I'm sad and surprised to hear that the campaign for this game was so short. Although I have read about some new multiplayer features, I have always felt that the main distinguishing factor for this game was the setting. I would have thought that they'd make a bigger deal out of that.
As for the Koreans invading America being unrealistic. Yeah, maybe. Personally I would have gone with China, but a lot can happen in 25 years. Also, at least for me it is easy to overlook the exact explanation of who did the invading how. Right now with my limited information it seems to me that the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and is in no danger whatsoever of actually being invaded by any group of other countries. A couple of years ago I heard that the US defense budget was as high as the combined budgets of the top 25 countries in the world. But that doesn't mean that "war on your doorstep" is not an interesting concept to explore in a game. I'm okay with some hand waving as to how it actually happened and focus on what it would be like after it did.
As for the Koreans invading America being unrealistic. Yeah, maybe. Personally I would have gone with China, but a lot can happen in 25 years. Also, at least for me it is easy to overlook the exact explanation of who did the invading how. Right now with my limited information it seems to me that the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and is in no danger whatsoever of actually being invaded by any group of other countries. A couple of years ago I heard that the US defense budget was as high as the combined budgets of the top 25 countries in the world. But that doesn't mean that "war on your doorstep" is not an interesting concept to explore in a game. I'm okay with some hand waving as to how it actually happened and focus on what it would be like after it did.
You are awesome!SenorNemo said:Heh, I didn't think anyone would take me up so quick, but this still isn't quite what I had in mind.throumbas said:
The following is only a brief examination, mind, not column length or anything. Don't expect and brilliantly defended points or counterpoints
Milestone 1: "No, just no" isn't a proper argument, but I actually agree. I do see it as very unlikely, and this is probably the most contentious part of the backstory. The recent incident with the artillery attack on South Korea, likely related to Kim Jong-Un's inevitable and ever nearer succession, isn't a big indicator that he'll be any more open to unification than Kim Jong-Il, even if it is part of a long term strategy to establish Korea as a major world power. Still, we don't know hardly anything for certain yet. The biggest issue that makes this unlikely is social inertia. North Korea has used hatred of the outside world as a unifying force for so long, that not even two and a half years is a long enough time to change the public attitude towards reunification, no matter how it was spun. That's not even mentioning South Korea, which has a considerable number of hawkish political figures that would never condone reunification, and reflect a similar general attitude. So milestone one is unlikely in two and a half years. Ten years, maybe, but not two and a half. Yet, it wasn't too long ago that South and North Korea were almost on the verge of reconciliation. Maybe it was something to do with the announcement of Starcraft 2. Only time will tell.
Milestone 2: This is more plausible given the intervening events, which are follows:
None of these are far fetched. There are already significant political forces in Japan that want American garrisons out, and with Korea seemingly a diminished threat, and America undergoing its own significant domestic problems, the decision seems plausible. Texas succeeding is kind of unlikely, but not unimaginable given the circumstances. I imagine that Mexico's horrific and very literal drug wars will have spilled over into Texas by then (in this alternate universe at least), combining with other world events to create a much more survivalist - and therefore independent - attitude. In a post peak-oil world, the financial woes of the United States are mostly credible, if handled poorly enough, so by 2018, I can pretty easily see America as unable to help Japan. Of course, Japan has a very powerful arm...err...self defense force, but given Japan has almost no access to domestic oil and is powered to no small extent by international trade, I can see them suffering even worse in the post-peak oil world as America.
Milestone 3: Lol, not far fetched at all. But seriously, a nuclear device built solely for generating an EM pulse wouldn't be too far fetched by 2027. Most modern American military hardware is EMP hardened, but I'm imagining that a lot of the military hardware we're currently using has aged, and in the economic and domestic crises, was replaced by less secure, unhardened hardware. Still, I don't imagine an EMP attack being nearly as effective as is depicted in Homefront either. No other countries intervene because no other countries can intervene, or have an interest in intervening. Keep in mind that America itself didn't intervene in the Second World War until we were actually attacked, and our depression era economy wasn't nearly as bad as the economic condition of any other powers that could conceivably spare the resources to help in the Homefront timeline. Also keep in mind that from what I've read, the Koreans don't have the manpower to fully control the United States, they have to pick and choose very carefully what resources and targets they take. After all, I imagine (I haven't played the game) that Homefront tells the story about how the Koreans failed to invade America. That's something a lot of people around here tend to forget, that the Koreans didn't succeed, that even though they got as far as controlling several major urban centers, they were eventually pushed back.
So, is is likely? No. Plausible? Maybe. Within range of suspension of disbelief? For me, anyway. I understand that it may vary.
