"World in Conflict" AH Game

CaRL · Apr 2, 2007

Anyone heard of this? It's a near-POD game where the Berlin Wall never fell, and the Soviets in desperation attacked Europe.

Michael · Apr 2, 2007

Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play. Want to play. Need to play. Must play....

Ivan Druzhkov · Apr 3, 2007

CaRL said:
Anyone heard of this? It's a near-POD game where the Berlin Wall never fell, and the Soviets in desperation attacked Europe.

Europe, hell! The Soviets are going after bigger game.

In case you're interested, we've got an older thread on it here.

Timmy811 · Apr 4, 2007

Ivan Druzhkov said:
Europe, hell! The Soviets are going after bigger game.

In case you're interested, we've got an older thread on it here.

Actually they do attack Europe first. They only invade America after the war in Europe stalemates.

Redem · Apr 4, 2007

Timmy811 said:
Actually they do attack Europe first. They only invade America after the war in Europe stalemates.

clearly a masterpiece of realism (although probably more than warfront: turning point)

Readman · Apr 5, 2007

Looks hella cool. sounds like a pretty sweet game i would definatly like to try. is there a demo?

Blizrun · Apr 5, 2007

Not yet; it's still in dev.

Iamwinterborn · Apr 14, 2007

It looks very nice. Of course, that is just the trailer, and it won't actually look THAT good... But yes, MUST PLAY MUST PLAY MUST PLAY!!!

Oh... and they are trying to involve a FPS element...

Timmy811 · Apr 14, 2007

Sweet! Great new video that features in game footage and is narrated by the president of massive entertainment

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/video_player/popup.php?sid=6168652&pid=932462

American counterattack video
http://au.media.pc.ign.com/media/821/821566/vid_1957667.html

Also an IGN review that lays out the plot.

Basicly what I thought it would be. Cheesy goodness.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/779/779339p1.html

Blizrun · Apr 14, 2007

I wonder why everyone says that any scenario that involves the <insert enemy> invading the US is cheesy, results in immediate failure and Ameriwank? To me, the idea that the US can never be invaded is the biggest Ameriwank of them all.

Timmy811 · Apr 14, 2007

Blizrun said:
I wonder why everyone says that any scenario that involves the <insert enemy> invading the US is cheesy, results in immediate failure and Ameriwank? To me, the idea that the US can never be invaded is the biggest Ameriwank of them all.

Just think of the logistical problems Germany would have had in invading Britain in 1940 and multiply them several times over.

Two more articles on the game

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...vert&om_clk=newlyadded&tag=newlyadded;title;1

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/world-in-conflict/779951p1.html

Blizrun · Apr 14, 2007

It can be done. Hell, the US had the logistics to fight in Europe and the Pacific; it just took us a while. There is absolutely no reason why no one else could do the same.

Isot the Terrible · Apr 14, 2007

Seems absolutely stupid.

By the 80s/90s large land wars were a thing of the past, WWIII would have been fought with nuclear weapons.

The idea of invading America (while at war, in the age of artificial satillites) is ludicrus. Hitler missed a trick dident he. No need for the Battle of Britain or Operation Sealion, all he needed was a fleet of merchant ships. Absolutely moronic.

"Commander that large fleet of soviet ships, the ones that all suddenly diverted from there normal routes and headed for the NW Pacific, the ones our satillites recorded loading military equipment in Russia, have suddenly all started to move towards Seattle, dispite us being at war with the USSR, should we let them dock?"

This is not alternate history, this is fantasy. Definitely one to miss.

Blizrun · Apr 15, 2007

Right, satellites are all-seeing, near omniscient things that can detect a fly shitting, despite the fact that they orbit and are never able to view the entire planet at once, despite that there are laws prohibiting the military from using satellites as they please and never mind the fact that all attention would be focused on Europe, where the war is being fought.

People like you get blamed after the invasion happens while trying to deflect the baying of the paparazzi to technology.

Adam · Apr 15, 2007

Isot the Terrible said:
Seems absolutely stupid.

By the 80s/90s large land wars were a thing of the past, WWIII would have been fought with nuclear weapons.

The idea of invading America (while at war, in the age of artificial satillites) is ludicrus. Hitler missed a trick dident he. No need for the Battle of Britain or Operation Sealion, all he needed was a fleet of merchant ships. Absolutely moronic.

"Commander that large fleet of soviet ships, the ones that all suddenly diverted from there normal routes and headed for the NW Pacific, the ones our satillites recorded loading military equipment in Russia, have suddenly all started to move towards Seattle, dispite us being at war with the USSR, should we let them dock?"

This is not alternate history, this is fantasy. Definitely one to miss.

It's a videogame, not an AH novel for chrissakes. Which means its all about having a fun gameplay and great graphics, not nitpicking realism.

Isot the Terrible · Apr 15, 2007

Blizrun said:
Right, satellites are all-seeing, near omniscient things that can detect a fly shitting, despite the fact that they orbit and are never able to view the entire planet at once, despite that there are laws prohibiting the military from using satellites as they please and never mind the fact that all attention would be focused on Europe, where the war is being fought.

No, but I think they would be able to detect a military build up of the size needed to invade the USA.

Blizrun · Apr 15, 2007

Isot the Terrible said:
No, but I think they would be able to detect a military build up of the size needed to invade the USA.

All that's needed, initially, is a small force to cause some chaos and secure a beachhead. While the enemy is stunned for the moment, you move in your main invasion fleet.

Redem · Apr 15, 2007

Blizrun said:
All that's needed, initially, is a small force to cause some chaos and secure a beachhead. While the enemy is stunned for the moment, you move in your main invasion fleet.

But consider the Hellishisly long supply line.You would need more than just one beach head to invade the U.S

Iamwinterborn · Apr 15, 2007

More than one beach head? What's that city in the last few frames of all those trailers? (When the paratroopers are leaping out)

Is that still Seattle? Does it have that many high rises?

Blizrun · Apr 15, 2007

Yes, it is still Seattle.

Every knows about balloons, right? If you hit it with the blunt end of a hammer, the balloon stays intact. However, you lightly tap that same balloon with a needle, it pops. Something similar here. The Soviets invade Seattle using a small, well-equipped force. This being the West Coast and not LA, the Americans here either welcome the Soviets or run like hell towards the Rockies. The Soviet Navy quickly start shuttling supplies and reinforcements over before the National and State Guards can respond in any kind of force. Soon enough, the entire city and surrounding suburbs are occupied and the Soviets are pushing inland.