Yes, because I can play computer games without having "basic modern warfare knowledge". And it isn't required aswell, these terminology debates on this forum are rather tiresome. If you would communicate on a level so everyone could understand you, you wouldn't need to pull strawmen to establish some kind of superiority that clearly isn't there. You could accomplish that by actually putting forward some sensible arguments, something that has yet to happen.

I am not interested in discussing your terminology or your hobbies/life/whatever.

Proper understanding of terminology is important in an argument because otherwise neither side knows what is actually being argued. Since this game uses lots of real-world terms and names, people similarly use real-world acronyms for the systems employed in the game. MANPADS is just one example. If you don't know what an acronym is, there is always Google, or you could simply ask someone.


What was this then? And this? Or this? And this was your idea of a sensible argument? And I counter with this. Notice how his Mi-28's die horribly. It's a shame I don't have a recording of his VoIP chatting; Aussie cussing at losing a 330 point investment is funny.

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.

This may be true to some extend, but when the game already gives the neccessary terminology everything else is just self-placatation without any real value. The point isn't about using terminology when available, either. It's about inferring some kind of superiority and flat-out dismissing arguments that have nothing to do with the terminology whatsoever. This happens all too frequently on this forum. And if I remember correctly, I am not the first one to point that out either.



Again, a terminology debate. In no way shape or form does it touch any of the arguments in this thread.



most of the links you post are sensible arguments. only the link to gronad's post isn't and that's because it's obvious nonsense, so he gets an appropriate response. I am not going to discuss terminology or plain nonsense.
If he had made a sensible argument he would've gotten a sensible response, but he continuously fails to provide one. I am not the person that has the time or patience to go down all of those roads. If you don't like that, fine, I don't care.
and to come to fishbed's defence, his post is actually sound except for the part i quoted. and that's why i quoted it. what I don't understand is why he rambles on about his life and his hobbies and how his games are being destroyed by noobs or something like that afterwards. i don't give a flying fur.




Without looking at it I suppose that's gonna be about roland's shooting down stuff. Fine. The argument is that they suck in comparision to the alternatives, not that they never have a golden run in 1 out of 100 games. The probability for that to happen is actually quite high. If you're discussing quality of units, the important factor is versatility, or, the "amount" of usefulness of a certain unit over a streak of games. The Chaparall will beat the Roland in 8 out of 10 engagements in terms of actually getting it's job done, that is killing AAA. (And before some inane comments about "you're not supposed to kill Air with AA!" pop up, the victory conditions are pretty certain in that regard.)

I really like the Roland2 in game, 2 of them can deal with most chopper threads, although they can be overrun by sheer numbers, like every other unit.
The accuracy, ammo load and rate of fire are pretty good.

_________________

yes, but the range isn't.

Well... still better than Strop 2

_________________

http://www.wargame.com.pl/ - Polska strona o WARGAME!!!
Please remember... we complain because we care!!!

Wierd because rolands and strops are the bread and butter AA unit in ranked.

The only thing they are bad at is recon sniping. (which is pretty important)

NAto AA is very good. Rolands are great to pushing ahead along combat units due to their armor protecting form arti quite well. Chaparrals elite are MOSTRUOUS. they fire super fast and with enough range to kill mi 9s before they spot them.

YES they DO. Just don't be dumb and leave a recon jeep near your chaparral. Mi 9s are BIG while gazelles are normal sized. That ostly negates Buk range advantage on killing scout choppers.

Chaparrals are fragile and slow but so do are Buks, and when spending 70 point in an elite chaparral (less than a standard Buk) you get a nearly as long range AA that fires MUCH faster (compensating the damage difference).


NATO AA is not underpowered at all. In fact BOTH sides AA are too powerful and make choppers too weak in this game.

well, that is some opinion to have. the problem with choppers is that they murder everything on ground and can kite everything thanks to their standard 2451m minimum range and superior speed. AA/Air is a violent relationship. AA murders helos because helos would murder everything else if there was no AA.

i agree that a little less extremism would do the game well.

Your argument comes down to this: If someone uses terminology that is not generally known, the person is just asserting his superiority over everyone else.

This is emphatically not the case. People use these terms because they best describe what is being talked about. People who are familiar with such terms also like to use them because they are familiar. Terms like AA, AAA, SAM and MBT aren't used in the game, yet everyone uses them because they properly describe what they want to talk about and the people using them are familiar with their meaning.

Besides, the term "MANPADS" sounds too funny not to use.

As for flat-out dismissing arguments, this often comes about because if two people aren't arguing from the same definitions, then they are not even arguing the same thing, essentially meaning you just have two people just yelling stuff while happening to occupy the same space. Simply put, there is no argument. In the case with you, your argument regarding SAMs carried by infantry wasn't so much flat-out dismissed as you weren't actually arguing with the other person because you two were using different terminologies.


If you're not familiar with the terminology used in an argument, you're really going to be unable to effectively argue for or against it.


Again, if two people aren't using the same terminology in their argument, they are really arguing with each other.


You provided one video as your evidence, and it was a lone Roland that was panicked. I provided a single video of evidence, and it was two Rolands against two Mi-28's. One anecdote to counter another anecdote.

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.