Conner_Wolf's forum posts

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#1 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

Reminds me of Thrax from Osmosis Jones lmao.

Dude, somebody else remembers Osmosis Jones.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#2 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone who says yes doesn't understand how explosions work. They become exponentially weaker the further you go out, the however-many megatons of power? If he's at the epicenter of the explosion, with no stone to protect him... I could see that killing him, but if he's anywhere but, chances of survival start increasing dramatically.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#3 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@conner_wolf: I agree to the possibility of hydra coming up with some undefined master plan involving some squirreled away relic or other. Barring that, Tau air and artillery superiority here is extremely one sided. Sith masters go down fighting. After they kill alot of Chinese and Kroot, they are focused by jump troops. That is the ones that survive the carpet bombing.

edit: hydra's forces seem to be built for a static front. I don't believe they have an answer to long range firepower, missiles and air power. Whereas team fascist's only answer to barracudas are the sith fighters (little ground to air forces), team commy has a ton of ways to wipe out fascist airpower before even deploying thier own. Once sith fighters and limited air to ground forces are eliminated barracudas would have carte blanche.

No, no 'barring that', that's what's gonna happen because that's what always happens with Hydra. That's their MO.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#4 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@jwwprod said:

@conner_wolf: You still think the fascists win?

Yeah, mostly just because of Hydra plot device no jutsu.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#5 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

Wow this is a really bad stomp in favor of Blake

RWBY characters aren't as high as some people put them, but they're above Cap, except Jaune, and even that gap is closing in recent seasons.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#6 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@jwwprod: That's still a crapton. Not quite a shitton yet.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#7 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: At this point I think we'll only come to the conclusion if we can actually see a representation of what would happen if these two forces encountered one another on the battlefield with equivalent smithing-which I'm sure a reenactment could do, because I quite honestly don't believe that a Halberd can be as supremely and perfectly effective as you think. You keep saying shields became redundant, but I just vehemently disagree that shields become useless and that you just can't have somebody with a shield be effective.

And yes, the dark ages did happen because when the western empire fell there was a complete collapse of infrastructure, they aren't a 'myth' they just didn't last as long as people believe they did.

As for if I've ever swung a polearm, I have actually, it can still be tiring, have you ever held a shield in a shield line? It's not that hard, especially when your formation relies on lying your shield up against the next guy's shield.

Indoctrination would be a good weapon against 40k. Saying 'it's a crappier version of what already exists' completely ignores every last bit of nuance that indoctrination wields. It's not direct mind control, but in many ways that can work in its favor as 40k has ways to detect flat-out magical mind control, and indoctrination allows the subject to continue living their life as they did prior. You have a really bad habit of acting like just because something's less effective it becomes utterly useless (see above).

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#8 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@conner_wolf: I think you may be overplaying 616 hydra a bit. Barring any kind of chicanery by Red Skull using items that punch outside of his normal kit....most of what hydra is bringing here is just fodder. Team Sith are mvp's for Fascism due to tactical diversity (starfighters, war droids, walkers, Sith masters etc). Unfortunately for the fascists however, OP has seen fit to drop a 40k faction in here and given what Tau have they may likely stomp. I don't know anything about cybermen but if they are more than fishbait here it only makes the result more certain.

I would disagree with that solely on the principle that the Sith having a crapton of force users makes a significant difference on the battlefield.

And am I? Literally every time Hydra is a threat they do some crazy crap.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#9 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut said:

@conner_wolf: This is Heavy Imperial Armor. It may not protect as well as Full Plate, but when supplemented by a tower shield it'll protect just as much. The tower shield is basically having an entire other person in front of you, and when you've got a hundred people all surrounding you by the shields, it becomes even harder to penetrate the defenses.

He is using the Skyrim Legion. So only the one on the right is relevant, and that is the armor I was talking about. That is a bad posture to look at it.

Good image

Their shields are also closer to kite shields then tower shields in both shape, dimensions, and size. More to the point, shields are used by the Footmen [although I never saw the point. Polearms are superior once you are in plate armor as shields become redundant]. Why would they be surrounded? What is with you and assuming the second anyone wears advanced armor they suddenly lose the desire to fight in formations?

While I'll acknowledge their opponents are superhuman enough to break their ranks, when it comes to a knight's own forming of ranks, I don't think that their ranks would form as well as a Roman Legion, who were literally built for it, and generally I imagine their lines would be much harder to break without the stupidly immense tower shield wall. Vikings for example utilized a shield wall tactic when they fought as well, but their wall was nowhere near as effective simply due to the fact that they couldn't completely encase themselves. It seems like simple logic to me, that when you form ranks with bigger shields, your shield wall and formation will be harder to break. Hence why the Spartans (and co) were able to hold off a massive attack force for three days-their shield wall was amazing for the time.

Okay, now I am just curious, how do you picture medieval battles? In your mind, how do you think they go down? Do you think it is just two disorganized mobs charging at one another or something? Before I go any further, I need to see exactly what you imagine they fight as as shield walls were not a uniquely roman nor viking tactic. Shield walls are one of the most common infantry tactics.... that has ever existed and appears in nearly every civilization. It wasn't a shield wall the Roman's made famous, it was the positioning of their men during battle that made them special which. The Spartans [and the 7,000 other greeks] fought in a small valley against a horde of light infantry, if you replace the Persians with dismounted men-at-arms in partial plate, it becomes a pretty bad stomp as the Spartan's formations get shattered since they lack the weapons to do much to the men-at-arms whilst the superior weaponry of the men-at-arms [as they often preferred polearms and other two-handed weaponry as shields, again, had become fairly redundant] for superior formation fighting [Forming a shield wall is nice and all, but a Halberd wall is superior]. This is even worse if you consider the vastly superior ranged weapons the advanced side has at their disposal.

Now, imagine you are a Roman Legionnaire. Just imagine it. You are bracing with your tower shield as some heavily armored men attack you. They keep in formation using their polearm's greater reach to beat down on your shields while his buddy stabs your friends the second the shield comes down [and it is much easier to swing a polearm thanks to the glorious mechanical benefit of levers then it is to hold up your heavy tower shield]. You try to push forward as one, but it doesn't matter because nothing you do hurts them. Stab at their armor? Nothing happens. Go for the gap? Nothing happens as your short sword's tip is too fat to cause any damage to the chain in the gaps [unlikely to even get through the gamberson]. That isn't an infantry engagement the Roman's win. That is one they lose. Then consider, as this is going down, your cav wing just got utterly butchered by their cav and are about to slam into your flanks, breaking your ranks and leading to a mass rout. <--- Because that is how it would happen and isn't taking into account the superior harassing ranged weapons they would have in the form of heavy crossbows or, worse, firearms.

I don't deny there were some amazing inventions during the 'dark ages', but they did lose a lot of information. We didn't know how to make concrete or Greek Fire for a long time. Plumbing was another one, a lot of medicine was lost, and the history of Rome itself, many of the written records and accounts of events were lost. The history was only found much later by researchers.

And there was no regression. You only need Concrete if you are trying to build large structures very quickly, which is why the Eastern Roman Empire never had much use for it as their socio-economic needs didn't require concrete which is why it was rarely used [although, again, the Byzantines still had it, a lot of their domes were made from concrete]. The Western Roman Empire didn't make Greek Fire so their fall was completely unrelated to that. The Byzantine Empire made Greek Fire [and created it after the fall of the West]. Those guys are so often forgotten its sad. They used it well into the Crusade Era. But as it was a state secret and... the state... did fall, yes, it was 'lost', however, that was well past the 'Dark Ages'. The Byzantine Empire had a great plumbing system for the time, especially, at Constantinople.

The only places that 'lost' anything were the western European nations because the Western Roman Empire was a giant ball of failure. The Byzantine Empire, the true inheritors and Roman Empire, lasted far longer and didn't lose anything, they only gained and grew.

Even if I don't get banned I'm not good at being passive aggressive or condescending. My insults are usually far more direct and personal. I'm not a subtle man.

Depends on the person. I don't get my feelings hurt by text, but I had one guy send me a long paragraph in PM essentially saying I hurt his feelings and I should feel bad for ruining his day. that was something.

Tbh I totally forgot the Imperial Legion uses kite shields. God they were so dumb looking I blocked them from my memory.

Most medieval battles were skirmishes, they were often fought with people not really battling in any formation and when large-scale battles were fought they were often, as you said, fought on horseback, with footmen defending on the other side in a spear wall. They would also be supported by longbowmen. For the most part the Cavalry attacked and the footmen would advance behind them-if at all. Cavalry took center stage in the medieval world because it was so shocking to be charged by knights in full plate and with the advent of full plate itself, you could cavalry charge your enemy without getting destroyed by archers.

The exception was seige battles which were another thing entirely.

As for the halberd wall being superior I dispute that. It provides far less protection against ranged attacks and while it protected exceptionally well against cavalry, the shield wall was far more effective against infantry and provided a far more effective defensive measure especially when advancing with no cover. It's all situation and no single thing was going to be effective in all situations.

As for the halberd swinging over the shields, let me paint you another picture... The halberdiers are attempting to swing their weapons through the lines of the Roman shield wall as they've locked themselves into a defensive formation, but their shields are held above their heads in order to protect them from attacks coming from above, and all of them are reinforced by the man next to them. You attempt to swing overhead, but trying to literally smash through their overhead shields is failing miserable and a waste of energy. The only real solution is to try and poke through their lines, but in response they jab at you with their pilums, jamming into whatever weak spots they can find in your armor while your weapon you require to swing in wide arcs now has to try and prod to maybe find a weak spot where a man isn't wearing armor.

Admittedly the best thing somebody wielding a halberd could do is try to literally rip a shield from a man's arms. Actually, now that I think about it, that would be a good counter to a shield wall for halberdiers, but they would leave themselves pretty open to stabbing that way. Halberds were useful, but aren't exactly the most perfect weapon, blocking one was still possible, the main problem was, well, most people wore full plate and used polearms so blocking one meant getting your arm cut partway off. Maybe if they had some shields with them that wouldn't have been a problem.

Talking about the Byzantines is semantics at best. Annoying at worst. Yes, I'm aware they retained this knowledge, but nobody else had it in Europe.

For me it's just annoying. I enjoy debates like this even if I think my partner is being an idiot (eg. "Indoctrination wouldn't work on Star Wars because they're from a different universe" "Master Chief would beat Darth Vader because he uses bullets and lightsabers don't deflect those"), but when it becomes a contest of snark it's far less amusing for me.

Avatar image for conner_wolf
#10 Posted by Conner_Wolf (6380 posts) - - Show Bio

@wut: Let me just...

Gallery image 1Gallery image 2

This is Heavy Imperial Armor. It may not protect as well as Full Plate, but when supplemented by a tower shield it'll protect just as much. The tower shield is basically having an entire other person in front of you, and when you've got a hundred people all surrounding you by the shields, it becomes even harder to penetrate the defenses.

While I'll acknowledge their opponents are superhuman enough to break their ranks, when it comes to a knight's own forming of ranks, I don't think that their ranks would form as well as a Roman Legion, who were literally built for it, and generally I imagine their lines would be much harder to break without the stupidly immense tower shield wall. Vikings for example utilized a shield wall tactic when they fought as well, but their wall was nowhere near as effective simply due to the fact that they couldn't completely encase themselves. It seems like simple logic to me, that when you form ranks with bigger shields, your shield wall and formation will be harder to break. Hence why the Spartans (and co) were able to hold off a massive attack force for three days-their shield wall was amazing for the time.

I don't deny there were some amazing inventions during the 'dark ages', but they did lose a lot of information. We didn't know how to make concrete or Greek Fire for a long time. Plumbing was another one, a lot of medicine was lost, and the history of Rome itself, many of the written records and accounts of events were lost. The history was only found much later by researchers.

Even if I don't get banned I'm not good at being passive aggressive or condescending. My insults are usually far more direct and personal. I'm not a subtle man.