Think about it!

[Beagle 684]

It just came to my Mind that games like ArmA are quite a bit sick from a civilised point of view!

Why...?

This though sneaked at me while playing around with the editor. Since good old Flashpoint I tend to recreate some of the trainig scenarios from my service time, just to see how it will turn out in "simulated life fire conditions"...there it was!

In basic training we trained improvised anti-aircraft defense using the famed MG-3. When shooting at the aircraft-target- model drawn on wires across the range I always aimed at a Helicopter...in ArmA, I always aim at the pilot inside.

It seems I'm getting to old for doing such stuff unreflected.

In fact it makes me, together with the stuff you see on TV or read in the newspapers from middle east, considering to refuse status as reservist in the future.

[churnedfortaste 0]

Well, it is a game and no one is actually dying...

[BraTTy 0]

And it probably has to do with habits with games.

I try to shoot the driver so that we can aquire the vehicle.I understand you are talking about larger weapons but still habit to me.

In the real military tho, if you happen to shoot the driver and aquire the vehicle you wouldn't get it. The military would ,lol

[Ezekiel 0]

It's all a conspiracy! Teh government is paying BIS to train us into ruthless killing machines!

[Beagle 684]

It's all a conspiracy! Teh government is paying BIS to train us into ruthless killing machines!

That might not be the goal, but I think this does in fact happen as a side effect.

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that in most missions you have to kill all or most enemy soldiers to complete the mission...I'm really beginning to hate this slaughters.

Retreat or surrender should be enougt...and it was said that the A.I. in ArmA would do that (retreat or flee)...well, they wont...!

[opteryx 1562]

Yeah I agree, there should be more surrender and/or retreat options for both sides in missions, more combat simulator instead of slaughter sim.

[max power 21]

I remember the wounded, retreating, or fleeing soldiers in mods such as ffur, wgl, ecp, and slx. Yeah, those guys never survived either. Surrendering just isn't really a good thing to put in a videogame.

[.kju 3245]

Different mission objectives by the mission makers.

[max power 21]

Different mission objectives by the mission makers.

Good point. If it was part of a mission or system of rewards / punishments that is quite serious, then I can see some actual appropriate player behaviour towards surrendering foes. I guess I should reitterate and say that just having them surrender at random with no real point to it only makes it easier for the player by taking some rifles out of enemy hands.

[Beagle 684]

Oh... I forgott...there is no such thing as retreating in NATO armies..we called this "deployment to backward area" instead.

So retreat and surrender ist for OPFOR A.I. only

Killing is much to dominant in Wargames...why...?

My toll is for sure above 100 Kills just after the campaign...who calls this realistic...?

[Sevan 0]

I would love a system where if an AI group takes a certain amount of casualties it will scatter and break down, and flee.

This would also work well with a good suppression model.

[Beagle 684]

I would love a system where if an AI group takes a certain amount of casualties it will scatter and break down, and flee.

This would also work well with a good suppression model.

currently it's like:

Sniper 9 'o Clock, 500 meters

All, engange sniper 9 'o clock, 500

One is down!

Two taking command!

Two is down! Three taking command

O no Three is down!

Four taking...!

Oh no, Four is down..........!

[max power 21]

They do have moral, and they do break and then flee.

[Skaven 0]

Tell me when you will be able to smell the dead corps and the wind, tell me when a greande explodes next to your position and you stop hearing from one of your ears, the dust getting into your eyes and leave you blind for a couple of seconds as well as actually be under fire in a way that you can't even lift your head... it's a game guys it will never be real, emotions from real life have nothing to do with games

Which is good

[opteryx 1562]

Tell me when you will be able to smell the dead corps and the wind, tell me when a greande explodes next to your position and you stop hearing from one of your ears as well as actually be under fire in a way that you can't even lift your head... it's a game guys it will never be real, emotions from real life have nothing to do with games

Oh come on, who wouldn't want PTSD are a session of ArmA?

[ArmaVidz 0]

Not sure if I am cathing the correct message of the post, but if it were up to me, each President / Dictator / Legislator / Emporer / Prime Minister or King / Queen would be dropped on an island with some kevlar and a truckload of food, ammo and weapons and they'd fight it out between the two of em when they want war.

The people sending troops in, have nothing invested in the lives of those lost; nor much to lose from giving meager handouts to the vets when they are injured. At 30, I see a world spinning out of control and regressing back to exactly what we loathed; war-mongering, brutal and barbaric nations. All inclusive.

I like Armed Assault because nobody gets hurt. As a guy, it's in my nature to LOVE conflict - but knowing that helps you understand why you are drawn to it; then avoid it when possible.

I've been pinned down in paintball, without a helmet, only Oakley M Frame glasses, close range, with merciless guys on the other end, 20 ft, with their markers dialed up high in PSI, where I couldn't move...I can't even imagine the stress and terribleness of RL combat.