|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulysses Knapse
Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm
952
   |
Posted - 2014.01.01 15:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:If you do not know, when a tank gets closer to mines, the pilot will hear a beeping noise getting louder the closer to the mines they are, now this has proven to be an issue for AVers as they are only useful against killing LAVs. Perhaps removing this sound assist from Tanks would make the game a little more interesting for both sides.
In real life, mines are used more for their deterrence than they are for destroying, similarly to how machine guns are more for suppression than they are for killing. There's a reason minefields are set up instead of just plopping down mines in a random fashion.
Though I do agree that proximity explosives should be more useful.
What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?
The pile of garbage is more lethal.
|
Ulysses Knapse
Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm
952
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 16:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:I am not too fond of real life, full of realism and stuff.
Well, at least the combat is balanced! 
What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?
The pile of garbage is more lethal.
|
Ulysses Knapse
Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm
1075
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 16:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
TheEnd762 wrote:Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example.
That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that.
Here, an article on the usage of land mines.
What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?
The pile of garbage is more lethal.
|
Ulysses Knapse
Knapse and Co. Mercenary Firm
1075
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 17:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
TheEnd762 wrote:Ulysses Knapse wrote:TheEnd762 wrote:Anti-personnel mines are more used for deterrence. Anti-vehicle mines are not. They are set up in specific places and designed to destroy even the heaviest vehicles, as the underside is the weakest point of tanks, armored personnel carriers, humvees, etc. Take IEDs in Iraq, for example. That's a different kind of warfare, my friend. Traditionally, mines would be set up in the fields regardless of whether they were designed for anti-vehicle or anti-personnel usage. Just because insurgents use them in a particular way doesn't mean that's how they were meant to be used. Asymmetric urban warfare is like that. Nope. Take the claymore mine. It has a directional blast and must be placed at or above ground level to be effective. This allows them to be used as deterrents, since they are visible to an enemy. An enemy must be aware of something for it to be a deterrent. That's the difference between a deterrent and a trap. Traditional land mines and anti-tank mines are placed on likely avenues of approach and concealed, so that they're more likely to kill before the enemy is aware of them. They are traps. Barbed wire is a deterrent. A electric fence isn't a deterrent unless there's a sign on it saying it's an electric fence. Nuclear Missiles aren't a deterrent if you just start launching them. A deterrent is an avoidable threat of force.
Did you even click the link?
What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?
The pile of garbage is more lethal.
|
|
|
| |
|