GrogHeads Forum

Digital Gaming => Computer Gaming => Topic started by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 12:07:52 AM

Title: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 12:07:52 AM
I can't recall ever being offended by any WWII title depicting German and Nazi forces, however, the latest developer blog for the upcoming expansion to Steel Division 2 really caught my eye. It revealed two "aces" that will be featured in the game and the German one is Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/919640/view/3020197221298227195 (https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/919640/view/3020197221298227195)

True, Rudel was an accomplished and highly decorated Stuka pilot, but he was also a "real" Nazi. I mean, he really was an ideologue who after the war helped support, hide and give comfort to Nazi war criminals, including Eichmann, Mengele, and Walter Rauf, the guy who invented the mobile gas chambers. In the 1950s he became a leading member of the Neo Nazi German nationalist party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel)

It's a really complicated subject, but it's almost impossible to separate this guy's service as a Luftwaffe pilot, from his opinions and activities as a Nazi. I'm troubled that the developers would pick this guy to highlight in the game and have to believe there is a better, less controversial option to pick.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Sir Slash on February 20, 2021, 12:12:14 AM
They probably have no clue who he was or what he stood for. Well, maybe who he was.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Destraex on February 20, 2021, 12:39:05 AM
He was probably the German forces in the easts best ground attack pilot. I don't see how they could ignore him as one of the games "aces". Incidentally the aces make no difference to gameplay as they have no difference in stats to normal cards. So if you don't want to use him I don't think you would have to. Steel Division 2 is certainly not about politics, like other wargames it simply focuses on the wargame aspect. They do seem more liberal than some wargame companies in that they are not afraid to show the swastika as it was historically. I guess that might be because they are French?

I must admit I had no idea he was a hard core nazi as I generally do not look into the politics of my wargames either. I have read his book, stuka pilot some years ago. It was a very simple day by day sort of combat diary iirc. So I got nothing out of that that I remember being too disturbing. But now that you tell me about his political history it makes little difference as I never idolised him. Just found both sides of history interesting. I have read far more accounts from the allied side of things. When I was younger I refused to play the German side at all. These days it's just about tactics and kit.

Question: Do you play wargames with hitler in them or Stalin for that matter? Surely WitE has those two?
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 03:27:50 AM
Yes. I've played games where Hitler and Stalin are represented, such as HOI or Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. Something about this strikes me as different. The blog and the way the "aces" are represented in the game just seem like a glorification to me.

Once again, the use of Nazi imagery in a a WW II game does not bother me. Something about this is just rubbing me wrong and strikes me as a little off. To cite an extreme example, it would be like if you could recruit Himmler in game to help pacify conquered territory faster.

The use of Rudel wont prevent me from playing the game, but he was such a believer and was so controversial after the war that I'm just surprised to see him so openly represented in game as a player asset.

By the way, it appears his book was political and did contain Nazi ideology, but during the Cold War, it was edited and republished in the West with the political elements removed.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Destraex on February 20, 2021, 03:39:29 AM
Perhaps it's that you are imagining actually seeing a digital representation of him in action on the battlefield in real time?
If it's the presentation that irks you, perhaps consider that a lot of their stuff aint the greatest in terms of meaning because they are translating. I do understand how you could feel that they are glorifying him because his deeds are pretty impressive without the evil political side of him. They only mention the side of him relevant to the game. So I guess yeah, if the kids don't look him up they will not get the evil side. I don't think people who play steel division are that stupid in general though are they?

As for his book. WOW. So I got the abridged version. Probably glad I did anyways. I hate the political side of things. I am not really one to read about serial killers for instance, but some people seem entranced and gobble up all of that.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: hellfish6 on February 20, 2021, 07:27:07 AM
I don't think that was Eugen's intent, but wehrabooism is as alive and popular as it's ever been.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 08:29:06 AM
JH-You raise an interesting issue, and IMHO one that is worth discussion and debate.  By way of possibly exploring the complexity of the issue, how would you depict someone in a game like LCDR Dudley Morton, (the CO of the USS WAHOO (SS-238)) who may have engaged in war crimes?  To be clear, I'm not baiting you.  It is a difficult subject to discuss in the hobby, but one that is important to wrestle with. 
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 08:29:06 AM
JH-You raise an interesting issue, and IMHO one that is worth discussion and debate.  By way of possibly exploring the complexity of the issue, how would you depict someone in a game like LCDR Dudley Morton, (the CO of the USS WAHOO (SS-238)) who may have engaged in war crimes?  To be clear, I'm not baiting you.  It is a difficult subject to discuss in the hobby, but one that is important to wrestle with.

I have no idea who Dudley Morton is, but I'd be uncomfortable about any war criminal being depicted in a game as an asset.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Sir Slash on February 20, 2021, 09:35:29 AM
This strikes me as very similar to the treatment today of Che Guevara as a Rock-Star kind of guy while behind the scenes ignoring his more violent and murderous tendencies. We don't want History white-washed but certainly such persons should be called-out for what they were. Maybe there's a chance the makers of the game can open some honest dialog of Mr. Rudel's past. I remember reading his book too many years ago and being very impressed by his exploits. But only later did I learn of his involvement with the figures you mention JH. It's impossible to separate the two sides of his life now for me.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 10:17:19 AM
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 20, 2021, 09:35:29 AM
This strikes me as very similar to the treatment today of Che Guevara as a Rock-Star kind of guy while behind the scenes ignoring his more violent and murderous tendencies. We don't want History white-washed but certainly such persons should be called-out for what they were. Maybe there's a chance the makers of the game can open some honest dialog of Mr. Rudel's past. I remember reading his book too many years ago and being very impressed by his exploits. But only later did I learn of his involvement with the figures you mention JH. It's impossible to separate the two sides of his life now for me.

Sir Slash-I agree that history should not whitewash people, nor should it engage in simplistic virtue-signaling.  Historians (as should we all) be interested in discovering the truth, as messy as it is.  JH: That is why I brought up LCDR Morton.  He was one of the most important US submarine CO's in WWII, but he also had a possible war crime on his 3rd patrol.  So how do you handle such an individual?  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton.  See also http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html. 
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 10:25:54 AM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 10:17:19 AM
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 20, 2021, 09:35:29 AM
This strikes me as very similar to the treatment today of Che Guevara as a Rock-Star kind of guy while behind the scenes ignoring his more violent and murderous tendencies. We don't want History white-washed but certainly such persons should be called-out for what they were. Maybe there's a chance the makers of the game can open some honest dialog of Mr. Rudel's past. I remember reading his book too many years ago and being very impressed by his exploits. But only later did I learn of his involvement with the figures you mention JH. It's impossible to separate the two sides of his life now for me.

Sir Slash-I agree that history should not whitewash people, nor should it engage in simplistic virtue-signaling.  Historians (as should we all) be interested in discovering the truth, as messy as it is.  JH: That is why I brought up LCDR Morton.  He was one of the most important US submarine CO's in WWII, but he also had a possible war crime on his 3rd patrol.  So how do you handle such an individual?  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton.  See also http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html.

I don't see how you can possibly compare Morton to Udel, a life long dedicated Nazi and friend to true war criminals where there is no ambiguity or room for debate. That being said, I would still say it is better to err on the side of caution and just not use Morton in a game as a player asset, or rather, to be singled out as a submarine "Ace". In a game that includes US submarines and their actual commanders in the OOB, I don't think it is controversial, but in Steel Divisions 2, Udel is being highlighted as an "Ace" with his aircraft being modeled specifically...this is sort of like having a "hero" character in your army. It is this depiction to which I object. If SD2 just had Udel as part of an OOB, so be it...but to single him out as an "Ace" strikes me as poor judgment.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: hellfish6 on February 20, 2021, 10:56:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 08:29:06 AM
JH-You raise an interesting issue, and IMHO one that is worth discussion and debate.  By way of possibly exploring the complexity of the issue, how would you depict someone in a game like LCDR Dudley Morton, (the CO of the USS WAHOO (SS-238)) who may have engaged in war crimes?  To be clear, I'm not baiting you.  It is a difficult subject to discuss in the hobby, but one that is important to wrestle with.

I have no idea who Dudley Morton is, but I'd be uncomfortable about any war criminal being depicted in a game as an asset.

At what point do we draw the line? The SS could be uniformly considered Nazis and a good number of them could be war criminals, but you can't have a reasonably historical WW2 game without them, east front or west.

Eugen isn't calling Rudel a hero unit. They're calling him an ace. And, beyond that, no matter what else he was, he was an exceptional ground attack pilot. You can still shoot him down.

And don't forget the US government asked him for his input in the development of the A-10.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 11:08:10 AM
JH-What about another historical character?  Nathan Bedford Forest.  You can't have a USCW game without him, as he is a major impact on the war from almost its beginning.  He is a thoroughly mean, racist, ill tempered man who after the war helped form the KKK.  And in his later years, he became a Christian, repudiated his racist beliefs, and tried to help black civil rights groups.  See https://shanekastler.typepad.com/pastor_shanes_blog/2008/07/when-the-devil-got-saved-the-christian-conversion-of-nathan-bedford-forrest.html   

I think I see your point about not wanting to glamorize individuals with repugnant histories.  But I would argue we should not eliminate them, as we can learn from them, either as a positive or a negative example. 
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 11:25:26 AM
You can cherry pick any historical example you would like, but they are mostly going to be subjective and nuanced and I think the exercise is a waste of time (don't mean that disrespectfully). It is common sense really. I think, in general, there is some objective standard that most can agree upon - Nazis, communists, criminals, murderous tyrants, etc. whatever, shouldn't be glamorized in games as hero-type units. I'm not suggesting that they should be eliminated from study or simulation... it is just the designation as a hero figure or unit that I think is questionable and arguably is crossing a line.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 20, 2021, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 11:25:26 AM
You can pick any historical example you would like, but they are all subjective and nuanced and I think the exercise is a waste of time (don't mean that disrespectfully). It is common sense really. I think, in general, Nazis, communists, criminals, murderous tyrants, etc. whatever, shouldn't be glamorized in games as hero-type units. I'm not suggesting that they should be eliminated from study or simulation... it is just the designation as a hero figure or unit that I think is questionable and arguably is crossing a line.

I argree we shouldn't glamorize those types of people as "Heros".  Possibly some other designation.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: ComradeP on February 20, 2021, 12:36:40 PM
I'm often surprised at how Nazi troops are looked at favourably in wargames, in historical research or with re-enactment groups. Simulated war and real war are two different things, but there are a considerable number of "help the Nazi's win the war" games.

The generals writing their memoirs in the 1960's have succeeded beyond expectation in blaming the majority of the atrocities on Hitler and a limited number of SS personnel, resulting in a traditional representation of competent leadership, quality troops and good equipment in almost every wargame covering the German armed forces.

There's certainly some ambiguity between presenting people with a shady to downright criminal (post-)war record as examples, a fine line between glamourization and presenting those people as experts in their field.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Gusington on February 20, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Great thread. It parallels the ongoing historical debate since the war on keeping the Wehrmacht's reputation 'Nazi-free,' as in 'all the real war criminals were in the SS - the Wehrmacht was just following orders' or that the Wehrmacht was as much victims as the peoples in the countries that were invaded. The nuanced argument that Wehrmacht soldiers were fighting for 'Germany and not the Nazi Party' always sounds a little forced and contrived to me. I understand that there could have been millions of German soldiers who were not Nazis or who were not all, but me personally...it doesn't matter much. If I were in the boots of my grandfathers, my uncles, my cousins who fought over there, or, God forbid, in the shoes of the less fortunate members of my family killed in the Holocaust...political affiliation of the German trooper on the other end would not matter to me. Probably the same way that German troops didn't care if my Gramps voted for Roosevelt or not. Just that he was an American, or a Jewish American, or a Polish or Russian Jew...and that he had to die.

Ugliness and horror all around, and it should never be forgotten. And definitely not glamorized. 75 years on and it amazes me how much is already forgotten. As gamers and historians we owe it to ourselves and those who came before to carry the torch.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Father Ted on February 20, 2021, 05:27:37 PM
Quote from: Gusington on February 20, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Great thread

Yes -  kudos JH for bringing this up.  I've bumped into people who would set themselves up as SS units, or have SS "tags" in WW2 shooter games and it always made me uneasy.  When questioned about their motives, these guys would usually come back with something about "just wanting to represent an elite combat unit."  Now to my mind there are plenty of WW2 elite combat units which weren't the military arm of the Nazi party, but heigh ho.

To get back on topic:  there are some scenarios in the Bulge module CO2 where can you command task-force Peiper - and those are a no-no for me
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Ubercat on February 20, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
How about on a larger scale, like Bulge at the battalion level or higher? SS formations are included but not the whole of your force.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Father Ted on February 20, 2021, 06:24:00 PM
Quote from: Ubercat on February 20, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
How about on a larger scale, like Bulge at the battalion level or higher? SS formations are included but not the whole of your force.

I'm just uncomfortable "commanding" such units.  When I wargame my team are the good guys and there's no way I can feel that about the SS.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 06:26:07 PM
Yeah, I've already said it, but I'll say it again because it's an important point.  I'm not against organizational units at any level being represented in the field in a wargame. I'm not even against choosing them when I game. They have their place, it is usually an important one, and they belong in the OOB. I just find it questionable and unnecessary to represent specific individuals whose conduct by any objective measure was deplorable in any light that can be construed as noteworthy or favorable. Including these individuals as "ace" units is to distinguish them as having specific value beyond generic units. It just feels wrong and ill advised to me.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: al_infierno on February 20, 2021, 07:17:19 PM
Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2021, 12:36:40 PM
I'm often surprised at how Nazi troops are looked at favourably in wargames, in historical research or with re-enactment groups. Simulated war and real war are two different things, but there are a considerable number of "help the Nazi's win the war" games.

The generals writing their memoirs in the 1960's have succeeded beyond expectation in blaming the majority of the atrocities on Hitler and a limited number of SS personnel, resulting in a traditional representation of competent leadership, quality troops and good equipment in almost every wargame covering the German armed forces.

There's certainly some ambiguity between presenting people with a shady to downright criminal (post-)war record as examples, a fine line between glamourization and presenting those people as experts in their field.

Yeah, it's really interesting to read modern analyses of the eastern front after the opening of the Soviet archive.  It seems like the consensus among serious historians has pretty much made a total 180 since the 1980s.  Back then, the Wehrmacht was seen as a hyper competent war machine that ingeniously outmaneuvered and out-tactics'd (I'm pretty sure that's the technical term) all their enemies until Hitler's blunders brought them to a screeching halt in the East.  Now, the agreement seems to be that the Wehrmacht's success depended primarily on their enemies being grossly unprepared for modern warfare and the required defensive tactics (France & Belgium), or taken by surprise altogether with little chance of organizing a real defense before their armies were surrounded (Poland & USSR).  Once they faced an actual competent army in the reformed 1943 Red Army, they were sent reeling back to Berlin with little in the way of meaningful victories.  And while a lot of that can be attributed to losses, attrition, morale, etc. - modern historians like Glantz and Fritz seem to agree that the Wehrmacht had no chance of actually achieving their objectives even if they knew it would be a multi-year campaign and had winter preparations, etc.

Of course, mainstay wargames that were developed in the 1980s like ASL have these assumptions baked into their core.

Back on topic, I tend to agree that this whitewashed treatment of war criminals is highly distasteful.  When Hitler or Stalin is included in a video game, they're not generally presented as a "cool" or "desirable" character to play as, but a bad guy to defeat or a necessary evil to placate (in the case of Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, where Hitler is your overbearing boss and playing as Stalin includes a host of paranoia mechanics etc).  The description they released definitely crosses the line into whitewashing, and the tonedeaf name "Burning Baltics" does not exactly help their case.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Destraex on February 20, 2021, 07:37:55 PM
I must admit I really would not be bothered at all if all of the "aces" were not even in steel division 2 at all. They do not offer any statistical value and are only their for flavour.
I think the aces being added was an attempt by Eugen to give people a memory point to differentiate the divisions. Because most divisions are just repetition of the same equipment in slightly different numbers. I don't think Eugen are making the aces heros or they would have better stats, they are telling their "combat" history however, the same as they have the division commanders history. They as they should are staying away from the political side of things on purpose.

This is how they describe one of the most infamous german divisions depicted in SD2. I could find no descriptions for the aces in the actual game. This means that the Udel description you read on the preview will probably only reach very few, not only that, but the few who actually are intelligent enough to "read" things as a matter of habit. Most will never see it if that is any comfort.
(https://i.imgur.com/bBTw1LX.png)

One of the newest divisions. An Allied one for comparison
(https://i.imgur.com/0iJKk7l.png)
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 20, 2021, 07:38:56 PM
My take on it is that you can't change the past and these are just games.  Playing them isn't going to change anything and I don't see games as being gateways into radicalizing people.  Yes, I've seen the occasional idiot at wargaming cons wearing his Afrika Korps field cap or Che T-shirt.  I suspect these people were idiots who idolize dangerous ideologies long before they discovered wargames.  I've also met gamers who didn't want to play a particular game because they found the subject matter disturbing or distasteful and that's perfectly fine with me.  We can always find something else to play.  (Only happened 4 times that I can recall.  One guy of Pakistani descent didn't want to play Labyrinth: The War on Terror.  A German physicist didn't want to play anything WWII related.  A woman I know doesn't like to play Puerto Rico because she thinks the brown "worker" markers are racist.  A Euro-mutt Canuck won't play any of my games about Bomber Command because he finds the subject of firebombing German population centres distasteful.)   Nobody was hostile or aggressive about it.  They just stated why they didn't want to play and we picked something else.

I guess I'm just insensitive but, as I said, to be they're just games.  I can distance myself from the history of the subject matter as all I'm really doing is staring at pixels or moving bits of cardboard around a board.  I'll play a game about pretty much any subject as long as the gameplay is decent and the game isn't going out of its way to be purposely obscene for shock or titillation value.  If it's a good game, Ill play it and have fun while making some off-colour jokes while playing it.  I won't go out of my way to buy them, but if someone plops one down at gaming night, I'll give it a whirl.  (Having said that, I much prefer fighting the dirty Nazis or Commies than playing as them.  Eastern Front games present a conundrum.  No issues playing as Japan though.  Not sure why.  I did once refuse to play some Japanese anime-themed card game at a store.  The pedo vibes were just a little too strong for me to be playing in a store with families walking by.)

Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: AndyBrown on February 20, 2021, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 06:26:07 PM
Yeah, I've already said it, but I'll say it again because it's an important point.  I'm not against organizational units at any level being represented in the field in a wargame. I'm not even against choosing them when I game. They have their place, it is usually an important one, and they belong in the OOB. I just find it questionable and unnecessary to represent specific individuals whose conduct by any objective measure was deplorable in any light that can be construed as noteworthy or favorable. Including these individuals as "ace" units is to distinguish them as having specific value beyond generic units. It just feels wrong and ill advised to me.

Can't help feeling you're a little inconsistent here JH because a wargame unit does represent specific historical individuals, even if the game designer hasn't chosen to name them all.

From a historical and game design pov, the issue here is that there were individuals whose attitudes and skills set them far above their fellow combatants.  Rudel, whatever his politics, was such a person and, as his kill numbers indicate, his value to the Nazi war effort was probably equivalent to several dozen less capable pilots.  I'd argue it's perfectly OK for game designers to explore the impact of these extraordinary individuals in their game designs.

It may be more appropriate to simple label the counter or icon something generic like "Ace Pilot" instead of linking it with a particular historical individual but that's just a matter of taste.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Destraex on February 20, 2021, 09:21:23 PM
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 20, 2021, 07:38:56 PM
My take on it is that you can't change the past and these are just games.  Playing them isn't going to change anything and I don't see games as being gateways into radicalizing people.  Yes, I've seen the occasional idiot at wargaming cons wearing his Afrika Korps field cap or Che T-shirt.  I suspect these people were idiots who idolize dangerous ideologies long before they discovered wargames.  I've also met gamers who didn't want to play a particular game because they found the subject matter disturbing or distasteful and that's perfectly fine with me.  We can always find something else to play.  (Only happened 4 times that I can recall.  One guy of Pakistani descent didn't want to play Labyrinth: The War on Terror.  A German physicist didn't want to play anything WWII related.  A woman I know doesn't like to play Puerto Rico because she thinks the brown "worker" markers are racist.  A Euro-mutt Canuck won't play any of my games about Bomber Command because he finds the subject of firebombing German population centres distasteful.)   Nobody was hostile or aggressive about it.  They just stated why they didn't want to play and we picked something else.

I guess I'm just insensitive but, as I said, to be they're just games.  I can distance myself from the history of the subject matter as all I'm really doing is staring at pixels or moving bits of cardboard around a board.  I'll play a game about pretty much any subject as long as the gameplay is decent and the game isn't going out of its way to be purposely obscene for shock or titillation value.  If it's a good game, Ill play it and have fun while making some off-colour jokes while playing it.  I won't go out of my way to buy them, but if someone plops one down at gaming night, I'll give it a whirl.  (Having said that, I much prefer fighting the dirty Nazis or Commies than playing as them.  Eastern Front games present a conundrum.  No issues playing as Japan though.  Not sure why.  I did once refuse to play some Japanese anime-themed card game at a store.  The pedo vibes were just a little too strong for me to be playing in a store with families walking by.)

That firebombing situation would be an interesting comparative analogy t unpack if we had a game like Memphis Bell based on the Dresden bombings which depicted "ace" bomber crews. I guess we may get one with the mighty Eighth.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Phantom on February 21, 2021, 01:47:41 PM
I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Gusington on February 21, 2021, 02:10:03 PM
^Good post and good points, especially 'there's very few good points about war.'
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: al_infierno on February 21, 2021, 05:54:15 PM
Quote from: Phantom on February 21, 2021, 01:47:41 PM
I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

Actually, on a similar note, I think there's something to be said for the argument that wargames set in conflicts that still have living veterans are inherently distasteful.  For example, by playing a scenario set in the battle of Fallujah, you are effectively playing in the graveyard of real living people's friends and family members. 

Personally, I don't think this argument carries so much weight that said games shouldn't be made or enjoyed (this would effectively rule out all WWII games), but it's an interesting perspective that I've heard from non-gaming folks.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 21, 2021, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: al_infierno on February 21, 2021, 05:54:15 PM
Quote from: Phantom on February 21, 2021, 01:47:41 PM
I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

Actually, on a similar note, I think there's something to be said for the argument that wargames set in conflicts that still have living veterans are inherently distasteful.  For example, by playing a scenario set in the battle of Fallujah, you are effectively playing in the graveyard of real living people's friends and family members. 

Personally, I don't think this argument carries so much weight that said games shouldn't be made or enjoyed (this would effectively rule out all WWII games), but it's an interesting perspective that I've heard from non-gaming folks.

I think it depends.  I use wargames partially because of professional interest.  In such cases, I would disagree that my playing a professional-level modern wargame is disrespectful.  Now, if hypothetically, I were to play something like Wolfenstein: Fallujah, then there might be more of a point to the claim it was disrespectful.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: al_infierno on February 21, 2021, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 21, 2021, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: al_infierno on February 21, 2021, 05:54:15 PM
Quote from: Phantom on February 21, 2021, 01:47:41 PM
I can play a game without really giving much thought to the underlying characters, if they're real characters then by definition they took part so you have to accommodate them in a (realistic) game. I'm playing a game/simulation, not condoning their actions or beliefs.
There's very few good points about war & an almost infinite amount of bad points, so if I was sensitive about the issue I wouldn't play wargames at all.
The other thing that irks me about these debates is that somehow "evil" is time constrained. People often express distaste at playing Hitler or Stalin, yet happily fire up Rome Total War etc. & glory in Caesars machinations & conquests. Genocidal megalomaniacs - Acceptable characters after 25, 50, 100 or 500 years? - discuss  :)

Actually, on a similar note, I think there's something to be said for the argument that wargames set in conflicts that still have living veterans are inherently distasteful.  For example, by playing a scenario set in the battle of Fallujah, you are effectively playing in the graveyard of real living people's friends and family members. 

Personally, I don't think this argument carries so much weight that said games shouldn't be made or enjoyed (this would effectively rule out all WWII games), but it's an interesting perspective that I've heard from non-gaming folks.

I think it depends.  I use wargames partially because of professional interest.  In such cases, I would disagree that my playing a professional-level modern wargame is disrespectful.  Now, if hypothetically, I were to play something like Wolfenstein: Fallujah, then there might be more of a point to the claim it was disrespectful.

I agree with you there 100%, but I don't think non-gamers really differentiate between "serious professional games" and "lighthearted consumer games."  To them, a game is a game.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: FarAway Sooner on February 21, 2021, 08:08:47 PM
Thoughtful and interesting thread, folks!  My own take:  I land closer to Jarhead or Father Ted.  I'm not comfortable playing "as" any particularly unsavory historical character, even if he's just a personalized asset. 

I don't typically play a wargame to satisfy my RPG urges, but it ruins the enthusiastic immersion for me if I'm ever asked to cheer for a repulsive character.  Then again, I seldom play "dark hero" types in RPG games either, although I'm not above dabbling in that sort of thing from time to time.

I get how some folks are into the accurate historical simulation and I can't fault them as poor human beings for that.  But I myself am less likely to play a game that's designed that way, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 21, 2021, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on February 21, 2021, 08:08:47 PM
Thoughtful and interesting thread, folks!  My own take:  I land closer to Jarhead or Father Ted.  I'm not comfortable playing "as" any particularly unsavory historical character, even if he's just a personalized asset. 

I don't typically play a wargame to satisfy my RPG urges, but it ruins the enthusiastic immersion for me if I'm ever asked to cheer for a repulsive character.  Then again, I seldom play "dark hero" types in RPG games either, although I'm not above dabbling in that sort of thing from time to time.

I get how some folks are into the accurate historical simulation and I can't fault them as poor human beings for that.  But I myself am less likely to play a game that's designed that way, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

You raise a issue that may be a thread all its own: when you play, do you try to play in a moral manner?  If, hypothetically, you are playing Crusader Kings, is your play style more Borgia, or more Cincinnatus?  Personally, I tend to play games according as I try to live life, even if it isn't necessarily "realistic". 
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: al_infierno on February 21, 2021, 09:07:30 PM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 21, 2021, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on February 21, 2021, 08:08:47 PM
Thoughtful and interesting thread, folks!  My own take:  I land closer to Jarhead or Father Ted.  I'm not comfortable playing "as" any particularly unsavory historical character, even if he's just a personalized asset. 

I don't typically play a wargame to satisfy my RPG urges, but it ruins the enthusiastic immersion for me if I'm ever asked to cheer for a repulsive character.  Then again, I seldom play "dark hero" types in RPG games either, although I'm not above dabbling in that sort of thing from time to time.

I get how some folks are into the accurate historical simulation and I can't fault them as poor human beings for that.  But I myself am less likely to play a game that's designed that way, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

You raise a issue that may be a thread all its own: when you play, do you try to play in a moral manner?  If, hypothetically, you are playing Crusader Kings, is your play style more Borgia, or more Cincinnatus?  Personally, I tend to play games according as I try to live life, even if it isn't necessarily "realistic".

This is a real interesting point I hadn't even thought of.  When I play Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, I tend to follow the moral path and avoid or prevent war crimes as much as possible, despite those choices actively hampering my military goals.  But when I play Crusader Kings II, I tend to play absolutely monstrous characters who would make modern dictators blush, merely because it advances my goals more effectively (and because it's fun Game of Thrones style roleplaying  >:D).

Aside from the basic gameplay differences, the only real differences I can think of that would adjust my perspective are: (A) The amount of time between my life and the lives of the characters in question, and (B) That my CK2 characters tend to be custom-made, fictional characters and not historical people (although the victims in question are generally historical or descendants of historical people).  My justification for doing horrible things in CK2 seems like it would equally apply to going all-in on war crimes in DC:B, yet I play each game completely differently.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Phantom on February 22, 2021, 05:32:08 AM
Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa did come to mind when posting, its a really good game - one of my favourites - but it does also challenge you to make those difficult decisions. I like that it doesn't shy away from realty, as I think in general that's a good thing, and serves to remind us that there was much more than just a conventional war going on.
Whilst, as my earlier post demonstrates, I'm quite laissez-faire about playing wargames but I must confess to being uneasy about a game I've recently played - Labyrinth, War on Terror. Its a challenging game, but I couldn't imagine myself playing the Jihadis', and one of the "victory conditions" for them is particularly worrying, though again mainly for the unpleasant & scary reality it brings home.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2021, 06:36:35 AM
With respect to the RPG element...I've tried playing various games as "evil" and even in instances where doing so rewards the player, I simply cannot bring myself to make decisions or take actions that go against my core morality. If an action strikes me as morally corrupt, or against my inherent sense of what is right, I typically will not take it and if I do I do not feel comfortable and it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. This has been a factor in how I've played games like the Mass Effect series, Star Wars titles, and other games in which morality plays a role in character development.

Being evil or making evil decisions in a fantasy setting is just not something that gives me enjoyment when I game. That is not to say that I can't take morally gray options, or options that may have negative consequences, but those options have to make sense, be logical, or achieve some positive or meaningful outcome.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2021, 06:36:35 AM
With respect to the RPG element...I've tried playing various games as "evil" and even in instances where doing so rewards the player, I simply cannot bring myself to make decisions or take actions that go against my core morality. If an action strikes me as morally corrupt, or against my inherent sense of what is right, I typically will not take it and if I do I do not feel comfortable and it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. This has been a factor in how I've played games like the Mass Effect series, Star Wars titles, and other games in which morality plays a role in character development.

Being evil or making evil decisions in a fantasy setting is just not something that gives me enjoyment when I game. That is not to say that I can't take morally gray options, or options that may have negative consequences, but those options have to make sense, be logical, or achieve some positive or meaningful outcome.

I tend to play more like you, JH.  However, Phantom's comment about Labyrinth gives me pause.  I play it fairly regularly against a veteran friend of mine, as we both spent a significant part of our adult life involved in the GWoT.  Our conversations during Labyrinth always begin reminiscing or analyzing about some of the incidents portrayed in the game.   I usually play the Jihadi, and I have no problem with trying in the game to get a WMD, despite my strong Real World moral convictions against such an action.  However, Labyrinth is more of a "Grand Strategic" level game, and very abstract at that, so such moral decisions become more attenuated. Additionally, my professional interest in the subject allows me to play such a role. 

On the other hand, this same friend and I have a regular board game of Churchill.  I am now relegated to always playing the USSR in that game, because I frankly can't work with the USSR if I play either the UK or the US.  I basically break the game, because I can't "play along" with one of the core game mechanics.  So when we play,  I have to always play the USSR.  So, despite Churchill being abstract and   "Grand Strategic" just like Labyrinth, my morality won't allow me to work effectively with the USSR, despite such action being far less morally ambiguous than playing the role of a Jihadi seeking a WMD.  Even worse, I am now forced to play a side (the USSR) that I despise in the Real World, yet  in the game, I happily do so, and effectively attempt to establish Stalin's control over Eastern Europe :crazy2:
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Phantom on February 22, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2021, 06:36:35 AM
With respect to the RPG element...I've tried playing various games as "evil" and even in instances where doing so rewards the player, I simply cannot bring myself to make decisions or take actions that go against my core morality. If an action strikes me as morally corrupt, or against my inherent sense of what is right, I typically will not take it and if I do I do not feel comfortable and it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. This has been a factor in how I've played games like the Mass Effect series, Star Wars titles, and other games in which morality plays a role in character development.

Being evil or making evil decisions in a fantasy setting is just not something that gives me enjoyment when I game. That is not to say that I can't take morally gray options, or options that may have negative consequences, but those options have to make sense, be logical, or achieve some positive or meaningful outcome.

I tend to play more like you, JH.  However, Phantom's comment about Labyrinth gives me pause.  I play it fairly regularly against a veteran friend of mine, as we both spent a significant part of our adult life involved in the GWoT.  Our conversations during Labyrinth always begin reminiscing or analyzing about some of the incidents portrayed in the game.   I usually play the Jihadi, and I have no problem with trying in the game to get a WMD, despite my strong Real World moral convictions against such an action.  However, Labyrinth is more of a "Grand Strategic" level game, and very abstract at that, so such moral decisions become more attenuated. Additionally, my professional interest in the subject allows me to play such a role. 

On the other hand, this same friend and I have a regular board game of Churchill.  I am now relegated to always playing the USSR in that game, because I frankly can't work with the USSR if I play either the UK or the US.  I basically break the game, because I can't "play along" with one of the core game mechanics.  So when we play,  I have to always play the USSR.  So, despite Churchill being abstract and   "Grand Strategic" just like Labyrinth, my morality won't allow me to work effectively with the USSR, despite such action being far less morally ambiguous than playing the role of a Jihadi seeking a WMD.  Even worse, I am now forced to play a side (the USSR) that I despise in the Real World, yet  in the game, I happily do so, and effectively attempt to establish Stalin's control over Eastern Europe :crazy2:

Good points - and interesting to hear about your view of Labyrinth & your dilemma on Churchill! - Have you played Twilight Struggle?
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 10:28:34 AM
Quote from: Phantom on February 22, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 08:09:36 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 22, 2021, 06:36:35 AM
With respect to the RPG element...I've tried playing various games as "evil" and even in instances where doing so rewards the player, I simply cannot bring myself to make decisions or take actions that go against my core morality. If an action strikes me as morally corrupt, or against my inherent sense of what is right, I typically will not take it and if I do I do not feel comfortable and it detracts from my enjoyment of the game. This has been a factor in how I've played games like the Mass Effect series, Star Wars titles, and other games in which morality plays a role in character development.

Being evil or making evil decisions in a fantasy setting is just not something that gives me enjoyment when I game. That is not to say that I can't take morally gray options, or options that may have negative consequences, but those options have to make sense, be logical, or achieve some positive or meaningful outcome.

I tend to play more like you, JH.  However, Phantom's comment about Labyrinth gives me pause.  I play it fairly regularly against a veteran friend of mine, as we both spent a significant part of our adult life involved in the GWoT.  Our conversations during Labyrinth always begin reminiscing or analyzing about some of the incidents portrayed in the game.   I usually play the Jihadi, and I have no problem with trying in the game to get a WMD, despite my strong Real World moral convictions against such an action.  However, Labyrinth is more of a "Grand Strategic" level game, and very abstract at that, so such moral decisions become more attenuated. Additionally, my professional interest in the subject allows me to play such a role. 

On the other hand, this same friend and I have a regular board game of Churchill.  I am now relegated to always playing the USSR in that game, because I frankly can't work with the USSR if I play either the UK or the US.  I basically break the game, because I can't "play along" with one of the core game mechanics.  So when we play,  I have to always play the USSR.  So, despite Churchill being abstract and   "Grand Strategic" just like Labyrinth, my morality won't allow me to work effectively with the USSR, despite such action being far less morally ambiguous than playing the role of a Jihadi seeking a WMD.  Even worse, I am now forced to play a side (the USSR) that I despise in the Real World, yet  in the game, I happily do so, and effectively attempt to establish Stalin's control over Eastern Europe :crazy2:

Good points - and interesting to hear about your view of Labyrinth & your dilemma on Churchill! - Have you played Twilight Struggle?

Yep.  In Twilight Struggle, I usually play the US, although I can play the USSR.  It doesn't seem to bother me as much in that game, although my preference is the US.  Of course, aside from the occasional coup,  Twilight Struggle really doesn't have too many moral dilemmas, and what it has are pretty abstract.   In contrast, the following is a cut and paste (I'm not the author) from a recent review of CKIII on Steam:

"I declared wars on children, executed their parents, slept with my vassals' wives, got caught, then did it again, had at least 8 children with women that weren't my wife, on top of the 8+ kids that were with my wife. Murdered my rival, two of my wives were assassinated(I never found out why) In between assassinations I started another affair and had 3 more kids. I switched from catholic to some other Christian religion and proceeded to falsify claims and throw more wars in an attempt to create Ireland."

While CKIII sounds fun, and the role-playing aspect definitely has its good points, I couldn't play as the author of the above review did.  The moral issues are too clear: If I were to play as this reviewer did, I would no longer be doing a historical study of an issue, this is me role playing for fun, and quite possibly enjoying myself in the process.  At its core, I fear that if I were to role playing too much in the vein of what the above reviewer does could be corrosive to me in the real world.  With that said, I was one of the Beta testers for ICBM, where the game requires you to engage in a nuclear war and destroy the planet.  Yet the violence there is cartoonish, a bit like the old Road Runner cartoons.  And that is a large part of the difference.   I'm okay with engaging in abstract violence and examining moral issues.  After all, I'm an avid amateur  historian.  But to actually do role play in this vein strikes me as being morally a "bridge too far,"  at least for me. 
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Phantom on February 22, 2021, 03:17:07 PM
"I declared wars on children, executed their parents, slept with my vassals' wives, got caught, then did it again, had at least 8 children with women that weren't my wife, on top of the 8+ kids that were with my wife. Murdered my rival, two of my wives were assassinated(I never found out why) In between assassinations I started another affair and had 3 more kids. I switched from catholic to some other Christian religion and proceeded to falsify claims and throw more wars in an attempt to create Ireland."

In fairness to the original poster, this sounds fairly standard for a medieval monarch, indeed at first I thought it was a quote from Henry VIII's biography  :)


Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: Phantom on February 22, 2021, 03:17:07 PM
"I declared wars on children, executed their parents, slept with my vassals' wives, got caught, then did it again, had at least 8 children with women that weren't my wife, on top of the 8+ kids that were with my wife. Murdered my rival, two of my wives were assassinated(I never found out why) In between assassinations I started another affair and had 3 more kids. I switched from catholic to some other Christian religion and proceeded to falsify claims and throw more wars in an attempt to create Ireland."

In fairness to the original poster, this sounds fairly standard for a medieval monarch, indeed at first I thought it was a quote from Henry VIII's biography  :)

If there is a point to the debauchery, I can live with it.  For instance, the game mechanics require you to have a male heir, so your family stays on the throne, then it becomes a way of understanding history, and I can play the game that way (or at least try to).  However, if the purpose of the debauchery is simply to see how many societal norms the game allows you to break, then I can't or won't do it.  The quote above makes me think it was more of the latter that was causing the writer to play the way he was playing.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Father Ted on February 22, 2021, 05:48:07 PM
FWIW I'm not judging how anyone else plays games (or indeed judging anyone who judges how anyone else plays games) - my posts in this thread are purely about how I feel when I play games.  The bottom line is that if you choose to play CKIII as an absolute word-that-Billy-Butcher-uses-a-lot-in-The-Boys you're not doing anything to affect the real world, so no harm no foul.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Tripoli on February 22, 2021, 06:42:16 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on February 22, 2021, 05:48:07 PM
FWIW I'm not judging how anyone else plays games (or indeed judging anyone who judges how anyone else plays games) - my posts in this thread are purely about how I feel when I play games.  The bottom line is that if you choose to play CKIII as an absolute word-that-Billy-Butcher-uses-a-lot-in-The-Boys you're not doing anything to affect the real world, so no harm no foul.

To be clear, I'm not judging anyone IRT how they play their games.  I'm speaking only for myself in this thread.
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: FarAway Sooner on February 24, 2021, 12:19:11 PM
I have a hard time getting into games where I have to make morally repugnant choices to feel like I've played the whole game.  I've found one or two dark fantasy or apocalypse RPGs where I could go along with it as "the lesser of two evils" and even admired the way the story telling evoked such grit and realism.

I role-play as more of the Ranger type than the Paladin type, but that's just the way I'm wired.  One of the reasons I like 4x games is because you are TYPICALLY able to avoid such things.  I had fun dabbling with being a Dark Elf Death Mage back in the days of Master of Magic, and I had some fun playing Blood Priests in Dominions II, but that's about the extent of it.

I'll admit, I enjoyed playing Plague, Inc.  Until I started living it IRL.    :timeout:
Title: Re: Burning Baltics...
Post by: Gusington on February 24, 2021, 12:39:52 PM
^Heh me too with Plague Inc.