Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
modesty

'dangerous new form of weapon' for CMx2

Recommended Posts

Dear Sirs

CMx2 plans today's battle field.

So I introduce you today's new weapons and of- cause you have to include CMx2's moderun battle field version, do you.

This is the site about it.

http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/136518/1/5795

and video news.

http://www.rainews24.it/ran24/inchieste/video/guerre_stellari_english.wmv

Maybe CMx2 team wants to make very realistic modern battle field things. You have to put these weapons into CMx2 modern battle field version.

I hate modern battle field version games. It mean that these games become something sci-fi game.

If you want to make real game about modern battle fields, you will have to include the game these sci-fi feeling weapons.

What do you thing about it ? You CMx2 modern type game team and prefering these gamers want to make very real things, don't you.

I'm glad to hear that you have plan to make CMx2 WW2 version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrug*

I fail to see what's so "new" about these. These forums all full of pain ray and death ray users. Nothing sci-fi about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

I think they should concentrate on more important stuff like fences over houses. Then maybe work this stuff in later in a patch.

Exactly. However, the world's best mapmakers come from Finland, so that might be problematic. We might need to split the difference or somefink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tarkus

At first I want to say thank you.

I use your Great Dark Steel and Dirty Olive Interface. Your sence is great. Your interface give me better feeling than original.

I want to put that I love WW2 style game.

If someone make modern realistic game, it will be someting sci-fi feeling game. Of cause I agree it is not sci-fi.

I have feeling that CM type game is much fit CC2 or pre ww2 than modern battle field things.

I think only so. 'dangerous new form of weapon' is only pretext.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?????????? I understand this post.... NOPE

Originally posted by modesty:

Dear Tarkus

At first I want to say thank you.

I use your Great Dark Steel and Dirty Olive Interface. Your sence is great. Your interface give me better feeling than original.

I want to put that I love WW2 style game.

If someone make modern realistic game, it will be someting sci-fi feeling game. Of cause I agree it is not sci-fi.

I have feeling that CM type game is much fit CC2 or pre ww2 than modern battle field things.

I think only so. 'dangerous new form of weapon' is only pretext.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Homo ferricus:

can someone who understands this guy explain to me what the hell he just said!?

I think it was something derisive about people who quote fascist murderers in their sig line.

But don't worry, we'll get even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the logic of statements like this:

Deploying the pain ray would be a clear violation of international law, which prohibits weapons whose primary intention is to inflict pain.
So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I love the logic of statements like this:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Deploying the pain ray would be a clear violation of international law, which prohibits weapons whose primary intention is to inflict pain.

So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples :D

Steve </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I love the logic of statements like this:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Deploying the pain ray would be a clear violation of international law, which prohibits weapons whose primary intention is to inflict pain.

So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples :D

Steve </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If given a choice between being shot with A) Barret 50 cal. or B) microwave ray gun that is supposed to be none lethal. I would always recommend B, the Barret WILL kill you. The microwave might kill you. Not a hard call, but then again these idiots who put out papers like that one above are trying to make war impossible for the good guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the talk I once had with a female friend of mine while watching some riots somewhere on TV: "They're using rifles that fire rubber bullets at those people?! Couldn't they use, like, something else?!"

"Sure. Real bullets."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the oneworld.net article:

...and it is my professional opinion that it also likely includes the use of microwaves, judging from the descriptions of bodies that seem to have inexplicably exploded.
Holy crap, do you know just how much microwave energy & exposure it would require to explode a human? IMO here is a slightly 'better' (less nutbar) source for information on the uWave weapon... :S

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600

[Edit - lol, use a garbage can lid to redirect the beam back at the vehicle...]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I love the logic of statements like this:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Deploying the pain ray would be a clear violation of international law, which prohibits weapons whose primary intention is to inflict pain.

So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples :D

Steve </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you're talking the microwave weapon! I had originally thought we were discussing the focused sound weapon which is also meant to inflict pain. If you recall, a cruise liner was attacked last year(?) by pirates off the coast of Africa and the crew deployed that weapon to ward off the attack.

I'm from Boston. Since the World Series celebrations around here we've learned to discriminate "non-lethal' from 'less-lethal' crowd control weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

You have a strange preferance for a "date movie", dear Para.

What's so strange about "America's funniest insurgency videos" for a romantic evening?

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grunt,

That is just what the man wants you to think.

some guy at MIT wrote:

Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified.

Linky = http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, dangerous and new, yet in some way worse than a quartet of 155mm shells for crowd control?

Non-lethal is a stupid term to use though, as it can induce thinking that they can be used indiscriminately. footage of a US policeman firing at point-blank into a crowd with a multi-shot 40mm-type weapon. No doubt he'd been told that it was "non-lethal"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...