vehicle mounted weapons.

[Matt.]

Steve, you did not understand my very useful insight to this thread. A launcher would OBVIOUSLY not work. I guess I thought you would just assume that...

The balloons would be thrown, and would be a short-engagement strategy. Also, my post is very relevant to the previous posts. They are talking about ways to eliminate a vehicle safely and effectively. I have added to that. If you are bothered by my "pointless" post, then f**k off.

(Is EVERYONE a douchebag here?)

[Mini-Marine]

(Is EVERYONE a douchebag here?)

Yes and we take pride in it.

Anyways the discussion was clearly regarding launched/fired weapons not thrown.

The other problem with using water balloons, other than the fact that they don't look particularly realistic/tacticool, is that it would only work in a completely dry environment. If you're playing in the rain, or waded through a creek, or got hit with a grenade already...how do you tell if its new wetness or something that was already there?

[Steve]

Steve, you did not understand my very useful insight to this thread. A launcher would OBVIOUSLY not work. I guess I thought you would just assume that...

The balloons would be thrown, and would be a short-engagement strategy. Also, my post is very relevant to the previous posts. They are talking about ways to eliminate a vehicle safely and effectively. I have added to that. If you are bothered by my "pointless" post, then f**k off.

(Is EVERYONE a douchebag here?)

You resurrected a dead thread, and added nothing useful to the original discussion. Nor did you add anything useful to the secondary discussion that evolved from the original thread. You posted a single line with cutesy "*cough*" emotes that was not related to anything in the topic, nor was any context provided in your post to suggest, describe, or enlighten the forum members.

But at least you followed it up with a post designed to engender feelings of warmth and happiness toward you from the rest of the community.

You, sir, are the douchebag.

[Matt.]

Mini-Marine, you have a valid point. They could not be used in the rain, and they could only be used once every phase. It could be toweled off for the next one. I know MILSIM is supposed to be MILSIM, but come on, not ALL factors will be like the real thing.


@Steve-
Nicely phrased, but you are defending a very bleak point. The fact that you take the time to insult me, with multiple paragraphs, shows that you had MORE than enough time to ignore my post, and go on with your forum-based life. I will repeat for you: My point was relevant, and by inferring information from the previous posts, one could discern what I meant.

You, sir, are simply looking for a fight.

[Mini-Marine]

So you're saying that since we can't simulate EVERYTHING we shouldn't put forth all available effort to try and make it as realistic an experience as possible?

[Matt.]

@Mini-Marine
Well, yes, but I would place effectiveness at a higher priority level than MILSIM.

[Mini-Marine]

Fair enough, we simply have a difference of opinion on the matter. I'd argue that if you can't simulate something in a reasonably realistic manner, then it simply shouldn't be included until someone devises a way to do it appropriately.

[Matt.]

Agreed.

[Mini-Marine]

So since this thread has been brought back to the surface, has anyone thought of any ideas for safely launching objects that can create a decent blast radius, in the month since this thread died?

[Steve]

@Steve-
Nicely phrased, but you are defending a very bleak point. The fact that you take the time to insult me, with multiple paragraphs, shows that you had MORE than enough time to ignore my post, and go on with your forum-based life. I will repeat for you: My point was relevant, and by inferring information from the previous posts, one could discern what I meant.

You, sir, are simply looking for a fight.

No.

Your post count is low enough that I am hoping to provide clear negative feedback to convince you to reevaluate your behavior before it becomes a pattern.

Since I can't be bothered to track you down with a rolled-up newspaper, I provided clear and concise negative feedback immediately in a fashion that you would understand.

If you had bothered to read the stickies, you would already have known not to necropost. Take a little time, read the stickies, and consider at least attempting to be a productive member of an adult online community.

Or don't.

It's entirely up to you. Either way, I'm done here.

[Matt.]

Well thank you, Steve, for the feedback. I will attempt to decipher it.

[Mini-Marine]

Is Steve a tool? Yes.
Why? Because he doesn't do subtlety or tact when he sees someone in the wrong.

If you can't decipher the meaning of what he wrote, you need to take a reading comprehension class or two.

Either that or you are in fact the one looking to pick a fight to try and defend an untenable position.

You necroposted. You necroposted and failed to add anything of value to the discussion. I don't see how your comment on water grenades is in any way relevant to a discussion that had nothing to do with thrown weapons.

The conversation had clearly been about figuring out a way to fire projectiles safely that could create a blast radius of some sort upon impact.

You were clearly in the wrong, but decided to get your panties in a bunch about being called out on it. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.

[Bond]

@Matt.
Sometimes douchebags call other people douchebags because they have no means of becoming a respected member of society. Matt, please stop your immature behavior. If you're going to diss our forum by carpet-bombing every thread that you see, you should leave.

[John_234]

Does a week and a half count as necropost?

There is an interesting alternative; rather then pure nerf rockets or paint balloons, use a paintball tipped rocket. They make foam rockets with a scallop, like a hollow point bullet, and you insert a paintball into the tip. Not as messy and a much more stable trajectory.

Now the problem I heard was that the rockets are 51mm, and designed for paintball rocket launchers rather then the 40mm breech of your average airsoft launcher. They're made out of a styrofoam like substance rather then the resilient, springy foam of a nerf rocket. Reportedly, this caused the rockets to be torn to shreds when squeezed into too-small barrels.

Perhaps a similar effect could be achieved by cutting out the tip of a nerf rocket?

[Nocte]

So since this thread has been brought back to the surface, has anyone thought of any ideas for safely launching objects that can create a decent blast radius, in the month since this thread died?

Multi-barreled reball launcher, like a M203 shell (for airsoft) but much larger.