Talk about anything here.
i have a computer cus i live in america with my mom if i never came here i would never of had a computer
well gn all
Night
Just surfing through all the stuff I missed, (damn you timezones!!!) and I saw the "quite really" owl. I need an owl with a monocle. Which says "quite." Yeah...
Ah, ok. I just havent heard of the "oxymoron" word before, and I didnt know what it meant. No, really, I havent.
He he, indeed
Skidi, you say that your people believe that it is best to stay away from the influence of modern society, while you use a computer, and probably a phone, and who knows what else.
So.....yeah
"Mr Anderson, welcome back....we missed you...."
Epic Battle!!!!!!
i have a computer cus i live in America i will not say it agen if i wasn't in America ATM i wouldn't be on this computer or on a phone or watching TV or whatever im in America so i live like American if i was in Siberia i live like the tribe
and the mechine gun thing...
my people have fought agenst modern weapons and won because Siberia is a harsh land and we know how the snow mother works we know how to use the land we know its layout we know its secrets you do not sop if your men dont starve or freeze to deth then we slowly pick you off with ambushes and freeze you with long winter as simple as that
Its called the atom bomb... it doesn't care about snow or mountains or deserts or cities or people or just about anything...
1. My point was that this is contradictory to your people's beliefs because you live like an American, like you said. So it opposes Siberian life. Either you are one or the other, cant be both.
2. This has nothing to do with weapons. The fact that your people are used to extreme conditions that occur in Siberia, has nothing to do with weaponry. If you fought a straight battle against soldiers with automatic weapons, while your people carried bows, swords, spears, and similar weapons, you would get slaughtered, end of story.
drop it now all i wanted to say is i passed an important part of my life i didnt want to start a discussion on how i live and if my people would win agenst guns
The flaw that was initially raised with "modern weapons will slaughter you" was that both parties here assumed that they themselves would be defenders. In a Siberian winter, your guns will need to have been designedto work in such cold. The Nazi's army lacked this, and thus got their asses frozen and handed back on a platter.
Skidi might also be referring to a British-Afghan war, during which a division of some 40000 troops were lost while marching through the Khyber pass, in Winter, while being continuously sniped from the upper ridges. One docter survived that event.
As Ghandi said, "One man killing a thousand while shooting from a hill. This is civilization."
Both groups here have made incorrect assumptions. Party 1 completely ignores terrain, guerilla warfare, weather, and compitence. Party 2 (ie Skidi) ignores the element of surprise belonging to both sides ina would-be battle.
Your arguement will solve nothing. A commander can win any battle from either faction in either position, providing luck and competance. I can have archers kill unwarry LMG gunners, and vice-versa.
And Maccilia, you should know better than to assume one can actually use a nuclear weapon.
Edit: sorry Skidi, I was typing this before you asked to drop it.
np ifear i liked how you explained your reasoning
anyway im still a matron initiate and im quite proud of it
Fine carpet bombing... napalm... a 2 ton bomb in general...
Nuclear weapons, and whatever other type of bombing is not a straight battle between soldiers. Thus, anyone with these napalm bombs, nukes, or whatever, can kill thousands or even millions with a press of a button. Your argument is not only lame, but also off-topic.
And, again, you are missing the whole point, which is not about commanders or tough soldiers who resist cold, or ambushing the enemy, but purely just about the efficiency of bows/axes/spears vs firearms (automatic weapons, rifles etc).
And firearms can PWN these prehistoric weapons at any time. Simple as that. To state that a bow is better than a rifle, is LAME and retarded.
Now, I never questioned the way Siberian people live, nor how efficient soldiers they are I am sure that Skidi's people are excellent fighters, and can kill trained soldiers in their home territory, if they dont get ambushed.
I simple said the extremely simple and logical thing, that modern weapons pwn old weapons.
And btw, it depends on what type of weapon you are using, because there are weapons that are designed to resist extreme cold, and operate normally, while there are other weapons that are designed to resist and operate normally in sandstorms that occur in Deserts. While at the same time, some weapons are vulnerable to these conditions, and will not operate normally in extreme cold, etc etc.
p.s. Oh and, Whiskey, before you join the discussion and say that Lazers>>>Firearms>>>>Bows, let me remind you that we are not talking about the future
Because all the other nations of the world are really going to let you get away with randomly attacking Siberia... right...
And to be honest, this is a pointless discussion, because what reason would we actually have to attack Siberia? Tell you what, why don't we stick to killing Taliban. Pretty interesting, really, how they picked up modern (well, WW2-technology level) guns, and still got 100% owned by the Northern tribes (who still use cavalry charges, successfully) once we started deploying special forces to encourage the tribes to fight the Taliban.
Okay, so my example did involve Western Special Forces and the RAF and USAF did provide some airforce, but the point stands. Doesn't matter what kit you have if you aren't skilled in using it. I bet if Skidi had a bow (with an arrow in the quiver) and one of you had your country's most-used assault rifle (with a magazine in your pocket) that Skidi would've shot you first.
Of course, if it was me with an SA80 L85A2 assault rifle, it may be a different story...
(Come to think about it, comparing the rough time to whip out an arrow, aim and fire it, to the time taken to load the magazine and cock the rifle, I think Skidi would just beat me...)
Anyway, back to Republic Commando. I managed to get it to work on the SPARKLY NEW Windows 7 PC! To be honest, despite the Star Wars setting, it is one of the smartest FPS games I've played...
OMG Snipe!
Seriously I dont even know why you are STUCK at the whole "attack Siberia" thing. The only person that mentioned this, is you, and you are purposefully for some reason diverting the subject, and keep mentioning war scenarios.
I pretty much said everything in my above post.
If you understand "Lets attack Siberia", when I said that Guns pwn Bows, then I dont know wtf is wrong with you.
It doesn't matter who has what weapon, they are all designed for killing. Besides, think of it this way:
Bullets = One time use on the battlefield.
Arrows = Many uses if retrieved.
Say you have 30 round clip, and the bow has around 12 arrows.
And let's be uber-detail oriented, and say you even have a silencer.
It will still come down to who sees who first.
Same thing with gun vs Sword or SPEAR btw. A weapon is a weapon.
Besides, the weapon is only half a warrier's strength. Armor, anyone?
-Twilight Storm
Woah!!!
My bad... Sorry there... I'll just go back to my hole...
Have you been secretly pissed off at me for a while or something?
Anyway, at least my later part sort of applied... sort of...
(Maybe I assumed wars because I know more than is healthy about many modern wars... I need to get a life...)
Anyways, my bad once more, sorry for the upset. No really, I am. Don't want to seem trollish.
PS: Sorry. BTW, I didn't mean to sound offensive (if that's how you interpreted it) in my post.
most of skidi's post make me smile.... in a positive way... no offense here pls.
can't see how this could detoriate into... well...
you ppl stil can separate btw game & reality, yes?
Morph, we'd rather get back to politics again
better not okay
but one thing we skipped the "Hadron Collider" very very interesting thing
some pretty paranoid friends of mine believe that this thing could bring the end of the world
like the Romulans destroyed Vulcan in the last Star Trek yeah too much movies n drugs probably
but basically that thing is HUGE... plasma heats up several millions of decrees... and the energy that might dwell within
what happens if outta control?
God I cant even believe I am gonna keep this up. (Feels like I'm explaining why the earth is round and not square..... )
For the LAST time: Stop adding the human variable. A well-trained expert veteran commando can go Rambo-like, and starting slaughtering dozens with a knife picking them one by one. SO WHAT?
Bow Average shoot time = 1+ seconds.
Gun Average shoot time = 0.25 seconds (the average human response/reflex ability time)
Bow optimal Range = I would take a wild guess and say 50-70 meters, and thats a very optimistic number
Gun optimal Range = Depends a LOT on the type of gun you are using, but can be up to 300 meters with an awesome rifle, and down to 75 meters with a handgun
Lethality = both of them can kill, with the gun having a slight advantage, due to the fact that a 50 caliber bullet can create a nice huge hole in your chest, making you bleed out within seconds.
However, Guns have the ability with the right ammo, to penetrate bulletproof vests, while the bow's arrows cannot.
You compared the 30-round mag size gun, with (example) 12 arrows of the bow. Yeah.....you can carry (lets say) about 20 arrows tops, and about 300 bullets with the same size and weight as the arrows.....so yeah, nice comparison.
An average person gets trained by the best, in extreme conditions (cold, heat, lack of food) and night time battle, hand to hand combat, assassinations, etc etc. The same person, trained to a pretty high commando level, receives bow and axe/spear training, by the best, once again. Then he gets trained by the best, again, in firearms specialty (rifles, shotguns, handguns, automatic machine guns, etc).
Which weapon family is the best for him? Which is better in order to make him an expert killer? Modern weapons, or old weapons?
Answer = Modern weapons of course.
Let's say I take the gun and simply shoot an archer okay.
I might have lost one bullet, but gained a bow + 12 arrows.
Once my gun is empty I'll have 360 arrows.
PURE WIN.
I got pissed off, because I thought you were offensive against Skidi's people (Siberian), but I was wrong obviously, because that wasnt your intention.
I also got pissed off, because I thought you were trying to put words in my mouth, making it seem like I implied in some way, that Siberian people would get pwned by anyone with modern weapons, which I didnt.
The fact that you went completely off-topic, and that being warfare, diverting the subject, and ignoring my points, annoyed me.
Also, stop apologizing so much. You didnt do something so wrong, as to keep apologizing over and over, and I perceived (am I spelling this word correct?) that you tried to be offensive, which you obviously didnt.
LOL, yeah some people think it can destroy the whole planet as we know it. The truth is that it would need to be 1000 times more powerful in order to create a decent sized black hole, and consume us all.
This is something really safe (I think), and it will obviously help us understand some things that we are unaware of.
But I dont know much about it, so I am just gonna shut it.
How? Do tell, I would like to know to avoid future misunderstandings.
And as an answer that doesn't involve apology, I don't see what guns don't have to do with warfare. It's a weapon which is used to kill things, unfortunately usually humans and also unfortunately animals for sport. So guns do admittedly have applications in sport, but your context would apply either in a wartime situation or as murder. I was assuming, due to me also misunderstanding the context, that you meant warfare, but I now see that this was purely a comparison of what was the better weapon. And yes, for the record, I would rather have a gun than a bow, not just because I actually know how to use a gun...
Anyway...
Hadron collider. What I thought was a real fail was when the media was trying to play on the "will the world end?" thing just before it was turned on. In the news that night: the collider was broken. It was leaked coolant or something. Meant that the super-conductive materials lost their optimum conductive temperatures and the entire thing broke down. It made the "end of the world" theorists look twice as silly for getting all panicky.
TV news, Fear spreaders, theorists, they all grab the first chance they see to call "doomsday", and "the world is gonna end".
Because Skidi clearly gets offended by these subjects regarding her people (Siberian), and there was a small chance that she might come, posting a "counter-attack"comment, trying to defend Siberia and who knows what else.
And, like I said,
obvious misunderstanding is obvious misunderstanding
Aaaaanyway, I wish I knew something solid and scientific to comment on the Hadron Collider, but unfortunately, I dont. I'm very noob on this subject
Now, what kind of weapon do you use in the military? Or what kind of weapon you'd like to use, for that matter?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
