From: jogle@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: game vs reality simulation
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 02:23:24 GMT

In article <mumble> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

>In article <grumble> a481@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) writes:

>>> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:

>>>         Well, I'm not going to apologize for your lacking combat skills.
>>> (No offense intended here...read on)  The fact is that in combat, people
>>> tend to aim for the HEAD or the VITALS, and not the chest.  They are aiming
>>> with intent to KILL a person.
>>
>>You just shot yourself out of the sky. Fact is, people who use firearms
>>within their professions are trained to shoot for the largest part of the
>>body, namely the chest. Reason: it's easier to hit. And the whole point of
>>shooting at someone is to put him down quickly so he can't shoot back.
>
>	Sorry, I should use proper GURPS wording:  shoot for the
>vitals or the BRAIN (if you've got time to aim), not for the TORSO.
>The torso is a large area with all sorts of nice bones and things to
>get in the way of unaimed shots.
>	I'm not going to sit around and argue the reality of this
>because I've never been in a war or any gunfight, but generally-
>speaking if I really wanted to kill someone, I'd shoot at the
>general heart region.  I'd call that aiming for the vitals (-3 to
>hit) because I'm not just pointing my gun at the guy and shooting
>(which I do happen to know is much easier), and if I hit, I may very
>well damage something "vital"  =)
>	This is my rationale, but if you've got another one, that's
>fine.

Well, I just wanted to comment that while its a good concept to shoot
for the vitals or the head or whatever to get that quick kill, in the
middle of combat do you really want to take the time and effort to
line up the shot and carefully squeeze off the shot?

I've never been in a gunfight myself but in the little bit of pistol
training I've received the advice I was given concerning shooting
someone else (self-defense talk of course) is to not worry about
targeting and just shoot for the easiest part to hit - the torso.  If
the other guy is out to kill you speed if of the essence; you don't
want to waste time aiming for the heart or the head, especially since
the other guy is going to be moving around and quite likely shooting
at you while you're aiming.

>>My qualifications: I served as a correctional officer and in the Canadian
>>military. I was never told "Shoot for the guy's head. It might be harder to
>>hit, but you'll do him in quicker."
>
>	The point is that gaming is never equal to "reality."  In
>reality you might get shot in the leg and go down, preferring to
>nurse your wound than fight the pain, leap up, and continue the
>battle (as people are apt to do in almost all the RPG's I've played
>in).

Which is of course a good point - comparing reality and most games
just doesn't work.  In response to your earlier statement that "people
tend to aim" for vital areas JD replied that is not the case in real
life.  But in my (gaming) experience it is also not true; most gamers
I've played with in games that use hit location/damage rules will not
bother with called shots because the extra difficulty is usually not
worth the risk (much like in real life; if you miss the guy because
you're aiming for his head and he plugs you in the chest as a result,
you're screwed and he isn't.)

>	A brain shot in GURPS is a -7 to hit.  Unless you're sure of
>yourself, you're never going to make that shot.  But if you're a
>sniper and you're sitting on a building, why not?  You've got your
>full ACC bonus and +3 from aiming...if that's not good enough, then
>nothing is.

But a sniper shot is not the same thing as being in combat with
someone.  A sniper has the time to aim for vital locations.

>	I can think of other situations where this is appropriate.
>Melee combat when a guy is decked out in plate mail but without a
>helmet, etc...

Situations like that do make aiming more worthwhile, especially if it
is your only chance of taking the guy down.

>>>        Again, I'll try out a few combats and see what "really" happens.
>>> The main points are the shoot for the vitals or the head. A "chest" hit
>>> means that your shot was not well-placed enough to penetrate an organ.  The
>>> bullet hit bones and glanced off, etc.

>>If a projectile strikes bone, it will generally shatter everything around
>>it, sending sharp pieces of your own skeletal structure throughout your
>>chest cavity.

It all depends on how the bullet hits the bone of course; hitting it
dead on will probably not be good for the bone but if the bullet hits
at enough of an angle it would glance off, doing minimum damage.

>	I mean, people have been shot in the head with .22 bullets
>and have lived.  People have stepped on the supposedly-lethal
>landmines (or so they are in some RPG's) and have lived...not quite
>the same way, but they lived...

But that is not the norm for those situations - most people who step
on landmines or get shot in the head (even by small caliber handguns)
are not going to live.  Depending on the game system in question
though, this may not be the case of course.

>>I have no idea who wrote those combat rules, but they seem to need a lesson
>>in projectile trauma themselves. Either that, or it's your interpretation
>>that needs to be re-examined.
>
>	Could you please get off your high horse and just conduct a
>normal conversation?  I honestly don't understand why you're so
>offended.  If you're really interested in getting off on games, go
>pick on AD&D for a while...

Hey, chill out; he was just pointing out that what you were saying
about GURPS combat doesn't jibe with his real-life knowledge.

-- 
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, TORG guru)                               /|
jogle@aoc.nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)           o| |-
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."                              /|\\|