Option idea: honoring geneva conventions?

[AF]

[Forboding Angel]

Oh for fucks sake... First of all, it was a joke you pretentious twat.

Thirdly, it was a joke, deal with it.

I hope you get drafted and die by the hand of an iraki freedom fighter defending his family against you american capitalist pig. (I'm only kidding FA, don't get mad ;p )

Why, aren't you rofling already? You must have no sense of humor then. It was a joke, deal with it you pretentious twat.

I never said anything about real people dying (which is decidedly, not funny), I simply poked fun at the french.

@Smoth, arguing about politics isn't stressful to me, mainly cause I don't take it super seriously, some people do, but isn't that what that thick skin that everyone likes to talk about is for?

**********

Back on topic:

Anyone remember the infantry in the original c&c? Crushing them with tanks, or losing a building and people run out and get run over? That was funny, if not kinda raunchy, but it was funny. And don't tell me that I was the only one to use heavy tanks to get rid of infantry (all in all, very cost effective assuming they didn't have rockets).

Video related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw

[Jools]

You could do that in Dune 2 too, and actually also in real war. Infantry are legitimate targets, and I believe it's not worse to maul them to death than to shoot them?

About this thread, my point was not to discuss brutality of war, my idea is more: "how do we make this model better?"

Frankly, I don't really know how to incorporate such a feature (having a number of civilian kills capped at a certain number seems too simplistic), hence I posted it here and not in feature requests.

Real warfare can have many aims, one could be to incapacitate enemy military forces so that one can have one's demands met (territory, resources, religion, government), and if you continuously kill 1 civilian with each military soldier you will win the battles but lose the war.

[Forboding Angel]

Real warfare can have many aims, one could be to incapacitate enemy military forces so that one can have one's demands met (territory, resources, religion, government), and if you continuously kill 1 civilian with each military soldier you will win the battles but lose the war.

Exactly the opposite. Case in point, World War 2. Carpet bombing isn't meant to minimize civilian casualties. Specifically inflicting civilian casualties is very demorializing to the country being dealt the blow. THe nazi's did it, the americans did it, the brits did it, etc etc.

Just because that's not how wars are fought in todays terms doesn't change the fact that inflicting civilian casualties is very demoralizing.

Yes things have changed a great deal in the past 50-60 years, but the underlying principle of fighting a war is crushing your enemy. It wasn't until after WWI that war had "rules" per se (unless you want to count gentlemans rules of colonial warfare... I.E. Stand on an open grassy field and get shot at).

So saying that 1 soldier + 1 civilian death per kill count loses the war is false. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did either of those cities look like military bases? I should think not, but it broke the back of the Japanese and ended the war.

[Jools]

Sure, you have a point there. Except the german carpet bombing of London strenghtened the resistance more than lowering it.

[Forboding Angel]

Not without the allies. If London had been left to stand on her own she would have eventually fallen. You can never tell exactly how a people will react to mass civilian casualties. Some peoples will cower in fear (and for probably good reason), others will get good and pissed off and fight back (England in this case). That doesn't mean that the overall intended effect didn't work.

911 being another example, after that, the American people wanted blood, and by and large we got it. The difference being is that a lot of people were under the impression that we'd just waltz in, drop a shitload of bombs, kill a super massive amount of people and then fuck off back to dixie. We all know that's not how it went down, but I digress.

Throughout history, it seems that different countries have had different reactions to civilian casualties. Americans generally get super pissed (and when you have the big dick of superpowerness, you can work with outrage), The brits seem to react much the same way.

It all depends on how it is presented. Look at Germany marching through everyone all the way to france. Unstoppable force met moveable objects until they came upon England, at which point, they got spanked. But on the other hand, England didn't do it entirely on their own, they had a lot of help from americans as well as a lot of other allies. Poland, france, etc didn't really get that kind of assistance, and tbh there isn't a whole lot they could have done in time to stop it. Regardless, Germany had everyone buffaloed except the brits. The lightning raids worked, cause massive panic and confusion, and as a result Germany crushed everything in it's way (up to a point).

I shudder to think what would have happened if the axis had decided to only concentrate on europe, asia and africa. Would the US and allies on this side of the pond have ever gotten involved? It wasn't until pearl harbor got gutchecked that we got involved, and even then up until midway, we were getting our asses handed to us (more or less).

In my opinion, mass civilian casualties as a singular event breeds anger and the will to fight back. If it is a frequent occurance, it breeds fear and panic (exception in this case being London vs Luftwaffe).

I'm straying off topic here but it is related to an extent. No matter how you look at it, real war is a hell of a bloody business.

[PicassoCT]

why not have the r-factory, a burning reffugecamp, building a constant fugeestream towards the enemy, who when he gets in contact, looses ressources..

[SeanHeron]

Neat idea - but I'm frightened to think of the "solutions" that incentivises... grim reality you'd be portraying there.

[zwzsg]

About this thread, my point was not to discuss brutality of war, my idea is more: "how do we make this model better?"

Frankly, I don't really know how to incorporate such a feature (having a number of civilian kills capped at a certain number seems too simplistic), hence I posted it here and not in feature requests.

You could do something like reducing the funding with each civilian killed. With mods like Gundam or Spring 1944 where you receive resource from *elsewhere* it would make sense: The more innocent children you kill, the larger the hippies grow at home, and the more politics cut army funding and attempt to draw back to appease them. For mods based around metal extraction, this explanation wouldn't hold, but you can still reduce metal extraction rate with a gadget.

But just having to avoid accidentally splash-damaging neutral units sounds unfunny. I want a game that handle taking prisoners (yes, that mean the units of the other side would have a surrender button (quiet Forb)), and building camps, and having to spend resources to cater to them.

Nowadays we have games with non-lethal weapons, or where you have the choice to go for stealthy infiltration instead of mass slaughter, but I haven't yet seen a game with gameplay mechanics about taking prisoners. Hmm, that remind me I ought to try that Jailbreak HL2 mod.

911 being another example, after that, the American people wanted blood, and by and large we got it.

But the blood of the wrong people.

[Neddie]

The best thing about this thread is that prisoners of war were added to S44 almost half a year ago.

[zwzsg]

Is it included in "Operation Lyuban"? Because I'm pretty sure I played S44 less than a year ago and never saw prisoners.

[Neddie]

I believe it wasn't added until one of the early Pre-M releases, and now is a ModOption until we decide how to refine it.

[Forboding Angel]

What Z just suggested... Now that makes sense, and it has a reason for being there. SO imagine Z's quoted post in my post, and me saying:

^^This

I want a game that handle taking prisoners (yes, that mean the units of the other side would have a surrender button (quiet Forb)), and building camps, and having to spend resources to cater to them.

/me giggles

911 being another example, after that, the American people wanted blood, and by and large we got it.

But the blood of the wrong people.

<< That sums that up pretty well. In times of stress, you generally end up going with what your gut tells you. That doesn't mean that what your gut tells you is always the best thing. On the surface, Iraq was a great idea. Go in, liberate, help rebuild, gtfo. Unfortunately muslim extremists want everyone's life to suck (including their own), and they do a pretty good job of making sure that no one can be happy.

Works out into a lose lose situation for everyone.

And if we just left with the country in shambles, we and Iraq would work out to a lose lose lose situation for us and them. You are right though, with your original statement. Bush should have just nuked an abandoned island in the middle of nowhere and called it a day I guess, but you have a nation wanting justice and incapable of achieving it. As president, that puts you squarely in-between a cock and a smelly place.

[Frostregen]

Go in, liberate, help rebuild, gtfo.

Get the f**cking oil?

[Pxtl]

I was thinking that a "taking prisoners" mechanic would be a nice element for a Battlezone-style RTS - each vehicle has a pilot, and pilots are unarmed, and taking a prisoner consumes depleted ammo-space on your vehicle (so if you're fully-armed, you may have to jettison something to take a prisoner). If you're destroyed while carrying prisoners (or allied passengers) they are released. So you have to build stockades for the prisoners. The idea being that the enemy's roster of pilots acts as their "health bar" - they start out with enough pilots that they couldn't use them all for every vehicle made with every piece of resource on the map, but teams rapidly start taking captives. As the game progresses and captives are taken, the roster shrinks, until you're eliminated when your last pilot is taken captive. You could even have a "negotiation" screen where you arrange trading prisoners for resources, which would be particularly handy in 2+ player games.

[PicassoCT]

How about a rob the villages mod? You have three or four villages between two bases, you drive in it and start trading the "violent-viking"style, robbing it and making sure that noone and nothing gets away, with not real resistance (except runningaway with there riches) of the peasants.

Now for the But:
-You have to defend your own treasurecellar at home and the vehicles driving the riches home (from your enemy)
- There is a neutral entity (lets call it the UnitedPressInquisition-convoy) slowly moving to the Village currently robbed, and which, when caughtintheact you robbing take 1.5 of a Villageswealth from your account. Winner is who has the most riches in a amount of time.

Villages slowly regenerate, but the Inquisition rebuilts instantly the village it reaches. If this (with the robbing, raping, murdering showing) ever reaches the world- spring wil never again lack attention). I promise.

Untitled-1.jpg (278.51 KiB) Viewed 1700 times