Rpg soldiers

[NoRailgunner 0]

Different ammo variants (OFP had some mods/addons) and then you have the choice in briefing/combat. Additional to that AI should "knowsabout" how to use different warheads more effective

[Messiah 2]

there already are different RPG ammo variants in vanilla ArmA, just it seems to have little effect on how the AI use them

@SUBS17 - You did a oopsie there

@plaintiff1 - thanks, I would have been far to lazy to go find the exact text.

Quote[/b] ]Here, we have a high explosive anti personell round for that purpose and can be set to airburst over an entrenched enemy

then that comes under firing it at an enemy position, that circumvents the geneva convention as its not directed at someone in particular.

same reason you can liberally fire 50cal rounds from an M2. You're not firing at anyone in particular, you're firing in their general location

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

there already are different RPG ammo variants in vanilla ArmA, just it seems to have little effect on how the AI use them

@SUBS17 - You did a oopsie there  

@plaintiff1 - thanks, I would have been far to lazy to go find the exact text.

Quote[/b] ]Here, we have a high explosive anti personell round for that purpose and can be set to airburst over an entrenched enemy

then that comes under firing it at an enemy position, that circumvents the geneva convention as its not directed at someone in particular.

same reason you can liberally fire 50cal rounds from an M2. You're not firing at anyone in particular, you're firing in their general location  

Quote[/b] ]same reason you can liberally fire 50cal rounds from an M2. You're not firing at anyone in particular, you're firing in their general location

Or at equipment being used by the enemy.

[Rommel 2]

thanks, terrorists aside, the enemy AI are part of some formal army judging by the uniforms/vehicles so they should be more prone to follow the rule of war..........

And I have had this happen on the friendly side too, so that means the U.S troops seem to disregard the rule also.

Watch some Youtube videos of British or US marines in Afghanistan, watched them using AT weaponry on a single FLEEING soldier, missed first time, second time hit.

I'll find it in a sec and edit my post.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS8lnwLpPg&feature=related

[6:57] Even commented by the Journalist, no frowning upon because these guys are doing anything to keep themselves safe.

As long as your mates are alive, the enemy aren't, and your not killing innocents, then thats it.

[croc4 0]

It still seems like overkill to me, but if that what really happens I guess it is what it is.

No wonder the war budget is as high as it is, using a many thousands of dollars projectile instead of a ~15c round, hell even a whole mag would cost less then $4 US. (Based on my own rifle reloading costs, so actual costs will vary slightly)

[lt.chris 0]

thats how war is if you got something that will kill your enemy in the most guaranteed way possible you will do it

[USSRsniper 0]

No, RPG is not jsut made to kill tanks. But it depends on ammunition you use,

PG-7V  

PG-7VL

PG-7VR

not that good against infantry, but perfect for vehicles , while there is

OG-7V

TBG-7V

for infantry OG-7V fragmentation, and TBG-7V thermobaric.

But in real life, anti tank rounds in RPG still used on infantry, effective? No, but you launch one RPG, even if it misses, soldiers will be running in panic screaming "RPG!!!!!"

Well i like this feature, now its no problem making soldiers fire at infantry, because in OFP it was almost impossible to make soldiers fire at infantry, even if they had fragmentation grenade loaded. But what i hate is, AI on your team waste all AT-4's, or RPG's on infantry, and when its time to take out armor, they are out of ammo

[subs17 9]

there already are different RPG ammo variants in vanilla ArmA, just it seems to have little effect on how the AI use them

@SUBS17 - You did a oopsie there  

@plaintiff1 - thanks, I would have been far to lazy to go find the exact text.

Quote[/b] ]Here, we have a high explosive anti personell round for that purpose and can be set to airburst over an entrenched enemy

then that comes under firing it at an enemy position, that circumvents the geneva convention as its not directed at someone in particular.

same reason you can liberally fire 50cal rounds from an M2. You're not firing at anyone in particular, you're firing in their general location  

You did it again, its not in the Geneva convention its in the Hague convention . Find me one example of a war crime involving an RPG against an enemy soldier? In operation Barras alot of RPGs were fired at British soldiers(para/SAS/SBS) and same with the Black Hawk down incident yet we don't see any war crimes charges of this nature.

[Messiah 2]

*revised a lot to avoid arguing on the internet*

Quote[/b] ]You did it again

No, I'll remind you of last time:

Quote[/b] ]Where in the Geneva convention does it say this?

Quote[/b] ]Nothing in the Hague convention either

when actually

Quote[/b] ]Dude, it's been all over those protocols for 100 years.

If I'm mixing up the Geneva and Hague conventions every now and then, then I'm sure the rest of normal society can cope with that.

Quote[/b] ]Find me one example of a war crime involving an RPG against an enemy soldier?

Does that make it null and void? No.

Quote[/b] ]In operation Barras alot of RPGs were fired at British soldiers(para/SAS/SBS)

They were a rebel group (west side boys), led by Foday Kallay who mutinied from the SL army. As such they are classed as unlawful combatants (G4, Art. 5) and can only be tried under local laws, which he was, and is currently serving 50 years in prison. The RUF amputated thousands of civilians hands/arms and forced them into slavery, but were not tried at the hague either.

At any rate this has nothing to do with why ArmA soldiers fire their RPG's at you. I somewhat doubt that BIS coded the entire Geneva, Hague, Whatever convention you like into the AI. They shoot at you because they allowed to by their coding. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to continue arguing on the internet, then by all means send me a PM.

[subs17 9]

Actually the AI response is realistic if its modeling either trainned soldiers or conscripts by firing them. Its the way RPGs are used in combat yes they do fire them at soldiers IRL. What they could do is have an advanced AI or Spetznaz/Special Forces or Regular Army AI which only uses RPGs against vehicles or troops in buildings or behind cover. IRL those conventions are the last thing on anyones mind when the bullets start flying. Although its not impossible to model such rules into Arma if people do start shooting civilians or prisoners (eg.evolutions officers). For that to work you would need something like a dynamic campain with a log book and penaltys for those who break the rules.

Quote[/b] ]Does that make it null and void? No

Well just remember that there are alot of weapons which do break the Hague convention if used and they are designed with that purpose in mind(and are used commonly on both sides of todays conflicts). Its highly unlikely such weapons will ever change in the future and the list of such weapons is quite alot. Quite unrealistic not to have RPGs fired at you or any other weapon of that capability if the other guys got it he'll use it.

[Messiah 2]

no, agreed - contrary to whatever convention may apply to an army, like you said, it does seem prudent and likely that when you're being shot at, whether or not you're 'allowed' to use a 50cal/RPG on one lone guy is going to be rather detached from your concerns at the time.

yes of course, all weapons are designed with one purpose - to kill/remove an enemy combatant/asset from the battlefield - The manufacturers make no qualms about that. Its up to the user to use them ethically, if you can really say that about killing another human being.

In the same way that my Car is designed to get me from A-B. If I want to mount the pavement and run over everyone in the way from A-B, I can. Nothing physically stops me from using it in that way, I just choose not to.

[Juan 0]

But in real life, anti tank rounds in RPG still used on infantry, effective? No, but you launch one RPG, even if it misses, soldiers will be running in panic screaming "RPG!!!!!"

Well i like this feature, now its no problem making soldiers fire at infantry, because in OFP it was almost impossible to make soldiers fire at infantry, even if they had fragmentation grenade loaded. But what i hate is, AI on your team waste all AT-4's, or RPG's on infantry, and when its time to take out armor, they are out of ammo  

Fully agree here.

How many hours expended by scripters so units in OFP would fire rockets at infantry and helicopters? Now that we have it in ArmA it is an issue.

Its an issue because they do so in excess, but if they where to fire them in them really needed ocassions it would be nicer.

I like the fact that AI fire rockets at you, specially because 8 out of 10 get killed by me because they exposse them selfs for too long before they actually fire, all you guys have to do is put more attention.

OT

I was playing Berzek the other day, and this guy was firing at me from the buildings, fire and move, I couldn't get the sod, He was bloody brilliant, so I moved to a nice conceal possition and stimated where he would be next, got my RPG and blasted away, right between two buildings so it impacted in the street behind...

He was gone to respawn heaven...

The moral of the story, if you can't shoot at them, blow'm away.

[-HUNTER- 1]

Is just 1 word.

And its actually the same for real life and if the ai fires it at you in the game.

FEAR!

Besides that, there are absolutly fuckloads of those things all over the world. If you got it and it goes bang, why not shoot it at the enemy.

Nowadays you see high tech uber expensive weapons being used against maybee 1 person. If you look at it from that point, the few RPG rounds expended on "other" targets isnt that bad.

But to get to the point, if and RPG flies by me ingame, im taking cover. If it would happen in real life I would shit my pants 6x.

Whooosh...

[subs17 9]

I think one of the guys in the Black Hawk down incident got shot at a couple of times by RPGs. He was the guy played by Ewan Mcgregor in the movie.

[subs17 9]

no, agreed - contrary to whatever convention may apply to an army, like you said, it does seem prudent and likely that when you're being shot at, whether or not you're 'allowed' to use a 50cal/RPG on one lone guy is going to be rather detached from your concerns at the time.

yes of course, all weapons are designed with one purpose - to kill/remove an enemy combatant/asset from the battlefield - The manufacturers make no qualms about that. Its up to the user to use them ethically, if you can really say that about killing another human being.

In the same way that my Car is designed to get me from A-B. If I want to mount the pavement and run over everyone in the way from A-B, I can. Nothing physically stops me from using it in that way, I just choose not to.

In war you may not have a choice in such matters and thats the difference between driving the car on the pavement or on the road as you put it. Would you drive on the foot path if pursued by a tank whilst going around another tank? Likewise using an RPG you're about to shoot a vehicle and are suddenly confronted by an enemy soldier whos about to shoot you. In some countrys its bad for sheep if you fire such weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHlmNVoY0W8&feature=related

[ravendk 25]

Geneva convention says you can't fire them at people - firing them at their feet, the car they're in or wood shed they hid behind is perfectly legit...

they were obviously aiming at the grass at your feet, rather than you  

depends what the SLA represent. The Taliban appear quite happy to fire whatever they wish at the Brits in Helmand, without taking much consideration for a convention they're probably never heard of, less care about.

As far as i rember..

Geneva says that it isnt allowed to use explosive projectiles that weights under 200g at infantry..

BUT its mostely up to the user.. if its what he got hes gonna use it. AND moste enemys havent signed the Geneva convention so they coulden care less

[william1 0]

i think that the "one use" m136 shouldn't be fired against infantry , it's a waste of precious ammo , but i'm not against rpg soldiers to do it, especially if they are insurgents or terrorists , i think is reallistic