I posted this at the end of a long thread, and know not many will see it. So I am reposting here because I have heard MANY people complain that they are "killed" and the game said they were shot in the left hand or right foot etc. . .

As for it being unrealistic to get shot in the foot and die: When you get shot in the foot or hand and it takes you out of the match it is not really suppose to mean you died. It means you were injured enough that you were no longer an effective threat.

In real combat training and situations they typically use language like "the target was neutralized" etc. They don't care if the target is dead, they just want the target down and staying down so it won't cause anymore trouble. The goal is not to kill the enemy it is to remove the enemy's ability to make war or pose a threat. It that means killing him, fine. If it means wounding him or rendering him incapacitated enough that he can no longer shoot or observe or advance, fine.

And just like with aircraft, an ace got credit for a "kill" regardless of whether they enemy pilot or crew survived or not. All that mattered was destroying the aircraft.

That is one reason casualites traditionally include both wounded and killed in action. All that really matters from a tactical or strategic perspective is rendering as many of the enemy unable to make war as possible. If that means shooting off four of his toes, or shooting off his head, it leads to the same desired result.

So if you get sniped in the foot and it disables you enough that you are down and stay down, well then, that is a "kill" in eyes of the game.

yes....... YES

amen.

------------------
http://www.clanhost.nl/imageuploader/images/101.gif

=[SE]= MSgt. Parchy
Screamin' Eagles
Company First Sgt.

very nicely put

------------------
http://www.geocities.com/forumerwehrm/-Wehrmacht-.jpg

Well all said and good .. but one importain thing you left out ... If you pay attention you are not killed by the wound to your hand finger foot toes ect; that is only one of many wounds you ahve suffered that round.. The last wound.. the Straw that Broke the Camels back so to speak... I think it rather funny that the finnal shot to bring me down was in my foot ect .. but let be clear about this.. You were not Killed by the Shot to your Foot alone!!


------------------
Pappy *LFD*
http://www.left-4dead.com
Left for Dead Server IP
216.145.27.154

i agree with all above, but remember this...

it takes more people to tend to a wounded man, than it does to bury a dead man.

wounding people is a lot more effective on the big scale that killing them. plus the last shot will be the foot shot, but you prolly already copped a mag in the face!

------------------
http://home.useoz.com/~biglyle/sigs/rommelsig.jpg

[This message has been edited by GEN.Rommel.CN (edited February 08, 2002).]

Yes, like in the olden days, when archers were captured after a battle they would simply have their two bow fingers cut off thus making them useless.
Its also one of the uses of putting up two fingers in a V, which is now considered rude...
They did that after battle to show they still had their two finger to shoot arrows with.

------------------
I can't help about the shape I'm in, I can't sing I ain't pretty and my legs are thin. But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.

i dont know about you but id rather die from getting shot in the foot than laying on the ground until somebody decides to put me out of my misery. probably end up being some bazooka kid...

also according to our military.

a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier because it takes an average of 3 people to care for one wounded soldier. it only takes 1 to care for a dead soldier.

nah. kill them all http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madrebel:
also according to our military.

a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier because it takes an average of 3 people to care for one wounded soldier. it only takes 1 to care for a dead soldier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so dont you mean a dead soldier is better than a wounded one??....if it takes more men to look after a wounded one.


------------------
I can't help about the shape I'm in, I can't sing I ain't pretty and my legs are thin. But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.

bleed to death..

------------------
http://www.j-body.org/registry/jbo/spiewalk.jpg
Und wenn du dich auf den Kopf stellst!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by madrebel:
also according to our military.

a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier because it takes an average of 3 people to care for one wounded soldier. it only takes 1 to care for a dead soldier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i agree, but which military is that?
wounded men required to be dragged out, fixed up and then nursed back to health.
a dead man is just left there or buried in a shallow grave.


------------------
http://home.useoz.com/~biglyle/sigs/rommelsig.jpg

*Comming soon...The COMMIE NAZI Homepage*

The Viet Cong made extensive use of wounding soldiers. They dug holes, put sharpened bamboo shoots in them [called Pungi stakes], and covered the trap. When an soldier would step in the hole it would pierce his boot and stab his feet, deliberately wounding, but not killing, him. One wounded solider is all it takes to slow an entire troop down.

------------------
http://www.iron-wolf.f2s.com/jeremy.jpg
"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."

If someone shoots me in the hand or foot, I'll probably manage to shoot back - realistically speaking.

look in SPR, carparzo (not sure if spelt right) got shot in the wrist and died didn;t he??