Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[evilcherry]

Option C is basically equivalent to retconning one revise phase away from us. All because of GM oversight.

Not really. It takes this round, which in game means this :

-Armor-Piercing High Explosive (APHE): Armor-piercing shells, with explosives in the rear. The explosives detonate on impact, adding force to the round. Available for tank guns, and bombardiers.

But in real life means this

An armor piercing shell, filled with explosives internally which detonate on a fuze inside the shell, thus greatly amplifying the damage.

to HEAT.

Clearly, the description and functioning of the round as it's in game (ie, increasing penetration at long range) fits much better with HEAT than with IRL APHE.

Besides, it's not exactly a GM oversight. We called it out before it happened. Saying he didn't know about it would be disingenuous.

That's what exactly constitutes a GM oversight. GM made an error, and based his decisions on an error, which has always been the intended result with or without the error. In this case he overlooked the error, because if the error is correctly considered the result would be drastically different.

Your side and rear armor is always said to be light or paper-thin. In this sense HE should be enough to pop open a few rivets.

What, no ?

Our tank is fully armored with medium armor in every direction. I have no more problems with you taking out our armored cars or tank destroyers with a shot in the back.

I am as antagonistic as they are, I mean come on, they're vaguely insulting us all the time (Also, threats of dust devils/ice giants, even after Sensei agreed that this is indeed unrealistic), like, even right now, just because they don't like us calling out on their magic weapons.

Yes, and I very much like to keep the Moral high ground here.

What moral high ground? Is it now high time to go back to the usual Arstotzkan shell of claiming that "Oh GM you are helping Moskurg unfairly again"?

Should I also point out the fact that your fighter aircraft whose airframe derives from a high-dihedral gull wing dive bomber should never beat our Model 3? Yet we never put on such a concerted effort to force the GM to concede ground to you!

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Should I also point out the fact that your fighter aircraft whose airframe derives from a high-dihedral gull wing dive bomber should never beat our Model 3?

This is... wrong. Fighter that is more durable, has something like 4 times more firepower and more powerful engine can compete with one machinegun half-wooden thing. I offered it exactly to outperform model 1 by reaching comparable speed but getting much, much more firepower.

[Sheb]

And the high-dihedral is not from the GM.

[10ebbor10]

That's what exactly constitutes a GM oversight. GM made an error, and based his decisions on an error, which has always been the intended result with or without the error. In this case he overlooked the error, because if the error is correctly considered the result would be drastically different.

Not really. I mean, we pointed out that the Recoillesss Rifle would be ineffective before the turn was written.

What moral high ground? Is it now high time to go back to the usual Arstotzkan shell of claiming that "Oh GM you are helping Moskurg unfairly again"?

This moral high ground. Notice how I haven't used any strawman's, threats or anything like that.

I have no claimed the GM helped Moskurg unfairly, or recall someone else doing it. I do recall claiming that a design should not exist yet, or that it's performance is unrealistic. And I will admit that the word might have fallen that this would give an unfair advantage to Moskurg.

However, to jump from there to the statement that we claim that the GM is unfairly helping Moskurg is a gross exaggeration. After all, that statement assumes we assume that the GM is deliberately acting out of malice against us, which is not the case.

We want to resolve an error, and the proposed solution is one that will harm neither Moskurg nor Arztotska. It improves in game consistency (both internal and with real life), while maintaining the status quo.

Should I also point out the fact that your fighter aircraft whose airframe derives from a high-dihedral gull wing dive bomber should never beat our Model 3? Yet we never put on such a concerted effort to force the GM to concede ground to you!

Our aircraft does not utilize a dihedral gull wing.

Yes, you saw that propaganda picture. No, that isn't how it looks in the game, no matter how much you want it to be. I could draw a gold plated version of our tank now (Theoretically, I can't draw tanks, or at all). Doesn't mean it's armored in gold.

Succesfull fighter/dive bomber conversions exist, so nothing unrealistic is going on here.

[Elfeater]

Well considering people on your side have called us cheaters time and time again...

[LordSlowpoke]

tbh i'd be of the persuasion that sensei should shut it down until people stop being salty

[10ebbor10]

tbh i'd be of the persuasion that sensei should shut it down until people stop being salty

At this precise moment, not to much salt going around actually.

Kot's away, so if Moskurg lays off with the subtle antagonism that problem is resolved and honest discussion can resolve.

Not that there's much to discuss really.

Still haven't seen any good argument against option C.

[Sheb]

Which I'll remind you is "let's keep the staty quo, just change the names so your current performance are realistic". We do not ask you to degrade the Hippo's performance in any way.

[Elfeater]

I think C is a good option.

[Sheb]

Also, it should be noted that we have a shaped-charge warhead for the AS-RPG28 without having HEAT rounds for our other guns, so there is a precedent for that as well.

[Aseaheru]

Well considering people on your side have called us cheaters time and time again...

You guys are the ones who told us you kept reading our thread for counters/ideas without using a spy...

[evilcherry]

Also, it should be noted that we have a shaped-charge warhead for the AS-RPG28 without having HEAT rounds for our other guns, so there is a precedent for that as well.

How about nerfing both sides once again? This can also be an option. So the AS-RPG28 only fires HE, and the Rhino/Hippo does the same.

Well considering people on your side have called us cheaters time and time again...

You guys are the ones who told us you kept reading our thread for counters/ideas without using a spy...

Enough is enough.

If this kind of behaviour persists I propose HEAT technology be given to Moskurg for endless Arstotzkan QQing.

[Sheb]

I wouldn't mind, but that would make your slat armor useless. :p

Also, Sensei, how are ore costs calculated? Both our aluminium planes are 4 ore, and their YellowThing is only 3. Is it smaller?

[Elfeater]

I think the Moskurg argument against C is that we need to set a precedent of having what the GM says go, and not wasting so long arguing over one item. I think C accomplishes the first part, but we do need to stop all this saltiness to a minimum.

Well considering people on your side have called us cheaters time and time again...

You guys are the ones who told us you kept reading our thread for counters/ideas without using a spy...

Maybe I missed it, but I never saw this, I heard one of our guys went into your thread to banter with you, and sheb did the same in ours.

[Andres]

Also, Sensei, how are ore costs calculated? Both our aluminium planes are 4 ore, and their YellowThing is only 3. Is it smaller?

The base cost of our plane is 2 Ore due to its use of an aluminium structure, but making the inside entirely of aluminium adds 1 Ore and making the outside entirely of aluminium adds another 1 Ore.