway. This indicates that this is the Cairo missile attack being depicted NOT the Hammerfest one. The one that never happened but would have happened had McNeil lost, hence why Michael McNeil is there.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:48, September 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's zero proof. You're using a video from an ending that didn't happen to prop up your theory about an ending that did happen. The Philadelphia in the Nod ending shows zero signs of damage. It isn't rusty or damaged, it's shown at a different angle with the light glare from the cell giving the entire image an orange hue. You're seeing things that aren't there, trying to force the game to conform to your theory.
 * The game never, not once, implies that there were two missile strikes against the Philadelphia. Your argument relies on a very particular interpretation of the campaigns, which is entirely divorced from what the games actually say. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 11:49, September 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * What I was responding to was the attempt to use the cutscene to establish that the Philadelphia was undamaged during the ending does not hold water precisely because in the cutscene the Philadelphia looks to be in a bad shape compared to how it looks at the beginning of the GDI Campaign cutscene.  The lighting however does complicate the issue.  I was making a purely defensive counter-argument there, I was pointing out the special contributors argument doesn't work against my position, not saying that there was a decisive basis to be made for my position based upon the cutscene!


 * I'm not forcing the evidence to fit the theory, in fact I believe in my theory because it is the only one that takes into account all the known facts and yours simply does not.


 * Nod facts
 * 1. The Philadelphia must be eliminated before Kane's plans involving the WAM can go ahead.
 * 2. A syncronised attack by three missiles is necceserily to take down the Philadelphia.
 * 3. Three missiles were launched at the Philadelphia during the fall of Hammerfest.
 * 4. During the fall of Hammerfest Jake McNeil was there.
 * 5. Nod forces successfully invaded Hammerfest.


 * GDI facts
 * 1. The Philadelphia exists.
 * 2. Hamerfest was successfully invaded by Nod.
 * 3. Kane is engaged in constructing his WAM and must be stopped.
 * 4. A single missile is enough to destroy the Philadelphia.
 * 5. During the fall of  Hammerfest Jake McNeil was there.


 * Nod 1 causes GD 1 and 3 to contradict eachother.  Nod 2 and GDI 4 directly contradict.  Nod 3 seemingly contradicts GDI 1.  But the convergance however between the two stories on the other details makes your solution of there being two different canons contrived, as the GDI Campaign clearly references the events in the Nod Campaign on the multiple rather than them being seperate unrelated stories.  Additionally, on several occasions such as with the crashed alien spaceship the details of an entity that appears in the GDI Campaign can only be found out


 * As it is clearly established by consensus that the Nod campaign final cutscenes are counterfactual, there is  no factual confirmation that the Philadelphia was successfully destroyed by the missiles from Hammerfest in the Nod Campaign.  The Philadelphia was clearly not destroyed and yet at the same time was unable to prevent the WAM; my solution to this is that the missiles were factually launched but only damaged the Philadelphia enough to stop it being able to stop Kane's plans.


 * At the same time this explains why only 1 missile will do it in Cairo while in Hammerfest one needs 3 syncranised missile strikes, in the GDI Cairo mission the Philadelphia has already been damaged as a result of the Nod mission in Hammerfest.  It obviously does not take as much to take down an already damaged Philadelphia as one with full HP.  What then is actually wrong with my theory?
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:24, September 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * It lacks evidence and is contradicted by evidence in the game.
 * 1. There is absolutely zero mention of any attack on Philadelphia in any way, shape, or form throughout the GDI campaign after Hammerfest, which accounts for a half of the story. At no point does any character so much as hint at any such attack, despite the fact that such an event would have strategic importance and would be relevant to any mission. Hell, Kane doesn't even refer to such an attack after Hammerfest is retaken, despite his love of gloating.
 * 2. The Philadelphia can be destroyed by a single missile. This is established by the final Nod cutscene (in which the first explosion destroys the station, detaching its saucer and knocking it out of orbit) and by Tiberium Wars.
 * 3. The Philadelphia can indeed interfere with the WAM. That's why Kane tries to shoot it down in the final GDI campaign mission.
 * There is no other possible solution. You argument relies on claiming that somehow a space station (a fundamentally fragile structure not designed for combat) can withstand not one, but three direct hits by intercontinental ballistic missiles whose sole kinetic energy would be enough to destroy it, and retain full functionality throughout nearly a half of the game, and everyone would conveniently ignore such a major, strategic event for no real reason.
 * The GDI campaign is canon, with Nod's being canonical whenever it doesn't contradict the GDI missions. In this case, the Nod campaign contradicts. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 18:10, October 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * That it is not supported by direct evidence is true but certainly there is no evidence that contradicts it.


 * Given that the contradiction between the campaigns can be amicably resolved in a manner that contradicts neither campaign, there is simply no basis for your claim that the Nod campaign must be a seperate canon.  Ask yourself not what direct evidence there is for my position but why in contradiction to the clear overlap between both campaigns there has to be two seperate canons and my position is not a possibility.


 * 1.  As I've discussed before, the failure to mention a detail in a scoop does not mean that said detail is objectively absent nor that it is insignificant.  In other words the principle that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  A principle you seem to have difficulty understanding.


 * You talk about strategic importance but I can't think of how the Philadelphia being earlier damaged by a Nod attack could be directly of relavance to any of the GDI missions?  As such there is simply no reasonable reason why it would have to be mentioned, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence applies.


 * Also loose lips sink ships, why would the GDI go around telling everyone that the Philadelphia was badly damaged? Would they want to encourage Nod to launch less powerful but more abundant weaponry at it to finish the station off.  Kane and Nod wouldn't be gloating either, because they are unhappy that they failed to utterly obliterate the Philadelphia.


 * Indeed both sides have strategic reasons to not mention the attack on the Philadelphia so it not being constantly mentioned needlessly is quite realistic.  As a rule in warfare, the greater the strategic value of something the less it should be mentioned needlessly. Thus we can actually expect to be kept in the dark about any background that is actually important unless it is directly relevant to the mission.


 * 2. That is true in the final GDI Mission but it is not true in the final Nod mission.  Otherwise you would be able to win by deploying a single missile in Nod Mission and by destroying a single mission in GDI mission.  The events of the GDI final mission is chronologically after the Nod final mission's events.  The number of missiles needed for destruction indicates that the Philadelphia in the GDI Mission is now much weaker than it was in the Nod mission, which is indirect evidence that the Philadelphia is now already damaged.


 * The cutscene depicts the realities of the GDI final mission not the Nod final mission in regards to the missiles.  In addition to this there is the presence of a defeated Michael McNeil and way the apparant origin of the missiles is Africa not Europe.  This provides a clue as to how it fits into the narrative.


 * It depicts the alternative reality averted by McNeil's failiure at the Cairo, hence his presence at the start of it.  The presence of the defeated McNeil is the point of divergence at which the alternative history depicted in the cutscene, diverges from the canonical storyline.


 * 3.  You make the outrageous claim that the Philadelphia was not designed for combat despite it's clear military function!  That the GDI built the station so that anyone could just fire a missile at it and destroy the nerve center of the GDI!  That's just ridiculous.


 * It is the most vital military target the GDI has and so would have been protected by the most advanced technology available and given that we are talking about the whole technological wizardry of Tiberium Dawn, Tiberium Sun and the whole Red Alert Universe thrown in for good measure; this is quite a lot.


 * In the GDI Campaign the Philadelphia is clearly unable to prevent the WAM being launched.  We know that because General Solomon to use your own logic fails to mention any such thing even when he is arguing against Michael McNeil launching the Cairo mission.  Where is the; 'don't worry McNeil the Philadelphia will take care of it' from General Solomon?  It is directly strategically relevant to the mission and so it should have been mentioned were it true at that point.


 * At the same time although it is obvious that General Solomon knows he can't stop it, this doesn't mean that Kane knows that he can't.  Hence the missiles, Kane is unsure as to how damaged the Philadelphia actually is, so that in the mission even though he really only needs to fire one missile he tries to fire all of them.  This is what makes the mission actually possible to complete.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:49, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Arab Spring
Do not add irrelevant content to the pages. This is not Wikipedia, we are a purely Command & Conquer wiki. Arab Spring never happened in the C&C setting, nor did any event post-1995, and is not to be added. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:06, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

The history section deals with the real-life history and is kept seperate from the rest. The start date is variable between games and the aim is to have a section for each universe and the events in that universe, not to confine to the Tiberium Universes start date.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:45, October 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * It was never the approach and is not the policy. Do not add irrelevant content. This is the last warning. http://images1.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:21, November 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * And what makes you so sure of what is irrelavant or relevant, is the entire readership you?  It is the approach that has been used and not just by me but by others as well and you have sabotaged their work.  You seem to think that all history past 1995 is irrelavant, despite the fact that various games have different starting points.


 * Nobody forces you to read content that you find irrelevant and as long as it does not violate NPOV you have no valid objection to it's existance unless there is a consensus on irrelavance which there clearly is not.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:43, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Quote help
Can you research some quotes for the mutant marauder I only know two so far Dan67 13:04, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

I've added lots of new quotes Dan67

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:41, November 15, 2013 (UTC)