When archers go bad! VERY BAD! - Page 2

Argitoth · #11 February 26th, 2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by Argitoth:
So because they have no targets, they decide to fire at a random target..
...KILLING MY MOST IMPORTANT MAGES!??! ARGH!!

One Last round? Well its not unrealistic in a battlefield. Could be worse

No, I'm sorry. Archers purposely firing at allies is not realistic.

Just Last combat my calvary turned around and started heading toward their own allies. Luckilly they were too far away to get in range of attacking themselves.

[ February 27, 2004, 10:11: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

Leif_- · #12 February 26th, 2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Argitoth:
No, I'm sorry. Archers purposely firing at allies is not realistic.

You might want to have a look at this document before you decide on wether it's realistic or not: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1992/KAC.htm

Norfleet · #13 February 26th, 2004, 10:49 PM

Leif, I think there's a difference between firing at perceived enemies and accidentally hitting friendly targets, and deliberately firing at friendly targets because there are no enemies to shoot at. That kind of behavior sounds more like something that happens in an FPS populated by smacktards than anything realistic.

Arryn · #14 February 26th, 2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
smacktards

That's one of the things I love about this Dominions forum: that I learn new things every day (other than pithy Norfy sayings). In this case, a new {choice insult} ...

Daynarr · #15 February 27th, 2004, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
smacktards

Is this really a word? I can't seem to find it in vocabulary.

Arryn · #16 February 27th, 2004, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daynarr:

quote:
Originally posted by Norfleet:
smacktards

Is this really a word? I can't seem to find it in vocabulary.

Of course not. It's a newly-coined (ie: invented) concatenation (a five-syllable word meaning "scrunch together") of "smack" (as in "hit across the face") and "retard" (self-explanatory). As such, "smacktard" loosely translates as someone well-deserving of being hit (the harder the better).

EDIT: anyone who speaks German should understand the concept of inventing new words by scrunching old words together.

[ February 26, 2004, 22:21: Message edited by: Arryn ]

E. Albright · #17 February 27th, 2004, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arryn:
Of course not. It's a newly-coined (ie: invented) concatenation (a five-syllable word meaning "scrunch together") of "smack" (as in "hit across the face") and "retard" (self-explanatory).

Bah. Shame on you, Arryn. Given the other words you chose, I'm positively appalled that you should opt to invoke so quotidian a phrase as "newly-coined" when the far more sesquipedalian term "neologism" nigh begs to be heard...

(Very well; I'll concede that a strict tally of syllables hands the prize to the former. But 'tis a scurvy, untoward game that said phrase plays; had it decorum, it would unhyphenate itself and yield to the more obtuse, and thus deserving, locution...)

Argitoth · #18 February 27th, 2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Leif, I think there's a difference between firing at perceived enemies and accidentally hitting friendly targets, and deliberately firing at friendly targets because there are no enemies to shoot at. That kind of behavior sounds more like something that happens in an FPS populated by smacktards than anything realistic.

Thank you!

sometimes I just can't deal with people who don't want to pay attention to the topic.

Leif_- · #19 February 27th, 2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Argitoth:

quote:
Originally posted by Norfleet:
Leif, I think there's a difference between firing at perceived enemies and accidentally hitting friendly targets, and deliberately firing at friendly targets because there are no enemies to shoot at. That kind of behavior sounds more like something that happens in an FPS populated by smacktards than anything realistic.

Thank you! sometimes I just can't deal with people who don't want to pay attention to the topic.

Umm... You complained about the archers targetting your own troops because it "wasn't realistic." I pointed out that friendly fire makes up a substantial fraction of casualties in war, and that it therefore perhaps wasn't so unrealistic anyway. How was I more off topic than you in that exchange?

Peter Ebbesen · #20 February 27th, 2004, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
One Last round? Well its not unrealistic in a battlefield. Could be worse [/QB]

Actually, it is pretty unrealistic to deliberately target your allies, whom you have carefully avoiding shooting at earlier, when the enemy has been defeated. Friendly fire happens mostly as a result of mistaken identities under adverse conditions, not as a result of firing at known friendly positions once you can no longer see any targets. If the archers thought those mages were dangerous as a result of mistaken identity, they should have shot them in the FIRST round, not waited until there were no other enemies near

I guess you could try the "Sorry, lord God, we thought the mage squad was enslaved by the enemy pretender when his army routed" excuse, but you would still be executed for it.

[ February 27, 2004, 11:23: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]