56 replies to this topic

[FACEman Peck]

To be honest, who would win in a full out World War 3 style war?

(Minus the nukes that wipe us all out, just conventional and unconventional fighting)

In my opinion, it's GDI. They didn't have EVA turn against them. NOD has had troubles...

[Bluey]

Brotherhood of Nod have people support

[Teeze]

Depends on when you decide.

Nod is much farther along with tiberium tech, and it's always spreading.


then again.. with the way C&C games have been going.. they're all going to lose.

[Stahlseele]

NOD!
Peace through Power!
Technology of Peace!
Kane lives in Death!

[Polymorphyne]

Quote

Brotherhood of Nod have people support

If the GDI "won" the conventional part of the war- it would still be like trying to occupy afghanistan, or Iraq, or etc. You would never really stop fighting in alot of regions.

[Adridos]

GDI

We are better, we are good. And we are not led by a madman (when I think of it, NOD and Liao have a lot of similiarities).

[CoffiNail]

Always liked NOD... i tend to root for the bad guys.

[Stahlseele]

The Bad Guys have the Best Toys.

[Catamount]

IIRC, GDI grenadiers were just completely broken in C&C. Granted, it's been years and years since I've played, but I remember winning many single player missions just more or less spamming that one unit.

[Mesmer Wolf]

I would have to vote GDI. They have the longevity for drawn out conflicts, the Brotherhood does not. They focus on hit and fade tactics. GDI on the other hand is slow to move at first, but once rolling they are a juggernaut on the field. Plus on an unrelated note GDI has Mechs.

[Polymorphyne]

Quote

I would have to vote GDI. They have the longevity for drawn out conflict

The GDI seem to be a very much american/western style of military, backed by a more or less democratic society. The public morale for loss of soldiers doesn't last very well in that case.

Quote

They focus on hit and fade tactics.

Guerilla warfare and "terrorism" has actually shown itself to be very effective and very easy to sustain.

Quote

GDI on the other hand is slow to move at first, but once rolling they are a juggernaut on the field.

So was Russia and America, they both lost to insurgent forces with all of their military might (America vs Vietnam, Russia vs Afghanistan, etc)

[Mesmer Wolf]

Good point, but GDI doesn't actually have to worry about what the public thinks. While they are technically under the control of the UN, they are more than capable of supporting themselves, both financialy and through recruitment. While Guerilla warefare works well, it would be kinda hard to maintain effectiveness agianst the kind of hardware GDI employs even on their basic infantry. Don't even get me started on those conflicts, those were basic ineptitude from HQ that lost those fights.

[Coralld]

Nice to see other people who love the Tibe universe of C&C. In my opinion its better then Red Alert. Its darker and grittier and feels less cartoony. GDI would win over NOD in the conventional aspect hands down, simply better equipment overall until you get into NOD's Tib weaponry but they have a down side of being just as dangerous to their enemy as it is to them selves. I have always loved GDI to be honest and my favorite tactic to use in C&C3 Kains Wrath with them was the Juggernaut Slingshot combo, Juggs destroy vehicles and base while the Sling takes out air units and wipes out infantry by lol crushing them. There is a reason why my brother and I call them the eraser of doom.

[Adridos]

Stahlseele, on 24 February 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

The Bad Guys have the Best Toys.

I have to disagree.

Sure, their weapons look like toys (take Beam Canon, or Attack buggy for eample), but the absolutely best toys are masses of Mammoth tanks (doesn't matter which of the three versions), hands down.

Edited by Adridos, 24 February 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Stahlseele]

C&C Tiberian Sun/Fire-Storm.
Nod Artillery Barrage is go!
Commando-Cyborg
Reapers.
Subterranean BMT
Stealth Bomber.

[El Loco]

GDI... as Adridos has already said: MAMMOTH!!! I loved that unit. I never want to play the side that so obviously is built to be the "bad" faction. But both GDI and NOD are only mediocre at best when compared to the Allies and Soviets from Red Alert!

[Coralld]

Longsword, on 24 February 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

So was Russia and America, they both lost to insurgent forces with all of their military might (America vs Vietnam, Russia vs Afghanistan, etc)

In truth, the US didn't lose the war in Nam, there was no Vietcong military victory that crushed the US forces, the US left the war do to the lose of public support. If your going to refer to the Tet offencive as a military victory you are sadly mistaken, Tet was a strategic and military disaster. Sure it was damaging no doubt about that but the Vietcong forces were quickly isolated by the US, and sense the Vietcong were committing all manner of atrocities to the South Vietnamese people they quickly lost support and found that no one would aid them any more and were subsequently wiped out. Like I said, it was a disaster, even the Vietcong military leaders said it was and admitted it cost them nearly 2/3 of their forces. If the US hung in there another year the Vietcong would have soundly lost. The only thing the Tet offencive won was the propaganda war. My uncle is a military historian.

Edited by Coralld, 24 February 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Polymorphyne]

Quote

In truth, the US didn't lose the war in Nam

Quote

the US lost the war

You contradicted yourself within the same paragraph line.

It doesn't matter what the root course of victory is- there is no "it wasn't within the rules so it doesn't count". Striking against the public morale and using guerilla tactics instead of conventional warfare are not only legitimate tactics, but under Sun Tzu's Art of War are vital and core tenets of warfare.

The Americans failed to achieve their objectives in Vietnamn, the North Vietnamese succeeded in their objectives.


How does your Uncle being a military historian mean that America didn't lose in vietnam? If he stops being a military historian and becomes a plumber will that change history the outcome of the vietnamese war? If so then it is his civic duty to stop being a historian so that America can be free of its loss of pride.

[guardian wolf]

Longsword, on 24 February 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

The GDI seem to be a very much american/western style of military, backed by a more or less democratic society. The public morale for loss of soldiers doesn't last very well in that case.


Guerilla warfare and "terrorism" has actually shown itself to be very effective and very easy to sustain.
So was Russia and America, they both lost to insurgent forces with all of their military might (America vs Vietnam, Russia vs Afghanistan, etc)

We lost in 'Nam, but the reason we lost, was because we had the pro peace, Hippies, rip the rug out from under our soldiers, if would have had the public support, we would have kicked the living **** out of the Vietcong, and NVA, and not broke a sweat. Also, in both conflicts the opposing that was using Guerilla Warfare, was being backed by support from the other side, in 'Nam, it was the Russians, in Afghanistan, it was the US. We have been looking for reasons to get back at each other since the end of WWII, the Cold War has not really ended, it just publicly did. Communism and Democracy are still waging their private wars.


And for a vote, mine is GDI, 100%. We are trying to restore order, not conquer the world for a dictator.

Edited by guardian wolf, 24 February 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Coralld]

There, I fixed it, changed lost to left.