Homefront, implosibility in games.

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: snip

Historically, the USA used to be fairly complacent in times of peace and lax in terms of its own security.

For example, before the state of fear that we currently live in, the USA was so confident of its own superiority that throughout the 1990s its defences were surprisingly thin.

9/11 for example...

On the 11th September 2001, guess how many fighter jets were on station to protect the US mainland... 500, 1000, 20000?

No, 14, and only 6 were on the Eastern seaboard, and the closest pair of them to NY were 150 miles away! At the point of the impact of the first tower, the jets had been in the air for 20 minutes, but were still 50 miles out.

I guess what I'm saying is that it is possible that at one point a surprise invasion like this would have been sucessful.

However, I think you are right that nowadays it is fairly impossible. The USA has learned what happens when they let their guard down, and they're not likely to allow it to happen again.

A surprise attack using commercial planes which are always flying around the US. Very different from a surprise invasion. An invasion is a massive logistical exercise, using resources that don't look civilain. It also cannot be done solely, or even mostly, via the air, it'd take a massive navy, and the US also has one of those.

Also, isn't part of the backstory that the US withdrew its overseas forces, so there would be much more defending the contiguous United States.

And then, the US still has it's powerful second strike capability, such as a SSBN fleet lurking somewhere in the oceans of the world.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Spoiler: snip

Historically, the USA used to be fairly complacent in times of peace and lax in terms of its own security.

For example, before the state of fear that we currently live in, the USA was so confident of its own superiority that throughout the 1990s its defences were surprisingly thin.

9/11 for example...

On the 11th September 2001, guess how many fighter jets were on station to protect the US mainland... 500, 1000, 20000?

No, 14, and only 6 were on the Eastern seaboard, and the closest pair of them to NY were 150 miles away! At the point of the impact of the first tower, the jets had been in the air for 20 minutes, but were still 50 miles out.

I guess what I'm saying is that it is possible that at one point a surprise invasion like this would have been sucessful.

However, I think you are right that nowadays it is fairly impossible. The USA has learned what happens when they let their guard down, and they're not likely to allow it to happen again.

A surprise attack using commercial planes which are always flying around the US. Very different from a surprise invasion. An invasion is a massive logistical exercise, using resources that don't look civilain. It also cannot be done solely, or even mostly, via the air, it'd take a massive navy, and the US also has one of those.

Also, isn't part of the backstory that the US withdrew its overseas forces, so there would be much more defending the contiguous United States.

And then, the US still has it's powerful second strike capability, such as a SSBN fleet lurking somewhere in the oceans of the world.

The 9/11 attacks were not concealed, they saw it coming, but they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't prepared.

But other than that I agree, the US would be much better prepared for an invaision than a terrorist attack.

However, I was merely making the point that the US was less well prepared for attacks then than now.

 

[Joby Baumann]

Ironically, as I type this, I have just discovered they're making a remake of Red Dawn.
With Koreans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_(2011_film)

I laughed so hard at this

 

[veloper]

In any case the devs should've spent more time on improving the gameplay and less on trying to do something they cannot, which is writing a story.

 

[Dogstile]

You know what annoyed me about the Homefront flamers? They were all "HERP DERP N.K IS TOO WEAK TO INVADE" without actually looking at the backstory to it at all.

And what annoyed me are the people who were all "HERP DERP nobody read the backstory!"

I DID read the backstory, and it actually makes the story make even less sense then it already did. There is almost nothing concerning the events in the backstory that are in any way realistic. If I wanted to I could dismiss the entire backstory as rubbish for no other reason then that it has North Korea's dictator annexing South Korea peacefully with nobody believing that it was all just some kind of a trick and even wins a Noble peace prize for it.

So its not massively true to reality? Sure, of course not. Its not like it matters, they attempted a story, its realistic enough until you look at it with the intention of going "pah, N.K is sucks!" and if you're looking at it in that way, its not built for you.

Christ, I don't hear this much complaining over COD and that has russia trying to take over the freakin' world. Russia, with the lovely economic state its in.

Edit:

Actually, I think i've worked out everyones problem. Homefront tried to explain the invasion. If they pulled a COD and didn't bother aside from "yeah, russia attacks" nobody would care.

 

[tsb247]

You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them

I've said it before and I've said it again: Small arms will not save you when a determined military force decides to curb stomp you into oblivion. Giving everyone a firearm might have been a decent way to get lots of guys for the militia in 1776, but modern warfare is much more specialized and much more advanced. Your semi-automatic "hunting rifle" won't stand a chance against an enemy that employs air support, armored vehicles, UAVs and potentially WMDs. For examples on how it goes down, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the best organized and trained insurgents can't do much against Coalition/ISAF forces directly, but resorts to targeting civilians and the police. That's exactly what would happen if the USA was invaded (who would do it, however?), no matter how much gung ho you put in the idea that hundreds of thousands of civilians might make a difference. It hasn't in Iraq.

Tell that to the North Vietnamese militia. After all, they were just farmers, merchants, and locals who picked up weapons and defended their homes. Vietnam was a prime example of how ordinary people could pick up a weapon and be effective when guerilla tactics were used.

I would also like to point out that the Taliban with aging weapons, limited/aging equipment, broken leadership, and being comprised of both military veterans and ordinary farmers and tribesman managed to stalemate coalition forces for years on end and are actually beginning to negotiate with coalition forces and the Afghani government to end the war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195525/We-need-American-troops-break-Afghanistan-stalemate-admits-British-military-chief.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5021248/Taliban-have-achieved-stalemate-in-Afghanistan-warns-David-Miliband.html

The biggest mistake any military force can make is to underestimate the local population of a country that is being invaded. The U.S. is no different. History has shown time and again, that an armed populace can thwart an invasion. Just look at Switzerland (never been invaded), The American Revolution, and Vietnam to reference this. Heck, the American Revolution was fought with militia forces doing a great deal of fighting, and it was against the most powerful army in the world at the time. Asymmetric warfare is called asymmetric for a reason.

So, I will say it again. It is foolish to assume that an armed population can't or won't be a threat to an invading army. History has show that this is simply not the case. Who defends the land if not the people who live there?

 

[Kahunaburger]

So its not massively true to reality? Sure, of course not. Its not like it matters, they attempted a story, its realistic enough until you look at it with the intention of going "pah, N.K is sucks!" and if you're looking at it in that way, its not built for you.

Christ, I don't hear this much complaining over COD and that has russia trying to take over the freakin' world. Russia, with the lovely economic state its in.

Edit:

Actually, I think i've worked out everyones problem. Homefront tried to explain the invasion. If they pulled a COD and didn't bother aside from "yeah, russia attacks" nobody would care.

I think CoD has a pretty stupid plot as well - nuclear powers fighting without wide-scale use of nuclear weapons? Yeah, right. Really, the only multiplayer shooter that I can think of off the top of my head that has a remotely good plot is Halo, and that's not exactly saying much.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I usually hate getting into threads like these because of both side trying to run circles around each other but I just wanted to note something. Many people are saying that the Koreans would never win because Americans would use guns to drive them out, but that is actually included into the story. The Koreans only control cities where not a lot of people are carrying assault rifles. The Koreans never go out into the country and on the fields where the survivalists are who number in the thousands and pack serious weapons.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Tell that to the North Vietnamese militia. After all, they were just farmers, merchants, and locals who picked up weapons and defended their homes. Vietnam was a prime example of how ordinary people could pick up a weapon and be effective when guerilla tactics were used.

I would also like to point out that the Taliban with aging weapons, limited/aging equipment, broken leadership, and being comprised of both military veterans and ordinary farmers and tribesman managed to stalemate coalition forces for years on end and are actually beginning to negotiate with coalition forces and the Afghani government to end the war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195525/We-need-American-troops-break-Afghanistan-stalemate-admits-British-military-chief.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5021248/Taliban-have-achieved-stalemate-in-Afghanistan-warns-David-Miliband.html

The biggest mistake any military force can make is to underestimate the local population of a country that is being invaded. The U.S. is no different. History has shown time and again, that an armed populace can thwart an invasion. Just look at Switzerland (never been invaded), The American Revolution, and Vietnam to reference this. Heck, the American Revolution was fought with militia forces doing a great deal of fighting, and it was against the most powerful army in the world at the time. Asymmetric warfare is called asymmetric for a reason.

So, I will say it again. It is foolish to assume that an armed population can't or won't be a threat to an invading army. History has show that this is simply not the case. Who defends the land if not the people who live there?

It might be worth nothing that the VietCong was being directed from North Vietnam, a country that recieved huge amounts of supplies and equipment from both the USSR and PRC. In the end, the NVA and VC still suffered casualties far above 10:1 in comparsion to what the USA suffered in Vietnam and only won because the US homefront grew war weary, not because the USA couldn't fight on. So, Vietnam isn't exactly a good example of how "ordinary" people can do anything, because the Vietnamese example is shock full of specific circumstances that greatly aided North Vietnam, detracted from South Vietnam and made an american presence unfeasible.

Besides, history is a poor analogy here as I've stated before because warfare has evolved significantly from 1975 and is nothing like it was in 1776. And even if it hadn't the American Revolution is a bad example because the british had no real will to retain hold of its' american colonies, they weren't showing a whole lot of potential compared to most other british colonies at the time. In comparsion, anyone invading the USA is probably already prepared for a protracted and fierce fight against american insurgents.

It isn't as simple as pointing at old conflicts and saying "Look! It worked then!", because each conflict has its' own set of specific beligirents and their agendas and motivation. You are far more likely to go all out if you percieve the war to be a fight to the death as opposed to geo-political manipulation or counter-insurgency in non-profitable colonies.

 

[Commissar Sae]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

And invading Japan would cause the death of thousands of soldiers because they would fanatically fight to the very end. If that were true I think there would have been at least a few murders by civilians against the American occupation forces after the war. Hell some of the occupying troops even deserved to be stabbed a few times by vengeful Japanese (There were a lot of rapes...). but thats besides the point. Just saying don't necessarily believe everything people say, at lot of generals have a perspective thats just as skewed as most civilian ones.

That said North Korea has a hard time running itself, a full scale invasion of anything is sort of beyond them. China would be a much likelier threat.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

To be honest, I'm not prepared to take seriously the storyline of any game that sucks as hard as Homefront does...