Slitherine

Nalikill wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 11:14 amCould've fooled me. Suppression of speech is always the tool of a fascist. If they hate them so much, why are they imitating them? And as Kerensky so aptly quoted earlier... those who play with the devil's tools will be brought by degrees to wield his sword.

As I said in the very next sentence:

I know that's not the intention, I just find it ironic that they're falling into the same rhetorical traps that the Nazis loved to lay so much. The "double-talk" of nazism was one of the core ways it managed to be so radical and spread so far. Most of its language was directed against bolshevism - i.e., communism - but they used that as a code word for jews.

I wonder what "nazi" might come to be a code word for in these countries, that are so fervent about prosecuting "nazis" and "nazism" ?

Completely wrong. It's usually those that allow "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom from consequences" that turn more easily towards fascism than those who outlaw hate-speech. There is nothing to be gained by allowing people to spew all sorts of evil rhetoric, it only enhances spreading of such vile forms of beliefs. Suffice to say, the Nazis came up in a period that had free speech, and they relished in saying and doing whatever they wanted to. They would have loved it even more if it had been even more of a free for all, like in the US.

Some nations have learned from the past, and that it is more important to protect the dignity of humans than to hold on to an absurd concept of every speech being equally valid. Other nations sadly have not, and you can see where that has led to in places like the USA, whare racism is rampant and far-right ideology is way bigger than any supposedly democratic nation that did actively fight the Nazis should ever have.

Sounds more like you are following a typical black and white approach, where not allowing the most disgusting rubbish to be spoken somehow means that you are on your way to outlaw everything. That's basically the Glenn Beck approach to things, and it has little to do with reality. A proper democracy will have freedom of speech with tough rules on hate-speech. If you allow hate-speech, you end up with tons of radicals and fundamentalists, and you also open the door to everyone lying their rear off to influence common people. You end up with charlatans who build their own sects or try to find other way to scam people, you end up with widespread groups of paranoid conspiracy theorists, you end up with tons of people who think they are above the law. Funnily enough, nations with that kind of approach tend to have a society that is a whole lot closer to the ones you find in corrupt and oppressive regimes that outlaw every speech that doesn't suit their view. You end up with less people defending the actual democratic values that the nation is supposedly build on.

George_Parr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:16 pm Completely wrong. It's usually those that allow "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom from consequences" that turn more easily towards fascism than those who outlaw hate-speech. There is nothing to be gained by allowing people to spew all sorts of evil rhetoric, it only enhances spreading of such vile forms of beliefs. Suffice to say, the Nazis came up in a period that had free speech, and they relished in saying and doing whatever they wanted to. They would have loved it even more if it had been even more of a free for all, like in the US.

Some nations have learned from the past, and that it is more important to protect the dignity of humans than to hold on to an absurd concept of every speech being equally valid. Other nations sadly have not, and you can see where that has led to in places like the USA, whare racism is rampant and far-right ideology is way bigger than any supposedly democratic nation that did actively fight the Nazis should ever have.

Sounds more like you are following a typical black and white approach, where not allowing the most disgusting rubbish to be spoken somehow means that you are on your way to outlaw everything. That's basically the Glenn Beck approach to things, and it has little to do with reality. A proper democracy will have freedom of speech with tough rules on hate-speech. If you allow hate-speech, you end up with tons of radicals and fundamentalists, and you also open the door to everyone lying their rear off to influence common people. You end up with charlatans who build their own sects or try to find other way to scam people, you end up with widespread groups of paranoid conspiracy theorists, you end up with tons of people who think they are above the law. Funnily enough, nations with that kind of approach tend to have a society that is a whole lot closer to the ones you find in corrupt and oppressive regimes that outlaw every speech that doesn't suit their view. You end up with less people defending the actual democratic values that the nation is supposedly build on.

#1 - Obviously I disagree with basically everything you said: the USA being more racist or far-right than Europe, or that hate speech laws are good, constructive, or improve the health of a republic.

#2- I'm not going to write a response here because we have drifted away from the topic and into politics. I admit I provoked some of it with that last little bon mott but I won't repeat my error by trying to argue here. If you want to actually argue this out, feel free to private message me and I'll happily debate with you on the evils of speech codes and hate speech laws. Obviously this doesn't involve the actual Panzer Corps campaign in any way any more.

But it's not the speeches which had given power to nazis, speeches alone were disgusting everyone, the nazi party went to oblivion, but english and americans banks, and big german industry, save it and made it grow.

If you ban hate speeches, you ban the speech of people who are under the boots of republican police and military, you ban resistant speeches against nazism, but not nazi speeches which are illegally shouted by the banks and bourgeoisy, protected by the police.
The same thing that "non intervention" in Spain 36.

Patrick Ward wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:55 pm
Back in the day, ( ie. before I was at Slitherine) we had a game release delayed in Germany and it nearly cost us the company since at the time, Germany was our second biggest market. It was a Battle of the Bulge game and had a lot of historical information in it. There was educational as well as entertainment context which, even 10 years ago, should of been ok on all accounts.

But we'd already been warned by Apple so had to remove all mention of Hitler ( so we couldn't say that Wacht am Rein was his plan ) and we had to remove all reference to the SS ( we actually missed the unit counters which thankfully were never flagged up ), any SS symbolism, icons, unit badges etc. But they still delayed the German launch by 2 weeks, never gave us a reason, apology or asked for anything to be changed, but it was enough for us to miss the initial sales curve and the game just never recovered. Subsequent games simply avoided any such issues.

So no. No company wants to be the first.

Thank you Patrick.

This thread has ventured into areas and opinions that many are very uncomfortable with, IMO they have no place in the PC2 forum.

I sense you know this the next time someone suggests PC2 represent Nazi's more and the reason it isn't is because people have become more stupid over the years that your Slitherine's representative offers a firm no instead of encouraging the discourse.


This thread has now veered into some quite extreme comments. In the future when the Nazi topic comes up I'd recommend the Slitherine representative simply say" Panzer Corp 2 and Slitherine have no intention of increasing Nazi content in our products".

Thank You.

Dorky8 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:03 pm

Patrick Ward wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:55 pm
Back in the day, ( ie. before I was at Slitherine) we had a game release delayed in Germany and it nearly cost us the company since at the time, Germany was our second biggest market. It was a Battle of the Bulge game and had a lot of historical information in it. There was educational as well as entertainment context which, even 10 years ago, should of been ok on all accounts.

But we'd already been warned by Apple so had to remove all mention of Hitler ( so we couldn't say that Wacht am Rein was his plan ) and we had to remove all reference to the SS ( we actually missed the unit counters which thankfully were never flagged up ), any SS symbolism, icons, unit badges etc. But they still delayed the German launch by 2 weeks, never gave us a reason, apology or asked for anything to be changed, but it was enough for us to miss the initial sales curve and the game just never recovered. Subsequent games simply avoided any such issues.

So no. No company wants to be the first.

Thank you Patrick.

This thread has ventured into areas and opinions that many are very uncomfortable with, IMO they have no place in the PC2 forum.

I sense you know this the next time someone suggests PC2 represent Nazi's more and the reason it isn't is because people have become more stupid over the years that your Slitherine's representative offers a firm no instead of encouraging the discourse.


This thread has now veered into some quite extreme comments. In the future when the Nazi topic comes up I'd recommend the Slitherine representative simply say" Panzer Corp 2 and Slitherine have no intention of increasing Nazi content in our products".

Thank You.

Agreed. Interesting, but doesn't belong here.

The lack of proper Third Reich flags and SS units and such, never bothered me in these games. Call them SE units instead? No problem. Use your imagination if you must.

Kerensky, BTW, Wehrmacht was the Nazi word for the armed forces. Before that, in the Weimar Republic, it was called the Reichswehr and today the Bundeswehr when the German armed forces were reestablished in the 1950s. Heer, is the word for army, both today, then, and before. But again, this doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Lastly, for you Star Wars fans out there, did you ever notice the clear similarities between Darth Vader's helmet and the German army's iconic (or rather infamous) helmet? That was not by accident.

adiekmann wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:57 amWehrmacht was the Nazi word for the armed forces. Before that, in the Weimar Republic, it was called the Reichswehr

Yes, the republic voluntary gave birth to nazis as a fighting force against germans (Germany20 is same kind of suicidal story than Spain36). Then (proto)nazis continued, against their two-faced boss. Before, proto-nazis only fought against foreigners, to have colonies in the east. By learning by the republic to attack germans, proto-nazis, then nazis, learnt to attack all other europeans, not only taking colonies in the east, but in other directions too...

George_Parr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 12:16 pm Some nations have learned from the past, and that it is more important to protect the dignity of humans than to hold on to an absurd concept of every speech being equally valid. Other nations sadly have not, and you can see where that has led to in places like the USA, whare racism is rampant and far-right ideology is way bigger than any supposedly democratic nation that did actively fight the Nazis should ever have.

Since this is indeed crossing into politics, I limit myself to the remark that it is absolutely irrelevant which speech is valid or not. What is relevant is that it is not for the government to decide who gets free speech and who does not.

Dorky8 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:03 pm I sense you know this the next time someone suggests PC2 represent Nazi's more and the reason it isn't is because people have become more stupid over the years that your Slitherine's representative offers a firm no instead of encouraging the discourse.

The excellent "Why We Fight" US propaganda movies in the war did very much accurately present the Nazi viewpoint, which was what made them so compelling, but of course you know better.

x

Mods, I do think it is time to lock this thread. We had some productive discussion on the topic, and then a little bit of productive discussion on the limits of creative freedom and compliance with regulations in the context of providing satisfying endings in a WWII game, but it's definitely degenerated into something off-topic now, and I'm sorry for my part in encouraging that. I do appreciate the official responses given in the thread but I don't think this discussion can be productively continued.

Nalikill wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:01 pm Mods, I do think it is time to lock this thread. We had some productive discussion on the topic, and then a little bit of productive discussion on the limits of creative freedom and compliance with regulations in the context of providing satisfying endings in a WWII game, but it's definitely degenerated into something off-topic now, and I'm sorry for my part in encouraging that. I do appreciate the official responses given in the thread but I don't think this discussion can be productively continued.

I'd hate to see a positive thread get locked.

But yea the positive stuff is definitely mostly passed. Well I will say the thread put a good spotlight on topics players are passionate about (debriefing and endings), and we'll absolutely been keeping that feedback in mind in upcoming content.

I've already notified McNeil. Slitherines's handling of this thread is out of bounds.

We'll see maybe this is acceptable at Slitherine.

Dorky8 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:20 pm I've already notified McNeil. Slitherines's handling of this thread is out of bounds.

We'll see maybe this is acceptable at Slitherine.

I will say I don't see what made you so upset, but maybe I'm just blind - I've never been the most social person - and it's definitely not my place to ask. I would be curious if you were willing to share though.

Nalikill wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:24 pm I will say I don't see what made you so upset, but maybe I'm just blind - I've never been the most social person - and it's definitely not my place to ask. I would be curious if you were willing to share though.

You can ask, but you should probably take this to private messages. Personal problems are definitely way out of context from the thread.

Kerensky wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 11:48 pm
You can ask, but you should probably take this to private messages. Personal problems are definitely way out of context from the thread.

Yes, thanks, sorry.

threads gettings close to be closed, please keep on topic and civil in replies, there won't be another post on the same subject thanks everyone

Lets keep the discussion about the game. If you want to talk about where to draw the line on reference to Nazi's in game you need to take that to another forum, as this is a place to discuss Panzer Corps. There are plenty of places to discuss these kind of political topics but not here.

This topic is about the post battle/ end game debriefing and how it could be improved. Lets keep on that subject. Thanks for your understanding!

Just forget it and start a new game.
"War. War never changes."

Gentlemen,

I'd appreciate it very much to be debriefed in 800 degrees of positivity and with voice acting in my mother's tongue.

And "foxhole" should not be translated "Fuchsloch".

Played the PC2 campaign through Nevada, got to some game over screen and shook my head.

All predecessors were more immersive, all in all.

My opinion.

Personally like new briefings much better. Thanks for great job on those.

Yes feel it's very anticlimactic way end is done. Had that issue with few games. So really hope you'll go back add some debriefing.

Lots possible ways to deal with it.

Could have system compares your accomplishment to great generals of ww2.

Could have simple congrats.

Then again could do cutscene showing your victory.

Another possibility show accomplishments by awarding medal. Better you have done better medal or unique unit that can use in future play through.

Finally maybe bit of mixture of the above.

That said am really enjoying all and glad that there lot more to come. There always time to improve things.