"Red" Casualties

[Cpl Steiner]

Re. LT Mike's comments about not giving a damn about enemy casualties, I find this perfectly understandable - although I think one day he will feel some strange remorse he didn't expect to feel. War dehumanises people to the point that the enemy is just a target like in a video game. In fact, most armies specifically train their soldiers to view the enemy as not human in this way - through the use of pop-up targets on firing ranges etc. However, deep down I still think killing any other human being is bound to leave mental and emotional scars that could surface later. It's how the individual deals with these scars that matters.

Now back to the game:

Someone made the very good point that "Yellow" casualties don't currently appear on the AAR screen, which distorts the killed to wounded ratio. I think this is an excellent point that could be addressed with a slight change to the AAR screen.

Example:

Killed (brown): 5

Incapacitated (red): 6

Walking Wounded (yellow): 25

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, it is a good idea to have the lightly wounded tallied even though we don't factor them into the score. The presumption is that they are out of the fight for too short a period of time to really matter any more than some other factors (like exhaustion, unit reorganization, etc.). We did not include them in the tallies because we didn't want people to think that they did count for something.

Anyway, I'll double check all this stuff with Charles. It's been ages since this part of the game was setup so it's definitely a good thing to look into it again.

Steve

[Kat Johnston]

I'm sure that if you asked the average soldier if he would rather not kill someone the answer would be a theoretical "yes". But if the soldier is asked if he would rather not kill someone who is trying to harm him, his country, or the innocents he is trying to protect, the answer will almost certainly be "no". And that is the way it should be. Anybody who hasn't been a soldier in a war zone shouldn't presume that it should be otherwise.

Leaving war aside, most people, I think, would say "killing is wrong" - and then would agree that in extremis killing is justified to save (more or less) innocent life from someone bent on taking it, and are happy, more or less, that the police, or even random members of the public, should have that power.

[Lethaface]

In retrospect I think I understood your message too harsh in the combined reading about the cut off testikels and feeling remorse only for the BLUE guys.

I mean, I can totally understand you (or any soldier) doesnt feel remorse/guilt about taking an enemy life. That is the way it should be in order to carry out war in good order.

This too (war) is animalistic indeed like someone else posted, but after all humans are animals as well (in my eyes). However that is beside the point here.

To me (and I think it should be to everyone), there is a view apart from war. If I see a documentary about a family which has lost its father (money maker) and now is forced to beg on the street, I think it shouldn't be different which COLOUR the family belongs to. Not: Oh well, this is an Iraqi family, good for them! while if it was an american family you would feel sorry for them.

That is how I understood your message. In my eyes such an opinion would be a hypocrite opinion. Even if it is understandable from someone having served at the front recently, I see all the more reason for trying to persuade those individuals that there is more then war. When the war is over all RED/BLUE personell will become 'grey' and that doesn't mean they will get their balls back.

I feel sorry for any individual losing his balls. That doesn't mean you have to feel guilty about it if it happened after you throw a nade on while serving as a soldier and he served on the other side.

However if you say well couldn't care less about him losing his balls, but if it were a fellow country men you would, that is an opinion that is, in my opinion, unrespectable.

--

Regarding the good guys; "Good guys" is a hollywood movie term in my opinion, while I favour the US Army/MC above Al-Qaida or the likes, they are certainly not 'The Good Guys'.

Soldiers are a tool of their political leaders, and cannot be hold responsible for war itself. Only their behaviour during that war is their responsibility. A good behaving German in WWII wasn't a 'Good Guy', neither were ill behaving coalition forces. Who the "good guys" are is mostly decided by place of birth, which is not something under your control.

[LukeFF]

Tell me about it, brother! I saw the Baghdad ER documentry the NIGHT I found out I was going to Iraq. Had to turn it off during some parts. Was brutal.

Yes, I've heard it's a good documentary, but I can't ever bring myself to watch it. After some of the things I saw working in the ER at the CSH in FOB Speicher, I didn't need to see it again on TV. It truly pains the mind to see soldiers so shot up and, in some cases, literally torn open.