Is this realistic?

I was playing Medal of honor Allied Assault.

I noticed that when using the tommy gun, MP40, or the M1 Garand, it takes alot of shots to kill an enemy soldier.

I sometimes hit them with a burst of 5 shots and they double over like they are badly hurt, but then they start shooting at me again and I have to fire like another 1-2 shots to kill them.

It amazes me sometimes how much it takes to bring a soldier down.   I would think that just a 3 round spurt would be enough, but then again how would I know?

There are some lucky occasians when I hit an enemy with like 2 or 3 shots that kills them.  But generally I need to hit them with like 5-6 good shots to bring them down.  All generally at close range.

In OFP it generally took like 2-3 shots to kill enemies.  Sometimes just 1 well placed one. That always seemed realistic to me.

So are the gun killing damage true to real life?  

That is the only thing that is really bothering me with the game at the moment (and the lack of a weapon view too), but I am not sure if it is that far from realistic or not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 04 2002,13:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So are the gun killing damage true to real life?<span id='postcolor'>

No

MOHAA is definetely not a reference imho

Sometimes you mow half a clip from the thompson in an oncoming nazi and they don't drop.OFP is much betetr (except the whole shoot a leg several times > dead thing)

If you are talking about multiplayer, it probable is lag.

If you are talking about singleplayer... Well, you need to aim carefully, a headshot can kill with one bullet, almost always. If you shoot someone in the legs, you'll need to shoot a couple bullets before they go down. People who get hit hard but are still alive fall on the ground and try to get up. A well placed bullet will take them down forever. Also think about it that holding the trigger is a bad idea, the best thing is to shoot semi auto. When shooting at large groups you can hold the trigger because your bad accuracy isn't that annoying while shooting at large groups.

Use sniper rifles for men who are far away and machine guns for inside houses. It makes a lot of difference, sometimes using a pistol inside a house is good too.

Want to know something else?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 04 2002,13:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was playing Medal of honor Allied Assault.

I noticed that when using the tommy gun, MP40, or the M1 Garand, it takes alot of shots to kill an enemy soldier.

I sometimes hit them with a burst of 5 shots and they double over like they are badly hurt, but then they start shooting at me again and I have to fire like another 1-2 shots to kill them.

It amazes me sometimes how much it takes to bring a soldier down.   I would think that just a 3 round spurt would be enough, but then again how would I know?<span id='postcolor'>

That , my friend, is the wonder of realism

I would'nt go too deep into MOHAA, you'll hit the bottom sooner than you think (and hurt yourself)

MOHAA is not even remotely reallistic.

Even CS has more realism. And that says something....

MOHAA is a nice game to play, not realistic but a lot of fun, the multiplayer is pretty cool too, many small maps but they are fun to play. Especially sniping is fun, i wish i could still play that game...

Wow that was fast.

I figured part of it was due to the fact that the weapons back then were pretty inaccurate and therefore some of the bullets missed at long range.

Anyways, is there a way to increase the gun damages or decrease the human durability to a more realistic level?

Aim more carefully

It is possible in multiplayer to play a 'realism version' and a non realism one (non is the normal game).

In the realism version you get realistic kills...

But i'm not sure if it's possible for sp too, don't think so...

If you get shot by even pistol rounds, you will fall down and cry out in pain.

Forget all this BHD or B20 crap about the effectiveness of 5.56 rounds or such, the fact is unless you are a lucky person, if you get shot, you are out of the fight for at least until someone comes along, bandages it up and assures you your OK.

The Mental shift from "I'm OK, I'm OK, I'm OK" to "Oh crap I'm bleeding!!" is enough to put many people out of a fight.

(I think the BHD line "I can't drive I'm shot sir" sums this up, the guy was able to drive, but he was telling himself "I can't fight, I'm shot")

If you get shot by a rifle round, you are going to fall down, and depending on where you get hit, not get back up again.

If you get shot in the shoulder (portrayed as a minor wound) the bullet will at best shatter your shoulder bone (putting you down for at least a while) and at worst reflect off the shoulder bone and tear a line straight though your organs.

Get shot in the leg, and if it doesn't hit a artery you will be unable to walk, and if your unable to walk usually (there have been a few medal filled exceptions) you are unable to fight.

If it hits an artery you will be dead within minutes.

No brilliant medic coming along to save you, cos there is nothing he can do.

Unfortunately this makes for rather boring games, hence the whole health bar thing

Yes it may be less boring and more "action packed", but I can't STAND that.

Whenever I play a game, I mentally prepare myself like it would be a realistic fire fight and I strategize with that in mind.

When I pop an enemy once or twice and he doesn't drop, that really throws me off.

That's one of the great things about OFP, the realistic kills.

If you shoot someone once or twice, they will pretty much just drop dead.

I was hoping MOH would be realistic in that sense because realistic weapons models and damage is fundamental to a good realistic game.  I still think it is a "good fun game", but the primary aspect that I look for in a game (realistic weapons and damage engine) was not there.                        

 

The only other game other that OFP that I have seen that is like that was SWAT3 (keep in mind I have not played many games).

This is primarily what I look for in a tactical shooter game.

Can anyone recommend any other games like this that I could buy?  

IceFire

PS, By the way, what are BHD, and B20?  I didn't understand those.

Black Hawk Down and Bravo Two Zero, both books go into rants about the differences of 5.56 and 7.62 rounds (without looking into the scientific studies)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Dec. 04 2002,14:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can anyone recommend any other games like this that I could buy?<span id='postcolor'>

Day of Defeat for Half-life. Very real.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Dec. 04 2002,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Black Hawk Down and Bravo Two Zero, both books go into rants about the differences of 5.56 and 7.62 rounds (without looking into the scientific studies)<span id='postcolor'>

Did you? Because you appear to be simplifying this complex issue.

And the reaction of a person to a bullet wound depends on too many things, his physical and psychical state, the situation and many more things. With adrenaline or drugs rushing through someones venes you cannot expect him to drop after one or two (even fatal) hits.

If you use high speed ammo the shock effect on neural sytem will make the body functions collapse. You will die, no matter if you got the hit into vital parts of the body or the bullet just scrached your skin. A projectile not bigger than a needle can kill you if it´s speed is very high.

With regular calibers off course you wont die of a single shot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I figured part of it was due to the fact that the weapons back then were pretty inaccurate. <span id='postcolor'>

Not really, weapons of the time were quite accurate. Sure, modern technology has made things better but a WWII or WWI rifle can be as accurate as any off-the-shelf rifle today.

MOH:AA, as others have said is not one of the best sources for realism. I can shoot a German in the head with my M-1 Garand (.30-06) but all it does is knock off his helmet. IRL, that would go through both sides of the helmet and scramble his brains in the process. Besides, blood isn't even modeled in the game.

Tyler

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 04 2002,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you use high speed ammo the shock effect on neural sytem will make the body functions collapse. You will die, no matter if you got the hit into vital parts of the body or the bullet just scrached your skin. A projectile not bigger than a needle can kill you if it´s speed is very high.

With regular calibers off course you wont die of a single shot.<span id='postcolor'>

This as already been discussed by here but to be short: no neutral shock due to a projectile impacting exists. Incapacitation is physical or psychological.

Energy transfer do not exist.

The only approaching thing is the worse called " cavitation " that produces destruction of tissues by exceeding the elastical limits when a fast and heavy projectiles comes.

This producing a permanent crush zone a little bigger than the projectile size on its travel trough the tissues.

And speed got nothing to do with it. A 5.56 bullet do not produces that cavitation, a slower 7.62 does.

This is why some people still believe ( and some ammo manufacturers got interst for it to be believed, also some cultural aspects have to be taken in account ) that a shockwave is travelling in the body mass, that an energy transfer exists, and mix them in the easily-put-all-in-that-bin- " hydrostatic " term because our tissues are liquidian typed.

A projectile do not transfer energy in a mass. It loose it in.

The mass may be animated in response, but with its own energy amounts and propertys.

Physically, forces do not transfer from themselves, inertia is not a force.

Baddly called " Cavitation " in terminal ballistic domain is just an example of a too sudden entry in moves for the elasticall limits of the tissues.

But the amount of energy required from the bullet is very great, the size of destrucing effets very small and hazardous.

Even test shots with small caliber very high speeds ammo at 1400 meters per second and more didn't produced those effects. ( tested on live pigs, physicaly very similar to humans )

Also tested with shell fragments at more than 2600 meters per second.

Dying after beeing shoot by a projectile that didn't reached critical organ exists, but are the results of an incouscient defense order from the brain at its paroxysm, or by passing the limits the organism can support in producing adrenalins or heart beat abilities for example.

Believing that a particular projectile create another type of particular shockwave and drives directly to a nervous  malfunction is a huge but common mistake.

Shock effect on nervous system, shock wave propagation and co-assigned destructions are some branches of the original " stopping power " tree wich is a hard to kill myth, but just a myth.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you use high speed ammo the shock effect on neural sytem will make the body functions collapse.<span id='postcolor'>

accords to this

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">are the results of an incouscient defense order from the brain at its paroxysm,<span id='postcolor'>

I dont have the language background to write it as you did, but this is what I wanted to say

I also miss the english correct language to put the words as I'd want to !

Just to say that even with not so fast projectiles the physicall limits of the organism can be reached, but is purely due to brain order and not physical due to a supposed ( an not existing ) , directly related shock wave

The phenomen may happen with subsonic projectiles. ( even a hammer ! )

Basically: the more energy you transfer to a body, the more damage will be done.

Tyler

Basically this is where the problem stands : there is NO energy transfer, anywhere anytime anyhow you can imagine.

There is NO energy travelling inside/through the body.

Physicall tissue destruction by bullet to tissues contact or as explained above VERY small baddly called " cavitation " effect - which is nothing else that outpassing limits of the elastical limits of the exposed object -, or decision from the brain to " stop the engine " because it is a common defense response, or some other defense responses drives to critical organs malfunctions because some levels of chemical substances or physicalls beats were to high.

That is all.

No energy transfer, no wave of any sort for incacipating abilitys of a projectile.  

An example ? Have you ever heard about a guy standing point blank at the place an artillery round explodes and suffer no any more damage than eardrum breaks due to pressure ?

What is the energy of the explosion ?

Enough to pull the guy ten meters away or more.

And what's happening ? the grunt recovers is walking abilities, and say " WOW " LOL.

Isn't that pressure exactly what you call when speaking about " waves " of energy transferred in a body ??

Did the energy travelled trough the body like a phantom ??

Did it transferred to the body ?? So why didn't it created damages ? Nervous malfunction ??

Isn't that " energy exposure " as you may think, bigger than the quantity in joules or whatever you want way bigger than the one created by a bullet ?? And so still alive :o

I hate that word transfer associated to energy. This is not terminal ballistic.

Hard to kill myth.

Basically the more energy to a projectile OK.

Because this mean bigger the energy is bigger heavier and faster the projectile is.

The projectile physically creates dammages, not its energy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The projectile create dammages because it moves thanks to its energy but that energy is lost in the contact and not transferred !!

AaAaAaAaAaAaAHhHhHhHh I'm driving mad !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but that energy is lost in the contact and not transferred !!<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm, physics definately isn't my specialty but I would say that the energy the bullet contained would be transfered to the body upon impact and the milliseconds afterwards, thereby causing the damage.

[EDIT]Or maybe the body absorbs the energy, but I guess that would be the same thing.

Denoir, where are you?

Tyler

LOL !

That's exactly what I would say : Denoir, Where are you !      

The body do not absorb completly really, just accept energy of any moving object in that world loose itself in the environment and vanish. Inertia is not a force. How to say...

definitely we need Denoir

Everyone still believing in the high-velocity-bullet-shockwave-death or anything similar should so some research on it, especially the work of Dr. Fackler, as it is _the_ reference on terminal ballistics.

It's really sad so many people in military and police forces still believe in this "hydrostatic shock" and other instant-kill-BS!

But fighting this myth is like fighting windmills...

Ah yes

But I adress just one reserve to Dr. Fackler's work :

He created strict and precise test protocols using refrigerated gelatin but the problem is that gelatin is not elastical and is homogenous, unlike human tissues for most of them so sometimes the size of the permanent crush is overestimated particulay for slow high mass bullets with round nose or expanding bullets wich are not really the best for penetration coefficients ( mean profile ).

That permanent crush overestimation allow some people to say again and again that hydrostatic shocks do the job, also when seeing the impressive size of the temporary crush that easily developps and stay at its biggest position while in orgonic tissues this is not.

Or at the contrary, small and very high velocity bullets - like 5.56X45 - also give better results than what they should ( except the particular case of 5.7X28 and 4.6X30 while theyr little mass conducts to a fast stop in that refrigerated and harder than human body gelatin ). -- or more exactly a low mass/volume bullet ratio --

This is where the confrontation is about the Strasbourg test where fires against fresh killed pigs gave very different results.