Senior Member
I've played and modded for both SH3 and SH4. I've played Sh3 for a few years, without regrets. It wasn't may perferred theater, but it was a submarine sim, and i played it as a submarine sim, in and of itself.
The only problem i ever had with SH3, is when people take themselves or the game too seriously. When people start writing what can only be called "fan fiction" extolling themselves as a proud member of the 3rd reich, or proudly flying the swaztika or paraphernalia from the 3rd reich on their conning tower and/or forum sig, to even modders putting into the game monuments to the same - thats where i draw the line between playing a historical submarine simulation, and deification and idolatry that has lost perspective and objectivity.
Senior Member
I'm sure most players are not taking it seriously. The facts are that bad guy rolls, parts, lines, etc. are more entertaining in general for those performing them, and leave longer lasting impressions with an audience. I think it's just a natural fascination like rubbernecking a car wreck.Originally posted by Ducimus_Rapax:
I've played and modded for both SH3 and SH4. I've played Sh3 for a few years, without regrets. It wasn't may perferred theater, but it was a submarine sim, and i played it as a submarine sim, in and of itself.
The only problem i ever had with SH3, is when people take themselves or the game too seriously. When people start writing what can only be called "fan fiction" extolling themselves as a proud member of the 3rd reich, or proudly flying the swaztika or paraphernalia from the 3rd reich on their conning tower and/or forum sig, to even modders putting into the game monuments to the same - thats where i draw the line between playing a historical submarine simulation, and deification and idolatry that has lost perspective and objectivity.
Vlaba
(I think I'm up to fifty cents now)
Senior Member
I agree with a lot of what you say Ducimus. Thanks for participating.
As a creative writer, I use the 'game' as a springboard to provide the germ of a plot, or a theme. For me, a crew, with their different roles and backgrounds, of a submarine provides a healthy breeding ground for characters to develop.
There are a lot of talented writers within the community and I think the majority find their inspiration in the same way. Political ideals don't come into it.
As for the Swastika, it's always been a hot potato here. The Moderators decided that in a historical context it was admissible, but those appearing in sig banners were not.
The general reaction of the community would suggest that we made the right decision I'm pleased to say.
Senior Member
A great movie or a great game needs a great bad guy. The Nazis make the ultimate bad guys, archetypes for the Empire of the Star Wars Trilogy. It is possible to have fun playing the bad guy without actually adopting any of his crazy ideas.
An ideal bad guy must have some redeeming qualities so we can sympathize with him. "if only he had used his great abilities in the cause of niceness and good table manners!" How did Maxwell Smart put it?
Sergeant Schultz, when I say that Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler were crazy empire builders who wished only to conquer and subjugate Europe I am NOT attacking Germany or its people, who show their true character today. Those goals were personal, not national goals of these two anachronistic leaders.
Yes all nations had contingency plans but they were not plans of conquest and subjugation. Maybe the Russian one for the Black Sea was, but their leadership had no ability in a military sense. The French only wanted to give Germany a bloody nose and take back Alsace and Lorraine, not conquer and destroy Germany. The English are not even worth considering as aggressors. They hadn't invaded the continent with intent of conquest since they were kicked out in the the 1450's. They were quite fed up with the continent after the mess with Napoleon. The ONLY country whose plans were for conquering and obliteration of the surrounding countries was Germany. Germany was to rule Europe. All the other countries at worst wanted a paltryport city or a couple of outlying provinces. The von Schlieffen plan was not just theoretical. It was executed twice with good success both times.
But Sergeant Schultz, you are right that those times were very different from our own. Manhood was validated by deeds on the battlefield, so battle was sought with relish. They were as different from us as the Klingons on Star Trek. And you did not mention that the Treaty of Versailles was completely wrong. Woodrow Wilson tried to convince the English and French to listen to better angels, but his smarmy and naive approach was dismissed as foolishness by "great men of the world" who knew better what the loser of the war deserved. The way Wilson presented his ideas doomed them. Our isolationist Republicans of the time ensured that no aid would come to any European country after WWI and that contributed to the atmosphere of desperation in Germany that led them to make a pact with the devil. Actually a pact with Hitler was a good deal WORSE than a pact with the devil because the devil usually allows you to have a little fun before you burn in hell.
But one thing that I am proud of is that the United States was NOT in a war of conquest. Roosevelt and Truman took leadership of the post-war process as completely as they could for the purpose of rebuilding the war-torn countries, former allies and former enemies alike. Because the US is not about conquest, Germany and Japan today stand as independent shining examples of the results of moral behavior after victory in war. We now see the true character of both nations revealed in the greatness of their people, standing proudly not as conquered citizens of the United States or the United Kingdom or France, but as themselves, responsible, contributing on an equal basis in a better world. The Treaty of Versailles made them property of the victors. The peace at the end of WWII made them whole again. It made them equal to those who had beaten them. It made the powerful statement that the time for hate is over.
That being said, who are we to dig up the old feelings of that sick time? Who are we to be adopt the hostility toward on side or the other when the victors of WWII put the hatred aside and worked together to make a better world? They paid the price. We didn't. Are we to renege on a deal bought with 100 million lives? Why not play the game as a game and forget that nonsense?
Has it occurred to anyone that we seek to make heroes out of German sub captains and Admiral Doenitz because we seek to show that even in an evil regime there are people of good and honorable character? This is the only victory Germany can have from this war: that some of her people were skillful, honorable and fought well. Although German sub captains have forcefully rejected any hero worship, because they admit that they fought for an unjust cause, I can't help but admire Admiral Donitz, the crew of U-505, Guenther Prein among many others. I admire them as men, not Nazis.
I'm off to lighter topics!
Junior Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
Banned
.......I remembered that part of the fascination has to do with the hardware. The German war industry did make some real interesting designs.
Absolutely true! The German Military-Industrial had a genuine genius for producing interesting hardware.
Take the Mark VI tank for Example: ...Has there EVER been a tank that looked more like the public perception of a TANK than that one???
klcarroll
Senior Member
Take the Mark VI tank for Example: ...Has there EVER been a tank that looked more like the public perception of a TANK than that one???
Yes sir !
Click LINK
Listen to that noise
V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 (700 hp)
Today Maybach builds only "light luxury tanks" like the "Excelero"
Only very few mortals have enough cash left for it
