Jump to content
Garbad

The Official Garbad Fan Club Thread

Which moderator's cunt smells the worst?  

440 members have voted

  1. 1. Which moderator's cunt smells the worst?



Recommended Posts

Well, many things.  But about China and China buying our bonds and controlling us and all the bullshit, he was completely right.

This just in -- US secures long term loan from china at near zero interest rates.  Planes fall from the sky, economists recommend stocking up on gold and ammo, widespread riots in the streets.  In other news, a US admiral with no background in economics whatsoever is concerned about the national debt because he fears he might not be able to plate the next aircraft carrier in platinum.

Like us on facebook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The war WAS lost in spain.  Spain was the source of troops and money.  Africa has shit.  Scipio knew this.

I strongly disagree. You are looking at proximate not root causes. The war was lost because in 17 years of kicking Roman Consuls up and down one side of Italy, Hannibal could never really pry any of the Roman subject cities away from Rome. (and he was completely shit at sieges, Alexander would have wrecked Rome given the amount of time Hannibal had) He need to reform the Eutracian League  and the Southern Kingdoms (whose name eludes me at the moment)

 

What Hannibal needed was a navy off shore of Italy securing his lines of communications and helping to starve out garrisons. Instead he had to rely on his brother to raise a 2nd army out of the Barca personal fortune and then try to march it over the Alps again. Hanno blocked this at every turn.

The Roman Senate wasn't perfect but those 1%ers fucking donated their fortunes to the state to continue putting armies into the field until they wore away Hannibal's Spanish veterans and his army was the trash he could collect from Italy.

I suggest Theodore Ayrault Dodge's Hannibal. (Along with Livy of course, as long as you recognize Livy has an agenda)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree. You are looking at proximate not root causes. The war was lost because in 17 years of kicking Roman Consuls up and down one side of Italy, Hannibal could never really pry any of the Roman subject cities away from Rome. (and he was completely shit at sieges, Alexander would have wrecked Rome given the amount of time Hannibal had) He need to reform the Eutracian League  and the Southern Kingdoms (whose name eludes me at the moment)

 

What Hannibal needed was a navy off shore of Italy securing his lines of communications and helping to starve out garrisons. Instead he had to rely on his brother to raise a 2nd army out of the Barca personal fortune and then try to march it over the Alps again. Hanno blocked this at every turn.

The Roman Senate wasn't perfect but those 1%ers fucking donated their fortunes to the state to continue putting armies into the field until they wore away Hannibal's Spanish veterans and his army was the trash he could collect from Italy.

I suggest Theodore Ayrault Dodge's Hannibal. (Along with Livy of course, as long as you recognize Livy has an agenda)

You're an idiot.

1.  Hannibal was bad@sieges...which explains why he took one of the largest cities in spain and the 2nd largest city in Italy by siege.  The problem was not taking cities, it was a) taking rome and b) the fact that rome would just retake the cities after he left the area.

2.  Carthage had the stronker navy...until the scipio twins destroyed it.  It was no use whatsoever in taking rome.

3.  Alexander would have been face fucked.  Look at how primitive gaugamela looks in comparison with scipio and hannibal.  Alexander had no men, no money, no culture, no supply, nothing.  And its one thing to farm shitter ass asians with your superior euros; euro vs euro is quite another game.

4.  Hannibal DID pry most cities from rome, for an extended time.  They lost every major ally, and most minor allies.  Rome simply didn't care.  They held out, and eventually retook them.

5.  He tried.  Hence the heracles stunt over the alps, rousing up the greeks, rousing up the samnites, rousing up the etruscans, rousing up the eurosavages, rousing up the latins...anyone.  Most bit, but not enthusiastically.  And in the end, rome didn't care.

6.  Hannibal's vets lasted to the end.  All sides acknowledge this.  Remember the third line?

Rome won because:

1.  Vastly superior manpower, particularly in Italy.  They could absorb losses, Carthage could not except by importing mercs and spaniards.

2.  More will to fight.  Carthage was fine with a draw.

3.  Hannibal's strategy relied on a) rome surrendering after b) lots of lost battles/prestige and c) the defection of their allies.  It turns out b & c didn't faze the romans, and then hannibal had nothing.  He couldn't finish the drill, so the ensuing stalemate eventually made the larger side win.  Once spain was gone, hannibal had nothing, and africa/Italy fell swiftly after.

4.  Supply for Hannibal could ONLY come from spain.  There is a reason why both hannibal, his daddy, scipio, his daddy, the senate, and the carthaginian senate threw their best armies, money, and commanders at spain even with hannibal at the gates.  Remember when hannibal came down from the alps -- the roman army MARCHED AWAY AND LET HIM INTO ITALY BECAUSE THEY KNEW SPAIN WAS WHAT MATTERED.  Spain was the only source of heavy infantry (african shitters were ok cav, but low population and not overly loyal), the only source of money, and the only people who actually cared to fight.

Rome had the will to endure, but then again, so did carthage.  Its not as if the war cost them less in terms of money or casualties.  The difference wasn't that they were simply too stupid to send over a battering ram, it was that rome actively prevented them from intervening by 1) destroying their fleet, 2) threatening their primary base, spain, 3) fucking their expected ally macedon, and so on.  At every turn, they were cockblocked and outplayed.  Only hannibal's genius kept them in it.  But its absolutely not true to say they didn't fight hard, or that they fought stupidly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sell me short.  In addition to my universally recognized brilliance, I'm also quite charismatic.

Can't comment on his charism. He did have a girl, but I think they broke up cause he often away due to war. 

 

Oh yeah, he was a little crazy, too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his pair is kind of suitable for slacks, but I don't really see boots tbh.  Boots and dress pants are NT.  But maybe you could swing it, show me an example.

Emailed you the stats of the new tier 6 tanks, by the way.

IMG_20151009_122552.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garbad Reviews the Collector's Edition Premium Tanks (Taifun, RDF, 430)

Yesterday AW released another set of premium tank packages.  Spooky wrote an excellent article discussing the value of these vehicles, but I decided to write a quick quite to discuss how the tanks perform.  The package includes four tanks:  LAV 150 90 (tier 3 TD), Object 430 (tier 3 MBT), Taifun (Tier 6 TD), and RDF (Tier 6 light tank) as well as various other goodies.

LAV 150 90:  Tier 3 TD

The LAV 150 90 is a potent machine. TDs get a bonus to fully zoomed in snipes, magnifying their already impressive alpha/dpm. They also get a bonus to camo, which again stacks with their impressive base values. Finally, they get very zippy speed (although it can take some practice to master using them). This all combines for very powerful camo snipers, and camo sniping is the name of the game in low tier pvp play.

Closest Peer: Dragoon 300

Compared to the D300, the Lav 150 90 has some major advantages. First, it has smoke grenades. Second, it has 15 degrees of depression vs 5 on the D300! Finally, being a premium it doesn’t have a stock grind (D300 and others have a long grind with no AP round, which can hurt). The D300 features a faster turret, 3 refit slots, and a tiny bit better overall firepower, vision, and speed.  The LAV 150 90 is substantially better.

Conclusion:

Featuring excellent speed, excellent vision/camo, and hard hitting DPM the LAV 150-90 is debatably the most powerful machine in tier (XM800T excluded). Unlike some TDs, the LAV 150 90 has pretty high penetration — enough to punch through same tier MBTs within reason. This combined with its other overall strengths makes it more than capable of matching any opponent it sees.  I did extremely well in this tank in PvP.

The Lav 150-90 is a reasonably profitable, affordable little brute. If you like low tiers and camo snipers, give this one a serious look.

Overall: 5/5

OBJECT 430:  Tier 3 MBT

The Object 430 is a non exclusive tank, yet is not yet released for gold purchase (I predict this will be part of the new china/czech/swedish tree).  It is a smaller, more compact version of the standard russian wedges of tier 3.  It also features slightly better agility without losing any hardness.  This makes it perhaps the toughest tank in tier -- it can trivially bounce AFVs as well as many lights, TDs, HEAT, and so on.

Vno5hR1.jpg

See how tiny it is compared to the 155!

Closest Peers:  Object 155, T-62

BI4tP6U.jpg

This is a stats comparison of identically fit Object 430 vs an Object 155.  You can see most things are pretty similar...until you get to firepower.  The 430 has just plain horrific fire control -- one of the worst tanks in the game.  Its DPM is also quite poor.  To add insult to injury, even its HEAT round is distinctly mediocre.  The 155 itself has kind of sketchy fire control, but at least it hits hard and fast firing HEAT.  The 430 is far, far worse.  Not only does it aim slowly and inaccurately, it doesn't even hit hard. 

Conclusion:

The speed and toughness of the 430 are pretty nice, but even then are probably not enough to actually bounce the high penetration guns found on the LAV 150 90, T-62, and similar brutes.  Despite this, its firepower is just plain inadequate -- I think this tank needs an immediate buff.  As it stands now, it might be worth doubling for the first game, but otherwise, its junk.

Overall:  1/5

TAIFUN II:  Tier 6 Tank Destroyer

fRZSgkh.jpg

The Taifun is AW's first top tier premium TD as well as the game's first casemate TD.  TDs are naturally role limited, especially in PvE, and a turretless TD is even more limited.  Accordingly, my fear was that this tank would be very good in its niche, but horrid outside of it.  Let's take a look.

Some people have reported that the Taifun is the AW's version of the E-25.  I find it more similar to the JgdPanzer IV.  Like the JP4, it turns extremely quickly, but doesn't have the extreme speed and camo of the E-25.  Likewise, its a medium sized tank -- not tiny like an E-25.  However, it is low enough to the ground that you often cannot shoot over rocks or wrecks.  Although its paper agility appears quite good, in actual play it feels about average.  Sadly, its armor is also nearly useless -- it can protect you from HE but is useless against HEAT or autocannons.

fP099MR.jpg

Look at that hunchback looking atrocity -- its like a JP4 that got fat.

But the firepower...the firepower has a lot of positives.  First, the Taifun hits very hard (400 AP, 500 HEAT unmodded +15% sniper bonus) with good DPM.  Its aim time and accuracy aren't all that good base, but can be modded to acceptable levels.  Its penetration is more than adequate to punch through the sides of any tank, as well as devour moderately hard targets like Terminators or VFMs, but isn't quite stronk enough for the front of MBTs.

SFzlahC.jpg

The real deal maker, however, is the tank's comfort.  The Taifun has 30 degrees of gun traverse -- for you WOT veterans, this is as much as the beta Object 704 (infamous for its ability to "shoot around corners."  See the screenshot -- its quite a lot of room to work.  Note that you can press X to lock tracks, the same as WOT, although this is not documented.  The taifun also has a superb -12 depression and good elevation, making hull down peekasniping a surprisingly viable tactic.  Its only flaws are its relatively slow turret speed and short height (a mixed blessing).

Closest Peer:  Centaro 120? I forgot to write it down

Ianj5br.jpg

Note this is an unfair comparison -- because I do not own the TDs yet, this is a stock tank compared to a kitted out Taifun.  But you can see it has decent HP, decent agility, the same firepower as its peers, and overall superior comfort...and superior camo/vision.  I chose not to kit out my Taifun for view range, and instead relied on others to spot for me. 

CONCLUSION:

Its soft and role limited...but within its role, its extremely effective.  It hits very hard and fast, penetrates well, fires reasonably accurately, has excellent camo abuse potential, and fair speed.  I had issues running out of ammo, and the fire control was not quite perfect (perhaps my relative lack of skill as a sniper, but I missed a lot of shots as I got used to the tank).  But laying down support fire, this is the best tank in tier at the moment, by a wide margin.

Is it worth buying?  For sniping enthusiasts, I think so.  If you enjoy the Zhalo or Pac 90 playstyle, give this one a look.  The lack of a turret doesn't limit you a lot, and the overall comfort and firepower go a long way.  However, if you are a general player, perhaps not.  Its lack of armor and the flaws of a TD/lack of a turret make this a specialist support vehicle.  But its a damn good one.

Overall:  4/5

RDF/LT:  Tier 6 Light Tank

Cpm7J1y.jpg

The RDF is the third premium light tank in tier.  Its small, reasonably quick, and has a very fast gun but very little protection.

The first surprise about the RDF was its size -- its pretty compact, a good bit smaller than the ET, for example.  Its similar in dimensions perhaps to the bagelpanzer.  Compared to its peers, its also not really that fast.  It has the worst acceleration and the worst top speed in tier.  It can move around ok, but its certainly not a speedster like the VBL or even the ET.  It also has extremely low HP as well as completely worthless armor (HE will autopen you).  Finally, it lacks smoke!  All of this combines to make a very unforgiving tank -- even more so than the ET.

Firepower is mixed.  It oddly includes two AP rounds -- one with a slight penetration advantage, the other with a slight advantage firing at long range.  In practice, I saw no difference between them whatsoever.  The RDF also has worse penetration than its peers, but I found this had no effect on gameplay.  ~260 is more than adequate to punch through the sides of anything, and ~300 isn't enough to punch through the front of MBTs anyhow, so they play exactly the same.  The RDF has a low ammo count (its maximum damage output is a very low ~15000 or so).

Fire control is a mixed story.  Although the RDF has excellent fire control and accuracy on paper, because its reload is so blazingly fast (4 seconds), you need all you can get.  It has good depression, elevation, a fair turret speed/location, and so on.  But in practice, once the DPM engine started churning it took a lot of work to keep those shots going where I wanted them to without waste -- it reminds me somewhat of firing a tank like the RU 251 in wot.

Closest Peers:  Expeditionary Tank (ET), Stingray, VFM

SEEnwS7.jpg

The RDF is most similar to the ET.  Both are paper light tanks with very high risk (no armor, no smoke, no APS/ERA/etc).  The ET has several notable advantages -- better top speed, an unmanned troll turret, better fire control, more HP, more alpha.  So what does the RDF have?

1AODbIX.jpg

This screenshot shows the single most important reason why you would pick an RDF over the ET -- gun elevation.  The ET has a fatal flaw -- despite its -10 gun depression, its gun elevation is awful, meaning its useless any time you have to fight uphill.  The RDF doesn't have this problem.  Other advantages include small size, better camo, and perhaps an advantage in ROF -- hitting opponents 2-3 times before they can react. 

CONCLUSION:

Like the ET, the RDF is much better in pvp than pve.  Its best used as flanking support fire from longish range -- similar to a TD but with better comfort and ease of movement.  It can be situationally very deadly, and a great performer.  However, its extreme high risk, low ammo count, and role overlap with TDs make this tank an average performer overall.  I predict it will have lots of fanboys, but zoom zoom fast tanks always do.

Overall:  3/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the official AW forums are awful and empty of even useless information.

I'm at tier 6 in the leo mbt line. It's far better than the leo1a5, but it still feels inadequate compared to the t72 and the xm1. I don't know if you played them, and have any advice on how to play them. I feel as though your lack of armor and how it isn't justified with anything else just make the tank(s) medicore at best. Hopefully that changes with the tier 7. I went down the line because the leo2a5 looks absolutely bad ass and dat 800mm turret armor. I stopped playing the 2AV in pubs because it could not pen anything so I 'v just been grinding pve mission, but that's really boring after 20 games. Any advice?

This is why cats > dogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're an idiot.

1.  Hannibal was bad@sieges...which explains why he took one of the largest cities in spain and the 2nd largest city in Italy by siege.  The problem was not taking cities, it was a) taking rome and b) the fact that rome would just retake the cities after he left the area.

2.  Carthage had the stronker navy...until the scipio twins destroyed it.  It was no use whatsoever in taking rome.

3.  Alexander would have been face fucked.  Look at how primitive gaugamela looks in comparison with scipio and hannibal.  Alexander had no men, no money, no culture, no supply, nothing.  And its one thing to farm shitter ass asians with your superior euros; euro vs euro is quite another game.

4.  Hannibal DID pry most cities from rome, for an extended time.  They lost every major ally, and most minor allies.  Rome simply didn't care.  They held out, and eventually retook them.

5.  He tried.  Hence the heracles stunt over the alps, rousing up the greeks, rousing up the samnites, rousing up the etruscans, rousing up the eurosavages, rousing up the latins...anyone.  Most bit, but not enthusiastically.  And in the end, rome didn't care.

6.  Hannibal's vets lasted to the end.  All sides acknowledge this.  Remember the third line?

Rome won because:

1.  Vastly superior manpower, particularly in Italy.  They could absorb losses, Carthage could not except by importing mercs and spaniards.

2.  More will to fight.  Carthage was fine with a draw.

3.  Hannibal's strategy relied on a) rome surrendering after b) lots of lost battles/prestige and c) the defection of their allies.  It turns out b & c didn't faze the romans, and then hannibal had nothing.  He couldn't finish the drill, so the ensuing stalemate eventually made the larger side win.  Once spain was gone, hannibal had nothing, and africa/Italy fell swiftly after.

4.  Supply for Hannibal could ONLY come from spain.  There is a reason why both hannibal, his daddy, scipio, his daddy, the senate, and the carthaginian senate threw their best armies, money, and commanders at spain even with hannibal at the gates.  Remember when hannibal came down from the alps -- the roman army MARCHED AWAY AND LET HIM INTO ITALY BECAUSE THEY KNEW SPAIN WAS WHAT MATTERED.  Spain was the only source of heavy infantry (african shitters were ok cav, but low population and not overly loyal), the only source of money, and the only people who actually cared to fight.

Rome had the will to endure, but then again, so did carthage.  Its not as if the war cost them less in terms of money or casualties.  The difference wasn't that they were simply too stupid to send over a battering ram, it was that rome actively prevented them from intervening by 1) destroying their fleet, 2) threatening their primary base, spain, 3) fucking their expected ally macedon, and so on.  At every turn, they were cockblocked and outplayed.  Only hannibal's genius kept them in it.  But its absolutely not true to say they didn't fight hard, or that they fought stupidly.

1) Compared to Alex, Hannibal was fairly bad@siege. He didn't have anything remotely close to Alex's mobile artillery (nor did anyone else till horse artillery of the Napoleonic Era) He did not have an engineering core, nor did his army have the Roman Ethic of shovel work. (Niether did the Romans till after 

2) Sending the Navy to dick about in Sicily was a huge mistake. Hanno's work.

3) He couldn't siege Rome no matter what, he had to pry away allies.

4) Because of the mismanagement of the Carthage Navy.

5) Agree on the lack of Enthusiasm...... the allies were honestly terrified of Roman retribution.

6) SOME of Hannibal's vets lasted to the end.... some of the Numidians were fighting for Rome in the end. The percent of experienced vets in his army went down as the campaigns went on and on the Roman side, the troop quality increased. The defection of the Numidian Cavalry was a huge huge effect.

 

Seriously. Read more, racism less. Viewing Persians as "Asian trash" is just straight up silly and lacks an understanding of where the Eastern Roman Empire got the cataphrac concept from.

 

My original point (to bring this back) is that Hannibal was probably the 3rd  or 4th best General in history behind Alex, Gus, maybe Julius or Napoleon. Scipio was good, but not in their league at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the official AW forums are awful and empty of even useless information.

I'm at tier 6 in the leo mbt line. It's far better than the leo1a5, but it still feels inadequate compared to the t72 and the xm1. I don't know if you played them, and have any advice on how to play them. I feel as though your lack of armor and how it isn't justified with anything else just make the tank(s) medicore at best. Hopefully that changes with the tier 7. I went down the line because the leo2a5 looks absolutely bad ass and dat 800mm turret armor. I stopped playing the 2AV in pubs because it could not pen anything so I 'v just been grinding pve mission, but that's really boring after 20 games. Any advice?

This is why cats > dogs

I found the 2av to be very stronk.  Its base armor is great, good speed, firepower iffy.  That's what to expect from here out.  The main advantage on it vs other mbts is side armor.

 

1) Compared to Alex, Hannibal was fairly bad@siege. He didn't have anything remotely close to Alex's mobile artillery (nor did anyone else till horse artillery of the Napoleonic Era) He did not have an engineering core, nor did his army have the Roman Ethic of shovel work. (Niether did the Romans till after 

2) Sending the Navy to dick about in Sicily was a huge mistake. Hanno's work.

3) He couldn't siege Rome no matter what, he had to pry away allies.

4) Because of the mismanagement of the Carthage Navy.

5) Agree on the lack of Enthusiasm...... the allies were honestly terrified of Roman retribution.

6) SOME of Hannibal's vets lasted to the end.... some of the Numidians were fighting for Rome in the end. The percent of experienced vets in his army went down as the campaigns went on and on the Roman side, the troop quality increased. The defection of the Numidian Cavalry was a huge huge effect.

 

Seriously. Read more, racism less. Viewing Persians as "Asian trash" is just straight up silly and lacks an understanding of where the Eastern Roman Empire got the cataphrac concept from.

 

My original point (to bring this back) is that Hannibal was probably the 3rd  or 4th best General in history behind Alex, Gus, maybe Julius or Napoleon. Scipio was good, but not in their league at all.

1.  And alex didn't have anything comparable to Archimedes, which the romans trumped.

2.  Sending the navy there was essential.  At the time, operating in italy was out of the question until spain and Sicily were secure.

3.  Yes, a flawed plan from the start.  Yet it was his plan, his flaws...not lack of support that did him in.

4.  No, because africa just didn't have the manpower.  There simply weren't large population centers to draw from. 

5.  Yes.

6.  Eh, fair enough.  But that's not what you claimed -- you claimed his vets were gone.  That's just not true.

 

Who cares about the cataphract?  When asian shitters stood in front of the greek/roman heavy infantry, they got face fucked.  That's really all that mattered.  Alexander and literally every other greek general knew this.  All they had to do was ignore the numbers and punch right through the middle of them in a direct frontal assault.  Game over.  Quick name a time where a greek army didn't straight up roll the persian infantry in the first 10 seconds? Compare that to winning without having a massive troop quality trump, such as hannibal.

You are a fool, and need to read more.  Start with greater than napoleon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started with AW, thanks for the overview on the premium tanks senpai.

What line of non MBT vehicles are good/fun to start as an AW noob? Or should I just stick with MBTs for the time being? I am absolutely clueless about modern vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started with AW, thanks for the overview on the premium tanks senpai.

What line of non MBT vehicles are good/fun to start as an AW noob? Or should I just stick with MBTs for the time being? I am absolutely clueless about modern vehicles.

Pretty much all lines are worthwhile.  Just read descriptions and pick a few that seem interesting.  At a minimum, try something with missiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the 2av to be very stronk.  Its base armor is great, good speed, firepower iffy.  That's what to expect from here out.  The main advantage on it vs other mbts is side armor.

 

1.  And alex didn't have anything comparable to Archimedes, which the romans trumped.

2.  Sending the navy there was essential.  At the time, operating in italy was out of the question until spain and Sicily were secure.

3.  Yes, a flawed plan from the start.  Yet it was his plan, his flaws...not lack of support that did him in.

4.  No, because africa just didn't have the manpower.  There simply weren't large population centers to draw from. 

5.  Yes.

6.  Eh, fair enough.  But that's not what you claimed -- you claimed his vets were gone.  That's just not true.

 

Who cares about the cataphract?  When asian shitters stood in front of the greek/roman heavy infantry, they got face fucked.  That's really all that mattered.  Alexander and literally every other greek general knew this.  All they had to do was ignore the numbers and punch right through the middle of them in a direct frontal assault.  Game over.  Quick name a time where a greek army didn't straight up roll the persian infantry in the first 10 seconds? Compare that to winning without having a massive troop quality trump, such as hannibal.

You are a fool, and need to read more.  Start with greater than napoleon. 

General Custer is the best, end of discussion :doge:

 

Pretty much all lines are worthwhile.  Just read descriptions and pick a few that seem interesting.  At a minimum, try something with missiles.

To add to this: don't just think missiles as long range weapons, they hit really hard at close range as well. And are ofc easier to get to target at close range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Quick name a time where a greek army didn't straight up roll the persian infantry in the first 10 seconds? 

 

1) Battle of Ephesus in 498BC: the Greek hoplites including Athenians and Eretrians get smashed by the regional cavalry contingents of the satrapies of Asia Minor.
2) Battle of Salamis (the Cyrpiot one) in 497BC: decisive defeat of the Cypriots
3) Twin battles of river Menander in 497BC: The Carians suffer two consecutive massive defeats. It is worth noting that the even though the Carians were not Greeks, they had long been assimiliated into hoplite warfare, both in terms of armament and pressumably tactics. And in the second battle they had been bolstered by the army of Miletus.
4) Battle of Malene in 493BC: The last act of the Ionian revolt, Histiaeus' mixed Aeolian/Ionian force gets scattered.
5) Battle of Memphis 456BC: Megabuzys defeats the joint Egyptian/Athenian force and reclaims Egypt for the Achaemenids

 

Marathon was the 1st time ever that the Greek's BEAT the Persians. The Persians knew the Hopilite was superior to their infantry. They also knew thier Cav was better.

 

This doesn't surprise me... I should have remembered your inability to admit when you are wrong when EE and the rest of the HAV crew flogged you over your belief in Nazi kill ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-128852.html

Bitch just link me to rome total war next time you need a video game as a source.  Also:  1) horses, 2) navy, 3) horses, 4) horses, 5) ships.  What part of that shows persian infantry standing up to greeks?

I like the EE call tho.  Now we get to see if you double down on your error (as he did) and start citing yourself as evidence, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought the Taifun II before reading the review, have to say Garbad is spot on as always. Can confirm this tank is amazeballz comfort. 

What do you think of the BMP/BMD line? They seem to pack really insane firepower in some BS camo hovercraft chassis.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought the Taifun II before reading the review, have to say Garbad is spot on as always. Can confirm this tank is amazeballz comfort. 

What do you think of the BMP/BMD line? They seem to pack really insane firepower in some BS camo hovercraft chassis.   

They are very frail and have crap depression, but have independent missiles and good firepower vs softies.  They are also pretty good scouts.  Basically, they are filler content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...