Spring RTS Engine

d_b wrote:The point of war is to damage the enemy in every way possible.

d_b wrote:How the hell do you govern that with rules?

d_b wrote:its retarded srsly. [..] it just doesnt appeal to my moral integrity, but rather offends it.

PicassoCT wrote:So you win, by tricking your opponent into bombing your human shield- great idea, i like it, finally some humanism shielding my dragons teeths.

Argh wrote:and Astrum Gallina would, of course, eat them

d_b wrote:"laws of war" is one of the most retarded ideas ever conceived. The point of war is to damage the enemy in every way possible. How the hell do you govern that with rules? its retarded srsly. If you say something about justice just know its always the losing sides fault.

Argh wrote:Overmind would gain some minor resources from killing them

emmanuel wrote:its the "decapitor"bot:
an autonomous warcrim unit(agreed for genocide & etnic cleaning)

Google_Frog wrote:Ever played KP? These games are not meant to replicate war, they are meant to be fun. If you can implement civilians in a fun way go ahead. Don't do it just for the realism as chances are it will not be fun.

Argh wrote:Overmind would gain some minor resources from killing them

emmanuel wrote:its the "decapitor"bot:
an autonomous warcrim unit(agreed for genocide & etnic cleaning)

Not true. War can only exist in civilised species, and there aren't many of those on earth.

Sefidel wrote:A) There is no such thing as a civilized species.

Sefidel wrote:B) Every single species has war.

Sefidel wrote:even horses kill each other in battle

Achilla wrote:Those carebears writing these articles shouldn't write stuff about things they have no idea about.

War is war and my hope is that one day we will get away with this idiotic political correctness and depict war games as actual war.

Kill, murder, rape, loot, exterminate. Nothing to add.

Humanity was like that always ... they will ban everything they don't seem appropriate for their current 'political meta'. I remember the times when books would get banned, let alone films for showing the truth and not another made-up patriotic bullshit or pro-government pamphlets.

Books, films, games. They are all part of culture, many of them are even art in itself. I seriously can't stand some people talking with so much moral authority on war games, but completely ignoring the fact what their own government does and how the media filter every bit of information. So much for hypocrisy these days I guess.

The idiots which wrote this article should ask themselves if they don't type things 180 degrees from the actual truth. The reality is that many war games depict acts of inhuman violence because they want to show the people what it's all about and it's form of moral protest against war itself as well, in it's own way. You don't criticise the war by showing bunnies punching cats or dogs, you show all of it's atrocities and without any authoritative moral voice allow the actual players judge on their own, how inhuman, cruel and horrible the war is. Not to mention that depicting any kind of heroism in such games is impossible without tragedy of each life lost, be it soldier or civilian. There is no dramaturgy here without the grey moral area, where white isn't white and black isn't black. Unlike those low-budget pseudo films with no plot, random chicken to rescue and lots of violence/blood/explosions, you need to cater to much more demanding and usually (but not always) better educated audience.

Claiming that war games shouldn't show too much violence or killing civilians is like drawing the landscape without the sky, or forest without the trees. There is no landscape and no forest anymore. There is made-up fable tale showing how war is good, that nobody dies and that wars are made for fun.

It's like pretending human greed, arrogance and hate throughout centuries weren't the driving force beyond conflicts, but the war activity was like a sport ; the arena was bigger and more of the gladiators, everyone felt exalted to die an honourable death ... for nothing. Because the war started for nothing, yes?

The same people which shout games are too violent/should be banned/should be supervised by government/carebears/parents council or whatever funny bullshit you can think of, are usually the same shouting no history should be taught in school, because it's perfectly normal when kids think that Hitler was a sportsman, Auschwitz was holiday hotel with luxuries and that the great Soviet army 'liberated' Eastern Europe and everyone lived long and happy there.

zwzsg wrote:Horse fights are 1v1

Jools wrote: Sure they are. There are mod options to allow for a king of the hill mode, why couln't one make a one mod option that causes defeat after you have accidentally killed a certain number of forbidden targets, for instance?

zwzsg wrote:

d_b wrote:How the hell do you govern that with rules?

Following Geneva's convention can give you a strategic edge: During WWII, many germans surrendered to the US because they knew they'd be treated well.

Forboding Angel wrote:

zwzsg wrote:

d_b wrote:How the hell do you govern that with rules?

Following Geneva's convention can give you a strategic edge: During WWII, many germans surrendered to the US because they knew they'd be treated well.

Only the French would consider surrender as a strategic advantage.
(I'm only kidding Z, don't get mad ;p )

PicassoCT wrote:Yeah, nam, rac and ghan - you showed us how its done. Reallife can be so short if it comes in tinboxxes. Cant wait to see the day, the Quaida hacks your drones remote.