Sithmaster_821 Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Simwiz, Windu, just an FYI, when you quote try to use the vB code([qoute]) instead of "and". Also, most people use italics for the person who is being quoted and bold for the quote. A typical quote looks like: Originally posted by username This is a quote Windu, please dont say that i spelled "quote" wrong. If i spelled it right, a quote box would appear when I was just giving an example of correct vB code Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 Simwiz, Windu, just an FYI, when you quote try to use the vB code([qoute][/qote]) instead of "and". Also, most people use italics for the person who is being quoted and bold for the quote. A typical quote looks like: Windu, please dont say that i spelled "quote" wrong. If i spelled it right, a quote box would appear when I was just giving an example of correct vB code When I am writing my posts I will write them however I want to. I know how to use vB Code but it takes longer and sometimes I am lazy and would rather just use qoutation marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted July 2, 2002 Share Posted July 2, 2002 What's so long about hitting a button on the interface? And it looks tons better on the board and is easier to see. qote i believe i spelled it quote;) ;) I knew you could quote people correctly (if you look you've done it before). Just reminding you (and getting on your nerves). :D Windu is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 2, 2002 Author Share Posted July 2, 2002 sithmaster - your definitions seem to be correct, and i would like to point out a few things about them. With the slander issue, what i posted as the 'running to daddy' was an opinion that seemed to fit the action that you were taking. The 'sslander' occured when you posted things like 'darth windu=stupid' which is an attack on my character. Simwiz has made a similar comment. As for recon, there are different sorts. Take a look at the Chenowth FAV/LSV and the M-3A2. The FAV/LSV is small, fast and has a good range, but has small weapons and little/no armour. The M-3 on the other hand has excellent armour/weapons, carry 2 infantry and a motorcycle, but is slower and has a smaller range than the FAV/LSV, and its much bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Windu, read the definition again. Recon is spying, not bringing motorcycles or troops in for a covert opperation. We call that a covert opperation, not recon. Reconn is that unmanned CIA plane that goes i forget how high up and spies on the enemy: find weapons/troops, locate targets for bombing runs etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithmaster_821 Posted July 3, 2002 Share Posted July 3, 2002 Oh, yeah. I forgot this and dont feel like editing. what i posted as the 'running to daddy' was an opinion that seemed to fit the action that you were taking What I posted as the "you are stupid" was an opinion that seemed to fit the things you were saying. And please dont ask what you said to merit this flame, you currently own quite a few pearls of idiocity that i could very easily unearth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 3, 2002 Author Share Posted July 3, 2002 sithmaster - the term 'recon' is used to describe the action of gathering information. In this respect you can have spying, COMINT, ELINT, SIGINT and of course battlefield recon by vehicles such as the FAV/LSV, M-3, OH-58 etc. They all have different attributes, but all perform recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu sithmaster - the term 'recon' is used to describe the action of gathering information. In this respect you can have spying, COMINT, ELINT, SIGINT and of course battlefield recon by vehicles such as the FAV/LSV, M-3, OH-58 etc. They all have different attributes, but all perform recon. No matter how you manipulate the words to make yourself sound less foolish, in the post that is now being discussed you said a unit was a RECON asset and then talked about how its ability to POP OUT TROOPS AND ATTACK would enhance its RECON abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 4, 2002 Author Share Posted July 4, 2002 No, i didnt, i said it could be used for recon. Also, if your read my post properly, you would've seen that i said if a Gunship encountered AA, it could drop off one or 2 troops, and they could continue scouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Windu No, i didnt, i said it could be used for recon. Also, if your read my post properly, you would've seen that i said if a Gunship encountered AA, it could drop off one or 2 troops, and they could continue scouting. And how long do you expect your 2 troopers to remain alive to continue scouting while your opponent can see them in their LOS and can send a strike mech or 2 to take them out? Or how about a laser turret that would likely be nearby the AA turret so they can guard the base together? If you can actually walk 2 troopers around your opponent's base (as I assume they wouldn't have an AA turret in the middle of nowhere and if they do then your gathering recon on it is rather pointless) then you would be better off invading them and winning the game already, since you ovbiously have the upper hand. And you said, "fly around, crush any opposition" and mentioned popping out troops when you come to AA. That doesn't sound like recon to me... Why don't we have a little poll: which unit is the best for recon: -Starfighter -Gunship -Trooper -Scout mech I would think the starfighter and the scout mech would usually beat the gunship and troopers for recon ability. Scouts are a tiny bit faster than troopers IIRC and Starfighters are invisible and faster than fighters which would be faster than gunships from what you have said. edit: reworded the quote, ooops i said "destroy all" instead of "crush any", please forgive me windu i have quoted you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 6, 2002 Author Share Posted July 6, 2002 Simwiz - i dont care if you think it would be recon or not. All i was saying is that it COULD be used for recon, of course it would be primarily a combat aircraft, but could perform recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 And a captured bantha could perform recon, but it would be a rather stupid decision don't you think? Why would anyone in their right mind choose a bantha when they have a scout mech? And why would ANYONE in their right mind choose the gunship for recon when they have an invisible, fast, long-LoS starfighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 7, 2002 Author Share Posted July 7, 2002 I didnt say they HAD to use it for recon, i said they COULD use it for recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Stupid... trying to back out. Okay I will post this last comment on recon and then stop trying to back out, it is too obvious, just drop it. You lost. You called it "a recon asset" and are now saying "All i was saying is that it COULD be used for recon". That is quite a large change of argument. Just please, please, answer me one question: why is the gunship good, or even average, for recon? Is a scout mech a T4 attack asset? Well, it CAN attack units in T4, so you should start making entire armies of scout mechs and go try to stomp the enemy. Just because a unit moves and has a 1 tile LoS does not mean it is a recon asset. And if you are dumb enough to regularly use such a unit for recon, then I really pity you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 8, 2002 Author Share Posted July 8, 2002 Before i answer, i would suggest you go back and re-read my posts. You are obviously getting what i posted mixed up with what you would have wanted me to post. I have already said that it would be an assault transport, and it would also be able to be used for recon, just like almost every other unit in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtroop Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 both ships would be cool but life doesnt go that way why dont lucasarts bring out exspansions with over 500 difrent items on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Is that what you say to everything? That you were misquoted and didn't really say that? Do you have a memory problem? Would you like me to quote the whole post to refresh your memory? Well anyway it's on the second page of your second thread about the gunship (The Gunship without the poll). A good question, and obviously one which must be answered before consideration is given to go ahead with my idea. Now as i have said, the basic specs of the Gunship would probably be a speed/range between the fighter and bomber, good firepower (but almost useless against workers, ships, air) and the ability to carry about 2 infantry units. So what would its use be? First of all, it could be used, obviously, as an assualt transport. They could fly in, drop off the troops and then procede to provide covering fire for them. They would also be faster than air transports, just to give them an edge in that. They could also be used as a recon asset, much like the current US Army M-3 Bradley is. Fly around, crush any oposition, and if you come to an area with good AA, drop off your infantry. I was also thinking that looking at its primary role as an assualt transport, it would further enhance the Republics strenth in Troops. Think about it. You could create a group of gunships, then create a group of troops really fast, and send them anywhere, a self-contained task-force. Also, due to its unique nature, it would serve to define the Republic even more from the other civs, particually the rebels.[/Quote] I didnt say they HAD to use it for recon, i said they COULD use it for recon.[/Quote] ...Which is essentially backing out of your "recon asset" and saying that the unit could be used for recon. Well like i said before a captured bantha could be used for recon. Your change of wording is an incredibly pitiful attempt to back out now that you realise a slow air unit and 2 troopers cannot possibly be GOOD at recon. Just give it up already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 9, 2002 Author Share Posted July 9, 2002 Simwiz - in the quote of me that you posted first, in the highlighted section in shows that i said it COULD be used for recon, and that i was not saying it was a recon unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Well obviously it's not just a recon unit. But when you call a unit "a recon asset" then it ought to have good recon abilities. Are scouts lategame attack assets? By calling the gunship "a recon asset" you imply that it would somehow be good at recon, which it is obvoiusly not. Did you try out the starfighter yet? IT is a recon asset, no, we don't need a slow expensive recon unit in the game. You are completely missing my point: THE GUNSHIP IS NOT A GOOD UNIT FOR RECON, THEREFORE IT IS NOT "A RECON ASSET"!! No. No. I'm sorry Windu, it's really not. Okay. Now that that is settled, stop trying to back out and claim that you did not think it would be a good recon unit. Your posts say otherwise. And as it has been stated many times, Lucasarts will not change it. You may as well just drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted July 10, 2002 Author Share Posted July 10, 2002 *sigh* this really is getting tedious simwiz. Even in the quote's of me that you posted, i said it could be used for recon, not that it was a recon asset. From the beginning of this thread i have started that it woud be an armed assault transport for infantry, you just seem unable, or unwilling, to accept that. As for the 'lucasarts wont change it' statement, i would like to see the exact quote from a lucasarts employee that specifically states that the Republic Gunship will not be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtroop Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 wow i didnt mean to anger you i didnt read all the posts i just skimmed them.sorry ill read them all in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simwiz2 Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 No, no, no, NO!! You are completely missing my point. Saying "it could concievably be used for recon" and "it could be a recon asset" are two completely different things. A unit that could concievably be used for recon is a unit that can move and has a minimal LoS, as I have said already. A captured bantha could concievably be used for recon, as I have also said several times. A unit that could be a recon asset is a unit, that at some point during the game, a player might consider an "asset" for a recon mission, in other words, a good unit to choose for that mission. I am completely baffled at how any player could, at any point in any game on any map type, be compelled to choose a slow (compared to starfighter), expensive, nonstealth POS for a recon mission. Being capable of doing a certain action does not make a unit good (or an "asset") at that action. You still have not commented on whether or not you consider the scout to be a T4 attack asset. And even as you called the gunship a recon asset, you proceeded to back up your claim with descriptions of the gunship attacking and crushing any opposition. Your apparent lack of understanding of the English language kills your arguments every time. Stormtroop I think he was yelling at me, not you, about Lucasarts not changing it. He cannot accept reality it seems, and he expects them to ruin their game balance, infuriate experts and waste their time to jam a useless unit in a patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.