World in Conflict! The Cold War Goes Hot.

Timmy811

stodge said:
The game look stunning, the trailer is fantastic BUT...the premise is entirely ridiculous. Even in the paranoia of the Reagan period, the theory of a sudden Soviet invasion of the United States wasn't taken THAT seriously.

If the game is set in our timeline, I simply cannot see where this "invasion" has come from unless it is a small-scale "raid" by disaffected Soviet soldiers. That said, it looks an incredible game...
Click to expand...

What makes it even more ridiculous is that according to the orview of the story at their website, this isn't a suprise attack.

West Germany, 1988. To avoid certain collapse, the Soviet army boldly advances into Europe. NATO responds only to be met on a second front -- a diversionary attack on the American homeland.
Click to expand...

Now I think that if NATO had been at war with the Warsaw Pact for a year then the US Navy would have noticed a massive fleet of unmarked container ships approaching the west coast and thought it suspicous and worth investigating before it got close to a port.
 

Dave Howery

uh, people, this is a video game we're talking about here... historical accuracy isn't their forte.... you didn't see this much griping about the background of Red Alert 2, which had pretty much the same theme....
 

Adam

Banned
Dave Howery said:
uh, people, this is a video game we're talking about here... historical accuracy isn't their forte.... you didn't see this much griping about the background of Red Alert 2, which had pretty much the same theme....
Click to expand...

World in Conflict is semi-realistic. The plot isn't that realistic, but the things used are based on RL. Whereas, Red Alert just throws realism completely out of the window.:p
 

Ivan Druzhkov

Timmy811 said:
Now I think that if NATO had been at war with the Warsaw Pact for a year then the US Navy would have noticed a massive fleet of unmarked container ships approaching the west coast and thought it suspicous and worth investigating before it got close to a port.
Click to expand...
I'm actually rather impressed that the Soviets were able to able to sew up Afghanistan, mobilize the Red Army to a level not seens since Operation Barbarossa, and invade the United States in the space of...oh, about one year. Who knew their logistics branch was that talented?

But yeah, it's a game, so realism is not a iron-clad law. But playing fast and loose with reality is a hallmark of the Soviet invasion genre. After all, if something like Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985 broke out, shouldn't it have gone nuclear after about a week of fighting, if not sooner?
 

drakkon

Ivan Druzhkov said:
After all, if something like Hackett's The Third World War: August 1985 broke out, shouldn't it have gone nuclear after about a week of fighting, if not sooner?
Click to expand...

That book was simply Hacketts opinion. No one can say for certain what a ww3 conventional war would look like.

Example: People thought that ww1 would be highly mobile and over in a few months. I don't think anyone predicted trench warfare draging on for years and years.

By 1939, most people - except a few visionaries - thought ww2 would be much like ww1.

For all we know, a NATO/ Pact conflict might have turned out like Twilight:2000, and gone on for years, before the nukes and after.
 

Ivan Druzhkov

Adam said:
Big difference there. The Consortium is a terrorist organization using a mixture of high-tech (Akula stealth tanks come into mind) and third-world military equipment. The Soviet Union (of 1989) is entirely using third-world military equipment.:p
Click to expand...
Delayed-Retort Man to the rescue!

Ah, but those Russians have been fighting for about nine years in Afghanistan, one of the hardest places on earth for an army to fight, and one that would give the Red Army a new respect for the weapons of war. The great American campaigns of the 1980s were, IIRC 1) The victory of 6,000 Marines in Grenada over 15 Cuban construction workers, 2) fleeing Beiruit, and 3) bombing Libya, a country that went on to lose a war to Chad a few years later. That’s about it.
 

Ivan Druzhkov

Timmy811 said:
A new video. It has pieces of the first two movies spliced in but it also shows in game footage and a Reagan intro.
Click to expand...
That reminds me...anyone here think that the Soviet invasion has anything to do with Mike Dukakis winning in 1988? It would be pretty damn funny if that were the case, that's for sure.
 

Timmy811

Ivan Druzhkov said:
That reminds me...anyone here think that the Soviet invasion has anything to do with Mike Dukakis winning in 1988? It would be pretty damn funny if that were the case, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I don't they'd go in that kind of political direction. I'm sure the story will be that hardliners overthrow Gorbachev.
 

Timmy811

Ivan Druzhkov said:
That reminds me...anyone here think that the Soviet invasion has anything to do with Mike Dukakis winning in 1988? It would be pretty damn funny if that were the case, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd go in that kind of political direction. I'm sure the story will be that hardliners overthrow Gorbachev.
 

Permanganate

Timmy811 said:
A new video. It has pieces of the first two movies spliced in but it also shows in game footage and a Reagan intro.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have much new. They've released videos of ingame graphics before, and that's where most of what you think is new is really from.

Anyone else think the static/corruption effect on the text screens in that cideo has now been increased to ridiculous extremes? It was reasonable in the previous videos but now it's ridiculous.
 

Ivan Druzhkov

Bad news, guys. I've been running through the forums, and it seems that there isn't going to be a single-player campaign for the Soviets.

Man, first War Front, and now this. All I want to do is crush the happiest, most prosperous nations on Earth beneath my tank treads and inflict horrific miseries on their populations. Is that so wrong?
 

euio

Ivan Druzhkov said:
Bad news, guys. I've been running through the forums, and it seems that there isn't going to be a single-player campaign for the Soviets.

Man, first War Front, and now this. All I want to do is crush the happiest, most prosperous nations on Earth beneath my tank treads and inflict horrific miseries on their populations. Is that so wrong?
Click to expand...
If you want to do that, try Red Alert 2. It also has zeppelins.
 

Dave Howery

Pax Britannia said:
The Soviet campaign was the most fun in RA2!! I cant believe this
Click to expand...

it had some good moments... but I think the absolute best scenario (in fact, my favorite scenario in any RTS game), was the Allied one set in Seattle... hey, you have nukes, Yuri clones, snipers, a weather control machine, limited resources, that counterpart of Microsoft you have to rescue, and you have to capture power stations PDQ to keep those nukes from blowing up the whole town... what's not to love?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top