Most hated unit

[General Leang 0]

What do you think is the most hated unit in all the Command & Conquer games? For me, the contenders would be the Terror Drones and Gattling Tanks in RA2 and USA rocket infantry, Suicide Bombers and Rocket Buggies in Generals.

[Luk3us 63]

Terror drones rock. The worst units were the artillary piece for RA. The Harpy from TS, the Chaos drone from YR.

[General Leang 0]

The Chaos Drones are hell when they infect your units.

[Luk3us 63]

I never saw those things used when I played online.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

There isn't a bad unit in any game. They're all useful in different scenarios but the least used would be the Chaos Drone in YR.

[BWare 0]

the USA rocket soldiers can be a BITCH in Generals, and the rocket buggies, firing just out of your defensive range are incredibly annoying as well... but the terror drones have to be my pick for the most annoying. I just hate having to force-fire on my own tanks to kill them, watching them rock back and forth... all the while ignoring something much more important going on. ugh.

 

What do you think is so annoying about the gat tank in RA2, Leang?

[General Leang 0]

Not the most useless ones, the ones that irk you the most. Like, for example, the USA rocket soldiers. How they are very jingoistic and such, they would get some noses for sure.

[General Leang 0]

What do you think is so annoying about the gat tank in RA2, Leang?

 

The anti air and anti infantry part of them. Plus the cannons are stronger than most defensive structures. Thankfully they can be taken out...Prism Tanks or Magnatrons do the job nicely. No such luck for the Soviets though. Best bet would be Siege Cannons if you can get them within range without being attacked.

 

The Buggies are quite annoying, and units like Suicide Bombers (Israel) and Hijackers; surely everyone knows why they are hateable, are bad. But I just cannot help but think of the USA rocket soldiers when I hear anti American sentimism or what evils troops in Iraq are meant to be up to.

[General immeyourenot 0]

Terror Drones are the most annoying *shudder*

I've used a played aginst chaos drones & they are evil though.

In generals the overlord is the most annoying because everyone rushes in 30 of them which they think can't be beat until you drive bomb trucks in :wink: .

 

But the most annoying things have to be the A-10 bombers in C&C95 & the anthrax bomb in generals - i mean you cant build anything because it will get blown to bits straight away.

[Thierry 0]

I'll go for the Aurora Alpha when controlled by the enemy

[BWare 0]

But I just cannot help but think of the USA rocket soldiers when I hear anti American sentimism or what evils troops in Iraq are meant to be up to.

Wow. You would actually call the troops evil after they have liberated 25 million people, and especially when compared to Sadam's regime? I assume you are referring to the overblown Abu Ghraib nonsense. I agree that such tactics should not be used, but those were TERRORISTS- not people with parking tickets. They were the evil, torturing, raping murderers. Plus, they got to keep all their limbs. For heaven's sake... don't let such a small hiccup in the war on terror skew your view of reality like it has WAY too many people out there.

 

Back on topic... yeah, those gat tanks could sure be annoying.

[Hans5849 0]

They were the evil, torturing, raping murderers. Plus, they got to keep all their limbs.

 

don't forget they got to keep their heads

[General Leang 0]

Well, my take on what people like Michael Moore say about Iraq is that they are hell bent to rid the world of Bush and probably America, and their hatred means they go to any length to achieve that goal. It would not be impossible in my view that they might even attempt foul play. But that is drifting off topic. The jingoistic quotes from the American rocket soldiers remind me of the reports of atrocities from people like Moore, even if they are inaccurate, and if any unit makes the USA side in Generals look bad it would be these guys. In a way I find it a bold stroke for EA to give America a bit of a pasting, from the rocket soldiers to playing on the all about the oil claims by having one mission centre around capturing oil and how the generals spit it when you take oil derricks.

[BWare 0]

don't forget they got to keep their heads

oh yeah, good point. That is pretty important. You know, keeping your head and all...

 

Well, my take on what people like Michael Moore say about Iraq is that they are hell bent to rid the world of Bush and probably America, and their hatred means they go to any length to achieve that goal. It would not be impossible in my view that they might even attempt foul play. But that is drifting off topic. The jingoistic quotes from the American rocket soldiers remind me of the reports of atrocities from people like Moore, even if they are inaccurate, and if any unit makes the USA side in Generals look bad it would be these guys. In a way I find it a bold stroke for EA to give America a bit of a pasting, from the rocket soldiers to playing on the all about the oil claims by having one mission centre around capturing oil and how the generals spit it when you take oil derricks.

 

...I'm a bit confused here. Do you believe what Michael Moore says? I seriously am unsure of what you are meaning to say. Let me clear the air here though: Michael Moore is a big fat lying idiot. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a fallacy. Do yourself a favor and disregard everything that horrible human being has to say.

 

I will agree with you that a LOT of what EA put into Generals was distasteful. It was, after all, a quick, thoughtless grab for cash (though fun to play :wink: )

[General Leang 0]

Michael Moore has the freedom to say what he likes. With that said, I have a right to express my opinion of him as well. So here it is. By second guessing the many experts working for Bush he thinks he is a lot cleverer than he actually is. In reality he passes off staged material as fact, he routinely takes advantage of people and situations in callous and insensitive ways and some of the things he says are deplorable. Personally anyone who says that more people should have died on 9/11; like Michael Moore did when he said it was a shame that not many Bush supporters were killed, is a vile, hateful man who is deserving of words that cannot be printed here.

[BWare 0]

Michael Moore has the freedom to say what he likes. With that said, I have a right to express my opinion of him as well. So here it is. By second guessing the many experts working for Bush he thinks he is a lot cleverer than he actually is. In reality he passes off staged material as fact, he routinely takes advantage of people and situations in callous and insensitive ways and some of the things he says are deplorable. Personally anyone who says that more people should have died on 9/11; like Michael Moore did when he said it was a shame that not many Bush supporters were killed, is a vile, hateful man who is deserving of words that cannot be printed here.

oh ok... well said . I couldn't agree more. For a second there I thought you were supporting the guy

[General Leang 0]

Not bloody likely. I would keep going if I saw him in the middle of the street. To give support to the Iraqi insurgents; people who routinely kill innocent Iraqis and have beheaded people like Nick Berg and Margaret Hassan, is inexcuseable. If he truely wants no war would he be saying such things?

[chickendippers 1]

*cough*Back on topic*cough*

I think that the Robot Tank is the most annoying unit, simply because they hover around in a stupid way. They float their stupid asses upto my Dreadnaughts and destroy them :@

[General immeyourenot 0]

No country has a right to say, you aren't allowed such & such in your country, what George Bush & his lapdog Blair did goes against everything.

 

Who the hell are America to say that Iraq can't have a couple of long range missiles when it has 1,200 nukes!

[Cygnus X-1 12]

The Americans dont go around gasing and killing their own people. The nukes are for killing the big countries after they nuke others. Iraq had Scuds and chemical weapons. Its not that had to put the two together, then you have long range bio-weapons. Then every one (well, maybe not France :roll: ) would have gone to war with Iraq. Too many people focus on the wrong subject here. What about North Korea threatening to use their nuclear weapons if anyone gets in their way? What about India and Pakistans hatred for each other, and the threats of unholy genicide btween the two?

 

Back to topic, I think any suicide unit is annoying when being used against you. Terror drones and squids are especially annoying, because you have to kill your own units to get rid of them. Also, the Nod artillery in FS are sooo annoying, because they were really good in TS, and then after technological improvements, they suck.

[BWare 0]

Sorry about drifing off subject, but...

No country has a right to say, you aren't allowed such & such in your country, what George Bush & his lapdog Blair did goes against everything.

 

Who the hell are America to say that Iraq can't have a couple of long range missiles when it has 1,200 nukes!

Yes, actully, GOOD countries do have the right to tell BAD countries what weapons they can and can't have. We have 1200 nukes because we keep the peace. With a steady hand we keep the psychotic nations like Iraq in check. Iraq WOULD USE their long range weapons against Israel. We have never unnecessarily nuked a country (only twice in our successful effort to end a bloody war in WWII, effectively saving millions of lives). I CAN NOT BELIEVE that you are actually stupid enough to draw a moral equivalency between America and Iraq. That really speaks volumes about your own intelligence :roll:. Oh, and Blair is no lap dog. He is a great man and a strong leader.

 

 

good points Cygnus. You know about the Oil for Food scandal, right? That really sheds light on why the corrupt UN Security Council was so slow to back America (especially France :wink:)

 

...I'm glad we see eye to eye on Moore, Leang :wink:

[Cygnus X-1 12]

And the two nukes used against japan actually caused less death and destruction than the fire bombings (that's with napalm, for those of you who arent into pyrotechnics. Not that any of you arent :wink: ) on German cities and especially Japanese cities. Their paper buildings hardly needed napalm to set them off., and the cities were so crowded.

 

BTW, and invasion of Japan would have cost an estimated 3million casualties+ for both sides combined. Compare to 80,000 deaths from a WWII vintage A-Bomb.

[General Leang 0]

I think weapons of mass destruction was a poor reason to go to war on Iraq. Everyone knows that America has nukes up the ying yang, and the lack of evidence has everyone taking Bush to task on Iraq.. I would have been happy if they just said that they wanted to take out Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people.

[General immeyourenot 0]

Sorry about drifing off subject, but...

Yes, actully, GOOD countries do have the right to tell BAD countries what weapons they can and can't have. We have 1200 nukes because we keep the peace. With a steady hand we keep the psychotic nations like Iraq in check. Iraq WOULD USE their long range weapons against Israel. We have never unnecessarily nuked a country (only twice in our successful effort to end a bloody war in WWII, effectively saving millions of lives). I CAN NOT BELIEVE that you are actually stupid enough to draw a moral equivalency between America and Iraq. That really speaks volumes about your own intelligence :roll:. Oh, and Blair is no lap dog. He is a great man and a strong leader.

 

I would not object to the war against Iraq had they made any significant move of aggresion, ie war, bombs etc, but there was no such thing. No country has the right to attack another country, no-one unless in defence of others! It is just Americas stuck up sense of self superiority that makes them thing they have the right, well they have NO right to do it. Does a man hit another man in the street because he threatened another man? If he did he would be arrested! Iraq had done some "bad" stuff, yes, but only a modicum. Just enough for another crap american excuse to go in, raid & country & install their own puppet government. They interfere when they should not.

 

As far as I see it, & i could muster up a few million people to back me up on this one America were in the wrong just as much as Iraq, they are both as bad as each other. No civilized country would have got involved, & us Brits all resent the puppet Blair for dragging us down to that level.

 

However I do not go against them obliterating Hiroshima & Nagasaki, because that was a war, a proper war, where lives were at stake, real lives, not just made up statistics.

 

As for Blair being a "great" man, you obviously have poor sources. Blair has ruined England, everything it once stood for is dying. For example, we have an emergency powers act which allows a law from the house of commons to pass without vote in the house of lords, for times of EMERGENCY, it has only been used in war situations & then it was 2 times for good causes. In Blairs government he has used it 3 times in 10years, & for what, to stop the bloody foxhunting! He is completely undermining the house of lords! Having a lordship myself I find this ridiculous. Also he is constantly taxing those who earn their money fairly, to give benefits so that some lazy slob with no job can go & by crack! What good has he done for this country? None!

 

Perhaps you would care to examine the sources, judging from the quality of your remarks you are going to need it. Of course, its in your nature to support your misbegotten causes.

[Luk3us 63]

Yes, actully, GOOD countries do have the right to tell BAD countries what weapons they can and can't have.

 

And who decides whos good and bad? Its all depends on what side you're on. Its not as clear cut as good vs bad. :wink: