Which war do you like better, WWI or WWII?

Which World War was better?

  • WWI

    Votes: 22 25.0%
  • WWII

    Votes: 51 58.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 15 17.0%

  • Total voters
    88
WWII is really interesting but I already know a lot about it, so I tend to read into WWI more nowadays. Plus something about the age of imperialism in Europe is really appealing to me, which was very much more present in the first than the second.
 
The mustard gas! I know! God that was just a thing of beauty. It's sad mustard gas is now illegal, so unsporting of the Swiss to leverage that.
Yeah, spoilsports! Who are they to take away our weapons? They don't even fight wars! :gripe:

The one where the bad guys won.
WWII is is, then.

What an odd question. I don't particularly like any war.
MURDERER! :mad:

WW2 because more people died.

Moderator Action: That sounds like trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I know this is PDMA, and I'm going to get raped up the ass for it, but since when was suggesting that more people dying than less is better with little other context "trolling"? Does this follow on through other posts? Is suggesting that the Nuremberg trials were better than the trials of former Yugoslav war criminals due to more people dying in the former "trolling"? Would advocating abortion be considered "trolling" because a commonly held view is that abortion is the same as killing people? Clarification required, plz?

War is bad, mkay?
No, it is not, mkay?
 
Whichever one caused the least loss of life.

So WWII.

lolwut?

Welll, from a gaming standpoint, WWII has been infinitely better as there have been far, far more video games (and board games for that matter) covering it from various angles.

You consider that a good thing?

Did you read my mind from when I first read the question? :p I vote for WWII because it wasn't composed of trench fighting as much.

Ummm....no.
 
Bah, WWII was the rare sequel to a stellar game that was actually better than the original. With tons of new factions, playable theaters, and loads of new gameplay options, it was just an overall better version. .... And I for one, look forward to the third and final version, WWIII. Although it keeps getting delayed and pushed back year after year, I have faith it will be released someday.
Great Post !!!

I am a firm believer WWII was the most interesting War. WWI was just a warm-up match for the main event. Especially in Europe.

It's also the reason I am still modding Civ 4 for WWII. I love the advanced Technology and the rapid advances made during the war. e.g.

1) Bolt-Action to Semi-Auto Rifles
2) 37mm to 128mm Tank Guns
3) Bi-Planes to Jet Fighters
4) Battleships to Aircraft Carriers
 
That was a half joke against Godwyns never ending German nationalist posts. Still, the Dresden bombing was pretty awesome as far as comeuppances go.
A comeuppance for what? The British genocide of Germans in 1918-9? Oh, wait, that didn't happen, Brits never do anything wrong or commit any sort of war crime.

Your non-American nationalistic blinders make me sick
 
Actually Id say the Brits got some nicely deserved comeuppance in that conflict too, if it was a bit light. If youre looking for a pro-Brit youre about as far away from one as youre gonna get, dude.
 
The point is that "comeuppance" is a uniquely ******ed and self-destructive way of viewing international relations
 
That isnt a clarification.

Well, I can't comprehend why war would be seen as a bad thing? Surely as major a catalyst of positive change in everything from life-saving medical technology, through to communications and transport, hell, even to things as far-reaching as art and literature. And the heroism it emboldens, whereby a man should risk his own life in the attempt of providing a better future for his community - family, friends, acquaintances, even people he'd never have met...
 
The point is that "comeuppance" is a uniquely ******ed and self-destructive way of viewing international relations

Well, yeah, which is why Im mostly joking around.

Well, I can't comprehend why war would be seen as a bad thing? Surely as major a catalyst of positive change in everything from life-saving medical technology, through to communications and transport, hell, even to things as far-reaching as art and literature. And the heroism it emboldens, whereby a man should risk his own life in the attempt of providing a better future for his community - family, friends, acquaintances, even people he'd never have met...

Oh yeah, totally dude. Pew pew!
 
Well, I can't comprehend why war would be seen as a bad thing? Surely as major a catalyst of positive change in everything from life-saving medical technology, through to communications and transport, hell, even to things as far-reaching as art and literature. And the heroism it emboldens, whereby a man should risk his own life in the attempt of providing a better future for his community - family, friends, acquaintances, even people he'd never have met...

Comm's photo is a good one. I'd wait until you've been on the sharp end of war before you rush to glorify it - and I owe my livelihood to it!

The British genocide of Germans in 1918-9?

Hang on, I've never heard that one? I think that the one thing you can say for us is that our 'genocides' tend to be through massive incompetance or lack of action rather than directly going out and exterminating people.
 
Two is much more interesting, One saw some great innovation, but remained static virtually the entire time.
 
Hang on, I've never heard that one?
I'm not surprised! Happily for the UK, it was technically legal by the terms of the armistice. Still pretty loathsome though!
Two is much more interesting, One saw some great innovation, but remained static virtually the entire time.
What remained static about the war? I'm genuinely curious!
 
I'm not surprised! Happily for the UK, it was technically legal by the terms of the armistice. Still pretty loathsome though!

Are we talking about the whole 'squeeze Germany until the pips squeak' thing? I wouldn't call that genocide per se; since the intent was to recouperate losses from a less-than-popular defeated enemy, not to wipe them out: that was a - probably - un-intended consequence.

What remained static about the war? I'm genuinely curious!

Well, compared with other wars, the Western Front saw relatively little net movement from 1916-early 1918; the popular perception is that nobody moved and that there was no innovation. Whichis rubbish, but anyway.
 
Two is much more interesting, One saw some great innovation, but remained static virtually the entire time.
Sure, on the Western front, but that was only one theatre.

Admittedly, it was Hell on Earth, which is no doubt why we pay so much attention to the trenches and jack all to everywhere else.
 
Top Bottom