World in Conflict

Just started playing this.
Busting commies is great fun, but I suspending disbelief in a game has never been harder, the way the soviets are portrayed as a strong and competent force.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    don't compare the horde now to the horde then

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is reformed slavaboo still in denial cope that’s constantly repeated since last year.
      The horde has never changed. It’s the same tactics that blindly help them win ww2 because of German retardation and dumb luck. But don’t mistake that with superior tactics and equipment or you’re as brain dead as a wehraboo.

      All the USSR had going for it was nukes and numbers. Knowing what we know now about soviet logistics doctrine, any hypothetical Cold War gone hot in which thousands of icbms DO NOT get exchanged, it’s almost guaranteed that a soviet advance would have ended only a few hundred kilometers past the fulda gap.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >This is reformed slavaboo still in denial cope that’s constantly repeated since last year.
        nope, must be thinking of someone else. they wouldn't win back then, I'm just saying you can't compare the hypothetical USSR from World in Conflict that doubles down as the 80's progress to the disaster that is current RuAF.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can absolutely compare the two. Soviet logistics in the 80s is the same as Russian logistics today. And that alone would have meant an almost identical scenario to what we are seeing in Ukraine
          >NATO sees obvious troop buildup starts preparing
          > Soviet forces push across quickly gaining ground and overwhelming nato forces in the region.
          >due to NATOs information reinforcements are already being deployed to the zone.
          >soviet forces are stopped a little past Frankfurt.
          >shitty logistics and poor battlefield management doctrine for front line troops leads to a soviet retreat to slightly beyond the east/west German border.
          >stalemate ensues with the Soviets using human wave tactics unsuccessfully
          In theory, it’s not a terrible concept, the troops advancing the most probably need more supplies than the troops advancing more slowly so their supply lines or pushed based on advance made not by request for supplies. Problem is, the model in practice is a “survivorship bias” doctrine in action and ignores important variables.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NATO lethality in 1980 was not the same as lethality in 1985, however. The technological gap was much closer back then (obviously) so the numerical advantage counted for a lot more then than it does now.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Doctrine and battlefield management play a larger role ultimately. As someone else pointed out, Soviet supply doctrine was ass backwards and would have been disastrous had they attempted a push west.
              The other doctrine that everyone forgets that we are seeing fail Russia today is the lack of NCOs and Soviet/Russian troop leadership being so top heavy. It’s why we saw all those generals and colonels getting killed on the front line. Ukraine, meanwhile, was trained on the NATO structure of squad level leadership and autonomy by the US since 1999. This coupled with advanced nato battle management technology and C2C capabilities would have led to a disaster for the Soviets.

              Bottom line here. What we are seeing in Ukraine isn’t that much different than what would have happened in a non nuclear Soviet crossing of the fulda gap in the 80s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >play a larger role
                but can only compensate for so much material imbalance
                >This coupled with advanced nato battle management technology and C2C capabilities would have led to a disaster for the Soviets
                NATO didn't have significantly more advanced battle management technology than the Soviets in 1980. We used what we had better, that's all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't forget that about half the soviet industry in WW2 was overseas and free of charge in the form of lend-lease

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The horde back then was no different than it is today.
      How do we know this? Because we had believed their weakness was just Western propaganda, especially the part where they had one rifle for every 10 men. Turns out that wasn't propaganda but the truth.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the hord back then had ukrainians in it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/x4hKGHT.jpg

        You can absolutely compare the two. Soviet logistics in the 80s is the same as Russian logistics today. And that alone would have meant an almost identical scenario to what we are seeing in Ukraine
        >NATO sees obvious troop buildup starts preparing
        > Soviet forces push across quickly gaining ground and overwhelming nato forces in the region.
        >due to NATOs information reinforcements are already being deployed to the zone.
        >soviet forces are stopped a little past Frankfurt.
        >shitty logistics and poor battlefield management doctrine for front line troops leads to a soviet retreat to slightly beyond the east/west German border.
        >stalemate ensues with the Soviets using human wave tactics unsuccessfully
        In theory, it’s not a terrible concept, the troops advancing the most probably need more supplies than the troops advancing more slowly so their supply lines or pushed based on advance made not by request for supplies. Problem is, the model in practice is a “survivorship bias” doctrine in action and ignores important variables.

        look, fine, I'll be honest: it's cope because WiC is too good and I refuse to let myself drag it down by comparing the USSR portrayed in the game to the real life shit hole.
        I refuse to believe Bannon made his choice against these incompetent continuous unga-brained fuck ups.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That’s how I am but because of red dawn(not the remake).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even the Russian portrayal in the game is shockingly accurate. They manage to stalemate in Germany thanks to the collective power of the entire Eastern Bloc, but the Soviets get totally bogged down in WA and achieve none of their objectives (like just driving down the whole west coast or taking Fort Teller).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I like the dramatically crushed SShA label and how they explicitly left the Great Salt Lake (and other bodies of water) free while showing not a single river.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fuck Bannon and fuck Segway

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, the USSR contained Ukraine, Georgia, Czechoslovakia (though good luck getting them to go on an offensive lol) and a few other states that weren't as blisteringly retarded as Russia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >USSR contained... Czechoslovakia
        Is this the power of war tourist gays?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    some cheerful, ecstatic Ziggers commenting around a year ago but its quiet now, kek

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He says "break through that wall" as if they didn't build it themselves

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He says "break through that wall" as if they didn't build it themselves

      Imagine the first wave of casualties before they even cross the wall as they hit the minefields in the commie no man's land

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The idea of the Soviets even attempting an invasion of America was laughable even at the height of their power. They could not ever project force overseas.

    Rather the point is to heighten the dramatic elements of an otherwise good story.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Rather the point is to heighten the dramatic elements of an otherwise good story.
      >good story
      Pfffthahahahahahaha

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me, it's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnkZ8-o_cs

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Years of propaganda does things. People still remember the cold war.
    Also, video games so it wouldn't be very fun to play if one side is weak, incompetent, and underpowered compared to the other side.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if one side is weak, incompetent, and underpowered compared to the other side.
      That's why strategy games usually have a scifi setting.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Set the AI to easy, then it becomes plausible.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    did they ever fix the soviet assault expansion so it runs on modern rigs?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Running CE from GOG on Win10 without any problems.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > the way the soviets are portrayed as a strong and competent force.
    It also has the Soviets express surprise at the fact that the American citizenry are not welcoming them with open arms, and has multiple instances of Cope Maps showing that they've taken over half the continent while in reality they're still stuck outside fucking Seattle.

    Half the missions centring around defending a chokepoint against a horde of Russians charging at you dick-first until they finally give up is pretty accurate I think.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what is the tactical advantage of dropping tanks on Liberty Island?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Psychological warfare

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep in mind the Soviet Union had Ukrainians/Balts.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're suspensing disbelief over the fact the Russians are competent instead of the airdropped Abrams tanks and B52's doing bombing runs at 500 feet?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There is a lot of silly bullshit in the game, but I wanted to shit on russians, lil zigger.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a visual novel, not a game

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      With how it was narrated by Alec Baldwin I would have expected more friendly fire.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Friendly fire is most of Bannons story arc

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Shut up and take that off!

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USSR invading the US is always whacky, but I feel like the World in Conflict scenario is one of the better ones.

    >WW3 already happening in Germany
    >US Navy degraded/focused elsewhere
    >Sneak attack using disguised civilian cargo freighters
    >Soviet goal is to capture the SDI (Star Wars) facility that doesn't actually exist
    >Soviets get bogged down in Washington, never make much progress, then get wiped out

    The New York mission was stupid though. Felt like they had cut content related to an East Coast attack that they repurposed into that weird one off level.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The NY level was supposed to be a standalone e3 demo that they wedged back into the campaign to pad it out. Hence why it has its own CGI cutscene.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Man I miss stand-alone demo levels.
        All the hours I spent on that Desperados demo level...

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this game that came out in 2007 doesn't match up with my highly propagandized world view of events happening over a decade later that have no similarity to events in the game
    >I should complain on PrepHole

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Retard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Retard

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For the love of fucking god I cannot get this game to run.
    I want to play it again so bad.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      post specs

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *