Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*Why didn't the narrative flashback to Europe ''before'' the Cascade Falls bombing? It would make [[spoiler: Bannon's death]] more meaningful and coming as a shock.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**Sawyer ''did'' try to get Bannon replaced. After Sabatier's death, he requested a replacement but was denied as almost all available officers were deployed to assist West Germany and because he and his battalion were going to be sent to Russia shortly after, there probably wasn't time to argue anyway. As for replacements within Charlie Company, Bannon may have been the only commissioned officer there, and a sergeant cannot command a company. Funny thing is that Bannon ''does'' get replaced by James Webb, an old friend of Sawyer, who pulled strings to bring him in, after Bannon killing several Russian civilians (albeit by manslaughter) was the last straw. But after the Soviets began their invasion at the city Sawyer just so happened to have transferred Bannon to, he came to terms with the fact that he can't get rid of him, and decided to give him a 2nd chance.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why did Sawyer never relieve Bannon from command? Surely there must be a lieutenant or sergeant in Charlie Company who could have replaced him? Even with a dire manpower shortage, I don't see why Sawyer put up with Bannon constantly questioning his orders and undermining his command, harassing Parker, display open cowardice over the radio and other things that would get an officer relieved real quick, and until near the end Bannon didn't display any merit worth keeping him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The bit where Bannon accidentally kills a group of civilians feels real contrived to me. With the exception of a few cutscenes, you never even see any civilians, and certainly not during gameplay, meaning that Bannon is the only one under Sawyer's command who has ever encountered civilians on the battlefield. So Bannon shoots the civilians, then gets out of his tank to look in stunned horror. Not even a minute later, Sawyer coincidentally arrives on foot(?!) so he can also see the dead civilians and chew out Bannon while the latter is still in shock, acting as though collateral damage has never happened in the middle of a huge battle. I'm not saying that Bannon is a saint or blameless, but come on. This scene has bothered me since the game came out, but I was playing the campaign again just recently and decided that all the characters must be able to see the red icons (the unit type) floating above enemy soldiers. Bannon didn't see the icon, or saw a non-red icon, and decided to fire anyway.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Rearranged a post I entered a while ago to the correct, relevant question. I also fixed some typos. They were rather grating.
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
* The "prevent the Soviets from realising SDI does not work" bit: The Soviets should already know that the US has not managed to deploy any sort of missile defense, given that satelite launches and the deployment of radars and ABM sites would be impossible to hide from them. And in any case, why not simply remove what you can from Fort Teller and demolish the rest, leaving the USSR none the wiser if they manage to capture it?
to:
* The "prevent the Soviets from realising SDI does not work" bit: The Soviets should already know that the US has not managed to deploy any sort of missile defense, given that satelite satellite launches and the deployment of radars and ABM sites would be impossible to hide from them. And in any case, why not simply remove what you can from Fort Teller and demolish the rest, leaving the USSR none the wiser if they manage to capture it?
Changed line(s) 43 (click to see context) from:
*** Then again, even in the 1980s B-52s could be loaded up with 12 Harpoon anti-ship missiles at a time. Seems a better use of available air power, all things considered, to use it to sink the Chinese fleet rather than carpetbombing downtown Seattle.
to:
*** Then again, even in the 1980s B-52s could be loaded up with 12 Harpoon anti-ship missiles at a time. Seems a better use of available air power, all things considered, to use it to sink the Chinese fleet rather than carpetbombing carpet bombing downtown Seattle.
Deleted line(s) 46 (click to see context) :
** Whether or not it would lead to nuclear war, the American plan at that time ''was'' to nuke the Chinese military - in Seattle. Presumably, they got away with it in Cascade Falls because a nuclear attack on one's own soil is seen as less escalatory than a nuclear attack on foreign soil - but that doesn't explain why the US couldn't nuke the Chinese military in Puget Sound. Indeed, the US at the time actually did field nuclear-tipped antiship missiles with which to do 'this exact thing' if the need arose. The question is, why would nuking the Chinese fleet in Puget Sound or off the coast of Washington in American territorial waters be considered any worse than nuking the Chinese in Seattle?
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Whether or not it would lead to nuclear war, the American plan at that time ''was'' to nuke the Chinese military - in Seattle. Presumably, they got away with it in Cascade Falls because a nuclear attack on one's own soil is seen as less escalatory than a nuclear attack on foreign soil - but that doesn't explain why the US couldn't nuke the Chinese military in Puget Sound. Indeed, the US at the time actually did field nuclear tipped anti-ship missiles with which to do 'this exact thing' if the need arose. The question is, why would nuking the Chinese fleet in Puget Sound or off the coast of Washington in American territorial waters be considered any worse than nuking the Chinese in Seattle?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Like how Rainbow Six is the leader of Rainbow?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56,58 (click to see context) from:
* In the very first mission (Soviet invasion of Seattle), where exactly did the Russians get the air support from? Right near the beginning American choppers and tanks assault the docks where the cargo ships are offloading tanks but the entire American force is destroyed by a bunch of MIGs with cluster bombs and air-to-air missiles. Now where exactly did these MIGs come from? Since they're fighters they have to be based nearby but this is the very first day of the invasion so there's nowhere they could possibly take-off from and it can't be from a Soviet carrier group as the whole cargo ship plan hinged on the fact it was civilian ships, not military, that approached Seattle.
** There is a small possibility of them taking off from bases on the Soviet pacific coast and getting refuelled in-flight. The real answer is Main/RuleOfCool and Main/EasyLogistics.
to:
* In the very first mission (Soviet invasion of Seattle), where exactly did the Russians get the air support from? Right near the beginning American choppers and tanks assault the docks where the cargo ships are offloading tanks but the entire American force is destroyed by a bunch of
** There is a small possibility of them taking off from bases on the Soviet pacific coast and getting
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** And maintaining and expanding that structure wouldn't be hard. Speaking as a native, the Seattle suburbs would be a ''nightmare'' for an occupying army. Those heavy woods around Pine Valley? That's the default terrain between Seattle and the mountains. Virtually impossible to control communications, easy to hide troops.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added a response to an entry. Gave it my best guess
Changed line(s) 45 (click to see context) from:
to:
***A possibility would be that Seattle, and around the Chinese fleet is just ''too heavily contested'' for a B-52 air strike or even by water through a boomer. It's also important to know ''where'' exactly they would be taking off from, since it takes a while for the planes to reach their destination and a nuclear tipped bomb is too important of an asset to lose in this war. Consequently, doctrine would probably establish that if the planes were sent they would have a point of no return to abide to and to drop them no matter whats happening on the ground when they get there (even if Sawyer's group is about to win). A ICBM however is very hard (or practically impossible) to intercept and there's no worry about it potentially being shot down and going to waste so it can be used exactly ''when'' and ''if'' they run out of time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 44,45 (click to see context) from:
* Too much nitpicking here but what the hell is the logic with the Chinese allying themselves to the Soviets? After the 1960s, the Chinese and the Soviets ''hated'' each other. Thats why Nixon was able to woo the Chinese on the US side against the Soviets. So what? The Soviets cross the border into Europe and no-one in the CIA thinks about using their Chinese connections to cause some trouble in Russia's backyard? This is probably the least important issue in a speculative story like WiC but come on, doing some research for that ain't hard. Even Red Dawn was able to note the Sino-Soviet split.
to:
* Too much nitpicking here but what the hell is the logic with the Chinese allying themselves to the Soviets? After the 1960s, the Chinese and the Soviets ''hated'' each other.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 69 (click to see context) from:
to:
** logically speaking, after the failed Seattle invasion, the war is over. The Soviets have no more reserves, mounting internal civilian unrest, both from before and during the war, a failing economy, and are facing everyone and their dog with her only major Ally, China, likely to switch sides after the failed Seattle invasion. (It benefits china more to switch sides than to fight to the bitter end.)
Added DiffLines:
** The Russians may have believed they could now use Nuclear weapons, while before they believed they physically could not strike out with them, now they can, but the question is would they do it anyways? Soviet commanders and Sub commanders would have increasingly become aware that this war is not one they will win one way or another, and nuking the US wouldn't stop it. In fact there is a possibility that the Soviet forces who capture SDI may actually report falsely, believing that to lie would save more lives. Either way, the US wanted to play it safe, and stopping the Soviets from taking the fort would be the safest option of all.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
*** The US navy would be supported by the Australian, Japanese, and everyone else besides China and Russia. It should be noted that Russian Naval doctrine was never designed to last longer than the beginning stages of the war, and China does not have even a single carrier at the time, meaning the US Navy would be more than capable of eliminating its opponents especially with the support of the other nations.
*** The Partisans could have been organized by the State Militia, and have been organized into preplanned Defense volunteers when the World War started similar to the British's Volunteer Defense Force.
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** This entire invasion was literally everything gone right for the Soviets, the landings going off without a hitch not even discovered until its too late, the unmitigated success in establishing a beachhead, and actually staying in the US for a few months. This all is beyond even the most optimistic realistic expectations. In order to get a force big enough to give military a run for its money, at least a division or more has to be landed, alongside extensive parts of special forces and air forces. By the end of the Siege of Seattle what happened was STILL the best prospect the Soviet military planners could have hoped for (and some military commanders recognized the hopelessness of the engagement and had decided to retreat without orders anyways), as even if the Chinese had arrived while the battle as going on, so much American ordnance was flying around that the Chinese would be unable to dock and land troops without getting hit by artillery, Aircraft, and US navy forces, meaning any ship that stood still enough to dock would get wrecked, and then clog up the dockyards. The only hope the Soviets had of securing the dockyards enough to land troops was by removing all US Naval, Air, and Artillery strikes. But by that time their own air support, the only thing that would have a reliable chance at doing that, was either completely destroyed or busy trying to not be killed by their US counterparts. We should keep in mind, the entire front they opened up is similar in size to the European Theater! To say the Russians had landings all across the west coast is sheer insanity considering they are just about fully engaged in Europe, Scandinavia, the Middle East, and possibly Asia. To say they opened up a front the size of China is impossible without falling into the same problem the US could have if they took a division off the European front, and furthermore, the Soviet Propaganda wheels show ONLY the beachhead in Washington, implying there is only the one. Also by the time they are ejected from Seattle, the Russians are entirely on the ropes everywhere, strategically being bombed to dust, their army fully deployed everywhere, China likely to change sides (China and Russia have never really gotten along, the failed invasion would likely result in dissolving the alliance with China suing for favorable terms.) and the loss of large amounts of war material (Essentially nearly a full divisions worth, would spell the end of Russians as now the people of the Warsaw Pact, and maybe even their own people, will take the opportunity to revolt now that the Soviets literally have no forces to send to stop them and no reserves to draw up (historically by this time it was nearly impossible to round up youths to be conscripted). The entire war was a best case scenario for the Soviets in their strategic situation in 1989.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's more that the fall of Fort Teller would have likely made Washington believe that they had no other choice but to escalate the conflict to a nuclear one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Ok, so worst comes to worst and the Soviets manage to take Fort Teller and find out SDI was a charade orchestrated by the Americans...then what? The game straight out says if Fort Teller falls, nuclear war will break out. But even if SDI is a fake, I'm pretty sure the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction is still in place. Is this some sort of alternate universe where the U.S. got rid of all it's strategic nukes?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 65,66 (click to see context) from:
----
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
to:
<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 30 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Fort Teller was worked up as the command center of SDI. If the Soviets roll up to find the place a crater, as far as they know they've taken out the American ABM system, and have them on the run. The whole thing was a massive bluff, the least horrible option.
Changed line(s) 38 (click to see context) from:
to:
***** Most if not all of the B-52s in the American Air Force would have been tasked with nuclear alert missions. It's actually surprising that ''any'' would have been available for air support in the campaign at all.
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
*** "Rather useless" doesn't begin to cover the Yak 38. There was apparently a joke in the Russian Navy that the biggest threat to the Soviet Navy was Soviet Naval Aviation. So here's a WMG. Soviet commandos took over an abandoned civilian airport (they do exist) or an isolated airstrip before the invasion. Soviet fighters, tankers, and transports with weaponry and parts are ferried in under the radar, allowing for tactical air support of the initial invasion.
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
** Sawyer is a full colonel. Why does he merely command a battallion, instead of a regiment?
to:
** Sawyer is a full colonel. Why does he merely command a battallion, battalion, instead of a regiment?
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
** Why is it that ''his'' batallion in particular gets shunted around everywhere? Sawyer was recalled due to the Pentagon having lost too many experienced officers already, Parker was apparently a recently comissioned West Point graduate and Bannon probably not among the first choices for frontline duty. All this indicates that it was a recently activated reserve unit that would probably have been posted to calmer sections of the frontline. Same goes for the Soviet unit in SA.
to:
** Why is it that ''his'' batallion battalion in particular gets shunted around everywhere? Sawyer was recalled due to the Pentagon having lost too many experienced officers already, Parker was apparently a recently comissioned commissioned West Point graduate and Bannon probably not among the first choices for frontline duty. All this indicates that it was a recently activated reserve unit that would probably have been posted to calmer sections of the frontline. Same goes for the Soviet unit in SA.
Added DiffLines:
*** Presumably the battalion isn't an active-duty unit. It's possible that they just wanted Sawyer, and the batt came with. In the invasion in the States, on the other hand, Bannon had been reassigned, Parker was on leave, and Sawyer...well, his presence is a bit odd, but I guess he just took command of any survivors? It's not a complete battalion that flees Seattle, it's a hodgepodge of National Guard, Army, and Army Reservists that Sawyer somehow managed to get working as a cohesive unit. There aren't a whole lot of other units joining up with the group throughout the game.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Addressing first, US-Soviet relations were not nearly good enough to warrant a Sino-Soviet war on that basis alone. That's even before considering Sino-Soviet detente in the 1980s. The writers didn't want to bother explaining what China was doing, so they just assumed they'd make a unified communist front or some other equally dramatic enemy. It's like ''Red Dawn'' being insane enough to suggest Cubans would invade Colorado along with the USSR.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** This was pretty strictly enforced in the Soviet armed forces, even with the lack of inter-service rivalries common in the west due to academic structure. It's typical Yankee commified enemies, Malashenko needs to be a serious guy, so he gets a beret.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removing wicks to Did Not Do The Research per rename at TRS.
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
*** Massive probably didn't want to face a bout of DidNotDoTheResearch given the lack of reliable sources on complete 1989 Soviet orders of battle in English.
to:
*** Massive probably didn't want to face a bout accusations of DidNotDoTheResearch poor research given the lack of reliable sources on complete 1989 Soviet orders of battle in English.
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
** Most likely DidNotDoTheResearch. One possible justification is that he originally started his military career as a common paratrooper, then later entered officer training for the mechanised forces and kept the beret as an affectation. No idea if this was possible in RealLife, though.
to:
** Most likely DidNotDoTheResearch.artistic license. One possible justification is that he originally started his military career as a common paratrooper, then later entered officer training for the mechanised forces and kept the beret as an affectation. No idea if this was possible in RealLife, though.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why was a sequel never made? THAT'S THE REAL HEADSCRATCHER!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
*** Don't know about the Soviet Union, but in contemporary Russia uniform regulations are ''extremely'' rarely enforced. As long as what you're wearing vaguely resembles the uniform you were issued, no-one really cares. I think the above justification is pretty likely, considering he is also wearing a ''teljnaschka'' (the striped undershirt) which is only issued to elite units and submariners. Also, remember that Malashenko's regimental commander is his uncle, who is probably willing to indulge his nephew in small ways like that.
to:
*** Don't know about the Soviet Union, but in contemporary Russia uniform regulations are ''extremely'' rarely enforced. As long as what you're wearing vaguely resembles the uniform you were issued, no-one really cares. I think the above justification is pretty likely, considering he is also wearing a ''teljnaschka'' (the striped undershirt) which is only issued to elite units and submariners. Also, remember that Malashenko's regimental commander is his uncle, who is probably willing to indulge his nephew in small ways like that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Don't know about the Soviet Union, but in contemporary Russia uniform regulations are ''extremely'' rarely enforced. As long as what you're wearing vaguely resembles the uniform you were issued, no-one really cares. I think the above justification is pretty likely, considering he is also wearing a ''teljnaschka'' (the striped undershirt) which is only issued to elite units and submariners. Also, remember that Malashenko's regimental commander is his uncle, who is probably willing to indulge his nephew in small ways like that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
to:
**** Don't know how SAC operated in the 1980s, but perhaps the need to place all of the B-52 fleet on nuclear alert in case of escalation has precluded the US military from disrupting the PLAN fleet.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's a Sovietwank. In other words, everything good that could happen happened up until the big invasion, in which the OTL Ameriwank started taking over.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Massive probably didn't want to face a bout of DidNotDoTheResearch given the lack of reliable sources on complete 1989 Soviet orders of battle in English.
Added DiffLines:
**** This is the 1980s US Army that we see in the game. I don't know the exact details but the Army during that time subscribed to divisions as the basic building blocks with only select units (like the forward brigades assigned to NORTHAG and CENTAG) having the flexibility to operate as separate units.
Added DiffLines:
** Maybe with the USSR preparing for war and all that, the Admiral Kuznetsov skipped commissioning and was placed right into service. World in Conflict's USSR is one that managed to get itself a sizeable number of Mi-28s, which in reality weren't introduced until the mid 1990s.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Most likely DidNotDoTheResearch. One possible justification is that he originally started his military career as a common paratrooper, then later entered officer training for the mechanised forces and kept the beret as an affectation. No idea if this was possible in RealLife, though.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The problem with that however is that the Soviets were never as big on naval aviation as the Americans were and are. The Soviet Union only had a few small carriers loaded with rather useless Yak 38 fighters and a few helicopter carriers. None of the aircraft seen carrying out Tactical Aid on the Soviet side are, or were at any point, carrier based.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why is Malasheko, a VDV paratroop officer commanding a company of motor rifle troops from day one?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** The US Army doesn't use regiments in their tactical organization unless they're armored cavalry units, but yes, if the situation was ideal he would be commanding a brigade.
