Karagin
04/13/10 07:29 PM
80.149.45.102
|
Okay we have seen in the BT universe the following:
Tanks and other AFVs being king of the battlefield replaced by mechs.
We have seen these same units come back and challenge the mechs hold on the title of king of the battlefield, mixed results.
We have see the infantry branch come back with power armor and similar technologies.
All still trying to knock the mech off the pedestal of king. So with this in mind what do you think would be the next logical advancement for things to either increase the mechs hold on the title of king or to knock it off that pedestal?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Zandel_Corrin
04/14/10 07:36 PM
123.2.140.247
|
And i'd have to say LAMs... I know there not the most lovable unit type after how broken the rules for them were last time but still i think LAMs will become the new kings of the battlefield... eventually.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
LAMdriver
05/22/10 04:00 AM
68.118.31.98
|
Lord knows I want LAMs back in action (the Reseen Stinger, Wasp and P-Hawk all would look really spiffy in an air-mech and ASF modes), but I don't think that will be the next evolution of mech design.
Personally, I feel that 'Mechs in excess of 100 tones (I see the Lyrans and Clan Coyote drooling at that thought) will soon be ruling the battle field. Sort of like the Ares from the MW: AOD part of the game.
Or I see more mechs designed with dual command couches sort of like F-14's and Apaches. Two Mechwarriors teams. One piloting and one shooting.
Just my thoughts.
" The object of war is not to die for your country. It's to make some other bastard die for his!"--Patton
""War is Hell. Combat is a motherfucker."---General Tommy Franks
|
Almighty
05/22/10 03:34 PM
91.48.211.62
|
In simple words Orbital Frame.
The next step after LAMs after aicraft after mechs after hovers after tanks. 
The rules for any weapons are simply:
1. energy density, as a consequence fire power
2. mobility
3. surviveability/endurance
Theoretically an OF could wipe out any BT military. But then again that's not surprising since most BT tech is on WWII level with electronics on vietnam war era level. (ignore lasers/fusion)
|
Karagin
05/23/10 08:48 AM
80.149.45.147
|
First you need to have aerospace domiance to put those in place. Second your enemy has to have his long range weapons taken out since your OFs can be tracked and engaged with ground based weapon systems like a simple cargo rocket that is carrying nothing but ball bearings...blows up in orbit and your OF is toast when the ball bearings hit. And the rocket only needs to be in your orbital path...
So you fail at your own rule number 3...and number 2 as well. And the above mentioned rocket system is using off the shelf tech FROM the Vietnam era that was proposed and built for testing in 1970. So yes the NORMAL BT tech could indeed destroy your high tech wonder weapon.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/10 08:49 AM
80.149.45.147
|
The Dual Cockpit idea is one that I think would happen sooner or later. It does have the best to offer all sides. But again this was ABOUT what could come up and challenge mechs as king of the Battlefield. Not what advances could or should happen to mechs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/23/10 11:15 AM
91.48.179.62
|
Quote:
First you need to have aerospace domiance to put those in place. Second your enemy has to have his long range weapons taken out since your OFs can be tracked and engaged with ground based weapon systems like a simple cargo rocket that is carrying nothing but ball bearings...blows up in orbit and your OF is toast when the ball bearings hit. And the rocket only needs to be in your orbital path...
So you fail at your own rule number 3...and number 2 as well. And the above mentioned rocket system is using off the shelf tech FROM the Vietnam era that was proposed and built for testing in 1970. So yes the NORMAL BT tech could indeed destroy your high tech wonder weapon.
I forgot to mention it can fly from ground to orbit and beyond, not that it's not obvious.
I forgot to mention it has regenerative abilities or at least self sealing armor. (Ignore that it can survive planetary fall or orbital crashes. This is thanks to the energy it can generate.)
It doesn't matter if you can track, if you can't hit or can deal enough damage in time it will be useless.
Ball bearing don't work or else anti-ballisitic missiles would use them. The reason is simply space is big and there is lots to cover, hence, density will be too low to generate enough hits. The ball bearings have to be released very closely. At the speed things go you need to release early and very far away. If the focus is too thin they can easily miss by the slightest error.
That's why umbrellas are used instead of fragmentation. Another problem is IR or radar guidance. Going hyper sonic (mach7+) heat is a problem, not to mention the ionosphere which nullifies primitive(low power) radar. Radio guidance also suffers connectivity problems. One reason why the russians were so interested in using ion stealth technology.
Then again this rocket of yours will never exist in the BT universe, because then would dropships lose the reason for being. Therefore, OF still wipes out any military in BT.
You should do some research.
As to BT tech being primitive:
-tandem charge warhead have been used in dum-dum bullets since the 40's
-hyper velocity munition are outdated after WWII, nowaday that's standard for artillery, while tank rounds are 2x faster; btw gauss bullet as described is slower....(mach 2); fastest artillery goes mach 6; not to mention super cannons mach 7
-any vietnam era zuni rocket covers all the special lrm/srm missiles
-armor have super physical property but primitive in design
-CASE, 70' merkarva/M1/Leopard2
etc.
|
Karagin
05/23/10 11:48 AM
80.149.45.147
|
I never said it was primitive tech, I was saying that your argument that it is closer to WW2 tech thus making it useless to stop your wonder weapon.
Dropships do not normally orbit planets, they are landers, jumpships do not orbit planets, warships do, but even then they are not going to stay there very long.
Yes your points about the tech base are correct but HERE is what you posted:
Quote:
Theoretically an OF could wipe out any BT military. But then again that's not surprising since most BT tech is on WWII level with electronics on vietnam war era level. (ignore lasers/fusion)
So now are you saying that you have changed your thoughts or what?
YOUR wonder weapon would not exist either since it would make warships pointless as well as dropships.
Dum-Dum bullets have been in use since the Boer Wars, which puts it about 40 years head of WW2 ( http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/dumdum.htm )
Hyper Velocity rounds are not outdated. A SABOT round uses kinetic energy to kill it's target, the same as teh HV rounds. Seeing how I have worked with both artillery and tankers in my time in the military, currently working with tankers yet again in Germany. And everything still says the HV rounds are not outdated.
Zuni rockets...I think you are thinking of the Rocket Launchers that the Periphery states have, which would be a closer analogy then the LRM/SRM rockets.
The Armor model...in BT things are sandblasted off, in other words either you hit and do damage, or your miss and nothing is done. Real armor takes hits, either it stops the rounds from penetrating or it doesn't and the target is dead or knocked out of the fight in one manner or another.
CASE similar and yet different at the same time. Nothing you have said I did not already know. Again you missed the point of the topic, the question that was asked, Quote:
what do you think would be the next logical advancement for things to either increase the mechs hold on the title of king or to knock it off that pedestal?
You have offered a version of the Death Star and nothing to really explain why it would happen or how it would be actually useful to the BT universe. A super weapon as you have come to explain it, is not something that is needed in BT, no wave motion guns, no Death Stars, not SDF-1 etc...I was asking for logical ways and means here, not fancy reworkings of the Death Star for BT.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/23/10 12:49 PM
91.48.179.62
|
Quote:
Dropships do not normally orbit planets, they are landers, jumpships do not orbit planets, warships do, but even then they are not going to stay there very long.
So do OF.
Quote:
So now are you saying that you have changed your thoughts or what?
No. I didn't say anything about changing my mind. I reinforced it in a repeat. (read again)
Quote:
YOUR wonder weapon would not exist either since it would make warships pointless as well as dropships.
Correct. That's why LAMs have been killed off. BT is and will always stay primitive for the very reason of letting mechs rule.
Quote:
Hyper Velocity rounds are not outdated. A SABOT round uses kinetic energy to kill it's target, the same as teh HV rounds. Seeing how I have worked with both artillery and tankers in my time in the military, currently working with tankers yet again in Germany. And everything still says the HV rounds are not outdated.
Sabot didn't exist in WWII. HV have been invented in relation with the tiger tanks and 90mm cannons.
In any case the muzzle velocity is around 700 or 800 m/s. Today they fly like 1800 m/s and it's called supersonic. Hyper sonic is faster. But HV is the rave in recent years for laymen.
Quote:
Zuni rockets...I think you are thinking of the Rocket Launchers that the Periphery states have, which would be a closer analogy then the LRM/SRM rockets.
Zuni are rockets, but can have their warheads changed to HE, frag, etc. The only thing that they don't have is TV guidance (streak). They can have laser these days (semi). Also not to forget wired guidance also exist which is still used for some hellfires.
Quote:
CASE similar and yet different at the same time. Nothing you have said I did not already know. Again you missed the point of the topic, the question that was asked, Quote:
what do you think would be the next logical advancement for things to either increase the mechs hold on the title of king or to knock it off that pedestal?
simple anything that:
1. employs more energy density
2. is more mobile
3. has greater survivability
Quote:
You have offered a version of the Death Star and nothing to really explain why it would happen or how it would be actually useful to the BT universe. A super weapon as you have come to explain it, is not something that is needed in BT, no wave motion guns, no Death Stars, not SDF-1 etc...I was asking for logical ways and means here, not fancy reworkings of the Death Star for BT.
I offered the next innovation in war system, a new class of it's war machines. There is no point in providing upgrades of the same.
I guess drones and robots may what you are asking for. Weapons could be AI controlled munitions that can do search and destroy. More fire and forget weapons. But then again these can easily wipe out mechs.
There will have to be rules that have to restrict their use. Or just won't exist.
|
Karagin
05/23/10 03:06 PM
80.149.45.147
|
Actually LAMs are coming back, so the primative idea is not flying anymore.
And use of SABOT did exist in WW2, the Germans used rounds with tungsten that were very similar to today's SABOT and only stopped using them when they had to make a choice, use the tungsten for making weapons or ammo. They went with making weapons. You can check this in numerous books written by Ian Hogg foremost expert on WW2 Weapons.
And yes you did change you stance, one minute you say things are like WW2/Vietnam then you say they are not, pick one or the other.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/24/10 08:27 AM
91.48.191.162
|
Quote:
Actually LAMs are coming back, so the primative idea is not flying anymore.
And use of SABOT did exist in WW2, the Germans used rounds with tungsten that were very similar to today's SABOT and only stopped using them when they had to make a choice, use the tungsten for making weapons or ammo. They went with making weapons. You can check this in numerous books written by Ian Hogg foremost expert on WW2 Weapons.
We will see about that after reading the rules.
Those are not real SABOT by definition of the name if I remember right they are like a bullet with a hardened core. Sabot is a projectile that's smaller than the caliber of the cannon.
Quote:
And yes you did change you stance, one minute you say things are like WW2/Vietnam then you say they are not, pick one or the other.
Give me a quote, I don't seem to see which part to refer to.
I have said:
Quote:
But then again that's not surprising since most BT tech is on WWII level with electronics on vietnam war era level. (ignore lasers/fusion)
Then I explained the trouble of your ball rocket; it being to bad for dropships and reinforced my statement; then I listed the low tech.
Then you suddenly say I changed my mind out of nowhere.
In the next post I only said some more about the low tech. So where did I change my mind?
If you refer to the OF idea itself, then yes, it's advance as I said. You asked for something that would kill mechs or am I wrong? Then you came with the ball rocket which isn't advanced as you stated from being realizeable in the 70's. I don't see where I change my mind anywhere.
|
Karagin
05/24/10 09:35 AM
80.149.45.147
|
You quoted your own line again which you then changed your stance on. You didn't reinforce your statement, you told my no sorry my rocket idea won't fly (no pun) since it would remove dropships from the game, then you went on to talk about how the tech is comparible to some items we have currently. Not really telling us anything other then you see the tech as low and thus your OF is the best that can happen. The rocket idea was around since the mid 60s, tested in 70s and the government didn't buy them since they didn't see it as super high tech, they wanted flash and to borrow a badly used term "coolness" to the weapons, noting here that all the vehicles and such the military has now were thought up and designed in the 70s, refined over the 80s and updated as needed, replaced when they failed, (SGT YORK SPAA) etc...the rocket idea was simple and cost effective, which is NOT something the Military Industrial Complex likes, since they don't make a profit off the sale of the weapons systems.
And the SABOT rounds the Germans used were bullet inside of shell, round leaves shell hits target. Again check online for the info and look for books by Ian Hogg.
I asked for something that would give either the vehicles and infantry more chances to take down mechs as the king of the battlefield, or for things that would allow the mech to stay as king. Not Death Stars. It is like playing with the munchkins and power gamers, more to the game then winning and exploiting loop holes. Having something that can kill mechs is one thing, doing it in one shot changes the game. And your idea is already done up in FASA's RENEGADE LEGION game as the Thor Crowbar system and even then it was very limited in use and deployment for that game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/25/10 11:32 AM
91.48.215.254
|
Quote:
You quoted your own line again which you then changed your stance on.
I quoted myself because you won't show any proof of your allegation. And you still don't after I asked you explicitly.
I have said because the OF is advance it's no wonder that low tech BT will lose.
Then I reiterated that after you brought up your rocket. Here is the quote:
Quote:
Therefore, OF still wipes out any military in BT.
If this was not reasserting my stand, then I dunno.
Quote:
then you went on to talk about how the tech is comparible to some items we have currently.
Yes, because at the it seemed to have needed some explanation about BT primitive technology world.
I just expanded on my claim on BT's primitiveness. I didn't change my mind about OF or whatever you accuse me.
Quote:
Not really telling us anything other then you see the tech as low and thus your OF is the best that can happen.
If you did some research you would know what I was talking about. And you also ignored this little note of mine, too:
Quote:
The next step after LAMs after aicraft after mechs after hovers after tanks.
If it was not obvious by then....
I see no point in pursuing this further if all you say was just a fallacy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
...the rocket idea was simple and cost effective, which is NOT something the Military Industrial Complex likes, since they don't make a profit off the sale of the weapons systems.
That's true but you forget that in the past any military missile research was under strict military(AF) command. They did it themselves and contracted manufacturers fro production only. The same goes for SDI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
And the SABOT rounds the Germans used were bullet inside of shell, round leaves shell hits target. Again check online for the info and look for books by Ian Hogg.
Your explanation is unclear. By definition the whole cannon round is a shell and always bigger than the caliber. The warhead/projectile/bullet always leaves the shell behind.
Goolge gives me 10 hits for 'german sabot'. Most refer to modern times. Only 3 seemed/are good.
http://www.wlhoward.com/id540.htm
www.tank-net.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t22041.html
https://www.strategyworld.com/militaryforums/2-18322/page1.aspx
The tanknet thread is gone, however.
In the other two only one person posted about it. No one replied or like me cannot confirm it. Actually, the one replied accused the collection of info coming from a fake professional. Another one confirmed that suspicion and goes on about trying to confirm the german info. Nothing had been posted since, so I guess he found nothing to confirm.
pic
military museum
As you can see in the pic link, the german sabot-styled warhead is just a spike warhead. Not a sub caliber.
The museum info points to the british in 1944 having a true sabot.
Further research reveals that the german fired a warhead through a barrel which got narrower at the muzzle end. In other words the projectile is squezzed. But this is not a true sabot either since it has the same caliber as the muzzle end. Another source also said that a Czechoslovak in 1943 did something similar by adding a 'squezzer' at the end. Further it confirms the bristish.
Digging deeper showed some dicrepancy accusation against Ian v. Hogg on wiki. It seems some other papers have a similar stand. Most notably a research document from Cambridge University, that was harsh to say the least. It pointed Hogg as an example of...to say it mildly - inaccuracy. Looking at it and what it says and comparing to what I know, I have to agree. For my personal note I will put him into the list of BS and unrelyable source for now. I will stop digging at this point since accessing this kind of non civilian papers is bad nowaday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I asked for something that would give either the vehicles and infantry more chances to take down mechs as the king of the battlefield, or for things that would allow the mech to stay as king. Not Death Stars. It is like playing with the munchkins and power gamers, more to the game then winning and exploiting loop holes. Having something that can kill mechs is one thing, doing it in one shot changes the game. And your idea is already done up in FASA's RENEGADE LEGION game as the Thor Crowbar system and even then it was very limited in use and deployment for that game.
As I said it's unlike to happen, but I looked at dozens other games I know anyway.
You should realized by now that the BT rules are very limiting and disadvantageous in regard to advancement. For example, better mech tech eg XL fusion take reduce slots while better equipment need more slots or less ammo per slot. Both converge and compete in hogging slot. A more advance mech would end up having no slots for advanced equipment.
Most western themed/influenced board games are about as limited as BT, there is not much to take from.
This is mostly because of using dices and tables.
Most improvement could come from Mekton, which one of the most unlimited. Although, still limited by squezzing some physics into definite numbers, mostly any kind of power levels.
-A rule for linked weapons of the same type for increase hit-rate/damage
-drones/bits, AI, automation
-advanced decoys, well BT has some but not for mechs
We certainly won't see search and destroy AI like bomblets as I said before. Since one such thing does destroy whole regiments as seen in Desert Storm a sole fighter would be enough to wipe out whole mech/armor armies.
Not much can be done since new things will either break the fundamental BT rules or simple unbalance it all. BT is at it's limit of possibilities. That may be one reason why Age of Destruction is completely different or so I hear. BT can only go on as PC game with some leaning in name on BT while everything is actually not.
|
Karagin
05/25/10 01:57 PM
80.149.45.147
|
I have stated what you said, I quoted your comment from the start, and you changed your thoughts on things, I asked you to pick a stance, either the tech is not as advanced as WW2/Vietnam or it is beyond that with some throw backs.
The Tank Net thread is alive, but the site moved. Point here is that they had them, the Brits had them so it is not a new technology, thus again landing things into the realm as you said in your posting about WW2 tech no better then that level of tech. Ian Hogg is not a BS writer, he is a well know expert in his field and well respected and WIKI is an open source entity ANYONE can put anything they want on a page so if anything is BS it is Wiki.
We do not need to go in circles, I have quoted your posting here is the whole posting:
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/158765/page/vc/vc/1
And here is you line again:
Quote:
Theoretically an OF could wipe out any BT military. But then again that's not surprising since most BT tech is on WWII level with electronics on vietnam war era level. (ignore lasers/fusion)
Then you change your tune and stance with this posting:
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/158779/page/vc/vc/1
Quote:
As to BT tech being primitive:
-tandem charge warhead have been used in dum-dum bullets since the 40's
-hyper velocity munition are outdated after WWII, nowaday that's standard for artillery, while tank rounds are 2x faster; btw gauss bullet as described is slower....(mach 2); fastest artillery goes mach 6; not to mention super cannons mach 7
-any vietnam era zuni rocket covers all the special lrm/srm missiles
-armor have super physical property but primitive in design
-CASE, 70' merkarva/M1/Leopard2
etc.
So is that what you are looking for? It is clear that you state one thing, then change gears and say something else not more then one reply later.
As for your suggestions that come down from the Death Star level, they are something that could see the light of day in the BT universe, given a need for them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/25/10 02:32 PM
80.149.45.147
|
Since you love Wiki here is a page that tells you all about what the Germans had as far as Tungsten based sabot rounds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_carbide
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/APCR.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35481/armour-piercing-discarding-sabot
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Killing-Anti-tank-Warfare-Machines/dp/1885119402
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Shell_%28projectile%29
An amazing about of info on this topic and with supporting works by Hogg and others by doing a simple search and NONE seem to suggest that Mr. Hogg is full of BS. Really I think you need to expand beyond Wiki and look into more areas.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/25/10 03:24 PM
91.48.209.108
|
Quote:
Since you love Wiki here is a page that tells you all about what the Germans had as far as Tungsten based sabot rounds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_carbide
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/APCR.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/35481/armour-piercing-discarding-sabot
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Killing-Anti-tank-Warfare-Machines/dp/1885119402
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Shell_%28projectile%29
If you think wiki is my sole source then you are very mistaken.
Nothing new to me, wolfram carbide has been used for material tests for decades. Nowaday there are several harder materials.
Second link just said what I said about hardened core bullets.
Third link useless compared to my tank books. There are much better sources/sites online. So good that they have been capped by a certain government and downloaded by a certain other government years ago. Of which I know even before that happened. Now, you are being logged when going there.
Fourth link does not exist.
Last link is a good overall summary.
All in all, still none of these has a reference to german SABOT. However, they do confirm the bits about the french and british. However, the Czechoslovak info is missing.
Here are some more.
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mm.htm
But if you want to try the professionals you can try looking at these sites.
http://www.usace.army.mil
http://www.milhist.net
There is also another good m engineering site with lots of professionals alive from any era....well, it's probably not good since they are quite messy. Hmm, seems I haven't bookmarked the url. (to be added)
|
Karagin
05/25/10 04:26 PM
80.149.45.147
|
Online useless compared to books...no kidding.
The fourth link does exist, in fact you mention it again in your points below
http://www.nasenoviny.com/17pdrGunEN.html
It loads up for me. As for asking experts, well I will trust the folks I know, the one who have the hard earned knowledge about the tanks and weapons and who had or has what. Guess 18 years of military time and such may not count for a lot but I think it gives me a better insight to weapons and more then enough to know that no website will get it right. But seeing how we have reached an agreement on the matter, let's take the topic back to it's main subject and staying with in realm of reality for the universe it is set in.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
05/25/10 09:49 PM
91.48.248.88
|
Well, when I klicked on it I got a blank page so I didn't check the url when I got it from google. NVM
Well, my tank books: Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-45 & Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45 & Jagdpanzer 38 1942-45,
'... a few rounds of Pzgr 40 (high velocity, sub-caliber, tungsten core)' all about hardened cores as I remembered.
The interesting thing is that they all come to use at the same time:
KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45, Steven J. Zaloga, Jim Kinnear, Peter Sarson
p.11 "By the spring of 1943, the German had boosted the armour of the PzKpfw IV to 80 mm, and the Russians followed suit with the high-velocity BR-350P AP projectile which had an initial velocity of 965 m/sec, weighed 3.02 kg, and could penetrate 92 mm or armour at 500 m.
This improved round was lighter and more compact, which increased velocity, while its tungsten carbide core enhanced penetration."
p.22 "The new 50 mm PAK 38 could penetrate the 75 mm side armour of the KV at close ranges, but only with the special Pzgr 40 projectile."
In one of the above links we posted(forgot which) it's said the use of this pseudo sabot had been invented by (belgium?) before WWII. This may explain why they all got it at the same time. Even if they copied each other through salvage production won't be ready for months or half a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the Mekton and Macross II games have energy/plasma spear/blades that could work with BT tech. I know the newer BT books already have copied heat/vibro blades so this shouldn't be a problem.
Likewise, special missiles could burn through a mech, or like the infamous drilling bullet...
A missile attaching and using a laser isn't a new idea either but even more realistic for BT.
This reminds me of another bad thing about BT. Although BT uses a slot system, it doesn't use a translation system that would allow to use starship systems in dropships. For example you cannot mount a 2000 t naval gun in one of the 10k+ ton dropships. Don't need to think about SI. If the structural materials are not good for the big ones they, too, would be internally teared apart. And we can raise SI anyway.
Scaling is probably one of Mekton's greatest unique rule in this regard.
|
Zandel_Corrin
05/26/10 12:12 AM
123.2.140.247
|
Having fun here are we?
Almighty just a word of advice.... you can NOT win vs Karagin when it comes to WAR LORE.
I'm sure you have some valid points in there if i could be bothered reading all that you've posted but it's a waste of time if you still think you can win any sort of argument with Karagin over anything war related...
Just a little FYI.
Continue at your own risk and don't say i didn't warn you.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Almighty
05/26/10 10:00 AM
91.48.235.52
|
Of course. Karagin helps me increasing my post count for free.
Thanks for the advice.
Well, except being a military nut :lol: , and obviously having read lots of that stuff, and being older than me, and a senior member here there seems to be no other advantages on his side.
|
Karagin
05/26/10 12:30 PM
80.149.45.147
|
I am here to have fun and all...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Zandel_Corrin
05/26/10 07:34 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
Of course. Karagin helps me increasing my post count for free.
Thanks for the advice.
Well, except being a military nut :lol: , and obviously having read lots of that stuff, and being older than me, and a senior member here there seems to be no other advantages on his side.
<.< Well then if THAT'S all then maybe you do have a chance 
Aren't we all Karagin? I say anyone who's not should make like a tree and LEAF!
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Almighty
05/27/10 03:39 PM
91.48.194.41
|
Quote:
<.< Well then if THAT'S all then maybe you do have a chance
Aren't we all Karagin? I say anyone who's not should make like a tree and LEAF!
Survival skill is one of the greatest warrior skill. :P
That's what you say. On the other side everyone else probably would not survive here. 
|
Hythos
05/28/10 03:30 AM
76.171.112.134
|
Before you'd see an Orbital Frame, I'd expect we would see a salvaged StarLeague Battleship fielding a Naval PPC, or Naval Laser. While they're not very versitle to bring about and accurately fire on a battle-mech sized target, Naval weaponry CAN be used for strafing a battlefield as arial bombardment.
Kinda like "Golden Eye"... something you wouldn't want to be caught in.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 95 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 11419
|
|
|
|
|
|
|