1946+ Nazis, cool Nazi technology and a niggling feeling.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Orkeosaurus**

They should make some good WW1 games.

**Nurglitch**

Meh, trench warfare is boring to game.

**Orkeosaurus**

What if those trenches have GIANT SNAKES in them?

**CT GAMER**

Ghidorah wrote:
Solasun wrote:...Americans losing because they didn't send in B.J fast enough?
ANYTIME you don't get a B.J fast enough is a loss, American or otherwise.

Ghidorah

This wins this thread and perhaps the internetz themselves...

**Oldgrue**

I can't see why treating any regime in a 'what if' setting should be a problem. So long as the setting is sufficiently broad enough, and accepts that each nation had its share of atrocities (Dresden comes to mind, and maybe that trail of Tears thing.) then there should be minimal issue. Talking about historical events, even historical fiction (Turtledove's Guns of the South, for example) in a neutral manner should help alleviate this 'moral' issue.

What precisely is wrong with the Green army winning in a game? The Blue army ? Feeling some sensation of guilt for winning or losing is therefore brought into the context of the game from outside. Is this same guilt carried onto the inherent greed and gluttony of 'Hungry Hungry Hippos'? Or the sadism in vivisection of 'Operation'? Surgically remove a broken heart indeed! Are children being too blase with this?

No.

Playing a game is not equivalent to espousing the views in that game. There is no reason to believe that a player of Space Marines is on an eternal jihad for their faith, no reason that a Khorne chaos player is a homicidal maniac, a Tau player really believes in a greater good, or Tyranid player is just hungry.

So, if you don't mind, I'm going to go pack up my SS Panzerkompanie, pick up my mate who plays the Army of Northern Virginia, and go fix Habitat for Humanity's network.

**JohnHwangDD**

Orkeosaurus wrote:They should make some good WW1 games.

How would that even be possible?

Trench warfare is an attritional grind, with almost no movement.

Major Victory = you have at least 1 unit over 50% strength advanced more than 6" from your deployment zone?

**Orkeosaurus**

It would be a more jazzy version of WW1, with giant snakes and lasers, and the trenches are the size of small cities.

**JohnHwangDD**

Snakes with Lasers on their heads???

**Orkeosaurus**

I probably should have said "They should make some ridiculous games that are loosely based off of WW1 instead of WW2".

**Oldgrue**

"Snakes and Lasers"?
Sounds like a high stakes game!

**Nurglitch**

Snakes are already bald, but can they scream? Case closed.

**Hordini**

WWI actually had some pretty fluid battles, especially earlier on, and on the non-western fronts. Trench warfare was only part of it. It was the crappiest part, so it's the part that gets all the attention in the textbooks. A WWI ruleset focusing on the more tactical battles could be pretty interesting.

There already are a few WWI rulesets, including the Warhammer Historical: The Great War and Iron Ivan's Price of Glory, which is a skirmish set. I don't think either of these systems play like a meat-grinder with almost no movement.

**Brother SRM**

Orkeosaurus wrote:They should make some good WW1 games.

Try Trench Wars. It's a really fun game system. It's been adapted for gnomes too, and is called Gnome Wars. Could pretty much work for any era.

**Orkeosaurus**

Hmm. Sounds like there are some good WW1 games.

**JohnHwangDD**

Hordini wrote:WWI actually had some pretty fluid battles, especially earlier on, and on the non-western fronts. Trench warfare was only part of it. It was the crappiest part, so it's the part that gets all the attention in the textbooks. A WWI ruleset focusing on the more tactical battles could be pretty interesting.

True, but then those are effectively Napoleonics.

WW1 doesn't really become what it is known for until you bring out the long rifles, wire, and machine guns.

As a strong alternative, one could game the Boer Wars...