|
Post by F.K.M on Mar 24, 2012 7:07:53 GMT -5
@reds: Damn you money! I'll have to check this game out. I've never really been into super huge army rts games but this might be worth a look.
I played 3 more games in starcraft 2 while in gold league after my previous constant defeats since the last time i played 1vs1 and this time i won all 3. I did a good job of it too defeating zerg, terran and finally a protoss player. Against zerg i made use of sentries due to all the gas i had. I think the person had to leave but i'm pretty sure i would've won anyway even if zerg can replace their army so quickly. It's always good to scout constantly to see if an incoming wave of attackers is on the way and what it's composed of. I must be learning a ton from my cousin.
The next game was against terran and i just used psi-storm with high templar, zealots and stalkers. When my energy ran low i just morphed the high templar into archons and they just tear up biological units and do some nasty splash to them which was good because after a couple psi-storms tear through the army archons just wipe up the rest. I basically destroyed his 2nd base and stormed what defenses he had using psi storm and this whole combo to destroy him. He started making banshees (cloaked anti-ground unit) but it was mostly too late. I should've made some observers just in case but i didn't. I still won it though.
Finally i fought against a protoss player and because of how he was blocking his ramp and getting some sentries i figured he was going to defend his ramp and maybe tech for something. I then take 2 warp prisms (transports) and fly them into his base and drop guys and warp in guys all into his mineral line killing most of his workers. I then run away saving most of my guys. I later attacked the base again the same way but destroy his main nexus so he didn't have much gas or minerals for a while. I then go up for the final confrontation and beat him while using the warp prisms as a mobile warp in point for my warp gates. I could've made a lot more production buildings and pumped out more units but i feel i did some decent work destroying the guy.
@reds: Machine guns....the reason why we now have tanks.
Right now i think it would be awesome to have an 80's style cold war themed fallout bunker (underground of course). I'm not totally crazy but i do think it'd be awesome. Maybe i could have some computers around, some flashy buttons and lights and some flip switches to pretend i can launch nukes with it or that we're on alert in my command center. If for nothing else a fallout bunker could be useful for zombies, plagues, famines, wars, etc. Hell i barely leave my room as it is. I'm built to last baby! Just give me canned foods and i'll stay at home for good. Then many years later the fallout series will start for real and my descendants will wander the wasteland of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 11:38:57 GMT -5
@reds: Machine guns....the reason why we now have tanks. This is actually incorrect, the reason we have tanks is because of trench warfare and the lack of horses(at the time).
|
|
Hookah, S.C.
Colonel
Mostly Harmless
25%
But what if I put more plasma on it?
Posts: 390
|
Post by Hookah, S.C. on Mar 24, 2012 11:46:01 GMT -5
There were lots of horses in WWI.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 11:52:28 GMT -5
There were lots of horses in WWI. Yes at the battle field, but not at the farms where farmers, having lost their horses to the cause, had to create something to still work the farm. That was the birth of the tank. According to James Burke in his series 'Connections'. Look it up.
|
|
Hookah, S.C.
Colonel
Mostly Harmless
25%
But what if I put more plasma on it?
Posts: 390
|
Post by Hookah, S.C. on Mar 24, 2012 12:15:18 GMT -5
There were lots of horses in WWI. Yes at the battle field, but not at the farms where farmers, having lost their horses to the cause, had to create something to still work the farm. That was the birth of the tank. According to James Burke in his series 'Connections'. Look it up. Jesus Christ on a bike. That is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2012 13:41:45 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the invention of bulldozer like tractors lead to the development of the tank...
If the inspiration came because people were short on horses, or it was stumbled upon because it was simply just a good idea, I do not know this answer.
|
|
|
Post by Machine Gun Kelly on Mar 24, 2012 13:49:38 GMT -5
...S.T.A.L.K.E.R
|
|
|
Post by Kommissar Orren on Mar 24, 2012 14:27:13 GMT -5
So, Total War still needs to learn how to balance a fornicateing AI. Making their units all ungodly accurate, especially artillery, does not make them balanced against a player. It makes them stupid. THey also need to make a 'reform' on/off button, instead of forcing your men to reform their ranks every time you tell them to target a unit.
"That cavalry is about to charge us men! Open fire! But first, let's spend 30 seconds slowly moving back into nice lines, so we are killed in a more organized manner."
|
|
|
Post by ElegaicRequiem on Mar 24, 2012 16:17:44 GMT -5
Militaries didn't really abandon that nonsense until shortly after the ACW-era, when riflemen just got far too accurate as snipers. Although, I'd expect some sort of prioritizing from the men out getting shot...
Also, I'm just starting to be able to work more free time into my schedule. This is good. I just got back from a vacation, and I already feel like I need another one.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 24, 2012 16:27:57 GMT -5
There were lots of horses in WWI. Yes at the battle field, but not at the farms where farmers, having lost their horses to the cause, had to create something to still work the farm. That was the birth of the tank. According to James Burke in his series 'Connections'. Look it up. James Burke is wrong. Mechanized tractors existed prior to WW1. The tank came about as a specific design - by the Royal Navy, under Winston Churchill no less - as an armoured, wire-and-obstacle-busting, strongpoint-suppressing fire platform/mobile infantry shield designed to fĂșck over Germany. It was an invention of Her Majesty's Royal Navy, and god help anyone who tries to pretend otherwise. I see the Stalker in your face.
|
|
|
Post by Trooper One-Nine-Seven-Four on Mar 24, 2012 16:32:34 GMT -5
James Burke is wrong. Mechanized tractors existed prior to WW1. The tank came about as a specific design - by the Royal Navy, under Winston Churchill no less - as an armoured, wire-and-obstacle-busting, strongpoint-suppressing fire platform/mobile infantry shield designed to fĂșck over Germany. It was an invention of Her Majesty's Royal Navy, and god help anyone who tries to pretend otherwise. ^^^ Yes. This +1.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Cooman on Mar 24, 2012 16:57:57 GMT -5
As far as i know, the tank started life as an idea from the royal navy under Churchill to make a land-ship. So definately +1 to RT here. Edit : read the wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2012 17:31:34 GMT -5
As far as i know, the tank started life as an idea from the royal navy under Churchill to make a land-ship. So definately +1 to RT here. Edit : read the wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank...and according to that, the use of caterpillar tractors was first considered then rejected, which lead to the development of the tank. Thus crawling tractors inspired the tank.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Mar 24, 2012 17:36:06 GMT -5
Of course it was Churchill. Only Churchill had the sheer balls to pitch that kind of idea.
Churchill: "Well, chaps...the Army fellows' have been having a bit of a stiff time of it over in France. The Hun machineguns and artillery are making it a bit awkward for the poor devils' to get out their trenches and give Jerry a taste of cold steel."
(Agreeing murmurs, mutters of "dashed bad show" and "ghastly Huns" can be heard).
Churchill: "So, we've decided that, since we've been having such a spiffing time kicking those submarine chappies in the teeth, and the cowardly Hun is hiding in his ports, it's time we gave the poor devils at the Front a helping hand."
Admiral #1: "Very well Winston, but what can we do? Even the largest guns can only go so far, what-what, and the Boche as dashed good at hiding themselves."
Churchill: "Gentlemen...His Majestys' Navy is, and has always been, the pride of this Nation and the envy of the world. Our battleships are second to none. And that, my Lords, is what we will build. We shall build them a dreadnaught.
A land dreadnaught."
|
|
|
Post by Peter Cooman on Mar 24, 2012 17:51:50 GMT -5
@ ymmot: Yes they inspired it, but the idea's were always revoked. I think it's best to say that the tank was not thought out by 'Winston', but he was the first to have the common sense to go through with the plan.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 19:23:08 GMT -5
Site whatever you like gentlemen; the tank came about because of a lack of horses.
I know there isn't a single one of you who will look into the 'Connections' episode that discusses it which is sad.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2012 19:41:59 GMT -5
I looked up the series and it seemed interesting, I would watch it...
do you know if it is online, on youtube or netflix, or some such?
Shucks, what about me makes you think I wouldn't want to see something like that?
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 19:46:57 GMT -5
I looked up the series and it seemed interesting, I would watch it... do you know if it is online, on youtube or netflix, or some such? The whole series might be on youtube. I guess I misspoke when I said no one would watch it.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2012 19:53:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kommissar Orren on Mar 24, 2012 19:54:05 GMT -5
I watched a documentary on the Military channel about the development of the tank(As well as reading articles in books and online). The tank came about because of the stalemate in the trenches. They needed a new weapon that could effectively draw and take enemy fire while taking little or no damage. It was made off of the idea of a tractor. Tractors(caterpillars etc.) were around a long time before WW1. I believe the first self-propelled steam powered one was made in the 1880's by a Russian, 20 years at least before WW1.
Also, after cracking open my old book, yes, tractors had been around in the UK already, and were in use at the beginning as the war with limited use as artillery carriages.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 20:13:31 GMT -5
Never been one to be afraid to admit when I'm wrong I will say this:
An invention relies on many earlier inventions. It has too. James Burke's series Connections is about exactly that. Tracked vehicles existed years before WW1. So by that statement I am wrong. Churchill may have thought the use of an armored track vehicle would help the cause during the war doesn't mean directly that it was invented FOR the war. So by that statement you guys are wrong.
Believe what you will.
|
|
|
Post by Ymmot (M.I.A) on Mar 24, 2012 20:37:34 GMT -5
Everyone is right!
The truth can be a nebulous thing, sometimes it all depends on how you look at it.
One thing could not have existed without the other, the existence of the other can be attributed to the lack of something else, so on and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Mar 24, 2012 20:41:41 GMT -5
I agree, totally.
I hope I didn't come off as an ass.
|
|
|
Post by F.K.M on Mar 24, 2012 20:46:58 GMT -5
Well i always thought tanks were good against machine guns. I know they originated with trench warfare and i'm sure they were quite a fearsome sight to those unused to the idea of them.
I always imagined it worked like this in current warfare. Riflemen are basic troops and just basic all around guys, machine guns at least suppress people that don't know enough to fight them, snipers take out all these (machine guns, mortars, rockets, officers and pretty much anything they can at long range), tanks artillery and air strikes can take care of snipers but usually i hear tanks doing it, rockets are used for destruction i'm sure but i hear without proper ambushing and such they generally get taken out vs armored units of any kind though i think javelin missiles are an exception from what was shown and said on tv but it is just tv (you can fire it like artillery and then once fired you run to a new position as it auto locks from what i remember), tanks can counter a lot but get taken out by any type of air or artillery, battleships get taken out by lots of planes i think or submarines, battleships can hammer a coastline and defend a beach invasion and that sort of thing and artillery gets taken out by fast moving units or hit and run type units. Also a few small targets can probably find them and destroy them (rocket infantry maybe?). I suppose you could take out artillery with air units too.
Remember that this is just some ideas of what counters what and i am by no means a military expert. Some of it is pretty duh i'm sure but some of this goes by what i've heard on the military channel or history channel and such.
|
|
|
Post by Kommissar Orren on Mar 24, 2012 21:11:40 GMT -5
Your perspective seems like that of an unrealistic RTS game. Or if some of those things were individually sitting out in the middle of the open, which would make no sense.
So, it came time to pick my loyalties in Fall of the Samurai, and I decided to go, "fornicate both of you, I'll make my own Japan." Every single clan goes to war with you, because forming your own nation in the middle of a civil war is apparently frowned upon. So far it has been 2 years of defense, with the occasional offensive to loot a city for more spending money. My positive income relies heavily on me raiding their trade routes, as they have destroyed my infrastructure with raids. My survival is thanks to the complex, and multi-leveled defensive style of Japanese forts, and how I have been manning the walls. Instead of trying to hold the wall itself, I fall back as they climb it, so the next tier can safely add their fire, along with the tier which lost the wall. Not to mention my nice naval support off-shore.
|
|