Talk:Vehicle Armor Appendix: Difference between revisions
BlackRedDead (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Yes, these are for 1.08, and Absorbant is horrible against arty. Composite is what you want against arty. Also, someone should write some more crap at the top there. --[[User:Arklansman|Arklansman]] 23:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT) | Yes, these are for 1.08, and Absorbant is horrible against arty. Composite is what you want against arty. Also, someone should write some more crap at the top there. --[[User:Arklansman|Arklansman]] 23:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
I was gonna edit the top section and add the phrase "some more crap" at the end of it. But then I changed my mind.--[[User:The Buttery Lobster|The Buttery Lobster]] 00:19, 2 July 2007 (EDT) | I was gonna edit the top section and add the phrase "some more crap" at the end of it. But then I changed my mind. Also, fun fact: according to wikipedia, when calcium carbonate is mined in an almost pure form, it's marble. So in ideal circumstances, regenerative armor is a steel/marble composite (assuming there's a layer of steel and then a layer of regen)--[[User:The Buttery Lobster|The Buttery Lobster]] 00:19, 2 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Do you think this article would benefit from listing the projectile speed modifiers and deflection chance modifiers? The other stats are there so I don't see why they shouldn't be included, and for people who don't care about the figures there's already the strong against and weak against points for them. [[User:Scikar|Scikar]] 12:37, 6 December 2007 (PST) | |||
Yes, all stats should be included. Anyone bothering to come to a wiki is interested in details, not generalizations. --[[User:Slamz|Slamz]] 13:53, 18 December 2007 (PST) | |||
Isn't reactive supposed to be good against low velocity/high explosive projectiles, and not high velocity. (As in weak vs. rails, strong versus all missiles plus arty) | |||
--[[User:Guineapig|Guineapig]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:29, 20 January 2008
Don't ask how the hell that happened. --Arklansman 22:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
These are the 1.08 strengths and weaknesses? Did they change from previous versions? I seem to remember absorbent being listed as strong against arties, but idk squat about armors.--The Buttery Lobster 00:48, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, these are for 1.08, and Absorbant is horrible against arty. Composite is what you want against arty. Also, someone should write some more crap at the top there. --Arklansman 23:52, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
I was gonna edit the top section and add the phrase "some more crap" at the end of it. But then I changed my mind. Also, fun fact: according to wikipedia, when calcium carbonate is mined in an almost pure form, it's marble. So in ideal circumstances, regenerative armor is a steel/marble composite (assuming there's a layer of steel and then a layer of regen)--The Buttery Lobster 00:19, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Do you think this article would benefit from listing the projectile speed modifiers and deflection chance modifiers? The other stats are there so I don't see why they shouldn't be included, and for people who don't care about the figures there's already the strong against and weak against points for them. Scikar 12:37, 6 December 2007 (PST)
Yes, all stats should be included. Anyone bothering to come to a wiki is interested in details, not generalizations. --Slamz 13:53, 18 December 2007 (PST)
Isn't reactive supposed to be good against low velocity/high explosive projectiles, and not high velocity. (As in weak vs. rails, strong versus all missiles plus arty) --Guineapig