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.

 

[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.

 

[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.