Going 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.

First Muslims... then the UN... what am I missing here:-??

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? :-?

Idiocy in morality
 

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:

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

:arrgh!:

Agreed 100%

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

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!

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:

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.