Oh god no, kill it with fire. The last thing we need is another horrible movie that people will watch because of the "America gets invaded" concept. Xenophobia FTL.AmrasCalmacil said:Yep. This guy beat me to it.wrightguy0 said:it's story was written by the same guy who penned Red Dawn, so, right wing fanwank from a man who is remembered for creating the biggest cold war fanwank movie in history, you know just as a reminder to those who stopped caring about the cold war twenty years ago that the commies are still out there man.
so yeah, that's why i don't like homefront's story
Just for people who don't know what Red Dawn is, it's about attractive young American teenagers killing Spetsnaz after the USSR invades America.
Yeah, y'know.
'cause Special Forces < Schoolkids.
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)
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 themBooze Zombie said:Just because some civilians own guns doesn't mean they're going to be particularly effective with them, if I'm quite frank and this idea that America being invaded makes the game unrealistic is quite annoying, as America was orginally invaded as its primary form of settlement. That's kind of how it started, I would be completly unsurprised to see it happen again.David Hebda said:Thoughts? Comments? Random flames of hate?
You are correct, I apologize.SimpleJack said:I didnt read this because you spelled implausibility wrong...
I'm sorry.
Gregg Lonsdale said:Yeah, the back-story was pretty much the most interesting bit about the game. You could pretty much watch the opening cutscene on youtube (it it's there) and that would account for %99 of the artistic or narrative value of the game. It did strike me as being a somewhat plausible premise, though mainly just the bits about Afghan/Iraq wars escalating, skyrocketing gas prices and causing national chaos. I think a game about a new American civil war based on that situation alone would be more interesting and realistic, but I live in Australia so maybe I'm not qualified to be talking about that sort of thing.
It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).Booze Zombie said:Just because some civilians own guns doesn't mean they're going to be particularly effective with them, if I'm quite frank and this idea that America being invaded makes the game unrealistic is quite annoying, as America was orginally invaded as its primary form of settlement. That's kind of how it started, I would be completly unsurprised to see it happen again.David Hebda said:Thoughts? Comments? Random flames of hate?
Biological warfare wouldn't exactly be unheard of in a modern millitary campaigns (well, it's covered up but you know what I mean), so it is quite possible that they might use the disease angle. In terms of tech its self, the Koreans were meant to sucker-punch America with an EMP satelite in Homefront, effectivly the enemy wasn't the Koreans in HF, it was an over-reliance on technology, or at least that was meant to be the tone from what I recall.Double A said:It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).
Also... uh... yeah, about Europeans killing Indians. You do realize the Europeans were much more technologically advanced than the Indians, right? And that diseases killed roughly half of the natives? And that they were almost entirely divided? And that in later years they were highly outnumbered? Yeah, I can see NK having the same tech and maybe the same size army in the HF universe, due to controlling more of SE Asia, but not the disease or any of the other major factors.
I'm both, but that's besides the point.David Hebda said: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.David Hebda said: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
Of course America isn't invulnerable, but that doesn't mean we're a giant fucking pushover like you make us out to be. And biological weapons? Really? So... you're saying that we just won't nuke North Korea in the first place? We have nuclear submarines all over the globe. Their missiles might reach Hawaii by the time Korea looked like Hiroshima, and that's taking into account the EMP satellite (wouldn't that crash after the first use? Not really relevant to the argument at hand, but just something to think about I guess).Booze Zombie said:Biological warfare wouldn't exactly be unheard of in a modern millitary campaigns (well, it's covered up but you know what I mean), so it is quite possible that they might use the disease angle. In terms of tech its self, the Koreans were meant to sucker-punch America with an EMP satelite in Homefront, effectivly the enemy wasn't the Koreans in HF, it was an over-reliance on technology, or at least that was meant to be the tone from what I recall.Double A said:It also doesn't mean they will suck with them. Most US citizens who own guns are actually pretty damn good shots. Also, the way guns work, you don't need to be an excellent shot to kill someone with one (the same can be said of most weapons, really, especially when in an army-type-thing).
Also... uh... yeah, about Europeans killing Indians. You do realize the Europeans were much more technologically advanced than the Indians, right? And that diseases killed roughly half of the natives? And that they were almost entirely divided? And that in later years they were highly outnumbered? Yeah, I can see NK having the same tech and maybe the same size army in the HF universe, due to controlling more of SE Asia, but not the disease or any of the other major factors.
My overall point was, though, that America is far from invulnerable... but for the most part, I think most countries would rather leave Americans to the mess that is managing 51 different states and deal with their own problems, rather than trying to take on yet more land and trying to manage all of the people in said land.
We DO have a military, y'know.I'm both, but that's besides the point.David Hebda said: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.
That doesn't sound so safe to me, to be honest. I'd imagine with the veterans going around, they'll just barely stop the jumpy civies from firing their hunting rifles/shotguns/pistols at everything that vaguely looks like it's wearing body armour and carrying an assault rifle, which would probably mean more than a few "friendy fire" incidents.
The effectiveness of a people with guns spread out all over the place, disorganised and probably more focused with keeping their family alive than going for millitary objectives, also depends on if the enemy is using psychological warfare, tanks, aircraft, chemical warfare and blitzkrieg tactics on important targets, assuming they're not doing all of that at once.
Double A" post="9.297058.11757809 said:We DO have a military, y'know./quote]
And they will do a much better job than a millita any day, which was my intended point.
What?SimpleJack said:I didnt read this because you spelled implausibility wrong...
I'm sorry.
Exactly. You just do not invade a nation that has nuclear devices, and you don't attack one that has SSBNs [footnote]Ok, yes, "SSBN" refers to submarines that are nuclear powered and armed with IBCMs, and you could use submarines that are diesel powered and have cruise missiles (armed with nuclear warheads) instead, but the US uses nuclear powered subs (although 4 of the Ohio class have been refitted to use cruise missiles, which could be used to carry nuclear devices)[/footnote].Double A said:Of course America isn't invulnerable, but that doesn't mean we're a giant fucking pushover like you make us out to be. And biological weapons? Really? So... you're saying that we just won't nuke North Korea in the first place? We have nuclear submarines all over the globe. Their missiles might reach Hawaii by the time Korea looked like Hiroshima,
Well, not crash as such, but the weapon works by initiating a nuclear device in orbit over the target. There'd be little left.Double A said:and that's taking into account the EMP satellite (wouldn't that crash after the first use? Not really relevant to the argument at hand, but just something to think about I guess).
I'm not sure I agree with that. Forming an effective resistance movement is no small thing. The NLF in Vietnam had alot of practice and outside support, and still weren't able to achieve anything in the way of military success.Double A said:You're making out citizens to be a disorganized rabble. We most certainly are not. Gun clubs and police departments could easily wage guerrilla campaigns on any invaders, and that's just the already organized groups. Just because you have tanks and planes doesn't mean the war is automatically won. Just ask the Viet Cong how well that mentality worked out against them. Also, people waging guerrilla wars would probably take their family with them. I know women who are excellent shots, so wives probably would fight too, as well as kids over a certain age.