RE: Geneva Convention as Default?

RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa

Message

Franciscus -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 7:43:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I think some are missing 76mm's point...perhaps deliberately? Its not about "effort" or "Molehills", its mainly about the default position. This can be changed fairly easily in a patch. I assume you would not have a problem with that? I understand Matrix wants the largest audience possible for any game they are selling, however considering this genre, historical accuracy should always prevail over PCism. Give the PC crowd the option, but do not make their "sensitivity" the default. + 1

Michael T -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 7:54:15 PM)
I think there is merit in 76mm's argument. I think people who were affected by Nazi war crimes would actually take offence at Nazi'z being portrayed as good guys. More so than these perceived people who would take offence at the harsh realities of the war in the east. The option of the clean war smacks of 'misinformation' about the true war. Some people with limited knowledge about the war, seeing the clean war as default, may well assume its the truth, or reinforce some warped view that existed in the first place. IMO the default option should be the 'real' war. Clean war as an option. Though I would never use it.

Emx77 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T IMO the default option should be the 'real' war. Clean war as an option. Though I would never use it. I agree completely.

Blond_Knight -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:16:45 PM)
Maybe its to make the game more sell-able in markets that require the removal of Swastikas.

Tamas -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:35:34 PM)
I don't think it is fair to attack the game for making something optional that has been straight out missing from every other wargame - as others have pointed out. Of course we share the prevailing opinion here that the horrible events and actions referenced by the events disabled by the Geneva Convention option should be part of a realistic simulation of operational concerns in Barbarossa - that's why we have included them. Personally I think they help raise awareness to the horrors of the war modelled, and the moral choices a commander of those times had to make, and if anything, I believe it pays respect to the victims, by not pretending these things didn't happen. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this topic of war atrocities -however abstractly covered by the game- is a sensitive subject, and there must be strategy and war gamers out there who are interested in the more technical military-science related aspects of Barbarossa, who would be upset by facing these in-game events and the choices they must make in relation to them and would prefer to play without them. This does not make them less interested in history or military. It is one of the valid choices one can make when facing such a sensitive and emotional subject. Now, if we establish that there are players out there who would be upset by the coverage of this aspect of the war, then to me it makes perfect sense to have default settings that do not expose them to this aspect. The only possible counter-argument for that is to try and forcefully expose them to it against their will, and I cannot find that justified.

etsadler -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:39:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T I think there is merit in 76mm's argument. I think people who were affected by Nazi war crimes would actually take offence at Nazi'z being portrayed as good guys. More so than these perceived people who would take offence at the harsh realities of the war in the east. The option of the clean war smacks of 'misinformation' about the true war. Some people with limited knowledge about the war, seeing the clean war as default, may well assume its the truth, or reinforce some warped view that existed in the first place. IMO the default option should be the 'real' war. Clean war as an option. Though I would never use it. Certainly there is merit, I rarely have encountered a totally meritless argument. [:)] In this case, however, I think that many people are reading something very unintended into the naming of the option, and I repeat, the option, of having certain unsavory realities of WWII included as events. Consider the decisions the developers have to make. They have an idea to include certain elements in the game that are not normal to include. They feel that these elements would add to the immersion and uniqueness of the game. But, they understand that some players might find the content objectionable for a variety of reasons. So they decide to make the inclusion of these events optional. I bold that because they did not make the other choice, to make the exclusion of these events optional. As it is optional to include the events the default selection is to exclude them. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on which way that should work, but so long as the option either way is available I really don't see what difference it makes. I also very much doubt that the average purchaser of this game just plays the default settings. I tend to think the average would be, well, above average, hence this discussion in the first place. Then the developers have to determine what to name the option. Now I happen to think that the developers came up with quite a good name in Geneva Convention. Selected means that the Geneva Convention is being honored, not selected means it isn't. My historical reason for thinking this is a good name is that Hitler specifically informed the military that the war against Russia was to be fought without the normal rules of war (Geneva Convention). He specifically declared that the Geneva Convention was not going to be honored. He could have specifically stated that it was. While simply stating that it was to be honored would be no guarantee of angelic behavior by the troops, this specific renunciation of the Convention, to me, makes the name and use of the option very reasonable. That is how I see it. Reasonable people may disagree.

Panzeh -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:44:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I understand Matrix wants the largest audience possible for any game they are selling, however considering this genre, historical accuracy should always prevail over PCism. Give the PC crowd the option, but do not make their "sensitivity" the default. I think "PCism" is just a buzzword people use to bash people who disagree with them. Your "sensitivity" about the default state of a button in a computer game is pretty evident.

elmo3 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:49:14 PM)
Couldn't care less what the "default" is. Don't like it, just click the button and move on. Sheesh.

budd -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:53:07 PM)
This isn't really about whether that button is clicked by default is it. I see where is says Geneva convention, but i don't see anything about a German clean war, is that in the manual? To be fair they did say it would be off by default. Default or not, whatever makes people happy.

Aurelian -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 Couldn't care less what the "default" is. Don't like it, just click the button and move on. Sheesh. Exactly. Like I said, a mountain out of a molehill.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 8:59:29 PM)
quote: Now, if we establish that there are players out there who would be upset by the coverage of this aspect of the war, then to me it makes perfect sense to have default settings that do not expose them to this aspect. The only possible counter-argument for that is to try and forcefully expose them to it against their will, and I cannot find that justified. But these players out there can choose to not be exposed by changing the default prior to playing the game. As Panzeh wrote in post #26: So.. much.. effort.. This effort should be made by the (I suspect) very tiny minority.

Panzeh -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 quote: Now, if we establish that there are players out there who would be upset by the coverage of this aspect of the war, then to me it makes perfect sense to have default settings that do not expose them to this aspect. The only possible counter-argument for that is to try and forcefully expose them to it against their will, and I cannot find that justified. But these players out there can choose to not be exposed by changing the default prior to playing the game. As Panzeh wrote in post #26: So.. much.. effort.. This effort should be made by the (I suspect) very tiny minority. Your motives seem more geared at spite toward whoever would play with it on than anything else.

Queeg -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:06:25 PM)
Just when you think you've seen everything....

KenchiSulla -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:10:10 PM)
quote: Frankly, while this design decision is a very small part of what looks to to a very good game, in my opinion it speaks volumes about credibility, and if I'd have known about this issue before buying the game, I would not have bought it, so as to not promote these kind of design decisions. So is this the future of Matrix games, or this series? If so, I've bought my last game from Matrix or this series. Really? You are saying that it is a very small part of what looks to be a very good game, if you had known that BY DEFAULT the Geneva convention button (for both sides) is flipped to "on" you wouldn't have bought it... Read that back, then the entire discussion again.. What the hell are you guys on about? I don't even see a molehill....

Toby42 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:42:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder quote: Frankly, while this design decision is a very small part of what looks to to a very good game, in my opinion it speaks volumes about credibility, and if I'd have known about this issue before buying the game, I would not have bought it, so as to not promote these kind of design decisions. So is this the future of Matrix games, or this series? If so, I've bought my last game from Matrix or this series. Really? You are saying that it is a very small part of what looks to be a very good game, if you had known that BY DEFAULT the Geneva convention button (for both sides) is flipped to "on" you wouldn't have bought it... Read that back, then the entire discussion again.. What the hell are you guys on about? I don't even see a molehill.... I agree. This whole issue is not even an issue! I can't believe that someone is even starting a discussion on this! Talk about having too much idle time on your hands!!!

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:56:20 PM)
Panzeh: Nice of you to assign my motives. I'm ok with anyone playing the "clean war" and that it exists as an option...however I agree with 76mm that it should not be the default. If you see spite in that, and it makes you happy, then have at it.

Aurelian -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 9:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treale quote: ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder quote: Frankly, while this design decision is a very small part of what looks to to a very good game, in my opinion it speaks volumes about credibility, and if I'd have known about this issue before buying the game, I would not have bought it, so as to not promote these kind of design decisions. So is this the future of Matrix games, or this series? If so, I've bought my last game from Matrix or this series. Really? You are saying that it is a very small part of what looks to be a very good game, if you had known that BY DEFAULT the Geneva convention button (for both sides) is flipped to "on" you wouldn't have bought it... Read that back, then the entire discussion again.. What the hell are you guys on about? I don't even see a molehill.... I agree. This whole issue is not even an issue! I can't believe that someone is even starting a discussion on this! Talk about having too much idle time on your hands!!! By default, the Sport mode on my BMW is off. I always drive with it on. Which means I have to push a button. Should of never bought it........

Panzeh -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 10:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 Panzeh: Nice of you to assign my motives. I'm ok with anyone playing the "clean war" and that it exists as an option...however I agree with 76mm that it should not be the default. If you see spite in that, and it makes you happy, then have at it. Well, I mean, I just inferred by your previous posting lambasting a "PC crowd" that changing the option was mostly out of spite, to go make those other guys have to push the button instead of yourself. That being said, I think more effort has been made posting in this thread than it would take to push this button for the entire life of this game and everyone playing it.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 10:03:57 PM)
If you read the beginning of this thread, 76mm puts it very well about the default.

willgamer -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/29/2015 10:49:17 PM)
The default is exactly correct for an absolutely new feature in strategy games. Adopting what I take as an ungrateful attitude toward the developers by insisting they "double down" to not only to expose groundbreaking new choices but also advance a particular view of "pc" is troubling. The default reflects the current gold standard for wargames; that Cameron and Vic would provide an option to explore to higher levels of gaming immersion should be roundly applauded! [sm=00000436.gif]

Queeg -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 12:28:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willgamer The default is exactly correct for an absolutely new feature in strategy games. Adopting what I take as an ungrateful attitude toward the developers by insisting they "double down" to not only to expose groundbreaking new choices but also advance a particular view of "pc" is troubling. The default reflects the current gold standard for wargames; that Cameron and Vic would provide an option to explore to higher levels of gaming immersion should be roundly applauded! [sm=00000436.gif] Well said. I'm no fan of the hyper-PC culture these days, but hypersensitive overreaction in the other direction is no solution.

mekjak -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 1:11:57 AM)
My problem is that while the devs say the Geneva Convention stuff isn't supposed to be biased towards one side or another, in practice it does present a whitewashed view of the Wehrmacht. I have not yet seen any mention of things like the Commissar Order, or the order that specified that any disciplinary action for crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs was strictly optional, the horrendous treatment of said civilians and POWs, and the brutality of anti-partisan operations (all of which the Wehrmacht participated in). But there is an event where one of your units finds a patrol that has been mutilated by the Soviets (the Soviets are monsters while German soldiers are just honest professionals doing their duty?). And there is also an event regarding the einsatzgruppen where the worst thing you can do is turn a blind eye, as if the Wehrmacht did not fully and willingly cooperate with the SS in real life. Not to say that the Soviets didn't do such things, but a lot of these decisions feel way more sympathetic to the Germans or evoke the "clean Wehrmacht" myth. You know, the side that was aggressively invading another country with the ultimate goal of exterminating or enslaving the entire population.

farnarkle -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 1:19:02 AM)
A similar debate was had in a similar context about a year ago. A rather well known boardgame publisher published a game based around the May 1943 Dambusters raid. The furore started when the designer named Wing Commander Guy Gibson's Black Labrador dog in the rules (yes you know the "N" word). For those not familiar with historical setting, the dog was killed on the day before the raid was launched. Gibson ordered the death to be kept a secret otherwise it might prove to be bad for morale (hence jinx) for the crews about to undertake an incredibly hazardous mission. As part of the game a counter called 'Jinx' was used with some artwork of the dog in order to simulate the 'what if' morale impact on the aircrews if it became common knowledge across the squadron that the dog had died. This started all sorts of trouble. The designer put the 'N' word into its historical context in a specific note in the rules explain the context. That was the Dog's name. The Historical sticklers were put out because the dogs name was substituted with 'Jinx'. Others who were interested in the game who were offended by the revelation of the dog name and use of the dogs name in the rules when the rules were published prior to release of the game publically stated they would not buy the game based on the inclusion of the N word although it was in its historical context. Others castigated the designer for even using the dog as a play element. Eventually it all blew over, lots bought the game, and some cancelled their pre orders. You win some you lose some - who wants to be a designer of games [8\|]

Queeg -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 1:27:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mekjak My problem is that while the devs say the Geneva Convention stuff isn't supposed to be biased towards one side or another, in practice it does present a whitewashed view of the Wehrmacht. I have not yet seen any mention of things like the Commissar Order, or the order that specified that any disciplinary action for crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs was strictly optional, the horrendous treatment of said civilians and POWs, and the brutality of anti-partisan operations (all of which the Wehrmacht participated in). But there is an event where one of your units finds a patrol that has been mutilated by the Soviets (the Soviets are monsters while German soldiers are just honest professionals doing their duty?). And there is also an event regarding the einsatzgruppen where the worst thing you can do is turn a blind eye, as if the Wehrmacht did not fully and willingly cooperate with the SS in real life. Not to say that the Soviets didn't do such things, but a lot of these decisions feel way more sympathetic to the Germans or evoke the "clean Wehrmacht" myth. You know, the side that was aggressively invading another country with the ultimate goal of exterminating or enslaving the entire population. I'm not far enough into the game to judge, but yours is a far comment in principle. Once you open the Pandora's Box of moral decisions in a war game, you need make a reasonable effort to be balanced. I applaud the designers here for introducing this unique element to the game, and I'm willing to be patient while they work out the balance.

gunnergoz -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 1:59:49 AM)
Personally, I'm happy to be given the option. I have no problem with the choice of the default mode. Just my 2 bits.

Grotius -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 2:08:10 AM)
For what it's worth, the devs' default rule is similar to that in Advanced Squad Leader. In ASL, by default, No Quarter is not in effect for either side, but either side may elect literally to "take no prisoners" by refusing to accept the surrender of a routing unit and murdering it instead. If the shooting side does this, then thereafter "No Quarter" is in effect for the rest of the scenario. That said, some scenarios do specify that "No Quarter" is in effect at game start for one or both sides, but that's not the default rule. By default, No Quarter is NOT in effect. I've never heard anyone suggest that ASL is papering over history by making the player "opt in" to cardboard war crimes.

etsadler -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 2:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mekjak My problem is that while the devs say the Geneva Convention stuff isn't supposed to be biased towards one side or another, in practice it does present a whitewashed view of the Wehrmacht. I have not yet seen any mention of things like the Commissar Order, or the order that specified that any disciplinary action for crimes against Soviet civilians and POWs was strictly optional, the horrendous treatment of said civilians and POWs, and the brutality of anti-partisan operations (all of which the Wehrmacht participated in). But there is an event where one of your units finds a patrol that has been mutilated by the Soviets (the Soviets are monsters while German soldiers are just honest professionals doing their duty?). And there is also an event regarding the einsatzgruppen where the worst thing you can do is turn a blind eye, as if the Wehrmacht did not fully and willingly cooperate with the SS in real life. Not to say that the Soviets didn't do such things, but a lot of these decisions feel way more sympathetic to the Germans or evoke the "clean Wehrmacht" myth. You know, the side that was aggressively invading another country with the ultimate goal of exterminating or enslaving the entire population. So your complaint is that the atrocities represented are not atrocious enough, and therefore present a biased view? I would gently suggest that you are bringing a biased view with you (certainly your right), but don't expect that everyone else will agree with you. Personally I feel that the events I have seen offer a good flavor and don't "whitewash" anything. They also don't show the worst that either side did. I'm fine with that and I'm not sure why you are not. Every large set of actions has mild examples and severe examples, it is not necessary to provide the most severe to get a flavor for the set of actions.

lancer -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 2:16:35 AM)
Hi, This is a game, not a political statement. The actual conflict was more brutal and uglier than anything you'd read on the news today. The Dark Side is there to highlight the impact moral & ethical considerations had on Operational Command, no other reason. As it's a touchy subject with personal implications for some people, it's OFF by default. It's optional not because of political correctness but rather for consideration of other people's views. Cheers, Cameron

Ron -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 2:49:28 AM)
So let me get this straight, DC3 offers the option to include a story line in the game on a sensitive subject that no other game even touches on, ie the other games are all off by design, and instead of recognition they are blasted for it not being the default option? And I thought wargamers were a more intelligent bunch

jwarrenw13 -> RE: Geneva Convention as Default? (11/30/2015 3:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron So let me get this straight, DC3 offers the option to include a story line in the game on a sensitive subject that no other game even touches on, ie the other games are all off by design, and instead of recognition they are blasted for it not being the default option? And I thought wargamers were a more intelligent bunch This.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.672363