BBC: Should the rules of war be included in computer games?

[Boggit]

Why not simply design the game such that the feedback to the player encourages the adherence to the 'rules'?

Isn't this precisely what Bohemia interactive is implementing?  If you start wasting everything that moves, your squaddies finally decide you've gone totally loco and attack you?  Granted, this may not be totally "realistic" (I would think that most rampages would end with the shooter being subdued, incarcerated and then court-martialled) it does provide the feedback that you are talking about - don't kill non-combatants or you will suffer consequences.

IIRC, many of the old Dynamics flight sim games implemented similar rules for breaking ROE.  In Red Baron I (I think) and Aces of the Pacific, your pilot career could come to and end via court-martial if you shot down friendly aircraft or (in RB) straffed an ambulance.  I believe Falcon 3 or perhaps one of it's expansions enforced similar ROE.  Other games such as SWAT have "mission fail" rules if you whack civilians (or even bad guys who haven't opened fire and you haven't yelled compliance), and even some missions in games like Combat Mission: Shock Force "punish" you via victory point loss if you destroy certain civilian buildings, etc.

I would say that for those companies that build games and pride themselves on verisimilitude or detail or historical accuracy, enforcing some kind of ROE isn't necessarily a bad thing.  As Brant and the guy from Bohemia suggests, perhaps the best way to do that is through the gaming experience.

I personally would actually LOVE to play a game - say a colonial American wars game - where razing an First Nations village or Colonial settlement might change the attitude and strategies / tactics of your allies and enemies.

Admittedly, such things usually sit low on game developer radar.  Most games still suffer from crap AI, so adding complex decision trees to all game "characters" might still be a way off.

Yours in gaming,

Jack Nastyface

+1

[Boggit]

  For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare.  In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other.  No international treaties were necessarily involved.  In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.

Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history.   To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.

+1
A pretty accurate statement. Even in recent wars the issue of self preservation can lead to "atrocity". I recall back in the day, that we were instructed as a matter of practicality that unless we were ordered to take prisoners you destroyed the enemy position, and shot the wounded - who perhaps feeling desperate - might grenade or shoot you if you helped them - and I was in an Army that was signed up to the Geneva Convention. That all said, I was in at the time of the Falklands War and we took prisoners outside "formal" surrenders, so I guess different officers had different views within the army. I recall a similar view from Shlomz - an IDF veteran - who indicated much the same - that he'd rather visit a comrade in prison than at the cemetery. I understand the point and have no issue with that.

From the perspective of someone in the safety of their home, in a modern country far from war, I am conflicted with the view, as I try to be a "decent" guy. But war is war, and is very ugly. If you don't want people to get killed then then don't go to war if you intend to win. I think the best chance of surviving a surrender is if it's "organised", but at the tactical level taking prisoners can be a very risky option for those taking them. Would you put yourself or your mates lives before someone who had just been trying to kill you?? That said a Canadian officer was court martialled for a "mercy" killing of a mortally wounded Taliban, so maybe times are changing? I thought the charge was stupid, but ROE's seem to be emphasised more.

In gaming terms, I can see surrenders being reasonable at the operational level - being organised, but at the tactical level, I'm less sure if it can interfere with your squad/sections survival. FWIW, Europa Universalis, HOI3, Victoria 2 uses an infamy rating to act as a brake on aggressive wars.

[Dolan50]

Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history.   To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.

Exactly,only the favored side will be seen as adhering to these rules and get all sorts of + modifiers while the side held in contempt will get a whole host of negative modifiers.
All the games will play out the same way with the side using the new rules of warfare basically always winning.

Then you'll probably have to pay extra for a patch to add the historical non-modern rules of warfare element back to your game so that you can recreate a more historical event.

Wonder who gets the profit from that deal?

[GDS_Starfury]

after all the WW2 games Ive played I have yet to see the button that lets me kill Jews, firebomb civilians, starve prisoners or use chemical weapons.  just saying....

[Dolan50]

after all the WW2 games Ive played I have yet to see the button that lets me kill Jews, firebomb civilians, starve prisoners or use chemical weapons.  just saying....

Never seen a game called Auschwitz or Gulag either.

The industry already moderates itself pretty well.
It doesn't need another outside influence with a political axe to grind thrown into the mix.

I doubt most people who play these games are interested in trying to recreate the horrors of war,but are mainly interested in recreating and gaming the tactical and strategic aspects of these conflicts while keeping it in its true historical context.

[GDS_Starfury]

Im not wanting to recreate those kind of horrors either.  wargame producers are smart enough to stick to the frontline war part.

[Dolan50]

Well that's basically my point.

I'm not seeing a house burning here.
What I am seeing is a group of people trying to set the house on fire then nominating themselves as the firemen and then trying to exact concessions from the homeowner for putting the fire out.

[GDS_Starfury]

oh we're agreeing here.  I think the topic is dumber then the US congress.

[MengJiao]

  For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare.  In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other.  No international treaties were necessarily involved.  In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.

Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history.   To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.

  Yet if you really want to be historically accurate, those rules should have some impact on the game.  To cite another example, after the Indians under French command massacred part of the surrendering column at Fort William-Henry, the French never received any Honors of war in the Americans from the British Forces in the Seven-Years War.

   But you could go deeper: the Indian rules of war specified taking either captives or scalps.  Captives were preferable, but a scalp was better than nothing so the French insistance that the captives be released resulted in a some extra scalp-taking.

   So if you wanted to go even deeper:  there may be multiple rules of war in play at the same time (actually Rome II simulates this fairly well since releasing captives causes the enemies of those captives to have a political gripe against you) and you may be able to game them so that the savages at least are satisfied.

[MengJiao]

[From the perspective of someone in the safety of their home, in a modern country far from war, I am conflicted with the view, as I try to be a "decent" guy.

  Sure, but in a game you are often not playing the role of a decent guy, but rather some antique style of a man that we really don't know much about except that -- for his time and place -- he was working according to some rules and some of those rules were what can be generally termed "rules of war".  From what I've seen in Rome II and RoP, having some impact on the game that results from these rules can add some depth to the game.

[Dolan50]

The question was should modern 20th century rules of warfare be introduced into wargames.

I no more want to see these rules in a game of Rome II or Mount and Blade then I would a modern tank or a jet.The whole concept is bizaar.

Vitual reality is not real life.
Remember that the next time you jerk off and don't find yourself in a real life jail while being brought up on rape charges because the object of your affections doesn't perceive your intentions in the same light.

I no more need the modern rules of warfare in my games then I need a condom in a porn video box.Your fantasies are not real events taking place with real people in a real world.

If people are having a problem distinguishing virtual reality from real life,then I think it's time to leave the virtual bubble and start reconnecting with the real world.They may also have problems with the concepts of fact and fiction or truth and lies too and may want to seek some real life emotional help.

I think these virtual wanna be hall monitors need to get a real job and produce things of real value.

[Jack Nastyface]

I think you've completely mistaken the intent of anything that is being done not only by the Red Cross, but also by legitimate, reputable and respectable game developers like Bohemia Interactive, Sierra, Vivendi, Bioware, Bethesda, etc etc.  Go fire up a copy of Close Combat (any version).  Now select a unit, and try to get them to "fire" at a friendly unit.  Doesn't work, does it?  Guess what that is?  ROE.  Now go start up IL-2: 1946 and jump into a British spitfire and go shoot down a bunch of Brit Hurricanes.  Then look at your score - it's negative!  Also guess what that is?  ROE.  Now go play mount and blade, enter a village, and kill off villages.  Leave village.  Come back to village.  See how everyone is trying to kill you?  Again, ROE...

Not every game should be Grand Theft Auto or Team Fortress.  Not every developer wants to create meaningless (albeit enjoyable) sandbox games where there are no "rules".  You appear to like those games...others don't.  You probably like playing flight sims that allow you pull 20G's in a canvas biplane and fire 1000's of rounds of 303.  Others don't.  Why not let people who like and look for complexity in games pursue and enjoy those games?  Why do you feel compelled to tell us why we are all a bunch of stooges because Bohemia Interactive doesn't want to encourage gameplay where someone can just blow ths sh*t out of everything without and in-game consequences?

For a guy who is so incensed about the thought police you sure are spending loads of time trying to tell people how to think.

And now back to your regularly scheduled paranoid delusional conspiracy episode...

[Dolan50]

It seems to me you have a hard time comprehending what people write or of understanding the implications of these statements and only read the positive aspects when it agrees with you.

I stated that if the gaming companies want to add this type of rule to their games it should be of their own free choosing.

You on the other hand have no problems with forcing this type of garbage down every bodies throats as long it suits your particular needs.

You probably fancy yourself as one the new intelligentsia in this form of communistic utopian bliss.
Your the one who is delusional if you think you are anything more than a tool a pawn or a dupe.
If and when we ever have to live under this new form of utopian bliss you will soon come to realize that you will be just as equal under the boot as the rest of us and the only difference being while I will be looking for a way out from underneath the boot,you will still be licking it.

[Nefaro]

This isn't about ROE, which is a strategy standard.  I'm pretty sure the thread got started because some organization was trying to push Geneva Convention rules into digital video games. 

Geneva Convention Agreements and ROE aren't the exact same thing.

[Jack Nastyface]

It seems to me you have a hard time comprehending what people write or of understanding the implications of these statements and only read the positive aspects when it agrees with you.

I stated that if the gaming companies want to add this type of rule to their games it should be of their own free choosing.

You on the other hand have no problems with forcing this type of garbage down every bodies throats as long it suits your particular needs.

You probably fancy yourself as one the new intelligentsia in this form of communistic utopian bliss.
Your the one who is delusional if you think you are anything more than a tool a pawn or a dupe.
If and when we ever have to live under this new form of utopian bliss you will soon come to realize that you will be just as equal under the boot as the rest of us and the only difference being while I will be looking for a way out from underneath the boot,you will still be licking it.

That's me exactly...it's like I'm looking into a mirror.  You've even captured the pathos of my life that arises from over-protective parenting when I was a child.  Oh Mother!  Why wouldn't you let me play hockey like all the other boys?