How real is too real? Questions regarding simulated war crimes

[noob]

Wait! You mean it's possible to do something in CM for reasons other than increasing your points/decreasing the opponents?!

Yes, when i make it so

[JonS]

Bah! That's just window dressing!

[noob]

Bah! That's just window dressing!

I always have to get the last word in, so whatever you post in reply to this, imagine what i might say being written in response, that way i do get the last word in without having to bother myself to actually type it

[SnakeTheFox]

Why would any self respecting games manufacturer model war crimes in a WW2 tactical combat simulator ?,

I dunno, authenticity, immersion, any other of a myriad of reasons. If it hurts your tender sensibilities regarding how close to "real" you want the game to be, then I apologize.

and why would anyone even consider this as a "missing" function in such a game ?,

I don't know if I'd call it a missing function, I'm just curious whether this was or is ever intended to be implemented. Semi-tongue in cheek, yes; I'm not terribly concerned whether it's implemented or not, but it makes me curious nonetheless, as many things in CM do for us on occasion. Here, I'll make the lack of gravity to this inquisition more obvious for you, if you'd prefer it this way:

it seems the poster has missed the whole point of why CM was created in the first place,

It's my understanding that CM represents one of, if not the most comprehensive tactical level war game out there. Treatment of prisoners of war, whether good or bad, generous or reprehensible, is a feature often overlooked or heavily simplified in a gaming context, simply to appease those with tender sensibilities who don't like to face the fact that war wasn't all about gung-ho martial prowess and had its more despicable sides as well, all the way down to the tactical level. Actually, that's the only level where I'd appreciate its modeling, anything higher and it's just random numbers, far removed from the actual situation.

In a tactical level wargame that question is raised to the commander of the battle, as it is raised in real-life situations at the same level: dedicate troops to escorting surrendered prisoners of war from an active combat zone, or the eponymous "take no prisoners" approach that may make enemy forces fight more bitterly in future engagements.

and i am flabbergasted that such an inane question has recieved serious replies.

Yeah, a non-berating, considerate and mature discussion on an admittedly not terribly relevant game feature? What were we thinking!

[noob]

I dunno, authenticity, immersion, any other of a myriad of reasons.

There aren't a myriad of reasons that war crimes are not represented in tactical wargames, there's one, and that is because war crimes have no bearing or relevance to the interplay of combat units on a tactical battlemap designed essentially to test the military skills of the players involved, so why waste time and money to model them, there are plenty of movies out there for anyone that wants to "immerse" themselves in the horror of war.

If it hurts your tender sensibilities regarding how close to "real" you want the game to be, then I apologize.

Witnessing the horror of war does not hurt my sensibilities unless it is out of context, so if CM decided to show soldiers arms and legs being blown off with buckets of blood flying around as it would be in real life i would complain on the basis that it wasn't necessary to see such things to play the game, and based on the same reasoning i would complain if a war film omitted showing those same horrors of war.

Here, I'll make the lack of gravity to this inquisition more obvious for you, if you'd prefer it this way:

Emoticons are essential to remove any ambiguity about the intentions of the speaker given the limited nature of pure text, that's why i thought you were serious, and i still do, also i like the way you say my criticism of your original post is an inquisition, are you a tabloid journalist ?

It's my understanding that CM represents one of, if not the most comprehensive tactical level war game out there. Treatment of prisoners of war, whether good or bad, generous or reprehensible, is a feature often overlooked or heavily simplified in a gaming context,

Overlooked because it's irrelevant in the context of a tactical wargame, why is that so hard to understand ?

simply to appease those with tender sensibilities

So the official policy of wargame manufacturers is to spare the players of such games the reminders of the realities of war ?, fascinating Captain.

who don't like to face the fact that war wasn't all about gung-ho martial prowess and had its more despicable sides as well, all the way down to the tactical level.

As you say, "war wasn't all about gung-ho martial prowess", however tactical wargames are definitely all about martial prowess, gung ho or not.

In a tactical level wargame that question is raised to the commander of the battle, as it is raised in real-life situations at the same level: dedicate troops to escorting surrendered prisoners of war from an active combat zone

All i can say is that i'm glad BF aren't wasting their time modelling and applying such trivial variables to the outcome of battles that are no longer than two hours and are won by the application of sound tactics and a steady will and not how you escort prisoners off the map.

"take no prisoners" approach that may make enemy forces fight more bitterly in future engagements.

Now you are talking about strategical wargaming which CM isn't.

[noxnoctum]

One scenario I played a German unit surrendered than unsurrendered and started firing again on my units, when the units that had captured them came under attack from another German position. They then surrendered AGAIN when aforementioned German position was eliminated. Couple minutes later, unsurrendered again when the same situation repeated itself . Not exactly a priority issue, but it'd be cool if once a unit rejoins the fight after surrendering once they can be mowed down without mercy even if they throw their hands up.

Or just make it so that any unit passing through removes their weapons (not just a HQ unit). If it's too hard to remove weapons in the engine just reduce their ammo to 0.

[SnakeTheFox]

There aren't a myriad of reasons that war crimes are not represented in tactical wargames, there's one, and that is because war crimes have no bearing or relevance to the interplay of combat units on a tactical battlemap designed essentially to test the military skills of the players involved, so why waste time and money to model them, there are plenty of movies out there for anyone that wants to "immerse" themselves in the horror of war.

I said there was a myriad of reasons why they would be implemented, I'm confused how you've managed to go so far out of context with that statement. Management of prisoners of war has plenty of relevance to the "interplay of combat units on a tactical battlemap", for reasons I've already covered and have no inclination to repeat. Also, movies as a method of "immersion", hoh hoh.

Witnessing the horror of war does not hurt my sensibilities unless it is out of context, so if CM decided to show soldiers arms and legs being blown off with buckets of blood flying around as it would be in real life i would complain on the basis that it wasn't necessary to see such things to play the game, and based on the same reasoning i would complain if a war film omitted showing those same horrors of war.

That analogy has no merit, on the basis that buckets of gore have no bearing on the game and merely serve as aesthetic design choices, management of surrendering forces is something that has a bearing both in the immediate sense (whether or not to dedicate forces to their withdrawel behind the lines), but in the long-term in campaigns as well (becoming infamous for not taking prisoners may make future engagements less prone to surrendering or less considerate to your forces), though in the former case that's well outside of what I would like modeled in a tactical-level wargame myself.

Emoticons are essential to remove any ambiguity about the intentions of the speaker given the limited nature of pure text, that's why i thought you were serious, and i still do, also i like the way you say my criticism of your original post is an inquisition, are you a tabloid journalist ?

Sorry, Grandpa, I wasn't aware I had to spell out the nature of my post, I was expecting a considerate and casual discussion on the topic manner and wasn't prepared to disarm an alarmingly hostile and highly analytical forum beast with winking smilies, my apologies. Also, yet again, you're misreading what I'm saying: my post was an inquisition. Inquisition, as in: "the act of inquiring; inquiry; research."

Overlooked because it's irrelevant in the context of a tactical wargame, why is that so hard to understand ?

Which, for reasons already covered, I disagree over. Are you intending to keep bludgeoning me with your "I DISAGREE STOP THINKING DIFFERENT THAN I DO" approach, or can we just agree to hold differing opinions on the subject?

So the official policy of wargame manufacturers is to spare the players of such games the reminders of the realities of war ?, fascinating Captain.

That is not their policy, and again your argument would make sense if treatment of prisoners was not a frequently encountered issue at the tactical level, which it in-fact was.

As you say, "war wasn't all about gung-ho martial prowess", however tactical wargames are definitely all about martial prowess, gung ho or not.

Of course they are, in part, about martial prowess, my claim was that this wasn't all they are about, which is also true. You're just arguing over nothing, now.

All i can say is that i'm glad BF aren't wasting their time modelling and applying such trivial variables to the outcome of battles that are no longer than two hours and are won by the application of sound tactics and a steady will and not how you escort prisoners off the map.

And, as I have committed this opinion earlier, treatment of prisoners is, in my opinion, a decision that has to be made in real conflict, frequently at the tactical level, for rationale thrice covered.

Now you are talking about strategical wargaming which CM isn't.

I wont contest that, but considering many of CM's campaigns could make use of such a tactical-level feature (treatment of surrendering opponents) to make variables in future mission structure at a higher level.

I really have no investment in this being included in CM, it was intended as a semi-serious casual discussion on what could be modeled in CM, but if you want to make a considerable argument out of it, I can do that too, regardless of my honest investment in it being included.

[noob]

but if you want to make a considerable argument out of it

I already have made a considerable argument out of it.

I can do that too

No you can't.

[Mord]

You guys can go on and on about this but it's already in the game...so, it's a moot argument. I like that it's in there, adds a level of realism and chaos factor to the situation.

I didn't find it to be an offensive topic either...no more offensive than playing a game that's main objective is to KILL the other side with bullets and bombs. LOL you can paint it as one tactical mind vs another all you want but it doesn't change the fact that your and my hobby involves violence and destruction on a biblical scale...that to win we must kill other simulated human beings.

Mord.

[chas_in_mlb]

First off, no men were killed. It's all pixels on a screen; sprites and such.

In my last battle a trio of German, one of whom with an MG 42 with which he killed four men was confronted by a M3a3 light tank. They stopped firing and put up their hands. A pause, then the tank mowed them down.

Perhaps the point has been done to death, but the brutalizing process of war, seeing dead men, dead dogs, horses, civilians were commonplace. Whats one or two more?

During WW I it was common for two types of surrenders that were killed outright (on general principles) - snipers and machine gunners.

I think you should have the option of taking prisoners or not.

The SS for example, were infamous for it. Thinking specifically of the Canadians they executed in Normandy. The SS murdered British POW's in 1940 as well. It's well documented, but there is never any lack of admirers and fanboys who love the SS in spite of it. Whaddya gonna do?

[Mord]

Whaddya gonna do?

Play the game the way that you most enjoy and ignore the rest...

Mord.

[Brindlewolf]

Play the game the way that you most enjoy and ignore the rest...

Mord.

Exactly............before we get someone requesting SS firing squads should be in the game,for desertion under heavy fire

[Vinnart]

On this I have to go to the wisdom spoken on an old T-shirt of mine. "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out!".

I am waitig for French Whore houses to be modeled, and the effects of STD's on morale. Bad case of gonharia rates that troop with a -3. lol

[chas_in_mlb]

We'll draw the line at dead civilians though....

I recall the Close Combat series had dead farm animals, which made pretty decent cover in a pinch. Don't see why it isn't represented in this game, though. I recall seeing photos of decimated dairy herds in Normandy.

[Broadsword56]

We'll draw the line at dead civilians though....

I recall the Close Combat series had dead farm animals, which made pretty decent cover in a pinch. Don't see why it isn't represented in this game, though. I recall seeing photos of decimated dairy herds in Normandy.

Farm animals would be great and add enormous authenticity to the landscape -- but since they do nothing for gameplay and take resources, it makes send that they were omitted.

Civilians, though, are worth considering. The only game I've ever seen civilians in were Men of War (where every so often during a battle you'd see some peasant ambling through the kill zone like a preoccupied zombie), or the console Brothers in Arms series (subplots involving civilians in the Market Garden game). In Holland for OMG, civilians really did affect the fighting -- jubilant crowds in the towns swarmed the Allies and slowed down the advance up Hell's Highway, and individual civilians, and individual Dutch civilians did things like point out enemy locations, mislead the Germans, and even join with Allied units to take an active role in combat.

[Bradley Dick]

On this I have to go to the wisdom spoken on an old T-shirt of mine. "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out!".

I am waitig for French Whore houses to be modeled, and the effects of STD's on morale. Bad case of gonharia rates that troop with a -3. lol

I'm sorry this is just incorrect. Any troops who have went and caught a dose would have high morale and low fitness. Let's model it accurately.

[mjkerner]

On this I have to go to the wisdom spoken on an old T-shirt of mine. "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out!".

I am waitig for French Whore houses to be modeled, and the effects of STD's on morale. Bad case of gonharia rates that troop with a -3. lol

I think it'd be funny just to have on order for "short arm inspection"...hit the button, your troops line up, drop trou one by one as they pass the medical officer.....

[Michael Emrys]

The only reason to do something in a CM battle is to either increase your units ability to accumulate points and reduce your opponents ability to accumulate points, anything else is window dressing.

At this point I have to jump in. The above is of course one player's take on the game, and I suppose as valid as any other. It is nevertheless one with which I take strong disagreement. I do not play competitively and don't much give a hoot as to which side has the most points at the end. It might in some cases provide an interesting footnote, but I have my own way of rating victory and loss. I play CM to the extent that I enjoy the process that eventually arrives at an end. Everything else is just window dressing. And my view is just as valid as yours.

Michael

[SnakeTheFox]

I already have made a considerable argument out of it.

Repeating the same things a half dozen times is only the illusion of a considerable argument, you've made maybe less than half of what I'd consider one, thus far.

No you can't.

Hard to argue against someone who can't argue, admittedly.

[sburke]

Repeating the same things a half dozen times is only the illusion of a considerable argument, you've made maybe less than half of what I'd consider one, thus far.

are you daring him to repeat it a half dozen or more additional times?

At this point I have to jump in. The above is of course one player's take on the game, and I suppose as valid as any other. It is nevertheless one with which I take strong disagreement. I do not play competitively and don't much give a hoot as to which side has the most points at the end. It might in some cases provide an interesting footnote, but I have my own way of rating victory and loss. I play CM to the extent that I enjoy the process that eventually arrives at an end. Everything else is just window dressing. And my view is just as valid as yours.

Michael

Michael is right on target - yeah that is sig usable it seems, not that having me say you are right lends any authority at all to your sig. Actually it may look quite bad.

The battle is the thing, not the end. Honestly, the end is a bit of a downer as it's all over now. The only answer to that being to start another. I enjoy watching my opponents moves and ability to implement their plan as much as my own. It is such a challenge to pull off a good attack that I really like seeing one develop. Points? meh. waste of time. Only good thing about the victory screen is it tallies up losses for you to apply to an OP layer in a campaign.

[DavidFields]

"The battle is the thing, not the end. Honestly, the end is a bit of a downer as it's all over now. The only answer to that being to start another. I enjoy watching my opponents moves and ability to implement their plan as much as my own. It is such a challenge to pull off a good attack that I really like seeing one develop. Points? meh. waste of time. Only good thing about the victory screen is it tallies up losses for you to apply to an OP layer in a campaign.

__________________

It was that way in CMBN."

I agree with this. Besides CM2, I play a lot of EU3, and similar simulations where one basically makes up for oneself what is a win. In CM2, I play the AI, and the score, or victory situation, I only take as advice, and score myself on what I did with what I had.

BTW: historians correct me, but I think "Kill them all, and let God sort it out", was said, in Spanish, by Cortez when he was fighting the Aztecs and his men had a hard time discerning enemy from his Allied Aztec tribes.

Of course, the young among you would probably search the quote by using Google, or asking Siri.

[Collingwood]

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

[Michael Emrys]

BTW: historians correct me, but I think "Kill them all, and let God sort it out", was said, in Spanish, by Cortez when he was fighting the Aztecs and his men had a hard time discerning enemy from his Allied Aztec tribes.

For all I know, Cortez may have indeed said that, but if so, he may have been taking his cue from the papal legate who was quizzed on that very subject by the military leader of the crusade against the Albigenses.

According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, Arnaud-Amaury, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his". On the other hand, the legate's own statement, in a letter to the Pope in August 1209 (col.139), states:

while discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low degree and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying "to arms, to arms!", within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt, as Divine vengeance miraculously...

Footnote 13.

Michael

[sburke]

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

Man you just gotta love the ole Python.

[Vinnart]

I wonder if Cortez had that shirt too