[freeciv-data] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: About Fascism and compromises

["Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Reed Meyer wrote:
> This should have been obvious and in any case made clear in other posts,
> but apparently it hasn't been.  The proposed Nazi nation represents NAZI
> GERMANY, *NOT* any kind of political party or ***ANYTHING*** other than
> Germany during the years 1933-1945.  The name "Nazi" was chosen because it
> was short, and has a simple adjectival form (the same word).  Juan and I
> tried to come up with other names (such as "The Third Reich", "Dritter
> Reich", etc.) but nothing was short and could make a good adjective (i.e.,
> what is the best adjectival form of "The Third Reich"?  -- the entire
> meaning, mind you, not just Reich.)

What is wrong with "German"? Most wargames I have played use this simple
term. It is not like they stopped being Germans during the Nazi regime
(even though I suspect many would wish that).

>      If you reject the inclusion of the Nazi nation (Nazi being short for
> "Nazi Germany") on ANYTHING but the assertion that it is offensive, then
> you must reject several other nations included in freeciv.

No. The simple reason why anything fascist/nazi related is not wanted is
because it is _politically loaded_ still, even 50 years after. This is
what you do not seem to understand. Stalin and Atilla may have been in the
same category as leaders-of-state as Hitler, but their names and
"communism" and "Huns" are no longer politically loaded. 

I do not understand why you insist that something should be included in
the standard distro of freeciv which so obviously upsets a lot of people.

>      For example, because both the Romans and Italians are in there, and
> Communist and modern Russia, you can't reject the Nazi nation based
> on the argument "that's just Germany in a different time period".

It is not even in a different time period. And as far as I am aware, the
"communist Russia" ruleset has been removed from the distribution in
favour of "modern Russia". Roman/Italian is the only exception to the
rule, I believe, and from what I've heard cities do not overlap between
them.

>      I would view including Fascism as a plus for freeciv, because ANY
> FEATURE WHICH IS DIFFERENT from the commercial Civ games means it's less
> of an obvious rip-off of said games.  Why the freeciv community wants to
> blindly mimic Civ II in virtually every detail is beyond my comprehension.

There are many other, and much better, ways to make freeciv different
from payCiv. See the recent wonder thread, for instance.

> No.  It would expire too quickly.  Besides, the real "Blitzkrieg" (I'm not
> talking strictly about how the Germans practiced it in WW2) is still a
> principle used today.  C.f. "Persian Gulf War, 1991".

You mean "we bomb them until they are too exhausted to fight, and then
roll over them with bulldozers and claim victory" = Blietzkrieg? No, 
please. That would be grossly ahistorical.

>      The only plausible suggestion I have heard so far regarding "how to
> fix Blitzkrieg" (not that I feel it needs fixing) is to make it a regular
> building rather than a Wonder, like an advanced Barracks that sits in each
> city (kind of like Mfg. Plant sits in each city along with a Factory).
> Then, "Blitzkrieg" (the building) would confer its effect on each unit
> which comes out of that city.  But this means more changes to the source
> code, and keeping some kind of "tag" along with each unit in addition to
> veteran/non-veteran status.

I do not feel it belongs in the game as a building at all. It is a
strategy, and players _do_ strategies, they don't build them...

Yours,
Per