How real is too real? Questions regarding simulated war crimes

[SnakeTheFox]

I was playing a mission against the AI earlier today, I had a pretty easy going time and few casualties, and was wrapping up loose ends by scavenging for hiding infantry squad remnants near the map borders.

Moving one of my squads up, they began hunting a forested area for Germans. It seems a lone German machine gunner, with his MG42 in hand, was hiding right near the border of the map. He opens up on my squad before they see him, no more than 5m away, and kills the squad leader in one quick burst. He then... throws his hands up in surrender no more than a second later.

Now, at the risk of sounding like I get all my knowledge of World War II from Saving Private Ryan, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the surviving squad wouldn't... uh... you know, let that slide and put a bullet between his eyes the moment he dropped his gun? To test this, as I like to roleplay a little with squads at least in small unit engagements like this one, I put a fire order on the surrendered Kraut, and not too surprisingly, the bullets just whizzed past him. I know a lot of the "surrender" mechanic is abstracted in this game, and that just because you see a soldier with his hands in the air on the map isn't really meant to imply he's really just sitting there, whistling to himself with his hands high, but it still tickles my curiosity: is there, or will there ever be, a model for "war crimes" such as the one my squad (in my opinion) would likely have committed there? Should there be a time limit where, within x many seconds of surrendering, if the opposing troops are enraged enough and lack the necessary discipline, they opt to mow down the surrendering foes? Or does that cross the line of what you think should be modeled in a video game.

Keep in mind I'm not advocating death marches or anything like that in game, just the immediate few seconds post-surrender where the other force might not like the idea of taking prisoners.

[sburke]

I was playing a mission against the AI earlier today, I had a pretty easy going time and few casualties, and was wrapping up loose ends by scavenging for hiding infantry squad remnants near the map borders.

Moving one of my squads up, they began hunting a forested area for Germans. It seems a lone German machine gunner, with his MG42 in hand, was hiding right near the border of the map. He opens up on my squad before they see him, no more than 5m away, and kills the squad leader in one quick burst. He then... throws his hands up in surrender no more than a second later.

Now, at the risk of sounding like I get all my knowledge of World War II from Saving Private Ryan, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the surviving squad wouldn't... uh... you know, let that slide and put a bullet between his eyes the moment he dropped his gun? To test this, as I like to roleplay a little with squads at least in small unit engagements like this one, I put a fire order on the surrendered Kraut, and not too surprisingly, the bullets just whizzed past him. I know a lot of the "surrender" mechanic is abstracted in this game, and that just because you see a soldier with his hands in the air on the map isn't really meant to imply he's really just sitting there, whistling to himself with his hands high, but it still tickles my curiosity: is there, or will there ever be, a model for "war crimes" such as the one my squad (in my opinion) would likely have committed there?

My first battle agaisnt the AI when CM first came out I has trapped a German squad in a field with the exception of one guy on the other side of a hedgerow. The rest of his squad was on their knees hands in the air. They were all dead moments later as my squad cut loose on their buddy behind them. I was horrified for a half second till I'd realized what had happened. Oh my god, my guys just shot prisoners!!!

[SnakeTheFox]

My first battle agaisnt the AI when CM first came out I has trapped a German squad in a field with the exception of one guy on the other side of a hedgerow. The rest of his squad was on their knees hands in the air. They were all dead moments later as my squad cut loose on their buddy behind them. I was horrified for a half second till I'd realized what had happened. Oh my god, my guys just shot prisoners!!!

So you're saying you can actually kill prisoners? Aside from the test I mentioned in the OP, I've also seen prisoners survive crazy situations elsewhere and just assumed them invulnerable. I recall one instance in particular where a couple 105mm artillery shells landed not meters away from a surrendered German in the middle of a road (and about a dozen flaming halftracks :cool:), and he was good to go, still chilling with his hands in the air like he really just did not care.

[YankeeDog]

Now, at the risk of sounding like I get all my knowledge of World War II from Saving Private Ryan, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume the surviving squad wouldn't... uh... you know, let that slide and put a bullet between his eyes the moment he dropped his gun? ... [cut] ... Should there be a time limit where, within x many seconds of surrendering, if the opposing troops are enraged enough and lack the necessary discipline, they opt to mow down the surrendering foes? Or does that cross the line of what you think should be modeled in a video game.

Actually, I am pretty sure this already exists. It doesn't *always* happen, but from what I have seen there is a short delay between when a unit throws its hand up in surrender, and when units on the other side stop firing at said unit. I have seen surrendering units gunned town on multiple occasions as a result of this.

I assume this is meant to represent some mix of (a) units not recognizing the attempt to surrender right away, and ( units "in the heat of the moment" continuing to shoot at surrendering enemy, at least for a few seconds.

So, anyway, yeah. There you go. Bloodlust and/or unfortunate miscommunication appear to be in the game already.

[sburke]

Actually, I am pretty sure this already exists. It doesn't *always* happen, but from what I have seen there is a short delay between when a unit throws its hand up in surrender, and when units on the other side stop firing at said unit. I have seen surrendering units gunned town on multiple occasions as a result of this.

I assume this is meant to represent some mix of (a) units not recognizing the attempt to surrender right away, and ( units "in the heat of the moment" continuing to shoot at surrendering enemy, at least for a few seconds.

So, anyway, yeah. There you go. Bloodlust and/or unfortunate miscommunication appear to be in the game already.

In my case a non surrendering unit from the same team was within an action square or two. I don't recall what killed them, grenades or small arms fire. Perhaps there is some gray area in the process of surrender. In our Hamal battle I was able to recover one unit trying to surrender. Not sure how much good that unit will be the rest of the battle, but he isn't being sent back to HQ to answer for it.

[Michael Emrys]

I think I've seen instances where surrendering units occupying the same or an adjacent AS with non-surrendering units got gunned down in the crossfire. Seems like any kind of area fire can snuff them as well.

Michael

[Crinius]

So you're saying you can actually kill prisoners? Aside from the test I mentioned in the OP, I've also seen prisoners survive crazy situations elsewhere and just assumed them invulnerable. I recall one instance in particular where a couple 105mm artillery shells landed not meters away from a surrendered German in the middle of a road (and about a dozen flaming halftracks :cool:), and he was good to go, still chilling with his hands in the air like he really just did not care.

I also remember seeing POW´s getting killed after they raised their hands.

[womble]

I think I've seen instances where surrendering units occupying the same or an adjacent AS with non-surrendering units got gunned down in the crossfire. Seems like any kind of area fire can snuff them as well.

Michael

Pretty sure this is the case. You can't directly target them, but explosions nearby or area fire on their location or grazing fire passing through their action spot can kill them. So if you really must roleplay such a thing, putting a squad at close range "Target Area" will almost certainly nail the gunner inside the next minute, with grenades and the volume of fire.

[HarryB]

In the game I'm playing now, a panzerschreck team took out one of my Shermans. Shortly after that they came under fire from another tank and tried to surrender. The tank blasted them anyway and when I zoomed in on the tank commander I could swear I heard him say "Look, I washed for supper".

[altipueri]

From the OP ""kills the squad leader in one quick burst. He then... throws his hands up in surrender no more than a second later."

I think I read about a very similar incident that happened to the Australians attacking Italians at Bardia. A group of Italians in a foxhole were surrendering and as an Aussie sergeant or officer went towards them one of the Italians drops his hands, picks up his rifle and quickly shoots the Aussie, then drops the rifle and puts his hands up again with a big grin on his face. The next Aussies pushed the guy back in the trench and gave him a quick burst from the Bren. The next couple of Italian foxholes saw what happened and surrendered immediately with no hanky panky.

[Vark]

I remember reading the Germans getting particularly outraged at how Allied troops would sometimes shoot MG gunners who did just this, shoot and just as they were going to be assaulted surrender. The Germans believed the rules of war protected the soldier after he had performed his duty, the Allies thought it was abusing the system, a case of deontology versus pragmatism.

[wokelly]

^^^^^

Yeah, there are certainly examples from WWI I have read where an attacking unit suffers heavy losses rushing an enemy position, reach the enemy position and just then the enemy throw up their arms in surrender. It seems to have enraged the soldiers that the enemy dared slaughter them until a point when they felt their own lives endangered and then gave up. The soldiers proceeded to shoot and bayonet every single German in the trench until every last one was dead.

From everything I have read, you have two types of killings of surrendered men. The first is in the heat of combat, where blood must be answered with blood or you simple cannot spare the men to watch them or escort them back. The other is the more infamous behind the lines slaughter of POWs. The first I can understand, the second however is warcrime IMO.

The safest way to surrender is in between combat rather than during it, ideally in a large group.

Another good tactics caught on video:

British use German POW to entice other Germans to surrender:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/invasion-scenes-43/query/WW2

(go to 3:41 on the video)

American use German Officer to entice other Germans to surrender

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/invasion-scenes-europe-70

(Go to 1:08)

[zukkov]

if i had to surrender, i'd rather have done so to the italians. lasagna and pizza everyday baby!

[Michael Emrys]

if i had to surrender, i'd rather have done so to the italians. lasagna and pizza everyday baby!

In North Africa you'd have gotten pasta with no water to boil it. Bon appetit!

Michael

[JonS]

The first is in the heat of combat, where blood must be answered with blood or you simple cannot spare the men to watch them or escort them back.

I'm not very keen on this idea that blood "must" be answered with blood, nor the idea of "oh, we don't have enough men, so just shoot them", but the Geneva Conventions do recognise the ambiguity and confusion surrounding the act of surrendering. The acceptor must protect enemy forces who have "fallen into the power of the enemy" [Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, Art. 4]. A white flag, for instance, is not a protected symbol. It and the act of raising your hands are expressions of an intent to surrender, but that does not automatically place that person "into the power of the enemy."

Incidentally, prisoners are prisoners of the enemy power into whose hadns they fall, not of the individual or unit that captures them [Art. 12, and Part II.]. Furthermore, "when persons entitled to protection as prisoners of war have fallen into the power of an adverse Party under unusual conditions of combat which prevent their evacuation ... they shall be released and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety." [P. I, 42, although this is from 1977, so obviously wasn't in force in WWII. But it is highly relevant to the supposed heroics of the Op RED WINGS guys. They weren't heroic, they were just doing their job.]

[General Jack Ripper]

This conversation takes me back to my days playing Close Combat 2. In CC2, when enemy troops surrender, they walk towards the nearest friendly unit and stand there with their hands in the air. Needless to say, the enemy player is able to spot the prisoners, and is then able to call in mortars on my troops.

It wasn't long before I learned that some area fire with small arms is able to kill prisoners, and I soon got into the habit of executing prisoners before they could expose my positions.

This feature was fixed in CC3 and beyond by having surrendered enemies exit the map off of the friendly map edge.

While games might allow the killing of prisoners, I never killed POWs out of spite.

[Bradley Dick]

I used to play CCV religiously. I remember the strategic layer they had being very fun with the real time resolutions of battles. Supply lines mattered in that game. Having an airborne unit repeatedly fight to a standstill over an increasingly battered bit of town as you slogged your way forward with armor to open the supply lines is a memory I cherish.

[Lt Belenko]

PA Announcement: "Every nine seconds a German dies in Stalingrad." or was it 7 seconds.

[Dave85]

I've been thinking a realistic way to nerf the SS über fighting capabilities would be that when you occupy a village with them you should have to watch them go through the laborious process of rounding up all the women and children, putting them in a barn and burning it to the ground thus giving the allies a chance to catch you off guard with a counter attack. Of course then any SS men captured by the allies following said massacre would be lined up and machine gunned costing the allies valuable time in exchange.

[Mord]

I am surprised it took this long...

Mord.

[Brindlewolf]

Yup

[Michael Emrys]

I am reminded of a rules question put to the designer of AH's Tobruk. It went, "May a player execute surrendered enemy soldiers in order to gain extra points?" To which the designer replied, "No! Good lord!"

Michael

[noob]

is there, or will there ever be, a model for "war crimes" such as the one my squad (in my opinion) would likely have committed there? Should there be a time limit where, within x many seconds of surrendering, if the opposing troops are enraged enough and lack the necessary discipline, they opt to mow down the surrendering foes? Or does that cross the line of what you think should be modeled in a video game.

Why would any self respecting games manufacturer model war crimes in a WW2 tactical combat simulator ?, and why would anyone even consider this as a "missing" function in such a game ?, it seems the poster has missed the whole point of why CM was created in the first place, and i am flabbergasted that such an inane question has recieved serious replies.

[Broadsword56]

Just asking about it doesn't mean someone wants to be able to do it. I think the whole question of surrender and POWs in wargames and PC sims is a legitimate one for thoughtful discussion.

Many games simply ignore that whole aspect of war. But others try to address it in one way or another.

I like games that allow for surrenders/POWs because without them, a losing player is more likely to try and fight to the last man, and the winning player is more likely to try to kill every last enemy. But there should be some game-level incentive for the losing player to surrender a force instead of fighting to certain death -- maybe units that surrender should cost fewer VPs to the losing player than KIA/WIA losses, for example.

One of the reasons FPS games online are so unrealistic in HTH battles (like ArmA2) is because no one ever surrenders (it's no fun, and there's no game cost to dying in a blaze of glory).

And players that take prisoners should have to deal with them in some way -- to have the burden of escorting/guarding them, just as the real troops did. One soldier with a Garand might be detailed to escort a platoon or more of POWs off a mapedge, for example (which reminds me of that scene in BoB where Lt. Winters made the soldier who had just killed a POW escort prisoners with an empty weapon).

[noob]

Just asking about it doesn't mean someone wants to be able to do it.

He did ask for it.......

Keep in mind I'm not advocating death marches or anything like that in game, just the immediate few seconds post-surrender where the other force might not like the idea of taking prisoners.

I think the whole question of surrender and POWs in wargames and PC sims is a legitimate one for thoughtful discussion.

I don't think it's at all relevant for a "tactical"combat sim, the point of which is to see which players tactical combat skills are the best, i.e how he fights, not how he deals with the logistics of fighting, that's for strategical games, which CM is not.

In CM, a trooper who is either panicked or wounded is a liability and should be removed from the front line as soon as possible as in RL, what happens to the trooper after it leaves the battlefield is irrelevant for the purposes of calculating the winning player.

I like games that allow for surrenders/POWs because without them, a losing player is more likely to try and fight to the last man, and the winning player is more likely to try to kill every last enemy. But there should be some game-level incentive for the losing player to surrender a force instead of fighting to certain death -- maybe units that surrender should cost fewer VPs to the losing player than KIA/WIA losses, for example.

I agree, that's why scenario designers should place friendly exit zones in their scenarios, but they don't, so it's up to the players themselves to add them before playing a game, then the casualty results would be much more realistic and units wouldn't have to be forced to either die or surrender.

One of the reasons FPS games online are so unrealistic in HTH battles (like ArmA2) is because no one ever surrenders (it's no fun, and there's no game cost to dying in a blaze of glory).

CM is not a FPS.

And players that take prisoners should have to deal with them in some way -- to have the burden of escorting/guarding them, just as the real troops did. One soldier with a Garand might be detailed to escort a platoon or more of POWs off a mapedge, for example (which reminds me of that scene in BoB where Lt. Winters made the soldier who had just killed a POW escort prisoners with an empty weapon).

This is not CM's remit, what you describe is more suited to a strategical or role playing game which CM is not.