Soooo...... Who's gonna MG the survivors

[Crow]

VOTE:rock:

[badhat17]

Don't remember seeing any survivors to gun down after squishing subs in MP Crow, but if I had they would have been wellcome to some rule 303 justice.:lol:

What say you ?

[TDK1044]

This issue was actually quite a big deal for Ubisoft. The Rating of the game could have been altered by including the 'survivors' feature. Those who don't want their careers to end abruptly might want to think hard about shooting survivors in row boats.

[Malefactor]

Many a time my depth charges ripped open some hapless sub driver's pressure hull in MP,while he was deep and running like scared fox from the hounds.However,if we managed to catch one on the surface though,ramming could result in survivors,albeit only temporarily.

Voted!!
:arrgh!: :arrgh!:

[hyperion2206]

Well I would only gun survivors when the surwhivors are soldiers (like Mush Morton did). He killed survivors of an troop transport, saying that life boats are just smaller means of transportation an therefore fair game.

[Hartmann]

:nope:

A lot of u-boat crews were rescued by allies. i don´t see the good point of firing against survivors.

[Finback]

Talk to most any submariner (or sailor) and they will tell you shootong survivors is simply an act of murder. Mush Morton did it and got away with it but no other skippers followed his example.

I won't do it.

:nope:

[Safe-Keeper]

No way I will gun down survivors. In fact, I highly doubt you'll be able to in the first place. And if you do, it should work like torpedoing Red Cross hospital ships in GWX - in other words, career at an end.

Mush Morton did it and got away with it [...]It may have prevented him from getting the Medal of Honor.

Well I would only gun survivors when the surwhivors are soldiers (like Mush Morton did). He killed survivors of an troop transport, saying that life boats are just smaller means of transportation an therefore fair game.Right. Good luck hitting only the soldiers in the life-boats, though. Most of the "marines" sunk by Morton were in reality POWs from India.

[Boris]

This Mush Morton guy sounds like a dick

[Subnuts]

I'd prefer to save my ammunition for airplanes, barges, and other small craft, thank you very much. :shifty:

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, I can picture the feeling of being sunk by a flight of Zeroes becuase you've expended all your machine gun ammo on innocents in life-boats, leaving you defenseless.

This Mush Morton guy sounds like a dick[Rigs for Crash Dive to 250 metres]

[Crow]

Many a time my depth charges ripped open some hapless sub driver's pressure hull in MP,while he was deep and running like scared fox from the hounds.However,if we managed to catch one on the surface though,ramming could result in survivors,albeit only temporarily.

Voted!!
:arrgh!: :arrgh!:

booyaa , Malef :arrgh!: :arrgh!:

don't wan't them nips going to another boat hauling ammo to hurt the cause :shifty:

[Ducimus]

This Mush Morton guy sounds like a dick

From what ive read and understand, he genuinly hated the enemy (japan) with every fiber of his being.


That said, Japan as an enemy was a bit different. It's not like English/American vs Germans. Although from different countries, they share similar morals and codes of conduct.

The japanese on the otherhand, had a totally different mentality, living under the code of bushido. Surrender to a japanese was the most dishonrable thing. To surrender was to be less then human. It's not like they didnt apply a second standard to those they captured either. A japanese soldier or sailor could be expected to fight to the bitter end. They were tough, mean son's of b*tch's.

[Safe-Keeper]

don't wan't them nips going to another boat hauling ammo to hurt the cause :shifty:And that applies to everyone on a ship in war. Why not shoot surviving sailors from a fishing boat? After all, we don't want them to get on another vessel "hauling fish to hurt the cause", do we:shifty:?

[Crow]

don't wan't them nips going to another boat hauling ammo to hurt the cause :shifty:And that applies to everyone on a ship in war. Why not shoot surviving sailors from a merchant? After all, we don't want them to get on another ship "hauling supplies to hurt the cause", do we:shifty:?
no , thats why I'll gun em down :yep:

[Crow]

They were tough, mean son's of b*tch's.

I'm sure when the looked into a 50 cal barrel they **** their pants like any other guy

[Crow]

fek whats with the the wild nighgt in Banthighy avatar :rotfl: :rotfl:

WHERE IS MY CROW avatar :doh:

[Iron Budokan]

No, I won't do it, either. I'm not interested in standing trial for war crimes. Seriously, shooting people in a lifeboat, even "people" made out of electrons on my computer screen, doesn't interest me at all.

[Iron Budokan]

I also expect they'll be like the people on the docks in SH3...they can't be "hurt" by your weapons.

[JU_88]

I wont MG them.....


Ill torpedo them instead....... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! After all the Japanese DDs wont be taking any prisoners when they sink my boat. :rotfl:


The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.

Its a game. :up:

[Crow]

I also expect they'll be like the people on the docks in SH3...they can't be "hurt" by your weapons.

so you tried it , huh , i thought you weren't shooting at even "people" made out of electrons on my computer screen, doesn't interest me at all.

busted , mate :hmm:

[Safe-Keeper]

no , thats why I'll gun em down:yep:Trolling is Sin, brother:p.

The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.It's called make-believe and immersion.

And "political correctness"? When did refraining from massacring defenceless shipwrecked people become "political correctness"? I thought it was "murder"?

Its a game. :up::oAnd here I was thinking I was in charge of a real-life submarine crew. Thank you so much for pointing that out to me.

Seriously, shooting people in a lifeboat, even "people" made out of electrons on my computer screen, doesn't interest me at all.Bah, I don't even shoot fishing boats in Silent Hunter III, so there you go:p.

I also expect they'll be like the people on the docks in SH3...they can't be "hurt" by your weapons.Very likely.

[Subnuts]

You know what I should be able to do?

Pull up to a Japanese fishing boat, hand the sole female crewmember $20, and do the deed with her. This automatically restores your hull integrity to 100% (you see your sub rocking as this happens.) Afterwards, you can run over the fishing boat and get your money back! :rotfl:

[Iron Budokan]

No, you've busted nothing, "mate". I know the polygon people on the docks can't be hurt because others on this board have said so. I've never done it myself, and if I had I would admit it.

[Iron Budokan]

You know what I should be able to do?

Pull up to a Japanese fishing boat, hand the sole female crewmember $20, and do the deed with her. This automatically restores your hull integrity to 100% (you see your sub rocking as this happens.) Afterwards, you can run over the fishing boat and get your money back! :rotfl:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[FIREWALL]

He!! I'll admit it. I checkout my deck gun on the lighthouse everytime I leave port.:p :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Safe-Keeper]

No, you've busted nothing, "mate". I know the polygon people on the docks can't be hurt because others on this board have said so. I've never done it myself, and if I had I would admit it.You're better than I if it can be done. I'll very likely shoot at life-boats I see the first time "just to do it" or to see if they sink. Just like with the sea-gulls, ice bergs, and dock people.

But no, I'll let 99,99999999% of the life-boats live. Just like I let 99,99999999% of the fishing boats live.

What bothered me in SHIII was that land-based cannons and machine guns and search-lights couldn't be destroyed, meaning that even the smallest 6-inch AA gun could sink a battleship.

[CCIP]

I suspect the survivors will be treated in a way where you can't shoot them, or at least get away with it (meaning the game would punish you severely for doing so) - otherwise the game would not have an E rating indeed.

What I suspect they will be actually for is capturing them for points, or just leaving them alone (perhaps to be picked up by their own ships). Which is cool in my book :p

[Sailor Steve]

:nope: :down:

I imagine I'm really there. I sink ships and shoot down planes. I don't shoot unarmed men.

[JU_88]

@ safe-keeper
Alright alright, sorry if i patronised you.... -you sarky bastard :D

[hyperion2206]

No way I will gun down survivors. In fact, I highly doubt you'll be able to in the first place. And if you do, it should work like torpedoing Red Cross hospital ships in GWX - in other words, career at an end.

Mush Morton did it and got away with it [...]It may have prevented him from getting the Medal of Honor.

Well I would only gun survivors when the surwhivors are soldiers (like Mush Morton did). He killed survivors of an troop transport, saying that life boats are just smaller means of transportation an therefore fair game.Right. Good luck hitting only the soldiers in the life-boats, though. Most of the "marines" sunk by Morton were in reality POWs from India.

As I said, I'd only shoot at soldiers, meaning that I would only shoot at people in life rafts that bear arms. Shooting at unarmed survivors is a 'DON'T' for me, although it's just a game.

[StandingCow]

I might shoot one just to see if it does anything, but I would certainly not make it a practice. I would most likly just do what they did in Das boot, avoid them (unless they are american). Or if they start to climb on the boat... there is always the dive button. :D

[The WosMan]

These guys are the enemy, they will give vital information back to their nation of how the attack went down and could be a liability to my boat location or american strategies..........boys, mount the .50s and open her up. The japanese were much more ruthless with their POWs and they murdered 10,000,000 chinese.....7,000,000 of them were civilians.

[THE_MASK]

Thats what planes are for .

[Biggles]

No. I wouldn't.

[Safe-Keeper]

Thats what planes are for .Planes are for slaughtering Chinese civilians:-??

[/Major ":p"]

[Muses] 17 to 33... looks like the shipwrecked will be relatively safe.

[The WosMan]

I guess I will just have to kill more to make up for you guys. This is a war people, you fight a war to win a war. I should have my grandfather share with you some of his WW2 stories of fighting the japanese. He managed a Japanese prison camp for a few months in New Guinea. The japanese were so fanatical they were highly dangerous to their prison keepers. I think some of the things done would be considered war crimes now.......way worse then Abu Garab.

[Safe-Keeper]

I guess I will just have to kill more to make up for you guys.Good hunting:up:!

This is a war people, you fight a war to win a war.Just that warfare is an brutal insult to human dignity does not mean it should be as much so as possible. "War is terrible, so we can be terrible when waging war" is a non-functional argument.

I should have my grandfather share with you some of his WW2 stories of fighting the japanese. He managed a Japanese prison camp for a few months in New Guinea. The japanese were so fanatical they were highly dangerous to their prison keepers. I think some of the things done would be considered war crimes now.......way worse then Abu Garab.A sad chapter in American history. But it has no bearing on whether gunning down survivors in life-boats is right or wrong.

[WOD]

I won´t shoot them.

Ok truly just a game but I imagine if I would have been really there.....
I think the biggest reason for me not to shoot them, was the fact that my grandfather who served on a Uboat....was sunk by an russian plane on patrol, which shooted at the survivors who had managed to leave the boat while sinking through the command room....my grandfather was wounded by 2 bullets from that plane and survived.

Ok how already said just a game...but remember ít´s called a sim....so it will simulate something....if someone want to shoot unarmed man with a machinegun then I would prefer him to play an ego-shooter like far cry or something (well the most mans in this game are armed and I still play this game sometimes too)

Ok everyone has to decide for him-/herself whether doing or not....but for me my own answer to that point of simulating the submarinewarfare is clear.

[_Seth_]

I will follow the old rule that all sailors are brothers.... I dont see the point in gunning down those people in lifeboats, and i dont think there will be awarded renown for it. I rather save the ammo for those Zero's. Just my 2 cents..:up:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

HELL YEA NO SURVIVORS:arrgh!:

[Ducimus]

Since i never really answered the question.

I'd probably be tempted to, given the conditions of that theater, but i'd probably hold back for two reasons:

1.) Poltical fallout with the brass when i hand in my patrol logs.
2.) As the captain you'd have to consider how this would effect the morale of your men.

In all seriousnes, I'd either try and capture one for intelligence if feasible, or, most likely, id turn away and let the sea do the dirty work for me.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

in the game id prolly shoot em for entertainment. but in real life id give them small rations to keep em alive nd send em back with either a resupply boat or a uboat that has expended its torps and was heading home and met up with my uboat. im merciful with humans but ships all got to die!! (sink) :|\\:sunny::p:p:p

[Ark]

Well I would only gun survivors when the surwhivors are soldiers (like Mush Morton did). He killed survivors of an troop transport, saying that life boats are just smaller means of transportation an therefore fair game.

Mush Morton sounds like an asshat. lol

[stinger503]

Did any of you people see saving private ryan? They let that POW go and it ended up killing their men. For any of you who let sailors leave, I want you to imagine them rolling the depth charges off their deck, on to your sinking vessel. I however won't be killing transport (civilian) surviors, if they get new vessels, it's more targets for me. What I would do instead is watch the lifeboats and wait for a transport or destroyer to come pick them up. Then sink that too. :smug:

I will however destroy all of the lifeboats from warships except one. That way they can tell their navymen to watch out for the Penguin!

[MadMike]

U.S.S. WAHOO - Third War Patrol

January 26th:

At 1155 sighted tops of fourth ship to the right of the cripple. Her thick masts in line had the appearance of a light cruiser's tops. Kept heading for these ships hoping that the last one sighted would attempt to pick up survivors of the transport. When the range was about 10,000 yards, however, she turned right and joined the cripple, her masts bridge structure and engines aft identifying her as a tanker. Decided to let these two ships get over the horizon while we surfaced to charge batteries and destroy the estimated twenty troop boats now in the water. These boats were of many types, scows, motor launches, cabin cruisers and nondescript varieties. At 1135 made battle surface and manned all guns. Fired 4" gun at largest scow loaded with troops. Although all troops in this boat apparently jumped in the water our fire was returned by small caliber machine guns. We then opened fire with everything we had. Then set course 085 degrees at flank speed to overtake the cripple and tanker.

Yours, Mike

[Safe-Keeper]

At 1135 made battle surface and manned all guns. Fired 4" gun at largest scow loaded with troops. Although all troops in this boat apparently jumped in the water our fire was returned by small caliber machine guns. We then opened fire with everything we had."They tried to defend themselves when we opened fire on them, so now they are combatants that we can butcher like rats! Sweet!"

Come on. Even combat medics bearing the Red Cross emblem have weapons within range to defend themselves with if illegally attacked. It's still illegal to attack them, because if you leave them alone like you're supposed to, they won't harm you.

I think the... cold-blooded comments in this thread should be a very good indicator for Ubisoft that life-boats need to be ethereal (ie. that shots go right through them).

Also, again, most of the survivors massacred Major Thomas-style were in reality P.O.W.s from India. Which presents another problem - you never know if the destroyer you just sunk was a prison transport or a warship.

Did any of you people see saving private ryan? They let that POW go and it ended up killing their men.And I can refrain from killing this little boy and seventeen years later he may join the Army and cap mah son. I still can't shoot him, as he's a civilian. Likewise with P.O.W.s.

[The WosMan]

I am pretty sure that sub crews likely did machine gun the survivors of the wrecks in real life. You have to realize the american mentality against the enemy back then. The American Propaganda probably had something to do with it. I also know however our troops were very compassionate toward the civilans during the island fighting, especially in Okinawa. A friend of my fathers dad was a Okinawa vet who was in the US Marines.......he took most of what happened there to the grave, died recently of cancer and never talked about it his whole life but from what I hear, what the Japanese military did to their own civilians and the state they left them in was pretty bad. Women killing their own babies and then themselves and other things that scars the mind for your whole life.

[MadMike]

Since none of us were there at the time, you can't judge the Wahoo's crew for their actions. Enemy troops who are armed and shooting at you from "lifeboats" are legit targets.
Read up on the history of the Geneva Convention, you may learn something.

Yours, Mike

[Wulfmann]

A good mod will be importing a FPS with a 1903 Springfield so we can do it right.
I remember seeing a color film of a surfaced US Sub shooting the survivors. Not in life boats but in the water. One southern guy says “Look it dat one playing possum, I’ll git’em, bang!!!
They pulled out the rifles and had a good ole boy time killin dem dar forener little varmints!!!
I love these PC rules. In CoD2 there is one part where this fat Kraut says dooont shooot pleeze vee have wounded. To which the major yells hold your fire boys. So, I constantly see the killing prisoners will not be tolerated time and again, LOL like we did not shoot many guys just because we didn’t want to be bothered with prisoners. Sad reality but true for all sides.
The argument killing troop ship survivors is not without merit. Those soldiers would be picked up and put ashore at Guadalcanal and be killing our men so why is it not right to save our guys now?
Insane???? You bet. War is legalized insanity and never started by the people that kill themselves but the rulers who rarely ever do anything but order millions to their death!
This idea we must act in certain ways when we wage insanity or it is wrong makes no sense in something as basically wrong as war is.
I am not saying we should do it. I am just saying we should be willing to admit we need to be willing to do it. That willing to do what it takes to win, our side triumph, and our culture prevail etc is faced today.
Surrender or be willing to kill every last one of them.
Don’t put survivors in SH4 if we do not get the option of being murderers.
I changed the minus renown for neutral ships in SH3. Not because I wanted to get credit for being bad but when a ship is in the war zone or I can ascertain it is trading with Tommy it gets sunk as it should. I make every attempt to insure this and do not fire unless I can ID it and plot its course to be sure and for me that is part of the sim. I felt it was wrong to get minus renown when I sank ships supplying the enemy.
I would not shoot survivors unless I could ascertain they were soldiers in an area where they would be picked up and put into combat against my side. I would have to make sure that was the case or I would not do it.
That may sound offensive to some.
To those people I suggest you be prepared to convert to Islam.
I won’t be!

Wulfmann

[Hylander_1314]

Leave 'em to the giant sharks that patrol the Pacific. Besides, they deserve fresh tender meals! :arrgh!:

[Safe-Keeper]

Since none of us were there at the time, you can't judge the Wahoo's crew for their actions.I can perfectly well read up on the incident and decide for myself whether I approve or disapprove of it.

A good mod will be importing a FPS with a 1903 Springfield so we can do it right.
I remember seeing a color film of a surfaced US Sub shooting the survivors. Not in life boats but in the water. One southern guy says “Look it dat one playing possum, I’ll git’em, bang!!!
They pulled out the rifles and had a good ole boy time killin dem dar forener little varmints!!!They need to make a naval version of GTA so these people can get out their aggression.

I am not saying we should do it. I am just saying we should be willing to admit we need to be willing to do it.Er?

Don’t put survivors in SH4 if we do not get the option of being murderers.Becaaause?

I would not shoot survivors unless I could ascertain they were soldiers in an area where they would be picked up and put into combat against my side.Which means you didn't learn from Morton, who shot up life-boats from a troop transport only to learn he'd been massacring POW's from India. Whoops.

I would have to make sure that was the case or I would not do it.
That may sound offensive to some.
To those people I suggest you be prepared to convert to Islam.
I won’t be!Islam? [Cogs turn in head]

...

[...Smacks forehead] Oooh, so you're one of those people. That'd explain it.

[CCIP]

Guys, come on.

I think where this thread is going is actually a perfect indicator of how it'll turn out in the game - if it generates this much controversy, then you know Ubi will not let you. I'm already seeing that red 'x' when you try to aim at a survivor; you know it :88)

Now, what gets my curious is this screenshot:

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/5305/scr4kz6.jpg

Notice the lifeboats, but no survivors in them...

[Elder-Pirate]

From reading this thread I REALLY do believe some of you are COLD hearted and even though it's just a Simulation you WILL try & kill survivors in lifeboats, well so be it. Your Sim will end very abruptly I'm sure :smug: and you can just start all over again from scatch. Hopefully any saves before this will be deleted and I think this will happen. You don't really think UBI would LET you wantinly kill survivors in the Sim and let the public ( many more than just us SH players ) start champing the bit at them do you ?

This way if you shoot them YOU pay the penalty. :up: So go right ahead and shoot the lifeboats and we'll be reading your dismays about not being able to play a through career.

This may not be the way UBI has it set up but I surely hope so.:arrgh!:

[Boris]

This thread should be locked and deleted before the Ubi guys see it and take the life boats out for good.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm sure there is a similar thread on the UBI boards. In fact, this thread is starting to sound like one of the UBI threads; one of the reasons I don't go there anymore.

[Safe-Keeper]

They'll probably give us a Public Service Announcement after each patrol. Or they'll give us a pre-game start movie with a sexy submarine veteran in uniform telling us to "please do all our massacring in the game", Need for Speed-style.

http://home.no.net/leandres/brumdisney40.gif"And remember, children, winners don't shoot up life-boats!"

Notice the lifeboats, but no survivors in them...They've probably just not been implemented yet.

I'm sure there is a similar thread on the UBI boards. Not that I could see. They do, however, have at least one user with a "DEMAND NARWAHL CLASS BOATS!" signature. Looks like we ruined the day for him:rotfl:.

[Morts]

i will only gun them down if they are soldiers
otherwise
naa

[Wulfmann]

Don’t put survivors in SH4 if we do not get the option of being murderers.Becaaause?



Because SH4 is a sim.
You see a game is not based on reality but a simulation simulates. If we are suppose to simulate we are suppose to simulate the decision possibilities a real US captain had to face.
If they put survivors in SH4, particularly soldiers who are heading to attack our brothers we should have the option to fight the war with the same options the real men had.
We should try and experience how it would feel to have to make those decisions even if it is not real because it says something to each of us.
I t would also be interesting to then later get reports that Jap soldiers picked up from a sunk troopship massacred a marine hospital and then you get to ask what relevance sanity has in insanity
Then we can compare how all this feels on the forum and get just a taste of what after thoughts some of these men had in real life insanity of war situations
Of course some here may think the UN should dictate how we decide before we get to decide but some still live outside of the herd and want to see for themselves!

In SH3 I can sink neutrals but I am very strict to make sure they are supplying England. If I sink a neutral outside the war zone and it is found to be such I do two things. If I ascertain at the time of sinking I return to port and fire at nothing else and do not except any medals. I use all gained renown to buy things back and forth to use it up to return to start renown..
This eliminates any gain from the whole patrol as punishment. I am very strict on myself.
In SH4 if we have the option of destroying life boats I will only do it to ones from troop ships and maintain a strict policy for that.
The; I want UBI to sanitize it so we have to be civil in war can be had by your own choice or are those that demand this saying they can’t resist murder if they have the chance?
I will kill the combatants not the survivors. Sorry for those who don’t know the difference.

Wulfmann

[mookiemookie]

:nope: :down:

I imagine I'm really there. I sink ships and shoot down planes. I don't shoot unarmed men.Agreed 100%.

I think the... cold-blooded comments in this thread should be a very good indicator for Ubisoft that life-boats need to be ethereal (ie. that shots go right through them).

Again, agreed 100%. But then again, I think for the most part it's not so much cold-bloodedness but maturity level with many of these comments.

[Safe-Keeper]

It would also be interesting to then later get reports that Jap soldiers picked up from a sunk troopship massacred a marine hospital and then you get to ask what relevance sanity has in insanityGoing by that reasoning, no one should be rescued at all. Let's just close down the coast guard and let everyone drown, 'cause you know they're picking up the occassional rapist, murderer or robber.

Of course some here may think the UN should dictate how we decide before we get to decide but some still live outside of the herd and want to see for themselves!First Muslims... then the UN... what am I missing here:-??

[MadMike]

Hey Safe-Keeper, how many innocent civilians died when the Tinnsjo ferry was sabotaged by the Norwegian resistance? :hmm:

Yours, Mike

[CCIP]

Hey Safe-Keeper, how many innocent civilians died when the Tinnsjo ferry was sabotaged by the Norwegian resistance? :hmm:

Yours, Mike

pffff, what on EARTH does this have to do with this thread? Are we now trying to justify every naval atrocity in history? Time to bring out the case against icebergs slaughtering women and children!

This has to be the third time this thread came up, and each time it disgusts me by going into completely inappropriate and off-topic territory.

We're talking about a game feature. Is it too much to ask that dehumanizing rhetoric be kept at least to the General Topics forum (where I'm not entirely happy with it either), if anywhere? :-?

[edjcox]

So here we are, we see a Maru and torpedo it, it begins to sink and in it's deathroll several hundred are drowned not even mentioning those oblitereated by the two fish that detonated inside the hull..

Your intent is to interdict the Japanese supplies, manpowr, and war goods/materials from being used to kill our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

As the boat snks she draws several dozen more to their deaths but some manage to get onto a few lifeboats, floating rafts, odd peices of debris...

Now remember you just killed several hundred within the confines of the second paragraphs objectives.

You surface your boat and promptly see that an entire cadre of enemy army officers are in a boat and they are insuring their survival by not allowing others aboard. Japanese ariistocracy at it's worst.

You realize that your orders require you to move 75 miles north to a Lifestation position and these folks in the water around your boat will be picked up by fellow Japanese within an hour or so as a major task force is moving down the slot....

Do you sink the smaller enemy vessels and further damage the enemies war efforts? Do you sail on hoping you cousin won't get shot by these troops you leave to fight another day? Do you order your most hardened crew members on deck, man the MG's and Cannon and do your best to sink the remainder?

Mush made his decision.... What is yours?


Come you high and mighty, what the hell do you play this game for if your so holy?


So what is you pleasure .50, .30, .45... Or artilllery ?


War is hell and we call upon our troops to participate in it..... If you play you want to "make the other bastard die for his country.." If you try to be the white knight you'll probably end up dead or get your buddies killed instead..


:stare:

[Subnuts]

I'm surprised no one in this thread has called the vast majority of submariners a bunch of pussies because they never massacred survivors in the water. :roll:

[Wulfmann]

It would also be interesting to then later get reports that Jap soldiers picked up from a sunk troopship massacred a marine hospital and then you get to ask what relevance sanity has in insanityGoing by that reasoning, no one should be rescued at all. Let's just close down the coast guard and let everyone drown, 'cause you know they're picking up the occassional rapist, murderer or robber.


What you are missing is a reasonable argument. You seem to just want to twist this to be opposite what ever I say and this shows how far you will go to stretch it.

How does that have any relevance to a US Sub captain? How does what I say lead to such a rediculous conclusion

My statement places the consequences of action or lack of as a possibility. It is absurd to now say the coast guard should not rescue anyone because someone might not be a good guy.
We are talking about a war scenario. One of choice.
Troops in the water, let them live because they are at this moment not taking hostile action knowing they will at a future point? Or, take the opportunity to reduce the enemy’s capacity to inflict harm on our effort to succeed in winning the war.
Then make that choice create results
If you simply want to argue go ahead. Would rather you actually had a point rather than stupid barbs
If you can’t understand the UN comment (always acting righteous while taking money as kickbacks to look the other way) or the Muslim terrorist comment on our will to resist and succeed or capitulate you simply ignore the obvious.
Wulfmann

[Harry Buttle]

The japanese on the otherhand, had a totally different mentality, living under the code of bushido. Surrender to a japanese was the most dishonrable thing. To surrender was to be less then human. It's not like they didnt apply a second standard to those they captured either. A japanese soldier or sailor could be expected to fight to the bitter end. They were tough, mean son's of b*tch's.

And yet, at the end of the war, most of the Jap prison guards (who had behaved with utter brutality to their prisoners) surrendered rather than take their own lives.

They didn't live by Bushido.

[NEON DEON]

The japanese on the otherhand, had a totally different mentality, living under the code of bushido. Surrender to a japanese was the most dishonrable thing. To surrender was to be less then human. It's not like they didnt apply a second standard to those they captured either. A japanese soldier or sailor could be expected to fight to the bitter end. They were tough, mean son's of b*tch's.

And yet, at the end of the war, most of the Jap prison guards (who had behaved with utter brutality to their prisoners) surrendered rather than take their own lives.

They didn't live by Bushido.
That is a bit different I think. At the end of the war, they were comanded to surrender by the Emperor as opposed to during the war when they were commanded to die for him. Anyways, I think the true reason life boats and survivors were added in the first place was to make it appear more alive than SH3. Not so you could murder them.

[_Seth_]

Your job as a submarine skipper is to sink ships. That is what a submarine do best. If your job was to gun down survivors, you would have a PT-boat or a plane.

[Gizzmoe]

Guys, I suggest you come to an end with this discussion. Like CCIP said, all this has been discussed several times already, and it also is off-topic.

[Crow]

Soooo.... if Ubi decides to make the lifeboats bulletproof , who is gonna try to ram them ?

:arrgh!:

[Dowly]

I wont MG them.....


Ill torpedo them instead....... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! After all the Japanese DDs wont be taking any prisoners when they sink my boat. :rotfl:


The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.

Its a game. :up:

Agreed 100%

If I would apply moral and political correctness to all the games I play, I would be playing only Chess... maybe..

[Boris]

The captain on the cruel sea rammed his own survivors to get at a Uboat...

But seriously... I can't believe this thread has gotten as out of hand as it has. Can't we wait till the game comes out before you guys indavertently censor it?

Bottom line, lifeboats are much needed for for both sides as a major immersion factor. Stop killing it!

[AJ!]

I wont MG them.....


Ill torpedo them instead....... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! After all the Japanese DDs wont be taking any prisoners when they sink my boat. :rotfl:


The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.

Its a game. :up:Agreed 100%

Same here.

While i wouldnt shoot the survivors i dont feel insulted by others doing it... I mean you pay for the game so play it how you want. as long as you have a good time :up:

[Boris]

I wont MG them.....


Ill torpedo them instead....... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! After all the Japanese DDs wont be taking any prisoners when they sink my boat. :rotfl:


The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.

Its a game. :up:
Agreed 100%

If I would apply moral and political correctness to all the games I play, I would be playing only Chess... maybe..

Morality and PC are two different things. Personally, I challenge myself to do the right thing in any game I play. I believe it is a reflection on one's own personality, keeps you sane, and prevents you from becoming a victim of gaming.

[JSF]

This Mush Morton guy sounds like a dick

He who lives in a glass house....should not cast stones.

[JU_88]

I wont MG them.....


Ill torpedo them instead....... MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! After all the Japanese DDs wont be taking any prisoners when they sink my boat. :rotfl:


The reality is the survivors are a bunch of polygons, I just cant seriously apply these levels of morality and political correctness over killing something that isnt dead or alive in the first place.

Its a game. :up:
Agreed 100%

If I would apply moral and political correctness to all the games I play, I would be playing only Chess... maybe..

Morality and PC are two different things. Personally, I challenge myself to do the right thing in any game I play. I believe it is a reflection on one's own personality, keeps you sane, and prevents you from becoming a victim of gaming.

Im the opposite! I like to do things in games that i would NEVER do in reality, its more interesting for me that way. :arrgh!:

[JSF]

You know what I should be able to do?

Pull up to a Japanese fishing boat, hand the sole female crewmember $20, and do the deed with her. This automatically restores your hull integrity to 100% (you see your sub rocking as this happens.) Afterwards, you can run over the fishing boat and get your money back! :rotfl:

U da man........LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[hyperion2206]

Although I participated in this discussion I've got a certain feeling that it has become obsolete. You know why? I've seen the layout of the box the game is sold in and there it states the game is for children of 7 years or older. I don't think that they would sell that game to 7 year olds if you could gun down survivors (no matter if they're armed or not).
Here's a link (just click on the first pic for enlargement): http://www.amazon.de/Ubisoft-Silent-Hunter-4-DVD-ROM/dp/B000MCHESC/sr=1-1/qid=1170603301/ref=sr_1_1/303-2746091-1628231?ie=UTF8&s=videogames

[Boris]

This Mush Morton guy sounds like a dick
He who lives in a glass house....should not cast stones.

Yeah yeah, all I knew about the guy was that he gunned down some innocent survivors. I've read up on him since.

[Safe-Keeper]

Morality and PC are two different things.He knows that, just like common politeness and PC are two different things. It's just that it's way too convenient these days to pull the "excaggerated PC" card whenever someone reacts to something you've said. Not likely to go away any time soon.

He who lives in a glass house....should not cast stones.Really, Boris, how dare you talk after you gunned down those life-boats with your submarine off... er, waitaminute...
:p

[Onkel Neal]

This thread has been pwned by Subnuts (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105111&page=1&pp=20) :rock:

[bookworm_020]

Depends on the situation. If it's a merchant or tanker I leave the crew alone. If it's a troop transport and it's swiming distance to the beach, I might just take the shot. It happened in real life, I wonder if we will get orders to do it in game???:hmm:

[flintlock]

This thread has been pwned by Subnuts (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105111&page=1&pp=20)
That is one angry submariner. ;)

[DaMaGe007]

In order to adequatly roleplay being a good submarine captain that doesnt shoot survivors, survivors must be shootable. I will be very disapointed with ghost liferafts and seagulls that cant be shot. Here is hoping the developers dont give in to the nancy boys that cant hanndle pixle death for moral reasons.

To simulate correctly you just cant stop bullets from hitting things its an imersion killer, and affects the gameplay with people sending torpedos straight through ghost liferafts to finish off the ship.

[stinger503]

The "humanists" in here really need to lighten up. Seriously in Silent Hunter III you could make the case that you were sinking unarmed merchants and you were supporting Hitler and the holocaust. Of course that isn't true. The point of simulations isn't to become another person but to do things you wouldn't normally do, i.e. COMMAND A SUBMARINE! Thus in real life I do not command a submarine and thus do not shoot survivors of vessels during WWII. However if I am playing a game I would like to have both of these options open to me as they are things I don't do in real life but would like to do in a fictional patrol where no harm is done to anyone. :lost:

[Konovalov]

I'd prefer to save my ammunition for airplanes, barges, and other small craft, thank you very much. :shifty:

Exactly. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

In order to adequatly roleplay being a good submarine captain that doesnt shoot survivors, survivors must be shootable.

I completely disagree. If you're not going to shoot them, it makes no difference if they're shootable or not.

[CptSimFreak]

No need to shoot them or pick them up. Use them as a bait…..

[GlobalExplorer]

Like everone I will do it maybe once or twice when I am bored.

In real life - real *******s from all sides, like Morton, Mears and Lemp did it, and I think they all should have been shot for that. I mean all of them who shot at lifeboats.

That's why I voted "No, are you crazy!"

For me it's not the question if you do it at times in the game, but whether you do it with a maniac grin in your face.

Let's behave like gentlemen in the game.

GE

[Crow]

WHERE IS MY CROW avatar :doh:

cheers Neal

I definatly will NOT mow Neal out of his dinghy

[kurtz]

What an excellent thread.

Whilst I, myself, wouldn't shoot survivors (unless they had their i-pods really loud, so you could a tinny version of what they were listening to outside their headphones) I would defend to the hilt the right for other Kaleuns-sorry Captains- to do so.

In fact Ubi soft not putting machine gunnable survivors in the game would deny us our right to commit evil which is the most essential part of the human condition. How else can we achieve salvation except by resisting the urge to wanton slaughter, or perhaps by commiting it and seeking redemption:hmm:

[Subnuts]

Kurtz won't machine gun survivors. Why? Because of the horror. The horror. The horror...

[Ducimus]

After reading this thread, i hope they add lifeboats inpervious to damage or ramming with japanese survivors hurling the most profane insults at the player in japanese and/or accented english.

[hyperion2206]

After reading this thread, i hope they add lifeboats inpervious to damage or ramming with japanese survivors hurling the most profane insults at the player in japanese and/or accented english.

Great, the Japanese should be allowed to insult me and I can't defend myself?:o If I'm not allowed to shoot back I want to have a function where I can curse the survivors in return. Quid pro quo!:rotfl:

[Subnuts]

After reading this thread, i hope they add lifeboats inpervious to damage or ramming with japanese survivors hurling the most profane insults at the player in japanese and/or accented english.
Great, the Japanese should be allowed to insult me and I can't defend myself?:o If I'm not allowed to shoot back I want to have a function where I can curse the survivors in return. Quid pro quo!:rotfl:

There should be a mini-game where you push the 'I' button faster and faster so you can out-insult the survivors. :88)

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, one reason why I take this so seriously is that an alarming number of people in favour of gunning apart life-boats in this game seem to also apply their standards to real-life, where killing has consequences.

In fact Ubi soft not putting machine gunnable survivors in the game would deny us our right to commit evil which is the most essential part of the human condition. How else can we achieve salvation except by resisting the urge to wanton slaughter, or perhaps by commiting it and seeking redemptionI was wondering when you'd drag religion into this:rotfl:.

Well, apart from morality, Geneva conventions, What Would Morton Do, et al, I so far have found these arguments against:

FPS spent on modelling every life-boat, seagull and dock person with a collision mesh/hit box/whatever so that they can be shot.
Age limit issues (SH4 is currently rated "E" for "Everyone", it seems, and massacring life-boats would probably up that a level to ET or T or something).
It doesn't really contribute to game-play, more than it'd contribute to shoot seagulls.

[flyingdane]

Sh.t I'll kill anything any time any whare!! :arrgh!:

[Elder-Pirate]

Yeah I was wondering about that 7+ rating for SH 4 because SH 3 is "T" ( Teen ).
Somehting dosn't smell right here. :hmm:

[flyingdane]

Yeah I was wondering about that 7+ rating for SH 4 because SH 3 is "T" ( Teen ).
Somehting dosn't smell right here. :hmm:

What? are you not over 7+ :lol:

[Elder-Pirate]

Yeah I was wondering about that 7+ rating for SH 4 because SH 3 is "T" ( Teen ).
Somehting dosn't smell right here. :hmm:

What? are you not over 7+ :lol:

I'll be 2 in three years.:lol:

[Hylander_1314]

To get back to the topic, look at the Battle of the Bismark Sea. All those troop transports sunk, and the fliers didn't just leave them to their fate in the water. They strafed the Japanese troops in the water until there was nothing left moving.

The Military Channel ran the 2 part program called, Hell in the Pacific just this last weekend. And when you hear how the American and English guys talked about their opponents, whewwwwwwwwwwwwww. There was definitely no love loss there. Even in the island fighting, they talked about the "no prisoner" attitude, and showed some graphic film of wounded soldiers getting the business. There was even one fellow who said they were so short of intellegence, that there was an offer to all the men fighting, that who ever brought back a pow, they would get a 2 week furlough. As soon as they had enough pow's, the Marines went back to the no prisoners approach.

A good eye opener about the Pacific.

[Ducimus]

Here's a bit of a moral delima. Now, personnaly ive already said, that i woudlnt machine gun surviors in the water. Im not all that hot about the idea in real life terms, they are human beings. In a game (because i know its a game) id probably have fun with it.

But had i been alive during WW2 and known about these goings on at the time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/LeonardGSiffleet.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
(get a load of unit 731 linked at the bottom, my god)

All that on top of pearl Harbor? I have to wonder what i *really* would have done.

[Hylander_1314]

Being there in real life, and being there in a simulator are two different worlds. The show I mentioned above had some clips of actor Rod Stieger, as he was on a destroyer in WWII, and even he said the first time he saw how the enemy were treated, it made him think about the 10 Commandments, and that we're not supposed to do that to each other.

And then as some of the guys also said too, that after a while, you see enough of the dead, and the rotting, that you don't think twice about it. The stench doesn't even bother you anymore. That's rough to say the least. That must have been living through hell.

[kurtz]

Kurtz won't machine gun survivors. Why? Because of the horror. The horror. The horror...

...and they say my methods are unsound...:D

[Morts]

soldiers - fair game
civilians - no-go
neutrals - no-go

[Sailor Steve]

soldiers - fair game
But if they are in the water they are helpless. It's like shooting a pilot after he's bailed out.

[hyperion2206]

soldiers - fair game But if they are in the water they are helpless. It's like shooting a pilot after he's bailed out.

Ever heart of the German soldiers that were ferried in really small boats that were guned down by cruisers and destroyers (it was somewhere in the Med, probably Crete)? Shooting soldiers in life rafts (only if they are armed!) is the same as shooting soldiers in small tug boats and the like.

[Morts]

soldiers - fair game
But if they are in the water they are helpless. It's like shooting a pilot after he's bailed out.

so?
:rotfl:

[Wulfmann]

In the Med if German pilots could be captured they were not (Usually) killed.
If it was considered possible for German Air sea rescue to get them they were strafed in the water by RAF.
Not officially admitted but done on a regular basis.
I was researching a Malta campaign where RAF vets admitted it was common.
Of course, the Maltese civilians were worse to downed pilots so the Brits made it a point to try and get to them as fast as possible (These were on Malta ground pilots to be prisoners so the army did not have to make such decisions).
The point is like the Jap soldiers that would be picked up and sent into combat the downed German flyers because they could "NOT" be captured were a future threat and it was their believed opinion it was better to kill them now then wait until they returned in a new Ju-88 and a load of bombs.
We can comfortably argue over these moral issues because those men made the tough decisions when it mattered.
If we get this option I hope it is not just a fun to do thing but made in a way we must consider the action. If we MG troops, we get a pat on the back.
If we decide not to we get a report that those picked up soldiers caused disaster we could have avoided.
If we MG civilians we get arrested and the campaign ended.
If you do it twice, we send a jealous astronaut with mace and a BB gun in diapers to rough you up!
Wulfmann

[Onkel Neal]

If you do it twice, we send a jealous astronaut with mace and a BB gun in diapers to rough you up!
Wulfmann

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It would be cool if SH 4 had a secret feature, where if you machine gunned life rafts, you were relieved of command and Starforce instantly installed on your machine :D

[hyperion2206]

If you do it twice, we send a jealous astronaut with mace and a BB gun in diapers to rough you up!
Wulfmann
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It would be cool if SH 4 had a secret feature, where if you machine gunned life rafts, you were relieved of command and Starforce instantly installed on your machine :D

That would be torture! I'd rather sit in a life raft than having StarForce installed!:p:rotfl:

[_Seth_]

It would be cool if SH 4 had a secret feature, where if you machine gunned life rafts, you were relieved of command and Starforce instantly installed on your machine :D:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:That would really be a nightmare!!!

[Nightmare]

I am a little shocked at the bloodlust over this issue. SH4 is a simulation of US Submarines in the Pacific, not “Grand Theft Auto: Pacific.”

Besides the gunning down of lifeboats and people in the water by Wahoo, I really haven’t heard or read any other stories that stated it happened regularly at sea. I do agree that lifeboats adds to the “feel” of the game, but I do think shooting them should have some sort of punishment (loss of renown, relieved of command, etc).

However it would be just my luck that in the middle of a successful career I’d sink a ship in a convoy and while in the process of deck gunning a second, I’d either run over a lifeboat or end up hitting a bunch of survivors quickly ending my career.

[_Seth_]

What is the point in shooting at those poor chaps in the lifeboats? They will never reach port, they will just respawn on another ship..:roll:

[Wulfmann]

The threat of Starforce is the ultimate control over any and all of our actions!

Evil ratings
1-Satan
2-Stalin
3-Hitler
4-Starforce
5-Saddam

Wulfmann

[DaMaGe007]

Bloodlust ? its a computer game...
You act like you have never seen a movie.
Go rent some tarentino or arnie flicks.

[DrMilton]

Yeah... and maybe we should start with the fat guys first. Just to add a little bit to the patrol's tonnage 50000tons + 95kg ! (that must be worth a badge) :nope:

[Torpex752]

I would not shoot survivors in lifeboats, unless they were within 2000yds of a beach where US troops were defending AND the lifeboats were filled with armed soldiers. (which if you read the incident told by O'Kane, is sort of how it went)

Frank

:cool:

[F1Canuck]

I would like to suggest a different take on this issue of shooting lifeboats.

I have a tendency in "open" type games, whatever they are, to test the games reactions. So if I was to do it, it would only be to see what happens, I would not do it in a career...just to see if they have put any programming in. I would assume the game will end or something, or maybe the bullets have no effect. It really should be up to the paying consumer to do what he/she wants with the software, personal preferences are so different.

I know it's a "touchy" subject because this is based on real events.

Everyone may hate me but I like the idea of guys in life boats that you can save or leave to their fate. I have always, always wanted a game like this with animated people. I know it's all about the subs but Man!, it's gets kinda "scarey real" when you can see guys on the enemy ship as you take your shots.

...and underwater if they show little guys in the water...that will be amazing. To me it kind of makes me play the game MORE seriously because of real world physics and reactions.

I hope this makes sense, I have been away from SH3 for a while and just got back to it with the exitment of SH4 looming.

QUESTION: Do you "PRO SH SIMMERS" like the idea of little people in the game? or to you does it take away from the subs and ships? (by using up your PC processing).

I am very exited, I love this living world sim stuff, those WWII vets astound me with what they did.

Cheers and respect.

[cmdrk]

I would like to suggest a different take on this issue of shooting lifeboats.

I have a tendency in "open" type games, whatever they are, to test the games reactions. So if I was to do it, it would only be to see what happens, I would not do it in a career...just to see if they have put any programming in. I would assume the game will end or something, or maybe the bullets have no effect. It really should be up to the paying consumer to do what he/she wants with the software, personal preferences are so different.

I know it's a "touchy" subject because this is based on real events.

Everyone may hate me but I like the idea of guys in life boats that you can save or leave to their fate. I have always, always wanted a game like this with animated people. I know it's all about the subs but Man!, it's gets kinda "scarey real" when you can see guys on the enemy ship as you take your shots.

...and underwater if they show little guys in the water...that will be amazing. To me it kind of makes me play the game MORE seriously because of real world physics and reactions.

I hope this makes sense, I have been away from SH3 for a while and just got back to it with the exitment of SH4 looming.

QUESTION: Do you "PRO SH SIMMERS" like the idea of little people in the game? or to you does it take away from the subs and ships? (by using up your PC processing).

I am very exited, I love this living world sim stuff, those WWII vets astound me with what they did.

Cheers and respect.
Personally, I would not shoot survivors unless they shoot. Morton thought weapon fire came from the group.

Anyway, I like the idea of having the subsim world populated outside of the sub. I would more likely try to take a prisoner which was done also.

[Morts]

whats all the fuss about shooting survivors
christ
its a game and the survivors are just a bunch of 3D models
i cant really see whats wrong in shooting 3D models

[Bum]

The threat of Starforce is the ultimate control over any and all of our actions!

Evil ratings
1-Satan
2-Stalin
3-Hitler
4-Starforce
5-Saddam

Wulfmann

:rotfl: Classic!

[Abd_von_Mumit]

I was going to write that if I was given a chance to shoot the survivors, I'd consider it every time anew, taking all the pros and antis, like possible threats from them, intelligence issues, crew morale, armed/unarmed, hostile/defenceless etc. But after reading the topic I'm NOT going to shoot anyone any more. I'd prefer not to have any lifeboats nor survivors, lets have it the way it was in SH3. No survivors and it's still a great game.

But if you ask me If I'd like to have a choice... Yes, it's always better to have a choice than not have one. I can fully support these words:

However if I am playing a game I would like to have both of these options open to me as they are things I don't do in real life but would like to do in a fictional patrol where no harm is done to anyone. :lost:
"To have a choice" is a key here. Why should someone tell what to do or not to do? Why should he insist that that's moral and that's not? Let he goes his way and I'll go mine. It's the free will issue.

The absolutely worst thing UbiSoft could do is to add the liferats and survivors and make them immortal. :damn:

In order to adequatly roleplay being a good submarine captain that doesnt shoot survivors, survivors must be shootable.

I completely disagree. If you're not going to shoot them, it makes no difference if they're shootable or not.
I support mookiemookie's opinion, as stated above.

@DaMaGe007: There is still a big difference. You can have a choice or not have it, cause someone else thought you shouldn't have any.


The threat of Starforce is the ultimate control over any and all of our actions!

Evil ratings
1-Satan
2-Stalin
3-Hitler
4-Starforce
5-Saddam
First: It's Hussein, not Saddam. As Bush is Bush, not George, and Stalin is Stalin, not Josif.

I would not shoot survivors unless I could ascertain they were soldiers in an area where they would be picked up and put into combat against my side. I would have to make sure that was the case or I would not do it.
That may sound offensive to some.
To those people I suggest you be prepared to convert to Islam.
I won’t be!
Complete absurd. What does islam have common with the discussed issue? Were you going to tell us that every muslim was a terrorist? Maybe also every Arab? What about half Arabs? Or Arabic christians? What is one to do, if he had an Arabic grandparent..? Hang himself on a dead tree, as he'll never be able to be an honest citizen?

Plonk warning (and yes, I know you don't care).

[DaMaGe007]

The reason they must be shootable is that there is no reason to avoid shooting them (if they are invulnerable) which I make clearer later by discussing the gameplay affecting aspect of shooting through survivors to get the ship.

if they are ghost liferafts and you shoot through them with out regard due to invulnerability you are still shooting the survivors (as far as Im concerned), but since they dont die the humanist people will be happy to do it to save a few minutes waiting

I remember playing the original Sh3 Stock, it felt like I was powering around in a powerful weapon of war (deck gun wise), then the original Grey wolves nerfed the deckgun and it felt like a pea shooter. GWX is much better and back to a powerful weapon. Invulnerable liferafts are going to make the game feel very different, and I dont think some people who are against this issue really realise the full implications of it untill they try it.

The best solution would be to have a parental lock system, so people who are against it can lock it out, and also prevent thier kids from doing it, whilest people wich desire animated chaos and destruction, or a more complete roleplay experience can enable it.

Problem solved ?

[Mush Martin]

Mush also thought a destroyer was no match for any sub at battle depth
either.
MM

[Wulfmann]

Abd_von_Mumit said

Complete absurd. What does islam have common with the discussed issue? Were you going to tell us that every muslim was a terrorist? Maybe also every Arab? What about half Arabs? Or Arabic christians? What is one to do, if he had an Arabic grandparent..? Hang himself on a dead tree, as he'll never be able to be an honest citizen?

Plonk warning (and yes, I know you don't care).

You so much missed the point to make an irrelevant illogical rant.

It is a reference to the willingness to fight for your side, culture, whatever and if you are not be prepared to be defeated.
Hence while some pansy wipes think playing all sweet will show their enemies the good side and we can all sing Kum-by-ya and live happily ever after the reality is be prepared to do what is necessary or be prepared to lose.
When we bombed Germany we did not target Nazis we were willing to kill every one of them to survive.
If we are to have survivors and of those some can be identified as soldiers then we should also be faced with the consequences that if we do not waste them we get a report those same guys killed our two cousins on Guadalcanal.
We should also face negative consequences if we kill innocent survivors!
Since you brought it up rather than leave it as it was, a quote from the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” where when confronted with defeat and asked the Bishop of Jerusalem says “Convert to Islam; repent later” showing is lack of faith and his lack of character when faced with a tough choice.
My point had nothing to do with your rant.
But, since you brought it up I will say this. While I have no ill will toward Muslims or any religion I have no problem with killing them until they surrender like Germany and Japan did.
Unconditionally!!!
It is not about being right, it is about being left-----------------------standing!

Wulfmann

[flintlock]

C'mon folks, is it that difficult to maintain a discussion whilst keeping it nice and civil?

[sunvalleyslim]

I don't think that you would have to mg them. Just think that after your ship has gone down and you survived. It means your either in a lifeboat or treading water...just hoping that you get rescued. An Officer and gentleman of any mans navy would have a hard time surfacing the boat to watch fellow sailors struggle in the sea, knowing there was most times no way to take them aboard and make them POWs..........

[Gizzmoe]

I think this topic has been discussed long enough by now. Time to give it rest.