Geneva Convention as Default?

[76mm]

I don't ever plan to play with the Geneva Convention option, and was relieved when I read on this forum that this option would be turned off by default.

Actually in my game it is turned on by default, and it turns itself back on every time I try to start a new game. I'm curious why this fantasy option is the default and why it keeps turning itself back on after I've turned it off?

[zakblood]

once you start a game, the settings are stored in the save anyway, so if you selected Geneva Convention option off, it will be off in the game you saved, but when you start a new game, the games default menu items are loaded

tm.asp?m=3976280

hope that explains it a bit better.

[76mm]

OK, I would hope that games wouldn't change in the middle, but I still am curious why the devs thought that this should be the default option?

The problem with default options is that many players (and thus many discussions on the forum, challenges on the PBEM++ server, etc.) will stick to the default, whatever it is, and defaults therefore become the baseline for the game.

Given that this option is complete fantasy, I'm very surprised that the devs thought it appropriate as the default option, especially since in a different thread Vic said "We already anticipated that not everybody would like this feature. Hence it is fully optional and switched off by default."

[zakblood]

i can't reply for either of them as i don't honestly know, but i'm sure they will reply, if enough want it a different way, also again within reasons i'm sure they will listen and maybe alter it? don't know but won't hurt to ask[;)]

as it's cost nothing, worse they can say is no[:-]

[76mm]

In the same thread as Vic, Cameron also said it would be OFF by default: "As mentioned this part of the game can be toggled OFF for those who consider this a sensitive area. It's switched OFF by default."

I'm struggling to think of a good reason why this option is turned on by default. The in-game text says that "to avoid causing offense, the game defaults to a CLEAN war where all participants adhere to the Geneva Convention." Meanwhile, the in-game text states that regardless of whether this option is chosen, "Stalin is assumed to be a Ruthless Megalomaniac regardless." Finally, the manual states that that this option is meant to highlight the difficulties faced by the Germans, "not to promote a particular viewpoint, one way or another."

So let me get this straight...to avoid giving offense (should I guess to whom?) the default option falsely portrays the Germans as lily-white, and the Soviets as ruthless. And yet this ahistorical white-wash supposedly does not promote a particular viewpoint? Really??

I have no problem with the devs including this option in the game, although its not for me. But to include a white-wash of Nazi atrocities as a default option, even in a game, is disturbing and inappropriate.

[zakblood]

it's not for me to comment on any further tbh, that's a developers call or staff, for me it's a game, and just a game, no politics or history question get replies from me sorry[:(]

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Germans as lily-white, and the Soviets as ruthless

I think only Stalin, not all Soviets.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: morvael
I think only Stalin, not all Soviets.

OK, so Hitler was a teddy bear, and Stalin was a ruthless megalomaniac...

And don't get me wrong--Stalin was a ruthless megalomaniac. But Hitler was no teddy bear, and yet in this game, by default, he is just that. Very curious design choice, and I'd like to hear the devs' rationale.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: zakblood
...for me it's a game, and just a game...

Sure, it's a game, but last time I checked it was supposed to be a historical wargame? Surely there should be a good reason to deviate so far from history?

[morvael]

Would be good to hear that, yes.

To me this option is not about leaders, but about actions of ordinary troops (i.e. what your units do). At this stage of the war majority of crimes were perpetrated by the Germans. I guess mass execution of prisoners, held in NKVD prisons in western parts of the country (performed by Soviets), because they could not be evacuated east, is totally outside the scope of the game (no impact on both military forces). Meanwhile actions of German troops were reason for stubborn defense or do-or-die attempts to flee encirclements by Red Army troops, which caused serious delays in German operations, and for quickly turning the entire population hostile, where some elements were initially considering Germans better alternative to Soviet rule, which caused the partisan movement to increase in strength very quickly.

[BodyBag33]

Does it matter if it's default or not?
Surely the important thing is, that you can have the more realistic option.

It is probably self-censorship, like not using the svastika-symbol.
Many people think that it's banned in Germany, but it's not. If you are using it in a historical context, it's fine.

[Jagdtiger14]

I agree with 76mm.

Questions: 1. Why would anyone consider the Geneva Convention a "sensitive area" for any war game (especially eastern front WWII)? 2. Avoid "causing offense" with the default being a clean war? Some of you say this is just a game (when historical accuracy is debated)...then why the need for all of this? I would like to hear opinions from the PC side on this.

Yes, 76mm...I would love for you to guess as to who might be offended.

WWII eastern front meets 2015 political correctness. Your post on this subject would be considered a "micro aggression"...and now I need a "safe place" (no media allowed) to recover from your aggression and feel better about myself.

[Vic]

I guess there will even be people who could take offense just at the idea of a wargame.

Taking displeasure or offense at a certain measure of portrayal of gruwsome subjects is inherently subjective.
And so is the 'Geneva Convention' and what it blocks and what not. A certain arbitrary judgement is involved here. For what can be considered undesired will differ from player to player.

No matter the exact distribution of preferences there is a certain group of gamers who prefer not to be confronted with the darker side of the conflict.
Among the decisions blocked are the Hitler Oath / NSDAP membership and decisions concerning einsatzgruppen.

For my part I am happy we have chosen an opt-in instead of an opt-out model. Its does the job. People have to make a concious choice to play the full rules.

Best wishes,
Vic

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: BodyBag33
Does it matter if it's default or not?
Surely the important thing is, that you can have the more realistic option.

Actually, it does matter if it is default or not:
--as explained above, many players simply play with default options, whatever they are. So things like forum discussions and the majority of PBEM++ challenges will be based on this fantasy version of the East Front;
--moreover, lots of people play these games to immerse themselves in, and learn more about, history. Therefore deliberate falsifications of history should not be included as default options.

[morvael]

Omission is not falsification.

Actually, I think it's great the developers have noticed connection between the "dark side" and actual military operations (as they were interconnected), and that they were brave enough to have included this in the game, even if as optional choice. Being off by default it makes DC3 no different from all other games to date in this aspect. So it's an improvement.

[Jagdtiger14]

Thank you for your response Vic! I have to admit that although I've been wargaming for a long time and play (current and past) monster games face to face with wargamers from different parts of the world, I probably have not encountered as many wargamers as you have.

I'm curious: Are there really (have you encountered?) wargamers "who prefer not to be confronted with the darker side of the conflict"? I assume you have. This is just amazing to me...I've never heard of anything like this.

The closest I came to this was at Euro WiFcon...my buddy and I from south Florida played three guys from Denmark. We brought our own game incase it was needed (which it was). Our game's national German markers had swastika's on them...the Danish guys never flinched. One day coming back from lunch (with the Danish guys), we noticed markers covering the swastika's...the con organizer (German) came running to us with a desperate look on his face informing us that its not allowed...that they could lose the convention site. We removed the swastika's, laughed and snickered about the idiocy.

[Vic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Vic
Taking displeasure or offense at a certain measure of portrayal of gruwsome subjects is inherently subjective...
For what can be considered undesired will differ from player to player.

No matter the exact distribution of preferences there is a certain group of gamers who prefer not to be confronted with the darker side of the conflict.

For my part I am happy we have chosen an opt-in instead of an opt-out model. Its does the job. People have to make a concious choice to play the full rules.

With all due respect, the "darker side of the conflict" was an integral part of the war in Russia, and deliberately ignoring "gruesome subjects" can also be considered pandering to those who--for whatever reason--deny or rationalize German atrocities in Russia and elsewhere. I can't see how this is subjective at all--we are talking about facts, and if someone is not comfortable with the facts maybe they should play a different game?

Honestly, I am very disappointed that you've decided that it is more important to please the "certain group of gamers who prefer not to be confronted with the darker side of the conflict" rather than depict the harsh reality--it is a huge cop-out and disservice to those on the receiving side of that "darker side of the conflict".

Previously both you and Cameron said that this option would be OFF by default, but now you say that you are happy that people have to opt out of playing a false, sanitized version of history?

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.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: morvael
Omission is not falsification.
...
Being off by default it makes DC3 no different from all other games to date in this aspect. So it's an improvement.

Morvael, you lost me here... First, we are talking precisely about falsification, not omission.

While it is true that most wargames ignore the darker aspects of the war, by doing so they simply do not address it, not falsify it, as is the case here. If a game decides to address these issues, it should address them accurately, not in some sanitized, fantasy version.

[etsadler]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: morvael
Omission is not falsification.
...
Being off by default it makes DC3 no different from all other games to date in this aspect. So it's an improvement.

Morvael, you lost me here... First, we are talking precisely about falsification, not omission.

While it is true that most wargames ignore the darker aspects of the war, by doing so they simply do not address it, not falsify it, as is the case here. If a game decides to address these issues, it should address them accurately, not in some sanitized, fantasy version.

76 I'm really not following you here at all. I don't personally know of any other game that includes anything about the atrocities of WWII. The fact that it is an option at all puts it above other games. So the fact that they have the standard option to be like all other games, with the "opt-in" option to include these unsavory facets seem perfectly appropriate to me.

I also don't understand at all where you are getting a "sanitized, fantasy version." The option is either off, and the game plays like any other game, that is, without these events, or it is on and includes them. Where is the fantasy, the falsity??

And while you can buy or not at your whim, I'm 100% confused about why the option being the way it is would have made you not buy. To punish Matrix for including such an interesting, controversial and non-PC topic in a game, or for not shoving it down everyone's throat?