joselucca wrote:RC MOONPIE: you still didnt give a valid reason why we need civies aside from the same line of reasoning you (and others...blind leading the blind) keep rewording and goes somethign like this:
"To answer your question.....civies are necessary to the attempted realism of the game. On the insurgent maps....the Brits are moving into a foreign land that is occupied by inhabitants. They live there. Civies just dont pack up their lives and move to another city. They stay in hopes that the battle will be temporary. Also....this game mode simulates Brits moving in to look for weapons caches....and as a result fighting breaks out in defense of these caches.
The Brits arent looking for a fight necessarily....but they are prepared to do so to take out those caches."
Again, if civilians take on a militant posture then they are not civilians, they are UNARMED COMBATANTS. Your little explanation there is weak and that is because you dont address the fact that civilians are just that...CIVILIANS. they are not, I repeat, not actively assisting fighters or jumping out in front of tanks and such. If civies are to be a part of the game play then their role should be reevaluated or redefined.
'Nuff said.
No....its not "Nuff said".
Its really
cute how you obviously think
you are the authority on this subject.
You made a post in another thread about how "ridonculous" you thought mine and another poster's arguments on a related subject were....and yet you make a condescending post directed at me regarding my posts.
I guess it wasnt so "redonculous" since you felt left-out enough to jump into the foray, huh?
I
could be wrong.
I could be wrong but I am going to assume that by your "black and white" explanation that you aren't familiar with the reality of the "grey areas" that exist in having civilians involved in a theater of war.
There are many people who play reality based games, who have read lots of great books, seen lots of great movies and documentaries, and read up on all sorts of weapons and tactics. They are very intelligent people.
But
nothing they "simulate" or imagine, can even remotely compare to the reality of actually being there.....or being forced to make what is literally a life and death descision for ones self...or
FOR those in ones immediate vicinity.
Dont take that as an insult...it isnt meant to be, and it wasnt directed at any ONE person in particular.
Those hefty descisions and the gravity they carry cant be emulated in the game.
Thats why people do not take any care to check and hold fire on the civilian class.....and it is why civies just stand out in the open with binos.....there isnt enough bite in the penalties for civie or shooter.....period.
But things aren't so "black and white" in reality....and the way things are in game.... arent "black and white" either.
We are in agreement that something needs to be fixed and adjusted.
One of my suggestions earlier in this thread or the other thread was to change the way the civilian class could be killed.
Currently to my knowledge, civilians may be killed in-game without penalty for the following reasons:
If driving or riding in a vehicle
If they are run over by a vehicle(I think)
If actively on a grappling hook or a ladder (I think)
If the bottom two are wrong....they should be implemented.
My suggestion was to add to the kit an empty space....which would in turn mean the civilian was empty handed.
With this....I would make it so ANY civie...carrying any item that could be construed as aiding the insurgency...would then be considered a combatant....and would be subject to being fired on or killed with impunity.
If you see a civilian throwing rocks, using binoculars, using the grappling hook, holding bandages, or using a wrench.....it is obvious that he is helping the insugency and is a target of opportunity.
Of course it would remain the same in the way civies are captured.
All these combined would keep civies acting a little more sheepish.
But if he is empty handed....thats another story.
You are then killing an unarmed person....and should be held accountable.
I know the argument will be...
"I saw him seconds before using his (binos,grappling hook,wrench) and then he dropped it before I fired (or as I fired) and I got punished!"
or...
"He was so far away and due to the draw distance I couldnt see if he was carrying anything or not...I fired and got punished!"
Well....that is what happens in reality as well. Civies arent "clear-cut" civies in real life either.
They mask their faces today while they fire RPGs at us....tomorrow they are standing out on the curb amongst the women and children smiling and asking for water.
Or they fire from hundreds of feet away from a building. You move onto their position to attack and find women and children and sweaty, guilty looking, out of breath men....that you just
know made a clothes change and stashed their weapons.
After a search reveals nothing, other than the fact that they are better at hiding things than you are at searching.....all you can do is take them in for questioning....where they lie and deny everything and are soon realeased.
But there are those golden moments....when those "civies" pop up on that roof-top....to fire on another platoon in the area....and they dont see our movement flanking them....that justice truly gets served.
But anyway.....not seeing a weapon, grappling hook, wrench, rock or anything.....is no excuse in my opinion.....you should be certain of your target, which means holding your fire until you ARE certain.
