I cannot believe they put their name on this hunk of crap.

 

The very first mission….Wake Island….

First off, it has Soldiers there from the 29^th Infantry Division instead of Marines.  The 29th was activated and sent directly to Europe in Feb 1941.

 

There were no soldiers there, only Marines from VMF 211 and 1^st Defense BTN, then some sailors and a bunch of civilian contractors. (BTW, one of the carriers not attacked at Pearl was delivering VMF 211 to Wake at the time so it was not hit.)

 

That alone should have been caught by History Channel of all people!

 

Second, there should be no soldiers in this game as the Asiatic campaign was dominated by the Corps and the Navy, not the Army.  Europe was the Army’s playground.  Not trying to detract from the Army’s many contributions in the pacific, just saying that you would not have a European game with Marines in it so don’t have a Pacific game with soldiers in it.

 

Last but not least, it was a terrible game play experience.  Graphics weak, story weak, maps weak.

 

Very disappointing.  This was an excellent idea and could have gone far.  From Wake to Iwo is an awesome idea, just poorly and sloppily executed in this case.

 

If you have played MOH Airborne, COD 2 or 3, or Rising Sun, Don’t get this, it is worse than any of those no questions about it.  If you have never played a WII shooter, rent something else.

 

Simply put, this is the worst X360 shooter game released yet I think.

yea it was pretty silly game, but it was somem quick easy achivments, beat it on Hard in less than 2hrs

---

PSN - forrest24

The only involvement the History Channel had with the development of this game was to receive a nice fat cheque for allowing the dev's to stick "The History Channel" on the box.

---

Code of Conduct

the army was in the pacific, i know the sixth army was fighting in the phillipines. just a little correction. maybe the history channel didnt miss that much.

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

I cannot believe they put their name on this hunk of crap.

 

The very first mission….Wake Island….

First off, it has Soldiers there from the 29^th Infantry Division instead of Marines.  The 29th was activated and sent directly to Europe in Feb 1941.

 

There were no soldiers there, only Marines from VMF 211 and 1^st Defense BTN, then some sailors and a bunch of civilian contractors. (BTW, one of the carriers not attacked at Pearl was delivering VMF 211 to Wake at the time so it was not hit.)

 

That alone should have been caught by History Channel of all people!

 

Second, there should be no soldiers in this game as the Asiatic campaign was dominated by the Corps and the Navy, not the Army.  Europe was the Army’s playground.  Not trying to detract from the Army’s many contributions in the pacific, just saying that you would not have a European game with Marines in it so don’t have a Pacific game with soldiers in it.

 

Last but not least, it was a terrible game play experience.  Graphics weak, story weak, maps weak.

 

Very disappointing.  This was an excellent idea and could have gone far.  From Wake to Iwo is an awesome idea, just poorly and sloppily executed in this case.

 

If you have played MOH Airborne, COD 2 or 3, or Rising Sun, Don’t get this, it is worse than any of those no questions about it.  If you have never played a WII shooter, rent something else.

 

Simply put, this is the worst X360 shooter game released yet I think.

You need to get your facts straight; the army was most deff. in the Pacific Theatre and played a huge role in the Battle for Okinawa, especially General Simon Buckner who was killed there. Wikipedia it!

it's definately not as in depth as the civil war one but the graphics arent to bad better than cod3

 NICK982002 wrote:

it's definately not as in depth as the civil war one but the graphics arent to bad better than cod3

hmm sounds kind of interesting thinking of renting it and the army was in the pacific theater not that much but History Channel may have made a mistake on which Division went over there to fight but Army did play a role in the Pacific Theater

---

"If this stimulus plan isn't passed, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs."-Nancy Pelosi.

Please read my post again.

I did state that the Army made many contributions to the Pacific.

I also don’t need to wiki as I am well aware of the facts off the top of my head.  No need to wiki.

And I quote…..” Not trying to detract from the Army’s many contributions in the pacific, just saying that you would not have a European game with Marines in it so don’t have a Pacific game with soldiers in it.”

It is widely observed that the Pacific was the Navy and USMC’s thing and Europe was the Army’s thing.

Maybe the History Channel should have done some wiki of their own before putting their name on this.

Where I said the Army was NOT was at Wake.

All better now?

I guess my original point was this..

First level in the game, first scene, soldiers on Wake Island.

 

It’s the History Channel guys.  That’s like endorsing that Romans were at Thermopylae or that it was 30 Athenians who actually beat the Persians back for a couple days.  See my point?

 

It’s just kinda obvious.  If an amateur historian picks it up in two seconds, why can’t the History Channel.  And if they don’t proof this game, what do they proof?  Can anyone in any of their shows or features or in any product bearing their name just say what they want and disregard factual event details?

 

You see my point?  Not trying to start a service rivalry thing here, just saying that this was obvious and they should not have endorsed this product.

 

Period.

 

My sub point was that the Pacific was not the Army’s priority.  Period. 

Europe was not the Navy/Marine Crops priority.  Period.

 

There were marines and sailors serving in Europe and there were soldiers serving in the Pacific.  Neither is traditionally featured out of their primary theater of operations.

These numbers are from Wikipedia.com on the Battle of Okinawa which is genuinly regarded as one of the most, if not thee most critical battle of the pacific. The land force consisted of the Tenth Army under the command of army general Simon Buckner.....

"In all, Tenth Army contained 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marine Corps, and 18,000 Navy personnel."

As far as to what you're referring to as far as what people generally think of when they think of the battle in Europe and in the Pacific, most people think of the Battle for Iwo Jima which consisted of more Marine Corps forces than army.

And the U.S Army saw a MUCH bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines did in Europe, if any at all. I've studied the European theatre pretty extensively and I've never heard of any substantial Marine Corps elements in Europe, atleast nothing over Battalion size.

Both branches fought very valiantly nonetheless, so this is not to diminish the costs of WWII.

The point you missed sir.

 

I make two points.

 

Army at Wake = FALSE

Game being historically accurate = FALSE

 

My overall point is that the History Channel put their name on an inaccurate rendering of historical events.

 

If you disagree, please continue to post.

 

BTW, I never made it to the Iwo Level but did anyone here play it?  Was it the same Army guy that your character was on Wake?  If so, again, INACCURATE.

 

My points stand irrefutable.  This game is being passed off as historically accurate and it is not.

 

Quoting numbers and naming dead Generals will not change the fact that the Army was not on Wake nor were they on Iwo.

 

In the game, your Army character was on both no?

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

The point you missed sir.

 

I make two points.

 

Army at Wake = FALSE

Game being historically accurate = FALSE

 

My overall point is that the History Channel put their name on an inaccurate rendering of historical events.

 

If you disagree, please continue to post.

 

BTW, I never made it to the Iwo Level but did anyone here play it?  Was it the same Army guy that your character was on Wake?  If so, again, INACCURATE.

 

My points stand irrefutable.  This game is being passed off as historically accurate and it is not.

 

Quoting numbers and naming dead Generals will not change the fact that the Army was not on Wake nor were they on Iwo.

 

In the game, your Army character was on both no?

To answer your question about the same character you play on Wake being the same character on Iwo Jima, the answer is NO.  It's sort of hard to tell because they don't give there names and they just through you into the action, but I think for every different island you play a different soilder, if that's not the case then you play a pvt. miller on the second lvl and perhaps play him throughout the rest of the game. 

---

"If this stimulus plan isn't passed, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs."-Nancy Pelosi.

thx

 

When you were playing, was there a patch on the shoulder?  Or of the shoulders of the other AI good guys?

 

If so = Army.

 MonkRug wrote:

These numbers are from Wikipedia.com on the Battle of Okinawa which is genuinly regarded as one of the most, if not thee most critical battle of the pacific. The land force consisted of the Tenth Army under the command of army general Simon Buckner.....

"In all, Tenth Army contained 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marine Corps, and 18,000 Navy personnel."

As far as to what you're referring to as far as what people generally think of when they think of the battle in Europe and in the Pacific, most people think of the Battle for Iwo Jima which consisted of more Marine Corps forces than army.

And the U.S Army saw a MUCH bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines did in Europe, if any at all. I've studied the European theatre pretty extensively and I've never heard of any substantial Marine Corps elements in Europe, atleast nothing over Battalion size.

Both branches fought very valiantly nonetheless, so this is not to diminish the costs of WWII.

 

Wrong.

Iwo was the most important.

First actual jap land taken, needed airfield to help b-29s get back AND to take out air support for okinawa.  Oki could not have been attempted without Iwo.  More troops does not equal more important.  Not in the Pacific.

Stick to Europe.

 

thx for playing.

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

 MonkRug wrote:

These numbers are from Wikipedia.com on the Battle of Okinawa which is genuinly regarded as one of the most, if not thee most critical battle of the pacific. The land force consisted of the Tenth Army under the command of army general Simon Buckner.....

"In all, Tenth Army contained 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marine Corps, and 18,000 Navy personnel."

As far as to what you're referring to as far as what people generally think of when they think of the battle in Europe and in the Pacific, most people think of the Battle for Iwo Jima which consisted of more Marine Corps forces than army.

And the U.S Army saw a MUCH bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines did in Europe, if any at all. I've studied the European theatre pretty extensively and I've never heard of any substantial Marine Corps elements in Europe, atleast nothing over Battalion size.

Both branches fought very valiantly nonetheless, so this is not to diminish the costs of WWII.

 

Wrong.

Iwo was the most important.

First actual jap land taken, needed airfield to help b-29s get back AND to take out air support for okinawa.  Oki could not have been attempted without Iwo.  More troops does not equal more important.  Not in the Pacific.

Stick to Europe.

 

thx for playing.

HAHA man you sound like you know a bunch about the pacific theater of WW2.  As for ur question about the my squad having patches on their shoulders on Iwo, YES.  The major seargent had a yin-yang symbol and the other guys had different patches on there shoulders.  Another had some sort of red artwork on his shoulder hard to explain.

---

"If this stimulus plan isn't passed, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs."-Nancy Pelosi.

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

 MonkRug wrote:

These numbers are from Wikipedia.com on the Battle of Okinawa which is genuinly regarded as one of the most, if not thee most critical battle of the pacific. The land force consisted of the Tenth Army under the command of army general Simon Buckner.....

"In all, Tenth Army contained 102,000 Army, 88,000 Marine Corps, and 18,000 Navy personnel."

As far as to what you're referring to as far as what people generally think of when they think of the battle in Europe and in the Pacific, most people think of the Battle for Iwo Jima which consisted of more Marine Corps forces than army.

And the U.S Army saw a MUCH bigger role in the Pacific than the Marines did in Europe, if any at all. I've studied the European theatre pretty extensively and I've never heard of any substantial Marine Corps elements in Europe, atleast nothing over Battalion size.

Both branches fought very valiantly nonetheless, so this is not to diminish the costs of WWII.

 

Wrong.

Iwo was the most important.

First actual jap land taken, needed airfield to help b-29s get back AND to take out air support for okinawa.  Oki could not have been attempted without Iwo.  More troops does not equal more important.  Not in the Pacific.

Stick to Europe.

 

thx for playing.

-You can tap-dance all you like but the numbers are right there in front of you.

-you wrote, "Second, there should be no soldiers in this game as the Asiatic campaign was dominated by the Corps and the Navy, not the Army.  Europe was the Army’s playground." These are YOUR comments so argue with them, not me. And the battle for Okinawa put U.S troops at mainland Japan's doorstep and was a DIRECT factor in the decision, due to enormous U.S losses, to rely on nuclear weapons instead of a mainland invasion in order to end the war.

thx for playing. 

 

Thx for sticking to the point.  As I thought, historically inaccurate.

 

Again, my points:

 

Game not accurate.

History Channel should have caught it.

People associate Europe with Army

People associate Pacific with Navy and Corps.

To date, still the largest Theater of operations in history.

Dominated by the Navy and the Corps.

 

 

 

Patches should not be displayed on Corps utilities meaning anyone seen in game with patches is Army.

Army not at Wake, Army not at Iwo until first B-29 landed after being damaged in raid over Tokyo.  I did not bother to complete the game so who knows where else it was incorrect.

Corps had some stamps on gear in the form of different shapes with very small numbers indicating BTN and CO but no arm patches.

Anyone else reading, please note, my intent is to bring historical inaccuracies to light.

The Army, particularly the Air Corps served an invaluable service during the pacific campaign.

Not trying to slight anyone’s contributions here.  Common perception is Army focused on Europe, Navy & Corps on Pacific. 

All were in both.  All Gave.  All sacrificed.  All the more reason to honor history by getting it right.

Not that hard.  Don’t see why this is still an issue.

Is anyone trying to dishonor those who served?  I sure am not.  I was pretty clear that there were many valuable contributions by all in the Pacific.

You have me mistaken for someone else.

 

I am not playing.

I want history reflected accurately.

Unless you can prove Army was at Wake and Iwo Jima then hush.

No game has ever portrayed Marines at Bastogne or in the Ardennes so I think it not too much to ask that the Game not place people who were literally thousands of miles away at Wake and Iwo.

 

When one thinks of Pacific does not Iwo Jima symbolize it?  When thinking of Europe, does not D-Day and battle of the bulge symbolize that?

 

Seriously, you are okay with this?  Maybe you are if you are if you are the kind of person who will compromise integrity for fame.

I tried to issue disclaimer about Army’s contributions being many and valuable.

 

I think you are reading between the lines too much here.  Perhaps you work for the History Channel or Activision and want to protect the game somehow.

P.S.

I don’t tap dance.

Pacific was won because of Island Hopping campaign.  Nimitz took North, Macarthur south when he could.  No one can dispute the major victories in the Pacific belong to the Navy & Corps.

And I think nuking mainland Japan was the right thing to do.  At least we agree on that.

 

: )

Honestly nuking was right. I believe that even without the U.S. and great Britain the Germans would have lost because the Russians could and would of beat them. Iwo was the first major battle in the pacific and in Europe the turning point was Stalingrad after that the Germans and Hitler were screwed! Now honestly we didn't need to fight that war because after the Russians beat the Germans they began to attack Japan and Japan at full strength and not with ten years of war in Burma and China the Japanese would have lost as well and did lose.

---

1000 Club: Bioshock, CoD 2, CoD 4, CoD5, CW:SM, Gun, MoH Airborne, NFL09, and QoS
Working on BF:BC 930 G's

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

  When thinking of Europe, does not D-Day and battle of the bulge symbolize that?

 

Not really no, by 1944 German had long lost the war in Europe. I would say that the German Army being stopped at Moscow and reversed in the winter of 41 was major turning point. It showed that the German could be beaten and encouraged the Soviet Union to fight on. The war was lost for Germany at Stalingrad a year later. After that the German's only went backwards in Russia, and defeat was only a matter of time.

The fact the Germany did have to keep significant troops in France to oppose an Anglo-American landing did contribute to victory but 90% of the German Army was in the east. The Soviet Union was mostly responsible for the defeat of Germany. D-Day in June '44 was significant  in securing western Europe but the Battle of the Bulge occurred when it was all over for Germany, it was a desperate last chance effort that was never going to succeed, it only got as far as it did because weather had grounded allied air cover. The Germans soon started to run out of fuel and as soon as the weather cleared allied air forces massacred the remaining armoured units.

---

Code of Conduct

 xYossarianx wrote:

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

  When thinking of Europe, does not D-Day and battle of the bulge symbolize that?

 

Not really no, by 1944 German had long lost the war in Europe. I would say that the German Army being stopped at Moscow and reversed in the winter of 41 was major turning point. It showed that the German could be beaten and encouraged the Soviet Union to fight on. The war was lost for Germany at Stalingrad a year later. After that the German's only went backwards in Russia, and defeat was only a matter of time.

The fact the Germany did have to keep significant troops in France to oppose an Anglo-American landing did contribute to victory but 90% of the German Army was in the east. The Soviet Union was mostly responsible for the defeat of Germany. D-Day in June '44 was significant  in securing western Europe but the Battle of the Bulge occurred when it was all over for Germany, it was a desperate last chance effort that was never going to succeed, it only got as far as it did because weather had grounded allied air cover. The Germans soon started to run out of fuel and as soon as the weather cleared allied air forces massacred the remaining armoured units.

I wouldn't say that at all; if Hitler would've listened to Rommel and not put the majority of troops on the beach and instead kept them a mile or two inland with the Panzer Divisions in reserve then he would have squeezed the allied troops in between the German army and the English Channel with nowhere to back up to. Instead, Hitler insisted on putting the majority of troops right on beach bluffs to try and even keep them from landing, which was naive.

But to say that Germany had long been defeated in 1944 is way off the mark.

Yeah, the Stalingrad defeat was the beginning of their swan song but it was Hitler's stubborness and drug induced state along with his lack of ability to delegate power which led to the destruction of the German war machine.

As for the battle of the bulge, yeah, the German army was done at that point.

 MonkRug wrote:

 xYossarianx wrote:

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

  When thinking of Europe, does not D-Day and battle of the bulge symbolize that?

 

Not really no, by 1944 German had long lost the war in Europe. I would say that the German Army being stopped at Moscow and reversed in the winter of 41 was major turning point. It showed that the German could be beaten and encouraged the Soviet Union to fight on. The war was lost for Germany at Stalingrad a year later. After that the German's only went backwards in Russia, and defeat was only a matter of time.

The fact the Germany did have to keep significant troops in France to oppose an Anglo-American landing did contribute to victory but 90% of the German Army was in the east. The Soviet Union was mostly responsible for the defeat of Germany. D-Day in June '44 was significant  in securing western Europe but the Battle of the Bulge occurred when it was all over for Germany, it was a desperate last chance effort that was never going to succeed, it only got as far as it did because weather had grounded allied air cover. The Germans soon started to run out of fuel and as soon as the weather cleared allied air forces massacred the remaining armoured units.

I wouldn't say that at all; if Hitler would've listened to Rommel and not put the majority of troops on the beach and instead kept them a mile or two inland with the Panzer Divisions in reserve then he would have squeezed the allied troops in between the German army and the English Channel with nowhere to back up to. Instead, Hitler insisted on putting the majority of troops right on beach bluffs to try and even keep them from landing, which was naive.

But to say that Germany had long been defeated in 1944 is way off the mark.

Yeah, the Stalingrad defeat was the beginning of their swan song but it was Hitler's stubborness and drug induced state along with his lack of ability to delegate power which led to the destruction of the German war machine.

As for the battle of the bulge, yeah, the German army was done at that point.

The Battle of the Bulge was in 1944 yet you say in 1944 they were not finished. The proof is in Bold

---

1000 Club: Bioshock, CoD 2, CoD 4, CoD5, CW:SM, Gun, MoH Airborne, NFL09, and QoS
Working on BF:BC 930 G's

The only things I watch on the History channel anymore is Gangland, Military Channel has better WWII and warfare productions on it anyway.

Its only a budget game, they just lent their name to it, I highly doubt they had a lot of input into it.

FeedGray,

 

Nice Romulan Avatar!

 

Don't see many of those around

That's why I call them the Hysterical Channel in regard to videogames. I still have the Civil War game they endorsed but it's only because it's the only Civil War FPS out there. Hopefully one day a game studio will come along and make it right and AUTHENTIC.

---

I think that guy was on acid or flintstones vitamins.

 Trgrhapy8 wrote:

 MonkRug wrote:

 xYossarianx wrote:

 RICHMONDLAKE wrote:

  When thinking of Europe, does not D-Day and battle of the bulge symbolize that?

 

Not really no, by 1944 German had long lost the war in Europe. I would say that the German Army being stopped at Moscow and reversed in the winter of 41 was major turning point. It showed that the German could be beaten and encouraged the Soviet Union to fight on. The war was lost for Germany at Stalingrad a year later. After that the German's only went backwards in Russia, and defeat was only a matter of time.

The fact the Germany did have to keep significant troops in France to oppose an Anglo-American landing did contribute to victory but 90% of the German Army was in the east. The Soviet Union was mostly responsible for the defeat of Germany. D-Day in June '44 was significant  in securing western Europe but the Battle of the Bulge occurred when it was all over for Germany, it was a desperate last chance effort that was never going to succeed, it only got as far as it did because weather had grounded allied air cover. The Germans soon started to run out of fuel and as soon as the weather cleared allied air forces massacred the remaining armoured units.

I wouldn't say that at all; if Hitler would've listened to Rommel and not put the majority of troops on the beach and instead kept them a mile or two inland with the Panzer Divisions in reserve then he would have squeezed the allied troops in between the German army and the English Channel with nowhere to back up to. Instead, Hitler insisted on putting the majority of troops right on beach bluffs to try and even keep them from landing, which was naive.

But to say that Germany had long been defeated in 1944 is way off the mark.

Yeah, the Stalingrad defeat was the beginning of their swan song but it was Hitler's stubborness and drug induced state along with his lack of ability to delegate power which led to the destruction of the German war machine.

As for the battle of the bulge, yeah, the German army was done at that point.

The Battle of the Bulge was in 1944 yet you say in 1944 they were not finished. The proof is in Bold

The battle for Bastogne was Hitlers last great offensive against the allie's but it was far from the end of combat. The allies had yet to cross into the Rhineland and into Germany.

And the Battle of the Bulge ocurred in the last week of 1944, so yes, saying that in 1944 that Germany had long been defeated is off the mark, there was a lot of fighting that took place in 1944, up to Bastogne.

After Bastogne the German army was done with offensive warfare and had begun digging in their heels to protect Germany.

Interesting fun fact Patton took a pee in the Rhine when Third Army crossed into Germany!

---

1000 Club: Bioshock, CoD 2, CoD 4, CoD5, CW:SM, Gun, MoH Airborne, NFL09, and QoS
Working on BF:BC 930 G's

That's because the douchebag (Patton) took the easy route into Germany, from the South, while the airborne and light infantry guys were pushing straight thru the middle. But then again, that route was custom made for an egomaniac.