Requiem
07/13/19 10:30 PM
1.158.219.174
|
The quintessential definition of modernity of warfare must consider –
When the nation engaged in the conflict engages in the mobilization of all resources and industries;
The battlespace being contested must be limited to the forces available;
The scale of the armies, navies, and aerospace forces must be considered when raised through conscription;
The active targeting of non-combatants (and non-combatant property) must be limited to those directly assigned to military support positions only (being flexible on the battlefield – understanding ethics and the Ayres War Conventions);
There must also be a regard for the collateral damage whist engaged within the combat zone (Limiting the destruction and casualties on both sides / maximising captured industries);
There must also be a regard for Psy-Ops, both on the battlefield and off the battlefield – How will the psychology of the belligerent states, on both sides, for both combatants and the non-combatants react to the strategies utilized and the collateral damage endured / inflicted?; and
An understanding of both the restricted and unrestricted aims (including political) of each belligerent nation based upon the unprecedented and unsurpassed multi-system scale of the war being fought.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
Edited by Requiem (07/13/19 10:32 PM)
|
ghostrider
07/14/19 03:35 AM
66.74.60.165
|
This almost sounds like the game is totally new. The IS (all houses) have attacked non military targets, to draw out the military from the hard targets, only to drop forces directly on top of their objectives. This is part of why the massed wall of armed forces did not rise up to meet the Clans when they first came in.
The DC and CC were normally the more brutal of the houses, but not the only ones to do this.
For the most part, some military commanders didn't care what happened to rebellions on worlds, as long as they distracted the enemy long enough for them to achieve their own targets.
Maybe rereading the first succession war might be in order.
That was one of the most brutal times in the history of the game, even though Amaris was more brutal outside of combat, and the Jihad being more willing to destroy worlds, or at least large areas of land.
In total warfare, there is only victory or defeat. Damage done is only measured it stopping the enemy. Doesn't matter how many die.
Did you not understand this when calling for total warfare against the clans?
|
Requiem
07/14/19 04:45 AM
1.158.219.174
|
Irrespective of the Battletech History – past or future – a definition of total warfare cannot be determined. Only questions can be determined so that answers can be considered to the situation each Unit / House finds itself in at the time.
Remember the Book Flashpoint - when Captain David McCarthy (former 1st Kathil Uhlan from huntress – then with the Kathil CMM) discussed with his unit the estimated monetary damage they perpetrated whilst engaging in simulator exercises.
Has anyone ever considered their units reputation after a battle due to the damage they inflicted.
i.e. Yes the unit may have won – however due to the extreme damage they inflicted and the number of civilians / collateral damage they perpetrated, they might find it better for their health to skip town asap!
Plus ….
Mercenary - I believe the mercenary review commission needs some real teeth to it – step out of line and a price will be put on your head.
House Unit – This is why you have a JAG Corp. and a War Crimes Tribunal to determine your guilt.
Clan Unit – Unfortunately the Clans do not have a legal / ethical response if they commit a crime,
except for the use of a Trial of Position / Grievance and if they somehow did step over the line and if someone is willing to take them to task that is. By 3145 the idea of Clan Honour is extinct! So there really are no breaks on a leader if they did commit a war crime. Not even another Clan would care – this is how low the clans have sunk in my opinion.
There are no real benefits to being an ethical commander within the game – the developers have decided to sink to the lowest level of utilising cheap and vulgar stunts perpetrated by the “bad guys” in order to generate a reaction by the player, in the hopes of generating continued interest in the game and in so doing are advocating for a detrimental game play by some of the more impressionable players.
I just find that it has gone a little too far and perhaps a refresher course should be considered as to battlefield ethics – and not some of the issues raised within the anime “Saga of Tanya the Evil” in how to get around the rules as it were.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
07/14/19 12:18 PM
66.74.60.165
|
There are some breaks on units that commit atrocities regularly. Bounties being a big one.
But what do you do when another state is protecting them or even encouraging them?
And each instance of this happening has to be looked at in their own way.
The clans for instance. The use of the Saber Cat was not considered horrible by most of the clans during the initial invasion. Most thought it was a little overboard, but not something that would cause the commander to be hunted down and killed by the other clans. Even their own leaders didn't do a whole lot to punish it.
Some units in the Sword of Light brigade was well known for committing atrocities. Such as poisoning the water sources for cities, by having crap on their mechs and then wade into those sources. 4th war instance, but not the only one.
And the JAG corp can't do a thing when it is the state leader the orders such things. Nukes are the first to come to mind, yet not the only thing. All houses had their examples of leaders that were out of touch with reality.
Yet, this is true of all war games. Real life being worse. Even Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy could be said to promote this type of thinking. Destroying the Earth to make way for a galactic highway. Every invasion of the world story is the same way. Wholesale killing of anything the moves. Inspires the heros to fight, but at it's core, the very same thing.
I will add a cheap shot. What sort of justice would the alt have if Katherine not only survives her crimes, but becomes the leader of the League? What would prevent her from doing it to other realms in the name of peace and safety for all?
There are no real benefits to being an ethical commander within the game – the developers have decided to sink to the lowest level of utilising cheap and vulgar stunts perpetrated by the “bad guys” in order to generate a reaction by the player, in the hopes of generating continued interest in the game and in so doing are advocating for a detrimental game play by some of the more impressionable players.
This is just pure bashing of the developers following how the world really operates. It is how ALL types of combat games do things at times. If you hate it, then you might want to consider to not play it.
As a side note, some gamers want to role play the torturing of prisoners. It is those playing the game that make it far worse then just following real life.
|
Requiem
07/15/19 12:19 AM
1.158.219.174
|
The damnable frivolity of war …..
Individuals will always have their own ideas as to what is considered to be good game.
However, do the game developers need to include the “more darker” elements of war into the canon history game, and thereby stoke the egos of those who want a more darker game?
Sabre Cat
Galaxy Commander Cordera Perez – in the aftermath he was challenged and lost his command to Deitr Osis – and by the way it was written he became a social pariah – as he despised, even by the hard-line crusaders, for his actions.
This was the extent of the Clans actions to such a blatant war crime.
And by 3145 entire clans are now complicit.
Would a clansman of the 3050 era even recognize his kin of 3145?
Yes I agree some state leaders are willing to go to the most extreme of lengths to win and by association many of their units will follow their lead.
However, should this not be minor rather than the major?
How many look at this “how the world really operates” and wonder why we need this “reality” to be transcribed into the game world.
What happened to ethics and civility?
Not all combat games have to follow this “realism in war” – if you consider this is the way it should be and this is the way it should be played what is this saying about the game?
When considering objectives for a game I can understand a legitimate target – an enemies ‘Mechs / power armor / command and control / ammo and supply dump / Dropships etc.
However who ever considered that a legitimate target within the game should include a Hospital / school children within a school / civilian population within a shelter etc.
This is where the game has clearly stepped over the line – this and the entire Jihad story!
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
07/15/19 03:51 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Why do you think they didn't get deep into the 'rules' of Psy-ops? Bombing innocent people to get at the enemy, like what did happen in one of the books.
As said before. This is the very thought that comes up with the nuking of the enemy, or revolts/rebellions that use violence to strike back at a hated foe.
And then define who the enemy is.
More then a few think the old government or specific people in it are the enemy.
However, do the game developers need to include the “more darker” elements of war into the canon history game, and thereby stoke the egos of those who want a more darker game?
The alt talks about all the things that wouldn't happen, yet now them using what would happen is a problem?
I hate some of the ideas that come from this thought, which is why I hate civil war games. It is bad enough that when invading an enemy, you have to kill innocent people, just because of the wrong place/wrong time issues. But to kill someone you knew just because you and them are on the wrong side? I don't care what others say. This sort of warfare doesn't heal with the current generations. There is always hatred and distrust between those on opposite sides.
As suggested in other threads, it looks like the developers ran out of ideas or 'boogiemen' to threaten the IS, so came up with the most evil ones to get everyone to hate them enough to do what it takes to bring them down. More then a few would suggest using WMDs in order to stop an invader from taking out your society. Yet most of those that love this idea, tends to be ones that create the scenario that promotes this thought.
Reality is why they touched on the subject. You can not have war without issues like this happening. Killing the morale of the enemy comes to mind. I agree, this is extremely sickening, and some people love this style of play. As much as I say it is wrong, I can only say why I don't like it. There is nothing I can do to stop a group from wiping out rescue workers or schools with children in them. Honestly, if you don't agree with it, don't buy the material.
|
Requiem
07/15/19 06:46 AM
1.158.219.174
|
QUOTE: Honestly, if you don't agree with it, don't buy the material.
How about stating - if you include it in the game supplements then I won’t buy the material Or even a signing a petition requesting a more toned down version?
Why not produce a little ground work to request the game developers do not to go overboard with the “extreme” realism.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
07/15/19 05:19 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Have you heard of the HALO games?
Have you ever played them?
You could make a petition as well as other things to have them change the content of the game. But in this case, the alt line already says you don't agree with much of the canonverse.
Well you don't buy a soda brand if you don't like it. Why support a game if you don't like it?
I would suggest going to the official website and start the petition to tone it down. I would bet someone would tell you the game is fine, and that the developers wouldn't even bother looking it over more then once. They have already ignored a lot of requests for things. As they own a dictatorship on the game, it is there way or the highway. They have thousands of others that will not bother with trying to force them into something they don't want.
And weren't you the one to suggest some logical courses of action?
It isn't the developers forcing this on people. The players in a group can very well deny this subject.
And if you play other games, especially commando type games, some of your missions is to destroy a building or dam. Haven't you even thought of WHO might get hurt from that?
Not just the bad guys, but others in that area?
|
Requiem
07/15/19 07:32 PM
1.158.219.174
|
Yes I don’t agree with much of the canon.
That said I can still request / petition for self-censorship when it comes to the more disturbing elements being considered.
In order to ensure the game continues the content within the game must be limited.
PC is becoming the norm – adapt to it or reap the whirlwind.
Future marketing / legal restrictions will change the nature of the game – that is if they have been paying attention to what is going on – the market will inevitably force change.
Anime – Saga of Tanya the Evil
This is a good example of how the Rules of War are used when it comes to civilians should be utilised. Every time the military is about to engage a target that has civilians in proximity the attacking force announces their intention to attack upon an open frequency – if the civilians do not evacuate immediately then it is their fault for remaining there.
Thus the civilian casualties are minimised.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
07/15/19 08:31 PM
66.74.60.165
|
If enough people say they don't want something, but there lies the issue. Some want all the rules, no matter what they are for or do. Others just take what they want and run with it. Some want even more on the 'evil' side. Look as some of the reviews and such on line about some of the games out there. Some were disappointed you couldn't be worse.
Most games and movies get people into it by doing things like wiping out whole cities. The only difference in the Falcons doing it to the sibkos is, they were specifically targeting them.
Now what is the difference between this and say chasing down all citizens on a world to execute them all?
Maybe it doesn't sound as bad as most don't think of children, but adults being slaughtered.
I don't play these type of games. That is the best I can really do, as I do like alot of the rest of games, like B-Tech. But then there are times when you are replaying a game, and a few of the characters in it just annoy the bleep out of you. Preston Garvey in Fallout 4 is one. The animals in Minecraft are another. You just want to nuke them all.
It is when you start thinking of doing that to real life things that it becomes an issue. But this is not saying some won't try.
Most of those are poorly raised people with no concept of right from wrong.
But total warfare has always been complete annihilation of the enemy in my eyes. Not just changing over factories to make equipment. You could make nukes until the end of the century, but what good is that if it isn't used? We are talking war, not preparing for it.
|
Requiem
07/16/19 12:08 AM
1.158.219.174
|
The shift will not come from the gamers themselves – the shift will come from future legislation due to the increase in PC throughout society.
Thought crimes have not yet become a reality. However the written word is another matter – there are exceptions to the freedom doctrines.
Total Warfare
Strategic games – chess and the like will not pose a future problem.
However the problem lies in the application of the games objectives – assigning an attack on a command bunker not a problem – assigning an attack on a hospital / school and you will have a problem.
Society is changing – and with it the underlining rules – it will only take one negative press release and the Game / Game Wold itself will have issues that could lead to its demise.
You would have thought the game’s directors would have recognised the shift and prepared accordingly by distancing / rewriting history to reflect social values. If they don’t …. and soon … I can see problems for the game in the near future.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
07/16/19 04:45 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Thought crimes are a reality. Well according to certain people.
Not sure of many countries outside of the U.S. but here, it seems PC is only enforced by those that aren't rich or powerful. More then a few have committed a lot of horrible crimes and have and are getting away without punishment.
I honestly don't see legislation doing much to curb game developers ideas that much.
Lawsuits would boil down to the 'Don't look at it if you don't like it."
As you are not being forced to read the game rules, but do so by choice, being disgusted and trying to sue probably will result in a lot of wasted money.
Grand Theft Auto has not been stopped. It has become a very popular game.
If you haven't looked into this, I suggest you do. Then you will see just how little censorship is really happening with games. And it will show you that Battle Tech is no where near the levels suggested. GTA is.
More then a few games has you destroying worlds in order to stop a menace.
The fact you can run over people in any game that has some driving outside of a race track is another example of things that shouldn't happen. Hell, one old arcade game was called Death Race. I will assume you can figure what you do in that one.
These were not stopped before the moral compass dropped in most of the world.
They aren't going to be in the future.
And based off of reality of the wars fought, hitting soft targets causes those being targeted to have to spread their security forces. It is a fact of war.
And as it was said more then a few times.
War. War never changes.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 151 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 3062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|