For what we know no, i think that switch isn't powerfull enough to run this game.
Call Of Duty WW2 reveal 26 april, website up [UPDATE: Leaked screenshots]
- Thread starter Reckless Onion
- Start date
Quick look at Wikipedia. Has soviet losses at 26 million, chinese at 15-20 million and german at 6-7 million.
Compared to the Allies:
US: 419k
UK: 450k
Poland: 5-6 million
France at 600k
Americans joined the offensive when germany was already losing in the east where the majority of forces went so this isn't too suprising.
CoD2 would probably show up their native efforts by a wide margin tho >.>
Hell The Silo still shows more design depth than any modern CoD level. Multiple objectives to be tackled in differing orders with changing encounters based on which ones you do first? In /my/ CoD game?!
Those numbers are short because it's likely only counting the "WW2 years". Japan and China had been warring for years before the War in Europe broke out, which I consider to probably be the real start of WW2.
This will be the first CoD in quite a while to not make it to a Nintendo platform. Perhaps they could just stick Modern Warfare remastered on Switch instead to get away with it?
EDIT: Misspoke there, sorry, each Nintendo platform has got at least one CoD game is what I meant
Deckard Chapel
Banned
The Eastern/European front and certainly the Pacific Theater would have had a substantially different outcome without the United States involvement.
I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
-Japanese Marshal Admiral/Commander-In-Chief Isoroku Yamamoto
Actually the chinese number range from 37 (when the 2nd sino-japanese war started) to 45.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China
The upper number of most estimates is 20 million for china.
Well you're probably right, but in my defense I was taught different numbers back in the day. That's not really surprising because "official" numbers from all sides in the pacific are either grossly exaggerated or grossly underestimated depending on who's telling the tale. I might have been remembering +Civil War deaths too, who knows. The number I had in my head was 27-28, btw.
What? Neither Advanced warfare,Black Ops3 or Infinite Warfare was on any Nintendo platforms
Dont expect this either.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
America joined in 1941, Germany didn't start to lose the Eastern front till the battle of Stalingrad was over in February 1943. Iirc the height of the axis power was 1942. Of course America didn't do much in regards to Germany, besides supply their allies, till late 1942.
orichalcos
Member
The first major operation on european soil the americans were part of was the allied invasion of italy in 43. At that point germany was already well into losing on the eastern front and the war was decided at that point.
Americans had a major part in the war but germany would have lost either way when they didn't blitzkrieg the soviets.
Im sure its possible with 30 fps and reduced settings, the ps360 cod games got wii ports after all. If the Switch continues to sell gang busters I predict the next cod will be ported, probably not this one.
As I said in my Edit, I misspoke. I meant the Gamecube, Wii, WiiU have all had a CoD title (as have DS and 3DS I believe?)
SpartanForce
Member
Wrong. Germany lost when Guderian was unable to capture Moscow and Army Group North Leningrad.
The whole point of the blitzkrieg was to be a rapid, sharp and decisive fast sucess. It failed in 1941, the rest was just the Wehrmacht trying to do new plans for they whole mistake within Barbarossa. You can see the german morale and manpower going lower and lower even at the end of 1941.
Some people can say the Lend-Lease stuff about Russia - but this european theater was won by them with or without it.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
American involvement was very important, but not strictly necessary for victory. The Soviets halted the Wehrmacht a year prior to meaningful quantities of lend lease arriving. Moscow in 41 had only trace quantities of British help; Stalingrad in 42 was well prior to full scale lend lease kicking in. After this time, The Wehrmacht is completely doomed, America or no.
Without American help, the Red Army would have been unable to mount offensives as vast and successful as it did in 1943/44, but it would still have been victorious, albeit later and at even greater cost than was historically paid.
The British commonwealth is capable of launching D-day without America, but in a more limited capacity, and later. They may choose to join the Russian front instead of opening up their own one. Or they may choose to commit to breaking through against the Italian front. In all cases, Germany is doomed by it's inability to break the Red Army.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
You forgot Operation Torch which was the British-American invasion of North Africa behind Rommel.
Hmm perhaps I should have used different wording. Some consider the Battle of Stainlgard the major turing tide or was the final nail in the coffin. Since it resulted in the destruction of the entire German 6th Army and lost of strategic initiative on the Eastern Front. Leningrad was still under seige till early 1944. But yeah failing to capture Moscow was another factor that contribute to it. Overall it was alot of factors and Hitler ordering his troops to go here..wait go back there..wait I want this useless city cause reasons.
So where does the "We saved your asses" thing come from then?
the_batman
Banned
these are in-game screens? holy crap, i thought it was scenes from a live action movie...
I highly doubt it, has a very CG look.
Wasn't one big reason for the US to step in that they feared Russia might not stop after getting to Germany? AFAIK would Patton have liked to fight Russia right then and there while the war machinery was still in full force.
SpartanForce
Member
You could say that in 1942 the germans had some sucess with the capture of the Crimea - but that was only for Army Group South - but Stalingrad was the middle of the end.
I consider:
Moscow - The Beginning
Stalingrad - The Middle
Kursk, the last german offensive in the east - The End
After kursk the soviets just crushed the wehrmacht.
And Hitler gave Manstein free hand at Kursk. He could have won, but this war was doomed from the start if I may say.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
From Americans saying it to everyone but the Russians.
One thing is definitely certain about US involvement though, Japan wouldn't have been defeated by anyone else.
these are in-game screens? holy crap, i thought it was scenes from a live action movie...
Supposedly in game. Yeah i gave same expressions about those , especially first image is holy shit
Now that's a cool teaser.
Again, it reminds me of the opening of SPR before the shit went down.
these are in-game screens? holy crap, i thought it was scenes from a live action movie...
I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm.
SpartanForce
Member
Yu Furealdo
Member
Another prediction: if you pre-order this game, you get MWR for free.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
America passed the Lend Lease act in early 1941 and agreed to start helping the Soviets prior to Pearl Harbour. Very shortly after their entry into the war, they agreed on a "Germany First" policy with the British - that is, that defeating Germany was their highest priority and Japan came second. From America's perspective, and even the German and Soviet perspective, a Soviet victory did not look assured. Most experts in 1941 believed the USSR was going to fall. So the idea that America joined to contain Soviet influence is definitely not accurate.
Attitudes towards the Soviets varied between people and over the course of the war. By 1944, when victory was assured, concerns about the post war settlement became more important than they had been three years earlier when victory looked uncertain. Still, Roosevelt was cautiously optimistic about the Soviets and secured guarantees from Stalin to hold free elections in Poland (this didn't actually happen, obviously). Occupation zones were agreed upon and Roosevelt was content with letting the Soviets have a fair say in the makeup of the postwar world order as partners. Other people were more cynical. Patton was famously so, but he was not alone. None of this had anything to do with American entry in the war though.
Also of note is the idea of American entry without Soviet entry. The US had begun open support for the British in 1940. They had been in an undeclared war with the Kriegsmarine from '41. Lend Lease from 41. They were preparing for a war, increasing rearmament, and reintroduced conscription. Merchant shipping incidents had increased and it's plausible that at some point in 1942, America would join the war even without Soviet participation, under the same Casus Belli as the First World War. America was extremely concerned with Fascist aggression in Europe, and even though Japan is the state that attacked them, senior planners never considered them the main enemy.
the_batman
Banned
it's not sarcasm. from those screens it looks like they're emulating what color movies from the time period look like.
I forgot that CoD never actually did the Omaha beach landing in 1-2-3, that was a Medal of Honor thing.
I'm really curious to see how they tackle that era in 2017. 2 was probably my favorite campaign and I loved BF1 so it already is a more interesting proposition for me than all their near-future stuff.
I'm really curious to see how they tackle that era in 2017. 2 was probably my favorite campaign and I loved BF1 so it already is a more interesting proposition for me than all their near-future stuff.
The main campaign is not co-op, going by the leaked marketing material.
Co-op is talked about with its own mode and its own story.
The main campaign is not co-op, going by the leaked marketing material.
Co-op is talked about with its own mode and its own story.
They decided to drop the one good feature of black ops 3.
Edit: I mean playing the campaign in split screen.
the_batman
Banned
Zombies has been tired for years now, not every COD game needs it.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
Hey, I am totally down for a return to WWII. I'm personally hoping to a return to a more Spielberg-esque WWII heroism vibe to it all, I feel like that sort of tone would personally set my mind at ease about some of the political strife that's occurring in the real world right now...
It feels super strange (and deeply flawed) to think that a game bearing the "Call of Duty" title making me feel like a hero for pitting me against Nazis within its game context would relieve my real-world political anxieties. :/
(EDIT: changed "insecurities" to "anxieties")
It feels super strange (and deeply flawed) to think that a game bearing the "Call of Duty" title making me feel like a hero for pitting me against Nazis within its game context would relieve my real-world political anxieties. :/
(EDIT: changed "insecurities" to "anxieties")
I'm glad. Leave Zombies to treyarch and do something new.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Thinking about what they could do new with WW2, I realized if they don't care about being completely factual,
someone could make a pretty cool WW2 game styled a bit after Infinite Warfare.
MC is either a battleship or aircraft carrier commander, you get a map of the Pacific and can pick which islands and such to invade, eventually unlocking the key battles.
Add to that the typical COD vehicle sections and you'd have a pretty fun campaign.
Maybe even a strategy element with naval battles as you pick the ships in your carrier group or trade ships out for more aircraft.
someone could make a pretty cool WW2 game styled a bit after Infinite Warfare.
MC is either a battleship or aircraft carrier commander, you get a map of the Pacific and can pick which islands and such to invade, eventually unlocking the key battles.
Add to that the typical COD vehicle sections and you'd have a pretty fun campaign.
Maybe even a strategy element with naval battles as you pick the ships in your carrier group or trade ships out for more aircraft.
I wasn't talking about Zombies, I was talking about playing the main campaign in split screen.
BiGBoSSMk23
A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.
I really hope it's a mix of the simplicity of COD's of yore with the co op campaign of World at War.
I can't stand the time to kill of current COD.
Too many perks and too many killstreaks.
Fixed killstreaks for everyone, and simple offensive/defensive/special perk set ups.
Can't believe I'm excited for a COD game again.
I can't stand the time to kill of current COD.
Too many perks and too many killstreaks.
Fixed killstreaks for everyone, and simple offensive/defensive/special perk set ups.
Can't believe I'm excited for a COD game again.
Yu Furealdo
Member
It not having zombies is actually a VERY good sign because it means that they're not completely focused on making as much $$$ as possible from DLC etc
Excited to relive those Kar98k battles.
Yu Furealdo
Member
Do u mean the higher time to kill of the newer Treyarch games?
You mean the zombies? Most overdone feature ever and god I hate zombies thanks to that mode and everyone else who just does zombies.
I want the Special Ops missions from Modern Warfare 2 or 3 again. Those were actually fun.
PhilipDoesMatter
Member
Finally a COD worth of its name.