Project Reality Forums

[R-MOD]Masaq wrote:I completely understood your point. My post was a lighthearted warning to all of you to shut the hell up about Nazis and talk about PR before either I or another MOD reached for the warning points or the lock button.

Seems subtlty completely passed you by; next time I'll be sure to head straight to the blunt tools

There are two seperate points regarding two seperate people....the point about tha anthropologist...
....and the one about the jews

I was addressing your comment about the anthropologist.

"subtlety" doesn't always tranfer well in a forum.
Its not that I was disregarding what you said.....I wasnt.

What it boils down to is that it should never be acceptable to kill civilians.

I disagree. There are times in real life where it is completely acceptable, because it is necessary, to kill civilians.

I do agree that civi punish should be the same across the board though. Generally, soldiers are not going to be punished through their own chain of command for killing civilians. Rarely they will do something totally unacceptable, and be prosecuted etc, but it is rare. Civi punish cannot effectively represent any kind of legal proceedings against an individual soldier, as there generally aren't any. Therefore, it should be representative of the real consequences of their actions. Greater civilian anger directed towards friendly troops, more fighters for the insurgents, better funding for the insurgents, etc.

BloodBane611 wrote:I disagree. There are times in real life where it is completely acceptable, because it is necessary, to kill civilians.

Please explain.

Because Im talking about civilians in PR [not RL] who are unarmed, using bandages and the like as we see in PR. Throwing rocks, since it causes actual damage in PR is a slightly blurred line, but still, in PR, in my opinion, it should never be OK to kill civilians. OK as in you arent punished.

There are cisrumstances where I wont judge you, like getting hit with rocks and cant get out of cover to get the civilian knifed for fear oflosing your life to the rocks or incoming INS fire... but Im saying you should NEVER be allowed to kill a civy and not be punished... imho

Okita, someone ceases to be a civilian and becomes a militant once he actively engages in combat. Carrying ammo and grapples is taking an active role in a battle in which point they are fair game for an opposing force.

Civies have ammo in PR? Did I forget that?

Either way, the civies in PR are not your standard civilian, nor are they a combatant. They are a hybrid. A mix of someone peaceful and someone upset at the allied forces rolling in to their cities.

They still should not be engaged as they dont directly fire at the allied forces. I dont think they have ammo.... do they? Maybe thats my mistake, I rarely play as them... and never get ammo from them either.

Bandages are another story entirely. As a doctor, your profession is to patch up humans regardless of their affiliation. Our medics treat insurgents when captured. We dont shoot our medics for aiding them. Slight stretch but my point is, healing an enemy does not give us the right to kill them. Capture and arrest? sure.

There's some leway as to how civies are played out, but I still believe they are NEVER to be 'rightfully' engaged.

There are times, however, as I have said, that I wouldnt argue with someone for killing them. They just have to deal with the consequences...

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.

What ever happened to the phrase "Deal with it". Sheesh I cant believe you guys have taken it this far I mean, its really not that big of a deal. Just shoot them first ask questions later. Your never gonna get insurgency real because as a concept it isnt a very realistic scenario either.

In reality theres also politics involved but you cant recreate that in here. Cmon massively assaulting a city. Anybody remember Operation Phantom Fury cuz I sure do and I was unfortunate enough to experience the after effects of it. You just dont do that kind of shit. And if you want to make insurgency real than you need about a 1000 random citizens and with the coalition force mostly on base or on security detail with the occasional raid for about 6 months and more airstrikes than you can count. Deliver that then and ONLY then you can ***** about the civilians.

I think it has do with a little of each vote topic. Besides, sometime the civies are acting in a direct and flagrant manner that demonstrates they are clearly assisting and convorting with enemy combatants. If that happens, they should be killed.

Your never gonna get insurgency real because as a concept it isnt a very realistic scenario either.

I'm going to 100% agree with sectornine here. Insurgency is real, and we should be trying to create a realistic system for it if it's going to be in PR.

BloodBane611 wrote:I disagree. There are times in real life where it is completely acceptable, because it is necessary, to kill civilians.

*cough* BULL *cough* SHIT *cough*

I really don't know in which world you live... but killing unarmed men, women and children is never ever acceptable!!!! I guerillia warfare it is hard to make a difference between enemy and civilian but that would never be an justification for killing innocent people. But i stop here because it would be an political discussion.. i am sorry but this quote just makes me angry and i can't believe that an educated person could say something like this

Saint wrote:*cough* BULL *cough* SHIT *cough*

I really don't know in which world you live... but killing unarmed men, women and children is never ever acceptable!!!! I guerillia warfare it is hard to make a difference between enemy and civilian but that would never be an justification for killing innocent people. But i stop here because it would be an political discussion.. i am sorry but this quote just makes me angry and i can't believe that an educated person could say something like this

You know how many civilians were killed in WW2? Around 20-30+ million. What about Vietnam, which was both a guerilla war and an insurgency? Around 1-2 million. What about Iraq? As far as we know, 30,000 to possibly 100,000.

To say that civilians aren't killed is crazy. That is just a fact of war and I don't know what world you are living in if you thought every country places nice.

SectorNine50 wrote:It's a valid statement. Civilians can pick up weapons, and shoot at the enemy IRL. That is a completely understandable time to shoot a civilian. The term civilian doesn't mean unarmed.

So when every civilian is a threat...bomb the whole iraq...

i agree that there are some situations where a soldier have no other opportunity than killing a possible threat to save his own live or this of his comrades.
When a civilian rans towards a weapon he is no civilian for me..

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:You know how many civilians were killed in WW2? Around 20-30+ million. What about Vietnam, which was both a guerilla war and an insurgency? Around 1-2 million. What about Iraq? As far as we know, 30,000 to possibly 100,000.

To say that civilians aren't killed is crazy. That is just a fact of war and I don't know what world you are living in if you thought every country places nice.

And all of the hostile commanders who ordered mass deaths of civillians were tried as war criminals.

Nobody on the Allied side was tried, as far as I know, for attrocities such as the Dresden firestorm.

Anyway, WW2 is a **** comparison. That was an all-out conflict involving almost every industrialised nation on the planet, and many more that weren't. Iraw/Afghanistan are no-where near on the same scale.

Regardless, it doesn't alter the fact that:

Civillians are killed but civillians shouldn't be killed.

'[R-MOD wrote:Masaq;628867']And all of the hostile commanders who ordered mass deaths of civillians were tried as war criminals.

Nobody on the Allied side was tried, as far as I know, for attrocities such as the Dresden firestorm.

Anyway, WW2 is a **** comparison. That was an all-out conflict involving almost every industrialised nation on the planet, and many more that weren't. Iraw/Afghanistan are no-where near on the same scale.

Regardless, it doesn't alter the fact that:

Civillians are killed but civillians shouldn't be killed.

That's why I also included Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam, supposedly 1-2 million Vietmanese were killed including civilians according to the History Channel's numbers and Iraq has somewhere between 30,000-100,000 civilians killed as well. Even though a large number of those Iraqi deaths are a result of bombings, IEDs, and militias, a large number was caused by US military actions. It is impossible to avoid large numbers of civilian deaths as these past wars have shown.

It is impossible to avoid large numbers of civilian deaths as these past wars have shown.

That doesn't mean people, especially infantrymen who are experiencing the viciousness and brutality of war close up, are or should be killing civilians because they just don't care enough not to. Even in this war we have seen individuals tried for action that has been perceived by the public to be inhumane. Certainly there have been incidents in Iraq that have led to serious public backlash, even in the US.

You seem to be arguing that there are no consequences for civilian casualties. There ARE, and they are not that hard to find. An individual may not always feel them immediately, but they do affect combat operations, and they are an important factor in insurgency/counter-insurgency.

Civies die in conflicts, infact can even be used as meat sheilds. Im no expert and i dont pretend to be,s ome insurgent forces may even use civilians as meat shields, they hide amongst the civilian mobs that had taken to the street, now i dont doubt for a second that this sort of thing goes on.

Take a whole city of people add panic and gunfire and alot of them take to the streets, some will follow the insurgents, others will simply get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A well trained and disciplined soldier will be able to pick out non civilians in a civilian filled enviroment.

Throwing a stone is not a reason to shoot a civvie, neither is healing an insurgent, killing civies is inexcusable. However a civilian that picks up a weapons is no longer a civilian. if it were possible to make picking up civilian kits impossible (make them disapear instantly) so that any civie that picks up a gun remains the threat then open fire.

However there are times when ive found it necessary to kill a civvie... for instance ones on top of me while im bleeding to death and keeps hitting me with stones while i patch up, kill the sucker and live with the conciquences and dont complian when you take forever to spawn, but without any real reason civvie casulties should be avoided.

I say more civies, i say that if some idiot cant be bothered to get out his binocs to check a distant target then he deserves to be harshly punished, however accidents do happen, but you still have to take the punishment because in probably %99 of cases in PR civvie casulties can be avoided.

What would be great is if it were possible to add some NPC/Bot civies into insurgency, make them identical to player civvies, make them hang around in large numbers inside the city limits, make them hand out the same punishment to players if they are killed. Insurgents would be able to hide amoungst them and it will force players to check their fire alot more and hopefully create smarter gamers.

Basically add civilian mobs that throw stones and make it difficult to discover whats player controlled (and helping the insurgents) and whats NPC/BOT (innocent but angry mod just throwing stones) because its more realistic then taking them out of the citys and more realistic then only having a few of them because players wont worry about shooting the odd one or two, but if they are presented with a mob of them and only a few insurgents amoungst them, amoungst them players will find it hard which civies are helping the insurgents, then they will check their fire a hell of alot more.