They do get warned.
30 Jun 2016, 09:57
The past is a foreign country.
Criticism of Artillery
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
30 Jun 2016, 22:10
No field artilery or Spg had a chance against monster battleships like Bismarck class. Even coastal fortifications are useless all they can do keep them away for a time. I don't think railguns can do much with poor accurary. If you need to defend your coast then build your battleships, rockets are good too if your enemy leaves them stationary.
Gallipoli is a terrible example, you can almost throw a grenade into ship's deck from land thats how close the battle was. I went there and got pretty suprised because on a land smaller than your backyard thousands of people died. That narrow bosporus, that little peninsula you must be a mad man to decide fighting there. It can only be an example for how incapable british highcommand was...
Range is completely irrelevant, it should be relevant. For example arty may do more damage in close range, but i don't think it is necessary. I use 10 artilleries in my armies they are doing their jobs, both support and provoke missions. If enemy has too many arties i use rockets, if there is no anti air unit i use planes for extra support. If you want arty to become enough to defeat everything that would make this game lesser fun. Mines can be added against ships too instead of making arty too powerful.
2 Jul 2016, 22:27
Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol, it is not it's weight, it is it's density. Very hard.Diabolical wrote:
I forgot to mention, the whole reason for using depleted uranium is for the weight. It is a heavy substitute for lead and there's an abundant supply left over from the nuclear plants. This is environmentalism at it's finest: recycling radioactive materials for the betterment of mankind...by killing the bad guys.
Duh, weight is a measure of mass in our environment. I took enough science classes to know the difference between the two AND to know that weight can be used in reference to mass. A thing's density is measured via weighing vs. volume. But, for practical purposes -- and for the laymen reading this stuff -- I try not to get too technical even though I, myself, tend to sometimes forget to put the cookies on the lower shelf for others.
Pablo22510 wrote:
@Diabolical
And? That is a sermon. You -- an avowed atheist -- are trying to use a sermon to prove me ... wrong? How about illustrating your point by including the source of what you are trying to argue against (I'm assuming it was the point you tried to make about unjust wages as theft or something like that).
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
2 Jul 2016, 22:32
Your still wrong, and mass and density are different as well.Diabolical wrote:
Duh, weight is a measure of mass in our environment. I took enough science classes to know the difference between the two AND to know that weight can be used in reference to mass. A thing's density is measured via weighing vs. volume. But, for practical purposes -- and for the laymen reading this stuff -- I try not to get too technical even though I, myself, tend to sometimes forget to put the cookies on the lower shelf for others.
Look, I'll pray that when I wake up tomorrow morning there will be a cassette for Dead Sara sitting at the end of my bed, waiting to be played. I'll post the results.Diabolical wrote:
And? That is a sermon. You -- an avowed atheist -- are trying to use a sermon to prove me ... wrong? How about illustrating your point by including the source of what you are trying to argue against (I'm assuming it was the point you tried to make about unjust wages as theft or something like that).
2 Jul 2016, 22:46
weight is a measurement of mass. Mass per atom is the amount of "stuff" that exists in the atom (i.e., atomic "weight"). Density is the amount of mass in a volume (also useful in deciding how much stuff exists in an atom). There is no ambiguity to any of that and these concepts are largely interchangeable for all practical purposes. If you continue to deny this, then it is not worth my time debating you.Quasi-duck wrote:
Your still wrong, and mass and density are different as well.Diabolical wrote:
Duh, weight is a measure of mass in our environment. I took enough science classes to know the difference between the two AND to know that weight can be used in reference to mass. A thing's density is measured via weighing vs. volume. But, for practical purposes -- and for the laymen reading this stuff -- I try not to get too technical even though I, myself, tend to sometimes forget to put the cookies on the lower shelf for others.Look, I'll pray that when I wake up tomorrow morning there will be a cassette for Dead Sara sitting at the end of my bed, waiting to be played. I'll post the results.Diabolical wrote:
And? That is a sermon. You -- an avowed atheist -- are trying to use a sermon to prove me ... wrong? How about illustrating your point by including the source of what you are trying to argue against (I'm assuming it was the point you tried to make about unjust wages as theft or something like that).
And, who is Dead Sara?
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
2 Jul 2016, 23:01
Damn, so long since I last came into this thread I forgot what we were speaking about. Care to remind me?Diabolical wrote:
Duh, weight is a measure of mass in our environment. I took enough science classes to know the difference between the two AND to know that weight can be used in reference to mass. A thing's density is measured via weighing vs. volume. But, for practical purposes -- and for the laymen reading this stuff -- I try not to get too technical even though I, myself, tend to sometimes forget to put the cookies on the lower shelf for others.Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol, it is not it's weight, it is it's density. Very hard.Diabolical wrote:
I forgot to mention, the whole reason for using depleted uranium is for the weight. It is a heavy substitute for lead and there's an abundant supply left over from the nuclear plants. This is environmentalism at it's finest: recycling radioactive materials for the betterment of mankind...by killing the bad guys.And? That is a sermon. You -- an avowed atheist -- are trying to use a sermon to prove me ... wrong? How about illustrating your point by including the source of what you are trying to argue against (I'm assuming it was the point you tried to make about unjust wages as theft or something like that).Pablo22510 wrote:
@Diabolical
The past is a foreign country.
2 Jul 2016, 23:17
Go take a damn science class. You are right about mass, wrong about weight. Weight is how heavy something is with gravity. So you weigh less in space but you have the same mass.Diabolical wrote:
weight is a measurement of mass. Mass per atom is the amount of "stuff" that exists in the atom (i.e., atomic "weight"). Density is the amount of mass in a volume (also useful in deciding how much stuff exists in an atom). There is no ambiguity to any of that and these concepts are largely interchangeable for all practical purposes. If you continue to deny this, then it is not worth my time debating you.
Density and mass are not interchangeable. The density of something is how much mass is in a certain volume. This is why in the Irish science curriculum for secondary schools (for 12-13 year olds, this part) we do three experiments to find the mass, weight, and density of both regular and irregular objects. If you try and say the mass and density of something is one and the same in front of a group of 12+ Irish children who did science, you are going to be laughed at.
Hard rock band. They write some of their own stuff, I think, and do some covers. Their "Smells Like Teen Spirit" cover is really good. If you have heard the song "Weatherman" you have listened to Dead Sara.Diabolical wrote:
And, who is Dead Sara?
2 Jul 2016, 23:18
Who the hell knows?Pablo22510 wrote:
Damn, so long since I last came into this thread I forgot what we were speaking about. Care to remind me?
2 Jul 2016, 23:19
Good. No need to argue over something senseless (religion 
).
The past is a foreign country.
2 Jul 2016, 23:47
I know all that, but I don't bother mentioning the weightless part because we are not -- in fact -- in space. Get off your high horse.Quasi-duck wrote:
Go take a damn science class. You are right about mass, wrong about weight. Weight is how heavy something is with gravity. So you weigh less in space but you have the same mass.Diabolical wrote:
weight is a measurement of mass. Mass per atom is the amount of "stuff" that exists in the atom (i.e., atomic "weight"). Density is the amount of mass in a volume (also useful in deciding how much stuff exists in an atom). There is no ambiguity to any of that and these concepts are largely interchangeable for all practical purposes. If you continue to deny this, then it is not worth my time debating you.Density and mass are not interchangeable. The density of something is how much mass is in a certain volume. This is why in the Irish science curriculum for secondary schools (for 12-13 year olds, this part) we do three experiments to find the mass, weight, and density of both regular and irregular objects. If you try and say the mass and density of something is one and the same in front of a group of 12+ Irish children who did science, you are going to be laughed at.
Hard rock band. They write some of their own stuff, I think, and do some covers. Their "Smells Like Teen Spirit" cover is really good. If you have heard the song "Weatherman" you have listened to Dead Sara.Diabolical wrote:
And, who is Dead Sara?
And, was "Dead Sara" the first to do "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Because I used to listen to that song about 15 years ago and I don't remember the name of the group that sang it. But I'd never heard of "Dead Sara". I'm remembering back in the days before Napster screwed us all with their centralization of music sharing. Back in college, everyone was sharing .mp3 files ripped from their CD's over the school network.
Spoiler
There was no such thing as "digital rights management" and the concept of it being "theft" was inane and foreign to us. And, it still is if you think about it. As a musician, I don't believe anyone can truly own music though I do believe in the right to charge others to listen to you when you play something live in a venue that costs you money to play in. Also, charging for a hard-copy medium is sort-of sensical when it costs money to physically produce the medium (i.e., CD's but not digital files).
You may find this contradictory of me to say given that I espouse Christian beliefs. But I don't consider digital media to be a thieve-able construct. That's my quirk and I can explain it in depth if you want, but only on demand. And do you want another great big explanation that might take two pages of reading to take in? I thought not.
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
2 Jul 2016, 23:49
At this point, I say drop it.Pablo22510 wrote:
Damn, so long since I last came into this thread I forgot what we were speaking about. Care to remind me?Diabolical wrote:
Duh, weight is a measure of mass in our environment. I took enough science classes to know the difference between the two AND to know that weight can be used in reference to mass. A thing's density is measured via weighing vs. volume. But, for practical purposes -- and for the laymen reading this stuff -- I try not to get too technical even though I, myself, tend to sometimes forget to put the cookies on the lower shelf for others.Quasi-duck wrote:
Lol, it is not it's weight, it is it's density. Very hard.Diabolical wrote:
I forgot to mention, the whole reason for using depleted uranium is for the weight. It is a heavy substitute for lead and there's an abundant supply left over from the nuclear plants. This is environmentalism at it's finest: recycling radioactive materials for the betterment of mankind...by killing the bad guys.And? That is a sermon. You -- an avowed atheist -- are trying to use a sermon to prove me ... wrong? How about illustrating your point by including the source of what you are trying to argue against (I'm assuming it was the point you tried to make about unjust wages as theft or something like that).Pablo22510 wrote:
@Diabolical
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
2 Jul 2016, 23:54
So you ignore the scientific definitions of words because it suits you? GG Mr. Science!Diabolical wrote:
I know all that, but I don't bother mentioning the weightless part because we are not -- in fact -- in space. Get off your high horse.
No, Dead Sara did a cover of it, I was just saying it was noteworthy. The original singers of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" were Nirvana. Who are also awesome.Diabolical wrote:
And, was "Dead Sara" the first to do "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Because I used to listen to that song about 15 years ago and I don't remember the name of the group that sang it. But I'd never heard of "Dead Sara". I'm remembering back in the days before Napster screwed us all with their centralization of music sharing. Back in college, everyone was sharing .mp3 files ripped from their CD's over the school network.
3 Jul 2016, 00:15
I ignore the scientific definitions in a forum like this, yes!. If I were to offer a thoroughly scientific explanation of things, I would include it in a spoiler so that the little guys who are afraid to read the truth don't see it.Quasi-duck wrote:
So you ignore the scientific definitions of words because it suits you? GG Mr. Science!Diabolical wrote:
I know all that, but I don't bother mentioning the weightless part because we are not -- in fact -- in space. Get off your high horse.No, Dead Sara did a cover of it, I was just saying it was noteworthy. The original singers of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" were Nirvana. Who are also awesome.Diabolical wrote:
And, was "Dead Sara" the first to do "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Because I used to listen to that song about 15 years ago and I don't remember the name of the group that sang it. But I'd never heard of "Dead Sara". I'm remembering back in the days before Napster screwed us all with their centralization of music sharing. Back in college, everyone was sharing .mp3 files ripped from their CD's over the school network.
And I forgot about Nirvana. They were quite the grunge band. Not that I was a big fan of grunge.
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
3 Jul 2016, 17:18
This is a blatant disregard for all scientific processes. Whatever you do, don't try and become a student of science.Diabolical wrote:
I ignore the scientific definitions in a forum like this, yes!. If I were to offer a thoroughly scientific explanation of things, I would include it in a spoiler so that the little guys who are afraid to read the truth don't see it.
5 Jul 2016, 02:27
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.
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
5 Jul 2016, 09:47
Some science it must be,Diabolical wrote:
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.
no scientist agrees, and nobody else has a clue what you are on.
Out of interest, after judging from your posts, do you by any chance live in Colorado?
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
5 Jul 2016, 12:52
How do you think the universe started?Diabolical wrote:
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.
5 Jul 2016, 15:56
oceanhawk wrote:
Some science it must be,Diabolical wrote:
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.no scientist agrees, and nobody else has a clue what you are on.
Out of interest, after judging from your posts, do you by any chance live in Colorado?
No...Oregon. Near Portland.
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
5 Jul 2016, 16:06
Ahh rightDiabolical wrote:
No...Oregon. Near Portland.oceanhawk wrote:
Some science it must be,no scientist agrees, and nobody else has a clue what you are on.Diabolical wrote:
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.Out of interest, after judging from your posts, do you by any chance live in Colorado?
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
6 Jul 2016, 02:46
And...I don't smoke weed, if that's what you are implying.oceanhawk wrote:
Ahh rightDiabolical wrote:
No...Oregon. Near Portland.oceanhawk wrote:
Some science it must be,no scientist agrees, and nobody else has a clue what you are on.Out of interest, after judging from your posts, do you by any chance live in Colorado?Diabolical wrote:
Too late. I have been and ever shall be a student of science.
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.
