Since this is an idea driven forum for discussion...why do most of the ideas brought here get met with the same 10-15 people always saying the game is fine the way it is??? 
My knock at calling them nancy's for avoiding a fight in a video game is a joke...not a measure my noodle length or to strengthen my side of the argument, I'm perfectly content on that...it's just funny that the same people who cry that I or Lazer or anyone else have an EGO are the ones who are afraid to up in something other then and M3 or man gun or only engage in fighters at all only with the advantage....thats the joke...them being hypocritical about ego when they are the ones who are afraid to have their ego hurt by being out flown...ITS A VIDEO GAME thats the joke...it doesn't matter....poor taste??? Maybe I'm desensitized or something.
It's not about furballing or telling people to play my way(This is probably the 20th time I have explained this)....It's about a game mechanic which gives players the opportunity to hold a base without making an actual defense....Is an M3 a legitimate defense against a tank assault??? Is it a legitimate defense against an air raid???
If you say yes to those two questions your' re being stubborn about it....it doesnt make sense but it happens way too often...it really shouldn't happen at all. I'd rather see 10 whirbs up to defend against an air raid then 10 M3s because it makes sense in combat...but right now you're most likely to see the M3s over the whirbs.
Oh and again....your being a bunch of nancy's in a video game....if that hurts your feelings....I dont care...truth hurts I guess.
Not to be stubborn but Yes Yes and I get your point.
I read every post before I ever respond on this forum. I understand fully where you are coming from. I also agree with your "Nancys" comment. It didnt seem as it was made in joking, so I apologize that I missed the joke, at the time it seemed snarky.
Back to the issue at hand...YES, an M3 at times, may be the best tool to protect....PROTECT a base. It may not be defensive per say, but with guns down, fighters capping, and tanks in town or on base and not watching the spawns...YES it works in same fashion. Its an M3 fairly easy to stop if the tank assault guys are coordinated and someone is watching for them. If defenders spawn into a camped spawn,it matters little what they are in...they die pretty quick. So the tank assault stopped by M3s is a failure of tactics by attacking force. Shooting M3 with troops as defense is no different than shooting M3 with supplies! If you dont see that, guess we are both just stubborn?
As to the play my way part of my previous post, your comment seemed to lead in that sort of direction so ok, i was assuming again
It just seems those sort of comments on opinion topics are quite prevalent in here. Would resupping ORD bunkers so that I can bomb tanks be a valid use of an M3 in defense? I dont match up very well with most GVers in this game. FOR ME, I am most effective in a fighter with bombs against a GV assault. I prefer The Spit16,when eny allows, I can kill 3 tanks and then hold my own against air threats. Once again, there are those who whine profusely about that as well! I take on all comers! Wirbs, Tanks whatever, a good approach and egress path usually means survival and a rearm. It took alot of practice on my part and it is where I am comfortable about my odds of survival/best use of my life. Yes in game! If I am going to get killed...I am taking a few gvers with me as I go
