In regard to new civilian kill punish

[ralfidude]

Well the devs have done it again! It was a rather good solution to help battle the stupid civilian kill situation. However i did notice that there is this little problem still... civilians are still being killed freely, a bit less frequently but still exessively. The messege that tells u just killed a civilian is amazing thats really good, love it, but the whole 3 strikes and ur out.... well... no. I have yet to see or hear one of my mates die after killing 3 civilians. i think it should go down to 2. 1 would be a bit too much although that would teach everybody not to shoot just anything that moves (single player games will end ur mission for shooting a civilian so its not that immoral). But yeah, i say because we all tend to kill civlians but we neer kill like more than 2 per our own death which resets that civlian kill count i think right? Well in any case let me know what u think.

[charliegrs]

i still kinda think the concept of civilians is silly, i mean if the civilians were women/children trying to get away from the fighting well that would make sense and you should definitly get a hardcore punish for killing them. but as it stands right now civilians are running around with the insurgents, spotting for them, healing them, and jumping in front of bullets for them. in other words, helping them out so i think they would be fair game to shoot.

[ZZEZ]

i still kinda think the concept of civilians is silly, i mean if the civilians were women/children trying to get away from the fighting well that would make sense and you should definitly get a hardcore punish for killing them. but as it stands right now civilians are running around with the insurgents, spotting for them, healing them, and jumping in front of bullets for them. in other words, helping them out so i think they would be fair game to shoot.

Exactly, civilians doing what they are doing in PR would get them shot quickly.

[snotmaster0]

Not that I've actually seen combat, but the civis are there to represent the Rules of Engagement that conventional armies face. Basically you can't shoot everything that moves. THe civis in game are there to prevent spray and pray tactics, and IRL the line between combatant and noncombatant is blurry while the rules are clear. YOU DON'T SHOOT CIVILIANS IF THEY ARE UNARMED (I'm oversimplifying), and the civis ingame aren't armed.

I agree that it should be reduced to two civi kills before punishment.

[Spec]

I'd simply punish both, the soldier and civilian if a civilian gets killed. That makes the civs be more careful too.

The civs stay away from the combat and stop being human shields, and the soldiers stop shooting them.

and the civis ingame aren't armed.

If i'd throw heavy rocks against your head from a high point you cant reach and you had a gun, would you kill me?

[Clypp]

I still contend that the civilian idea is the worst step PR made. It just introduces problems, frustration and unrealistic gameplay. Some people like it though, so who am I to judge.

[Zimmer]

its nice with something else then shoot as long as he isnt your own type of gamrplay where you have to be certain, but cicies should be killed moving outside of the city its just bullshit when civis running in the village that always is a hot zone in the city yes but not in a place like that the village should have been abandoned a long time ago.

[Outlawz7]

Civilians should not have rocks, then they would think twice about teasing Brits without any Insurgents to cover them.

[ralfidude]

Ok guys to be honest civilians will not go into the heat of battle and go up to an apc... its completely unrealistic, hence why they get shot... its the civilians fault. HOWEVER u cannot deny the fact that a civlians ontop of a building or inside a buidling who is simply observing who gets shot is realistic as a civilian and is the complete fault of the person who fired up on the civi. In regard to the person who said something that we dont get punish until after 3 civis are killed... well we still get punished for it by getting a 60 sec spawn time. But the real punish is our own death after killing 3 civilians. This part is faulty since the devs assume that a guy in an apc or on foot goes out and shoots more than 3 civilians within their actual life span. That does not happen. At most i see a player kill 2 civilians. This means they dont get punished by death yet, so the messege is not clear. If the rule was switched to 2 civilians killed which happens alot more often, then the british will definitely get the messege, they will be bothered at first by why they just died but im sure they will figure it out that they shot one too many civilians. A much more radical solution is to make soldiers die after one civilian kill, but even that is a bit drastic since "chit" happens. So 2 civlian kills is more practical for a british death. Its either that or make the civilian stand out and avoid any confusion for everybody by putting a different dress on him. Make them wear skirts

[charliegrs]

have they ever fixed the draw distance problems with the guns? because if i remember correctly, at a certain distance the weapons wont appear in someones hands no matter if they are armed or not, so its impossible to tell if someone is armed because at that distance everyone appears unarmed.

[bosco_]

Have you played 0.75? Weapons draw on long distances now.

[Kinote]

Not that I've actually seen combat, but the civis are there to represent the Rules of Engagement that conventional armies face. Basically you can't shoot everything that moves. THe civis in game are there to prevent spray and pray tactics, and IRL the line between combatant and noncombatant is blurry while the rules are clear. YOU DON'T SHOOT CIVILIANS IF THEY ARE UNARMED (I'm oversimplifying), and the civis ingame aren't armed.

I agree that it should be reduced to two civi kills before punishment.

As Kenwayy has stated in the past, it doesn't matter if they're a civilian or they're armed. Hostile threat = Hostile intent = Weapons free. When it comes to arguing about killing civilians and Rules of Engagement, I'll place my faith in those who have seen combat.

Ideally yes. You get a PID (Positive IDentification) on your target before pulling the trigger.

In real life, that isn't always possible. Al Basrah represents a more initial wave/fallujah retake than a normal patrolling unit encounter. In that situation the rules of engagement change because of the increased danger. The golden rule is 'hostile threat, hostile intent'. If you believe there is a hostile threat or hostile intent, you paste them. Example would be a group of civilians protecting a gunman/RPGer. The civilian doesn't represent a hostile threat, but they sure as shit represent hostile intent. They could be forced to be human shields, which sucks, but that's war and you can be damn sure the other soldier will protect himself and his brothers first. Any soldier that wouldn't sure as shit shouldn't be there.

Put it this way. This change is in no way realistic to US Armed forces regulations or protocol and from a soldiers standpoint is stupid.

My point of view? There should be no punishment for killing civilians. We're not wandering in and shooting up a schoolhouse full of kids. If we can implement some rules that actually make sense when it comes to killing a civi, that'd be swell. Otherwise I say we get rid of the whole damned class.

1) Directing hostile forces = dead. No punishment.
2) Acting as a shield for insurgents = dead. No punishment.
3) Hanging out close to insurgents so AoE weapons hit them = dead. No punishment.
4) Actively giving any form of aid = dead. No punishment.
5) Throwing rocks at friendly forces. That's a whole heap of fucking trouble and will lead to you being shot in the face. No punishment.

I can see if the civi is standing alone in the bottom corner of the map doing absolutely nothing, a punishment should be given out for killing him. That's about the only situation where it should happen.

[Cyrax-Sektor]

What if civis in-game are held hostage by Insurgents, forcing them to help them? The penalty for not doing so is death.

I agree, currently, Brits are getting away with civi killing, and often never die from 3 civilian casualties. 2 would be good, but currently, any nades thrown can attract the civis like magnets. That is unrealistic.

[OverwatchX]

Any civy who is actively assisting the enemy in a manner that is clear and articulable could and should be fired upon, particularly in a setting like Basra where I presume one must know that if you venture outside during an attack, and assist those repelling the attackers, one is susceptible to attack.

IN other words, the civie class should be eliminated from the options IMHO.

[Kinote]

What if civis in-game are held hostage by Insurgents, forcing them to help them? The penalty for not doing so is death.

That would be hostile intent, little buddy.

The golden rule is 'hostile threat, hostile intent'. If you believe there is a hostile threat or hostile intent, you paste them. Example would be a group of civilians protecting a gunman/RPGer. The civilian doesn't represent a hostile threat, but they sure as shit represent hostile intent. They could be forced to be human shields, which sucks, but that's war and you can be damn sure the other soldier will protect himself and his brothers first. Any soldier that wouldn't sure as shit shouldn't be there.

[Spec]

but currently, any nades thrown can attract the civis like magnets. That is unrealistic.

Would be fixed if the civilians would get a huge respawn time for getting KILLED instead of being arrested. Then they would STOP to be human shields and wouldnt catch bullets and grenades anymore. They also would rather let a brit arrest them than kill them.

The brit would want to arrest the civilian for the intel points.
The brit would not want to kill the civilian because of some penalty.

The civilian would not want to be arrested because of the loss of intel points
The civilian would not want to get killed because of some penalty.

So the civilian would fear both, but prefer the arrest if there is really no other choice. I think thats pretty realistic, and stops suicide-missions.

As result, the civilians would RUN AWAY from enemy fire instead of running INTO enemy fire. That would mean the civilians would killed less often and that again would make it okay to give the brits more punishment.

(With brits i mean anyone fighting the insurgents on map(s) with civilians)

[Kinote]

After opening fire on hostiles (with civvies among them) on al basrah I still vote for two then death.

I want to see more situations where you need a spotter calling targets if you want to live.

Find a way to get some actual rules of engagement being simulated in the game that would punish the player for killing civilians only when it actually makes some sense. This would also prevent fun Civi class abuse such as: Being a bullet shield, standing in front of allied forces knowing there is shit all they can do, standing on top of things without anybody being able to do anything, etc.

Realism > Stupid lulz rules.