|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1698
   |
Posted - 2013.07.28 03:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have noticed relative increase in the amount of HAV's on the battle field. Despite there claims that there departure would leave a void, on which the game would collapse itself. The prediction could not have been more false. I thereby say, good riddance. |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1698
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 04:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Karazantor wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:wait...so you're counting newberry scrubs who dont have free lavs anymore as tankers? omg. no. there are no tankers left. no good ones anyhow. notice how all of them are solo'd by a good aver? In the real world, unsupported armoured vehicles are never solo'd by anti-vehicle weapons. I can't belive the game would be so unbalanced that this would be possible - just another of CCP's failing i'm afraid.
That makes no sense. So you say that vehicles that are supported by infantry are able to be destroyed by a single person? I believe you have mixed yourself up.
That said, armored vehicles have frequently been disabled and even destroyed by a single person. As recent as the Iraqi war, an Abrams Tank, complete with reactive armor, was disabled by a tandem warhead fired from an RPG. A single AV personnel. One round. |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1698
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 04:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Karazantor wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:wait...so you're counting newberry scrubs who dont have free lavs anymore as tankers? omg. no. there are no tankers left. no good ones anyhow. notice how all of them are solo'd by a good aver? In the real world, unsupported armoured vehicles are never solo'd by anti-vehicle weapons. I can't belive the game would be so unbalanced that this would be possible - just another of CCP's failing i'm afraid. That makes no sense. So you say that vehicles that are supported by infantry are able to be destroyed by a single person? I believe you have mixed yourself up. That said, armored vehicles have frequently been disabled and even destroyed by a single person. As recent as the Iraqi war, an Abrams Tank, complete with reactive armor, was disabled by a tandem warhead fired from an RPG. A single AV personnel. One round. okay...disabled does not mean destroyed. more than likely, it destroyed a tread and was a mobility kill, but short of a 500lbd explosive under the tank, nothing can kill it that isn't dropped from the sky. no abrams crewman has ever been killed in their tank. so yeah, the tanks we have now are like Shermans. Advanced should be m60s, and protos should be abrams. an rpg cannot kill an abrams. it has never happened and never will.
Really, you honestly believe that? Has it occurred to you that the weapons that modern tanks face, are relics from the Cold War? Also, the tandem warhead punched through the side armor and flooded the tank with fuel. I would be curious to see how well an Abrams would fair against a modern RPG-30. It is made specifically to deal with these tanks, it even defeats the trophy system. It's nothing short of a miracle that insurgents have not used them.
Any countermeasure will always have a counter.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1698
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 04:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:you guys seem to be forgetting that all earth technology is lost in new eden......
A yes, you mean like the lightbulb, gun powder, the wheel, blade... Tell me more about how all was lost  |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1701
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 04:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Karazantor wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Karazantor wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:wait...so you're counting newberry scrubs who dont have free lavs anymore as tankers? omg. no. there are no tankers left. no good ones anyhow. notice how all of them are solo'd by a good aver? In the real world, unsupported armoured vehicles are never solo'd by anti-vehicle weapons. I can't belive the game would be so unbalanced that this would be possible - just another of CCP's failing i'm afraid. That makes no sense. So you say that vehicles that are supported by infantry are able to be destroyed by a single person? I believe you have mixed yourself up. That said, armored vehicles have frequently been disabled and even destroyed by a single person. As recent as the Iraqi war, an Abrams Tank, complete with reactive armor, was disabled by a tandem warhead fired from an RPG. A single AV personnel. One round. I was being sarcastic again. I'm not trying to be offensive, but i'm guessing you are an American (US), though written sarcasm can be difficult to detect at times. There are numerous examples from every war in history (since WW1) where multiple tanks (mainline MBT's too) have been destroyed by one person using rockets/missiles/mines/sticky bombs of some sort, despite heavy defenses, both air and ground. The spectacle of WWII King Tigers being near indestructible to even enemy tanks except at point blank is an oddity that has never been repeated (and even then they had a few weaknesses, mostly design faults such as rubbish engine/transmissions, that led to their downfall).
Sarcasm works by exaggerating your opponents position, not by mixing up your words... In any case, even if the words were revised in proper order it would not be sarcasm as you are not playing my position, instead opting to poise your own.
You are too presumptuous; I am American... North American, I am a native born Mexican.
Plus, you mainly argue my point with your lasting statement. The King Tiger had faults, everything does. It is simply a matter of making a weapon systems to exploit it. |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1702
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 05:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Void Echo wrote:you guys seem to be forgetting that all earth technology is lost in new eden...... A yes, you mean like the lightbulb, gun powder, the wheel, blade... Tell me more about how all was lost listen to the lore about the story of this game then come talk to me
Yeah, practically the Joves have all the Earth technology and cloaked the rest of the ships filled with It. Your point? |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1703
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 05:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:Karazantor wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:wait...so you're counting newberry scrubs who dont have free lavs anymore as tankers? omg. no. there are no tankers left. no good ones anyhow. notice how all of them are solo'd by a good aver? In the real world, unsupported armoured vehicles are never solo'd by anti-vehicle weapons. I can't belive the game would be so unbalanced that this would be possible - just another of CCP's failing i'm afraid. Yeah, because there are NO tank defense systems available for tanks in real life. Oh wait... Wait... Wait... Yes, there are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IqZhonKzUSo does that mean tanks are OP in real life? Also, headshots never kill in one shot in real life. So why would they kill in one shot in a game. Your sarcastic argument is flawed in so many ways... If infantry can survive dozens of times the amount of headshots that people can survive in real life, why wouldn't tank drivers be allowed to survive dozens of times the AV that real life tanks survive? Oh wait, because tanks these days are almost unkillable by traditional AV weapons so let's instead make them a lot easier to kill than in real life because that is called balance. 20 Assault Rifle rounds to the head as opposed to 1. 3 "Missiles" on the tank as opposed to dozens (before the tank runs out of countermeasures). Balance. You seem to have missed my earlier post that noted that the RPG-30 can defeat the Trophy System and reactive armor. So it would most likely take 1-2 shots to kill a tank. |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1703
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 05:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
CoD isAIDS wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:MarasdF Loron wrote:Karazantor wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:wait...so you're counting newberry scrubs who dont have free lavs anymore as tankers? omg. no. there are no tankers left. no good ones anyhow. notice how all of them are solo'd by a good aver? In the real world, unsupported armoured vehicles are never solo'd by anti-vehicle weapons. I can't belive the game would be so unbalanced that this would be possible - just another of CCP's failing i'm afraid. Yeah, because there are NO tank defense systems available for tanks in real life. Oh wait... Wait... Wait... Yes, there are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IqZhonKzUSo does that mean tanks are OP in real life? Also, headshots never kill in one shot in real life. So why would they kill in one shot in a game. Your sarcastic argument is flawed in so many ways... If infantry can survive dozens of times the amount of headshots that people can survive in real life, why wouldn't tank drivers be allowed to survive dozens of times the AV that real life tanks survive? Oh wait, because tanks these days are almost unkillable by traditional AV weapons so let's instead make them a lot easier to kill than in real life because that is called balance. 20 Assault Rifle rounds to the head as opposed to 1. 3 "Missiles" on the tank as opposed to dozens (before the tank runs out of countermeasures). Balance. You seem to have missed my earlier post that noted that the RPG-30 can defeat the Trophy System and reactive armor. So it would most likely take 1-2 shots to kill a tank. Is your post supported by the US military announcing that? Because if it's not supported by the military, that Ali Jihad could destroy an M1A1 Abrams or Bradley Fighting Vehicle with two 30 year old Russian RPG warheads, then I don't believe you at all.
Fool, the RPG-30 was designed in 2008. Also I'm not from the U.S.A... I'M MEXICAN!!!  |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1703
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 05:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
MarasdF Loron wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:You seem to have missed my earlier post that noted that the RPG-30 can defeat the Trophy System and reactive armor. So it would most likely take 1-2 shots to kill a tank. I did notice your post. But since we are after all talking about real life here; how often do you think that such sophisticated AV weapons will be used against tanks? And how long do you think that it takes for them to come up with a countermeasure to the counter? If they haven't already. Who knows?
If the U.S ever fights an equally sophisticated enemy, such as another first world nation. Then we would witness the use of such weapons. Until then, we will most likely see the U.S fight illiterate insurgent with dated weapons. Not exactly the best way to prove your worth.
Imagine a race between a kid's tricycle and a Harley Davidson. Should the Davidson really brag about that victory? |
DeadlyAztec11
Max-Pain-inc
Dark Taboo
1705
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 14:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:I have noticed relative increase in the amount of HAV's on the battle field. Despite there claims that there departure would leave a void, on which the game would collapse itself. The prediction could not have been more false. I thereby say, good riddance. Yep, noticing more HAV's as well. Some of them quite good, and most of them willing to throw away lots of tanks. Even with Proto AV, killing these poor SoBs is a full time gig. Just because someone has proto AV does not mean it's quick or easy(Well, unless they suck at fitting.. Hah). At least it keeps me employed, lol.
I here that! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|