Anyone not like the books?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
sea_monkey said:
HammerHead, as far as I can tell your argument is basically the same as Loaf's. Carriers are still the only ship that can do A & B, so they are still the most important. I never argued that they weren't however, so I don't see your point.
My point is that they are not made less important by other fighter-carrying-starships. You point is correct in that the availability of other fighter-carrying-ships (i.e. cruisers an d destroyers) make fleet carriers available for use on more important areas of the front line.

The importance of any class of ships (be that cruiser or carrier) is not deminished or increased by the availability or absence of any other class of ship. Their might became easier to fulfill.

Also you keep mentioning the fact that in WWII only carriers carried fighters while in WC all (big) ships can carry them.
I'll give you an opposite exsample: during the 1960s the Missile-boat was developed- suddenly the Russians had a small 40-50 feet boat that could, by itself, cripple and even practicaly destroy Cruiser and Destroyer size vessels from 50 miles away - well beyoned any ship's guns range. Later, Cruisers and and Destroyers began to carry missiles of their own - and did the missile boat became less important? NO - it was (and is being) used in a diffrent roll - the roll that was previously own by the torpedo boat - a ship class that was removed from service because of the missile boat.

sea_monkey said:
Seems about the same to me actually. At least in the games, a destroyer will take a fighter or two with it. In WC3, the Fralthi eats up AI pilots.
???
:rolleyes:
o...k... next time we'll call EA and ask them to have Gen. Chuck Yeager or Col. Giyora Epshtein (World top ace in downing fighter-jets : 17) to make the basic AI design... you want to fly against a Kilrathi Chuck Yeager? (Ralgha nar Epshtein...hmm... nice ring to it ;) )

you might simply try the game on "nightare" level, or whatever it's called.


sea_monkey said:
Yes, but the two sides only fight if one side thinks they can win, or one side gets surprised. You don't just throw ships randomly through every jump point until you win. So there's not going to be constant fighting at every point.

I actually subscribe to the view that space in WC is sparsely populated by ships. Neither navy is big enough to choke off all 38 (or whatever) jump points, which is why both sides routinely have forces behind enemy lines without the other side knowing (Ariel, Loki, Freja, Niven, Novaya Kiev, Enigma, K'Thithrak Mang). It also explains why the Tiger's Claw was pulled from Vega to Goddard in SM1, and how a planet like Locanda would routinely end up being raided.
this is also why you need a small force of large carriers, that can be deployed quickly and decisivly at key points, while delivering a stong complement of fighters, and not a large cubersome force in which each ship has a small complement of fighters (all for various tactical reasons, most of which I detailed in my previous posts, and can give you more).

sea_monkey said:
Yeah but how many Fralthra or standard carriers for that matter could you have made with the material it took to make a Hakaga? I swear I remember them saying it took a lot of resources.
Yeah, but this decistion ... is not yours to make ;) - this is why The Kilrathi have an emperor and the Confederation has a President - to make the stupiedest mistake possiable and then blame it on the little people for years ahead! :D

PS: leaving any insults aside - I also agree with everything said by frosty in his last post - his claim simply have certain logic I accept.
The point is - once again two diffrent people gave you two diffrent, completely logical, opinions, both of them to the same effect.
Yes, you can say we are both wrong, and LOAF, and Nemesis, and... well it's basically saying everybody's wrong while you are right....
Just think about it...
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
Sea_monkey is always telling us what he is NOT saying. But everytime he claims NOT saying something, he comes closer and closer to our point-of-view...
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Oh, wow, I just assumed you'd given up or that ace had banned you. Okay, lets do this thing.

Haha ... I actually played Ghorah Khar 2E again just to see what would happen if I ejected right next to the Concordia after beating the mission ... then I ejected another time to confirm.

It IS plainly a glitch, evidence by the fact that it is FIXED in the Kilrathi Saga. If you eject after you beat the mission you just DIE for no reason -- you are not allowed to go on the losing path.

I mean, it was pretty embarrassing to be insisting it wasn't a glitch when it just made no frickin' sense, but now that it doesn't even exist in the remade version of the game -- well now it's definitely time to eat some crow.
Ah, like how Kilrathi Saga fixed that glitch WC2 had where the game actually allowed you to see the enemy shield levels on your VDU? Or how it fixed that damn bug in WC2 where they game actually allowed you to fly with the keyboard? Or how KS fixes that nasty bug where original pieces of music are actually played in the addon disks? I don't think you'll find anyone here who'll agree with you that Kilrathi Saga WC2 is a well done port (the Special Ops package was actually released unsupported!).

(This is all just a fun chance to rag on you, of course, since your problem seems to have been that you picked the wrong mission. Ghorah Khar 2E is the final losing mission. 2D is the Fralthra strike.)

You claimed there was 100,000 fighter force (in order to support another argument), which is never seen or directly referenced in the games or the books. Your "evidence" for this argument was pointing out *2* planets (Earth & McAuliffe) that had a defense force that might be consistent with such a force, and a bunch that were nowhere close -- including Kilrah -- some only having a handful of fighters.
So... your claim is that I'm wrong because I only proved that I was right a little bit? Well, you've sure outdone me here. "But we don't have any proof, except for the instances where you provided explicit proof!" is just too rich for my blood.

Nor does the quote directly reference said fighter force. The fact that the bartender said it indicates only that he said it. Possible scenarios:

* There is, in fact, tens if not hundreds of thousands of fighters in Confed, being produced at hundreds per day.

* Hundreds of fighters ARE currently being destroyed a day, but this is a new development in 2669 as the war is becoming bloodier and casualties are increasing.

* Hundreds of fighters ARE currently being destroyed a day, but this is a new development in 2669 as Confed is losing the war.

* The bartender is full of crap, probably drinking a bit too much of his own whiskey, and really is no position to know what Confed casualties are like anyhow.
The three claims that weren't jokes all support my original claim - if Confed is losing hundreds of fighters a day, it must have hundreds of fighters a day to lose.

Saying this quote is proof of a 100,000 fighter force is like saying the fact that only 2 fighters scramble from Caernervon is evidence the pilots on the space station were busy fighting an infestation of face-eating monkeys.
The space station was busy fighting the Kilrathi, if that's what you're trying to sidestep around.

Perhaps ... but whether or not a carrier is the most important piece of hardware in the fleet is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to my point, and that's plainly obvious if you actually read what I said. The carrier was the most important piece of hardware in WWII by a long shot as well, so saying it is also in the WCU does not contradict my point one bit.

What makes my point inarguable is that it's based on pretty basic set theory and common sense: if previously, the carrier was the only ship that could do A,B,C,D, and now other ships can do C and D, the carrier is LESS important -- NOT "unimportant."
So... peace with honor, eh? Your argument is now, in fact, that carriers in Wing Commander are not exactly the same as carriers in World War II? And you seriously believe that (a) the novels claim this and that (b) we all believe it? Neither of these things is true. The novels clearly tout the importance of lighter ships (Fleet Action talks about your specific cruiser issue... and how many times do escort carriers (converted from transports) save the day?) - and ultimately liken Wing Commander's carriers to the modern supercarrier rather than its pre-nuclear anscestors. Modern escorts can do a lot more than the destroyers and cruisers (and battleships) of World War II... but the aircraft carrier is now even more important than it ever was (despite the fact that it "does less").

(Also: inarguable means that something cannot be argued. Since we have been arguing for five pages, none of this is "inarguable".)

Depends on your definition of success. If you bring up a contrarian view point in communities of various cults and religions or political idealogies, by your own measure you'll "fail" miserably as the community gangs up on you. If you were arguing in 1999 that tech stocks and the Nasdaq were a massive bubble, you were an idiot at the time.
Well... at least you finally understand at last part.

Yes, but the two sides only fight if one side thinks they can win, or one side gets surprised. You don't just throw ships randomly through every jump point until you win. So there's not going to be constant fighting at every point.
Sure you do, the tactic is as old as war itself. Want to weaken the enemy front line? Throw units behind it to try and knock out their commerce and industry. The Atlantic Ocean was full of U-Boats, the Gemini Sector was full of Kilrathi raiders - and so forth.

I actually subscribe to the view that space in WC is sparsely populated by ships. Neither navy is big enough to choke off all 38 (or whatever) jump points, which is why both sides routinely have forces behind enemy lines without the other side knowing (Ariel, Loki, Freja, Niven, Novaya Kiev, Enigma, K'Thithrak Mang). It also explains why the Tiger's Claw was pulled from Vega to Goddard in SM1, and how a planet like Locanda would routinely end up being raided.
You generally encounter a ship or two wherever you go in Privateer. We're constantly called upon to escort civilian transports and such in other games.

Yeah but how many Fralthra or standard carriers for that matter could you have made with the material it took to make a Hakaga? I swear I remember them saying it took a lot of resources.
How many tanks could you build with the material used to produce a Nimitz-class carrier? They're both vital weapons of war, and you can build thousands of one for the cost of the other... so why don't we just only build tanks?
 

Moonsword

Spaceman
If we really have to have an answer to that last couple of points, someone's flushed their sense of reality down the toilet.
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Feel free to chime in with one-line commentary at any time...

Thank you for that, you guys.

One wonders if every one of your combined several-hundred posts have all been such models of meaningful contribution.

Don't ever let the discussion get in the way of your not saying anything.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
Ah, like how Kilrathi Saga fixed that glitch WC2 had where the game actually allowed you to see the enemy shield levels on your VDU? Or how it fixed that damn bug in WC2 where they game actually allowed you to fly with the keyboard? Or how KS fixes that nasty bug where original pieces of music are actually played in the addon disks?
LOL ... ok, it is pretty clear at this point that you're not going to admit you were wrong -- even when it's painfully obvious. Keep in mind just a couple posts above you were mocking me for linking the Thrakhath bug together with Ghorah Khar 2D ("anything you don't like in the game is glitch blah blah blah" ... "mission design is different than file placement blah blah blah") Now, two posts later, you are doing the exact same thing.

So... your claim is that I'm wrong because I only proved that I was right a little bit?
That's precisely it. You made a claim, and provided jack and shit respectively to support it. Pointing out Earth and McAuliffe have 300 fighters does not come close to proving there is a fighter force of 100,000, or about 300 per colony. You've got to prove just about every colony has that many or it averages out to that much. In fact you actually provided examples of colonies with only a handful of fighters.

Last, your only real "evidence" is a quote from a frickin' bartender. As if all bartenders everywhere in the galaxy have access to classified Confed casualty information and are incapable of bullshitting. Ridiculous.

The point is - once again two diffrent people gave you two diffrent, completely logical, opinions, both of them to the same effect.
Yes, you can say we are both wrong, and LOAF, and Nemesis, and... well it's basically saying everybody's wrong while you are right....
Just think about it...
No, sadly, their arguments really aren't logical at all. Loaf can't seem to remember what he said a couple of posts back: suggesting I'm unenlightened for not reading a book, then denying saying it, then denying denying it -- suggesting I'm paranoid about being banned and then just now saying that he thought I'd been banned -- and before, my suggesting that going to the losing path after ejecting in Ghorah Khar 2D was glitch was laughable (despite the fact that it made no sense as it was), now he's arguing that the fact that it's fixed in the Kilrathi Saga is a glitch. Frosty keeps knocking down a strawman, and then when I point out that I never made the arguments he's attacking, replies "I never said it was."

Loaf also spent a great deal of time arguing that you could prove negatives, which no one else called him on -- Type-into-Google level philosophy knowledge. This suggests both a lack of knowledge of basic rules of logic and debate, and also a willingness to totally make shit up to support one's argument. Which he confirms every time he contradicts himself in sequential posts.

Last, the fact that several people disagree with me means nothing. As I pointed out above, the majority of the population can and often wrong about things, so saying that "everybody thinks X, so X is true" is a logical fallacy. And at any rate, that the majority of this site seems to disagree with me means nothing because it would seem (according to some quotes by Frosty) that most of the people with similar views as me were chased off in the past. So the site is naturally going to be composed of people who are like-minded over these issues.

You continue to avoid either confronting or accepting the fact that I've proven that it's logically impossible for cruisers and destroyers to diminish, in any way, the importance of aircraft carriers in Wing Commander. I will repeat it, so you don't have to go look for it:

The importance of carriers, in Wing Commander, is a function of their ability to transport, launch and support heavy strike craft. Not dogfighters, but capship- and base-killing craft. Other warships certainly do field light interceptors for the purposes of self-defense and the defense of any ships they escort, but carriers are the offensive arm.
LOL @ proving "it's logically impossible." Actually I understand your argument completely and have addressed it several times -- even in the quote you provided. I can tell you really believe it is I who am doing the avoiding of confrontation, though, but I think it has more to do with your unwillingness to concede *any* argument, no matter how simple, as opposed to your "proving [something] logically impossible" -- which is impossible by the way.

But to cross the same river yet again:

#1, if roles that only the carrier was capable of doing in the past can be done by other ships, then it is less (not un)important. A Waterloo MAY not be able to launch strike missions, but it can help defend against them -- you know, what you're doing the other 50% (or more) of the time.

#2, I already pointed out that the Waterloo CAN carry bombers as evidenced by SO1, and there's really no reason to believe the Gettysburg is somehow special in this regard. Also you are quick to point out that the dialogue suggests that the Waterloo typically only carries Ferrets and Epees ... however the dialogue in WC2 also makes absolutely clear that an Epee is capable of carrying a torpedo. So a Waterloo can definitely carry strike craft, end of story.

Uh, oh. I think I heard a toilet flush.

Maybe somebody lost a debate.
 

sea_monkey

Spaceman
I'll give you an opposite exsample: during the 1960s the Missile-boat was developed- suddenly the Russians had a small 40-50 feet boat that could, by itself, cripple and even practicaly destroy Cruiser and Destroyer size vessels from 50 miles away - well beyoned any ship's guns range. Later, Cruisers and and Destroyers began to carry missiles of their own - and did the missile boat became less important? NO - it was (and is being) used in a diffrent roll - the roll that was previously own by the torpedo boat - a ship class that was removed from service because of the missile boat.
So what you're saying is the missile boat went from being an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers to just another ship in the navy with a specific, important role? And where exactly would you see this contradict my argument? And just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the carrier is "just another ship in the navy", although I shouldn't have to say that 500 times in a thread.

sea: Seems about the same to me actually. At least in the games, a destroyer will take a fighter or two with it. In WC3, the Fralthi eats up AI pilots.

Hammerhead: o...k... next time we'll call EA and ask them to have Gen. Chuck Yeager or Col. Giyora Epshtein (World top ace in downing fighter-jets : 17) to make the basic AI design... you want to fly against a Kilrathi Chuck Yeager? (Ralgha nar Epshtein...hmm... nice ring to it )
Apples to oranges ... give the AI turret gunners some decent strategy and it's a fair fight. *Since this will never happen*, I think it's fair to compare AI vs. AI.
 

Viper61

Spaceman
sea_monkey said:
LOL ... ok, it is pretty clear at this point that you're not going to admit you were wrong -- even when it's painfully obvious. Keep in mind just a couple posts above you were mocking me for linking the Thrakhath bug together with Ghorah Khar 2D ("anything you don't like in the game is glitch blah blah blah" ... "mission design is different than file placement blah blah blah") Now, two posts later, you are doing the exact same thing.
What a sad, sad little man. I think its pretty clear to everyone who read that post but you he was making fun of your 'glitch' tangent, as he plainly tells you you ejected in the wrong mission trying to prove your point. :(
sea_monkey said:
You've got to prove just about every colony has that many or it averages out to that much. In fact you actually provided examples of colonies with only a handful of fighters.
Why? Why is the burden of proof that high? You expect to know the exact number of a certain item at every point in existance before you'll believe a statement? Before you believe a military fact about fighters in the WC universe, you have to know that all 200 (whatever the number is) Confed bases in the known galaxy coorespond to this fact before you'll believe it? If someones got to prove every instance of a fact to you, is there anything at all you actually believe in?
sea_monkey said:
-- suggesting I'm paranoid about being banned and then just now saying that he thought I'd been banned --
pretty logical assumption considering you didn't show back up for a while and insulted a moderator who did absolutely nothing to you. Also the fact that to prove your point about the "church of WC" here you think you need to be banned to become some sort of martyr to the thousands of WC fans that agree with you (who aren't here rallying with you for some reason), I'd actually thought you'd been banned too.
sea_monkey said:
This suggests both a lack of knowledge of basic rules of logic and debate, and also a willingness to totally make shit up to support one's argument.
So throwing out sources that don't coincide with your opinion and only answering those arguments you have 'time' for (ie - you have an answer to) is a basic rule of logical debate? Also, making up numbers of bombers that 'seem to fit' but can't logically if you knew the fighter structure of carriers and cruisers in WC isn't a willingness to totally make up shit to support your argument?
sea_monkey said:
Last, the fact that several people disagree with me means nothing. . . And at any rate, that the majority of this site seems to disagree with me means nothing because it would seem (according to some quotes by Frosty) that most of the people with similar views as me were chased off in the past. So the site is naturally going to be composed of people who are like-minded over these issues.
The whole point of a debate is to change the viewpoint of another or sway that of an audience/jury/moderator into your favor. You have done neither. Plus, if those last two statements is your stance, why are you still here apparently wasting your time picking and chossing your arguments that aren't going to influence anyone. One definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over expecting the same results.
sea_monkey said:
I already pointed out that the Waterloo CAN carry bombers as evidenced by SO1, and there's really no reason to believe the Gettysburg is somehow special in this regard. Also you are quick to point out that the dialogue suggests that the Waterloo typically only carries Ferrets and Epees ... however the dialogue in WC2 also makes absolutely clear that an Epee is capable of carrying a torpedo. So a Waterloo can definitely carry strike craft, end of story.
You can't replace carriers with cruisers in the WC universe because they have no heavy strike capability (a carriers primary reason for being). Get over it. If cruisers could do the same thing a carrier can, either the Kilrathi or Confed would have stumbled upon that brilliant solution after 35 years of war.

The Gettysburg in WC2 is a special case. We are told its usual complement is Epees and Ferrets. Then we are told its testing the Crossbow prototypes (which you'd take all of them on a strike if you could, and they take a total of 4 or 5, can't remember off the top of my head), which are half the size and half the mass of the usual Broadsword bomber (Broadswords barely fit inside hanger entrances of most carriers, so fitting into a cruiser half the size of a small carrier is more of a problem). So a cruiser can carry 5 prototype bombers that are as big as a medium/heavy fighter. Then, after WC2, we don't see Crossbows ever again, so by your definition, they can't exist :rolleyes:. So your one instance that a cruiser has ever carried a bomber, even by your definition, is a fluke (or maybe a 'glitch', I've lost track).

An Epee can carry a torpedo, so can a Hellcat if its cobbled on. Doesn't make it an effective strike aircraft. The epee is a flying death trap. Plus, the strike you mention is against a small Kat listening post. If you can equate killing a Kilrathi carrier/escort to killing a lightly armed/armored small listening post, I'll be all ears.

C-ya
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
sea_monkey said:
Last, the fact that several people disagree with me means nothing. As I pointed out above, the majority of the population can and often wrong about things, so saying that "everybody thinks X, so X is true" is a logical fallacy. And at any rate, that the majority of this site seems to disagree with me means nothing because it would seem (according to some quotes by Frosty) that most of the people with similar views as me were chased off in the past. So the site is naturally going to be composed of people who are like-minded over these issues.

Well, an hour after I wrote it, I knew I was wrong to phrase myself that way, but couldn't edit it, so I guess I deserve your answer on this one... ;)

sea_monkey said:
No, sadly, their arguments really aren't logical at all. Loaf can't seem to remember what he said a couple of posts back: suggesting I'm unenlightened for not reading a book, then denying saying it, then denying denying it -- suggesting I'm paranoid about being banned and then just now saying that he thought I'd been banned -- and before, my suggesting that going to the losing path after ejecting in Ghorah Khar 2D was glitch was laughable (despite the fact that it made no sense as it was), now he's arguing that the fact that it's fixed in the Kilrathi Saga is a glitch. Frosty keeps knocking down a strawman, and then when I point out that I never made the arguments he's attacking, replies "I never said it was."

Loaf also spent a great deal of time arguing that you could prove negatives, which no one else called him on -- Type-into-Google level philosophy knowledge. This suggests both a lack of knowledge of basic rules of logic and debate, and also a willingness to totally make shit up to support one's argument. Which he confirms every time he contradicts himself in sequential posts.

I won't argue what you think of other people but I noticed you didn't revoked the logic out of my posts, so may I assume you agree with my logic ?


sea_monkey said:
But to cross the same river yet again:

#1, if roles that only the carrier was capable of doing in the past can be done by other ships, then it is less (not un)important. A Waterloo MAY not be able to launch strike missions, but it can help defend against them -- you know, what you're doing the other 50% (or more) of the time.

#2, I already pointed out that the Waterloo CAN carry bombers as evidenced by SO1, and there's really no reason to believe the Gettysburg is somehow special in this regard. Also you are quick to point out that the dialogue suggests that the Waterloo typically only carries Ferrets and Epees ... however the dialogue in WC2 also makes absolutely clear that an Epee is capable of carrying a torpedo. So a Waterloo can definitely carry strike craft, end of story.

Uh, oh. I think I heard a toilet flush.

Maybe somebody lost a debate.
I wouldn't jump so high just yet - what you are basicly saying in these two point is that
(A) cruisers can serve as escorts - with a defensive fighter wing composed mainly of light fighters.
and
(B) Waterloo cruisers can carry a small amount of heavy strike craft and serve as pocket carriers.

Both these roll are already a part of a cruiser's roll in the WCU - Waterloo cruisers serve as escort ships for battle groups and convoys, and serve as pocket carriers (in the battle of Vukar Tag the Gettysburg was used as a pocket carrier).

So I'm a little confused :confused:
Your points fit in the WCU perfectly, as is.
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
sea_monkey said:
So what you're saying is the missile boat went from being an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers to just another ship in the navy with a specific, important role? And where exactly would you see this contradict my argument? And just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the carrier is "just another ship in the navy", although I shouldn't have to say that 500 times in a thread.
Missile boat was never "an incredibly strategic vessel that was more than a match for cruisers and destroyers". it was always "another ship in the navy". The cruisers is also "another ship in the navy". The navy, like any other military, or non-military, organization, is about the whole picture. The picture of the navy is composed of cruisers, destroyers, missile boats, carriers, submarines - it is all about diversity, none of these parts of the picture can dimish the importance of the other - and this is where I contridict you, my friend.

you claim that by building more cruisers I can relay much less on carriers - "cruisers with fighters make carriers less important" was you phrase.
And I claim it is wrong: carriers have their roll and cruisers have their roll, and if cruisers can carry fighters and lower the workload of carriers - that's excellent! but it doe's not, and will not, diminish the importance of a carrier as a striking tool.

sea_monkey said:
Apples to oranges ... give the AI turret gunners some decent strategy and it's a fair fight. *Since this will never happen*, I think it's fair to compare AI vs. AI.
That was what I said - the guy who programed th AI subroutines wrote the gunnery ones in a crapy way. So, give some one proffetional to design them, just remmember that we, none proffetional little people, need to fly aginst these things.

Also, I never played on "top ace". Have you checked cap-ship gunnery on "top ace"?

P.S. you never really answered me : what is you logic for saying that "cruisers with fighters make carriers less important"?
 

Fenris Ulven

Spaceman
The only logical reason for cruisers to have fighters is to use them at recon mission to unsure that the cruiser not is moving into a ambush...
 

Death

gh0d (Administrator)
It's a logical reason, but not the only one. Other reasons for cruisers carrying the lighter fighter-type ships, off the top of my head:

* Escort, either of the cruiser or of what the cruiser is escorting (cruisers as convoy escorts may not be common, but it isn't impossible, either). While capships of the WC2 era can't really be harmed by anything other than torpedos or other capships with anti-capship weapons (AMGs, PTC, etc), what a cruiser may be assigned to escort isn't necessarily guaranteed to have capship-level phase shielding, and could be vulnerable to non-torp fighters should an OpFor decide to come out and play.

* Area coverage. A cruiser may be powerful, but it can only be in one place in any given system at any given time. Up to 20 independent groups (2 or more elements in a wing) plus the cruiser can cover a lot more territory. Against capships with phase shielding those fighters might not be of much use, but not all threats are capships.

* Plot device. ;) (e.g., Crossbows in the Rigel series, SO1)
 

dacis2

Spaceman
Nice work guys! I've been following this thread and it seems to resemble one we had at Spacebattles
it was about the US vs the UK, and the UK supporter stubbornly dodged everything the US could launch at the UK.

oh well... looks like you've won. we won too.
Congratulations!
 

Edfilho

Cry some more!
Nice work guys! I've been following this thread and it seems to resemble one we had at Spacebattles
it was about the US vs the UK, and the UK supporter stubbornly dodged everything the US could launch at the UK.

oh well... looks like you've won. we won too.
Congratulations!
this shit can't be serious!

BTW, sea_monkey lost all semblance of even being up to the fight. The glitch joke flew way over his head, for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top