A lot of people are right.ROE plays a major part in today's battle.In Fact the United States military is the only military who follows the Geneva convention.With that bein said;

EX#1
US soldier Shoots downed enemy because enemy soldier was suffering and was begging to be put out of misery,soldier now faces prison for a long time.

EX#2 An Insurgent unloads a whole mag into a wounded soldier than kicks him a few times untill he dies.That Insurgent is now happy and doesnt have to worry bout wat the whole world thinks of him.

I like the wounded soldier system.By not bein able to kill a downed enemy not only are u following ROE but also gives his teammate a chance to bring him back.

A lot of people love bing snipers and im suprised they dont like to use them as bait.

Not being able to kill a downed enemy who just killed ur whole team may not be right in ur eyes,but if u do it the news will tweak the story and make the soldier look like he tortured him.

Now u can say this is only a Game right,well.....Its a game backed by the US ARMY.So its all about realism and how they(or should i say WE) function

If you dont like the game,DONT COMPLAIN IN LOBBIES AND GTFO.

thank you

Are you in the army?

Go ask anybody that has been through battle, if they would leave a guy laying on the battle field if they knew all he needs is to be touched for 5 seconds and he's firing back at them.

Matter of fact, he probly would be court marshaled for endangering his company, if he didn't take out a CLEAR threat to is men wile he could.

Actually yes i am in the US Army and im a 89B.

And u do not know wat ur talking about lol

Integrity: Do What’s Right, Legally and Morally.

That is one of the core values we follow.I'm not here to preach,but for you to try and call me out is another thing.

After what you said read this

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=2474727

Any more things you would like to say?

It's tough being the good guys. And sometimes that can put you at greater risk. But that doesn't mean you stop trying.

I was in the Army, albeit 20 years ago. This is as much a training tool for the Army, as it is a game for the public. There's a saying: "You fight the way you train". Which may give some insight as to why the game is the way it is. The Army doesn't want soldiers indiscriminately firing on downed enemy combatants. Sure, in real life, soldiers may be confronted with situations that would require them to fire on an already wounded enemy, but that is exception rather than rule.

Also, with regards to those complaining about the lack of one hit kills, has anybody researched the ratio of killed in action to wounded in action? I don't recall what those are, but I believe it's pretty high (like 10:1 or higher). So it is way more likely that you'd be wounded than to die on the battle field. Again, I am speculating here, but it would stand to reason that the game is geared to support battlefield data.

The only true problem I have with the kill system is that head shots don't give you an instant kill. Otherwise, I'm all for this kill system.

quote:

It's tough being the good guys. And sometimes that can put you at greater risk. But that doesn't mean you stop trying.

quote:

Originally posted by dru187:
Actually yes i am in the US Army and im a 89B.

And u do not know wat ur talking about lol

Integrity: Do What’s Right, Legally and Morally.

That is one of the core values we follow.I'm not here to preach,but for you to try and call me out is another thing.

After what you said read this

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=2474727

Any more things you would like to say?

Can we say, owned?

That story you posted doesn't address the issue.Mercy killing and kiling some who has the ability and will to kill you is to completely different things.

In real life you put a bullet in a guys head or a couple through his chest he's not getting up and shooting back. If they did the army would shoot him until he's no longer a threat.

It's also aginst the ROE to shoot a man with some high caliber weapons. Yet you watch the military channel and they are talking about breaking records for distance of a kill with a 50 caliber.Isn't that also agianst the ROE?

Show me a law that states you can't shoot a man that you know in few seconds will get up and try to kill you and your men. I don't know for sure but some where in the law your talking about
it must get into specifics and i would guess it talks about when a man is no longer a threat you can't kill him. These people rolling around are 5 seconds of human contact away from killing you and your men, obviously still a threat. Maybe, since your good with the links you could give us a link to the law your talking about. (Not trying to be a smart butt.)

I'm not trying to call you out.It sounded like you were calling people out who don't agree with you. "GTFO"

I just don't believe anybody would risk his life because a guy is rolling on the ground weapon in hand, knowing there's a good posibility he will get up and try to kill him. They would do something to make sure he is no longer a threat. YOu don't have the option in this game.

In this game men are rolling on the ground with weapon in hand, all they need is his buddies magic touch for 5 seconds, and he is deadly as ever. If it was like that in real life the law you speak about would have never been written.

"Integrity: Do What’s Right, Legally and Morally." Like letting your crew die when you could of stoped it?

"And u do not know wat ur talking about lol"

Yep, I have never been in the army or read the Geneva Convention, but I know the kill system in this game has nothing to do with real life, as it's totaly unrealistic.

ps. Have you ever been in real combat? not trying to call you out. honest question.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Hanky2005:
The only true problem I have with the kill system is that head shots don't give you an instant kill.

With modern ballistic helmets, I don't think that's really the case though. Maybe if they took into account where on the head you hit and what kind of weapon you are using.. But I think it's ok without that - as far as I could tell a headshot will always incapacitate somebody.

I am sorry doja2 but your argument is lacking in credibility. In the real world you would dis-arm your assailant and turn him over to the medics for processing into custody and off to an internment camp for POWs. You do not leave an armed assailant lying on the battlefield. The problem is the game does not allow you to disarm your assailant. Maybe this should be part of the game, force the downed soldier to return to the spawn site to re-arm after being healed. Would that make you happy or are you just arguing to be able to have the ability to be merciless and assassinate everyone you incapacitate?

"Would that make you happy or are you just arguing to be able to have the ability to be merciless and assassinate everyone you incapacitate?"

Not at all, If some one takes enough bullets to be knocked down and can't help them selfs. I don't expect that guy to be able do get up, run, and shoot at any kind of range, without going through some serious surgery or something that takes alot longer then 5 seconds.Maybe you drag him off to an extraction piont and it takes a minute or 2 to get back to somewhat normal movement. Maybe one or 2 guys is a medic and only they can properly heal them in a minute or so. Maybe after a head shot there is nothing you can do to save him but you get points for extracting his body. Maybe they might change some things for the full version. Theres a million ways to do it better then it is now.

I just don't like the way the killing/healing system works on the demo. If it wasn't for k/h sys. this game would be great, but that and that alone ruins it for me.

Maybe if enough people complain about they might change it for the full version or in a patch later on, I hope so anyway.

its a major downfall in what could otherwise be a great game.

its supposed to be about realism.

i wouldnt have any problem with punishing someone for shooting a downed opponent per ROE.

but the lack of any instant kills and enforcing ROE in such an unrealistic and cheesy way is a major negative in my book.

dru187, what you aren't understanding is that when you shoot to kill, and you score a kill shot, 9 times out of 10, the target is dead.

this game won't even let you kill anyone. no matter where your bullet hits them, they only get wounded. no matter where a frag goes of near them, they only get wounded. no matter where an artillery strike hits next to them, they only get wounded.

those three instances that I listed above, in real life, the opponent would be dead. this game doesn't allow that which is the problem most of us have with this game. I'm fine with not being able to kill them while they are wounded on the ground. but until they are on the ground wounded, while they are still standing and holding a weapon and firing at me, ROE would allow me to engage that threat with deady means. Ask any soldier, unless ordered not to kill, only to wounded or capture the enemy, they will go out and kill the OPFOR. simple as that.

Honestly i have not been deployed yet.But u know a cool thing about the army is?I am surrounded by at least 70-80 people in my unit that have.I have heard enough "TRUE" stories to know how it is.And you say i would finish off a downed enemy so he wont get up and just fight again later but guess wat?thats how it is.Anyways have u ever heard any of the stories on how insurgents work?

All the time we say we "confirm kills"but when we go over the scene of where it happends there are NO bodies to be found.The ENEMY drags there own out of battle......hmmmm sound faimiliar?they also do not let their teammates go in combat.

I could understand a head shot killing somone.But as someone stated the balistics in a kevlar or ACH can save someones life.And My company commander in basic training was an infantry officer who took a 7.62 round to the head,and his helmet saved his life.He even brought in the same helmet.

A better way they should have u take down enemies is maybe take their weapons and SIMULATE a EPW secure.Do u know what EPW stands for?i bet you'll google it.Just know TV and the military channel is not Always the truth and how things work.If they told the truth no one would watch

quote:

just don't believe anybody would risk his life because a guy is rolling on the ground weapon in hand, knowing there's a good posibility he will get up and try to kill him

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6wkw_Zox3fo Please, refer to the 37 second mark in the video, where two soldiers approach the combatant that has surrendered, not been shot, just surrendered. He has a gun to the left side of him, and at any point he can pick that up and become just as deadly as ever. Do the soldiers lose their composure and shoot the hell out of him? No. As you can see, they approach him, take his weapon away, and detain him.

quote:

With modern ballistic helmets, I don't think that's really the case though.

Actually, I was watching Weaponology on the Military channel, and they tested a modern day Kevlar helmet vs. a WWII helmet. They shot both helmets with a 9mm and with a Karabiner 98k(8mm)

Both helmets stopped the 9mm round. The only difference was that the WWII helmet has much more of an impact force on the head in which it was protecting, there was a huge dent in the helmet that would have given a concussion. While the Kevlar has less of an impact on the head, only causing a "small headache".

When the 8mm Mauser was fired at it though, the bullet went clean through both helmets.

Of course, some in some circumstances, the helmet will stop a 7.62 I have seen it happen.

quote:

Originally posted by XxCH0NGxX:
dru187, what you aren't understanding is that when you shoot to kill, and you score a kill shot, 9 times out of 10, the target is dead.

This i do believe in,and i totally agree with,that is not what the other guy was addressing because he kept mentioning the enemy getting back up and killing the soldier.If you score a kill shot i'm pretty sure he wont be movin much lol.

i agree with most of you about Kill shots should be kill shots.I am just defending the The shooting the enemy on the ground,that is if you were to read my first post

Why don't we stop this argument I think by now we know everyones feeling on this subject now Ubi and RSE now know how we feel why not start trying to fix other issues. PLEASE STOP THIS ARGUMENT!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ring2:
Why don't we stop this argument I think by now we know everyones feeling on this subject now Ubi and RSE now know how we feel why not start trying to fix other issues. PLEASE STOP THIS ARGUMENT!!

im having a hard time coming up with any other issue's that are really bothering me...

this one is just sooo glaring imo.

I don't pretend to know much if anything about real war, or any of lingo abbreviations ext.But, I would think you would do whats necessary to stop the guy shooting at you. And, sometimes if not a lot of the time a well trained soldier could get a kill shot at short to medium distances.

The ROE is the same as it was in RoaS, so I am not sure why people are so surprised/upset to see it in TS. The difference between the two games is RoaS had kill shots, and TS does not. I am guessing that if TS had kill shots, people would not be complaining as much about ROE.