this game needs massive improvement

[Zachriel]

It doesn't always matter what the hull is made of.
It doesn't always matter what cannons you have.

If you scoff at that little merchant vessel and John Paul Jones sails up and boards your ship, you have a problem. Take your enemy seriously.

[sachmo71]

I stand corrected...I thought the A-10 was out of service!

[nationalist]

Re: Re: COMBAT BONUS FOR DIFFERENT AGES

Originally posted by Minuteman


Thanks for reposting those brilliantly framed comments. We must have missed them the first 600 times you posted them.

BTW: We awarded you with the title of head DiC (Discriminating Consumer), or DiC head, if you will.

Congrats Encomium!

I was just wondering why everyone hates Encomium. His posts are no worse than a majority of people in this forum, yet I have been running into Encomium hate pot for the past few days. I'm fairly new here, so someone please explain it to me. I'd like to join in on the fun myself, if it is justified.

[ACooper]

We don't Enco. We hate his actions.


Love all around................GROUP HUG!!!!


BTW, What were we talking about again?

[John Paul Jones]

Originally posted by ACooper
BTW, What were we talking about again?

...something about the game needing massive improvement. When my privateers can capture enemy ships I will be happy

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by John Paul Jones
I have not yet begun to fight!

http://www.usflag.org/the.serapis.flag.html

Attached is the flag that Jones raised on the British frigate he captured with a refitted merchant vessel.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Barchan
Although I agree with your overall point, I wouldn't be too quick to cite your lieutenant as an authority on air power. Strafing is done with guns, period. Look it up in the dictionary if you like.

I looked it up:

Pronunciation: (strAf, sträf), [key]
—v., strafed, straf•ing,
—n.

—v.t.
1. to attack (ground troops or installations) by airplanes with machine-gun fire.
2. Slang.to reprimand viciously.

—n.
a strafing attack.

I think Barchan wins this one...

[Encomium]

Re: Re: Re: COMBAT BONUS FOR DIFFERENT AGES

Originally posted by nationalist


I was just wondering why everyone hates Encomium. His posts are no worse than a majority of people in this forum, yet I have been running into Encomium hate pot for the past few days. I'm fairly new here, so someone please explain it to me. I'd like to join in on the fun myself, if it is justified.

I can assure you I hold the insulting Firaxis suckups and shills such as Minuteman in mutual contempt.

The pathetic fanboys/sycophants spent their Daddies' $44.95 on this game and act like they are in love with Firaxis. Or maybe some of these dolts are just are hired by Firaxis to come on the forums and personally flame anyone who points out the numerous flaws in this unplaytested game.

Now go pick up your checks from Firaxis.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by ACooper
We don't Enco. We hate his actions.


Love all around................GROUP HUG!!!!

But I suppose it is alright for Minuteman to call those who are NOT Firaxis suckups "DiC's"? Hypocrite.

Yes, some of you spend your entire lives either playing Civ III or trolling the forums. Get a life.

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Encomium

Yes, some of you spend your entire lives either playing Civ III or trolling the forums. Get a life.

Oh, the irony.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zouave



Oh, the irony.

Yeah really. It's kind of like Hitler saying some of his best friends were Jews.

[steelehc]

Sachmo71:Thanks. I would respond to SieGermans last post, but you already said everything I would.

look junior

a 200 mph cannon ball

100 ft. long frigate sails up to firing range of a modern destroyer which is 5 times longer

Radar arrays are housed in armored radomes

modern warships have missle bays which are housed within the ship

you've never seen an F-117 fly

OK. Don't insult me. If you are in ROTC, you should be calling me "sir." Thats what cadets are supposed to say to an O-6.

Cannon balls flew far faster then 200 mph. 17th Century (1600s) English cannon had a muzzle velocity of 965fps. That works out to about 660 mph.

"100 foot long frigate?" Some old ships-of-the-line, which are represented by frigates, were several hundred feet long.

Maybe radar arrays on your ROTC campus are housed in armored radomes. The ones on ships are tough enough (probably) to protect them from small arms fire, but nothing else.

Not all missiles are housed within ships. The USS Ticonderoga, to use an example has a Mk 26 twin-rail missile launcher, for SAMs. It is mounted on deck, and would be readily destroyed by a volley of cannon fire from an 18th century frigate.

I have seen an F-117 fly. It is rather ungainly. It is impressive, but not manuverable.

Steele

[Barchan]

Originally posted by steelehc

I have seen an F-117 fly. It is rather ungainly. It is impressive, but not manuverable.

Steele

Ungainly, indeed. It actually looks a bit like a bumblebee as it flies by, especially as it shuffles along on a low-speed pass. All the while you watch it thinking, "how does it stay up there like that?"

I don't have a good single source for this, but I seem to recall from somewhere that the F-117 was never really intended to be a fighter at all, but was envisioned more as a small bomber (more appropriately a multi-role fighter/bomber akin to the F-16, I suppose, but with less air-to-air capability). However, at the time the Air Force "fighter mafia" had taken over the upper ranks of the USAF and would not abide the SAC bomber community adding another new toy to its inventory. Also, Congress would not have supported another new bomber (given the huge sums already sunk into the then recently-cancelled B-1A program). Thus, the decision was made to produce it as a "tactical fighter" rather than a bomber. Nevertheless, as its design traded off speed and maneuverability (it cannot go supersonic and isn't very nimble) for stealth, it was never intended to be used as an air superiority fighter. It’s an impressive jet, to be sure, but compared to every other “F”-designated aircraft in the entire active DOD inventory, it’s one of the worst air-to-air fighters in the lot.

[steelehc]

I dont think they mount any air-to-air weaponry, do they? I know F-14s, -15s, -16s, etc... all have Sidewinders or AMRAAMs mounted all the time, but does the Nighthawk have anything?

Steele

[Barchan]

Originally posted by steelehc
I dont think they mount any air-to-air weaponry, do they? I know F-14s, -15s, -16s, etc... all have Sidewinders or AMRAAMs mounted all the time, but does the Nighthawk have anything?

Steele

If they do, the capability is classified. There are no external weapons mount points on the F-117A, and I think the F-22 is the only aircraft designed with internal missile bays. It's a funky technology based on hydraulics, and is yet to be fully tested. Also, as far as I know, the Nighthawk doesn't have any guns or cannon on board. It's only defense is stealth; you can't target what you can't see. However, you can still fill the sky with lead and hope to hit something, which is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia (only known F-117A shootdown).

Also, I think the F-14 carries the Phoenix missile rather than the AAMRAM. F-15Cs will usually rack out with sidewinders, sparrows and/or AAMRAMs, but F-16s will likely only carry sidewinders if performing a ground attack mission. F-15Es can carry all kinds of stuff underneath, but it varies depending on the mission.