Gentle reminder that you can get the game and patches to play multiplayer here >https://www.massgate.org/
and games are played everyday between 15:00-23:00 UTC.
Cold War stuff just hasn't been the same since Russia was brutally exposed as a paper tiger.
World in conflict's story was already depending on a major suspension of disbelief with the plot being "russia loaded a ton of troops onto civilian shipping containers and then ran them aground in Seattle to invade America," which presents so many problems it's sort of silly
>How did the ships not get spotted and destroyed by the US navy or coast guard >Even if that's true once the ships landed how were they not immediately bombed into smithereens by air national guard or air force / army / navy elements not stationed in Europe >Even if they landed how is it possible there are so few US military units that can respond to it in the entire United States >Even if thats true how were they able to establish a stable beachhead when obviously the US would have a defcon-tier 1 shitfit and throw everything they had at the landing >Even if that's true how could the Russian units deployed be large enough in number to be a meaningful threat to anything (it's just civilian freighters, that's what, like 3-5 brigades of Russian units? 2 divisions tops? Like 20-30,000 guys? To try and hold the entire Pacific Northwest and also blitz to the military base where 'Star Wars' is HQ'd?) >Even if that's true how do the Russian fighting units not run out of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, vehicles, etc. after like, 2 weeks of fighting? >Even if that's true how does the attrition of fighting through Seattle not immediately mean Russian units become combat ineffective due to attrition (You cant fight when you've lost all your officers and like 60% of your units casualties because tfw no reinforcements)?
I mean the whole thing is bonkers but the presentation is so good you can forgive it as a kind of goofy cold war story where the Russian invasion is a desperate hail mary to try and turn off the fictional anti-nuclear missile system in the fictional Fort Teller in Washington
But now you can't even do that because the Russians are so moronic and bad at everything lmao
they released the video from that airport attack. the closest thing to resistance they encountered was a fricking CNN news team
don't worry bros we'll take kiev in 2 more weeks!!!!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why take Kiev when you can mince enemy fighting age population in favorable terrain? Its basically legal genocide with over 100 000 KIA already and around 15 million displaced by the conflict
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is gigacope, Ivan. You're actively losing, it's fricking embarrassing given the on paper disparity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
NO SHUT UP THIS ISN'T LIKE GEORGIA OR FINLAND OR AFGHANISTAN WE'LL WIN
The game is heavily inspired by Tom Clancy and his novels, and the man was infamously illiterate when it came to serious military science.
In one of his books i forgotten with one of the major plots was that chechens blew up soviet oil refinery and thus SU decided to invade Saudi Arabia to get oil, in the meanwhile they also invaded iceland in surprise attack by hiding their units in civilian cargo ships (now you know where the inspiration for World In Conflict came from)
Thats the one, thanks. Also even reading it as a teenager i thought that the plot was kind of unrealistic. Why did boomers eat up Clancy fantasies for so long?
Neo-Cons/Libs that think America must be world police and democracy butter spreaders, and the demographic that thinks Russia has a super spy program manipulating politics and has control of one side of the US political system and a former president. You can find a lot of them on twitter and Mastodon with tidal waves, #resist, #fbr, and needle emotes in their profiles
The lack of troops in the USA is pretty much explained that the Warsaw Pact is actually competent and pushing in hard. Also Asian allies need support because China is threatening to join the USSRs side
since you're moronic Black person I'll hold your hand this one; >war has been going on for several months >Fulda Gap is a meatgrinder for both sides >both PACT and NATO airforces attritioned to shit (neither side can deny the other air's completely anywhere) >both PACT and NATO navies are attritioned to shit (instead of supercarrier taskforce coming to bomb everything to shit, you instead get rusting piece of shit WW2 era battleship escorted by about 3 frigates/destroyers to help you because that's all they have left on the west coast) >said battleship is never seen or mentioned again, not even in the final mission meaning it was probably yeeted by a passing soviet submarine
now off to gulag, slava Russia
you are the one who is right , its a soviet sub that got it
1 year ago
Anonymous
The idea the Chinese would forego invading Taiwan, Japan, the Philippine, Hawaii, or anywhere else and just Yolo all the way to Seattle is fricking moronic. But then again, so is the Soviet invasion.
1 year ago
Anonymous
It's Ace Combat logic.
1 year ago
Anonymous
iirc it's not stated as the ONLY Chinese invasion force, and I believe it's said that their naval capacities are shit and rule out any naval landings, and that's why they full steam ahead an army to Seattle to land in the shrinking Soviet beachhead, or else they wouldn't be able to really do anything as their borders are even more of a stalemate
1 year ago
Anonymous
the us navy is in shamble and its shown on map they are busy fighting in korea , india and myanmar , so you can probably guess japan is busy in korea helping blocking their advance there
they are going for seattle because at this point it would be a checkmate to the US , the us navy is pretty much dead and the small soviet force was able to be so threatning that the us had to nuke a town to stop them , on the mainland its obvious that the US Army has almost no troop left as everything is in europe being drained for months of fighting by then , thats why the president ask to nuke seattle should parker fail cause he has no fricking other way to fight an invasion at this point
US invasion stories are all immensely fantastical anyway. This isn't 1812 anymore. Everyone who has even competed with the modern US has viewed any future conflict through the lines of just pushing US forces out of their AOR and fortifying out any attempt at counter-offensives. Any land invasion of the Continental United States has always been dismissed as fanciful moronation especially with nuclear weapons factored in.
doesn't US nuclear strategy have a statement where it basically says escalating to nuclear weapons the moment hostile forces enter it's mainland territory?
No. The US practices strategic ambiguity, which means that it has no official nuclear policy publicly available. In addition, there would be no point to the use of nuclear weapons if the US thought that a conventional invasion could be defeated normally.
See pic related for how complex things get. The US has basically been at war with the USSR/Russia/China during the Korean, Vietnam, and Ukraine Wars; and no nukes were used because that's not how it works.
>and no nukes were used because that's not how it works
because nukes aren't actually real?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nukes are real. It's just nobody wants to encourage nuclear proliferation.
Take the Iran situation for example. If Iran got a nuke, it wouldn't immediately use it - because then it'd become an international pariah and when you're a gas station mascaraing as a country that's not fun. The actual danger of Iran getting a nuke is then Saudi Arabia would want one, then Turkey, then Egypt, and then suddenly the entire Middle East has nukes. And it's a similar situation for Asia (if China used a nuke on Taiwan, Japan would feel it needed one, then South Korea, then Vietnam, and Australia would probably want one too; none of this benefits China) as well as any other country.
In fact, there was the case of South Africa; which did secretly test a nuclear bomb back when it was still run by British people in order to have a counterweight to USSR presence in the area. The USSR was so alarmed by this they negotiated with SA and agreed to leave on the condition that South Africa dismantle its nuclear program.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nuclear proliferation would lead to more peaceful world but usa aka great shaytan doesnt want that
2 years ago
Anonymous
No it wouldn't because if everyone has nukes then nuclear usage would be normalized, and that doesn't benefit anyone at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
normalizing nuclear usage between middle-eastern countries would be beneficial to the entire world
I don't think the Seattle force was the only real push, just one successful front of several. IIRC, there was a map early in the campaign that showed a strong push through Mexico, along with some forces on the east coast as well. US Forces were also embroiled in the conflict in Europe.
Some of those maps were Soviet propaganda like how the war was shown to the people and then the narrator told the reality. The East Coast invasion was just the occupation of New York islands.
I don't think the Seattle force was the only real push, just one successful front of several. IIRC, there was a map early in the campaign that showed a strong push through Mexico, along with some forces on the east coast as well. US Forces were also embroiled in the conflict in Europe.
closest to an invasion from the south was a map showing that soviet/cuban infantry was fighting us one in the Bahamas
WIC has the weakest contrivance for its Russia invades US plot. Despite how often it's mocked as wildly unrealistic, Red Dawn had one of the better premises. The Russians didn't really invade themselves, they slowly built up a coalition of allies in Latin America, suuplied them, and had them invade through Mexico. Only a handful of Russian advisors and special forces were involved. Even then, there is no way even the entirety of South/Central America could sustain the logistics neccesary for an invasion, and the US wouldnt just let everything south of the border go to hell without fierce naval blockades and glowie backed insurgencies.
>Red Dawn had one of the better premises >cuban paratroopers >walking past all us air defense despite increased tensions in the southern half of american border >all the way into fricking colorado
i think i prefer the way wic did it instead
I didn't say it was good, just better. >walking past all us air defense despite increased tensions in the southern half
in wic they just sail past the pacific fleet, then defeat it (?) even though all the subs were sunk on the failed East Coast theatre earlier.
the us fleet at that point in the war is in shamble , thats why the only support you get is the battleship , the new york raid took place months earlier
World in conflict's story was already depending on a major suspension of disbelief with the plot being "russia loaded a ton of troops onto civilian shipping containers and then ran them aground in Seattle to invade America," which presents so many problems it's sort of silly
>How did the ships not get spotted and destroyed by the US navy or coast guard >Even if that's true once the ships landed how were they not immediately bombed into smithereens by air national guard or air force / army / navy elements not stationed in Europe >Even if they landed how is it possible there are so few US military units that can respond to it in the entire United States >Even if thats true how were they able to establish a stable beachhead when obviously the US would have a defcon-tier 1 shitfit and throw everything they had at the landing >Even if that's true how could the Russian units deployed be large enough in number to be a meaningful threat to anything (it's just civilian freighters, that's what, like 3-5 brigades of Russian units? 2 divisions tops? Like 20-30,000 guys? To try and hold the entire Pacific Northwest and also blitz to the military base where 'Star Wars' is HQ'd?) >Even if that's true how do the Russian fighting units not run out of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, vehicles, etc. after like, 2 weeks of fighting? >Even if that's true how does the attrition of fighting through Seattle not immediately mean Russian units become combat ineffective due to attrition (You cant fight when you've lost all your officers and like 60% of your units casualties because tfw no reinforcements)?
I mean the whole thing is bonkers but the presentation is so good you can forgive it as a kind of goofy cold war story where the Russian invasion is a desperate hail mary to try and turn off the fictional anti-nuclear missile system in the fictional Fort Teller in Washington
But now you can't even do that because the Russians are so moronic and bad at everything lmao
The Soviet Union isn't Russia
The invasion of America thing is farfetched sure but by no means was the Soviet army as toothless and rotten as the modern R*ssian army
Cold War stuff just hasn't been the same since Russia was brutally exposed as a paper tiger.
Russia has one of the strongest armies on Earth. If anything only rivalling the united states.
They are just poor as frick and everyone always seems to overlook this. They literally do no have the money to sustain prolonged attacks. The reason the American army is better is purely because they are have the world reserve currency and can print huge ammounts of dollars and bill it to the rest of the chucklefricks that it use it. Were there to be a change to different currncies, chickens would come home to roost, which is what this whole cold war is about.
Modern war of any type is prohibitively expensive unless you can charge the rest of the world for your bullshit (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc).
I don't think anyone disagrees that pound for pound the US military isn't really that special compared to the rest of the world, most of its strength is in being able to deploy anywhere in the world rapidly and project force across the globe. That said, compared to Russia, China, and most other places outside of the west, there's very little corruption going on that could ruin the force's capabilities.
Cold War era Russia at least had patriotism and a functioning system of officers with accountability to prop things up, now it just has rampant brain drain and generals selling shit out of the back of trucks to pad their wallets before they themselves jump ship. Russia will never be considered a threat again until these problems are fixed since right now even the majority of educated Russians don't want anything to do with the country.
>Russia has one of the strongest armies on Earth >only rivalling the united states.
Lmao, I can't believe rusophiles still believe this after Ukraine happenings, this is some S-grade copium.
Chinks should replace Russia as the world boogeyman, at least they weren't battle-tested yet so nobody knows.
Reminder that the publisher killed off World in Conflict 2 for it's pet favourite RTS title whose name I can't remember anymore and no-one should anyway.
Imagine killing of a really successful series simply because you didn't want to curb the sales of the planned release of some other title
You're talking about EndWar? because i think it was released roughly at the same time as WiC. It's a shame that they never follow up on the sequel like you said, there's a plenty of potential improvement they could add with it, expanding the support options, adding more units, more locales, etc.
We can always exchange the white shooter. America has a mass shooting at least once a week and several major ones a year. Everyone has guns. Literal shootouts everywhere, all the time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
First of all that's still an FBI plant, they all are.
Second of all the amount of mass shootings is directly correlated to the amount of Americans per capita, not guns per capita. Just look at the mass shootings of an actually civilised country with guns, like Serbia.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yea, they're all FBI plants.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Especially the ones when the FBI was barely an agency
2 years ago
Anonymous
And transwomen are real women!
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes. you may want to look into those kids psychiatric background
2 years ago
Anonymous
>civilised country with guns, like Serbia >Serbia >civilised country
Četnik hands made this post
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, that's the joke — Serbia is civilized when compared to Estados Unidos.
i always found it weird nobody made a China mod for this game , especially to do a good 2v2 factions balance with Nato and Us vs USSR and China since they join the war at the end in the single player
Is this the game where if you failed in certain missions a nuclear holocausts happens? Isn't the whole point of the war for the Soviets is to basically sack and pillage western Europe?
if you fail the final mission or cascade fall yes
in the final mission the president nuke seattle and so seeing this insane mesure the soviets decide to send their own nuke on the US
in cascade fall the soviets reach fort teller and discover the whole star wars program dont exist and so nuke the us
and no the soviets bassicaly goes to war in order to prevent the union collapsing
How the actual frick do I survive the last mission? Everything I try just ends up in me getting swarmed. I've tried pure tanks, tanks with repair, medium tanks, tried defending the positions, tried to hedgehog on just one of them, but each time my repair tanks get sniped and I am drowned in infinite fricking soviet tanks.
first never use infantry they are all useless. use medium and heavy tanks and spam your artillery ''spells''. just cluster around a spot and shell everything around you.
Hotkey your repair tanks (have two of them) and arty. Concentrate most of your forces to the middle and to the cap point next to the space needle. It just comes down to your skills at microing accurate arty strikes and repairing forces at the same time. Don’t forget to heal emplacements either if it’s not too risky. You should have several elite Abrams’ by that time which help a lot. Remember that Soviets only win if they control all points. If you are getting overrun, fall back to the one last point and hold it with all you got.
Just did it a few weeks ago on hardest difficulty, was in a similar boat
Go full heavy tanks, you should be able to afford a repair tank and the rest of all your points on Abrams, then get a heavy AA, a repair tank, and two heavy art from Webb right before the final fight
I noticed in the few tries beforehand that the AI sends less on the rightmost point, so IIRC I had three heavy tanks on the middle and left, two on the right. I had the heavy art back and just chucking their payload on the paths I noticed they flood in on, the AA near where it spawns and just running around shooting down helis until it got destroyed. The group of three tanks got a repair tank with them, and the group of two seemed not to get targeted by anything other than BMPs send to that point.
Cycle the tanks smoke like crazy. The INSTANT you see it start disappearing, get another popped off. Spam the shit out of the TA with heavy art strikes
I can't comprehend how did you people actually enjoy this game >airdrop tanks >go shooty shooty at enemy tanks >airdrop engineer vehicles to fix up your tanks >call in arty when you get bored >go stand in circles with your tanks long enough so that machine guns can spawn there out of thin air >rinse and repeat for 15 or so fricking missions
Also how do you even lose if your losses are almost immediately refunded? How was that supposed to work? Am I remembering something wrong?
The only memorable part of the game was that Soviet mission where you only get to control artillery, and that NATO mission where you drive around in the snow and then the annoying guy fricks up some civvies
You're correct that 90% of the campaign consists of >Go to circle >Sit in circle for X minutes >Go to next circle
If there are enemy units defending the circles, they will usually just sit still allowing you to easily blow them up with tactical aids. If you're the one defending, the AI's entire strategy is just to attack move your position with a gigantic horde of units. It's great spectacle, but bad gameplay. It's why when people talk about the campaign they always mention Bannon, the nuke, and those 2 guys with the CD player but not the actual missions. If you strip the cutscenes and presentation away, there's just not much there to praise. >Also how do you even lose if your losses are almost immediately refunded?
The enemy's horde being too big and overrunning your position, or a timer running out, but you've hit upon World in Conflict's biggest problem: losses don't matter. Every good strategy game ever made has some sort of system of costs and benefits. If you have an expensive unit, it needs to be able to do something to justify that cost. If you lose your queen in Chess for no material gain, that's usually pretty fricking horrible and the game may as well be over then and there. If you build a Mammoth in C&C only to immediately lose it to a squad of recon bikes, that's going to set you back considerably in terms of economy. Not so in World in Conflict. Lost an entire platoon's worth of Abrams? Doesn't matter, you can get them all back for free in one minute. You may lose a bit of territory in that time, but you're not suffering at all materially. In fact, you may come back considerably stronger because you've seen what units the enemy is using and can order up their counters. The game has some interesting ideas, sure, but at a foundational level it's so fricked that it shouldn't be a surprise that nobody has tried to copy it directly.
In MP WiC losses do matter a lot as the game is very snowbally, if one side loses their armor player and the other side does not, that team gains a huge positional advantage and their units will cap and rank up and get a chance to repair, all of that generates TA and allows them to attack in other places. So taking loses do matter, same thing with air, sure you could lose all your choppers and get them back in 30 seconds but you give the enemy more TA and your new choppers are not ranked up.
Gentle reminder that you can get the game and patches to play multiplayer here
>https://www.massgate.org/
and games are played everyday between 15:00-23:00 UTC.
No dlc though, which is annoying.
Tactical BRAAAP dropped
Reminder that the only good airBlack folk are the ones that only play medair.
Never understood how Soviet invasion of the US work.
World in conflict's story was already depending on a major suspension of disbelief with the plot being "russia loaded a ton of troops onto civilian shipping containers and then ran them aground in Seattle to invade America," which presents so many problems it's sort of silly
>How did the ships not get spotted and destroyed by the US navy or coast guard
>Even if that's true once the ships landed how were they not immediately bombed into smithereens by air national guard or air force / army / navy elements not stationed in Europe
>Even if they landed how is it possible there are so few US military units that can respond to it in the entire United States
>Even if thats true how were they able to establish a stable beachhead when obviously the US would have a defcon-tier 1 shitfit and throw everything they had at the landing
>Even if that's true how could the Russian units deployed be large enough in number to be a meaningful threat to anything (it's just civilian freighters, that's what, like 3-5 brigades of Russian units? 2 divisions tops? Like 20-30,000 guys? To try and hold the entire Pacific Northwest and also blitz to the military base where 'Star Wars' is HQ'd?)
>Even if that's true how do the Russian fighting units not run out of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, vehicles, etc. after like, 2 weeks of fighting?
>Even if that's true how does the attrition of fighting through Seattle not immediately mean Russian units become combat ineffective due to attrition (You cant fight when you've lost all your officers and like 60% of your units casualties because tfw no reinforcements)?
I mean the whole thing is bonkers but the presentation is so good you can forgive it as a kind of goofy cold war story where the Russian invasion is a desperate hail mary to try and turn off the fictional anti-nuclear missile system in the fictional Fort Teller in Washington
But now you can't even do that because the Russians are so moronic and bad at everything lmao
Kek at you whole life Soros troony puppet
0.19 rubels have been deposited into yopur account
Go back to Ganker you fricking goblin
I guess it says a lot about the intelligence of the Ukraine Standers that they take one of our most prolific trolls seriously.
To be fair, a lot of what happened in WiC happened in Ukraine.
how so? when the russoids tried to take an airport outside kiev they got immediately surrounded and murdered lol
they released the video from that airport attack. the closest thing to resistance they encountered was a fricking CNN news team
>got immediately surrounded and murdered
Lol, is this what wectoids really believe?
don't worry bros we'll take kiev in 2 more weeks!!!!
Why take Kiev when you can mince enemy fighting age population in favorable terrain? Its basically legal genocide with over 100 000 KIA already and around 15 million displaced by the conflict
This is gigacope, Ivan. You're actively losing, it's fricking embarrassing given the on paper disparity.
NO SHUT UP THIS ISN'T LIKE GEORGIA OR FINLAND OR AFGHANISTAN WE'LL WIN
The game is heavily inspired by Tom Clancy and his novels, and the man was infamously illiterate when it came to serious military science.
In one of his books i forgotten with one of the major plots was that chechens blew up soviet oil refinery and thus SU decided to invade Saudi Arabia to get oil, in the meanwhile they also invaded iceland in surprise attack by hiding their units in civilian cargo ships (now you know where the inspiration for World In Conflict came from)
The book was called Red Storm Rising.
Thats the one, thanks. Also even reading it as a teenager i thought that the plot was kind of unrealistic. Why did boomers eat up Clancy fantasies for so long?
Neo-Cons/Libs that think America must be world police and democracy butter spreaders, and the demographic that thinks Russia has a super spy program manipulating politics and has control of one side of the US political system and a former president. You can find a lot of them on twitter and Mastodon with tidal waves, #resist, #fbr, and needle emotes in their profiles
The lack of troops in the USA is pretty much explained that the Warsaw Pact is actually competent and pushing in hard. Also Asian allies need support because China is threatening to join the USSRs side
>actually competent
>Doesnt show them pushing trough fulda gap and then "flowering" in all directions towards the channel
Actually competent meaning inflicting casualties like destroying US navy fleets and such, my pedantic friend
There was supposed to be a full NATO campaign but it was cut.
since you're moronic Black person I'll hold your hand this one;
>war has been going on for several months
>Fulda Gap is a meatgrinder for both sides
>both PACT and NATO airforces attritioned to shit (neither side can deny the other air's completely anywhere)
>both PACT and NATO navies are attritioned to shit (instead of supercarrier taskforce coming to bomb everything to shit, you instead get rusting piece of shit WW2 era battleship escorted by about 3 frigates/destroyers to help you because that's all they have left on the west coast)
>said battleship is never seen or mentioned again, not even in the final mission meaning it was probably yeeted by a passing soviet submarine
now off to gulag, slava Russia
It was actually yeeted by incoming Chink invasion force. You can hear it in the game
I'm pretty sure I recall one of the mission briefings stating that it was sunk by a sub off Vancouver Island.
you are the one who is right , its a soviet sub that got it
The idea the Chinese would forego invading Taiwan, Japan, the Philippine, Hawaii, or anywhere else and just Yolo all the way to Seattle is fricking moronic. But then again, so is the Soviet invasion.
It's Ace Combat logic.
iirc it's not stated as the ONLY Chinese invasion force, and I believe it's said that their naval capacities are shit and rule out any naval landings, and that's why they full steam ahead an army to Seattle to land in the shrinking Soviet beachhead, or else they wouldn't be able to really do anything as their borders are even more of a stalemate
the us navy is in shamble and its shown on map they are busy fighting in korea , india and myanmar , so you can probably guess japan is busy in korea helping blocking their advance there
they are going for seattle because at this point it would be a checkmate to the US , the us navy is pretty much dead and the small soviet force was able to be so threatning that the us had to nuke a town to stop them , on the mainland its obvious that the US Army has almost no troop left as everything is in europe being drained for months of fighting by then , thats why the president ask to nuke seattle should parker fail cause he has no fricking other way to fight an invasion at this point
US invasion stories are all immensely fantastical anyway. This isn't 1812 anymore. Everyone who has even competed with the modern US has viewed any future conflict through the lines of just pushing US forces out of their AOR and fortifying out any attempt at counter-offensives. Any land invasion of the Continental United States has always been dismissed as fanciful moronation especially with nuclear weapons factored in.
doesn't US nuclear strategy have a statement where it basically says escalating to nuclear weapons the moment hostile forces enter it's mainland territory?
No. The US practices strategic ambiguity, which means that it has no official nuclear policy publicly available. In addition, there would be no point to the use of nuclear weapons if the US thought that a conventional invasion could be defeated normally.
See pic related for how complex things get. The US has basically been at war with the USSR/Russia/China during the Korean, Vietnam, and Ukraine Wars; and no nukes were used because that's not how it works.
>and no nukes were used because that's not how it works
because nukes aren't actually real?
Nukes are real. It's just nobody wants to encourage nuclear proliferation.
Take the Iran situation for example. If Iran got a nuke, it wouldn't immediately use it - because then it'd become an international pariah and when you're a gas station mascaraing as a country that's not fun. The actual danger of Iran getting a nuke is then Saudi Arabia would want one, then Turkey, then Egypt, and then suddenly the entire Middle East has nukes. And it's a similar situation for Asia (if China used a nuke on Taiwan, Japan would feel it needed one, then South Korea, then Vietnam, and Australia would probably want one too; none of this benefits China) as well as any other country.
In fact, there was the case of South Africa; which did secretly test a nuclear bomb back when it was still run by British people in order to have a counterweight to USSR presence in the area. The USSR was so alarmed by this they negotiated with SA and agreed to leave on the condition that South Africa dismantle its nuclear program.
Nuclear proliferation would lead to more peaceful world but usa aka great shaytan doesnt want that
No it wouldn't because if everyone has nukes then nuclear usage would be normalized, and that doesn't benefit anyone at all.
normalizing nuclear usage between middle-eastern countries would be beneficial to the entire world
>Any land invasion of the Continental United States has always been dismissed as fanciful moronation
Huh mexico seems to be doing just fine
I don't think the Seattle force was the only real push, just one successful front of several. IIRC, there was a map early in the campaign that showed a strong push through Mexico, along with some forces on the east coast as well. US Forces were also embroiled in the conflict in Europe.
Some of those maps were Soviet propaganda like how the war was shown to the people and then the narrator told the reality. The East Coast invasion was just the occupation of New York islands.
closest to an invasion from the south was a map showing that soviet/cuban infantry was fighting us one in the Bahamas
back to uhg hohol
Fort Teller was a bluff, there was no defense system, that's why they had to stop the Russians from capturing it.
WIC has the weakest contrivance for its Russia invades US plot. Despite how often it's mocked as wildly unrealistic, Red Dawn had one of the better premises. The Russians didn't really invade themselves, they slowly built up a coalition of allies in Latin America, suuplied them, and had them invade through Mexico. Only a handful of Russian advisors and special forces were involved. Even then, there is no way even the entirety of South/Central America could sustain the logistics neccesary for an invasion, and the US wouldnt just let everything south of the border go to hell without fierce naval blockades and glowie backed insurgencies.
>Red Dawn had one of the better premises
>cuban paratroopers
>walking past all us air defense despite increased tensions in the southern half of american border
>all the way into fricking colorado
i think i prefer the way wic did it instead
I didn't say it was good, just better.
>walking past all us air defense despite increased tensions in the southern half
in wic they just sail past the pacific fleet, then defeat it (?) even though all the subs were sunk on the failed East Coast theatre earlier.
the us fleet at that point in the war is in shamble , thats why the only support you get is the battleship , the new york raid took place months earlier
Cold War stuff just hasn't been the same since Russia was brutally exposed as a paper tiger.
modern warfare mod is pretty fun if you want to larp NATO supremacy
Russia has one of the strongest armies on Earth. If anything only rivalling the united states.
They are just poor as frick and everyone always seems to overlook this. They literally do no have the money to sustain prolonged attacks. The reason the American army is better is purely because they are have the world reserve currency and can print huge ammounts of dollars and bill it to the rest of the chucklefricks that it use it. Were there to be a change to different currncies, chickens would come home to roost, which is what this whole cold war is about.
Modern war of any type is prohibitively expensive unless you can charge the rest of the world for your bullshit (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc).
I don't think anyone disagrees that pound for pound the US military isn't really that special compared to the rest of the world, most of its strength is in being able to deploy anywhere in the world rapidly and project force across the globe. That said, compared to Russia, China, and most other places outside of the west, there's very little corruption going on that could ruin the force's capabilities.
Cold War era Russia at least had patriotism and a functioning system of officers with accountability to prop things up, now it just has rampant brain drain and generals selling shit out of the back of trucks to pad their wallets before they themselves jump ship. Russia will never be considered a threat again until these problems are fixed since right now even the majority of educated Russians don't want anything to do with the country.
>Russia has one of the strongest armies on Earth
>only rivalling the united states.
Lmao, I can't believe rusophiles still believe this after Ukraine happenings, this is some S-grade copium.
Chinks should replace Russia as the world boogeyman, at least they weren't battle-tested yet so nobody knows.
The Soviet Union isn't Russia
The invasion of America thing is farfetched sure but by no means was the Soviet army as toothless and rotten as the modern R*ssian army
Transsexual seethe and cope kek
Reminder that the publisher killed off World in Conflict 2 for it's pet favourite RTS title whose name I can't remember anymore and no-one should anyway.
Imagine killing of a really successful series simply because you didn't want to curb the sales of the planned release of some other title
You're talking about EndWar? because i think it was released roughly at the same time as WiC. It's a shame that they never follow up on the sequel like you said, there's a plenty of potential improvement they could add with it, expanding the support options, adding more units, more locales, etc.
>if everyone had guns there would be shootouts at every street corner
this is how you sound
...I mean, when you look at the USA...
and what do you see? Black folk shooting at each other?
now look at the white men
white men are the only people who have used nuclear weapons in anger
>now look at the white men
I mean, you ain't winning me over at the moment.
why would you count the fbi shooting some people as crime?
We can always exchange the white shooter. America has a mass shooting at least once a week and several major ones a year. Everyone has guns. Literal shootouts everywhere, all the time.
First of all that's still an FBI plant, they all are.
Second of all the amount of mass shootings is directly correlated to the amount of Americans per capita, not guns per capita. Just look at the mass shootings of an actually civilised country with guns, like Serbia.
Yea, they're all FBI plants.
Especially the ones when the FBI was barely an agency
And transwomen are real women!
yes. you may want to look into those kids psychiatric background
>civilised country with guns, like Serbia
>Serbia
>civilised country
Četnik hands made this post
Yes, that's the joke — Serbia is civilized when compared to Estados Unidos.
>implying that hapa furgays should count as 'white "people"'
NGMI
All countries have guns and there are shootouts every so often, so yes. Nuclear proliferation would normalize nuclear usage.
iesus nazarenus rex iudaeorum, literal room temperature iq
Ah, sweet! A schizo thread
The world in conflict community either goes full bannon posting or schizo, or weirdly supportive of obscure authoritarian countries
Guess it depends on who of the five active players is awake.
the daily active player based is around 10-20 players, there are about 100 on the leaderboard
i always found it weird nobody made a China mod for this game , especially to do a good 2v2 factions balance with Nato and Us vs USSR and China since they join the war at the end in the single player
As I recall, China was intended but support for the game was terminated early. It's why the Soviet campaign is so short.
>PLA in the late 80's
Wouldn't it be just palette swap of Soviet units?
part of it would be yeah
Watched a playthrough of this game where the dude didn't lose a single troop.
Always wanted to play it but don't have a PC right now.
What am I missing out on? I should have a PC again in a few months.
>13 online
Is this the game where if you failed in certain missions a nuclear holocausts happens? Isn't the whole point of the war for the Soviets is to basically sack and pillage western Europe?
if you fail the final mission or cascade fall yes
in the final mission the president nuke seattle and so seeing this insane mesure the soviets decide to send their own nuke on the US
in cascade fall the soviets reach fort teller and discover the whole star wars program dont exist and so nuke the us
and no the soviets bassicaly goes to war in order to prevent the union collapsing
I never understood why China joined the war on the Soviets side.
They wanted to trade Seattle for Taiwan
How the actual frick do I survive the last mission? Everything I try just ends up in me getting swarmed. I've tried pure tanks, tanks with repair, medium tanks, tried defending the positions, tried to hedgehog on just one of them, but each time my repair tanks get sniped and I am drowned in infinite fricking soviet tanks.
first never use infantry they are all useless. use medium and heavy tanks and spam your artillery ''spells''. just cluster around a spot and shell everything around you.
heavy infantry are pretty good in cover especially when elite, but infantry isn't even an option on that mission
>first never use infantry they are all useless
spot the guy that played on normal
idk bro i finished on the first try on hard i think you just have a skill issue brah
Hotkey your repair tanks (have two of them) and arty. Concentrate most of your forces to the middle and to the cap point next to the space needle. It just comes down to your skills at microing accurate arty strikes and repairing forces at the same time. Don’t forget to heal emplacements either if it’s not too risky. You should have several elite Abrams’ by that time which help a lot. Remember that Soviets only win if they control all points. If you are getting overrun, fall back to the one last point and hold it with all you got.
Just did it a few weeks ago on hardest difficulty, was in a similar boat
Go full heavy tanks, you should be able to afford a repair tank and the rest of all your points on Abrams, then get a heavy AA, a repair tank, and two heavy art from Webb right before the final fight
I noticed in the few tries beforehand that the AI sends less on the rightmost point, so IIRC I had three heavy tanks on the middle and left, two on the right. I had the heavy art back and just chucking their payload on the paths I noticed they flood in on, the AA near where it spawns and just running around shooting down helis until it got destroyed. The group of three tanks got a repair tank with them, and the group of two seemed not to get targeted by anything other than BMPs send to that point.
Cycle the tanks smoke like crazy. The INSTANT you see it start disappearing, get another popped off. Spam the shit out of the TA with heavy art strikes
I wish this game got a sequel. Instead the devs are stuck making The Division.
the wargame series are the spiritual successor, not as slick or speedy as world in conflict tho
I can't comprehend how did you people actually enjoy this game
>airdrop tanks
>go shooty shooty at enemy tanks
>airdrop engineer vehicles to fix up your tanks
>call in arty when you get bored
>go stand in circles with your tanks long enough so that machine guns can spawn there out of thin air
>rinse and repeat for 15 or so fricking missions
Also how do you even lose if your losses are almost immediately refunded? How was that supposed to work? Am I remembering something wrong?
The only memorable part of the game was that Soviet mission where you only get to control artillery, and that NATO mission where you drive around in the snow and then the annoying guy fricks up some civvies
It's ok if you just have shit tastes, anon. Not everyone can appreciate some 1989 KINO.
You're correct that 90% of the campaign consists of
>Go to circle
>Sit in circle for X minutes
>Go to next circle
If there are enemy units defending the circles, they will usually just sit still allowing you to easily blow them up with tactical aids. If you're the one defending, the AI's entire strategy is just to attack move your position with a gigantic horde of units. It's great spectacle, but bad gameplay. It's why when people talk about the campaign they always mention Bannon, the nuke, and those 2 guys with the CD player but not the actual missions. If you strip the cutscenes and presentation away, there's just not much there to praise.
>Also how do you even lose if your losses are almost immediately refunded?
The enemy's horde being too big and overrunning your position, or a timer running out, but you've hit upon World in Conflict's biggest problem: losses don't matter. Every good strategy game ever made has some sort of system of costs and benefits. If you have an expensive unit, it needs to be able to do something to justify that cost. If you lose your queen in Chess for no material gain, that's usually pretty fricking horrible and the game may as well be over then and there. If you build a Mammoth in C&C only to immediately lose it to a squad of recon bikes, that's going to set you back considerably in terms of economy. Not so in World in Conflict. Lost an entire platoon's worth of Abrams? Doesn't matter, you can get them all back for free in one minute. You may lose a bit of territory in that time, but you're not suffering at all materially. In fact, you may come back considerably stronger because you've seen what units the enemy is using and can order up their counters. The game has some interesting ideas, sure, but at a foundational level it's so fricked that it shouldn't be a surprise that nobody has tried to copy it directly.
In MP WiC losses do matter a lot as the game is very snowbally, if one side loses their armor player and the other side does not, that team gains a huge positional advantage and their units will cap and rank up and get a chance to repair, all of that generates TA and allows them to attack in other places. So taking loses do matter, same thing with air, sure you could lose all your choppers and get them back in 30 seconds but you give the enemy more TA and your new choppers are not ranked up.
Single player is w/e for morons so who cares.
What would the sequel even been like?