Anyone else having a kind of moral issue with Urban Warfare

[Evil Inside]

I love Battletech and I certainly appreciate more mechs and more maps. But I get a bit of a personal flashback to older Mechwarrior games. When I fought in an urban area, I always had to think: Every weapon fired, every shot hitting a building instead of a Mech, means someones life destroyed.

A PPC hit into a tower - an office, shop or home burned out. A handful of missing AC rounds, someones life and livelyhood forever ruined.

I know it is just pixels and fun, but at the same time I immerse myself enough to wonder what the responsible action would be. The Mechwarrior games forced me into urban maps when it was the time in the campaign but in Battletech I have more choice. I wonder, would I turn down a contract in such an area, knowing that I would cause massive harm, just by choosing to deploy my forces in the area? Or would I still take the contract, the C-Bill's siren song luring me in, or perhaps even going in to prevent even worse destruction?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?

[desrtfox071]

Maybe you are preventing more massive damage, and thus lives lost, by engaging quickly and decisively even if it's an urban environment.

[Zuul]

It's a world of ♥♥♥♥ constantly exploding. If you think anyone is hanging out in their office cubicle while giant robots shoot the ♥♥♥♥ out of each other you're mad.

Any planetary government with significant urban sprawl would certainly be capable of tracking a jump ship arriving at the known jump point, disgorging a mercenary dropship, making the days long transit to orbit, then performing an orbital insertion to the surface. At some point during this period (likely during the transit from orbit to surface) the government is going to turn on the tornado sirens...I mean, giant robots are coming to blow a bunch of ♥♥♥♥ up sirens, and send people to the shelters.

It's not like it's generally a super secret where the mercenary forces are headed when the military targets are either an obvious military installation or a number of gigantic robots next to the local supermarket.

[ImHelping]

Btech urban combat is like Power Rangers where buildings being destroyed by giant robot fights only matter if it's a plot point.

Unlike power rangers, the people who own the cities will gladly shoot it up to get at you, then people will try to get on a soap box anyways even if you only used punches and anti infantry weapons like small lasers and machineguns.

That's the trap about such thoughts. It's worth some thought, but the only thought that has any impact is if it's for melodrama, or hypocrisy that only cares enough to chide the player/audience personally.

Half seriously. Once you are good enough you will minimize casualties compared to the alternatives because you're good enough to only bust open houses when it loops around to the least broken houses. (Again, unless there are artificial wrist slaps)

For example. Another game I love, Brigador, which revels in the civilian body count can amusingly make you loop around to the lowest collateral damage merc around due to a three step process.

1: "Wait, am I the bad guy? I better avoid damaging buildings!"
*city is leveled because enemy forces will shoot through it to get you even if it's their city*

2: "Haha I get paid even for civilian casualties!"
*City is leveled because you and the enemy are competing to see who can level it first*

3: "Civilians are worth less than the tarp tents they hide under. Time is money."
*Shoots a clean hole through a still standing office building into the rear armor of enemy commander on the other side. Leaves with only one damaged building and an errant blown up gas station used as opportunistic tactic*

Hell, the pro tier runs in that game use a stolen luggage cart. Because "Lights are viable" is real, real strong in Brigador, and the smallest weapons are mostly sidegrades or unique effects. (There's a laser that's weak on enemies but reduces bunker walls to powder in seconds, so you can sneak in to destroy orbital guns in and out better)

If you are gaming's greatest monster or Power Rangers: Inner Sphere edition, will be entirely based around how much the writing in Urban Warfare wants to mock you for paying to play it.

Because in fiction. An efficient minimal body count is still worse than leveling an entire city brick by brick, based on the writer's personal views or buttons it wants to press in the audience.

See also: reputation systems in most games.

"We shall loathe you as the greatest of monsters!"
"I signed a one month garrison for **** pay, and spent the whole month keeping you from burning down towns."
"And we shall not forget this GRAVE INSULT to our nation! Actions have consequences!"
"They do huh? You are back to friendly status with the kingdom we were working for, who was burning down YOUR towns."
"Yeah well... You don't want things handed to you on a-"
"Silver platter, yeah yeah I've heard that one before."

[Deathraven13]

Maybe they escaped ?

[wizard1200]

I hope that there will be a cash penalty for damaged or destroyed buildings by the player.

[Davor]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Maybe you are preventing more massive damage, and thus lives lost, by engaging quickly and decisively even if it's an urban environment.

So the damage done in Metropolis and New York for example in movies is acceptable because the rest of the world is saved? :)

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Knecht Rootrecht:

Urban Warframe

Is that like playing https://store.steampowered.com/app/230410/Warframe/
in someone's downtown apartment? ;)

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by Davor:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Maybe you are preventing more massive damage, and thus lives lost, by engaging quickly and decisively even if it's an urban environment.

So the damage done in Metropolis and New York for example in movies is acceptable because the rest of the world is saved? :)

Well those are fictional stories, so, yes?

Are you trying to get at something? If you're trying to ask a philosophical/moral question like "Is some death/destruction permissible in order to prevent greater death/destruction, I would submit that this is self evidently true".

Is that what you are looking for?

[MAD-3R_Marauder]

Originally posted by Davor:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Maybe you are preventing more massive damage, and thus lives lost, by engaging quickly and decisively even if it's an urban environment.

So the damage done in Metropolis and New York for example in movies is acceptable because the rest of the world is saved? :)

Um, yes?
In the end, it all comes down to a numbers game.

If, by killing 200 people, I can prevent the death of 2000, I'd do it
I'd probably have a hard time living with myself afterwards, but I'd do it nonetheless.

What would be _your_ argument.

Uh, there is a terrorist who has hijacked a truck and is about to rampage though a populated area.
Should the cops try to stop him, even though there is a chance innocent bystanders might be hurt or killed or should they go, "oh well, can't risk hurting anyone, so let him just run over those civilians - not our job"?

Let's assume you were a fighter pilot during 9/11, you are in the area, the first plane has already hit the first tower and you can shoot down the second one before it hits.
Are you seriously suggesting you wouldn't do it?

What about that nuke in Avengers 1?
Say Iron Man can't get it through that portal, but redirects it onto the open sea. Unfortunately, within the area of effect when it goes off are two fishing trawlers and a container ship. Total of 127 casualties.
Should Iron Man have let the nuke blow up Manhatten instead?

What about WW2?
Should the allies just have sit back and let the Nazis do whatever they want?
I mean, a whole lot of people _died_ stopping them.


Now, this doesn't mean it doesn't _matter_ that those innocent lives are lost and every life lost is one too many - but when I have to choose between X casualties and X * 10 casualties, I'd always go with the lesser number of casualties.

[Evil Inside]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by Knecht Rootrecht:

Urban Warframe

in someone's downtown apartment? ;)

Thank you, fixed it.

[Werecat101]

Oh no I will be killing thousands of imaginary non existant life forms in a story made up to chain small unit tactical battles.what shall I do how can I carry on with life.

oh and why talk about WWII humans have been killing each other for about 40,000 years.

[BLAMBLAM]

Well innocent npcs aren't represented in the game anyway in terms of some animated visible pixels on screen. So just assume the whole area is devoid of any innocent bystanders instead and don't feel so guilty bout blowing ♥♥♥♥♥ up.

[Wantoomany]

I think of it as forced urban renewal. Think of all the new jobs you will create to rebuild all those old damaged, potentially unsafe, buildings.

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by wizard1200:

I hope that there will be a cash penalty for damaged or destroyed buildings by the player.

"It's time for urban warfare! New missions, new tactics-Why are there even MORE lrm boats than before?"

"Some tryhard convinced the devs to charge us C-bills for even playing the game. So why bother with anything but indirect fire arcs that only make potholes at worst?"

Refer back to my previous comments at how Brigador PAYS you for all collateral damage, but player skill growth means you start to bypass collateral better because you CAN, rather than 'because of passive aggressive wrist slaps'. (and you get paid better for using lighter equipment against a superior foe, rather than a penalty/ban for using heavier equipment. etc)

People love to namedrop Darksouls a lot in gaming (not in this thread yet). But people forget that game holds up because of when you works terms of "Now that you are comfortable hiding behind the Artorias greatshield, you realize the tiny heater shield you started with is one of the best shields in the game and start using it again and start parrying Darkwraiths to death because it feels COOL, rather than optimal ". Rather than "LOL death and fees are hardcore!"

Room to grow leads to far more gaming badasses than seeing who is most willing to thank people for tripping them. It's why the cheat code is the most infamous part of Contra, even though it's a great game. Leading to all of us going back to beating it without the code on our own time. While silver surfer is mocked, despite that kind of design being what self proclaimed "Oldschool gamers" keep asking for.

[Zirkalaritz]

but... you're already destroying lives even without the Urban Warfare DLC.

Mechs walking about already destroy buildings and infrastructure when you pass through them. Some mission types, like Recovery, Escort and such, take place in civilian bases, the people working there being scientists and such.

Also the Destroy Base type, they never tell you "oh, the base it's been evacuated so go ahead and wreck the place free of guilt", you literally just show up on a random wednesday, probably the day David, from floor two, was gonna finally ask out Wendy, the cute receptionist out, but you and your Lance show up and shower them and all their coworkers with SRM's.
Arguably, you're also destroying families everytime you take out an enemy. Even pirates have families, maybe they did some poor life choices, but someone, somewhere, loves them. Same goes for regular military in service of the factions.

So yeah, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ up Tony's apartment because an 85% shot missed is sad, but I don't get why that would be sadder than the harsh reality of your everyday work.


Anwering your final question, I think you might have the oportunity to rethink taking the contract. My guess is that Urban type maps will be advertised like their own biome, like Polar, or Tundra, or Jungle. So if you see that tag and your (obviously selective) conscience tell you not to do it, you might have the chance to bail.