Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Flamers are actually formal? I don't see "Flamer" in any specialist stuff at all.. and why Flamethrower are not basic kit for Flamer? Why it has to be dropped? Oh and I'm Specialist Devin so.. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, saiphun987 said:

Flamers are actually formal? I don't see "Flamer" in any specialist stuff at all.. and why Flamethrower are not basic kit for Flamer? Why it has to be dropped? Oh and I'm Specialist Devin so.. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

They exist IC but cause problems OOC, so for the time aren't available for use by anyone who isn't a really particularly special snowflake.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Fitz said:

They exist IC but cause problems OOC, so for the time aren't available for use by anyone who isn't a really particularly special snowflake.

Fitz, as someone who no longer plays on the server, please refrain from commenting on things you have no direct knowledge of. 

 

Flamer throwers exist on server. We do not use them a lot because war crimes exist and we don't enjoy setting people on fire. 

 

They do post blue on blue problems, however there are no OOC issues caused by the use of them everything IC is IC. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well to behonest... the trainer who trained me to be flamer always tell me to use it on bugs only. Can not be used on the human because of Geneva n stuff so yeah..

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, saiphun987 said:

Can not be used on the human because of Geneva n stuff so yeah..

Unless it's changed in our canon, flamethrowers aren't technically banned, only restricted in use.

 

From the Red Cross,

Art. 1:

[...]

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. [...]

 

2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

 

3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

 

Art. 2:

[...]

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

 

In other words, as long as you're not torching civilians and are taking precautions, you should be permitted to Flame On

Share this post


Link to post

jesus fuck people still pull the 'waaa my geneva convention' card

wake the fuck up, this is a setting in the future, not us army sim, dont bring real life into a made up thing

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, so

 

Flamer was brought to limited use (against arachnid / non-human targets only) as a means to make the coalition look more humane than sanctuary. The leaders of the Coalition stated this in several addresses. I'm almost positive theres a post of it somewhere. We generally delve away from those types of weapons; A civil war is partly a war of propaganda, and its hard to make neautral / hostile civilians turn to your side when they look to their left and their own people are burned alive, military or not. Sure, war is war, but look at Vietnam for example. The US was thrashed harshly for its use of Napalm and WP, and the NVA / VC as well for its use of painful traps meant to maim, such as punji traps.

 

That's all there is to it, and it's not going to change unless general martin says so, period. 

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, F r a n c o said:

Okay, so

 

Flamer was brought to limited use (against arachnid / non-human targets only) as a means to make the coalition look more humane than sanctuary. The leaders of the Coalition stated this in several addresses. I'm almost positive theres a post of it somewhere. We generally delve away from those types of weapons; A civil war is partly a war of propaganda, and its hard to make neautral / hostile civilians turn to your side when they look to their left and their own people are burned alive, military or not. Sure, war is war, but look at Vietnam for example. The US was thrashed harshly for its use of Napalm and WP, and the NVA / VC as well for its use of painful traps meant to maim, such as punji traps.

 

That's all there is to it, and it's not going to change unless general martin says so, period. 

I don't have problems with Geneva. I'm just curious about why it is not made into official Specialist thingy. Even CQC Specialist are not even on the list btw.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, saiphun987 said:

I don't have problems with Geneva. I'm just curious about why it is not made into official Specialist thingy. Even CQC Specialist are not even on the list btw.

probably because @Jun Nagase or @Randynand misunderstood that the ban is just IC against sanctuary troops during the civil war

Share this post


Link to post

As Franco already stated, this was an IC ban to make us look better than Sanctuary.General Martin and to an extent, Larsen, still have respect for the soldiers fighting on Sanctuary's side, as they simply found themselves on a different side of the war. Ultimately, Martin didn't want to sanction the use of chemical or incendiary weapons on human targets, to maintain our moral high ground.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×