.
The military tends to use helicopters in favour of A380s to deploy troops to combat areas, therefore A380s cannot land on Earth. It's inconceivable that a shuttle might allow you to land troops more easily closer to the target.
What does an Airbus passenger plane have to do with anything? And yes a A380 can land on Earth. A lot of airports around the world had to upgrade their facilities to accommodate it because of its size.
Yeah it is. It really, really is.
The fact it's about a video game ending and isn't summed up by "I didn't like it" or "I liked it" is sad.
I actually feel sad for you people.
Says someone with over 7,000 posts...Yeah it is. It really, really is.
The fact it's about a video game ending and isn't summed up by "I didn't like it" or "I liked it" is sad.
I actually feel sad for you people.
Says someone with over 7,000 posts...
Troll (or the type of person who has too short an attention span to deal with anything not new and shiny, which isn't any better).
Wow...people are still talking about this over 2 year old games ending.
I think a lot of people should just...well
Alright 'bro', you're on a forum for a topic that specifically is about discussing said 2 year old game and its ending. If you don't like the fact people are talking about it because it doesn't conform to your ideal of coolness or even mental health, then take your own complaining somewhere else. We're not here for you to feel sorry for, and we're certainly not here to get snidely insulted. You wonder why you keep disappearing from my friend's list? It's because you make these little comments that are deprecating and denigratory. I don't know if it's just your general personality (you have a very irritating propensity to pull this just about everywhere), or if you just haven't been unfucked by anybody, but I'm going to say that it stops here. I for one, and I'm guessing several others, have had enough of these smarmy attempts to judge others for their interests based on your paltry view of a 'proper' lifestyle. It's not 'sad' that we still have interest or cause to discuss such things, regardless of our motive. It's sad that you'd presume to judge us for it in light of some as of yet unsaid reasoning that I presume goes along 'getting a life'. Because if that's the case pal, there's a wonderful case to be made to look into a mirror; Spend all your time telling people to get a life, guess what you probably need to get? We aren't going anywhere. You get over it. Deal?
Seriously, I don't hate you, but I find it really hard to like you sometimes. Cut the smart-ass false pity and get over yourself.
Troll (or the type of person who has too short an attention span to deal with anything not new and shiny, which isn't any better).
Close but no cigar I'm afraid. I'm just someone disappointed in how you guys have allowed this forum section to stagnate by not moving on.
1) They don't use the guns on the Makos.
2) I can't believe the lack of high tech weaponry in the game. Much of the weaponry is current level technology, or is in the process of being developed as in testing stage except for the Thanix.
3) We're fighting on the ground against the Reapers with 1914 tactics because it looks "heroic" when chances are we would have cleared that path to the beam with a flyby and dropped a small anti-matter bomb near the reaper, and it wouldn't take a big one either. Kiss it goodbye, destroyer. It's 2186: use some sci-fi. But I know, good is dumb and doing something like that would be pragmatic, and not idealistic because it could cause some collateral damage.
4) Meanwhile we have to take a chance of getting our one chance to end the war killed with an asinine battle plan. "Shepard, I'm sending you up the middle where the resistance is heaviest." Anderson, you're an idiot. That's where you send the Krogan and someone dressed like Shepard along with an Asari female and a Turian. That should draw their attention, then you slip Shepard around and into the beam. You don't want Shepard to take on the main Reaper force you idiot. The main push of Hammer should be a diversion.
5) Thanix missiles: Don't they put any shielding on the guidance systems? I know, good is dumb, and if it worked the first time it wouldn't be heroic. You have to have your boss fight. This is, after all a video game.
I know... not heroic enough. Anderson can't say, "It gets worse."
Shepard: "Of course it does."
Alright 'bro', you're on a forum for a topic that specifically is about discussing said 2 year old game and its ending. If you don't like the fact people are talking about it because it doesn't conform to your ideal of coolness or even mental health, then take your own complaining somewhere else. We're not here for you to feel sorry for, and we're certainly not here to get snidely insulted. You wonder why you keep disappearing from my friend's list? It's because you make these little comments that are deprecating and denigratory. I don't know if it's just your general personality (you have a very irritating propensity to pull this just about everywhere), or if you just haven't been unfucked by anybody, but I'm going to say that it stops here. I for one, and I'm guessing several others, have had enough of these smarmy attempts to judge others for their interests based on your paltry view of a 'proper' lifestyle. We aren't going anywhere. You get over it. Deal? Seriously, I don't hate you, but I find it really hard to like you sometimes.
It's not that you guys aren't talking about it, it's that nothing new is being said. If you guys were actually having new things to talk about then maybe I wouldn't be so captivated but the fact is I stopped posting here about a year ago because this place was boring, and because of the way the bsn new content is set up now see people who post in these topics and am amazed at how repetitive you guys have managed to be.
Wanted to see what would happen if I posted some honest critiques about you guys and so far, I have not been disappointed. Quite the opposite in fact, your rather concentrated venom in your post at the prospect of being judged negatively by someone is actually quite intriguing.
Add one thing
When were fighting the brutes and Banshees before firing the second set of missles, why didn't Anderson make is way to the beam while the destroyer was firng at Shepard and squadmates?
Add one thing
When were fighting the brutes and Banshees before firing the second set of missles, why didn't Anderson make is way to the beam while the destroyer was firng at Shepard and squadmates?
I'd have assumed that there would be other ways to deal with the destroyer as well, from having a second squad move up with some cains to try and get a shot in from some adjacent rooftops, to your idea of simply bypassing it while distracted. I believe the explanation is that their forces were also bogged down by reaper reinforcements, but I can't remember.
It's been a while since I played the game.
iirc, hammer was already being overrun at that point, and that's also the reason why you're being swarmed on all sides. I was almost surprised to see Anderson's convoy make it to shepard on my first playthrough, almost.
It's not that you guys aren't talking about it, it's that nothing new is being said. If you guys were actually having new things to talk about then maybe I wouldn't be so captivated but the fact is I stopped posting here about a year ago because this place was boring, and because of the way the bsn new content is set up now see people who post in these topics and am amazed at how repetitive you guys have managed to be.
Wanted to see what would happen if I posted some honest critiques about you guys and so far, I have not been disappointed. Quite the opposite in fact, your rather concentrated venom in your post at the prospect of being judged negatively by someone is actually quite intriguing.
It wasn't so much you're post that set that off as it was a LOT of personal feelings (around 90%) about you coming to a head. This is basically a summation of what I've wanted to say to you for the last... 6 months to a year, but never did because 1) you weren't that much an asswipe, and 2) I never really felt the need to since I usually got the regular point across. A lot of this is personal feelings coming to a boiling point. And it's my perspective that you could be less of a general snide jerkass and know-it-all. Take it for what you will.
Standing, and having given myself a period to cool off, I'd say that if you really feel this way, the point still stands; Don't post here if you're really turned off by it. If there's nothing new, then make something new and get people to talk about it. Obviously there's still interest in it (I don't know what to tell you if you can't comprehend it), so said discussions are being repeated. What more do you really want? There's nothing new to talk about. I love talking about Pacific Rim with a bunch of other guys and we all talk about it 8 months after it was released. No, there's no news about it, and probably won't be for a while. But we do it anyway because we're passionate about it and we enjoy it. And part of my beef with you is that you're generally very dismissive of passion in fans for whatever reason.
See, now look what you've all done. You've made Liara dribble snot out of her nose:
Fair enough, i was probably unfair in posting here as well. Opportunity through youtube surfing came about however, and I (perhaps contrary to what would have been the wise thing to do) jumped on it.
After wards it was my own form of venting going on, which I apologize for.
Because GARDIAN batteries would shoot them all down.
The military tends to use helicopters in favour of A380s to deploy troops to combat areas, therefore A380s cannot land on Earth. It's inconceivable that a shuttle might allow you to land troops more easily closer to the target.
AFV is a superset of tank, IFV and APC.
1) And what would make the standard guided missiles (that you use in game) any more effective? Seriously, if I had to worry about the Reaper equivalent of anti-missile/rocket lasers, then the entire section about arming said missiles and firing them at a Reaper to kill it would be pointless. It would also completely make the Reapers ECM system pointless. There's no indication that the Reaper Destroyer has anti-missile lasers to begin with (since I used missiles to destroy it, and said missiles were fired right at it directly. In fact it's nothing short of the amazing power of plot that the Reaper didn't destroy the missiles that were being calibrated and aimed right at it. It was looking directly at them. Seriously, that's a massive scripting fail.). And even then, wouldn't it still be susceptible to a Fire Mission?
2) What?
3) Negative, an AFV is its own set as well. An IFV is a comparatively light-armored AFV with offensive capabilities. An APC is a subset of the IFV, with an emphasis on the armor while lacking in the heavier offensive capabilities. A tank is a tank. It 'can' refer to any vehicle that has strong defensive armor, but within a military setting, it refers to a specific type of vehicle distinct from IFV's and tanks. For example, you have a tank (I'm sure I don't need to give you a description), an IFV (such as the M2 Bradley IFV, which is distinct from the M3 Bradley AFV/CFV), and an APC (which has been mostly replaced by the IFV). A tank would be the M1A2 Abrams MBT. An APC would be the IAV Stryker. An IFV would be the M2 Bradley. And an AFV would be the M3 Bradley or M1128 MGS. They all 'technically' fall under the superset of AFV, but going by the U.S. Army designation and distinction, they're all separate.
isn't the m2 and m3 Bradley nearly identical? note I said nearly.
isn't the m2 and m3 Bradley nearly identical? note I said nearly.
They are, but they both have different internal configurations, slightly different weapons systems, and a modified engine to go longer distances without need for refuel.
The primary difference is that the M2 is an IFV, who's primary purpose is to transport a squad and provide support by fire and protection from enemy fire. The interior of the Bradley is configured to support this. The M3 on the other hand is a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, an armored vehicle built as a light recon vehicle with offensive capabilities being maximized. It's built to be capable of engaging enemy APC's, IFV's, AFV's, and even tanks. Instead of carrying a squad of Cavalry Scouts in the back like the M2, the M3's is configured to hold more ammunition, TOW missiles, Javelins, AT4's, radio equipment, night vision equipment, and extra gear for longer ranged missions. It can also be configured to have the external armor supported with extra armor plates on the sides and front of the vehicle.
hmm... I didn't know a Bradley could fire AT4s. is that a newer modification?
---edit
we're getting a tad off topic, forget I said anything.
They're individual fired. They're for the Scout's driving it if they're in deep and need a last-resort weapon.
They're individual fired. They're for the Scout's driving it if they're in deep and need a last-resort weapon.
Retour en haut
