Jump to content

Collateral Damage


Jafferson
 Share

Recommended Posts

DCS should have civilans to simulate the posibility of collateral damage. Currently nothing happens by unloading the rocketpods or droping a nuke into a crowded city.

Ok we have civilan traffic, but DCS looks still empty.

Civilans would give the option to build more complex missions.

Add some man and woman with children walking around and make DCS more livley.

I dont say place millions of peopel...

but adding some models into the editor to place them in a mission is not a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS should have civilans to simulate the posibility of collateral damage. Currently nothing happens by unloading the rocketpods or droping a nuke into a crowded city.

Ok we have civilan traffic, but DCS looks still empty.

Civilans would give the option to build more complex missions.

Add some man and woman with children walking around and make DCS more livley.

I dont say place millions of peopel...

but adding some models into the editor to place them in a mission is not a big deal.

First step would be to have a "neutral" faction that is selectable where you can place non combatants.

Next I would be glad to have some people with no uniform and no weapon.

 

I would omit children, lots of trouble sure to come, from parental ratings to pacifist movements starting shitstorms...

 

But a neutral faction and some civilians, how long am I begging for this.

  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the point of morality it's questionable, but it is much worse to pretend that civilians do not exist in a warzone... what most wargames do.

The idea of a neutral faction with non combatants sounds good.

 

I imagine a Mission where you hold fire because non combatants are danger close to the splash area of your weapon... something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the point of morality it's questionable, but it is much worse to pretend that civilians do not exist in a warzone... what most wargames do.

The idea of a neutral faction with non combatants sounds good.

 

I imagine a Mission where you hold fire because non combatants are danger close to the splash area of your weapon... something like that.

 

I personally have no problems with morality here. It is a real live fact that children and civilians often stand in harms way.

 

The issue is with parental advisory and rating requirements, from a legal perspective.

 

If you "could" place children in a mission and have a massacre, the rating will quickly be adults only, so in germany, at least you can't sell it without age verification etc.

 

Lots of trouble, you can easily omit. While on the other hand we pretend not noticing how many hundreds of innocent children starve to death each day... :(

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a simulation, not a morality statement.

 

To start using valuable system resources to simulate civillian deaths is frankly a little outside the box I feel.

 

To simulate the incredibly banal "collateral damage" surely it would be better to place penalties on bombs falling within restricted zones, and to do it abstractly. Do you really need to see civillians minus heads and limbs?

 

To be frank, this whole area is really beyond the pale when it comes to what is, fundamentally, a game. If you want to take the moral high ground, this isn't the appropriate medium to do it on. To have an aspect of "blue on blue" is one thing, to expect to have civillian models in harms way is just a little weird in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Neil. Surely the presence of friendly forces counts as collateral damage, without any requirement to introduce 'neutrals'.

 

In any mission brief there should be consideration of inaccurate weapon delivery, and where there is close contact between friendly and enemy targets, this should be specifically identified as a danger to be avoided - that is all. I don't believe that 'scoring' sorties with a +1 for an enemy kill and a -1 for an enemy is necessary. I would not want to fly in a sortie which awarded minus points for children etc.

 

This is a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how are you gonna know if there are civs in the shacks below? you dont, so you're making assumptions to withhold fire.

 

if you can have enough imagination to assume there are civs in the buildings, you can have enough imagination to pretend there are civs in the buildings without actual civ units being implemented in the game.

 

tl;dr go roleplay the ethical bomber on your own dime

МИР

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be interesting to have but in same token just put friendly troops in the area to challenge peoples target id in missions. Fact is enemies these days use civilians as shields and use places like Mosques and hospitals as well. Different countries in the world have different tactics of dealing with this type of scenarios also.

This discussion can go both ways but the fact is its a combat simulator correct? How deep it goes is pretty limited in my opinion currently.

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Neil. Surely the presence of friendly forces counts as collateral damage, without any requirement to introduce 'neutrals'.

 

In any mission brief there should be consideration of inaccurate weapon delivery, and where there is close contact between friendly and enemy targets, this should be specifically identified as a danger to be avoided - that is all. I don't believe that 'scoring' sorties with a +1 for an enemy kill and a -1 for an enemy is necessary. I would not want to fly in a sortie which awarded minus points for children etc.

 

This is a game.

 

The "neutral" faction is already in the game, but can't be used anymore for triggers etc.

 

To be clear, I do not need "torn off limbs" or any gore, the concept of "neutral" applies to any country that is not participating in combat action and should not be harmed.

 

If it is a Suisse Paratrooper posing as civilian, or whatever.

 

Yet it would be helpful to have "civilians" e.g. any model of a guy with NO weapon, so an A-10C or CA player needs to visually confirm if he is ARMED or not.

 

As most conflicts these days are developing with strict ROEs in place, I find it difficult to setup realistic missions, other than "Red Invasion", "Cold War gone hot" etc. in a believable manner. In general for infantry it is, if it moves, it's a target.

 

Long story short. A neutral faction that is accessible in the ME, again, plus a few unarmed people models and cars would be a great enhancement to build far more challenging and realistic missions, especially for CAS.:thumbup:

  • Like 1

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with NeilWillis, its not a morality Statement and i dont care, its only a Simulation. I remember playing "Defcon" its a sim where you fight a nuklear world war Terminating inocent with a death toll of 5.737.834.999 kills. So dont talk about K : D Ratio with me bro :P

And there is no parental advisory for the sim.

Its only a game and nobody get harmed :smilewink:

 

DCS is not only a flight sim, its a Digital Combat Simulator, so we simulating combat in a war. In my oppinion unarmed have an important role in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there,

interesting topic with a lot to think about, so far I feel both 'sides of the argument' have valid points. I understand people don't want the 'morality statement' and a extreme version of this, as described by Neil, and I agree.

 

But on the other hand an easy way for the mission editor to not only enforce some certain rules of engagement but to have some visual feedback of the consequences would be valueable to the sim. To clarify, I am too not talking about torn limbs, death & carnage etc. This thread is a wishlist afterfall so let me try to formulate two feature requests here and I will try to orient them on current systems we already have:

 

1. Some kind of recognizeable non combatant units that are placeable in the mission editor and able to move etc. Civillian units/models already exist from civillian traffic cars, air show units etc. and I don't think it would be that big of a deal. This would help a lot with immersion for all kinds of missions/scenarios.

 

2. General definition of all civillian buildings/towns/structures etc. (via ME!) with the possibillity to change this for certain areas, simulating that the population has been evacuated/fled/area is held by combatants. For example if you drop a bomb on a city, damaging buildings will trigger some kind of penalty (defined by mission editor) not unlike the friendly fire system we already have in place. Maybe even civi units flee the damaged area, shake their fists, more civ traffic outbound of the area etc. This same system could be used for units from (1) and I think this system could also be slightly changed (for different mission sets). If some evil pilot attacks civillians on purpose, penaltys could be defined by ME/admin (or ignored entirely).

 

I know a lot of people (plus myself^^) that like some kind of immersive flying, treating the sim world a little bit more like the real world. As in, don't crash into civi citys, don't fly super sonic over citys, take that traffic pattern over the empty field... And don't nuke/hit friedlys/civillians.

 

This topic is just one of the things we should keep in mind as the ME evolves. With a big dynamic scenario and moving units this could add a huge aspect to the game. But I will agree with anyone right away that we have some bigger construction sites right now, hence why I tried to base my ideas a little on existing systems. Maybe that way one day it won't be such a big leap.

 

One last thing: People that approve this feature also have to realize that probably a lot of simmers simply don't want to deal with that kind of scenario (and aspect of combat) and I certainly respect that and should maybe not be something that is default in DCS.


Edited by ApoNOOB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First step would be to have a "neutral" faction that is selectable where you can place non combatants.

Next I would be glad to have some people with no uniform and no weapon.

 

I would omit children, lots of trouble sure to come, from parental ratings to pacifist movements starting shitstorms...

 

But a neutral faction and some civilians, how long am I begging for this.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I want in DCS too, for a very, very long time. And I'm not asking for childern and torn off limbs and whatever else was mentioned in this thread either. All I want is a non-combat faction with all the civilian vehicles already in game (like buses etc.) as placeable, AI-controlable units (plus maybe some plain clothes people too, but that's optional, really).

 

It's a simulation supposed to simulate real life, and in real life, pilots often have to cope with the issue of civilians being in the AO. All we have now are those ghost-like civilian vehicles aimlessly and carelessly rolling right through the battlefield, which, even when hit, have no impact on the missions outcome.

 

Having actual placeable civilian units would not only allow the mission designer to make them behave more realistically (not drive straight into battle anymore), but also to make us virtual pilots plan our missions better and think twice before pulling the trigger. (Is it a military supply truck I see on my TGP or just a regular civilian lorry?)

 

So anyone please leave morality out of this (like if dropping bombs on random city buildings as we can do right now was any better - guess they are all empty?), it's not about blood, it's not about gore, it's actually all about enforcing right weapon discipline, which is a good thing by the way.

Also, it would alow us to fly peacekeeping missions in the style of "defend village X from attackers until ground troops evacuate all the civilian population, avoid any non-combatant casualties" etc.

 

Oh and since we are actually talking civilian faction, another great thing would be adding a third combat faction, which could cooperate with any or none of the current two coalitions (see Arma series for example). This would give mission makers even more creativity, as creating a civil war scenario for example, where third party intervenes to stop the violence (or achieve its own goals) and gets into crosfirre from both alienated sides.

 

Without wanting to go to real world politics, see Syria right now, where it's basically anyone vs. anyone else

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly what I want in DCS too, for a very, very long time. And I'm not asking for childern and torn off limbs and whatever else was mentioned in this thread either. All I want is a non-combat faction with all the civilian vehicles already in game (like buses etc.) as placeable, AI-controlable units (plus maybe some plain clothes people too, but that's optional, really).

 

It's a simulation supposed to simulate real life, and in real life, pilots often have to cope with the issue of civilians being in the AO. All we have now are those ghost-like civilian vehicles aimlessly and carelessly rolling right through the battlefield, which, even when hit, have no impact on the missions outcome.

 

Having actual placeable civilian units would not only allow the mission designer to make them behave more realistically (not drive straight into battle anymore), but also to make us virtual pilots plan our missions better and think twice before pulling the trigger. (Is it a military supply truck I see on my TGP or just a regular civilian lorry?)

 

So anyone please leave morality out of this (like if dropping bombs on random city buildings as we can do right now was any better - guess they are all empty?), it's not about blood, it's not about gore, it's actually all about enforcing right weapon discipline, which is a good thing by the way.

Also, it would alow us to fly peacekeeping missions in the style of "defend village X from attackers until ground troops evacuate all the civilian population, avoid any non-combatant casualties" etc.

 

Oh and since we are actually talking civilian faction, another great thing would be adding a third combat faction, which could cooperate with any or none of the current two coalitions (see Arma series for example). This would give mission makers even more creativity, as creating a civil war scenario for example, where third party intervenes to stop the violence (or achieve its own goals) and gets into crosfirre from both alienated sides.

 

Without wanting to go to real world politics, see Syria right now, where it's basically anyone vs. anyone else

 

 

Fact, Well said and thats exactly what i hope is added to the ME

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Enduro14, what do you exactly mean?

 

Having ""killable" civilians, and even "killable" animals would get this sim an R or an even higher rating.

 

Nevertheless, if you kill "neutral" or civilian objects right now, you get fratricide accusation from the game, and you lose all your offline scores. Logical, right? Example, killing a truck or a bus on a highway will get you there (provided you turned on "Civ. traffic" option).

 

DCS is an exquisite airframe simulator. However, if we're to be completely objective and honest, it is still not a good combat simulator. I don't want to start a discussion related to that. It is being improved constantly. My two cents.


Edited by Rabb
Clarification added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

an unarmed guy with a death animation doesn't get the game an R rating, and even if it did who cares

 

expanding the mission toolkit to allow unarmed bystanders so you have to check your fire and do actual recon can only be a good thing anyway. i don't really understand how this is actually a problem

 

it's a pixelated human with an animation where he falls down. where's the moral grey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having ""killable" civilians, and even "killable" animals would get this sim an R or an even higher rating.

 

And having "killable" soldiers does not? I mean, does that make difference if that guy has a rifle and wears camo pants? He dies the same death as a simulated civilian would, i.e. falls over without any blood and you know, soldiers are people too. No expert on gaming ratings but I'm not sure it works like that.

 

EDIT: Also, we have airshow crows as a static object now. Never tried if it's destructible or not, but clearly you CAN shoot at civilians in DCS!

 

Nevertheless, if you kill "neutral" or civilian objects right now, you get fratricide accusation from the game, and you lose all your offline scores. Logical, right? Example, killing a truck or a bus on a highway will get you there (provided you turned on "Civ. traffic" option).
It does? I wasn't aware of that. Sure, I only recently switched civ traffic back on (played for years without it), so maybe it was changed in the meantime. If so, great, but you still have no control over how the vehicles behave. Having them as placable units would get us around that issue nicely, and unlike that hypothetical dead civilian scenario, it could cause no moral dillemas, as nobody cares about destroyed vehicles / buildings so far it seems.

 

Also, being able to add civilian air traffic would be nice - there are few planes and helos that would fit that role perfectly, but still can fly only as member of either red or blue coalition - meaning as long as it doesn't show as a friendly on your radar, you are free to engage without any consequences - sure, skilled mission designer could probably find a way around that, but it's again making square peg fit into round hole while civilan faction would solve it ellegantly without any effort at all (from the mission makers perspective I think, of course ED would have to invest their effort into it :)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Enduro14, what do you exactly mean?

 

Having ""killable" civilians, and even "killable" animals would get this sim an R or an even higher rating.

 

Nevertheless, if you kill "neutral" or civilian objects right now, you get fratricide accusation from the game, and you lose all your offline scores. Logical, right? Example, killing a truck or a bus on a highway will get you there (provided you turned on "Civ. traffic" option).

 

DCS is an exquisite airframe simulator. However, if we're to be completely objective and honest, it is still not a good combat simulator. I don't want to start a discussion related to that. It is being improved constantly. My two cents.

 

?? never said anything about GORE. I agree dont think that is needed seen plenty in real world thanks. What i agree with is having a Neutral faction with weaponless models.

Intel 8700k @5ghz, 32gb ram, 1080ti, Rift S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, if you kill "neutral" or civilian objects right now, you get fratricide accusation from the game, and you lose all your offline scores. Logical, right? Example, killing a truck or a bus on a highway will get you there (provided you turned on "Civ. traffic" option).

 

Does not help mission designers to simulate RulesOfEngagement.

 

The neutral faction as well be Turkish F-16 patrolling their airspace that we are not allowed to shoot down.

A bunch of people, cars whatnot that can't be harmed so "carpet bombing" a target is no longer an option etc.

 

Neutral as a faction exists since LockOn, just it is no longer accessible in the Mission Editor.

Even just having a countries military as a neutral faction would greatly enhance realistic mission building.

 

Remember AI currently just now's friendly (do not attack) or enemy (attack). You have to do complex stuff with invisible triggers to remotely get a realistic UN peacekeeping mission where two parties and the UN is involved in the same mission.

 

Now if we could add , say the russian paratrooper model simply without an AK-47 or RPG in his hands, available to all nations that would be even better.

Makes visual confirmation of a hostile possible. E.g. ROE say you are not allowed to shoot at unarmed guys...

 

It is that simple!


Edited by shagrat
Auto correct corrected

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the ground crew models in this mod would work to simulate civilians.

 

Take a look.

 

May need to be modded a bit to work.

 

Someone could also take the ground crew model, with permission, and create a civilian.

 

Combine this with Likiki's animals and you could create a farm to bomb!:D

 

See here

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180469

"Yeah, and though I work in the valley of Death, I will fear no Evil. For where there is one, there is always three. I preparest my aircraft to receive the Iron that will be delivered in the presence of my enemies. Thy ALCM and JDAM they comfort me. Power was given unto the aircrew to make peace upon the world by way of the sword. And when the call went out, Behold the "Sword of Stealth". And his name was Death. And Hell followed him. For the day of wrath has come and no mercy shall be given."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add some animals and napalm too, and we celebrate a barbecue :thumbsup:

ATC is Looking through his binoculars...

"Abort take off! We got a Donkey on the runway!"

 

Jokes aside, in all seriousness...

The missioneditor need some love :love:

More content please.

 

And a zombie mod... :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutral faction, I'm all for it, +1!

 

It looks like a relatively simple addition to the game that would allow mission builders to create more diverse scenarios and give additional incentive to players to play by more real world tactics, including the limitations governed by strict ROE.

 

The way I see it, it would be entirely optional from a mission builder's perspective and if someone doesn't like the idea behind a particular mission, well duh, just ignore it. ;)

 

Besides, the new M-2000C training campaign starts off with the other faction being potentially hostile, but actually neutral in terms of ROE, i.e. they are not to be attacked unless in self-defense. Scripting these missions can't have been an easy task; either they belong to the player's coalition and would then also potentially show up on the F10 map, or they belong to the other faction and every single group must be set to ignore the "enemy".

 

Long story short, a neutral faction opens up many options while not taking anything away from the game, except development time. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...