Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fabrizio_t

Prisoners ?

Recommended Posts

Any chanche to see soldiers having morale drop, surrendering e being captured (no scripting involved) ? Old Flashpoint had a morale threshold for fleeing, i think a morale threshold for surrendering will be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's rather useless for them to just surrender unless the mission calls for it, in which case it is already possible to do with some minor scripting. I don't see the point in implimenting into the engine it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's rather useless for them to just surrender unless the mission calls for it, in which case it is already possible to do with some minor scripting. I don't see the point in implimenting into the engine it though.

I disagree. Whilst some mission makers might want to avoid enemy AI surrendering they should just be able to turn up the starting morale and soldier experience higher. Surrendering should be part of the unpredictability of every mission, just as it is in real life, and therefore part of the engine.

To start adding such things in as scripts just takes us backwards to the linear/scripted missions of every other FPS. The strength of OFP is the ability to create unpredicatable missions with no certain outcomes. Whilst many mission makers over use triggers/scripts to force a certain series of events, the best missions are entirely dependant on the AI, environment and time to create more realistic gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VBS1 prisoners are good, they have their hands tied up and bags over their head covering it tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather see wounded enemies who isn't resisting but just giving up in order to not die,wounds are already in the game (albeit not very well implemented imo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Whilst some mission makers might want to avoid enemy AI surrendering they should just be able to turn up the starting moral and soldier experience higher. Surrendering should be part of the unpredictability of every mission, just as it is in real life, and therefore part of the engine.

But it creates too much problems, what to do with the prisoners? Execute them? Leave them behind? Wait for someone to take them to jail? After all its a game, so fleeing enemies is good enough IMO smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Whilst some mission makers might want to avoid enemy AI surrendering they should just be able to turn up the starting moral and soldier experience higher. Surrendering should be part of the unpredictability of every mission, just as it is in real life, and therefore part of the engine.

But it creates too much problems, what to do with the prisoners? Execute them? Leave them behind? Wait for someone to take them to jail? After all its a game, so fleeing enemies is good enough IMO  smile_o.gif

Yes, and if you want them to surrender, a few simple scripts will work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be cool and realistic to see surrenduring, but unfortunately...there is not much you can do with them after they surrender. That is the main gameplay issue, and will probably not be included because of it.

However, maybe they could do a system like...I think it was the R6, maybe SWAT series...where surrenders greatly added to your score rather than killing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it creates too much problems, what to do with the prisoners? Execute them? Leave them behind? Wait for someone to take them to jail? After all its a game, so fleeing enemies is good enough IMO smile_o.gif

Yes. Who takes care of them in heat of battle? How many players would jump in joy, when middle of assault, one defending AI decides to surrender and player is assigned to escort it behind. I think that it leads only to executed AI and dropped rating for player. Or your squads keymember, like AT-launcher-/sniperguy has to escort him.

What if escort dies in middle of his task. Does ex-POW AI take escort's weapons, and starts to shoot repairtrucks and some officer who might be needed to proceed with mission. "Oh... now it is dead and i can't finish my mission!!!" Or will it just keep going as escort would be still there.

How you take POWs? will there be POWs who walks to you hands up, but in 30 meters tosses a handgrenade towards you or starts to shoot with pistol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can almost be sure that prisoners will not be in Armed Assault, at least not the kind anyone is talking about.

Although get this: With all the little info we have on Game 2, Prisoners was mentioned in This Magazine article.

Page 1

Page 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than a pragmatic (gameplay) problem, having prisoners presents quite a philosophical problem. Philosophical problems like this in games of this nature translate to rating problems. If you can stretch you imagination a bit, did you ever wonder why there are no children in GTA?

Riiight.

Having the possibility of executing prisoners of war as they surrender to you puts the player in the position of 'simulating' acts that are immoral. I realise it does happen, and maybe sometimes by accident, but so does killing babies. Some topics are just unsuitable for some people, gamers especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and if you want them to surrender, a few simple scripts will work fine.

Kyle, you entirely missed my point. Realistic actions and behaviour should not be something you have to script into a mission, script out maybe but not the other way around. In real life every single mission involves the possibility of surrender on both sides. I want realism without having to script it and so do the majority of OFP players. If some mission makers really want to reduce the realism of their missions they can.

I agree that there are some pratical problems with taking prisoners, I never actually believed we would see it in Arma. Though honestly I think it is more than possible, it would just take some ingenuity on BIS's behalf. Such as adding the option to bind the hands of a surrendering soldier and leave them on the battlefield to be gathered up later.

As far as the moral issues of executing POWs, well again a little creative thinking from BIS, such as penalising the player for such actions. I don't see this as a game rating issue, if anything allowing non-violent solutions should (in a perfect world) be applauded. After all we had murderable civilians in OFP and that wasn't a problem for anyone.

Although Arma is just a game, I will play it for the realism and the more realistic the engine the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to see some enemies just giving up, due to wounds and/or morale issues.

(Wound incapacitation would be really interesting).

Surrendered enemies (or friendly units!wink_o.gif will abandon their weapons, staying in place.

In think that  a few options can help the player handling easily these prisoners:

1) you should be able to heal wounded prisoners in order to have them able to walk (at least)

2) you should be able to Handcuff them (and to command any soldiers to do it)  

3) you should be able to issue a "follow" command to them or command a man or a squad of your platoon to do them

4) by default the POW destination should be the final destination of the mission. You can simply lead them.

The game should give bonuses or penalization points for taking prisoners or havem the KIA. I don't think that this simple kind of implementation would be impossible ...

I also think that prisoners will allow for a new kind of operations, like intel harvesting missions (infiltrate enemy installation, take enemy technicians alive, escort them to destination to interrogate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I think that you'd have to have a long, hard look at the gameplay dynamics and pretty much reassess them from the ground up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hidden and Dangerous II had random surrender elements (as well as some scripted ones), and there was absolutely nothing to stop you just shooting them regardless - though shooting the scripted surrendered troops was often detrimental as you may have been supposed to steal their uniform. I don't think it's a moral question concerning whether you can have POWs (and shoot them) or not, just a question of trying to implement the workings, and making them as realistic as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard in ArmA that civilians will have a "memory". In a modern type conflict ROE and dealing with less than out and out cutthroat war is par for the course.

I would hope that how humanely you treat surrendering troops would affect how hostile the disposition of the enemy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard in ArmA that civilians will have a "memory". In a modern type conflict ROE and dealing with less than out and out cutthroat war is par for the course.

I would hope that how humanely you treat surrendering troops would affect how hostile the disposition of the enemy is.

Thats Game2, not ArmA. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More than a pragmatic (gameplay) problem, having prisoners presents quite a philosophical problem.  Philosophical problems like this in games of this nature translate to rating problems.  If you can stretch you imagination a bit, did you ever wonder why there are no children in GTA?

Riiight.

Having the possibility of executing prisoners of war as they surrender to you puts the player in the position of 'simulating' acts that are immoral.  I realise it does happen, and maybe sometimes by accident, but so does killing babies.  Some topics are just unsuitable for some people, gamers especially.

Sorry, but I completly disagree with you. If things were like you said than we wouldn't have surrendering enemy soldiers in Hidden and Dangerous 2 or surrendering terrorists in SWAT3 and even in R6 Rogue Spear and Raven Shield (and there are other games, I'm sure of) and in any of those games you can "execute" the surrendering enemies if you want to, so the problem isn't definitly "philosophical" but it's instead of a need to have some extra coding.

Regading this surrendering enemy troops issue I completly agree that it should be implemented in ArmA.

And also I completly agree with what Frederf said. It would be cool to have a system in ArmA that if you capture enemy surrendering soldiers (instead of executing them) the "reward" would be that more enemy soldiers could or would be willing to surrender if the situation becomes less favourable to them. Or if instead you decide to execute enemy surrendering soldiers than the enemy soldiers that you would face in the future would be more prone to "fight to the death" (in less favourable situations) instead of surrendering. I guess this would be a good balance between realism/gameplay and even code implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In R6 and swat the gameplay dynamics are based around the possibility of the enemy surrendering. In fact, in SWAT, it's preferable that the criminals surrender. The settings and circumstances in ArmA are quite different than those games. You have to make the reward more amusing than the amusement the player would get by executing the prisoners, and the punishment quite severe. There is also a certain degree of realism you have to take into account. If a group of enemy soldiers put their hands up at 100 meters and you turn their heads into canoes, would your camarades turn and shoot you? I don't think so. So what is the penalty? What is the penalty in real life? I'm pretty sure that at that point, not much. Maybe if their hands were in zap straps and you began to systematically blow them away you would be court martialled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your squad takes prisoners, prisoners go back to batt. HQ, who then send them back to div. HQ for interrogation and processing.

this would make for some interesting gameplay

say, in a dynamic campaign, you attack enemy div. HQ in a suprise raid ( breakthrough? who knows... ) and knock out comms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on behalf of everyone who isn't an absolute gaming nut and doesn't know how to easily script in missions, I dissagree that making surrendering scripted is a good idea! Yet another feature those of us that don't have the time to mission script etc invariably miss out on.

Surrendering for certain high profile figures that need to be captured still can be scripted

Who cares on what to do with prisoners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×