PDA

View Full Version : LIFEBOAT SURVIVORS POLL



RedTerex
11-26-2004, 05:02 PM

TASKFORCE1x1
11-26-2004, 06:19 PM
Ohhh Oooo. Here we go again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hauitsme
11-26-2004, 08:19 PM
Just for the record, I'll let you know once again what I would do and how I voted on this subject.

NO:I would definatley NOT shoot up Lifeboats.

Happy? Pissed? I don't care. I'm me and you are you.

dse1010
11-26-2004, 08:49 PM
I voted "i would shoot them just to see what happens". It's not real life, and I'd want to see how they handled it.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-27-2004, 08:13 AM
I would do it once in a test run, just to see how they implemented the feature, but I would never do it on a real campaign or during a real mission.

Mjollnir111675
11-27-2004, 08:20 AM
Yes I too voted that I would try it just see what would happen.But if it were a destroyer that really damaged my sub I think I could just pretend that it is a vengeful sailor that got payback .I guess it would all depend on my present mood the amount of tension I am under at the time and other things. But as we dont have to worry bout it comin up we shall never know!!!

RedTerex
11-27-2004, 09:06 AM
I will still lobby, campaign etc for lifeboats on this forum as a valuable feature of realism like the awarding of medals and the rendering of medals on crewmens tunics that could also be constrewed as a waste of recources.

SailorSteve
11-27-2004, 12:03 PM
I still think the best thing would be to have "non-existant" lifeboats: when the ship is sinking they generate, but they don't work as targets either for shooting or saving. They're just there.

Redwine
11-27-2004, 12:48 PM
I think so , to not model life boat is a taked decision .............

But i am completely disagree, the explanation about this decision was taken due a moral fact do not satify me...........

War is unmoral, lot of war game where you can invade another nations are unmoral.........

I soupose if some insane mind will shoot life boats it is not more than a part of the game..........

I really want to have the ability to make adevetence shoots, monitor the radio if they send my position, to decide to attack or wait for the crew evacuate the ship, and be able to sink it by cannon shell or deploy a team to sclutte it..........

I dream with this.............

Solution is easy, make "phantom" boats, non shootable boats and it is solved........

May be in SH4.............

RedTerex
11-27-2004, 03:32 PM
Redwine Quotes:
"...Solution is easy, make "phantom" boats, non shootable boats and it is solved..."

SailorSteve Quotes:
"...I still think the best thing would be to have "non-existant" lifeboats: when the ship is sinking they generate, but they don't work as targets either for shooting or saving. They're just there..."

Same thing as RedWine there SailorSteve thanks for the input and YES I agree this HAS to be the best solution.

ALSO as Redwine says and this is important, Lifeboats may indeed not make it into SH3 but they may make it into SH4.

SH4 is a distinct possability in a few years time when Graphics and PC's get better and better. SH4 will be approaching 'photorealism' at this time and the cry out for an SH4 will be there.

So please dont give up on voting on this issue, constant lobbying proves that the interest is there for what I call TOTAL Naval Warfare Simulation.

Thanks everyone so far who has taken the time to vote, this is OUR SubSim, the customer, YOU.

hauitsme
11-27-2004, 03:48 PM
I'll bet you $money$ that they'll be in a mod soon after release of the game to put the 'realism' of the situation back in that the DevTeam left out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/hauitsme/ban.gif

SailorSteve
11-27-2004, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedTerex:
Redwine Quotes:
"...Solution is easy, make "phantom" boats, non shootable boats and it is solved..."

SailorSteve Quotes:
"...I still think the best thing would be to have "non-existant" lifeboats: when the ship is sinking they generate, but they don't work as targets either for shooting or saving. They're just there..."

Same thing as RedWine there SailorSteve thanks for the input and YES I agree this HAS to be the best solution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um, my post was before Redwine's.

hauitsme
11-28-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>SailorSteve:
Um, my post was before Redwine's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It really doesn't matter. Yet. I've seen it a few times, an idea I've posted months ago being resurrected by someone else in a new thread. It's only when they start taking credit for it when it's time to say something about it and correct them.

I'd accept that compromise for lifeboats, but only until 'realistic' ones were released.

Redwine
11-28-2004, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:

Um, my post was before Redwine's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cant believe..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Sailor Steve, that idea (phantom boats) is in this forum from many months! ago.......... i just only remarking on it...........

RedTerex
11-28-2004, 09:01 AM
ANd to quote myself on the topic of "phantom Lifeboats"...

"...YES I agree this HAS to be the best solution..."

Not a NEW solution becuase as already stated this idea has appeared several times already, I was just emphasising it as possibly the BEST solution to this argument that has arrisen (again) so far.

I hope that clears it up a bit SailorSteve and I'm sorry that you wasnt listed first in the quote in anycase. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

SailorSteve
11-28-2004, 10:46 AM
No problem, really.

And Redwine, I know it's been around forever, I was just being petty over RT's saying I copied you. Water under the bridge and all that. Now I feel guilty for saying anything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LostGunner
11-28-2004, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:
No problem, really.

And Redwine, I know it's been around forever, I was just being petty over RT's saying I copied you. Water under the bridge and all that. Now I feel guilty for saying anything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doggone lawyers. ( even if it is the wrong forum ) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif



( Just joking Steve ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SailorSteve
11-28-2004, 01:23 PM
What do you mean "Doggone lawyers"? Did a dog bite somebody you know? Who can I sue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Glad I'm not a real lawyer.

DerSchweiger
11-28-2004, 01:24 PM
22% voted for shooting up lifeboats.
this makes me sad on the one hand and very glad on the other that the dev team decided not to implement lifeboats.
No serious german player would shoot up lifeboats, knowing the historically responsibility and i dont want to sail with a commander who is shooting up sailors.

BTW: Very strange vote!

not my forum here....

Redwine
11-28-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DerSchweiger:
22% voted for shooting up lifeboats.
this makes me sad on the one hand and very glad on the other that the dev team decided not to implement lifeboats.
No serious german player would shoot up lifeboats, knowing the historically responsibility and i dont want to sail with a commander who is shooting up sailors.

BTW: Very strange vote!

not my forum here.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

22% .....yes very sad........

I think so some people needs a free psiquiatician date included into the game box................

hauitsme
11-28-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SailorSteve:
What do you mean "Doggone lawyers"? Did a dog bite somebody you know? Who can I sue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Glad I'm not a real lawyer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dogs? Seems I've some knowledge about something along those lines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

one.zero
11-28-2004, 03:16 PM
I would absoloutely shoot up a life boat...not nessesarlily the people in it. I might shoot holes in the boat in the hopes of luring in other ships...just as was the case with ww II history.

In closing, I must say that I am amazed at the rhetoric of the life boat issue...moral this and that ****. Lets look at the reality..life boats got shot and people in them quite often were shot...it happended. Should you be allowed to do this in the game....well, that has already been established by the gaming community and therefore no moral question about a make belive gaming is even required or warrented.

Battlefield 1942 and a host of other games have already shown that you can shoot up your own team as well as the enemy in a number of inappropriate situations.

It's already done..shooting lifeboats...may as well have it in this game too.

RedTerex
11-28-2004, 07:36 PM
one.zero quotes: "...Lets look at the reality..life boats got shot and people in them quite often were shot...it happended..."

I thought that we had already established that this in fact did NOT happen apart from ONE time during the whole WWII U-boat war.
Saying that U-Boats shot up Lifeboats is all down to the the Allied propoganda war machine which was so powerful that even today people still believe it...amazing !
This is further fuelled by idiotic films like 'U-557' which glady display this nonsense as ibso-facto.

one.zero
11-28-2004, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedTerex:
one.zero quotes: "...Lets look at the reality..life boats got shot and people in them quite often were shot...it happended..."

I thought that we had already established that this in fact did NOT happen apart from ONE time during the whole WWII U-boat war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being an avid study of propaganda and military history, I must remind you that we really know little about what goes on in the larger workings of things. To say it was one incident is a little conservitive at best. Just because it's not broadly published doesnt mean something isnt more regular than you would expect.

I will however agree that our propoganda machine was spining full force on this issue. Amazing how two faced we can be about issues similar in nature.

In summary, the frigging life boats should be in the game...and you should be able to shoot at any thing in the entire game you would like....and that in turn, should influence crew morale and your performance as a captain.

RedTerex
11-29-2004, 12:22 AM
one.zero,
In respects you are right as are others who say that lifeboats got shot at >BUT< and its a big BUT, it didnt happen with the German UnterseeBootWaffen, it did however with the Japanese Submarines and there ARE accounts, quite a few accounts of lifeboats getting shot up by them.

Our war will be in the Atlantic or North Sea as the main theatre, I know other areas will be modelled to but the Atlantic was the main area of Uboat interest. NOT the Palua Islands, Marshalls or Gilberts.

We will NOT be a Jap Sub crew we will be German Sub crew and therfore historically, lifeboats should be rendered in, with the historical correctness that the Devs can fall back on IF things went wrong.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by one.zero:
Being an avid study of propaganda and military history, I must remind you that we really know little about what goes on in the larger workings of things. To say it was one incident is a little conservitive at best. Just because it's not broadly published doesnt mean something isnt more regular than you would expect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the absence of evidence is not conclusive EITHER WAY. You can't say that there probably were more attacks on civilians just because there was only one example of it that we know about. What we know does tell us one thing - that it was very very rare in the U-Bootwaffe. If it was more common, someone somewhere would have at least mentioned it, but there are not even rumours about such things.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-29-2004, 05:57 AM
I would definately NOT shoot liveboats and I really don't care if they're in or not. Infact, I'm quite satisfied with the decision the devs made in this regard and I support this 100 pro. Dunno why we still need polls like this every 2 weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RedTerex
11-29-2004, 06:47 AM
CaptLoneRanger quotes:
"...Dunno why we still need polls like this every 2 weeks..."

every 2 weeks ! The last Poll was 5 months ago dear chap ! Its the interest that has kept it alive and myself answering your views as the host of the thread.

This poll gives the 'lifeboats shooters' more chance as there are actually 3 vote topics saying that you would shoot up lifeboats in some way whilst there is only one vote topic to say that you wouldnt and the 'Wouldnts' are still in the lead !
I took a gamble on it and its still paying off with 54% solidly refusing to commit war crimes.

The "shoot up lifeboats for to see what happens but not in a real campaign" could I know steal valuable votes away from "none lifeboats shooters" but its fair and unbiased.

If SH3 was an arcade type shoot em up then this poll and the whole issue of lifeboats would not even have arrisen.
It is because SH3 will be a sophisicated technical and historical simulation that the issue is here. And many community members including myself take all aspects of SH3 on a more serious note.
It is appreciated that its just a PC Video game but the more you put into something like this the more you can get out of it.

PC games like this in the virtual world are the ONLY way in which you can experience U-boat war in WWII, so lets get it right.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedTerex:
It is appreciated that its _just_ a PC Video game... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you. I just don't understand it when people scornfully say 'it's JUST a video game'. That's insulting on so many levels: it is insulting to a whole industry of serious-minded people making serious money by entertaining people; it also insults the whole gaming community, who spend countless hours playing these games. These games are more than 'just a game'. They are where we choose to spend our spare time - the most important part of our day. This particular type of game is a simulation - which means that hundreds of hours are being spent making sure it's accurate. In my view these games especially deserve more respect than being called 'just a game'.

On one very basic level, they are just games, but that is no reason to regard them as insignificant.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-29-2004, 07:15 AM
So, what exactly are your trying to determine by this vote? Are you saying this vote gives the devs reasons why to put live-boats into the game?

Sorry, but the exact opposite is the fact. I definately wouldn't implement live-boats if even a single vote was given for anything else than "NO". That is the only civilized way.

If all players would like to have life-boats, I'd consider to implement then invulnerable and leave it to the sick minds what they try or do not try to do.

This is a submarine-simulation, nothing else. You probably wouldn't care to see the wounded driver of a crashed racing car being carried away in a racing sim, either ... or would you?!

Redwine
11-29-2004, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
So, what exactly are your trying to determine by this vote? Are you saying this vote gives the devs reasons why to put live-boats into the game?

Sorry, but the exact opposite is the fact. I definately wouldn't implement live-boats if even a single vote was given for anything else than "NO". That is the only civilized way.

If all players would like to have life-boats, I'd consider to implement then invulnerable and leave it to the sick minds what they try or do not try to do.

This is a submarine-simulation, nothing else. You probably wouldn't care to see the wounded driver of a crashed racing car being carried away in a racing sim, either ... or would you?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, the add of life boats can give us a more real simulation.......

But due to opinions as those of one.zer will will never enjoy this step forward in simulation.........

To stops a cargo ship to inspect it and sclutte it if are violating blocade laws was a common practice, i know was most common in ww1, but they was present in the first times of ww2 too........

I would to have the choice to make advetence shots, stops a merchant and wait to the crew avacuate it to send a torp or deploy a boat with a sclutter team........... and just at this moment be enforced to submerge due to an enemy plane, and be enforced to back to recover part of my crew............just wonderful, but sadly we can not enjoy this level of realism due to the opinion of Quake shooters.........

bertgang
11-29-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Redwine:

To stops a cargo ship to inspect it and sclutte it if are violating blocade laws was a common practice, i know was most common in ww1, but they was present in the first times of ww2 too........
I would to have the choice to make advetence shots, stops a merchant and wait to the crew avacuate it to send a torp or deploy a boat with a sclutter team........... just wonderful, but sadly we can not enjoy this level of realism due to the opinion of Quake shooters......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, a good WWI sub simulator will give us all you want, and not in Quake style.

Be patient, someone (not me) is working for it.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-29-2004, 08:45 AM
The situation in WW1 was quite different from the uboat-war in WW2.

But I agree with you. Something like that would be nice. But it has still nothing to do with people struggling for their lives and you being able to shoot them.

I always thought a simulation is a program, that simulates physics, processes and actions, for people who are interested in the simulated matter, in this example for submarines. I cannot understand what this interest has to do with shooting simulated refugees in a lifeboat and I cannot see, how this 'feature' would make this sim more real, more enjoyable or something like that. I don't know how you play SH1/2 and other subsims, but I'm usually allready submerged, evading or continuing my attack, when a ship I damaged sinks.

HeibgesU999
11-29-2004, 09:03 AM
The only time you could hang around and watch the lifeboats anyway, is in remote sea areas, operating against independent shipping, in the early part of the war.

Against merchants in convoy, in the convoy lanes, or in later parts of the war, you pretty much always have to shoot and scoot.

Now the Italians operated in the Central Atlantic, south of the main convoy lanes, against independent shipping.

Perhaps lifeboats could be an expansion for the Italian sub campaign.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I definately wouldn't implement live-boats if even a single vote was given for anything else than "NO". That is the only civilized way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only 'civilized' way? Firstly, this is a simulation of submarine warfare. It's not reality, so 'civilized' doesn't enter into it - we can't be uncivilized by playing a game that merely simulates reality. Secondly, the reality wasn't civilized - real U-Boat commanders (well one of them at least) shot at lifeboats. That wasn't civilized, and if this is to be a simulation of war (which isn't civilized either) then uncivilized actions should be possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If all players would like to have life-boats, I'd consider to implement then invulnerable and leave it to the sick minds what they try or do not try to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is an example of demonization. You imply that those who would want lifeboats in the game are sick, whereas I would estimate that no one here who wants lifeboats is mentally ill. To say that it even might be the case is to demonize your opponents - in other words it's a personal attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is a submarine-simulation, nothing else. You probably wouldn't care to see the wounded driver of a crashed racing car being carried away in a racing sim, either ... or would you?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, we find here the implication that there's something wrong with your opponent's character, rather than with his argument. An ad hominem attack. Don't you think it's possible that your opponents simply want lifeboats to exist in the game purely because they were there in reality - i.e. for the simulation aspect? If that's possible (and I think it is probably the main reason) then you must find an argument that contradicts the opposing argument, and not one that merely dehumanizes your opponents. The former (attacking the argument) is civilized, while the latter (attacking the person making the argument) is barbarous, and for a person who claims to want civility in the way people play the game, you're showing a distinct lack of it in the way you discuss this topic.

I generally agree with you - that lifeboats are unnecessary in this simulation. I tend to think they are irrelevant. But it is neither persuasive or ethical to use rhetorical tricks in an attempt to win the argument.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I always thought a simulation is a program, that simulates physics, processes and actions, for people who are interested in the simulated matter, in this example for submarines. I cannot understand what this interest has to do with shooting simulated refugees in a lifeboat... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shooting refugees in a lifeboat has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that lifeboats existed in reality.

Also, a simulation is not purely focused on 'physics, processes and actions'. That is all some players want from it, but it is not all a simulation can (or should) be. A good simulation should simulate the human elements as well as the mechanical and physical elements. Many simulation enthusiasts demand that, and the fact that you don't is not a reason to seek to deny it to them.

In the case of lifeboats, the reasons for them being there seem obvious to me - it allows the player to understand the ethical dilemma of the U-Boat commander. Take out lifeboats and you take out that whole aspect. As I've said previously, I don't think it's too much of an issue - each player knows how he would react to the lifeboat dilemma, so I don't think it's really an issue that's absolutely necessary in a simulation. However, that's just my opinion. If they put lifeboats in, I'll be just as happy as I would be if they left them out.

Anyway, even if you're right and there was some sick maniac who wanted lifeboats in the game just so he could blast their occupants with machine gun fire, don't you think that we're all better of if he spends his time murdering simulated people in a simulated world, rather than going and doing such things in real life?

Capt.LoneRanger
11-29-2004, 09:48 AM
Nice examples of what I didn't write, but what your interpretation is.

1. You are correct. War isn't civilized. There were things a lot worse going on in WW2 and a lot of things that are condemned on a broad basis.
But the conclusion you draw is practically: They did some uncivilized things, so we want to be able to do the same. - and if you read what I wrote, THIS is, what is "uncivilized", IMHO.

2. I really suggest you read what I wrote, not what you want to understand. I didn't say all people here or people who want live-boats in the game are sick, but those are, who want them implemented to shoot at them. Again, not that they are implemented for simulations-sake, but for being able to shoot them.

3. you still don't get the point, here. This is not about a single person, that I attack, but the opinion, that is being defended here.
We argued and I added just another example - I didn't imply RedTerex actually would like to see this - infact this was exactly my point there, since nobody would really think about this in a racing sim!


What do you think about shooting a life-boat in a simulation. And you are right, this is a simulation, not a game of some fictional setting. The fact that it actually happened is cruel enough for me to NOT want to do this. So I really don't understand why you're upset.
From your reply I really take it, that you misunderstood all the points you mentioned. Dunno why, maybe my bad English?

Anyway, you attacked me a lot more than I did RedTerex - So I don't understand why you judged me that way?

bertgang
11-29-2004, 10:15 AM
Really strange, Capt. Loneranger and Beeryus basically agree on the same thing - lifeboats are unnecessary or irrelevant for SHIII - and, being on the same side, they have a sort of litigation about why they think so.

Well, I too think that lifeboats are unnecessary or irrelevant, so, maybe, I'm going to have some name.

To speak, deal, save or capture survivors should be in my taste, but it doesn't seem possible.
To kill suvivors isn't in my taste.
Having survivors, or lifeboats, being unable to do anything with them isn't really interesting, on my point of wiew.
Realistic to see? Maybe, but not more than debris or cadavers, and often you can't see at all because you are submerged.

Nothing to say against lifeboat's fan community, as I partially share some of their wishes, but some guy looks simply cruel.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
But the conclusion you draw is practically: They did some uncivilized things, so we want to be able to do the same. - and if you read what I wrote, THIS is, what is "uncivilized", IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's not uncivilized to merely simulate doing it. Doing it is uncivilized, while simulating it is merely simulating what happened (in one case) in reality. Civilized doesn't enter into it because nothing you do in a game is uncivilized - it has nothing to do with ethics or civilization because it's just a computer simulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I really suggest you read what I wrote, not what you want to understand. I didn't say all people here or people who want live-boats in the game are sick... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No (and I never said you did), but you implied it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is not about a single person, that I attack, but the opinion, that is being defended here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By making the implication, you are attacking the character of the people (not a single person) making the opposing argument. I never said you were attacking a single person.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...nobody would really think about this in a racing sim! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think the reason why people wouldn't think of it in a racing sim is that other drivers don't ever try to kill their fellow drivers. There is no possible interaction. War is a very different situation where at one point you're trying your best to kill people, and maybe ten minutes later you have an obligation not to kill them. That is an ethical issue that doesn't exist on a race track or in a driving sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What do you think about shooting a life-boat in a simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume that's a question (?)
I wouldn't do it unless I was roleplaying a psychotic commander or an outright Nazi who wanted all the Allies dead, or a commander who was distraught by the killing of his family in a bombing raid (or something). I doubt whether I would ever roleplay someone that messed-up, but it's possible that I might. But even if I did, it wouldn't mean that I was messed-up - it only means the character I'm roleplaying is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And you are right, this is a simulation, not a game of some fictional setting. The fact that it actually happened is cruel enough for me to NOT want to do this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. But when we play games like this we assume personas that are outside our experience and sometimes outside our morality. I am a pacifist in real life, but I doubt I'll be playing a pacifist in this game. The fact that I personally would never shoot a defenceless person has no bearing on what I might do in the game, because I'm not playing myself while I'm in the game. Apart from anything else, playing myself in the game would quickly get my character killed. People like me don't become submarine commanders - which is a big reason why I will enjoy playing the game - it's something entirely different from my character and experience: it's called escapism, and we all like to do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So I really don't understand why you're upset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you assume I'm upset? I'm not upset at all. I do find it kind of annoying that you choose to attack other players rather than making your point properly. I find it annoying because I tend to share a similar view to yours, and I think your tactics are polarizing peoples' opinions rather than persuading them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyway, you attacked me a lot more than I did RedTerex - So I don't understand why you judged me that way? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't attack you. I attacked your method of arguing. I don't see how you can misconstrue my finding fault with your tactics as an attack on your person or your character. You, on the other hand, use words like 'sick' when you're talking about people who share a contrary opinion. That is not helpful, and it is bad form. Please stop doing it because it's hurting your (our) argument.

By the way, just FYI, your English is excellent. I had no idea it wasn't your first language.

one.zero
11-29-2004, 10:54 AM
There is far too much time being wasted on this discussion.

Uncivilized to simulate..you say..!

Are you crazy? Look at all the other first person shooter games where you can shoot your own team and the enemy in graphic and inappropriate engagment methods.

This issue has already been decided by the gaming industry...its over...were already doing it.

Now, stop with the preaching of philosophical moralities..

Get a grip folks. Put the life boats in the game. Allow us to shoot at anything we want...anything! Perhaps your carrer could suffer as a result of someone submitting to the temptation of shooting unarmed crew.

I myself would gladly shoot a lifeboat only to sink it but not target the crew. I would use that in an attempt to bait other ships. Thats war...!

Let us dispense with placing ourselves on some pretentious platform by clading ourselves with morality, civility and blah blah blah. It may not be quake, but it is a game............and to the finality, IF YOU CAN SHOOT AND SINK A NON COMBATANT SHIP OR A NON ENEMY SHIP AT WILL, WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND A LIFE BOAT..not much since they both take inocent lives. Heck...the intentional or accidental sinking of a non enemy merchant damages your carrerr..why cant the life boat be the same.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by one.zero:
Now, stop with the preaching of philosophical moralities <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, LoneRanger? This is why your argument is polarizing and counter-productive. Now the real reason why lifeboats are unnecessary is being clouded by a 'morality' discussion - the question of "the morality of shooting lifeboats" is a terrible argument for keeping lifeboats out of the sim. It is a hot-button issue because it's too simplistic (it assumes that we are the characters we play in the sim), and it tends to demonize the people making the counter-argument. In short, it is a disasterous tactic because it opens the door to a strategy of empty rhetoric and obfuscation.

In my opinion, the only real reason for not including lifeboats is because it will be an irrelevant detail that will take resources from more important stuff. We are never (or only very rarely) going to get close enough to shoot at lifeboats, and we're probably never even going to see them as more than mere yellow specks on the horizon. Those are the real issues that we should be discussing (if further discussion is ever to be useful). By bringing morality into the discussion, you're allowing our opponents to charge us with political correctness. Not that the PC label is any more convincing or tactically sound than your morality stance, but now the real issues have been clouded and we're moving into the arena of empty rhetoric and knee-jerk reaction rather than a rational debate.

one.zero
11-29-2004, 11:16 AM
PC has no place in war or the sim.

I agree that the boats are better left out for the sake of resources.

I done on this one...time is better spent on other issues.

Capt.LoneRanger
11-29-2004, 11:17 AM
Agreed, Bertgang, and infact the posts get longer and longer about minimal differences in our opinions.

I don't want to mention all the points you mentioned, Beeryus, but just a few things:

1. the uncivilized thing

I don't think you really mean what you say. If it is irrelevant what you do in a game, you can really stretch it. Just think about a tactical-shooter simulation, that goes far beyond anything on the market. I mean, you shoot a person and that person not vanishes or drops to the floor, but actually bleeds to death, crying or something. Then, because some programmers needed a photo, you play the game and have to shoot your mom, who actually had dropped her gun allready and watch her dying. Would you really do it? Wouldn't it be unethical? Wouldn't you be rather ****** off, thinking about anybody playing the game shooting your mom?
There were people in those boats in those days, some of them were shot. They had families, friends and husbands, and whatever way you take it personally, somebody might even have a family member, who was shot sitting in a life-boat and you repeat that every night virtually, eating chips and having a Budd and you think there is no ethical problem here? If it isn't for you, there are certainly people this is a problem for, and since we both agree that this is not needed, why do we still discuss about implementing it?

For me, there is a difference between firing a virtual torpedo against a virtual piece of equipment and shooting at people trying to survive, simulated or real. It's a matter of respect, IMHO.

2. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No (and I never said you did), but you implied it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly - so I didn't say it and you thought, I might think that. But I think you cannot think, what I think, or what do you think?


To make this perfectly clear again, though we largely agree anyways:

I fully support the devs decision for the main reason, that some people might be offended by being able to shoot survivors. And though the game is based on democracy, more than any game I ever played and watched evolve(even more tha IL2), there is a certain limit in any democracy. That is, when your personal right hurts the rights, the health or feelings of another person. And this is exactly, what this is all about. There are some people who might want to shoot live-boats, who might want to be able to do so, or whatever, but it all comes down to the simple fact, that it was not right in WW2 and that it is not right today, that people were killed there against the law, against civilization and against any moral reasoning. The people in charge there may have had orders, or whatever, but I have absolutely no excuse for them and I'm really trying to understand people who want to have those shamefull things simulated in a game. Sorry.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
...I mean, you shoot a person and that person not vanishes or drops to the floor, but actually bleeds to death, crying or something. Then, because some programmers needed a photo, you play the game and have to shoot your mom, who actually had dropped her gun allready and watch her dying. Would you really do it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was playing a psycho, sure. Why not? Again, you assume that we are the characters we play. We aren't. In assuming we are, you're making a connection between the character and ourselves that need not exist, and which doesn't exist for most gamers. Even those who do think that they are the characters they play only think so during the time they're playing the game, and while that's the case, those people will tend not to vary from their real-life persona (i.e. if they're not a psycho in real life, they won't be a psycho in the game either).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wouldn't it be unethical? Wouldn't you be rather ****** off, thinking about anybody playing the game shooting your mom? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, because I realise that they aren't actually shooting my mom. They're merely shooting a simulated version of my mom, and even when they're doing it, they're not thinking that it's a real person, because if they had even a slight feeling that what they did in the game had any deadly real-world implications, they wouldn't play.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There were people in those boats in those days, some of them were shot. They had families, friends and husbands, and whatever way you take it personally, somebody might even have a family member, who was shot sitting in a life-boat and you repeat that every night virtually, eating chips and having a Budd and you think there is no ethical problem here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course there isn't an ethical problem. Heck, we who are going to play this game are going to be spending our evenings sinking ships. We're going to be 'killing' many people in the game - those people are also based on real people who had real families. My wife's grandfather was a merchant seaman, and was on three ships which were sunk by U-Boats in the North sea. Far more people died in torpedo explosions or in the bellies of sinking freighters than would ever have died in lifeboats even if the Germans had had standing orders to kill every lifeboat survivor they ran into, yet you seem to have no problem with the fact that we'll be pumping torpedoes into defenceless merchant ships. Why is that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>since we both agree that this is not needed, why do we still discuss about implementing it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it was a real feature of the war at sea. Some people think it's important enough a part of the U-Boat experience that it should be simulated in the game. You and I are talking about it because I think your viewpoint regarding this issue is in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For me, there is a difference between firing a virtual torpedo against a virtual piece of equipment and shooting at people trying to survive, simulated or real. It's a matter of respect, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respect for what? What makes people striving to survive in a torpedoed warship any different from those trying to survive in a lifeboat? What makes lifeboat occupants any more deserving of respect than the people who didn't make it to the lifeboats? If you're worried about the game showing disrespect towards defenceless sailors, maybe it's not such a good idea for you to be playing a game in which you're expected to kill such people by the thousands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...there is a certain limit in any democracy. That is, when your personal right hurts the rights, the health or feelings of another person. And this is exactly, what this is all about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how. No one really dies through our actions. Besides, this is a simulation of battle. Real people die in every real battle, and every simulation of battle commemorates or trivializes their loss. Whether it commemorates or trivializes is up to the person playing the simulation. You cannot legislate morality, nor can you force people to adopt your moral values. I personally have huge problems with playing a simulation of war - my personal morality is against anything warlike, and I even gave up playing computer wargames for two years because of it, yet I now realise that in order to fight against war, you must first understand it. We achieve a better understanding of war if we allow ourselves to use simulations like this as tools for understanding the mentality that promotes war. If we try to leave such things unexamined, we may find that we repeat the mistakes of the past rather than learning from them.

Yarrick_
11-29-2004, 12:12 PM
You forgot, Beeryus, that this all was about avoiding war material and troops to reach Great Britain, not about killing seamen.
Those dead into the ship when the torpedoe exploded were unavoidable collateral victims, which happen in a war time, and after all, if you want to simulate an U-boat commander life, those people struggled to save the lives of their enemies, in addition to those of their crew. To play historically correctly, you must do that. If you don't want to play realistically, do what you want, even selcet "unvulnerable" and "infinite torpedoes"!

In fact, Germany was one of the nations which, if they did not wanted to kill civilians, they didn't.
Other nations did not showed such respect, for example, USA bombers which didn't wanted to shot up only "their target" but all that was around, nor like british pilots. And this is something that saw personally the grandfather of a friend, which was on France during USA&British bombings.
He said literally: British pilots dropped bombs to the desired target, but when americans did bombed, they dropped bombs all along, until everything was destroyed.
Note: I'm not saying that anybody is guilty or a criminal, it's just something that happens in war, that there is not much respect for life.

bertgang
11-29-2004, 12:13 PM
Maybe is a bit excessive speaking of morality, here.

I'd prefere to speak of chivalry or warrior/sailor code, a less controversial topic.

It's because these sort of things I like combat simulations, even if someone (lot of people) is supposed to die, and I'd dislike the simulation of an intentional mass murder.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
You forgot, Beeryus, that this all was about avoiding war material and troops to reach Great Britain, not about killing seamen... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't forget it. I'm simply ignoring it for the moment because what we're talking about at the moment is morality, and while real sub commanders rationalized their actions by telling themselves that they were targeting materiel rather than people, the results were the same as if they were targeting the people.

The difference between shooting torpedoes at big ships and shooting machine gun bullets at small dinghies is merely a matter of perspective. For the victims it amounts to the same thing. The relatives of the dead don't care whether you're attacking cargo when you're killing their husbands, fathers or sons. The people are just as dead if you blow them up at 4000 yards as they are if you shoot them at 20 yards while you're looking into their faces.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Maybe is a bit excessive speaking of morality, here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Discussing morality when you're talking about war is like discussing vegetarianism as a viable diet choice for wolves. It's just not going to happen.

Messervy
11-29-2004, 01:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I agree. Discussing morality when you're talking about war is like a discussing vegetarianism as a viable diet choice for wolves. It's just not going to happen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

one.zero
11-29-2004, 01:54 PM
The true warrior operates totally without emotion. To do otherwise is remis in self preservation and duty.

Lest you forget, those "collateral crew" could be driving another ship or destroyer should they survive....live to fight another day. One could only hope that your enemy would resist in his ship, life boat or swimming in the water (hand grenades)....so you can eliminate his contribution to the enemies future efforts and experience.

Its war gentleman and that's how it was then, and that's how it is today. Leave the morality to politicians and diplomats. your job as a military man is to kill and conquer.

one.zero
11-29-2004, 01:55 PM
The true warrior operates totally without emotion. To do otherwise is remis in self preservation and duty.

Lest you forget, those "collateral crew" could be driving another ship or destroyer should they survive....live to fight another day. One could only hope that your enemy would resist in his ship, life boat or swimming in the water (hand grenades)....so you can eliminate his contribution to the enemies future efforts and experience.

Its war gentleman and that's how it was then, and that's how it is today. Leave the morality to politicians and diplomats. your job as a military man is to kill and conquer.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by one.zero:
The true warrior operates totally without emotion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If so, he's a myth. The only people I know who operate totally without emotion are dead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LostGunner
11-29-2004, 03:02 PM
Some of you people really have "knowledge" both good and not so good IMHO, but no matter for it seems like most of you did not read my post in : 'Life-Boats POLL'

Here is a small portion of the post and I think if these were implemented into the "Sim" Most players would be happy, I say "most" because you can not please all people no matter what.



posted Fri November 26 2004 11:01
Quote: So whats wrong with an option: "lifeboats on" or "Lifeboats off".

If you have a fairly powerfull computer ( assuming "Lifeboats" would really consume resources ) then if you want to, click "Lifeboats on". If you computer can't handle the extra resources then just click "Lifeboats off".Unquote




With the above said if you do NOT like the lifeboat thing then just click on "Lifeboats off" and WALLA no lifeboats nor any extra valued resources are used and you non lifeboaters should be very happy. On the other hand if you do like the lifeboat idea and your computer can deal with the extra resourses then just simply click on "Lifeboats on" and you can either watch them,shoot them,burn them,cuss at them or whatever your conscience desires for it's YOUR computer and None of us will see what you are playing ( Unless your buddies there then again it's up to you ). BUT if you want the lifeboat function and your computer can't handle it, well either start saving up for a new card,cpu,whatever or you just won't have the Lifeboat function.

For the life of me I can not see what is so difficult about this if the SH3 DEVs installed these two options in the Simulation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Now before you start the flameing just remember it is a choice for both which ever side of the fence you are on.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-29-2004, 03:21 PM
I agree, but I think Capt. Lone Ranger's point is that no one should be allowed to have lifeboats in the game. He doesn't trust us not to shoot at them.

What he doesn't seem to realise is that the type of people who would shoot at lifeboats are the type of people who will treat other aspects of the simulation the same way. He says that those who shoot at lifeboats have no respect for the families of those real people on whom the game is based, but even if there are no lifeboats in the game, these people will show equal disrespect in other ways: they will sink their own sub 'for fun'; they will play around with merchant vessels by using the deck gun to torture enemy vessels, crippling them and letting them limp along before finally torpedoing them. Idiots will have their perverse fun whether lifeboats are modelled or not.

Like I said before, you can't legislate morality: if people are idiots they're going to find ways to be idiotic no matter how much you try to stop them. Meanwhile, those of us who aren't idiots suffer restrictions due to someone's futile crusade to stop the evildoers. Sounds like the PATRIOT act. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif