Why play a game then that recreates an actual war? Isn't that morbid?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Why play a game then that recreates an actual war? Isn't that morbid?
I consider victory to be annexation of my enemy, and defeat to be my enemy annexing me.
No matter how low my casualties are, they're never low enough(If I'm playing as Germany, for example. I'd be more cavalier as the soviets).
No. But keeping a tally of deaths, is.
The point of hearts of iron is to win the war, not slaughter as many people as you can.
You have an odd definition of war. War is death. It is sad but true.
You can play your games to kill as many people as you can, but I think most forumites are more concerned about winning.
Well I think your wrong
Newer paradox games have statistics, and it's a fantastic addition to the game.
You win by killing soo many of the enemy that one of two things happen.
1) You kill all of your enemies-Problem solved.
2) You kill soo many of your enemies that they concede something.
Any way you look at it you are KILLING people.
As for my intentions in wanting casualty statistics, I am more concerned with my own losses than that of the enemy. But an essential part in knowing if the "cost" was worth it is to know the other side of the equation. I don't mean to sound callous, but lets not be naive.
Clearly you've made up your mind and won't listen to evidence. Perhaps you think the Germans won the war, as they killed far more than they lost.
Huh! Yes they did inflict many more casualties than they recieved themselves. One account I just read claimed they maintained 3/2 ratio of inflicted/recieved throughout the war. But they didn't have the manpower to take on the world (US, Russia, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.).
Winning is not everything to me. I like the aspects of combat, national intrigue, and testing my military knowledge against a cheating-nogood-AI. haha.
I am one who is fine with all aspects of history. Ignoring history is something I frown on. People die in wars. I know military history, but I do not advocate aggressive wars. This game does not have to make deaths personal by naming people, but divisions destroyed or ships sunk are game fiction. Any similarities between the Bismarck being sunk in 1941 IRL and the KMS Bismarck being sunk in the game are coincidence and some form of simulation.
Battlefield statistics are tools that commanders can use to make their army more efficient at their job... just the way it is. I dont think there is anything but a miniscule correlation between computer gaming and IRL death.
Last edited:
I agree. I mean that is the whole reason I suggested this. Take the German invasion of Yugoslavia, is this a good idea? I have manpower issues as Germany and I don't want to be 1/2 way into the Soviet Union and tapping out my manpower reserves. Should I invade Yugoslavia? If I do, how should I conduct the war? Just frivolously throwing division at the enemy wearing them down? No, I need to be smart about this, and this is a tool that allows me to try different tactics and hopefully play more intelligently moving forward. The same goes for the invasion of Poland and the Battle of France, and for all the other countries as well.
I think it just adds lots of replayability because it gives me a new goal that isn't just "can I annex such and such country", yeah I probably can, but how can I do it losing the least amount of men? How can I conduct a series of campaigns that way?
In fact, from a moral perspective I should imagine (if people think the game is "real") these statistics would encourage people to be more cautious and not less, because now it is not just about annexing countries it is about keeping my troops alive. So I should imagine from that perspective this is an enhancement.
I think we have hit upon a very sensitive issue here and in the end it is for PI to decide if they can deal with the after effects
I believe this is a beautiful addition ot the game. It makes you believe that these numbers are real people, it kinda kindles that protector feelin in you, a feelin of regret and guilt maybe
So you just dont go blindly invading countries, and understand that people will die for that....so it will make you think twice before u just throw men blindly into a futile battle
Think of all the emotions that will arise in us with this feature.... we might just understand that war has a human price as well
That is if it is done right........it would be awesome.
I believe this is a beautiful addition ot the game. It makes you believe that these numbers are real people, it kinda kindles that protector feelin in you, a feelin of regret and guilt maybe
So you just dont go blindly invading countries, and understand that people will die for that....so it will make you think twice before u just throw men blindly into a futile battle
Think of all the emotions that will arise in us with this feature.... we might just understand that war has a human price as well
That is if it is done right........it would be awesome.
closed. I don´t want to start handing out warnings, you may continue your discussion about historical losses in the history forum or the connection between history and computer games in the OT forum.
- Status