Project Reality Forums

According to the Genève convention you are not allowed to shoot an AT round to kill a human or clear a building, it is classed as an inhumane act. Therefore it should be a punishment for those who does that. The AT is designed to blow tanks, APC:s and other vehicles. Not blowing humans.

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

meh, are you serious?

I don't think you are to drive over someone with a vehicle either, but you can, if you want to. Basically, you can do it in real life, so you can also do it ingame. We don't enforce rules like this, that's up to the server admins. For example, some servers have a rule that you are not allowed to kill infantry with HAT. You can, but you'll get punished for it. Same as in real life, you can kill with AT, but you'll be punished for it (if the reallife "admins" disagree with it...).

Killing with HAT unhumane?

And spraying them with 30mm from a A10 is?

War is hell...

if an AT man chooses to waste his one and only AT round on infantry, then the whole team will suffer not being able to take down an armored threat. i call that punishment.

maybe the killing a civilian punishment should be a server admin thing too then, cos you can if you want to?

Civilians are something different. We do enforce that. Imagine server admins -allowing- to kill civvies..? They are part of the Insurgent gameplay, so don't expect a change on that rule .

BTW the last time i saw Ross Kemp returns to Afghanistan episode 1 i saw them firing a Javelin into a Taliban position. (not quala, or vehicle)

I highly doubt they let UK soldiers commit war crimes let alone air it on TV.

So id like to see some proof of that law that prohibits the use of AT weapons on personel.

it is also against geneva law to fire at humans with .50 cal weapons, so should that be punished too?

and if i am not mistaken geneva law is when two armies fight against eachother, (why taliban is not POWs if captured.)

I think these laws are not really correct, and some rules do not make sense. As [R-CON]Glimmerman said, if someone is torn to pieces by a aircraft 30mm gun it is practically the same as being hit by a large rocket. And I doubt that the .50 machine guns which are supposed to be used against aircraft are ever used for that. I mean what is the chance of a humvee in IRAQ to get attacked by aircraft?


Punishing players for using AT against something else then tanks is bad. In this game where people have tun walk for minutes to get into combat players are happy to get anything into their crosshairs. And it is better to kill just 1 enemy with a AT than getting killed before ever seeing a tank. btw I am scared of so many ideas to "punish" players. People should stop trying to remove fun out of the game.

imo all conventions go to hell, when question is your or mate life

There are no specific rules regarding special weapon types.

Geneva Conventions: Protocol I wrote:Art 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.


Art 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

eriksson92 wrote:According to the Genève convention you are not allowed to shoot an AT round to kill a human or clear a building, it is classed as an inhumane act. Therefore it should be a punishment for those who does that. The AT is designed to blow tanks, APC:s and other vehicles. Not blowing humans.

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orly?



Rattlesnake

eriksson92 wrote:According to the Genève convention you are not allowed to shoot an AT round to kill a human or clear a building, it is classed as an inhumane act. Therefore it should be a punishment for those who does that. The AT is designed to blow tanks, APC:s and other vehicles. Not blowing humans.

Geneva Conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you please show us where it mentiones this!

Niether the Geneva or Hauge Conventions restrict the use of explosives against enemy combatants.

Also, as with high calibre weapons such as anti-material rifles or autocannon you can simply state that you were aiming at enemy equipment (such as the helmet the guy happend to be wearing) rather than an enemy combatant. He just happened to get in the way.

If they did weapons like the M202 FLASH, the RPO-X series, the LASM, which are specifically designed for use against enemy personell, would not be developed.

I don't really get not letting someone use an anti material rifle on a human, surely it's just gonna be a quicker more humane kill, some of these laws make no sense at all.

[R-CON]Glimmerman wrote:I highly doubt they let UK soldiers commit war crimes let alone air it on TV.

Might not "let" them, but I bet my arse that it's either implicit in orders or ignored often enough, either way it'll happen.

See, this is the problem modern society has. We want war to be "clean".

You're fucking murdering people in the name of intangible concepts or tangible resources. Grow up and get to the killing. You can't have a "clean" war.

M.

Expendable Grunt wrote:See, this is the problem modern society has. We want war to be "clean".

You're fucking murdering people in the name of intangible concepts or tangible resources. Grow up and get to the killing. You can't have a "clean" war.

M.

I think that is the point though, they want a kill to be a kill, not a handicapping injury that makes the quality of life less than living. Flamethrowers would be a good point about this as it isn't a quick kill at all and if you do survive it is almost worse than death.

I agree though, trying to regulate killing is like trying to teach sharks to breath air.

1. As expendable grunt said war isnt clean
2. If it's safer for you do it, it's realistic