RCMoonPie wrote:you are being argumentative....and I am not off base.
Did you not read my example of the insurgents running for cover in a civie house?
Even with your statement here.....imagine this if you can....
What if a iraqi civie held a job as an anthropologist.
He is in an area where he is trying to preserve some relics in a lush grove of trees.
All of a sudden he hears gunfire!
The anthropolgist drops down to his stomach not knowing that 100 yrds away that....
Insurgents have ambushed a Brit patrol nearby and were repelled.
The insurgency retreats back to the concealment of the same grove where the iraqi anthropologist was working...
Not knowing that the anthropolgist was in the area....the brits continue engaging the insurgents.
The brits (in this example) can see clearly that there are the same 5 insurgents they had chased with weapons ablaze in different intervals....but there is another body there....on his stomach.....he is 25 feet away....it is obvious he is not holding a weapon and is instead wearing clothes similar to the students from the nearby school.
Do the Brits engage and kill the man....
who verifiably has no weapon....
who verifiably doesnt look like the verified insurgents....
whos only offense is being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
One could argue that maybe they saw a weapon.
One could argue that maybe they saw him pointing at the Brits location.
But the Brits would KNOW.
Would the brits just waste a guy for his proximity....or was he an actual insurgent?
These things would be tested within the "fog of war"
Also things like honor and integrity are tested in this "fog"
IRL you have to go by the soldier or Marine's word.
In the game....the engine and the games rules are more black and white...the game knows and will judge whether or not you fired indisciminately or not.....and will punish accordingly.
I think this is where the problem lies.....people dont want to be required to check their fire in the game.....and they dont want to be held accountable when they dont.
One last time.....please use this thread to make a suggestion....not to argue.....Moderators.....please monitor this thread for this behavior.
You keep making unrealistic examples though and just don't want to admit when they are wrong. The civis ingame ARE holding something and when they are throwing rocks or are around or behind a group of insurgents firing, that makes him a threat and a sympathizer. Once a war begins or an offensive, the civis are usually tried to be given a warning, so if they stick around or go outside while the invading forces moves in, they are taking their lives into their own hands. The invading force is sure as hell not just going to sit there and let them fire at them even if a civilian is around.
The main thing is ingame, is that the civis do have a choice of seperating themselves from the insurgents and are not hostage, so if they choose to surround themselves by insurgents, than they might pay the consequences sometimes unfortunately. If he is running around in the open alone at a Brit, than he is technically doing his job ingame.
'[R-CON wrote:OkitaMakoto;627803']Because Im talking about civilians in PR [not RL] who are unarmed, using bandages and the like as we see in PR.
That's the whole problem with the civis ingame. They are not defined exactly and their role isn't exactly a "harmless civilian" all the time. People keep calling for realism, but the civis ingame do not represent realism, so there is a lot of arguments for this and that going around, but people still do not know exactly what the civis are for. Like I said above,'
The main thing is ingame, is that the civis do have a choice of seperating themselves from the insurgents and are not hostage, so if they choose to surround themselves by insurgents, than they might pay the consequences sometimes unfortunately. If he is running around in the open alone at a Brit, than he is technically doing his job ingame.
The minute they surround themselves with insurgents and throw rocks at the British, they become insurgent sympathizers. Of course if they are giving them first aid, they shouldn't be shot but the fact is, they probably would be in real life because the civilian population is given a warning before the invading force moves in. The best example is Fallujah. Civilian casulties are of course going to come and are not preventable all the time, but if the civi is hanging around with a bunch of insurgents in a building or while they are fighting, they are probably going to be shot IRL.
The big question is should the civis be just another dimension to the PR gameplay, or 90% to 100% realistic or replicate their real life counterparts.
