SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Soooo...... Who's gonna MG the survivors

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - Soooo...... Who's gonna MG the survivors (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=104999)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

:rotfl: Classic!

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stinger503

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMaGe007

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

First: It's Hussein, not Saddam. As Bush is Bush, not George, and Stalin is Stalin, not Josif.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfmann

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).

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

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

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

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..........

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