Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Why we should'nt have forts
Page 2 of 2
Yog-Soth
Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:49 am
#14
Oh , im sorry i didnt realise that "poping" a tent for a camp, was the same as laying concrete and mortar , and steelrebar, and wire meshing for a fortified structure. That must be why the Germans in WW2 used water-proof 2 man pup-tent MG bunkers.Thnx for that tip , they seemed to forgot that section in my engineering classes.
Using a Fort , means being inside the fort , which means being static. The whole idea of Flanking , moving , adjusting , requires not being in a static environment. If the Fort moves , it's called a tank.
I don't care how you explain it , poping tents and digging trenches is not the same as laying foundation , walls , renforced walls, gun emplacements. etc etc.. The previous is covered by the passive bonuse we give. SquadLeaders don't do this, other parts of the armies do, parts of armies designated to do just this.
But either way im sick of this arguement.
Yog-Soth
Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:38 pm
#15
LMAO i love it, you talk about the "reality" of the SL prof and this and that, but as soon as "the reality" of it contridicts you, you become ," hey man it's a game not real."
Therascalking3
Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:57 am
#16
no you misunderstand my position. I believe that we should try to make things based on reality but adapted to the fact that this is a game and certain things need to be taken and done in a gamelike fashion. If this was a fully realistic game then we would not be able to knock down something as large as a fambaa with our fist. We couldnt even hurt a freaking fambaa with our fists. If this was a realistic game then a novice entertainer would not be permitted to perform in a cantina. If this was a realistic game then a little bazaar terminal would not be able to house all the merchadise you can buy in one of those locally. If this was realistic game how many people would be walking around with huge guns in their arms all day everyday. How many people would have holoemotes on top of their heads.
When it comes down to it this is a game. However there are elements that are realistic. You require a shuttle to transport yourself from place to place. Things cost money that has to be earned with a profession. Guns shoot and melee weapons hit things. Armor protects and clothing doesnt. Reality exists within the world of a game. This is why you can drive a landspeeder but when you store it the thing just disappears into a datapad. We can call for realism in the squad leader profession. However it can and should only be taken to a certain extent as this is a game and we want to play it not have it be a job or frustrating experience.
besides if you are so against forts because of reality you have been proven wrong about the true job of Squad Leaders by actual RL squad leaders.
Yog-Soth
Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:50 am
#17
LOL
"squadLeader" is not an actual M.O.S.
I'ts a consigned authority position.
Second wot your thinking of is know as a FireBase. A firebase is somewhat like a fort constructed of tents and trenches and constatina wire.
And actually military , or as U.S. Army designates as a Fort. would be an entire base. I.E. Fort.Hood
Fort. Bragg
Therascalking3
Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:09 am
#18
Yog-Soth wrote:
LOL
"squadLeader" is not an actual M.O.S.
I'ts a consigned authority position.
Second wot your thinking of is know as a FireBase. A firebase is somewhat like a fort constructed of tents and trenches and constatina wire.
And actually military , or as U.S. Army designates as a Fort. would be an entire base. I.E. Fort.Hood
Fort. Bragg
I think you should chill with your dictionary definitions.....oh unless your name is webster.
How are you gonna tell me my dictionary definition is bad and i am wrong when you are still claiming that these Squad Leaders or military equivalents dont know how to build anything. You are wrong and have been told you are wrong time and time and time again. Accept it for all our sakes.
You should see that forts are the term we gave to all of the structures we wanted under the SL tree. Now if you want to get technical the denotation of the word "fortification" is a structure that fortifies. Meaning reinforces or supports so in essence anything from a trench to a bunker as long as it is a structure and reinforces is a fortification. We say fort instead of fortification because it is shorter much like you say "wot" instead of what except that is just a sad sad need to shorter a word by one letter for no reason.
The strategy tree has steady aim and volley fire but those arent strategies so what the hell.
You call us elitist but do you see that in everyone of these type posts you are trying to prove why we dont know what we are talking about and why you are right. The hypocrisy is so sad its amusing.
Yog-Soth
Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:06 am
#19
I had an opposing opinion, then you said "shut-up noob" and you follow every post with flaming me, and unfortunaltey i have fallen for your bait. I am responding to the staements and arguements you make in response to me.
So wot your saying is when you say "fort" wot you really mean is a big camp..... Interesting
Therascalking3
Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:32 am
#20
Yog-Soth wrote:
I had an opposing opinion, then you said "shut-up noob" and you follow every post with flaming me, and unfortunaltey i have fallen for your bait. I am responding to the staements and arguements you make in response to me.
So wot your saying is when you say "fort" wot you really mean is a big camp..... Interesting
no i dont recall ever calling you a noob. I dont use that word unless i am making fun of its users. If for some random reason i did, i apologize.
no i dont mean a big camp i mean exactly what i said. A structure meant to fortify or reinforce.
Page 2 of 2