Preview: Homefront

[BrunDeign]

From the looks of a lot of the comments so far it would seem that not very many people know the actual back story to this game, because everyone keeps going on about how implausible it is for this to happen.

Face, meet palm.

Yeah I know right? What a dumbass.

I only bothered to read the first page and saw mostly just people talking about how the premise was implausible. That's what I get for not reading further on.

However I do still think it's possible, if highly unlikely. The stars would have to be aligned, etc.

If the U.S. experienced something on the level of "Great Depression" economic failure we would be really vulnerable. The only hurdle of believability I see is the whole "North Korea makes nice with South Korea and they become on united Korea." If that were to happen the rest would be entirely plausible.

 

[GrinningManiac]

I don't like that the preview criticised the game for "button-pushing" with regards to "war clichés" that make the bad guys "look bad"

Those were quote-marks, btw, not sarcastic airquotes. Just in case anyone gets angry.

My response would be that these guys ARE meant to be really bad guys. Proper oppression-state and all that. These "clichés" are clichéd because they, tragically, do happen in agressive occupations. I would welcome something more emotional, gripping and visually interesting than a map that slowly zooms in whilst the loading bar fills up and a gruff Scotsman tells you why Arab #143 (insert nasty-looking mugshot) should be killed through the use of 3D blueprints of warships and the occasional A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.

Yes, MW2, I'm looking at you

 

[Stalk3rchief]

with chinese and russian backing that is incredibly possible actualy...

OT: i think the premise of the game is awesome, america is not unconquerable, in fact we'd be rather squishy if sumone gets on our soil

Justify that first claim. With Chinese and Russian backing I think it's still incredibly unlikely that a nation of only 27m malnourished, cloistered people could ever possible take on a nation of 300m well-fed, well-supplied, gun-toting civilians, let alone the national guard and army proper.

You'd be substantially less squishy than many other countries if an enemy gets onto your soil.

What you're not getting is that if they were backed by other countries they'd definitely stand a chance if they got on US soil. Most of our reserves and even a bunch of the national guard are overseas right now, still fighting a worthless war with no one important enough to wage war on.

Plus yeah, sure, lots of Americans do own guns, hell me and my friends go to the range all the time and own at least 3 guns apiece. BUT, think of all of the rich pricks and soccer-mom style families. Those families, of which there are many, have pretty much 'gone soft' and truly believe that owning a gun would make them bad people, or they simply 'don't believe in guns' As an American it pisses me off, but it gives this game at least a little credibility. I mean sure, people like me and my buddies would probably try and fight them off, but we'd be pretty alone unless we find a red-neck dominated suburb or something.

I'm not saying this possible really, because we still have tons of air-force bases and a full fleet that would give them hell if they tried. I'm just saying, for a game it's at least plausible.

 

[fulano]

What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

 

[Staskala]

You know, I really wouldn't care all that much about the ridiculous premise if it wasn't precedented by that idiotic American idea that North Korea actually wants to fight them.
Now, don't get me wrong here, NK clearly isn't too fond of America, but the grand North Korean plan doesn't go much further than "Retake South Korea, fend off NATO till they get bored". There is no place for actually fighting global superpowers or even invading them.

Anyway, about the game:
Looking at the actual situation, it only feels like the culmination of an exaggerated enemy image, misinformation and propaganda.
In a certain way this game only affirmates negative stereotypes and while I obviously wouldn't call the gaming medium unbiased, I still like to see as little as possible of that.

There's fiction and there's just using international dilemma as a jumpig point for your game. The latter should be avoided if all you can do is turn a complex international crisis into a "They are 100% evil, now kill them all"-scenario.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Unlike some posts I saw as I scanned this thread, I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that a successful invasion of the United States by anyone, especially North Korea, is damn near impossible. Now, I'm not just an over-patriotic fool. Being into military science and military history, though still not (yet) a professional, I have been able to look around and understand how such an invasion would work. I can honestly say that I don't see a successful invasion of the US being possible by any nation for the next 50 years, and at the least, if we are generous and give the enemies of the US the benefit of the doubt to say they get very powerful very quickly, 20 years.

Take China for example, being currently the nation most likely to get in a fight with the US. China's total military size, including reserves, active personnel, and paramilitaries, is about 3.45 million personnel. The US has a total of about 2.45 million. So, yes, they outnumber us by damn near 1 million exactly. That's about 1.4 Chinese soldiers per American. Then, take into account the total populations of each country. The US has near 310 million people to China's 1.3 billion. So, China certainly has the numerical advantage, since they could quickly build their numbers and industry with untrained manpower (training takes time, of course, so if they need to really sap their numbers to use human-wave, that is not ideal for time's sake).

The United States would, initially, have a vastly superior conventional force against the Chinese with better trained soldiers and higher quality equipment. In the ideal, rapidly moving modern war that is very likely in this day and age, the real thing to consider is the order of battle of a nation to start. Only in a total war scenario in which populations and industries are mobilized does one really consider the rate at which material and personnel strength is replenished. In addition, China's troops are not fully mechanized or equipped for proper transportation. US troops are, of course, very well equipped and mechanized.

The real issue is the fact that the US and Chinese are separated by 5,000mi of Pacific Ocean. Currently, the United States Navy currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers, ten Nimitz Class and one Enterprise Class. Now, not all carriers would be in the Pacific Theater to fight at first, but the Navy has fleets in the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, or rather those regions in general. All such fleets would be able to challenge Chinese naval power. Additionally, American air forces would likely have access to bases, as it already does, in Japan, which would also be able to contribute the JASDF (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force) to the fight. The US also has footholds in South Korea, which is also a US ally and would be able to put its forces (however inferior to China's) into action.

North Korea would likely support China, but its forces would be negligible compared to either superpower. Now, given the US presence nearby, the Chinese would surely have something to offer. Unfortunately, the Chinese Navy is as yet insufficient to fight ours (I have heard that they are just now building their first carrier. I'm not sure how true this is and frankly it is surprising, so I don't yet believe it), though I don't have the specifics on the Chinese Navy quite yet. In any case, the addition to American carriers would come in the form of the second naval vessel which still serves a large purpose in modern strategy: submarines. US nuclear submarines have only gotten stealthier, and as a result, deadlier since the Cold War. Aircraft carriers are used to project firepower over long distances, and submarines are used to deny an enemy access to a region. Submarines are to naval warfare what parrying is to fencing. They prevent the enemy from using his projection of power.

This isn't even taking into account NATO. China, for purposes of remaining unrestrained by permanent alliances, is in none that I am aware of. However, America has NATO, and Britain, the nation ranked second in the world for power projection, would likely come to the aide of its ally.

So, without control of the Pacific, China would be unable to transport troops overseas, thereby stopping the invasion before it even begins.

But, Homefront has North Korea, not China. I think you see my point, though. North Korea is much, much weaker than China, and the if the US is not likely to be beaten by China, then North Korea will need to do a lot of improving, and the US a lot of falling into the crapper, before something like this is even remotely plausible.

 

[Staskala]

What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

But for that to work you would need to portray the "bad guys" as sympathetic, acting out of actually good ideals, portraying their rule as not being all that bad and so on.
After all, not even America attacks countries just for the fun of it, there is an underlying factor of ideals, various intentions (even goodwill), morals and whatnot.
Then you get to questions like if resistance really is always justifed or if it's just action out of principle (especially if the resistance is just a small minority with most people being happy with the new regime) and so on.
Yes, that's very interesting stuff, but if your enemies are 100% evil, then I'm sorry, but there's nothing of that here.

Of course the game could be interesting; if it actually started with America invading North Korea and then losing and getting occupied all the while portraying North Korea as being on the same moral ground (or even above), I'd consider this a must-buy for me.
Not that it would make any more sense, but it would be far more interesting than the generic premise it seems to have.

 

[Epictank of Wintown]

You guys know that odds are we, SHOCK, don't win this, right?

You've heard them talk about doing a Homefront: London after this, right?

You've looked in to the timeline and everything therein about the unification of the Koreas under Kimmy boy's son (peacefully, apparently), and then the absorption of most of SE Asia, right? And that the US is falling apart at the seams? And that, if the US collapses, there goes most of China's economy? That doesn't really leave them in a position to do jack and or shit, does it?

I'd buy this storyline, yeah. I'd like to play this game.

Oh, and, to everyone comparing these US Guerillas to, say, the Taliban or Insurgents in Iraq. Know what the difference is? These guerillas are trying to keep civilian casualties down. You get your ass chewed out, apparently, for drawing attention to a civilian neighborhood. Not gonna see many car bombs in crowded markets, I wager.

 

[fulano]

What is it that people expect when they turn americans into afghan insurgents? To me it is glaringly obvious. Sadly, I believe this game plays out to the exceptionalism present in a large part of the developed world's youth, and most people wonn't even bother to make the connection.

From within the context, this game is trying to appeal to the whole "Oh, shit! They're in my backyard, gotta fight them off!" mentality. Of course, most people won't even bother to make the connection (hey, the game's called HOMEFRONT) but it's there.

But for that to work you would need to portray the "bad guys" as sympathetic, acting out of actually good ideals, portraying their rule as not being all that bad and so on.
After all, not even America attacks countries just for the fun of it, there is an underlying factor of ideals, various intentions (even goodwill), morals and whatnot.
Then you get to questions like if resistance really is always justifed or if it's just action out of principle (especially if the resistance is just a small minority with most people being happy with the new regime) and so on.
Yes, that's very interesting stuff, but if your enemies are 100% evil, then I'm sorry, but there's nothing of that here.

Of course the game could be interesting; if it actually started with America invading North Korea and then losing and getting occupied all the while portraying North Korea as being on the same moral ground (or even above), I'd consider this a must-buy for me.
Not that it would make any more sense, but it would be far more interesting than the generic premise it seems to have.

Uh, what?

But, yes. Putting North Korea and the U.S at exactly the same moral ground is what I'm doing. To the layman there would be no difference: Zilch. No country wants to get invaded, no matter the set of ideals the invading force happens to be waving, just ask the Iraqis--the U.S kicks Saddam's butt, and what happens? Yes, the question was rethorical.

I doubt any Afghan insurgent sees the U.S troops as anything other than "100% evil." That's what I mean.

 

[Nyce1]

Got to see this game at a conference I attended and.. well .. in short it looked very very outdated. Hope the unfinished product gets a graphic overhaul.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Why would you invade the US? You're talking about a future defaulting nation, with little social services to contain it's growing homelessness, despite land prices being at a historic low.

Why would you want to be burdened by caretaking after 300 million angry poor people with guns?

Although the premise of the game is that the North Koreans aren't doing so much 'caretaking' as just being the definition of 'Stupid Evil' ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil ).

If that's the case why wouldn't they just use germ warfare and watch people die en masse in pain and suffering? Somewhat less 'Stupid Evil' than what the game seems to be making them.

The only message I'm getting from this game is "Patriotism makes people accept shitty standards in gaming and that gamers are ultimately childish morons". Atleast Red Dawn made damn certain that the Wolverines weren't nice people, and that war and politics is a genuine disgrace to the Human condition...

...this game just seems to be an excuse to shoot people with guns whilst waving a flag. Lovely.

 

[ultrachicken]

The plot for this game is so silly, how do these guys

the socially crippled, dirt-poor bunch of loons armed with guns that were outdated decades ago, manage to invade the USA?

China could probably pull it off a few years into the future (assuming they somehow disarm americas nukes), maybe Russia could to. But North BLOODY Korea?!?!?


Actually, never mind. Just checked on wikipedia, North Korea has an army of about 9.5 million (mostly reserves) while America has about 2.5 million (mostly active). Assuming nukes are somehow out of the picture, and that China and/or Russia are funding or arming the North Koreans they'd probably be an even match. The NK would need support from other nations though, otherwise the American air superiority would just end it all in a few weeks.

Of course, the amount of guns per person in america would mix things up, but thats what the game is about.

If you looked into the game more, you'd see that the story begins with North and South Korea merging, and from there its influence quickly spreads across Southern Asia.

 

[ultrachicken]

Why would you invade the US? You're talking about a future defaulting nation, with little social services to contain it's growing homelessness, despite land prices being at a historic low.

Why would you want to be burdened by caretaking after 300 million angry poor people with guns?

Although the premise of the game is that the North Koreans aren't doing so much 'caretaking' as just being the definition of 'Stupid Evil' ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil ).

If that's the case why wouldn't they just use germ warfare and watch people die en masse in pain and suffering? Somewhat less 'Stupid Evil' than what the game seems to be making them.

The only message I'm getting from this game is "Patriotism makes people accept shitty standards in gaming and that gamers are ultimately childish morons". Atleast Red Dawn made damn certain that the Wolverines weren't nice people, and that war and politics is a genuine disgrace to the Human condition...

...this game just seems to be an excuse to shoot people with guns whilst waving a flag. Lovely.

The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

Such as? China buys it's iron ore from Australia and Brazil, Russia has more off shore and land based oil reserves, The Canadians and Russians also have access to huge amounts of natural gas (of which will be the next 'Big Thing' in updating current automotives and conserving diminishing future fuel assets).

The Russian agricultural initiatives will eventuially succeed the US in terms of food production by multiple factors and will become the principle supplier of grain to Asia and Europe.

Devalued US currency means the US no longer even has the capacity to frighten the Lat. Am nations, of which the US turned into luxury sweatshops for decades through the IMF. A greater distrust and resistance towards economic neo-liberalism that pervaded such iconic reigns as Pinochet during the 80's across South America has risen. The South American Union will see to a reversal of this practice as Lat. Ams will start collectively bargaining for greater dispensation on goods produced in the region.

There is little that the US could ever possibly offer above what another nation could provide in greater abundance and with greater reliability.... apart from a cheap labour force.

 

[ultrachicken]

The U.S. has a shitload of resources and farmland.

Such as? China buys it's iron ore from Australia and Brazil, Russia has more off shore and land based oil reserves, The Canadians and Russians also have access to huge amounts of natural gas (of which will be the next 'Big Thing' in updating current automotives and conserving diminishing future fuel assets).

The Russian agricultural initiatives will eventuially succeed the US in terms of food production by multiple factors and will become the principle supplier of grain to Asia and Europe.

Devalued US currency means the US no longer even has the capacity to frighten the Lat. Am nations, of which the US turned into luxury sweatshops for decades through the IMF. A greater distrust and resistance towards economic neo-liberalism that pervaded such iconic reigns as Pinochet during the 80's across South America has risen. The South American Union will see to a reversal of this practice as Lat. Ams will start collectively bargaining for greater dispensation on goods produced in the region.

There is little that the US could ever possibly offer above what another nation could provide in greater abundance and with greater reliability.... apart from a cheap labour force.

Have you seen all the farmland we have? I'd consider that useful.

Also, if NK were to take over the US, then its reputation as a global superpower would be sealed. No-one would want to fuck with the country that took over the US

Also, I'm not sure why you spent so much time talking about other countries, seeing as we're talking specifically about NK's fictional desire to take over the US. Stay on topic.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Have you seen all the farmland we have? I'd consider that useful.

You do understand that grain is a fungible asset? The principal concerns with fungibility are supply. Given that the US cannot produce as much grain, nor are located anywhere near Russia (Using Russia as the new terminal distributor of grain that it will become), and that Latin America produces so much already (and given the fact that Agriculture still only accounts for 4.8% of global gross domestic market) your point is moot.

Also, if NK were to take over the US, then its reputation as a global superpower would be sealed. No-one would want to fuck with the country that took over the US

Irrelevant, subjective, and foolish.

A: NK isn't a superpower.

B: The US soon won't beable to afford to be a superpower, so conquering it would be a moot exercise in moronic use of military funds, personnel and equipment. The only real reason one may invade the US is possibly revenge ... but given that in 30 years time this won't be necessary makes it ridiculously preposterous.

C: NK attacking the US would spur a reprisal against North Korea ... Why would the Chinese want the US to disappeare when they can rape it economically?

Also, I'm not sure why you spent so much time talking about other countries, seeing as we're talking specifically about NK's fictional desire to take over the US. Stay on topic.

Because it was your argument that the US has resources that are exploitable despite closer countries to Asia and Europe (in truth all high consumption nations) producing resources in greater supply and quicker delivery.

It would cost more to placate a US population in an armed conflict then it would actually be worthwhile.

You'd be better off spending that money on public services and government funded corporate interests to continue to take advantage of America's complete inability to stop it's own consumption whilst pricing it's own local economies out of the market.

Hopefully in a thousand years time we will look at situations like these and realize countries are utterly pointless and moronic constructs and that Humanity is better off without such corrupt, wasteful and monolithic pseudo-organizations.

 

[ForensicYOYO]

Whats funny is it seemed really creative but when I looked at it, it somehow looks like a mix between MW2 and Resistance 2. MW2 for the guns Resistance 2 for the fact you basically are doing the same thing which is fighting off the overwhelming enemy threat in American. Hell they both start in the same city WITH THE SAME BRIDGE.

 

[TheJwalkR]

I may be able to stomach the idea of NK catching the states off guard and invade. However I find it extremely implausible that they could maintain an occupation for any period of time. Occupations are extremely hard to carry out. Especially considering the size of USA.

 

[House_Vet]

i think the game presurposes that america has been crippled by rampant un-regulated capitalism...which seems to be happening right now.

i hope the game stresses parallels to the iraqi insurgency, as we are currently in the north korean role in that present day occupation.

Ding! This. You guys saying "it'd never happen" are right in as much as it wouldn't if they tried tomorrow. Give it 30 years, and if the US slumps into serious decline, how would they pay for a navy? etc. etc. Things will not stay the same, powers rise and fall, and the US appears to have crested its wave and started to curl. Just my opinion.