Ok... so we have three positions in this awkward three way discussion:
- America won and China launched first
- We don't know who launched first and America might have struggled in the war with China..and x is/are the reason(s) why..
- Either could have launched first and you know what ... the entire lore is a sham.. and the entire world could have launched first.. and well China did have power armor because ... they could have.. and etc..etc..

Really..

Let me repeat: One can make assumptions about what we do know and either follow the in game accounts or not. There are however things we know absolutely certain.. because they were laid down by the creators..
So to make things up and pose them as possible facts .. is no ground for a legit lore based discussion.

China in FO for all we know is China now.. China did not conquer the rest of Asia, what makes me say this..? We know because it is not in the game. This would be significant enough to have it mentioned by the creators.. now wouldn't it.
China did not have power armor.. They only had stealth armor... They would not be able to create Power Armor in the small amount of time and make use of it in the war with America.. Since it doesn't exist... discussing it doesn't make sense.. we would be discussing something which was fantasy or fan fiction.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Power_armor

The discussion we are having:
Was the Sino-America war an all out victory or is there a reasonable doubt that the conflict did not go that smoothly... based on what we know (!) of independent sources and/or doubting/believing the in game sources..

Well it's either you go by the lore, or start completely pulling things out of your ass. Even though the lore might be fault, because it's mainly US War Propaganda, it still shows something of what was going on. The Yangtze Campaign really did happen, along with the Gobi, as is proved by what we find in Fallout New Vegas. The Yangtze Monument, Gobi Campaign Rifle, and that pre-war combat armor with the list on the helmet. At least with confirmed lore, one has something to base their assumptions on, not just thin air.

And yes, China was a superpower as well, but the way they portray the US, it was a (Super) Super Power, and becoming even more so with the technology they were creating at Big Mt and at Sierra Madre, along with Mariposa, and elsewhere.


You're forgetting that the US had stealth technology too, not just China. Their special forces would be just as effective using the stealth boy, as the chinese stealth soldiers would be, being deployed up river by the patrol boats and going stealthily to their target. As for air superiority, as I said, it's one of the first things to be established. Whether that means attacking and taking over enemy airfields, or whatever (for extra fuel and whatnot), the US always looks to gain air superiority as one of the first things they do. Even if it wasn't the easiest to maintain, they would still fight to keep it.


If it's a vast amount of land you can control, then the disadvantage is not as terrible as it might seem. When I talk about vastness, I'm talking about width wise, not length wise. From the coast, inland as far as the US military was. There are probably millions of roads of some kind, coming up from the Yangtze, to the Gobi, and that makes it easier to move things if say one road gets blocked for whatever reason, there could be just another one a few miles west, east, whatever, that the supply train could use.

Jeez.. did you even read my last post.. (I am making the assumption you didn't)
Don't mistake my position (and possibly canibals..but since I can't speak for him I wont ) for what other members are claiming.
I am not denying that the events that happened in China did happen... I am simply questioning the How it happened.. In other words I accept the events in general but don't trust completely how these events came to pass... Why because I can... we know the main story.... not the details...
What I am doing is just as much assuming or anolysing or whatever.. I am not in denial... I simply don't take what is told in game by biased sources..for granted.. Fact is that the lore on this particular area is partly based on Chris Avellones info (undeniable) and partly based on what American sources are telling us in game .
I am questioning the second part..., don't deny the first part... so how, (please do tell,) is that blowing things out of my ass..

Now with that out of the way....
The stealth boy wasn't that stable and though FO3 sort of neglects that using them can be harmful. FO:NV sort of reinstates this.. That and the fact the stealth suits stealth field is more stable..
Even if their special forces would be able to go stealth vs. stealth.. I am talking about response time.. We are on foreign soil. Attackers can attack and disappear.. (see Afghanistan, Vietnam, Occupied Europe (especially partizans)..)

To reiiterate: I don't deny America was succesful in China... I am simply questioning how succesful.
My comments about supply lines are based on assumptions... the fact that America was able to control the roads etc.. needed to keep them safe is imho an assumption as well.

Because most of what we get in game, is something that can be trusted. Not completely, but besides the obvious oddball remarks and accusations, they're there as what happened.


Regardless of the Stealth Boy being unstable, it was still used, the US Military really didn't seem to care all that much about the negative effects that it caused. Once a soldier began showing the effects, I'm sure they were pulled, but who knows. We do know that the US Military used them regardless, because they didn't have anything else to counter the Chinese stealth suit force.

As for response time, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean? Do you mean the response time to an attack on a supply route, or on a operating base along the Yangtze or Gobi? Because in the case of supply route, that takes careful planning by the enemy to successfully do, regardless of where it is, and in the case of Afghanistan, supply columns are well protected when attacked. In Vietnam, it took the NVA and/or Viet Cong time and energy to properly plan an attack like that out. If it's the case of a forward operating base, then the response time to the attack, is then and there.

everyone try to do that, even Polen tried that in ww2, not for long but they did what they cud t get it...

what we know is the only advance USA had was the mass production on PA the rest was probably pretty balanced forces .....
But i didn't say China was massprodusing PA, just that they had a PA program + that they had access to capuerd units, how far they come in the PA program it's hard to say. But whit their know-how about stealth tech it would not be any problem in implement it to the PA!

Which is something I disagree with.. I clearly explained what I regard as undeniable truth and "truth" that can be questioned.. (even not denying the general outcome).... You can either go along with it or not..
I am taking a breather from this thread.. .Since there is no right or wrong in this discussion, yet the discussion is moving that way..
Edit:
And I have a distinct feeling comments are being compared to other comments by other users which have nothing to do with my POV.


As for Vajan... sure... China did have a PA program... (to tired to be snide)
Poland did not try to gain air superiority.. First of all that doctrine is applied to attacking forces... (Poland being the defenders) second of all the German airforce was easily outnumbering Polish airforce and was technologically superior. (Poland did have great pilots though)

And with that I bid this thread farewell for a while

yes correct but my point was that they tried to keep the gain air superiority and gain it back, not that they succeeded. its not only USA′s air force that gain air superiority is the first prio

I'm not hung up on Shanghai, I am merely using it because it is one of the places that is called out as being taken by US forces.
I have also said "the coast" in many places, too.



"meaningless bits" Of course the idea is to shut down your enemy. It is carrying that out which can't be neatly summed up by referring to events that happened as much as 140 years before the events we are talking about.
-Geography is going to deterimne at least some of your flight plan and, weather conditioned by that geography will as well..
Mountains, like those that Hydroelectric facilities would be built in for instance, could pose a problem for aircraft.
Technological advances sine the time of WWII or even Vietnam are going to effect aircraft detection and the AA that may be used to stop it. These aren't meaningless things to consider- especially when we are not given enough information to assume one way or another. Ask anyone who's ever been in the military about assumption

But again, them not "defening their homeland properly" is speculation. The only thing we know is that a swath was beginning to be cut. We dont really find out how far it would have made it. What kind of resistance it would have encountered, or what counter measures would ahve been taken by stealthy Chinese forces..
Which is my point. Since it is a fact and not speculation that we don't know what is in Chinas interior, we cannot just assume that all of the victories on the coast were a prelude to any outcome for of a long term interior campaign.
That has really been my point as far as our conversation has gone.

Also, where the timeline still calls out that the US and China were evenly matched.... It points out that it is not relating to Anchorage.
Rather that the food shortages, riots and revolts that were occouring in the US, needing PA troops and and evocation of martial law were detractors. These hings were happening after Anchorage. And they are detractors tothe US' cause.


The best I can do is give glimpses into things that could be a problem for US forces. So, its no skin off my nose if anyone doesn't agree with my viewpoint (though it does seem that at least Throgal gets where I am coming from).- I like discussing this because it is something to ponder over- considering different outcomes for possible variables.

You can keep putting what happened in other countries 140 years before the resource wars, along with what little we all know about what happened.
But at the end of the day, some of those factors that detract from US efforts could very easily change the game in an unforseen way.
I have stated that the US probably would have won out, based on what we know.
But.. think about what we do not know.
I just perfer to not oversimplify or put anything into absolute values when there is so much unkown to all of us on this side of the fourth wall.
Imagine if scientists just proposed hypotheses and called it a day, without ever attempting to prove them. variables are key in doing that.
If you have unforseen variables, you cannot come to a sound conclusion.

What about other countries?
The US and China is getting old. There is a whole world out there that would meet a fate differently had it not been for the Great War.
Lets remember that the lack of resouces like oil electricity and nuke engergy wouldnt completely put anyone out- they ahve after all only been around for the past few hundred years.
I would like to think that someone would be using some home distilled spirits as fuel.
How long do you all figure it would take a group of nations to re-invent it self with newer fuel sources.. hwo long would the new dark ages last?

Maybe they didn't land in shanghai but they must have aimed on a major port town and Shanghai is the most logic pic ...

Some points before I split from this thread like Thorgal, because like I told you a couple days ago, this was only going to turn into a thread of a never ending circle, with either side bringing up points, and it would lead to just a constant roundabout. Kind of like the Enclave threads that pop up and are debated, it's pointless because neither side is definitely right or wrong, and they end up bringing up the same points as they had in the last one. This'll just end up the same way.

Anyway, to my points.

1. I was in the military for eight years, six of those eight in active duty halfway around the world. So I am military person to ask about assumptions. But I was speculating, using examples of the real world and what we do know that could possibly be how it was in Fallout's Sino-American War.

2. When I brought up WW2 and Vietnam, I never implied that the AA tech used in either of those wars, was the same as what was used in Fallout's Sino-American War, it obviously would have been different. All I was saying, was just that they were examples of what it could have resembled with their own technology. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. As to the rest of your long post. Do you see why I said it would just end up going around in a never ending circle, getting us nowhere but back to where we started, and then go around again? You're doing exactly what I was I was saying would happen, which just makes this thread pointless.

1. I was in the military for eight years, six of those eight in active duty halfway around the world. So I am military person to ask about assumptions. But I was speculating, using examples of the real world and what we do know that could possibly be how it was in Fallout's Sino-American War.

USS Abraham Lincoln here. Cheers.

2. When I brought up WW2 and Vietnam, I never implied that the AA tech used in either of those wars, was the same as what was used in Fallout's Sino-American War, it obviously would have been different. All I was saying, was just that they were examples of what it could have resembled with their own technology. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sorry if it seemed like that, but I wasn’t saying you were implying that. I was making the point that of course goals would be similar, but the situations themselves would likely be nothing alike due to the reasoning I was giving.

3. As to the rest of your long post. Do you see why I said it would just end up going around in a never ending circle, getting us nowhere but back to where we started, and then go around again? You're doing exactly what I was I was saying would happen, which just makes this thread pointless.

It wasn't really that long, it was just spaced out.
What’s the point of a discussion board, if people don't discuss things? I see a lot of the same people that were here when i started posting, posting the exact same things. *shrugs*

Its conversation about a topic that some may find interest in and seemed it could yield some fresh(er) conversation. Some people probably learned a few things, even. I think some valid points were made along the way and maybe some people actually thought about things in a different perspective than they originally had.. I do like to think about things that aren't spelled out in game, it can be visceral to think about behind the scenes stuff, as opposed to just listing things over and again.
Definitely not forcing anyone to post here, though. Cheers.

Honestly, when thinking about the way the world was before? The nukes were really the only way to "save" the world. The war in China and Alaska, the Resource wars in the Middle east, the UN disbanding, it all leads to one place no matter how you try to make it better. I'm sure that, at the time, people were trying to make better sources of energy (micro-fusion cells?) but it inevitably led to WW3 and the end of the world.

But like I originaly said, the nukes needed to be dropped so all the anger and frustration in the world would end and people would be forced to stand together against one common enemy: the masters army, Enclave, Enclave and Legion (or NCR if you are slaver sympathizing scum ;P).

What if the Earth's core was on it way to destruction and in a few years it would have ripped the Earth apart, but due to nuclear war it messed with many things of the natural world that it sent the core into an unatural rotation so that it didn't rip the Earth apart. Then several years later it returned to a normal spinning state. Nuclear war saved humanity.

I know something that is absolutely fact not false in any shape way or form. Here it comes your all reading this just to hear the answer well! here it is-- Fallout is awesome! There are things we will never know for sure... But who knows maybe they will have another simulation in FO4 or perhaps readable books..

I still think that more would have happned with the eauropean nations.
Peopel re resilient.
So. most common resources are gone.
Coal, petroleum. What else do the auropean nations have that could become the new resoruce?
Wood always works, but I would think places like the UK might be cut clean. ?
Wind? Tide?

I know it is out of the scope of the series, mostly because it isn't the focus. But I wish there were more details about what was going on in the world between the Resource wars and the Great War. I cant help but think that some of those "bickerng nation states" would have forced at least uneasy truces in order to establish some semblance of a society that is trying other means of survival. Mr. Sawyer if you're reading this, then please do kick out that Resource Wars game. I feelt his may beh the only way we can get some ideas about what happened to the rest of a huge world.

They could use hydrogen.

yes to let them do the http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_Resource_Wars to come out in the market is the best thing you can do.....

yes its quite big chains that Europe did recovered during the 30 year off resource wars time line..

The plot sounded good when I first read about it awhile back, but the more I think about the gameplay, the less I'm inclined to think it would be any good. Probably end up being another Burned Game, but with a respectable plot.

yes, its not the first time a good game idea gos down the drain to bad game making..... hellgate London and start trek online top that list...

but what you think it will be 4 type off game? a mix of fallout tactics and a Tom Clancy rainbow 6 type game?