Talk:First Tiberium War

I've decided to include as much of the GDI and Nod campaign Canon's as I could, but I don't remember everything that occurred. I'd love it if someone who actually has the game could help me with this article. Thanks.

Sorry about the mess. Thanks for the help.
 * I have the game- I'll tidy it up a bit and add how Renegade fits in when I have some time. Snow93 12:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can try and stick in some of the Covert Operations missions also. I beleive they were just side stories along the way so your probaly free to put them anywhere in the story. --208.252.179.25 06:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?
I'll try and rewrite the article soon, as it's really biased towards GDI.
 * That's just because reality is biased towards GDI. --24.172.195.239 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence makes about as much sense as saying "Nod is teh eeeevul". Mikael Grizzly 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the serial deleting. I'm trying to help.(Assaulthead 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I'll rewrite the bits that I have ingame experiance of, new to this game in order to make it more neutral. By this I mean I will remove references that are not solidly grounded in the game. Particularly this means generalising, which means assuming that just because the Nod player does something (kill a certain troublesome individual tribal leader) that Nod kills tribal leaders and warlords as a matter of policy. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 23:14, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Time Travel Anyone?
I've been wondering...when DOES TW1 take place in? I've always thought it was from 1995 to 1998 (3 yrs) but this article says that it was from 1999 to 2002 (3 yrs). Thre must be a consensus on this because we can't have one article saying "this happened in 1996" while another says "THIS happened in 2001". Now I believe that it should be 1995 to 1998 because the Kane evolution gif states 1998, obviously the 1998 pic is from C&C Tib Dawn. Which means that Kane must of missed the memo about the war happening later OR he time traveled back a year (or three) in order to beat GDI (which he still failed at).

Now I'm a strong believer in the 1995 to 1998 timeline. Changing the 1999 to 2002 "errors" would be immeserably easier (its just a few text and picture text changes here and there.) otherwise the person who made that awesome Kane evolution gif would be in the wrong. Also...the Criminal Dossier states that it was from 1995 to 1998.
 * BTW C&C came out in 1995 and LOL WIKIPEDIA STATES THAT IT IS SET IN 1995 (the game started in 1995 and ended in 1998 (3 yrs) by Wikipedia's thinking). Check all the sources for references in the Wikipedia article for C&C Tib Dawn, they all say 1995.

-User:RepublicOfClones

Wikipedia isn't the best C&C resource, not to mention that it doesn't make much sense. Tiberium hits, in a month Nod is a global superpower and immediately is at war with GDI... influence is gained slowly, not overnight. Shaur M. S. Grizlin 07:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that TD takes place from 1999 to 2002 for the simple fact that CnC was meant to be a near future game not unlike Generals. Real life technology mixed with scifi stuff just a few years away from development. actaeon 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs to be standardized to some timeline. Either 1995 to 1998 or 1999 to 2002, cause we need to make another Kane evolution gif (for the tw1 pic, it says 1998 (and we all know that pic is from DURING TW1)) if it is the latter timeline.
 * Just a funny note: GDI using the M113 APC is strange because the M113 is woefully obsolete by TW1 and there is a better APC out there (M2 Bradley). Not to mention that new weapons would render the old armour useless. I can only guess that GDI either put better armour on or people still used Dragon TOWs (which originated from GWW2) by TW1 (which gets wrong later because of the Renegade rocket launcher.) Noddies have M2 Bradley while GDI is stuck with old M113s.

-User:RepublicOfClones

It could be said that GDI uses some obsolete technology because they really only had second hand military technology at the start of the war since the G8 countries decided to keep their top of the line stuff at home in case GDI failed. Of course by war's end GDI had a mix of old and very very new stuff when the world realized how much GDI needed it to defeat Nod. actaeon 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that it's all set in an alternative timeline in which WW2 never happened. This means that it is quite plausible that militery technology did not progress in the same fashion and to the same extent.Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 23:16, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

If the Brotherhood was the sole producer of this product that everyone HAD to have, then it's quite possible they built up their influence very quickly. Just look at the huge profits amassed in the real world's oil markets during bubbles. What's to say that Tiberium showed up on Earth in early 1995, and by late 1995 Nod had amassed enough wealth to start military operations? (Since everybody is just making assumptions anyway).

The way the story is set up, it sounds like Nod already had a significant amount of power in secret after the 1990 UN Black Ops disaster (since they had enough to plunge the USSR into war, who knows what else they were responsible for?), but tiberium just gave them the resources they needed to come out into the open and market their platform to a larger base. And as for how the mining techonolgy was developed so quickly...I think EA will be gracious enough to write in a plot hole for us in the next Tiberium Game.

Is GDI and NOD separated satndalone armies or GDI and NOD are the ally and their army are mixed armies of countries like NATO and Warsaw Pact ?

ok eu que todos estao tentando ajudar com o maior numero de informaçaoe cooretas possiveis...mais tenho uma observaçao a fazer pra pessoas que estao postando os artigos, por favor coloquem a data em que foi lançado cada jogo e suas respectivas espansoes, pois assim ficaria muito mais facil pras pessoas conhecerem a historia do Command e Conquer conforme seu lançamento!!!

obrigado...

Rewrite
I'm extensively rewriting this article because it was inconsistant in it's coverage, messy and had a definate GDI bias. I intend to establish it so that it is split into two basic sections covering both campaigns, the Nod's campaign for Africa and the GDI's campaign for Europe. Everything happening after the conclusion of the game campaign goes in the Aftermath section. This should be in paragraphs in chronological order, things that are happening at the same time should be in the same paragraph. There are basic principles that I believe the article should follow.

Neutral Language: We should use language which does not cast either side in a positive light or a negative light. For instance we do not describe the GDI as saintly upholders of their UN mandate

Not writing speculations as fact: Conclusions derived from known in-game facts should not be stated as factual in the article unless they are completely self-evident.

I've also deleted the political maps because there are rapid shifts in the alignments of different countries and it is unclear as to what time specifically the political map is referring to. It is fairly obvious to me for instance that during the European campaign Russia is neutral because the Nod invade Ukraine solely from the west while the GDI do not invade Nod countries from the east but from the north and west.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 13:23, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the certainty that the Bailystok massacre is actually falsified. Afterall the player can apparantly avoid the Bailystok mission by choosing the Belarus path or the other Polish mission. And only if the player plays that mission is the massacre established definately false. There is no certainty that the commander other than the player that commanded the forces there didn't actually massacre the people afterall and Nod are actually then telling the truth.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 00:30, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the bits referring to events after the stuff about Nick Parker because it does not seem to referenced in anything except GDI triumphalism and speculation. I don't think anyone actually knows from canonical sources what the fate of Nod Africa and the South African Temple was. I've also merged Effects and Aftermath into a single section as they essentially mean the same thing.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:46, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Quotation: " It is fairly obvious to me for instance that during the European campaign Russia is neutral because the Nod invade Ukraine solely from the west while the GDI do not invade Nod countries from the east but from the north and west."

Well - the intro cutscene of the game itself shows Russia as GDI-aligned. More here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6906MLBkIsM  So - I've restoring the map. Also - NONE of European countries' (that include Russian Federation) national armies were involved in the fighting. GDI acted as a permanent UN peacekeeping corps in their own right. That means that while Russia supported GDI politically\economically it didn't have to send it's troops to fight. None other European countries joined the war either. --Terran Ghost (talk) 20:29, March 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * We should reinclude the part when the ion cannon strikes on the Temple of Nod and supposedly "killed" Kane. It is the canon ending to Tiberian Dawn. - Privatejfx141 (talk) 20:59, March 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I intend to include that bit once I get to it Privatjfx141.  I'm kind of adding them all in as I play them.


 * None of the national armies of any of the nations were involved you say?  Well that really doesn't make any sense. When Nod forces invaded neutral Ukraine, which actually took them three game-turns to pull off, who were the Nod forces fighting if not the national army of Ukraine as it remains neutral until conquered or GDI intervenes? And I'm supposed to believe that most governments will tolerate global armed groups running around fighting eachother on a global scale devestating their territory without getting involved!  The into map you mention depicts a set of formal pre-war allegances, those countries whose governments are 'formerly' part of both organisations.  As can be determined in-game, the actual countries that side with the respective factions do not conform to the aformentioned map, so it's incorrect to call it a map of the sides in the First Tiberium War.  It's best placed at the beginning as 'breakdown of formal Nod/GDA allegances prior to the outbreak of the war.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 00:36, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Quotation: " And I'm supposed to believe that most governments will tolerate global armed groups running around fighting eachother on a global scale devestating their territory without getting involved!"

Well, did you see Bundeswehr then in a mission in Germany, for example? German Army has enough might to be a trouble for Nod militia so that fighting could take years for them. Or why Kane aborted plans to attack Pentagon because not wanting United States to actually enter the war themselves?

But there is probably another answer - the fighting could occur on relatively small scale, more like special ops, than full-out war like WW2 or Iran-Iraqi War of the real world. Also if you just remember that GDI were a formal peacekeeping body of the UN and that NO mission actually happened in Russia - why assume neutral stance countrary to the map shown. Our country could supply the GDI economically like providing the stocks of fuel and commodities without entering the war "in person" by sending Russian Armed Forces regular units, and provoking political fallout (there WERE Nod-aligned politicians and political parties GDI-aligned countries) --Terran Ghost (talk) 03:42, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

The Bundeswehr are likely represented by the GDI forces in the German missions and yes the Nod forces are defeated by them, the only reason they have such a hard time is probably that neutral Denmark backstabs them and UN funding for GDI is cut. All the respective national forces fight under the command of GDI or Nod respectively unless they are counted as neutral on the game map. The game map shows those countries whose governments and armies are at the disposal of the respective organisations. A country whose government and army are staying out of it is counted as neutral. Now this does not actually mean that forces from Nod or GDI aren't actually present in said countries, it means that de-facto speaking the governments of those countries and their respective militaries are not under the control of either party. It is possible that neutral countries might provide other kinds of support, a semi-neutral position as it were and is quite possible that Russia HAD a semi-neutral position in favour of GDI, however it is also just as possible that Russia had a semi-neutral position in favour of Nod or equally it is actually supplying both sides.

The GDI aren't in origin a peacekeeping body. Essentially they were originally a secret UN death-squad that was exposed during their failure to kill Saddam Hussain. Such an organisation would be illegal according to the real UN rules, the real UN is very touchy about regime change which is why they left Saddam Hussain in power and allowed him to masssacre his domestic enemies because they were only allowed to drive him out of Kuwait. But the Tiberium UN is a different beast. Instead of being created by a broad coaliton of differing countries that opposed Nazi Germany, it is created probably out of the old Leugue of Nations in opposition to the Soviet Union (Red Alert). Since basically the UN *is* NATO then it is far more imperialistic, interventionist and violent than the real UN is, hence GDI. Consider that rather than being disbanded, GDI is actually expanded after being exposed.

Consider then the extent to which GDI's support may well be based upon fear. Because GDI might simply turn up and assassinate you the best way to sleep soundly in your beds is formally to support GDI. But Nod terrorists might also assasinate you as well. What this means is as both organisations grow in strength the safest thing for any government to do is sit on the fence. Consider the paucity on the map of actually neutral countries http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/First_Tiberium_War?file=Alliance_breakdown.jpg#GDI_Campaign_for_Europe. Yet 24% of the worlds Tiberium harvesting is owned by others in the intro, that is by countries not aligned to either GDI nor Nod. So it is clear enough that immediately before the war much of the world had left Nod and GDI and were actually neutral since that map does not really reflect the strategic situation in the game. Now together with the other strategic indications which point to Russian neutrality it seems likely that Russia was neutral and remained so throughout the whole war because it's power was such that neither side wished to risk it's entry on the other side. The map is still important however because neither faction actually accepted the neutrality of those members that had left their organisations. Both sides were thus given a casus belli to invade neutral countries in the others block for being enemy aligned and also within their own block for breaking their obligations. It is quite likely the whole war actually happened because as Nod terror negated GDI terror and vica versa so the only way both organisations could mantain their old influence over the countries within their own blocks was to go to war with eachother.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 13:49, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Quotations: "It is possible that neutral countries might provide other kinds of support, a semi-neutral position as it were and is quite possible that Russia HAD a semi-neutral position in favour of GDI, however it is also just as possible that Russia had a semi-neutral position in favour of Nod or equally it is actually supplying both sides." The map simply shows Russia is pro-GDI. Proove your position with some canon materials or this remains ONLY your speculation.

Quotations: "Since basically the UN *is* NATO then it is far more imperialistic, interventionist and violent than the real UN is, hence GDI

No, UN was created to watch over BOTH Soviets and Allies. Renegade materials showing that Cold War (after GWW2) actually happened in Tiberium Universe (Red Alert universe had "hot" GWW3 instead) and Black Ops 9 (GDI predecessor) played a "key stabilizing role".

Quotations: "But Nod terrorists might also assasinate you as wel"

Then Russian Govt. would just nuke the bastards. We're not negotiating with terrorists. PS - I am a Russian and a pro-GDI. Nod are evil anti-human bastards, that deserve ONLY DEATH by gun. :)--Terran Ghost (talk) 14:17, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Update: http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/File:Gdi1.jpg Seemed to be that initial GDI offence in Estonia was from the GDI's base in Russia )) --Terran Ghost (talk) 15:14, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have revealed by your final statement only that you haven't actually played that mission. The assault is amphibious, the GDI forces land in the country from the sea landing in the north. Had Russia been GDI then the GDI forces would not have needed a beachhead at at all. It also took them 2 game turns to conquer quite a small country. Had Russia been GDI then they would have swiftly overun Nod Estonia from the land with vast army and overun Estonia in about a week. Similarly had Russia been Nod then essentially such a landing would have beeen swiftly repulsed and also would be strategically pointless since the value of it is based upon the fact that Nod controlled Europe is far longer than it is wide.

Red Alert *is* the prequel to Tiberium Sun. That is why for instance Kane appears in it and the Brotherhood of Nod. So Tiberium Russia is NOT your Russia, just as Tiberium UN is not our UN. It's a country that has been defeated and occupied multiple times by the Allied powers having been involved in major world wars. It's more or less similar in it's circumstances to Post WW2 Japan or Germany in RL. And there being a Hot War does not proclude there being a  Cold War either.

I have already proven extensively with canon materials that the map does not accurately represent the situation as to alignment in the First Tiberium War because countries do not stick to that map as to where their loyalties turn out. All those African Nod countries it turn out simply refuse to take up arms for Nod when it comes down to, it is actually two countries that are neutral on the Map, Niger and Gabon that support Nod against the GDI.

I have already conceded that it is possible that Russia provided some non-militery support for GDI short of actually getting involved. However there is nothing canonically that indicates that Russia provided such support. You can believe that they provided such support if that's what you would like to think. But all indications are that Russia is not directly involved in the conflict and never was. It actually reflects well on Russia, given that they are risking the GDI and Nod's wrath should either side win they actually show courage in their stance. They are indeed refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

Black Ops 9 may have had a stabilising role but that as a statement says nothing, the use of the term death squad is a neutral description. For a higher organisation (the UN) to create an organisation that is used to kill leaders of subordinate organisations (such as Saddam Hussain) coverty and extra-judicially makes that orginisation a death squad. Death squads are generally speaking used to ensure stability in a dictatorship by eliminating potential or actual sources of unrest.

Are they terrorists. Well it all depends upon your definition of terrorist. By my definition a terrorist is a person or organisation who.

1. Out of pursuit of political motives.

2. Using covert and hidden means.

3. Deliberately attacks civilians or destroys civilian targets as a deliberate target.

It all hinges on whether Saddam Hussain is considered a civilian and what the nature of Black Ops 9 operations were in addition to this. And covertly killing people for passively or materially supporting terrorism is itself terrorism.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:58, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

As for definition of terrorist. Any violent non-state actor, attacking civilian targets is a terrorist and should face harsh punishment or outright liquidation.

The second thing - GDI were an army in their own right, NOT a combination of member nations armies. Otherwise, Nod in Africa would be definetely bombed to oblivion by United States' vast nuclear and conventional arsenal. But the game implied than national militaries were simply NOT involved. Quote: "So Tiberium Russia is NOT your Russia, just as Tiberium UN is not our UN. It's a country that has been defeated and occupied multiple times by the Allied powers having been involved in major world wars"

Well, Kane appared in Red Alert 1, not Seth. Also - Red Alert 2 is not canon in Tiberium Universe, so only GWW2 happened. Quote: ", given that they are risking the GDI and Nod's wrath should either side win they actually show courage in their stance" Nod's wrath? Nothing to be afraid of, really. :) --Terran Ghost (talk) 19:24, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

The USA in real-life has been trying for years to eradicate the Taliban from Afghanistan for 11 years with all that aforementioned militery might. That's one country. In this case we are talking about dozens of countries at once so the simple reality is just this, the power of the USA is basically overstretched on too many fronts at once. Nod is able to avoid being bombed to hell in Africa because the GDI forces are busy in Europe. It's the basic strategy of guerilla warfare just played out on a global scale. Of course when your fighting a guerilla war on that kind of scale, it actually looks fairly conventional at a ground level.

And yes GDI probably has an army in it's own right. This is in keeping with it's Black Ops 9 origins. However such an army would also likely be rather small, again in keeping with those origins. If it were a true world army, if it were actually large enough to occupy whole continents then the way that political allegiances shift over the course of the war does not make sense, there would be no countries only territory and territory would change hands according to geographical not political boundries. It would then be a battle between two unitery world armies, a civil war within a world empire and country X would not be able to declare itself neutral or switch sides because national armies and governments would be irrelavant. And they do this a lot, I can almost smell the diplomacy and the backroom dealing going on.

Lastly there is the question of technology. Not only are we dealing with a different set of events, WW2 never happened, instead Soviet Union and Allies faught instead, we are also dealing with a different technological situation. Both airpower and tanks appear rather backwards by 1995, the tanks seem well armoured but poorly armed (and nobody seems to have realised they can add machine guns!) and slow and the planes seem to be armed exclusively with firebombs. The SAM missles are far in advance of the planes they are meant to shoot down. Attack helicopters are basically used as an anti-tank weapon not as an anti-infantry weapon. A lot of it is basically the WW1 militery mindset and pretty much favours large conscripted infantry armies over tanks and planes which are just seen as a means of supporting advancing infantry.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 23:52, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

GDI is an army in it's own right - that's the fact of the canon, they were a militant arm of the UN. Renegade have a mention, that GDI handles theis soldiers' basic training, not national militaries. So GDI forces weren't taken from US Army and Nod's weren't taken from PLA regulars (if so, than the TW1 would be US Army vs. PLA global fight). So it is possible for a country to actually be a member of GDI and NOT having to send its own troops to the fight, but rather fund the GDI's military budget. That's the case ;) So, I'm set to believe Russia was a part of GDI's formal organization, not some "semi-neutral country", as the first was directly stated in game, and the second is only a speculation (and thus more fanon, than canonical event) --Terran Ghost (talk) 04:18, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Renegade is not a depiction of the regular GDI fighting in Command and Conquer. You obviously know a lot about Renegade but it's a first person shooter and thus by is by nature unlikely to focus on the grunt soldiers. And I did say that GDI do have an army in it's own right trained by GDI. But it likely formed only a small part of the total fighting forces of the GDI. There is NO canonical basis for the idea that Russia was GDI aligned because the map is simply NOT a canonical depiction of the sides in the conflict and also semi-neutral is what you call in when you are provided aid to one side without getting fully involved. National allegiances in the game not only show no resemblances to the map but they also change rapidly. Since we have hopefully established that canonically speaking and on multiple grounds the map does not represent the political situation at the wars start, much the same applies to the question of China vs America. We also have no reason to think that China was involved as well so the whole PLA vs US army comment is just silly.

And yes the GLA forces during the war did overlap with national armies and they do so at the highest levels. Take our Mark Jamison Sheppard. http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_Jamison_Sheppard. His uniform clearly points to his being in the US Army and having a specific rank; that of Brigadier General. The actual leader of GDI is a general in the national army of the US. If the very leader of the organisation is rooted in a national army, how credible is it that the rest of GDIs officers and soldiery were completely uncontaminated by national military allegiances. There is also the way that the war worked out, two truly international armies fighting will have reason to fight over specific countries, they will fight over undifferentiated geography. But if you look at the map of how the allegiances change in Europe and Africa over the course of the war it is clear that both sides always aim to gain control over intact nations. This indicates that both sides are ultimately prioritise install a loyal government in charge of said nations, which in turn indicates that they intend to be able to recruit the national armies of said nations into their forces or to deny their enemies that ability.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:20, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Quotation: "There is NO canonical basis for the idea that Russia was GDI aligned"

The map is part of the canon materials, on countrary to your speculations that you try to pass as canonical fact. Also - the GDI is an organization that rely on FORMAL membership. Russia was part of it, yes (and that's for good, because Nod are fukken terrorists, needing to be killed without remorse - they are guilty of the worst kind of heresy and atrocities, and were dealing with hostile alien species.). Also - for example, during real WW2 countries like Paraguai, Venezuela, Bolivia or New Zealand were Allies, while not sending any troops to war effort.

Quotation: "is uniform clearly points to his being in the US Army and having a specific rank; that of Brigadier General"

His uniform might as well be GDI forces own design. For example - he have 3 stars on his shoulder pads that would make him a leutenant-general by US Army standards, but his rank is only brigadier general. He almost certainly WAS a part of US Army or USMC at some point, but we can't take for sure he hasn't resigned his commision upon joing the GDI.--Terran Ghost (talk) 17:20, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

The map is indeed part of the canon and I do not dispute this so stop twisting my words. It does however represent GDI propoganda, it is shown to the player at the beginning of the Belarus mission in order to inform him as to the background of the organisation he is now leading and it's enemies. Mark Jamison Shephard has earlier promised to show him it. Now the map that is shown flatly contradicts the real situation on the ground at the time as portayed in the actual campaign map. And given that it's propoganda what on earth make anyone so sure that it is contemperary, it could easily have been made years ago. And also, why does the player HAVE to be TOLD what the GDI is all about given that he's already risen up the ranks of GDI already? Obviously because he's an officer in some national army aligned to GDI that has been placed under GDI command.

The stuff about ranks is really a sideshow, Mark is probably a Brigadier General in GDI and a Leutenant General in US Army at the same time hence the uniform. The fact is that Mark Jamison Shephard is obviously American and obviously continues to wear an US Army uniform designating a particular rank (not any kind of made up uniform specific to GDI) is fairly decisive evidence that GDI forces during the war were cobbled together from various national armies under a GDI banner including the officers AND they even continued to wear their old uniforms. Then there is the fact that the individuals depicted as representing GDI forces in the game are all obviously American and the overwhelming majority of named GDI characters in the game are American also. This represents the fact that within the countries supporting GDI at game's start, the Americans have the largest militery force.

On a personal note, you seem angry about the whole thing. No Nod are not terrorists by the definition you have given me. ''As for definition of terrorist. Any violent non-state actor, attacking civilian targets is a terrorist and should face harsh punishment or outright liquidation.''

Nod, as shown by both the map you are so fond of and the campaign maps, is hardely a non-state actor. Since Nod are not terrorists outside of GDI propoganda why call them such and get so angry at them?

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:06, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Well, just because of their actions and their goals. They caused massive civilian casualties, they were trying to otherthrow the established governments, they denied people their God-given rights of free will, they tried to eliminate mankind altogether in Tiberian Sun, they caused the agressive alien race to invade Earth, they denied all that is good and righteous, and their leader dare to proclaim himself as a God, thus commiting blasphemy. So - Nod Brotherhood are terrorists, heretics and traitors of mankind, and the only punishment for this is death. Terran Ghost (talk) 19:52, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, to use an old saying. But while I don't have any intention of getting too drawn into a lengthy debate, I'm more inclined to side with the Slayer. Saying "Nod are called terrorists by GDI" is fine, saying "Nod are terrorists" is a breach of impartiality. Likewise, looking at Ghost's last post, if I were a Noddie I could just as easily say GDI are the "blasphemers" for denying my god's will (Kane) and denying said "god-given rights" of preventing access to tiberium and the next step in evolution.

Religious debates. They never end well. ^_^--Hawki (talk) 11:19, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well we have the GDI a bunch of people who decided (well the UN decided) that a few terrorist attacks means they should be invading Estonia. They also have about as much respect for the self-determination of pretty much the whole of Africa as the 19th Century European powers. And there's the small matter of how they think nukes are a good way to 'influence certain leaders' in Africa. Essentially based upon the language used they pretty much manage to prefigure George Bush's War on Terror which is impressive given the game was made before that ever happened.

Nod on the other hand appear to be a highly ruthless organisation that doesn't really seem to think burning villages to the ground and massacring their inhabitants is a bad idea if they get in the way of them winning the war. The only thing can be said of it is that it seems to work, Nod are certainly one of history's most impressive military forces, the Nod manage to take two of the weakest countries in Africa and defeat some of the strongest African powers that are backed up by European and American troops, tanks, planes and ships. The GDI is Europe were hardely as impressive, they manage to eventually conquer some of Europe's poorest and weakest countries who are more or less in a strategic no-hoper situation if you at the map (due to lack of strategic depth) and do so with most of Europe's most powerful countries and America thrown in for good measure.

All that can really be said about GDI is they could be worse, they appear to stand for nothing that could be described as good, they represent only fear of Nod and their rulers desire to escape any kind of accountability for their actions through some kind of international crutch; they object to the human race using Tiberium to it's own betterment seeing it only as something to get rid of even though we know that they themselves are quite happy to use the stuff to the benefit of THEMSELVES.

While Nod seems to stand for good things, Brotherhood, Peace and Unity and they seek to use to use Tiberium to the betterment of the human race. While their methods are not exactly ethical as already mentioned they do work in closing the gap against GDI. They didn't try to destroy the human race, Tiberium was doing that in a world dominated BY the GDI. It was Tiberium again which brought the aliens to earth (or was it aliens that sent the stuff?). In the end both factions are able to put aside their differences and unite to stop Tiberium, understanding that their enmity actually preventing either of them from achieving their goals.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 20:04, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

The claim GDI forces invaded Estonia from a Russian base is totally without canonical basis.
I've recently had to deal with an attempt by someone to add a bit to the European campaign article stating that GDI forces landed in Estonia from a base in Russia. This claim is backed up with zero canonical information. While it is canonical information that the landing was in Estonia and amphibious in nature there is no information as to where the landing was based. While we are free to speculate, the origin of the invasion should not be stated as there is is no canonical information that exists establishing such an origin.

Rewrite essentially complete
I have essentially completed my rewrite of this article. It is now a quite extensive log of all the missions in both campaigns, written as a historical narrative. I have added in some of my own conclusions but have been careful not to state them as pure fact. The only thing left to do essentially is the Polish path of the GDI campaign.

To preempt a certain criticism, I have added in the canonical ending for the GDI campaign in which the Ion Cannon destroys the temple and apparantly kills Seth. This is of course in game terms not the most likely outcome since the Ion cannon is not strong enough to demolish the temple in a single hit but it is the canonical outcome.

But I have also added in the ending of the Nod campaign, but I was careful not to state which building they destroyed only the possible outcomes. In my understanding the ending to the Nod campaign is only non-canonical in the sense that there is no canon as to exactly what happened so I have used intentional vaguery in the same way as I have with the missions. But that Nod did temporarily hack into the Ion Cannon and destroy a GDI monument is canon since it in no way contradicts with GDI canon as long as the underlined conditions are true. In a similar mission the PolishVSUkraine paths do not mean that the GDI campaign for Europe ended in Lithuania, that there are 4 possible endings does not mean that it is not canonical that one of those ending occured and the sequence of events involved did not happen.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 20:18, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations
I've realised that the screenshot map from my computer are of a much higher resolution and look a great deal better. So I have decided to replace the existing map images with new ones.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:04, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Too many pictures?
I think this article has a bit too much pictures. I suggest reducing the number of pictures. I don't see the Second Tiberium War and the Third Tiberium War having alot of images. - Privatejfx141 (talk) 01:35, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

So what? I reckon it looks good. Why level down rather than level up? The pictures are artfully arranged and they tell the basic story without requiring people to read the whole article. I can't really think of which picture I should remove first to reduce the picture number so I reckon they should all stay. Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:58, April 14, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's called "image stacking." The pictures keep piling up so that they don't line up to the correspondant text. E.g. the general Shepherd picture is well below the text that actually depicts the events the picture corresponds to.--Hawki (talk) 07:17, April 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried the whole picture and text thing at first but gave up.  The images are instead meant as a kind of decorative summary of the (rather lengthy) text.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:43, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

@Red Alert Universe.
I've changed the prior conflict to the First Tiberium War to the Red Alert Universe. The reason is that I don't exactly know of anything establishing that the other Red Alert conflict didn't happen in the Tiberium Universe. While taking Uprising as the prior conflict would assert that the whole Red Alert Universe is prior to Tiberium Universe which while it is what I am inclined to believe is also contentious and not definately established.Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 16:15, April 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * The ReadMe file for RA1 apparently lists the game as TD's prequel. Consensus is that RA1 is the start of two branching timelines.--Hawki (talk) 07:22, April 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I see it Red Alert 1 is indeed established as a prequel to Tiberium Dawn by definate canon.  However the other Red Alert games are also established as being sequels and this being so the default position unless some definate evidence can be found would be that rules out this possibility would be that the whole series is prior to the First Tiberium War, with the prior conflict to that then being Red Alert Uprising.  So there is no consensus.


 * What there is consensus on is that the Red Alert Universe is prior to the First Tiberium Universe at least in part.  So this is what should be written.  Asserting that the Second World War is definately prior to the 1st Tiberium War while it is something we also have consensus on does assert by negation the position that the universes represent branching timelines.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 15:53, April 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we can almost surely cross out Red Alert 3 and the Uprising - they are set in an alternate timeline, created by Cherdenko's "correction" of the timeline. Most notable differencies include lack of nuclear weapons and the existance of the Empire. As for Red Alert 2 - well, we have countless secondary evidence - first are the rate of technological development - no temporal technology, stable teleportation tehnique (RA1 choronosphere had notorious drawback of rupturing the space-time continuum itself and creating chrono vortexes  - reason for it being shelved after the war (or it being destroyed if we assume that Soviet ending led to TD) or weather control technology, the second is the lack of psychically talented individuals and world still dramatically divided between Soviet and Allied blocks - while in Tiberium universe the United Nations were created to preside over both Soviets and the Allies) Terran Ghost (talk) 16:52, April 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the first Red Alert definitely takes places in the Tiberium universe (Kane's presence and the mention of "The land of Nod" and "the Brotherhood" by Nadia are proof of this). The Allied storyline is the canonical one (confirmed by Westwood) and it leads towards the events of Tiberian Dawn. RA2 and Yuri's Revenge are yet another alternative timeline created by a Chronosphere accident (explaining Yuri's presence in the past), but this comes from an unreleased game (Tiberium Incursion). And RA3 is a separate thing altogether (due to even more time travel mishaps). -- Vorknkx (talk) 15:19, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-released games are generally non-canonical. About "allied timeline - TD" that's an official position of the EA? Any confirmation of this? Just curious, since the game (RA1) include clues that BOTH Allied and Soviet timeline COULD lead to Tiberian Dawn. As for connection between RA and Tiberium universes - it is a difficult question. At first EA and Westwood made RA1 as a prequel to Tiberian Dawn. Leaked beta draft of the game's plot suggested way more obvious clues that Nod were behind whole war, staging it for their own ends. But then they decided to split RA universe into a different branch. Terran Ghost (talk) 18:18, April 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, Westwood's position (while they were still an independent company) is that RA1 is the prequel to TD. As stated in this FAQ -- Red Alert is a real-time strategy-combat game developed by Westwood Studios, the creators of DUNE II and the original COMMAND & CONQUER: TIBERIAN DAWN; Red Alert is a prequel to the latter game.


 * EA, however, treats the two game universes as separate. I believe this is their official position.


 * Westwood's "official" position was that the Allied storyline is the one that leads to TD (as suggested in this forum post). The reasoning behind it is that the Soviet Union's defeat forces the Brotherhood to retreat back into the shadows, until Tiberium finally allows them to re-emerge and grow in strength in the 1990's.


 * Personally, I value Westwood's position more than EA's... but this is just my opinion :) -- Vorknkx (talk) 07:26, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the forum post you are referencing has a hint that it is all unofficial now, since EA has the rights to the franchise (and thus determines what is canon) - and this Wiki at least as far as I am concerned. So it's IMHO better to take fact from the games themselves as they are. It is plausable that BOTH Soviet and Allied timelines of RA1 could lead to Tiberian Dawn. As for Allied ending - Brotherhood's plans were spoiled and due to UN presiding over both Allies and Soviets instead of Red Alert 2's Great World War 3 we get only "Cold War in Europe" mentioned in Renegade's game files, with both Soviets and Allies brought to GDI's foil at the end. For Soviet ending - Soviet victory only brought "temporary chaos in Europe" (Kane's words from final Soviet FMV), with Nadia's promise that the Brotherhood will emerge from the shadows in 1990s. Guerilla resistance in Europe and the threat of US entering the war could caused Soviet forces to back down and peace treaty to be established. Part of it the creation of proto-GDI to watch over both former adversaries. And - do the EA accept questions from the community? It would be great to know official timeline approach. Terran Ghost (talk) 15:23, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * The person who has the 'rights' to the franchise does not definately decide what's canon especially since they often don't give a damn.  Even authors having that right is contentious.  Yes both endings could lead to the TD universe, that was a deliberate decision on the part of the game's creators.  However the question of which side won is kind of settled by the fact that the canonical outcome of that conflict is kind of established as being the Allies in Red Alert 2.


 * The US is in the war already as depicted in the maps in Red Alert and can be surmised based upon the american accents of the soldiers doing the fighting for the allied side.  And Red Alert 2 has the USA as main soviet enemy it indicates that they were directly involved in the war in Red Alert 1 rather than neutral.  That leaves only guerilla resistance in Europe which would have been dealt with by the same means by which the Soviets dealt with occupied eastern Europe, by appointing friendly local Communist pawns to run 'independant' states and intervening militerily only when neccesery.


 * Uprising ends with the Soviets successfully driving the Allied forces out of their homelands. This could result in a Cold War quite nicely.  Eventually we end up with the fall of the Soviet Union and it's breakup like in RL.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:40, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all the men that hold the rights to franchise do decide what is canon. It's just how the whole thing work - since they only have the right to distribute official materiel or license the rights to do so. Non-licensed materiel generally fall into fanfiction/fan-made game-mods category, if not outright speculation. By that virtue - C&C 3 or Red Alert 2 games are canon, while comments of former Westwood's employees are not, it not directly implemented in released titles (however, mr. Ishmael Isgreen on Petroglyph forums directly put in disclaimers that his opinion is not official canon).
 * As for Red Alert 1 - US applied some assistance in form of military advisors and some elite infantry, but the Allies were Europeans in most part. Red Alert 2 has NOTHING to do with Tiberium timeline as most evidence do suggest (lack of United Nations, and some way-too-powerful technology available).
 * Red Alert 3 and Uprising are ruled out definetely. This is because the intro clearly state that RA3's occurs only because of deliberate "correction" of the space-time continuum, creating an alternate timeline (with deviations including Empire of the Rising Sun and NO nuclear weapons at all). Terran Ghost (talk) 19:53, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * No canon is not some kind of extension of property rights.  What is disputed is whether expressed intentions by the author as to his works meaning, that is authorial intent are canon.  Proponants of Death of the Author do not consider anything other than the work itself as a source of canon, opponants of it consider author intent a source of canon.  But ownership is not considered author intent because owners do not necceserily know anything about the work they own nor care for it.  Rejecting death of the author then Westwood can make canonical statements about the meaning of it's works and EA can make canonical statements about the meaning of it's works but EA cannot make canonical statements about Westwood's work even if they own it.


 * I don't think that actual composition of the Allied forces is actually known, what is known is that the USA was involved in some capacity.  No UN in the Red Alert Universe, well there's a whole A whole page dedicated to the subject of the UN in the Red Alert Universe.  The course of events in Red Alert explains why the existing UN in Tiberium Universe is so messed up.  Basically speaking it *is* the Allies/World Assosiation of Nations, an organisition that was essentially forged to crush the Soviet Union, meaning that it is basically evolved out the equvilant *of* what in the real world is called NATO.  Hence all the warmongering and the 'neccesity' of having organisations like the GDI to stomp on countries that disagree with the UN like the Brotherhood of Nod member countries.


 * Yes there is an alteration of the timeline.  So what?  The whole universe is based upon an altered timeline.  Is there any problem with having no nukes and the Empire of the Rising Sun in the Tiberium Universe past? They can since have invented nukes and the Empire of the Rising Sun is destroyed at the end of Uprising.  As for the question of technology, there's always the small matter of Awesome but Impractical, just because the Red Alert 2 tech looks advanced, deadly and cool doesn't mean that it is pound for pound not outmatched by the simpler First Tiberium War technology when you factor in the cost.  If (insert awesome Red Alert weapon) costs the equivilant of 50 1st Tiberium War minigunners but it only takes 20 minigunners to reliably slaughter the thing then it will be phased out however awesome it may be.  And on the note of psychic technology it is quite likely that it was simply banned because nobody wanted a repeat of Yuri's Revenge.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:21, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not just about psychic technology - but about STABLE teleportation technology, weather control, or in case of RA3 - antimatter weapons. Well, using the "Death of the Author" doctrine will make things even simplier, it would be plain RA1's Soviet ending - > Tiberian Dawn (since it was DIRECTLY stated in final Soviet campaign's FMV) and RA1's Allied ending - > Red Alert 2. Under this doctrine UN was created to watch over both former enemies of GWW2 and to prevent repeating yet another incident of it, employing far more radical methods such as task forces and death squads to keep the peace. Terran Ghost (talk) 03:59, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it is probable that teleporters, weather control and psychic tech fell into the 'too dangerous in the wrong hands' category while Anti-Matter weaponry was probably Awesome but Impractical.


 * It was indeed possible that the First Tiberium War is the direct consequence of the Soviet Ending, however the problem is that Red Alert 2 is canonically the sequel to Red Alert and it's canon established that what 'really happened' was that the Allies won the war.  The Soviet victory is a counter-factual meaning that we are deriving a factual from a counter-factual.


 * The nature of the Tiberium Universe's UN favours the concept of the Allied Win and thus Red Alert 2 being what proceeds Tiberium Universe.  The UN in the Tiberium Universe is fatally unbalanced towards the US basically in a way that the real UN is not.  The reason the real UN while formed by the Allies after WW2, as the Allies split up into NATO and the Warsaw Pact, consequently the Soviet Union and USA balanced eachother out.  The Tiberium UN however thanks to Red Alert is basically the heir to NATO and has created an organisation that behaves in a NATO like fashion (the GDI).  Now if the Soviet Ending had happened we would end up with a UN that is like in RL or we would end up with a UN that was Soviet dominated depending upon how complete Soviet withdrawal from Europe was.


 * In order to arrive at the situation we have we basically start needing a whole alternative version of Red Alert 2 to happen in order to unbalance the world in the manner than it is in Tiberium Universe.  Occam's Razor objects at this point, why do we need to have two Red Alert 2s when we can just have one.  The outcome of Uprising fits the First Tiberium War situation, we have a UN that is US dominated, with no Empire of the Rising Sun but not so dominated that there is no serious opposition to the UN requiring a serious militery response because the Soviets managed to defeat the Allies and drive them out, leaving both sides exhausted enough that to avoid another war the UN powers were willing to make concessions to Russia but not enough to balance things enough or create harmony.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 14:48, April 26, 2013 (UTC)


 * Soviet ending is not a counter-factual, but just an alternate set of events. As about for Western-dominated UN - well, it could be the case that while USSR were the agressive part in GWW2, than no decolonised nations were to follow Soviet cause, and the USSR could have easely retreated into isolationism (Could very well be the case, if Soviet withdrawal from Europe was caused by American threat to launch air bombing campaign with nukes against Soviet city-centers). According on what we see in RA1 Soviet campaing about the way war was fought - it could also be that the "price for victory" was immense casualties on Soviet side. This could lead to USSR retreating into isolationism behind "Iron Curtain" pulled along Soviet Union's borders.
 * We also have Securiy Comittee instead of Security Council with may be no veto power over its resolutions by its permanent member. Also about Tiberium-universe UN - they are known to drop their support of GDI at one point, with GDI acting on alone.
 * Red Alert 2 on the other hand have NO connection to Tiberium Universe either mentioned or even implied, instead of direct mention of it in RA1's Soviet timeline. Also needing to note the directly humorous accents of both RA2 and RA3's including concept that is described here in Russia as "клюква" (cranberry in literal translation to English)  - exploiting Western myths about Soviet Union and Russia as a whole and making fun of such myths.
 * So now we have three possibilities: 1) TD out of real world scenario, with divergence only in 1995 (ignoring Red Alert wholesale as different universe - suggested by Tiberian Sun - Tiberium Wars - Tiberian Twilight games with no reference to Red Alert's timeline), 2) Take the Soviet ending - TD theory ( supported by direct reference in-game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ87NTbhS_M ), 3) take RA1's Allied ending - TD theory as implied by some part of the community. All are practically feasable in some point Terran Ghost (talk) 17:15, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * This has really blown out of proportion. But trying to sum stuff up:


 * Fact: RA1 happens prior to TD (Westwood contention)


 * Fact: RA1 ends with an allied victory in at least one timeline, paving way to RA2.


 * Fact: EA treats the Red Alert setting as a different outright universe to the Tiberian one.


 * Contention: RA1 is the only RA conflict that can occur prior to TD if one makes a middleground between EA and Westwood. This is further complicated by the fact that in RA3, nuclear weapons no longer exist and the technology is far more advanced than in TD.


 * Supposition: I'm personally inclined to see the Soviet ending as canonical for the Tiberian setting, allowing Nod to become powerful enough to get a monopoly on Tiberian and the like, but this is fankwank and far too speculative for article inclusion. All we know is that RA1 ends with an Allied victory in at least one form, with at least one outcome (Allied victory). So going by facts alone, either RA1 is completely separate from TD, or RA1 remains the branch-off point. Either way, best case would be to list WWII as a "previous conflict" in the template or no conflict at all. Whatever one thinks of EA or Westwood, their stance on it is that the two universes are separate. RA1 is the only possible exception and even then, shouldn't probably be mentioned in the article itself.--Hawki (talk) 01:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * And that's the problem. Analyzing the games themselves we see no reference to Tiberium timeline in any other place then RA1's Soviet campaign. So by the logic any attempt of inclusion of RA2, RA2 YR or RA3 into Tiberium universe are pure speculation and thus belong to fanon, not canonical information. As so - it is best to either reverse the previous conflict to GWW2 or to follow Renegade's game files and list "Cold War in Europe" that could be either our version of Cold War or conflict following up GWW2 instead of Red Alert 2's Great World War 3. Terran Ghost (talk) 07:12, April 27, 2013 (UTC)


 * That might be fine if it wasn't established that the canonical ending for Red Alert was the Allied one.  The Soviet Union ending establishes that Kane and Nod exist in the Red Alert universe and are secretly behind Stalin.  However that ending is counter-factual, which means that it represents a set of events which didn't happen but could have done if certain other events had gone differently.  This makes it non-canonical, much as the non-ion cannon 'death' of Kane at TW1 ending is counter-factual even though it is far the most likely to happen.


 * However this counter-factual outcome is still based upon certain things being the case more generally, which is that the Brotherhood of Nod exists in the Red Alert Universe.  That means that Kane and the Brotherhood presumably actually exist throughout the other Red Alert games despite not making an appearance.


 * There is also the small matter that the sequence of events planned by Tanya doesn't actually happen as Kane rather violently takes offense to it (and her).  So what actually happens next in the counter-factual is unknown, just as it is unknown in the factual ending of the series.


 * The problem is the world in Tiberium Universe is clearly dominated politically by the USA rather than by the Soviet Union/Russia which would be the inevitable outcome had the Soviets won Red Alert1.  At this point we start to need a version of Red Alert 2 in order to reverse the outcome of the conflict towards the Allied side.  Given that as our alternative timeline doesn't involve fewer entities, Occam's Razor wouldn't favour 'only' (not quite that simple) the canonical Red Alert timeline as the precursor to Tiberium Dawn.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 12:37, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

African Campaign
I have finally brought the campaign missions of the African Campaign up to my standards. I am now going to add links to them within the First Tiberium War article.


 * Great job! Just one small point - not all of the missions are concurrent with the ones from the GDI campaign. There is a certain point, from which the Nod campaign storyline takes a different path, though I am not sure exactly when that happens. The ending is definitely not canonical (it basically depicts an utter defeat of GDI and, probably, its termination) -- Vorknkx (talk) 15:13, April 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've played to the end and no such ending happens as you say.  What happens is that the GDI gets humiliated by Nod using the Ion Cannon against one of it's key supporters and Mark Jamison Sheppard gets grilled figuratively speaking by in my case the US senate.  There is no utter defeat of the GDI at all, there is a humilated GDI that comes under political attack.


 * A victorious but weakened GDI and Nod in control of the whole of Africa is the outcome that makes sense given that we know that Nod managed to hold on to much of it's African campaign between the wars despite everything.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 17:02, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXYNndVtuo


 * Here is a video of the Nod ending that I chose, the one where they destroyed the White House.  To clear this up, there is nothing in it that in any way says that GDI was destroyed or disbanded at all.  Indeed the US President reiterates his support for GDI.  The likely result is that the power of the GDI was checked somewhat and their orbital space weapon program funding was frozen.
 * Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 19:47, April 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, you make a good point. But on the other hand, if a major historical landmark was destroyed, then why wasn't it mentioned even once in the GDI campaign? It is a major event that probably shook the entire world - it can't just go unnoticed. At least one briefing would have contained a reference to "a major blow", "a terrible tragedy" or something of this sort.


 * The ending is open to interpretation, I suppose. I got the impression that there was a huge wave of anti-GDI (and possibly anti-UN) sentiment in many countries, which led to massive withdrawal of support. This could mean that GDI is practically dead, even if it isn't officially disbanded.


 * As a whole, my personal stance is that the two campaigns' plots separate at a certain point, and thus the final missions of the Nod campaign are not canonical (they are an alternative course of events - like the Nod ending in TS). -- Vorknkx (talk) 07:37, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Alliance breakdown pic mistakes
The Alliance.jpg pictures appears to have a number of mistakes in it against the in-game cutscene. For instance Zambia in the in-game cutscene is quite clearly neutral but the map seems to show it as GDI. There is also the matter than as far as I can tell some countries don't actually appear to exist, Luxemburg for instance on the campaign map (it is part of Belgium) and are not clearly depicted in the cuscene either. Russia does not control Vilnus either, Lithuania does.

A number of countries that don't exist in the campaign map do exist in the cut-scene, Eritea for instance. That's no problem since they evidently annexed in the intervening period.

Slayer of Cliffracers (talk) 22:41, April 26, 2013 (UTC)