Is that Civi armed?

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Recently Corporal Cody posted a thread: "Perhaps make it so that Civlians can't drive the Jihad vehicles?" This got me thinking after I saw some footage of some British troops searching through Sangin, Helmand.

A squad spotted 2 civilians riding a couple of dirt bikes, raised their weapons and yelled something to see if they were unarmed. The two guys on the bikes just opened their coats to show they had no concealed weapons or explosive belts and went on their way.

This doesn't ever happen in PR.

Your a Civi, riding your shiny new motorbike through Basrah and you stop to look both ways at a junction. Then you wait to let a convoy of trucks and landrovers pass you by, thinking they might thank you for your courtesy. Instead you get a chunk taken out of your head.

There might not be many easy solutions to this but Corporal Codys thread wasn't exactly concluded.

1. Maybe Civi's shouldn't be driving around in vehicles that have weapons attached to them.

2. Civi's shouldn't be driving in the company of other chaps with weapons.

3. Brits shouldn't be shooting at Civi's that are in vehicles.

Possible solutions:

What if there were 2 types of Civi or 2 classes that appeared to look almost the same. One of them being the current Civilian, the other, A Suicide Bomber.
The Suicide Bomber is the same as the Civi but has an explosive divice around his waist. This can be seen by the allied forces at close range and allows the player to drive armed vehicles with fellow insurgents inside. He can be killed without penalty.
The Civi can do all of his current tasks but can only drive by himself in an unarmed vehicle. He cannot be killed without penalty, even behind the wheel. Should he drive an armed vehicle or jihad car, transport insurgents or ride in a vehicle with an insurgent, he will be "re-loaded" with his explosive belt by said insurgent and becomes a target [suicide bomber] himself.

If you then came across two guys on a couple of bikes in Basrah, you'd have to think twice. Notice one of them has explosives on his torso, detenator in hand. Then you cap his *** and leave his mate to play with rocks.

[[T]Terranova7]

I'm not sure, but I believe if a civilian is driving a vehicle he becomes a hostile target for the taking (Otherwise you might create some sticky scenarios with a civilian driving around his AK47 armed buddies). Just remember that the "civilian" is supposed to represent a sympathizer to the Insurgent cause, and it can be argued that these guys could be just as dangerous as ordinary Insurgents.

Anyhow, I do like the suicide bomber kit idea. Should be extremely limited though, and probably not as powerful as the IEDs. Though I think this also demands the need for a non-lethal ranged weapon for the British and other allied factions.

[mammikoura]

the problem with the suggestion is:
If the brits aren't allowed to shoot civilians who drive vehicles then whats going to stop the civilians from driving over the brits with their un-armed cars?

IMO the current system is fine.

[RCMoonPie]

An easy way to tell.... is if a civie runs away from you.....he is unarmed.
If he is running torward you.....he probably has a pocket full of Black-Cat M-80's* for you!

I wish there was a way to randomize the insurgent/civie clothing.
Then you would have to make sure you saw a weapon in hand regardless of the color of his shirt.

I like the idea of a different class of civie. Possibly one that is on the Brits side that looks identical to the insurgent civie...but he is a Brit sympathizer. If he found a cache....he could mark it on the map for the Brits to see. He could only carry the same load-out as the existing civie, except I would give him more bandages.
I would also give him blue tags for both sides to see....this way the insurgents would not be looking to kill him, but if they saw by his behavior that he was aiding the other team or giving away caches, they could take "recourse", and get points for the kill.
I would also set ALL civilians during game play to have the tag "civilian" regardless of side. This way no one could check the player roster during the game to know what civie was on what ever side.
I am digging this....I may make it a new thread.

*Black Cat M80's are an American common name-brand of fireworks known to be rather stronk and for mangling the hands of mis-users.

[Kindros]

the problem with the suggestion is:
If the brits aren't allowed to shoot civilians who drive vehicles then whats going to stop the civilians from driving over the brits with their un-armed cars?

IMO the current system is fine.

This is where however the PR engine fails. I.F.F Identify Friend of Foe. If you are going to be attacked ROE would state that you can defend yourself. if you are being compromised which would lead to injury or fatality ROE would state that you can defend yourself. If you are being attacked ROE would state that you can defend yourself.


...But in PR it doesn't. It is stupid and foolish for a mod based on reality. They have created an elite class who can attack without supposed repercussions. And once the other team retaliates to save themself they get penalised. YOU ARE NO LONGER A CIVILIAN WHEN YOU FIGHT.

And for anyone who would like to bring up the what if they were rioting? Well to that I say there would have to be a group of them for one. And two have you ever seen what happens when riots get violent?

[RCMoonPie]

Kindros....look at my idea above for the idea of IDing civies....tell me what you think.

[Symplify]

I like the OP's ideas, especially the limited suicide bomber class. That would be cool.

[Kindros]

Kindros....look at my idea above for the idea of IDing civies....tell me what you think.

Do you want me to be honest or polite? You state that if a civilian runs from you they are unarmed...Is this a current thing in PR I am missing? Because they all have rocks, and they all use them. If they run towards you they have rocks, and they use them. Or are you suggesting a change to the class of civilian?

The problems lies with what to do with them. They are a threat and an enemy. If they kill you nothing happens to them, they don't get penalised, they cant get shot without the shooter getting penalised. Do you think the military would really allow a civilian to kill one of their soldiers? Do you really think they would for one let them throw projectiles more then once at a soldier? If they are a civilian then why are they not punished by their own legal system for murdering a person? The other attacking classes are penalised for killing civilians, yet it doesn't work vice versa...

[gclark03]

The system is already fun enough, and works well as is. All the British have to do is fire a few warning shots at the civilian and go on with their mission. If they have the opportunity, they should knife the civilian as soon as possible, but never chase him. If used properly, the current system is fair, fun, and functional.

[RCMoonPie]

kindros....the armed civie running comment was meant to be in jest.

By your return comment I dont think you bothered to read my entire post.

[Kindros]

The system is already fun enough, and works well as is. All the British have to do is fire a few warning shots at the civilian and go on with their mission. If they have the opportunity, they should knife the civilian as soon as possible, but never chase him. If used properly, the current system is fair, fun, and functional.

Please outline in specifics how it is fair that a civilian is not meant to be killed, yet can kill all and any opposing soldier, compromise their positions, or spawning locations?

Firing warning shots to people playing a civilian mean nothing, if they get hit they die, big woop to them they re spawn instantly and do the same again. There is no great disadvantage to a player playing a civilian who gets shot. They have a free reign on a battlefield, they can go anywhere they choose without fear of getting targeted. The only means of killing one is by knife which is near impossible, since they run at the same speed as a soldier, or by hitting them in a car, which is pretty stupid since the majority hang on rooftops because of their grapple hooks.

kindros....the armed civie running comment was meant to be in jest.

By your return comment I dont think you bothered to read my entire post.

No I read all of it. You asked me what you thought about ID'ing civvies, which hey is also a non event now since you loose a huge capability of spotting in this version.

Then you go on to include a British sympathiser and erasing the names of people playing civilians. Which still brings it back to my point. Civilians are no longer civilians when they participate. If they are a class in game and truly meant to be a civilian, then they should only act as that. Someone who does not participate by acts of aggression. Once they throw a rock and hit a soldier they loose the right to be called a non combatant. Until this is realised and acknowledged the class is for naught and puts a bias upon an attacking team.
Hey prior to this release I have been in a server with a good % of players playing civilians, and they essentially because of that ruined the game.

Keep the civilians I don't care about that. What I do care about though is making them a biased unit. There needs to be a balance in the way that they can be neutralised other than a knife or a car.

[RCMoonPie]

Please outline in specifics how it is fair that a civilian is not meant to be killed, yet can kill all and any opposing soldier, compromise their positions, or spawning locations?

Firing warning shots to people playing a civilian mean nothing, if they get hit they die, big woop to them they re spawn instantly and do the same again. There is no great disadvantage to a player playing a civilian who gets shot. They have a free reign on a battlefield, they can go anywhere they choose without fear of getting targeted. The only means of killing one is by knife which is near impossible, since they run at the same speed as a soldier, or by hitting them in a car, which is pretty stupid since the majority hang on rooftops because of their grapple hooks.



No I read all of it. You asked me what you thought about ID'ing civvies, which hey is also a non event now since you loose a huge capability of spotting in this version.

Then you go on to include a British sympathiser and erasing the names of people playing civilians. Which still brings it back to my point. Civilians are no longer civilians when they participate. If they are a class in game and truly meant to be a civilian, then they should only act as that. Someone who does not participate by acts of aggression. Once they throw a rock and hit a soldier they loose the right to be called a non combatant. Until this is realised and acknowledged the class is for naught and puts a bias upon an attacking team.
Hey prior to this release I have been in a server with a good % of players playing civilians, and they essentially because of that ruined the game.

Keep the civilians I don't care about that. What I do care about though is making them a biased unit. There needs to be a balance in the way that they can be neutralised other than a knife or a car.

First off....you need to reread the manual.
You arent "killing" civies in the 1st place....you are "capturing" them.
The engine/game is limited so knifing the civies is the games current representation of apprehending a civie and gaining info about caches.
Also civies cant kill either.....they can only wound with the rocks. If you stand there and eventually get killed by those rocks....you get what you deserve. If the civie is in throwing distance....you should be able to get him with a knife....afterall you arent alone right? You arent playing as a "lone-wolf" are you?

Also...rock-throwing does not make you a combatant in the real world...
It just makes you a nuisance rock-thrower.
I would hate to be Marine having to stand on the carpet to explain why I took the back of a teenagers head off because he threw a rock at me.
Its the ROE in real life....and it is represented well within PR.

It just sounds like to me, that you want civies removed from the game then.
Civies that arent involved in the conflict to some degree, would be no fun to play.
Maybe the game/mod you are looking for is one where the civies just go to work or go to school, smoke on the corner, go shopping for groceries, etc.

My suggestion makes them a class on both sides of the conflict at hand, and they still serve a purpose to their respective teams.

[Kindros]

First off....you need to reread the manual.
You arent "killing" civies in the 1st place....you are "capturing" them.
The engine/game is limited so knifing the civies is the games current representation of apprehending a civie and gaining info about caches.
Also civies cant kill either.....they can only wound with the rocks. If you stand there and eventually get killed by those rocks....you get what you deserve. If the civie is in throwing distance....you should be able to get him with a knife....afterall you arent alone right? You arent playing as a "lone-wolf" are you?

Also...rock-throwing does not make you a combatant in the real world...
It just makes you a nuisance rock-thrower.
I would hate to be Marine having to stand on the carpet to explain why I took the back of a teenagers head off because he threw a rock at me.
Its the ROE in real life....and it is represented well within PR.

It just sounds like to me, that you want civies removed from the game then.
Civies that arent involved in the conflict to some degree, would be no fun to play.
Maybe the game/mod you are looking for is one where the civies just go to work or go to school, smoke on the corner, go shopping for groceries, etc.

My suggestion makes them a class on both sides of the conflict at hand, and they still serve a purpose to their respective teams.

Firstly I have read the manual for each evolution for the mod. Hell I have been playing it since 0.2. There have been things I have agreed with, and other not so much, and this is one of those not so much times, but more so because it has been continually overlooked or re evaluated.And It seems that they were just plonked into the game and hands dusted with the words of; "that it yep nothing more needs to be done".

You want reality, I tell you what you go to an army base, or hell to make it easy a police or fire station, or maybe an ambulance one would be more helpful, with your rock all civilian like and stand at the front gates, wait for someone to come out then throw a rock at them. They will tell you to stop once. Then they would either shoot you leaving a nice pink mist on the pavement, or knock their fist through the back of your skull. That is ROE, and that is reality.
You however you are acting like a fool, which I'm sure your not and suggesting that civilians in the real world are immune to menace attacks also. You throw a rock at anyone and they complain you will get done in for it, no excuses. I know for a fact that the last time someone threw a rock in the state I live in, to cause a menace they were actually charged with attempted murder or assault and battery causing grievous harm, It was one of the two since it happened more than once. You may think it's strict, but weigh up what is at stake when they throw that rock and the implications it causes.
FYI though they did decide to do something rather stupid and throw it into an oncoming vehicle off an overpass footbridge to the road below.

To your other quip and to quote myself:

Keep the civilians I don't care about that. What I do care about though is making them a biased unit. There needs to be a balance in the way that they can be neutralised other than a knife or a car.

It also sounds like you want the civies to be more involved because you probably use them in the manner which I and other had pointed out within this thread, or in others. What you also seem to overlook is that PR is based upon a war. It's not a walk into a new place and be nice to the natives. The context of all battles has been this is an established war zone, with known combatant forces. This would also bring upon the presumption that Anyone who would give away your position to an enemy is your enemy. Don't kid yourself it has been like this in ALL wars. from WWII to present day. My Enemies Friend is My Enemy!
The life of one civilian is worth taking to protect the whole. Because you are very limited in the ways you can secure or neutralise a civilian you are always going to be disadvantaged. So it is always going to be worth taking them out rather then going to the extent of capture which would risk yourself and squads.

Now here's the game called logic. A civilian is on a roof top you alone cannot reach, you know he is there he knows where you are and is directing traffic to your area and your approaching squads, essentially making an ambush attack possible. What do you do?

You only have an engineer..for some unknown reason and a rifleman after your in a city spawn area. A civilian is again on a rooftop. Your engineer throws his grapple up and proceeds to climb up, though he is taking rock hits which is hurting him because they are hitting his head. What do you do?

You are in a fully crewed APC rolling down down-town Baghdad you seem someone pop up from some rubble but cannot identify. You blow them away because you don't want to risk an APC or the lives of your squad....Uh-Oh it was a civ, though he was scouting for a placed IED. Why is the gunner punished? They protected their two main assets, their cargo, and their vehicle. Sure they could run the civie over , though that would also be risking a closer IED in jihad attack.

You already know the answer to those. You are just too proud or stubborn to say anything against the mod, which is a shame because if the community can't criticise to try and make it more playable or realistic, then you may as well make it a closed mod only open to invitees.

[Smegburt_funkledink]

Kindros, you bring up some good points. The main problem I see though, the reason I started this tread is that Civi's can jump between "target" or "Civilian".
Civi is outside of car = Civilian
Civi gets in ANY car = Target
Civi gets shot at,
Civi gets out of car = Civilian

Correct me if im wrong.

[Rudd]

Kindros, you bring up some good points. The main problem I see though, the reason I started this tread is that Civi's can jump between "target" or "Civilian".
Civi is outside of car = Civilian
Civi gets in ANY car = Target
Civi gets shot at,
Civi gets out of car = Civilian

Correct me if im wrong.

I'm not sure, I thought this was correct (and with ladders 2)

But a guy on a similar thread said his testing resulted in minus points for him no matter what the civi was doin

[Smegburt_funkledink]

That may be true Dr Rudd, the ROE are still a bit messed up here aswell as the penalty system. Do you think my solution with 2 types of civi would work? There has to be some way round Civi's just being able to run over Brits in their unarmed cars too though.

[WeeGeez]

the problem with the suggestion is:
If the brits aren't allowed to shoot civilians who drive vehicles then whats going to stop the civilians from driving over the brits with their un-armed cars?

I'm not sure but can civilians drive the technicals? Because if not then im pretty sure brits can run (maybe even WALK) faster than those un-armed cars, their acceleration/top speed is extremely low meaning that if the civilian misses you and then crahses into wall or something, you should be able go over there and stab him in the face, It takes that long to reverse in those peices of crud..

Well that's what I learned from my past experiences on AL Basrah anyway

Brits should just move out of the way of those cars, it's really easy cause those cars are EXTREMELY slow. I have even seen them come towards me beeping their daihatsu's

[RCMoonPie]

I will try and make sense of this and answer your points....
Also.....I am speaking from the point of view as an inactive Marine.
I apologize for the length, but I wanted total clarity on these points and to be understood.

Firstly I have read the manual for each evolution for the mod. Hell I have been playing it since 0.2. There have been things I have agreed with, and other not so much, and this is one of those not so much times, but more so because it has been continually overlooked or re evaluated.And It seems that they were just plonked into the game and hands dusted with the words of; "that it yep nothing more needs to be done".

You have to start somewhere...and thats why this forum/thread is here....so we can make suggestions for either new or improved game-play.

You want reality, I tell you what you go to an army base, or hell to make it easy a police or fire station, or maybe an ambulance one would be more helpful, with your rock all civilian like and stand at the front gates, wait for someone to come out then throw a rock at them. They will tell you to stop once. Then they would either shoot you leaving a nice pink mist on the pavement, or knock their fist through the back of your skull. That is ROE, and that is reality.

Sorry...but you are wrong. Although, granted...this is probably what should happen. Take our current situation in Iraq from the US/UK perspective. The reality and gravity of the situation is that most anytime something like that occurs, the US/UK soldier or Marine is portrayed negatively. The US/UK is held to a higher standard. The media would not tell the story of the soldier or Marine who had his head cut open by a rock after a 30 minute rock bombardment from an Iraqi mob. They would however twist for the evening news, a story of how Marines acting irresponsible, sprayed gunfire eratically into a crowd of men, women, and children killing 6. Then to sooth the world the Marine Corps would hold courts marshal for 3 Marines involved who were protecting themselves, their friends, and a check-point they had been given orders to protect.
So then, in order to cover *** and to not get another "black eye" in the media...the order is handed down to "tolerate" rock-throwing.
This is reality.

You however you are acting like a fool, which I'm sure your not and suggesting that civilians in the real world are immune to menace attacks also. You throw a rock at anyone and they complain you will get done in for it, no excuses. I know for a fact that the last time someone threw a rock in the state I live in, to cause a menace they were actually charged with attempted murder or assault and battery causing grievous harm, It was one of the two since it happened more than once. You may think it's strict, but weigh up what is at stake when they throw that rock and the implications it causes.
FYI though they did decide to do something rather stupid and throw it into an oncoming vehicle off an overpass footbridge to the road below.

The same happened in my state on an overpass. The kids involved are tucked away nicely in institution awaiting an age where they can be more severely punished I suppose. As they should be. My justice personally would have been more swift and severe. The wife in the car didnt survive, and the husband has permanent brain damage. He survived only because the rock hit her first.
But there is a difference (like it or not) in kids throwing a 30 lbs. rock off a 70 ft overpass, and a rock that fits in the palm and is being thrown from ground level as one would throw a ball.
One gets you murder charges....the other gets you a warning or a misdemeanor. Depending on the outcome or injuries recieved, the situation, and age and awareness of the thrower of course. Circumstances would dictate.

To your other quip and to quote myself:

It also sounds like you want the civies to be more involved because you probably use them in the manner which I and other had pointed out within this thread, or in others. What you also seem to overlook is that PR is based upon a war. It's not a walk into a new place and be nice to the natives. The context of all battles has been this is an established war zone, with known combatant forces. This would also bring upon the presumption that Anyone who would give away your position to an enemy is your enemy. Don't kid yourself it has been like this in ALL wars. from WWII to present day. My Enemies Friend is My Enemy!
The life of one civilian is worth taking to protect the whole. Because you are very limited in the ways you can secure or neutralise a civilian you are always going to be disadvantaged. So it is always going to be worth taking them out rather then going to the extent of capture which would risk yourself and squads.

I do think the civies in-game should hold a realistic role in-game for the sake of game-play. Yoou are correct. I do want them to be involved in the game-play if they are a part of the game. If I ever play the civie class, I play it to benefit the squad I am in...to point out enemy movement, and to distract and harass the enemy while my team-mates blind-side them.
But I realize and understand that there are people out there that are going to play any number of classes(not just the civie) incorrectly or like I wouldnt personally play the class. The sooner you realize this, you will stop crying.
Yes PR is based on war...war is basically the "winning of hearts and minds". This is done in many cases throughout history. The US as well as many other countries dont just bring guns and bullets to war. We bring clothing and blankets, we bring food and water, we bring medicical supplies and toys for children. We treat "the natives" as you call them with dignity and respect ackowledging that in most cases the populace just wants to be left alone and are not responsible for their government's policy or a waring faction within their country. Their are always those exceptions and "bad-apples" who make us look bad, by violating our rules and laws during war-time. But they are a very small percent and once again are the exception.
As for your statement about me "kidding myself"...I am fully aware of the combatant and non-combatant, "friendly and unfriendly" role and the ROE of said persons. You are correct, this is an issue in all wars. But Im afraid it extends much farther than WWII...this has been an issue throughout time. Much farther probably than written history.
You say "The life of one civilian is worth taking to protect the whole."
I agree...but I would rephrase to say "the life of one guilty civilian..."
Guilty of giving away my squads position, or guilty of planting IED's, etc. You are also correct, we are very limited in how we can apprehend civilians. We follow aa ROE...they dont. We have rules. They dont. How many IED's has the US/UK planted? It probably would be easier to just shoot and "take them out" instead of the risk of apprehension. But that is why we are who we are....and they are who they are. We value life...they dont.
At the end of the day, humanity wins out.

Now here's the game called logic. A civilian is on a roof top you alone cannot reach, you know he is there he knows where you are and is directing traffic to your area and your approaching squads, essentially making an ambush attack possible. What do you do?

By the information you have provided, the civie was observed for probably a good while displaying the behavior of someone who is aligned with forces set to harm me, my squad-mates, or my assets. He is obviously switched from being a civie to a combatant. IRL he is now a target. In-game the rules are different. My proposal would change this. Civies on the opposite team could be killed, not "captured". But civies from either sides would all look exactly the same and would have blue tags regardless of side. The only way you could tell them apart, would be by observing their behavior. Even then, you would have to be absolutely sure of their actions before squeezing the trigger, or risk loss to your side if a mistake was made.
This is realism.

You only have an engineer..for some unknown reason and a rifleman after your in a city spawn area. A civilian is again on a rooftop. Your engineer throws his grapple up and proceeds to climb up, though he is taking rock hits which is hurting him because they are hitting his head. What do you do?

In-game with my proposal...this civie would obviously be an insurgent sympathizer...and would be a target. Shoot to kill.

You are in a fully crewed APC rolling down down-town Baghdad you seem someone pop up from some rubble but cannot identify. You blow them away because you don't want to risk an APC or the lives of your squad....Uh-Oh it was a civ, though he was scouting for a placed IED. Why is the gunner punished? They protected their two main assets, their cargo, and their vehicle. Sure they could run the civie over , though that would also be risking a closer IED in jihad attack.

Someone "popping up" does not make them a target. It could be a child or just a civie who is scared of large APCs. Check your fire. With the information you gave, how am I to know whether or not he was scouting to place an IED?
With that logic, we could just nuke the country seeing as how everyone there could potentially be scouting to place IEDs.
The gunner would be punished for killing an innocent and unarmed civilian as he should be. In your desription, there was no mention that he was carrying a weapon OR explosives, or carrying anything for that matter. So, tell me...what was he protecting his cargo and assets from?

You already know the answer to those. You are just too proud or stubborn to say anything against the mod, which is a shame because if the community can't criticise to try and make it more playable or realistic, then you may as well make it a closed mod only open to invitees.

I have given you the straight dope in these answers based on my real life experience in the Marine Corps. Soldiers and Marines are forced to fight in combat with their hands behind their backs. We are forced to be gentlemen by the ROE and the media.
But like I said before....that is why we are who we are.....and they are who they are.
I am neither "too proud or stubborn to say anything against the mod"
Please take a moment and look at all my posts. I am pretty active in these forums for the short time I have been here.

I have made many suggestions that I feel add realism to the game...the civie suggestion is one of them.
Your obvious attitude of shoot first, ask questions later is not realistic IRL or in-game on an insurgent map.

[Kindros]

Kindros, you bring up some good points. The main problem I see though, the reason I started this tread is that Civi's can jump between "target" or "Civilian".
Civi is outside of car = Civilian
Civi gets in ANY car = Target
Civi gets shot at,
Civi gets out of car = Civilian

Correct me if im wrong.

Smeg that is exactly what I am trying to get at. There comes a time in a game when the line between absolute civilian and target become blurred.
Civilians should be on a neutral standpoint much like RCMoon is suggesting with his class on both sides of a team.
Though to call them still a civilian I find a problem. If anything they are Sympathisers or I could even go to the extent of calling them a spy. There needs to come a time in the game when it is OK to take a civie because they are no longer staying neutral. Whether that be they are spotted by a squad who sees them spotting your teams, or taking agressive action against a team.
There also needs to be other ways of capturing/neutralising a Civie. I have suggested prior that the smoke grenade could act as a tear gas canister for only their class, or with the UGL a rubber pellet could be used to air burst and neutralise them also.

But as is there is only the knife, or the car.

RCMoonpie - thank you that was a very clear post and I can see where you are coming from with your suggestions, and I do think that if they were tweaked further it could be very useful and put an even standpoint back.

Though personally I do think that the Civ class can get overused, and probably should be classed as a limited kit which would make them more valuable and place some kind of ratio of Civ to Insurgents. They also probably shouldn't be able to be inside a squad as it would be stepping on the line of neutrality.

[RCMoonPie]

I agree with your "labeling" them as sympathizers instead of "civies".
My calling them civies is for clarity in my posts since we are talking about the civilian player class.