WC Observational humor
JKWSN_WeaponX
get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
--JKWSN_WeaponX
Christopher Reid
wrote:
>OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
>get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
>goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500.
380 and 520.
> He probably had access to an
>Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
>Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
In the novel he does take an Excal.
Chris Reid Wing Commander CIC
Chri...@wcnews.com http://www.wcnews.com
Kefka4Pres
still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
He must really enjoy that ship...
-----
"You're Grrrrrr-eat! You're Tony, be corn flakes, baby, be frosted."
-Austin Powers in The Spy Who Shagged Me
Jeffrey MacHott
Kefka4Pres wrote:
>
> I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> He must really enjoy that ship...
It's a pretty kick-ass ship <G>
>
> -----
>
> "You're Grrrrrr-eat! You're Tony, be corn flakes, baby, be frosted."
> -Austin Powers in The Spy Who Shagged Me
--
--Spooky
"Stealth and subtelty work well, but for making lasting impressions, a
blaster does just fine."-- General Han Solo
--Come see my webpage! UPDATED APRIL 15! See my new Barnes & Noble and
Outpost.com stores!!
Edward Pang
>OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
Victory.
>get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
>goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
>Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
He did.
>Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
"High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
Delance
>OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
>get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
>goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
>Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
>Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
get the t-bolt.
>> Delance <<
Fix adress for e-mail
Delance
wrote:
> In the novel he does take an Excal.
(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
easier this way, isn't it? :)
Ben Lesnick
He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
> >> Delance <<
>
> Fix adress for e-mail
--
Long live the Confederation,
Ben "Bandit" Lesnick
The Wing Commander CIC
http://www.wcnews.com
"You go, Loaf! Get some!" - JPG
Ben Lesnick
>
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
>
> >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
>
>
> >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
>
>
> >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
>
>
> >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
>
> The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
>
> "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
Kris Vanhecke
<19990501171111...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
>still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
>He must really enjoy that ship...
He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
after a decade of Confed service.
--
Kris Vanhecke
ICQ #5504559
http://members.tripod.com/vanheckecola/
--
Liberate tutemis ex inferis.
Ben Lesnick
>
> Kefka4Pres heeft geschreven in bericht
> <19990501171111...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
> >I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> >still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> >He must really enjoy that ship...
>
> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
> after a decade of Confed service.
It's probably the only fighter available that he was trained to fly --
the only Kilrathi fighter he had ever actually flown was a Dralthi I for
a short time in '55...
> --
> Kris Vanhecke
> ICQ #5504559
> http://members.tripod.com/vanheckecola/
> --
> Liberate tutemis ex inferis.
--
Mike Bruner
Ben Lesnick wrote:
> Edward Pang wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
> >
> > >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> >
> > Victory.
> >
> > >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> >
> > Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
> >
> > >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> > >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> >
> > He did.
> >
> > >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
> >
> > T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
> > The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
> >
> > "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
>
> BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> 'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
Uh, not to necessarily dispute the "Thunderbolt can jump" thing (which according to
the foldout ship thing in the WC3 box isn't true though), but as I understand it
Rachel's friend ran off to a jumppoint where the Kilrathi were coming in and just let
them come to him until he blew up, as opposed to jumping after Kilrathi.
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Ignorance killed the cat- curiosity was framed."
Delance
wrote:
>> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
>> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
>> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
>> get the t-bolt.
>
>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
Makes sense.
Edward Pang
>Edward Pang wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
>>
>> >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
>>
>> Victory.
>>
>> >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
>>
>> Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
>>
>> >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
>> >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
>>
>> He did.
>>
>> >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
>>
>> T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
>> The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
>>
>> "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
>
>BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
>'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
>
Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
Christopher Reid
>I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
>still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
>He must really enjoy that ship...
Seeing as it'd probably be the only modern ship aboard Thrakhath's
dreadnought that Hobbes was qualifed to fly it's not that surprising..
Christopher Reid
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:14:33 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
>>> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
>>> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
>>> get the t-bolt.
>>
>>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
>
>That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
Christopher Reid
>On Sat, 01 May 1999 20:19:10 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>
>> In the novel he does take an Excal.
>
>(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
>
>easier this way, isn't it? :)
Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
explaining in the past.
Christopher Reid
(Edward Pang) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:15:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com> scribbled:
>>BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
>>'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
>>
> Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
>point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
Don't think so..
Christopher Reid
wrote:
>Kris Vanhecke wrote:
>> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
>> after a decade of Confed service.
>
>It's probably the only fighter available that he was trained to fly --
>the only Kilrathi fighter he had ever actually flown was a Dralthi I for
>a short time in '55...
Wow, I came to the exactly identical conclusion before I even read
this post. :)
Delance
wrote:
>>>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
>>
>>That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
>
> Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
Possible includes loaded and prepared to fly, that's why I wrote
possible to begin with. You want to start a threat by trying to prove
that possible does not mean that? Is that so important to you? :)
Delance
wrote:
>>(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
>>
>>easier this way, isn't it? :)
>
> Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
>explaining in the past.
That explains you postcount...
Christopher Reid
>On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:29:07 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>> Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
>
>Possible includes loaded and prepared to fly, that's why I wrote
>possible to begin with. You want to start a threat by trying to prove
>that possible does not mean that? Is that so important to you? :)
Why is it after I honestly post something like "you're trying to
increase your postcount!" or "you're trying to start another stupid
thread!" you warp it and try to apply it to every which thing you can't
think of a response to?
Christopher Reid
>On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:30:18 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>> Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
>>explaining in the past.
>
>That explains you postcount...
Wow, I was right. I typed the other message in this thread half a
minute ago before even reading this one.
JKWSN_WeaponX
stick with this answer: "He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's
patrol..."
Thx Ben Lesnick
--JKWSN_WeaponX
Delance
wrote:
>>Possible includes loaded and prepared to fly, that's why I wrote
>>possible to begin with. You want to start a threat by trying to prove
>>that possible does not mean that? Is that so important to you? :)
>
> Why is it after I honestly post something like "you're trying to
>increase your postcount!" or "you're trying to start another stupid
>thread!" you warp it and try to apply it to every which thing you can't
>think of a response to?
This is not a "you're trying to increase your postcount", I don't
think you need to increase your postcount. It's just that you are
trying to dispute the fact that "possible" does not include armed and
ready to go when it comes to the closest ship possible for escape.
Delance
wrote:
>>That explains you postcount...
>
> Wow, I was right. I typed the other message in this thread half a
>minute ago before even reading this one.
Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
posts...
Mike Bruner
Christopher Reid wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 11:26:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Kris Vanhecke wrote:
> >> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
> >> after a decade of Confed service.
> >
> >It's probably the only fighter available that he was trained to fly --
> >the only Kilrathi fighter he had ever actually flown was a Dralthi I for
> >a short time in '55...
>
> Wow, I came to the exactly identical conclusion before I even read
> this post. :)
Still doesn't explain how the Kilrathi are keeping up the maintenance on an alien
fighter so well, but hey... :)
Edward Pang
scribbled:
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:59:45 GMT, haes...@hotmail.com.SPAMSHIELD
>(Edward Pang) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:15:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com> scribbled:
>>>BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
>>>'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
>>>
>> Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
>>point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
>
> Don't think so..
I must be thinking the novel. =)
Ben Lesnick
>
> On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:30:18 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> wrote:
>
> >>(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
> >>
> >>easier this way, isn't it? :)
> >
> >explaining in the past.
>
> That explains you postcount...
It's true:P You start the same stupid fight again and again and then
eventually come on IRC and go "Oh, I agree!" and never respond
again...:)
> >> Delance <<
>
> Fix adress for e-mail
--
Delance
wrote:
>> That explains you postcount...
>
>It's true:P You start the same stupid fight again and again and then
>eventually come on IRC and go "Oh, I agree!" and never respond
>again...:)
Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
SX Glory
And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
SX Glory
Realm Of The Privateer
http://www.dsuper.com/~sxglory
"So it was a kingdom was lost - all for the want of a nail."
Delance
>>>It's true:P You start the same stupid fight again and again and then
>>>eventually come on IRC and go "Oh, I agree!" and never respond
>>>again...:)
>>
>>Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
>
>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
Why does it have to prove something? :)
Christopher Reid
<bru...@delaware.infi.net> wrote:
>Christopher Reid wrote:
>> Wow, I came to the exactly identical conclusion before I even read
>> this post. :)
>
>Still doesn't explain how the Kilrathi are keeping up the maintenance on an alien
>fighter so well, but hey... :)
How much damage do you think a fighter is going to incur in orbit of
Kilrah? :)
Christopher Reid
Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
Delance
wrote:
>>>>Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
>>>
>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>>
>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>
> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
So, you've ansered SX's question.
Kris Vanhecke
>On Mon, 03 May 1999 13:09:51 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>> Wow, I was right. I typed the other message in this thread half a
>>minute ago before even reading this one.
>
>Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
>posts...
You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
--
Kris Vanhecke
ICQ #5504559
http://members.tripod.com/vanheckecola/
--
"You, William H. Bonney, are not a god."
"Why don't you pull the trigger and find out?"
Kris Vanhecke
>On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>>>
>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>
>> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
>
>So, you've ansered SX's question.
Yes he has. What's the point of stating the obvious? This is just like that
Megacarrier debate.
MPa5698994
>>On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>>wrote:
>>>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>>>>
>>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>>
>>> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
>>
>>So, you've ansered SX's question.
>
>
>Yes he has. What's the point of stating the obvious? This is just like that
>Megacarrier debate.
More like the Tolywn debate <G>. And NO, this doesn't give anyone to start that
shit again.
>Kris Vanhecke
>ICQ #5504559
>http://members.tripod.com/vanheckecola/
>--
>"You, William H. Bonney, are not a god."
>"Why don't you pull the trigger and find out?"
>
>
Until Next Time,
The Heart of The Tiger
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/chateau/6372/
"Life is like a box of Chocolites: It gets stale after 24 hours, and after your
first peice of it you just wanna spew all over the carpet."
Delance
<Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
>>posts...
>
>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.
Someone could reply to you: "You just don't get it, do you? Your
torpedoes in WC2 won't fire if your target system is destroyed!". So
what? :)
Delance
<Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>>>>
>>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>>
>>> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
>>
>>So, you've ansered SX's question.
>
>Yes he has. What's the point of stating the obvious? This is just like that
>Megacarrier debate.
Considering your message, it almost is...
Christopher Reid
>On Wed, 5 May 1999 14:00:36 +0200, "Kris Vanhecke"
><Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
>>>Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
>>>posts...
>>
>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
>
>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.]
"a large number of posts..."
It's right above..
Kris Vanhecke
>On Wed, 5 May 1999 14:00:36 +0200, "Kris Vanhecke"
><Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
>>>Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
>>>posts...
>>
>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion
posts,
>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
>
>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.
>torpedoes in WC2 won't fire if your target system is destroyed!". So
>what? :)
So this... "Of all people you shouldn't be offended by a large number of
posts". I think you stand corrected again...
--
Locke
> OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
Probably, but Excaliburs were also jump-capable. In the novel, he
actually steals an Excalibur. Anyway, Liberty wasn't in WC3. You fly off
Victory. In WC4, Bean says he flew off the Liberty.
Locke
---
Locke's Workshop!: http://alfong.dragonfire.net/locke
NavPoint!: http://alfong.dragonfire.net/navpoint
Locke's Home Away From Home: http://members.xoom.com/alfong
Locke
> I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> He must really enjoy that ship...
He doesn't say anything if you taunt him, though...
Locke
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
>
> >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> Victory.
> >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
You haven't played the game in a while...
> >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> He did.
No. In the book, yes. In the game, no.
> >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
> T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the
> manuals. The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
Which is funny, since it meant that only a fighter that was not available
and in prototype stages at the beginning of the game had jump
capabilities on Victory...
What happened to Broadswords, CrossBows, and Morningstars? Fine, the
latter two were prototypes, but jump drive is VERY useful...
Locke
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 20:19:10 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> wrote:
> > In the novel he does take an Excal.
> (insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
> easier this way, isn't it? :)
Quite, but then it's a) no challenge, and b) you don't get any of those
2000 posts counted... =\
Locke
> Kefka4Pres wrote:
> > I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> > still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> > He must really enjoy that ship...
> It's a pretty kick-ass ship <G>
Lead-sled. The only redeeming characteristic is that it's turret chews up
fighters... well, only when someone ELSE is piloting... =<
Locke
> Edward Pang wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
> > >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> > Victory.
> > >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> > Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
> > >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> > >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> > He did.
> > >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
> > T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
> > The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
> BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> 'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
Quit using BIKE... otherwise you'll start looking foolish, esp. if you get
proven wrong.
Rachel's friend ran off to a jump point, but it doesn't mean he jumped.
She said that he went out on a patrol and passed a jump point as a bunch
of Kilrathi ships came through (meaning they could've jumped into the
point of space his ship occupied).
Locke
> Kefka4Pres heeft geschreven in bericht
> <19990501171111...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
> >I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> >still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> >He must really enjoy that ship...
> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
> after a decade of Confed service.
That, and probably the fact that Thunderbolts are better than Vakoths and
other Kitty technology... (except Strakhas and Bloodfangs).
Locke
> Ben Lesnick wrote:
> > Edward Pang wrote:
> > > On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
> > > >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> > > Victory.
> > > >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> > > Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
> > > >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> > > >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> > > He did.
> > > >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
> > > T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
> > > The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
> > > "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
> > BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> > 'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
> Uh, not to necessarily dispute the "Thunderbolt can jump" thing (which
> according to the foldout ship thing in the WC3 box isn't true though),
> but as I understand it Rachel's friend ran off to a jumppoint where
> the Kilrathi were coming in and just let them come to him until he
> blew up, as opposed to jumping after Kilrathi.
Correct. Thunderbolts are NOT jump-capable, and Rachel's friend was near
a jump point when the Kilrathi came through.
If Rachel's friend and Blair's girl are together, that'd sound just about
right.
Rachel wouldn't have to kill him when he comes back, since he won't.
Locke
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:14:33 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
> >> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
> >> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
> >> get the t-bolt.
> >He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
> That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
> Makes sense.
Yeah, but the novel has it different from the game... the novel's more
interesting, but you have to remember that the stuff from the game comes
first (otherwise we'd have to say that TPOF takes precedence over WC4,
which would not be correct). This is not to say that little bit of
information here and there aren't the same, but that things that can be
brought over should be.
Locke
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:15:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com> scribbled:
> >Edward Pang wrote:
> >> On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:34:37 GMT, "JKWSN_WeaponX" <ido...@home.com> scribbled:
> >> >OK, Your Hobbes, you just killed someone, and need to leave the Liberty and
> >> Victory.
> >> >get to Kilrahti space quick. So what ship do you use? The Thunder Bolt. It
> >> Thunderbolt? He used an Excalibur.
> >> >goes a whopping 300 kps when an Arrow goes 500. He probably had access to an
> >> >Excalibur as well. The only logical explanation I can think of is that the
> >> He did.
> >> >Thunder bolt is the only Jump-Capable ship around. Any Comments??
> >> T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
> >> The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
> >> "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
> >BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> >'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
> Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
> point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
That'd save us the trouble of having to chase him in a marked inferior
craft... flying a Hellcat vs. a Thunderbolt isn't exactly fun if he gets
his hits in...
Locke
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 20:33:50 GMT, ferde...@usa.next (Delance) wrote:
> >On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:14:33 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> >wrote:
> >>> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
> >>> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
> >>> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
> >>> get the t-bolt.
> >>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
> >That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
> Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
What do you suppose happened to the enabling codes?
Locke
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:59:45 GMT, haes...@hotmail.com.SPAMSHIELD
> (Edward Pang) wrote:
> >On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:15:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com> scribbled:
> >>BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> >>'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
> > Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
> >point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
> Don't think so..
Don't we wish...
Locke
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 11:26:47 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >Kris Vanhecke wrote:
> >> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
> >> after a decade of Confed service.
> >It's probably the only fighter available that he was trained to fly --
> >the only Kilrathi fighter he had ever actually flown was a Dralthi I for
> >a short time in '55...
> Wow, I came to the exactly identical conclusion before I even read
> this post. :)
That's not too spooky. What'd be spooky is if you guys had your watches
synchronized, wore the same type of clothes, had the same thing for lunch,
went out the exact same time to walk the dog, etc. etc.
Karl "CFF" Frank
> That, and probably the fact that Thunderbolts are better than Vakoths and
--
WINDOOF-BEAMTEN-ERROR:
Ihr Vorgang ist in Bearbeitung, bitte verwenden Sie beim nächsten
Systemaufruf Ihre Personalnummer, die wir Ihnen binnen drei Monaten
zuteilen.
Locke
> On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:30:18 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> wrote:
> >>(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
> >>easier this way, isn't it? :)
> > Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
> >explaining in the past.
> That explains you postcount...
Esp. since he replies to practically everything, sometimes replying
simply stating that he is in agreement... =\
Edward Pang
>On Sun, 2 May 1999, Edward Pang wrote:
>
>> >> T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
>> >> The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
>> >> "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
>> >BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
>> >'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
>> Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
>> point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
>
>That'd save us the trouble of having to chase him in a marked inferior
>craft... flying a Hellcat vs. a Thunderbolt isn't exactly fun if he gets
>his hits in...
I meant Rachel's friend. =)
Delance
<Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion
>posts,
>>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
>>
>>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.
>>Someone could reply to you: "You just don't get it, do you? Your
>>torpedoes in WC2 won't fire if your target system is destroyed!". So
>>what? :)
>
>So this... "Of all people you shouldn't be offended by a large number of
>posts". I think you stand corrected again...
I mantain every word of that. I don't think he should be offended by
having a large number of posts. I did not said it was wrong, or that
they didn't had quality, acutally you mentioned those items. If you
think it is, that's your problem.
Delance
wrote:
>>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
>>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
>>
>>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.]
>
>"a large number of posts..."
>
> It's right above..
And when did I said it was a bad thing, or that they did not had
quality? "A large number of posts" is simply a fact, just check
www.wcnews.com, there's a postcount there. :)
Delance
>> (insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
>> easier this way, isn't it? :)
>
>Quite, but then it's a) no challenge, and b) you don't get any of those
>2000 posts counted... =\
But I don't have to spend hours on stupid and useless debates. A good
trade! :)
Mike Bruner
Locke wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 1999, Christopher Reid wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 02 May 1999 20:33:50 GMT, ferde...@usa.next (Delance) wrote:
> > >On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:14:33 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >>> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
> > >>> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
> > >>> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
> > >>> get the t-bolt.
> > >>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
> > >That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
> > Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
>
> What do you suppose happened to the enabling codes?
Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides for
that.
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Ignorance killed the cat- curiosity was framed."
KnghtoNee9
>for
>that.
>
If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron? there were three on
the Victory. I think he was a Major, or some such.
Beware the power of the signature! Your friend, Doc
SX Glory
>On Tue, 04 May 1999 17:02:21 GMT, sxg...@yahoo.com (SX Glory) wrote:
>
>>>>It's true:P You start the same stupid fight again and again and then
>>>>eventually come on IRC and go "Oh, I agree!" and never respond
>>>>again...:)
>>>
>>>Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
>>
>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>
>Why does it have to prove something? :)
Then why comment on something unless it can't prove anything?
SX Glory
Realm Of The Privateer
http://www.dsuper.com/~sxglory
"So it was a kingdom was lost - all for the want of a nail."
SX Glory
>On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>
>>>>>Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
>>>>
>>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
>>>
>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>
>> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
>
>So, you've ansered SX's question.
Damn, he read my mind again. That's it, I'm gonna wrap aluminum foil
around my head so that Reid can't pick up anymore of my thoughts!!!
Christopher Reid
>What happened to Broadswords, CrossBows, and Morningstars? Fine, the
>latter two were prototypes, but jump drive is VERY useful...
You can see the trend there. Broadswords, Crossbows then
Morningstars. At the beginning only the biggest hulks had jump engines
and WC3 isn't all that far from SO2.
Christopher Reid
>On Sat, 1 May 1999, Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
>
>> Kefka4Pres wrote:
>> > I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
>> > still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
>> > He must really enjoy that ship...
>> It's a pretty kick-ass ship <G>
>
>Lead-sled.
It's not really that much less maneuverable than the Hellcat (or
Dragon therefore).
>The only redeeming characteristic is that it's turret chews up
>fighters... well, only when someone ELSE is piloting... =<
And the torpedo for when you run into a capship, and the big guns up
front..
Christopher Reid
>On Sun, 2 May 1999, Ben Lesnick wrote:
>> BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
>> 'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
>
>Quit using BIKE... otherwise you'll start looking foolish, esp. if you get
>proven wrong.
If that were to actually happen, it'd look less silly than trying to
fret out people's problems that have been solved for a week. :)
Christopher Reid
>On Mon, 3 May 1999, Delance wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:30:18 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>> wrote:
>> >>(insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
>> >>easier this way, isn't it? :)
>> > Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
>> >explaining in the past.
>> That explains you postcount...
>
>Esp. since he replies to practically everything, sometimes replying
>simply stating that he is in agreement... =\
Hehehehe, look who's talking? When you post, you post twice as much
as me!
Christopher Reid
>On Thu, 6 May 1999 07:33:49 +0200, "Kris Vanhecke"
><Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
>>>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion
>>posts,
>>>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
>>>
>>>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.
>>>Someone could reply to you: "You just don't get it, do you? Your
>>>torpedoes in WC2 won't fire if your target system is destroyed!". So
>>>what? :)
>>
>>So this... "Of all people you shouldn't be offended by a large number of
>>posts". I think you stand corrected again...
>
>I mantain every word of that. I don't think he should be offended by
>having a large number of posts. I did not said it was wrong, or that
>they didn't had quality, acutally you mentioned those items. If you
>think it is, that's your problem.
Think before you post. :) Where the hell are you going with your
post? What's it's point? Think about what Karl's point is. You say
you didn't mention posts. He shows you where he did. How can you start
insinuating he has a problem from that?
Christopher Reid
>>Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
>>for hat.
>
>If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron?
There was prejudice against him and Blair didn't originally want him
just hanging out (and therefore put him in the squadron he was directly
commanding (Gold Squadron).
> there were three on the Victory.
Four.. Arrows, Hellcats, Thunderbolts and Longbows.. The Longbows got
switched out for an extra Hellcat Squadron near the end I believe.
> I think he was a Major, or some such.
Nope, Colonel.
Delance
>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>
>Then why comment on something unless it can't prove anything?
Well, you just did, so your point is void. :)
Delance
wrote:
>>>Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
>>>for hat.
>>
>>If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron?
>
> There was prejudice against him
Speaking of that, how came Eisein made him "second in command" with
all that prejudice? :)
Delance
>>So, you've ansered SX's question.
>
>Damn, he read my mind again. That's it, I'm gonna wrap aluminum foil
>around my head so that Reid can't pick up anymore of my thoughts!!!
You could try a marsec mind shield, but it didn't make it into the
game.
Delance
wrote:
>>I mantain every word of that. I don't think he should be offended by
>>having a large number of posts. I did not said it was wrong, or that
>>they didn't had quality, acutally you mentioned those items. If you
>>think it is, that's your problem.
>
> Think before you post. :)
The same goes to everyone on this group! :)
>Where the hell are you going with your
>post? What's it's point?
If you don't know the point, you can't invent one to suite your
anti-delance fantasies. :)
> Think about what Karl's point is.
If he didn't, why should I? :)
>You say
>you didn't mention posts.
No, I said I didn't mentioned the posts "not having quality", he made
that up. :)
>He shows you where he did.
Where I did mention posts, what I did, so there's no point in that. :)
>How can you start
>insinuating he has a problem from that?
He wanted me to stand correct from the affirmation that you should not
be ashamed to have a larger number of posts. If you took conclusions
for that, don't blame them on me. :)
SX Glory
>On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:39:37 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>
>>>I mantain every word of that. I don't think he should be offended by
>>>having a large number of posts. I did not said it was wrong, or that
>>>they didn't had quality, acutally you mentioned those items. If you
>>>think it is, that's your problem.
>>
>> Think before you post. :)
>
>The same goes to everyone on this group! :)
It already does ;)
>>Where the hell are you going with your
>>post? What's it's point?
>
>If you don't know the point, you can't invent one to suite your
>anti-delance fantasies. :)
Such a thing does not exist.
>> Think about what Karl's point is.
>
>If he didn't, why should I? :)
So if Karl jumped off a bridge...
>>You say
>>you didn't mention posts.
>
>No, I said I didn't mentioned the posts "not having quality", he made
>that up. :)
tsk tsk
>>He shows you where he did.
>
>Where I did mention posts, what I did, so there's no point in that. :)
There's a point somewhere.
>>How can you start
>>insinuating he has a problem from that?
>
>He wanted me to stand correct from the affirmation that you should not
>be ashamed to have a larger number of posts. If you took conclusions
>for that, don't blame them on me. :)
Aww, c'mon, where's the fun in doing that?
SX Glory
>On Fri, 07 May 1999 04:00:22 GMT, sxg...@yahoo.com (SX Glory) wrote:
>
>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>
>>Then why comment on something unless it can't prove anything?
>
>Well, you just did, so your point is void. :)
I posed a question, which you avoided. Therefore it stands to reason,
that you are trying to swim while wearing lead boots.
Locke
> On Mon, 03 May 1999 03:06:27 GMT, ferde...@usa.next (Delance) wrote:
> >On Mon, 03 May 1999 01:30:18 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> >wrote:
> >> Unnecessary. There's no debate. As I've probably spent 2000 posts
> >>explaining in the past.
> >That explains you postcount...
> Wow, I was right. I typed the other message in this thread half a
> minute ago before even reading this one.
That, and the fact that most of the regulars around here reply too, adding
their two cents and making the thread pretty long... =\
Delance
>>> Think before you post. :)
>>
>>The same goes to everyone on this group! :)
>
>It already does ;)
The entire group thinks? As one? You've either been watching too much
B5 or playing too much SMAC. :)
>>>Where the hell are you going with your
>>>post? What's it's point?
>>
>>If you don't know the point, you can't invent one to suite your
>>anti-delance fantasies. :)
>
>Such a thing does not exist.
Wow, now you read minds too. Same as above! :)
>>> Think about what Karl's point is.
>>
>>If he didn't, why should I? :)
>
>So if Karl jumped off a bridge...
Hehe, if he didn't think about his point, there's no point, so I can't
really think about it. That's the point, so think about it. :)
>>>You say
>>>you didn't mention posts.
>>
>>No, I said I didn't mentioned the posts "not having quality", he made
>>that up. :)
>
>tsk tsk
Yeah, making up is bad.
>>>He shows you where he did.
>>
>>Where I did mention posts, what I did, so there's no point in that. :)
>
>There's a point somewhere.
If you don't know the point, you can't invent one to suite your
anti-delance fantasies. :)
>>>How can you start
>>>insinuating he has a problem from that?
>>
>>He wanted me to stand correct from the affirmation that you should not
>>be ashamed to have a larger number of posts. If you took conclusions
>>for that, don't blame them on me. :)
>
>Aww, c'mon, where's the fun in doing that?
Well, I don't care.
Delance
>>>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
>>>
>>>Then why comment on something unless it can't prove anything?
>>
>>Well, you just did, so your point is void. :)
>
>I posed a question, which you avoided. Therefore it stands to reason,
>that you are trying to swim while wearing lead boots.
I'm not trying to do that, only canadian mounted police does this kind
of thing.
Locke
> Christopher Reid wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >Kris Vanhecke wrote:
> > >> He probably kept flying his Confed ship because he had gotten so used to it
> > >> after a decade of Confed service.
> > >It's probably the only fighter available that he was trained to fly --
> > >the only Kilrathi fighter he had ever actually flown was a Dralthi I for
> > >a short time in '55...
> > Wow, I came to the exactly identical conclusion before I even read
> > this post. :)
> Still doesn't explain how the Kilrathi are keeping up the maintenance on an alien
> fighter so well, but hey... :)
Funny you should say that, since Melek had Blair's messed up Thunderbolt
serviced and fixed on his ship in TPOF...
Locke
> On Tue, 04 May 1999 10:18:43 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> >> That explains you postcount...
> >It's true:P You start the same stupid fight again and again and then
> >eventually come on IRC and go "Oh, I agree!" and never respond
> >again...:)
> Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
They don't have to. They say something, and insist it's right, and if
the general consensus does not share that sentiment, it's their
STUBBORNESS that starts the fight.
Mike Bruner
Delance wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:43:42 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> wrote:
>
> >>>Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
> >>>for hat.
> >>
> >>If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron?
> >
> > There was prejudice against him
>
> Speaking of that, how came Eisein made him "second in command" with
> all that prejudice? :)
Eisen was captain, AKA "God of the Victory". If he said something, it happened,
period. He undoubtably chose Hobbes for his XO because if Hobbes did not fly it was
probably the only position on board suited to his rank (not to mention Hobbes's
knowledge of Kilrathi tactics and psychology being valuable to the captain).
Locke
> Delance heeft geschreven in bericht <372f9a43...@news.newsguy.com>...
> >On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> >wrote:
> >>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
> >>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
> >> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
> >So, you've ansered SX's question.
> Yes he has. What's the point of stating the obvious? This is just like that
> Megacarrier debate.
Considering the actual 'meat' his been snipped, there's not much to reply
to... (thus, no point in continuing the thread... =\
Jeffrey MacHott
says...
>
>
>
>Delance wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:43:42 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed
overrides
>> >>>for hat.
>> >>
>> >>If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron?
>> >
>> > There was prejudice against him
>>
>> Speaking of that, how came Eisein made him "second in command" with
>> all that prejudice? :)
>
>Eisen was captain, AKA "God of the Victory". If he said something, it
happened,
>period. He undoubtably chose Hobbes for his XO because if Hobbes did not fly
it was
>probably the only position on board suited to his rank (not to mention
Hobbes's
>knowledge of Kilrathi tactics and psychology being valuable to the captain).
>
Anyways, William allways struck me as the kind of guy who didn't care for that
kind of polotics
Delance
>They don't have to. They say something, and insist it's right, and if
>the general consensus does not share that sentiment, it's their
>STUBBORNESS that starts the fight.
Sutbborness? Why did you started being nice now? :)
Christopher Reid
>On Fri, 07 May 1999 12:43:42 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
>wrote:
>
>>>>Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
>>>>for hat.
>>>
>>>If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron?
>>
>> There was prejudice against him
>
>Speaking of that, how came Eisein made him "second in command" with
>all that prejudice? :)
The prejudice I was talking about layed mainly with the pilots. This
is basic stuff Delance, go read WC3 again. :)
Locke
> On Wed, 5 May 1999 14:00:36 +0200, "Kris Vanhecke"
> <Kris.V...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
> >>Of all people, you should not be offended by a large number of
> >>posts...
> >You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
> >it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
> Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.
> Someone could reply to you: "You just don't get it, do you? Your
> torpedoes in WC2 won't fire if your target system is destroyed!". So
> what? :)
A mix is better. One high-quality post isn't likely to be read by
everyone, but billions of one-line replies aren't exactly fantastic
either.
However, sometimes it simply takes one line to reply. It depends on the
situation. Consider what would happen if everyone was extremely
verbose... it'd take decades to read all the messages (or
speed-reading skills... =\
Locke
> Locke wrote:
> > That, and probably the fact that Thunderbolts are better than Vakoths and
> Not according to the WC3 manual...
According to the manual, he says... don't you fly?
Mike Bruner
Locke wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 1999, Kris Vanhecke wrote:
>
> > Delance heeft geschreven in bericht <372f9a43...@news.newsguy.com>...
> > >On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> > >wrote:
> > >>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
> > >>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
> > >> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
> > >So, you've ansered SX's question.
> > Yes he has. What's the point of stating the obvious? This is just like that
> > Megacarrier debate.
>
> Considering the actual 'meat' his been snipped, there's not much to reply
> to... (thus, no point in continuing the thread... =\
Hah, that's never stopped us before! :)
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"The trouble with being an adult is that it takes up so much of your time".
Locke
> On Thu, 6 May 1999 04:33:21 -0400, Locke <apf...@yahoo.com> scribbled:
> >On Sun, 2 May 1999, Edward Pang wrote:
> >> >> T-Bolt isn't jump-capable in WC3 time. It's stated in the manuals.
> >> >> The Excalibur, on the other hand.. was.
> >> >> "High explosives are applicable where truth and logic fail."
> >> >BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> >> >'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
> >> Wait, didn't he hop into an Arrow and hit the jump
> >> point just as the Kilrathi were jumping in? ;)
> >That'd save us the trouble of having to chase him in a marked inferior
> >craft... flying a Hellcat vs. a Thunderbolt isn't exactly fun if he gets
> >his hits in...
> I meant Rachel's friend. =)
Must've replied to this thread more than once, since I don't see what I
wrote about that before... something doesn't quite look right...
I wrote before that Rachel said that the guy she liked took out a fighter
on a PATROL (not run to the jump point), and as he passed by the jump
point, the Kilrathi fleet was coming through (meaning they could've
literally 'jumped' inside his jump, and you know what that means... =\.
In any case, the thread was talking about Hobbes escaping...
Locke
> On Thu, 06 May 1999 04:29:37 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> wrote:
> >>>You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you have 5 billion posts,
> >>>it's the contents that matters. Quality over quantity.
> >>Yeah, big deal, considering I didn't said anything about this matter.]
> >"a large number of posts..."
> > It's right above..
> And when did I said it was a bad thing, or that they did not had
> quality? "A large number of posts" is simply a fact, just check
> www.wcnews.com, there's a postcount there. :)
Yeah. I've got ~800 posts on CIC CZ... =\
Locke
> On Thu, 6 May 1999 03:16:19 -0400, Locke <apf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> (insert game vs novel debate here valid for 2000 posts thread)
> >> easier this way, isn't it? :)
> >Quite, but then it's a) no challenge, and b) you don't get any of those
> >2000 posts counted... =\
> But I don't have to spend hours on stupid and useless debates. A good
> trade! :)
While the rest of us get sucked in...=\ Quite true...
Locke
> Locke wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 May 1999, Christopher Reid wrote:
> > > On Sun, 02 May 1999 20:33:50 GMT, ferde...@usa.next (Delance) wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 02 May 1999 04:14:33 -0400, Ben Lesnick <bles...@erols.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>> Maybe he got the closest ship possible because there were confed
> > > >>> marines with assault rifles closing in to kill him. Or maybe if he was
> > > >>> on a faster ship Blair could not intercept him, so the plot made him
> > > >>> get the t-bolt.
> > > >>He took the ship that was prepped for Cobra's patrol...
> > > >That fits to "closest ship possible", right? :)
> > > Closest ship possible that was loaded up and prepped to fly.
> > What do you suppose happened to the enabling codes?
> Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides for
> that.
I guess. It WAS convenient that he was a Colonel, since if he wasn't, he
probably wouldn't gotten quite so much information... (read HOTT. It's
described in more detail).
Locke
> >Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
> >for that.
> If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron? there were three on
> the Victory. I think he was a Major, or some such.
Nope. He was a Colonel. If you want proof from the game, lose the game
and get Hobbes killed. His rank is there.
Then again, Blair calls Flash a Major, but the docs say he's a 1st
Lieutenant...
Christopher Reid
>On 6 May 1999, KnghtoNee9 wrote:
>
>> >Hobbes was a colonel (lt. colonel, right?); I imagine he possessed overrides
>> >for that.
>> If he was a Colonel, why didn't he have his own squadron? there were three on
>> the Victory. I think he was a Major, or some such.
>
>Nope. He was a Colonel. If you want proof from the game, lose the game
>and get Hobbes killed. His rank is there.
>
>Then again, Blair calls Flash a Major, but the docs say he's a 1st
>Lieutenant...
I believe the credits and novel support Major. His family was
powerful, so he probably got bumped up a bunch since the article where
he was interviewed was conducted. :)
Locke
> On Wed, 05 May 1999 01:09:55 GMT, ferde...@usa.next (Delance) wrote:
> >On Wed, 05 May 1999 00:17:32 GMT, CRei...@aol.com (Christopher Reid)
> >wrote:
> >>>>>Hehe, you and Chris never pick fights.. sure..
> >>>>And if they did, it would prove what exactly?
> >>>Why does it have to prove something? :)
> >> Because then it would make your original posts make sense..
> >So, you've ansered SX's question.
> Damn, he read my mind again. That's it, I'm gonna wrap aluminum foil
> around my head so that Reid can't pick up anymore of my thoughts!!!
Does that mean ChrisReid is one of those little green men from Mars? =\
<g>
Locke
> On Thu, 6 May 1999 03:14:44 -0400, Locke <apf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What happened to Broadswords, CrossBows, and Morningstars? Fine, the
> >latter two were prototypes, but jump drive is VERY useful...
> You can see the trend there. Broadswords, Crossbows then
> Morningstars. At the beginning only the biggest hulks had jump engines
> and WC3 isn't all that far from SO2.
Well, the part that you snipped off sorta implies that Victory has NO JUMP
CAPABLE FIGHTERS! Does that not strike you as... well.. BAD?!
Locke
> On Thu, 6 May 1999 03:37:10 -0400, Locke <apf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 1 May 1999, Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
> >> Kefka4Pres wrote:
> >> > I find extremely humorous that when you meet Hobbes again near Kilrah, he's
> >> > still in the cockpit of the Thunderbolt!
> >> > He must really enjoy that ship...
> >> It's a pretty kick-ass ship <G>
> >Lead-sled.
> It's not really that much less maneuverable than the Hellcat (or
> Dragon therefore).
Ha ha... how come Pliers had to tweak Blair's Thunderbolt in TPOF?
It's quite obvious that the Thunderbolt is far less graceful and
maneuverable than the Hellcat.
> >The only redeeming characteristic is that it's turret chews up
> >fighters... well, only when someone ELSE is piloting... =<
> And the torpedo for when you run into a capship, and the big guns up
> front..
Well, those too, but I think the Excalibur can take care of capship just
as easily without a torpedo. As for the big guns, well, it's not much
good if the target doesn't bother flying anywhere near the front... =\
Locke
> On Thu, 6 May 1999 03:45:42 -0400, Locke <apf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 2 May 1999, Ben Lesnick wrote:
> >> BIKE, the T-Bolt *was* jump capable during WC3 -- Rachel's previous
> >> 'friend' went crazy and ran off to a jump point with one...:)
> >Quit using BIKE... otherwise you'll start looking foolish, esp. if you get
> >proven wrong.
> If that were to actually happen, it'd look less silly than trying to
> fret out people's problems that have been solved for a week. :)
I don't think so... besides, better late than never... =\