27 réponses à ce sujet

[KAGEHOSHI-]

I don't know what the enemies will be like, or what the conflicts will be about for ME:A, so this may not make sense in context to what BioWare has planned. That being said, I think it would be interesting to have enemies aware of the fact that they are about to lose, and to just surrender as part of a built-in combat mechanic. Not only does it makes sense (most living things don't want to fight and die in a battle they know they will lose), but it opens up some potentially interesting moral options. 

• You can capture surrendered enemies (paragon): take them back to your ship (or Ark?) as prisoners. They might put a strain on resources like food and space, so there is a sort of cost/limit. The potential benefit is information; both cultural, and tactical. I suppose captured enemies could maybe be turned? (it would have to makes sense in the context), or perhaps you could just ditch them on habitable planets to live their lives. 
• You can execute surrendered enemies (renegade): seems like a pretty awful thing to do (hence renegade), but as explained in the capture option, one may make the decision based on practical constraints instead just sheer malice.

Just a thought. I think I'll stop making threads for today.

 

 

One possible drawback if you are known for executing prisoners is that people rather fight to the death and well it would probably affect diplomatic relations.

 

 

 

In addition to the strain on resources, I was thinking there would be times where the ship takes damage, which risks cutting power to the containment systems in the prison sectors, and thus releasing prisoners. This could cause casualties on the ship. and maybe they could even use the ship's comms to broadcast a long-range signal to their fellow baddies, leading to more problems. It would be a risk rather than a definite consequence, but just a thought. Feel free to suggest your own.

 

[Dantriges]

One possible drawback if you are known for executing prisoners is that people rather fight to the death and well it would probably affect diplomatic relations.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

One possible drawback if you are known for executing prisoners is that people rather fight to the death and well it would probably affect diplomatic relations.

YES! Choice and consequence!

[BabyPuncher]

It might be something to look at for the conclusions of important missions.

 

I don't really see it working for general combat gameplay.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

It might be something to look at for the conclusions of important missions.

 

I don't really see it working for general combat gameplay.

I'd be fine with that.

[Dantriges]

It would be nice not to have to slaughter everyone.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

It would be nice not to have to slaughter everyone.

Ideally there should always be a way that you would never have to if you don't want to. 

[KAGEHOSHI-]

Ooh! seemingly useless cultural info obtained from captured forces could turn out to be useful in dealing with the enemy, or perhaps the POWs themselves can be used as trade bargaining chips.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I mean, take Udina in ME3. Wouldn't it have  been better to have had three choices.

 

1) Paragon - capture

2) Neutral - kill

3) Renegade - shoot gun out of hand, wound leg, capture and enhance interrogate using a stove top in one of the nearby cafes?

[God]

Speaking as 1) one of the most prolific Renegade, rational, and practical players on these boards, and 2) an expert in Human Intelligence Collection and EPW concerns in wartime/combat settings, I want to see more of an ambiguity and complexity here with this problem.

 

Personally, I think we ought to discard the entire morality system completely. Not put it in terms of Paragon or Renegade.

 

As was mentioned, there is a drawback to executing surrendering enemy combatants: it does not give the enemy incentive to surrender or be captured alive. This is a poor decision in numerous ways: firstly, you're essentially robbing yourself the Human Intelligence that can be gained through interviews and interrogation of a living EPW. As well as discouraging enemy forces from surrender (which in turn strongly tends to galvanize them and give them incentive to fight, since they know that they only have two options on the table, being victory or death, and it leads to them pursuing a fight they can't win, potentially putting your own personnel in danger), you risk making any civilian or noncombatant element, either on or off the battlefield wary of you and turn against your cause, even causing more militant civilians to join the enemy against you if fighting on said civilians territory.

 

As well, taking living EPW's gives the enemy incentive to actually surrender, especially if they are treated well. This is handy in a case where the enemy combatants own leadership is seen as hostile or firm. You can gain an ally by showing that you are more capable and fair a leader by showing respect and moderation towards EPW's. 

 

Now, I'm not making a bull**** moral argument against killing Prisoners of War. Personally, I think the entire idea of 'Rules of War' is one big ******, but I won't deny the practical considerations behind ethical behavior in a typical war time environment. It's part of the hearts-and-minds campaign. Now, I don't believe in going so far as to say 'you have to change your entire system and culture to suit our needs' type deal that's unfortunately been a characteristic of the U.S. military foreign policy. But it is prudent to let the people in the system that we go into know that we aren't there to screw them over or halt their way of life. We're there to take out the people in their country who are an active physical threat to global stability and security. We're not there to judge them or say that they're wrong in doing whatever they do (unless of course it involves killing our people or threatening our interests). We're there to say "we're after these people, and we're after them for the reasons of them attacking or threatening to attack our interests and global security, and we're here to take them down. Now, if you like what you see from us while we're here, great! We're more than willing to help you guys give our style of government a crack if you're interested. If not, so long as you aren't out blowing stuff up, that's cool too. We aren't here to destroy your way of life." Or at least, that's what we should be saying. 

 

But anyway, it's meant to show the practical concerns over what might happen in a standard conflict: when it comes to other things, like the Reapers, whatever rules or ideas you have go out the window if it doesn't involve maintaining the long-term survival of the human race. It's why I support Cerberus so much. Granted, in ME3, the context for what they were doing was different, but if it actually helped the war effort, what they were doing at Sanctuary was damn genius.

[LordSwagley]

Speaking as 1) one of the most prolific Renegade, rational, and practical players on these boards, and 2) an expert in Human Intelligence Collection and EPW concerns in wartime/combat settings, I want to see more of an ambiguity and complexity here with this problem.

 

Personally, I think we ought to discard the entire morality system completely. Not put it in terms of Paragon or Renegade.

 

As was mentioned, there is a drawback to executing surrendering enemy combatants: it does not give the enemy incentive to surrender or be captured alive. This is a poor decision in numerous ways: firstly, you're essentially robbing yourself the Human Intelligence that can be gained through interviews and interrogation of a living EPW. As well as discouraging enemy forces from surrender (which in turn strongly tends to galvanize them and give them incentive to fight, since they know that they only have two options on the table, being victory or death, and it leads to them pursuing a fight they can't win, potentially putting your own personnel in danger), you risk making any civilian or noncombatant element, either on or off the battlefield wary of you and turn against your cause, even causing more militant civilians to join the enemy against you if fighting on said civilians territory.

 

As well, taking living EPW's gives the enemy incentive to actually surrender, especially if they are treated well. This is handy in a case where the enemy combatants own leadership is seen as hostile or firm. You can gain an ally by showing that you are more capable and fair a leader by showing respect and moderation towards EPW's. 

 

Now, I'm not making a bullshit moral argument against killing Prisoners of War. Personally, I think the entire idea of 'Rules of War' is one big ******, but I won't deny the practical considerations behind ethical behavior in a typical war time environment. It's part of the hearts-and-minds campaign. Now, I don't believe in going so far as to say 'you have to change your entire system and culture to suit our needs' type deal that's unfortunately been a characteristic of the U.S. military foreign policy. But it is prudent to let the people in the system that we go into know that we aren't there to screw them over or halt their way of life. We're there to take out the people in their country who are an active physical threat to global stability and security. We're not there to judge them or say that they're wrong in doing whatever they do (unless of course it involves killing our people or threatening our interests). We're there to say "we're after these people, and we're after them for the reasons of them attacking or threatening to attack our interests and global security, and we're here to take them down. Now, if you like what you see from us while we're here, great! We're more than willing to help you guys give our style of government a crack if you're interested. If not, so long as you aren't out blowing stuff up, that's cool too. We aren't here to destroy your way of life." Or at least, that's what we should be saying. 

 

But anyway, it's meant to show the practical concerns over what might happen in a standard conflict: when it comes to other things, like the Reapers, whatever rules or ideas you have go out the window if it doesn't involve maintaining the long-term survival of the human race. 

I believe in ME3 human soldiers intentionally allowed themselves to be captured by Reaper forces so that they could transmit video of what happens to captured prisoners (remember that poor colonist we see getting turned into a human slurpee in ME2). This was done to deter folks from surrendering and to instead fight to the death or commit suicide in order to avoid being processed alive, so there is atleast one in-universe example of what your talking about.

I seen an example of in-game enemy surrender in the SOCOM series (if you were clearly winning a firefight, certain less fanatical enemies such as mercs might surrender) but I often accidently shot them (if a mook pops up from behind cover shouting in a foreign language in the middle of a firefight mistakes happen...). I suspect that if an enemy surrenders in ME:A it would be at the end of a mission and you will be left with a choice (such as the Grey Wardens in DA:I). 

[StealthGamer92]

Kinda like R6 3? Could be an amazing feature!

[Battlebloodmage]

Can I decide their fate while wearing a Pajamas?

[LordSwagley]

Can I decide their fate while wearing a Pajamas?

Then behead them... in Pajamas? Thoughts?

[zestalyn]

Those are interesting ideas that would add further realism and thought to the experience. They already have the imprison or execute choice in DA:I, and like many things in the game it wasn't executed to its best potential, but atleast Bioware is not a stranger to the concept and they can greatly improve it.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

Can I decide their fate while wearing a Pajamas?

LOL sure.

[Red Panda]

There needs to be just as many negative consequences for "paragon" choices.

[KAGEHOSHI-]

There needs to be just as many negative consequences for "paragon" choices.

In addition to the strain on resources, I was thinking there would be times where the ship takes damage, which risks cutting power to the containment systems in the prison sectors, and thus releasing prisoners. This could cause casualties on the ship. and maybe they could even use the ship's comms to broadcast a long-range signal to their fellow baddies, leading to more problems. It would be a risk rather than a definite consequence, but just a thought. Feel free to suggest your own.

[Feybrad]

In addition to the strain on resources, I was thinking there would be times where the ship takes damage, which risks cutting power to the containment systems in the prison sectors, and thus releasing prisoners. This could cause casualties on the ship. and maybe they could even use the ship's comms to broadcast a long-range signal to their fellow baddies, leading to more problems. It would be a risk rather than a definite consequence, but just a thought.

 

I like this. In the End, both Choices have Advantages and Disadvantages.

 

#ForeverParagon

[Dantriges]

Prison breaks could be a negative consequence, even off site. Nazi Germany spent quite a lot of time catching POWs involved in this mass breakout which got a movie. A german lieutenant, who broke out of a train transport in Canada provided quite a lot of intel on british interrogation and intel gathering techniques which resulted in  updates on security procedures on the german sides in case of capture.

 

Your reputation could take an even more severe hit, if your guards mistreat them or you use "hard questioning."

But besides the resource drain, possible hassle in getting the prisoners into camp and possible breaks, it´s hard to come up with negative consequences.

 

There are some rather practical consideration behind the rules of war after all. You don´t want the other side to kill your people when they fall into enemy hands which is a likely occurence if you are doing a proper war.

[Capt_Kangaroo]

Didn't we already have that (live or die choice) with the General/Aria on the Omega mission, Malon on Tuchuncka with Mordan and a couple of times with Maranda??

The general gave us intel on Cerberus and we used Malon's research to help cure the Genophage (I always let Maranda kill her targets )

 

Cheers

[RIPRemusTheTurian]

I enjoyed Infamous Second Son's surrender mechanic, it flowed nicely and added some depth to open world combat encounters.

Thinking about this, it's kind of funny how it makes sense that none of ME3's enemy factions (Cerberus, Geth, Reapers) would ever surrender.

[General TSAR]

In addition to the strain on resources, I was thinking there would be times where the ship takes damage, which risks cutting power to the containment systems in the prison sectors, and thus releasing prisoners. This could cause casualties on the ship. and maybe they could even use the ship's comms to broadcast a long-range signal to their fellow baddies, leading to more problems. It would be a risk rather than a definite consequence, but just a thought. Feel free to suggest your own.

That's pretty good.

 

Though I don't know if our ship will be large enough where we have to have a brig. 

[CrutchCricket]

Whatever enemy we face I would be opposed to taking them prisoner aboard the Ark. If we're still using the Ark in any capacity beyond storage, it likely means it's our lifeline in Andromeda still and bringing enemy personnel aboard, even in chains is dumb. If you've set up a jail in a colony, more power to you.

 

If they're clever enough to include mechanics for influencing future enemy engagements by how you treat your prisoners, I would also like to see a third option- letting one or two captured enemies go to spread the tale of your actions; either showing you're a reasonable leader and treat both friend and foe well, or to spread terror of your conquests, if applicable.

[N7Jamaican]

I want to have gears of war execution of enemies.  Curb stomp!