This NEW thread was the appropriate place to put this "Suggestions/Criticisms".
OK, so WHY OH WHY is the artillery so weak on naval bombardment?
And, as if that were bad enough, it starts at 0.3 on Level 1 and doesn't go up with each level...not even a little bit.
And, as bad as THAT was, the lower three levels are 0.3 while the upper two levels are 0.2.
I don't like to use bad language but...WTF?!?
It should be this:
Level 1 ... 0.3
Level 2 ... 0.4
Level 3 ... 0.6
Level 4 ... 0.8
Level 5 ... 1.0
That seems like a more reasonable strength progression rather than actually getting worse.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all. The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended. R.I.P. Snickers <3
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
180 Replies
7 Jun 2016, 10:05
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
That is nonsense, Im afraid
The powder, frm the shell, goes up into the atmosphere, where it eventually settles, and gets injusited by the local population. And that stuff is nasty
Load of bull, the only US forces operating in Iraq that complained about exposure to DU was the guys who dragged away M1 Abrams wrecked by friendly fire.
yea the only US Forces, the local population are the ones who suffered. So the increase in Uranium related sicknesses in that region, are not from these..
like you have no evidence, as usual..
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
7 Jun 2016, 14:30
Well, there's your problem! Those Iraqi's are leaving radioactive waste on the surface, your meant to bury it in deep, dry sand or stick it in the drink!
7 Jun 2016, 16:25
Quasi-duck wrote:
Well, there's your problem! Those Iraqi's are leaving radioactive waste on the surface, your meant to bury it in deep, dry sand or stick it in the drink!
who are "those Iraqis"
I dont follow,
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
7 Jun 2016, 17:27
oceanhawk wrote:
who are "those Iraqis"
I dont follow,
Your sources, and you, mentioned how Iraq suffered the radioactive consequences of fighting the US.
7 Jun 2016, 20:39
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
who are "those Iraqis"
I dont follow,
Your sources, and you, mentioned how Iraq suffered the radioactive consequences of fighting the US.
I am acknowledging, that they are suffering, because of the American Shells..
Im not saying otherwise
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
7 Jun 2016, 20:55
oceanhawk wrote:
I am acknowledging, that they are suffering, because of the American Shells..
Im not saying otherwise
Alright. Well, people have always suffered from war. Look at Europe post-WWII.
8 Jun 2016, 08:27
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
I am acknowledging, that they are suffering, because of the American Shells..
Im not saying otherwise
Alright. Well, people have always suffered from war. Look at Europe post-WWII.
yes but this is having huge long term effects, and horrible effects. Child defects are huge, morality rates are extremely high. It is really a Chemical weapon at this stage.
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
8 Jun 2016, 11:55
oceanhawk wrote:
yes but this is having huge long term effects, and horrible effects. Child defects are huge, morality rates are extremely high.
So were death rates from bombings in WWII. Sure, that caused people to starve to death.
oceanhawk wrote:
It is really a Chemical weapon at this stage.
No it isn't. Is a knife a fork?
8 Jun 2016, 13:04
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
yes but this is having huge long term effects, and horrible effects. Child defects are huge, morality rates are extremely high.
So were death rates from bombings in WWII. Sure, that caused people to starve to death.
oceanhawk wrote:
It is really a Chemical weapon at this stage.
No it isn't. Is a knife a fork?
Does a Knife have NBC properites? no hence not a NBC weapon
does a Depleted Uranium shell give off Uranium?
yes, hence it could come under the classification of NBC weapon
What does part one have to do with anything?
Im saying these weapons cause child defects etc
and you are just saying random stuff now, cos of a lack of argument
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
8 Jun 2016, 16:13
oceanhawk wrote:
does a Depleted Uranium shell give off Uranium?
yes, hence it could come under the classification of NBC weapon
What does part one have to do with anything?
Im saying these weapons cause child defects etc
and you are just saying random stuff now, cos of a lack of argument
Ehm, it is CBRN now. Also, it would fall under the R, meaning radiation.
8 Jun 2016, 16:49
Quasi-duck wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
does a Depleted Uranium shell give off Uranium?
yes, hence it could come under the classification of NBC weapon
What does part one have to do with anything?
Im saying these weapons cause child defects etc
and you are just saying random stuff now, cos of a lack of argument
Ehm, it is CBRN now. Also, it would fall under the R, meaning radiation.
It would come under Chemcial according to the UN,
And CBRN doesnt sound anywhere as cool as NBC, so unless its need be, I stick with NBC, unless there is a radiation weapon involved
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
8 Jun 2016, 17:46
oceanhawk wrote:
It would come under Chemcial according to the UN,
Then the UN are idiots.
oceanhawk wrote:
And CBRN doesnt sound anywhere as cool as NBC, so unless its need be, I stick with NBC, unless there is a radiation weapon involved
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
