Print

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

[Madman198237]

Cute, ebbor. Nice strawman.

WE'VE BEEN SHOOTING THEM, IT DOESN'T STOP THEM. If they're not afraid (even a bit) of getting killed (i.e., they've sent us running and know that we're incapable of downing their armored soldiers) we can't pin them down.

[10ebbor10]

they've sent us running and know that we're incapable of downing their armored soldiers

We're totally capable of taking down their armored soldiers.

It does little to stop the envomened bolts that strike their exposed arms and legs, and even less to stop PLACE blasts,

We just lacked the range to kill them permanently (they can use their grenades in gauntlet range). But we'll have it now, as we have more than enough PLACE's present

[Madman198237]

And yet they *still get through*.

[milo christiansen]

Remember: the bolt venom is kinda slow acting.

[10ebbor10]

Remember: the bolt venom is kinda slow acting.

From the description.

Sadly, there is little long term lethality (unless the victim is allergic, and then you don't want to know what happens), but it's very effective at crippling a soldier during a combat situation

There's nothing about it being slow acting. In fact, the description implies the exact opposite. It's a venom that lasts a very short time, but it's very effective at taking them out fast.

And yet they *still get through*.

Because we didn't have the tactic.

If we hit the enemy, if we even inflict a tiny nick, they drop down in pain, crippled for the next minute. That is ample evidence that the tactic can work.

What's next, are you going to claim that ambushes couldn't possibly be real because we never did them, that bigger crystals can't be real because we don't have them, or some other nonsense? A tactic can not be deployed before we develop it. That is basic logic.

[milo christiansen]

Our guys didn't exactly stand around doing nothing. This tactic asks for the same old thing (shoot the enemy), in a (probably vain) hope of a different result. What is the definition of insanity again?

[10ebbor10]

Our guys didn't exactly stand around doing nothing. This tactic asks for the same old thing (shoot the enemy), in a (probably vain) hope of a different result. What is the definition of insanity again?

Except, no it doesn't.

I don't know why you two are so happy to basically lie about various things to support your argument, but it's not exactly honest or nice.

Our current system is to fire half our units, then move up the other half. That means that our volume of fire is halved. In addition, our units will by default use the idiot ball. That means that they may waste ammunition trying to kill a downed armored unit, or any other kind of nonsense.

Edit : If you want it in game-logic terminology. Our bows inflict a stun effect on the enemy. This ensures that we spread the stuns among all the different enemy units, rather than focus firing on one unit. It also reduces some of the damage our lighter units inflict into stuns or delays.

[Madman198237]

A. Thank you for proving our point

B. You accuse us of being dishonest for presenting the truth as we see it, which probably makes you even more dishonest, especially if you're aware of what you're doing.

C. Are we missing some ground-forces tactics in the spoiler? (Sorry, random unrelated moment of confusion, since I was referencing the tactics spoiler for all my information)

D. That's....ridiculously inaccurate. Our bows inflict a KO effect, if anything, in game terms, because it's *permanent* through the duration of a particular battle. We WANT focused fire on one unit, in particular fire on the unit most likely to get shot, the grenadiers.

[10ebbor10]

Yeah, the ABCD notation doesn't work. I have no ides whst you're referring to for half the answers.

You accuse us of being dishonest for presenting the truth as we see it, which probably makes you even more dishonest, especially if you're aware of what you're doing

I haven't seen you represent truth. Milo called the poison slow acting (when the exact opposite is true), and you've said that our soldiers can't take down armored soldiers, when yet again, the opposite is true. Then you try to pretend that the tactic won't work because it involves shooting the enemy. All our tactics do.

D. That's....ridiculously inaccurate. Our bows inflict a KO effect, if anything, in game terms, because it's *permanent* through the duration of a particular battle. We WANT focused fire on one unit, in particular fire on the unit most likely to get shot, the grenadiers

Nah, you misunderstood. With one unit, I don't mean a squad. With one unit, I mean a single human. After all, units that are disabled can still be killed. Mo reason to assume that our gunners won't continue firing.

I'll end with this :

but they can't make an effective press against our poison bolts, and they fire too slowly to effectively reduce defenders before the second PLACE can be moved into position.

Pin down will work. The enemy broke through once due to a lack of PLACE and lack of the tactic, but we have the weaponry needed to support it and is effective enough.

[Tack]

My 'gambler's fallacy' brain is telling me we're due for a few 1's anyway so eh.

[milo christiansen]

It would appear the Kasgyre reinforced as well, as a new and distinctive squad of soldiers is seen charging the lines, clad to a man in the breastplate and helmet that seemed previously reserved for their officers. It does little to stop the envomened bolts that strike their exposed arms and legs, and even less to stop PLACE blasts, but it does mean that Wreth marksman have to pick their shots a bit more carefully, and it lets a good number of the Kasgyrite soldiers to get within effective gauntlet range.

So remind me, how is pin down suposed to be useful again?

[Tack]

We could always just send a squad of musketeers.
In which case pin down will be very handy.

[10ebbor10]

It would appear the Kasgyre reinforced as well, as a new and distinctive squad of soldiers is seen charging the lines, clad to a man in the breastplate and helmet that seemed previously reserved for their officers. It does little to stop the envomened bolts that strike their exposed arms and legs, and even less to stop PLACE blasts, but it does mean that Wreth marksman have to pick their shots a bit more carefully, and it lets a good number of the Kasgyrite soldiers to get within effective gauntlet range.

So remind me, how is pin down suposed to be useful again?

There.

I bolded the part that shows you that our weapons are still effective at hitting the enemy, and still effective at stopping them. Therefore, it'll work.

What you guys are doing is like complaining that our anti flanking strategy couldn't possibly work because we got flanked once before developping it. Of course you won't see the effect of a strategy before we developped it. That's the entire point of developping it.

[milo christiansen]

It would appear the Kasgyre reinforced as well, as a new and distinctive squad of soldiers is seen charging the lines, clad to a man in the breastplate and helmet that seemed previously reserved for their officers. It does little to stop the envomened bolts that strike their exposed arms and legs, and even less to stop PLACE blasts, but it does mean that Wreth marksman have to pick their shots a bit more carefully, and it lets a good number of the Kasgyrite soldiers to get within effective gauntlet range.

I'll just let this bolded part speak for itself.

[10ebbor10]

Bolts and gauntlet fire cut into the Wreth defenders as their ambush suddenly turned against them. Men with cutlasses crawl out from the walls to hack at legs, while Kasgyrite marksmen fire and reload from their cubbies by virtue of crank. The PLACE itself is very nearly lost when a Kasgyrite officer with a cutlass hacks apart her gunner, but overwhelming gauntlet fire is able to at least win a retreat. Man men end up with burned arms, but it's only through the gauntlet's ability to rapidly and decisively respond to threats that the Kasgyrite counter-ambush doesn't result in a fatal rout.

Clearly, this means that we can never develop an anti-flanking tactic.Protection against ambushes from the side is a hopeless and impossible affair, against which nothing can be done. After all, our people shot their people then, and it clearlydidn't work, so the new tactic won't work either.

See, that's how stupid you two are acting.

In a complete abandonning of all logic, you demand that a tactic works before it's ever developed. Of course, it can't, it hasn't been developped yet.