There's no much point going auto in games like Ghost Recon, though. At very close ranges it might work out, but with most weapons at anything more than 5 meters of range your accuracy will suck too much for it to be a real option. Instead you can deal death with über-accurate single shots as far away as the game engine can be bothered to draw the enemy (~60-180 meters in GR), disposing of squads of enemies in a few seconds with your Minesweeper-honed point-click-skills.
It's still a great game, well worth playing. But personally, I'd rather play single-player America's Army, if such a game were ever made. Coming up in next version of AA: accurate bullet physics! Add that to 100-200ms lag and try hitting a sprinting target on semi-auto...
Full Version: How intensely tactical is your group of SR players
| QUOTE (Smiley) |
| Depends... does your group plan for 2 hours and then start a bloodbath and lootnanny as soon as they get through the door? |
Yup, every bloody time.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
Well, if you would so kindly stand there, I'll see how many bullets will it take to kill you.  |
Ah, but he was talking about realism, not shooting at an unmoving and fully visible target that wasn't shooting back.
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) | ||
Ah, but he was talking about realism, not shooting at an unmoving and fully visible target that wasn't shooting back. |
Ah, but the original post was in regards to how many hits (bullets) it takes to kill a person. It doesn't matter if the target is running, shooting, or breakdancing.
If he's bending backwards at the knees and flailing his arms, bullets won't touch him anyway.
Like drugs, he could just say "No" to bullets instead.
They will if I call a shot to his knees. 
Wearing dark sunglasses and gesturing dramatically has always worked for me.
me too. ...if headshots count as dramatic gestures.
| QUOTE (Botch) | ||
Yup, every bloody time. |
Extreme looting? We had a ghoul with the day job flaw. His job was peddling secondhand cyberware from runs and from helpless victims he gnawed on when he needed a snack.
Our group tends to expand and contract each week, with only a few players consistently showing up to play. Also, not all of the players are experienced or . . . smart. We've all done stupid things, but some of our players do them frequently enough that our tactics are occasionally based on bailing out whoever screwed up most recently.
In general though, we tend to do a good bit of recon work before we plan a run, we plan the run before we actually do the run, and we usually have a back-up plan and one or more safehouses. The problem comes when we're doing something simple, like investigating a lead, and we stumble into an ambush or a booby-trap, or both. Those are the situations when we're understrength, out of position and/or don't have the right equipment. We usually bleed in those situations.
In general though, we tend to do a good bit of recon work before we plan a run, we plan the run before we actually do the run, and we usually have a back-up plan and one or more safehouses. The problem comes when we're doing something simple, like investigating a lead, and we stumble into an ambush or a booby-trap, or both. Those are the situations when we're understrength, out of position and/or don't have the right equipment. We usually bleed in those situations.
| QUOTE (kevyn668) | ||
Ah, but the original post was in regards to how many hits (bullets) it takes to kill a person. It doesn't matter if the target is running, shooting, or breakdancing. |
Well, the obvious minimum is one, but there's a good deal of variation, especially if the target is moving and/or firing back.
The James-Younger gang tried to rob the Northfield, Minnesota Bank in 1876. Between the battle in the town and wounds taken while being pursued, three robbers died who were shot 1, 2, and 6 times respectively. Five robbers survived, they were shot 1, 2. 3. 5, and 11 times respectively.
Or to pick a more current gunfight, in 1986 in Florida, eight FBI agents fought 2 armed criminals, both of whom were former military and far more skilled and aggressive than the average criminal. Five of the FBI agents were wounded, two died after being hit multiple times.
Both criminals died. One was shot three times, early in the fight. One shot stuck his gun hand, one was a neck hit, the other a head hit that struck the brain. This left the criminal so badly injured he no longer returned fire, though he was still moving under his own power until he was shot in the head three more times at the end of the fight.
The other criminal had already wounded three FBI agents, two severely, when he took his first 'non-survivable' wound to the torso. Shortly thereafter, he took a second severe, possibly 'non-survivable' wound to the torso, after which he wounded two more FBI agents, one of them severely, and killed two. Finally, the criminal was shot in the head and torso, the latter penetrating to the spinal column. This rendered the criminal unconscious and he died at the scene. He also took several lesser wounds during the fight, including three to his gun hand, and was shot a total of nine times.
So the answer is, sometimes one bullet is enough, sometimes eleven hits aren't enough to get the job done.
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) | ||||
........... So the answer is, sometimes one bullet is enough, sometimes eleven hits aren't enough to get the job done. |
Actually, the minimum number of bullets needed to kill a man is zero - Two possible ways.
1) Pull the trigger, and the guy has a heart attack and dies from panic/fear
2) Um...use the butt of the gun to kill him
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.