The prisioners

while we are at it lets introduce, concentration camps that lower rebellion, forced labour that boosts resource production, suicide prisoner squads augment province defence, human labrats that boost research and every other war attrocity ever seen in human history oh and lets not forget human slavery and trade as was recently requested in another post to trade manpower.

While you are at it put the swastica in the game.

i belive I have suggested this, It was not taken well, the idea is a good one, but this is a game that trys to stay away from the darker aspects of war

Kanaris wrote:

while we are at it lets introduce, concentration camps that lower rebellion, forced labour that boosts resource production, suicide prisoner squads augment province defence, human labrats that boost research and every other war attrocity ever seen in human history oh and lets not forget human slavery and trade as was recently requested in another post to trade manpower.

While you are at it put the swastica in the game.

Prisoners might be fun, but let's look at it another way. Why would you force weary, angry soldiers to work for you? Their morale must be terrible.

You get plenty of manpower from civilians, they work for you.

Kanaris wrote:

while we are at it lets introduce, concentration camps that lower rebellion, forced labour that boosts resource production, suicide prisoner squads augment province defence, human labrats that boost research and every other war attrocity ever seen in human history oh and lets not forget human slavery and trade as was recently requested in another post to trade manpower.

While you are at it put the swastica in the game.

Then why not implement all of it? Just a game right? Thats your argument isn't it? By all means implement it all, by your logic ethics are not required in a game...

There's a difference between being open to the ideas of others without taking the moral highground and changing a game into whatever.

dont evade the question as its the crux of the whole debate, if we should not be concerned by ethics due to this being merely a game, then there is no logical reason for not implementing all of the above suggestion right? I mean its not ahistorical or anything; it did happen in real life so why not reproduce it?

the germans use the prisioners like slaves they use this people to work in his proyects

General Nightman wrote:

Prisoners might be fun, but let's look at it another way. Why would you force weary, angry soldiers to work for you? Their morale must be terrible.

You get plenty of manpower from civilians, they work for you.

ok people calm this is only an idea in the future we can modificate and do better

Kanaris wrote:

while we are at it lets introduce, concentration camps that lower rebellion, forced labour that boosts resource production, suicide prisoner squads augment province defence, human labrats that boost research and every other war attrocity ever seen in human history oh and lets not forget human slavery and trade as was recently requested in another post to trade manpower.

While you are at it put the swastica in the game.

Concentration camps, forced labor, suicide prisoner squads, human labrats and slavery do not logicly and de facto connect to having prisoners. Every modern country in the world has prisoners, they do not necessarily have the things you say come with it.

Just as manpower being able to be transfered among players does not automaticly mean ''slavery''. Which could also be called ''aid'' or ''expeditionary force'' or ''game mechanic''.

Kanaris wrote:

Then why not implement all of it? Just a game right? Thats your argument isn't it? By all means implement it all, by your logic ethics are not required in a game...

Sure, I'll bite.

This is a game, ethics are indeed connected to this and any game, up to which point is decided by whoever runs the game. Thats why sall the things you mention are not something the game will likely embrace and/or incorporate. The game speaks about national socializm in a disassociative manner within the rules, so they are able to dissociate with this view throughout and in any manner they see fit.

Your argument is invalid. It is a slipery slope type argument, saying A leads to B unconditionally, so why not C?

With a conclusion that just drops out of the sky ''by your logic ethics are not required in a game''.

Perhaps an example following your line of reasoning makes your reasoning more insightfull to yourself. And why it is indeed flawed reasoning.

Proposal: why not give the child a cookie?

Your reasoning: well than why not also give a chocolatebar, a whole bag of crisps, and a box of hard candies to the child. Since giving all this candy is unacceptable, giving one single cookie is unacceptable.

So when someone in this forum suggests to make having prisoners possible, put them in ''prison camps'' and have them generate labour ((meaning increased resource production?) I guess). You decide that means that they also want to introduce a lot of other things. The ''other'' things being the ones that are ethicly unacceptable.

Your line of reasoning, slippery slope type argument, is invalid. There is no connection between any of the things you say.

If you were to say that there is something iffy about the original post in this thread. That, suggesting prisoners to be a possible feat in the game and have them be put in camps and generate resources shares to much similarity to a concentration camp or forced labor camp for example. Then I would say you make a good point. And on that ground I would agree with you. I do in fact think that the original idea presented in this thread resembles a concentration camp or forced labor camp to much. Which is actually not at all helped by (what I find) a very untasteful picture in the original post itself... However, this could be further discussed of course.

Objecting to the original post based on possible similarity with unethical things makes somewhat sense. Since the resemblence is, well, quite evident I'd say.

However, an objection based on your: A leads to B so why not C? type reasoning leads to nothing. Though perhaps to confusion.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Edepedable wrote:

Suggesting ''having enemy prisoners'' in the game does not automaticly lead to all the things you mention being implied.

Nor did I imply such a thing! Once again this is your misinterpretation as to what I said and the point I am trying to make. Yes your entire rant is based on your misinterpretation leading to your flawed conclusions. If you want further explanations as to why the entire post is wrong feel free to PM me and I will be more than happy to discuss it. I do not see the need to discuss it here and waste every bodies time. Specially since you seem to want to start a flame war, something I have no interest in doing. If am wrong about your intentions I apologize in advance and once again I invite you to PM me so we can discuss it as gentlemen and avoid further needless escalation specially after last time.

Having said that I will address the only relevant point in your post:

Edepedable wrote:

This is a game, ethics are indeed connected to this and any game, up to which point is decided by whoever runs the game. Thats why sall the things you mention are not something the game will likely embrace and/or incorporate. The game speaks about national socializm in a disassociative manner within the rules, so they are able to dissociate with this view throughout and in any manner they see fit.

This is the only thing we partially agree on and I say partially as I only fully agree with the first sentence the rest is neither up to you or me to decide its really up to Bytro to decide and clearly define as they see fit.

With that in mind here is my reply:

Whilst admittedly I am new to CoW only been playing the last 2 years or so, I have been a loyal Bytro customer since 2010 playing Supremacy and another fantasy/medieval themed game that no longer exists. I have known Bytro to be a good principled company that goes out of its way to preserve and foster respect in its gaming communities while having above board morals regarding what type of content is permitted or not.

If things have recently changed and this is no longer the case as the latest posts from BMfox lead me to believe, then I would like to know about it. As he happens to be a forum moderator like it or not; whether he is a paid employee or a volunteer he does represent the company as a spokesperson in some capacity. Thus, it’s not farfetched to assume that up to a certain degree his statements reflect the opinions promoted by the company he represents. I believe we are all entitled to know what views and values the corporate entity known as Bytro represents and wishes to promulgate.

So please lets settle this once and for all, is it important to Bytro that the gaming content remain ethical or not important? The answer may not matter to most but it sure does matter to me! So, which is it?

I urge you not to reply and let the responsible parties answer this one; be it BMfox or one of his colleagues.

Cheers

Kanaris wrote:

Specially since you seem to want to start a flame war, something I have no interest in doing. If am wrong about your intentions I apologize in advance and once again I invite you to PM me so we can discuss it as gentlemen and avoid further needless escalation specially after last time.

I will further respond to your post through PM.

I have one question the prisioneros Will be un the Game ir not

Urano08 wrote:

I have one question the prisioneros Will be un the Game ir not

I know of some factors that matter:

- popular support (few people asking for something will likely not be incorperated).

- game mechanics (does it add to the fun of the game, make it more or less complex; whichever is wanted, etcetera).

- historical accuracy (to keep the ww2 feel of the game. No laser dinosaurs for example).

- ethics (for example, the holocaust will never be part of the game).

- does the suggestion keep the game appealing in the way that it is now.

- cost/gain from a developers point of view (time is limited, choices have to be made, what is deemed more of a priority over other things).

There are probably lots of other factors that play a role which I did not mention. Fact remains that only Bytro knows exactly.

However, based on the criteria I have mentioned my guess is that the answer to your question will likely be no.

Edepedable wrote:

However, based on the criteria I have mentioned my guess is that the answer to your question will likely be no.