Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

In addition to the fact that people tend to turn into turds on crackers when discussing things like the holocaust, it makes ZERO sense to model it in the game as it currently exists.  Food doesn't exist in the game and you can't model the warcrimes of WWII without talking about food.  To put food into the game you would need to overhaul the entire economic system.  And frankly I like the economic system.  It fucking works.  It's got a few questionable bits of non-reality but it fucking works.  That shouldn't be scrapped in favor jamming crimes against humanity into a fucking game.

While a kinda agree with you here (The system work, as much as I'd like a nice food system, I'll take the current system over a bad food system), the war just feel to clean now. Civilians don't die. Even Nazi Germany (Sorry, the "German Reich") doesn't do anything bad. We get an event telling us the Hinderburgh burned down, but not a single one telling us about Treblinka getting online. It would be nice to have at least some flavour of that.

Could the same for other powers too: As Britain, do you divert food to Bengal or let them starve?

[Majestic7]

If you want interesting take on war crimes in WWII, check Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. In the game you can play a German commander and be pressured by the high command to take part in crimes against humanity. If you don't, you just lose things but are more likely not to be hanged should nazis lose WW2. If you ignore the stuff you lose nothing and if you actively partake, you get more support from Hitler but...yeah, then you are part of the problem.

[Glloyd]

I feel like video games are at a point where developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle tough topics in the same way that films, theatre and books do. This War of Mine is a great example of this. However, I'm not sure a strategy game is the best medium to tackle the intricacies of Nazi/Soviet/American etc. war crimes.

[Sheb]

I feel like video games are at a point where developers shouldn't be afraid to tackle tough topics in the same way that films, theatre and books do. This War of Mine is a great example of this. However, I'm not sure a strategy game is the best medium to tackle the intricacies of Nazi/Soviet/American etc. war crimes.

This War of Mine doesn't give you a lot of opportunities to commit war crimes per se. And I understand if  Paradox doesn't want to deal with the PR nightmare of people LPing it a "Gas the Kikes Generator", trying to see if they can kill all the jews before 1949. Butit would be nice to have some acknowledgment within the game that those war crimes are taking places. 

[Majestic7]

It is hard to comprehend how...dystopian the late 1930's were. Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Franco in Spain, Stalin's USSR, Japanese imperial ambitions in the east... Pretty much apocalyptic times to be alive if you were any type of non-authoritarian. The sheer intellectual climate of the time must have been horribly oppressing. I remember the Cold War and there might have been a constant risk of nuclear annihilation, but it still feels less threatening than 1930's must have felt. 

[Glloyd]

Not to mention the Great Depression. But I think in the thirties most leftists still thought the USSR was a cool place, and it wasn't until the 40s that word got out it sucked. Shaw even visited there, didn't he? And Orwell thought it was dandy until he ran into the soviets during the Spanish civil war. Either way, I get your point.

[evilcherry]

Not to mention the Great Depression. But I think in the thirties most leftists still thought the USSR was a cool place, and it wasn't until the 40s that word got out it sucked. Shaw even visited there, didn't he? And Orwell thought it was dandy until he ran into the soviets during the Spanish civil war. Either way, I get your point.

The prevailing mood of the times was always "Fascism? Look at those fine Germans/Italians, and how weeny our English/Americans. Anschluss? Well they are Germans. Sudeten? There are Germans living there. Marco Polo bridge? Nah as long as you don't stomp over our legations. Just don't spill over the channel/pond/ocean and we will admire your existence."

Hitler was considered a valuable ally in containing the USSR.

[lastverb]

Not to mention the Great Depression. But I think in the thirties most leftists still thought the USSR was a cool place, and it wasn't until the 40s that word got out it sucked. Shaw even visited there, didn't he? And Orwell thought it was dandy until he ran into the soviets during the Spanish civil war. Either way, I get your point.

The allure of socialism. It's all dandy until you realise where all stuff come from. Same thing is happening now in almost all of western world. "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."

Back to game topic: I bought it. I advise to wait for patches, mainly to AI, better battle planning and air combat interfaces. Also DO NOT CHOOSE PRODUCTION RETENTION (decentralized production line and last industry tech). Its bugged and works exactly opposite as advertised.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The battle planning is quite intuitive I think, not to mention that you can pretty effectively still micro your forces if you want. Air combat is abstracted... Im okay with that really.

[mainiac]

The allure of socialism. It's all dandy until you realise where all stuff come from.

The socialists were the primary (practically only) political opponents to Nazis.  The Nazi's weren't socialists.  The German socialist party were heroes who faced persecution, imprisonment and death to defend democracy while the cowards in the conservative and christian democratic parties accommodated Hitler.  Fuck you.

And Orwell thought it was dandy until he ran into the soviets during the Spanish civil war.

Ah the marvels of american education.  George Orwell left the spanish civil war with largely the same political views that he entered it with, he was still a socialist who opposed british colonialism (but doubted it would succeed).

The Spanish socialists and anarchists that George Orwell encountered in the spanish civil war weren't totalitarians.  It was totalitarianism that he despised.  George Orwell's primary complaint about the left during the interbellum years is that the intelligenstia, both socialist and liberal, were too willing to cave in to Hitler.  As he saw it the left took the proposition that the British weren't perfect and pushed things to extremes.  Overall, his interbellum politics are less sophisticated and noteworthy then his later stuff on totalitarianism.  Basically he said that the rich and well educated will sell their country out but you can trust working people because they know how to rally around the flag.

"Just don't spill over the channel/pond/ocean and we will admire your existence."

"Admire" isn't quite the right word.  "Despise" would be a bit more appropriate.

The battle planning is quite intuitive I think, not to mention that you can pretty effectively still micro your forces if you want. Air combat is abstracted... Im okay with that really.

I really struggle with the battle planning.  It tends to lead to a very irregular frontline.  There will always be at least 1 division if possible but one province might have 1 while another has 9 and that 1 might be an unsupported brigade.  It's also really bad at occupying large swathes of territory after a breakthrough.  And it has an annoying habit of launching suicidal attacks on positions that can easily be bypassed.  It will attack across a river into the hills on a position that can easily be surrounded.

[Sheb]

I really struggle with the battle planning.  It tends to lead to a very irregular frontline.  There will always be at least 1 division if possible but one province might have 1 while another has 9 and that 1 might be an unsupported brigade.  It's also really bad at occupying large swathes of territory after a breakthrough.  And it has an annoying habit of launching suicidal attacks on positions that can easily be bypassed.  It will attack across a river into the hills on a position that can easily be surrounded.

Oh, mainiac, I love you when you factually correct someone. <3

As for the AI and occupying territories after breakthrough, I've seen some of the Paradox people use the garrison command for that.

[mainiac]

Does garrison work offensively?  I haven't tried that.

[Persus13]

The prevailing mood of the times was always "Fascism? Look at those fine Germans/Italians, and how weeny our English/Americans. Anschluss? Well they are Germans. Sudeten? There are Germans living there. Marco Polo bridge? Nah as long as you don't stomp over our legations. Just don't spill over the channel/pond/ocean and we will admire your existence."

Not really. That might have been the opinion of Lord Halifax and Edward VIII, but that certainly wasn't the prevailing mood of the time.

Speaking of, does stuff like Edward's abdication show up at all in-game?

[mainiac]

Paradox has Edward show up as a national modifier for Britain.  He degrades their national unity until he abdicates by event.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Does garrison work offensively?  I haven't tried that.

Not really no, since it's a separate command you have to assign divisions to that, which if executed at the same time as the offensive, would probably be weird. To frank I spent most of my first playthrough micro-ing my units, it wasn't until I was just outside berlin that I started using offensive lines. I will say front lines bother me, there are many--MANY--situations where giving up territory is both necessary and beneficial to you and it's incredibly annoying to do. Fallback lines are the really hero of the planning system. It is wildly convenient for quick troop placement.

It's not perfect that's for sure, but if the control can be made a little more fine, than it'll be really good methinks.