StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'll accept that MW2's story made even the slightest bit of sense if someone can explain this to me:

From where, exactly, did the Russians get the money to modernise their military such that it was sufficient to attack the United States in less than four years, if they'd spent the last nine in a crippling civil war and had already been suffering through the BS that was the Soviet Economic system? What, exactly, was the rest of the world doing while Russia militarised? How come a weather satellite or something didn't manage to catch the Russians before they hit the American shores? And why in the name of all that is holy did the US navy just sit while the Russians sailed, in force, out towards Alaska and somehow managed to sail around the bloody Cape of Good Hope into the Atlantic?

Thanks for...summarizing everything we just said?

I think he missed where many people simply don't care, particularly about continuity.

New trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLmsiaN5dZM

Holy balls I'm pumped.

If by "new trailer," you mean "fan-made trailer posted almost 3 months ago."

Well shit. I must... discipline... my source.

"From where, exactly, did the Russians get the money to modernise their military such that it was sufficient to attack the United States in less than four years,"

Well, it is one of the richest country on the planet in terms of energy resources. With that nuclear attack in the Middle East in Modern Warfare 1, I don't think I would be surprised that people would turn to Russia for fuel. Russia might earn BIG.

"If they'd spent the last nine in a crippling civil war and had already been suffering through the BS that was the Soviet Economic system?"

First, Russia by modern day is one of the freest capitalistic markets on the planet, an oligarchy run by the richest of its folks. Second, Wars civil or otherwise could have different effects on nations - while much of the time they are detrimental, for some it would rather improve them - let say, the Russian government got an opposition armed with Missile Artillery, armored vehicles and NUCLEAR MISSILES that hates its guts. Against such a scale of a threat to its existence it would be logical for ANY nation to increase and improve the military forces by MAGNITUDES to survive. [Note, the USSR managed to pull that off during the Nazi invasion 1941-45] And it got a massive energy resource wealth which Europe and many parts of the world highly depends on to fund such endeavorer.

"What, exactly, was the rest of the world doing while Russia militarised?"

First, Russia, energy capital of Europe, some of the few nations beside USA who have the will and power to oppose them (And China ain't talking). Second, America is still shell-shocked in MW2 over losing 30000 of its men in a nuclear attack in MW1. Third, no one wants to piss off a nation who still has thousands of nuclear weapons and has a psychotically hostile leadership. All these factors COULD lead to an attitude of appeasement to Russia. History repeats itself.

"How come a weather satellite or something didn't manage to catch the Russians before they hit the American shores?"


It was an ACS module, part of the NORAD satellite system which was supposed to detect any threat hitting America's shore and bring up a proper response before they hit. The first ACT of MW2 involves retrieve said module so that the Russians won't duplicate it, use it to hack the rest of the system and then launch a surprise invasion so fast they won't be able to respond properly in time. Well, TF 141 failed, as Shepard had planned.

"And why in the name of all that is holy did the US navy just sit while the Russians sailed, in force, out towards Alaska and somehow managed to sail around the bloody Cape of Good Hope into the Atlantic?"


The Russians have an Atlantic fleet. And like I said, the Russians managed to sneak in and hit them so hard and fast that the American military was taken completely by surprise. MW2 only shows the early part of the war so we don't know if the US fleet managed to eventually get their own asses in gear and kick some serious Russian arses.

While I'm sure nobody knows why you posted that, the ACS module really explains none of the story 'problems', because the planes are detected anyway; they just magically teleport from Alaska to having overrun Washington.

The idea that the story is irrelevant is a lot more rational than attempts to shoehorn it into some kind of 'realistic' framework.

SpaceMarine93 wrote: Well, it is one of the richest country on the planet in terms of energy resources. With that nuclear attack in the Middle East in Modern Warfare 1, I don't think I would be surprised that people would turn to Russia for fuel. Russia might earn BIG.

It might, except for that part about a civil war wrecking it.

SpaceMarine93 wrote:First, Russia by modern day is one of the freest capitalistic markets on the planet, an oligarchy run by the richest of its folks. Second, Wars civil or otherwise could have different effects on nations - while much of the time they are detrimental, for some it would rather improve them - let say, the Russian government got an opposition armed with Missile Artillery, armored vehicles and NUCLEAR MISSILES that hates its guts. Against such a scale of a threat to its existence it would be logical for ANY nation to increase and improve the military forces by MAGNITUDES to survive. [Note, the USSR managed to pull that off during the Nazi invasion 1941-45] And it got a massive energy resource wealth which Europe and many parts of the world highly depends on to fund such endeavorer.

I've dealt with that: those "massively increased military forces" couldn't even run air strikes against rocket artillery shelling civilians, support a mission against nuclear silos and had infantry fighting with 40+ year old weapons, no night vision...

Plus of course civil wars inevitably wreck the nation they are fought in. There hadn't been a civil war in history that actually improved the infrastructure it was fought over. The fact the rebels have heavy weaponry would only make it worse, as it by definition is more destructive.

SpaceMarine93 wrote:First, Russia, energy capital of Europe, some of the few nations beside USA who have the will and power to oppose them (And China ain't talking). Second, America is still shell-shocked in MW2 over losing 30000 of its men in a nuclear attack in MW1. Third, no one wants to piss off a nation who still has thousands of nuclear weapons and has a psychotically hostile leadership. All these factors COULD lead to an attitude of appeasement to Russia. History repeats itself.

This is completely absurd. The world would appease Russia (who is militarizing) by...not militarizing? What advantage would that give to anybody?

If Russian leadership is "psychotically hostile", that's ANOTHER reason to militarize like hell.

SpaceMarine93 wrote:It was an ACS module, part of the NORAD satellite system which was supposed to detect any threat hitting America's shore and bring up a proper response before they hit. The first ACT of MW2 involves retrieve said module so that the Russians won't duplicate it, use it to hack the rest of the system and then launch a surprise invasion so fast they won't be able to respond properly in time. Well, TF 141 failed, as Shepard had planned.

Check out a TO&E for a single motor rifle division ; Now try to tell me with a straight face you need satellites to detect even those assets loading onto invasion ships.

The "US is blind without satellites" trope is horrible, yet it propagated everywhere.

SpaceMarine93 wrote:The Russians have an Atlantic fleet. And like I said, the Russians managed to sneak in and hit them so hard and fast that the American military was taken completely by surprise. MW2 only shows the early part of the war so we don't know if the US fleet managed to eventually get their own asses in gear and kick some serious Russian arses.

The ENTIRE POINT is that a surprise attack across the Atlantic is impossible and silly.

Even if such an attack would succeed (it never would), the Russian atlantic fleet currently consists of (I am going to be charitable here and assume they also get their entire baltic assets out without the Poles, Swedes, Finns, Germans and Danish noticing):

1 Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier or "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser”
2 Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser
1 Slava class cruiser
5 Udaloy class destroyer
4 Sovremennyy class destroyer
1 Burevestnik class frigate
2 Neustrashimy class frigate
6 Delta IV class submarine
1 Typhoon class submarine
3 Oscar class submarine
2 Sierra class submarine
6 Akula class submarine
4 Victor class submarine
8 Kilo class submarine
1 Borei class submarine
1 Lada class submarine

Notice something here? As of 2011, their entire surface combatants number 16 ships, of which only 4 are classified as cruiser (and two of them being very, very old).

The Russians have two (maybe three?) yards capable of churning out ships of large size. Even if we assume that they do not design new ones, but primarily work from existing designs, how many ships does that leave them, considering that it takes about two-three years to build one?

How are they going to supply an invasion force with such a measly surface fleet that would be hard pressed to even cover one convoy and most likely would be wiped out by the European NATO forces alone? And while this happens, every other nation does not build ships or is outbuilt by the Russians, who also fight a disastrous civil war?

Sigh, once again my analysis is too shallow. Better luck next time.

Thanas wrote:Even if such an attack would succeed (it never would), the Russian atlantic fleet currently consists of (I am going to be charitable here and assume they also get their entire baltic assets out without the Poles, Swedes, Finns, Germans and Danish noticing):

1 Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier or "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser”
2 Kirov class nuclear-powered cruiser
1 Slava class cruiser
5 Udaloy class destroyer
4 Sovremennyy class destroyer
1 Burevestnik class frigate
2 Neustrashimy class frigate
6 Delta IV class submarine
1 Typhoon class submarine
3 Oscar class submarine
2 Sierra class submarine
6 Akula class submarine
4 Victor class submarine
8 Kilo class submarine
1 Borei class submarine
1 Lada class submarine

Notice something here? As of 2011, their entire surface combatants number 16 ships, of which only 4 are classified as cruiser (and two of them being very, very old).

The Russians have two (maybe three?) yards capable of churning out ships of large size. Even if we assume that they do not design new ones, but primarily work from existing designs, how many ships does that leave them, considering that it takes about two-three years to build one?

How are they going to supply an invasion force with such a measly surface fleet that would be hard pressed to even cover one convoy and most likely would be wiped out by the European NATO forces alone? And while this happens, every other nation does not build ships or is outbuilt by the Russians, who also fight a disastrous civil war?

Yeah, but a lot of people feel the CoD universe is an alternate one from an unknown point of departure. One where Russia is more powerful.

Still doesn't explain how America was surprised by that attack, of course.

Yeah, but how many orders of magnitude are we talking about here? Ten times as much? Because that is the only way they'll ever be able to compete with the US Navy.

Plus the first game shows the exact opposite, with Russia being a wartorn craphole.

Presumably they used arcane communist magic to wizard up a thousand-strong armada using the bones of Stalin as ingredients for their cauldron.

That's also what they'll use for the next zombie mode, you know.

PeZook wrote:Plus the first game shows the exact opposite, with Russia being a wartorn craphole.

I recently replayed the first game for nostalgia value as I'm on a kick of playing through all of my FPS games (Only to end up installing and kicking off a new Torchlight character but hey no ones perfect)

The Ultra nationalists are not only able to attack and secure a nuclear missile depot but able to launch it while the Russian Nationalists are helpless to stop them, when American/British Commandos retake the facility they are forced to flee because the Nationalist can't military defeat the Ultra's in open combat. In fact from every regard the Nationalists are getting their asses kicked in the Civil war. A civil war which features artillery, bombers, Helio's and tanks being used in Russian villages. After that kind of destructive combat your not rebuilding in ten years, modern weapon systems requires two years of lead time for the simplest of weapon system due to how complex weapons of war have gotten.

Lets use a historical example, lets say I write a fanfic of how America decides to get even and Grant launches a surprise invasion of France in 1870 with a thousand ship fleet just before the Franco/Prussian War breaks out and the proceeds to march to Paris on his way to the Rhine.

Because that makes far more godamn sense than MW2's story. Modern Warfare 1 was a what if, not a great one but aside from "nuclear abort codes" and the fact everyone is running around with AK-47's and G-36's for some reason... It's a simple story of civil war breaking out Russia and one side selling an Arab dictator a nuke or three to be used as insurance in case the America's invade his country which they promptly do and off goes the nuke. The rest is at least internally consistent even if highly unlikely. Modern Warefare 2? Well at least its not North Korea...

Modern units also have tremendous supply requirements ; What was it, a modern infantry division uses two or three times as much supplies as a WWII one?

The Russkies would have to ship all of it across the Atlantic, which is ALL hostile territorry to them, mostly covered with ground based aircraft and with naval bases in excellent positions to intercept convoys et al

Which is why the real life red russians didn't even try to openly challenge NATO fleets, going instead to a submarine fleet to deny NATO supplies from going across ; In a way, by invading America they play into all of NATO's strengths.

Kruschev gamed the idea of a conventional invasion of North America, but the higher ups in the Red Army knew even at the zenith of Soviet power crossing the Atlantic was never going to happen. Alaska seems attractive because of distance but capturing Alaska just gets you...lots of mountains and grizzly bears? Alaska's infrastructure in rail, road, and terrain is so light that even by today's standards it might as well be an island. You couldn't use it as a useful jump off point for attacking North America today much less 60 years ago.

I always think it's hilarious though that the people who make these games really think countries just up and out of nowhere grow massive Armies from trees and no one prepares for such an obvious build up of military force.

I think it's hilarious that nerds spend so much time making those complaints. Do you think the developers give a shit? They wanted an excuse to use suburban America and Washington as a backdrop. Normally I'm not really sympathetic to 'it's like Michael Bay!' but I found playing in that environment with all the detritus of normal life pretty cool. Was it realistic? Fuck no but it was a change from 'generic awesome soldier fights in jungle/WW2/desert'. Comparing it to the original COD is pretty funny - the same COD where you blew up dams in the middle of Germany and then smuggled yourself onboard the Tirpitz to put her out of action too.

Yeah, the narrative requirements rule out the practical ways, so they use silly ways. The US is both militarily unassailable and obsessed with being invaded, so with that kind of split personality you're always going to need setups like this.

I was going to edit my post to say what jester just said, again, basically. That yeah, it's not like any of this stuff really matters to the people designing, or playing the game. It's not like it really even should. Does anyone in CoD's fanbase really act like the games political/strategic background is realistic?

thejester wrote:I think it's hilarious that nerds spend so much time making those complaints. Do you think the developers give a shit? They wanted an excuse to use suburban America and Washington as a backdrop. Normally I'm not really sympathetic to 'it's like Michael Bay!' but I found playing in that environment with all the detritus of normal life pretty cool. Was it realistic? Fuck no but it was a change from 'generic awesome soldier fights in jungle/WW2/desert'. Comparing it to the original COD is pretty funny - the same COD where you blew up dams in the middle of Germany and then smuggled yourself onboard the Tirpitz to put her out of action too.

It would be far more realistic to have the US split into several factions due to [insert reason here] than have "damn dirty foreigners" come invade them every time. It is also deeply hilarious how there needs to be a foreign bogeyman in every game. What is wrong with a good old-fashioned civil war?

Probably because invasion paranoia is focused on external threats, like the Russians or the Koreans or the Mexicans or whatever. What do you do to please a market that is both invincible and wants stories about being invaded?

More sci-fi stuff handwaves away conventional forces (which is arguably what MW2 did) but I guess a whole set of stories about your country being taken over by evil badmen from another country simply can't be told about the US, certainly not without a great deal of imagination.

Maybe they used a chronosphere.

Making a US civil war would just piss off the American demographic who already hate each other's guts.

thejester wrote:I think it's hilarious that nerds spend so much time making those complaints. Do you think the developers give a shit? They wanted an excuse to use suburban America and Washington as a backdrop. Normally I'm not really sympathetic to 'it's like Michael Bay!' but I found playing in that environment with all the detritus of normal life pretty cool. Was it realistic? Fuck no but it was a change from 'generic awesome soldier fights in jungle/WW2/desert'. Comparing it to the original COD is pretty funny - the same COD where you blew up dams in the middle of Germany and then smuggled yourself onboard the Tirpitz to put her out of action too.

I only object when people try to claim the story is realistic. I also think it's harder to suspend disbelief when it's that silly, but that's obviously a subjective thing.