Civilian kills

[Frostiken]

So there I was. 8,000 feet. Russian tanks below me. Two CBU-105s hot and ready to rock.

 

My finger hovered over the pickle button. The Russian tanks were right in the middle of a village. In real life, if I dropped these bombs, I'd be arrested when I landed. Cluster-bombing a village? Really?

 

Given how sensitive civilian kills and collateral damage is these days, I think it would be interesting to track civilian kills. Dropping a bomb on a bridge that hits just as a busload of orphans is crossing it, carpet-bombing a village to hit some Russian tanks, or even just practicing gun runs on innocents driving through the mountains... should all be tracked in the logbook and punished as well.

 

This way, if a target is in a village, you can't just say 'oh well, lololol GBU-31' and turn the entire thing into a blasted wasteland, you'd have to use a smaller weapon or even guns to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Missions could even dictate how much collateral damage is acceptable and thus how careful you must be.

[bluepilot76]

I think its a good idea!

 

Human shield tactics are unfortunately common in modern warfare too.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Yeah, and we could simulate the newest tactics that are sure to win wars, like doing flybys while dropping flares as a "show of force". That'll show 'em!

[EtherealN]

Frostiken, with proper use of the civilian units that are in the game (vehicles mainly) you can create an analog of this condition. Place them in the target area, and set them as a victory condition (such that they deduct all your success rating if they are destroyed). Not "perfect", but it does serve the purpose when you want to force players to be careful with where they place their ordnance.

[shu77]

I did briefly consider dropping flares to try and see if I could set trees on fire when I ran short recently, as I'd read about someone doing it on ops, but alas no joy.

[Jona33]

So there I was. 8,000 feet. Russian tanks below me. Two CBU-105s hot and ready to rock.

 

My finger hovered over the pickle button. The Russian tanks were right in the middle of a village. In real life, if I dropped these bombs, I'd be arrested when I landed. Cluster-bombing a village? Really?

 

Given how sensitive civilian kills and collateral damage is these days, I think it would be interesting to track civilian kills. Dropping a bomb on a bridge that hits just as a busload of orphans is crossing it, carpet-bombing a village to hit some Russian tanks, or even just practicing gun runs on innocents driving through the mountains... should all be tracked in the logbook and punished as well.

 

This way, if a target is in a village, you can't just say 'oh well, lololol GBU-31' and turn the entire thing into a blasted wasteland, you'd have to use a smaller weapon or even guns to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Missions could even dictate how much collateral damage is acceptable and thus how careful you must be.

 

This is a really good idea. Especially in a fight against insurgents when they can take civilians hostage all the time. +1

[Shinigami]

Plus one for that

[JimMack]

This is a really good idea. Especially in a fight against insurgents when they can take civilians hostage all the time. +1

 

As EtherealN has pointed out, you can already model this with civilian vehicles.

[Jona33]

As EtherealN has pointed out, you can already model this with civilian vehicles.

 

What about having a walking around civilian, just to keep it interessting

[JimMack]

What about having a walking around civilian, just to keep it interessting

 

Yes - on the wishlist. However TomCatz has produced static civilians, Western and Afghan as a mod.

[DetroitDieseL]

I think its a good idea!

 

Human shield tactics are unfortunately common in modern warfare too.

 

I would call that gorilla warfare not modern-

[Frostiken]

Yeah, you could do it with civilian vehicles, but I think it would just be better to expand it to civilian buildings and vehicles, to actually make the 'civilian traffic' setting something besides eyecandy.

 

While not complicated but simply work to implement, the way I would do it is assign each civilian asset a 'population' that varies based on time of day. For example, an office building will have more people during the day and be mostly empty at night, whereas houses would be the opposite. As you do damage to a building you gradually injure the occupants, total destruction will injure and/or kill most of them.

 

So for example, you have a tank next to an office building. It's 0200 so the office building will be empty. You drop a GBU-12, it damages the building but because it's empty, you don't get any 'collateral damage' penalties.

 

Another tank is parked next to a school, and it's a late morning raid. You elect to drop a GBU-12 on it as well. The school, at 1100, is assigned a population of 85 civilians. Your bomb damages the school, taking off X% of its health. X% of the population is considered casualties, and X% of that are considered dead, rounded down. So if the GBU-12 knocked off 20% of the health of the structure, 17 civilians would be casualties, 3 of them dead. In this way, a cluster bomb would cause lots of casualties but a handful deaths, a GBU-31 would cause massive death, and guns would cause some injuries and few deaths.

 

Yeah, you can kinda-sorta simulate this, but that's why this is the wishlist, and I think a system that is fully integrated into the game in the first place, in all places including cars on the road and a sleepy hamlet in the mountains, would be better :)

Edited April 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[bluepilot76]

Well, according to wikipedia....

 

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.

 

Not really what we are talking about is it, whereas in nearly every MODERN war that I have seen on the news, one side will claim at some point that these LGBs cluster bombs etc destroyed this hospital, school etc, for eaxmple apparently Gadaffis compounds were surrounded by civilians and news crews which prevented attacks. Thats about as modern as it gets!

 

Gorilla warfare might be something that happens in the zoo? prob doesnt involve cluster bombs though.

[Heli Shed]

Well, according to wikipedia....

 

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.

 

Not really what we are talking about is it, whereas in nearly every MODERN war that I have seen on the news, one side will claim at some point that these LGBs cluster bombs etc destroyed this hospital, school etc, for eaxmple apparently Gadaffis compounds were surrounded by civilians and news crews which prevented attacks. Thats about as modern as it gets!

 

Gorilla warfare might be something that happens in the zoo? prob doesnt involve cluster bombs though.

 

 

Incorrect.

 

This type of tactic adopted by a terrorist organisation, Insurgency, Guerilla warfare unit or even a 'Conventinal' state Army turns the warfare card into Asymetrical Warfare. To call this tactic 'Modern Warfare' is absolute piffle. This type of tactic (human shields, civilian infrastructures) has been about since we first 'susssed' out, how to make fire!

 

 

 

'T'

Edited April 27, 2011 by Tyger

[bluepilot76]

I said,

 

"Human shield tactics are unfortunately common in modern warfare too"

 

so this is wrong is it? / absolute piffle??

I did not say they have been invented for modern warfare did I, I did not say they werent used by caveman in the stone age. I said they are UNFORTUNATELY COMMON in modern warfare. Are they not unfortunately common?

 

How GUERILLA tactics have got anything to do with airforces cluster bombing villages, Im sorry but I do not see the relevence!

[bluepilot76]

Anyway, back to the thread, I think the mechanics as described by Frostiken make a lot of sense. I think it would aadd a lot to the smulation if your target was in the village, and you decided rather than clusterbombing the village and getting a nasty civilian kill count, you would plan your attack with a more precise weapon, or save it for someone out in the plains. I am sure real pilots are faced with these choices every day over eg. Libya. Not killing the civilians is probably more important than killing the tank- Therefore it should be factored into the debrief in some way in my opinion.

[goldfinger35]

+1 for civilians.

Model few of them (female, male, child) and add them to missions close to targets.

[Shinigami]

Well I admit that since the dawn of war thous tactic are common to every one, but I don't see any modern army working his arss for not killing civilian, usually they count the civilian victims as collateral damage and nothing happens.

 

I only see this as +1 for making more complex the mechanic of the game but in real life nobody cares about civilians and sometimes the civilian are not being used as shields and they get killed for the so call intelligent bomb.

 

Shinigami Out...

[bluepilot76]

That may be the case in some parts for of the world, but any combat pilot I have met is not a psychopath that doesnt give a dam about civilian casualties. Usually the RAF filters out the nut jobs well before they get anywhere near a combat aircraft. I hope so anyway!

[Jona33]

As far as I know opening fire over a town full of civilians and killing them makes you get in serious trouble.As far as I know in A'stan the soldiers have to be positive that an enemy is armed until they open fire. Also they can't go into a town and start shooting until they see guys with guns.

[Frostiken]

Multiple times in Bagram we weren't able to employ munitions to the proximity of civilian structures. For an F-15E the only real other option is to try to use the gun...

[bartleby]

Anyone know if the SDB is going to be modelled in DCS at some point? Has that even been integrated IRL yet?

 

Anyway, another plus for this. Although the requirement to limit "collateral damage" would imply a need for some more robust planning tools as well. As it is, working out areas of damage effect is sort of trial and error. Some standardized weaponeering tools might limit the tendency for contingency planning that results in the usual loadout being six -65Ds and four CBU-105s.

[Heli Shed]

As far as I know opening fire over a town full of civilians and killing them makes you get in serious trouble.As far as I know in A'stan the soldiers have to be positive that an enemy is armed until they open fire. Also they can't go into a town and start shooting until they see guys with guns.

 

PID'ing is a requirement (Positive Identification) before openeing fire for all coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. I am an Infantry WO1 and have served in two tours of Afghanistan (Op Herrick 7/8 and 9/10) whist my Bn was the TRB, and having been in combat, i feel a 'little' qualified to comment for clarity on the matter.

 

PID'ing is vitally important. The difficulty comes when you are trying to protect a people who have a 'gun' culture and could quite happily wander the streets with it slung on their back, or whilst in the field cultivating their 'harvest'.

 

However, unlike Iraq, there is no WAC (Weapon Authorisation Card) system and so normal 'stop and search' routine is not the 'norm'. To be fair, and not to contradict myself here, but there are far more civilians who DON'T carry a weapon, than do. The difficulty comes from PID'ing the THREAT, during contact, especially if it turns into a TIC (Troops In Contact), where authorisation comes to use ECAS or indirect fire. All civilians i have seen caught in the middle are huddling for their lives or running away to a flank. Believe me when i say that they are PID'd as a threat or not, before they are opened up upon. But, what of the innocent civilian, caught up in a TIC, who runs away to a flank with a rifle slung on his back?

 

I'm afraid, the chances are, he'll get shot.

 

Sadley, our enemies in afghanistan take over compounds that belong to ordinary hard working families, who are just trying to 'get by' without succumbing to the inevitiable threat of their name being wiped of the Afghani version of the doomsday book, if they don't grow poppy for the Taliban. Used as hostages, and usually tied up or shoved to the corner of a room, the Taliban then engage us from the compound.

 

By shear weight of fire, and under a commanders discretion, a TIC can be called and then authorised by TFHQ. Once that happens, in comes the big guns, or flechette from an Apache. Sadley, civilians do get killed, and we dont always get an enemy body count. It is their tactic, it is unsavoury to us, but it works. This is why ALL British Soldiers are taught that 'restraint' 'evaluation' and 'patience' always win the day rather than a 40mm grenade through the front door.

 

PID'ing is absolutely vital to the integrity of coaliton forces in afghanistan when it comes to engaging the enemy. You can't just shoot anyone because they are carrying a rifle, but by god, you can be suspicious.

 

Peace.

 

'T'

[Shinigami]

As far as I know opening fire over a town full of civilians and killing them makes you get in serious trouble.As far as I know in A'stan the soldiers have to be positive that an enemy is armed until they open fire. Also they can't go into a town and start shooting until they see guys with guns.

 

I'm not going to cite any example that every body knows about but as I said, collateral damage is very common term in some armies.

 

Also I hate all type of terrorism is wrong to use people for cover or killing people for not doing a well Positive Identification. and I do respect the families of both side of the conflict

Edited April 28, 2011 by Shinigami

[Jona33]

Tyger, you are more qualified than me to talk about this stuff.