Plausibility of an alternate history video game

I bought a 2007 RTS video game called World in Conflict (plus an expansion including missions where you play as a Soviet about an alternate history war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in 1989. The plot goes as follows:

>diplomatic talks over some unnamed crisis fail between NATO and Warsaw Pact
>USSR launches ground invasion of West Germany, bogged down around Bremen, as well as amphibious landings in southern France (where they gain a foothold but are defeated in a few weeks)
>US and USSR launch amphibious raids in Murmansk and Norway respectively
>Spetznaz attempts to use chemical weapons on Manhattan but are thwarted
>main story comes from a surprise Soviet invasion of Seattle, having snuck past the US Navy by hiding in unmarked container ships
>take Seattle and surrounding suburbs/farmland, are halted at the Washington town of Pine Valley in the south, the main Soviet force going towards Fort Teller in the Cascade Mountains
>Fort Teller was the site of the Star Wars project which Soviets are attempting to get to as soon as possible
>Soviets don't know that the project was a failure, but if they do there would be nothing stopping them from nuking the US
>US side forced to nuke an evacuated town to destroy the Soviets and prevent them from getting to Fort Teller, Soviets don't retaliate since the nuke was detonated on US soil
>China joins the war as a Soviet ally and sends an invasion fleet to Washington, with the Soviets having cleared the Pacific for them
>US manages to take back Seattle in the final mission just before the Chinese can land, otherwise US would have nuked Seattle

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ujS4wJ0RUcY
youtube.com/watch?v=LFrrF7H_Svg
youtube.com/watch?v=kpqTrQ5kFQE
youtube.com/watch?v=oohFGOmcxuo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

Historical media can be discussed here if the focus is on the history rather than the gameplay. And do you honestly think that /v/ermin will be able to have a conversation about what I've brought up?

Everything about the game is retarded, from the scenario to the unit types to the deployment method.

I still have the little "Berliner Maeurstein" that came with the Collector's Edition. Was a fun game, I thought the plot was exciting at the time.

Its pretty shitty as far as history and realism goes, although from my recollections of playing the demo it was a good game for the actual fighting itself.

By 1989 the Soviet army was rotting and falling apart. During the early 1980s, any war between NATO and the USSR would probably be a USSR stomp, since they had more men, an actual operational doctrine, better equipment, and >muh airpower was countered by the Soviets having a thoroughly huge air force of their own plus a shit-ton of anti-air weapons. By the middle 1980s, NATO forces were starting to improve under their large re-armament programs, their doctrine was starting to mature, some of the new technological fancy stuff was entering in (although it was never as decisive as Tom Clancy books portray, like for example the US had its smart bombs, but the Soviets were aware of that and had responded with a host of passive and active measures like aerosols which were designed to defeat the US's desired arsenal, not the much smaller one it had. Meanwhile the USSR's own military was starting to decline, as the rot in the 1980s really set in. But it was still something of a toss up. By the end of the 1980s, the East Bloc was in a state of collapse. Any war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is going to be a disastrous defeat for the USSR, not a close struggle where the US is losing like in in that plot.
So this entire plot of an evenly matched conflict in the later 1980s is inherently unrealistic.

Now, as far as individual elements go
>Invasion of West Germany
Possible enough, although as mentioned it wouldn't go well for them
>Amphibious invasion of Southern France
Impossible, the Soviets would have to either send their material directly through the Turkish Straits, which can't be done for obvious security reasons and for the fact that Turkey can forbid them access, or base it out of some North African client. In both cases it would be impossible for them not to be detected and destroyed, because they won't be able to get enough seapower into the region, and their seapower was lower as a whole.
>Chemical weapons
Possible, the Soviets had terrorist plans like that, and them being thwarted is just as likely.
>Invasion of Seattle
Lol nope, the US just ignores a bunch of suspicious container ships sailing towards its shores? Not to mention the USSR was thoroughly backwards in terms of container ships, I'd have to check out the tables I have on the Soviet shipping fleet, but they might not even have enough in the Pacific. Any force of container ships large enough to transport an army would be stopped at sea, there's a war going on after all, knowing what sort of shipping out there is important. Even if they got there, they'd be still inspected by customs and wow, maybe somebody would notice the huge numbers of Russian troops and tanks?
What's more, it could never be repeated, so whatever you sent there would just be what is on hand. Having a logistics line is absolutely vital in modern war, and these troops would be utterly without one and would be reduced to combat ineffectiveness laughably quickly.
The rest of that side doesn't need to be discussed because of that.
>Chinese allying with the USSR
China was a firm US ally at the time, them allying with the USSR is insane.
>Soviets cleared the pacific
Even more unlikely than anything above, NATO fleets control the seas during any war with the USSR

Overall its a pretty bad alternate history timeline.

>I bought a 2007 RTS video game called World in Conflict

they were giving it out for free in december user

This was literally one of the greatest video games ever made.

I will be eternally assblasted that we never got a sequel or a first person spin-off where you play as a US/Soviet grenadier fighting from the streets of Seattle to the deserts of Afghanistan.

OFP?