Complete civilian ROE revamp

[Nemus]

Originally Posted by qaiex

Maybe.. But the laws of war clearly state that under no circumstances are soldiers allowed to shoot unarmed people, even if they are enemy combatants.
As soon as someone doesn't carry a firearm, they're no longer a valid target.

So if someone attacks you with a knife you cant shoot him to defend yourself?
The US soldiers who shoted Japanese officers charging armed with katanas in WWII are war criminals?

The laws of war clearly state that a soldier can defend himself against threats. (Not only laws of war state this ... Every country's law gives you the right to defend yourself against life threats )
A civillian who walks in the street is not a threat of course.
But a civillian who helps directly your enemy the moment he is ready to kill you is another case.
No matter if he gives him coordinates, medical help or a human shield to protect him.
He is intentionaly involved in a direct threat against your life so you can defend yourself.

In moments like this its better to face court martial than St Peter.

[[R-DEV]DankE_SPB]

Originally Posted by wookimonsta

don't you still get that message telling you you've shot a civilian?

you get, but civilians use their epipens, medic bags etc. which allows you to kill them ~90 second(not sure here) after last usage of their equipment
since the 0.86 came out i killed tens or even more than a hundred civis and i never got any punishment

[Qaiex]

Originally Posted by Nemus

So if someone attacks you with a knife you cant shoot him to defend yourself?
The US soldiers who shoted Japanese officers charging armed with katanas in WWII are war criminals?

The laws of war clearly state that a soldier can defend himself against threats. (Not only laws of war state this ... Every country's law gives you the right to defend yourself against life threats )
A civillian who walks in the street is not a threat of course.
But a civillian who helps directly your enemy the moment he is ready to kill you is another case.
No matter if he gives him coordinates, medical help or a human shield to protect him.
He is intentionaly involved in a direct threat against your life so you can defend yourself.

In moments like this its better to face court martial than St Peter.

If someone attacks you with a knife, and you're with a squad of soldiers armed to the teeth, then you should at least try not to kill him/her.
But if you have to, of course you can fire. I should have replaced firearm with weapon, the point I was trying to make was that the person was unarmed.

During WW2 these laws weren't in effect.. It is mainly due to the actions taken by the Nazis and Soviets during this war that the laws were written down to begin with, even though they have been part of the honourable "code" of most soldiers even before that.

During WW2 the soviets shot their own if they retreated, nazis fired at corpses to make sure no one was faking it, the holocaust, executing prisoners left and right, all of these things lead to the laws against treating people like this.
If someone surrenders, is wounded, or rendered unarmed, they are to be treated as a prisoner of war. They're not prisoners as a punishment, but as protective custody for the duration of the war, to prevent them from returning to the battlefield.