Poll: Playing As The Third Riech

[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.

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

I've done that quite a few times already. It's a shame there aren't more areas where you can form kingdoms from tiny provinces, but history is history. It gets boring forming Germany after the first few times because often through PUs I end up inheriting most of the territory I would gain cores on with the Form German Nation decision, so it's kind of anti-climatic. And if you form Prussia before Germany, the only thing you ever worry about militarily is the French blob.

 

[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?

I've done that quite a few times already. It's a shame there aren't more areas where you can form kingdoms from tiny provinces, but history is history. It gets boring forming Germany after the first few times because often through PUs I end up inheriting most of the territory I would gain cores on with the Form German Nation decision, so it's kind of anti-climatic. And if you form Prussia before Germany, the only thing you ever worry about militarily is the French blob.

There are probably some mods out their that add more formable nations. have you tried forming an Arabian Empire that spans from the Baltic to the Himalayas to Gibraltar? I guess that depends on what your definition of colonization is.

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.

Lovers' tiff?

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

double post

 

[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.

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?

I've done that quite a few times already. It's a shame there aren't more areas where you can form kingdoms from tiny provinces, but history is history. It gets boring forming Germany after the first few times because often through PUs I end up inheriting most of the territory I would gain cores on with the Form German Nation decision, so it's kind of anti-climatic. And if you form Prussia before Germany, the only thing you ever worry about militarily is the French blob.

There are probably some mods out their that add more formable nations. have you tried forming an Arabian Empire that spans from the Baltic to the Himalayas to Gibraltar?

Wouldn't that run counter to his goal of not exploiting natives with regard to the White Slave Trade?

 

[beastro]

Lovers' tiff?

No, just spending too much of the last 15 years of my life being trolled to the point where the lines have become blurred so much it's hard to pick out which is, which isn't and assuming it is trolling just to be safe.

 

[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.

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.

Except it wasn't. I actually cannot get into the game when colonialism takes off, because so much of what I've studied in history has reinforced my perception that colonialism is just fucked up from start to finish. Treating a piece of land as though no one lives there and systematically reinforcing the inhabitants as second-class citizens over centuries of occupation, I can't handle.

Believe it or not, I was trying to illustrate some common ground.

 

[Offworlder_v1legacy]

I already have. In Axis & Allies (the video game not the board game) you can play as the Germans. The campaign mode is played on a world map and you can conquer the world as the Third Riech, which I did, multiple times.

 

[Hivetyrant7]

Video games have proven to be an effective way to teach through interactivity, what better way to teach people of our history? Good or bad, it's something that was done in the past and we should not forget that so I would be more than happy to play a game based on these events.

I'm sure there would be plenty of people opposed to it however.

 

[ExtraDebit]

Kindda distasteful if you ask me, it's like if they made a game to crash planes into buildings and see if you can bring it down.

 

[Stuntcrab]

Yeah, I'm still waiting for an FPS game where you play as a German soldier in world world 2, I'm tired of the same old British/American and sometimes Russian campaigns going through the same places. Just to show a different perspective and show what the German soldiers had to go through, and I hope it'd be mature about it too, instead of every German soldier having "Heil Hitler" or "lets go murder some more babies" as their only lines.

During Company of Heroes I liked the German Campaign more than the American one, I found it more entertaining and interesting with those I think One or two missions.

Hell, maybe we can get to play as a Brazilian soldier during the Italy campaign as well.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

There are probably some mods out their that add more formable nations. have you tried forming an Arabian Empire that spans from the Baltic to the Himalayas to Gibraltar? I guess that depends on what your definition of colonization is.

Colonialism in EU3 is basically any area that is treated more or less according to the concept of 'Terra Nullius': the land is 'empty', except for the inconvenient natives who just happen to live there and 'disappear' after you send enough colonists.

I view that as distinct from the regular conquest, which is not to justify it, but in those instances the game doesn't really pretend that the people whose land you have claimed no longer exist. They will continue to frustrate you if you don't run your empire properly and they're outside your primary culture. On the other hand, the natives in colonial regions mysteriously vanish from the game once it becomes a proper city, and all you have to deal with then is your own colonists getting uppity.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

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.

I wouldn't quite go as far as "just as bad", I think if you listed all the evils that the Soviets committed and I listed all the evils that the USA committed, I would still be reeling off events long after you've finished.

While it's true that the Soviet Union did suppress democratic movements in Europe I cannot think of one democratically elected government that it overthrew in South America, and while it's also true that they supported and funded communist rebels around the globe, I cannot think of one group that comes close to the brutality of the Taliban or the Contras.

On the home front they were brutally repressive against their own people, imprisoning dissidents and the like, but that is no different than the United States, which was shooting protesters on campuses and murdering dissidents like Fred Hampton. COINTELPRO anyone?

As for the "millions died under their regime", I'm going to need a source on that. It's true that in the early years of the soviet union, during the civil war, that many people died from famine but I hardly think you can lay that at the feet of the Soviet Union any more than you can lay the dust bowl at the feet of the United States. The Soviet Union is an odd entity because it's perhaps the only suicidal regime in history, after all the most dangerous place to be was in the old guard of the communist party. All in all, I think that the USA did far more damage around the world than the Soviet Union could hope or intended to do.
Also, let us not forget exactly how the Soviet Union fell and the destitution and poverty that debacle caused, and who was sitting behind it all supporting this humanitarian disaster from the sidelines? The United States of America.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

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.

After the Soviets were asked to intervene by the government of Afghanistan you mean? I however do not see that as a justification for funding Islamic extremists, but America reaped what it sowed in that respect.

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.

I don't think you can frame this as some kind of geopolitical tit-for-tat. They are not even similar events, the Soviet Union was asked to intervene in Afghanistan, the USA intervened in Vietnam because of some ridiculous "Domino theory."

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.

You can't pour money, arms and training into a political organisation and expect it not to take power, that would be incredibly naive. Not to mention, "harbouring terrorists"? They were the terrorists, they dragged Afghanistan into the dark ages, but that's okay because America needs to fight her enemies... for reasons.

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.

What does that even mean? How does that justify the horror that was wrought upon Afghanistan? Yes, the USSR was at odds with the USA, but who was the aggressor? Who was the one taking aggressive actions?

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.

Calm down pal. What did they perpetrate that made them the "evil empire" while the USA could bounce around the world supporting genocide and dictatorships but she was "the leader of the free world"? It just seems rather one sided and disingenuous.

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.

I've done no such thing, it'd happily listen to what you think was so terrible about the USSR that it justified supporting people like Augusto Pinochet and the Khmer Rouge? I realise that the USSR was far from perfect and that their support of people like Ceausescu is abominable, but as I'm sure your mother has taught you two wrongs don't make a right. Not to mention that the USSR was no threat to Western civilization.

The toppling of democratically elected governments in Latin America wasn't even in retaliation to anything that the USSR was doing in the region half of the time. Half the time it was because United Fruit Company wanted better deals in the area. They were literally making the lives of people in the region shit to enrich a fucking fruit company. Oh, how noble!

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.

Well, that is the sentiment I'm getting from your posts. Instead of just going "well, that was a shitty move by the USA" you seem hell-bent on justifying some atrocious actions by the seer fact that the American state saw something as a barrier to it's interest. Which says to me "Our country, right or wrong!". It doesn't matter if what we are doing is morally repugnant, it's important that we do it to dick over our perceived enemy. On a side note, what threat did Communism pose exactly?

 

[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.

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.

Except it wasn't. I actually cannot get into the game when colonialism takes off, because so much of what I've studied in history has reinforced my perception that colonialism is just fucked up from start to finish. Treating a piece of land as though no one lives there and systematically reinforcing the inhabitants as second-class citizens over centuries of occupation, I can't handle.

Believe it or not, I was trying to illustrate some common ground.

I recognized that afterwards, other matters had my emotions flare, but felt it would be disingenuous to edit my post.

Second class citizen thing, slave labour and other matters make it a mixed bag. I don't see it as wholly bad or totally fucked up, but much of it stands as simply the same march Mankind has been doing for centuries one way or another through conquests, enslavement and migrations, both forced and not. The only difference was the idealism of those doing it later on the Neo-Colonial era which is why I find the Belgium colonization so egregious.

The difficult fact I'd face though if I were you would be trying to play almost any faction in a game like one from the EU series and not have it face some sort of sordid history you'd be reliving. Western history is merely the most well known, there other matters in the Middle East such as the White slave trade I brought up, then in India there's knowing society is working under the full weigh of the caste system, playing a Japanese faction forces you to ruthlessly conquer all the others to become shogun.

Brought to abstracts like they are in games like EU, CK, of the Civ series it's all you can really do. The ideal way I think you'd wish people would have lived by all those centuries would have made these games extremely boring, as you found out.

"War makes rattling good history but Peace is poor reading" - had Hardy lived today he'd be saying the same thing about gameplay.

Colonialism in EU3 is basically any area that is treated more or less according to the concept of 'Terra Nullius': the land is 'empty', except for the inconvenient natives who just happen to live there and 'disappear' after you send enough colonists.

I view that as distinct from the regular conquest, which is not to justify it, but in those instances the game doesn't really pretend that the people whose land you have claimed no longer exist. They will continue to frustrate you if you don't run your empire properly and they're outside your primary culture. On the other hand, the natives in colonial regions mysteriously vanish from the game once it becomes a proper city, and all you have to deal with then is your own colonists getting uppity.

This is something I've always found annoying in EU games and those natives should be added to the regions population and not vanish. It makes you have no incentive to leave the natives since they can undermine your ability to fully colonize and bring that region into your empire, so it's quick and easier in the long run to just bring an army and scour over them until they trigger combat and effective wipe out the all the natives making it ahistorical and more comparable to modern ethnic cleansing than bringing the people and resources of a land into your empire to exploit them.

Once the natives do vanish in most areas I edit my saves and make the dominant ethnic group in those areas the native ones and don't bother using the options to convert their culture to mine with the exceptions being places like Australia, New Zealand and parts of North America where colonists came to greatly outnumber the natives.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Second class citizen thing, slave labour and other matters make it a mixed bag. I don't see it as wholly bad or totally fucked up, but much of it stands as simply the same march Mankind has been doing for centuries one way or another through conquests, enslavement and migrations, both forced and not. The only difference was the idealism of those doing it later on the Neo-Colonial era which is why I find the Belgium colonization so egregious.

The difficult fact I'd face though if I were you would be trying to play almost any faction in a game like one from the EU series and not have it face some sort of sordid history you'd be reliving. Western history is merely the most well known, there other matters in the Middle East such as the White slave trade I brought up, then in India there's knowing society is working under the full weigh of the caste system, playing a Japanese faction forces you to ruthlessly conquer all the others to become shogun.

A lot of what goes on in the colonial period does also take place more explicitly in the other areas of the game, you're absolutely correct. But the difference is that the game at least makes you aware of it, and when you're facing a rebellion or you've suddenly dropped to -3 stability, there's always that little twinge that 'well, I am being a dick to all these people'.

This is something I've always found annoying in EU games and those natives should be added to the regions population and not vanish. It makes you have no incentive to leave the natives since they can undermine your ability to fully colonize and bring that region into your empire, so it's quick and easier in the long run to just bring an army and scour over them until they trigger combat and effective wipe out the all the natives making it ahistorical and more comparable to modern ethnic cleansing than bringing the people and resources of a land into your empire to exploit them.

Once the natives do vanish in most areas I edit my saves and make the dominant ethnic group in those areas the native ones and don't bother using the options to convert their culture to mine with the exceptions being places like Australia, New Zealand and parts of North America where colonists came to greatly outnumber the natives.

I agree wholeheartedly. If they would just make it so the natives become a thorn in your side even after you form a city, it would be less difficult for me to play it.

 

[Duster]

I like it. Wish I knew some good media/books on it. Loved das boot, gonna be watching My way soon hopefully.

 

[kuolonen]

I have been waiting for a game like that to come, outside strategy and multiplayer FPS. Though I dread to think how arsely the game devs are probably going handle the aspects of that along with publisher adding its own spit in to the mix.

Most likely it will be basically the average CoD game all over again, but this time you play as a Wehrmacht soldier who has seen the truth of freedom and apple pie and blergh.

 

[Greg White]

To be honest, I'd love to be able to play as Germany during WWII. WWII British and American forces already knew that the guys in charge of Germany were evil bastards because they had people who would escape from some of the camps and tell them what was going on, but the Wehrmacht soldiers were largely clueless.

There's so much room for storytelling through gameplay playing as the Germans. Imagine this: early game you get sent to fight the French with the game emphasising that these were the men responsible for your country being in such a horrible state for the last few decades. Make sure to remind the player that they have more men, better fighting vehicles, and the backing of the British Empire, then make a show of both forces being steamrolled and driven to the horrible defeat that was Dunkirk.

From there either move on to the fighting in North Africa or the Soviet Invasion, both with very different themes. North Africa is all about taking on the aging British Empire but making sure to fight fair(i.e. no killing prisoners) while the Soviet Campaign is all about reminding the player that these guys lost horribly to tiny Finland just a few months ago and then proceed to have the player fight seemingly endless waves of enemies, but also show them how 'badass' the Waffen-SS is and then remind the player through their actions that they were evil bastards.

You can move the player around to different fronts later on to demonstrate the differences between the Americans and British vs the Soviets, jumping around from various army groups before finally ending up in the 12th Army and letting the player choose whether they want to fight to the last man against the Soviets or break out the 9th Army and make a run for the American lines with the civilians.

 

[Frankster]

Got no problems playing the german side and have played as them in the following games:
-Company of heroes
-Hearts of Iron
-Silent Storm
-Red Orchestra
-Some ww2 online fps i can't remember
-War Thunder
-World of Tanks

snip

I'd totally kickstart that game