Poll: Playing As The Third Riech

[beastro]

I'm unabashedly Euro-centric in such games, the Middle east in a place to conquer, not a place to conquer from, unless you happen to be European as well.

You should play EU4 sometime. It sounds like your kind of game.

If you're European in EU4, you actually do just get to sail around the world conquering whatever the hell you want, wiping out cultures and civilizations and converting the survivors to Christianity because.. you know.. that was an actual thing that happened.

Maybe take some perspective from that..

If you'd read my post you'd have seen I already do.

I prefer EUIII atm.

And yeah, the world is a lesser place for not having the blood thirsty cultures of Meso-America, it's just a shame they were conquered by the Spanish and made to toil away for their silver and gold.

 

[beastro]

I don't mean to change your mind or anything, but radical modern Islam has jack-all in common with the Islamic world of antiquity, and 'Islamists' represent a tiny minority of the Islamic world today.

I'm fully aware of that fact, still doesn't mean I like it no differently than the people of my grandfathers generation who refuse to buy anything German or Japanese.

 

[beastro]

Yes, because the old Prussian generals that had nothing to do with the Nazi Party are vile creatures.

Oh course they did, the leadership bowing off to the Nazi's in order to maintain their position and eliminate the SA while the remainder stuck to be apolitical and participated in the war that produced those atrocities.

Prussian apoliticism failed Germany.

Don't know about him. But I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't want to play as Islamic Extremists in a modern shooter. Frankly anyone who would want to would either be an extremist themselves or some armchair warrior who's anti military who doesn't have a fucking clue what's happened in the last 15 years.

Not even when the Islamic extremists were the good guys and America was giving them guns, money and training to fight those evil Russians in Afghanistan?

Who ever said they were good?

They were a tool to use against our enemy at the time, nothing more.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Don't know about him. But I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't want to play as Islamic Extremists in a modern shooter. Frankly anyone who would want to would either be an extremist themselves or some armchair warrior who's anti military who doesn't have a fucking clue what's happened in the last 15 years.

Not even when the Islamic extremists were the good guys and America was giving them guns, money and training to fight those evil Russians in Afghanistan?

Who ever said they were good?

They were a tool to use against our enemy at the time, nothing more.

Then we should question what kind of state uses such a tool. Not to mention that you can hardly view these events in isolation, the funding by the American state to Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow a liberal, pro-western republic in Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. Chickens come home to roost comes to mind.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Eh, only a matter of time before Nazis are redeemed into troubled heroes like pirates or vampires have been.

Maybe they'll sparkle.

I wouldn't quite go that far. After all, vampires don't exist and pirates didn't try to systematically kill everyone for a really stupid reason.

The furthest I think they'll get is people respecting their ability in combat. I already recognize this.

But who knows? 400 years down the line, anything can happen.

 

[Chicago Ted]

Snip

In regards to RO2, it really comes down to teams more than weapons. That said, the Germans definitely do have an advantage over the Russians in regards to most automatic weapons. The MGs the Germans have are pretty much better in every way, and the SMGs can be as well. While the PPSH is great in CQB fighting, the MP40 has much better range with it that enables it to be more versatile I find. Not the mention the MKB just feels unfair sometimes. That said, when 60% of the team is playing riflemen, it's not as much of a game changer. A couple well coordinated squads will be just as effective either side.

And as for War Thunder, there is one exception to the Americans in that. That said, take this with a grain of salt, but I love the Americans... At Tier 2 planes on Arcade. Haven't really gone much beyond that as that's where I find myself having the most fun. The reason being for this is Airacobras with a 37mm cannon. Climbing to high altitudes and blasting bombers to bits with it always makes me giggle.

 

[beastro]

Don't know about him. But I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't want to play as Islamic Extremists in a modern shooter. Frankly anyone who would want to would either be an extremist themselves or some armchair warrior who's anti military who doesn't have a fucking clue what's happened in the last 15 years.

Not even when the Islamic extremists were the good guys and America was giving them guns, money and training to fight those evil Russians in Afghanistan?

Who ever said they were good?

They were a tool to use against our enemy at the time, nothing more.

Then we should question what kind of state uses such a tool. Not to mention that you can hardly view these events in isolation, the funding by the American state to Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow a liberal, pro-western republic in Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. Chickens come home to roost comes to mind.

All states use such tools, it's called dealing with the problems of today before getting to the problems of tomorrow.

Yes, a Soviet puppet was a pro-Western state...

 

[fix-the-spade]

Hell, in Warthunder they had to add korean war jets so germany won't seal club all the other planes with their jets. German propeller planes are one hit killers because they used 30 mm cannons which make American .50s look puny. The max power America gets is 20mm and thats at the end. When Germany had those cannons for a long ass while before they go up to 30mm.

The trouble with stuff like Warthunder is that they never include ammunition nor do they model it's characteristics realistically.

Those 30mm MK108s wouldn't be so game breaking if you had 25-40rnds per gun and an effective range of under 300m like the real thing did. 4, 6 or 8 fifty calls suddenly have a lot more punch when you can afford to put 250-400rnds in each gun, fire twenty shot per gun bursts and have an effective range pushing a mile (1 MK108 shell does not compare to the spread or damage of 120 .50bmg slugs).

Similarly those 20mm Hispano guns were much lighter than the MK108, carried 120+ shells per guns and fired shells at nearly double the muzzle velocity.

A single .50bmg slug is just as devastating to a flying aircraft as an exploding cannon shell, but this wouldn't lead to much game play as fights were simply decided by who hits first, or the german aircraft got smashed out of the sky whilst the Americans were still tiny specs in the distance. Then again the videogame solution of making the German 30mm somehow god like isn't much better.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

I don't mean to change your mind or anything, but radical modern Islam has jack-all in common with the Islamic world of antiquity, and 'Islamists' represent a tiny minority of the Islamic world today.

I'm fully aware of that fact, still doesn't mean I like it no differently than the people of my grandfathers generation who refuse to buy anything German or Japanese.

Yeah, and that's not exactly unwarranted.

Me, I personally can't play any games that involve colonialism. My EU3 playthroughs end at about 1500 because I don't want to sit in Europe for 300 years but neither do I want to ruthlessly exploit natives on foreign soil.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Don't know about him. But I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't want to play as Islamic Extremists in a modern shooter. Frankly anyone who would want to would either be an extremist themselves or some armchair warrior who's anti military who doesn't have a fucking clue what's happened in the last 15 years.

Not even when the Islamic extremists were the good guys and America was giving them guns, money and training to fight those evil Russians in Afghanistan?

Who ever said they were good?

They were a tool to use against our enemy at the time, nothing more.

Then we should question what kind of state uses such a tool. Not to mention that you can hardly view these events in isolation, the funding by the American state to Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow a liberal, pro-western republic in Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in that country. Chickens come home to roost comes to mind.

All states use such tools,

I don't think all states have funded and encouraged the rise of Islamic fundamentalism... Some certainly have but I don't think it's accurate to state that "all states" have.

it's called dealing with the problems of today before getting to the problems of tomorrow.

I think history has shown that it didn't "deal" with any problems, unless democracy in Afghanistan is a "problem", it actually created the problems of tomorrow.

Yes, a Soviet puppet was a pro-Western state...

Firstly, I'd contend with the idea that it was a Soviet puppet, it was as much a Soviet puppet as the UK was an American puppet. It held democratic elections in 1988 and compared to the American backed Taliban that replaced the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan they were positively in love with the West. After overthrowing the King of Afghanistan the organisers of the Saur revolution introduced reforms such as equal rights for women and universal education. While America was funding the positively backwards Mujahideen.


Note that this is from 1998, 3 years before the nut cases that America had armed and trained to overthrow the democratic republic of Afghanistan with it's horrible policies of universal education and land reform decided to bite the hand that fed them and attack the twin towers.

Solving the problems of today or creating the problems of tomorrow?

 

[beastro]

I think history has shown that it didn't "deal" with any problems, unless democracy in Afghanistan is a "problem", it actually created the problems of tomorrow.

I wasn't for nation building in Afghanistan from the outset. I'd have preferred for the US to go in every once in awhile and reduce the terrorist havens without being pulled into the morass.

Firstly, I'd contend with the idea that it was a Soviet puppet, it was as much a Soviet puppet as the UK was an American puppet. It held democratic elections in 1988 and compared to the American backed Taliban that replaced the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan they were positively in love with the West. After overthrowing the King of Afghanistan the organisers of the Saur revolution introduced reforms such as equal rights for women and universal education. While America was funding the positively backwards Mujahideen.

Democratic elections after the Soviets began pulling out? Where were they 1979?

You love to mix the "West" up with the Soviet sphere.

Solving the problems of today or creating the problems of tomorrow?

Can rarely have it otherwise. We don't live in an ideal world and Communism was the larger snake whose head needed taken off back then.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Well considering I'd played a game where I was the kids who shot up Columbine High School
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.397398-Super-Columbine-Massacre-RPG
yeah I'm fine with it. I've played as worse nations like the Soviets, it's always nice to see the world through their eyes. To play as the enemy lets you better understand what makes them work and from there you can learn how to better counter it.

 

[Rozalia1]

I think history has shown that it didn't "deal" with any problems, unless democracy in Afghanistan is a "problem", it actually created the problems of tomorrow.

I wasn't for nation building in Afghanistan from the outset. I'd have preferred for the US to go in every once in awhile and reduce the terrorist havens without being pulled into the morass.

Wow. They caused the terrorist havens in the first place, and so they should go in now and than to kill a bunch of people (people because civilians are the ones who ultimately suffer).

Iran is another victim of such a thing, lets see you defend America on that one...oh and there is no communism for you to hide behind in that one either.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Welp, better get my piece in now before this thread is moved to the R&P subforum...

I've played as the Germans in plenty of World War II games. Aces Over Europe, Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Silent Hunter 3, Red Orchestra, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, etc. Many a virtual B-17, merchant ship and American soldier has fallen under my guns, and I don't have a problem with it. When you boil it down, your average German soldier, sailor or aviator wasn't that different from his Allied counterparts. They were ordinary human beings thrust into a terrifying situation, and they had little choice but to get through it as best they could.

 

[beastro]

I think history has shown that it didn't "deal" with any problems, unless democracy in Afghanistan is a "problem", it actually created the problems of tomorrow.

I wasn't for nation building in Afghanistan from the outset. I'd have preferred for the US to go in every once in awhile and reduce the terrorist havens without being pulled into the morass.

Wow. They caused the terrorist havens in the first place, and so they should go in now and than to kill a bunch of people (people because civilians are the ones who ultimately suffer).

Iran is another victim of such a thing, lets see you defend America on that one...oh and there is no communism for you to hide behind in that one either.

A shamed they didn't align with the West and not the Soviet Union, but they were in a shitty geographical position with regard to both.

It was in US and Western interests for the Shah to remain in power, and again, to keep the Communists out of the country. Iran had been in Russia's backyard for two centuries before then.

 

[direkiller]

Only issue I have is playing Islamic factions in historical games like CK2 (does help that their gameplay mechanics are usually different and less enjoyable than others in games like said games Islamic succession laws or having higher corruption and more inept leaders in ETW, etc), no issue with FPSs though.

That's interesting, care to explain why?

OT

I would, but it would have to be handled really, really well. It couldn't just be a "Call of duty but this time you're german" because it would be lazy and probably insensitive. And I don't think games like Red Orchestra or Company of Heroes count, because the germans are just a 'team' without any in-game personality or context (which is totally fine for RO and CoH).

I think if a game took a Spec Ops: The Line approach to playing the third riech, it could be really interesting.

The Tiger Ace campaign in COH has you commanding Michael Wittmann's tank.
He was an SS member and Nazi hardliner.
To be fair they don't exactly go into that it's more about how he destroyed 30 Vehicles in 15 minutes including 14 tanks at Villers-Bocage.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

A shamed they didn't align with the West and not the Soviet Union, but they were in a shitty geographical position with regard to both.

I'm sure they would have had no problems with having a relationship with the west however it would be suicidal to align with the people who are actively trying to cause the destruction of your state. In other words, why would I align with America when America is funding and training extremists in my country?

Democratic elections after the Soviets began pulling out? Where were they 1979?

Firstly lets remember that it was the Afghan government that asked for soviet intervention and secondly it is rather difficult to organise and election during a civil war, it's surprising enough that they managed to pull one off in 1988. Remind me again how many election the American backed Taliban allowed the people of Afghanistan?

You love to mix the "West" up with the Soviet sphere.

What do you mean? By pro-western I wasn't referring to the idea that it was aligned with NATO, I was referring to the fact that a secular, liberal state which strived to attain equality for women and education for all its citizens would have been a closer ally to the west than the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ended up being.

Can rarely have it otherwise. We don't live in an ideal world and Communism was the larger snake whose head needed taken off back then.

Well, we live even further from an ideal world now thanks to America. Besides, what exactly did the Soviet union do to deserve this view of it as some kind of evil empire?
In the cold war there were two superpowers, one was supporting groups like the to the Khmer Rouge and the Contras, toppled democratically elected governments in Latin America in favour of fascistic, murderous dictatorships, supported apartheid in South Africa, armed and trained Islamic extremists to combat the rise of pan-arab nationalism and supported the worst kind of human beings like Francis "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Hissen Habré and Augusto Pinochet. The other was the Soviet Union.

This sentiment of ?Our country, right or wrong!? seems detestable not to mention myopic.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I don't mean to change your mind or anything, but radical modern Islam has jack-all in common with the Islamic world of antiquity, and 'Islamists' represent a tiny minority of the Islamic world today.

I'm fully aware of that fact, still doesn't mean I like it no differently than the people of my grandfathers generation who refuse to buy anything German or Japanese.

Yeah, and that's not exactly unwarranted.

Me, I personally can't play any games that involve colonialism. My EU3 playthroughs end at about 1500 because I don't want to sit in Europe for 300 years but neither do I want to ruthlessly exploit natives on foreign soil.

Why not play as a Germany petty kingdom and form HRE or Prussia, or, well Germany?

 

[New Frontiersman]

Well, we live even further from an ideal world now thanks to America. Besides, what exactly did the Soviet union do to deserve this view of it as some kind of evil empire?
In the cold war there were two superpowers, one was supporting groups like the to the Khmer Rouge and the Contras, toppled democratically elected governments in Latin America in favour of fascistic, murderous dictatorships, supported apartheid in South Africa, armed and trained Islamic extremists to combat the rise of pan-arab nationalism and supported the worst kind of human beings like Francis "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Hissen Habré and Augusto Pinochet. The other was the Soviet Union.

While you're absolutely correct, many of the things America did during the Cold War were quite detestable, the Soviet Union was just as bad. They overthrew legitimate democratic governments in Europe and South America as well in order to establish communist states, and they funded communist rebels much like the the US did with the Taliban. On the home front they were brutally repressive against their own people, imprisoning dissidents and persecuting minorities; millions of their own people died under their regime. While the concept of them as an "evil empire" largely came from propaganda, they did more than their share of terrible things during their heyday, no different than the United States.

Me, I personally can't play any games that involve colonialism. My EU3 playthroughs end at about 1500 because I don't want to sit in Europe for 300 years but neither do I want to ruthlessly exploit natives on foreign soil.

I'm the same way. Colonialism was horrifying and detestable and, even in a game, I don't want to participate in those kinds of horrors.

 

[beastro]

I'm sure they would have had no problems with having a relationship with the west however it would be suicidal to align with the people who are actively trying to cause the destruction of your state. In other words, why would I align with America when America is funding and training extremists in my country?

The funding only happened after the Soviets moved in.

[quute]Firstly lets remember that it was the Afghan government that asked for soviet intervention and secondly it is rather difficult to organise and election during a civil war, it's surprising enough that they managed to pull one off in 1988. Remind me again how many election the American backed Taliban allowed the people of Afghanistan?[/quote]

And the US used it as an opportunity to bleed the Soviets just as the Soviets used Vietnam to bleed the US.

Ironically the Soviet directed so much aid to North Vietnam they would up bleeding themselves as well.

The US didn't back the Mujahideen to bring them into power, they were a means to an end and would have been able to go on the marry way if they'd not started harbouring terrorist groups that attacked the West.

What do you mean? By pro-western I wasn't referring to the idea that it was aligned with NATO, I was referring to the fact that a secular, liberal state which strived to attain equality for women and education for all its citizens would have been a closer ally to the west than the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ended up being.

In that regard you're extremely ignorant of the era and what the Cold War was about. You're fixated on seeing this through the lens of your value based issues and refuse to acknowledge the difference between the West and Eastern European at the time.

Neither Democratic Republic of Afghanistan nor the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had a common interest with the West, the former was a ally of our enemy at the time while the latter unwisely chose to aid our enemies and got for it.

Well, we live even further from an ideal world now thanks to America. Besides, what exactly did the Soviet union do to deserve this view of it as some kind of evil empire?

I'm not your teacher, if you're so ignorant as to not know what they perpetrated than the onus is on you to go out and study it, not me to waste my time lecturing you.

In the cold war there were two superpowers, one was supporting groups like the to the Khmer Rouge and the Contras, toppled democratically elected governments in Latin America in favour of fascistic, murderous dictatorships, supported apartheid in South Africa, armed and trained Islamic extremists to combat the rise of pan-arab nationalism and supported the worst kind of human beings like Francis "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Hissen Habré and Augusto Pinochet. The other was the Soviet Union.

The act that you're so focused and detailed about the actions of the West during the Cold War and so ignorant of those of the Communists shows that you don't want to argue, you agree with them and you've already made up your mind long ago to ignore everything they did, something which I don't do on my own end, though I have a far different world view and that is based on a realistic outlook of Western civilizations interests and what is needed to protect it.

This sentiment of "Our country, right or wrong!" seems detestable not to mention myopic.

Love putting words in people's mouths. I didn't claim that and the myopia lay with you seriously asking me to list the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union and the threat Communism posed.

As I said, I'm done.

I don't mean to change your mind or anything, but radical modern Islam has jack-all in common with the Islamic world of antiquity, and 'Islamists' represent a tiny minority of the Islamic world today.

I'm fully aware of that fact, still doesn't mean I like it no differently than the people of my grandfathers generation who refuse to buy anything German or Japanese.

Yeah, and that's not exactly unwarranted.

Me, I personally can't play any games that involve colonialism. My EU3 playthroughs end at about 1500 because I don't want to sit in Europe for 300 years but neither do I want to ruthlessly exploit natives on foreign soil.

Why not play as a Germany petty kingdom and form HRE or Prussia, or, well Germany?

Because that was meant as a barb at me trying to goad, not a serious statement.