I think you should get negative honor points for landing a grenade or projectile from the M203 to wherever your wounded teamate is (blast radius in affect). Usually I see people doing this when they just want to down an enemy regardless of their friendly wounded being right there also. In real world if your buddy was wounded would you throw a grenade there to further incapacitate them to death just to down that enemy in the area as well?

I admit I did this too out of reaction but there should be repercussions, negative honor points. I try not to do that.

People just do this because once their friendly is down and an enemy is right there around the corner behind the wounded they cannot further injure or kill their friendly who is down. So they either launch or throw a grenade. They sure will down the enemy though. And that's what irks me because in real world you wouldn't do that because of your friendly there.

I agree with you that the current system is broken, but I'd say that negative honor points wouldn't be enough of a penalty - I think the downed friendly soldier should also be killed by the grenade or artillery.

There's another thread with a couple of additional ideas in it too: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8211091985/m/7091032116

Sorry didn't know about that thread. Just posted because I had to get it out.

Mean, yea but the principles is what we I am talking about here. To prevent people from even trying doing that (launching grenade to wounded friendlies just to kill an enemy) because you wouldn't do that in "real world" so to speak.

-500 HP is not big enough for this situation? I think that is all we can do for now because this game is based on when you do wrong things, negative HP.

The Artillery Strikes I think should kill on impact and wound when within the outskirts of the blast radius.

Unless you're rank-obsessed, HP really don't mean anything. If a temporary drop in HP means winning the round, a lot of people wouldn't care. So I'd say -500 AND your downed buddy dies.

I agree there should be a penalty for this. Maybe just make it so the friendly fire would kill off the guy??

quote:

Originally posted by MeanMF:
I agree with you that the current system is broken, but I'd say that negative honor points wouldn't be enough of a penalty - I think the downed friendly soldier should also be killed by the grenade or artillery.

If you make the wounded killable by friendly fire this would have the unintended effect of creating safe zones for the enemy to operate in. Suddenly the safest place to be (from explosives) is next to downed enemy soldiers.

I don't see a way to logically impliment such a penalty system and maintain consistancy with the current ROE system.

quote:

Originally posted by Long4Short:

quote:

Originally posted by MeanMF:
I agree with you that the current system is broken, but I'd say that negative honor points wouldn't be enough of a penalty - I think the downed friendly soldier should also be killed by the grenade or artillery.

If you make the wounded killable by friendly fire this would have the unintended effect of creating safe zones for the enemy to operate in. Suddenly the safest place to be (from explosives) is next to downed enemy soldiers.

I don't have a problem with that.

US forces are not going to throw frags or call in artillery on our own wounded.

quote:

Originally posted by Long4Short:
Suddenly the safest place to be (from explosives) is next to downed enemy soldiers.

Not for long!

quote:

Originally posted by Cons72:
I don't have a problem with that.

US forces are not going to throw frags or call in artillery on our own wounded.

I'm not too sure about that. Defending of a position or executing a counter-offensive you'd have to give low consideration to the wounded. If battle happens to take place in an area where there are wounded, you must use what ever means you have to repel the enemy. If the living do not survive, the wounded will not survive either. You'd have to gamble it and then hope there are wounded remaining that can be saved.

I guess wouldn't have a problem with it except then you'd have to make the wounded vulnerable to all fires. Then you'll have people getting ROE violations for engaging the wounded (frind and foe, intentional AND accidental). Which is why I say "logically", the idea is difficult to balance with current ROE. Current ROE re-enforces the core values being promoted by the game so, I doubt they'd change it.

quote:

Originally posted by MeanMF:
Unless you're rank-obsessed, HP really don't mean anything. If a temporary drop in HP means winning the round, a lot of people wouldn't care. So I'd say -500 AND your downed buddy dies.

Good idea. There should be a high penalty for using grenades or artillery strikes near wounded teammates. Not only should the downed teammate die, that death should be subtracted from the player's kill score.

quote:

Originally posted by Long4Short:

quote:

Originally posted by MeanMF:
I agree with you that the current system is broken, but I'd say that negative honor points wouldn't be enough of a penalty - I think the downed friendly soldier should also be killed by the grenade or artillery.

If you make the wounded killable by friendly fire this would have the unintended effect of creating safe zones for the enemy to operate in. Suddenly the safest place to be (from explosives) is next to downed enemy soldiers.

I don't see a way to logically impliment such a penalty system and maintain consistancy with the current ROE system.

No one says you can't fire at them though with your rifle. Enemy wound enemy with the rifle. Its the grenade tossing or launching is what I am trying to get enemies to avoid when their own is wounded in that area.