Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nodunit

No nuclear threat please..

Recommended Posts

The ICBM's at the end of OFP were a great touch and added a sudden "OH crap!" factor to the campaign because by the that time things were going more or less better and it seemed the enemy was withdrawing and severly weakening.

However these days it seems you can't play a war game that doesn't have a nuclear threat, as if the developers thought that it was the best way to convey any form of distress in the storyline.

So please please PLEASE don't follow this idea it's lost it's sting and it's not amazing anymore nor does the announcement get a "Oh crap!" reaction but rather "Oh joy ANOTHER nuke."

Why, I know that nukes are used everywhere in both movies and games but it still got the oh shit feeling if used right.

I really loved the eagle wing campaign, and there was nukes"scripted though" in that story.

I either want a nuke or some other WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point..to give it some due credit though the nuke in Eagle Wing actually had a lasting impact and provided a form of atmosphere. I suppose I was a tad harsh with my original sentiments, I too enjoyed EW and rethinking it..the issue isn't so much the nuke itself but what it means.

Nuke examples in EW and MW1 are good examples since the area has fallout and reflects in it, it also conveys the damage done..you are essentially alone, everyone around you is dead and so is your chance of survival. EW went further and had two previously uneasy sides cooperating simply because they are humans.

But in say battlefield 3 and MW2-3 a nuclear threat occurs but it means nothing, in MW2 it was used to hamper the Russian attack on the US but in MW3 we see nothing has changed. If a nuke is to be used it should have visible reprocusions and consequences like in again, EW and MW1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, deep below the earths surface in a secret lab, Russian and Iranian scientists are developing dreadful futuristic weapons, weapons so terrifying it would paralize ARMA fans in fear, weapons of unspeakable horror...

Magic health packs!, Sticky aim!!, Invisibility cloaks!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either that or some kind of seismic weapon (Operation Magnitude).

Isn't Iran voted one of the most seismically active countries in the world ?

That might explain the codeword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't Iran voted one of the most seismically active countries in the world ?

That might explain the codeword

MY GOD. The Iranians have captured a live earthquake and are performing experiments on it on Lemnos...:eek:

Edited by Maio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MY GOD.

Well in fact they used their uranium enrichment programm to entrap and then finally capture the monster they call " أوميغا " that was causing earthquakes over there and now they want to unleash it on Europe. :eek:

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been quite a bit of scientific speculation about drilling and fracking near fault lines in order to cause small earthquakes and thereby release pressure and prevent large earthquakes. I think it'd make a great story if Iran were pretending they were working on a weapon that could cause massive seismic events, but it was really a fake like our old "star wars" program. They could lure a massive NATO amphibious force into some tight waters where the Chinese lay in ambush with their submarines, thus marking China's first direct involvement in the war. As the player, you could send some signal about discovering plans for this new weapon, and that it is nearly complete. The Supreme Allied Commander dispatches the fleet and invasion force. Then you discover that the whole thing was a fake and have to get a signal out in time before the trap is sprung.

If BIS doesn't make that campaign, I call dibs on it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't a section in the ArmA 3 site say that the nuclear gloves came off. That implies that the big N bombs/missile were used.

Honestly that is the only way I see Iran stomping NATO in Europe.

Secret weapon wise, I think the rail/coilgun weapon platform is the main reasson the CRTG is on Lemnos.

That was my thought as well, But cant remember where I saw it. At any rate I hope that it is, because as some have already stated, I find it difficult to believe that Iran could push Nato back that far without a bit of preemtive nuking. And playing in a post nuclear environment trying to twart some other evil sounds more interesting than twarting another nuke event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was my thought as well, But cant remember where I saw it. At any rate I hope that it is, because as some have already stated, I find it difficult to believe that Iran could push Nato back that far without a bit of preemtive nuking. And playing in a post nuclear environment trying to twart some other evil sounds more interesting than twarting another nuke event.

If we see Iran TODAY as being a nuclear threat, why would we not see Iran 10 years from now as being a nuclear threat? I know some people want to keep current events out of the story, but it's current event that provide a basis and explanation for ArmA3's story. BTW, you guys should participate in maionaze's ArmAverse thread. Maybe BIS will look at it and incorporate some things into the official timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is a nuclear threat, but that's because it has both capability to do enormous damage and it's unstable enough that somebody could actually try to do that. If Iran tried to launch it's warheads at large cities, it'd have been a great tragedy, but they couldn't really cripple anything and would end up turned into a glass pane shortly after launch. Perhaps if it cooperated with China and somehow convinced Russia not to intervene, it could take out France and Britain (IIRC, the only real nuclear powers in NATO after the US), but that's really one of the blackest scenarios imaginable. Not to mention Britain has subs with nuclear missiles, which are rather difficult to take down and would most likely glass Iran anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that WMD's in and of themselves are not adequate plot devices. Formerly, during the cold war, writers had the luxury of a pervading abstract horror and dread. The problem with this is that exposure desensitizes, and in the wake of the cold war, we have grown up with throw away nuclear threats in TV and games for decades. The only WMD plot devices that make an impression these days is the visceral exposure, as in Threads, Eagle Wing, The Day After, and so on. Modern Warfare 1 established the nuclear threat very early on, causing the player to experience it, then they use the threat later on. Was it effective? I'm not sure.

I don't think the 'threat' really matters exactly what it is so long as it's established as a threat. I think story tellers can't rely on the built in abstract dread that the population was carrying around with during the cold war, and instead must establish dread, and for that, scenes of human terror from nuclear destruction are as good as any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. In no way should the story be about Iran's nuke(s). But I would presume that by this time Iran would have nuclear warheads. And with any major war there would be concern about someone using such nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran is a nuclear threat, but that's because it has both capability to do enormous damage and it's unstable enough that somebody could actually try to do that. If Iran tried to launch it's warheads at large cities, it'd have been a great tragedy, but they couldn't really cripple anything and would end up turned into a glass pane shortly after launch. Perhaps if it cooperated with China and somehow convinced Russia not to intervene, it could take out France and Britain (IIRC, the only real nuclear powers in NATO after the US), but that's really one of the blackest scenarios imaginable. Not to mention Britain has subs with nuclear missiles, which are rather difficult to take down and would most likely glass Iran anyway.

The only way I see Iran getting away with a nuclear strike is if it was a counter offensive one. Say... NATO decides to drop by their coastline for whatever reassons with 2-3 naval battle groups. NATO then procedes to launching "Insert cruise missile name here" (Lybia style). Iran gives an hostile forces withdrawl ultimatimum, NATO plays tough guy, Iran uses a nuke on the battle groups.

Then Turkey,Saudi Arabia,Irak,Pakistan threaten to drop NATO support if nukes are used in their vecinity by NATO.

Then Iran rolls out it's hidden arsenal and has a field in the region supported by China,Russia,Syria...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMD's are overused in too many stories, games and films.

Better if BIS creates a believable story around human greed for money and power or a story how politicians and high-rank military on each side are just playing a cruel game. Something better and more demanding than a SuperSEAL-SAS-007 action game/flick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WMD's are overused in too many stories, games and films.

Better if BIS creates a believable story around human greed for money and power or a story how politicians and high-rank military on each side are just playing a cruel game. Something better and more demanding than a SuperSEAL-SAS-007 action game/flick.

Politics are lame when it comes to games... WMDs are overused because everyone makes them the center of the story. COD did it right. ONE nuke went off and that's it. No nukes in their other stories (except for the emp thing). Wow, I just said COD did something right... Hey, maionaze, I know it's a different thread, but do you think what I wrote is kinda realistic? Saudi Arabia would side with the U.S. over Iran, especially in light of the supposed Iranian plot revealed what, a month ago? That's kinda why I said Iran attacks Saudi Arabia first. The closest, and the largest nation near them. Cuz if Saudi Arabia falls, that's a major blow to NATO. I think that Iran would be more inclined to use the nuke if Israel got involved. Iran would not use the nuke for a counterattack, though. They'd use it in an act of desperation, or to turn the tide in the war, probably several years after the war starts, maybe what pushes NATO to the bring of collapse (nukes go off in several key European cities maybe). And, then again, remember the militant factions that Iran backs, like Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran could use them to spread nuclear devices throughout Europe. I know that's too nuke-centric, but it would explain how NATO is on the verge of collapse (NATO would be more hesitant to use the nuke than Iran would be, and they would not, under any circumstance, use the nuke on European soil, especially when there would be risk of killing innocent European civilians).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics are lame when it comes to games... WMDs are overused because everyone makes them the center of the story. COD did it right. ONE nuke went off and that's it. No nukes in their other stories (except for the emp thing). Wow, I just said COD did something right... Hey, maionaze, I know it's a different thread, but do you think what I wrote is kinda realistic? Saudi Arabia would side with the U.S. over Iran, especially in light of the supposed Iranian plot revealed what, a month ago? That's kinda why I said Iran attacks Saudi Arabia first. The closest, and the largest nation near them. Cuz if Saudi Arabia falls, that's a major blow to NATO. I think that Iran would be more inclined to use the nuke if Israel got involved. Iran would not use the nuke for a counterattack, though. They'd use it in an act of desperation, or to turn the tide in the war, probably several years after the war starts, maybe what pushes NATO to the bring of collapse (nukes go off in several key European cities maybe). And, then again, remember the militant factions that Iran backs, like Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran could use them to spread nuclear devices throughout Europe. I know that's too nuke-centric, but it would explain how NATO is on the verge of collapse (NATO would be more hesitant to use the nuke than Iran would be, and they would not, under any circumstance, use the nuke on European soil, especially when there would be risk of killing innocent European civilians).

An attack on Saudi Arabia by Iran makes sense, not only for strategic reassons, but due to politico/religious ones as well. Saudi Arabia has been against the islamic gouvernament since the 80's (Iran-Irak war) and they have something of a "grudge" against shiites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon let the hilarious and stereotype stories and characters where they belong to, no need to simplify other gameplay and storytelling.

Do you want a cheesy story with predictable/bad plot? Play one of those popcorn shooter. Do you want to be responsible for your own decisions+actions play A3! Freedom of choice. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C'mon let the hilarious and stereotype stories and characters where they belong to, no need to simplify other gameplay and storytelling.

Do you want a cheesy story with predictable/bad plot? Play one of those popcorn shooters. Do you want to be responsible for your own decisions+actions? Play A3! Freedom of choice. :p

Is this in response to the Iran-Saudi Arabia thing? Because that's not hilarious, stereotypical, simple, or cheesy. There actually was a report that said Iran made a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil. That's not hilarious. That's not stereotypical. Saudi Arabia could go to war with Iran over that. The U.S. was about to light up Cuba over Soviet nuclear missiles positioned there. Do you not thing that if NATO put up an anti-Iran missile system in Saudi Arabia, or even more offensive, an anti-Iran, Israeli missile system in Saudi Arabia, that Iran would respond militarily to such a move? That's realism, and you'd have to understand history to know that. Just because MW3 portrayed a big war doesn't mean that the idea of a big war is totally unrealistic and cheesy. Your freedom of choice in ArmA3 finds it's limits at the beaches of Limnos. You, the player, are placed within the context of a WW3 in which Europe, and basically, NATO, has fallen. You have no choice concerning that matter, or concerning any event that led up to the situation on Limnos. You are responsible for your decisions and actions on Limnos after it has fallen, yes. But the start of the war, Iran's push through the Middle East (if the Arab countries didn't already join Iran), invasion of Limnos, and defeat of NATO in Europe are not up to you as the player. The plot really isn't up to you.

By the way, I fixed your mistakes in bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets say Iranian politics and military alone can't start a war just because they don't like anti-missile systems. There must be something more "reasonable" to go on war and take the highest risk of starting WW3. Keep in mind US military alone is quite powerful + all other NATO members will be not that easy to beat too.

btw something about the Cuban Missile Crisis as link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well lets say Iranian politics and military alone can't start a war just because they don't like anti-missile systems.

You're underestimating human stupidity. Religious fanaticism+nukes+pretext for war = risk of WWIII. They don't need a good reason, anti missile systems could be enough for them to start a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragon01 you are full of propaganda BS or just simply a naive kid, please go + enjoy a movie with Mr Seagal or Mr Dudikoff instead... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've seen enough news from the wars and conflicts in Middle East to know that there are people who are simply not reasonable. Whenever religious fanatics come to power, bad things tend to happen. And defensive systems are frequently mistaken for offensive systems, considered a preparation to attack without the fear of retaliation and so on. Poland has this with Russia due to American anti-missile shield. Of course, everybody knew nobody will launch any nukes in there, all this mess was just sabre-rattling and political games.

Now, there already are tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia build something like an anti-missile system, Iran wouldn't like that and would most likely insist that this is meant for a future attack. Thus, they may want to launch a "pre-emptive strike", because they don't really mind "infidels" dying. It's not difficult to imagine a person who could come to power in Iran and actually go through with it.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying or my look is too jaded, but it seems to me that "If you kill infidels, you go to heaven" interpretation of Koran is quite popular among fanatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should actually examine Iran's foreign policy and past and present rather than taking their politicians' soundbites seriously. It's an authoritarian state and it acts like one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragon01 you are full of propaganda BS or just simply a naive kid, please go + enjoy a movie with Mr Seagal or Mr Dudikoff instead... :rolleyes:

Well I can't speak for the naive kid part, but it definitely isn't propaganda. There are plenty of people in this fucked up world that would jump at the chance to start a war, as long as they believe their side will either win or will benefit from it.

Say your a dictator of some nameless country somewhere. Your civilian populace starts to rebel, rising up against you and your government. You're a smart dictator though, so you recognize the warning signs before all hell breaks loose. What can you do, in order to maintain the position of power that you have spilled and shed blood to achieve?

The answer is simple. Make somebody else the bad guy.

There are many ways to go about doing this. Find somebody else who's a legitimate target for the people's anger for example. Take a small incident, anything from a guy trafficking drugs across the border, to a member of some embassy screwing up. Anything. Play it up. Make it much bigger than it actually is. Incite the people's wrath in that direction, and then finish it off with something to cement that anger in the minds of the public. It doesn't matter if people start questioning things a month later if you've already declared war by then.

That big event could be anything from a border clash, to a plane crash, naval clashes, a citizen of your country being murdered within the borders of your enemies. The possibilities are endless. The only qualifier is that it has to seem legitimate int he biggest way possible. People have to die as a result.

Take Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising. The clincher in his book was the USSR setting a bomb inside the Kremlin, killing visiting children, some minor politicians, etc.

They blamed Germany for the whole ordeal. They even had a deep cover Russian who'd been implanted into Germany decades earlier confess to the whole ordeal. As a German citizen of course.

Imagine this. Your an average Russian farmer, businessman, whatever. You and your family are starving. Your pissed off at the government. Suddenly you find out that Russian children were killed when a German, a lousy goddamn kraut (Trying to paint a picture of you as a Russian under these circumstances. Germans need not take offense.), planted a bomb inside the Kremlin. The children weren't even the worst of it you realize, the dirty bastards to the west not only killed innocent young children, but they tried to kill the leaders of the USSR! Why should you complain about not having enough to eat when you see mothers on TV mourning their children. Children killed by Germans. You'll work harder, for less if need be, just to show those dirty bastards what happens when you fuck with the Rodina. You'll even wish that you had a chance to fight on the front lines, knowing that you're too old for that foolishness but wishing it all the same.

In the end, you forget that you are/were starving. You forget that you hated, maybe even despised your government. Why? Your people, Your country, Your Rodina, has been attacked by an enemy turned ally turned enemy once more. You don't stop and think, not for a damn second, that any of it could be false. Not until years later. The fact that the Germans have killed millions of Russians in the past helps the whole thing along even more.

In the end, the best thing a dictator or government can do, is start a war that it has designed. It distracts the people from their original target. It unites them all against a common foe, reinforces the bond of the country. Yes it can backfire, yes it has backfired. But if you think you're going to lose your precious dictatorship, make some other poor bastard the bad guy instead of you. Works every time.

That's not propaganda. I'm definitely not naive. I am 19 though, so you could consider me a "kid". But hell, everything up to and including that term is relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×