New Deadliest Warrior

The problem with that logic, is you wouldn't pit Alexander the great and Attila the Hun with only 3 GUYS backing them up.

They were commanders of ARMYS, you can't translate the same strategies you can with a large army. Attila's mounted archers versus Alexander's pointed cavalry charges would be an interest contest, as both relied heavily on cavalry and lead from the front.

Reducing it to three guys per side, one of them has a one shot ballista can't makes the test redundant.

You had Jesse James beating Al Capone? Al Capone had the fucking tommy gun god damnit!

Anyways, what's everyone's opinion on the upcoming video game? It looks like a fighter. I'm concerned with the whole "15-30 second" matches though.

A cheap knock off piece of shit that no will buy after the first wave of reviews.

Vigil wrote:A cheap knock off piece of shit that no will buy after the first wave of reviews.

My problem is my brothers have a knack of buying the games I hate. So I'll probably end up having it anyways

The game could be great. But it looks like a piece of shit game they just threw together.

Nazi's beat Viet Cong. Only ONE weapon of the viet cong beat the nazi's weapon. All the other ranges went to Nazi Waffen SS. 3-2 for picks now. Oh well.

Fuck this shit. The Viet Cong weren't even given their conventional weaponary and same with the Waffen-SS. What a fucking shame.

Updated.

I know. Kyle we need to start a revolution to take over the gov't of Canada. Then bargain with the U.N. to give back Canada if they give us full control of Spike which in turn we would control deadliest warrior and change the fomat back to good. Viva Revolution!

I say just nuke Spike into the ground.

Vigil we want deadliest warrior but we want it to be better. Nuking it would cause the U.N. to declare war on TCF and since we didn't take ove canada we have no good guns.

I think destroying Spike would be seen as an act for the benefit of the entire human race.

Hell we'd probably get the Nobel peace prize for it.

Possibly, but still we can improve on DW. It has potential.

I was vouching for the Viet Cong. Like I said earlier, neither side was given weapons they used for the most part.

Some people may say that the Waffen-SS were highly trained soldiers and the Viet Cong were just civilians with weapons, one must look into more depth than this show clearly goes.

The Waffen-SS soldiers may be highly elite soldiers, but they used the conventional strategy of blitzkrieg which only worked correctly on a large, open field. The Nazi's in general had problems throughout their empire with resistance forces. They destroyed enemy conveys, killed enemy troops, etc.

One then can look at the Viet Cong as these "Resistance Forces". They adapted to all the terrain and changes the Nazi's threw out, so the Viet Cong could do this as well.

Now, going back to the Blitzkrieg warfare area, this required the use of air forces and armor in unison with the infantry. The effects were really hampered when met with confined quarters, like a city. A city is a great place for a partisan or a resistance fighter. The Waffen-SS were not trained to deal with insurections but with a conventional military force. Not until later were they used as a "police" force, but they were soldiers in a law-makers position.

Now, we can also see that the Viet Cong use Guerrilla warfare. This was used throughout history. We can also see that Guerrilla warfare was very good against a well-trained military force (British Army) during the Revolutionary War as an example. On an open battlefield, they may not be as good. But they use the terrain, like any good fighter that uses this type of warfare.

The weapons are outragously picked in this match-up. The Waffen-SS should have the following:
Close-Range: Luger P08 Pistol
Mid-Range: StG 44
Long-Range: Karabiner 98k
Special Weapons: Flammenwerfer 35

Viet Cong should have this:
Close-Range: Tokarev TT-33
Mid-Range: AKM Assault Rifle
Long-Range: SVD-63 Dragonov
Special Weapons: Bamboo-Wall

I think this would be more accurate.

:FuckYou: Kyle you could of said that in a WAY smaller post. But I agree with your opinion. Nuke Canada. Or take it over preferably.