Civilians killing with rocks?

[PFunk]

Can a rock pose a legitimate threat to a fully combat kitted western soldier layered with kevlar and bergens stuffed with no doubt plenty of stuff that would act like padding? I seriously doubt that. If modern body armor can stop small calibre rounds then how can a rock hurt him? Only way I could see that is if the guy gets hit in the face which is a very small part of his body and really you wouldn't be exposing that if you were getting rocks thrown at you and couldn't shoot back.

This is Project Reality afterall. Most things in this game are balanced based on what would happen in real life. Unless someone can tell me of a single case where a soldier was seriously injured by one guy throwing rocks then I might soften my position. I however am not convinced that rocks defeat kevlar.

[tokenride]

Sometimes I think the stones may be a tad overpowered. I threw one at a wall, it bounced off and hit another civi in the head. Dead

[PoisonBill]

Sometimes I think the stones may be a tad overpowered. I threw one at a wall, it bounced off and hit another civi in the head. Dead

Clark Kent? Kryptonite? :O

[aurimas]

imagine you in war and few civilians comes with rocks on you. You shot couple round in to air and they run away scared from you
In pr they want that you kill them

[Murphy]

Civilians are indeed an oddity in terms of how they are played with the entire game premise being "realistic team work". They are akin to how unrealistic an AT guy is just to take out that piece of Armour. A civilian in a war zone should not act the way they are played a lot of the time, even if they want martyrdom.

I wish there were mechanics/checks in place to avoid the unrealistic play style promoted in these two cases.

[Mikemonster]

..

This is Project Reality afterall. Most things in this game are balanced based on what would happen in real life. Unless someone can tell me of a single case where a soldier was seriously injured by one guy throwing rocks then I might soften my position. I however am not convinced that rocks defeat kevlar.

I'm sure that many squads in Iraq had to withdraw or relocate because people were throwing rocks at them. You say that it'd only hurt if they hit your face and I agree (more or less), however if you were getting those things thrown at you you'd want to move.

Look at police in riot gear, designed to stop such things. They still get injured routinely (I admit, one in fifty perhaps).

[Kain888]

I'm sure that many squads in Iraq had to withdraw or relocate because people were throwing rocks at them. You say that it'd only hurt if they hit your face and I agree (more or less), however if you were getting those things thrown at you you'd want to move.

Look at police in riot gear, designed to stop such things. They still get injured routinely (I admit, one in fifty perhaps).

That's well stated. The point that many are bringing here is that civilians act unrealistically, but so do players on the other side. They do not respond accordingly, either shoot at civilian to make him start bleeding or other things like shooting at his feet. We can't expect players to follow all conventions about humane treating of civilians and we don't see them for obvious reasons - this is game where player on other team is your enemy. But you guys can't really expect civilians to play other way. ;]

Also mind that in PR we have 64 players, 32 on Insurgent side (and usually less, because of all switches ), there is no way of portraying angry mob with rocks, bottles, other potentially dangerous objects that rises when another home of poor family is being destroyed for purpose of finding weapons. I always thought of civilian as sort of representation of such mob or more collaborators around city. I think that rock that after few hits in head can wound people is fine because of that.

[SGT.Ice]

When the woman picks up the AK and Ewan McGregor shoots her? That's hardly a source for the situation of an Insurgency as the entire premise of Op. Gothic Serpent was a capture mission, not a drawn out COIN situation, nor a source for how the civilian>combatant process works.

My point was that a civilian until they pick up a weapon then they are a combatant. In response to people talking about just shooting the civis.

Can a rock pose a legitimate threat to a fully combat kitted western soldier layered with kevlar and bergens stuffed with no doubt plenty of stuff that would act like padding? I seriously doubt that. If modern body armor can stop small calibre rounds then how can a rock hurt him? Only way I could see that is if the guy gets hit in the face which is a very small part of his body and really you wouldn't be exposing that if you were getting rocks thrown at you and couldn't shoot back.

This is Project Reality afterall. Most things in this game are balanced based on what would happen in real life. Unless someone can tell me of a single case where a soldier was seriously injured by one guy throwing rocks then I might soften my position. I however am not convinced that rocks defeat kevlar.

Regardless of where it hits you, the impact is not completely absorbed. If you were to get hit in the helmet that padding isn't exactly made to absorb the g-force from that rock even if it's made to protect your head for richoting bullets, it isn't a perfect system. It's similar to a football helmet protecting against a hard hit.

Can a rock pose a legitimate threat to a fully combat kitted western soldier layered with kevlar and bergens stuffed with no doubt plenty of stuff that would act like padding? I seriously doubt that. If modern body armor can stop small calibre rounds then how can a rock hurt him? Only way I could see that is if the guy gets hit in the face which is a very small part of his body and really you wouldn't be exposing that if you were getting rocks thrown at you and couldn't shoot back.

This is Project Reality afterall. Most things in this game are balanced based on what would happen in real life. Unless someone can tell me of a single case where a soldier was seriously injured by one guy throwing rocks then I might soften my position. I however am not convinced that rocks defeat kevlar.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 97,00.html

2nd paragraph

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/to ... 5/1506.htm

2nd & 3rd paragraphs

[Stealthgato]

I don't understand why soldiers aren't allowed to fire at "civilians" when they are throwing rocks at them with the intent of mortally injuring them? It's like the riots in Greece, the rioters throwing molotovs at the riot police and setting them on fire, why does the police not shoot to kill such people? They clearly have intentions of killing them, how is it different than if they were shooting them with guns?

[Kain888]

I don't understand why soldiers aren't allowed to fire at "civilians" when they are throwing rocks at them with the intent of mortally injuring them? It's like the riots in Greece, the rioters throwing molotovs at the riot police and setting them on fire, why does the police not shoot to kill such people? They clearly have intentions of killing them, how is it different than if they were shooting them with guns?

Because if such "apparent" intentions will be sufficient for killing people then you can kill people for punching you because it's not different than shooting you with gun.

Also apart from bad logic you can easily add a lot of factors why armies want to avoid that. If you are on "peacekeeping" action shooting at civilians may be not the best idea, not only locally but as well internationally.

[Stealthgato]

Because if such "apparent" intentions will be sufficient for killing people then you can kill people for punching you because it's not different than shooting you with gun.

Also apart from bad logic you can easily add a lot of factors why armies want to avoid that. If you are on "peacekeeping" action shooting at civilians may be not the best idea, not only locally but as well internationally.

But a molotov cocktail setting people on fire? Really not enough reason? (going a bit off-topic here but this really grinds my gears).

[Navo]

Maybe they don't want to risk hitting bystanders?

[Kain888]

But a molotov cocktail setting people on fire? Really not enough reason? (going a bit off-topic here but this really grinds my gears).

Well they are being arrested and charged (usually they are masked ofc), I agree Molotov coctails are harsh and they indeed are lethal weapons, but you can't just shoot randomly as someone who should provide peace and tries to control situation. We had this "accident" casualties in times of communism in Poland and trust me nothing sets people against authority as boy killed even by "non lethal" pacification weapon. The difference between rioters and police is that the latter should try to do stuff by the law or they will be criminals as well.
In PR we can use buckshot/restrainer to arrest as well and we have no Molotovs (anymore ) so civilians do not posses such threat anyway. ;]

[illidur]

i find the effect of killing civis too weak still. ppl still shoot them and win all the time. rocks are just fun, they dont really do much when you just get shot anyways (they dont usually need intel).

[Arc_Shielder]

I don't understand why soldiers aren't allowed to fire at "civilians" when they are throwing rocks at them with the intent of mortally injuring them? It's like the riots in Greece, the rioters throwing molotovs at the riot police and setting them on fire, why does the police not shoot to kill such people? They clearly have intentions of killing them, how is it different than if they were shooting them with guns?

You know the answer for that = civil unrest. Nevermind that stray bullets could kill innocent bystanders or not so violent protesters.

I'm appalled to your lack of thinking on this matter. One of these days you should stop at GNR forums and check the barbarities they spit out against anyone they meddle with, often justifying their actions against "scum" even if it means hitting a few women and children among football fans.
Their efficiency in most cases are not dissuasive but provocative. Sometimes they're the first ones to set up the fire due to unconvincing reasons and there multiples examples across the world to exemplify that.

As for the topic, a rock does feel a bit overpowered but I really don't see an alternative to that.

[Mikemonster]

We could have a civilian specialist kit as pickup. Instead of a rock he gets a half-brick in a sock to whirl above his head.

[Murphy]

If civilians actually acted like a normal person would in a war zone maybe people wouldn't be forced to kill them so often.

Please find me any evidence of a civilian RUNNING INTO FIRE to intentionally die a martyr, no strategic objective, no instilling fear of the unseen enemy, no point except being killed. This is obviously not how collaborators function in real insurgencies so why the hell do we have to deal with people obviously exploiting the mechanics of martyrdom? I'm personally for the removal/rethinking of civilians as a selectable class as they are very unrealistic and are rarely if ever played the way I believe a civilian would realistically react to being fired upon. The role should be to provide information about enemy troop movements from behind insurgent lines not running up to get face to face with NATO soldiers with the intention of forcing them into killing you.

[=-=kittykiller]

The collaborator is the most unrealistic, gimmicky and stupidly portrayed role in the entire mod. Its purpose is moot considering players can tactically kill themselves in order to exploit a game mechanic, and use the kit in the most unrealistic way they possibly can. The IP concept is also flawed as caches are revealed regardless of civilian deaths.

.

he is the reason its fun he needs not to suffer and just be considered a normal insurgent christ he hasnt got a gun what more u want

can be killed when,
roping'
doctorin'
swimin'
runnin'

why do u hate ali' so much
he needs normal spawn
normal intel
if arrested, 10 intel
SORTED!!!
he plays no role in cache finding only exploit is civi shield bam boom bang fixed. hotfix it

edit > the reason its 1min after using rope/epi etc is its hard coded and less wud lead to exploit. god damn. its not the using but the selecting of the weapon that engine realises. god damn bf2 engine. need smarter men than all ofthis forum to work it out. either he is normal ins. or he can run . why not let him run ??

[Killer2354]

he is the reason its fun he needs not to suffer and just be considered a normal insurgent christ he hasnt got a gun what more u want

can be killed when,
roping'
doctorin'
swimin'
runnin'

why do u hate ali' so much
he needs normal spawn
normal intel
if arrested, 10 intel
SORTED!!!
he plays no role in cache finding only exploit is civi shield bam boom bang fixed. hotfix it

edit > the reason its 1min after using rope/epi etc is its hard coded and less wud lead to exploit. god damn. its not the using but the selecting of the weapon that engine realises. god damn bf2 engine. need smarter men than all ofthis forum to work it out. either he is normal ins. or he can run . why not let him run ??

Actually last time I checked, Civies can only be killed while using the Epipin, resuscitate, weapons (other kits), and inside vehicles. Ropes and ladders don't count and we have shotguns for the swimmers, plus they eventually drown. You can't shoot a civi for running, either.

[kenan(BIH)_1]

Or, as "holly PR Manual" said:

"Civilians and unarmed insurgents/Hamas fighters are covered by rules of
engagement (ROE). Any of them doing the following within the last minute
are considered combatants and may be shot without penalty:
spawn or pick up a kit
use a weapon or vehicle (stones are not counted as weapons)
use resuscitate or the epipen"

Just to make things clear.

P.S. Read the manual. Devs busted their asses to make it )))