(Spots an unused soapbox lying in the corner)
If the CV could be sunk by some planes staffing it, as has been said before, that ship was already dead. No amount of debate, discussion, "facts" on hull thickness or what have you is going to change it. The CV was hammered so much that all it took was some planes to strafe it down. Some of you seem to want a technicality to explain your lack of defensive capabilities. Tough, get over it, you lost a CV. Blaming the attack instead of learning from a lack of defense is unfortunate. Some, in the past, would have shrugged off the loss with nothing more than this. "Whoa, didn't see that one coming, let's make sure we don't let those buggers in again, k?" Now, it's an endless rant on the laws of physics and text book examples of some hull thicknesses!
Your intelligence is measured by those around you
SIM is a very good friend of mine. Consider who he has around him. I'd prefer it if ideas were discussed instead of personalities. But hey, that's just me.
I could have, but up to this point had opted not to, contribute further in this so called "debate". But the fact of the matter is this. The CV sunk, had it been defended, it wouldn't have fallen to some fighters, so MOVE ON. You don't even have to have flown to grasp that so very basic of concepts. Argue hull thickness all you want, the plain and simple fact is this. Not a foul, no harm, not a problem at all, but had those planes not gotten to the fleet, this conversation would not have occured. (This is where a lightbulb smiley would come in handy) This response is not about who Did or Didn't defend, who Did or Didn't attack, it's simply a comment on the dumming down of events.
Far too many of you insist on arguing the "facts" of an event after the fact. That's simply a waste of time, and quite easy to do after the hard work and on the spot decision making has been done by someone else. The admins put plenty of time into designing these, and then it's up to the players to live or die by their actions. There isn't a perfect scenario. There is an event that is designed so that one side had one type of advantage, and another has a different type. Both sides have an opportunity to win. Here's the ugly truth, some are simply going to lose, it's a 2 sided event and it's going to happen. Get over it, get used to it. Arguing the specifics of a fantasy situation after the fact of an actual event will do Squat, Diddly and Nada for the next event, because the conditions will be absolutely and completely different.
At some point some of you might actually get a clue and realize that historical reality plays NO PART of these events. You don't have anyone below deck. You don't have anyone in the thick of battle. You have to get your head on straight and deal with the reality of the GAME CONDITIONS and prevail, no amount of text book footnotes and facts will accomplish a thing in here. When you log in with no A/C, no snacks by your side, no ipod playing tunes in the background, and DIE when you are shot, Then you can start quoting scripture on what was and should be.
Until then, deal with the game conditions and quit spoiling these events.
Everything that I have stated about hull thickness of ships is common knowledge. You debate that?
I debate that. It's PIXELS and irrelevant information. Deal with reality, not your grandstanding about how smart you are pulling details from a spec book. The scenario can be most improved by knocking off the endless prattle and irrelevant arguments over trivial details that have nothing to do with the reality of the conditions in the game. Imagine, if you will, our leaders during WW2 arguing over what some book said should happen, instead of dealing with the reality of the actual conditions! Stow It for crying out loud! There is not a manufacturer manual or spec book that wasn't used for TP during the war. Trying to stuff those figures into a Video Game, Generations later, is ludicrous beyond belief.
I swear, I am dying to get back into the game, but the more I read, the more I hesitate. These fact checkers need to be replaced by simple "Can Do" players again. At some point, we lost the players that didn't care what the conditions were, we did what we could, with what we had, and usually won. These events are not going to improve while the arm chair googlers reign supreme. It's the mentality of the players that make these a success. It isn't the design, it isn't the rules, it's nothing more than a simple mindset of "we can win with what we are given". I don't see a change on the horizon.
Now, for the PC crowd, here is the little disclaimer. If I struck a nerve, tough. If you think I'm talking about you, look behind you, there is someone in the shadows. If you agree, fine but I don't care. If you disagree, why would that matter to me more than those who agree with me? Everyone logs in to enjoy the game for their own reasons. Truth be told, actions speak louder than words, and what you say is far far less relevant that what you do. Hope you find something enjoyable out of this game. For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone could take something as pleasurable as a social game like this, and try to turn it into some pissing contest over who can google irrelevant facts faster than someone else.
(Discards soapbox)
