Not a single SS symbol is in the game. That is what I was referring to
1 Like
Yes, because uniform means symbol.
Thank you for clarifying however.
If you reread that perticular argument, you’ll realise that it’s not a moral argument, but a historical one.
The fact of the matter is that no regular military company at the time went into combat with the intention of commiting perfidy in order to ambush the enemy.
The devs propose to add a class with this specific purpose in mind. Pre-meditated perfidy is something that, universally, didn’t happen. The few people that did so were doing so on their own initiative (or, were decentralised Soviet partisans), building a class entierly around historical accidents is illogical.
There’s also a point to be made that this sort of infiltration just wouldn’t be done in a active warzone. Enlisted is not the game for espionage.
I get that you’re opposed to the topic, but you don’t have to missrepresent my argument because of it.
Though, yes, there is a single moral-ish argument being made in the original post, but that’s not what you responded to.
3 Likes
Yes i still think that’s disingenuous as we have prototypes that were never used historically… germans thought that shotguns (albeit not under geneva convention) were a war crime… does that mean we shouldn’t include the winchester?
I don’t think i was mis representing your argument either i’m just off put by the idea of the referencing laws pertaining to real life in this case the geneva convention as a reason to not include things in the game
I’m making these comments on my 15 at work so i’ll admit they don’t have the most thought… take with grain of salt and i perhaps might return
Rider Squads with Cars would a type of Squad much more beneficial to the game and type of gameplay of Enlisted
1 Like
Yes cuz riders 1 were so useful… Only way to make riders good is to make the game worse as a whole with annoyance. riders 2 is just apc.
But firearms were. That’s the distinction.
I’m sure that you are about as interested in policing what line-ups people bring as I am (not at all, that is).
People used guns, the shape of a WW2 gun is less interesting than the game trying to add a function to the game that just didn’t happen IRL…
Perfidy should not be a thing in game for the same reason as chemical warfare wasn’t a thing in WW2.
You can dig up a obscure Japanese attempt or whatever, but it shouldn’t be a thing in game anyway. Neither should this current Saboteur class.
-
“The Germans thought”, well they weren’t, even on a objective level.
-
It’s still not an argument I want to have… You don’t care, great, I’ll likely not convince you otherwise, so what’s the point?
If you get to call me disingenuous, then you were DEFINITELY missrepresenting my argument. No pulling of punches from you, so I’ll call it how it is.
1 Like
Why does this matter? Simply say it never happened to a large enough capacity to justify their inclusion… to label something as a war crime is purely a moral thing anyway.
This is why i think it’s really not necessary to mention this… you have valid points but needing to reinforce that it was a war crime is not something i understand.
OK they were a warcrime and not used perhaps because of that… maybe this is just a bulletin for reasons why they are unreasonable which is totally fair… maybe this is what you were going for however you started your statement off by saying it was recognized as a war crime
Seems to match up with saboteurs having the outfit mechanic and guerillas not.
Was wrong? So… if we’re not referencing morality… what gives? Why mention this? Why does the fact it was a war crime matter? Killing your fellow battle mates with a flamethrower would also be a war crime… but we can do that albeit teamkilling is restricted… so based on this that should be removed as it’s representing a war crime in reality and no one did it.
Neither does this game as a whole.
Once again… this is a game portraying ww2 with unique aspects such as weapons you might not see elsewhere… squad mechanics etc… many things in game were not done… however the majority of ones that i can think of are things you choose to do and not incentivized by the devs directly like this.
These aren’t regular military companies… they are singular soldiers operating seemingly under their own volition.
What does his trial have anything to do with this… is it to say it was ok and historical because they didn’t engage in combat while in uniform?
Coincidentally… while behind lines destroying strategic positions which is what his brigade did such as rallies and marking for your team you are disguised however when attacking it’s dropped! Seems like it’s accurately representing the fact they used them for infiltration and not for combat.
It’s the explenation for why it wasn’t done, I thought that aught to be mentioned.
No.
This was a few people acting on their own accord, without sanction…
There’s also a great deal of debate how common this was, or if it was actually just post-war mythologization combined with US soldiers opening fire on suspensious men, who then opened fire in self-defense. We just don’t have a clean picture to tell accurately.
The Saboteur class would represent the deliberate attempt to perform perfidy, that you intentionally bring such personelle to perform this action. You’d put them in the line-up, with the intention to do this…
This does not bear out with the historical record.
See above.
Relying on hyperboly does not suit you.
You can point to certain prototypes that never saw combat trials.
That’s not “many” examples, that’s a list of weapons and vehicles.
What’s next, British nurses as medics…?
See above…
You do not seem to understand what the prupose of the class is… It has two functions…
Unless you are arguing for the removal of the ability to shoot whilst disguised…? I would be fine with that… That’d represent historical reality.
Anyway… With them as is… If they were not used for combat, which is historical fact, why add such units, with a disguise mechanic for ambushes, to this combat game…?