Pedestrians...

[Derelan]

There aren't even ten members IN dbd.

 

[keihaswarrior]

Pedestrians? This isn't Carmageddon...



It would be a neat feature to have to obey ROE with noncombatants running around. But I can't think of a good way to penalize disobeying ROE other than by increasing spawn times or something.

And YES, players will kill all the noncombatants if you don't penalize shooting them.

 

[Cyberjake]

Your right, it would be a slaughter. What suggestions would you have for a non overly punitive but effective punishment for killing noncombatants?

Maybe if you kill >3 then you sit the next round? ...But then everyone kills 2. If you make people sit for killing 1, then everyone will hate it because there is bound to be frequent screwups. Any ideas?

(Tangent: It would be cool if as players are jogging/sprinting though groups of people, instead of the people becoming barriers or magically getting out of the way, they are knocked down to the ground in a collision -ragdol physics- and the player who ran into them takes a hit in stamina.)

 

[Psychomorph]

If you kill a civilian a high ranked officer comes to you instantly, puts you on your knees and executes you from behind with a Beretta M9.

 

[Cyberjake]

Now you're talkin....

 

[gal-z]

You could make a "defend the civilians" mission where one side would try to assasinate some important dude while the other side will try to keep him alive, as many other civilians.
Say, every civilian killed is 1 point and killing the important dude will give 100 points, while the team that tried to kill him will have some disadvantage (either numerical, respawn-wise or position-wise). I like numerical disadvantage but then you wouldn't be able to "swap sides" next round without changing the teams every round. The disadvantage is needed to prevent a scenario where the assasins will kill all the defenders and then able to simply kill everyone. Maybe make it so if they kill the important guy and escape they get more points for every guy that escaped.
Of course a game type doesn't really need a "win/lose" definition (which would be impossible to have with giving attackers numerical disadvantage), but it's preferable.
Just "off the top of my head" idea of a new gametype that includes civilians and reasons to kill / not kill them.

 

[Cyberjake]

...Kind of like a "defend the president?" -Of course i guess that would certainly be a win or lose situation.

 

[DEFkon]

I had actually thought of something like this (non-combatants) a while ago. I based some of the conceptual gameplay off of early pre-vietnam operations (aka winning hearts and minds). The general idea was that the non-combatants would start off neutral toward either team. If a team's "collateral" damage reached a certain level, than the neutrality would end, and become outright hostility. This would be manifested in a number of ways - riot, co-operation with the opposing team, armed resistance ect depending on how "bad" you were.

Hence the pentaly for indiscriminate killing would mirror reality to some degree.. You'd make enemies, and you'd likely find yourself surrounded in an enviroment that wanted you gone or dead.

 

[Bushwack]

I had actually thought of something like this (non-combatants) a while ago. I based some of the conceptual gameplay off of early pre-vietnam operations (aka winning hearts and minds). The general idea was that the non-combatants would start off neutral toward either team. If a team's "collateral" damage reached a certain level, than the neutrality would end, and become outright hostility. This would be manifested in a number of ways - riot, co-operation with the opposing team, armed resistance ect depending on how "bad" you were.

Hence the pentaly for indiscriminate killing would mirror reality to some degree.. You'd make enemies, and you'd likely find yourself surrounded in an enviroment that wanted you gone or dead.

i like this idea, it sounds like it would be fun to be PURPOSELY BAD though, with the intent on making everyone hate your team and then enabling you to just shoot everyone and everything though

 

[Taque]

All I have to say is that one or two 40's would take care of those important civilians and the surrounding escorts real quick.

 

[DEFkon]

All I have to say is that one or two 40's would take care of those important civilians and the surrounding escorts real quick.

Well i was thinking that shift from neutral to hostile would be a gradual process based on how many people you injured killed. At first their reaction to combat in their area as well as the first couple of "accidents" would be to run, and hide. Other steps would be like raising alarms, reporting your position to the enemy, setting up defenses (blocking roads with buring cars, locking doors, cutting trees down, ect whatever the map had) setting up sniper ambush areas, ect ect.

These things wouldn't immediatly, but happen over time and probably would occure between rounds. Of course it would be far better on the other hand to actually recruit, and win the support of the locals. In real-life this is usually done through negoations, and often with labor in the forms of helping with community projects. Examples would be helping the locals with crops, training the men, and possibly arming them, or through some financial other aid. In gameplay terms this really can be broken down into "labor - Training - or devoting resorces"

Devoting labor would probably have the least effect, but on the plus side it'd also have the least cost.. perhaps when a round starts a team devoting labor would start off with their stamina bar at 50% or something. As with all forms of negoations, it only really possibly if their willing to listen to you, so chancs are once their not listening then you can't even bother to gain their support.

Training would be the next step up, and would probably only result in minimal strain on your team, but the double edeged sword would be that the AI's would become better. (perhap a rise in the AI difficulty meter with each session). Improved tactics such as mine placment and snipers, ect ect. The good news would be that they'd present a much more difficult oppostion to the enemy, the bad is that if you piss them off, you'll be on the reciving end of them. (see middle east for examples)

Devoting resources would essentialy be arming them, or providing them with finances so they can afford better arms. Again this goes hand in hand with training, but also carries a price tag, In other games like CS i'd say it would have a monentary one that the team felt, but since INF doesn't really have a limit on loadout, i guess you'd have to arm them from whatever reserves you brought with you.

The felt bonuses would be stuff like better spawns, advanced recon, larger reinforcment pool, (maybe you could spawn as one of them) ect. Ultimatly it'd be cool if you could actually tell them where to go via some mini-map you could click on.

 

[keihaswarrior]

I really like that idea Defkon. Although it would be a LOT of work and hard to implement (especially making the A.I. for all those indigenious folk), it sounds like fun.

Plus, the type of mission you speak of is what special forces REALLY do. SF primary mission is ususally to act as a force multiplier, they go into an area and get the locals to fight for them. IRL you'd find SF doing this sort of thing much more than you'd ever see them strafing around shooting 40mm's at everything

 

[DEFkon]

I really like that idea Defkon. Although it would be a LOT of work and hard to implement (especially making the A.I. for all those indigenious folk), it sounds like fun.

Plus, the type of mission you speak of is what special forces REALLY do. SF primary mission is ususally to act as a force multiplier, they go into an area and get the locals to fight for them. IRL you'd find SF doing this sort of thing much more than you'd ever see them strafing around shooting 40mm's at everything

I originally got the ideas after reading a Tom Clancy non-fiction book which i think was ironcially called "Special Forces" and covered the pre-creation (WW2), through vietnam, all the way upto present day, (though it does breifly give a nod to the communist take over of imperial china which is gernally accepted as one the earlist recorded war operations that was specificly directed at "winning the publics heart and mind").

The book does a really good job of detailing stuff not only from the very small details (like how switching a rock or other tidbit item from pocket to pocket after every 100 or so paces will help you keep an accurate count of how much distance you've traveled in terrain that your unfamilar with) all the way up through tactical, strategic, and political decision making processes. I highly reccomend it if your intrested in the subject matter -- which if you're here you probably are --.

 

[keihaswarrior]

I originally got the ideas after reading a Tom Clancy non-fiction book which i think was ironcially called "Special Forces" and covered the pre-creation (WW2), through vietnam, all the way upto present day, (though it does breifly give a nod to the communist take over of imperial china which is gernally accepted as one the earlist recorded war operations that was specificly directed at "winning the publics heart and mind").

The book does a really good job of detailing stuff not only from the very small details (like how switching a rock or other tidbit item from pocket to pocket after every 100 or so paces will help you keep an accurate count of how much distance you've traveled in terrain that your unfamilar with) all the way up through tactical, strategic, and political decision making processes. I highly reccomend it if your intrested in the subject matter -- which if you're here you probably are --.

lol I read that exact book all the way through. Good book, lots of good info since it was co-written by a former commander of USSOCOM. It was a little dry but I think it would be a good place to look for gametype or mission ideas for next gen INF.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

DEFkon I have read the book. Actually got it right here. Very interesting read. The Chapters"Getting Ready" and "down Range" was very interesting.

 

[Psychomorph]

@DEFkon:
When you arm the civies, they culd be a weapon ressource system (not money stuff). Means, on 5 G36's comes 10 AKM's.
If you give the civies a G36, you have less and others are unarmed and have to arm themself by some old M1 Garands (), old winchesters and so on .

So if you kinda create a specila civilist group (when those civies are veterans), or make them merceneries, you can arm them well, but if they are just regular ppl, give then AKM's en masse.

If the civilists are succesful, you have more support from your government and you get a larger weaponry ressource

 

[DEFkon]

Well arming the locals i think is supposed to directly from your stock pile and be generally the last thing you want to have to do, because you'd rather have them use whatever was already available to them. But for example any of the weapons from the dead (yours and the enemy) would likely be scavenged and stockpiled by who ever won the previous round. These extra weapons (espically anything with a unique purpose like sniper rifles, or SAWs ) could either be used by the team or assigned to certain areas. (example : put one of the captured MG's facing the bridge, and a sniper rifle in the church.)

In reality alot of times SF teams with the goals of training up local forces actually enter the area with local weapons (usually ak's), rather than all tricked out high tech gear, that the movies and games would have you belive. Think of it like this.

Aliens come to earth and ask you to be allies with them in a great war, and their brandishing all kinda of super high tech gear. The first thing your gonna say is "only if we get access to your advanced technology." On the other hand if they came to earth with weapons that were pretty much the exact stuff we had, and showed us how we could fight a sucessfull war with it... you'd probably far more inclined to ask about tactics, and consider getting involved rather than demand super weapons, and all kinds of other stuff.

So generally "arming" is the equivelent of simply giving them extra stock you might have, which you probably dont, and it's why it doesn't happen often. It's also something that has alot of political implications because it sets a precident. Instead of walking into a village and saying "here are my beliefs, ideals ect ect, who's with me" your seen as walking in and saying "i'll give military, and political support to whoever wants to help me fight a war". It might sound silimlar but, in first scenario you gain the support of people that believe in your cause, in the other you attract people who are seeking power for themself.... and people like that are generally the Saddam Hussein types. Providing weapons, on the scale to arm say a village is a pretty big deal because it completely changes the political map. The next village or resitance group over is gonna notice and say "WTF how come we didn't get any of that stuff!" It's like giving candy to one kid, and not the other.. your gonna have problems down the road.

Anyhow i mention it because it's something that happens, but typically SF teams operate outside of logistical reach so it's not like they get a supply line. Once they're in, it could be months before they get a supply drop, so they have to be self suffecient.

 

[Psychomorph]

Some time ago, I saw in the news, that the US build up a (I think georgian) SF troop and in the vid material those had crisat helmets and G36K's, some AK.
Of course AK is mostly the weapon that those guys have, but I rather meant a better trianed local SF like group would be equipped with more modern weaponry.

But this think would be probably work automatical, but seeing some of the guys using Garands would be fun.