Wanted: A Realistic War Gaming Engine

Ever since Wolfenstein 3D came out, the first person shooter genre of gaming captured the time, cash, and social life of millions of (mostly) men. In a first person shooter, you traverse a three dimensional computer landscape. You generally have a weapon bobbing up and down at the bottom of the screen and your scoring is either based on the number of enemies you kill or on achieving a certain pre-defined objective.

Wolfenstein 3D had awful graphics by today's standards, but it is still quite entertaining. Hey, there's nothing wrong with killing a castle full of evil Nazis is there? As time passed, enhancements to the characters, landscapes, missions, and audio/video technology brought new levels of realism and sophistication to the first person shooter. Starting with games like Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six and others, it was possible to fulfill military objectives on a decently outfitted PC. Now we've reached the point with networking technology that even the US Army has a game that teaches teenagers how cool it is to "engage an enemy."

We've reached a point now where games are marketed to provide a very real experience. Nobody expected to get trapped in a German castle or, as in the game Doom, wind up in a demonic world with various underworld creatures attacking you. Thanks to advances in gaming architecture, there are thousands of people who are experiencing real battle operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Army is going to make a game to lure children into the military, they ought to capture as much of the audio/visual REALITY as they can so our children know what they are getting into.

Therefore, I propose the following changes to all new military games:

• People are very friendly when you arrive, but there is sniper fire to avoid and bands of militia.
  
• One of every 50 innocents will try to kill people on your team.
  
• For the first innocent you kill (or insurgent appearing innocent), the people in the area yell at you.
  
• For the second one, people become sullen and avoid you.
  
• For the third one, the innocents start throwing rocks at you.
  
• For each innocent killed, the number of innocents decreases and the number of bands of insurgents increase.
  
• There is no "winning" a mission, only surviving to go home.
  
• Innocents, insurgents, and your own team members can be wounded and act like wounded (bleeding, screaming, etc.). You have decide how to approach each circumstance.
  
• The dead do not disappear. They must be evacuated or left to rot. Each decision has its own consequences.
  

Update: These items come to you courtesy of frequent poster Relatively Exact:

• Sometimes the equipment you have doesn't work.
  
• There are fellow soldiers, some of whom may be prone to freak out and start killing innocents whether you want them to or not. If the ratio of innocents to insurgents becomes extremely unfavorable, they might start taking panicked pot shots at you.
  
• Sometimes you are given military objectives that are extremely vague or don't make sense.
  
• You are occasionally followed by obnoxious reporters that insult you and get in the way. If you kill one, and there are witnesses, your mission is over.
  

I am sure there are many more. The games will still be playable without these changes, but why play only a fancy version of chess? Chess is for people who are afraid to get their hands dirty. If all the propaganda is true, we don't have time for that.

NOTE: Changed the comments section. If you don't want to give your name, please just put your name/moniker/handle as the first line of the post, skip a line, and make your comments.