Better Vietnam war game.

[DarthLightsaber]

Which one of these games is better? I don't know which one to buy.

[Laozi]

to me vietnam games are of extremely poor taste.

[TentamusDarkblade]

yup. Viet nam games so far seem to be done in pretty bad taste.

[Drakron]

Why?

 

Because the US lost it?

[Whitemithrandir]

Why?

 

Because the US lost it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because most vietnam war games focus on the glory of a war that in reality, had very little of it.

[Laozi]

Why?

 

Because the US lost it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

My father is a vietnam vet. Not only that he was in Marine Recon a special forces division thats often portrayed in these games. I would be horribly embarassed if he was in the room when anyone was playing one of these games.

[Drakron]

Because most vietnam war games focus on the glory of a war that in reality, had very little of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its true but there were some more conventional battles in that war.

 

The issue with making a game set on the Vietman conflict is that it was a war without defined combat lines and a very psycological war with makes it hard to come up with missions were the player is forced to witness and commit atrocities from not only the enemy side but his.

[Darth_Radnor]

Vietnam should not be trivialized into a game. Thousands of soldiers died there, and to have the option for anyone to play as a soldier and kill and maim and pause the game whenever is extremely offending to anyone who survived the horror of Vietnam. My two cents.

[Conspiracy Theorist]

The vets who returned home from the war got the crap beat out of them in numerous ways: financially, psycologically, physically, socialogically. To make money off of their sacrifce overseas and even in their hometowns where they should have been safe is pretty sad.

[Rosbjerg]

oh but it's okay to make money on a WW2 game where the exact same thing happened .. but only for the german soldiers .. because it's been 60 years? because you won? because the germans who fought in the war weren't really humans? you weren't exactly the nicest people in that war either, but as Churchill so elequently put it "History is going to be kind to me, as I intend to write it!"

 

it's never 'alright' .. no matter what war!

 

but that won't stop the games from being made .. and ignoring the issues won't sovle anything either! so why not just make something out of it instead?

I play both Vietnam and WW2 games .. and I always keep in mind, the millions who perished in both wars, on all sides! and I take the games as a lesson, a lesson and a reminder of those who came before me, and fought for my freedom and my rights!

[Gorth]

Wow, it only took 1 (one!) reply to derail this thread. That should at least be a tie for the record (yet to see a thread derailed in the thread creation)

[213374U]

Why?

 

Because the US lost it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because most vietnam war games focus on the glory of a war that in reality, had very little of it.

Vietnam should not be trivialized into a game. Thousands of soldiers died there, and to have the option for anyone to play as a soldier and kill and maim and pause the game whenever is extremely offending to anyone who survived the horror of Vietnam. My two cents.

That's hipocrisy. All of the above can be applied to any war, from the dawn of time. War is nasty business, no matter if you 'win' or lose. The problem here is that the 'Nam conflict is still a sensitive spot for north americans because of the beating they took. It happens to the best of us. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That's how wars work.

 

If you say that you don't like the idea of war games, thats OK with me. But so far I've not seen a single comment against MOHAA or BF1942. And that was one hell of a war.

 

On topic, I prefer Battlefield Vietnam...

[Laozi]

I can see that no one here really knows what vietnam was all about and the "beating" we took. The problem I have is the completely inaccurate portrayal of what happen. They never make your solider have to kill a twelve year old with a machine gun. You're never sitting in camp when some children ride by on a bike and start throwing grenades. Theres never a part where some G.I.s dies because he had sex with a prostitute who had razorblades inside of them. They never show G.I. wiping out a whole village of people because they may or may not have been helping the enemy.

 

Also you'll never hear some general say that we must win this war so that Southeast asia has no countries with a strong government as a model, thus making sure that western corporations will be able to exploit cheap labor for years to come. That we have to stop bombing the supply routes so that this war doesn't end too quickly, and we can keep a 100 billion dollar industry, the war industry going. Nope don't here about that. But if you want to compare that to a game based on WW2 and stopping an expansionist power that tried to exterminate a race of people, then by all means.....

[213374U]

I can see that no one here really knows what vietnam was all about and the "beating" we took. The problem I have is the completely inaccurate portrayal of what happen. They never make your solider have to kill a twelve year old with a machine gun. You're never sitting in camp when some children ride by on a bike and start throwing grenades. Theres never a part where some G.I.s dies because he had sex with a prostitute who had razorblades inside of them. They never show G.I. wiping out a whole village of people because they may or may not have been helping the enemy.

Again, the same can be said of any war. And I still see no complaints about any other war game. Yup, the Vietnam war was a horrible thing. The wars the romans waged against Carthage were not devoid of cruelty either. The only difference is that they didn't have napalm.

 

 

Also you'll never hear some general say that we must win this war so that Southeast asia has no countries with a strong government as a model, thus making sure that western corporations will be able to exploit cheap labor for years to come. That we have to stop bombing the supply routes so that this war doesn't end too quickly, and we can keep a 100 billion dollar industry, the war industry going. Nope don't here about that. But if you want to compare that to a game based on WW2 and stopping an expansionist power that tried to exterminate a race of people, then by all means.....

Um, at the time, nobody knew that the nazis were exterminating the jews, except for the nazis themselves. By entering the war against germany, the US were doing just as they did in Vietnam, that is, look after their own interests. That often involves the death of lots of people. I'm not playing devil's advocate here, it's just the way things work.

 

You know, the soviets probably killed more people in the USSR existence than the nazis ever did. There was no war between the US and the USSR, even though there were a few close calls. None of those, however, were because of the millions that had died and were still dying in the siberian camps. So don't give me a speech about crusades in the name of good, because those aren't any more real than Santa.

[Laozi]

I'm pretty sure I've commented on the fact that the reasons given to the american public about Vietnam are indeed a farce, but if you really believe that america only had its best interest in entering WW II the I think its you who are kidding yourself

[Darth Ni]

The U.S. didn't go to war in Vietnam defending freedom. It's just so that they could ensure their dominance in the world. Besides, South Vietnam wasn't even a democratic state, it was dictatorial, corrupt and unpopular (even it's own people were against the government). There is no justification for war and whoever said that there is glory in war is wrong. War is not about glory and most countries will go through any means to ensure that they win it. Don't go giving me this honour or glory B.S.. I respect the sacrifice of those soldiers but I cannot respect the governments which perpetrated these acts of war. There is always an ulteriror motive... Sad but true. In the end, you can't go criticizing all the German soldiers. Many of them were conscripted into the army. If they didn't fight, they would be killed anyway. So you call them war criminals because they didn't want to be killed?

[Darth_Radnor]

The only difference is that they didn't have napalm.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But they salted the crop fields, which was comparable to napalm back then

[213374U]

I'm pretty sure I've commented on the fact that the reasons given to the american public about Vietnam are indeed a farce, but if you really believe that america only had its best interest in entering WW II the I think its you who are kidding yourself

Yep, that's exactly it. The US were only looking after their own interest. It turned out that dealing with Germany was also in the interest of the rest of the Allies, because they were getting their asses handed to them by the Germans, but that's a mere coincidence. It was just a matter of preventing a hegemonic power from rising in Europe. It's the same move France and England tried to pull, only they underestimated the german war machine.

As you can see, there was no other reason for the US to declare war on the germans. Their issue was with the japanese.

 

Nobody goes to war out of kindness and friendship. It's too costly and nasty a business for that. There are always underlying interests. If you can make it look in such way that you can later claim you had a more humane reason to bring on the slaughter, as paradoxical as that may seem, even better, but that's not a requirement.

[Laozi]

nope, if you will, try to think back to your first history lessons. You might recall that Japan/Germany/Italy had this thing, it was sort of an agreement. What was that thing called?

[213374U]

nope, if you will, try to think back to your first history lessons. You might recall that Japan/Germany/Italy had this thing, it was sort of an agreement. What was that thing called?

Um, so?

[Laozi]

So the agreement kind of makes it hard to say that america's only issue was with Japan. And then theres the fact that america was selling weapons to the british for next to nothing. A country with only its interest in mind probaly wouldn't have much of a problem making a healthy profit off such things

[Rosbjerg]

in the case of WW2 America did indeed sell cheap weapons to England .. for land, England gave up some colonies and gave up some rights and claims to US for alot of ships ..

but it was in the best interest of US to keep England in power! because Germany would eventually try to conquer America if they took all of Europe .. I mean Hitler was insane!! he would probably want to conquer the entire world for his "living space" as he callled it .. and Japan also threatened America's little puppet 'The Phillipiens' (or how ever you spell it) who gave alot of natural resources to America..

 

and the pact they made divided The World up into 3 sections .. Europe (and maybe America) for Germany, Africa and the Middle East for Italy and all of Asia for Japan .. ca of course .. I can't remember how it was exactly!

 

but I fail to see how that is a threat Laozi? that was already established, now the 3 powers just had formalized it on paper!

 

But at the end of the war The Allied grinded Dresden to dust with heavy bombs, and fuel for the fires.. there were no military presence in the town, only industry .. almost the entire population of the city was killed ..

 

they even allowed the Germans to utterly destroy one of England major southern cities, because they couldn't reveal that they had taken the 'Enigma' decoder ..

 

So they didn't do 'the right thing' .. they did what was necessary!

 

and then not to mention the fact that America dropped 2 nukes (just so that it would seem they had more) over Japan, instead of risking an invasion .. killing thousands upon thousands of civilians! women, kids and men ..

 

so there is no 'holy crusade' in war .. it all about who is willing to do what's necessary!

[213374U]

So the agreement kind of makes it hard to say that america's only issue was with Japan. And then theres the fact that america was selling weapons to the british for next to nothing. A country with only its interest in mind probaly wouldn't have much of a problem making a healthy profit off such things

Uh, the Tripartite Pact stated that if any member was attacked, the other would come to the rescue. But that doesn't mean that if a member attacks another country, the other members need to declare war on that country too. It was a mutual defense pact, not a mutual aggression pact. And we all know the US didn't move a finger until Pearl Harbor was attacked.

 

And as for the US selling weapons to England, well, they were selling them after all, and not giving them away. That way their losses wouldn't be too much (if any at all), and they were making an effort towards stopping the germans' advance. Which was in their own interest, mind you. So you're kinda proving my point here.

[Laozi]

No it doesn't really prove you point. If the U.S. would have tried your little scheme, then Germany and Italy declare was on the U.S., plain and simple.

 

 

As for being "invaded" its a simple matter of logistics. Germany was already streched, i wouldn't say thin, but streched, after the occupation of france. Now lets say Germany is completely sucessful in Europe and manages to control England and Russia, huh. Now I've played Wolfenstein too, and even if the Germans had "monsters" and such it would still be all but impossible for the germans to build a navy(if you read much about naval war the germans ha a smaller navy then the british), move its troops across the Atlantic, and sucessfully occupied the United States. Its not even good science fiction, I mean maybe if cloning had been discovered or something of that nature, but in no way could they have occupied america. So as a result of that, then america could have easily continued an isolationist policy if that had been its will.

[213374U]

No it doesn't really prove you point. If the U.S. would have tried your little scheme, then Germany and Italy declare was on the U.S., plain and simple.

Yes, it does prove my point. The US were doing all they could to prevent the germans from achieving supremacy in Europe, short of entering the war themselves. Germany and Italy had their hands full at the moment, and it would have been suicidal to declare war on the US as things were. History proved that. But anyway, I don't deal with hypothetics. None of that really happened, so your point is moot.

 

 

As for being "invaded" its a simple matter of logistics. Germany was already streched, i wouldn't say thin, but streched, after the occupation of france. Now lets say Germany is completely sucessful in Europe and manages to control England and Russia, huh. Now I've played Wolfenstein too, and even if the Germans had "monsters" and such it would still be all but impossible for the germans to build a navy(if you read much about naval war the germans ha a smaller navy then the british), move its troops across the Atlantic, and sucessfully occupied the United States. Its not even good science fiction, I mean maybe if cloning had been discovered or something of that nature, but in no way could they have occupied america. So as a result of that, then america could have easily continued an isolationist policy if that had been its will.

Don't be so narrow sighted. I'm not saying that Germany could have successfully invaded the US. I don't think the US govt. considered that a threat, either. However, they didn't want a new power that could consolidate a hegemony in Europe and a large part of Asia. Preventing that was on their best interest, as it increased the US' chances of being the dominant superpower after the war, even more so considering that they were the only party involved in the war whose mainland hadn't been directly under fire. As always, it all comes down to politics. No honor, no good intentions. Deal with it.