Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment

[homunculus]

more than once i have felt that the game should not be set in 2084 but in 1950.

i see the 2084 is probably from x-com apocalypse, but there seems to be little reason to stick to that date.
is that date meant to make the game more believable?
many games use past dates as the starting point, and they don't suffer from the believability issues at all.

if the game was set in 1950 (or maybe 1961 would be a nice symbolic date), the stereotypical weapons that we would like to use, would not feel so awkwardly out of date.

[GopherLemming]

In reply to Destructavator (not quoting or the post may be a little too long): But in your scenario those countries condemning the one nation would continue to adhere to the conventions? They wouldn't abandon ethical beliefs because someone else did. Now what if instead of country A breaking the "rules," it never agreed to them in the first place and went to war with country B that did? B would still adhere to those "rights" even though the enemy doesn't use them.

If a single person murders another, he doesn't immediately lose his rights! He is taken to court for a sentence. If a country mistreats enemy soldiers/civilians it isn't forfeiting it's soldiers/civilians to being mistreated (assuming it's opposition signed those conventions).

Now apply that idea to invading aliens (ok, it's stretching it a bit...). If we didn't "place limitations upon ourselves: In the aliens eyes our soldiers and civilians have no rights and because of this are waving all they're own? That isn't the way it SHOULD work.

As for

"Rights" make sense when fighting one's own kind, such as humans vs. humans

One's own kind?? I think that's a dangerous thing to say. If you simplify it you get, "if it's not like me, it doesn't have rights." I believe history has heard that before somewhere?

To homunculus: That's not a bad idea, but then you'd lose the ability to back engineer much of the alien technology, and in case that was referring to this little flamethrower and gas debate, I never (at least I think I never) said that the GAME should be altered to my viewpoint

To Talon112: I haven't really thought about nukes but I'm under the impression that the vast majority of deaths are near-instantaneous and would therefore not result in excessive mental or physical trauma? Weather the genocide of all the aliens in retaliation to the attack was either necessary or right is another question... but it was just a film

[BTAxis]

I think that's a dangerous thing to say. If you simplify it you get, "if it's not like me, it doesn't have rights." I believe history has heard that before somewhere?

Well yes. That's the case with quite a lot of rights. To name an example, in democracies, citizens of a country have the right to vote for the leaders of that country. Non-citizens don't.

It makes perfect sense to restrict rights.

[GopherLemming]

To name an example, in democracies, citizens of a country have the right to vote for the leaders of that country. Non-citizens don't.

But everyone has the right to become a citizen! (at least as far as I know, in USA, Britain, Europe etc) As far as I know the only requirement to take the test (can't remember it's official name) to become a citizen is a site at which you live eg: house and that is for administration purposes.

Edit: And before someone says that the "Home" rule is a "lack of rights" or discrimination against the homeless, it can't be considered discrimination if it applies to everyone. Example: If I were born in a country and lived their my entire life, I would probably be a citizen, but If I then lost my home (and therefore my address)  I couldn't vote or apply for a passport or any other acts unique to a citizen

[BTAxis]

But everyone has the right to become a citizen! (at least as far as I know, in USA, Britain, Europe etc) As far as I know the only requirement to take the test (can't remember it's official name) to become a citizen is a site at which you live eg: house and that is for administration purposes.

Tell that to all the Mexicans who get stopped at the border. It's actually pretty hard to get a greencard for the US. Look it up.

[Destructavator]

Well, I'm not arguing about how it is or should be in real life, but my points were about the fictitious setting of the game plot, and how much of the real-life "rules" we have among ourselves shouldn't apply to hostile aliens that are invading and don't care themselves about any such rules or self-imposed limitations.

And yes, BTAxis is right, immigration into the U.S. is very difficult to do legally, although I'm not going to go into depth on that discussion - I could, but I won't.

[GopherLemming]

Well, I'm not arguing about how it is or should be in real life, but my points were about the fictitious setting of the game plot, and how much of the real-life "rules" we have among ourselves shouldn't apply to hostile aliens that are invading and don't care themselves about any such rules or self-imposed limitations.

I got the impression that you were arguing points on how real life should be if a scenario such as the games plot occured. In which case mine is that any sentient being should have the same laws, rights and conventions applied. If my dog was sentient at the same level as humans, I would expect/hope that human rights would be applied.

Tell that to all the Mexicans who get stopped at the border. It's actually pretty hard to get a greencard for the US. Look it up.

I wasn't aware it was difficult to get into the US. I apologize if I was wrong. But if someone did it would be easy to apply for citizenship? My view was that It SHOULD be. I know for a fact that my country (England) is easy to both get into (since a passport isn't needed to travel between countries in the EU) and easy to become a citizen of. I would hope that right is present everywhere.

[Drayd]

Wow...
I was just making a point as to how the game could be made realistic in game...
I wasn't trying to start a theological debate, personally i love setting people on fire in games... Great fun in the sims... : p

[Zorlen]

If we are going to stick to conventions, captured aliens should be treated respect for their persons and their honour and may not be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment.
But aliens here are far different from any human opponent: they didn't make any demands, ignored all negotiation attempts and won't stop hostile activity unless killed or incapacitated. Aside from that, each alien doesn't show much intelligence on individual level, so it's not quite correct to treat them as "persons". The only sentient thing among them is XVI virus, but unless we are going to respect virus' right to infest and devour all living things on Earth, the alien invasion is much like a natural disaster and should be dealed with appropriately.

As for human morale damage - it's quite possible, as with each war. I remember the plot of the Incoming game series - in the first part you fought alien invasion as usual, but in Incoming 2 you took the side of some other alien race defending against humans, which became technologically advanced and xenophobic after the first war with aliens. Something similar could happen after the destruction of alien mothership here - not knowing if there are more XVI motherships or ET threats of other kind, having a number of unidentified XVI hosts on Earth which can form undercover common intelligence cells and provided with alien war technology, Earth goverments can unite under more totalitarian, suspicious and warlike one. In this case the final titles could show an armada of FTL ships being built on Earth orbit, saying "Now we must be prepared" or similar.

[GopherLemming]

But aliens here are far different from any human opponent: they didn't make any demands, ignored all negotiation attempts and won't stop hostile activity unless killed or incapacitated.

I don't recall negotiation attempts? Even if they occur in the storyline later then what's been implemented and they refuse or ignore they shouldn't be mistreated. An example: if terrorists hijacked a boat and refused to negotiate, they don't lose rights. (It may be rare for them not to "state their demands" but it could, and I think has happened)

Aside from that, each alien doesn't show much intelligence on individual level, so it's not quite correct to treat them as "persons". The only sentient thing among them is XVI virus, but unless we are going to respect virus' right to infest and devour all living things on Earth

Well you've brought up a good point. I would normally say that:
ANY entity capable of cognitive thought should be given human "rights" (started using this term a lot haven't I? ) and that includes both the virus and the "hostages." Striking a proper balance is difficult since the virus needs hosts to exist. If the infection were curable, I might side on the hosts side because of the majority argument but that doesn't mean the virus is losing rights. In an ideal world an artificial machine incapable of thought but capable of supporting the virus would be developed.
I'm not going to say that here though... I fear it may be even less popular then my previous statements about just "aliens"

The virus doesn't have a right to kill or "infest" but by doing so isn't waving it's own rights

alien race defending against humans, which became technologically advanced and xenophobic after the first war with aliens... "Now we must be prepared" or similar.

That was what I was suggesting with my quote (from Friedrich Nietzsche?) but it might not happen out of fear from aliens, but because we sacrificed a part of us when we fought, ignoring the human rights of aliens, which bleeds over to sacrificing rights of the humans infected, which bleeds over to ignoring the rights of ordinary "citizens" "for their own protection." Of course that wouldn't occur in the games setting because from what I understand of the plot, Sol and a few others are the only star systems left with natural resources. In the future, without room to expand, civilization would most likely collapse.

[Zorlen]

I don't recall negotiation attempts? Even if they occur in the storyline later then what's been implemented and they refuse or ignore they shouldn't be mistreated. An example: if terrorists hijacked a boat and refused to negotiate, they don't lose rights.

Ignored negotiations are taken from official storyline: "Some nations attempt diplomacy, sending messages in a thousand different languages to the aliens ravaging across the countryside. Their words are ignored. Within hours, all three cities are emptied of human life."
Human terrorists are at least capable of negotiation because of their human nature. To my mind, negotiation is a must if a mutual coexistance is to be achieved. Ability to negotiate makes the difference between SkyNet and Matrix machines. And XVI is more of SkyNet type - both were artificially engineered for military purposes, but gone out of control and for both of them the only acceptable form of coexistance with humans is their enslaving.

ANY entity capable of cognitive thought should be given human "rights"

This point is the most arguable to me. You consider the terms "human rights" and "moral" to be all-sufficient and universal through all possible sentient life forms. I consider them to be sorts of behaviour rules that humanity agreed upon to optimize our social attitutes. E.g. do not kill in order not to be killed yourself, help the weak in order to be helped if you become weak too, etc. And these are based on our historical experience of human vs. human interaction, so adding some intelligent indederminate in current relationship scheme would eventually require tweaking our moral principles.