Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemisis on June 01, 2010, 07:18:09 PM
-
Yes, this again. We have the M4(75) up and running now, so I don't imagine that it would be too hard to add this. Just something a bit more survivable to spawn up on the beaches and that can take out a tank if you get lucky, you know.
Won't be able to fire and it will be hidesouly vulnerable to anything with a cannon when its in the water, seeing as it will be even slower than the LVT's we have now (4.6 mph).
Have it be driven by the commander using the rudder keys (like you can with LVT's) and just model the tiller moving to the left when you hit the "A" key, and to the right when you hit the "D" key.
Doesn't sound like it will too hard to defend against if you're on the ball. Perhaps move your CV in close to shore a couple miles up shore from the base and land your tanks there. May increase survivability to get them up on shore before the fighting starts.
-
+1
-
Duo Drive would open up some extra gameplay +1
-
Single shell to the skirt of any gun & down she will go.?? So long as we get to see them go all the way under :aok Count me in.
-
I doubt that any type of shell would detonate on the canvas itself. And don't forget that a good portion would be under water, so only the above water level portions would be able to be hit (based on our water, which is as solid as concrete).
But past that, i can think of no reason they wouldn't be sunk by a cannon. I doubt that holes from .50's or even 20mm would be enough to come right out and sink it though. But its upto HTC to decide.
Please HTC, add the Sherman DD. Its a crappy little piece of american engineering that floats and poses no real threat to anything but a panzer. It can't hurt to add it.
-
Hobarts funnies were English engineering. Lets have the AVRE as well.
-
Hobarts funnies were English engineering. Lets have the AVRE as well.
i'd love to get an AVRE tank
-
Yes! Some offensive punch via the sea would be fun. They would be low in the water and not as easy to hit, decent enough armor to protect it from some of the AP, but slow and quite useless in the water. It would be nice to have though!
A Churchill AVRE with the 290mm Petard mortar would be a hoot. It would have the range of about 200 yards (iirc) and trajectory of a dropped bowling ball, but none the less it would be fun to use.
-
Yes! Some offensive punch via the sea would be fun. They would be low in the water and not as easy to hit, decent enough armor to protect it from some of the AP, but slow and quite useless in the water. It would be nice to have though!
A Churchill AVRE with the 290mm Petard mortar would be a hoot. It would have the range of about 200 yards (iirc) and trajectory of a dropped bowling ball, but none the less it would be fun to use.
lets think...2 to take town down? :D
-
It would be nice to FINALY have a good punch when hitting the beach in this game, some type of Lvt with anti aircraft on board would be even nicer...
-
Yeah, that looks very useful
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Sherman_DD_tanks_crossing_the_Rhine.jpg)
(http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/images/tanks/shermandd2.jpg)
Looks like a great slow moving target.
-
It would be nice to FINALY have a good punch when hitting the beach in this game, some type of Lvt with anti aircraft on board would be even nicer...
That's called a PT boat.
-
Phatzo, the TANK was a piece of crappy american engineering.
-
Oh, and as to its sinking:
Perhaps have .50's and 20mm's do little to it, but 30/37mm cannons will sink it in 7-8 hits, and anything larger will sink it in one shot?
IDK what a good number will be, or how HTC will show that holes 1/4" in radius ABOVE the water line will have little effect on it. I'm just tossing ideas out there.
-
Yes, this again. We have the M4(75) up and running now, so I don't imagine that it would be too hard to add this. Just something a bit more survivable to spawn up on the beaches and that can take out a tank if you get lucky, you know.
Won't be able to fire and it will be hidesouly vulnerable to anything with a cannon when its in the water, seeing as it will be even slower than the LVT's we have now (4.6 mph).
Have it be driven by the commander using the rudder keys (like you can with LVT's) and just model the tiller moving to the left when you hit the "A" key, and to the right when you hit the "D" key.
Doesn't sound like it will too hard to defend against if you're on the ball. Perhaps move your CV in close to shore a couple miles up shore from the base and land your tanks there. May increase survivability to get them up on shore before the fighting starts.
and can we have them sink at the slightest breeze, oo ooo and and can we have Mulberry Harbours for when the rotters have scorched earthed the ports, and I'd like to see JU87 Tank Crackers with 88mm underwing cannon, and I want them rocket grappling hooks the Rangers had on D Day and....
Sorry. I'll take myself off to bed again :salute
-
Oh, and as to its sinking:
Perhaps have .50's and 20mm's do little to it, but 30/37mm cannons will sink it in 7-8 hits, and anything larger will sink it in one shot?
IDK what a good number will be, or how HTC will show that holes 1/4" in radius ABOVE the water line will have little effect on it. I'm just tossing ideas out there.
Well each bullet hitting the tank will probably bounce off the hull & would make a second hole. 20MM shell entering skirt hits tank hull & explodes would cause multiple tears in skirt as they bounce off the hull. Tank pushing through water with that pressure on the torn hull I would say it would tear it open even more. If one of the horizontal bands in that canvas was damaged the whole structure would fail.
-
Phatzo, the TANK was a piece of crappy american engineering.
crappy american engineering? NO... more along the lines of tank drivers who have never studied wave motions or any nautical physics causing them to capsize before making it ashore. many DDs landed on the British and Commonwealth Beaches
-
many DDs landed on the British and Commonwealth Beaches
Might have something to do with that they drive on the correct side of the road? :D
-
Might have something to do with that they drive on the correct side of the road? :D
ouch :confused: :lol :bolt:
-
Asside from danny, who appears to have atempted to take a shot at this thread, it seems everyone is all for them.
OK HTC, go ahead and add it in the next update :D.
-
Well each bullet hitting the tank will probably bounce off the hull & would make a second hole. 20MM shell entering skirt hits tank hull & explodes would cause multiple tears in skirt as they bounce off the hull. Tank pushing through water with that pressure on the torn hull I would say it would tear it open even more. If one of the horizontal bands in that canvas was damaged the whole structure would fail.
-
While the tank was in the water with the skirt deployed, any plane with a machine gun could take it out. All anyone would need to do is destroy the skirt and you've got an underwater Sherman pillbox. Total waste of development time and resources.
ack-ack
-
Well yes ack ack. They would be easy to take out. Then again, M3s shouldn't stop HE rounds, or produce ricochets regardless of the angle and area. Ack guns should be killed by a few .30 hits (representing crew kills). And most tanks should die in one succesful penertation of the armor. The bulkhead would keep fire from engine damage out of the crew compartment for a while, but eventually ammo will start to cook off.
The game is full of unrealistic crap, and stuff that should be deemed a waste of resources (WW1 arena, IMO), and yet we still have it. Its how you pick and choose, remember.
And my bet is that people would find tactics that work with them, just as most kills using the M4A3(75) (that I've seen) are made or started by damaging the turret, and then damaging the engine/killing the tank when it turns to run. After that, they seem to scoot away as fast as they can, which is a smart decision given their firepower.
-
How many DD where made for amphibious invasion? Or more like how many amphibious invasion was it in? One? Two? Five?
-
It was TOOK PART in one invasion, but more were built than the wirb. Since we have that, there is no argument asside from lack of use to keep it out of the game. And how much actuall combat did the M8 see? How much actuall combat the the Ta-152 see? I think the official record is 9 kills for the Ta-152, correct?
There is no real, solid reason for excluding it from the game. Won't likely see much use against any base with a friendly spawn leading into it, but if the carrier fighters manage to hold the enemy planes at arms reach from a strip of water 100yds wide, a large number of them will make it to the beach.
Remember I also suggested landing them two miles or so up the coast, and letting them drive down to the base. I think thats a viable tactic, it will be time consuming and will give the enemy some warning. But if you do your job right, you don't need to shell the entire base down before showing dar.
-
There is no real, solid reason for excluding it from the game. Won't likely see much use against any base with a friendly spawn leading into it, but if the carrier fighters manage to hold the enemy planes at arms reach from a strip of water 100yds wide, a large number of them will make it to the beach.
There's no real, solid reason to waste development time and resources to add it to the game.
ack-ack
-
Stopping our LVT's, and Troops from being butcherd on the beach by supperior fire power seams to be a VERY good reason, and just happens to be the historical reason the DD's where developed in the first place.
Still vote yes. :aok
-
There ya go Ack-Ack, if you won't listen to me, then listen to stephen.
The way it is now, carrier borne GV's have ABSOLUTELY no AT capabilities on their own. They must rely on the aircraft, or the window of time it takes for fighters/GV's to reach the base under attack when the 8" guns drop the hangers.
Honestly Ack-Ack, just model the skirt, the rudder, and have it "drive" like an LVT. Add a button that lowers the skirt, and you're done. I find it hard to imagine that it would take more than a few days to make unless HTC is much more poorly organized than I think.
-
Stopping our LVT's, and Troops from being butcherd on the beach by supperior fire power seams to be a VERY good reason, and just happens to be the historical reason the DD's where developed in the first place.
Still vote yes. :aok
I dearly hope that you are joking. If not, have fun Ack-Ack
-
There ya go Ack-Ack, if you won't listen to me, then listen to stephen.
The way it is now, carrier borne GV's have ABSOLUTELY no AT capabilities on their own. They must rely on the aircraft, or the window of time it takes for fighters/GV's to reach the base under attack when the 8" guns drop the hangers.
Then request the LVT4s be given the historically correct option of being able to select AP rounds in addition to HE rounds.
Honestly Ack-Ack, just model the skirt, the rudder, and have it "drive" like an LVT. Add a button that lowers the skirt, and you're done. I find it hard to imagine that it would take more than a few days to make unless HTC is much more poorly organized than I think.
The above comment really shows how little you know of what it entails to add any new feature to a game, regardless of how "simple" you think it may be.
ack-ack
-
Honestly Ack-Ack, just model the skirt, the rudder, and have it "drive" like an LVT. Add a button that lowers the skirt, and you're done.
Props as well. :aok
-
Is this going to lead to another AKAK v Squeeker duel. :x :cheers: :bolt:
-
Is this going to lead to another AKAK v Squeeker duel. :x :cheers: :bolt:
popcorns ready
-
Then request the LVT4s be given the historically correct option of being able to select AP rounds in addition to HE rounds.
AP and/or a few HEAT rounds would be nice. HEAT would probably be a little better given the gun's low muzzle velocity.
-
I already know whats going to happen.
Ack-Ack: "the Sherman DD had a 3 mm higher armour plate off the tread and the turret was one micro metre lower than the normal sherman and so therefore needs a complete remodel and is so forth a COMPLETE waste. Besides it was not used and it was useless even though combat reports prove otherwise they were written by siberian monkeys for propaganda in sweatshops by the allies as fakes RARARARARARARARARA"
Squeaker: But you wouldnt have to alter the whole model, the visual differences are minimal and such is the fact that like the P-47 you would only have to morph it to achieve what you want. And then you just change the performance figures accordingly.
Ack -Ack: Common sense and A valid point? THIS IS ACES HIGH BULLETIN WARS!
Get what I mean (cough) Stuka tankbuster thread (cough)
-
Ack-Ack, that IS all that is needed. What more is a DD Sherman than an M4A3 with a canvas skirt over a metal frame strapped on, and props on the back. If there is some REAL difference, then please point it out to me. Performance wise, and visually, it would be an M4A3 DD.
I didn't know the LVTA4 was able to fire AP rounds. I would like them, with a few HEAT rounds as well if they were used (As E25280 said, the muzzle velocity is rather low). But this is a thread about the DD Sherman.
So far, YOU seem to be the only one with an objection.
Is this going to lead to another AKAK v Squeaker duel. :x :cheers: :bolt:
I resent the squeaker comment. And I would be fine dueling him if I can discern wether or not he is AkAk, or if there is an Ack-Ack I haven't seen in the arenas. It seems we are able to play at different times, and so its a little difficult.
-
I already know whats going to happen.
Ack-Ack: "the Sherman DD had a 3 mm higher armour plate off the tread and the turret was one micro metre lower than the normal sherman and so therefore needs a complete remodel and is so forth a COMPLETE waste. Besides it was not used and it was useless even though combat reports prove otherwise they were written by siberian monkeys for propaganda in sweatshops by the allies as fakes RARARARARARARARARA"
Squeaker: But you wouldnt have to alter the whole model, the visual differences are minimal and such is the fact that like the P-47 you would only have to morph it to achieve what you want. And then you just change the performance figures accordingly.
Ack -Ack: Common sense and A valid point? THIS IS ACES HIGH BULLETIN WARS!
You can tell when it's summer, the squeaker village idiots start to come out.
Get what I mean (cough) Stuka tankbuster thread (cough)
Do you find being stupid comes naturally to you or do you have to work at it?
Re-read that particular thread and you'll see why you're wrong. The wish was for a G-2, which is based off of the Ju 87D-5 and to make the G-2, means that HTC would have needed to model the D-5 because it was different than the D-3 in terms of flight performance (longer wings, less weight, more powerful engine). It would have been far more feasible and would take less development time, resources and achieve the same results if the existing Ju 87D-3 would be given the ordnance option of 37mm Flak 18 gun pods, which would then turn the D-3 into a G-1.
So this begs the question I posed earlier...do you find being stupid comes naturally or do you work really hard at it?
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, that IS all that is needed. What more is a DD Sherman than an M4A3 with a canvas skirt over a metal frame strapped on, and props on the back. If there is some REAL difference, then please point it out to me. Performance wise, and visually, it would be an M4A3 DD.
Again, if you think just slapping on a graphic of the skirt is all it takes you're just showing your ignorance. Not surprising since you have no clue as to what is needed to add things to the game from a development stand point.
I didn't know the LVTA4 was able to fire AP rounds. I would like them, with a few HEAT rounds as well if they were used (As E25280 said, the muzzle velocity is rather low).
Of course you didn't, you're really not that knowledgeable on WW2 stuff.
So far, YOU seem to be the only one with an objection.
I'd rather have HTC spend their limited resources and time in developing things that this game really needs instead of just wasting it with stuff like this.
I resent the squeaker comment. And I would be fine dueling him if I can discern wether or not he is AkAk, or if there is an Ack-Ack I haven't seen in the arenas. It seems we are able to play at different times, and so its a little difficult.
Take it up with the person that called you one, or better yet wipe those tears and snot from your face and stop crying about being called a squeaker.
ack-ack
-
ak-ak and ack-ack are the same person nemesis :rolleyes: good luck if you really wanna die many times
-
Your very arogant aren't you Ack-Ack?
As I said, please inform me as to what else it would take to make a sherman DD besides having it look like a sherman DD, and function like a sherman DD? The fact is it doesn't matter if the suspension is the one the sherman DD used, simply because it is irrelivant. No one will ever see it, no one can ever call HTC on it, no one will know, and (most likely) no one will care. If something looks like a helicopter, and flys like a helicopter, then it is a helicopter regardless of wether it uses a planes prop for the tail rotor, and has a car's engine.
I wouldn't really call the fact that the LVTA4 could fire AP rounds "widely known". In fact, it seems like you wouln't know that unless you were studying it; its not something that will be related to anything else. You're not going to see something like, "The 76mm armed shermans were introduced to compensate for the poor armor penetration of the 75mm armed shermans. The cannon's armor penetration is just slightly superior to that of the LVTA4..." on a web page.
Ack-Ack, you aren't the one who gets to judge wether or not the sherman DD is a valuable use of resources, hitech is. And your suggestion of giving the LVT some AP rounds would likely take just as much time as adding the skirt, rudder, and props to the M4. They would have to find the balistics of the weapon, see if its muzzle velocity was affected by firing AP rounds as opposed to HE rounds, they would have to model the shell drop, velocity and whatever else they use (unless of course they have a basic cannon template, and just give it the specs of the gun they want, and then change the visual stuff).
And I believe I WAS taking it up witht he person who made that remark. Not all of my post was directed toward you, just as the planets don't revolve around you.
321BAR, I'm fine with loosing, as I likely will. I know he's better than me at fighters; I just wana see how long I can evade him in my 190A5.
-
The fact is it doesn't matter if the suspension is the one the sherman DD used, simply because it is irrelivant. No one will ever see it, no one can ever call HTC on it, no one will know, and (most likely) no one will care.
If you really think this, you really haven't been paying attention to these boards. Accuracy of the modeling of the equipment is a constant debate. Little history for you -- when the Firefly was about to be introduced, Pyro originally modeled it with a .50cal pintle mounted gun. There was quite a lengthy thread and quite a lot of searching for any data to support whether the Firefly was ever actually deployed with it. No supporting date was found. One person found a picture (perhaps several - memory fails) that showed a Firefly with a .30 cal attached. Guess what we have in the game.
You could say that "no one would notice" if we had a .50 cal instead -- but you would say wrong. So AKAK has good reason to have the position he has on this subject. It's called experience. Speaking of which . . .
Again, if you think just slapping on a graphic of the skirt is all it takes you're just showing your ignorance. Not surprising since you have no clue as to what is needed to add things to the game from a development stand point.
And your suggestion of giving the LVT some AP rounds would likely take just as much time as adding the skirt, rudder, and props to the M4.
Perhaps you should refrain from lecturing someone about a topic on which you have no experience.
Pop quiz. Why do you suppose AKAK knows you have no game development experience?
-
(http://happyvalleynews.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/nostradamus2.jpg)
well you don't have to be really
-
Now Ack Ack I warned you about this type of behavior...
Simply inciting the "HT" does not make you right, nor smarter than anyone else here.
You havent learnd to respect other people's opinions, and your OPINION on how HT needs to spend "limited resources" is just that..., AN OPINION.
Now I cant pull you down off of your high horse, but I can stand up to you, and support the persons that you repeatedly try and belittle, and I will continue to do so until you STOP with the mudslinging, and give a rational opposing possition instead of a slight ment to degrade, and belittle other players.
Now obviously remodeling a pre-egsisting GV is easier than introducing a new one, im sure that we can agree on that.
Secondly ALOT of players consider this a good idea, and to call one player un-intelligent is to call them all un-intelligent...
I hear that you are a good stick in the MA ACk, but the problem with you is bettween your ego and your fingtips..., mabey the next time you decide to discredit an entire thread supporting an idea, you should think about what the community wants instead of your own misguided attempts to call into question everyones intelligence... toodles :aok
-
Your very arogant aren't you Ack-Ack?
I wouldn't really call the fact that the LVTA4 could fire AP rounds "widely known". In fact, it seems like you wouln't know that unless you were studying it; its not something that will be related to anything else. You're not going to see something like, "The 76mm armed shermans were introduced to compensate for the poor armor penetration of the 75mm armed shermans. The cannon's armor penetration is just slightly superior to that of the LVTA4..." on a web page.
If you had read about any of the battles the Marines fought in the PTO, you would have learned this little fact.
Ack-Ack, you aren't the one who gets to judge wether or not the sherman DD is a valuable use of resources, hitech is. And your suggestion of giving the LVT some AP rounds would likely take just as much time as adding the skirt, rudder, and props to the M4. They would have to find the balistics of the weapon, see if its muzzle velocity was affected by firing AP rounds as opposed to HE rounds, they would have to model the shell drop, velocity and whatever else they use (unless of course they have a basic cannon template, and just give it the specs of the gun they want, and then change the visual stuff).
Of course, only HiTech could tell us what he considers to be valuable use of his resources but from a development standpoint, it's not as simple as just adding a skirt, rudder and props and out comes a Sherman DD. Again, since you have no idea what it entails in developing a game it is understandable that you have no clue on this subject. Get your name in some credits for game and then come back and talk to me.
321BAR, I'm fine with loosing, as I likely will. I know he's better than me at fighters; I just wana see how long I can evade him in my 190A5.
As long as it takes me to complete a half a turn.
ack-ack
-
Now Ack Ack I warned you about this type of behavior...
What are you going to do other than spam the report button and tell Skuzzy what a mean man AKAK has been towards you?
ack-ack
-
LOL, gentlemen..., you are looking at one of the expert forum lurking, over-opinionated few that make life hell for those of us that would love to see this game move forward.. congrats Ack.
I recall an old saying, "the only way to win, is not to play at all" :aok
-
If you had read about any of the battles the Marines fought in the PTO, you would have learned this little fact.
Thats stretching a point. Doubtlessly some pages and books have references to LVTA4's firing AP rounds, but there is no way ALL of them do. Even you must agree with this. And I will admit that I prefer the ETO, and so know more about it.
...it's not as simple as just adding a skirt, rudder and props and out comes a Sherman DD. Again, since you have no idea what it entails in developing a game it is understandable that you have no clue on this subject. Get your name in some credits for game and then come back and talk to me.
Again, you give no examples. I've asked what, is it twice, or three times now? Your statment holds no water with me untill you explain why something that looks like, preforms like, and has the weapons and loadouts of a sherman DD is not a sherman DD.
As long as it takes me to complete a half a turn.
Theres that arrogance again. I fell I'm better than you give me credit for. No doubt I'm not in your leauge, but I'm not a newb either.
-
Again, you give no examples. I've asked what, is it twice, or three times now? Your statment holds no water with me untill you explain why something that looks like, preforms like, and has the weapons and loadouts of a sherman DD is not a sherman DD.
My reference is in regards to the development of adding a Sherman DD to the game. You just seem to think it's as easy as just adding the graphics for the skirt, props and rudders and that's all it takes. It doesn't, there is more than that. You'll have to create animations for each new part and then add the new damage model and graphics for each part, etc. In short, it's not simple.
ack-ack
-
There we go. I know that, I just omited it as implyed. I was just saying that you would have to do little in the way of making anything new. About all thats new you would have to make is the skirts, the frame, the rudder, and the damage models/animation that goes with them (3 new damage models, and 2 new animations).
-
About all thats new you would have to make is the skirts, the frame, the rudder, and the damage models/animation that goes with them (3 new damage models, and 2 new animations).
LOL! Gee...that's all? Well, that just sounds like a couple of hours of work to me! Damn it Dale, get right on it!
You really have no clue about developing any assets in a game if you think it's just as easy as you claim. When you do, then come back and talk to me.
ack-ack
-
i think ill step over here... :bolt:
-
I know its not simple, but its FAR easier than, say, adding the M12, or the jagdpanther.
Compared to much of what they do, it IS simple. Many want it, you don't. Thats all I'm seeing here.
-
Ack, do you think that if this vehicle was introduced that it would get much use? Well, I do...
This amphibiouse tank would be pretty popular in my opion, and of great use to we few that enjoy assaulting airfields/ports from CV's.
Thats why I latch onto the idea of introducing the DuelDrive M4 as a possitive addition to the game, and an ideal GV to inspire new avenue's of attack in the sea to shore ground game.
A logical argument might be that so many DD's could be deployd that the defending base would be overrun with DD tanks, and it wouldnt be fair on that account.
YET the counter argument would be that 1 VC Sherman,PanzermkIV, (or even an m8) can easily range and destroy any of the two LVT's we are currently able to deploy from the task groups.
I leave it up to the community..., though I think that convincing one's greatest critic is much more convincing, even if he has to be dragged in tooth-and-nail against his will...
Step away fro the Dark side Padawon.... :pray
-
Lol, WHAT DID I SAY
Hey Ack-Ack, I may be under 18 but you want to know something. When it is adults who show pure arrogance and distaste for those who are telling them that they are being A-**** and to cool it. It really shows who the immature one is. Stating facts about the subject matter is one thing, but belittling others with petty insults or a tone of pure indifference and then going out of your way to act better or as if "you know more" is just wrong.
My comment was aimed at you purely because you do not seem to realize that most people do not care whether the Sherman or Stuka and such had a "whatever" 3 mm's forward or back and just want the darn thing to be added. These inventions that were devised back in WW2 are what we emulate, and each one of them had different variants. We are asking for variants because it adds diversity... and how where these variants produced? By improving the original design. And the changes were almost always minor in detail and just morphs of the original blueprints. Which is what we are asking Hi-Tech to do.
A persons opinion is valued. And as you are an American Ack-Ack your constitution says quite often that all people are equal under god and they have the right to say what they think. So why don't you act as if you give a damn for once instead of being a stuck up arrogant Jerk.
Please.
I'm done now
-
LOL, gentlemen..., you are looking at one of the expert forum lurking, over-opinionated few that make life hell for those of us that would love to see this game move forward.. congrats Ack.
I recall an old saying, "the only way to win, is not to play at all" :aok
We all want to see the game "move forward". What we do not want to see is slapped together models just for the sake of moving forward.
I have no problem with Nem wanting a DD sherm or others wanting a G-2 stuka. I do have a problem if they are wishing for it to be based off the wrong model in game. We get to enjoy a high quality product, lets keep it that way.
-
LOL! Gee...that's all? Well, that just sounds like a couple of hours of work to me! Damn it Dale, get right on it!
You really have no clue about developing any assets in a game if you think it's just as easy as you claim. When you do, then come back and talk to me.
ack-ack
And Ack-Ack, actually start giving examples, you made some progress, but you backslid. WHAT ELSE MUST BE MADE?
The fact is that if it looks like a DD M4, works like a DD M4, and preforms like a DD M4, then IT IS A DD M4.
-
And Ack-Ack, actually start giving examples, you made some progress, but you backslid. WHAT ELSE MUST BE MADE?
The fact is that if it looks like a DD M4, works like a DD M4, and preforms like a DD M4, then IT IS A DD M4.
Seriously, are you really naturally this stupid? Please show me any posts where I said it wasn't.
ack-ack
-
Yes, but you seem to think it requires more than that. All you do is hand down insults, and say that there is more to it. You don't say what it is that needs to be done, or do anything but piss and moan. Either contribute to the thread or gtfo.
-
Who had the popcorn again?
-
Yes, but you seem to think it requires more than that. All you do is hand down insults, and say that there is more to it. You don't say what it is that needs to be done, or do anything but piss and moan. Either contribute to the thread or gtfo.
Let me ask you this...who is going to know? You with absolutely no knowledge of game development or someone that actually works in the gaming industry? Like I said, get your name in a few game credits and then come back and talk to me.
ack-ack
-
No, but then again, I'm not the one dodging questions.
-
No, but then again, I'm not the one dodging questions.
Nobody is dodging anything, you're just not smart enough to understand is all. Enjoy.
ack-ack
-
Nobody is dodging anything, you're just not smart enough to understand is all.
And Ack-Ack, actually start giving examples, you made some progress, but you backslid. WHAT ELSE MUST BE MADE?
What the hell do you call that then? Either you are selectively blind, or you are dodging questions.
Personally, I think you really can find no real reason for excluding this, and are using abstracts because you simply do not like me. Perhaps because I don't show you what you deem the proper servility.