So it's come to this? Well, you know what? That's cool, because you weren't the effort I placed in responding, assuming you were aware of some function that I wasn't or something to that effect, regardless:
Last time I'll be reading you, to answer this. Sorry mods if I'm getting personal there;
Good, I know this doesn't matter, then, but it's nice to have the last word when someone totally doesn't read what you've said but still continues to respond. Doesn't matter, though, whatever it is will probably sail straight over your head again; honestly, I just hope people understand where you keep making errors at this point.
- I Read everyone of your posts thoroughly. They go in multiple directions and it's hard to follow them for clear answers, that's why I missed your questions.
I guess I have this bad habit of writing in an essay/paragraph format where I try to support my initial thoughts with additional sentences that include supporting details; I guess this is just a bad habit I picked up while in school and just shouldn't be doing it; and I guess it's just not obvious when someone doesn't read a statement at all and tries to respond to it?
- If you think everything I say validates your thoughts, that's because you decide to focus on details, and not on the idea as a whole.
Actually, I think it has more to do with you not reading at all what I said and then posting, that much is obvious by the manner of which you responded; you either skimmed it and thought you had understood the concept, or you didn't read it at all and picked out key statements, either way, you were basically...
- Curently, all NATO atgms, and arguably all ATGMs, are kept in check, except on very situational occasions. How is that better? What I wrote never said that, but: oh well, LALALA, let's pick a sentence and say: "SEE? YOU AGREE!"
...Pointing out all of the bad traits which NATO suffers by, managing to forget simple things like PACT tanks using noticeably more accurate SALH missiles the majority of the time, and etc, so on and so forth, you've basically said all the reasons why NATO ATGMs are not better. Maybe if you had read my statements, you might understand why your argument actually doesn't do much more than support them, but you won't, and you won't read this, so what does it matter?
- When you ask a question, it's not genuine at all; Any answer that can be given, whatever the arguments may be, will be in favour of what you plead. In that sense, your questions give obvious answers.
Like I said before, the only thing you've proven is that you'll miss simple concepts; I did ask a question, the only thing you pointed out was essentially why my argument was valid; maybe if you actually would read it instead of feigning that you have and making it clear you've missed basically everything, your responses might actually carry weight, or have an impact on me and my method of thinking, but, uhhh, they don't.
- You fail to see that most NATO atgms are more accurate, even though shorter ranged, and most travel faster. Many NATO atgms deal more damage, up to 12AP. (PACT goes up 11, but, hey, that doesn't matter at all when 10 is enough to kill another ATGM carrier unless it's a PACT tank; oh, wait, 12 actually isn't good enough to take down 1 hit K.O. a T-62M-V from the front) They have their own advantages, but range isn't one of them. They currently suck because they can't ever reliably hit something before being blown off themselves.
So, a missile with a longer range doesn't become more accurate than another missile up close? Huh, I guess I totally missed something in my Wargaming; and I probably missed the T-62M-1's 10 accuracy, 10 AP, and its SALH weapon type (which tends to be actually be consistent; at least enough to win every ATGM duel); avoiding obvious things like all vehicles traveling at the same rate on roads (Speed is a tactical stat, not a strategic one in-game); oh, wait, I don't think it was me; and again, you're basically validating my statements.
- As I stated before, your texts go all over the place, with no cohesion. If you want good answers, try to have what you write understandable at the first read. When I have to read THREE times a sentence to understand what your point was, I'm not motivated enough to read any further. At all.
Ah, forgive me, I guess, I should stop trying to write the way my teachers' taught me: using sentences which generally denote the topic of the statements, supported by (important) details, so on and so forth. I'll just make broad, generalizing statements without considering little nuances like details and maybe you might pay attention to me again, yeah? Hell, maybe I might stop getting tl;dr, too, huh? On a side note, I can't see how it takes three tries to read a sentence unless your reading comprehension is terrible. I had to read your post three or four times before I would believe that's actually how you responded, so I guess we're in the same boat?