Wait...wait... You posted Peace is the only answer in a Warhammer 40k themed Thread....


@Asheru Do us a favor, before more people complain about the Army thing, can we remove the stuff about the Army and stuff like that without locking a thread...?>

Dokta did, but somehow you ignored it for your benefits. You're clearly biased in this matter, so don't call me names please.

Okay, but I did. You again ignored facts for your own benefits
"notable examples of zergs are Kursk and Omaha (D-Day)"

Nazi is insulting, at least to the soldiers who just fought for their country, not Hitler. Kraut is at least less offensive, but still offensive. And Viet Cong is disrespectful, no Vietnamese call their soldiers Viet Cong. Southern Vietnam newspaper invented that word, and they did not mean well.


P/S: This is my last post regarding this topic, I promise

Considering viet cong means "Vietnameese comunists" I dont think thats all that insulting. Its like calling german soldiers in ww2 "Nazi's".

What are we fighting for, if not to bring peace to the next generation?

That's going to take a lot of editing to cut all that out. Here is the plain and simple thing, listen to what I have asked, get this back on topic or I lock it plain and simple the next post that has nothing to do with EC or talking about how the factions battles will be effected in game will get a warning for refusing to listen to a mod and this will be locked.

terrible idea. what I think is defenses should be structured in layers where each susuccessive layer becomes harder to breach. But there is a point when you have the enemy completely engulfed and they cant do a thing without being immediately annihilated. Losing a battle should be fun as well, and building maps where the fight can flow from layer to layer would be fun to me even if I am losing.

Except zerg tactics are legitimate and continue to be used to this day. If you are talking about what we have done in Iraq then you would have to say we overwhelmed them with firepower. In EC all the factions will have similar killing ability. If EC is a battlefield clone then zerging wont be an issue. If EC is open world then yes zerging will be done by all factions.

I read a great "Chesty" Puller quote from this series of battles and the subsequent retreat. "There were more enemies behind us than in front of us, so we about faced and attacked."

WotsItCalled, ever heard of what I believe is called a holding assualt? What I mean is when a defender goes on the offensive despite being unlikely to take and hold ground so that they have time to reinforce their own territory. For the underpopulated factions this sort of thing will be important, there needs to be mechanics in play to support more than straight up territory control. I can imagine a number of scenarios where turning certain territories into abysmal quagmires of bloodshed constantly changing hands would be considered a victory because of the strategic purpose it serves.

Like for example, there's a transit hub for a supply line we don't control. It wouldn't be particularly important for us to actually hold the hub, as long as the enemy supplies are interupted then the situation is as it should be.

Or, they have all these outposts, are there going to be different options for when you take them? For example, if you take over one of those feeder nubs for the main fortress there could be multiple options for what to do with it. The most obvious would be to occupy it and make it your own. Or, you could Reave it and leave all its structures in a prolonged damaged state.

This type of stuff, because when I hear things like No True 3 Way Battles, it sounds to me like we're losing ground in the department of deeper stradegies. I'm sure many would be satisfied with just hurling meat at eachother, but what got me hyped for this game was the prospect of being able to orchastrate complex strategies in a TPS enviroment.

That would be a counterattack.

I think that's a good point. When I used to WvWvW in Guild Wars 2, our guild would always focus on the supply lines while the majority zerged between forts and such. Whether we needed them or needed to disrupt them, it made a difference. Every little bit helps.

or a feint.

Here's the latest info we have on Faction Alliances:

"Question: Is there seriously going to be the ability for members of different Factions to ally with each other in fights in this game? If this is indeed the case, please give us as much info on this as possible?

David Ghozland: At the moment alliances are at the faction level. A character cannot ally with another character neither can a guild with another guild. If the entire faction decide to be allied with another faction during a campaign, this will mean that players from the allied factions will be able to fight on the same side during a match. These alliances are and will stay temporary and will end at the end of a campaign or sooner if one faction breaks the alliance.
The alliance system is not in the plan for launch at the moment, but we might have it sooner than we are currently expecting it. Stay tuned."

I personally don't like this planned idea for these Factions that hate each other with a burning passion to ally with each other.

For example: It looks like we will have many battles with Word Bearer Sorcerers healing and providing chaos buffs to their allied Ultramarine brothers, etc....

But it seems that most people on this forum aren't too bothered by this, so I guess I will just have to roll with it....