Chinese Army's FPS Aims Straight at Japan

mikeck · July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM

Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario

Nefaro · July 30, 2013, 08:29:04 PM

Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario

If there's not a stock scenario, I guarantee there will be multiple user-created ones. There have been many for the Harpoon series. Also China vs Japan, US, Vietnam, or numerous others. China pretty much disputes claims to all small island chains in the North/South China Seas so there are plenty of turf wars to go around in that area.

Another favorite hypothetical is Japan vs Russia dispute over the Kuriles.

Staggerwing · July 30, 2013, 09:26:20 PM

IIRC, Falcon3 hade one of those. Or maybe the MiG29 add on did.

SgtRock · August 21, 2013, 11:54:24 AM

Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario

In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Staggerwing · August 21, 2013, 10:25:28 PM

No effing way. Politicians might be risk-averse and you might argue that the very top military brass are also effectively politicians but if units of the USN found themselves in a shooting battle the area command would make sure that no punches were pulled. After the dustup in question there is no telling how things would play out in the political arena but while weapons were hot the US Navy would fight.

GDS_Starfury · August 21, 2013, 10:42:42 PM

so how long after playing this game are you hungry again?

and does it have MSG?

mikeck · August 22, 2013, 08:18:56 AM

Quote from: SgtRock on August 21, 2013, 11:54:24 AM
Quote from: mikeck on July 30, 2013, 08:05:08 PM
Maybe the upcoming "command" will have it, but a US naval defense of Taiwan against a Chinese invasion seems like an obvious (and fun) scenario

In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

No. Those decisions you mentioned were strategic decisions made after years of combat. I would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat? You theory of the navy running after losing a ship would be a reflexive retreat and we don't do that. BTW, we are still in afshitistan so not sure how that ended up in your list.

Sorry to go off topic but I have (as many here do) family and friends serving in Afghanistan right now and in Iraq in the past. To call those defeats is just incorrect and I wanted to comment in it.

bayonetbrant · August 22, 2013, 08:39:02 AM

Quote from: mikeck on August 22, 2013, 08:18:56 AMI would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat?

Actually, your characterization rings even more true about 1971 in Vietnam. The Southies smoked the 1972 invasion. After we pulled our financing support for them, the gov't ran out of fuel and ammo and couldn't stop the 1976 invasion for lack of logistics.

GDS_Starfury · August 22, 2013, 09:42:29 AM

Quote from: SgtRock on August 21, 2013, 11:54:24 AM
In real life all it would take is one the sinking of one US ship and the USN would run away, the US is way to risk adverse to casualties and will lose to any country that's not risk adverse like China. That's why we win all the battle yet, still manage to lose the war (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

and I imagine you would say that to the faces of the men who crewed the USS Stark? ::)
you dont seem to be aware of the fact that the modern US Navy has a habit of taking our most expensive equipment and charging straight at whatever enemy we're fighting.
nor do you seem to be aware that China can be even more risk adverse. any public loss cuts the reputation of the Chinese government to the bone. you might want to check up on the details of their little adventure in Vietnam or the border disputes they used to have with Russia.

mikeck · August 22, 2013, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 22, 2013, 08:39:02 AM
Quote from: mikeck on August 22, 2013, 08:18:56 AMI would also disagree that the US "lost" in Iraq. When we left in 2010, it had a stable govt that was friendly to the US. So how is that a defeat?

Actually, your characterization rings even more true about 1971 in Vietnam. The Southies smoked the 1972 invasion. After we pulled our financing support for them, the gov't ran out of fuel and ammo and couldn't stop the 1976 invasion for lack of logistics.

Absolutely correct. All they needed was ammo and spare parts and we would t even supply that.