Project Reality Forums

I searched the forums and was unable to find anything really addressing this. My problem is that the civies are not civies. For one there are no civilians which aren't regarded as hostiles on the map. This is basically showing that the entire town is hostile and arrestable. The second issue is just the opposite. The way in which the civie is used makes him not a civie. Armed or not someone who is playing an active role in an assault on allied forces is a combatant. If a civie is traveling with and helping a group of fighters he is considered a combatant. Such a person would be mowed down by machine gun fire just like the guy with an rpg or an ak. There would be no penalty to a RL squad for opening fire, they protected themselves. If a civie is standing on a roof a hundred yards away watching through binos then no he isn't a combatant, but the moment he starts running with an armed group he is fair game. I understand the concept and reasoning behind the civie class but as it is implemented it is unrealistic. As for a method to remedy this I am not sure as to how would be the best method. If there is a way maybe it can be by distance from a group of armed combatants. If civie is x distance from group of combatants he is non combatant. Meaning at that time he is not presenting an immediate threat. If he is withing x distance of armed combatants he is considered engaged in their hostilities. If not maybe removing the class all together would be a better solution. Just my two cents.

cplgangster wrote:yeh but then when the soldiers shoot the civie is there not an enquiry into why the civie was shot and why something different could not have happened in this game we cant do this so i would see the way it is being fine i mean its not hard to shoot a hostile and not the civie just takes some practice.

No, his point is correct. If the "Civis" ingame were doing what they are doing now in RL, they probably wouldn't be considered civis. Basrah is not really an occupation either, so it is hard to use the excuse of "riots in the streets" when Basrah is more like a push to take back the city such as Fallujah.

Just as an example. In mogadishu samalia for instance while the US Army was there a machine gunner ran out in the street with an RPK and layed down fire on a US squad. He was shot and killed. Then two children were sent out to lay infront of the machine gun, a second gunman ran out and began firing at the US troops from in between the children. After a few moments of taking heavy fire the US squad leader was forced to make the hard decision of firing on the machine gunner. The squad opened fire killing the gunner and the children. The squad and the squad leader were not subject to investigation or punishment because they had acted in self defense to preserve the lives of their team. That is the harsh reality of war. Civies running with a group of combatants in PR is no different.

Just as an example. In mogadishu samalia for instance while the US Army was there a machine gunner ran out in the street with an RPK and layed down fire on a US squad. He was shot and killed. Then two children were sent out to lay infront of the machine gun, a second gunman ran out and began firing at the US troops from in between the children. After a few moments of taking heavy fire the US squad leader was forced to make the hard decision of firing on the machine gunner. The squad opened fire killing the gunner and the children. The squad and the squad leader were not subject to investigation or punishment because they had acted in self defense to preserve the lives of their team. That is the harsh reality of war. Civies running with a group of combatants in PR is no different.

None of the US soldiers there when't under and investigation after that battle. So you really cant use that as an example.

And in Basra, Baghdad, and other cities have this problem. Every time a US solder kills a civi he goes under investigation, its reality. In those cities you have civs just coming out of there house, they find them selves in a group of insrgents, do the soldiers have the right to kill them? No.

I agree with your points. but disagee with taking civilians out.

Lt Sousy as for the civies coming out of their houses in basra and such and getting killed. Do the soldiers have a right to kill them. Yes and no. THey have the right to protect themselves. But innocents getting killed is a part of war. That is not what I was talking about anyway. I'm talking about the manner in which civies are portrayed in PR. They aren't walking out of their houses. They are out in the middle of a field with a bunch of guys with RPGs and AKs tryin to kill allied forces. I would rather the civies didn't get taken out of PR but I would like to see something done about the current way they are used.

this is just one of those things you cant really help with since this is NOT real life, for example supression fire is suposed to pin you down using your fear of death against you, in PR it only works because you cant see. having civilians is the same thing, you're not gonna have players who want to pick up the game and pretend to sit there and stare at a fake tv or mow the fake lawn.

all the more horrible than it is in real life it would be to mow a fake lawn.

Good points, but the game gives you leeway with 3 kills, so its balanced.

It takes away from your team though, jacks your respawn, and screws you out of limited kits when you did nothing wrong also. Like I said i like the idea of the civie...just not the current way they are used. Just as a joke also....if your were ordered by your squad leader to shoot into a group of hostiles and there is a civie in it...shouldn't he get the negative effects. lol.

Just rename the kit "Protester" and be done with it.

A new job for civvies would be rescuing children in the middle of a war.