The reason why is because that war in particular was the worst in American history (other than the Civil War). Also, I know someone whowas special forces in the war, and he said or at least what he meaned but didnt say it was that it was baisicly a swampy h*llhole.
ahk why are we now talking about video games and soviet russia ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Because you think a game should not be made because there was a decent amount of painful casualties. I am saying that WWII, which is already in many games, had a ton more casualties for other countries, namely the motherland.
also there was never a nuke in the warfare game
Mainly because it took place around the Normandy invasion (If memory serves) not the bombing or anything to do in a totally different part of the world. So? I would assume the game would have to be balanced, so the massive American advantage would probably be removed meaning Napalm probably won't be available.
how would they annimate the napalm ok an airplane such as an f-4 phantom would fly over and drop a couple of bombs ok know that much would there just be a firey explosion or people burning?
how would they annimate the napalm ok an airplane such as an f-4 phantom would fly over and drop a couple of bombs ok know that much would there just be a firey explosion or people burning?
Assuming we are still talking about Con's game, I would assume burning people. But once again, who wants to play a game where you simply slaughter your enemy? I would assume for balance issues that it would be mostly an infantry war, probably with a tank and artillery strikes. Maybe a plane that has a drive-by like in the others. Really, Con hasn't put any bombing in the game.
I think you could also evolve the whole series from the Vietnam war. Warfare 1917 was pretty straightforward trench warfare, Warfare 1944 stepped it up a notch with 3 different lanes, and all the new technology, fighting tactics (namely patrolling, booby traps, etc.) could REALLY bring up the games a notch. I'd love something involving the Tet Offensive where you have perhaps a large segment of a perimeter to defend against NVA soldiers running and screaming at you (Napalm would come in handy), as this would add a new defence twist to the game. the Vietnam war has a lot of potential to innovate the Warfare game series, and skipping it because of some inhumane acts ( Napalm, booby traps) is just a sad excuse to skip over a great war.
well the war was simply this : *ride of the valkeries* airplanes carpet bomb an area with napalm. wait for it to stop burning. move in the hueies *m-6 goes blap blap blap blap blap* all the troops get out. fire fight. *explosions* the medi-vac comes carries away the dead/ injired dudes
[quote]Vietcong were beasts. This would make for a pretty awesome game. Tunneling, and special guerrila units. No tanks obviously, I'd play this for sur.
[b]well of course i agree with the statement that the vietcong were beasts. but the us actually used tanks. i know someone who was in the war as spec. ops as you guys have heard before (also hes the scoutmanter for my boy scout troop)
