Spring RTS Engine

With reference to this BBC article, I thought of the idea of somehow incorporating penalty points for hitting civilian targets, perhaps as a mod option.

Would be interesting to be an ethical frontrunner and take the laws of war into account. But would this be possible at all?

Some missions in the cannon fodder game are failed instantly if you happen to kill a civilian. That would be quite harsh in spring, but still an intreresting thought. Or what do you think?

This is for individual mods. Go post it in S44 forum.

Also this is much lulz.

Those who violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners

Maybe it must be implemented at mod level, but as a topic, it concerns whole spring (unless there is some mod where you don't kill).

Why S44 specifically?

And yes, that statement is funny and naïve (usually winners don't end up as war criminals, they instead define that term), but it's still one more dimension that could be added to the game.

Jools wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8373794.stm

The pure arrogance...

Jools wrote:Maybe it must be implemented at mod level, but as a topic, it concerns whole spring (unless there is some mod where you don't kill).

It doesn't concern the whole of spring, spring is an rts engine. It concerns game makers because it is a gameplay issue that need to decide about. There are games about space robots or undead armies with no civilians to be seen, making such a concept absurd.

Jools wrote:Why S44 specifically?

First game that came to mind where it might be an issue, but I doubt it hasn't been mentioned a dozen times before

Jools wrote:And yes, that statement is funny and naïve (usually winners don't end up as war criminals, they instead define that term), but it's still one more dimension that could be added to the game.

Game issue, not an engine issue. Blah blah blah lua blah etc.

Jools wrote:Some missions in the cannon fodder game are failed instantly if you happen to kill a civilian. That would be quite harsh in spring, but still an intreresting thought. Or what do you think?

Thank you, I was trying to remember the name of that game a while ago but couldn't find it

can we make a mod that has flowers and bunnies and if you hurt them then god strikes you down?

Hey how about a checkers mod while were at it.

Oh wait how about a mod where everyone wins! brilliant!

Gota wrote:

Jools wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8373794.stm

The pure arrogance...

And ignorance.

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.

yawn etc stupid idea.

Sefidel wrote:Oh wait how about a mod where everyone wins! brilliant!

We have that one, it's called SpringDesync.

To be fair, the article also mentions that:

"Whether or not the rules of war are included in the game should be based entirely on whether that improves the experience for the player,"

...which is what I'm discussing, not the general idea how the brutality of war is represented by media, or government conspiracy theories etc...

Gaming is a simulation of real warfare, and all simulation must make simplifying assumptions. What I'm saying is that adding this stuff would add one more dimension to the simulation, and thus make a better model of the real world. I don't think this has been omitted from war games because of government intervention, but rather I believe no one has really thought about including it, perhaps to keep things sismple.

To be honest, I don't think that any civilised country in war entirely can disregard from the diplomatic penalty of intentionally targetting forbidden targets.

Jools wrote:Gaming is a simulation of real warfare, and all simulation must make simplifying assumptions.

current spring projects reflecting modern warfare = 0

defunct projects kinda reflecting real war... 1


this is stupid.

Care to be more specific? Your utterance doesn't make a lot of sense.

english must not be your first language.

this "feature" has no place in any spring project.

CarRepairer wrote:

Sefidel wrote:Oh wait how about a mod where everyone wins! brilliant!

We have that one, it's called SpringDesync.

I think you dont win there, you end up as war criminal

smoth wrote: this "feature" has no place in any spring project.

Why does it not have a place in any spring project?

Jools wrote:

smoth wrote: this "feature" has no place in any spring project.

Why does it not have a place in any spring project?

Cause none were designed with it in mind.

Jools wrote:Why does it not have a place in any spring project?

why do I owe you an explanation?

JohannesH wrote:

Jools wrote:

smoth wrote: this "feature" has no place in any spring project.

Why does it not have a place in any spring project?

Cause none were designed with it in mind.

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?

so whoops stray shot and you lose?

you have not thought this out at all.