Thoughts on .50 cals.

[Kweassa]

In truth, there are three issues related to the so-called ".50 vs acks" argument.

#1) This was never a ".50 vs ack" thing, and basically, this discussion should never even have been brought up on a "Thoughts on .50 cals" thread. (That's why I posted a separate thread on the Gameplay forums)

 This, is either a "cannon vs AP ordnance" issue, or a "wingarmament vs center armament" issue. It is not a .50 issue at all.

#2) The logic and tendencies on how the game is modelled currently, as it is, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the wing-armed+HMG planes have a tougher time killing acks than cannon armed planes. It makes perfect sense.

#3) However, one may contend the current logic and tendencies, and request a better modelling that makes more sense - such as the option b) I have wrote above.


 #2 and #3 is a related issue, but still needs some differentiation. If you are focusing on #2, you are completely wrong. There is no 'shrapnel' modelled in both cannons and HMG shells. There is no random bounce that favors cannons over HMGs.

 It is the different attribute of the weapon itself that brings out the difference in its effectivity, and there's nothing wrong with it. So, under the current AH agenda of "If you want to kill ack gun, hit the gun itself", everything makes perfect sense.



 So I'll ask you again, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?[/b]

a) Do you want the 50 cal guns, despite having no explosive quality whatsoever, be able to knockout a field gun even if the gun has not obtained enough strikes to be destroyed?

b) Or do you want a better system, where perhaps the soldiers manning the gun can be also modelled(like eskimo and me suggested), or perhaps a "sandbag perimeter"(like whels suggested).

 Modelling in the human would give wing-armed planes also a reasonable chance of disabling ack, without having to destroy the gun itself, and modelling a defensive sandbag wall would make it a bit more difficult for 20mms to kill ack guns, as it requires a more precise hit inside the protective perimeters.


 So do you want a) or b)?


 If it is a) you are wanting, you're completely wrong. You're asking a .50 weapon to do something it cannot do. Under the way how the game is modelled, the .50 should never be able to do such a thing, because that is basically making an exception to the rule "hit the gun itself to kill it" for some weapon types.

 If it is b), then you are requesting a change in the "hit the gun itself to kill it" rules - asking for an alternative.

 a) and b) may have same results, but it is very very different.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Kweassa

 So I'll ask you again, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?[/b]

. . . . . .

 So do you want a) or b)?
QUOTE]


 I want nothing.  I was just makign a statement.  20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air.  I may be wrong but it is my opinion.  Posting pics of 50cal, starting 'for dumies threads', etc is not going to change it.  Who the hell are you anyway to define my choices?  I can only want what Kweassa posts? A or B?  Whats up with the bold letters anyway?   Get over yourself will ya?

[Kweassa]

I want nothing. I was just makign a statement.

 
 And your statement is wrong. Plain and simple.

20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air. I may be wrong but it is my opinion.

 Perhaps, but irrelevant anyways. HT said how the 20mm works on ground. He mentioned it has a blast radius, when I asked him a question specifically addressing this issue.

 I was the first, and the only, person who tested this out, and confirmed that 20mms will knock acks without direct hits. I asked HT about it, and he answered my question, confirming my speculation.

 That's basically the lowdown.

Posting pics of 50cal, starting 'for dumies threads', etc is not going to change it. Who the hell are you anyway to define my choices?

 
 Personally, I don't give a damn if you change your opinion or not. All I'm interested in is making it clear that;

a) your opinion is typical
b) such opinions spring up from misinformation
c) and people "effectively" lie about stuff when they start complaining. They make hollow claims without ever actually trying to exactly test things out

I can only want what Kweassa posts? A or B? Whats up with the bold letters anyway?  Get over yourself will ya?

 Well, at this point, basically anyone reading your responses would be wondering just what in the world you are trying to saying.

 What's your point?

 That the .50s aren't doing enough damage to ack? But this I've already covered extensively as best as I can, to show that it is totally wrong.

 Basically, I'm confused.

 You argue about something, then suddenly fall deaf ears to a counter argument which explains in detail why your opinion is wrong.

 So I thought perhaps that you were thinking of a specific alternative on how the game may be better.. except you don't seem to have one.

 Frankly, my speculation is you're continuing this argument just for the sake of argument, because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about the relationship between .50s, cannons, and acks.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Kweassa
 I was the first, and the only, person who tested this out, and confirmed that 20mms will knock acks without direct hits. I asked HT about it, and he answered my question, confirming my speculation.

first and only?

Well, at this point, basically anyone reading your responses would be wondering just what in the world you are trying to saying.

 What's your point?

 That the .50s aren't doing enough damage to ack? But this I've already covered extensively as best as I can, to show that it is totally wrong.

 Basically, I'm confused.

If I say anything it would be that its way too easy to kill ack with 20s.  I think the people reading my posts are wondering you can't understand that.  They may also be wondering why you chose not to understand what I said.  Read it again please.

 You argue about something, then suddenly fall deaf ears to a counter argument which explains in detail why your opinion is wrong.

Hmmm.  You argued about something that had nothing to do with what I said.  I just pointed out that your opinion was wrong.

 So I thought perhaps that you were thinking of a specific alternative on how the game may be better.. except you don't seem to have one.

Perhaps an alternative would be that more than a couple of rounds somewher around the gun . . . never mind, you'd probably twist that one too.

 Frankly, my speculation is you're continuing this argument just for the sake of argument, because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about the relationship between .50s, cannons, and acks.

Wrong again.  I am continuing this argument cause it is fun to watch you missunderstand and twist evrything.  I'll give it one more try: "20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air"  That is it.  Now postsome pics of 50s so you can prove me wrong on the 20s.  Get it now?  How about this way.  The blast radius is too big?   Don't want anything fixed, just saing.
Now how exactly did you determine you were the first and only to test this?